U.S. weighs sending 5k troops to Eastern Europe to counter Russia(npr.org)
npr.org
U.S. weighs sending 5k troops to Eastern Europe to counter Russia
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/23/1075240355/u-s-troops-ukraine-russia-crisis
344 comments
Why is the U.S. sending troops to Europe at all? It’s been 70 years since the end of World War 2, 30 years since the end of the Cold War. Let the wealthy democracies of Europe fund their own collective defense. They can easily afford it. France and the UK have credible nuclear deterrents. Young Americans from poor rural towns who enlist just for healthcare have no business in Ukraine or Bulgaria. Send the young Germans; maybe they’ll stop looking down their noses at countries with functioning armies.
> Why is the U.S. sending troops to Europe at all?
Perhaps because in order to get Ukraine to give up the then third largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world the US in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in 1994 gave Ukraine security assurances against threats to its territorial integrity and political independence?
I assume I don't need to explain why the US wanted that stockpile to go away.
One might argue that now that Ukraine does not have that huge stockpile the US should just leave them to their fate. But the US still wants to convince various countries to get rid of their nukes or curtail their attempts to develop nukes, and letting Ukraine fall would not instill confidence that the US would hold up its end in any deal to make that happen.
Perhaps because in order to get Ukraine to give up the then third largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world the US in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in 1994 gave Ukraine security assurances against threats to its territorial integrity and political independence?
I assume I don't need to explain why the US wanted that stockpile to go away.
One might argue that now that Ukraine does not have that huge stockpile the US should just leave them to their fate. But the US still wants to convince various countries to get rid of their nukes or curtail their attempts to develop nukes, and letting Ukraine fall would not instill confidence that the US would hold up its end in any deal to make that happen.
Not the person who asked originally, but I'm curious, because I think what happened with Libya is a clear enough warning for countries not to abandon their nuclear programs in exchange for Western assurances. I'm curious if you agree in that respect.
Sure, but Western Europe has the same interests and can do the legwork itself.
The Germans are blocking Estonia from exporting Soviet age howitzers to Ukraine. So until this nonsense stops, I wouldn't say we have the same interests. They can probably remember the GDR. If it were for Western Europe they'd leave us to our own fates, after they invested piles of EU funds into Eastern EU states. Fortunately the US always steps in before it's too late.
Once an European security analyst one said that Russia and China are playing chess with the US and the EU, while the EU is playing backgammon.
Once an European security analyst one said that Russia and China are playing chess with the US and the EU, while the EU is playing backgammon.
I can't fault the Germans for not wanting to supply arms to conflict zones :)
Speaking of chess, this whole thing feels like some game that Putin is playing to satisfy the oligarchs and hurt Biden (long game to another Trump presidency), while giving himself a bit more leverage for future negotiations.
Not really. Putin's favourite game/sport is judo, not chess. Judo is a game of opportunity and technique: one takes advantage of their opponent's weakness or distraction to attack. The rest is continous defense and harassement to get your opponent distracted and create opportunities for attack.
He doesn't think in terms of Biden or Trump, but in terms of opportunity. You should really think of Russia as a modern feudal state where Putin shares the country's resources with the oligarchs. The only difference is that it isn't farmland, but oil and gas. He doesn't need to appease them. He can run a show trial, have them shot on a bridge, poison them, just like he did with Khodorkovsky, Litvinenko, Nemtsov, Skripal, Navalny and others.
Vladimir Sorokin once said that the basis of modern Russia was set by Ivan the Terrible.
https://www.publicbooks.org/dress-up-games-with-russian-hist...
One should read post/modern Russian literature in order to understand modern Russia. It's also very good. I love Russian literature.
He doesn't think in terms of Biden or Trump, but in terms of opportunity. You should really think of Russia as a modern feudal state where Putin shares the country's resources with the oligarchs. The only difference is that it isn't farmland, but oil and gas. He doesn't need to appease them. He can run a show trial, have them shot on a bridge, poison them, just like he did with Khodorkovsky, Litvinenko, Nemtsov, Skripal, Navalny and others.
Vladimir Sorokin once said that the basis of modern Russia was set by Ivan the Terrible.
https://www.publicbooks.org/dress-up-games-with-russian-hist...
One should read post/modern Russian literature in order to understand modern Russia. It's also very good. I love Russian literature.
As a European I agree... And to be fair there is a large number of Europeans in "Enhanced Forward Presence":
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm
In practice, it's unclear if the presence actually does much. But at the very least it ensures that an attack against NATOs eastern Block would be an attack against troops from many countries -- thus, many NATO countries can claim to have been attacked.
5k troops isn't much, but it proves a commitment. All NATO really has to prove is that we stand together -- then Russia won't attack NATO members.
In practice, it's unclear if the presence actually does much. But at the very least it ensures that an attack against NATOs eastern Block would be an attack against troops from many countries -- thus, many NATO countries can claim to have been attacked.
5k troops isn't much, but it proves a commitment. All NATO really has to prove is that we stand together -- then Russia won't attack NATO members.
> Sure, but Western Europe has the same interests and can do the legwork itself.
No, it can't, conventionally in the short term; in part, that's low spending, and in part it is specialization within NATO, but neither of those are easily unwound in the short term.
Against Russia specifically, as opposed to a generic hypothetical major conventional regional threat, there is also the problem that UK + France probably have an insufficient nuclear deterrent force, which is a problem the US, even if we’d like them to increase domestic military spending, doesn't want addressed.
No, it can't, conventionally in the short term; in part, that's low spending, and in part it is specialization within NATO, but neither of those are easily unwound in the short term.
Against Russia specifically, as opposed to a generic hypothetical major conventional regional threat, there is also the problem that UK + France probably have an insufficient nuclear deterrent force, which is a problem the US, even if we’d like them to increase domestic military spending, doesn't want addressed.
Western Europe is also less unified since it’s about 10+ counties instead of just 1.
Sounds like their problem.
Young Europeans died in the US war in Afghanistan. So far, the only country to ever invoke article 5 of the NATO treaty is the US - on September 12, 2001.
Adjusted for size of population, as many Danes as Americans died in Afghanistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghan...
So, Europeans should come when the US calls, but not the other way around?
Adjusted for size of population, as many Danes as Americans died in Afghanistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghan...
So, Europeans should come when the US calls, but not the other way around?
You’re assuming that I or most Americans agree that the war in Afghanistan was worthwhile. Probably true at first, certainly not true after the initial objective of getting Osama bin Laden was achieved.
In any case, no NATO country has been attacked or invoked Article 5, so your observation is irrelevant. Ukraine cannot invoke it because they aren’t a member of NATO. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia etc. haven’t invoked it because they haven’t been attacked or invaded, nor do I expect them to be.
In my view NATO should not have been expanded once the Cold War ended. The US should have reduced its financial commitments to the alliance when it became clear that rich countries like France and Germany were acting as free riders. These countries reap the benefits of American military spending while contributing less than their fair share, and criticizing America at the same time for the size of its military:
https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-c...
>To make the principle work, all countries are expected to chip in. NATO's official guidelines say member states should spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense. Of the 28 countries in the alliance, only five -- the U.S., Greece, Poland, Estonia and the U.K. -- meet the target.
>The rest lag behind. Germany spent 1.19% of its GDP on defense last year, France forked out 1.78%.
>According to NATO statistics, the U.S. spent an estimated $650 billion on defense last year. That's more than double the amount all the other 27 NATO countries spent between them, even though their combined GDP tops that of the U.S.
In any case, no NATO country has been attacked or invoked Article 5, so your observation is irrelevant. Ukraine cannot invoke it because they aren’t a member of NATO. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia etc. haven’t invoked it because they haven’t been attacked or invaded, nor do I expect them to be.
In my view NATO should not have been expanded once the Cold War ended. The US should have reduced its financial commitments to the alliance when it became clear that rich countries like France and Germany were acting as free riders. These countries reap the benefits of American military spending while contributing less than their fair share, and criticizing America at the same time for the size of its military:
https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-c...
>To make the principle work, all countries are expected to chip in. NATO's official guidelines say member states should spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense. Of the 28 countries in the alliance, only five -- the U.S., Greece, Poland, Estonia and the U.K. -- meet the target.
>The rest lag behind. Germany spent 1.19% of its GDP on defense last year, France forked out 1.78%.
>According to NATO statistics, the U.S. spent an estimated $650 billion on defense last year. That's more than double the amount all the other 27 NATO countries spent between them, even though their combined GDP tops that of the U.S.
The US and the UK asked Ukraine to surrender its nuclear arsenal to Russia, pledging they would protect Ukraine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
Now, when it's time to honor that pledge, the US and the UK should do so. And I think they are and that they will, to some extent.
I strongly doubt the US really wants Germany, France and other NATO members to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense (in which case they would have combined military spending close to rivalling the US' 3.3 percent of GDP because their combined GDP is higher and because Canadian/Turkish/European public spending traditionally goes further). The US has a clear interest in having a military far superior to the next many powers combined. The US might like Europeans to spend a little more, but not anywhere close to 2 percent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
Now, when it's time to honor that pledge, the US and the UK should do so. And I think they are and that they will, to some extent.
I strongly doubt the US really wants Germany, France and other NATO members to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense (in which case they would have combined military spending close to rivalling the US' 3.3 percent of GDP because their combined GDP is higher and because Canadian/Turkish/European public spending traditionally goes further). The US has a clear interest in having a military far superior to the next many powers combined. The US might like Europeans to spend a little more, but not anywhere close to 2 percent.
"certainly not true after the initial objective of getting Osama bin Laden was achieved."
Which is the ironie in this whole topic - he was caught in pakistan.
Which is the ironie in this whole topic - he was caught in pakistan.
Germans (or at least their politicians) would be happy to sell most of Eastern Europe to Russia one way or another. France doesn’t care that much. UK does, but their conventional military capacity is limited and them leaving the EU also complicated things (UK was the primary advocate of expanding EU into Eastern Europe.
> Young Americans from poor rural towns who enlist just for healthcare have no business in Ukraine or Bulgaria.
Exactly the point. USA had no business in Iraq too. But they got some sweet multi-billion dollar reconstruction contracts after sending troops. And the troops will be entitled to a life-time veteran discount in diners across the US! What's not to like?
Exactly the point. USA had no business in Iraq too. But they got some sweet multi-billion dollar reconstruction contracts after sending troops. And the troops will be entitled to a life-time veteran discount in diners across the US! What's not to like?
Who paid for the reconstruction? Was this just the US gov’t paying US contractors?
>Why is the U.S. sending troops to Europe at all?
Possibly because of a certain Atlantic defense treaty.
Possibly because of a certain Atlantic defense treaty.
Ukraine is not part of NATO amd no NATO country is under attack or has asked for assistance, quite the opposite actually. EU countries won't even be pulling their diplomats from Ukraine as talls continue.
Certainly war in a neighboring country is a cause for concern for NATO members.
There aren't any meaningfull ongoing talks: the Russians are threatening full invasion of Ukraine and other countries are reacting. That's it really.
There aren't any meaningfull ongoing talks: the Russians are threatening full invasion of Ukraine and other countries are reacting. That's it really.
There's no war in any neighboring countries that hasn't been there since 2014 so that doesn't explain or excuse anything.
> here aren't any meaningfull ongoing talks
Says you. The EU, who are a a part of said talks (unlike you), disagrees at this point.
> here aren't any meaningfull ongoing talks
Says you. The EU, who are a a part of said talks (unlike you), disagrees at this point.
In what talks with whom is the EU engaging reagarding current buildup of Russian forces near Ukrainian borders (not only in Russia, but also in Belarus)?
> “I don’t think we had to dramatise as far as the negotiations are going on — and they are going on.”
As far as everything I've seen indicates, they're speaking continuously.[1]
[1] https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/eu-says-...
As far as everything I've seen indicates, they're speaking continuously.[1]
[1] https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/eu-says-...
He didn't say anything about ongoing negotiations led by the EU. Could be (and probably is) other parties.
I thing this is an important point - the Russians are trying to split the EU. Last year, there were efforts by German and French foreign ministers to talk with the Russia - Lavrov "leaked" their proposals which is not something you do when negotiating. Now the Russians are talking mostly to the US, but also not really talking to anyone, only repeating their tropes.
One of the reasons for their ignoring of EU is that Eastern European countries are part of the EU, but they do not want to talk with them, only about them - they think they are our rightful owners and obviously you are not going to discuss with the slave - that would elevate him to your status.
I thing this is an important point - the Russians are trying to split the EU. Last year, there were efforts by German and French foreign ministers to talk with the Russia - Lavrov "leaked" their proposals which is not something you do when negotiating. Now the Russians are talking mostly to the US, but also not really talking to anyone, only repeating their tropes.
One of the reasons for their ignoring of EU is that Eastern European countries are part of the EU, but they do not want to talk with them, only about them - they think they are our rightful owners and obviously you are not going to discuss with the slave - that would elevate him to your status.
> He didn't say anything about ongoing negotiations led by the EU. Could be (and probably is) other parties.
Seems naive to think the EU is not included.
> the Russians are trying to split the EU
They already are. A glance at F24 vs. DW will tell you that. With Germany importing half of their gas from Russia (or more now?) and France barely importing any, it's really not surprising. And there will be all kinds of small differences like that in relation to Russia.
> Lavrov "leaked" their proposals
Link?
> Now the Russians are talking mostly to the US, but also not really talking to anyone, only repeating their tropes.
That would makes sense, as US leads NATO and that's their concern, but also no they've been talking to Germany and will be with France on Friday. But realistically they're all talking all the time. That's how these things work. Anything else is just fantasy.
Seems naive to think the EU is not included.
> the Russians are trying to split the EU
They already are. A glance at F24 vs. DW will tell you that. With Germany importing half of their gas from Russia (or more now?) and France barely importing any, it's really not surprising. And there will be all kinds of small differences like that in relation to Russia.
> Lavrov "leaked" their proposals
Link?
> Now the Russians are talking mostly to the US, but also not really talking to anyone, only repeating their tropes.
That would makes sense, as US leads NATO and that's their concern, but also no they've been talking to Germany and will be with France on Friday. But realistically they're all talking all the time. That's how these things work. Anything else is just fantasy.
> Seems naive to think the EU is not included.
No it's not, seems naive to think the EU is included, that would be contrary to the longstanding Russian opposition to multilateralism. That goes back to the kicking the Soviets got from joining the OSCE in the 70's. Which was originally their idea, but didn't go so well.
> Link?
for example here: "In November, the ministry actually published its correspondence with France and Germany on Ukraine — 28 pages of diplomatic documents that were supposed to stay confidential (an echo of the famous Bolshevik move to reveal the secret diplomatic documents of the czarist government in 1917)."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/02/01/russia-fs...
No it's not, seems naive to think the EU is included, that would be contrary to the longstanding Russian opposition to multilateralism. That goes back to the kicking the Soviets got from joining the OSCE in the 70's. Which was originally their idea, but didn't go so well.
> Link?
for example here: "In November, the ministry actually published its correspondence with France and Germany on Ukraine — 28 pages of diplomatic documents that were supposed to stay confidential (an echo of the famous Bolshevik move to reveal the secret diplomatic documents of the czarist government in 1917)."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/02/01/russia-fs...
German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbok just returned from Moscow, for example, where they discussed Ukraine among other topics. There’s a lot of talks happening right now on different levels.
German Foreign Minister is not a representative of the EU.
She cannot speak from the whole EU, but she represents one of the EU countries.
As I said, there are talks going on on different level. If you want names of EU officials, simply check the schedule and public statements of Josep Borrell for example.
Russia has officially asked that NATO forces leave Romania and Bulgaria. Does that look like their interests stop at Ukraine?
Not just them. Russia said NATO should revert to its 97 form, which effectively is the same form it had during the Cold War (except for the German reunification, which is telling).
Russia is demanding that NATO nations (ie Bulgaria) leave NATO. The alliance itself is being diplomatically attacked by threatening a real ground war
It’s a starting point for negotiation, to ask more than you need. Russia was concerned about NATO expansion to those countries, but was not willing to act on it when it happened. As long as there are arms controls treaties in place, it will not be a serious threat for them.
Is there a credible threat of NATO members being attacked on their own soil? Does anyone believe that Russian troops will just march through Ukraine to attack Poland or Romania?
If NATO doesn't do some posturing, yeah, Russia might not stop in Ukraine.
Ar-least I recall that being the analysis in 2014. Since then NATO has been posturing, by rotating troops through it's eastern member countries.
I'm guessing posturing is a lot cheaper than war. So I don't mind if smart people say that's a good idea.
Ar-least I recall that being the analysis in 2014. Since then NATO has been posturing, by rotating troops through it's eastern member countries.
I'm guessing posturing is a lot cheaper than war. So I don't mind if smart people say that's a good idea.
Yes. See this map with Putin's plans to restore the USSR. Romania does not want a direct border with Russia and being reverted back to a Russian puppet state. Ukraine and Moldova do not want dissasembly. Most Black Sea states, including Turkey do not want the Black Sea transformed into a Russian lake. So yes, there is credible threat.
https://www.geopolitica.ru/sites/default/files/novor.png
https://www.geopolitica.ru/sites/default/files/novor.png
[deleted]
The Baltics seems to think so.
[deleted]
I mean Orbán is basically Putin's dog in the EU and NATO (they meet next week in Moscow! [0]). Russia don't have to attack, it's enough if you have someone like Orbán who will veto and sabotage everything in the EU and NATO
0, https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/hungarys-orba...
0, https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/hungarys-orba...
German and French politicians have sold their soul to Gazprom.
Nato cannot rely on these countries against Russian threat.
Nato cannot rely on these countries against Russian threat.
"Sold their soul" - have you seen European energy prices?
Up 300% in the last 2 months. We cannot afford a war, it'd make the COVID crisis seem trivial.
US interference (see the Burisma board, supporting gas tariffs and opposing Nord Stream 2) brings us to the brink of war - and, much like with the Middle Eastern refugees, Europe must pay the price for US imperialism yet again.
It's painful to read so many American comments treating it like a game, when they have nothing to lose - safe thousands of kilometres away, and won't be affected by the energy prices, etc. either.
Up 300% in the last 2 months. We cannot afford a war, it'd make the COVID crisis seem trivial.
US interference (see the Burisma board, supporting gas tariffs and opposing Nord Stream 2) brings us to the brink of war - and, much like with the Middle Eastern refugees, Europe must pay the price for US imperialism yet again.
It's painful to read so many American comments treating it like a game, when they have nothing to lose - safe thousands of kilometres away, and won't be affected by the energy prices, etc. either.
I'm in Eastern European Nato country.
If you make your energy 100% dependant on Russian dictatator then you deserve those high energy prices.
For you it is high energy prices, but for Ukraine it is life or death.
If you make your energy 100% dependant on Russian dictatator then you deserve those high energy prices.
For you it is high energy prices, but for Ukraine it is life or death.
I find it ridiculous that there are very vocal people in Eastern Europe who are so willing to go to war, and with Russia of all countries. Mind you, they want to go to war but they DEMAND that other NATO countries help them. US and UK, on the other hand, also have obvious economic interests in screwing up Russia and will not hesitate to sacrifice Western Europe's well-being to drive their interests. Also US has been behaving more and more in an Anglo-centric (as opposed to NATO-centric) way, which also raises concerns
People in eastern Europe aren't eager to go to war, we're just vocal about doing something because we know we're next after Ukraine.
If war starts, the sanctions need to be painful, whereas Germany is like "we're okay with sanctions so long as they don't affect us in any way whatsoever at all".
If war starts, the sanctions need to be painful, whereas Germany is like "we're okay with sanctions so long as they don't affect us in any way whatsoever at all".
You are not going to be next after Ukraine, that’s just irrational fear. Russia has no capabilities for invasion beyond ex-USSR borders (according to the assessment of DoD-affiliated American think tanks) and no incentives to invade Baltics.
Baltic states are already in NATO, it’s a done deal and Russia got used to it long time ago. In any case existing NATO members have Article 5. Ukraine has not access to it yet.
Posturing like gorillas beating their chests is the only mechanism for showing the Russian that we stand by article 5.
Things only really get very dangerous, if the Russians got the idea that NATO wouldn't stand together.
Deploying a few thousand troops from various NATO countries to eastern European NATO members is just posturing that serves to ensure that an attack on one is an attack on all.
Besides, increasing troops in eastern European NATO countries is allows negotiators to offer a joint de-escalation. It carries little risk, and small cost.
Things only really get very dangerous, if the Russians got the idea that NATO wouldn't stand together.
Deploying a few thousand troops from various NATO countries to eastern European NATO members is just posturing that serves to ensure that an attack on one is an attack on all.
Besides, increasing troops in eastern European NATO countries is allows negotiators to offer a joint de-escalation. It carries little risk, and small cost.
> Posturing like gorillas beating their chests is the only mechanism for showing the Russian that we stand by article 5
or ... perhaps ... posturing like gorillas beating their chests in front of the home of a nuclear armed and scared ape can have catastrophic consequences
or ... perhaps ... posturing like gorillas beating their chests in front of the home of a nuclear armed and scared ape can have catastrophic consequences
This feels like something an Englishman that was pro appeasement would have stated to a Pole right before it was invaded.
When you feel something like that, it is better to do a reality check. There’s no reason to assume current situation is the same as in 1939. Historical traumas are subject for therapy, not basis for political decisions.
> There’s no reason to assume current situation is the same as in 1939
A better example is that it's just like what lots of Americans were saying about Russia and Ukraine immediately before the invasions and occupations that are still ongoing began, but with “beyond Ukraine” replacing “Ukraine” now that facts on the ground have made the latter more obviously indefensible as a claim.
A better example is that it's just like what lots of Americans were saying about Russia and Ukraine immediately before the invasions and occupations that are still ongoing began, but with “beyond Ukraine” replacing “Ukraine” now that facts on the ground have made the latter more obviously indefensible as a claim.
Sounds like something the Englishman would follow up with except about 1914s geopolitical state vs 1939s
i am from eastern europe eu nato country too, so please do not speak in my name. probably unlike most people i have seen what war looks like (as a child). it is definitely not something you want for people dearbto you. talking and taking into account everyone's concerns should definitely be the first approach. russia says that NATO encroaching on its borders is a huge security issue for them (remember that NATO promissed not to do this in the 90s). also stationing anti missile systems on its border is a security threat (it deminishes their deterrant). is it so hard to understand these are real concerns? it is hard to immagine US acting differently if a hostile alliance formed in South America
No one promised that NATO will not expand, and it is not documented. It was discussed, but that’s it. It is Russia-propagated myth.
> No one promised that NATO will not expand, and it is not documented
Gorbachev, whose ambiguous statement about a feeling of betrayal when NATO did expand in the east beyond the reunited Germany is the source of the myth of the promise, later explicitly stated that no promise was made and the issue was never even brought up.
(And it's not as if the USSR and the USA didn’t understand the use of memorializing important agreements in writing to prevent later disputes about their scope and content.)
Gorbachev, whose ambiguous statement about a feeling of betrayal when NATO did expand in the east beyond the reunited Germany is the source of the myth of the promise, later explicitly stated that no promise was made and the issue was never even brought up.
(And it's not as if the USSR and the USA didn’t understand the use of memorializing important agreements in writing to prevent later disputes about their scope and content.)
it is certainly not a myth and it is not propagated by only russia [0]. russia was only stupid not to demand a written agreement
[0] https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russi...
[0] https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russi...
Yes, it was discussed. But discussion and proposal is not an agreement, and not a promise. The article has no sources, and the most relevant part is
“ U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.””
That just does not prove NATO agreed not to expand.
That just does not prove NATO agreed not to expand.
the article does mention sources. read it. its an article not an essay. anyway i think it is very hard to argue that us and nato were honest. it is even harder to argue that nato is not a threat to russia. i find that in politics just as in life the simplest explanation is often the right one
Every Eastern and Central European country joined NATO because of their fear of Russian aggression. Every former Pact country switched sides not to repeat history of being commandeered by Russia. That whole alliance was born to protect members from Russia. The simplest explanation is no one wants to be occupied by Russia so that Russia does not feel “threatened”.
While that op-ed spins a nice narrative, the actual facts it rely on point only to the US suggesting that a freeze on further expansion could be on the table as part of German reunification talks.
But whether or not it was open for discussion, no commitment was, in fact, made and Gorbachev has himself—after inspiring the myth by a vague statement about a feeling of betrayal at NATO expansion—acknowledged that and gone further and saying that a commitment on the issue was never even discussed as part of the negotiations.
Saying something could be part of a deal as an inducement to get someone to the negotiating table doesn't automatically insert it into the deal, or even guarantee it gets talked about in the negotiation.
But whether or not it was open for discussion, no commitment was, in fact, made and Gorbachev has himself—after inspiring the myth by a vague statement about a feeling of betrayal at NATO expansion—acknowledged that and gone further and saying that a commitment on the issue was never even discussed as part of the negotiations.
Saying something could be part of a deal as an inducement to get someone to the negotiating table doesn't automatically insert it into the deal, or even guarantee it gets talked about in the negotiation.
> I find it ridiculous that there are very vocal people in Eastern Europe who are so willing to go to war, and with Russia of all countries.
It is funny how all these warmongering Eastern Europeans always have war with Russia on their own territory. Really makes you think who starts those wars...
It is funny how all these warmongering Eastern Europeans always have war with Russia on their own territory. Really makes you think who starts those wars...
> Eastern Europeans always have war with Russia on their own territory
oh you mean when 250000 Romanians, 250000 Hungarians and some Croats decided it's a good idea to fight the battle on the Volga? (look at the map). That _is_ funny!
oh you mean when 250000 Romanians, 250000 Hungarians and some Croats decided it's a good idea to fight the battle on the Volga? (look at the map). That _is_ funny!
> I find it ridiculous that there are very vocal people in Eastern Europe who are so willing to go to war, and with Russia of all countries.
Wait, who? Preparing to defend yourself in case Russia decides to go to war with you isn't the same thing as being willing to go to war with Russia.
Wait, who? Preparing to defend yourself in case Russia decides to go to war with you isn't the same thing as being willing to go to war with Russia.
[deleted]
I wonder it there were similar considerations back in 1939 ("Just let them occupy Poland, war is dangerous and costly, etc."). Spoiler: at the end you will have both war and pay economical price.
> We cannot afford a war, it'd make the COVID crisis seem trivial.
If Germans really want to avoid war they should start by clearly saying that the NordStream 2 pipeline project will be cancelled and the permits revoked the same day that Russia either realizes the threat of mass invasion.
The rest of Europe is pretty united in this matter. I worry mostly about Germany when it comes to things like sanction votes in the EU.
If Germans really want to avoid war they should start by clearly saying that the NordStream 2 pipeline project will be cancelled and the permits revoked the same day that Russia either realizes the threat of mass invasion.
The rest of Europe is pretty united in this matter. I worry mostly about Germany when it comes to things like sanction votes in the EU.
Mrs Baerbock absolutely wants to weaponize Nord Stream 2 this way, but it is unlikely to happen if operator of the pipeline will fulfill the regulatory requirements. Anyway there are ways to create a lot of pain for Russia without touching gas topic.
There are few good ones. Oil would be a much better one of course (because less painful for the west while more painful for russia). I don't believe any (further) economic sanctions like SWIFT would help much tbh. The thing about the Gas thing that it's not only economic, it's a sword that Russia has dangling over a part of continental Europe too. I think they fear losing that more than the income.
And the Gas dependency is going away. Perhaps it's worth ripping off the bandaid. It's only Germany and parts of eastern/central europe that still heats up with gas right (Asking from Northern Europe where I don't think we ever did ).
And the Gas dependency is going away. Perhaps it's worth ripping off the bandaid. It's only Germany and parts of eastern/central europe that still heats up with gas right (Asking from Northern Europe where I don't think we ever did ).
> sword that Russia has dangling over a part of continental Europe
Ah, those mean Russians, force-feeding the poor Europe their poisonous gas. Reminder: the Western European countries voluntarily entered into this relationship and have been buying the gas for many decades. They are absolutely free to buy their energy from anywhere else in the world. Case in point, that's how France currently gets 25% of their natgas and they have been happily living with this "dangling sword" for 45 years, why would they do that?
Ah, those mean Russians, force-feeding the poor Europe their poisonous gas. Reminder: the Western European countries voluntarily entered into this relationship and have been buying the gas for many decades. They are absolutely free to buy their energy from anywhere else in the world. Case in point, that's how France currently gets 25% of their natgas and they have been happily living with this "dangling sword" for 45 years, why would they do that?
300% higher spot prices, yes. Most gas is bought on long term contracts.
We will have to afford a war one way or another. Now the war will be further away, later it will be closer. If only there was some history which could be used to learn from.
US interference in the case of gas is trying to ensure alternative supplies for the EU, either American LNG or from Qatar.
US interference in the case of gas is trying to ensure alternative supplies for the EU, either American LNG or from Qatar.
800% higher gas price in my country. It is insane.
Ukrainians beg for help from US. No game. USA (and UK arms) are the only hope right now.
Also, didn't Hunter Biden work for Burisma?
Germany and France are the NATO. Without us the alliance does not make sense and should not exist.
I can't help think that it's a bit unfortunate that the US would be selling LNG, if sanctions result in the EU not buying Russian gas.
> Nato cannot rely on these countries against Russian threat.
I think that's a big stretch.
> Nato cannot rely on these countries against Russian threat.
I think that's a big stretch.
> sold their soul to Gazprom
Everyone should be better than falling for the cliche narratives like that. Politics is complicated, and everyone has their own definition of what a soul is.
Everyone should be better than falling for the cliche narratives like that. Politics is complicated, and everyone has their own definition of what a soul is.
Gerhard Schröder (Chancellor of Germany from 1998 to 2005) is chairman of the board of Nord Stream AG and of Rosneft, the largest energy Russian company.
François Fillon (Prime Minister of France from 2007 to 2012) is a board member of SIBUR, the largest petrochemical Russian company.
François Fillon (Prime Minister of France from 2007 to 2012) is a board member of SIBUR, the largest petrochemical Russian company.
And Matthias Warnig, CEO of Nordstream, was an Stasi officer (that's an undisputed fact) and allegedly recruited by Putin himself to work for the Soviets/Russians.
Really makes me curious where will Angela Merkel end up.
Probably at her mountain "villa", gardening.
Well, I really am not an expert in geopolitics, nor military strategies.
But here is why I think first US and then other Western EU countries are increasingly irritated by what is happening in Rusia near Ukraine borders:
1) First lets understand why EU does not have a proper army? Because a) EU started as an economic alliance and b) because countries in Europe did a lot of damage in the history by fighting each other. So after WW2, even if some countries have armies, in general US assumed the role and used (as entitled) as advantage the protector of Europe. US still has soldiers in Germany, Italy and UK. Please notice I wrote US and not NATO => thus EU cannot protect itself right now, cannot form a proper army so quick (in 1 year lets say) nor I am not sure we should want this. There is a reason why WW2 started in EU.
2) Second, lets understand why US is irritated by Russia's movements. Because allowing Russia to make a stand will just allow more daring moves in the future. This is the beginning of an escalation that we don't know where it will finish. Imagine just economically what does it mean for Europe to get into a recession because of this kind of treats in the future? US will not be shielded by this.
3) Third, if there is even a slight chance that a large scale war might happen then it is better to act quick early. I know that behind our computers we all think a war cannot happen. But it can and it will if we are not fighting against. War is irrational and can happen quickly, it is a devastating and irreversible event. It happened in the history multiple times. So I am all for a disproportionate response to anyone that flexes military muscles. These are muscles that should not be flexed.
But here is why I think first US and then other Western EU countries are increasingly irritated by what is happening in Rusia near Ukraine borders:
1) First lets understand why EU does not have a proper army? Because a) EU started as an economic alliance and b) because countries in Europe did a lot of damage in the history by fighting each other. So after WW2, even if some countries have armies, in general US assumed the role and used (as entitled) as advantage the protector of Europe. US still has soldiers in Germany, Italy and UK. Please notice I wrote US and not NATO => thus EU cannot protect itself right now, cannot form a proper army so quick (in 1 year lets say) nor I am not sure we should want this. There is a reason why WW2 started in EU.
2) Second, lets understand why US is irritated by Russia's movements. Because allowing Russia to make a stand will just allow more daring moves in the future. This is the beginning of an escalation that we don't know where it will finish. Imagine just economically what does it mean for Europe to get into a recession because of this kind of treats in the future? US will not be shielded by this.
3) Third, if there is even a slight chance that a large scale war might happen then it is better to act quick early. I know that behind our computers we all think a war cannot happen. But it can and it will if we are not fighting against. War is irrational and can happen quickly, it is a devastating and irreversible event. It happened in the history multiple times. So I am all for a disproportionate response to anyone that flexes military muscles. These are muscles that should not be flexed.
Yeah, compared to a war it's a lot cheaper for NATO to do some posturing.
France and the UK don't have an economic and political problem like the US has at the moment. Which is why they have no reason to "change the narrative" by distracting the public with useless wars.
There are zero US interests to protect in and around Ukraine, so all of this looks like unwarranted poking of a lion/shark/whatever.
There are zero US interests to protect in and around Ukraine, so all of this looks like unwarranted poking of a lion/shark/whatever.
1. Starting a war with Russia is not the goal here. Deterring Russia is the goal.
2. A war with Russia wouldn't be a proxy war and it wouldn't be anything like Afghanistan or Iraq. It could quickly become nuclear. It's not the same as America's wars in Afghanistan or Iraq.
3. You're implying that Russia is not a threat to Europe even if America stopped using its military to deter Russia from conquering Europe. I don't think that's correct. If Russia believed it could conquer parts of Europe tomorrow, they would probably try. They don't care about public opinion in western countries.
2. A war with Russia wouldn't be a proxy war and it wouldn't be anything like Afghanistan or Iraq. It could quickly become nuclear. It's not the same as America's wars in Afghanistan or Iraq.
3. You're implying that Russia is not a threat to Europe even if America stopped using its military to deter Russia from conquering Europe. I don't think that's correct. If Russia believed it could conquer parts of Europe tomorrow, they would probably try. They don't care about public opinion in western countries.
> could conquer parts of Europe tomorrow, they would probably try
And they do try (and succeed) all the time: Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, South Osetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria.
And they do try (and succeed) all the time: Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, South Osetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria.
[deleted]
> There are zero US interests to protect in and around Ukraine, so all of this looks like unwarranted poking of a lion/shark/whatever.
Not everything is about self interest - free people have a moral obligation defend freedom. Inaction on Ukraine will be especially egregious after taking away Ukraine's nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees.
Not everything is about self interest - free people have a moral obligation defend freedom. Inaction on Ukraine will be especially egregious after taking away Ukraine's nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees.
France and the UK aren't in political crisis? Did we forget about Brexit and COVID so quickly? Same deal with yellow vests in France.
Tons of business/trade with Ukraine that will evaporate immediately. Trade promotes peace and unity. This alone is enough to raise this as a political issue in the US. The same thing with the other NATO countries right now.
> Why is the U.S. sending troops to Europe at all?
Because of a thing called NATO, look it up
> Let the wealthy democracies of Europe fund their own collective defense.
They do and they're free to associate with defensive purposes, as opposed to what Russia wants them to think.
> Young Americans from poor rural towns who enlist just for healthcare have no business in Ukraine or Bulgaria.
And Young Russians that joined the army have no business invading Ukraine
Because of a thing called NATO, look it up
> Let the wealthy democracies of Europe fund their own collective defense.
They do and they're free to associate with defensive purposes, as opposed to what Russia wants them to think.
> Young Americans from poor rural towns who enlist just for healthcare have no business in Ukraine or Bulgaria.
And Young Russians that joined the army have no business invading Ukraine
> Because of a thing called NATO, look it up
That doesn't explain it. Is any of the NATO countries under threat?
That doesn't explain it. Is any of the NATO countries under threat?
As mentioned in other comments, Russia has specifically asked for NATO forces to leave Romania and Bulgaria - both which are NATO (and EU) members.
Sure; it asked, and got a resolute no in response. Does this mean that someone expects Russia to attack Romania or Bulgaria?
It means this is absolutely about NATO, even if it's not yet directly involving one of the member nations. See also: Russia's current demands over Ukraine including "never let them join NATO".
If a bully stood next to someone they'd previously beat up, glared at me, and told me "I'll leave them alone if you promise not to be their friend, forever, no matter what", what would you interpret is going on?
If a bully stood next to someone they'd previously beat up, glared at me, and told me "I'll leave them alone if you promise not to be their friend, forever, no matter what", what would you interpret is going on?
I'm sure that marine and airspace incursions by russian craft are just happy accidents...
I'm sure Putin's veiled (or explicit) threats against NATO countries (and Google has plenty of these) are just him being humorous
Also the cyberattacks (some by Russian gov. APTs, some by entites tolerated by the gov) are just inoccent as well.
Not to forget the Internet Research Agency.
I'm sure Putin's veiled (or explicit) threats against NATO countries (and Google has plenty of these) are just him being humorous
Also the cyberattacks (some by Russian gov. APTs, some by entites tolerated by the gov) are just inoccent as well.
Not to forget the Internet Research Agency.
> I'm sure that marine and airspace incursions by russian craft are just happy accidents...
"Incursion" is a very misleading term for these and I wish the press would stop parroting it (including with regards to China/Taiwan). Russia's flying planes into the ADIZ, not the 12 mile limit as recognized by international treaties. It's international airspace; ADIZs don't exist in international law; the US made the first one up out of thin air and others followed.
We fly close to the Russian and Chinese coasts, well within their own air defense zones, on a daily basis. We also deliberately sail ships within China's declared territories; we just like to call them "freedom of navigation operations" when that happens instead of "incursions" when others do it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FONOPs_during_the_Obama_Admini...
"Incursion" is a very misleading term for these and I wish the press would stop parroting it (including with regards to China/Taiwan). Russia's flying planes into the ADIZ, not the 12 mile limit as recognized by international treaties. It's international airspace; ADIZs don't exist in international law; the US made the first one up out of thin air and others followed.
We fly close to the Russian and Chinese coasts, well within their own air defense zones, on a daily basis. We also deliberately sail ships within China's declared territories; we just like to call them "freedom of navigation operations" when that happens instead of "incursions" when others do it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FONOPs_during_the_Obama_Admini...
> I'm sure that marine and airspace incursions by russian craft are just happy accidents...
These have been happening regularly (literally monthly) since World War 2 and has noyhing to do with what's going on now and explains absolutely nothing.
These have been happening regularly (literally monthly) since World War 2 and has noyhing to do with what's going on now and explains absolutely nothing.
> That doesn't explain it. Is any of the NATO countries under threat?
The defense analysis in 2014 was that unless NATO did some posturing and demonstrated it's commitment to defense of Baltic member countries, then yes, Russia might one day try to attack one of them.
Afaik, what NATO is doing is largely the equivalent of a gorilla beating its chest. Compared to war, it's pretty cheap to rotate some troops throy Baltic member countries.
The defense analysis in 2014 was that unless NATO did some posturing and demonstrated it's commitment to defense of Baltic member countries, then yes, Russia might one day try to attack one of them.
Afaik, what NATO is doing is largely the equivalent of a gorilla beating its chest. Compared to war, it's pretty cheap to rotate some troops throy Baltic member countries.
Yes. Look at movement in Belarus (next to the Baltic states). This is the most threatening it’s been for 30 years.
> Because of a thing called NATO, look it up
To be fair, Ukraine is not a part of NATO, nor are the many Eastern European countries, and further east, Turkey is on the edge of leaving.
This region is like a 7-D chess game.
To be fair, Ukraine is not a part of NATO, nor are the many Eastern European countries, and further east, Turkey is on the edge of leaving.
This region is like a 7-D chess game.
> Ukraine is not a part of NATO, nor are the many Eastern European countries
Only Ukraine, Belarus, and the Republic of Moldova aren't part of NATO.
Only Ukraine, Belarus, and the Republic of Moldova aren't part of NATO.
[deleted]
The idea of countries going to war over rational self-interest or actual tangible threats is an outdated notion. We pick our enemies along ideological and secular-religionist lines, and the continued existence (and god forbid, even flourishing) of polities that conduct their way of life differently from our own cannot stand.
Neoliberalism/neoconservatism (n.b. they are effectively two sides of the same coin) is the world's most prominent religion, and the United States is its Holy See. Refusal to kiss the ring will be punished.
Of course, this is nothing new. Constantine put heretics to the sword, pagan temples were burned and desecrated all over Scandinavia, and the Crusades were definitely a thing.
Religion will always be a part of the human condition, and the nonbelievers will always be the enemy. Just don't make the mistake of assuming that religion requires a God or the supernatural. All you need is a non-falsifiable belief system of some form, whose tenets cannot be demonstrated with facts, and must instead be validated by violence and the threat thereof.
Russia, Iran, and Syria (previously Iraq, Lybia, and Yemen) reject the blank-slatism and other patently false doctrines of neoliberalism and neoconservatism. Their existence cannot be permitted, so we need to invent reasons to destroy them.
Such as it is, such as it has always been.
Neoliberalism/neoconservatism (n.b. they are effectively two sides of the same coin) is the world's most prominent religion, and the United States is its Holy See. Refusal to kiss the ring will be punished.
Of course, this is nothing new. Constantine put heretics to the sword, pagan temples were burned and desecrated all over Scandinavia, and the Crusades were definitely a thing.
Religion will always be a part of the human condition, and the nonbelievers will always be the enemy. Just don't make the mistake of assuming that religion requires a God or the supernatural. All you need is a non-falsifiable belief system of some form, whose tenets cannot be demonstrated with facts, and must instead be validated by violence and the threat thereof.
Russia, Iran, and Syria (previously Iraq, Lybia, and Yemen) reject the blank-slatism and other patently false doctrines of neoliberalism and neoconservatism. Their existence cannot be permitted, so we need to invent reasons to destroy them.
Such as it is, such as it has always been.
> Americans from poor rural towns who enlist just for healthcare
The rest of the point aside, you're trying to tug a heartstring based on a stereotype. This is much more condescending and out of touch than it is accurate with regard to the modern US Military.
The rest of the point aside, you're trying to tug a heartstring based on a stereotype. This is much more condescending and out of touch than it is accurate with regard to the modern US Military.
You’re right, they also enlist for free college and the signing bonus.
My entire extended family has connections to the military. I grew up on Army bases. I know friends who enlisted and others who did ROTC. I nearly did Air Force ROTC myself for purely financial reasons (ended up going to a cheaper school, still paid for largely my father’s post-9/11 GI Bill benefits). I’m familiar with the subject matter. Access to Tricare and the VA hospital system is a big part of the military’s recruitment appeal.
My entire extended family has connections to the military. I grew up on Army bases. I know friends who enlisted and others who did ROTC. I nearly did Air Force ROTC myself for purely financial reasons (ended up going to a cheaper school, still paid for largely my father’s post-9/11 GI Bill benefits). I’m familiar with the subject matter. Access to Tricare and the VA hospital system is a big part of the military’s recruitment appeal.
I never thought of universal healthcare as a security risk...
(Sorry, bad joke)
But historically NATO has been a pretty good deterrent against war. Should we stop that?
As for the troops from various NATO rotating through eastern NATO countries: I really hope nothing bad happens, and they experience some new culture.
But historically NATO has been a pretty good deterrent against war. Should we stop that?
As for the troops from various NATO rotating through eastern NATO countries: I really hope nothing bad happens, and they experience some new culture.
Why should the USA send troops to Europe? I'll remind you that article 5 of NATO was only invoked once: when you called for help to invade one of the poorest nations on earth: Afghanistan. Could the wealthy American democracy not defend itself?
No NATO country has been invaded or attacked and Article 5 has not been invoked.
On the evening of 12 September 2001, less than 24 hours after the attacks, the Allies invoked the principle of Article 5. Then NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson subsequently informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the Alliance's decision.I think the idea is the same as why many European countries went into Afghanistan: To demonstrate a commitment to NATO.
Norway did actually achieve one of their goals in Afghanistan:
> ...the domestic goal of the mission, to prove Norway a trustworthy US and NATO ally, was fully achieved.
Sure, we can question the wisdom of going into Afghanistan. But that was kind of irrelevant to Norway given their domestic goal.
In any case, it seems pretty clear these troops would (if mobilized) be stationed in NATO countries -- not Ukraine!
Also note that many NATO besides the US has troops rotating through NATOs eastern members States.
Norway did actually achieve one of their goals in Afghanistan:
> ...the domestic goal of the mission, to prove Norway a trustworthy US and NATO ally, was fully achieved.
Sure, we can question the wisdom of going into Afghanistan. But that was kind of irrelevant to Norway given their domestic goal.
In any case, it seems pretty clear these troops would (if mobilized) be stationed in NATO countries -- not Ukraine!
Also note that many NATO besides the US has troops rotating through NATOs eastern members States.
Why does/did US try to influence Nord Stream 2? Because that's what they always do. Pretend that they are friends doing things in others favour, but actually trying to affect things for their own interest, isn't it?
But to have an influence, you have to show sometimes that you care, event if you actually don't.
Nord Stream is one of few sanctions that could actually bite.
If one wants to hurt Russia then sanctions are better than war. And we are running out of sanctions.
It’s important to separate NATO, the US, the EU, the international community as a whole etc. These are overlapping actors with different interests and politics. They do have one thing in common and that is they want to avoid armed conflict and don’t accept Russia redrawing borders.
If one wants to hurt Russia then sanctions are better than war. And we are running out of sanctions.
It’s important to separate NATO, the US, the EU, the international community as a whole etc. These are overlapping actors with different interests and politics. They do have one thing in common and that is they want to avoid armed conflict and don’t accept Russia redrawing borders.
Let's say some of us trust US more in that regard.
Of course it's unfortunate even a single American has to be here.
Of course it's unfortunate even a single American has to be here.
If you are to rely on the Germans to protect Ukraine you are giving it to the Russians.
your assessment would make sense if we had any reason that US is considering that for humanitarian or altruistic reasons. rest assured - the only reason ever for any country (especially US) sending troops anywhere is for own benefit.
A war in Europe would also hurt the American economy.
Lack of faith in article 5 would hurt American influence and interest across the globe.
Yes, the US stands to benefit.
Lack of faith in article 5 would hurt American influence and interest across the globe.
Yes, the US stands to benefit.
Is there oil in Ukraine we do not know about?
If we wanted play the paranoid game of how this is all about oil, then one would argue the US wants sanctions against Russia. In particular closing NordStream2, so the US can sell LNG to Europe.
In practice, I think it's all about proving that NATO stands united, and that war is generally undesirable.
In practice, I think it's all about proving that NATO stands united, and that war is generally undesirable.
Because America has never missed a war. It's too profitable.
You make it sound like a cost, maybe it's just business?
Ukraine can’t afford anything you arrogant fool. It’s sandwiched between two superpowers who are both hostile. If the USA has set itself up as the world democracy squad in the last hundred years, it should honour that bloody title.
If the USA cared at all about "democracy" in Ukraine, it would at least try to clean up that toxic dump that is run by Kolomoyskii, Poroshenko, Akhmetov and the same greedy oligarchs and thieves for many decades now, no matter who the front clown is. But it seems like the local democracy is not really a concern as long as Ukraine can be used for other purposes.
I don’t see how not wanting my friends and family to die in someone else’s far-away ethnic conflict makes me an “arrogant fool.” Were you also a fan of the democracy squad’s 2003 Iraq invasion? South Vietnam couldn’t “afford anything” either, and Ukraine’s democracy is at least as corrupt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Ukraine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Ukraine
> Send the young Germans
And I suppose you promise not to call them Nazis if they do?
And I suppose you promise not to call them Nazis if they do?
As an outsider looking in I haven't really read anything that explains the gameplay here from Russia.
Annexing Crimea gives them a port that doesn't freeze in the winter other than Murmansk. But they could stop there and everybody in NATO would shrug their shoulders and they would keep Crimea. Why insist on further escalation?
Annexing Crimea gives them a port that doesn't freeze in the winter other than Murmansk. But they could stop there and everybody in NATO would shrug their shoulders and they would keep Crimea. Why insist on further escalation?
Here’s a good explanation:
https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4
In short, Russia has no intention to conquer Ukraine, but Russia has vital strategic interest there. With its actions it pursues to block eastwards expansion of NATO by wrecking the candidate states.
At the same time, NATO policy is quite contradictory: Ukraine is not a vital strategic interest for USA, and thus NATO was not ready to fight for it in Donbass. At the same time they are happy to offer Article 5, which will oblige them to engage in the future conflicts in this area.
Policy of open doors that NATO declares does not make much sense: by design it supposed to be a defensive alliance, not an empire, so why inviting countries which won’t really contribute to your security?
In short, Russia has no intention to conquer Ukraine, but Russia has vital strategic interest there. With its actions it pursues to block eastwards expansion of NATO by wrecking the candidate states.
At the same time, NATO policy is quite contradictory: Ukraine is not a vital strategic interest for USA, and thus NATO was not ready to fight for it in Donbass. At the same time they are happy to offer Article 5, which will oblige them to engage in the future conflicts in this area.
Policy of open doors that NATO declares does not make much sense: by design it supposed to be a defensive alliance, not an empire, so why inviting countries which won’t really contribute to your security?
> Here’s a good explanation:
As an American living in Ukraine, I can say that that the guy in the video obviously don't know Ukraine he's talking about.
He starts off from NATO expansion and Russian position on that. But little did he know that before 2014 (Crimea and Easter Ukraine war), no one here seriously thought of NATO. Russia was the biggest economical partner. NATO was considered no-quite-friendly entity, composed of foreigners, why joining?
Everything turned upside down after 2014 -- Russia basically pushed Ukraine into NATO (although NATO made it clear they don't see Ukraine as their member as well, their idea is to increase members safety, not decrease it). If Russia didn't annex Crimea, it would be simply impossible.
Also he is wrong on how Russia quickly moved to Crimea in 2014. He is unaware that preparation for annexation began in 2011 (working with local governments and municipalities), it wasn't quick, it was planned (very well planned to tell the truth), and everyone here knows that.
As an American living in Ukraine, I can say that that the guy in the video obviously don't know Ukraine he's talking about.
He starts off from NATO expansion and Russian position on that. But little did he know that before 2014 (Crimea and Easter Ukraine war), no one here seriously thought of NATO. Russia was the biggest economical partner. NATO was considered no-quite-friendly entity, composed of foreigners, why joining?
Everything turned upside down after 2014 -- Russia basically pushed Ukraine into NATO (although NATO made it clear they don't see Ukraine as their member as well, their idea is to increase members safety, not decrease it). If Russia didn't annex Crimea, it would be simply impossible.
Also he is wrong on how Russia quickly moved to Crimea in 2014. He is unaware that preparation for annexation began in 2011 (working with local governments and municipalities), it wasn't quick, it was planned (very well planned to tell the truth), and everyone here knows that.
I do not know what is your circle of friends and partners and how engaged they were in politics, but NATO summit did actually happen in 2008, and Ukraine would not be mentioned there if it would not ask about membership.
That was few years after the Orange Revolution and country leadership was indeed pro-Western back then. They lost the next elections to Yanukovich, so nobody bothered about this topic until 2013-2014. Since you are living there, you know that Ukraine was a divided country, and it really depended on which bubble you belonged to.
Also, do you have any evidence for “preparation of annexation” that goes beyond strengthening economic and cultural ties?
> In short, Russia has no intention to conquer Ukraine, but Russia has vital strategic interest there.
Russia has no strategic interests
But Russia has a president who is:
- a matric fail
- who spend most of his youth in mafia, running drugs, and stealing humanitarian aid
- who conducts himself accordingly to what you expect from those kind of people
Russia has no strategic interests
But Russia has a president who is:
- a matric fail
- who spend most of his youth in mafia, running drugs, and stealing humanitarian aid
- who conducts himself accordingly to what you expect from those kind of people
"Russian interest" here is synonymous with Vova Putin's interest, same as in every totalitarian dictatorship. Just like "Saudi Arabian intentions" are whatever Mister Bone Saw desires or "Chinese foreign policy" are whatever Xi thinks is best at any given moment.
> Why insist on further escalation?
As a befuddled onlooker myself, I am surprised that the movements of the Russian military inside its territory must be interpreted by the outside world as an escalation. I understand the nervousness of Ukraine, but not of the US. If Russia invades, then by all means, the West can destroy it economically; but until it does, what is the point of all this saber-rattling?
Just as I don't understand the point of NATO's eastwards expansion, which, in turn, makes the Russians nervous. If the European countries are worried by the military buildup along Russia's western border, surely it must be easy to empathise with the Russian worry about Nato including more Eastern European countries and being able to deploy missiles there, which can be used both defensively and offensively and which puts Moscow within 5-minute reach, or something like that.
As a befuddled onlooker myself, I am surprised that the movements of the Russian military inside its territory must be interpreted by the outside world as an escalation. I understand the nervousness of Ukraine, but not of the US. If Russia invades, then by all means, the West can destroy it economically; but until it does, what is the point of all this saber-rattling?
Just as I don't understand the point of NATO's eastwards expansion, which, in turn, makes the Russians nervous. If the European countries are worried by the military buildup along Russia's western border, surely it must be easy to empathise with the Russian worry about Nato including more Eastern European countries and being able to deploy missiles there, which can be used both defensively and offensively and which puts Moscow within 5-minute reach, or something like that.
It's not simply "movement", it's amassing quite a sizeable portion of its armed forces near borders. No country interprets that other than an escalation if it comes from a hostile neighbour... Even between friendly countries it's a bit eyebrows raising behaviour.
>it's amassing quite a sizeable portion of its armed forces near borders
Russia is pretty large (and Ukraine too), it may look like the forces are "near Ukrainian borders" on the map (when zoomed out), but it can be as far as 350 km (at its widest, UK is 500 km, for comparison), which is deep into Russia's most populated territories.
Russia is pretty large (and Ukraine too), it may look like the forces are "near Ukrainian borders" on the map (when zoomed out), but it can be as far as 350 km (at its widest, UK is 500 km, for comparison), which is deep into Russia's most populated territories.
Soloti is barely 30km away from the border. Klimovo is ~15km away, Klintsy is ~80km.
I left out the places I've heard about amassing troops in Crimea as I believe troops reinforcement there wouldn't necessarily be preparation for invasion but could reinforce Russian grip in Crimea.
I don't believe amassing troops 15-80km away from any border wouldn't be seen as "close to the border", no matter the size of the country, even for the Netherlands and its tiny landmass it would be very curious to see something like that happening.
I left out the places I've heard about amassing troops in Crimea as I believe troops reinforcement there wouldn't necessarily be preparation for invasion but could reinforce Russian grip in Crimea.
I don't believe amassing troops 15-80km away from any border wouldn't be seen as "close to the border", no matter the size of the country, even for the Netherlands and its tiny landmass it would be very curious to see something like that happening.
Actually Crimea is probably the hottest spot for any action, as Ukraine has been cutting the supply of fresh water to the peninsula. They have running water for 3-5h a day.
If war starts, securing water supply to Crimea is one of the first steps they would do.
If war starts, securing water supply to Crimea is one of the first steps they would do.
Well, it quickly adds up. How many troops are there in Klintsy specifically (actually on the border), and how many troops are stationed in other places which are considered "near the borders", but actually much farther away? I've seen reports of military build-up in 200 miles from the border, as something next to Ukraine. Do they really have 100,000 personnel in 15 km from Ukraine (actually on the border)? IIRC Klintsy has a military base which they started building in 2016. I'd like to see a detailed analysis, do you have a link? I may be downplaying Putin's insanity.
I don't have the answers to your questions, I'm not anyhow close to MILINT to know troop counts and accurate positioning, etc.
I don't believe either you'll be able to find open information with such granularity, reports were never about 100k personnel 15km away from Ukraine, that's a strawman, the 100k figure is about all the troops amassed around Ukraine's borders (Crimea + eastern border + northern border with Russia + Russian troops amassed in Belarus on Ukraine's northern border, etc.), so obviously that no, there aren't 100k troops barely 15km away from Ukraine, that in itself would be an extremely alarming escalation...
I don't believe either you'll be able to find open information with such granularity, reports were never about 100k personnel 15km away from Ukraine, that's a strawman, the 100k figure is about all the troops amassed around Ukraine's borders (Crimea + eastern border + northern border with Russia + Russian troops amassed in Belarus on Ukraine's northern border, etc.), so obviously that no, there aren't 100k troops barely 15km away from Ukraine, that in itself would be an extremely alarming escalation...
I read this the other way. As Russia is so huge, then having the forces at 350 km/500 km near the border is "close" enough to the border.
I understand, but the majority of Russian population lives along the Western and Southern borders. See the density map: https://vividmaps.com/population-density-of-russia Anything in that area of sizeable Russian population can be proclaimed "near Ukrainian borders". 75% of the country is uninhabited. It would make little sense to station most troops in completely unpopulated areas where nothing happens.
> Just as I don't understand the point of NATO's eastwards expansion
Because these formerly Russian-occupied countries want to defend themselves from a future Russian occupation.
You can see many comments here questioning why the west should care about Ukraine given that it's not part of NATO. Well, that's why all those countries, and more now, want to be part of NATO.
Because these formerly Russian-occupied countries want to defend themselves from a future Russian occupation.
You can see many comments here questioning why the west should care about Ukraine given that it's not part of NATO. Well, that's why all those countries, and more now, want to be part of NATO.
> Because these formerly Russian-occupied countries want to defend themselves from a future Russian occupation.
This explains why such countries would want to join NATO, but not why NATO would want to take them in and be committed to defending them from external aggression. Not every country that expresses an intention to join NATO is accepted. Consider that in mid-nineties, Russia, then under the pro-western president Yeltsin rather than the isolationist Putin, asked to be accepted into NATO, but was rejected [0]. So Russia — at least as it complains to the rest of the world — finds itself sitting next to a growing hostile military alliance whose main historical purpose was to confront the USSR, which no longer exists, but which Russia perceives itself to be a successor to.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/31/russia-assoc...
This explains why such countries would want to join NATO, but not why NATO would want to take them in and be committed to defending them from external aggression. Not every country that expresses an intention to join NATO is accepted. Consider that in mid-nineties, Russia, then under the pro-western president Yeltsin rather than the isolationist Putin, asked to be accepted into NATO, but was rejected [0]. So Russia — at least as it complains to the rest of the world — finds itself sitting next to a growing hostile military alliance whose main historical purpose was to confront the USSR, which no longer exists, but which Russia perceives itself to be a successor to.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/31/russia-assoc...
Yeah. As I read it, NATO expansion is not a "push" by NATO; it's a "pull" by non-NATO countries trying to join.
> As a befuddled onlooker myself, I am surprised that the movements of the Russian military inside its territory must be interpreted by the outside world as an escalation. I understand the nervousness of Ukraine, but not of the US. If Russia invades, then by all means, the West can destroy it economically; but until it does, what is the point of all this saber-rattling?
To bring Russian military movements in spotlight. Otherwise they will manufacture some pretext (stage a provocation or just claim they are defending me (Russian-speaking person) from raging Ukrainian nazis) and will muddy the water with misinformation campaigns. German and French governments will happily accept Russian reasoning because they don't really care about Ukraine and just want their cheap gas to flow. Current media attention makes it much harder for European leaders to just hold some post factum Normandy-format-or-whatever "peace" talks (giving Russia more and more Ukrainian territory in the process) without some level of condemnation from their electorate.
> Just as I don't understand the point of NATO's eastwards expansion, which, in turn, makes the Russians nervous. If the European countries are worried by the military buildup along Russia's western border, surely it must be easy to empathise with the Russian worry about Nato including more Eastern European countries and being able to deploy missiles there, which can be used both defensively and offensively and which puts Moscow within 5-minute reach, or something like that.
This is the narrative that Russia is pushing, but it makes no sense if you think about it for a second. NATO could have accepted Ukraine long ago (they had 7 years to do that even after the last war), if it just wanted to deploy missiles here. It seems like NATO goal is to not accept Ukraine (and Georgia) for as long as possible without stating this straight up (in order not to discourage peoples of these countries from pro-Western course, I guess). In fact, joining NATO was very unpopular in Ukraine until Putin's actions changed that.
To bring Russian military movements in spotlight. Otherwise they will manufacture some pretext (stage a provocation or just claim they are defending me (Russian-speaking person) from raging Ukrainian nazis) and will muddy the water with misinformation campaigns. German and French governments will happily accept Russian reasoning because they don't really care about Ukraine and just want their cheap gas to flow. Current media attention makes it much harder for European leaders to just hold some post factum Normandy-format-or-whatever "peace" talks (giving Russia more and more Ukrainian territory in the process) without some level of condemnation from their electorate.
> Just as I don't understand the point of NATO's eastwards expansion, which, in turn, makes the Russians nervous. If the European countries are worried by the military buildup along Russia's western border, surely it must be easy to empathise with the Russian worry about Nato including more Eastern European countries and being able to deploy missiles there, which can be used both defensively and offensively and which puts Moscow within 5-minute reach, or something like that.
This is the narrative that Russia is pushing, but it makes no sense if you think about it for a second. NATO could have accepted Ukraine long ago (they had 7 years to do that even after the last war), if it just wanted to deploy missiles here. It seems like NATO goal is to not accept Ukraine (and Georgia) for as long as possible without stating this straight up (in order not to discourage peoples of these countries from pro-Western course, I guess). In fact, joining NATO was very unpopular in Ukraine until Putin's actions changed that.
> This is the narrative that Russia is pushing, but it makes no sense if you think about it for a second.
I have two questions about this, and I am asking honestly, because I don't understand any of this shit. One, if NATO had no intention of accepting Ukraine and Georgia, why wouldn't it (or whichever countries are responsible) commit to this as Russia wants it to. That would defang Russia's false narrative about NATO expansion. And the other, if you are offering an argument from a counterfactual (NATO could have accepted Ukraine long ago, as you say), why didn't Russia, if it intended to devour Ukraine, do so seven years ago when Ukraine was at its weakest? Arguably, both Ukraine has become a tougher nut to crack since then, and the international community has agreed on how best to punish Russia if this happens again.
I have two questions about this, and I am asking honestly, because I don't understand any of this shit. One, if NATO had no intention of accepting Ukraine and Georgia, why wouldn't it (or whichever countries are responsible) commit to this as Russia wants it to. That would defang Russia's false narrative about NATO expansion. And the other, if you are offering an argument from a counterfactual (NATO could have accepted Ukraine long ago, as you say), why didn't Russia, if it intended to devour Ukraine, do so seven years ago when Ukraine was at its weakest? Arguably, both Ukraine has become a tougher nut to crack since then, and the international community has agreed on how best to punish Russia if this happens again.
> One, if NATO had no intention of accepting Ukraine and Georgia, why wouldn't it (or whichever countries are responsible) commit to this as Russia wants it to.
Why would they and what would Russia give them in return? Just allowing Russia to effectively obtain veto-power over NATO membership by threatening non-NATO state would be political defeat for the West, not to mention that existing NATO member countries from Eastern Europe would be opposed to this for obvious reasons.
> That would defang Russia's false narrative about NATO expansion.
This narrative is only needed to confuse Western electorates (there are some "But Russians just afraid of NATO aggressive posture and only want to feel secure!" people even in this discussion). After isolating Ukraine it would be easy for Russia to leverage the resentment that Ukrainian people would undoubtedly feel after being rejected by West like that in order to further destabilize Ukraine by using it is propaganda talking-point ("We were telling you that West have been using you all along!") and by sponsoring pro-Russian politicians which have hard time getting to power in current political climate. If that fails they can always use old-good "protecting Russian-speaking people" narrative to justify invasion.
> And the other, if you are offering an argument from a counterfactual (NATO could have accepted Ukraine long ago, as you say), why didn't Russia, if it intended to devour Ukraine, do so seven years ago when Ukraine was at its weakest? Arguably, both Ukraine has become a tougher nut to crack since then, and the international community has agreed on how best to punish Russia if this happens again.
I don't think that real full-blown occupation is their goal (more like a last resort). They just need to destabilize Ukraine (both politically and economically) by staging a quick campaign that results annexation (de jure or de facto) of more territories. If in the process they get land corridor to Crimea, then it would be a double win.
Why would they and what would Russia give them in return? Just allowing Russia to effectively obtain veto-power over NATO membership by threatening non-NATO state would be political defeat for the West, not to mention that existing NATO member countries from Eastern Europe would be opposed to this for obvious reasons.
> That would defang Russia's false narrative about NATO expansion.
This narrative is only needed to confuse Western electorates (there are some "But Russians just afraid of NATO aggressive posture and only want to feel secure!" people even in this discussion). After isolating Ukraine it would be easy for Russia to leverage the resentment that Ukrainian people would undoubtedly feel after being rejected by West like that in order to further destabilize Ukraine by using it is propaganda talking-point ("We were telling you that West have been using you all along!") and by sponsoring pro-Russian politicians which have hard time getting to power in current political climate. If that fails they can always use old-good "protecting Russian-speaking people" narrative to justify invasion.
> And the other, if you are offering an argument from a counterfactual (NATO could have accepted Ukraine long ago, as you say), why didn't Russia, if it intended to devour Ukraine, do so seven years ago when Ukraine was at its weakest? Arguably, both Ukraine has become a tougher nut to crack since then, and the international community has agreed on how best to punish Russia if this happens again.
I don't think that real full-blown occupation is their goal (more like a last resort). They just need to destabilize Ukraine (both politically and economically) by staging a quick campaign that results annexation (de jure or de facto) of more territories. If in the process they get land corridor to Crimea, then it would be a double win.
But then I am confused. You say that Russia's narrative about NATO doesn't make sense; but at the same time you seem to agree that both Ukraine, in the post-2014 world, would like to join to gain the military protection of the alliance; and that the alliance leaves the door open for Ukraine and Georgia. As long as that's the case, how can you say that Russia's story is false and just invented to sidetrack the trusting Westerners?
I also don't fully understand the point about the destabilization either. Does Russia destabilize all its neighbors, and why would it prefer an unstable neighbor to a stable one?
I also don't fully understand the point about the destabilization either. Does Russia destabilize all its neighbors, and why would it prefer an unstable neighbor to a stable one?
> But then I am confused. You say that Russia's narrative about NATO doesn't make sense; but at the same time you seem to agree that both Ukraine, in the post-2014 world, would like to join to gain the military protection of the alliance;
I don't see a contradiction here: Yes, Ukraine and Georgia would very much like to join and no, NATO doesn't want to admit them. In fact, NATO has been denying their requests for membership since at least 2008 when Ukraine applied.
> and that the alliance leaves the door open for Ukraine and Georgia. As long as that's the case, how can you say that Russia's story is false and just invented to sidetrack the trusting Westerners?
Don't you think "leaves the door open for the future" is quite different from imminent danger of missile deployment? It is clear that NATO won't admit countries with territories occupied by Russia (they had 14 years to do that with Georgia and 7 years with Ukraine), so feigning being threatened by that is just a pretext. Also, look at the map and ask yourself why NATO don't just deploy those missiles in Latvia.
> I also don't fully understand the point about the destabilization either. Does Russia destabilize all its neighbors, and why would it prefer an unstable neighbor to a stable one?
Are you really asking in good faith? Obviously, Russia prefers stable pro-Russian autocratic neighbors and are willing to destabilize any governments that don't conform to that definition until more fitting government can be established.
I don't see a contradiction here: Yes, Ukraine and Georgia would very much like to join and no, NATO doesn't want to admit them. In fact, NATO has been denying their requests for membership since at least 2008 when Ukraine applied.
> and that the alliance leaves the door open for Ukraine and Georgia. As long as that's the case, how can you say that Russia's story is false and just invented to sidetrack the trusting Westerners?
Don't you think "leaves the door open for the future" is quite different from imminent danger of missile deployment? It is clear that NATO won't admit countries with territories occupied by Russia (they had 14 years to do that with Georgia and 7 years with Ukraine), so feigning being threatened by that is just a pretext. Also, look at the map and ask yourself why NATO don't just deploy those missiles in Latvia.
> I also don't fully understand the point about the destabilization either. Does Russia destabilize all its neighbors, and why would it prefer an unstable neighbor to a stable one?
Are you really asking in good faith? Obviously, Russia prefers stable pro-Russian autocratic neighbors and are willing to destabilize any governments that don't conform to that definition until more fitting government can be established.
>As a befuddled onlooker myself, I am surprised that the movements of the Russian military inside its territory must be interpreted by the outside world as an escalation
Russia is most populous in the Western areas near Ukraine, so certain military activity in that region doesn't necessarily mean a plan for a full-scale invasion. It borders 14 countries, so there's always movement of the Russian military near someone's border.
NATO's eastward expansion makes Putin nervous, so it's understandable why he would want to strengthen the Western border.
Russia is most populous in the Western areas near Ukraine, so certain military activity in that region doesn't necessarily mean a plan for a full-scale invasion. It borders 14 countries, so there's always movement of the Russian military near someone's border.
NATO's eastward expansion makes Putin nervous, so it's understandable why he would want to strengthen the Western border.
> NATO's eastward expansion makes Putin nervous, so it's understandable why he would want to strengthen the Western border.
What kind of eastward expansion, exactly? The last western neighbors of Russia joined NATO in 2004. The tiny states that joined 2017/2020 are further away from Russia. You need to pass at least 6 borders if you want to reach Northern Macedonia from Russia.
What kind of eastward expansion, exactly? The last western neighbors of Russia joined NATO in 2004. The tiny states that joined 2017/2020 are further away from Russia. You need to pass at least 6 borders if you want to reach Northern Macedonia from Russia.
It's what Putin believes. And Ukraine/Georgia clearly stated their desire to join NATO. Ukraine, for example, amended their constitution to make the accession of the country to NATO (and EU) their main foreign policy objective: https://www.voanews.com/a/ukraine-amends-constitution-to-cem...
> a port that doesn't freeze in the winter other than Murmansk
They have had ports that don't freeze: Novorossiysk and Vladivostok.
I grew up in Eastern Europe, and I see it as the ages-long Russian policy -- more territory = good. All the way from Mongols conquest, they kinda continue what Mongols did.
They have had ports that don't freeze: Novorossiysk and Vladivostok.
I grew up in Eastern Europe, and I see it as the ages-long Russian policy -- more territory = good. All the way from Mongols conquest, they kinda continue what Mongols did.
As a highly anti-Putin Russian, Putin's the game is very clear. He has fixed costs of having a standing army, which he pays for anyway. It is no difference for him whether they are placed in Murmansk or in Crimea, the costs are the same. However, the benefits for him are different: it turns out that when these troops are stationed near the Ukraine border, the West loses their nerve and concedes to almost anything Putin wants.
Imagine a thug standing nearby, playing with his brass knuckles menacingly. A skinny college boy gets really nervous and tries his best not to provoke the thug.
Seeing the Russia situation from inside, I don't see how this new war is in Putin's interests. However, the West is unable to read this game and Putin plays the incapable leaders of the Europe and the US really well.
Imagine a thug standing nearby, playing with his brass knuckles menacingly. A skinny college boy gets really nervous and tries his best not to provoke the thug.
Seeing the Russia situation from inside, I don't see how this new war is in Putin's interests. However, the West is unable to read this game and Putin plays the incapable leaders of the Europe and the US really well.
Well it does serve a few goals:
* Fulfils his old goal of expanding Russia to old soviet borders (see Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea etc).
* Distracts from internal problems with an external enemy (a tried and true tactic of dictators)
* Provides a buffer from Nato and Europe (long a preoccupation)
The bet here is that the West will do nothing if he takes Ukraine. Given the current messaging from the US and Germany (Embassy evacuations, disposition of fleet, Biden slipup Fri, 5000 troops), he's probably right.
You don't move this many troops and ships etc as a feint (nor would you need to), the die is already cast, and the only uncertainty is what the West will do about it IMO - at present it looks like not much, as they didn't do much about Crimea.
Worst case for Putin is a long war which bleeds the country of money and resources, so he'll want it over quickly and a puppet ruler installed, at which point he can withdraw and plan to slowly absorb the Ukraine or leave it as a satellite state like Belarus.
* Fulfils his old goal of expanding Russia to old soviet borders (see Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea etc).
* Distracts from internal problems with an external enemy (a tried and true tactic of dictators)
* Provides a buffer from Nato and Europe (long a preoccupation)
The bet here is that the West will do nothing if he takes Ukraine. Given the current messaging from the US and Germany (Embassy evacuations, disposition of fleet, Biden slipup Fri, 5000 troops), he's probably right.
You don't move this many troops and ships etc as a feint (nor would you need to), the die is already cast, and the only uncertainty is what the West will do about it IMO - at present it looks like not much, as they didn't do much about Crimea.
Worst case for Putin is a long war which bleeds the country of money and resources, so he'll want it over quickly and a puppet ruler installed, at which point he can withdraw and plan to slowly absorb the Ukraine or leave it as a satellite state like Belarus.
The die is not cast at all. Troops can move within Russia back and forth without problems, there are no obligations to give an attack order just because the troops are standing near the border. There is no too much risks to his internal image, because according to propaganda he is fighting for peace and does not want to attack at all.
I think that Putin has lost a chance to grab the eastern Ukraine in 2014. When Yanukovich fled Kiev, he could have made him ask for a military help, and in the post-maidan chaos could take everything east of Dnepr, creating a puppet state loyal to a legitimately elected president, and then slowly incorporate those territories into russia over the next few years or decades.
Also, do not equate Chechnya, Georgia and Crimea. Chechnya was an internal region with no international recognition ever, so this is an internal matter, and it's not so much 'grabbing territory' as 'restoring order'. Taking territory from Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, etc is a different matter and is seen by state propaganda as bringing the rightful territory back into the fold.
I think that Putin has lost a chance to grab the eastern Ukraine in 2014. When Yanukovich fled Kiev, he could have made him ask for a military help, and in the post-maidan chaos could take everything east of Dnepr, creating a puppet state loyal to a legitimately elected president, and then slowly incorporate those territories into russia over the next few years or decades.
Also, do not equate Chechnya, Georgia and Crimea. Chechnya was an internal region with no international recognition ever, so this is an internal matter, and it's not so much 'grabbing territory' as 'restoring order'. Taking territory from Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, etc is a different matter and is seen by state propaganda as bringing the rightful territory back into the fold.
> Also, do not equate Chechnya, Georgia and Crimea.
Of course you can equate. Russia has a history of supporting separatists immediately outside of their borders, while cracking them down when they're just across inside. You can directly compare their completely opposed stances in North and South Ossetia.
Russia created what I call Schrodinger's jihadists: you can't know if someone is a terrorist or a freedom fighter until you observe on which side of the border they are and the threat function collapses. Basayev in Abkhazia? Good. Basayev in Chechnya? Bad.
Of course you can equate. Russia has a history of supporting separatists immediately outside of their borders, while cracking them down when they're just across inside. You can directly compare their completely opposed stances in North and South Ossetia.
Russia created what I call Schrodinger's jihadists: you can't know if someone is a terrorist or a freedom fighter until you observe on which side of the border they are and the threat function collapses. Basayev in Abkhazia? Good. Basayev in Chechnya? Bad.
Last time a southern region where a slavery was practiced wanted to secede from the USA, Lincoln went to a civil war to stop them. Chechnya is also a southern region where slavery is practiced which wanted to secede, so equating these is quite sensible.
Why do you equate such conflicts with conflicts between different nations is hard for me to understand.
As for completely opposing stances, that's politics for you. Ever wondered how certain member of Bin Laden family came to prominence?
Why do you equate such conflicts with conflicts between different nations is hard for me to understand.
As for completely opposing stances, that's politics for you. Ever wondered how certain member of Bin Laden family came to prominence?
We're not talking about USA.
Ever heard about analogies? This one is pretty direct here.
Comparing a:
• Pre-industrial society with widespread slavery, with most of the agricultural production of the union, trying to secede because they don't like the new rules.
Against a:
• Turn-of-the-21st-century, religiously-motivated, terrorism-mediated secession with testimonial cases of slavery in a tiny post-industrial subject of the Russian Federation (and the poorest of them all).
Is not only wild, but also a gigantic tu quoque, especially when you have plenty of analogies right there in the Caucasus: Abkhazian independence good, Dagestani bad; South Ossetian independence good, Ingushetian bad.
That's reality of Russia saying and doing the opposite immediately inside/outside of their borders.
• Pre-industrial society with widespread slavery, with most of the agricultural production of the union, trying to secede because they don't like the new rules.
Against a:
• Turn-of-the-21st-century, religiously-motivated, terrorism-mediated secession with testimonial cases of slavery in a tiny post-industrial subject of the Russian Federation (and the poorest of them all).
Is not only wild, but also a gigantic tu quoque, especially when you have plenty of analogies right there in the Caucasus: Abkhazian independence good, Dagestani bad; South Ossetian independence good, Ingushetian bad.
That's reality of Russia saying and doing the opposite immediately inside/outside of their borders.
Thing is, both are part of a larger state. I'm not supporting Putin's politics, but there is a very clear distinction between internal and foreign conflicts. US civil war and Chechnya secession wars are both of the former type, and in that regard they are very similar, and widespread slavery in Chechnya makes this comparison even more vivid.
As for "X good, Y bad", every conflict in history is rooted in different understanding of what's good and what's bad by different groups of people. For Georgia, Abhazian independence bad, for Russia, Dagestan independence bad, as they both claim soverenity over these respective territories. I don't understand why are you talking about it in such grandstanding fashion, it is not some groundbreaking news.
So no, you can't equate internal Chechnya wars with international conflicts like Crimea and Georgia. These are two very different conflicts with very different reasons.
As for "X good, Y bad", every conflict in history is rooted in different understanding of what's good and what's bad by different groups of people. For Georgia, Abhazian independence bad, for Russia, Dagestan independence bad, as they both claim soverenity over these respective territories. I don't understand why are you talking about it in such grandstanding fashion, it is not some groundbreaking news.
So no, you can't equate internal Chechnya wars with international conflicts like Crimea and Georgia. These are two very different conflicts with very different reasons.
While I agree each unhappy subject state is unhappy in its own way, the examples of Chechnya, Crimea and Georgia all show in different ways how machiavellian Putin is
- anything goes and the lives of others (including his own citizens) simply don’t matter if he thinks he will get away with it.
I think given the public statements demanding absurd terms from the west and the very public troop movements Putin would now find it very hard to back down.
I think given the public statements demanding absurd terms from the west and the very public troop movements Putin would now find it very hard to back down.
Both Chechen wars have started before Putin came to power. And both were lost by Russia, actually. Russia just picked one of many rivalling clans and pays tribute to them.
So no, it's not Machiavellian, more like a gopnik who stole a TV set while the neighbors were putting out a fire in their house.
So no, it's not Machiavellian, more like a gopnik who stole a TV set while the neighbors were putting out a fire in their house.
> You don't move this many troops and ships etc as a feint (nor would you need to)
I agree, but you know what? The best feints are the believable ones, and even moving 100k troops is cheaper than actually engaging in war.
I agree, but you know what? The best feints are the believable ones, and even moving 100k troops is cheaper than actually engaging in war.
Actually, moving 100k troops costs almost the same as not moving them.
> Fulfils his old goal of expanding Russia to old soviet borders (see Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea etc).
Which I read as a direct continuation of pre-communist imperial ambition. When whites turned red they mostly just dropped their loyalty to the Romanov, keeping other elements of imperial attitude basically unchanged. And to this day there seems to be the idea of a "historical injustice" that deserves correction wrt places that used to be under Romanov rule at some point but subsequently got independent.
Which I read as a direct continuation of pre-communist imperial ambition. When whites turned red they mostly just dropped their loyalty to the Romanov, keeping other elements of imperial attitude basically unchanged. And to this day there seems to be the idea of a "historical injustice" that deserves correction wrt places that used to be under Romanov rule at some point but subsequently got independent.
Putin has no expansion goals. This is a myth unsupported by any evidence. The only new territory Russian Federation acquired since 1945 is Crimea, and this event was not driven by expansion interests.
Russian elite including Putin has business rather than imperial mindset. They understand the costs and benefits of forceful acquisitions too well to get in such trouble. Even in Belarus where the chances of peaceful merge without any sanctions were the highest, they never dared to push for it.
Unsupported by any evidence except the recent annexation of territory you cite?
I completely agree Putin and his backers are entirely focussed on pillaging Russia and surrounding countries for wealth but part of that is ensuring he maintains control of that wealth, and false patriotism and war is one way to do so more easily and to expand the wealth available.
I completely agree Putin and his backers are entirely focussed on pillaging Russia and surrounding countries for wealth but part of that is ensuring he maintains control of that wealth, and false patriotism and war is one way to do so more easily and to expand the wealth available.
As I said, Crimea was a special case and it was not driven by expansionism. There are no other examples.
[deleted]
Right now, Russia's official communication also seems contradictory (at least what you hear in the West of it)
On the one hand, they claim any talk about an invasion is absurd hyperbole, on the other hand they demand security guarantees or else.
Or else what? Like, if an invasion won't happen under any circumstances, then what exactly are they threatening to do if the demands are not met?
On the one hand, they claim any talk about an invasion is absurd hyperbole, on the other hand they demand security guarantees or else.
Or else what? Like, if an invasion won't happen under any circumstances, then what exactly are they threatening to do if the demands are not met?
Or else they'll be caught bluffing. But so far it looks like this bluff is working.
Also, Biden's "minor incursion is one thing" remarks kinda opens the door to explore this "thing" a bit further.
Also, Biden's "minor incursion is one thing" remarks kinda opens the door to explore this "thing" a bit further.
> It is no difference for him whether they are placed in Murmansk or in Crimea, the costs are the same
This makes no sense. Of course it costs money to move troops, resources, and cargo thousands of kilometers.
> I don't see how this new war is in Putin's interests
Besides the obvious goal of combating NATO expansion and taking control of the Black Sea, isn't Ukraine also sort of a threat to Russia? You've got a country with soldiers less than 800km from Moscow that is cozying up to the West and developing ICBM technology. From a military strategy perspective it makes sense to turn it back into a buffer zone.
This makes no sense. Of course it costs money to move troops, resources, and cargo thousands of kilometers.
> I don't see how this new war is in Putin's interests
Besides the obvious goal of combating NATO expansion and taking control of the Black Sea, isn't Ukraine also sort of a threat to Russia? You've got a country with soldiers less than 800km from Moscow that is cozying up to the West and developing ICBM technology. From a military strategy perspective it makes sense to turn it back into a buffer zone.
I don't see how this new war is in Putin's interests.
Clearly it won't be in his interest. But if the West does not provide him with some major concessions -- will he do it anyway? To protect his image, or whatever?
That seems to be the key question here.
Clearly it won't be in his interest. But if the West does not provide him with some major concessions -- will he do it anyway? To protect his image, or whatever?
That seems to be the key question here.
> I don't see how this new war is in Putin's interests
Last time (Crimea 2014) it greatly improved Putin political position within Russia.
Last time (Crimea 2014) it greatly improved Putin political position within Russia.
The euphoria has certainly worn off by now. Also, the annexation of the Crimea was essentially bloodless - the Ukrainian army just left with their pot flowers and cardboard boxes in hands. If there will be real fighting, war fatigue will catch up really fast. War in Chechnya was extremely unpopular in Russia.
Ukraine is in Russia's sphere of influence and allowing the EU/US to change that means the boundary encroaches closer creating great risk for the sphere.
The edge of Romania/Moldova are where the great plains start. Meaning if you get natural trade routes from that region on its a very easy march to Moscow.
Second, it is a test of the US to put up resources. It is a challenging time for the US to do so, so it just makes it expensive not to do so. I.e if the US does not and Russia invades it makes the US look very weak and it can seize on that. It is a very standard/typical balance of power move.
Thirdly, covid has been bad in Russia so projecting power looks very strong to maintain leadership. In Russia's history this is just a very common thing to do to maintain power in government.
In all it is a very optimal play for Russia to do. Any leader other than Putin wearing the 'Bear suit' would basically do the same.
The edge of Romania/Moldova are where the great plains start. Meaning if you get natural trade routes from that region on its a very easy march to Moscow.
Second, it is a test of the US to put up resources. It is a challenging time for the US to do so, so it just makes it expensive not to do so. I.e if the US does not and Russia invades it makes the US look very weak and it can seize on that. It is a very standard/typical balance of power move.
Thirdly, covid has been bad in Russia so projecting power looks very strong to maintain leadership. In Russia's history this is just a very common thing to do to maintain power in government.
In all it is a very optimal play for Russia to do. Any leader other than Putin wearing the 'Bear suit' would basically do the same.
[deleted]
The black sea is pretty much useless as a warm water port. The Bosporus limits the number of military ships that can pass through it by treaty and unless you conquer Istanbul there's nothing you can do about it.
Crimea was 90% ethnic Russian as were the majority of areas occupied by rebels. This is an ethnic conflict that started when the majority Ukrainian areas decided that they could rule the country without the majority Russian areas.
I imagine what we will see is North Ukraine being left as a majority Ukrainian speaking country and South Ukraine a majority Russian speaking country. Ironically enough North Ukraine then becomes small enough to join the EU.
Crimea was 90% ethnic Russian as were the majority of areas occupied by rebels. This is an ethnic conflict that started when the majority Ukrainian areas decided that they could rule the country without the majority Russian areas.
I imagine what we will see is North Ukraine being left as a majority Ukrainian speaking country and South Ukraine a majority Russian speaking country. Ironically enough North Ukraine then becomes small enough to join the EU.
Ok I understand the throwaway as it as controversial point.
I have a couple of questions for someone not that familiar with Ukrainian history:
- Was the south ukrainian population relocated there as a soviet 'settlement' or were they always historically there?
- Is there any political acceptance among north ukrainians to cut their loses and lose territory in order to be able to join NATO/EU?
I have a couple of questions for someone not that familiar with Ukrainian history:
- Was the south ukrainian population relocated there as a soviet 'settlement' or were they always historically there?
- Is there any political acceptance among north ukrainians to cut their loses and lose territory in order to be able to join NATO/EU?
Kharkov, Odessa, Nikolayev, Sumy, Kherson, Dnepropetrovsk, Donetsk, Lugansk, Mariupol, Krivoi Rog, Elizavetgrad (aka "Kropivnitsky"), Aleksandrovskaya (aka "Zaporizhzhia") - most of the cities in the East and the South were founded by the Russians by direct order from the Tsars starting from 1600's. We can dig deeper and find out that in 1897, 78% of Kiev the capital's population was non-Ukrainian, so no, this is not some Soviet invention.
If anything, Stalin and Kruschev gifted Lvov (1940), Ivano-Frankovsk (1940), the entire Crimea (1954), Uzhgorod (1945), etc etc to Ukraine, so some thanks to the Soviets should be in order.
If anything, Stalin and Kruschev gifted Lvov (1940), Ivano-Frankovsk (1940), the entire Crimea (1954), Uzhgorod (1945), etc etc to Ukraine, so some thanks to the Soviets should be in order.
I have read many not completely satisfactory "explanations," most of which are repeated in other comments. Those may be part of the story. The most convincing story that I have seen is as follows:
Ukraine is very similar culturally to Russia. Putin cannot afford to have a successful democratic Ukraine on his borders as an example to Russian citizens. They might decide that Putin's way of governing is not actually the best for the Russian people. So, he does everything he can do to undermine a democratic Ukraine. If a western style democracy fails in the Ukraine, well, clearly it is not suitable for Russia either. Ideally, he would like Ukraine within Russia's sphere of influence as Belarus is, but I am not sure that is vital.
This is actually fairly consistent with how the Soviet Union behaved in Eastern Europe. Romania and Yugoslavia moved away from the Soviet Union, but they were dictatorships, so they were left alone. Anytime there was even a glimmer of democracy, however, the tanks were sent in.
Ukraine is very similar culturally to Russia. Putin cannot afford to have a successful democratic Ukraine on his borders as an example to Russian citizens. They might decide that Putin's way of governing is not actually the best for the Russian people. So, he does everything he can do to undermine a democratic Ukraine. If a western style democracy fails in the Ukraine, well, clearly it is not suitable for Russia either. Ideally, he would like Ukraine within Russia's sphere of influence as Belarus is, but I am not sure that is vital.
This is actually fairly consistent with how the Soviet Union behaved in Eastern Europe. Romania and Yugoslavia moved away from the Soviet Union, but they were dictatorships, so they were left alone. Anytime there was even a glimmer of democracy, however, the tanks were sent in.
There isn't one simple answer here. This is partially about shoring up Russian reputation. Partially about Putin distracting people from a Russian economy that has suffered under covid right after the state reformed the pension system. Partially about lashing back at what's perceived as Nato expansionism. Partially exploiting a time when Americans are most war weary due to the Afghanistan pullout. The rest of Nato is busy with wrecked balance sheets and other issues like global warming. Nobody is itching for a fight right now so it's a good time to press.
And, lastly, probably good old fashion Russian incremental expansionism.
And, lastly, probably good old fashion Russian incremental expansionism.
There is basically no escalation from Russia. The troop deployment on the Ukraine border mirrors a similar deployment in April last year[1].
It is just convenient (Biden's domestic issues/Nordstream 2/other unknown reasons) to claim imminent invasion and the media is incentivised to fuel that narrative since it seems to have captured the attention of the populace at large (perhaps based on the Russophobia that is prevalent in mainstream media).
1. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11651
It is just convenient (Biden's domestic issues/Nordstream 2/other unknown reasons) to claim imminent invasion and the media is incentivised to fuel that narrative since it seems to have captured the attention of the populace at large (perhaps based on the Russophobia that is prevalent in mainstream media).
1. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11651
There is a sizeable escalation. You didn't count unprecedented deployment in Belarus as well (Russia's marionette right now), and all the diplomatic ultimatums.
Yes, there were deployments previously, but never this size.
Yes, there were deployments previously, but never this size.
The diplomatic ultimatums as well as the Belarus deployment are in response to the mainstream media's assertions of imminent attack and could also be interpreted as Putin trying to leverage the situation to his advantage to try for concessions of some sort to further his agenda. At this point in time, to be fair, one could argue for invasion but that calculus is so grim for Russia that it seems far-fetched.
Anyway my point is that the initial clamour of "imminent invasion" was unwarranted based on the evidence at the time based on historical troop movement at the border. Therefore there must be another reason underlying the media's outcry which is beyond my ken.
Anyway my point is that the initial clamour of "imminent invasion" was unwarranted based on the evidence at the time based on historical troop movement at the border. Therefore there must be another reason underlying the media's outcry which is beyond my ken.
There are few good videos on this channel which explain the matter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sKo-ibHyJs
There are millions of Russians in Ukraine. They don't want closer relations with the eu at the expense of losing relations with Russia.
Russia imported a shit tonne of food from the Ukraine until this all started. Russia doesn't want to lose that supply permanently.
The current partition isn't the best from a strategic/defense position or from a political/objectives one. So it makes sense to correct that before making it permanent.
Negotiations for a peaceful settlement have failed or are stuck.
Now (roughly) is the peak demand for Russian gas in Europe so it's now or wait another 12months.
And that's without considering domestic political reasons for conflict...
Russia imported a shit tonne of food from the Ukraine until this all started. Russia doesn't want to lose that supply permanently.
The current partition isn't the best from a strategic/defense position or from a political/objectives one. So it makes sense to correct that before making it permanent.
Negotiations for a peaceful settlement have failed or are stuck.
Now (roughly) is the peak demand for Russian gas in Europe so it's now or wait another 12months.
And that's without considering domestic political reasons for conflict...
[deleted]
[deleted]
YarickR2(2)
"But they could stop there and everybody in NATO would shrug their shoulders and they would keep Crimea. Why insist on further escalation?"
They say, they stopped there - and that they will not tolerate a military occupation of the autonomous eastern ukraine provinces. Not that they want to occupy whole ukraine.
So I do not see them insist on further escalation. But the west has said - it will not accept the crimea annexion. So this conflict will remain unsolved, if no side will move.
They say, they stopped there - and that they will not tolerate a military occupation of the autonomous eastern ukraine provinces. Not that they want to occupy whole ukraine.
So I do not see them insist on further escalation. But the west has said - it will not accept the crimea annexion. So this conflict will remain unsolved, if no side will move.
This might be tin-foil-hatty, but the U.S. leaves Afghanistan and not long after this is happening. Really feels like its war machine needs to be busy.
In a similar vein - US military and industrial complex is without a war, and suddenly, out of the blue, a tiny European country that previously hosted US military bases and secret prisons - decides to irritate the main US geopolitical rival on the other side of the world, for no reason whatsoever, despite sharp majority public disapproval of these actions (Lithuania - China diplomatic spat)
It's shocking how the whole propaganda machine completely avoids Ukraine's conduct in ramping up the tensions:
* reneged on their ceasefire treaty pledge to provide reasonable minority rights to ethnic Russians in Ukraine (17% of the population)
* banned ethnic Russians from holding positions of power
* banned several opposition TV channels
* previous prime minister (democratically elected, ethnic Ukrainian) on trial for treason
* another diplomat, who tried good-faith negotiations with Russia - on trial for treason
* in a minor bureaucratic dispute with Poland about trucking quotas, Ukraine, in all their wisdom, decided to cut ALL RAIL to Poland
* all done by a prime minister with approval rating of below 20%
There are no good guys in this fight. It's either Russia's paranoia driven territory carving, or Ukraine's extreme levels of corruption and toxic nationalism
It's shocking how the whole propaganda machine completely avoids Ukraine's conduct in ramping up the tensions:
* reneged on their ceasefire treaty pledge to provide reasonable minority rights to ethnic Russians in Ukraine (17% of the population)
* banned ethnic Russians from holding positions of power
* banned several opposition TV channels
* previous prime minister (democratically elected, ethnic Ukrainian) on trial for treason
* another diplomat, who tried good-faith negotiations with Russia - on trial for treason
* in a minor bureaucratic dispute with Poland about trucking quotas, Ukraine, in all their wisdom, decided to cut ALL RAIL to Poland
* all done by a prime minister with approval rating of below 20%
There are no good guys in this fight. It's either Russia's paranoia driven territory carving, or Ukraine's extreme levels of corruption and toxic nationalism
-banned ethnic Russians from position of power???
This is so laughable for anyone from Ukraine. President of Ukraine is a Russian-speaking Jew. There is no checking whether you are Ukrainian or Russian in Ukraine, most of the people are from mixed marriages between Ukrainian, Polish, Russian and so on. There are plenty of russian-speaking people, who are from east and south of the country in both parliament and Cabinet of Ministers.
Previous president is on trial for treason - why it’s a bad thing in itself? The guy was a war hawk, actually. It’s actually president, not prime minister, you don’t even understand how government work in Ukraine
There were no points about “minority rights” in ceasefire agreement.
Are you just some British dude, who likes Russia Today? Or Polish, due to the very niche story about transit?
You are arguing that war in Ukraine is fine, because Ukrainians are bad people, amazing. Really hope to meet you someday.
This is so laughable for anyone from Ukraine. President of Ukraine is a Russian-speaking Jew. There is no checking whether you are Ukrainian or Russian in Ukraine, most of the people are from mixed marriages between Ukrainian, Polish, Russian and so on. There are plenty of russian-speaking people, who are from east and south of the country in both parliament and Cabinet of Ministers.
Previous president is on trial for treason - why it’s a bad thing in itself? The guy was a war hawk, actually. It’s actually president, not prime minister, you don’t even understand how government work in Ukraine
There were no points about “minority rights” in ceasefire agreement.
Are you just some British dude, who likes Russia Today? Or Polish, due to the very niche story about transit?
You are arguing that war in Ukraine is fine, because Ukrainians are bad people, amazing. Really hope to meet you someday.
-banned ethnic Russians from position of power???
This is so laughable for anyone from Ukraine. President of Ukraine is a Russian-speaking Jew. There is no checking whether you are Ukrainian or Russian in Ukraine, most of the people are from mixed marriages between Ukrainian, Polish, Russian and so on. There are plenty of russian-speaking people, who are from east and south of the country in both parliament and Cabinet of Ministers.
Previous president is on trial for treason - why it’s a bad thing in itself? The guy was a war hawk, actually. It’s actually president, not prime minister, you don’t even understand how government work in Ukraine
There were no points about “minority rights” in ceasefire agreement.
Are you just some British dude, who likes Russia Today? Or Polish, due to the very niche story about transit?
You are arguing that war in Ukraine is fine, because Ukrainians are bad people, amazing. Really hope to meet you someday.
This is so laughable for anyone from Ukraine. President of Ukraine is a Russian-speaking Jew. There is no checking whether you are Ukrainian or Russian in Ukraine, most of the people are from mixed marriages between Ukrainian, Polish, Russian and so on. There are plenty of russian-speaking people, who are from east and south of the country in both parliament and Cabinet of Ministers.
Previous president is on trial for treason - why it’s a bad thing in itself? The guy was a war hawk, actually. It’s actually president, not prime minister, you don’t even understand how government work in Ukraine
There were no points about “minority rights” in ceasefire agreement.
Are you just some British dude, who likes Russia Today? Or Polish, due to the very niche story about transit?
You are arguing that war in Ukraine is fine, because Ukrainians are bad people, amazing. Really hope to meet you someday.
Can you explain why the actions of Ukraine is not a response to Russian's takeover of Crimea?
This situation has been brewing since at least 2014 so chalk that timing up to coincidence.
The Russian forces started to move close to Ukraininan borders in the last spring, before the US withdrawal.
Why are you the only person to bring this up... Nobody seems to notice that these troop numbers have been almost identical (until yesterday) since April. There's some serious propaganda (by omission) going on here.
What numbers are identical? The Russian movement is completely unprecedented since the end of the Cold War. Moving massive numbers of MD East units all to over Belarus over the last days and weeks is an enormous logistical display by Russia.
There were between 80,000 and 120,000 not including the rebels that they support within Ukraine.[1]
1. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-reach-over-12000...
1. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-reach-over-12000...
Yes and that was mostly on the eastern border. Now there is (at least?) twice that including massive movement (200 trains us a number circulating now) of troops and equipment from as far as the eastern military district all the way to Belarus.
For comparison the whole Zapad excercise was ~30 trains.
For comparison the whole Zapad excercise was ~30 trains.
I don't know where you're getting your information, all of Western news has agreed on approximately 100,000 until recent movements.
Yes, I'm talking about the recent movements (North of Ukraine, from the eastern MD mostly). Which are of course extremely uncertain. And all that is seen is obviously trains with vehicles, not troops - so reports of e.g. "100k troops" are referring to (I'm assuming) the number of vehcicles, whether or not the troops have arrived or not, as they arrive later than the vehciles on the train. Keeping people fed and housed when waiting is a lot harder and more expensive than keeping tanks and APCs parked.
Yeah, definitely. My original point was about before the recent movements though (I exaggerated by saying "yesterday".) Everyone was squawking about 100k as if it were new.
The 5k troop movement is suspicious when it happens right after Russia shifts 200k+ troops to create the threat the 5k troops were a response to? Whether or not the US “wants” to be busy seems irrelevant given the timeline.
Exactly. Invading Ukraine would be political and economical suicide for Putin and Russia. Yet here we are getting bombarded in the media with the supposed threat of an imminent russian invasion. The chief of the german navy criticises this narrative and is forced to apologize and resign. I don't know but this all feels very dishonest.
Why do you think Russia is building up tens of thousands of troops on Ukraine's border?
As a threat and response because of military preparations in the Ukraine to strike again its eastern parts.
But aside that - for all the usual power reasons. Distract fromm inner problems, covid, economy, opposition, ...
But aside that - for all the usual power reasons. Distract fromm inner problems, covid, economy, opposition, ...
[deleted]
How would that be political suicide? It's an dictatorship, there is no working opposition, no antiwar movement, anyone can be shut down very quickly.
It's only economical suicide if the West makes it so, which it most probably would not - and then there is the question if that would be enough. What if China is able to provide whatever the West would not. Moreover, Russia has close to no debt and high currency reseerves. It is true that it mostly sells oil, gas and minerals, but there are enough buyers for that.
In short, maybe their calclulus is very different to ours.
It's only economical suicide if the West makes it so, which it most probably would not - and then there is the question if that would be enough. What if China is able to provide whatever the West would not. Moreover, Russia has close to no debt and high currency reseerves. It is true that it mostly sells oil, gas and minerals, but there are enough buyers for that.
In short, maybe their calclulus is very different to ours.
> How would that be political suicide?
I'm mostly thinking international politics and -projects like Nord Stream 2. But even internally, there are already anti-establishment movements in Russia. Unpopular military intervention might be grist to the mill for them. I don't think Putin wants to risk a situation like in Belarus a few months ago. It's easier to govern if the people don't openly disapprove of you, even in a dictatorship.
> It's only economical suicide if the West makes it so, which it most probably would not
I remember plans about excluding Russia from SWIFT. I don't know if that is still on the table.
I'm mostly thinking international politics and -projects like Nord Stream 2. But even internally, there are already anti-establishment movements in Russia. Unpopular military intervention might be grist to the mill for them. I don't think Putin wants to risk a situation like in Belarus a few months ago. It's easier to govern if the people don't openly disapprove of you, even in a dictatorship.
> It's only economical suicide if the West makes it so, which it most probably would not
I remember plans about excluding Russia from SWIFT. I don't know if that is still on the table.
> the supposed threat of an imminent russian invasion.
If Russia amasses several hundred thousand troops on Ukraines doorstep that’s not a supposed threat, it’s a threat since it’s perceived as a threat. Pointing a gun at someone is a threat. It’s not a supposed threat.
Also: The Russian invasion and occupation started 8 years ago!
If Russia amasses several hundred thousand troops on Ukraines doorstep that’s not a supposed threat, it’s a threat since it’s perceived as a threat. Pointing a gun at someone is a threat. It’s not a supposed threat.
Also: The Russian invasion and occupation started 8 years ago!
> Invading Ukraine would be political and economical suicide for Putin and Russia
They did invade: Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Was not a suicide for Putin, quite contrary, his political position within Russia has greatly improved.
They did invade: Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Was not a suicide for Putin, quite contrary, his political position within Russia has greatly improved.
Crimea was a referendum and Eastern Ukraine separatist rebels. Extent of russian involvement aside, there is a difference between that and an all-out invasion.
>> Crimea was a referendum
They occupied the territory first and then conducted the "referendum" to make it "legal". Don't buy this horsesht.
They occupied the territory first and then conducted the "referendum" to make it "legal". Don't buy this horsesht.
If they occupy Kyiv, there would also be all kinds of "referendums" and "local militias" with predictable results. It is not like anyone remotely pro-Ukrainian will stay and vote under watchful eye of friendly uniformed people (that don't wear any identifying insignia).
> Crimea was a referendum
Ok stop. This isn’t intellectually honest argumentation.
Ok stop. This isn’t intellectually honest argumentation.
Right, somehow, Kosovo is totally different.
What on earth has Kosovo got to do with this now then? Is it whataboutism? What is it?
There have not been any free/observed/internationally recognized referendums on Crimea. Most importantly, the referendum wasn't with blessing from Kyiv.
There was an annexaction which was partially done with military means and partially through a mock referendum. Both of those are blatant attacks on Ukrainian soverieignty.
There have not been any free/observed/internationally recognized referendums on Crimea. Most importantly, the referendum wasn't with blessing from Kyiv.
There was an annexaction which was partially done with military means and partially through a mock referendum. Both of those are blatant attacks on Ukrainian soverieignty.
Kosovo has 100% to do with this, friend. In case you are genuinely curious: The "West" has decided that Kosovo suddenly must be independent, and they bombed the shit out of Serbia (6mil pop, tiny) on a pretext that somehow this just HAS to be a separate entity. They didn't even bother with, as you say, a "mock referendum"!! Now the same people come lecturing about borders and sovereignty, and referendums, sounds cheap as shit.
Putin is in the same boat.
It's worrying when an unpopular president starts banging the war drums. I always have this fear that there is immense incentive to create conflict since wartime presidents are always reelected in the US.
Isn't "war" a big part of the US economy?
Your "unpopular president" said straight up that he will not send troops, so I don't understand what are you suggesting here exactly.
We sent warships to practice military war games right off Russia's coast in the black sea. We instructed embassy family in Ukraine to head back to the state to prep for a Russian invasion. How many times has Biden either directly attacked Putin by calling him a killer or saying the US will defend Ukraine if Russia invades?
The U.S. has many allies and we don't wake up to a president calling enemy territory leaders killers and reaffirming we're game to go to war every few weeks for any other territory. This is a very obvious political move that I hope doesn't escalate, but Biden appears to be doing plenty to provoke conflict.
The U.S. has many allies and we don't wake up to a president calling enemy territory leaders killers and reaffirming we're game to go to war every few weeks for any other territory. This is a very obvious political move that I hope doesn't escalate, but Biden appears to be doing plenty to provoke conflict.
> We sent warships to practice military war games right off Russia's coast in the black sea.
Eastern European NATO members are concerned they could be next (IMO rightfully), so after what Trump had been doing to NATO during his presidency Biden obviously wants to reassure his partners.
> We instructed embassy family in Ukraine to head back to the state to prep for a Russian invasion.
Yes. And?
> saying the US will defend Ukraine if Russia invades
Source? He said straight up that US will not send any troops to defend Ukraine.
> The U.S. has many allies and we don't wake up to a president calling enemy territory leaders killers and reaffirming we're game to go to war every few weeks for any other territory. This is a very obvious political move that I hope doesn't escalate, but Biden appears to be doing plenty to provoke conflict.
Well, yes, countries like US, Russia, China, etc. need to maintain their strongman image for local electorate. IMO there are much simpler and straightforward ways for him to start a war with Russia, if he would be crazy enough to seek such a thing.
Eastern European NATO members are concerned they could be next (IMO rightfully), so after what Trump had been doing to NATO during his presidency Biden obviously wants to reassure his partners.
> We instructed embassy family in Ukraine to head back to the state to prep for a Russian invasion.
Yes. And?
> saying the US will defend Ukraine if Russia invades
Source? He said straight up that US will not send any troops to defend Ukraine.
> The U.S. has many allies and we don't wake up to a president calling enemy territory leaders killers and reaffirming we're game to go to war every few weeks for any other territory. This is a very obvious political move that I hope doesn't escalate, but Biden appears to be doing plenty to provoke conflict.
Well, yes, countries like US, Russia, China, etc. need to maintain their strongman image for local electorate. IMO there are much simpler and straightforward ways for him to start a war with Russia, if he would be crazy enough to seek such a thing.
It's always bewildering that someone defending Biden always has to bring up Trump.
> Eastern European NATO members are concerned they could be next
could be next...what? Do you recall what happened in 2008 with Georgia? This is literally straight from Russia's playbook. They stationed war games at Georgia's borders, tensions heightened, shots were fired, Russia claimed they were fired on first. Now Russia occupies parts of Georgia. This is exactly what wargames at their borders threatens. It's disgusting and absolutely should be universally reprimanded to post up warships to do war games outside of high political tension areas.
> Source? He said straight up that US will not send any troops to defend Ukraine.
Incorrect he said that sending troops to act unilaterally against Russia was not on the table. If you actually listen to the press conference you're referencing then you'd realize this was not a promise to never send troops - quite the opposite.
Source for Biden repeatedly saying Russia will pay a price for Ukraine invasion? There are numerous, but here's him proudly admitting to calling Putin a soulless killer to his face and promising he'll pay a price shortly. This is the opposite of diplomacy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPtmXikBWrQ
> Eastern European NATO members are concerned they could be next
could be next...what? Do you recall what happened in 2008 with Georgia? This is literally straight from Russia's playbook. They stationed war games at Georgia's borders, tensions heightened, shots were fired, Russia claimed they were fired on first. Now Russia occupies parts of Georgia. This is exactly what wargames at their borders threatens. It's disgusting and absolutely should be universally reprimanded to post up warships to do war games outside of high political tension areas.
> Source? He said straight up that US will not send any troops to defend Ukraine.
Incorrect he said that sending troops to act unilaterally against Russia was not on the table. If you actually listen to the press conference you're referencing then you'd realize this was not a promise to never send troops - quite the opposite.
Source for Biden repeatedly saying Russia will pay a price for Ukraine invasion? There are numerous, but here's him proudly admitting to calling Putin a soulless killer to his face and promising he'll pay a price shortly. This is the opposite of diplomacy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPtmXikBWrQ
> It's always bewildering that someone defending Biden always has to bring up Trump.
Hey, I'm not from US so I can allow myself to do unthinkable thing by your standards - I dislike both of them! With this, I don't think we need to steer the conversation into Trump vs Biden. However, I do think that some of Trump's comments regarding NATO were quite chilling for Eastern European NATO members.
> could be next...what? Do you recall what happened in 2008 with Georgia? This is literally straight from Russia's playbook. They stationed war games at Georgia's borders, tensions heightened, shots were fired, Russia claimed they were fired on first. Now Russia occupies parts of Georgia. This is exactly what wargames at their borders threatens. It's disgusting and absolutely should be universally reprimanded to post up warships to do war games outside of high political tension areas.
You seem to have very unorthodox view of the events. This is first time I hear that it was actually NATO troops who fired at Russians while being at Georgian territory under pretext of wargames, if that is what you are saying.
To save everyone the click, here is relevant excerpt from Wikipedia (which might or might not come from biased sources, I'm not from Georgia to claim either):
The Republic of Georgia declared its independence in early 1991 as the Soviet Union began to fall apart. Amidst this backdrop, a war between Georgia and separatists left parts of the former South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast under the de facto control of Russian-backed but internationally unrecognised separatists. Following the war, a joint peacekeeping force of Georgian, Russian, and Ossetian troops was stationed in the territory. A similar stalemate developed in the region of Abkhazia, where Abkhaz separatists had waged war in 1992–1993. Following the election of Vladimir Putin in Russia in 2000 and a pro-Western change of power in Georgia in 2003, relations between Russia and Georgia began to deteriorate, reaching a full diplomatic crisis by April 2008. On 1 August 2008, South Ossetian separatists started shelling Georgian villages, with a sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the area.[32][33][34][35][36]
> Incorrect he said that sending troops to act unilaterally against Russia was not on the table. If you actually listen to the press conference you're referencing then you'd realize this was not a promise to never send troops - quite the opposite.
So you concede that Biden never actually said he will send any troops to Ukraine?
> Source for Biden repeatedly saying Russia will pay a price for Ukraine invasion?
He repeatedly said the price will be economical (joint sanction package together with EU).
Hey, I'm not from US so I can allow myself to do unthinkable thing by your standards - I dislike both of them! With this, I don't think we need to steer the conversation into Trump vs Biden. However, I do think that some of Trump's comments regarding NATO were quite chilling for Eastern European NATO members.
> could be next...what? Do you recall what happened in 2008 with Georgia? This is literally straight from Russia's playbook. They stationed war games at Georgia's borders, tensions heightened, shots were fired, Russia claimed they were fired on first. Now Russia occupies parts of Georgia. This is exactly what wargames at their borders threatens. It's disgusting and absolutely should be universally reprimanded to post up warships to do war games outside of high political tension areas.
You seem to have very unorthodox view of the events. This is first time I hear that it was actually NATO troops who fired at Russians while being at Georgian territory under pretext of wargames, if that is what you are saying.
To save everyone the click, here is relevant excerpt from Wikipedia (which might or might not come from biased sources, I'm not from Georgia to claim either):
The Republic of Georgia declared its independence in early 1991 as the Soviet Union began to fall apart. Amidst this backdrop, a war between Georgia and separatists left parts of the former South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast under the de facto control of Russian-backed but internationally unrecognised separatists. Following the war, a joint peacekeeping force of Georgian, Russian, and Ossetian troops was stationed in the territory. A similar stalemate developed in the region of Abkhazia, where Abkhaz separatists had waged war in 1992–1993. Following the election of Vladimir Putin in Russia in 2000 and a pro-Western change of power in Georgia in 2003, relations between Russia and Georgia began to deteriorate, reaching a full diplomatic crisis by April 2008. On 1 August 2008, South Ossetian separatists started shelling Georgian villages, with a sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the area.[32][33][34][35][36]
> Incorrect he said that sending troops to act unilaterally against Russia was not on the table. If you actually listen to the press conference you're referencing then you'd realize this was not a promise to never send troops - quite the opposite.
So you concede that Biden never actually said he will send any troops to Ukraine?
> Source for Biden repeatedly saying Russia will pay a price for Ukraine invasion?
He repeatedly said the price will be economical (joint sanction package together with EU).
> I dislike both of them!
> With this, I don't think we need to steer the conversation into Trump vs Biden
Whole-heartedly agree on both counts.
> You seem to have very unorthodox view of the events.
Google "russia says georgia shot first" and you'll get hundreds of millions of hits with articles claiming both ways. If you think this is an unorthodox view I'm afraid you just didn't follow the news of this story at all.
> So you concede that Biden never actually said he will send any troops to Ukraine?
No! He made it quite clear that if NATO decides to defend Ukraine we have a moral and legal obligation to do so as well. It's in the very same interview.
> ...in the cards right now.
So obviously in the very same interview he isn't taking it off the table - it's just not what he will be doing right now
> The United States is discussing the deployment of American military forces to Eastern Europe with its NATO allies, a senior administration official said Monday, as President Joe Biden weighs options for responding to Russian threats against Ukraine.
This is from an article posted 45 minutes ago from NBC News. Obviously Biden has not taken sending troops off the table.
> With this, I don't think we need to steer the conversation into Trump vs Biden
Whole-heartedly agree on both counts.
> You seem to have very unorthodox view of the events.
Google "russia says georgia shot first" and you'll get hundreds of millions of hits with articles claiming both ways. If you think this is an unorthodox view I'm afraid you just didn't follow the news of this story at all.
> So you concede that Biden never actually said he will send any troops to Ukraine?
No! He made it quite clear that if NATO decides to defend Ukraine we have a moral and legal obligation to do so as well. It's in the very same interview.
> ...in the cards right now.
So obviously in the very same interview he isn't taking it off the table - it's just not what he will be doing right now
> The United States is discussing the deployment of American military forces to Eastern Europe with its NATO allies, a senior administration official said Monday, as President Joe Biden weighs options for responding to Russian threats against Ukraine.
This is from an article posted 45 minutes ago from NBC News. Obviously Biden has not taken sending troops off the table.
> Google "russia says georgia shot first" and you'll get hundreds of millions of hits with articles claiming both ways. If you think this is an unorthodox view I'm afraid you just didn't follow the news of this story at all.
I have no doubt about that! You can probably even find several (thousands) claiming disguised Ukrainian nazis had also participated!
However, I was responding to you claim that NATO forces that were there for wargames are somehow to blame, which is indeed unorthodox.
> No! He made it quite clear that if NATO decides to defend Ukraine we have a moral and legal obligation to do so as well. It's in the very same interview.
I can't come up with any realistic scenario where NATO decides anything that Biden doesn't agree with. Obviously he can't just say "Hey, we don't really care about Eastern Europe and Russia because we would like to concentrate on competition with China for foreseeable future, but at the same time we can't afford to look weak and unprepared again after Afghanistan disaster, so we are going to act tough and continue to be visibly and deeply concerned about situation in Ukraine!", don't you think?
> So obviously in the very same interview he isn't taking it off the table - it's just not what he will be doing right now
I mean, when else do you expect him to do it? Stationing US troops in Ukraine after Russia has already occupied it would be quite challenging in my opinion.
> This is from an article posted 45 minutes ago from NBC News. Obviously Biden has not taken sending troops off the table.
He means further reinforcing deployments of forces in existing NATO member countries in Eastern Europe.
I have no doubt about that! You can probably even find several (thousands) claiming disguised Ukrainian nazis had also participated!
However, I was responding to you claim that NATO forces that were there for wargames are somehow to blame, which is indeed unorthodox.
> No! He made it quite clear that if NATO decides to defend Ukraine we have a moral and legal obligation to do so as well. It's in the very same interview.
I can't come up with any realistic scenario where NATO decides anything that Biden doesn't agree with. Obviously he can't just say "Hey, we don't really care about Eastern Europe and Russia because we would like to concentrate on competition with China for foreseeable future, but at the same time we can't afford to look weak and unprepared again after Afghanistan disaster, so we are going to act tough and continue to be visibly and deeply concerned about situation in Ukraine!", don't you think?
> So obviously in the very same interview he isn't taking it off the table - it's just not what he will be doing right now
I mean, when else do you expect him to do it? Stationing US troops in Ukraine after Russia has already occupied it would be quite challenging in my opinion.
> This is from an article posted 45 minutes ago from NBC News. Obviously Biden has not taken sending troops off the table.
He means further reinforcing deployments of forces in existing NATO member countries in Eastern Europe.
Bush Sr. was not re-elected after winning the first Iraq war.
If you already won the war you're not a wartime president
Does wartime even mean anything if you occupy a country for 20 years? It is trivial that the US would “win” vs Iraq or Afghanistan.
https://www.graphicnews.com/en/pages/41632/military-us-troop...
https://www.graphicnews.com/en/pages/41632/military-us-troop...
The USA should arm Ukrainian citizens to the teeth ASAP and keep US forces out of Ukraine (i.e., avoid any NATO "solution" to Russian aggression). Let the Ukrainians do the training and organizing - any war should be a guerrilla war.
If every Ukrainian citizen (primarily talking about western Ukraine) had a rifle/shotgun and 5 grenades, the likely success of Russian forces in any incursion (short of a nuclear attack, which I presume absurd) would be nil. It might even increase self- and other-respect among the Ukrainian!8-))
If every Ukrainian citizen (primarily talking about western Ukraine) had a rifle/shotgun and 5 grenades, the likely success of Russian forces in any incursion (short of a nuclear attack, which I presume absurd) would be nil. It might even increase self- and other-respect among the Ukrainian!8-))
They (the US and UK, mostly) did the actually working version of that: they provided the Ukrainian military with several hundred Javelins, Stingers and NLAW.
The Ukrainian army can’t defend any part of the country against mass invasion but it can at least make the cost of fighting in cities be extremely unappetizing to Russia due to the large cost in both casualties and equipment it would be.
The Ukrainian army can’t defend any part of the country against mass invasion but it can at least make the cost of fighting in cities be extremely unappetizing to Russia due to the large cost in both casualties and equipment it would be.
No, no, no. What I meant was arm the Ukraines with rifles/shotguns and grenades. That's all. Set up for guerrilla warfare. Make it easy to participate.
Fighting with Javelins, Stingers and NLAWs is a wholly foolish endeavor, very costly for equipment and training. Time is too short also. And I'm talking about arming the citizenry, not the Ukrainian army.
OTOH if most Ukrainian citizens were well-armed it would be very difficult for anyone to occupy the country.
Fighting with Javelins, Stingers and NLAWs is a wholly foolish endeavor, very costly for equipment and training. Time is too short also. And I'm talking about arming the citizenry, not the Ukrainian army.
OTOH if most Ukrainian citizens were well-armed it would be very difficult for anyone to occupy the country.
> OTOH if most Ukrainian citizens were well-armed it would be very difficult for anyone to occupy the country.
There won't be any large scale occupation of Ukraine. That's not the risk here. Crimea wasn't possible to occupy because the inhabitants lacked guns.
What will happen if there is an invasion is that tanks will roll quickly to where they need to roll, artillery and missiles will destroy what needs to be destroyed, forming the gunpoint at which "negotiations" will be held. Infrastructure will be destroyed (military installations, factories, power plants etc) to ensure this capiulation and that Ukraine remains a failed state for a long time. Russia doesn't have any interest in occupying and thereby having to help rebuild Ukraine. Ukraine being poor and unstable is the feature.
So Russia doesn't want to occupy Ukraine. It just wants to ensure that it's a failed state with a russian friendly government (which Russia can ensure, once it throws the country into instability and poverty).
> Fighting with Javelins, Stingers and NLAWs is a wholly foolish endeavor, very costly for equipment and training.
The equipment was recently shipped, possibly donated. Javelins have been part of the Urainian military for a long time. If you want to stop a gunpoint situation arising from a mechanized assault, it doesn't really matter how many villages of people with rifles the tanks had to drive straight through on their way to the hold position outside Kyiv. They'd make no difference. The villages are never going to be "occupied" and the rifles won't stop the tanks.
There won't be any large scale occupation of Ukraine. That's not the risk here. Crimea wasn't possible to occupy because the inhabitants lacked guns.
What will happen if there is an invasion is that tanks will roll quickly to where they need to roll, artillery and missiles will destroy what needs to be destroyed, forming the gunpoint at which "negotiations" will be held. Infrastructure will be destroyed (military installations, factories, power plants etc) to ensure this capiulation and that Ukraine remains a failed state for a long time. Russia doesn't have any interest in occupying and thereby having to help rebuild Ukraine. Ukraine being poor and unstable is the feature.
So Russia doesn't want to occupy Ukraine. It just wants to ensure that it's a failed state with a russian friendly government (which Russia can ensure, once it throws the country into instability and poverty).
> Fighting with Javelins, Stingers and NLAWs is a wholly foolish endeavor, very costly for equipment and training.
The equipment was recently shipped, possibly donated. Javelins have been part of the Urainian military for a long time. If you want to stop a gunpoint situation arising from a mechanized assault, it doesn't really matter how many villages of people with rifles the tanks had to drive straight through on their way to the hold position outside Kyiv. They'd make no difference. The villages are never going to be "occupied" and the rifles won't stop the tanks.
> If every Ukrainian citizen (primarily talking about western Ukraine) had a rifle/shotgun and 5 grenades, the likely success of Russian forces in any incursion (short of a nuclear attack, which I presume absurd)
It is not absurd because thermonuclear weapons would provide the highest propability of victory.
It is not absurd because thermonuclear weapons would provide the highest propability of victory.
You think the Russians nuking Ukraine would give them a "win" of some sorts?
That's not even the equivalent of an angry child shutting down a ball game and taking the ball home. Instead it's the equivalent of blowing up everyone in the game to achieve, what, victory?!
That's a completely different discussion, but before branching into that, I would seriously question your sanity.
That's not even the equivalent of an angry child shutting down a ball game and taking the ball home. Instead it's the equivalent of blowing up everyone in the game to achieve, what, victory?!
That's a completely different discussion, but before branching into that, I would seriously question your sanity.
Can't believe this sentiment is somehow popular.
See: Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Palestine, Bosnia etc.
Your described solution will ensure just as much war/suffering as a direct involvement plan would.
let's be honest: no combination of armament OR good will will end this anytime soon.
See: Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Palestine, Bosnia etc.
Your described solution will ensure just as much war/suffering as a direct involvement plan would.
let's be honest: no combination of armament OR good will will end this anytime soon.
The Russians are only allowed to respond (by their government) when their boys come home in body bags. Until then, all wars are "glorious" wars.
If it is apparent that occupying a region will involve hand-to-hand combat (instead of massed artillery/air/rocket attacks) then the Russian soldiers and officers will refrain.
If it is apparent that occupying a region will involve hand-to-hand combat (instead of massed artillery/air/rocket attacks) then the Russian soldiers and officers will refrain.
US and UK asked Ukraine to disarm in exchange for protection. The US should do better to secure the credibility of their diplomatic promises.
The US is not providing protection for Ukraine, nor should they. But they could provide plenty of small arms to Ukrainians.
As a Dutch citizen I would prefer the US not to meddle in our backyard ( again ). Thanks.
As a Dutch citizen you should not forget that Russians already killed 193 citizens of your country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Pa...
I am perfectly aware that we already lost quite some lives due to this conflict.
Calling it "this conflict" creates very vague and misleading message. Calling it what it is makes things much more clear: "we already lost quite some lives due to Russian invasion of Ukraine".
There are many truths, and one of them is the plane should probably not have flown there at the time.
But in NL the focus is on the Russians which conveniently dominates the 'narrative'.
But in NL the focus is on the Russians which conveniently dominates the 'narrative'.
There are no multiple truths in who started the war and who is responsible for it. Suggesting "many truths" follows Russian agenda, which they push in an attempt to justify their crimes.
We (Ukraine) is not your backyard and would appreciate if you man the fuck up and help or at least stop bitching (you are rich enough to survive more expensive gas). Thanks!
They're not meddling into your backyard. Russia is the one who's meddling in our backyards. They have no business with your country.
The Russian soldiers are still inside Russia... can't say the same for NATO.
NATO soldiers are still in NATO countries as opposed to russian agents that seem to have fun doing targeted assassinations and microwaving people's brains outside of Russia
Russian soldiers are still in Moldova (see Transnistria), Georgia (see Abkhazia, Ossetia), Ukraine (Crimea, Donbas), Belarus.
Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, and they still haven't left. You're right that the same can't be said for NATO, but in a totally different sense.
NATO soldiers are inside NATO countries. Poland and Romania are NATO members.
Ami go home!
The Ukrainian government has a... fascinating origin story.
Ever hear people say "oh politicians are just actors reading lines"?
Well, the President of Ukraine is an actual actual comedian and actor. His last acting job was the lead in a series that ran from 2015 to 2019, when he was elected president. The role?
Before his role as president, he and his comedy troupe, Kvartal 95, joked about the Maidan massacre. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33lY5LUPNbE&t=599s
And that's not even the end of the craziness. To win the election, Zelensky had to beat Yulia Tymoshenko. At the last minute, another candidate entered the race, incidentally also called Y. Tymoshenko. So there where 2 Y Tymoshenkos on the ballot, causing confusion and splitting her vote. Leading to a comedian winning the race for president. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yulia_Tymoshenko#2019_presiden...
After being elected, Zelensky said
So, the government of Ukraine is made up of actors, screenwriters, and producers, who's work resembled a post-modern Ukrainian Monty Python. It is like John Cleese started the Monty Python party and got elected.
Ever hear people say "oh politicians are just actors reading lines"?
Well, the President of Ukraine is an actual actual comedian and actor. His last acting job was the lead in a series that ran from 2015 to 2019, when he was elected president. The role?
An ordinary guy rants online about government corruption, goes viral, and is elected President of Ukraine.
Before his role as president, he and his comedy troupe, Kvartal 95, joked about the Maidan massacre. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33lY5LUPNbE&t=599s
And that's not even the end of the craziness. To win the election, Zelensky had to beat Yulia Tymoshenko. At the last minute, another candidate entered the race, incidentally also called Y. Tymoshenko. So there where 2 Y Tymoshenkos on the ballot, causing confusion and splitting her vote. Leading to a comedian winning the race for president. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yulia_Tymoshenko#2019_presiden...
After being elected, Zelensky said
"Don't worry. We will not have nepotism. "
During the first year of Zelensky's presidency, more than 30 people who previously worked for, or with Kvartal 95 or its subsidiaries, received government positions.
Serhiy Trofimov - First Deputy Head of the Administration (Head of the Office) of the President of Ukraine , formerly - Executive Producer of the Quarter 95 Studio;
Yuriy Kostyuk - Deputy Head of the Administration (Head of the Office) of the President of Ukraine , screenwriter and author of the Studio "Quarter 95", creative producer of the series "Servant of the People"
Serhiy Shefir - First Aide to President Zelensky, formerly Screenwriter, Producer and Director of Kvartal 95 Studio;
Iryna Pobedonostseva - Director General of the Directorate for Information Policy of the Office of the President of Ukraine [30] , formerly (according to media reports) - Director of Development of the Studio "Quarter 95";
Ivan Bakanov - Head of the Security Service of Ukraine , formerly a lawyer and head of the Studio "Quarter 95";
So, the government of Ukraine is made up of actors, screenwriters, and producers, who's work resembled a post-modern Ukrainian Monty Python. It is like John Cleese started the Monty Python party and got elected.
To be honest, I'd select a former comedian president over "not former comedian but twice his age && unaware how to use the internet" one
> So there where 2 Y Tymoshenkos on the ballot, causing confusion and splitting her vote. Leading to a comedian winning the race for president.
She got 13.4%, other Tymoshenko got 0.62. Even if you add them she's still in 3rd place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Ukrainian_presidential_el...
She got 13.4%, other Tymoshenko got 0.62. Even if you add them she's still in 3rd place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Ukrainian_presidential_el...
Thanks, I missremembered that aspect of the story. That is interesting, it means he was actually elected organically. What does that say about Ukrainian politics? What does it mean to elect a comedian as your president?
"It is like John Cleese started the Monty Python party and got elected."
To be honest, I would prefer a Monthy Python government.
To be honest, I would prefer a Monthy Python government.
Russia took Crimea in 2014, Russia controls much of Donetsk, Luhansk in the east and 14,000 Ukrainians have died so far. I get a kick out of people who say Russia won't invade. They did!
Putin is like Xi they consider Russians and Chinese to be theirs no matter where they live. War, genocide, the constant harassment will never end until these two are gone.
Putin is like Xi they consider Russians and Chinese to be theirs no matter where they live. War, genocide, the constant harassment will never end until these two are gone.
To everyone here who says about "why does US care at all?":
I want you to remember 1939: everyone pretended nothing happens. Then one day, in 1940, half of the Europe fell, and US had to go for a war, and lose many soldiers.
So, maybe it's rational to care about it now.
I want you to remember 1939: everyone pretended nothing happens. Then one day, in 1940, half of the Europe fell, and US had to go for a war, and lose many soldiers.
So, maybe it's rational to care about it now.
[deleted]
why was that rational for the US in 1944?
In case you are asking why US did actively participate in the WW2 in 1944, then there are a lot of commentaries about this decision in a lot of books.
In simple terms it comes to this: if you have a dictator starting to conquer most of the western world, then you know you are next. It will come for you. So better stop it early while it is still there, outside your continent.
Also please do remember global economy is much more interconnected then you might think. It was back then and it is more so now.
In simple terms it comes to this: if you have a dictator starting to conquer most of the western world, then you know you are next. It will come for you. So better stop it early while it is still there, outside your continent.
Also please do remember global economy is much more interconnected then you might think. It was back then and it is more so now.
I was more interested in artembugara's opinion, why does he think it was rational.
I don't know myself if it was rational. I mean it's expected course of action, but was is rational?
Also your point about a dictator doesn't stand. They tolerated him for the majority of the war and only showed up in 1944 when it was obvious whose side is the winning one.
I don't know myself if it was rational. I mean it's expected course of action, but was is rational?
Also your point about a dictator doesn't stand. They tolerated him for the majority of the war and only showed up in 1944 when it was obvious whose side is the winning one.
If Romania with Poland think that US troops will be of any defensie use for them, they should check how much US pays Cuba for leasing Guantanamo. It's 4000 USD annually. Black site in Poland cost slightly more but it's a matter of time.
Except Cuba hasn’t cashed any of those checks since Castro came to power, so the effective price is $0.
What other options do you suggest Romania and Poland should consider?
They are stuck with Cold War thinking "it's either Russia or USA". Otherwise I have no idea or an easy answear.
> They are stuck with Cold War thinking "it's either Russia or USA".
While those countries were busy getting into EU and NATO in nineties, we (Ukraine) were stuck with president that pushed for what he called "multivector" international politics, which basically meant doing nothing in particular and trying to be friendly with everyone else (while plundering the country of course, since there was no external pressure for reforms, like wannabe-EU countries had). Looks like Romania and Poland were right all along, don't you think?
While those countries were busy getting into EU and NATO in nineties, we (Ukraine) were stuck with president that pushed for what he called "multivector" international politics, which basically meant doing nothing in particular and trying to be friendly with everyone else (while plundering the country of course, since there was no external pressure for reforms, like wannabe-EU countries had). Looks like Romania and Poland were right all along, don't you think?
I dare to claim that this would work out pretty well for Ukraine if they hadn't give away their nuclear weapons [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
Actually, nuclear weapons were too costly for Ukraine to afford during the nineties and were unfit to deter Russia (they were long range and could only threaten Russian far east), so threat of nuking Moscow was never viable deterrence even if we ignore the economical aspect.
Would be interesting to see how US would react to Russia sending military troops into a neighboring country like Mexico or Canada at the request of their governments. Those countries would be threatened by the United States similarly or even more aggressively than the Russians have acted toward Ukraine.
US involvement in Ukraine is most likely going to make matters worse.
US involvement in Ukraine is most likely going to make matters worse.
The US desperately, desperately needs a way to distract the world's attention when China annexes Taiwan and gets away with it. They need answers when people ask "what were you doing?" and "why did you let this happen?"
A war with Russia fits the bill.
A war with Russia fits the bill.
> They need answers when people ask "what were you doing?" and "why did you let this happen?"
Americans aren't going to ask those questions - Americans rarely if ever ask those questions about terrible things their government lets happen (or instigates) on their own soil, and when they do, the US never sees serious consequences.
The rest of the world can ask that question, but Americans don't care about that at all. They just had a populist revolution where they tried to burn every bridge and treaty they had with their allies and retreat from the world stage entirely. That "America first, America best" attitude hasn't gone away just because a Democrat is currently in charge.
Letting China annex Taiwan would absolutely be something the US government could weather, easily.
>A war with Russia fits the bill.
No it doesn't. People aren't goldfish - even if the US and Russia go to war, everyone is going to notice China annexing Taiwan. Media is still going to report on it. Governments are still going to react to it.
Americans aren't going to ask those questions - Americans rarely if ever ask those questions about terrible things their government lets happen (or instigates) on their own soil, and when they do, the US never sees serious consequences.
The rest of the world can ask that question, but Americans don't care about that at all. They just had a populist revolution where they tried to burn every bridge and treaty they had with their allies and retreat from the world stage entirely. That "America first, America best" attitude hasn't gone away just because a Democrat is currently in charge.
Letting China annex Taiwan would absolutely be something the US government could weather, easily.
>A war with Russia fits the bill.
No it doesn't. People aren't goldfish - even if the US and Russia go to war, everyone is going to notice China annexing Taiwan. Media is still going to report on it. Governments are still going to react to it.
[deleted]
This is a scenario I’ve pondered. Not as an excuse for the USA, but as a sure what if?
Say Russia decides their new hypersonic system, that new nuclear torpedo, and their newest tanks are ready, and they decide the odds of WW3 are in their favour, and they annex the entire Ukraine, or the unrest in Kazakstan turns into an occupation and pseudo-annexation with the government taking orders from Russia in order to keep Russian troops maintains order, betting the USA/NATO won’t pull the trigger. Ok, so this probably provokes a reaction, and simultaneously emboldens China, making the move immediately doesn’t make sense but it’s likely to encourage them to begin a buildup. If “full out” fighting begins in the former Soviet states does this represent the opportunity to launch a flash invasion? What tools do China have to rapidly deploy their forces? Do they need to soften up the entire island or can they pull off “D-Day, Blitzkrieg remix, Feat. China” with the first major action being troops on the beach within the same hour they hit coastal defences?
It’s an interesting scenario from a game theory and war planning standpoint, and one I suspect the USA is gaming out a lot lately.
Say Russia decides their new hypersonic system, that new nuclear torpedo, and their newest tanks are ready, and they decide the odds of WW3 are in their favour, and they annex the entire Ukraine, or the unrest in Kazakstan turns into an occupation and pseudo-annexation with the government taking orders from Russia in order to keep Russian troops maintains order, betting the USA/NATO won’t pull the trigger. Ok, so this probably provokes a reaction, and simultaneously emboldens China, making the move immediately doesn’t make sense but it’s likely to encourage them to begin a buildup. If “full out” fighting begins in the former Soviet states does this represent the opportunity to launch a flash invasion? What tools do China have to rapidly deploy their forces? Do they need to soften up the entire island or can they pull off “D-Day, Blitzkrieg remix, Feat. China” with the first major action being troops on the beach within the same hour they hit coastal defences?
It’s an interesting scenario from a game theory and war planning standpoint, and one I suspect the USA is gaming out a lot lately.
An autocrat who struggles to remain in power buys his military’s backing with a higher budget. The way to do that is to threaten, posture, and trigger aggression elsewhere. Not sure how well Russia’s economy is doing during COVID, but they’ve been posturing with incessant propaganda against US, NATO, EU, vaccines and COVID measures all over social media in Eastern European NATO countries since the Obama sanctions, and even worse during Trump. They blame the west for all economic issues caused by COVID and now by Biden’s presidency they have installed some pro-Putin leaders as a result of the discontent. COVID may be an opportunity or pressure point causing these actions (less aggression-prone western allies with more internal issues).
The bigger issue is the timing of aggressive standing not just in Ukraine, but also in Taiwan. If one is invaded and NATO/US gets busy, what stops the other one from triggering to take advantage of the distraction? If US has a weak response and the smaller NATO members get stomped anywhere, that could put fissures in NATO and embolden both aggressors to take over their juicy bites.
The bigger issue is the timing of aggressive standing not just in Ukraine, but also in Taiwan. If one is invaded and NATO/US gets busy, what stops the other one from triggering to take advantage of the distraction? If US has a weak response and the smaller NATO members get stomped anywhere, that could put fissures in NATO and embolden both aggressors to take over their juicy bites.
And before somebody comments that the pro-russian propaganda is just a feeling of said nations, let's mention quickly that the propaganda networks were outed as either troll farms or as Sputnik-funded social constructs. Not denying that the found some "useful idiots" in some countries, but still the bulk is coming from abroad.
Good. Send'em in. The Polish and Romanian militaries are waiting to work together with US troops.
However, imagine if Russia sent 5k troops to Cuba. How would US react?
There would be a GoFundMe to buy them waterwings.
By strongly worded diplomatic language. Military movement. Why? This is a recurring argument but a really weird one.
Everyone will always move their troops in response to movement of everyone else’s. There is tension and diplomacy.
Everyone will always move their troops in response to movement of everyone else’s. There is tension and diplomacy.
I mean Russia sent nuclear missiles to Cuba.
That was the USSR, though, not Russia.
It's funny how people think there's any distinction between the two. There's not, their geopolitical interests are the same.
Geopolitical interests are similar, but USSR was a much more mighty beast geopolitically than Russia is currently, if only due to having Ukraine and Central Asia as core territory, and allies/vassals (puppets...) in Eastern Europe.
Of course, 2022 has no comparison with 1982 technologically, but...
(Also, USSR was "stuck" funding a lot of unprofitable agents and countries abroad, while Russia's main expenditure geopolitically, other than influencing Germany/France/EU, is Syria.)
Of course, 2022 has no comparison with 1982 technologically, but...
(Also, USSR was "stuck" funding a lot of unprofitable agents and countries abroad, while Russia's main expenditure geopolitically, other than influencing Germany/France/EU, is Syria.)
It's funny how little things change over the long term. Russia and China are still essentially the same empires they've been for centuries, perhaps in slightly different clothing - the attitudes are unchanged.
Ukraine would not be in this situation if they had not relinquished their nukes
It is good Ukraine is not in NATO - saves us all from actually having to put Article 5 to the test over a place no one in the West really cares that much about (sorry Ukraine)
It is good Ukraine is not in NATO - saves us all from actually having to put Article 5 to the test over a place no one in the West really cares that much about (sorry Ukraine)
Ukraine relinquished their nukes in an exchange for a legal written promise from the US, the UK and Russia itself to respect borders and sovereignty of Ukraine.
I think it's important to remember Biden's support for the Iraq war
> “I do not believe this is a rush to war,” Biden said a few days before the vote. “I believe it is a march to peace and security. I believe that failure to overwhelmingly support this resolution is likely to enhance the prospects that war will occur …”
I wonder if this is a reckless decision. Maybe he takes the easy way out too easily. It certainly seems like too many drums have been drumming a little too loud for proportion.
> “I do not believe this is a rush to war,” Biden said a few days before the vote. “I believe it is a march to peace and security. I believe that failure to overwhelmingly support this resolution is likely to enhance the prospects that war will occur …”
I wonder if this is a reckless decision. Maybe he takes the easy way out too easily. It certainly seems like too many drums have been drumming a little too loud for proportion.
The only thing worse than an intentional war, is an accidental one. Misread radars, misunderstood orders, miscommunicated diplomacy, when staff is being asked to work overtime and under stress... these are not the types of situations you want your ICBM defense infrastructure to be dealing with.
While it makes sense to increase the defensive capabilities of NATO members while Russia is invading a neighboring nation, it would be better to deploy NATO forces to these eastern nations AFTER the Ukraine invasion is complete or called off.
I hope the Biden administration appreciates the massive risks involved in this situation, and generally keeps NATO assets away from the conflict zone. Having US soldiers 80 miles from St Petersburg and 350 miles from Moscow will raise alarm bells in Moscow, while also flying USAF drones inside Ukrainian, and USAF and US Navy planes/ships operating in the Chorne Sea between to Ukraine and Russian forces are extremely high risk situations on the eve of war.
While it makes sense to increase the defensive capabilities of NATO members while Russia is invading a neighboring nation, it would be better to deploy NATO forces to these eastern nations AFTER the Ukraine invasion is complete or called off.
I hope the Biden administration appreciates the massive risks involved in this situation, and generally keeps NATO assets away from the conflict zone. Having US soldiers 80 miles from St Petersburg and 350 miles from Moscow will raise alarm bells in Moscow, while also flying USAF drones inside Ukrainian, and USAF and US Navy planes/ships operating in the Chorne Sea between to Ukraine and Russian forces are extremely high risk situations on the eve of war.
Russia doesn't like EU-ification of their bordering nations afaik. EU doesn't like Russia-oriented border nations? Or they want to expand? Not sure actually. I though we didn't want Ukraine in the EU?
Anyway, can't we just talk about this?
And we all know what the US has got to do with this (LNG vs Russian Gas, Dollar vs Euro, divide and concur, the empire first, etc.) but: What does the US have to do with this? I mean officially, what do they tell the rest of us? I don't even know. Can I please have a vote, as an EU citizen? I vote "Talk".
Anyway, can't we just talk about this?
And we all know what the US has got to do with this (LNG vs Russian Gas, Dollar vs Euro, divide and concur, the empire first, etc.) but: What does the US have to do with this? I mean officially, what do they tell the rest of us? I don't even know. Can I please have a vote, as an EU citizen? I vote "Talk".
A lot of US politicians are involved in the Ukrainian energy and gas industry since Euromaidan (see Burisma for example). Their support for increasing gas transit tariffs caused huge increases in energy prices in Europe recently, and is why Russia has built Nord Stream 2.
The US wants to keep Europe isolated from Russia and have some control via Ukraine. They make millions off the tariffs whilst we struggle to afford electricity.
As a fellow EU citizen, I wish we could have a peaceful disarmament. Have the US withdraw its military bases from Europe, stop funding and arming extremist militias in Ukraine, stop interfering in Nord Stream 2, etc. and abolish NATO. Whilst Russia could also stop funding separatists and allow Ukraine to join the EU, and the EU could permit Nord Stream 2 and form a self-defence force.
The US wants to keep Europe isolated from Russia and have some control via Ukraine. They make millions off the tariffs whilst we struggle to afford electricity.
As a fellow EU citizen, I wish we could have a peaceful disarmament. Have the US withdraw its military bases from Europe, stop funding and arming extremist militias in Ukraine, stop interfering in Nord Stream 2, etc. and abolish NATO. Whilst Russia could also stop funding separatists and allow Ukraine to join the EU, and the EU could permit Nord Stream 2 and form a self-defence force.
You won't have a peaceful anything with Russia. So stop sponsoring their weapons programme with gas purchases. The US wants to keep the EU out of Russian influence and medding. Eastern Europe has been under Soviet influence for 50 years. No more!
Almost nobody wants to live in Putin's sphere of influence (for obvious reasons: economy, freedom). While Russia and Belarus are dictatorships, Ukraine is a democracy with free elections. What is there to "talk" about?
I mean talk with Putin (as EU): "WTF are you doing? Yes we'll get that NordStream2 going our citizens want it too. It's just those Americans that aren't playing nice but we need them. Still, let's talk economic relations that benefit both countries. Yes we understand that after the fall of the wall your country was a mess and you never want to go back to that type of 'democracy', but you know, maybe it's time now... Or when do you think it's time? let's talk about it. Yes you have to keep those oligarchs that just grabbed wealth for years after the fall of the wall happy. We understand, but hey, they'll die soon enough."
Russia is way less worried about EU-expansion, than it is about NATO expansion. From their perspective, Nato got closer and closer encirceling their heartland.
(but their perspective does not usually include, why all those former sowjet satellites want to join Nato)
(but their perspective does not usually include, why all those former sowjet satellites want to join Nato)
Draw out Russia’s borders, mark the sections that are part of this “encirclement”, and it becomes a pretty absurd claim at a glance.
Not if you consider, that the main developed parts of russia - their heartland, are on the european side, west of the ural.
So that claim is valid, but I still do not think it is up to russia to decide, which military alliance their sovereign neighbors join.
So that claim is valid, but I still do not think it is up to russia to decide, which military alliance their sovereign neighbors join.
So the US wouldn't mind if Mexico and Canada joined some China-Russia-Iran military alliance? It's up to them to decide? I don't understand how people can be this naive.
The US surely would mind.
"I don't understand how people can be this naive."
But it is true, that idealism is often labeled as naive.
Because seriously? Why is it naive being against any type of imperialism? I can and do criticize imperialist behavior in russia, china, US, EU strongarming smaller nations ... equally.
"I don't understand how people can be this naive."
But it is true, that idealism is often labeled as naive.
Because seriously? Why is it naive being against any type of imperialism? I can and do criticize imperialist behavior in russia, china, US, EU strongarming smaller nations ... equally.
People can want whatever they want but to expect any state to behave differently in this situation is certainly naive.
States are made up of people, so it does matter what people want. But yes, it seems that imperialism is still a wanted concept.
> States are made up of people, so it does matter what people want.
The naivety continues. The biggest protests ever held in multiple countries didn't stop any states from invading Iraq. Both a priori and empirically, almost all inhabitants of almost all states have almost zero say in how they behave in foreign policy. Second of all, this is emergent behavior. States act in their own self-interest using the power that they have to enforce their security, it is their raison d'être. Those that abnegate quickly cease to exist, so by selection bias no alternatives exist for long.
The naivety continues. The biggest protests ever held in multiple countries didn't stop any states from invading Iraq. Both a priori and empirically, almost all inhabitants of almost all states have almost zero say in how they behave in foreign policy. Second of all, this is emergent behavior. States act in their own self-interest using the power that they have to enforce their security, it is their raison d'être. Those that abnegate quickly cease to exist, so by selection bias no alternatives exist for long.
I did not say, all people are equal in terms of power. But the masses do have power.
"The biggest protests ever held in multiple countries didn't stop any states from invading Iraq"
In germany for example, we had big mass protests - and we did not join the iraq adventure (despite the government was willing to do so).
"The biggest protests ever held in multiple countries didn't stop any states from invading Iraq"
In germany for example, we had big mass protests - and we did not join the iraq adventure (despite the government was willing to do so).
"As far as military intervention against Iraq goes, I believe we should be restrained. That means that Germany will not participate," Schroeder told ARD television [on August 9, 2002][1].
The larger protests weren't until 2003.[2][3]
1. https://us.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/08/09/iraq.britain/inde...
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_prot...
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War
The larger protests weren't until 2003.[2][3]
1. https://us.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/08/09/iraq.britain/inde...
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_prot...
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War
Because they could read polls before - but without the mass protests, they likely would have went with the alliance.
[deleted]
Mind? Sure.
Have a right to say “no” (by preemptively invading Canada, for example)? Nope.
Have a right to say “no” (by preemptively invading Canada, for example)? Nope.
> Have a right to say “no” (by preemptively invading Canada, for example)? Nope.
Except that's exactly what they would do, because these "rights" aren't real, just figments of people's imagination cut off from how things actually work.
Except that's exactly what they would do, because these "rights" aren't real, just figments of people's imagination cut off from how things actually work.