U.S. weighs sending 5k troops to Eastern Europe to counter Russia
npr.org
npr.org
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Which is the ironie in this whole topic - he was caught in pakistan.
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?
Possibly because of a certain Atlantic defense treaty.
There aren't any meaningfull ongoing talks: the Russians are threatening full invasion of Ukraine and other countries are reacting. That's it really.
> 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.
As far as everything I've seen indicates, they're speaking continuously.[1]
[1] https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/eu-says-...
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.
0, https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/hungarys-orba...
Nato cannot rely on these countries against Russian threat.
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.
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 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".
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...
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!
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.
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.
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 ).
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?
US interference in the case of gas is trying to ensure alternative supplies for the EU, either American LNG or from Qatar.
> Nato cannot rely on these countries against Russian threat.
I think that's a big stretch.
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.
François Fillon (Prime Minister of France from 2007 to 2012) is a board member of SIBUR, the largest petrochemical Russian company.
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.
There are zero US interests to protect in and around Ukraine, so all of this looks like unwarranted poking of a lion/shark/whatever.
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.
And they do try (and succeed) all the time: Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, South Osetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria.
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.
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
That doesn't explain it. Is any of the NATO countries under threat?
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 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.
"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...
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.
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.
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.
Only Ukraine, Belarus, and the Republic of Moldova aren't part of NATO.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Of course it's unfortunate even a single American has to be here.
Lack of faith in article 5 would hurt American influence and interest across the globe.
Yes, the US stands to benefit.
In practice, I think it's all about proving that NATO stands united, and that war is generally undesirable.
And I suppose you promise not to call them Nazis if they do?
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?
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
If war starts, securing water supply to Crimea is one of the first steps they would do.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
* 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.
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.
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.
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?
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 agree, but you know what? The best feints are the believable ones, and even moving 100k troops is cheaper than actually engaging in war.
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.
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.
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?
Also, Biden's "minor incursion is one thing" remarks kinda opens the door to explore this "thing" a bit further.
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.
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.
Last time (Crimea 2014) it greatly improved Putin political position within Russia.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
And, lastly, probably good old fashion Russian incremental expansionism.
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).
Yes, there were deployments previously, but never this size.
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.
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...
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.
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
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.
1. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-reach-over-12000...
For comparison the whole Zapad excercise was ~30 trains.
But aside that - for all the usual power reasons. Distract fromm inner problems, covid, economy, opposition, ...
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.
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.
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!
They did invade: Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Was not a suicide for Putin, quite contrary, his political position within Russia has greatly improved.
They occupied the territory first and then conducted the "referendum" to make it "legal". Don't buy this horsesht.
Ok stop. This isn’t intellectually honest argumentation.
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.
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.
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
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
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).
> 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.
https://www.graphicnews.com/en/pages/41632/military-us-troop...
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-))
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.
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.
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.
It is not absurd because thermonuclear weapons would provide the highest propability of victory.
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.
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.
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.
But in NL the focus is on the Russians which conveniently dominates the 'narrative'.
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.
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...
To be honest, I would prefer a Monthy Python government.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
US involvement in Ukraine is most likely going to make matters worse.
A war with Russia fits the bill.
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.
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.
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.
Everyone will always move their troops in response to movement of everyone else’s. There is tension and diplomacy.
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 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)
> “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.
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.
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".
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.
(but their perspective does not usually include, why all those former sowjet satellites want to join Nato)
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.
"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.
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.