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.
Which is the ironie in this whole topic - he was caught in pakistan.
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.
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-...
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.
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.
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...
0, https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/hungarys-orba...
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.
Nato cannot rely on these countries against Russian threat.
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.
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".
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.
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.
or ... perhaps ... posturing like gorillas beating their chests in front of the home of a nuclear armed and scared ape can have catastrophic consequences
But not posturing could be worse. It's worse if Russia can't predict our response.
[0] https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russi...
That just does not prove NATO agreed not to expand.
on the other hand, russia was attacked multiple times by western european countries and lost millions of its citizens. i think their unease at an alliamce which you yourself say is hostile, is justified
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.
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 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.
US interference in the case of gas is trying to ensure alternative supplies for the EU, either American LNG or from Qatar.
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?
> Nato cannot rely on these countries against Russian threat.
I think that's a big stretch.
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
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.
That doesn't explain it. Is any of the NATO countries under threat?
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.
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.
"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...
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?
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.
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.
In practice, I think it's all about proving that NATO stands united, and that war is generally undesirable.
Lack of faith in article 5 would hurt American influence and interest across the globe.
Yes, the US stands to benefit.
And I suppose you promise not to call them Nazis if they do?