For what reason? There's no upside for the US. Russia overtly wants a protected hegemonic sphere of influence in Eastern Europe — heck, it expressly uses the idea of such a fear as it's argument, and it's propaganda proxies invoke the idea of a parallel US sphere in North America as a defense — and overtly wants NATO not merely not to expand to include Ukraine but to withdraw troops (and demonstrate a lack of security commitment) to other Eastern European states to facilitate that hegemonic sphere.
Russia is the only side with anything to gain by war (establishing a Ukrainian puppet state) or it's threat (getting NATO to back off and enable Russian hegemony in Eastern Europe beyond Ukraine.)
It’s also the only side doing anything threatening. The US has moved forces too small to be anything but tripwire forces against conflict spilling out of Ukraine to other Eastern European allies, while pulling trainers and civilians out of Ukraine with the overt explanation that it is doing so because military intervention to extract them in the event of an invasion would lead to a world war. It is doing everything possible (including not mobilizing forces that would give it credible capacity to intervene) to indicate that it will not fight Russia, not only not aggressively, but also that it won't allow itself to be drawn into conflict if Russia invades Ukraine. Russia, on the other hand, has stripped the entire country to deploy essentially the entire combat power of it's military exactly where you’d want it for an invasion of Ukraine, and unleashed propaganda about whose fault it will be if it chooses to use it.
It is pretty clear who wants war.
Also, the US always has a lot to gain through war, or even the threats thereof. Even though no war has been declared, loads of expensive military equipment has been sold and shipped to the front lines just because of this saber-rattling exercise. The revolving door between the boards of Raytheon and Lockheed, lobbyist groups, and the cabinets of elected politicians means someone in a position of power always stands to gain from keeping the arms trade rolling.
The corporate media has always played lackey to those interests, and this time is no different. That can be true AND the fact that Russia is behaving aggressively can also be true at the same time.
At least one book have been written on this.
USA has compliant neighbours that if necessary, they can crush, easy peasy. Then it's surrounded by two oceans. Transit across the pacific for a US carrier group is around 7 days.
Latvia and Estonia, NATO members, shares land borders with Russia. Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey, also NATO members, have coasts on the Black Sea, right around the area.
Last time the US has anything to worry about hostile military hardware on its doorsteps was in the 60s.
No one, among the prime actors, wants war. What they all want is for the other side to back down.
The danger is that this doesn't happen before Putin runs out of non-military options. Doesn't happen before the ground turns to mud, troops get tired of sleeping in tents, fresh blood stocks go stale.
Either Zelenskyy or Biden needs to find his inner adult, and announce that Ukraine won't be joining NATO any time that's on his own watch. Soon.
Putin has the non-military option of being the one to back down.
> Either Zelenskyy or Biden needs to find his inner adult, and announce that Ukraine won't be joining NATO any time that's on his own watch.
NATO hasn't even approved admitting Ukraine to the Membership Action Plan; it's pretty clear that they have no near term prospects for membership. What Russia wants is more NATO abandonment of existing members.
"It’s also the only side doing anything threatening." NATO and US forces have been creeping up since 30 years and the buffer zone that once existed is pretty much gone short of Belarus. I'm not rooting for Russia but I can see why they are on edge given the history and tactics of the US.
There is often a complete lack of seeing things from the Russian perspective.
...you say after rephrasing the exact hegemonic sphere of influence argument described as the Russian goal in the post you are responding to.
Understanding why Putin wants Lebensraum doesn't make that desire a justification for invading and occupying neighbors anymore than understanding why Hitler wanted it did.
(And understanding that the US committed unjustified aggression in Iraq in 2003 doesn't justify Russian aggression against Ukraine because yada yada NATO yada yada in the same way that Iraq’s aggression in 1990 doesn't justify aggression against them directly, not merely someone connected by alliance, in 2003.)
Even if one were to agree that that were true, it wouldn't be a justification. Customary international law, the UN Charter, and the multilateral treaty Russia signed on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine do not admit to any “unless they make friends with people we don’t like” exception.
Whataboutism—and even moreso hypothetical counterfactual whataboutism—doesn’t change that. This is an extension of the ongoing crime of aggression being committed by Russia against Ukraine, for which Russia is solely responsible and culpable.
It's a great distraction.
War would exacerbate that.
> energy prices 5 year highs,
War would really exacerbate that and it's the single strongest economic force, historically, against the party of the sitting President.
> ridiculous levels of govt debt,
While the GOP wants to make that a narrative (as they usually do when out of power, despite running it up when in power), it doesn't really seem to be working, so I don't think anyone cares about distracting from it. (And certainly not the GOP.)
> Pres polls in toilet with midterm elections approaching.
Yes, I’m sure that’s why leading members of the GOP in Congress and GOP-aligned media are pushing for a firm stand and that “Congress must do more” on Russia, they are desperately worried to get the attention off the President’s sagging approval numbers.
If this was the runup to the NATO-Yugoslavia war in the 1990s, the wag-the-dog domestic politics argument would at least make some sense, and be consistent with the domestic alignment of views, but for that to work in this case you have to think that both the major parties want—enough to start a war— to get people's minds off a bunch of things that (1) are very good for one of those parties, (2) about half of which would be intensified by war.
And that, in pursuit of getting this US-involved war of distraction started, they are carefully pulling US civilians and troops out of Ukraine so that there is no excuse for the US to get involved even if a war does start there, while deploying US troops in numbers FAR too small to meaningfully intervene in Ukraine, but far too large for the message to be missed by Russia, to neighboring NATO countries to deter any action beyond Ukraine that would oblige US involvement under the terms of the Washington Treaty.
At any rate, USA was a net energy exporter until a year ago.
Quick solution is to withdraw from NATO so Europe can grow up and fund it's own defense.
> For what reason? There's no upside for the US.
No net upside probably, but there might be some small positives for the US. Here's an argument for one:
"The Crisis in Ukraine Is Not About Ukraine. It's About Germany"
https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/the-crisis-in-ukraine-is-not-ab...
You might justifiably disagree with almost all the suppositions in this article, but I think it is correct to say that the US does not want the Nord Stream II pipeline to become operational. If Russia invades, the US would have a good excuse to block the pipeline a part of the imposed sanctions. I doubt the US policy is as focused on achieving this as the article implies, but it would be an upside.
It’s really not the same at all. Even supposing the rest of what you said was true…all Russia needs to do is just: not invade a sovereign country.
They don’t have to prove a negative. They just have to not use their military to invade.
This isn’t an unfalsifiable causus belli like Iraqs WMDs.
At this point it probably doesn't even mater if Russia invades, according to these news channels Russia will be sanctioned.
How do you find diplomatic solutions like that?
Um, yeah, it has. (See Crimea, Donbas, etc.)
After pretty similar denials of intent to invade to those it has recently made about its intent to further invade.
That's part of the credibility problem.
The local Swiss news are more cautious as to what they say and there is also a feeling of that there is still hope of preventing this war.
Like all conflicts this is an extremely complex situation and the US painting it black and white is neither right nor a way to find a peaceful solution.
Whatever Putin's ultimate goals, I think NATO has already accepted they are fait accompli, but will still pump out some empty rhetoric to quell their conscience.
Any sanctions down the road will be a joke, Europe is too reliant on Russian gas to do more than sabre rattling.
Is this on the record? Haven't heard them affirm it publicly.
Macron is calling for a new security order in Europe that doesn’t involve NATO, and has been working to that end. He seeks appeasement and has been meeting and speaking with Putin directly. If Russia annexes Ukraine I’m sure he’ll speak out against it, but that’s all it seems he’ll do.
That’s only my take at least, based on reading major US/EU news sites.
The not existing one you mean?