Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4
twitter.com
twitter.com
People are minimizing this, based on the word "consultation". Don't be fooled, this is grave news, even though it is not Article 5. Article 5 invocation under these circumstances have substantial risk of full scale thermonuclear exchange.
Since this is a hot war waged by Russia that is neighboring 4 NATO members, it seems as though you are a bit more a casual than would be appropriate. Your comments about nuclear war are not comforting.
All nuclear weapons are fission. Only newer ones are fusion boosted fission devices.
I assure you, there is more than enough nuclear ordinance laying around to ensure WWIV is fought with sticks and stones.
You do not want.
Also, the world's a big place, even though the internet has made it seem small.
Yes, I understand it'd be nice to watch a good fee choice chunks burn... But I really don't think anyone is prepared for the hell on Earth of a full strategic nuclear exchange.
This hasn't been true since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
A full scale nuclear exchange ends with the annihilation of both sides. [1]
To quote WarGames, "The only way to win is not to play".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
Not even remotely true. Demonstrably. The worst thing on the table right now are economic sanctions. Putin knew these were going to happen, and evidently thought the trouble was worth it.
In fact, over the past few weeks, the major powers have confirmed over and over and over again that there would be no military response at all.
A limited nuclear exchange will likely kill millions of people.
Me being old enough to buy lottery tickets means that me winning the lottery three times in a row is possible. The probability of that is very low.
There is nothing to suggest that the probability of a full-scale nuclear exchange is now higher than before. In fact, given that all major powers have already ruled out a military response, the probability might even be lower.
> You just need one crazy party.
No, you need an entire crazy command-and-control structure.
Let's just say the topic of "probable" hasn't the best track record right now and still hope for the best.
To what end?
If Russia wants more territory they presumably care about the future. Why conquer all this territory just to blow up the world? Sounds like a waste of time.
The scariest situation is one nuke. How do you respond? One nuke back or two? Then things escalate quickly.
But I don’t see either country launching their full nuke arsenal unprovoked with their homeland not under any immediate danger. That’s just a death wish. And at that point there’s no one left to brag to about how great your country is.
"I won" regardless of having someone to brag to, is still a motivating force I fear.
The military operation by Russia is alarming.
The Article 4 invocation is not.
It was always wrong to accept this pipeline, it was purely political.
Now I also hope the US will stop all oil imports from Russia as well if not already done so.
We need to cut off Russia from every single international penny and influence.
In Germany, we can substitute the gas pipeline with LNG terminals accepting gas from various countries, including the US. At least until we further increase energy independence. Only bureaucracy and politics are in the way. Get them out of the way.
The whole Nord Stream 2 thing is pathetic. Ex-German chancellor Shroeder is on its board of directors. And Germany kinda plays on Russian side here a little, doing nothing but supportive words. If they agree with Russia to split Poland again, I wouldn't be surprised.
Let's keep things civil and in the realms of sanity, can we please.
EDIT: Up again!
---
[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20220223210344/https://liveuamap...
Russia’s exports are >50% oil and gas products.
The biggest retaliation the West can make right now is a commitment to a rapid exit at unprecedented speed from the oil economy, in favor of renewables.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/23/europe-winter-...
-Nordstream 2 has a capacity to transport 55 billion cubic meters per year[1]
-The biggest LNG transport ship "Mozah" built by Samsung Heavy Industries can transport a equivalent of ~162 million cubic meters in a single load
This leads to a ~339,5 full loads per year needed to replace the pipeline volume. Nordstream 2 probably wouldn't run at full capacity initially but even at 50% utilisation it would be nearly impossibe to replace it with shipping.
I'd speculate the whole action is to force the West to a new deal with Russia, so they can balance China.
Are you talking the PLC or the Nazis?
If they are serious about partnering with the west, they should have embraced reforms and become a member of NATO. The fact that they haven't is indicative of Putin's plan to counter the west. It's more likely they will partner with China just because Putin isn't thinking beyond that. He's 70 after all and they have no effective playbook against China (ala Foundation of Geopolitics against the west).
They tried that in the 90s. There are two problems. They don't want to be a colony for Western powers. Russia is a collection of a few different nations. You have to hold it by a strong hand, otherwise you have a civil war e.g. Chechnya.
So they want to do it now on partner relations with Europe. Russia will provide, natural resources, transportation link to Asia, you can relocate polluting factories to Siberia, you get access to our market and labor. Also, you we will provide security and balance China. You don't need those pesky Americans. In return Russia wants, capital, tech and modernisation of the country.
So Europeans, do you want EU from Lisbon to Vladivostok or war?
trains and artic route.
The USSR lost the cold war. The fact that they want to have their cake and eat it too is the root of the issue. The compromise to be admitted into the western system is actually pretty mild, and there are many strong nations within the western framework. Russia would have no problems operating on a similar level as Japan or France if they gave up their desire for geopolitical hegemony.
I think any trust that Russia still enjoyed in the west is gone as of today. A few days ago the official Russian position was "Nobody is planning an invasion of Ukraine." Today, Russia has invaded Ukraine. This is not how you make deals.
I thought Putin was doing the show of power for domestic consumption where he'd embarass the West by actually withdrawing the armies slightly after he promised and it'd all end in a summit with both sides claiming they 'won', but he's gone well beyond that now.
Europe is easy to bully, it doesn't have a single voice and its pretty predictable which parts will have competing interests. China is not. Russia will lose a lot of its independence if it becomes beholden to China. That would be a bad endgame.
Europe is also beholden to public opinion that does not want increased energy prices. China doesn't care about that.
The major point of Nord Stream 2 was to remove this PoF.
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/average-annua...
> No sane country builds new energy infrastructure not firmly anchored in renewables today.
Eh??
"China Is Planning to Build 43 New Coal-Fired Power Plants"
https://time.com/6090732/china-coal-power-plants-emissions/
"China, India, Indonesia, Japan and Vietnam plan to build more than 600 coal power units"
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/30/five-asi...
"COP26 aims to banish coal. Asia is building hundreds of power plants to burn it"
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/cop26-aims-banish-co...
There only is "China pledges to stop building new coal energy plants abroad" -- the last word matters.
We should be honest to ourselves - short of Western citizens dying on the battlefield, there's nothing of consequence the West can do. Russia exploited our weaknesses really well - our irrational hesitance of nuclear energy, our greenwashing of natural gas, our love for petrol-guzzling SUVs, kowtowing of our financial system to ultra-rich, profit-uber-alles of our corporations, hypocrisy of our diplomacy, etc.
That the US in particular has been extremely late to the table is unfortunate but hey - what else do you expect when policy is bought and paid for by incumbents and one of the to political parties are 100% owned by Fossil interests.
Try at least 2-3 decades.
Personally I'm still a firm believer in nuclear power.
For example, the Blue Castle project in Utah (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Castle_Project) started on the drawing board in 2007, started looking for contractors in 2016, hopes to start construction in 2023 and hopes to be fully operational in 2030. That is if construction is not delayed in any way, which seems unlikely given the schedule so far tbh.
The US alone has over 200 coal plants operating today, so even if the new nuclear plant would be on average twice as large you would need more than a hundred new nuclear power plants. It seems wildly unlikely that they could be constructed within three decades.
Also that is in the US alone, a country with a relatively large knowledge base surrounding all things nuclear. Most of the rest of the world has no chance of replacing even a fraction of their power generation needs with nuclear, so for them renewables will be the way to go.
But if they cared, they should be able to.
For instance in france’s energy budget nat gas is almost as large as the entire electricity production. The policy over the last few decades has been to put everyone on gas distribution networks and encourage switching furnaces (from furnace oil, tbf).
Even assuming all the gas plants are simple cycle peaking plants with horrid efficiency (say 20% which is extremely low even for peaking plants), electricity still would account for about 40% of germany’s nat gas consumption.
In reality, much as in france, the vast majority (~75%) of nat gas goes to heating.
Hopefully other sanctions will also help. Cutting them off from the international banking system, for example.
But when the plants already exist and you shut them down because the Japanese decided to build one in a tsunami-prone seismic zone, hire a corrupt organization to operate it well beyond its intended service life, and install backup generators in the basement, or because the Soviets built one and operated it under the "Hold my vodka and watch THIS" school of engineering, well... those just aren't good reasons, and also not the kind of thinking I expect from the Germans.
France's modern plants should help, but they won't come online for years.
I am hopeful about sanctions but I am afraid Germans won't allow ones that actually work.
Just look at Austria, very rich but obviously Russian run EU country. (latest prime minister got fired by Russians even though Russia cyberarmy helped him win the elections. They decided he was no longer as compliant, so they leaked data many years after elections, Russian scandals several years before that etc.). Raiffeisen bank in Austria, basically launders money for Russians over the last several decades, with no consequences to the chief officers.
Hungary is another good example.
Another Austrian neighbor, Croatia, not rich, and less influenced by Russians, had one of the biggest scandals ever when the biggest privately owned company in the Balkans (owned by a Croatian), that employs a massive amounts of Croatians, went bankrupt and could have been acquired by creditors (Sberbank and VTB Bank). I guess there was not enough Russian influence in politics and Croatian government put a new law immediately, so that this kind of takeover does not happen (Croatia nationalized the company).
Russia has quite a large reach into EU.
Actual source? This "russian disinformation" and "russian election manipulation" has zero credibility if you read and listen to anything other than CNN at this point. Please send me actual proof before making claims like this.
This is just nonsense. Austrian government is not by any means run "by the Russians". Russia has been trying to enlarge it's sphere of influence in the west for a while now (which is nothing exceptional geopolitically speaking) and has few retired politicians working in the Russian private sector (Schröder [DE], Schüssel [AT], Fillion [FR], etc.). But to say that Austria and others are "obviously run by the Kremlin" is a blatant lie.
Greets from Austria
For many of us in Europe, including Austria, peace with Russia is considered a very good thing, and a lot of us want it, having lived through the enmities of hate and spite that was hoisted upon us during the Cold War.
Imagine if, indeed, the economic powerhouse of Europe+Russia were allowed to happen. If only certain entities weren't so committed to profiting from the balkanization of everything, hmm...
Such naiveté begets the truth, which is that Americans falling for this trope really know nothing about Austrian political habits, whatsoever.
Kurz fell because Kurz was dumb and corrupt from the very beginning, and his party simply incompetent, and we are all glad to have seen him in the rear view mirror.
In fact, American agitprop'ers may not know this, but crediting Russia with Kurz' dismissal only makes us more willing to make deals with the Russkies.
If "Russian influence" is on the table, then so is "CIA influence".
Or wait, lets talk about "General Dynamics Influence", and yes, with a capital-I.
And then we shall proceed to the discussion of which particular entity has the most actual blood on its hands, of innocents, as rapidly as possible.
Makes me wonder why the west thought the third time would be the charm in this case. A big difference may be domestic politics in the west, things are pretty tenuous both socially and economically, which could benefit from this grandstanding far from home.
Ignorance and arrogance, but mostly arrogance.
Millions of Ukrainians. That is going to be the real tragedy.
Russian politicians care about Ukraine being a prospering democracy and a model for russian citizens. That's it.
Ukraine in NATO means US nukes on Russia border, tipping the balance. It would be similar to Russia placing their bases and weapons into Canada or Mexico.
No, it does not. A number of Eastern European countries are in NATO and none of them have American nuclear weapons.
Where does this silly idea come that after joining NATO, American missiles somehow appear in the new member? Modern-day NATO is a cooperation platform for joint exercises etc, not some missile club that starts delivering ICBMs every month.
Yet. There were murmurs about moving them from Germany to Eastern Europe.
Additionally - US has DCAs (Defense Cooperation Agreement; straightly bilateral, nothing to do with NATO) with most EE countries. Nobody knows, what they brought there, US is certainly not telling anyone. The nukes might be already there.
And Russia is big, they have an immense second strike capability from land and from the sea. Wladiwostok is 8000km away from Kiev.
On the other hand i cannot think of a critical role played by ICBM's in Central Europe, could your share some insights?
Tactical weapons are not deterrence but actually meant to be used. Nobody will use a tactical nuke for the can of worms it represents. Whatever target can be found for a tactical weapon, it's not important enough to justify a nuke and basically start WW3.. They're a leftover of 50/60s doctrine.
Please engage based on arguments, and do not do personal attacks even if you don't like them.
It is not silly idea, it is Russian misinformation. "The corrupt fascist gay West we are under constant attack by wants to put army on our borders," except in nicer words.
Russia could have asked for this guarantee if it really cared about, it wasn't even a topic of discussion.
Ukraine had nukes and gave them up. Nukes in Ukraine would be such a ridiculous topic that Putin didn't even dare to bring up.
They did exactly that, only to be ignored, and denied that they could even ask for it.
> it wasn't even a topic of discussion.
Whaaat? It is public, you won't have any trouble to find it.
> Ukraine had nukes and gave them up.
Soviet Union had nukes, not Ukraine.
Trump's first impeachment was related exactly to this.
Russia is powerless to stop this, since any attack on a NATO country would likely trigger a counterattack.
Hence, instead, Russia must prevent these countries joining if they want to ensure no nukes on their border.
And they aren't happy about it. At the time, they weren't in a position to do much about it though.
For that to happen they would have to first turn into a tyranical shithole like Russia where an impotent old man can do as he pleases.
They don't start with nukes. They first murder journalists, bomb their own appartments, poison opposition leaders.
They only country in the world which is remotely close to doing a first strike is Russia, and perhaps North Korea.
This is a game of “who blinks first”. I doubt normally US would use nukes to defend a tiny unimportant country like Latvia or Slovenia, if under attack. Russia knows this too.
Someone crazy like Trump just might, though.
Or you can just beat them up any time they look at other options.
There is nothing threatening about a country joining a defense alliance.
Say that to Libya or Yugoslavia that were attacked. NATO is not exactly just a "defensive agreement" as is being currently propagandized.
They expect to move in, battle, secure new territory, deal with stern blabber and a slap on the wrist, and it'll be back to business as usual, with slightly higher profit margins.
Lol.
Russian oligarchs make their money by robbing Russia and russians. They want to continue undisturbed.
Russia would be way ahead of Poland had Putin not taken power and made Russia an mafia-oil state.
So that's not the issue. The Baltic states have prospered, and joined Nato for that matter.
The problem is that Ukraine is a huge country with a pretty large population, plus it has very deep historical ties with Russia, so it's probably a bit of that too, losing ones brother to the enemy would hurt.
I dont like Russia or want them been there. But there is no such thing as single united Ukraine. Saying this is literally a crime and "putin propaganda"
NATO is a security guarantee without which there can be no foreign investment in this part of the world.
The real reason is that Russians consider Ukrainians "the same nation" and if Ukrainians entered EU or some sort of association with it, and got richer than Russians like Poles, Slovaks, Czechs, Balts etc. - it would be very bad for Putin approval in Russia. Russians would start to think "it could be us", "it could work without the tyranny".
So Putin can't let westernized, wealthy Ukraine to exist. Same reason he helped Lukashenko to stop revolution in Belarus recently.
The rest ("history" lectures, "NATO is encroaching", "Ukrainians are nazis and bombard Russian speakers in Ukraine") - it's just bullshit excuses. Don'r repeat them, please. You are helping an aggressive nationalist dictatorship murder people by accepting their excuses.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/putin-ukra...
And a 2014 blog post also suggesting the same:
This isn't a justification for actions, it is about understanding the situation through the chaos.
From my stand point, and this will be very unpopular here, the push to rely on the unreliables (a better name for the renewables) has been toxic and is a destabilizing force in the world.
Building out grid level energy storage looks like a way better solution than hoping the countries which are allies now will remain so indefinitely.
I call them destablizing because the unjustified attacks on fossil fuels have delivered free countries into the economic hands of despotic regimes.
In addition, without renewables, the situation would be similar as Europe would still have near 100% fossil fuel energy production (except France).
Nuclear could potentially have changed things, but that's not related to the attack of fossil fuels. That's again politics and perception.
I agree than many times the "greens" cause more trouble than solutions, and that, again, is politics.
You can't exit from the oil economy with renewable such as wind or solar due to their non-predictability.
If you want to stop importing Russian gaz, you need nuclear energy.
There is no such thing as storage systems at wide scale unfortunately
> well also run out of fuel within a few generations
Absolutely. But hopefully fusion will be around then.
I can’t find actual current annual production, only estimates for now and actual values for a few years ago, but we produced somewhere between 0.5 (what we did recently) and 1.3 TWh (what some people a few years ago thought we’d be at now) of batteries in the last year.
Given the likely usage patterns, this is already on a relevant scale to all 50 or so nuclear reactors currently under construction, and the expectation is that battery production will approximate rapid positive exponential growth at least to the end of the decade.
Also: currently, nuclear fuel cost is a small part of running a reactor. If nuclear fuel follows a similar cost/available quantity curve as other geologic resources, we should be able to find more once we start looking in earnest.
Don't forget they are easy targets when war get declared.
And even if it was nuclear is not a viable response with new projects taking decades to develop. Todays nuclear industry is delivering warmed-up 1970s technology that is expensive, slow, and inflexible.
Solar/wind/batteries with a small amount of backup capacity from hydro, power-to-gas/fuel, biofuels, or new long-duration storage is cheaper and faster to deploy.
You seem to be disagreeing with our greens. Gas is offered as the only backup source at that scale and timeframe.
>Solar/wind/batteries with a small amount of backup capacity from hydro, power-to-gas/fuel, biofuels, or new long-duration storage is cheaper and faster to deploy.
Wrong. [1]Nuclear wins out when kept open a bit longer and that is without accounting for storage methods. To say "a small amount of backup capacity" is absolutely ridiculous. The amounts we need compared to what is available right now would be massive. Most European countries aren't norway with loads of hydro capacity either. Also power to gas/fuel is a pipedream due to inherent costs and losses alone. You're better off making more pumped storage power stations like in Coo but those don't fit anywhere and aren't magical either.
[1]https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/image/png/2020-12/lco_b...
To not depend on russian gas by reducing gas usage, the gas heating systems need to be replaced with heat pumps or something else and industry needs to shift, presumably to electricity (since it's unlikely that we have enough green hydrogen that's not produced from fossil fuels without depending on russia). This isn't going to be easy and unlikely to happen at a large enough scale in the next 5 years.
Like with China. Look: as a protest for the Uygurs, the US did not send… diplomats!
What a shame.
And less energy consumption, and nuclear.
In the United States alone we would have to *sextuple* our renewable energy sources just to make up for our usage of fossil fuels. That is not something any country can do "rapidly", and even if it became a primary focus it would consume a significant portion of our GDP for years on end and be the largest infrastructure project the US has ever engaged in.
It seems almost ludicrous to categorize such a reaction as a "retaliation".
Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/theshawwn/status/1496761074258952193
Telegram: https://t.me/theshawwn
Urgent: If you know anyone near Kiev who can drive two elderly people plus one child to Romania, please contact me ASAP. (Note: Male drivers need to be under 18 or over 55, since they'll likely be stopped by law enforcement along the way.)
I know this sounds straight out of a novel, but I'm just doing whatever I can to help people. (I guess it shouldn't feel surprising that a lot of people want to leave all of a sudden...)
I can help cover travel expenses, though I'm not sure the best way to send money.
If we pool our resources, our collective odds go way up.
The current plan is to cross into Romania via Karpatia Sanatorium: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Kiev,+Kyiv+city,+Ukraine/Kar...
They might be willing to pick up one non-adult (<18yo or >55yo) along the way.
If anyone knows a Ukrainian[0] woman that wants to flee and needs shelter / airfare I don't really need my room in Toronto since I'm traveling for work. There is a kind, hardworking woman in the other room, but the condo unit is a two bedroom, two bathroom and my room comes with its own washroom.
She can stay for as long as it takes to get refugee stuff figured out. Please respond here with contact details, sometimes I miss emails because of anti-spam. Or you can try me on Twitter via DM: @zachaysan
[0] Nationality, not ethnicity; ie, ethnic Russian or Uzbek is fine.
Seize a part of Ukraine and force the Ukrainian government into a peace treaty that hands over the territories. What those territories are is hard to predict.
Overthrow the government and put a puppet one in its place. This would require some sort of occupation to keep that puppet regime in power, and the Russian forces would be constantly harassed and attacked by guerrilla style tactics (as in Iraq but probably better trained and equipped).
Unless Russia has additional hundreds of thousands of troops they can't effectively occupy a country as big as the Ukraine. That leaves limited objectives.
They also have a limited timeframe before the ground thaws, limiting operational activities with heavy equipment to be along roads. The famous mud country side of eastern Europe is staring soon and will continue for some months making major tank manoeuvres more difficult.
If you are in the Ukraine.
- Ensure you have at least 1 week of food and water. - Make a bug out bag if you need to leave at a moments notice (including basic medical supplies). - Have an escape plan that DOES NOT include major roads to get out of the city. - Cash is king and anything else of value you can trade for supplies. - If you have a Dacha (or a friend has one) that might be a good place to wait it out if you have to get out of the city.
Be safe
And Russia would've been scared and retreated.
Sarcasm aside, all that would've done is accelerate the whole invasion procedure.
And then the 2000 troops would be killed by Russia.
Then America/NATO will retaliate.
That'll be the endgame.
Yes. Without sarcasm.
This happened several times with Trump, who despite all his faults, was a master bullshitter and master at seeing through other bullshitters. A notable episode was an attack by Russian Wagner group on a small outpost held by 30-something US special forces soldiers guarding a gas plant in Syria. Signals intelligence was later able to capture a few phone calls of survivors describing what had happened[1]. Russians were used to fighting poorly trained rebels, but now fell under combined arms fire from a modern army and it was a total massacre. They got hit from drones, artillery, Apaches and F-22s. Russian casualties: some 300 dead out of 600, American losses: 0.
After that, Russians were much less eager to provoke the US. They test every president like this. Obama failed ("red lines" in Syria), Trump succeeded, Biden... depends on what he does next.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/liz-cheney-lied-about-her-r...
You don't get it.
Look, nobody has any doubt that USA is very powerful. But that doesn't mean they must annihilate the world.
And Russia is no slouch.
Diplomacy is the need of the hour.
As somebody who lives far far away from Europe and North America (in a country that's supposed to have no skin in this game), I don't want to get killed because Uncle Sam wants to show who's boss.
Russia obviously doubts. All that power is useless if you are afraid of using it. Russia conquered Crimea in 2014 without firing a single shot in the best spirit of Sun Tzu because everyone else was so deathly afraid of what might happen that it utterly paralyzed them.
Congratz on being far away. I live next to a strategically important rail bridge that will get hit by a missile in the next round if Putin is not stopped in Ukraine. I don't think appeasement is going to achieve that.
You still don't get it. Do you doubt that Russia is powerful? Hence, the diplomacy.
> strategically important rail bridge
That's kind of the problem isn't it? Strategic assets near Russia (I think it's safe to assume the aforementioned bridge isn't in Albuquerque, New Mexico) is concerning to them.
Every country involved is protecting their own interests.
I have no sympathy for any of the governments involved. On any side.
However, I hope that you and your family would be safe.
Diplomacy was yesterhour's need. It failed, otherwise there wouldn't be Russian troops all over Ukraine right now.
That would have escalated the situation further and would have helped Putin's narrative, like the Russian mobilisation in WWI which only pushed things over the edge.
I understand for politicians in other countries that would have been very expensive
And when those American soldiers are killed by Russian missiles, do you then declare full on war on Russia, and we basically all die? Because like....there is no other good option out of this you know. By placing American(or NATO) troops and assets in the harms way, you need to be prepared for what you are going to do if those troops get attacked - and the current strategy is to attack back, which again = end of the world. Arming Ukraine to the teeth and letting them fight back was the second best option and that's exactly what the west has done.
Also, there was a meme recently - it's all fun and games being an expert on the internet, but then you remember you are an able bodied male who would absolutely be drafted in to actually fight. "West should do something" - great, you first. I have kids and family, as a Pole the risk of actually being involved in military operations is making me extremely uncomfortable right now.
I am a Pole as well and also very uncomfortable. I also believe Nato should intervene in Ukraine. Otherwise, we just wait until it’s our turn.
If there's a choice between nukes raining down and between Putin ruling the world, I'll happily choose the latter. No matter the cost, there cannot be a nuclear war.
Poor Ukranians are the ones thinking they shouldn't have given up their nuclear warheads.
"Although appeasement, which is conventionally defined as the act of satisfying grievances by concessions with the aim of avoiding war, was once regarded as an effective and even honourable strategy of foreign policy, the term has since the Munich Conference symbolised cowardice, failure and weakness. Winston Churchill described appeasement as "one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last".
> But when Britain and France did go to war in 1939, they were still unable to save Poland from being conquered and occupied. Clearly, had they gone to war a year earlier, they would not have been able to save Czechoslovakia, either
Churchill is probably not someone we should ascribe too much wisdom to...
That, and nukes changed everything.
Nobody is giving up everything, what is given up at the moment is a strip of land in East Europe that could be claimed back via diplomatic arrangements as soon as Putin is gone.
We are watching Hitler raising, not Stalin dying here.
I don't hope for war over Ukraine. I hope for the end of oil purchases from Europe. Total economic sanctions.
No rational agent is going to use nukes. And no diplomacy and leniency towards tyranny will save us from the crazy ones.
At this point, neither intervention nor non-intervention is likely to prevent this. It's entirely likely that if Putin loses this assault, or faces an intractable insurgency, he could launch nukes out of a desperate attempt to save face. He's old — at this point, only the reputation he leaves behind is what matters to him, and it's clear that he wishes to be remembered as a fearful and powerful figure. What better way to do that than nuking someone?
Your attitude is the same entrapment that allows abusive spouses to hold their spouse in thrall. I've actually witnessed that backfire to its ultimate degree; in my hometown, a woman in an abusive relationship called her husband's bluff on his threats to kill her if she left, and he wasn't bluffing. Killed her in broad daylight at a local bank, and then killed himself.
The question you have to ask is whether you think her leaving him was the only thing that precipitated him killing her, or whether his killing her was because he realized she no longer loved him.
Everything in life is a gamble.
I do agree that if he's pushed against the wall he can nuke one Ukrainian city saying it was the hideout of the rebels or whatever, effectively sending a message that he's not afraid to use nuclear weapons, without directly attacking a NATO state. I can only assume that at that point whatever is left of Ukrainian government would voluntarily step down to prevent further destruction.
You're right that he's a madman, and any sort of logical strategy just doesn't apply here.
You are assuming here that Russia would be willing to cause a World War by attacking those American soldiers.
> as a Pole the risk of actually being involved in military operations is making me extremely uncomfortable right now.
But the alternative, to let Russia have Ukraine, will become very uncomfortable in the long term. It's naïve to assume that by giving Putin what he wants he will be satisfied and not invade any other countries in the future. The analogy with 1938 is striking.
I think Russia has been "calling the bluff" of the west for a long time. Attacking American soldiers on Ukrainian soil to send a message "look what I can do, you aren't going to attack me back because you know what it will cost you" would be entirely within the standard Russian strategy. And it would place US and NATO into an extremely uncomfortable position - attack back = world war 3, don't attack back = send a message that you can kill American troops without punishment. That's not a position anyone wants to be in.
>>It's naïve to assume that by giving Putin what he wants he will be satisfied and not invade any other countries in the future.
I don't think I'm naive, I fully realize that this is what will happen in the future. But again, there's having a nicely formed opinion on the internet, and then there's receiving a letter stating you are to report to your nearest military base for training and deployment. We should do something. I don't want to leave my wife and kid and go fight in Ukraine. Those aren't contradictory statements.
If they got hurt during the invasion, the Russians would just claim, possibly entirely legitimately, that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and the US is using it as an excuse for escalation. Which in fact is exactly what you’re suggesting. It would be a serious misstep we can’t afford. We should have acted decisively sooner, but now we’re here we should act decisively now. Close the pipelines completely and shut off Russia from swift. Ban all foreign travel for any Russian government employees. We’re at war with this guy, we need to act like it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualt...
Eh??? This is exactly what happened. Soldiers were sent to Afghanistan. Thousands died. The US left, and the enemy took over, both government and equipment.
Also, the parent had said
> Yeah, and send a message that says "you can kill American troops without consequences"?
and again this is what happened. No consequences for the Taliban for killing American soldiers, just as the parent wrote.
If we are going by the game theory, mutually assured destruction only works if both sides believe the other is willing to engage. If one side knows the other side will not engage, it becomes easy for the aggressive side to take advantage of the passive side.
Putin also doesn't want to die so the hope would have been that if the west was stronger and made it clear that an invasion would lead to war, there would be no invasion. Putin didn't see that commitment so he attacked.
I really don't want to find out. It's one hell of a gamble.
Well that is the point. As I said the west needs to make it clear that an invasion would lead to war. It can't be a bluff. But we all know the west wasn't willing to end civilization over this so here we are. Seems like Putin is going to keep prodding the west until he finds the line he is convinced we won't let him cross. That line was never going to be Georgia, Crimea, or the whole of Ukraine.
The Russian military doesn't have the resources for a prolonged guerilla conflict against a motivated resistance.
With the current actions, the Ukrainian population won't easily forget what Putin has done and even dictatorships need some level of approval from the population.
There is a reasonable chance that Putin excavated his own grave with his reprehensible actions.
They are all rational actors. Turks killed Russian solders in Syria, where they nuked? Putin is bluffing.
In case of aggression, you have to sand your ground, there is no other option.
I'm not comparing anything - I was referring to "end of the world". According to Turkish strategist, nuclear weapon is not usable, so they have no problem to retaliate.
End of world is impossible.
I wish I had your confidence about this.
Debatable as to the truth of that sentiment, perhaps. And obviously ... NATO and Russia being at war would be incredibly disastrous. But, I do think it's possible to hold that sentiment in good faith - I feel something similar. I desperately do not want to be in a "hot" war with Russia, but at the same time I recognize that sanctions are ineffective.
The lesson here, perhaps, is that the options range from "bad" to "worse." :(
They can send equipment because if equipment is lost it's no big deal.
If you send NATO troops and they are killed then all out war between NATO and Russia is inevitable and that could easily be world ending.
Essentially sending troops to Ukraine has a very poor risk/reward. If it works and Russia is discouraged from attacking then great, everyone goes home. If it doesn't work then it's WW3.
Ukraine itself is an example.
Ukraine was posturing aggressively against Romania, NATO and EU member, as recently as 2009.
I feel bad for what's happening in Ukraine, but they didn't really try to make many friends before 2014.
You’re implying that Ukraine didn’t try to make any friends before the 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea. In fact it was Ukraines improving relationship with the west (including Eastern Europe, so not really even ‘the west’ anymore, really just Non-Russia and China the axis of autocracy) that lead to the Russian annexation.
Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, etc. turned around in 1991.
Ukraine didn't. Its people didn't want it.
Downvote all you want, that's just fact.
I'm sorry this is happening. And they haven't done anything to deserve what's happening to them.
But their opinions only changed after aggression. Back in 2005 or so they were still pining after the Soviet Union.
But yes, truth hurts.
Except for Ukraine (East Slavic, formerly part of the Soviet power structures), Belarus (also East Slavic, also formerly part of the Soviet power structures) and Moldova, (who doesn't know what they want to do...) everyone else turned West ASAP.
How come:
Estonia (ex-USSR)
Lithuania (ex-USSR)
Latvia (ex-USSR)
Poland
Hungary
Romania
Bulgaria
Czechia
Slovakia
didn't also have rigged election results? Well, most likely because their people wouldn't allow them. The popular consensus was that turning West was the only option and even populists and wannabe dictators didn't dare go against the people.
My opinions are crude and ghastly and I'm a jerk. But I'm also right.
I hope they manage to push the Putinbots out of Ukraine, Donbass, Crimea.
I served, did you? I’m 100% disabled as a result. If you didn’t wear the uniform, don’t be so quick to volunteer others for what you aren’t willing to do yourself.
Just remember that the USA played the same kind of playbook (maybe worse) in Syria and Iraq. It's equally condamnable, but it can give you some perspective to see through media portrayal.
A more similar comparison would be the US and USSR funding of factions in Italy during the Anni di Piombo. And then say US or USSR officialy arming and sponsoring Forza Nuova (or another militant organization) for indipendence of Padania.
Which turned to be false. The Racak massacre that provoked Bosnian intervention was a lie used to make a case for an invasion. Similar to mass weapons in Iraq that were never found. The same in Bosnia, where Markale incident used to accuse one side of war crimes later appeared to be organized by Muslim paramilitary to provoke military intervention and make a press.
The only thing Serbian side did wrong, is that it was ruled by socialist (ex-communist) party.
Please don't spread misinformation, there was no genocide in Kosovo* and no involment of the Serbian/Yugoslav government in the Bosnian genocide.
If you have any international court ruling which proves otherwise, you're free to link it here.
Finland is almost militantly neutral, since that was the original condition to independence in the first place. On the other hand, Russia just voided the Minsk agreement with Ukraine to attack, so...
Imagine being Russia's border neighbor, man. It's seriously stressful.
But if any country is prepared for russian invasion, it's Finland.
Finland a long time ago voided/broke the Paris peace treaty on their own. Basically once the Germany unified in 1990 Finland went "nope we don't like this peace treaty anymore".
If Finland was still following the treaty we would not be allowed to have aircraft that can deploy bombs, mere than 60 planes (including civilian airfact registered to Finland), more than 34k total infantry+border guard, 10k tons total displacement of navy, no sea mines or torpedoes. Finland has gone way past these since.
The only part of the Paris peace treaty we still follow is the no nukes part and that due to signing a separate treaty about not getting nukes in the 70s.
Basically if a Euro country gets invaded and the other countries do nothing that crashes the value of the Euro which would destroy the economies of the other Euro countries. And the non-Euro EU countries have a good reason to follow the same logic as Euro crashing would also destroy their economies.
"If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power"
https://puolustusvoimat.fi/en/finnish-conscription-system
Therefore I do not think Finland would be a walk-over for the Russians...not to mention what happened last time Russia fought Finland:
The modern Russian army has experience in several different theaters, has experienced and professional leadership, and rocks a small but highly modernized kit backed by copious amounts of older Soviet-era gear.
The Ukranians just got slammed with huge cruse missile attacks -- how will the Fins neutralize that with conscripts carrying skis and rifles?
I respect their bravery, but boldness doesn't stop JDAMs -- they need NATO.
Finland was already able to resist Russian aggression once not so long ago (by European standards), and Russia paid a dire price for attacking in man life. Later, Finland also paid its toll, but in territory.
Both sides learned their lesson. Finland is not going to provoke Russia, and Russia is not going to attach again without reason.
They'll lean on NATO when they need to, but they also live next to Russia and don't want to pick fights if they don't need to.
Not that i'm happy with the Taliban regime now that the USA are gone, but this wave of reaction is the logical aftermath of USA policy. Turns out not killing/oppressing millions of people and not destroying their public services could have a much better outcome in terms of "progressive politics".
So yes Putin has wet dreams about reuniting all territories from the ex-Empire or ex-USSR, but as you pointed out he certainly needs "local men" (strong/macho/authoritarian type) to rule the local communities before an uprising occurs as is the logical conclusion of any colonial occupation.
No superpower wants the enemy right at their border. The US didn't appreciate Russian missiles being put on Cuban land 60 years ago, Russia certainly doesn't want NATO forces and weaponry being put on Ukrainian land now.
It doesn't take a strategist to see that all superpowers want a buffer and if you take away that buffer spark will fly - whether a blockade or a full out war. I'm certain Europe (EU) saw this outcome the moment Ukraine was considered for joining any Western alliance or union. But different continents have different interests.
There's a reason why Russia's neighbours are so nervous and want a support system:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Ru...
And let's not forget Malaysia Airlines Flight 17:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17
Former Warsaw Pact members, and former 'provinces' of the Soviet Union, want to get on with their lives. Russia is making it harder for them than the other way around IMHO.
Western governments made a good faith effort to support Russia (e.g., G8), and it was only after Putin got into power and started heading in his own direction that things started to sour.
Cuba would have loved to not be cut off from the world for more than half a century for doing what the Ukraine was just enticed to do. Palestine could use some help in what has to be one of the most unbalanced displays of power in a conflict in recent memory. The Middle East or Western Asia would have looked decidedly different without the "explosive support system" they received over the decades. And the South China Sea countries could use a hand settling their territorial disputes.
If you can't see how Russia would like the West to stay away from their borders (Ukraine) just as much as the US wanted Russia to stay away from their borders (Cuba) then maybe it's a good moment to take a step back and look at this without thinking of the names. If you care more about allegiance then you can't care about objectivity or history.
Cuba became the enemy of the US the moment they showed any allegiance to Russia. Was there a doubt in anyone's mind that the exact same thing would happen again when the tables are turned? If you're not educated by mass-media then the outcome was obvious. And you are free to wonder why would anyone approach a an enemy superpower's neighbor for an alliance, knowing full well that probably without exception in the history of mankind this lead to war.
I am fairly certain the EU could live with Ukraine as a buffer zone if that means no conflict in Europe and not crippling them. There are forces far enough from Europe who have no such concern about poking a hornets' nest and sacrificing/destroying Ukraine in the process.
Phrase it right: no power wants a country it can't bully on its border.
Maybe we see a new iron curtain in the middle of Ukraine.
By having rich friends and connections.
Don't get fooled, they are only "friends" because they have common business and goals. Average Joe from the street is not going to be their "friend" because he would not bring anything to the table.
Friends money is part of that power, taking that money away makes whole group weaker, because it is not "evil villain in a cave", world does not work that way. It is connections and groups of people.
It's not the game anyone would like to play.
The difference here is that Ukraine did their best to appease Russia, including promising to never join the EU/Nato for promises of security. It seems like Ukraine was ready to give everything for independence, but their independence was unacceptable.
What does RF have to gain from this? Most publications say very little. What are they missing?
It seems like it all comes down to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_of_influence#Contempora...
Notably:
"Our state has given up its share of the Soviet nuclear arsenal - the third largest in the world - and in return has received assurances, including from Russia, that our borders and our security will be respected. All this did not happen. So it is strange to hear the Russian side asking for any guarantees when so many promises have already been broken by the Russian side itself," Zelensky said when asked about Ukraine's possible refusal to join NATO in exchange for a guaranteed withdrawal of Russian troops from the border.
He had the previous US president wrapped around his finger, and he was able to take Crimea with barely any effort. How is the balance of power skewed in favor of the West?
Honest question. How do you know a large majority of Russian citizens are being complicit in supporting these acts of war? This is such a broad, generalizing statement. It's not like they were asked to vote on it?
What regular people think: https://meduza-io.translate.goog/feature/2022/02/24/ya-ne-ch... Widely known people: https://meduza-io.translate.goog/feature/2022/02/24/samoe-st...
Both articles take words from my mouth. In last couple of days I've converted all my savings into foreign currencies and am looking to change the job if my current employer (US based) does not fix the wage to USD or EUR. Since this morning, I have hard time thinking about anything but the war. The whole Ukraine situation and other occupied territories is repulsive, but the actual full-scale war was not what I expected. This should not have happened, period. My heart is wholly with Ukrainians. My mother's family comes from there to, so I'm half-ukranainian. As an RF citizen, I feel ashamed, sorry and helpless, even though regular people never had sufficient amount of political leverage during last two decades or even more. Russians will have to work hard to internalize the putin's rule when (if) he and his cronies go away, same as what people of Germany did after WWII.
I see Putin as a very competent and ruthless leader. As a citizen of a post communist country, I'm somewhat concerned.
Can you elaborate, in material terms, what does russia win by invading and occupying ukraine? What do you imagine the economy of ukrainian people will be after this?
Believes that Putin does not care about the opinion of the well-to-do Russian diaspora, even if they have fiscal or monetary connections to Russia. Very concerned, at the personal level, about the impact of broader sanctions that threaten to isolate the Russian economy like the Iranian economy. Views Putin as responsible for provoking these sanctions. However, he believes that the general Russian public is generally supportive of Putin's actions.
Part of me wonders if we’re not approaching that moment with Russia on the world stage. This sense of aggravation has been going on since Stalin, and while the 90s were a nice respite, it honestly just begins to feel like there is no win win compromise between Russia and the western world.
Maybe this is just the heat of the moment talking, and this’ll just be another uncomfortable “border skirmish” in a year from now. Anxiously frustrated and angry.
Some of my favorite programmer friends are ex pat Russians. They have great culture, art, science.
So when speaking of "aggrevation" always factor in the perspective of the "Empire".
PS: The concept of buffer countries as a peace keeper has been helpful in the past (e.g. Belgium kinda, Austria). I guess Ukraine's role will have to be that of such a buffer.
In any mechanical system, if your design is “lets give one part of the system all the stress” but said component is not proportionately strengthened or incentivized, it fails eventually, bringing the rest of the system down with it.
Speaking of a mecanical system: In the hiearchy of sovereignity, apart from US, RU and CN all countries are somewhat buffers.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_level_of_...
[2] https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing-europe.php
Article 4
The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
Article 4: Let's meet, I think I might be next.
Article 5: I am being attacked, help?
- Article 4: The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.
- Article 5: The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them [...] will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith [...] such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
---
[1]: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.ht...
Comments in this submission say that consult is a light word for what's happening
I don’t see why China would jump in over Russia’s European adventures. If they do then yeah that drags in all of Asia (and maybe Africa due to large Chinese and European influence).
I guess South and Central America could escape it though.
And as per the Tweet itself, it's a consultation
Article 4 The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.ht...
Talking now: which of the plans we have discussed before are we going to enact? Formal meeting, in that a member state has declared it's intent to bring a topic to the table and that the body is obligated to discuss and determine a course of action - which is allowed to be "no action".
Basically, before now everyone figured out what to do on paper, now the Treaty Organization has to make a decision about next steps.
Just wait until something really ugly happens.
Such as the 'accidental' shooting down of aircraft over Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory...
This is just in your head, not mine.
For me, it's all about the sheer fun of the coming horror and dangers of foreseeable Russian hybrid warfare without any caution or limitations. That nobody has expected to ever return to Europe.
There's a Russian proverb: "All territories are ours, it's just someone temporary occupied them".
They also think in terms of territories (not people or economy) and victories. If they start losing a war, they start questioning their government.
So Estonia is doubly right to be worried, as, even if they actually manage to invade Ukraine, I see no reason they are going to stop at Ukrainian border. So the most logical step for Estonia is to help Ukraine as much as possible.
Also, I suppose war simply has a cost, sanctions and so on can simply be factored into the calculation. It's not a Russian mindset, it is rational.
That is Russian propaganda, Estonian citizens all have the right to vote. There is a minority of Russians here who do not want to learn the language and become citizens, hence they can't vote. They have the attitude that we (Estonians) are occupying their land... it's crazy. Younger generation of Russians who are born here are mostly not like that though
*edit Even non-citizen Russians have the right to vote in local elections, just not in nation wide elections.
I expect that in the next days some member of the US government, maybe the President, will publicly remember that Mutual Assured Destruction is what kept the world mostly at peace since the 50s, except small scale wars by proxy or with only one of the USA and SSSR directly involved.
So Russia won't invade, ICBMs won't fly and Ukraine becomes the next Afghanistan for Russia. Fast forward 20 years, Putin is in Lenin's Mausoleum and the new Iron Curtain could start to be lifted.
This is constantly questioned by Americans, including the former president. It commonly goes like this: "I like $balticCountry, but are we really going to send nukes if $balticCountry is invaded?"
It might go down like WW2 when countries reacted only when large countries were invaded (Poland).
And then Russia wants to help them. Hey, our fellow comrades are under oppression from Estonian government!
There can be many different recipes, but it's never a 1-day process. The current war with Russia is ongoing since 2014. First it's separatists (mostly really residents of those territories, supported by Russia), then it's some unknown bands of criminals. And very strong propaganda, that persuades everyone and their parliaments that those peoples' voices must be heard, etc.
No ICBMs won't fly in that case, because it's always "not such a big deal for ICBMs". Are you going to start World War 3 if some small Estonian territory really wants to secede?
Ukraine doesn't agree. It's also widely theorized (basically fact) that Putin has fomented revolution and supports separatist movements to gin up trouble and incite problems in those areas to further make his case.
It's a land grab, and possibly a precursor to something much more. But only time will tell.
But yeah why does anyone start a war? Power, control, money, distraction, madness, idealism, etc. Probably a little of everything.
It goes much further back than 'The USSR'.
Read his words [1]
That, plus the giant hubris of the 'Empire' mindset that he has, and frankly exists in Russian culture and there you have it.
Russian Imperialism is of the fairly classical kind. 'We are Great, and Strong, Superior, and those around us are lesser, weaker, and naturally our vassals' kind of thing.
It's entirely fair to be cynical about the West, and to use some degree of moral relativism, but in reality, it's very different in North America / Angloshphere + Europe than in Russia. And China.
If we don't 'do something' then we can assume Taiwan is next for much the same reason.
Also let's drop the propaganda line of "protection". Luhansk and Donetsk may have declared independence but we generally don't tend to recognize such claims unless they are affirmed by the host nation. It's also an open secret that the separatists include a significant presence of Russian soldiers posing as Ukrainian "volunteers".
Would you be okay with France attacking Spain to "protect" Catalonia? Ireland invading the UK to "protect" Scotland? A shared language and culture does not grant the right to annexation either, or are you arguing Germany and Austria should reunite and annex parts of Switzerland?
I hope that it doesnt lead to a more widespread war.
You should look up sometimes the types of characters, e.g. Pushilin for instance, that Russia installed to govern those territories. They are murderous sociopathic criminals, comparisons with territories ruled by cartel gangs are appropriate. It isn’t governments - its no-limit gangs, supported by Russia.
I'd recommend Caspian Report's video [1] first. Secondly, if we look at Cuban missile crisis, US had a strong reaction to missiles around them. I see the Russian reaction pretty similar. They do not want NATO expansion and they do not want missiles in Poland.
- Russia still has the internal view of a superpower, but they aren't anymore, Putin wants to reclaim lost glory.
- Ukraine becoming a successful democracy right next to Russia would further delegitimize his own regime.
- There's a grain of truth in the lie that russian Ukranians are discriminated against. Ukraine is very regionally divided on wether to have a pro-western or pro-russian government. [0] The pro-russian rebels are certainly supported and probably also instigated by Russia, but they do hold support among the local population in the far east.
This is also my expectation of how the conflict will play out: Russia will bomb Ukraine, invade from all sides in a limited capacity, but with the strategic goal of crippling Ukraine and conquering the whole regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. When those two regions are secured, I suspect a ceasefire wille be reached. That said, I've been wrong before, I truly did not expect Russia to just brazenly invade like this.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Ukrainian_parliamentary_e...
In a perfect world Ukraine should of course have the freedom to join NATO; but it's not a perfect world and we can't wish Putin or general Russian attitudes away. All of this could have been avoided if we just rescinded the NATO invitation (or better yet, never made it in the first place) and have Ukraine remain a neutral "border state".
I don't like Putin or Russia's attitude one bit by the way; but when the stakes are this high you really have to deal with reality as it is, not as you want it to be. Ukraine not joining NATO would have been a minor inconvenience at best; Ukraine at war is a much bigger deal, especially for the Ukrainian people. We kinda screwed them over in a game of international politics.
Before 2014, less than 70% of Ukrainians supported joining NATO, according to polls. About 30% supported actually joining Russia, and 60% supported a union with Russia.
Everything changed in 2014, when Russia unilaterally invaded Ukraine. Less than 3% support joining Russia, and about 70% support joining NATO. After 2014, they realized Russia will never stop, so NATO was their only option (it's actually NATO that didn't want to accept them, as they worry about safety of all its members).
This is the agreement that Russia signed to guarantee the integrity of Ukraine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
What agreement did NATO sign to not expand? Produce it!
"President Bush also assured Gorbachev during their meeting in Malta in December, 1989, that if the countries of Eastern Europe were allowed to choose their future orientation by democratic processes, the United States would not “take advantage” of that process. (Obviously, bringing countries into NATO that were then in the Warsaw Pact would be “taking advantage.”) The following year, Gorbachev was assured, though not in a formal treaty, that if a unified Germany was allowed to remain in NATO, there would be no movement of NATO jurisdiction to the east, “not one inch.”"
Good article: https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220222-moldova-then-geo...
Key quote: “Russia is always anxious about foreign penetration – not only in terms of military involvement and political engagement but also in cultural terms,” Fasola told FRANCE 24. He pointed to the so-called “colour revolutions” that brought pro-Western governments to power in Georgia (2003) and Ukraine (2004) – and which the Kremlin perceived as “instruments of the West to drive those countries away from Russia”.
This assumes that Russia tries to capture and hold ground though and we've seen how insurgency wars have worked out for the Russians and Americans for the last 3 decades.
Text, 57 minutes ago:
"#Estonia unequivocally condemns #Russia's military attack on #Ukraine and we have decided to launch #NATO consultations under Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty with Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and other Allies."
Crepuscular photo of some buildings and link to https://valitsus.ee/en/news/estonian-government-requests-con....
This could be the key escalation that turns the Russian invasion of Ukraine into World War III.
Austria-Hungary had been thinking about invading Serbia for decades.
I dislike this historical view where the little guy is blamed.
OP's point is that an act can seem small on the surface ("a guy got assassinated") but triggered a larger war because there are greater tensions and forces at play ("Austria-Hungary had been thinking about invading Serbia for decades").
WWI started over an assassination that barely happened, and WWII over a city ( Danzig, although it's fairly certain Hitler wouldn't have stopped there, like WWI would have happened anyways).
WW2 so, was different. That was, from the beginning, Hitler's idea. He wanted it, he took what he could without a war, and then with a war. All with the goal of defeating Russia and exterminate the Jews (and all other undesirables). Everything else was just excuses, and thinly vailed ones at that.
Ukraine isn't part of NATO, and Estonia hasn't been attacked, so Article 5 can't be invoked. Therefore, this is roughly the maximally aggressive possible response from Estonia.
Of course the US Secretary of State says US commitment to Article 5 is "ironclad"; if he doesn't say that, NATO basically stops existing, and with it much of the US's influence in the world. Therefore the fact that he says this conveys almost zero information.
Because if Putin was to attack the Baltics tomorrow, they would cease to exist before any NATO ally would manage to get their warships past the Kaliningrad Oblast in the Baltic Sea.
Putin hardly cares about that tradition.
"In 2008, Russia launched a military intervention into disputed regions of Georgia in eastern Europe. The conflict unfolded at the same time as the opening ceremonies at the summer Olympic games in Beijing—with Putin, then prime minister and Russia’s leader in all but name, in attendance alongside US president George W. Bush, who did not look pleased. Six years later, Putin had an opportunity to repeat the trick, during the 2014 Winter Olympics hosted by Russia. At the time, the pro-Russian government of Ukraine was collapsing, with protestors demonstrating against Ukraine’s withdrawal from ties with the European Union. The night before the games’ closing ceremony, Putin took part in a lengthy meeting with his security team to plan an intervention in Ukraine."
https://qz.com/1203504/2018-winter-olympics-russia-probably-...
I don't know what China's plan is but it's clear they have one and that it involves backing the Russian invasion.
https://www.ft.com/content/55d86391-2d05-4eb4-869c-83a7878b8...
Article 5 can be invoked once, intentionally or by accident, e.g. a NATO plane is attacked over Ukraine. This whole thing is a mess. Despite history since the end of the cold war (which makes some of Russia's positions somewhat understandable, and the fact that NATO didn't do anything different in Iraq and Afghanistan), if Western-style democracies don't want to loose their freedoms they have to act. Appeasement usually doesn't work with expansionist powers.
Can you expand on this? I'm entirely unable to understand why Russia after the cold war didn't become like any other European country and aimed to join the EU etc.
Internally, democratic reforms in the 90s became associated with 1) corruption far worse than Soviets had, and 2) right-wing economic measures ("liberalization") that messed up the economy and created a lot of hardship for the population at the time. The very words "democrat" and "liberal" became profanities for some.
So when Putin appeared, the popular sentiment in the country already in favor of a "strong hand" for a while. He only needed to fit the image, which he did quite easily with his KGB background. After that, he gradually deconstructed the civil society, starting with free press.
Russia could have been Germany-fied with a friendlier and supportive hand. Instead it was handed over to evangelical neoliberals, whose imposed economics guaranteed that only the most feral opportunists and violent gangsters would thrive.
Russia could have become a modern social democracy, but now it's a crumbling militaristic dictatorship state run by a raging senile paranoiac with delusions of empire.
It's one of the worst foreign policy failures in all of history.
Ukraine will not be the end of it. If the invasion succeeds Russia will demand a slice of Lithuania to reunite Kalingrad with Belarus. That has huge implications for all Baltic-adjacent states.
But worse, Putin has claimed the RF has a number of nuclear superweapons, including a strategic nuclear-tipped torpedo and smart hypersonic warhead delivery systems. He also completely renovated Moscow's civil defences.
The US has failed to keep pace, and its weapons systems are either old and outdated or over-designed, high maintenance, and relatively fragile.
Putin also been running a very successful program of subversion and political interference. And building up cyberwarfare capabilities.
Even allowing for hyperbole the worry is that Russia is capable of a zero-warning decapitation strike, combined with remote mass infrastructure attacks and internal terrorism. Any response would be relatively ineffective.
This completely undermines MAD as a doctrine.
No mistake - the US is in very, very serious danger now, from both internal and external threats.
#1 no it doesn't - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_triad
#2 Any other NATO country & non-nato can launch nukes.
Does this hypothetical Tom Clancy scenario also plan how to deal with all the silo's the US has with missiles in them and the ballistic missile submarines which exist exactly as a hedge against these kinds of wild scenario's.
Can you clarify on this? How does recent Russian action threaten freedoms in Western style democracies?
Especially 1936 to 1940.
If you are in a hurry you can start here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time
I thought the salami slicing pattern was obvious for everyone to see now.
Since it is not point is that to me and many others the situation looks very similar to what happened just before WWII.
Until all nations are healthy democracies, the institution of democracy faces an existential threat.
If you are referring to something else, be concrete.
I'm comparing Germanys "helpful" occupations of neighboring countries "to help the poor Germans there against abuse" inhabitants to Putin's attempt to occupy Ukraine "to protect all the poor Russians there against genocide."
Putin is even better than Hitler at this game it seems.
That doesn't make Hitler any less a criminal - it just explains how his casus belli sounded more believable back in the day.
If we are comparing history, let's get the whole picture.
They mostly thought they are not ready for the full scale war yet, but that is different calculation.
Two week of 24 hours news with the proper perspective and the people would be asking in the streets for the invasion of Canada.
In fact, some redneck militia trying to invade Canada is a common trope in US entertainment (from South Park over to The West Wing, even a whole movie exists), implying that it would be pretty easy. It's played for laughs, but it adds to the desensitisation of the public opinion about such an endeavour. Consent is manufactured.
All that is purely academic now so, with people in Ukraine dying over this shit.
> All that is purely academic now so, with people in Ukraine dying over this shit.
That is not purely academic. Framing what Russia is doing now as kinda similar to Czech voluntary joining Nato is word class propaganda. It is in fact a lie.
This escalation started decades ago, and was totally foreseeable. And yes, the discussion about the root causes, what-ifs and past errors becomes pointless once bullets fly and people start to die.
USSR was literally Russia + occupied countries. Saying it is understandable is like saying it would be understandable for Germany to attack Poland and France again, because Third Reich went that far too.
Perhaps it was when you said, "Of those two, Russia and NATO, the only expansion since the end of the cold war and the fall of the USSR was done by NATO."
It seems that we are being reminded that it has not.
Russian, simply can't allow more of the board, specially one part so close, to be dominated by the opponent.
Anyone that think this conflict in terms of "good" or "bad" have been drinking the kool-aid.
My prediction: A repetition of Crimea. The Donbas will be incorporate to the Russian area of influence, but not the rest of Ukraine, some noises will be done by the West about sanctions or whatever and in five years nobody will remember. Hope to be right, because other scenarios are really scary.
> Russian, simply can't allow more of the board, specially one part so close, to be dominated by the opponent.
Russian in fact could allow that. Whether Ukraine joins Nato should be between Ukraine internal debate and Nato internal debate. That Ukraine has both opinions present does not excuse nor explain Russian war.
What about the Donbas region, do they have the right to decide in an internal debate?
Instead of trying to be pro-Russian or pro-West, Ukraine have lost a chance of become Switzerland and make a live getting presents from both sides. Now, I think, it's going to be split.
Bullshit. And yes, I am anti-Russian expansion. This is a threat to myself, my family, my friends and my kids, actually. I am very pro-western and very happy my home country managed to be nato member.
Stop paining equivalence between Russia and Nato now.
However, it was not my intention to upset you and I'm very sorry innocent people get caught in the middle of this.
And in six years Putin will grab more land again, knowing that nobody will do more than "condemn" it because everyone is afraid of the other scenarios.
You are aware that Ukraine was the buffer between nato and Russia, because the two actually touch in other places quite a lot? Also, "buffer" is not predestined mandatory role for any country. Buffer is not necessary at all.
There are so many levels of wrong with what you wrote here ...
I'm totally ignorant on NATO procedures, so forgive me that I don't understand the Big Deal here. Obviously, NATO nations will discuss this. They didn't need Estonia to draw attention to what Russia is doing.
So this seems to me a bit like: The exact thing that obviously would happen next (NATO nations discussing) will still happen, but now it's dressed up in a formalism?
To extend your analogy, this is like creating a JIRA ticket when your website with 100 million daily users suddenly goes offline. The shit has already hit the fan and it’s already all hands on deck.
Cogn not of the horrors they speak
From the poisoned tongues of minds infiltrated
Come calls for blood sacrifice on war altars afar
Shame on them and all their houses
Interviewer: "What can the west do, what can the NATO do? It's said that military action is not going to happen, why?"
Smeets: "Very little. The consequences would be very large. This night, in his speech, Putin insinuated how Russia is a global nuclear superpower, and he said that the unthinkable could become thinkable. So that's off the table. All we can do is take economic and political measures; sanctioning, even if we don't know what the effect of these sanctions will be. And turning him into a political pariah, even China said Putin should not pull through on this evasion."
I fully agree with your description that this is a full scale invasion into a sovereign country.
While yes, Putin very much wants his old USSR back, it seems he's doing this in response to potentially having more NATO missiles on his borders.
He's basically been saying "fuck around and find out" since 2008 when we said Ukraine would have the option of joining NATO.
Hypothetically, wouldn't the US would have serious concerns if Mexico decides to join a Chinese alliance.
(I am not justifying a war, just wondering what could have been done on both sides to prevent it)
Yes, countries prefer weak neighbors. A powerful alliance on your border is a potential threat (or deterrent to expansion).
No in the sense that the US only has 90k troops in NATO countries, or about 10% of Russia’s standing military. So it’s not like troops are messing at their border or enough to threaten an invasion. It’s very much a deterrent.
Also no in that the US, Russia and China are nuclear powers. The US should have little concern of a Chinese ground assault from Mexico as it could trigger a large scale nuclear war, defeating the purpose of the invasion. Similarly with Russia, their nuke arsenal means that no one will consider attacking them or invading their borders.
Also … While the “Cuban” part of the crisis can be viewed as instigated by the Soviets, it would be awfully foolish to ignore the fact that they were reacting to the US/NATO moves to deploy missile forces in Europe… by accepting the request from Cuba for nuclear weapons to defend their country from America, which they only asked for after the failed invasion effort in the Bay of Pigs.
It’s never just as simple as “they started it”…
Cuba was a Soviet client state, and installing missiles there was clearly an offensive act.
Reality isn't easily divided into good guys and bad guys...
NATO is not organised well enough to conduct offensive operations on that scale, moreover, there is no state on earth, including US and China that could take parts of Russia and hold for long.
But that aside, the very real political and economic situation in the world would make it unfathomable. There's basically no 'strategy game' where the West would have the intent let alone ability to truly invaded Russia.
The 'NATO' issue is almost entirely a canard, a very easy argument that Putin uses to cause confusion, allow other supporters (i.e. China) to make empty arguments at the UN etc.
Putin is literally using the 'UN Charter' to as cover to legitimise his invasion of Ukraine.
Putin has used the term 'genocide' constantly in the last decade to refer to what is happening in Donbass even though this is obviously not the case.
Putin's implication that 'he's invading Ukraine to stop fascist country, to protect Russian speakers and to 'keep peace'' is basically rubbish, as are his arguments with respect to NATO.
There's a grain of truth in it, of course there is violence in Donbas, but amplifying the issue is the very obvious ruse.
Their playbook is wide open - we know their doctrine, we know how they use misinformation, we know how they argue, we know their intentions. It looks pretty bad on us to allow any of this to happen.
FYI - Western Media has been making a lot of money arguing in public lately, and it's appalling what we're seeing on some of the news outlets, and some of the statements by US public officials. Some people are 'taking a stake' in the situation as they would any other news item, i.e. 'jockeying for position' on the issue. It's disgusting.
The only reason there is violence in Donbas is because of the previous undeclared Russian invasion of that territory as well as fomenting unrest there and elsewhere in Ukraine. Not to mention shooting down a commercial airliner.
It's about as truthful as Hitler arguing there is violence in the West of Poland in October 1939.
If US attacked and annexed several Central American nations over last two decades, except the ones who are part of pre-existing "defense against the US" alliance, Mexico wanting to be in it would be perfectly rational and normal.
I think the real problem is that NATO is a threat to Putin's imperialistic dreams.
No. NATO is a defensive alliance. Easter European countries are in NATO specifically to protect against the kind of aggression you're seeing in Ukraine now.
Russia used to regularly invade neighbors: Poland 1939, Romania, Baltic countries, Finland 1940, Everywhere 1944, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968. None have been invaded since joining NATO.
NATO expansion is removing threats, not creating them.
No, it's definitely not that. Taking Putin's word at face value is completely irrational.
His actions and other policy objectives have made it clear that he and the Russian State do not view Ukraine as a legit country and have literally been invading it for the last decade wile the West twiddled their thumbs.
Taking Ukraine is a primary objective of the Russian State under Putin - that's the more 'simple' thing to understand.
Anything he says on the news is a 'game'. It's not even really a complicated game, we have all of their books, their doctrine, we know exactly how they think it's just a matter of applying it.
In hindsight it will be hard for anyone to fathom how we didn't see all of this coming. We're literally watching it happen in real-time, from a very well established playbook.
FYI have a read [1]
This is Putin's grand thesis. He basically narrates a history in which Ukraine is just part of Russia.
This has nothing to do with NATO.
He’s always advocated for a return to USSR borders.
In the UK there's been much discussion of Russia's role in Brexit. i.e. Aaron Banks, the man who funded the Leave.EU campaign, was aledgidly backed by Russian "business partners".
The Boris Johnson's Conservative government have said in the last 2 hours that they're going to keep £1.93 of Russian linked donations they've received since 2019.
You can draw your own conclusions.
The Kremlin apologists in American politics are really disturbing.
Putin's objective is to re-integrate Ukraine into the 'Russian Empire', he's taking the 500-year view and so 'Nord Stream 2' is irrelevant.
NATO acquiescence to his demands would have just changed maybe the nature of Putins' actions, or not but he would have continued.
The big issue is obviously now Taiwan.
In hindsight, I actually kind of blame the Germans a lot for this. Germany has been very successfully sucking in business and talent from the rest of Europe, building their economy while completely avoiding the 'responsibility' that comes along with that power. Partly military, but definitely geostrategic issues of security.
Their, and European energy dependence on Europe is a giant lever that Russia has - we are talking about nulling 'Nord Stream 2' - it means nothing in the big picture. Laughably, nobody is even talking about Nord Stream 1 - i.e. the pipeline already in place.
If Merkel were to have re-invigorated in Nuclear investment with a strong commitment to both reducing dependence on Russia and ironically CO2 at the same time, and, made serious improvements to military capabilities with a keen eye to the kinds of activities necessary to actually support fledgeling Belarus, Georgia, and Ukraine, and possibly better more serious coordination with UK, France, Sweden etc. then we may not be in this situation.
Ukraine may have regiments of UK, French and Germany units 'training' there at any given time, with support from the US, which really changes the equation a lot.
Putin pretty much telegraphed all of his moves years in advanced. Nobody did anything about it. The US could have done more, but this is more directly a European issue and there's a serious lack of leadership over there as well.
The complete lack of historical awareness is impressive.
In the meantime, here are some more actual facts:
German/European dependence on Russian Energy [1]
'Foreign Policy' articulation of the problem, with specific reference to Germany, and their intransigence on supporting sanctions directly as a result of their energy policy [2]
Germany Energy Mix, 1990-2020 [3] which decisively illustrates that if Germany had continued it's Nuclear program - without even expanding it - it could be entirely independent of Russian (and other) imports.
Germany's continued disregard TO NATO agreements with respect to military spending [4] and some of the political causes.
All the while [5] Germany grows into EU's hegemon (due to favourable Euro policy, weak France, absent UK et. al.)
Here is exactly the argument that I am making in academic terms [6]
"There is no disputing Germany’s dominant economic role within the eurozone (EZ) and the broader European Union (EU). Its GDP represented 29 percent of total EZ GDP in 2016 and, as of 2015, it was the top intra-EU trade partner for 18 out of 28 countries ... for reasons it is largely responsible for, the growth of exports to the ROW has been growing faster. The German trade surplus, however, is larger with the ROW than it is with other EU nations.
Economic leadership in the world or in a region, however, entails responsibilities, especially in a world system of monetary production economies that compete with each other according to political and economic interests."
And it goes on to make the fairly obvious case.
[1] https://www.newstatesman.com/chart-of-the-day/2022/02/how-eu...
[2] https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/03/germany-energy-sanction...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany#/medi...
[4] https://warontherocks.com/2018/07/the-real-roots-of-germanys...
[5] https://www.e-ir.info/2021/08/23/europes-hegemon-the-nature-...
Yes. The trigger for current events was the possibility of closer cooperation with the EU, not anything NATO-related. Putin can't have a successful alternative to his regime. He can write off Finns and Lithuanians as being of different culture, but if their ethnic brothers Ukrainians built a successful country with wages multiple times higher than in Russia, then it would fatally undermine Putin's legitimacy. He doesn't want to end up like Saddam or Gaddafi.
So in 2008 when he attacked Georgia back then Polish president Lech told such thing: "first Georgia, then Ukraine then baltic states, then maybe our country". Maybe he read it right and in 2010 it was assassination like some suspect and not "an accident".
IMO lots of EU parties are in Russian pocket and this is nothing good.
This is dark scenario but if they got deal with China, we are all fucked. They will make mess in EU so they can focus on East Asia/Middle East. US is overleveraged and once oil != $ is done.
If Ukraine had joined NATO then, Putin wouldn't have invaded. That's the solution. Not to stay away from NATO.
If Romania wouldn't have joined NATO, it would now be invaded together with Ukraine.
Now it's time for diplomacy. Just accept the fact that the majority of Donetsk and Lugansk want to be an independent state and negotiate the borders in peace, instead of trying to further escalate.
There was already a precedent in Kosovo, where one-sidedly proclaimed independence was accepted, and a sovereign country that tried to prevent it was crushed by NATO military until they had to accept “the new reality”.
And now let someone tell me what is the difference between Ukraine-Donbas-Russia and Serbia-Kosovo-NATO situation? Except the facts that NATO now sides with the sovereign state instead with the separatists, and that Russia is an enemy of NATO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_ind...
What is false about what he said, and can you provide sources?