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.
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.