Russia 'Likely' to Default on Debts
reuters.com
reuters.com
Word has it Russia has been trying to insulate themselves in case of sanctions for a while now … but things have moved very quickly and Russia seems way more isolated than before.
Even China seems more uncomfortable with the situation as time goes on.
I’m not saying China is a devious country who loves shelling civilians, just that it’s hard to establish their attitude given the circumstances.
Putin instead recognizing the breakaway regions as independent sets a bad precedent from China's point of view.
They're presumably happy about a member of the dictators' club sticking one in the eye of a free country, a (half-)Asian country sticking one in the eye of US hegemony, and the business opportunity to buy stuff at fire sale prices because it's sanctioned everywhere else.
They're probably less happy about how long it's taking -- the Chinese want stability and moneymaking opportunities, war and high oil prices are bad for business. They're probably also been caught flat-footed by how the US / EU seems to be unifying on this issue, they may feel forced to choose sides. China really wants to maintain a balance of power where the US isn't dominant, but they need the US and EU as trading partners more than they need Russia.
> Putin instead recognizing the breakaway regions as independent sets a bad precedent from China's point of view.
and:
> China presumably really wishes Russia had set a wargoal of annexing Donbas / Crimea / all of Ukraine to be part of Russia.
are just part of the same process:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_of...
> Russia recognised the Republic of Crimea's declaration of independence[8][9] and agreed to incorporate the Republic into the Russian Federation following a referendum.
Agnostic to the outcome of the conflict, they were / are probably just planning on the same approach.
You can't set that wargoal anymore without proclaiming to the world that you intend to be and are proudly taking the mantle of "warcriminal". The world decided after WWII that a nation doesn't just have the right to do this anymore. Invading a sovereign country to make it your own against its will is a warcrime. Of course just as prohibition didn't stop people from drinking, this idea on the bounds of acceptable national behavior does not dampen imperial tendencies, so if you want to invade another country you need a pretext first.
It's like that South Park episode, where Stan's Uncle and Ned go hunting for bears, and scream that it's attacking them before they shoot it, when in fact it was just sitting there peacefully.
If Russia is successful in taking Ukraine, what will follow is a propaganda campaign aimed at "proving" everything Putin said about his rationale for the invasion was true. You'll have public executions of Ukrainians "admitting" to all the crimes he says they perpetrated, and he will proclaim loudly to the world that he prevented genocide and everyone should thank him for invading Ukraine.
And guess what, his allies will buy it. You and I will all see through it, and they will too but it will help them sleep at night, because not all of them are as psychopathic as Putin. Elites still need to mingle in polite company after all. It will give them something to tell their children and teach them in school. It will be something for the grieving mothers who lost their sons in the war will have a story about how their sons died for a cause, rather than the impulses driven by an insane dictator's ego.
Anyway, that story isn't as good if you went in without a pretext. Honestly though Putin got impatient and his pretext was too thin. He didn't have a 9/11 like the US did going into Iraq, so he came up with a story about Zelensky being a Nazi, which is really hard to believe. That's why a lot of people are saying his goose is cooked as a leader, because now the body bags are going back to Russia, and there's no good reason anyone has for it.
Well, Russia's been attacking hospitals and having their forces dress in enemy uniforms or peacekeeping symbols. So they don't exactly care about not committing war crimes.
I don't really understand very well why countries do so much shady stuff, gaslighting and propaganda. To me, it's a binary choice; either (a) you're not evil, so you don't do evil things, or (b) you are evil, so you do evil things.
Whereas for a lot of countries (Russia particularly right now, but also China, and some of the shadier stuff the US has done in the past) there seems to be a lot of instances of (c) you know what's right and wrong, but you do the wrong thing anyway and try to hide it.
To me this just seems irrational, a logical fallacy of the form "I simultaneously believe both P and not P" -- You simultaneously recognize that morality is important (because you try to actively cover up or lie about your immoral actions), and you spit on it at the same time (because you do the immoral actions when you have an alternative course of not doing them).
I think what you're missing is that Putin does not give a pretext for his actions because he believes they are immoral, he does it because it muddies the discourse. Think of it this way: look at what happened when Putin said he was sending "peacekeepers" into Ukraine in order to stop a "genocide". American politicians called him "shrewd". Praise for him ping ponged around right-wing media, and it was reflected back onto RT to the Russian people, who were treated with looping reels of American media personalities heaping praises onto Putin.
If Putin is overt about his goals, he doesn't get the benefit of everyone spreading a message that he's stopping a genocide, or that he's being very clever by fooling everyone with his ruse -- even though he's not and didn't fool anyone who wasn't already fooled by him before. It benefits Putin that the world is calling him clever and shrewd, even though they're simultaneously calling him a murderous tyrant. His hope is that back home, he will repel the tyrant talk as much as possible and allow Russians to only hear that he's a master technician who stopped a genocide.
NATO was obviously upsetting the world order by expanding eastward, and for obvious historical reasons, the Chinese are not a fan of NATO, and doubly dislike a NATO that is changing the status quo. So, they would have very much preferred if everybody had settled the matter in negotiation, with or without the Ukranian's interests being taken into account. However, they are going to be increasingly unhappy the more bloody, divisive, and destabilizing the war becomes.
PS: China also doesn't want instability in the west, for the record. Instability causes people like Trump, trade wars, and (god forbid) real wars, which at this point China could only lose. That's in contrast to Russia, which as a declining economy, would be well served by a chaotic situation.
PPS: Obviously, China doesn't want unity in the west either. But nobody wants unity in any bloc they are not part of, as the UK is finding out with the EU. That's not unusual at all.
I heard some people repeat this, but I don't follow the logic. Unless you are a major exporter of weapon system like the USA, war means draining resources. Yes you can increase local production of weapons for the local market, but in the case of Russia it's a direction downward, not upward. I read Russian press regularly and one of their major problems now is a sudden and drastic increase in mortgages. How will increased production of tanks help? Russians needs houses to live not more tanks - nobody sane is going to attack a country with so many nukes.
I think the question is a bit more deeper, though. Economic growth is fundamentally useful as a means to accrue legitimacy in the eyes of the ruled - that's how the CCP remains in power in China. That's how countries like the UK or USA have managed to avoid serious pressure to reform, despite obvious (and often comical) systemic flaws in their constitutions.
It is, however, not the only way to accrue legitimacy. Ayatollah Khomeini once opined "economics is for donkeys", and for his administration, it was entirely true: their legitimacy was based on religious grounds.
If you're entering into an era when the fundamentals of your economy are a declining asset (being a petro-state when everybody is switching to renewables), you are diplomatically isolated, your industries are uncompetitive, it makes sense to look for other sources of legitimacy. Putin's attempt to push 'Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality', is kinda classic.
[0] "My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel"
Insane, and tragic. I blame Stalin. He created a state where the only people who could stomach being an apparatchik had no moral center, where real power always flowed through backchannels, and where limits on official power were always provisional and informal. Putin is just the cynical dregs of this system.
So maybe Russia is not so much served by the chaos of war as much as it needs to maintain a strangle hold over the gas and oil trade to Western Europe. Annexing the Crimea and the Donbas region gives it control over most of Ukraine's fossil fuel resources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_t...
- cheap natural resources in far bigger quantity than before
- more financial power to frame and drive the development of Russian economy
- probably access to hi-tech military gears they do not have had before
Probably enough to overpower USA in few years. UK and USA (mind the order) IMVHO have really miscalculated the long term effect of NATO expansion to the east or they already have an agreement with Russia and/or China, something like: with the excuse of the Ukrainian war we avoid a real new world war, and all parties have excuses to tighten the grip on their citizens, justify the hyper-stagflation, justify any social tissue disruption and dictatorial measure etc etc.
In just few days almost all protest about covid "conduct" of western government disappear, in Italy the emergency power that can't be legally renowned after two years are renowned "because of the war" until December 12, in France renewed talk about the "need" to postpone elections came out before the excuse was covid risk, "perhaps we will do e-voting", now the war, I imaging something "small scale" similar happen in almost all countries.
Honestly what I see is just a BIG win from the world power all, together even those formally against each other, and a BIG loss for the people, again for every people, regardless of their country.
This is a disaster for the PRC too. It's seeming increasingly possible that Putin's government may not even survive and the consolation prize of getting a nuclear power as a Chinese sattelite state may even evaporate.
The scale of Russia's actions and the scale of the world's reaction have shocked China. Both Xi and Putin have been escolating conflicts for domestic political advantage. Both may have overplayed their hand and be killed by their own security forces.
Xi wants the blessing of the 20th CCP congress (ccp 100 year anniversary) for unlimited power but the Jiang Zemin Faction is fighting him tooth and nail. Xi is not popular within the Party and there even talk of him destroying the CCP.
Both Putin and Xi are using very high risk stratergies and it look like Putin is losing. Will Xi lose as well?
They publicly support it: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/27/business/china-russia-ukr...
> As the world overwhelmingly condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Chinese internet, for the most part, is pro-Russia, pro-war and pro-Putin.
The Chinese internet doesn't get any way without the consent (and perhaps encouragement) from the authorities. What they don't censor is sometimes as important as what they do censor.
Including, I suspect, most of those western governments who've always assumed that consensus was just too difficult.
The best insight I've seen here was earlier today in a tweet, but I forget by who. Basically: Europe is sick of Russia's bullshit. They've been stomping around on world order for decades now (poisoning dissidents on foreign soil, seizing territory, pushing disinformation at foreign political markets, etc...).. But actually fighting them back required coordination, and unanimity, which you really can't get in a normal democracy.
Until two things happened: 1. Russia went just one step too far with a full-on unjustified invasion, and 2. it went poorly. Now they can't sew this mess up quickly and get back to "normal".
And Europe smells blood in the water. Once the dominoes started falling they all went, very quickly. This is their chance to get rid of Putin.
And how would that happen? does anyone really think the oligarchs going to overthrow him, they are more afraid of him than comrade peasants were afraid of Stalin.
In 1937, Stalin could effect the Great Purge by rewarding his NKVD with nothing but things he already controlled as the head of the party, using no resources that had to be sourced from outside the borders of the USSR (and after 1940, of course, he didn't even need to pay them because they were serving him out of patriotism in an attempt to save the nation from Hitler).
In 2022 Putin needs to pay his support structure with iPhones and yachts. That's harder to do when your economy is shit.
We'll see. No one can predict a coup. But these are the circumstances that produce them.
They might think they are fine as Russia will get in so quick they think at least, just switch flag.
India depends on buying weapons from Russia, and they are afraid to loose Russia into even stronger hug with China. The worst thing they can do now is to spoil their relations with Putin, also they don't care about Europe (China at least partly does).
This actually feels somewhat similar to the US pullout in Afghanistan last year. In that case, the Taliban regained control of the country very quickly because many of the military assets that the allied forces were counting on simply didn't exist, they were overestimated figures for local military officials to siphon cash out of the military with.
Russia seems to be in a similar boat. They're not nearly effective enough to maintain supply lines and there's a lot of reporting that many of the infantry are young conscripts that weren't told what they were about to do. This reeks of a corrupt military collapsing under its own weight.
Russian conventional military capabilities seem dramatically poorer than anyone expected.
As you note, supply lines, coordination, poor conscripts with out support/ knowing what is going on.
No ability to fight at night…
Really surprising.
They don't want it to attack them, but everyone is reassessing their fear of the Russian bear.
What I don't understand at this point is how Russia plans to occupy Ukraine in the long term given its military weakness. Even if Ukraine does fall, the guerilla war is gonna last for quite a while, especially now that the EU is arming Ukraine.
That’s falling too.
Interestingly, it seems like a common theme from the Cold War too.
I was initially surprised Russians forces haven't steamrolled Ukraine, BUT, I think that's intentional move by Russian Military leadership. Throwing your hot hand in immediately at country that recently received large shipments of [known effective] Western ATGM's... probably isn't the best move. Essentially: Putin sent green 18 year-old recruits to the slaughter to see what would happen. Ukraine repels the first wave using valuable ATGM munitions, letting Russia send experienced tank crews come later when Ukraine ammunition is spent.
No matter the scenario, the real loser is again Russia. Do you think the CIA is going to let a bunch of top secret Russian armor sit on the battlefield untouched? IMHO, probably not. A lot of Russian military secrets are going to be revealed to the west.
It's very difficult to imagine anyone in the Russian command planning what we're seeing here. The veterans I'm seeing comments from are baffled. Russian troops are not practicing land-war 101 here and are just walking around in the open in tightly bunched groups with their hands in their pockets.
This is just wishful thinking, Putin isn't an idiot even if CNN tries to portrait him as such.
That seems to leave Putin off the hook, unless you're implying that the military is corrupt because of Putin, which I think is obvious because he corrupts everything he touches.
Putin is a bully who likes to pick on smaller enemies. He did it when he was KGB, he did it against Georgia, he did it in Chechnya, he did it in Syria, and of course Crimea. Russia came out on top in those conflicts because they were punching down. They didn't need to have tactics or strategy because their only strategy was completely overpowering and overrunning their opponents, and counting on them not fighting back at all.
Now Ukrainians are fighting back and Russia can't handle it. Why? Because Russia doesn't fight wars, they conduct special operations missions. They are used to rolling over their enemies and them staying down and dead. But here Ukrainians are getting back up to fight, and Russia can't deal with it because they didn't prepare for it.
For instance they brought tanks into Ukraine but they didn't establish supply lines as you say. Is that due to a corrupt military, or because they didn't even comprehend they'd need to establish and defend supply lines? Their previous conflicts didn't necessitate doing so, and they didn't here either.
I think the biggest problem Putin has right now he made for himself: he attacked Crimea and then used the experience to inform his opinion about how the Ukrainian military would fare. What happened was that the Ukrainians learned from Crimea and they prepared. What he's seeing right now from Ukrainians is the antibody response of his invasion in 2014.
By no means am I implying that Putin is off the hook for this. He's been the leader of that country for decades now.
> Putin is a bully who likes to pick on smaller enemies. He did it when he was KGB, he did it against Georgia, he did it in Chechnya, he did it in Syria, and of course Crimea. Russia came out on top in those conflicts because they were punching down.
This is true to an extent, but it also ignores the geopolitical influences that led him to strike those particular targets. He's been very aggressively countering western expansion in eastern Europe, which is a major reason why he chose to strike Ukraine. Ironically, this move may wind up backfiring in the long run.
> For instance they brought tanks into Ukraine but they didn't establish supply lines as you say. Is that due to a corrupt military, or because they didn't even comprehend they'd need to establish and defend supply lines? Their previous conflicts didn't necessitate doing so, and they didn't here either.
Yes, establishing supply lines is military strategy 101. Tanks are not exactly fuel-efficient and require lots of logistics and service to remain battle-ready. The failure of Russian armor in Ukraine feels way more like inept leadership than it does pure hubris. Surely they knew how big the country was before they decided to invade, I have a hard time seeing them being intentionally so ill-prepared as to think they wouldn't need to refuel these multi million-dollar tanks.
> he attacked Crimea and then used the experience to inform his opinion about how the Ukrainian military would fare. What happened was that the Ukrainians learned from Crimea and they prepared. What he's seeing right now from Ukrainians is the antibody response of his invasion in 2014.
I think is this way oversimplifies and glosses over many key facts around the geopolitics of the situation.
Crimea was mostly ethnic Russian and the annexation has remained fairly popular in that part of the country. The reality is that Ukraine is a poorly segmented country that still sees major Russian support in its eastern half. It's really only the western half of Ukraine that consistently votes to join the EU and NATO.
Keep in mind that Crimea happened right after president Yanukovich was removed via a coup for being a Russian sympathizer himself, so Ukraine was in a leadership transition at the time. Zelensky OTOH has rejected many offers by the Kremlin to align with Russia, which makes him far more dangerous to Putin.
I think Putin surrounded himself with yes men that promised a swift and powerful invasion and failed to deliver because they're fundamentally corrupt and have no real idea how effective their military resources are. The Russian economy is much worse today than it was when Crimea was annexed, which in turn fuels corruption.
Some say that if the US had never imposed sanctions on Japan in the 1930s, Japan wouldn't've attacked Pearl Harbor.
In that case, the sanctions made it hard for Japan to import petroleum with the result that the Japanese chose to secure their supply by conquest of countries with petroleum reserves (mainly Indonesia IIRC).
[1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
[3] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=belarus+nuclear
Also, please don't flag my comment again. Everyone who's replied to you so far has had their comment flagged.
Granted, I say John Mearsheimer was wrong in 2015 with the hindsight of 20/20 vision. I haven't seen where he has made any public statements since the invasion started. Now we know that Putin fully intended to invade the Ukraine and institute regime change, not just "free" Donbas and Luhansk. Putin has also indicated he wants to re-establish the old Soviet Union as much as possible.
I'm not attacking John Mearsheimer. I too thought Putin was way smarter than this. Frankly I'm shocked by what's happening, but most of all I'm shocked and surprised by Putin's short-sightedness and stupidity. I'm sure John Mearsheimer did his analysis believing he was dealing with a rational actor. Now we know otherwise.
- Ukraine sealed the canal that delivered 85% of Crimea's fresh water supply, so it's been more costly to keep Crimea with each passing year.
>I haven't seen where he has made any public statements since the invasion started.
It's been five days, hardly enough time to gather information on the environment and put together a research paper on it.
Also, a wrong conclusion does not mean the underlying research or thesis is wrong.
Note that could have been true in 2015; what Putin wants can change over time.
At any rate, I watched that video some months ago, but from I recall Mearsheimer's point was that this kind of response is rational when reasoned from Putin's interests and worldview. I don't recall he said there would never be a war, and IIRC actually warned against a possible war (which we now have, albeit in a different shape than Mearsheimer thought in 2015).
Edit: Also, I haven't flagged a single comment today, nor do I think I can flag a reply to my comments.
Well, yes; but when dealing with such high-stakes international politics you need to consider what consequences your actions will have, even if you think your actions are completely justified and the consequences are stupid. To say "Ukraine is the West's Fault" is a bit clickbait-y, and the actual content is more nuanced, but I do think there's truth in that we ("the west") could and should have acted with more caution and consideration of the possible consequences rather than operate on grand ideals.
> Russia is sending some of its nuclear arsenal to Belarus as we speak
Remind me again who keeps upping the confrontation?
In any case, Russia has existed for decades with NATO countries on its borders and not suffered an invasion. These countries have a lot of reason to fear that Russia does indeed seek to "reintegrate" them into an imperial state, given that Putin just confirmed that he seeks to do exactly that to Ukraine. The best way Russia can discourage its neighbors from joining NATO is by not giving them huge, existential reasons for doing so.
That's in contradiction with the "he had no choice, he was encircled" theory.
Also the claims of neo-Nazism is wildly exaggerated, even if you have Russian sympathies. It's hard not to see that as wild propaganda.
Hopefully this all ends soon, for everyone’s sake.
Same here, to build back Soviet Union this might be the first step not just end there. The next will force the Baltic 3 back. Then Poland. Otherwise see UKraine.
It does not work out smoothly does not mean there is no plan.
The attack on pearl harbour is not due to oil embargo. Just like invasion of Ukraine is not because of …
——
As said by others we as free people has to fight back. If no boots how about money. Can’t just sit. We will suffer as well. But better suffer now than sorry later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93China_25-year_Coo...
I think the timer started counting until the coup. Oligarchs are really pissed and may return to politics despite the risks. Ordinary people starting feeling the pain queuing at banks and ATMs, noticing already raising prices, or being stuck abroad without access to money or any options to return home. Many people lost significant part of their savings that was invested in stock. Army is likely feeling betrayed - many officers who have to send their soldiers to Ukraine now didn’t expect the war with slavic brothers. What we see in Ukraine now may be just a first act of an enormous tragedy.
> And what is such a man capable of? This scares me.o
Yes, this is a scary time. I saw someone on twitter suggest that we need to offer him some sort of safe haven he can retire to so he doesn't feel so cornered. Not sure it that would work, though, probably too much pride. Probably the best we can hope for at this point is some kind of palace coup. Some of the oligarchs are already speaking out publicly against him which indicates that any level of fear they had of him is waning. An internal coup would've been an unrealistic expectation a few days ago, now it seems within the realm of possibility.
I don't know if this is 100% accurate, but it seemed to help my understanding: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE
tldw - oil, a better border where Belarus cannot be surrounded by NATO, and better access to shipping ports.
He doesn’t offer that to Russians anymore…
Word has it Russians largely thought there wouldn’t even be a war.
I hope the locals can deal with him quickly and change course.
As for Putin himself, this whole situation seems odd even for a macho saber rattler like Putin. I think there is something to wondering an his frame of mind.
But war is war...
Cut a deal to pull out.
Would be great for everyone. Blame Putin, gives everyone an out.
I expect China to be taking notes and wouldn't be surprised to see them reign in their 'wolf warriors' and claw back their aggressive posturing once the dust settles. The "Taiwan issue" just became a lot more complicated for them.
I wonder if Putin and Co believed their own BS?
China, I wonder if they were caught off guard by it, the war, the response, or even just Russian performance in the war.
China’s statements have been evolving quickly.
Of course they did, that's how narcissistic psychopaths like Putin operate. And just to be clear it doesn't matter what "and Co" think, it only matters what Putin thinks. At this point he's surrounded himself with enough lickspittles and sycophants that he never hears the truth.
Think about this from Putin's perspective. Putin invaded Georgia and the world did nothing. Putin invaded Crimea and the world did nothing. Putin interfered in the American election in 2016 and not only did the world do nothing, the US party he helped actually shifted their foreign policy to be more pro Russia at the expense of Ukraine [1]. Trump stood next to Putin and in front of the world told us that he believed Putin's account of 2016, that it was Ukraine, not Russia, who interfered in the election. Republicans defended Trump and by extension Putin at all levels for this. The official party line morphed from the idea that Ukraine interfered to the idea that the interference and hacking was all a hoax that we imagined[2], again helping Putin. Why wouldn't Putin think that 50% of American politicians would support his invasion of Ukraine?
Trump's first impeachment was over Trump attempting to extort a bribe from President Zelinksy by withholding diplomatic relations, which at the time the new Zelinsky administration was hoping to use to bolster their legitimacy; and Javelin missiles, which thankfully the Ukrainians now have because they are using them to great effect against Russian armored vehicles.
So yeah, Putin probably felt pretty safe going into Ukraine. He probably felt like 50% of the United States political establishment would back him up and cause a complete gridlock for the US trying to muster a response, because they have been on his side since 2016. And he's not wrong, up until last week they were calling him "savvy" and "smart" for gaslighting the world about a Nazi genocide being conducted by Zelinsky! That was before the war crimes so a lot of them have changed their tune, but the song they were singing before was exactly what Putin wanted to hear. He's definitely high on his own supply.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2017/12/04/568310790/2016-rnc-delegate-t...
[2] And if at long last you still believe it was a hoax, just remember that the loudest voices calling it a hoax for 6 years were just last week calling Putin savvy and that he would never invade Ukraine. They were were dumbstruck when Putin invaded (Tabbi, Greenwald, looking at you). Completely floored. So maybe some people need to take a step back and reassess who are credible voices when it comes to Putin and Russia. To see what Putin was doing over the last month and to conclude that he didn't intend to invade reveals a stark ignorance about Putin and Russia, so really why should we listen to them ever again on this topic? Also read the Muller report and Senate Intel report on these issues, because they're indisputable at this point.
After reading that link, that seems to be a pretty accurate summary, when adding that
> China also relies heavily on the SWIFT system. These facts might well lead China to a somewhat prudent move when it comes to providing financing with Russia, as jeopardising its own ability to transact in US dollars would never be a good idea.
So that they are cautious to
> comply with the letter of the law, but in my opinion, not the spirit of the law [Alicia García Herrero, chief Asia Pacific economist at Natixis in Hong Kong]
> Gary Ng, an Asia economist at Natixis, said the current sanctions regime gives China considerable room to continue legitimate trade with Russia.
It's tough because the sanctions are meant to be bad enough but not so bad that alternative systems start to benefit too much, reducing Western - and US-$ - influence in the long run.
They’re advancing but I think the general impression is everyone expected the Russians to make way more progress vs a far “weaker” foe.
Abandoned vehicles, no air superiority….
I’m short they look weak even while advancing.
I wish the best for the future of the Russian people, to get a government they deserve, one that doesn't throw human life wantonly into a meat grinder.
Naw, that would have prevented us from toppling Sadam in Iraq, or Gaddafi in Libya. We couldn't support Saudi Arabia's current War in Yemen.
Better to be realistic: reward our friends, punish our enemies.
Ukraine? Friend.
Russia? Enemy.
It's simpler this way.
It would have stopped us from what is nearly universally considered a horrible mistake that led to immense bloodshed?
Why do you say that like a bad thing?
Like, the US at least attempted to invent a casus belli for Iraq, and it was one that Saddam couldn't aggressively contest without revealing Iraq's weakness to Iran. Gaddafi was deposed because his administration killed protestors and provoked a civil war. Yemen is a proxy conflict against Iran and while our involvement is indefensible the goal of the aggressors isn't to annex the country.
Even Russia has benefited from this ambiguity: the international response to the Russian seizure of Crimea was very limited, and there was essentially no organized sanction over their campaign in Syria (which included at least one attack on US soldiers).
In this conflict, Putin's speech ahead of the invasion of Ukraine made it absolutely clear that there is nothing provoking this conflict beyond Russian imperialism. The erroneously published document outlining the rationale assuming a Russian victory confirmed those sentiments [1].
Ukrainian resistance bought time for a coordinated response and the personal heroism and charisma of Zelenskyy (along with strong American leadership in the background) galvanized Europe. A hard line against wars of conquest is a good one to draw and rally around, even if it isn't perfect.
[1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-state-news-published...
Again: reward your friends, punish your enemies.
Lie ("invent a casus belli") if you have to in order to punish your enemies.
Everyone here trying to give some ideological reason why we did such and such in this case, but not in this other case, is entirely mistaken. Literally everything is spin to justify the core motivation: reward your friends, punish your enemies.
Ukraine is no different. We can invade Iraq because they are our enemy. Russia CANNOT invade Ukraine because they are our friend.
----
Answering your follow up here (I'm rate-limited):
> What was different about the 2014 invasion if it is strictly realpolitik friends and enemies?
As I understand things, Crimea is literally the friend/enemy distinction in action (Russian perspective):
Crimea, arguably (and certainly, effectively) was/is a Russian territory, autonomous (but pro-Russian) and with an active Russian naval base, that came under the nominal control of the West after the 2014 regime change (enemy); thus Russia militarily took it back (friend), ensuring its continued independence and pro-Russian stance.
Ukraine responded to Crimea's post-2014 autonomy/invasion/rescue/independence by cutting off their water supply, something Russia built for Crimea during the USSR. (I'm honestly surprised this step wasn't/isn't a Hague-level human rights violation. Maybe the Hague is also operating primarily under the friend/enemy distinction?)
More detail here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE (Why Russia is Invading Ukraine)
Russia was able to invade Ukraine and annex a big chunk of its territory in 2014, and the idea that Ukraine was less our "friend" then than it is now doesn't hold water to me. What was different about the 2014 invasion if it is strictly realpolitik friends and enemies?
Was in response to a US-supported coup against a president friendly to Russia. What are a US Ambassador and a US Assistant Secretary of State doing at a political protest in a foreign country?[1]
> U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland arrived on Wednesday morning at Independence Square in Kyiv and began speaking with protesters rallying in support for Ukraine's integration with the European Union, an Interfax correspondent reported from the scene.
> Nuland is treating protesters with cookies, biscuits and bread from a big package. She is being accompanied by U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. Demonstrators are cheering Nuland with joyful shouts, some are chanting "God bless you."
> Nuland also approached Interior Forces troops deployed at the square and also offered them cookies, which the soldiers accepted silently.
[1] U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Nuland arrives at opposition rally in Kyiv (https://web.archive.org/web/20220228205358/https://en.interf...)
None of that, of course, is responsive to the original question of why Ukraine wasn't a friend in 2014 (in your narrative, this follows a coup and the installation of a friendly, western regime) but seems to be a friend now. Why Russia was able/allowed to annex Crimea with minimal international outcry is obvious—he either had or successfully fabricated a plausible enough claim—but doesn't fit in with the idea that all rules of conduct are applied only against enemies and not to friends.