In reply to 02Pilot :
Does the nuclear treaty not already call for that, though?
"Give up your nukes and we'll get your back."
"Ok"
(Later...)
"HALP GUISE I AM BEING AGGRO'D"
"LOL good luck with that"?
In reply to 02Pilot :
Does the nuclear treaty not already call for that, though?
"Give up your nukes and we'll get your back."
"Ok"
(Later...)
"HALP GUISE I AM BEING AGGRO'D"
"LOL good luck with that"?
02Pilot said:It's a too-often repeated trope, but the US is playing checkers, while the Russians are playing chess; the Europeans are arguing about which pieces to use and who gets to sit on which side of the board. The US is making the mistake of taking Russian actions at face value right now, while the Russians are planning three or four moves ahead. I'm not saying that invasion isn't a possibility - it is, and it has to be to make the threat credible - but Putin has more to gain from several non-invasion scenarios than he does from going in. If all of his efforts to destabilize Ukraine fail, as they seem to be at the moment, then he has to decide if he can live with a democratic Ukraine next door. Given that all this has happened concurrently with a major crackdown on Russian opposition groups, I'd say he can tolerate it, provided it is not closely allied to the US or NATO. I've laid out several policy approaches that might help to avert open conflict earlier in this thread, but all require a level of nuance that seems to be escaping US policymakers just now. Screaming "The Russians are coming!" isn't really helping; even the Ukrainians are telling the US to cool it.
I thought this in the beginning but didn't say it because I'm not well educated on things, but it felt like if he really wants to invade that he was telegraphing it way too hard. I think the display of a possible invasion is more what Putin wants than an actual invasion. But what do I know.
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
It's not a treaty. The Budapest Memorandum of 1994 sets out a series of agreements, but there are no concrete commitments and - most importantly - no mechanism for enforcement. There's no way the denuclearization of Ukraine would have happened as quickly, if at all, if the parties were negotiating a full-fledged treaty that actually meant something.
In reply to 02Pilot :
putins long game is to break up nato. By strengthing it you hurt him. He won't get in a shooting war. He can't win. His military dosent have the might. China will back him but won't get into active hostility with its biggest trading partner.
Ultimately you want to call putins bluff and make him go home.
maybe you just launch the severe sanctions and starve out the Russian people.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
NATO's biggest enemy has always been NATO. It was originally conceived as a way to ensure that the US nuclear umbrella would be committed to the defense of Europe, first to avoid having to risk rearming Germany, then (for most of its existence) to pick up the slack from European countries that refused to meet their defense spending targets and were more than happy to let the US pay the bills, knowing that it didn't have much of a choice in the context of the Cold War. Add to that national interests, various peace/anti-nuclear movements, general anti-US sentiment after ~1968, and endemic French truculence, and you've got an organization that is hardly naturally cohesive. Trying to get it to coalesce around a common policy in a period of military crisis - for which the European members are profoundly unprepared - is going to be like herding crack-addicted cats.
Enacting sanctions on Russia, especially prior to any military action, will ensure Putin's political standing for the foreseeable future, and probably strengthen his domestic position. Sure, it may cost him and the Russian people, but it also reinforces his narrative of the US as a dangerous foreign power. Ukraine is his backyard, not ours; while the Cuban Missile Crisis analogy is seriously overplayed in the article posted earlier, the geographic implications are worth considering (with the positions reversed, of course).
Fueled by Caffeine said:In reply to 02Pilot :
putins long game is to break up nato. By strengthing it you hurt him.
My geopolitics is pretty weak but I think bringing a country that has traditionally been a part of Russia's sphere of influence into NATO/Article 5 makes NATO weaker, not stronger. Ukraine isn't a red line of any sort for NATO, but it is for the Russians, so it's dumb to enter a treaty guaranteeing that we'll defend something that doesn't really matter to us, but is near-existential for the Russians.
Instead of making your alliance stronger you're increasing the odds of a conflict. Something something damn foolish thing in the balkans, etc.
This National Interest article takes a broadly similar line to my views on this. I don't agree with all of the author's points, but he presents a more considered, cohesive argument than most. (In case some are unfamiliar, NI is a foreign policy journal with a generally realist (as opposed to liberal internationalist or neo-conservative) bent.)
In reply to 02Pilot :
If the only potentially losing move Russia/Putin can make is to actually invade Ukraine, maybe that's why the US seems to be intent upon provoking it.
Fueled by Caffeine said:In reply to 02Pilot :
putins long game is to break up nato. By strengthing it you hurt him. He won't get in a shooting war. He can't win. His military dosent have the might. China will back him but won't get into active hostility with its biggest trading partner.
Ultimately you want to call putins bluff and make him go home.
maybe you just launch the severe sanctions and starve out the Russian people.
Starving out the Russian people fails on 2 counts. First, it allows Putin to claim the West as the aggressor, galvanizing Russian hearts, minds, and stomach's against the sanctioners. And second, it is very morally questionable (at best) to intentionally deprive innocent people of basic human needs.
volvoclearinghouse said:In reply to 02Pilot :
If the only potentially losing move Russia/Putin can make is to actually invade Ukraine, maybe that's why the US seems to be intent upon provoking it.
Yup that is my thought as well. I feel like we are trying to poke the bear into invading because that could potentially lead to the downfall of Putin and leaves Russia tied up in a long bloody costly war. We are then free to focus on Chinese aggression.
93EXCivic said:volvoclearinghouse said:In reply to 02Pilot :
If the only potentially losing move Russia/Putin can make is to actually invade Ukraine, maybe that's why the US seems to be intent upon provoking it.
Yup that is my thought as well. I feel like we are trying to poke the bear into invading because that could potentially lead to the downfall of Putin and leaves Russia tied up in a long bloody costly war. We are then free to focus on Chinese aggression.
Seems like a potential course of action. Is it the right one, at least from the US perspective? I don't think it would necessarily free the US to focus on Chinese aggression. We'd be embroiled in Ukraine and trying to deal with China simultaneously.
Much of the US media seems to be ginning up fear of Russia and fear of a Ukrainian invasion, while simultaneously claiming anyone pumping the brakes on same is "a Russian sympathizer".
If there's one constant in the history of international relations, it's misperception. While I think there are arguments to be had over how much the US might benefit from Russia plunging into Ukraine, I really don't think that much of the US foreign policy apparatus is sufficiently Machiavellian to push policy in that direction intentionally. The more likely situation is a genuine lack of understanding of Russian interests and the pressures Putin is facing internally, as well as assuming the worst (which people often do when they don't understand what's happening).
The problem with looking at war in Ukraine as something that will free American attention to the Pacific is that the US has been desperately trying to get its allies on board to cooperate on China; no EU country is going to care what's happening in the South China Sea if Ukraine is on fire, which will force the US to act more unilaterally (there are Asian allies, but only Japan and Australia are militarily significant) than it would prefer. Given China's inroads into the EU's trading system (Belt and Road, plus ownership of ports and facilities inside the EU), it's fairly important to keep the Europeans focused if any sort of economic pressure is to have a chance of working against China.
Some interesting and detailed intel from the Russian & Belarusian joint military exercises.
The nation news shows are showing how the Ukrainian leadership is now upset with the US for potentially creating panic about an impending invasion.
We may come out a looser on both sides!
Very interesting exchange yesterday on BBC Radio. Combined with the Ukrainians requesting a meeting with Russia in the next 48 hours, I wonder if they are taking the lead in the situation, partially to avoid being a pawn in Russia/US/EU negotiations.
STEPHEN NOLAN, BBC RADIO 5 LIVE: If it averts war, will your country contemplate not joining NATO -- dropping that as a goal?
VADYM PRYSTAIKO, UKRAINE: We might. Especially being threatened like that. Blackmailed by that and pushed to it. And you know we are sometimes hearing the voices from the NATO that guys maybe really.
The question this nation of 40 million people is asking ourself: How will we survive if they come tomorrow? We will defuse this particular situation, we will again stay unprotected by anybody, by any friends, not being a member of any alliance, when everybody all around us -- all the neighbors of ours -- already in the organization.
Frankly, Russia is already bordering NATO. Poland is a member of NATO, Slovak is, Hungary, and many, Bulgaria. Turkey! Everybody of them neighboring Russia, and it didn't change the security situation of Russia. Another addition, Ukraine, won't change that much.
What he doesn't like though is Ukraine will become somewhat different than Russia, so Russians will ask Putin: Do we really have to be ruled the way you do? Maybe we can be Ukrainians and go their own way. This is dangerous, not for the people or country of Russia, but for the particular regime.
STEPHEN NOLAN: I just want to be clear about what you just said there, so it is lost in translation. I want to repeat the question if that is OK with you, so we're clear. When I asked you if your country would contemplate dropping the goal of [joining] NATO, if it stopped a war, you answered it might. So is that a possibility? Is that something you are now contemplating to avoid war -- dropping the goal of joining NATO?
VADYM PRYSTAIKO: Thank you for asking it again, because you are right. This is what is written in our constitution. By being an ambassador and saying 'might' I am somehow going just to change the major document we have. What I am saying here is we are flexible trying to find a way out. If we have to go from some serious concessions, that is something we might do, that is for sure.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to 02Pilot :
Does the nuclear treaty not already call for that, though?
"Give up your nukes and we'll get your back."
"Ok"
(Later...)
"HALP GUISE I AM BEING AGGRO'D"
"LOL good luck with that"?
The language in the actual treaty was reviewed a few pages back. We never said we would defend them, we said that we would defend them against nuclear attack.
aircooled said:The nation news shows are showing how the Ukrainian leadership is now upset with the US for potentially creating panic about an impending invasion.
This thread has been my 100% go to for news updates on the situation (so a huge thanks to you guys for the informative discussion). Local news, around town, and from work I hear exactly nothing. No one's talking about it at all.
In contrast, I have family members calling me and asking when we're going to "get out". They're convinced WW3 is happening tomorrow and think we should have left yesterday...
02Pilot said:If there's one constant in the history of international relations, it's misperception. While I think there are arguments to be had over how much the US might benefit from Russia plunging into Ukraine, I really don't think that much of the US foreign policy apparatus is sufficiently Machiavellian to push policy in that direction intentionally. The more likely situation is a genuine lack of understanding of Russian interests and the pressures Putin is facing internally, as well as assuming the worst (which people often do when they don't understand what's happening).
The problem with looking at war in Ukraine as something that will free American attention to the Pacific is that the US has been desperately trying to get its allies on board to cooperate on China; no EU country is going to care what's happening in the South China Sea if Ukraine is on fire, which will force the US to act more unilaterally (there are Asian allies, but only Japan and Australia are militarily significant) than it would prefer. Given China's inroads into the EU's trading system (Belt and Road, plus ownership of ports and facilities inside the EU), it's fairly important to keep the Europeans focused if any sort of economic pressure is to have a chance of working against China.
Those are fair points but if it leads to a Russian collapse it would free up the US but you are probably correct that it is more misperception. Our foreign policy has been very Machiavellian before so I see little reason why it couldn't again.
Also of interest to me, China has not evacuated its embassy staff from Kiev.
China evaded questions on Monday as to why it had not yet evacuated its embassy staff and citizens from Ukraine amid heightened tensions with Russia.
In a briefing Monday, China's Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said the embassy in Ukraine is "working normally" when asked by a reporter why China had not yet evacuated its embassy staff.
Without mentioning staff directly, Wang said the embassy continues to provide consular protection and assistance to “safeguard the safety and legitimate rights and interests” of Chinese citizens and enterprises in Ukraine.
A number of countries, including the United States, have urged citizens to leave the country and reduced staff at embassies in Ukraine as Russia continues its buildup on the border.
In a follow-up question on why it had not yet evacuated its citizens, Wang said China's position on Ukraine "is consistent and clear" and that parties should "remain rational and refrain from inflaming tensions or hyping up the crisis."
"All parties should push for a comprehensive settlement of the Ukrainian crisis and related issues through dialogue and negotiation," Wang said, reiterating that the Minsk Agreement should be "earnestly implemented."
On Saturday, the Chinese embassy in Ukraine issued a warning to Chinese citizens to "pay close attention" to the political situation between Ukraine and Russia.
"The current tense relations between Ukraine and Russia have aroused a lot of attention and there are various inconsistent opinions," the embassy's statement said. "Please pay close attention to the [political] situation in Ukraine and enhance your awareness of prevention. The Embassy will always be with you!"
Hungary Bill (Forum Supporter) said:aircooled said:The nation news shows are showing how the Ukrainian leadership is now upset with the US for potentially creating panic about an impending invasion.
This thread has been my 100% go to for news updates on the situation (so a huge thanks to you guys for the informative discussion). Local news, around town, and from work I hear exactly nothing. No one's talking about it at all.
In contrast, I have family members calling me and asking when we're going to "get out". They're convinced WW3 is happening tomorrow and think we should have left yesterday...
Very true. We have pictures of Macron tlaking with Putin (over an impossibly long table), we have Biden bragging about talking with Putin. We have NATO and Russia arguing.
Nobody seems to be talking to Ukraine. That seems like a great place to start. Biden -> Ukraine "Hey dude, what do you actually want us to do?" might be a nice thing to know.
tuna55 said:The language in the actual treaty was reviewed a few pages back. We never said we would defend them, we said that we would defend them against nuclear attack.
I read this and found it kind of funny.
"Hey, we are under nuclear attack from Russia, HELP"!
"Hmm, OK, let's see, what are... BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM"
"Uhhhh, yeah... sorry?"
I mean, what exactly is the US or NATO supposed to do to prevent a nuclear attack? The THAAD system might work in some circumstances, but I think that is more for limited attacks (more of an Iran / NK kind of thing). Wikipedia notes that there is one in Hungary (good for you Bill), and Turkey, so they might be in position to do something?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense
tuna55 said:Hungary Bill (Forum Supporter) said:aircooled said:The nation news shows are showing how the Ukrainian leadership is now upset with the US for potentially creating panic about an impending invasion.
This thread has been my 100% go to for news updates on the situation (so a huge thanks to you guys for the informative discussion). Local news, around town, and from work I hear exactly nothing. No one's talking about it at all.
In contrast, I have family members calling me and asking when we're going to "get out". They're convinced WW3 is happening tomorrow and think we should have left yesterday...Very true. We have pictures of Macron tlaking with Putin (over an impossibly long table), we have Biden bragging about talking with Putin. We have NATO and Russia arguing.
Nobody seems to be talking to Ukraine. That seems like a great place to start. Biden -> Ukraine "Hey dude, what do you actually want us to do?" might be a nice thing to know.
Don't come in here with your common sense!
But I'll third/fourth, this has also been my go to on news regarding the subject because of the people here.
Anyone else thinking about how differently this could've gone if the world was a bit more fossil-fuel-free?
If Russia invades, one side effect will be global gas prices that will make the peaks of the 2nd Iraq war look like a memorial weekend price bump, a pretty serious downside to letting Russia get themselves into a Ukrainian quagmire.
The main reason that Europe can't economically put the screws to Russia is that Germany decided that nuclear power was scary (while France right next door has been casually powering their country with it for decades) and replaced it with fossil power, in the process making themselves dependent on Russian natural gas, and Russia has been using it to twist their arm ever since. Germany should've been putting military-level expenditure into switching over to renewables since the first time that happened. Russia would not even flirt with invading Ukraine if they didn't have Germany by the short hairs, and by extension a lot of leverage over the EU.
Edit: Just saw this in my news feed, as if on cue: https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/14/opinions/putin-russia-gas-europe-climate-connolly/index.html
As noted previously (you may not have read) Russian intelligence is apparently a very large backer and supporter of the Green party, especially in Germany, specifically for their defiance of nuclear power which many have come to realize is likely to be very necessary component in an oil free (or significantly less oil) energy plan. For reasons now very apparent. France BTW has committed to build a bunch more reactors.
Also of interest in that area is that the VAST majority of oil from the Middle East goes to Europe. Yes, it is a global market, but when we talk of the US fighting for oil in the Middle East, that is pretty much entirely for Europe. Your welcome.
OK, so super double cross, almost certainly not true theory:
The US is wildly enthusiastically warning about impending doom, which will of course make the US look kind of silly if Putin just walks away. The US, being super smart and self-sacrificial (!), realizes this and is over acting this part to give Putin an easy out!
93EXCivic said:02Pilot said:If there's one constant in the history of international relations, it's misperception. While I think there are arguments to be had over how much the US might benefit from Russia plunging into Ukraine, I really don't think that much of the US foreign policy apparatus is sufficiently Machiavellian to push policy in that direction intentionally. The more likely situation is a genuine lack of understanding of Russian interests and the pressures Putin is facing internally, as well as assuming the worst (which people often do when they don't understand what's happening).
The problem with looking at war in Ukraine as something that will free American attention to the Pacific is that the US has been desperately trying to get its allies on board to cooperate on China; no EU country is going to care what's happening in the South China Sea if Ukraine is on fire, which will force the US to act more unilaterally (there are Asian allies, but only Japan and Australia are militarily significant) than it would prefer. Given China's inroads into the EU's trading system (Belt and Road, plus ownership of ports and facilities inside the EU), it's fairly important to keep the Europeans focused if any sort of economic pressure is to have a chance of working against China.
Those are fair points but if it leads to a Russian collapse it would free up the US but you are probably correct that it is more misperception. Our foreign policy has been very Machiavellian before so I see little reason why it couldn't again.
Note that I said "US foreign policy apparatus" - I'm talking here about the State Dept. and various other agencies tasked with policy planning, not the policy-makers themselves. I should also note that 1) Machiavelli's ruthless but effective approaches as outlined in The Prince and elsewhere are broadly misunderstood, and 2) I do not use the term Machiavellian in a pejorative sense. Very few of our policy-makers really qualify, and none that are currently holding power. Worse, our leaders cannot recognize skilled practitioners of Machiavelli's dicta, and thus fail to understand the inherent logic of their actions.
You'll need to log in to post.
