History in the Making: Russian Invasion

Putin recently told Biden to not let Ukraine into NATO or he will invade Ukraine.  He sees it as a buffer country and doesn't want US nukes or weapons there.

Its logical from a geo-political point of view.  Its kind of like the Theodore Roosevelt philosophy of "speak softly but carry a big stick".   

I don't think Putin wants war but he very well knows how to protect his interests.  He may be an evil genius but he isn't crazy with hubris like Napoleon, Hitler or Stalin. 

jharry3 said:

Putin recently told Biden to not let Ukraine into NATO or he will invade Ukraine.  He sees it as a buffer country and doesn't want US nukes or weapons there. 

I don't think Putin wants war but he very well knows how to protect his interests.  He may be an evil genius but he isn't crazy with hubris like Napoleon, Hitler or Stalin. 

Agree on the first part re: NATO but not sure about the second part. All three of those guys looked like geniuses...until they didn't. 

Relevant quote from Putin-"Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain."

It does appear to be a substantial movement of resources to the border. 

It is a good test by Russia on the political will of NATO to actually do anything in response. If Nato looks ambivalent then walk in and take Ukraine. If NATO looks rather incensed then I think Russia has done the right thing by moving in a significant build up of troops just in case NATO does decide to call their bluff and retake Crimea. If NATO wants to stay in the middle then, job done. 

I know we wanted to stay away from politics but RUSSIAN political motivations is what colors in the outlines of the situation that we have been given via satellite images and sources on the ground. 

In the end, the money making machine in Russia would not be happy about a war so pressure within Russia should be high. 

To ask the silly kid question, "Why don't we just invite Russia and China into the NATO club?" Not all of NATO countries are angelic so why not just say hey lets all be in NATO, we have great desserts at our parties and adding pastila and jian dui works!!!

In reply to Advan046 :

To answer the silly question:  Because NATO exists specifically to counteract the threat of the Soviet bloc.

So... inviting them into the clubhouse kind of defeats the purpose of having the clubhouse in the first place.

CrustyRedXpress said:

Relevant quote from Putin-"Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain."

I think Putin wants back the military parades part of the Soviet Union, not the free childcare and affordable housing.

Another factor to consider here when trying to determine Russian motives is that it has an effective alternate means of leverage against much of Western Europe, most notably Germany (and as goes Germany, so goes the EU): natural gas. The supply of natural gas to the West is vital, and Putin has already proven his willingness to adjust the supply to motivate compliance of foreign governments. Unpleasant as it may be going into winter, it's a far more palatable alternative to open conflict, and one must more likely to achieve Russian goals through diplomacy.

It seems to me this posturing (and it is posturing, as all of these movements are being made in the open) is directed at Ukraine and the US, two countries that are more motivated (Ukraine) or able (US) to resist Russian attempts at leveraging via non-military means. It may be a test of the Biden Administration's mettle, to see how far he is willing to go to assist Ukraine. Aside from the Crimea water issue I mentioned earlier, I don't see a lot of advantage in Russia undertaking active operations now; proving that the US is unwilling to go to bat for Ukraine when the pressure's on would be a considerable win for Putin, one that would weaken both the Ukrainian and US governments (especially the former). If the water crisis in Crimea has indeed reached a critical point, however, Putin's options are narrowed and the situation is more dangerous.

Oh, and as to the Russians fighting in winter, remember that 1) it's been a long time since they've done that, 2) much of that success came in defense fighting, and 3) the Finns proved in 1940 that the Russians were hardly invincible in the snow against a motivated opponent. And the Ukrainians will have very strong motivation to give the Russians a bloody nose or worse if they do come across the border.

Edit: On the point of inviting Russia (and China) into NATO, the major stumbling block - other than the obviously dubious nature of extending an invitation to your geopolitical rivals to join a formal military alliance - is Article 5 of the North Atlantic Charter, which reads in part: 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 (note that "North Atlantic area" has proven a very elastic term since the Cold War.) No Western government wants to be sucked into a military commitment to defend Russia (or China) because it claims to have been attacked.

I don't have much to add, but I am wondering if this is also more of an attempt to distract Russian citizens from other issues, and shore up domestic support by looking tough.

Russia has done this before, and did invade Crimea.  I believe the water situation in Crimea has already been solved.  As noted,  I am sure a lot of Putin's moves are blustering and an attempt to show strength, I don't think their economy is doing great.  The question is:  Is this Mussolini blustering (who was a master of blustering and horribly bad at following through) or Hitler blustering (who was horribly effective at following through, but thankfully decided he was a master of military strategy because of that).

I am in NO way saying this a prelude to a full war, but it is an interesting peak into the situation / attitudes prior to WWII.  Germany just wanted to reunite Germans(!).  The west had no gut for another war and would do almost anything to avoid it, and Hitler was well aware of that.  Just Austria... that's all I want.  Well, there are some Germans in the Sudetenland... that Czechoslovakia so rudely does not want to give up....

What did the west do?  The great peacemaker Nevil Chamberlin (England) gave us "peace in our time" and gave the Sudetenland to Germany.  Other things happened after that...  when you let a-holes get away with stuff, it empowers them (and others).

When I posted this, I did not realize there was a meeting today about this, which happens to be December 7th (for some reason that date sounds familiar ).

Also of note, the significance of Christmas is for that lack of readiness of western forces.  Since Ukraine uses the Gregorian calender, there Christmas is Jan 7th so that is a significant date also as noted.

Thanks for the info links, I am always looking out for the military perspective on world events.  And yes, I did think of Hess's "The Next War" posts when I posted this.  I think this is bit less speculative then some of the things he posted though(!)

Regarding "this HAS to be a political discussion".  No, not in the way I am sure we all know I mean by "don't make it political".  By that, I of course am referring to internal US politics, not international politics.

aircooled said:

Russia has done this before, and did invade Crimea.  I believe the water situation in Crimea has already been solved.

Crimea has strategic value due to its naval infrastructure and was considered necessary to maintain a credible Russian posture in the Black Sea. Its population is also much more ethnically Russian. I don't think that the rest of Ukraine fits that description in either strategic value or demographics.

I am curious about your statement on the fresh water supply issue. How has it been solved? I haven't seen anything to that effect.

aircooled said:

Regarding "this HAS to be a political discussion".  No, not in the way I am sure we all know I mean by "don't make it political".  By that, I of course am referring to internal US politics, not international politics.

I already stopped myself several times from posting my opinions. Better to just write them on a napkin and throw them away. There's plenty to discuss without crossing the line and this has gone pretty well so far.

I wonder how the *average* Ukrainian feels. Reading about the navy personnel in Crimea many of them felt they were much better off staying there and becoming Russian rather than accepting repatriation with Ukraine forces. Most of the naval vessels left behind were inoperable and likely a burden to the Russians rather than an asset. Regardless of the situation when Crimea was taken, Crimeans may prefer the current status quo. Truth may be hard to find.

As far as Russia and China, I think the answer lies here: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/china-russia-navy-ships-jointly-sail-through-japan-strait-2021-10-19/

As far as Ukraine, Russia has coerced them by taking over banking and he already has the pipeline control. They will be extorted, it will look close enough, and NATO will say mean things and tell him to stop. It will look a lot like the Appeasement strategy taken with Hitler, and it will work about as well as that did.

NATO may have weapons and men, but they do not have the willingness to fight. America isn't going to fight again wholesale unless there is blood on our shore. We're weak and frankly, other than nuclear arsenal which I hope we never use, we're not ready for a major conflict.

02Pilot said:

aircooled said:

Russia has done this before, and did invade Crimea.  I believe the water situation in Crimea has already been solved.

Crimea has strategic value due to its naval infrastructure and was considered necessary to maintain a credible Russian posture in the Black Sea. Its population is also much more ethnically Russian. I don't think that the rest of Ukraine fits that description in either strategic value or demographics.

I am curious about your statement on the fresh water supply issue. How has it been solved? I haven't seen anything to that effect.

Someone who follows this I listed to mentioned it I believe.  I don't remember the specifics, but they built another pipeline maybe?  Info on these things can be hard to find.  I don't see anything about a solution (BTW putting a DATE on news articles should be a standard!!) so you may be correct and it is still a major issue.

Of note is that the eastern Ukraine is also very ethnically Russian.  Apparently this a Long Game tactic of Russia to increase the number of Russians in areas (either by increasing the Russians or "decreasing" the non-Russians) which creates a justification for "liberating" them.

I think you are correct though, there is not as much of an actual need (compared to Crimea) for Russia to take eastern Ukraine, other than a bit of a buffer, which might be an indicator.

I hesitate to post this lest it be used to inflame any political discussions, but I've read this guy's books and this is his take on the situation.

The bad thing about the Chinese taking Taiwan is that that is where a lot of our microchips are manufactured. They would be cutting off a major supply chain for us and they know it. This is probably why Texas Instruments is building a new semiconductor plant in Sherman, Texas. Long global supply chains are not a good thing anymore.

Another factor here is how these build-ups and offensive postures play to the respective Chinese and Russian domestic audiences, and how the governments use their state-controlled media outlets to shape the narrative to their own people. Particularly given the increasing control they have over their domestic internet accessibility, they are certainly able to present a selective version of events.

It's been a while since I read it, but I was reminded of the argument in Thomas J. Christensen's Useful Adversaries: Grand Strategy, Domestic Mobilization, and Sino-American Conflict, 1947-1958. Rather than try to explain it, I'll just quote from the back cover blurb: "Christensen first develops a novel-two-level approach that explains why leaders manipulate low-level conflicts to mobilize popular support for expensive, long-term security strategies. By linking "grand strategy," domestic politics, and the manipulation of ideology and conflict, Christensen provides a nuanced and sophisticated link between domestic politics and foreign policy....the extension of short-term conflict was useful in gaining popular support for the overall grand strategy the each leader (Truman and Mao) was promoting domestically...."

02Pilot said:

Another factor here is how these build-ups and offensive postures play to the respective Chinese and Russian domestic audiences, and how the governments use their state-controlled media outlets to shape the narrative to their own people...

The Chinese statements on such things probably go over well domestically but can be quite halarious with an outside perspective.  The Russian statements are generally:  "but look what the US is doing or has done..."

The Chinese statements involving Taiwan generally involve warning Taiwan (a word that is NOT allowed by the Chinese BTW) to stop escellating the situation.  It's a bit like a grown man yelling at a 10 year old to stop threatening them while the continually fake punching at them.

It would be great if world leaders could stop being vajajays and trying to start wars.

They do it, because many times it gets them what they want (which can be a less than obvious sometimes).  

It's a bit like a child acting out, or having a tantrum (e.g.  "I am going to launch missiles until you give me something,  waaaaaaaaa!")

Interesting topic I have been reading on and following closely.

 What options does the Nato have here that don't involved getting involved in the case of an invasion? What does the hive think of the potential punishment to kick Russia out of the international Swift financial payment system.  

The US is running perilously low on additional functional financial or economic sanctions for Russia and others.  I was a bit surprised that it was threatened so clearly in the recent talks.

The Ukraine is in Russia's backyard. Taiwan is in China's backyard. How would Russia, China and the rest of the world feel if the United States decided to annex Cuba as the 51st state? Would they want to come to our backyard to fight, or would it be worth it to anybody outside of the US?

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

Are we talking Cuba in 1962 or in 2022? We embargoed Cuba in '62 because having Russian nukes 90 miles from Miami was a red line for us at the time. IIRC it upset MAD because they could glass DC before we could launch a counter strike. Basically, it was a buffer state for the US.

I think the analogy today would be if we put nukes in Ukraine and gave a shocked pikachu face if Russia had an issue with it.

All of this is a reminder that all of us have won the ovarian lottery-life in a buffer state is hard.

93EXCivic said:

It would be great if world leaders could stop being vajajays and trying to start wars.

Usually the best use of force is the threat of force.

Use of actual force isn't the best option really

The Russians will probably go, and the US will try to fix it with sanctions, but Europe will water them down for fear of having the gas turned off, especially this time of year. So the Russians will gain the breadbasket of Europe for the cost of some sanctions which I am sure they have already calculated into their ten year financial plan. China is watching with interest, and if the Russians pull it off, they will stop the next American or British warship trying to sail through the Taiwan Straight. They will then own the South China Sea, and Taiwan will be the first local domino to fall.  It will be exactly the same calculation of where the Western red line is. (answer: the red line is not even close to protecting countries that are not part of NATO or not recognized by the West as a "proper" country in the case of Taiwan. And that will be the end of the US as the worlds preeminent superpower. I would not want to be Tsai Ing-wen, Vladimir Zelenskiy or Joe Biden right now. 

Couple of things in response to points that came up in the last few posts:

- In the case of Russia, NATO really is a non-factor as such, since it is a defensive alliance. I'm sure there will be coordination between member states, but there is no obligation for any of them to pursue any course of action, individually or collectively. I would expect disparate responses from the US, the NATO states bordering Russia, and the Germany-led western European states.

- On Cuba, if you actually get deep into the research, it was generally accepted inside the White House that the missiles in Cuba did not alter the strategic balance. They were a political problem, not a military one. The US had overwhelming nuclear superiority at this point, and the Soviets knew it. Whether MAD actually existed at that point, or if it really wasn't operating until the widespread deployment of ICBMs by both sides a few years later is open for debate.

93EXCivic said:

It would be great if world leaders could stop being vajajays and trying to start wars.

I respectfully submit that they are not being vajayjays; they are instead being papeepees.