Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Legio_Italica]

"We're looking for good, predictable relations with the United States. Russia has never intended to attack anyone, but we have our concerns and we have our red lines," said Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov.
Leaders from Britain, the United States, France, Germany and Italy will hold a call at 1800 GMT following the Biden-Putin talks, the White House and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's office said.

CNN reported sanctions could include the extreme step of disconnecting Russia from the SWIFT international payment system used by banks around the world.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/curr...ne-2021-12-07/

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So here we go again. I won’t dwell too long on the what ifs of the latest standoff but instead try a more holistic approach, abridged as, wtf. Let’s begin with some premises:

The US’ failure to reintegrate Russia into the world order post Cold War ranks with Iraq as perhaps the most visible and consequential failure of the era, and may even be a decisive factor in the future failure to contain Red China.

Putin, rhetorically or otherwise, seeks to reassert traditional Russian hegemony in Eurasia, and the US doesn’t seem to have any more thoughtful a response than “No.” This suggests to me the Washington establishment is actually dumb enough to think this is a Putin problem or a Soviet problem, rather than a core interest of the Russian state, as it has been for centuries. And with communist China on the rise, it’s obvious we need a strong Russian state capable of holding the line in north and central Asia, rather than one obsessed with defending its wide open western border against NATO.

The annexation of Crimea shows that sanctions and NATO posturing are not sufficient deterrents if Moscow decides it really wants to do something, and US et al have proven they aren’t willing or prepared to do much more than that. This proves the current course of containment vs Russia is not sustainable in the longer term.

What even is the US strategy vs Russia? Clearly zero effort is being made to bring Moscow in from the cold, even as Washington rather schizophrenically acquiesces to Russian security designs in the Middle East out of common interest. What exactly is Russia expected to do in order to placate NATO antagonism? As Stoltenberg’s comments illuminate, it’s all sticks and no carrots, then we act all shocked when Moscow is like “OK u then.” I’m fine with Russians. I’m not fine with communists. If the US is serious about defeating China, it’s long past time to start acting like it. As is, it seems Washington really believes they can eventually cut down both Russia and China together, which is borderline suicidal.

Now, I obviously don’t need alot of explanation why the US needs to open up a can of whoop under normal circumstances. But how to close it? I mean, it’s been 100 years now. ONE HUNDRED YEARS. The Soviet Union is gone. So sure. Arm Ukraine. Draw a line in the sand. But to what end? Where tf are we going with this? Are we trying to go to war with Russia? If not, why are we acting like it?

That’s what I’d like to hear from you all about. Because if NATO can’t grasp why Ukraine joining EU or NATO is a red line (because of course it is), the current leadership really has no business making policy. Russia and China are natural adversaries. The fact they’re de facto allies is catastrophic for US interests, and really the rest of the world.

Moderation warning:

We didn't have a warning for a while now, so it's time again to remind you that off-topic posting is strictly forbidden. In this thread, we're supposed to discuss the Russian invasion of Ukraine and not the moral integrity, ethnic origins and nefarious motivations of our fellow members. Nor Chinese geopolitics for that matter. Please also keep in mind that if you violate the rules in this thread more than once, you will get forum-banned from the Mudpit for a substantial amount of time, so tread carefully.

[ggggtotalwarrior]

I don’t disagree that the US has bungled its international strategy but the OP is also an absolute farce that basically operates under the assumption that Russia should be acquiesced to or has a given right to do whatever it wants in Eastern Europe simply because China is a bigger threat economically. There is fundamentally no difference between China being imperialistic is the South China Sea and Russia doing the same in Eastern Europe or even the US and it’s constant ery in South America in past decades and the ME in recent years other than your own biased personal preference for Russia telling you “it’s not as bad when they do it”. You’re essentially arguing that because China is worse we should appease Putin and allow him to violate international borders and conquer foreign lands at will.

Your assertion that Russia’s brand of totalitarianism is okay because it isn’t “Communism” in comparison to China is laughable when for all intents and purposes they are both to varying degrees autocratic states and China certainly isn’t really something you can call “Communist” anymore nor has it been in decades.

[Legio_Italica]

The options we face vs China is victory or death. Russia isn’t trying to take over the world. China is. Can’t fight both forever. I never said NATO should just back off completely. However it’s obvious that if Moscow is left with no options, it will behave as such. And when Stoltenberg straight up says at a press conference that Ukraine will continue to integrate with NATO and there’s nothing Russia can do about it, that’s what no options looks like. Look how we had a meltdown when the Soviets put missiles in Cuba. US/NATO continues to expand military strike capabilities on Russia’s doorstep, long after the threat of Soviet world communism disappeared. A Yalta Conference 2.0 as it relates to clarifying the limits of NATO expansion and creating direct and instantaneous diplomatic channels to resolve disputes, at a time when hypersonic tech reduces the time for emergency conflict resolution to a few minutes, is long overdue. We can step back from the brink, or over it. I prefer the former.

Your assertion that Russia’s brand of totalitarianism is okay because it isn’t “Communism” in comparison to China is laughable when for all intents and purposes they are both to varying degrees autocratic states and China certainly isn’t really something you can call “Communist” anymore nor has it been in decades.

Big talk didn’t go anywhere in 2014 and it won’t now. It has nothing to do with appeasement. The US has already exposed the limits of what we’re willing to do vs Russia. What we haven’t shown is any kind of gameplan besides muh sanctions.

[Abdülmecid I]

Nobody wants you to die. The grievances with Russia are similar to those with China. Diplomatic antagonism, investments, favourable trade deals etc.. The only major difference is that China is more powerful and has a much greater potential than Russia. The conflict of interests between Russia and America are irreconcilable for the same reasons they can't get along with China. At least Russia is so much weaker that reprisals can be ordered at a respectively smaller risk. Sacrificing American interests for the possibility of long-term benefits is never a clever strategy in foreign policy and as likely to prove fruitful as that adorable conciliation project of the Kremlin. Not sure why communism is mentioned either. China is not spreading communism worldwide and has abandoned communism in the interior, too. The spectacular economic growth of the latest decades is a pretty clear hint of the actual forces shaping Chinese economy and of the marginal role played by the state and the workers.

Also, bullying Russia is working, unlike what happens with China. Moscow's influence is continuously shrinking and Ukraine, whose major part is now solidly into NATO's camp, is a typical example of this. Belarus will soon follow, I guess. Even in Syria, their position is more fragile than before the outbreak of the civil war.

[Legio_Italica]

You might have a point if it were the case that the US is prepared to take the steps necessary to halt Russian expansionism. Like I said, we’ve proven those steps are limited and Moscow can disregard them if it really wants to for the sake of pursuing limited aims. By contrast, China’s global ambitions are limited only by observers’ willingness to take them seriously, which, for the last several decades, we mostly have not. Now here we are, with the US scrambling to start the kind of countermeasures we should have initiated years ago. And the achievement of those ambitions means the de facto end of the US as a global power. Russia’s geopolitical interests, on the other hand, are limited by geography and the fact Moscow is a dying petrostate. Russia will never stop trying to dominate its natural sphere however, and allowing them 0% room to maneuver in their own backyard only makes sense from a Cold War perspective in which state collapse/regime change is the ultimate goal, just like the US didn’t have a problem with Chinese belligerence until the latter got strong enough to make good on those threats. Russia will never be a US ally. But the current approach has all but guaranteed it will be a Chinese one, which dooms US’ longstanding priority to prevent any one country from dominating Eurasia, as Moscow will inevitably become a Chinese vassal in such case. Xi’s response to the explosion of Chinese capitalism and shift of power into the hands of wealthy capitalists has proven the latter will only be tolerated insofar as it serves the interests of the communist party. This shouldn’t be about holding Moscow’s feet to the fire just because we can. Unipolarity is over. A sane foreign policy means rebalancing for the next century of great power conflict. If that means arming Ukraine to the teeth and linking it with NATO then great. Clearly, however, it hasn’t succeeded in taming Moscow’s ambitions so much as validating its paranoia.

Also, bullying Russia is working, unlike what happens with China. Moscow's influence is continuously shrinking and Ukraine, whose major part is now solidly into NATO's camp, is a typical example of this. Belarus will soon follow, I guess. Even in Syria, their position is more fragile than before the outbreak of the civil war.

This is essentially a different take on my point though. There’s little to be gained from continuing to try and squeeze blood from the Russian turnip, whereas there’s a world of work to do in containing China. And constantly reminding Moscow they aren’t allowed to do anything ever is only detrimental to the latter.

[Heathen Hammer]

After the humiliating defeat in Afghanistan, the days of US being World Policeman dictating the rest of the world how to act are gone for good. US is imply not in position to even force Russia to stop, but antagonizing Russia will push them even further into China's camp. So OP is 100% correct, US must "acquiesce" Russia, or it will get tag-teamed into irrelevance, as Russians and Chinese will pick America's influence apart bit by bit.
As for "preventing" Russia from annexing Ukraine, there is nothing that US can do about it, short of starting nuclear war to preserve "sovereignty" of a former USSR republic, lol. However I can see how Russia will bring Ukraine back via both soft power and more direct means.

[Cookiegod]

The US’ failure to reintegrate Russia into the world order post Cold War ranks with Iraq as perhaps the most visible and consequential failure of the era, and may even be a decisive factor in the future failure to contain Red China.

What world order post cold war? The one where actual international law is replaced with the law of the jungle? The one where high seas piracy is no longer a problem?
The one where couping against foreign governments constantly across all continents is a normal thing? The one where the complete destruction of countries is a normal thing? The one where one can arm and finance radical islamist headchoppers for "democracy"?

There's absolutely nothing to integrate anyone into. The US operates under the Melian doctrine:

"You know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

The US has proven time and again that it does not respect its own agreements, nor does it hide its intentions regarding Russia at all.

All treaties that had been made to reduce the risks of military confrontation and large scale destruction are effectively dead. And the fates of Iraq and Libya make abundantly clear what happens to those who cannot deter aggression with a punishing counterstrike.

Putin, rhetorically or otherwise, seeks to reassert traditional Russian hegemony in Eurasia

No, the Russian intentions are to not have a hostile superpower right at its doorstep. It prefers that the conflict in the Donbass region is ended in accordance to the Minsk agreement, which the US and its Ukrainian puppets have no interest in. If Russia had actually wanted to conquer Ukraine, it could have done so easily in early 2015, when after the Ukrainian army had been eviscerated in several cauldrons, there was absolutely nothing left to stop them from going all the way to Kiev.

and the US doesn’t seem to have any more thoughtful a response than “No.”

The US isn't the one responding, but the one constantly encouraging the regime in Kiev to restart the war against its own citizens. It's the Russians who are scrambling for a response.

This suggests to me the Washington establishment is actually dumb enough to think this is a Putin problem or a Soviet problem, rather than a core interest of the Russian state, as it has been for centuries.

Personalising it and pretending the whole country is a monolithic entity with just one person, rather than a state with multiple factions with diverging interests is a common tactic to hide that it's actually directed against an entire people.

The annexation of Crimea shows that sanctions and NATO posturing are not sufficient deterrents if Moscow decides it really wants to do something, and US et al have proven they aren’t willing or prepared to do much more than that. This proves the current course of containment vs Russia is not sustainable in the longer term.

Crimea had since the very beginning of the 90s shown a strong desire to be part of Russia, rather than the Ukraine. There was also a strong legal argument that the gifting of Crimea to Ukraine was never legal to begin with, as Khrushchev did not have the legal authority to do so and as only 13 out of 27 members of the presidium of the supreme council was present. It did not even mention Sevastopol, which administratively was not part of Crimea.

Secondly Crimea and Sevastopol were autonomous entities in the Ukrainian state, bound to the government only by the Ukrainian constitution. With the constitution obviously and blatantly violated by the coupists, there was no obligation whatsoever that bound the Crimeans to the new regime. They, just like everyone else in Ukraine, had the right to reject a regime imposed by foreign powers.

Yet the whole argument of "annexation" rests on the claim that a "government" created in violation of a constitution can assert legitimacy over an entity that was only bound to the larger state through said constitution. Which makes no sense whatsoever.

It is funny how everyone has the right to make a violent uprising against a democratically elected government, setting cops on fire, and shooting at them with snipers, but the moment a new regime comes into power that has no legitimacy whatsoever, then suddenly their subjects have no rights whatsoever and it is a totally normal response to send tanks against its own population.

What even is the US strategy vs Russia? Clearly zero effort is being made to bring Moscow in from the cold, even as Washington rather schizophrenically acquiesces to Russian security designs in the Middle East out of common interest.

Yeah, that part I also don't fully understand, though the US risks practically nothing here. They can, at any time of their choosing, interfere however they wish. The Saudis will not dare to oppose them. The US passivity here is more due to Biden's poor relationship to the clown prince MBS rather than Russia, which will never ever be able to impose any real control on it.

What exactly is Russia expected to do in order to placate NATO antagonism? As Stoltenberg’s comments illuminate, it’s all sticks and no carrots, then we act all shocked when Moscow is like “OK u then.” I’m fine with Russians. I’m not fine with communists. If the US is serious about defeating China, it’s long past time to start acting like it. As is, it seems Washington really believes they can eventually cut down both Russia and China together, which is borderline suicidal.

That's the one thing I actually agree with, except the stick comes flying either way constantly. Russia used to deescalate because it believed that deescalation was possible. But sanctions, etc. always came either way, and Russia has thus changed its attitude dramatically in the last 2 years, switching to one where it says what its red lines are, and is ready to act whenever they are infringed upon.

Now, I obviously don’t need alot of explanation why the US needs to open up a can of whoop under normal circumstances. But how to close it? I mean, it’s been 100 years now. ONE HUNDRED YEARS. The Soviet Union is gone. So sure. Arm Ukraine. Draw a line in the sand. But to what end? Where tf are we going with this? Are we trying to go to war with Russia? If not, why are we acting like it?

It's been going on for far longer than that: "Here we are, just as we were, snarling at each other, hating each other, but neither wishing for war." – Lord Palmerston (1835)

Russia and the UK used to be allies since the 16th century until Russia became too successful during the Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774). Ironically Crimea has been arguably just as important to Russian-Western relationship as central Asia.

That’s what I’d like to hear from you all about. Because if NATO can’t grasp why Ukraine joining EU or NATO is a red line (because of course it is), the current leadership really has no business making policy. Russia and China are natural adversaries. The fact they’re de facto allies is catastrophic for US interests, and really the rest of the world.

Not necessarily. At least not now. Russia's been afraid of China since Khrushchev, but these days border issues have been resolved in that Russia simply conceded all disputed terrain, and China and Russia these days do not really have interests that interfere with one another that much. One rare exception is ironically the Ukraine, where the Chinese exploited the crash of the Ukrainian economy to try and acquire as much of its strategically valuable industry as possible. But China too has come to realise that Ukraine isn't exactly a country worth dealing with.

As for what the goal is, it seems to me antagonisation is the goal. And Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, etc. stand to win either way. The US doesn't want to confront China at the cost of losing control of Europe and views too friendly relations between Russia and Germany as a threat. As such, control over Poland and Ukraine are a superb way of keeping Germany in line.

[antaeus]

Yeah, that part I also don't fully understand, though the US risks practically nothing here. They can, at any time of their choosing, interfere however they wish. The Saudis will not dare to oppose them. The US passivity here is more due to Biden's poor relationship to the clown prince MBS rather than Russia, which will never ever be able to impose any real control on it.

I think you answer your own question at the end...

As for what the goal is, it seems to me antagonisation is the goal.

China and Russia don't operate in a vacuum. And it is conceivable, that they could both act against their respective US trigger points in tandem, in a co-ordinated way, if they saw it as mutually advantageous. The goal for the US seems to be to keep everyone juggling plates because the US has the most hands and everyone has at least one plate they don't want to hit the ground.

[PointOfViewGun]

What does US supposed to do with Ukraine then? Just let Russia annex it completely?

[Cookiegod]

China and Russia don't operate in a vacuum. And it is conceivable, that they could both act against their respective US trigger points in tandem, in a co-ordinated way, if they saw it as mutually advantageous. The goal for the US seems to be to keep everyone juggling plates because the US has the most hands and everyone has at least one plate they don't want to hit the ground.

Good point.

But if they keep doing this there's a high chance that plates will absolutely shatter. The current security architecture in both Russia and the US includes a time window of ~30 minutes where the targeted side can weigh its options, check for false alarms (as Petrov did), and choose whether or not to launch a (supposed) second strike.

With the military ramp up right at the border shortening flight times significantly, stealth delaying the detection of missiles and hypersonic speeds soon reducing flight times to much less, guess how much reaction time either side will actually have. Since the US constantly pushes Russia to where there's little to lose and constantly makes clear there is no real downside to defend its interests more assertively, because the sanctions etc. come either way no matter what Russia does and with any deescalation/delay simply means that the same conflict will have to be revisited later on less favourable grounds (e.g. Minsk), more and more of high ranking officials and politicians have deserted the once dominant prowestern faction in Russia. Pretty much everyone has realised what's going on there.

What does US supposed to do with Ukraine then? Just let Russia annex it completely?

Remind me again, why didn't Russia annex the country entirely in 2015 when the country was essentially defenseless? Why didn't it invade last time there was the invasion scare? You don't think there's any connection to the military build up on the Ukrainian side of the border and the thinly veiled intention to abandon Minsk entirely and "reunify" the country through military actions rather than the political path that was clearly set out in 2014 & 2015?

NATO has already effectively annexed the country by banning all opposition parties, persecution of any journalism with even a hint of criticism towards the regime and all other dissent.

[Heathen Hammer]

What does US supposed to do with Ukraine then? Just let Russia annex it completely?

Why should American taxpayer care? Are you going to fund the military aid to Ukraine out of your pocket? Why do you want American taxpayers money to be used on preservation of some post-Soviet Russian breakaway state, whose existence does not yield them any benefit whatsoever?

[Cookiegod]

Why should American taxpayer care? Are you going to fund the military aid to Ukraine out of your pocket? Why do you want American taxpayers money to be used on preservation of some post-Soviet Russian breakaway state, whose existence does not yield them any benefit whatsoever?

Ukraine is so broken even without sanctions annexing it would cost more money than it's worth. Russia was willing to spend the money on Crimea because of its strategic significance. Pre 2014 it practically subsidised the country to keep close ties with it, but those are now severed. It has already replaced those imports it used to do with domestic production, and whilst the federation remains an important trade partner for Ukraine, the same cannot be said in the other direction. The only interest left is its role as a pipe, but Ukraine's left that infrastructure to rot as well and Ukraine's prone to steal from it, so even without all the drama Russia would still have been interested in replacing the country as a gas transit hub.

It wouldn't even have been that keen on the accession of Crimea if it hadn't been for the fact that the regime change made the advantage of having a region with almost exclusively pro Russian sentiment in its neighbour utterly pointless.

So no. Just like last time the Russians had their military build up, the point is to deter the Ukrainian invasion of Donetsk and Lugansk.

[PointOfViewGun]

Why should American taxpayer care? Are you going to fund the military aid to Ukraine out of your pocket? Why do you want American taxpayers money to be used on preservation of some post-Soviet Russian breakaway state, whose existence does not yield them any benefit whatsoever?

I will remember your slippery slope.

[Heathen Hammer]

I will remember your slippery slope.

Err, what? You asked what US should do about Russia and Ukraine, so why should American taxpayer care about that situation, since it would be taxpayers money used on whatever US would do about it, be it some kind of military involvement or even foreign aid? American taxpayer funds are not the piggy bank for your geopolitical dreams.

[Cookiegod]

Tell you what the US won't do: Actually spending money on fixing the country, rather than blackmailing Germany and Russia on subsidising it.

[PointOfViewGun]

Err, what? You asked what US should do about Russia and Ukraine, so why should American taxpayer care about that situation, since it would be taxpayers money used on whatever US would do about it, be it some kind of military involvement or even foreign aid? American taxpayer funds are not the piggy bank for your geopolitical dreams.

Just wanted to highlight the hypocritically obnoxious argument that you're relying on.

[Heathen Hammer]

Just wanted to highlight the hypocritically obnoxious argument that you're relying on.

And we are back to the ole gainsaying. Baselessly accusing other posters without actual arguments doesn't make your posts look good, just sayin'.

[Cookiegod]

Just wanted to highlight the hypocritically obnoxious argument that you're relying on.

You didn't actually adress his question though. You're suggesting the US should spend money on what from your perspective surely is altruistic. Even setting aside the argument by Legio in the OP, that it's counter the US interests in other parts of the world, or the arguments presented by me that they're not altruistic in the slightest; you don't even attempt to make the most basic argument as to why. Surely you can do better?

[Gaius Baltar]

What is more troublesome is a potential coordinated military offensive, Russia in Europe, and China in the Pacific. Maybe throw in North Korea for good measure. European NATO forces would be out-of-position and unprepared, and China would simply outnumber and outclass any potential foe in the Pacific region.

[PointOfViewGun]

You didn't actually adress his question though. You're suggesting the US should spend money on what from your perspective surely is altruistic. Even setting aside the argument by Legio in the OP, that it's counter the US interests in other parts of the world, or the arguments presented by me that they're not altruistic in the slightest; you don't even attempt to make the most basic argument as to why. Surely you can do better?

Doing more is not necessarily doing better. I don't see any value in engaging in Heathen Hammer's hypocritically obnoxious approach to this issue as its quite self-observatory.