Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[antaeus]

Your entire strategy can pretty much be boiled down to some good old-fashioned appeasement. Have Europeans really forgotten why appeasing appeasing authoritarian leaders or dictators doesn't work?

Interesting though the EU is willing to sell out Ukraine. Will they do the same to Poland? Or the Baltics? Or other fellow Eastern European EU members? Must be easy to give up territory when it's not yours.

(risking Godwin's law) It is literally the same approach that failed with Hitler. Not that Putin is Hitler. But I agree... there can't be a status quo that accepts unilateral military invasion for the purpose of conquering territory of neighbouring countries - whether directly, or by proxy. This has been a fundamental baseline for international relations since the second world war.

[EmperorBatman999]

(risking Godwin's law) It is literally the same approach that failed with Hitler. Not that Putin is Hitler. But I agree... there can't be a status quo that accepts unilateral military invasion for the purpose of conquering territory of neighbouring countries - whether directly, or by proxy. This has been a fundamental baseline for international relations since the second world war.

The trouble lies in where principles stand in relation to the fact that we are in a nuclear era. If the situation is not handled carefully, and Russian soldiers shoot American soldiers, or vise versa, the war can escalate to a nuclear level. Do such principles stand when the human race is at stake?

[antaeus]

The trouble lies in where principles stand in relation to the fact that we are in a nuclear era. If the situation is not handled carefully, and Russian soldiers shoot American soldiers, or vise versa, the war can escalate to a nuclear level. Do such principles stand when the human race is at stake?

The US has stated categorically that they won't be getting directly involved. Biden has made your exact point in interviews: That there is no way he will be responsible for having Americans and Russians shooting at each other - it can't happen. But I don't think that's the point here. Apart from the fact that Russia's only option at that point would be nuclear, because they are so far overmatched by the US in that sphere. We won't see a conflict directly between Russian and US troops, so it isn't an option on the table. The US will throw Ukraine under the bus long before they consider shooting at Russians.

As I've said previously, it is the Americans who are upping the pressure here, quite deliberately. They see both an invasion and a backdown from Putin as opportunities to weaken him personally at home in Russia. So they're leaving no room for any other option other than those two. The realist in me suggests the US probably doesn't care which option prevails, because both strengthen NATO, and the US position. And both likely weaken Putin and strengthen the chance of Russian internal politics ending him. Both options eventually lead to a weakening of Russia's ability to act hegemonically in Eastern Europe.

[Vanoi]

The US has stated categorically that they won't be getting directly involved. Biden has made your exact point in interviews: That there is no way he will be responsible for having Americans and Russians shooting at each other - it can't happen. But I don't think that's the point here. Apart from the fact that Russia's only option at that point would be nuclear, because they are so far overmatched by the US in that sphere. We won't see a conflict directly between Russian and US troops, so it isn't an option on the table. The US will throw Ukraine under the bus long before they consider shooting at Russians.

As I've said previously, it is the Americans who are upping the pressure here, quite deliberately. They see both an invasion and a backdown from Putin as opportunities to weaken him personally at home in Russia. So they're leaving no room for any other option other than those two. The realist in me suggests the US probably doesn't care which option prevails, because both strengthen NATO, and the US position. And both likely weaken Putin and strengthen the chance of Russian internal politics ending him. Both options eventually lead to a weakening of Russia's ability to act hegemonically in Eastern Europe.

That's the crazy thing. I've never seen Putin backed into a corner like this. It's usually Putin backing the West into a corner. He either invades Ukraine which firmly cements US influence in Eastern Europe along with sanctions, or he backs down and loses at home. Doing so also results in the US cementing it's influence in Eastern Europe. There's no real win for Russia here.

[Cope]

Not sure how we get from Moscow annexing a NATO/EU target to an American win. Almost every nearby state (with the exception of Belarus and Moldova) is already in the EU and/or NATO. These states are concretely within the western sphere and protected by powerful international defence guarantees irrespective of whether Russia invades the rest of Ukraine. I suspect that Ukraine will agree to withdraw its NATO ambitions in exchange for its sovereignty, but if Russia does successfully invade, the optics will not be good for Washington.

[antaeus]

Not sure how we get from Moscow annexing a NATO/EU target to an American win. Almost every nearby state (with the exception of Belarus and Moldova) is already in the EU and/or NATO. These states are concretely within the western sphere and protected by powerful international defence guarantees irrespective of whether Russia invades the rest of Ukraine. I suspect that Ukraine will agree to withdraw its NATO ambitions in exchange for its sovereignty, but if Russia does successful invade, the optics will not be good for Washington.

We've discussed this in previous pages... Ukraine has overthrown hybrid dictators twice in the last 20 years, and since 2014, clearly embedded it's outlook and it's position on Russian influence. The discussed options for Russia all have risks, chiefly amongst them, the difficulty imposing control of any kind over Ukraine with absolutely no legitimacy amongst the people, and plenty of western arms and money flowing in. Ukraine could quickly be ungovernable for Russia, or whomever they install, and anything that leaves the current government in place in any form is a loss for Russia.

Legitimacy in government in Ukraine stems from it's constitutional requirement to seek EU and NATO membership. It was a literal cause for the last of their revolutions. This desire wont go away. And NATO can never allow a foreign adversary to dictate it's membership, so even if Putin takes Ukraine and forms a new government, Ukraine would still be a potential future partner, and only another colour revolution away from being back here again.

Finally, Just look at how Biden is slowly but surely forcing even the Germans into line. He has secured a guarantee out of them over Nord Stream. NATO will be the most united it has been in decades at the end of this, Ukraine independence or not. Russia on the other hand, will either inherit an ungovernable territory that will cost lives and money to manage, or it will lose face so badly that it might cascade at home.

[Loyt]

Ukrainian borders pre-2014 were literally status quo enforced by Soviet totalitarian dictatorship.

No. Borders were recognized by all sides in early 90. By Russia too. And it was many times confirmed later, what were is no major territorial claims, several times by Putin himself.

[Loyt]

And both likely weaken Putin and strengthen the chance of Russian internal politics ending him.

Why people assume what both ways weaken Putin in any manner? There is no downsides in doing nothing, there is no inner pressure to act. And even backing down would be showed as wise and cunning move in propaganda. War on the other hand is inpredictable and risky by nature, but if it's won (or result can be interpret as win on TV), it's still win for Putin.

[Cope]

We've discussed this in previous pages... Ukraine has overthrown hybrid dictators twice in the last 20 years, and since 2014, clearly embedded it's outlook and it's position on Russian influence. The discussed options for Russia all have risks, chiefly amongst them, the difficulty imposing control of any kind over Ukraine with absolutely no legitimacy amongst the people, and plenty of western arms and money flowing in. Ukraine could quickly be ungovernable for Russia, or whomever they install, and anything that leaves the current government in place in any form is a loss for Russia.

Legitimacy in government in Ukraine stems from it's constitutional requirement to seek EU and NATO membership. It was a literal cause for the last of their revolutions. This desire wont go away. And NATO can never allow a foreign adversary to dictate it's membership, so even if Putin takes Ukraine and forms a new government, Ukraine would still be a potential future partner, and only another colour revolution away from being back here again.

Claiming that Ukraine would be "ungovernable" is a bold assumption, particularly given its historic ties to Russia, geographic proximity and two centuries under their dominance. Imperialists have often managed nationalists successfully.

Finally, Just look at how Biden is slowly but surely forcing even the Germans into line. He has secured a guarantee out of them over Nord Stream. NATO will be the most united it has been in decades at the end of this, Ukraine independence or not. Russia on the other hand, will either inherit an ungovernable territory that will cost lives and money to manage, or it will lose face so badly that it might cascade at home.

Germany has been pursuing a strategy of economic co-dependence with Russia. This is in conflict with the US's militarism. Biden capitulated to Germany over NS2 sanctions last year as an act of appeasement. This was repaid by a continued German refusal to meet their NATO spending obligations and a refusal to supply weapons to Ukraine. Given that Russian gas exports to the EU expanded after the annexation of Crimea (as shown above) I have no reason to believe that Germany has "fallen into line" over anything.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Yeah, evil Germans. How can they dare to use their sovereignty to decide by themself to buy no US freedom fracking gas, but russian natural gas instead. Its time to bring them back in line again.

Maybe sanctions and kicking out of NATO.

[Vanoi]

Germany can buy all the Russian gas it wants. I hope they buy more. It'll be fun to watch the EU destroy itself from the inside out.

Germany's own choices don't just piss off the US. Plenty of Eastern European EU members are pissed over Germany's behavior. Germany is sending one message to it's fellow EU allies. That Germany only cares for Germany. That Germany is willing to give up another European country's territory just to appease an authoritarian leader.

Ostpolitik does not work in the 21st century.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Hopefully this will happen, it would be a good thing, if the EU is shrinking on the level of 1995 and losing authoritarian "democracies" like Poland and Hungary or hopelessness corrupt states like Bulgaria and Romania.

It's the "new Europe" of the US so they can subsidize them.

Meanwhile Ukraine's oligarchs are fleeing from Ukraine.

bne IntelliNews - Ukraine's oligarchs fleeing the country

[Heathen Hammer]

I think you're not the only one who thinks that, but you'd find yourself in a less friendly world. Putin and Biden should be allowed to talk about pipelines and arms trade.

If leaders aren't able to discuss things in confidence, it opens them up to diplomacy by the mob, or worse, by vocal minority interest groups. Nothing would get done because everyone at the table would be too scared to compromise for fear of losing face amongst some key demographic. The most important part of international relations is the ability to negotiate and compromise to reach an agreement - ideally one that leaves both parties accepting the outcome. Often this compromise happens in the smaller less important items on the agenda, but if every domestic interest group has to be appeased, this couldn't happen. You'd see more war and less diplomacy. If that's what you want, then what ever. Its not what I want, so I would prefer political dialogue to be done in confidence to allow for constructive negotiation to actually happen.

But transparency is important, as is out ability to hold politicians and diplomats to account. I would prefer negotiations to be made public in their entirety, after the fact. Much like in parliaments where policy isn't made in public, it is drafted by subject matter experts, then consulted and debated afterwards. So we can then judge the compromises or discussions that have been made in our names, and hold our representatives to account.

I think allowing leaders to discuss things in confidence opens doors for treason and corruption, which is far worse then hypothetical possibility of them being pressured by the "mob" of their citizens. At the end of the day, citizens have every right to exert more control over the state, since they, well, pay for it - so they should have their hand on the dial when it comes to foreign relations too. And if such control leads to some worse consequence, then such consequence is outweighed by society being more free and open.

[Heathen Hammer]

Your entire strategy can pretty much be boiled down to some good old-fashioned appeasement. Have Europeans really forgotten why appeasing appeasing authoritarian leaders or dictators doesn't work?

Because its not the taxpayer's problem. Nothing stops from volunteering to Ukrainian military or donating your private wealth for Ukrainian cause, but you clearly want other people to fulfill you geopolitical dreams of preserving post-soviet breakaway states for you.

[Loyt]

Because its not the taxpayer's problem. Nothing stops from volunteering to Ukrainian military or donating your private wealth for Ukrainian cause, but you clearly want other people to fulfill you geopolitical dreams of preserving post-soviet breakaway states for you.

It is also clear, what individual actions won't solve anything. Weaker countries can't defend themselves against much stronger without millitary allies. But yes, it's other peoples problems, worked amazingly in 1938.
Why even talk about preserving peace in Europe and all such hypocritical in first place? Giving false hopes for guillible unfortunates?

[Heathen Hammer]

It is also clear, what individual actions won't solve anything. Weaker countries can't defend themselves against much stronger without millitary allies. But yes, it's other peoples problems, worked amazingly in 1938.

At that time, all sides wanted war. Britain wanted to preserve the rotting compose of her empire, while FDR wanted to start a major war to make profits for his industrialist buddies.

Why even talk about preserving peace in Europe and all such hypocritical in first place? Giving false hopes for guillible unfortunates?

Well, duh.
Western elites have started far more wars then Russia did, so they don't want to "preserve" Ukraine as much as to find an excuse to increase military spending.
Russia on her side, is also motivated less by organic irredentism and more by trying to use Ukraine as a barter to get a more profitable pipeline deal or something.

[Cope]

Germany can buy all the Russian gas it wants. I hope they buy more. It'll be fun to watch the EU destroy itself from the inside out.

Germany's own choices don't just piss off the US. Plenty of Eastern European EU members are pissed over Germany's behavior. Germany is sending one message to it's fellow EU allies. That Germany only cares for Germany. That Germany is willing to give up another European country's territory just to appease an authoritarian leader.

Ostpolitik does not work in the 21st century.

Ukraine is not an EU or NATO member state. Germany is no more obliged to protect Ukraine’s territorial integrity than it was in 2014. More to the point, Germany lacks the military capability to challenge Russia directly independently of the US. Washington’s non-interventionist policy precluded the possibility of direct German involvement, even had Berlin favoured it (which it doesn’t).

As for the eastern states, Germany’s military ineffectiveness and preference for economic symbiosis with Russia has been known for decades. None of this is a surprise. The bizarre suggestion that economic co-dependence (upon which the EU itself was founded) will cause an EU implosion (it won’t) undercuts the prior claim that it a Russian incursion of Ukraine will galvanize the West (it won’t).

[Cookiegod]

Ukraine has overthrown hybrid dictators twice in the last 20 years

BWAHAHAHAAH! You mean the guy who got democratically elected and unconstitutionally ousted by a violent mob even as he was ready to step down?
The guy who made the high crime of doing a multivector foreign policy instead of making his country a complete b to the jingos in Washington DC? Oh what dark days those were.

These days Ukraine is a democracy. Granted, all the inconvenient parties get banned. Inconvenient laws get straight up ignored. The president has now absolute powers and can "sanction" opposition politicians without needing a judge and ban any media that isn't to his liking. What? You're an opposition party leader and the judge says he needs actual evidence to convict you? Too bad, I'm not going to present it. You'll have to stay in house arrest for 9 f months (so far). Freedom!

You know it's a freedom loving democracy when the game has been changed thus that the people cannot actually speak or vote against the US puppet parties who clamp down on basic freedoms and minority rights and wage an open war against their own population.

Gotta say I love the mass psychosis here and elsewhere. Keep supporting Nazi regimes, guys. :thumbs_up:

[Prodromos]

Neo-Nazis around the world overwhelmingly side with Russia against Ukraine. Must be because Ukraine is led by Nazis...

[Heathen Hammer]

Neo-Nazis around the world overwhelmingly side with Russia against Ukraine.

Is there evidence for this?