Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Septentrionalis]

If true, this means the United States has directly engaged in terrorism against Russia and Germany. I can’t fathom why the Biden White House thought this was a good or advantageous idea, but they have categorically denied it, of course. It would be the greatest possible gift to the Russians and a near complete vindication of their propaganda about the Gendarme of Europe defending the continent from a rapacious foreign overlord. What it won’t do is prevent or even reduce the flow of gas to Europe from Russia, both because the pipelines were already shut down/sanctioned, and because gas flows have actually increased lately. Undoubtedly the biggest potential foreign policy blunder since lying about WMDs in Iraq. To add insult to injury, the Germans are prepared to repair Nord Stream within a year if politics were ever to permit it. Lose-lose situation for the US.

I interpret this situation completely differently. I think US had every motive to get Germany off the gas and back in line, and Biden said in as direct terms as one can that US will destroy the pipe. The video of him saying that and even confirming that US is able to do that regardless of Germany's protest is right there in the article. As is the video of Nuland saying essentially the same but even more emphatically. Russia has no reason to destroy a pipe it has used as way to keep Germany in its grasp and the EU divided over action against Russia. The pipe the gas flow of which it controls even when it's intact.

And why do say it was foreign policy blunder? If it was a blunder, what bad came out of it? Germany is finally grudginly on board with supporting Ukraine and Russia can no longer bypass Ukraine in gas deliveries. And importantly, perhaps the great majority of people are not going to believe in US culpability no matter who comes up claiming it. A perfect execution, and as someone who has opposed Nord Stream since the beginning and detests Germany colluding with Russia, I would be happy if Biden and Nuland actually did good on their promise.

[Septentrionalis]

If true, this means the United States has directly engaged in terrorism against Russia and Germany. I can’t fathom why the Biden White House thought this was a good or advantageous idea, but they have categorically denied it, of course. It would be the greatest possible gift to the Russians

From another point of view, Putin having his own pipes blown would be the greatest gift to those in Europe who take the Russian threat seriously and want harm to Russia. Their infrastructure damaged, their energy weapon crippled, a more unified west/EU, less money to fill Russia's coffers, and more assistance to Ukraine. Thank you, Vova, for shooting yourself in the foot.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I understand there would be some support for the attack in Europe. Norway allegedly hosted it and provided logistical and targeting support. If the Russians or Chinese were to bomb undersea telecommunications cables between the US and the rest of the world, I would support almost any means to end those countries’ existence in response. And that’s why I think culpability has such massive implications. I like it, it’s gangster, it’s sexy, but I think it would be a terrible idea with little to be gained.

As for Germany, that is another matter. I think they’re getting a raw deal in general and unfair amount of hate during this conflict, as they often do. If the US bombed the pipeline and I were German, I wouldn’t consider America an ally if I ever had before. It’s bad enough people don’t seem to appreciate that they willingly sacrificed their economy for the foreseeable future on principle, but to suggest they also deserve to have their infrastructure bombed seems rude if you don’t mind my saying so.

[Septentrionalis]

And that’s why I think culpability has such massive implications. I like it, it’s gangster, it’s sexy, but I think it would be a terrible idea with little to be gained.

As for Germany, that is another matter. I think they’re getting a raw deal in general and unfair amount of hate during this conflict, as they often do. If the US bombed the pipeline and I were German, I wouldn’t consider America an ally if I ever had before. It’s bad enough people don’t seem to appreciate that they willingly sacrificed their economy for the foreseeable future on principle, but to suggest they also deserve to have their infrastructure bombed seems rude if you don’t mind my saying so.

I don't disagree really with what you say, but the pipeline was a source of conflict and the US made it abundantly clear that they do not condone it. The US issued sanctions and tried to convince Germany to get off Russian gas. And, finally, issued an ultimatum should Russia attack. And Russia attacked. And now the pipes are no more.

The US has a long history of taking drastic measures, including costly warfare, to direct global events on a more favorable course or to prevent geopolitical risks on a very long term. Such as curbing the spread of communism or Islamic political extremism. The heart of Europe becoming dependent on Russian energy while Russia is becoming an imperialistic dictatorship could very well be one such risk that could bode ill in the long term and warrant resolution in the short term. I don't know why cutting an enemy's umbilical cord in the Baltic sea would be so unthinkable after Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and what have we.

It is rude towards Germany to bomb the pipelines, for sure. But it was made clear before that at least Nord Stream 2 would not survive a Russian invasion.

I wonder if we will ever learn the truth. But I would like to see some evidence to suggest that Russia did it before believing it. I don't think there is any available now.

[Kyriakos]

I sometimes feel like this is an alternate universe. People acting like massacres, landgrabs, mercenary goons and other such only appeared now, due to Russia.
The 5-minute hate lives on.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I don't disagree really with what you say, but the pipeline was a source of conflict and the US made it abundantly clear that they do not condone it. The US issued sanctions and tried to convince Germany to get off Russian gas. And, finally, issued an ultimatum should Russia attack. And Russia attacked. And now the pipes are no more.

It is rude towards Germany to bomb the pipelines, for sure. But it was made clear before that at least Nord Stream 2 would not survive a Russian invasion.

This isn’t the first time Europe has resisted US gas sanctions. Reagan sanctioned pipelines in the 80s and backed off when the Europeans pushed back. The USSR posed a far greater threat to the US and Western Europe than the Russian Federation does today, so perhaps that’s why US leadership allegedly felt comfortable with this escalation. But that doesn’t excuse treating Germany with such reckless disregard if not malice.

The US has a long history of taking drastic measures, including costly warfare, to direct global events on a more favorable course or to prevent geopolitical risks on a very long term. Such as curbing the spread of communism or Islamic political extremism. The heart of Europe becoming dependent on Russian energy while Russia is becoming an imperialistic dictatorship could very well be one such risk that could bode ill in the long term and warrant resolution in the short term. I don't know why cutting an enemy's umbilical cord in the Baltic sea would be so unthinkable after Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and what have we.

Put simply, it’s not how I would treat an ally, and Germany is among the most important of US allies. Itd be one thing if the Germans were to have given their blessing, but I doubt they would have in this alleged scenario.

I wonder if we will ever learn the truth. But I would like to see some evidence to suggest that Russia did it before believing it. I don't think there is any available now.

I don’t think we ever will either. I suppose bombing the pipeline and feeding people stories implicating the US would put the latter in precisely the predicament we are now. The greatest barrier to gas flows to Europe from Russia isn’t bombs but European unity and cooperation with US sanctions. But that’s pure speculation on my part.

[antaeus]

I sometimes feel like this is an alternate universe. People acting like massacres, landgrabs, mercenary goons and other such only appeared now, due to Russia.
The 5-minute hate lives on.

Those things are happening now. So that is what we're talking about. We all know that these things have occurred all over since pre-history. But we don't need to contextualise every single event we discuss with a caveat that "this is the latest in a long line of human atrocity stemming all the way back to pre-history"

Pages and pages of whatabotery going all the way back to evolution don't help our discussion.

[Peresvet]

I sometimes feel like this is an alternate universe. People acting like massacres, landgrabs, mercenary goons and other such only appeared now, due to Russia.
The 5-minute hate lives on.

Not only putin and the russian authorities are to blame for what is happening in the world. European countries financed putin's dictatorship for a long time and were not going to get rid of Russia's gas and oil dependence. And the opposition in Russia was not financed or helped. As a result, it was destroyed by putin's dictatorship. And those who were not imprisoned had to leave.

[Kyriakos]

I don't see a quick conclusion to a war against a side with nukes, since obviously you cannot invade it.

[antaeus]

I don't see a quick conclusion to a war against a side with nukes, since obviously you cannot invade it.

Well no. There was an opportunity early on for instability within Russia, but Putin was pretty quick to crack down and most of those whom could have caused the instability left the country. Although there is still a lot of positional play going on amongst the high profile underlings... mystery murders and the like so who knows.

Now the best bet is that Russia exhausts itself. The important part is that Ukraine's suppliers make it clear that militarily, Ukraine will continue to get stronger the longer the war goes on, and at this point, Russia will continue to grow weaker. time is doing the rest.

A long term outcome may end up being that Ukraine ends up in a similar place to Israel, whereby it's simply too much of a difficult meal to eat for its neighbours. Israel has over time ended up with entirely hostile neighbours that simply can't attack it, no matter how much more manpower they have. Same might end up being the case for a Ukraine armed to the teeth, and a Russia that can't win, but won't give up.

[Peresvet]

Well no. There was an opportunity early on for instability within Russia, but Putin was pretty quick to crack down and most of those whom could have caused the instability left the country. Although there is still a lot of positional play going on amongst the high profile underlings... mystery murders and the like so who knows.

Now the best bet is that Russia exhausts itself. The important part is that Ukraine's suppliers make it clear that militarily, Ukraine will continue to get stronger the longer the war goes on, and at this point, Russia will continue to grow weaker. time is doing the rest.

A long term outcome may end up being that Ukraine ends up in a similar place to Israel, whereby it's simply too much of a difficult meal to eat for its neighbours. Israel has over time ended up with entirely hostile neighbours that simply can't attack it, no matter how much more manpower they have. Same might end up being the case for a Ukraine armed to the teeth, and a Russia that can't win, but won't give up.

Russia has resources that allow it to exist in isolation for many decades and wage a war of attrition. Ukraine, on the other hand, is destroyed, bleeding, its economy is falling, and its military strength is supported only by the supply of weapons from the West. but what if the president in the US changes, it becomes Trump, the supplies stop? Therefore, a long conflict is not beneficial for Ukraine, it is necessary to end the war as soon as possible and return the territories.

[antaeus]

Russia has resources that allow it to exist in isolation for many decades and wage a war of attrition. Ukraine, on the other hand, is destroyed, bleeding, its economy is falling, and its military strength is supported only by the supply of weapons from the West. but what if the president in the US changes, it becomes Trump, the supplies stop? Therefore, a long conflict is not beneficial for Ukraine, it is necessary to end the war as soon as possible and return the territories.

Russia is a highly complex governmental system that has many layers of interdependencies. Complex authoritarian systems work until all of a sudden they don't. The USSR was fine, then all of a sudden it wasn't. Libya was fine, then all of a sudden it wasn't. In November, Ceaușescu was elected for 5 more years - He was dead by the end of December. One should never assume that a dictator has endless stocks of legitimacy during a crisis.

As for Trump bringing the war to a quick end, you make a very specific assumption. There is danger in acting based on assumption of a specific outcome. Currently a majority of Republicans favour ongoing support for Ukraine, Trump is not the President, and we can't predict whether either of those will change with any certainty. By the time of the election next year, many many billions more will have been spent, billions more than Russia can spend on it's military over that time, Ukraine's military will have largely transformed itself into a more western model. Russia may have exhausted it's capability for replenishment without total economic mobilisation.

What does appear to be the case, is that the US has set in place long term strategies in order to maintain support. They have upped production of key materials and maintain significant financial contributions. They appear to be treating Russia like a boiling frog - ensuring ever increasing support over time without tipping Putin over the edge.

The US election next year may change this scenario, or it may not. Putin has already shown he is a gambler who acts based on shoddy assumptions. That's how he got into this war. He might assume that he just has to hold on until the US election and roll the dice on that. By then he may have no tanks left.

[Peresvet]

Russia is a highly complex governmental system that has many layers of interdependencies. Complex authoritarian systems work until all of a sudden they don't. The USSR was fine, then all of a sudden it wasn't. Libya was fine, then all of a sudden it wasn't. In November, Ceaușescu was elected for 5 more years - He was dead by the end of December. One should never assume that a dictator has endless stocks of legitimacy during a crisis.

As for Trump bringing the war to a quick end, you make a very specific assumption. There is danger in acting based on assumption of a specific outcome. Currently a majority of Republicans favour ongoing support for Ukraine, Trump is not the President, and we can't predict whether either of those will change with any certainty. By the time of the election next year, many many billions more will have been spent, billions more than Russia can spend on it's military over that time, Ukraine's military will have largely transformed itself into a more western model. Russia may have exhausted it's capability for replenishment without total economic mobilisation.

What does appear to be the case, is that the US has set in place long term strategies in order to maintain support. They have upped production of key materials and maintain significant financial contributions. They appear to be treating Russia like a boiling frog - ensuring ever increasing support over time without tipping Putin over the edge.

The US election next year may change this scenario, or it may not. Putin has already shown he is a gambler who acts based on shoddy assumptions. That's how he got into this war. He might assume that he just has to hold on until the US election and roll the dice on that. By then he may have no tanks left.

At the moment, a system of power has been formed in Russia, which is even stronger and more monolithic than in the USSR. In the USSR, everything rested on ideology and the Communist Party, while in Russia, a group of security officials is in power, which will replace putin in the event of his death. Any internal resistance to the authorities of the FSB, the army and the police in Russia has been destroyed, the opposition has left or is in prison, the population is intimidated. I do not think that any sudden collapse of this system is possible. The decomposition of the state apparatus of Russia is possible only after the death of Putin or a military defeat, but this most likely will not take place in the near future. In addition, it should be noted that Western countries provide Ukraine with insufficient assistance for a complete victory, although Ukraine is in dire need of aviation, long-range missiles, ships, precision weapons. And Russia has a huge stockpile of old Soviet tanks and a zombified population ready to die for money in Ukraine, it will have enough of it for many years of war. Therefore, the positional war will drag on for a long time, unless, of course, one of the parties begins to collapse from within, either with the death of Putin, or with Trump coming to power in the United States.

[antaeus]

At the moment, a system of power has been formed in Russia, which is even stronger and more monolithic than in the USSR. In the USSR, everything rested on ideology and the Communist Party, while in Russia, a group of security officials is in power, which will replace putin in the event of his death. Any internal resistance to the authorities of the FSB, the army and the police in Russia has been destroyed, the opposition has left or is in prison, the population is intimidated. I do not think that any sudden collapse of this system is possible. The decomposition of the state apparatus of Russia is possible only after the death of Putin or a military defeat, but this most likely will not take place in the near future. In addition, it should be noted that Western countries provide Ukraine with insufficient assistance for a complete victory, although Ukraine is in dire need of aviation, long-range missiles, ships, precision weapons. And Russia has a huge stockpile of old Soviet tanks and a zombified population ready to die for money in Ukraine, it will have enough of it for many years of war. Therefore, the positional war will drag on for a long time, unless, of course, one of the parties begins to collapse from within, either with the death of Putin, or with Trump coming to power in the United States.

I've already countered most of these points thematically in my previous post.

[Septentrionalis]

I sometimes feel like this is an alternate universe. People acting like massacres, landgrabs, mercenary goons and other such only appeared now, due to Russia.
The 5-minute hate lives on.

It must be frustrating that people don't absolve Russia of wrongdoing even if Russia is not the first violent psychopath around. Imagine that people get sentenced for murder even though they are not the first murderers. How cruel and wrong!

I don't see a quick conclusion to a war against a side with nukes, since obviously you cannot invade it.

That is not obvious.

[Kyriakos]

^It's only obvious if you don't want a nuclear winter.

[Ludicus]

Biden speeds through Ukraine, China in soaring State of the ...

More and more commentators are warning that the Ukraine war— even with the U.S. doing everything short of putting combat solders directly into the fight — won’t end militarily”.

The Costs of a Long War in Ukraine - The New York Times

…But if the next phase of war suggests that such a compromise is required for peace, better to seek it sooner than after many more seasons of suffering and death.

Our increasingly bellicose political commentators and armchair generals demand in lengthy articles in the press that the next step should be NATO's direct confrontation with Russia. The logic is that Putin is praying to all his saints that NATO does not directly enter the conflict.
if that happens, Russia will suffer a humiliating and swift defeat, and that will be the end of the war. Russia will not dare to use nuclear weapons, they say, because that defeat will not be existential for Russia.
They falsely claim, in my opinion, that any negotiation that does not end in a total defeat of Russia will have the consequence that in the near or distant future we will see Russia extending its dominance from Vladivostok to Lisbon. The truth is that during the cold war with the USSR this never happened, the Soviet regime was never involved in a direct conflict with NATO.
In a debate on this issue, a former Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, who was directly involved in the purchase of the 37 Leopard 2s this country has (mostly are inoperable), opposes the decision to send even a few to Ukraine, for the same reason the PM refuses to send F16s claiming they are needed for NATO missions. And he warns that if the politicians want to go to war, fine, but they should start educating the civilian population to understand what this means.

Edit.
Russia-Ukraine war: UK will not send fighter jets to Ukraine 'if ‘if there is a risk to British safety’.

Meanwhile Zelenskiy said Ukraine has intercepted plans by Russian secret services to destroy Moldova. The US says the opposite. Russia-Ukraine war: 'no indication' of direct military threat to Moldova or Romania

Russia-Ukraine war at a glance: what we know on day 354 of ...

Poland’s president, Andrzej Duda, has cast doubt on whether Poland would be able to supply Ukraine with fighters jets. Duda said sending F-16 aircraft would be a “very serious decision” that was “not easy to take”.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Meanwhile in Northern Europe the russian agression war has deepened the german - netherlandian cooperation:

Netherlands to integrate last brigade into German army this year

The Netherlands and Germany have taken a big step towards combining their armed forces with the integration of the last Dutch brigade into the German army, NRC reported on Thursday. The 13th Light Brigade, based in Oirschot, will come under the command of Germany’s 10 Panzer Division, creating an infantry with a combined strength of 50,000 troops. The total manpower of both countries’ armed forces is 89,000, of whom 24,000 are Dutch. NRC said the merger was part of the Common Army Vision, a confidential agreement between the two countries’ armed forces, signed off on November 30 last year at a meeting in Dresden between Martin Wijnen, commander of the Dutch armed forces, and his German counterpart Alfons Mais.

Read more at DutchNews.nl:

https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2023/0...this-year-nrc/

That would mean more direct chain of command, doctrine, equipment...

We will see if politics is giving legal support to this agreement between this two armies.

[Kyriakos]

^Last time that happened was in ww2, albeit more explicit surrender.

[conon394]

Maybe the Ruskis got one over on us. Well played. Would almost remind me of the old days.

Snopes thinks so I'm not the only one

https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/02/...ream-sabotage/