Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Muizer]

Putin invaded, the great blame must lie with him. He did so in consultation with China, and it appears their needs are being met buy Russia's gradual destruction. Beijing's increased and increasing influence, bordering on control, of Moscow is more evident every day. Parallel operations against the US involving balloons, ops in the Yellow sea etc all point to Russia's gradual devolution into vassalage.

When considering Russia's actions its becoming increasingly clear this is a US China proxy war. Stalin would be so disappointed, Ukraine is Putin's Korea. About the best he can hope is a frozen conflict with massive US presence on his border, but he is not 1950 China and I doubt he can get close to a draw.

If China does get a Korea 2 result in Ukraine that would be massive for them, draining US strength to a sideshow. Thats becoming less and less likely. Huge L looming for Putin, an independent Ukraine will be another Poland pointed at Moscow (and Finland, and Sweden, LLL), devaluing Russia as a threat to Europe and allowing more direct US focus on China in East Asia.

There's nothing here that seems relevant to the question I asked of Ludicus, but most of all, you're not Ludicus, so what good does this do other than distract?

[Kyriakos]

Because it is illegal. The English wording of the Russian law states (AFAIK, no Russian poster has been able to clear this up for me) that mobilisation occurs during a time of war. A special operation is by definition not a war.

What does that have to do at all with Conon's post about mobilization being supposedly incompatible with wanting a peace deal? You can't will a peace deal alone, the other side has to be open to it and propose something you are likely to accept (not "leave all areas, and also Crimea, and we have peace" - such won't happen).

[Laser101]

Unfortunately, in our/western political circles it seems to be underestimated that every time the military pyre raises the level of hostilities by one degree, it increases not only the number of casualties but also the unthinkable but very real risk of slipping into the twilight zone of full-scale nuclear confrontation. The warmongering brio of most of the written opinion evokes the sinister European enthusiasm in the first weeks of August 1914.
This paper estimates the consequences of different scenarios of a nuclear war. Even a small nuclear war threatens food security - Nature




Public awareness of 'nuclear winter' is too low given current risks



Paul Ingram is Paul Ingram is senior research associate at Cambridge University’s Centre for the Study of Existential Risk. He says, “We have to consider how Russia is perceiving the war and to what extent it would view defeat as an existential threat. In order to prevent the worst outcomes, we need to draw the Russians into negotiation and be prepared to compromise.”

The concept of nuclear winter is, to put it mildly, rather contentious. You'll probably be able to find at least as many sources saying the idea is complete nonsense or based on faulty assumptions.

Plus, this isn't the first time the US and Russia have engaged in a proxy war. The Soviets provided plenty of equipment to the NVA in Vietnam for example.

[Stario]

The reasons for Putin pretending this isn't a war are his to know, and ours to guess.

I always wondered whether Putin was "taking the mickey" out of Zelensky and the Ukranian regime calling it an operation.
After all when Ukranian regime starter the war in 2014 by attacking the independent republics of Donbas they too referred to the war as an "operation" and were adamant it was NOT a war.

[Peresvet]

I always wondered whether Putin was "taking the mickey" out of Zelensky and the Ukranian regime calling it an operation.
After all when Ukranian regime starter the war in 2014 by attacking the independent republics of Donbas they too referred to the war as an "operation" and were adamant it was NOT a war.

Its your fake. War in Ukraine in 2014 started by Russian Federation and team of FSB officer Strelkov -Girkin, he said about it. Ukraine defended itself. All your posts is a mix of fakes, desinformation and putin propaganda.

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/igor-strel...kraine-1475982

[nhytgbvfeco2]

I always wondered whether Putin was "taking the mickey" out of Zelensky and the Ukranian regime calling it an operation.
After all when Ukranian regime starter the war in 2014 by attacking the independent republics of Donbas they too referred to the war as an "operation" and were adamant it was NOT a war.

Remind me, how did Russia respond when the Chechens declared independence? Who is Russia to lecture others on how to deal with separatists?

[Peresvet]

Remind me, how did Russia respond when the Chechens declared independence? Who is Russia to lecture others on how to deal with separatists?

The double standards of crazy putinists, who do not recognize the territorial integrity of other countries, but at the same time are ready to immediately kill people in their own country if they want to exercise their right to self-determination.

[Laser101]

The double standards of crazy putinists, who do not recognize the territorial integrity of other countries, but at the same time are ready to immediately kill people in their own country if they want to exercise their right to self-determination.

To be fair, pretty much everyone has that particular double standard.

[mishkin]

To be fair, pretty much everyone has that particular double standard.

fair point

[Peresvet]

To be fair, pretty much everyone has that particular double standard.

Not certainly in that way. NATO and the US carry out operations against dictators who kill their own population, for example, Milosevic killed Albanians, Gaddafi killed Libyans, Hussein killed Kurds, but they do not revise the borders and do not annex these countries. Unlike putin.

[Alastor]

An interesting article:
https://consortiumnews.com/2023/02/1...am-2-pipeline/

I find myself in agreement with several of the thoughts listed here. Aside from the apparent failure of our supposedly free press to be truly pluralistic and free though, I lament the fact that the EU is being dragged into this by the US and contrary to our own geopolitical interests the most. Obviously I don't share "certain" Russian triumphalist interpretations about how the EU needs Russia to avoid a collapse, or that it is indeed collapsing already. The EU remains wealthy and powerful, far more so than Russia. But the EU repeatedly punches way below its weight geopolitically cowed by US influences and forced to toe the line. Even at a significant cost to our interests.

As the article says:

Washington’s power so far has heavily constrained Europe’s global ties, and intensified Washington’s dominance over Europe politically, economically and above all psychologically. It is hard to see how Europe will be able to extract itself from this restrictive American embrace to become a constructive and needed independent player on the international scene.

[conon394]

An interesting article:

Any article that uncritically leads with Hersh's fantasy is not really interesting.

And than follows with typical Tankie though and of course only the US has agency

"And Russiahas gotten the message — American policies and statements havedeeply reinforced Russia’s long-standing belief that the West isimplacably hostile to any Russian role in the West — going back tothe bitter and irrevocable split of Christendom between Rome and theEastern Orthodox Church in 1054. That was later followed up by twodevastating European invasions of Russia (Napoleon and Hitler)."

OK that is a laugh poor passive Russia always at the mercy of the mean 'west' geez... what a ridiculous paragraph.

than we get drivel about BRICs and the falter belt and road thing (as Sri Lanka how innovative that feels or Zimbabwe)

[Alastor]

Any article that uncritically leads with Hersh's fantasy is not really interesting.

Of course, only articles that uncritically reject it are interesting because they better fit the dominant narrative. I have suspected a US role in blowing up the pipes from the get-go and long before anything Hersh said about the topic. You know why? Because it makes infinitely more sense than the alternative, that is Russia blowing up their own pipes.

And than follows with typical Tankie though and of course only the US has agency

That's an extremely disingenuous argument and I see you making it repeatedly. Agency is your ability to effectuate change. That requires power. The US has far far more power than any other state on Earth currently. Including of course vastly greater soft power. Comparatively speaking yes, when in competition, only the US has effective agency. Everyone else can try, but when their agency meets that of the US it falters when it doesn't entirely crumble. That is the unfortunate fate of the EU currently too. But at least here in Europe we are loyal vassals, aka useful tools, woe betide those the US considers enemies.

[Peresvet]

Any article that uncritically leads with Hersh's fantasy is not really interesting.

And than follows with typical Tankie though and of course only the US has agency

"And Russiahas gotten the message — American policies and statements havedeeply reinforced Russia’s long-standing belief that the West isimplacably hostile to any Russian role in the West — going back tothe bitter and irrevocable split of Christendom between Rome and theEastern Orthodox Church in 1054. That was later followed up by twodevastating European invasions of Russia (Napoleon and Hitler)."

OK that is a laugh poor passive Russia always at the mercy of the mean 'west' geez... what a ridiculous paragraph.

than we get drivel about BRICs and the falter belt and road thing (as Sri Lanka how innovative that feels or Zimbabwe)

Russia under Yeltsin was not as aggressive as it is now, with the exception of the war in Chechnya. Basically, she lost her imperial ambitions. And she strove for peace and even union with Europe and the United States. Yeltsin's huge mistake was to appoint Putin as his successor. The consequences of this decision are disastrous for Russia.

[Ludicus]

Russia under Yeltsin was not as aggressive as it is now, with the exception of the war in Chechnya. Basically, she lost her imperial ambitions. And she strove for peace and even union with Europe and the United States.

Completely true.And what has Russia gained from it? zero, nada. In 1993, Yeltsin, angling for Russia to join Nato, wrote to Clinton to argue any further expansion of Nato eastwards breached the spirit of the 1990 treaty.He argued (sic) , "the spirit” of the German unification treaty “precludes the option of expanding the NATO zone into the East”
NATO Expansion: What Yeltsin Heard

There you go.
--

If you have studied history, you should know that in Russia there are never gradual changes, there have always been very fast changes in power and revolutions

Precisely. And if you have studied your country's history, you should know that no revolution in Russia ever led to a true representative democracy. What came out of WW1 was the Bolshevik revolution.
Frankly, calling for a "creative destruction” of Russia (Russia must become a poor, starving country, with an economy degraded to the level of African countries, so that its population stops supporting dictatorship and war) leading to complete misery does not seem to me to be the desideratum of the overwhelming majority of Russian democrats. As for your insistence (which I call naive, I apologize) on including Russia in NATO, you will never have the support of the US, nor most Americans.IN doubt, ask them. I don't mean to say that Russia is doomed to never become a stable democracy. When you talk about the fight against Muslim terrorism, well, the fight against any kind of terrorism is always welcome, but I hope you are not thinking about harassing 10% of the total population of Russia. That's not the idea, I suppose.

---

Russia-Ukraine war will end in negotiations-The Guardian

Gen Mark Milley, chair of America’s joint chiefs of staff, has said neither Russia nor Ukraine is likely to achieve their military aims, and he believes the war will end at the negotiating table… While he did not tie the depletion of stockpiles to his support for peace talks, Milley said he still believed the war would end at the negotiating table.

As my colleague Peter Beaumont writes, Milley’s statements are not very clear. Garbled messaging from Milley. One moment he is saying Russia has lost tactically and strategically. Then that war will not be won on battlefield by either side. Not completely contradictory but not very clear either.

Indeed. But one thing is very clear to: the military are often more honest than politicians.

[Peresvet]

Completely true.And what has Russia gained from it? zero, nada. In 1993, Yeltsin, angling for Russia to join Nato, wrote to Clinton to argue any further expansion of Nato eastwards breached the spirit of the 1990 treaty.He argued (sic) , "the spirit” of the German unification treaty “precludes the option of expanding the NATO zone into the East”
NATO Expansion: What Yeltsin Heard

The expansion of NATO to the east is beneficial primarily to Russia itself, since it restrains it from imperial expansion in relation to the small countries of Europe. Any imperial expansion undermines the internal stability of Russia. In addition, Russia itself needs to join NATO in order to counter the expansion of China. Russia in the 1990s received a lot, integration into the world economy, development of the country, foreign investment and companies into the country. Now all this has been lost under Putin.

And if you have studied your country's history, you should know that no revolution in Russia ever led to a true representative democracy.

It is not true. In 1917, the revolution led to the creation of the first Russian republic and the Constituent Assembly, which was destroyed by the Bolsheviks. In 1991, Yeltsin's democracy was created, which, for all its imperfections, allowed Russia to avoid starvation and civil war, to fill stores with food.

[Ludicus]

It is not true. In 1917, the revolution led to the creation of the first Russian republic and the Constituent Assembly, which was destroyed by the Bolsheviks. In 1991, Yeltsin's democracy was created, which, for all its imperfections, allowed Russia to avoid starvation and civil war, to fill stores with food.

Come on, it was a short lived Russian Republic (de jure, not the facto. During 8 months, the Provisional Government was unable to make decisive policy decisions) dissolved by the Bolsheviks on the next day after the proclamation.

In 1991, Yeltsin's democracy was created, which, for all its imperfections, allowed Russia to avoid starvation and civil war, to fill stores with food

Sure, no doubt about it. Yeltsin was a good man. But in the end what he said?he said that "the further expansion of Nato eastwards breached. the spirit of the 1990 treaty".And more, The Undoing of Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin's Friendship,
The West despised Yeltsin.

Any imperial expansion undermines the internal stability of Russia.

I agree. As history teaches, that's what happens, in the long term, to any empire. But you see, democracies also have empires- formal and informal empires, and some are both simultaneously. After ww2, the U.S. developed an "informal empire" through a global network of military bases and alliances. Biden rejected the Russian push for a sphere of influence over former Soviet nations, and informed Moscow that "spheres of influence should be relegated to the dustbin of history." So Ukraine can’t possibly lie lie within Russia’s security and influence sphere. And yet, the entire history of American foreign policy is nothing if not an exercise in exerting its own spheres of influence, from 1823 ( Monroe doctrine) until today.So, can you imagine how the US would respond if Russia or China sought to establish zones of military power or influence near the US?
How well do people around the world understand democracy? Institute Montaigne. TOPICS > INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS | REGIONS > RUSSIA
New Order with a Blend of Western Liberalism and Eastern Civilizational Nationalism

---



On the virtues of whataboutism

“To defend civilization, defeat Russia.” Writing in the unfailingly bellicose Atlantic, an American academic of my acquaintance recently issued that dramatic call to arms. And lest there be any confusion about the stakes involved, the image accompanying his essay depicted Russian President Vladimir Putin with a Hitler mustache and haircut.
Cast Putin as the latest manifestation of the Führer and the resurrection of Winston Churchill can’t be far behind. And, lo, more than a few observers have already begun depicting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as the latest reincarnation of America’s favorite British prime minister.
These days, it may be Western-supplied missiles downing “kamikaze drones” rather than Spitfires tangling with Messerschmitts over southern England, but the basic scenario remains intact. In the skies above Ukraine and on the battlefields below, the “finest hour” of 1940 is being reenacted. Best of all, we know how this story ends — or at least how it’s supposed to end: with evil vanquished and freedom triumphant. Americans have long found comfort in such simplified narratives. Reducing history to a morality play washes away annoying complexities. Why bother to think when the answers are self-evident?
A Case of Whataboutism?
Not that donning the mantle of Churchill necessarily guarantees a happy outcome — or even continued U.S. support. Recall, for example, that during a visit to Saigon in May 1961, Vice President Lyndon Johnson infamously anointed South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem the “Churchill of Asia.”
Alas, that exalted title didn’t spare Diem from being overthrown and murdered in a CIA-facilitated coup slightly more than two years later. U.S. complicity in bumping off South Vietnam’s stand-in for Churchill marked a critical turning point in the Vietnam War, transforming an annoyance into an out-and-out debacle. An appreciation for such ironies may help explain why Zelensky’s preferred anti-Nazi isn’t Winston Churchill but Charlie Chaplin.
All of that said, defending civilization is an honorable and necessary cause that deserves the support of every American. Where things get sticky is in deciding how to frame such an essential task. Put bluntly, who gets to choose what’s both honorable and necessary? In the editorial offices of the Atlantic and similarly Russophobic quarters, the unacknowledged assumption is, of course, that we do, where “we” means the West and, above all, the United States.
Timothy Snyder, a self-described “historian of political atrocity” who teaches at Yale, subscribes to this proposition. He recently weighed in with 15 reasons “Why the World Needs Ukrainian Victory.” Those 15 ranges widely indeed.
A Ukrainian victory, Snyder asserts, will (#1) “defeat an ongoing genocidal project”; (#3) “end an era of empire”; and (#6) “weaken the prestige of tyrants.” By teaching an object lesson to China, it will also (#9) “lift the threat of major war in Asia.” For those worried about the climate crisis, defeating Russia will also (#14) “accelerate the shift from fossil fuels.” My own #1 is Snyder’s #13: a win for Ukraine will “guarantee food supplies and prevent future starvation.”
Put simply, according to Synder, a Ukrainian victory over Russia will have a redemptive impact on just about any imaginable subject, transforming the global order along with humanity itself. Ukrainians, he writes, “have given us a chance to turn this century around.” Again, let me emphasize that what gives me pause is the “us.”
That Professor Snyder along with the editors of the Atlantic (and similarly pugnacious publications) should focus so intently on the unfolding events in Ukraine is understandable enough. After all, the war there is a horror. And while Vladimir Putin’s crimes may fall well short of Hitler’s — whatever his malign intent may have been, stalwart Ukrainian resistance has certainly taken genocide off the table — he is indeed a menace of the first order and his reckless aggression deserves to fail.
Whether Ukrainian bravery combined with advanced Western weaponry will, however, have more than a passing impact on world history strikes me as a dubious proposition. Granted, on that score, I may be in the minority.
Along with causing immense suffering, Putin’s war has unleashed a tidal wave of hyperbole, with Professor Snyder’s 15 reasons but one example.
As someone who makes no pretense to being an “historian of political atrocity” — the most I can muster is to classify myself as a “student of American folly” — my guess is that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will have about as much lasting impact as our own invasion of Iraq, its 20th anniversary now approaching.
Bold to the point of recklessness, George W. Bush and his associates set out to alter the course of history. By invading a distant land deemed critical for this country’s national security, they sought to inaugurate a new era of American global dominance (styled “liberation” for propaganda purposes). The results achieved, to put it mildly, were different than expected.
However grotesque, Putin’s ambitions in Ukraine seem almost modest by comparison. Through an invasion and war of choice (styled an anti-fascist crusade for propaganda purposes), he sought to reassert Russian dominance over a nation the Kremlin had long deemed essential to its security. The results achieved so far, we can safely say, have proven to be other than those he expected.
When the Russian president embarked on his war in 2022, he had no idea what he was getting into, any more than George W. Bush did in 2003. Admittedly, the two make odd bedfellows and one can easily imagine each taking offense at being compared to the other. Still, the comparison is unavoidable: In the present century, Putin and Bush have been de facto collaborators in perpetrating havoc.
Some might charge me with committing the sin of whataboutism, pointing an accusing finger in one direction to excuse iniquity in another, but that’s hardly my intent. There’s no letting Putin off the hook: his actions have been those of a vile criminal.
Civilization at Risk?
But if Putin is a criminal, how then are we to judge those who conceived of, sold, launched, and thoroughly botched the Iraq War? With the passing of 20 years, has some statute of limitations kicked in to drain that conflict of relevance? My own sense is that the national security establishment is now strongly inclined to pretend that the Iraq War (and the Afghanistan War as well) never happened. Such an exercise in selective memory helps validate the insistence that Ukraine has once more conferred on the United States the primary responsibility for defending “civilization.” That no one else can assume that role is simply taken for granted in Washington.
Which brings us back to the nub of the issue: How is it that this particular conflict puts civilization itself at risk? Why should rescuing Ukraine take priority over rescuing Haiti or Sudan? Why should fears of genocide in Ukraine matter more than the ongoing genocide targeting the Rohingya in Myanmar? Why should supplying Ukraine with modern arms qualify as a national priority, while equipping El Paso, Texas, to deal with a flood of undocumented migrants figures as an afterthought? Why do Ukrainians killed by Russia generate headlines, while deaths attributable to Mexican drug cartels — 100,000 Americans from drug overdoses annually – are treated as mere statistics?
Of the various possible answers to such questions, three stand out and merit reflection.
The first is that “civilization,” as the term is commonly employed in American political discourse, doesn’t encompass places like Haiti or Sudan. Civilization derives from Europe and remains centered in Europe. Civilization implies Western culture and values. So, at least, Americans — especially members of our elite — have been conditioned to believe. And even in an age that celebrates diversity, that belief persists, however subliminally.
What makes Russian aggression so heinous, therefore, is that it victimizes Europeans, whose lives are deemed to possess greater value than the lives of those who reside in implicitly less important regions of the world. That there is a racialist dimension to such a valuation goes without saying, however much U.S. officials may deny that fact.
Bluntly, the lives of white Ukrainians matter more than the lives of the non-whites who populate Africa, Asia, or Latin America.
The second answer is that casting the Ukraine War as a struggle to defend civilization creates a perfect opportunity for the United States to reclaim its place at the forefront of that very civilization. After years wasted wandering in the desert, the United States can now ostensibly return to its true calling.
President Zelensky’s astutely crafted address to Congress emphasized that return. By comparing his own troops to the G.I.s who fought in the Battle of the Bulge and quoting President Franklin Roosevelt on the inevitability of “absolute victory,” it was as if Winston Churchill himself had indeed reappeared in the Capitol to enlist Americans in the cause of righteousness.
Needless to say, Zelensky skipped past the distinctly un-Churchillian lapse in that tradition signified by the presidency of Donald Trump. Nor did he mention his own flirtation with Trump, which included assurances that “you are a great teacher for us.”
“America is back,” Joe Biden declared on multiple occasions during the first weeks of his presidency, and the Ukrainian president has been only too happy to repeatedly validate that claim as long as the flow of arms and munitions to sustain his forces continues. This country’s disastrous post-9/11 wars may have raised doubts about whether the United States had kept its proper place on the right side of history. With Zelensky signaling his approval, however, Washington’s participation in a proxy war — our treasure, someone else’s blood — seems to have quieted those doubts.
One final factor may contribute to this eagerness to see civilization itself under deadly siege in Ukraine. Demonizing Russia provides a convenient excuse for postponing or avoiding altogether a critical reckoning with the present American version of that civilization. Classifying Russia as a de facto enemy of the civilized world has effectively diminished the urgency of examining our own culture and values.
Think of it as an inverse conception of whataboutism. Shocking Russian brutality and callous disregard for Ukrainian lives divert attention from similar qualities not exactly uncommon on our very own streets.
As I began work on this essay, the Biden administration had just announced its decision to provide Ukraine with a handful of this country’s most advanced M-1 Abrams tanks. Hailed in some quarters as a “game changer,” the arrival of relatively small numbers of those tanks months or more from now is unlikely to make a decisive difference on the battlefield.
Yet the decision has had this immediate effect: It affirms the U.S. commitment to prolonging the Ukraine War. And when credit earned for sending tanks is exhausted, the editors of the Atlantic backed by professors from Yale will undoubtedly press for F-16 fighter jets and long-range rockets President Zelensky is already requesting.
Consider all of this, then, a signature of America in our time. Under the guise of turning the century around, we underwrite violence in faraway lands and thereby dodge the actual challenges of changing our own culture. Unfortunately, when it comes to rehabilitating our own democracy, all the Abrams tanks in the world won’t save us.

[conon394]

Of course, only articles that uncritically reject it are interesting because they better fit the dominant narrative. I have suspected a US role in blowing up the pipes from the get-go and long before anything Hersh said about the topic. You know why? Because it makes infinitely more sense than the alternative, that is Russia blowing up their own pipes.

Not what what said. I do expect anyone who accepts the story deal with the significant problems of the story that put it in the realm of fantasy and also address Hersh's trend in fantasy not credible stories previously in the recent past. There is reason Its a good ideal to retire at 65. That is I would like a real defense or some credible excuse of clear errors and basis for believing one source would have such profound and granular knowledge of every aspect of the operation and that seemingly has made up spiraled across multiple governments and agencies but no other collaborating evidence could be presented. In the very fact that the US would not simply carry out the operation all on its is rather incredible. Oh no the Baltic we have never have sent subs what dose the bottom of the it look - I don't know Jones better call Norway. You will note the referenced comparable operation Ivy bells was a tightly held plan that is only known because the NSA guy got turned for a really paltry sum of 35,000. It did not need the US to talk to japan because gosh maybe they know the sea floor better or have a problem with penetrating right into the heart of what would have been very well monitored Russian waters via sub over and over again.

again I add a 3rd critical take

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2023/02/...-big-problems/

and a 4th

https://peopleandnature.wordpress.co...#comment-82156

Note this one does provide a credible Russian reason or potentially a reason for Gazprom itself to blow the lines

Really that is 5 Dan Nexon has as well but it back a bit in thread.

I would also note Oliver Alexander has updated his work I posted earlier there was no Alta class Norwegian ship in the area during the drills and none turned off their transponders - that is you can follow them to and about before and after and they were never where Hersh says.

I have suspected a US role in blowing up the pipes from the get-go and long before anything Hersh said about the topic. You know why? Because it makes infinitely more sense than the alternative, that is Russia blowing up their own pipes.

Well not really seeing Putin's invasion was absolutely non sensical I really think and argument from logic is weak I have no reason to think his decision making will suddenly be 12th dimensional chess..

That's an extremely disingenuous argument and I see you making it repeatedly. Agency is your ability to effectuate change. That requires power. The US has far far more power than any other state on Earth currently. Including of course vastly greater soft power. Comparatively speaking yes, when in competition, only the US has effective agency. Everyone else can try, but when their agency meets that of the US it falters when it doesn't entirely crumble. That is the unfortunate fate of the EU currently too. But at least here in Europe we are loyal vassals, aka useful tools, woe betide those the US considers enemies.

I don't it so - disingenuous that is.

Compare The Solomon Islands they seem have mustered the agency to decide to join Team China(*) - and neither the US or Australia has invaded. Similarly Its clear Poland and the Baltics and the rest of the ex Warsaw Pact really really do not give a flying crap about Russia's feelings and have no desire to stay in its orbit. Its their agency and desire you are ignoring. And its the same with the article in reducing things to US decisions and than Russian reactions. I totally ignores Russian action in Moldova, and Georgia - that say might have created desire to desperately leave some apparently pre deseeded role as a Russian client.

* the Solomon's are probably and soon Vanuatu will as well violate actual but old treaties that infrastructure the US built can't used by any third party

[Alastor]

Well not really seeing Putin's invasion was absolutely non sensical I really think and argument from logic is weak I have no reason to think his decision making will suddenly be 12th dimensional chess..

It doesn't require you to believe his decision making is suddenly 12th dimensional chess. Simply to believe that Russia is not bereft of any logic/reason. But it does appear to be the popular interpretation in western press, that Russian leadership is made up of Joker-wannabe troglodytes, incapable of even basic rational thought. Yeah, far from 12th dimensional, that is rather one-dimensional.

I don't it so - disingenuous that is.

Compare The Solomon Islands they seem have mustered the agency to decide to join Team China(*) - and neither the US or Australia has invaded. Similarly Its clear Poland and the Baltics and the rest of the ex Warsaw Pact really really do not give a flying crap about Russia's feelings and have no desire to stay in its orbit. Its their agency and desire you are ignoring. And its the same with the article in reducing things to US decisions and than Russian reactions. I totally ignores Russian action in Moldova, and Georgia - that say might have created desire to desperately leave some apparently pre deseeded role as a Russian client.

* the Solomon's are probably and soon Vanuatu will as well violate actual but old treaties that infrastructure the US built can't used by any third party

You see Solomon Islands' agency, where I see China's agency. The one perhaps state on Earth that can somewhat rival, in certain areas at least, the US. Likewise you see the agency of ex-Warsaw countries in their drifting away from Russia, while I see the agency of the US in dragging them away. If the US did not want to effectuate that change, you really believe the ex-Warsaw countries could force themselves away from Russian orbit and into the west by their own agency? No. In other words, I'm not ignoring their desire or agency, I'm simply putting it in the right perspective. Their agency is subsumed, if not wholly manufactured to begin with, by the agency of the greater power the change to be serves. In this case the US. Russia has far fewer tools in its arsenal to effectuate change, those tools are generally more blunt too. That's why they lost the influence war in Ukraine and we ended up in this war.

[Muizer]

Likewise you see the agency of ex-Warsaw countries in their drifting away from Russia, while I see the agency of the US in dragging them away. If the US did not want to effectuate that change, you really believe the ex-Warsaw countries could force themselves away from Russian orbit and into the west by their own agency?

Somehow the image of the US dragging a reluctant Poland away from Russian dominance does not quite ring true.