there are already NATO battalions in Latvia and Lithuania. Albania, the Czech Republic, Iceland, Italy, Montenegro, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain contribute to the Canadian-led battlegroup in Latvia; Belgium, the Czech Republic, Iceland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Norway provide contributions to the German-led battlegroup in Lithuania; France and Iceland contribute to the UK-led battlegroup in Estonia; and Croatia, Romania and the United Kingdom are part of the US-led battlegroup in Poland. etc. it's so funny how many people comment without knowing anything about NATO or EU

It is rather well known that the deployment of Nato soldiers to other Nato countries in peacetime serves more purposes than just training together and showing support.

Russia knows well that if they do something on the borders of the eastern Nato countries they will anger not only that nation but they also risk killing young people from a number of other Nato countries at the same time, meaning that broad support for counter action will hopefully build very quickly compared to if only "some people in a former east block country got killed in an unfortunate accident" or "there was a border dispute" like in Ukraine.

Some notes:

- I support this. I am a trained soldier and if my country asks me I will come although I am old enough to realize it will hurt. I have read my history and history is not kind to pacifists - but see also my next point!

- I absolutely do not like how Nato meddled in Afghanistan for about two decades. Defense allianse, not "attack alliance" or "do something vaguely good"-alliance is what I support.

- I'm not sure if it will help in the short term. Russia is unpredictable and they are making a point of it.

- On the other hand however maybe what we see is that it already works: Nato countries sees far less Russian aggression than Ukraine.

The question is less about NATO deployments and more the will of NATO leadership to go to war with Russia over its more minor members.

I hate to say it but the Afghanistan withdrawal really showed what happens when Americans stop giving a shit, and they probably don't give that much of a shit about Latvia. Who's going to step into that gap for NATO? Poland recently ran a military exercise simulating a war with Russia that was, in the words of one of the Generals managing it, "worse than 1939". In the simulation the Polish forces held out for less than a week.

Meanwhile attempts for an ex-US EU military organization are little more than vague proposals, in part because the EU started out as a peace project and, frankly, much of Europe isn't used to seriously worrying about its military security (the most notable exceptions being France, the UK, Sweden and Finland, perhaps Greece but they have other issues). Some NATO members ran out of bombs during the freaking Libya campaign. They've been under the US umbrella for more than a generation, in some cases 2 or 3 generations.

Honestly I'm not sure Europe can fight these days. It certainly doesn't want to (and after the 20th century who can blame them?). Sure almost every European nation (Poland included) has some badass special forces. Too bad those won't be enough if Russia decides to act with impunity.

> hate to say it but the Afghanistan withdrawal really showed what happens when Americans stop giving a shit

America as a country never really gave a shit about Afghanistan. Nobody was standing in a ration line or anything. The military was at war, and that should actually give you confidence because if America can sustain a 20-year war in Afghanistan which turned out to be completely pointless while also fighting a war in Iraq which they also do not care about imagine if the U.S. did care. Unless you were in the military or knew someone who was if you turned off the news there was absolutely 0 evidence that the United States was at war in Afghanistan or Iraq or even both.

And I'll also say pulling out of Afghanistan was 100% the right call. We spent 20 years there and it collapsed in like a week when we left. That should be all the evidence you need that it was time to get out. It was a money and attention pit and we gained nothing for it strategically. (Not commenting here on the atrocities committed by the Taliban)

And Americans will start standing in a ration line to kick Russia out of Estonia? Or Ukraine?

I agree that getting out of Afghanistan was the right call, it was the horribly mismanaged manner of our leaving that I'm pointing out. We left our own citizens and allies in the country behind almost overnight, with the senior leadership rationalizing that the Afghan national army was going to actually fight, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Our leaders just stuck their fingers in their ears and pulled the plug.

I don't see how Eastern Europe ranks any higher in the minds of said leaders, outside of the remnants of the retiring Cold War generation and the dwindling number who still believe in NATO.

> And Americans will start standing in a ration line to kick Russia out of Estonia? Or Ukraine?

Oh yea I doubt it, but if the military goes to war and people start dying who knows how the public will react. If Russia, idk, bombs a US base in Germany that's a totally different ballgame (hence why small contingents of US forces will be deployed to various locations).

> We left our own citizens and allies in the country behind almost overnight, with the senior leadership rationalizing that the Afghan national army was going to actually fight, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Eh I think people are overreacting to this. We don't know all of the details and I think people probably got lulled into a false sense of security that America would never leave Afghanistan so when you actually do it they're like wait what? When you have Democrats and Republicans criticizing you, you probably did the right thing. Also war is messy. Frankly this could have gone better but could have went much worse.

> I don't see how Eastern Europe ranks any higher in the minds of said leaders, outside of the remnants of the retiring Cold War generation and the dwindling number who still believe in NATO.

Oh yea I think NATO is already gone and nobody told France who is probably the only remaining EU country with any fight left in it. The EU just wouldn't commit to US interests hard enough (China/Russia) so the US has pivoted and it took the EU by surprise, but France prefered to throw its lot in with the EU and Germany instead of the US and UK. With that being said, an invasion of select EU countries won't be tolerated by the US and allies either, so there's a limit to what Russia could invade.

On the US side it's the US, Australia, UK, Canada, Japan, and a few others but I'd say that's the core alliance for the US now. South Korea is committed but I don't know how they'll react to various scenarios. New Zealand is trying to keep the US and co. at arms-length.

>If Russia, idk, bombs a US base in Germany that's a totally different ballgame (hence why small contingents of US forces will be deployed to various locations)

Since Iran launched a ballistic missile attack at US bases in Iraq[0], and pretty much nothing happened in response, I wouldn't jump to conclusions about US response to attacks on our bases.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Martyr_Soleimani

Not a single US soldier was killed as a result of that strike which was in retaliation for the US bombing one of Iran's generals on Iraqi soil. The US decided not to escalate because what's the point? If Iran had killed US forces it would have been a different story. And attacks on US forces in Iraq are different from attacks on US forces in Europe, particularly in NATO countries and even more so in the countries most considered allies (Germany, etc.).

USA would do well to also withdraw from NATO. Let Europe pay for it's own defense. Stop meddling.

What rational reason would Russia have to invade the Baltic States (or even for example Poland)? Even in best case scenario if the west does not directly intervene, they would get an additional few million people almost all of whom absolutely don't want to live in Russia and whom Russia could barely afford to police and a lot of additional economic sanctions. Also we're totally ignoring the internal political fallout (whatever their political views but I'm pretty sure most Russia would not support risking a full-scale war with the west).

Wars usually seem rational to the people starting them. Conceivably attainable goals for short- or medium- term political purposes. But war has a way of escalating, dragging the participants along to a fate none of them really control.

As a hypothetical -- Russia does invade Ukraine and the Western forces offer substantial but indirect military support. Russia strikes at a supporting NATO military installation just metres over the border in a NATO country, on the assumption that NATO will not respond to that as an Article 5 attack on their territory. But they assume wrong.

Consider how the Japanese assumed the Americans would be amenable to sue for peace after Pearl Harbor at some point. They had a mental model where it was risky, yes, but rational. But they deeply misunderstood their enemy. History is full of this pattern.

Japan was already fighting a massive war in China, after the US oil embargo Japan basically had no choice (besides a completely changing their geopolitical goals) they had to invade Indonesia and other oil rich European colonies in the pacific which would likely result in a war with the US, so yes, they choose relatively rational option of attacking first hoping if not to knock out US out of the Pacific but at least to significantly weaken their presence there. They might have underestimated the industrial capacity of the US, but they hardly had any other options if they wanted to continue their imperialistic expansion.

I don't see how is that relevant in the case of Russia though, they have little to gain and a lot to loose from any war with NATO or invasion of any NATO countries and so far Putin or anyone did not indicate in anyway that they think otherwise.

> if they wanted to continue their imperialistic expansion

Always the first misstep.

They already have and the rest of the world just turned away, look at Crimea.

Crimea is in no way comparable to the Baltic States. It has a Russian speaking majority, while the referendum they staged there was likely falsified to an extent, most of the people living there did not really support the Ukrainian state and weren't particularly opposed to it Crimea being a part of Russia. In 2014 Ukraine was basically a failed state, economically and politically. At the time the average income in Russia was several times as large as in Ukraine (they are almost even now).

Geopolitically it made sense for the US and the West to largely ignore it. Due to their military presence there no one could argue that it wasn't Russia sphere of influence anyway. It was a small price to pay for ensuring that the the rest of Ukraine would shift it's alignment from Russia to EU/NATO (not having a Russian fleet stationed in one of your ports would likely make this move easier).

None of this in any way applies to the Baltic States.

Border security (same reason the Soviets held onto their gains), paranoia, and Putin needing an external enemy to galvanize his power. Plus they've taken the Crimea and effectively a large chunk of Ukraine with little effective pushback. They may believe that Europe and US lack the will for harsh punishments, particularly with Germany (among others) reliant on Russian natural gas. There are also a lot of ethnic Russians in the former Warsaw pact nations who might welcome a closer relationship.

I can't speak to the will of the Russian people, but anti-western propaganda has been common there for well over a decade. If it's even been marginally effective they may be more geared up for conflict than people expect.

Would you ask what rational reason China has to invade Taiwan?

Has China invaded Taiwan yet?

From a more cynical, pragmatic "realpolitik" perspective one can view Russian actions in Ukraine as largely defensive. From the collapse of the Soviet Union Ukraine largely functioned as a semi-protectorate of Russia, even before 2014 Russian probably had significantly more troops stationed in Crimea than Ukrainians themselves since their black sea fleet is stationed there. After the events of 2014 Russia saw that long-term they are likely going to loose Ukraine anyway and basically decided to cut their losses and at least maintain the control of Crimea. It's not like Russia actually wants to fully annex the regions in eastern Ukraine their currently fighting over, they just want a semi permanent conflict which would destabilize Ukraine politically and to ensure that the Ukraine could never join NATO (and likely the EU), since NATO accepting Ukraine would be basically equivalent to them declaring war on Russia..

No, but they want to. Reclaiming Taiwan is linked to the CCP maintaining its power. If the US wasn't around they would have taken it back by now.

What you say about the Russian actions in Ukraine is true, the question is would they prefer full annexation if they knew NATO wouldn't intervene? I'd say they probably would. If the goal is security, not many things more secure than saying "this is our territory now", it would also enable a lot of direct control instead of relying on manipulated chaos that can always blow up in your face.

I'd say that claiming that they want to "Reclaim" Taiwan is linked to CCP maintaining its power. I'm pretty sure that they don't really want to militarily conquer it even if they were certain it would not result in a full scale war with the US. Any such invasion, assuming Taiwan resists, would result huge damage to the Chinese and the global economies and likely result in China completely losing western markets (at least long-term). They would much rather continue increasing Taiwan's economic reliance on China and eventually peacefully take it over (even without necessarily full integrating it into their state). Any saber rattling it basically to deter foreign government's from recognizing Taiwan in any way which would strengthen the independence movement there and decrease it's reliance on China.

>prefer full annexation if they knew NATO wouldn't intervene

You mean of the entire Ukraine? Because it would cost them more than it's worth. No Russian actions since 1991 have so far indicated that they actually want to conquer any foreign area not inhabited by a Russian speaking majority or whose population would be likely to actively resist such occupation.

They don't want a conflict on their border. The west wants a conflict.

Stirring up ethnic border wars is a cheap way of sapping the strength of regional powers. The British Empire honed it to a fine art.

The rational reason to invade East Ukraine was to up the stakes and make everyone forget about annexation of Crimean peninsula. And it mostly worked, unfortunately

I can see a valid reason for Ukrainian annexation - just for its agricultural output alone. Russia is possibly having a food problem.

The reason is more territory. That is Russian never-ending external politics position, that's been followed through several centuries so far.

Russia largely doesn't care about people as much as about territory.

Why? Is Russia some sentient hive-mind?

To rebuild the empire. They are not bothered with what the people they conquer think.

> I hate to say it but the Afghanistan withdrawal really showed what happens when Americans stop giving a shit, and they probably don't give that much of a shit about Latvia.

The US is facing severe internal crises. It's weakening the country's ability to conduct a consistent foreign policy.

(I'm deliberately not saying what the crises are, because there is pitched disagreement about that. The point is that no matter what, infighting is hampering foreign policy.)

And when the cause of that internal crisis is the rise of far-right populism (either actively funded or at least tacitly supported by Putin), then it really doesn't take much effort to put two and two together. There are no mysteries here, only evil working in plain sight.

That is one perspective. As an exercise, could you articulate a sympathetic reading of a different perspective, to the extent that someone who holds that perspective would approve of your rendering? Think of it as following Sun Tzu's advice to know your adversary.

Again, the point in this context is that no matter what the crises are, the foreign influence of the US is in decline because of severe domestic distractions.

> foreign influence of the US is in decline because of severe domestic distractions

I agree that much of the domestic chaos is a distraction, and that the U.S. should be focusing on longer term existential issues that affect the whole world, but I wish more people realized how much of the distraction and chaos is intentional.

It's difficult to keep your eyes on the road when someone just tossed a beehive into the car.

> the U.S. should be focusing on longer term existential issues that affect the whole world

Should it? Many US citizens believe that the country is at risk of betraying its fundamental values and becoming something they cannot countenance. Resolving our differences will be hard.

Foreign instigators are poking an existing wound. They may be aggravating the injury, but they didn't create it.

There's no question that the long term interests of the US would be served by staying vigorously engaged in foreign affairs, including in the Ukraine. But does the US have the capability to do so when it is so riven, internally?

Or maybe the internal distractions are war being waged on a different battlefield. Sun Tzu talked of fighting wars politically before actually fighting...

Someone is drinking the koolaid.

One side is having Open calls to remove the police. Let men take over woman’s sports. Decriminalize theft. Oh and attempting to bring back segregation. Disagree with any of that and you get labeled a far right lunatic.

That is one perspective. Are you up for the same challenge I asked of another poster?

> As an exercise, could you articulate a sympathetic reading of a different perspective, to the extent that someone who holds that perspective would approve of your rendering? Think of it as following Sun Tzu's advice to know your adversary.

> The question is less about NATO deployments and more the will of NATO leadership to go to war with Russia over its more minor members

This is the point of putting NATO troops in the country: if Chad from Nebraska and Juan from Madrid get shot by Boris it’ll significantly alter public/political opinion much more than if Igor gets shot by Boris.

They put these troops in the Baltics so that the Russians would end up shooting kids from a wide range of influential NATO partners.

And the Russians just need to surround/pin down those troops with minimal casualties while they secure the rest of their objectives. We're talking battalions, not divisions. Their practical ability to fight an invasion is limited.

We didn't re-invade Afghanistan because some US soldiers were killed during the withdrawal.

> We didn't re-invade Afghanistan because some US soldiers were killed during the withdrawal.

And the failure to do that was very explicitly the basis of massive domestic criticism of the Administration; it took executive commitment to weather popular opposition to maintain the withdrawal policy.

So, while the facts you recite are accurate, they don't actually support the argument about political support you are making.

”The question is less about NATO deployments and more the will of NATO leadership to go to war with Russia over its more minor members.”

Not acting on this would completely destroy NATO and also permanently destroy US credibility on the world politics and in terms of military power. Realistically speaking NATO and US could not afford not to go to a war or at least armed conflict with Russia.

Like I said, you're assuming the US gives a shit. The Cold War ended a while ago, the last Cold War generation is aging into retirement. Europe/Russia is now a secondary concern in the US next to China. NATO blowing up would destroy American diplomatic credibility, but we've already kinda done that in multiple ways over the last few years, and our military is still more than potent enough to look after our interests.

Granted Russia is still seen as an adversary, but if Russia manages to quickly steamroll the Balkans/Poland/Ukraine and then challenges NATO to do something about it, I'm not sure there's the stomach for a bloody, protracted invasion of the continent to reclaim the lost members.

There's also a large swath of the US that sees NATO as a waste of US time/money, with members that largely don't pull their weight and are just mooching off the US, hell that was part of Trump's platform. And Secretary Gates under Obama complained, more diplomatically, about the same thing.

There's a substantial chance that a Russian invasion of any part of Europe would be seen as a "European problem" by a large chunk of Americans. None of this is to say I support that position, but that's where we're at IMO. America is largely turning inward for the first time since WWII, the question is whether Europe will figure that out before Putin does.

USA will have to give a shit for one reason: the war against Baltics or Poland is the war against whole Europe. Germany will not stay away and observe, as will not do France or Italy. EU is the largest trade partner of USA, the biggest market for its exports etc. Regardless of the strategic games in the Pacific, USA cannot afford to lose it or to allow it to be devastated by a big war.

I am all for international trade. But can we let the European countries grow up and provide their own defense? USA can't really afford another decade of aggressive military meddling. Deficits are running away from any plausibly realistic plan to balance spending and tax receipts, so we are economically killing our future.

Grow up? US used NATO article 5 to get European NATO partners to join US wars in the middle east. The soldiers went there and died in US conflicts to help you with your ”war on terror”.

How about pay your fucking debt and keep Russia at bay.

How does MAD and France/UK nuclear arsenal fits into this ? It is my impression Russia (and maybe the EU but since I live in the EU I suppose we are the goodies) is waging an attrition small skirmishes war (don't really know what the end game is though).

Nope... no battalions in Iceland.

Perhaps the comment was edited, but there is no wording in the current post that states battlegroups are in Iceland just that Iceland contributes to battlegroups in other countries.

Well... tis true that there is a mine clearing group to deal with the occasional mine that drifts in from the old WW2 mine fields in the North Atlantic. And they did send one of them over to participate in the Gulf War...

https://www.icelandreview.com/news/iceland-featured-the-dail...

...but there are still no battalions in Iceland. There isn't even a permanent US air base any more, they cleared out in the 2000´s.

Just a few points:

- The Budapest Memorandum was, unfortunately, not legally binding. Not justifying the lack of support from the West, but just pointing out an important aspect.

- North Atlantic Treaty is legally binding. Also, the Baltic States already host a small multi-national contingent of NATO troops: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Enhanced_Forward_Presence

- It is also worth noting that the EU has mutual defence clause as per Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union. Nobody knows what legal or practical effect it would have though.

Anything in international treaties is only as legally binding as the enforcement measures behind them. As a small country, no international treaties are ever legally binding. After all, what could the government-in-exile of Latvia do after a Russian invasion if the US president or UK PM decided after a focus group session that going to war with Russia over the Baltics is not a vote winner?

NATO troops being actively stationed in the Baltics is a little different. Ukraine doesn’t have anything that I’m aware of.

20K troops or thereabouts. No tanks, no planes, just some artillery.

That's irrelevant, their purpose is to act as a deterrent. By invading Russia would also directly attack American, British, German, Canadian etc. soldiers which not something their governments can just ignore. Anyway it's not the 1930's, considering the current political and economical environment there is absolutely no rational reason for Russia to invade the Baltic states (unlike eastern Ukraine or Crimea). What would they gain by doing that, 5 million people none of whom want to be a part of Russia and a shitload more sanctions (assuming if it does not escalate into a full-scale war with the west which is again something Russia has nothing to gain from).

Last I heard the Americans had left. Is there something I have missed?

True, currently Americans seems to be only stationed in Poland (while Germans are mainly in Lithuania, Canadians in Latvia and the UK in Estonia) but I don't see how that fundamentally changes anything.

I was just in Kaunas and ran into American soldiers -- or what I thought were American soldiers? We chatted and they implied this.

I'm not really sure, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Enhanced_Forward_Presence they don't have a permanent presence there, but I assume there should still be some fluctuating number of American soldiers in Lithuania due to some temporary reasons of the time.

I know there are some Canadians stationed in that region.

20K troops are people's sons and daughters. Those are real people with personal stories that can credibly threaten to move votes and enlistments.

Being the US politician responsible for using those sons and daughters as human shields is something that could backfire spectacularly. It's not a given that the US can dump soldiers into any conflict and then use their deaths as a tool for support. It's possible, and I suspect quite likely, that the politicians will bear the brunt of the damage from creating the situation where those sons and daughters were killed.

Armored ground vehicles in a frontline role are largely worthless against a modern military; it’s too easy to take them out with drone-fired missiles or kamikaze drones.

NATO doesn’t need to position planes in the Baltics when they’re within range of its air bases in Germany (airbases should be well behind the front lines anyway).

People often have no appreciation of scale. Russia has more armor than NATO has Javelins and loitering munitions.

Most of which are pushing 50 years old. Russia has a lot of military assets, and has developed some advanced capabilities, but has not been able to field them in any meaningful quantity since the fall of the Soviet Union. The same story is true with their air superiority / denial capabilities. They have advanced weapons, but not enough of them to go toe-to-toe with NATO and the bulk of their military is obsolete Soviet-era hardware.

Yes, but they run just fine. Russia can field massive amounts of heavy materials, far more than any other Western European country, and they have plenty of mobile launchers and other annoying hardware that can throw a spanner in the works for a fairly large surface area, and the number of airplanes they can field is quite impressive. It may not be the latest and the greatest, but it's not as if F35s are thick on the ground (or in the skies) in Europe either (less than 100 in total, most for training purposes).

I really would not see this put to the test, not only because of the potential outcome but because such an exchange has the potential to spiral out of control really fast.

Totally agree with the last part, and I think Russia is playing a dangerous game of chicken here that risks nuclear WW3 if it goes wrong.

Most of NATO equipment is not exactly sparkling new either, am not sure what that proves. Does it not count if the battletank that runs you over is from 1980s?

And yet Finns, spectacularily outnumbered, held off Russian invasion anyway with machine guns and German drugs.

FSVO held off. All Finnish territory claimed by USSR at the beginning of the conflict was in the end annexed and remains so to this day.

Certainly kept more than half the country. Here's hoping Ukraine prevails as well.

Amen.

It's not just about votes. Modern wars can be endless as we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Russia is not foolish enough to do a full scale invasion. They will just send in proxies. No nation wants to commit resources to such wars.

russia's economy is smaller than Italy's, Russia can't afford long wars. in 10 years Poland alone would be able to take on Russia.

Russia's development and production costs for military hardware is also much smaller than any Western nation's. They get much more for their money in that respect.

People never realize how broke Russia really is because Russia plays such a good marketing game.

Some other people also never realise that "broke on paper" means nothing when you are an energy-independent state with arms and a nuclear capacity to protect its territory.

They could publicly shame the US, UK, and France about abandoning an ally without putting up a fight. This humiliation would threaten

1. Those nations' ability to sell military hardware to the leaders of resource-rich nations.

2. Those nations' politicians ability to avoid a governing coalition between the radical far right and newly-angry moderate conservatives.

“Legally binding” makes me chuckle.

“Legally binding” makes sense within a system where a mechanism of enforcement exists. Once you rise above the state, nothing exists, at least on a permanent basis.

Ukraine is basically in a situation of “you don’t own what you cant defend through violence”.

The Ukraine will lose another chunk of territory. Western nations will “decry this violation of sovereignty” and the UN will condemn it, but Russia will own it.

People don’t like it, but in the end the US motto of “might makes right” is correct. If you cant defend it, it’s not yours.

Is simple. You conquer country. Appoint lawmakers who will say invasion is legal. No legal problems anymore.

That US war-motto doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the rest of the developed world. They haven't actually had any battles at home, except for the ones where they attack themselves. It's a relatively young country anyway, so it's hard to pin any value on any war-motto that's not about a far-from-home war (which is what they do have experience with).

The US motto is "E Pluribus Unum"

I thought they changed it to a religious one because they thought it sounded too much like communism or something like that?

People are jumping on your phrase "legally binding" for some reason, but I think they are missing the point.

The Budapest Memorandum has no enforcement mechanism.

It has no obligation on the part of the other signatories to defend Ukraine, other than the requirement to bring it up at the UN security council should Ukraine be threatened by nukes.

> The Budapest Memorandum was, unfortunately, not legally binding. Not justifying the lack of support from the West, but just pointing out an important aspect.

Yep, nobody will be sued when Ukraine will nuke RF in violation of Budapest memorandum. So what?

Since when does Ukraine have nukes? They gave it up for empty promises from the west, no?

They gave them up for empty promises from Russia and the West*. I like how you conveniently "forgot" that Russia signed that too.

"The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers: the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.

The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan."

Just a comment, while the west's lack of support here angers me to no end (Russia I don't blame because how could you trust Russia, especially at that moment when so much was changing) while Ukraine had nukes physically, the actual control capabilities were all in Russia and it would have cost Ukraine a lot (money they didn't have at the time) to convert/maintain them to something usable anyways. Not that this is an excuse, but the situation isn't as clear cut as 'they had nukes and could have used them for their own defense if only the west hadn't taken them away'

1. You can absolutely blame Russia. When the nukes were taken away, new launch facilities were dismembered, and TU-160s (Jet strategic bombers, very large ones, which are always a serious threat for people who don't know) were cut OR TRANSFERRED to Russia. Russia knew exactly what it was doing.

2. Hitting Moscow from across the border with a real late 80s ICBM isn't exactly complicated for a country like Ukraine. Especially in this day and age. You drastically overstate the role of centralized C&C here. I want to stress that Ukraine demilitarized MODERN facilities. These aren't 60s hold overs.

The West, of course, lied too. That doesn't absolve Russia however.

What security assurances are you talking about, specifically?

Is this some sort of weird hint that Russia is not violating anything? Or some weird hint that the US is not violating its commitment? "The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan."

I was wondering where you getting these quotes from, but I managed to find some of them in the Budapest Memorandum Wikipedia page. The provide a helpful list of the obligations as well:

--

1) Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.[16]

2) Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.

3) Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to influence their politics.

4) Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

5) Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.

6) Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments

--

I don't see any commitments being violated here on the part of "the West." Most of the list is about not attacking Ukraine, rather than some commitment to proactively come to their defense. Maybe we can quibble about the wording on 4) a bit... but I would imagine it only covers concrete nuclear threats.

I have to admit - I trusted sources saying the US promised to defend Ukraine as part of these agreements, which is nowhere in this list. Thanks for posting the actual wording.

Thanks, sorry for the initial comment which is in retrospect quite cryptic, haha.

I should be clear, this is the Wikipedia summary. The actual wording seems pretty similar (although it is a bit wordier).

> I like how you conveniently "forgot" that Russia signed that too

I'm a Pole living in the west and the perspective of Putin's greedy gaze turning so close to my motherland is quite terrifying. I think your conclusion that I somehow "conveniently" forgot about Russia being the culprit here is a bit too far fetched here.

Since when Ukraine forgot how to make nukes?

I don’t think Ukraine can get weapon grade plutonium

Ukraine has weapon-grade nuclear reactors, which produces weapon grade plutonium at scale.

And therein lies the rub: the EU would not be able to do much of anything without the rest of NATO to back them up. And in spite of Europe being dragged along in many American adventures in the middle east I wouldn't count on NATO sticking together either. Way too much 'realpolitik' going on to count on that for long term stability.

You suddently jumped to conclusion that EU could not do much without NATO, but that's just your speculation.

- EU is basically the third largest economy in the World. Meanwhile, Russia is about similar size economy as Italy. The combined EU military spending and capability/equipment is well above Russia's. So, in terms of economic and military power, the EU certainly has means, but see below.

- Would EU have political might and unity? That is a big question. However, the situation with the Baltic States is not so simple: these countries are well integrated parts of the EU, including the membership in Eurozone, Schengen Area, financial and banking system (banks are mostly Scandinavian in the Baltics), etc. Any threats to them would have significant consequences e.g. to Euro as a currency.

- While some EU countries might be reluctant to do anything, there would be other EU countries which might take unilateral action as they might feel threatened too. In particular, Nordic countries and Poland (which, by the way, recently is getting very heavily armed).

Just a note, while Baltic banks are well integrated into the EU (especially after the Danske bank scandal and others before it made integration with Russia politically toxic) the energy grid of the region is still very tied into Russia which is of a critical concern right now (see EU energy prices and issues with the harmonization across the union).

I will also have a very negative posture on the EU military spending/capability unfortunately after working for a Baltic government and being familiar at a high level at capabilities in the region and somewhat familiar of Germany/France. In the EU today now that Britain has left, France is the only real military power who has 1) the forces to deploy and 2) the will to do so. German forces are in a terrible state of disrepair and the new government does not seem like one to invest further (Ulrike Franke has a great writeup and is worth a twitter follow) and even the old gov is under fire for blocking military aid as they have supported nonlethal NATO equipping only to Ukraine, I would guess partially because they are addicted to Russian gas but there are some rumors that Merkel will join some Russia affiliated boards (gotta love a little government graft). Poland I am less clear about but I have never heard anything about them having a really solid air force and anti-air capabilities which is one of the most critical things Ukraine needs (at this point Ukrainian ground forces are actually pretty good and are well versed in how to fight; what they need is to be able to ward off incursions by sea and air).

https://www.airforcemag.com/ukraine-says-it-can-deter-a-russ... https://www.ft.com/content/1336c9be-f1c9-4545-9f85-3b07fcb74...

>the energy grid of the region is still very tied into Russia which is of a critical concern right now

This however makes the relationship somewhat symbiotic, as Russia also depends on EU money. I remember reading recently (somewhere?) that Russia had transitioned from a failed industrial state to a failed Petrostate sometime in the 90's since that's currently their biggest source of foreign currency.

Another point I'm surprised I don't see anybody making is the impact of drones on armoured assaults. The recent conflict (Tajikistan / Kyrgyzstan ?) showed that they could really devastate attacking armour, and last time Russia 'holidayed' in Ukraine it was their stronger armour that pushed the Ukrainians back. This could really tip the balance back to the defenders. Also, it's hard to deny you've invaded a country if 100 of your tanks are smouldering wrecks on the wrong side of a border.

The Baltic States have electricity links with Finland, Sweden (subsea cables) and Poland (with another cable link planned). They are scheduled to pretty much disconnect from the Russian/CIS electricity grid by 2025: https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/baltic-states-and-poland-sign...

I totally agree on German forces being deplorable. Regarding Poland:

- MIM-104 Patriot (air defense): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43574308

- JASSM-ER (cruise missiles): https://defence24.com/70-jassm-er-missiles-for-the-polish-f-...

- F-35 figher jets: https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/01/31/poland-...

- M142 HIMARS rocket launchers: https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/02/11/poland-...

- M1A2 Abrams SEPv3 tanks: https://www.defensenews.com/land/2021/07/14/polish-defence-m...

.. and there are plenty of smaller scale projects. Poland is arming to teeth.

The EU has downsized their military capability steadily over the last 40 years, so I wouldn't count out Russia based on spending alone, the size of the army that you can field, and how far afield you can support it is a pretty important factor and Russia is within that zone at the moment as good as unopposed. Russia has historically been able to hold their own surprisingly well when it came to Dollars spent versus Rubles spent. Bluntly: they would be able to use Belarus as a base and connect that to Kaliningrad in a very short time. They might not be able to hold it over the longer term but the damage would be done: it would require the EU to declare where their loyalty lies and if the interaction so far is any guide I would not want to bet on the outcome.

I'm pretty well connected to the Baltics and have spent a lot of time in that part of Europe, both in North Eastern Poland, Lithuania and Latvia (less so in Estonia though I've been there a couple of times I never spent a lot of consecutive time there). From what I gather there is some fierce nationalism there, and a pretty strong cultural identity, in spite (possibly because) of years of Russian efforts to destroy those. At the same time, and in spite of financial/cross border integration with the rest of Europe those countries are an island surrounded on their land borders by borderline hostiles with a tiny little bridge to the rest of Europe.

But you have a point about the Nordics and Poland who definitely would have a big stake in this. But for your average person from Madrid, Paris or Rome it likely would not be something they even realize is in play, they might not even know Kaliningrad exists and they might not know much about the Baltics and their history or present day role in Europe.

> EU is basically the third largest economy in the World. Meanwhile, Russia is about similar size economy as Italy. The combined EU military spending and capability/equipment is well above Russia's. So, in terms of economic and military power, the EU certainly has means, but see below.

It is actually the second, but only just, and China will surpass it very soon. This doesn't detract from your point at all.

However what does detract from this point somewhat is that this neglects relative purchasing power. At purchasing power parity, Russia's military spending is actually higher than perhaps people realise.

Yes! And their defense industrial base is massive, not only are they just spending for internal use, but they also are making improvements constantly because they sell these weapons abroad (e.g. S-400's which piss of America to no end)

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/26/erdogan-turkey-coul...

This all comes with a time limit however. Because of the demographics of Russia, they will not be able to keep this military industrial base up for more than a couple of decades. It is really a case that Russia are currently at their strongest militarily (unless something drastic changes).

With this in mind, the west's strategy of economic pressure makes some more sense. The economic pressure will help this strength window last for less time, and perhaps even cause some internal issues that will distract away from foreign adventures.

Russia has a military budget of 60bn, Germany and France spend 52bn each. Within the EU they are on home turf, with existing rail and road infrastructure. The EU isn't equipped to fight in Russia or to fight a nuclear war (even though France has nukes), but I don't see why the EU shouldn't be able to defend it's own territory in a conventional war.

>but I don't see why the EU shouldn't be able to defend it's own territory in a conventional war.

Because money spent in an efficient and effective system has more power than money spent in an ineffective and bloated system. One example - Germany doesn't actually have enough helicopters operational to meet their needs, so they used civilian contractor helicopters in Afghanistan.

The structures are just so different that it's hard to make good comparisons. Germany can't keep its troops and equipment equipped or repaired _at home_, while Russian is capable of doing so thousands of miles from beyond its borders.

The German military in particular is "neither structurally capable nor equipped" to meet its defense obligations, according to the German parliamentary commissionor for the armed forces. Their helicopter readiness is something like 15%, they don't have the funding to keep their navy seaworthy, for most of 2018-20 they only had enough operational armaments to keep 4 of their eurofighter jets armed. They don't have enough body armor for all their troops, so they rotate it out to whichever battalion is active. Current bundeswehr projections are that they'll be able to equip all their troops in 2031.

It's gotten so bad that the German 2019 readiness report was kept secret, after the 2018 report was so bad.

Long story short, the German military is fundamentally incapable of meeting its basic defensive goals (defending the home territory of the nation), while Russia is a near peer competitor with the United States, and is capable of offensive force projection thousands of miles from it's home territory

Links for the quotes and numbers.

https://dsm.forecastinternational.com/wordpress/2019/01/31/g...

https://sofrep.com/amp/specialoperations/germanys-military-r...

https://www.strifeblog.org/2020/07/03/the-german-military-mu...

100% and I think in the case of an actual war, the most likely scenario is that EU member states basically scramble and act independently to defend themselves. The idea of a joint EU military response to Russian aggression is absolutely a fantasy. It's just too big and slow of an organization to do anything on the timescales needed to decisively win a war.

Well, let's just hope that that will never be put to the test. As they say: Europe is the battlefield of the world, and Poland is the battlefield of Europe.

Russia is as unpredictable as they ever were at the moment and there is a fair chance of this leading to some kind of escalation in the near future.

RF is extremely predictable. Its behavior was well predicted two decades ago. If you are predicting «happy path» only, then anything that deviates from «happy path» will surprise you. Peace time job for military headquarters is to predict «unhappy path» and prepare for it. Russian tactic is well known among former USSR and Eastern Block countries, so it was easy to predict what they will do:

Will try to return post-soviet countries back to «USSR 2.0».

Will capture Belarus somewhat.

Will station army across Ukrainian border.

Will try to circumvent Kyiv, while distracting Ukrainian army at the South.

This is just fearmongering based on XIX century thinking. There is no expansion drive by default, however there are couple strategic "red lines", which, when crossed make Russia react aggressively.

1. Hostile military block on the borders (expansion of NATO or any moves that may be treated as towards the expansion or challenging the status quo, as in Ukraine with Crimea).

2. Status of Russian population and Russian language (Georgia in 2008, Ukraine - Donbass, Baltics - low intensity information war).

For the neighboring states they are the keys to their own security: addressing those fears of Russia by diplomatic means, those countries can bring more peace than arming themselves against the invasion.

Where does this obsession with the external come from. Russia has the largest national landmass yet still they look outwards despite the many improvements that they could make internally. It's bizarre to me.

The goal of Great Russian Civilization is to protect and expand the Gorgeous and Mighty Russian Language.

The Russian Empire was known as «Jail of Nations», because they captured so many different nations across a huge area. To consolidate them, they are erasing their identity by forcing all of them to speak a single invented language, called Russian, which is based on Old Slavonic Church language, which is based on South Slavonic dialect as spoken near to Salonika (Greece) a thousand years ago. This is somewhat different from behavior of some other empires (Spanish Empire, Great Britain Empire, etc.), because the language was invented, so it was not native language for anyone, so nobody had an upper leg and nobody can be clearly blamed as invader.

Those, who switched to the new language, invented reasons about why Gorgeous and Mighty Russian language is superior to their laughable and weak native languages, so they have strong beliefs that they need to help those minor nations to escape the hell of speaking them and join the Great Russian Civilization.

Russia(now Ukraine) used Russian (now Ukrainian) language, which was a modernized version of Old Slavonic language, so they refused to accept archaic language. In 1912(?) Folk Assembly of All Russia (now Ukraine) declared rename of Russia (now Ukraine) to Ukraine to avoid confusion with Russian Empire or its language. (It's well hidden fact). Ten years after that, Great Ukrainization started, so millions of Russians (now Ukrainians) switched to Ukrainians, then Great Ukrainization aborted by Russians. 20 millions of Ukrainians were recorded as Russians again, 7 million adults (and 23 million children) were murdered by starvation in Holodomor.

Russian language, Russian culture, etc. are very new. For example, there are 0 (zero) folk songs in Russian language. Russians are studying history of Russia (now Ukraine) instead of history of their own nations. This makes them wonder why Russia now called Ukraine, and why their motherland is captured by Ukrainians. This makes them mad about Ukraine and Ukrainians. Nobody tells them real history, of course.

They are not looking for expansion outwards. The only real expansion that has happened so far was Crimea, which was part of Russia before, has significant Russian population which at least once voted for independence, but more importantly it is vital for Russian defence on the south.

The Philippines was part of the US back in the day too. Itd also provide a convenient base for countering China. Should the US invade and annex it?

This is not the same. Imagine a different situation: in 1950 USA gives Florida to Mexico. In 2010s as a result of political transformation, Mexico wants to leave trade agreements with USA and join economic and military alliance led by China, opening possibility for Chinese military base in Miami. Would USA invade in this case?

Based on what we know from the history, yes, USA could do it, as they did in the Bay of Pigs. In fact, USA invaded with military forces in Latin America so many times that by now they should have lost any credibility in democratic world.

Should the US make the previously annexed Hawaii free and let it become The Hawaiian Kingdom again?

Russian budgeted costs are far higher in 'cross border equalisation' terms than 60 billion - Russia probably get 2-3 times as much purchasing power. If Ukraine is attacked they will fight to the death - they know what life under Russia was like and the killings. In addition, almost all cross border shipments of all kinds to Russia will stop, as the USA/EU will go to maximum embargo state. China will supply stuff by rail, but it will only take a few flying bombs to cut so many bridges that it grinds to a halt. Trucks will not help - many large tracts are rail only. All the while China pretending to be a friend - but China wants Siberia for China. Russia can do far better with good trade with Europe than a Ukrainian land grab. An what if rumors are true and Ukraine secretly hid enough nukes to wipe out over 20 Russian cities by truck bombs.?

>`And what if rumors are true and Ukraine secretly hid enough nukes to wipe out over 20 Russian cities by truck bombs`

I don't think it is possible to keep such secret from Russia for 30 years. Ukrainian president deflected to Russia in 2014, and that means that any secret that he might've known is available to Russia.

true enough!

> If Ukraine is attacked they will fight to the death

They will not. They gave up Crimea almost without fight. Many people at Ukraine are russian speaking and many of them don't mind becoming a part of Russia, just like Criemea people. Just compare with Chechen war in 90's.

True, it was Russia before...

Neither Germany or France have a conscript army. So neither can field any big numbers and it also inflates the cost of the armed forces for the comparison.

>Within the EU they are on home turf, with existing rail and road infrastructure

Baltic countries are better connected to Russia and Belarus via rail, road, electricity grid, etc than to the rest of the EU.

EU was reluctant to fund infrastructure projects to change that, e.g. the railway from Poland through all the three Baltic capitals

that's not true https://www.reuters.com/article/eu-baltic-energy-idUKL8N2GT2...

EU grants Baltic grids 720 mln euros to unplug from Russia

That's why I used the past tense. EU investment beefed up over the last few years. Rail Baltica is still underfinanced though [1].

And the main point stands. Baltic countries were part of USSR for 46 years from 1945 until 1991. EU had 30 years to fix the problem but it did not.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_Baltica

Correct me if I am wrong but the more I digged into this story more I find it is much more nuanced than this.

So briefly here is what I think had happened:

- Russia had a huge strategic deal to sell Germany petroleum and natural gas. This was years of diplomatic work and finally got to the point where this looked like a reality.

- The settlement of the above deal would be in EUR bypassing the typical petrodollar settlement.

- Ukraine was proposed to be added to NATO by US and other allies.

- Russia started moving troops to Ukraine.

- the above mentioned deal with Germany is now under question.

One has to wonder if the last three points are correlated and second and the third points are correlated i.e. to keep the petrodollar dominance US is crafting this conflict by adding Ukraine to NATO.

Reminds me of https://theecologist.org/2016/mar/14/why-qaddafi-had-go-afri...

Same thing for Hussein.

Yes, you are wrong.

USSR (and then Russia) were selling gas via existing lines to Western Europe since 1970s. The new pipeline is a bypass around Ukraine to remove any leverage against an invasion.

Ukraine would love to join NATO (and no, you are not proposed there by other countries that's not how it works). However the US and other allies have cold feet to avoid pissing off Putin.

Fair but you are not arguing why the events are not to be thought of being correlated. So if the natural gas deal with Germany is settled in EUR that seems to be a good enough reason to piss US off and start a proxy war. Why is the momentum for getting Ukraine to EU so strong now?

EUR (unlike say China's RMB, Cuban pesos or whatever they have in NK for money) is a freely convertible currency. Can you explain the mechanism by which settlements in Euros undermine anything, such that three (mutually confrontational) US administrations engage into conspiracy against Mother Russia?

(For the reference, the old pipeline gas was also paid for in Euros)

As to momentum for Ukraine ascension to NATO, I would love to live in that reality. Over here, Germany, France and several other NATO members strongly oppose even allowing Ukraine onto the roadmap.

Settlement in a non reserve currency sets a precedence for other countries to follow the suit (for example Russia, China and India) to settle using their own currencies and therefore threatens USD monopoly. For example China is already doing the same thing with Iran outside the SWIFT system. Without foreigners buying US treasuries to fund the ever increasing US sovereign debt, the US treasury will increasingly have to rely on Federal Reserve monetizing their social security and other deficits and eventually prompting a collapse of USD as a reserve currency and runaway inflation since that will make USD worthless at its face value. I would argue this will happen someday regardless but this just makes it happen sooner. Especially at a time when debt is exploding, printer is still on, and GDP isn’t exactly growing.

I think Germany opposed the reality of Ukraine being in NATO because they understood the reality that this pisses off Russia, their large natural gas provider which benefits no one at this point especially in a world where US sphere of influence isn’t exactly as big as it used to be. Just look at how it all panned out in Afghanistan and Yemen.

"Currency conversion" is not free. If a deal is to be settled in the USD then it means that the buyer is likely to acquire USD directly (by selling something for USD or taking loans in USD) and the seller is likely to spend the USD, skipping any conversion and strengthening the USD. Likewise, if the deal is to be settled in EUR the same is applied to the EUR and strengthens the EUR while weakening the USD.

> There is only way for country’s protection and it’s Israel’s way where whole country is also an army.

Significant chunks of the Israeli population are de facto exempted from conscription (and with a low rate of voluntary enlistment from those communities as well)-most Haredi Jews, and most Israeli Arabs. Those two minorities together make up over 30% of Israeli citizens, and both minorities have an above average population growth rate (due to having more children and starting families at a younger age). The long-term risk this situation poses to Israel’s military security is a perennial topic of concern in Israeli media and politics

There's also the issue that many in that 30% don't have the same outlook on the form or even existence of the Israeli state. In a conflict, they can become a problem from within. Many western countries likewise face a similar internal demographic structure that's ready to fracture the state and act against it for their own perceived benefit. Probably every large state has this to some extent but some are in denial while others already have systems of control in place to account for it.

I think people are not thinking this through well enough. Realize the Russians are willing to go to war over this.

In no way would cross my mind to justify Russian actions, a regime I absolutely abhor. But maybe would be a good moment to not forget about the 40 years of strategic agreements, that supported peace in the last few years, and ask why these are being disturbed.

Or are we to ignore the CIA operations in Ukraine of the last few years:

"Leaked audio reveals embarrassing U.S. exchange on Ukraine, EU" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ukraine-tape-idUSBREA...

What would be the reaction of the US if Russian forces would deploy to the other side of their border? Lets says Canada or Mexico? Because that is what would happen in Ukraine would join NATO. We know what happened when they tried Cuba.

> Will NATO come for let’s say Latvia or Lithuania?

I don't know about NATO, but I strongly hope that EU defends its territory integrity. And I am not sure Russia wants to find out either…

Paradoxically, the USA seems more active in the current conflict over Ukraine than the rest of the EU. And it was Germany who blocked the delivery of NATO weapons to Ukraine.

I don't think that's paradoxical at all.

This is right in the EU's backyard. If it were to heat up they'd actually have to deal with things like refugees and the possibility of war spreading to their members. They probably also want to be very explicit about their (lack of) obligations in this case, I mean people are already acting as if this calls into question how steadfast they'll be in defense of eastern EU members.

We have two options. First, Putin is bluffing. This is what most people believe (and hope). In this case giving Ukraine more weapons won't hurt anyone. Option two is that he is really planning some offensive action this winter. In this case sending weapons to Ukraine could help in slowing the Russians down. It could also help in decimating their army - if they unmask as a ruthless aggressor, it is in the interest of the whole civilization, not just the EU, to limit their impact.

There are countless options.

Another option is that both the EU and Putin know Russia does not have the conventional strength to attack the EU, but does have the manpower to attack other unaligned countries. And so, the EU has decided to prioritize their other interests over standing up to Russia.

It's just our way of flipping the bird to Victoria Nuland for saying 'Fuck the EU!'

But don't take it too seriosly, that was long ago, now our brand new and most competent foreign affairs sock-puppet goes with the flow.

What does "the rest of the EU" mean here? It's not like the USA are a member.

That doesn't seem paradoxical at all, the US is the strongest global military power and the EU lives under its defense umbrella anyways

How EU will do this? NATO is very clear about not being able to defend Baltic countries, they just don't have sufficient militarily presence. Polish army is currently even to weak to protect Poland, maybe this will change in next 10 years, as there are significant investments into army and military industry planned, but not now.

EU would have to deploy immediately at least two heavily armed divisions to be able to protect Polish-Belarusian border (which is in reality Polish-Russian border and would be first attack direction to cut supply chains from Polans) and attack Kaliningrad, what is the key in Baltic countries defense.

Nothing happens in EU without Germany agreement, so the question is: will German army going to engage? Germany is busy cutting trade deal with China and starting Nord Stream 2 which would provide Russian gas for Germany, so the answer is clear.

The Polish army isn't meant to be able to defend Poland, it's meant to provide enough time for NATO to respond (which they're capable of within 72 hours). That, combined with the logistical challenges of a Russian invasion and the lack of motivation for the Russians to do so makes it very unlikely that they would attack.

More details on the logistical issues within the Russian army: https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/feeding-the-bear-a-closer-...

NATO has more than enough military power to defend, as long as it has enough political will and freedom to act. I think that is what the debate is about.

Also, I would not underestimate Poland. The country spends 2.2% of its GDP on military and has been gradually increasing the expenditures further. Moreover, Poland has been making very major acquisitions of modern equipment and capabilities (something Ukraine is currently just dreaming of -- see one of my posts above) as separate budget lines. It is on the track to become one of the main military powers in the EU and is certainly a very credible power to resist Russia.

You forget about this country called France that has a better/bigger army than Germany, has nuclear weapons and likes to think of itself as equal and not subordinate to Germany in the EU.

NATO as a whole might not engage in such a war, but members of EU certainly can, even without NATO.

The combined firepower of France, Germany, Italy and Spain is not something Russia can handle by itself. So the question is would Russia gets backing from China and/or Turkey to start invading portions of the EU?

> Nothing happens in EU without Germany agreement

That's just not true. Even if Germany decides to not help, they couldn't stop individual countries, like France or Italy from helping.

please stop reading russia today and sputnik. you sound just like russian propaganda

In russia today sputnik shocks You!

I'm certain that Israel's nukes and their strategic air strikes against Iran's nuclear/military facilities (preventing Iran from having nukes) contributes much more to their protection than a standing army.

This situation is obviously amplified 10x in Lithuania (population 30% of Israel) vs Russia (population 170% Iran).

Israel has been in many conventional wars with it's neighbors since the day it was founded. In recent times their nukes protect them, but historically it was more about every man and women being either active military or reserve, along with an economy that is able to pay for being the best military in the region.

Somehow you missed out nearly US$4B a year of military aid from the US as a part of that equation (also nearly US$8B of loan guarantees).

Didn't air power play a big part too back in the day?

And don't forget that in the Baltics there is a fairly large contingent of Ethnic Russians who are the perfect pretext for a liberation exercise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_the_Baltic_states

I disagree in Estonia and Lithuania. I think that 1) many ethnic Russians have seen the quality of life get much better living in these countries and while they may still hold many similar cultural values, would not want to live in Russia and 2) that the governments of the countries are well aware of the risk and have plans to counter it. Not so sure about Latvia.

The degree with which the Russian propaganda regarding vaccine safety has permeated the Russian populations in Estonia and Lithuania (and Latvia as well) has opened my eyes considerably into how strongly connected those communities are still to Russia. They are Russian first, and Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian second.

Now, Lithuania has only a relatively small number of ethnic Russians compared to the rest of the population, and in Estonia the it's somewhere in the middle (15% or so). Latvia is roughly 50/50.

And yes, the governments of those countries are well aware of the risk, but that is not the same as not having that risk in the first place.

Yeah sure, but the risk of taking a vaccine and deciding not to take it or holding up a sign outside of a hospital (I mean, plenty of hesitancy in the US too with no or very little Russian propaganda) is super different than taking up arms to support little green men coming across the border and I don't think really comparable. If we were back in '07 with the situation in Estonia, maybe, but now I'm super skeptical.

Yes but Israel operates under the US defense umbrella at least implicitly even despite their extraterritorial attacks against Iran. If Lithuania or Estonia started hitting Russian military targets, I'm pretty sure they'd be booted from NATO asap. Also, if they used nukes against Russia or even postured like they would it'd be a disaster. St. Petersburg is super close to Estonia, Belarus borders the baltics, so if you did even a first strike you'd probably end up with a nuclear cloud hanging over your own country a few hours later.

IIRC, it was NATO that signed an agreement that they won't expand to the east when Russia / USSR agreed to withdraw its army from the East Europe.

It was the Russia / USSR that agreed to let Ukraine alone as long as they guarantee human rights and equal status of ethnic Russian / Russian-speaking minority in Ukraine (but majority in East Ukraine and Crimea).

It was the Russia and USA that agreed to restrict usage of the nuclear missiles in Europe.

Guess who broke all those treaties and agreements and now has balls to accuse the opposite party for the current situation.

Even thousands of years ago, Sun Tzu said you should not push your enemy to the wall where his only choice is to fight to death or just die, and NATO is still doing that.

It's not how you de-escalate things, and I hope the reason would overcome, unless we want to experience a nuclear winter.

NATO never promised to not expand, see Myth 3 here: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/05/myths-and-misconception...

And the source of the analysis of the "myth" is Chatham House, an "independent" organization led by two ex British prime ministers and one ex MI5 member.

Just look at the list of the Chatham House Prize winners [1] and try to find one person there that is not anti russian.

I guess one could find State Department press releases less biased than this organization.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House#Chatham_House_Pr...

Even your link does not say what you say.

It says US secretary of state James Baker told Gorbachev NATO forces would not move east from Germany. Then it goes into that there is a lack of formal, legal enforcement of these promises, and how the US changed its mind later. So even this source with its leanings does not say what you say.

I'm sorry, how is that different from GP's reading? Are you claiming that a minister of a member state speaks on behalf of NATO?

Vietnam is a better example here. They are continually afraid of Chinese invasion based on nearly a millenia of war preceding the wars with western colonizers. They are at huge disadvantage economically and technologically to China. So every single high school student and college student is trained in guerilla warfare tactics, the entire country is outfitted with secret military installations, and they are ready to resist any invader so intensely that there is no hope of a meaningful occupation no matter the seeming military asymmetry. This has protected them for the last 50 years other than a brief border war with China in the late 70s and some ocean territory incursions by the Chinese navy. Most of those were fought off by swarming them with fishing boats.

> They are continually afraid of Chinese invasion based on nearly a millenia of war preceding the wars with western colonizers

And, more to the point, because of the most recent invasion by China, after the wars with western colonizers.

Referenced in my original comment as the war that took place in the late 70s…

Nope.

Military training as a part of the basic high school curriculum went away a whole ago. Vietnamese youth are about making money now.

I don’t disagree the govt is prepared to counter China but they are also investing in a lot of other things.

I have been to Vietnam right before the pandemic and witnessed with my own eyes active training of high school and college students using mock AK-47s. The cultural focus of the students of course is their economic future in peace time, but the foundation of that peace for a small and otherwise vulnerable nation is the maintenance of their strategic deterrence, which continues to this day.

Maybe it’s more regional then. My sister-in-law grew up there and said they dropped it back in the 1990’s, but I suppose that’s just where she grew up.

But did Ukraine really had nukes? Physically yes, but not operationally. "Ukraine had the world's third-largest nuclear weapons stockpile,[2][3] of which Ukraine had physical, but not operational, control. Russia alone controlled the codes needed to operate"

It's like saying Turkey has nukes...Does it? Or Turkey hosts US's strategic bombers armed with nuclear bombs.

Ukraine had the people and means to make them operational. It also currently has the means to create new nuclear weapons with uranium mines, research reactors and nuclear physics expertise. Also expertise to create ICBMs. Russia has ensured that no nuclear nation will ever disarm because treaties are just a piece a paper and world will just sit back and do nothing when it is violated.

That's just a pure speculation, could or could not. Ukraine is a semi-failed state with an ongoing civil war(and was for decades), it can't create anything new unfortunately. Improve some old Soviet technology maybe, but ICBMs... The discussions should not be about weapons but on how Ukraine can pull itself from the current hole it dug in.

"Ukraine is a semi-failed state with an ongoing civil war(and was for decades)" It is a pure lie, there was no conflict in 1991-2014. What's a semi-failed state? How do you define it?

"how Ukraine can pull itself from the current hole it dug in" What do you mean by digging a hole?

For a much more evenhanded -- and hence rare -- take, you may wish to read this very recent commentary from Jack Matlock, the last US Ambassador to the USSR[1]. He has the advantage of being an observer who is (a) very informed and (b) disinterested. The following paragraphs are worth reading, even if you fundamentally disagree with this viewpoint[2].

Russia is extremely sensitive about foreign military activity adjacent to its borders, as any other country would be and the United States always has been. It has signaled repeatedly that it will stop at nothing to prevent NATO membership for Ukraine. Nevertheless, eventual Ukrainian membership in NATO has been an avowed objective of U.S. and NATO policy since the Bush-Cheney administration. This makes absolutely no sense. It is also dangerous to confront a nuclear-armed power with military threats on its border.

When I hear comments now such as, “Russia has no right to claim a ‘sphere of influence,’” I am puzzled. It is not a question of legal “rights” but of probable consequences. It is as if someone announces, “We never passed a law of gravity so we can ignore it.” No one is saying that Ukraine does not have a “right” to apply for NATO membership. Of course it does. The question is whether the members of the alliance would serve their own interest if they agreed. In fact they would assume a very dangerous liability.

I point this out as a veteran of the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. At that time I was assigned to the American embassy in Moscow and it fell to my lot to translate some of Khrushchev’s messages to President John Kennedy. Why is it relevant? Just this: in terms of international law, the Soviet Union had a “right” to place nuclear weapons on Cuba when the Cuban government requested them, the more so since the United States had deployed nuclear missiles of comparable range that could strike the USSR from Turkey. But it was an exceedingly dangerous move since the United States had total military dominance of the Caribbean and under no circumstances would tolerate the deployment of nuclear missiles in its backyard. Fortunately for both countries and the rest of the world, Kennedy and Khrushchev were able to defuse the situation. Only later did we learn how close we came to a nuclear exchange.

As for the future, the only thing that will convince Moscow to withdraw its military support from the separatist regimes in the Donbas will be Kyiv’s willingness to implement the Minsk agreement. As for the Crimea, it is likely to be a de facto part of Russia for the foreseeable future, whether or not the West recognizes that as “legal.” For decades, the U.S. and most of its Western allies refused to recognize the incorporation of the three Baltic countries in the Soviet Union. This eventually was an important factor in their liberation. However, the Crimea is quite different in one key respect: most of its people, being Russian, prefer to be in Russia. In fact, one can argue that it is in the political interest of Ukrainian nationalists to have Crimea in Russia. Without the votes from Crimea, Viktor Yanukovich would never have been elected president.

One persistent U.S. demand is that Ukraine’s territorial integrity be restored. Indeed, the U.S. is party to the Budapest Memorandum in which Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity in return for Ukraine’s transfer of Soviet nuclear weapons to Russia for destruction in accord with U.S.-Soviet arms control agreements. What the U.S. demand ignores is that, under traditional international law, agreements remain valid rebus sic stantibus (things remaining the same).

When the Budapest memorandum was signed in 1994 there was no plan to expand NATO to the east and Gorbachev had been assured in 1990 that the alliance would not expand. When in fact it did expand right up to Russia’s borders, Russia was confronted with a radically different strategic situation than existed when the Budapest agreement was signed.

Furthermore, Russians would argue that the U.S. is interested in territorial integrity only when its interests are served. American governments have a record of ignoring it when convenient, as when it and its NATO allies violated Serbian territorial integrity by creating and then recognizing an independent Kosovo. Also, the United Sates violated the principle when it supported the separation of South Sudan from Sudan, Eritrea from Ethiopia, and East Timor from Indonesia.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_F._Matlock_Jr.

[2] https://www.krasnoevents.com/uploads/1/1/6/6/116679777/krasn...

Great read thank you. As someone completely disinterested in any of the affected parties, it sometimes gets annoying how loud is the "pro-American" / "Anti Russian" propaganda in the internet. It's always "America is good, Russia/China/Whoever else is bad" as if the USA was full of saints. Truth is, every country and government is willing to protect their interests, and it has been historically proved that the USA is willing to go the "extra mile" through CIA and other back channels (Pinochet and other South American dirty wars).

I cannot imagine the scandal that it will be if my country (Mexico) would allow Russia or China to place some weapons and troops in say, Tijuana or Cd Juarez. And yet, the USA has bases stationed all around the globe.

> It's always "America is good, Russia/China/Whoever else is bad" as if the USA was full of saints.

The world is not some grand scale intended to be balanced. No one argues the USA is full of saints. Whether the USA is full of saints or not is immaterial to Russia/China being "bad". The truth is, a world Order led by the United States looks a lot kinder than a world led by Russian or Chinese regimes. Resorting to false equivalences (guys, they're all bad) in fact hurts all of us interested in a world that respects basic human freedoms.

I've stated this before, as have many others on this site: the US and the knowledge of its genocides and other violent acts committed on people across the world is only possible when a free press is guaranteed and when we do not need to worry about being whisked away into that eternal night for bringing those atrocities to light. You cannot discuss the Tienanmen Square massacres in China without severe reprisals. Indeed, in Russia, doctors have simply repeatedly fallen out of windows for daring to toe the official line on COVID. It's happened so frequently, it's become something of a meme.

So please, criticize the US all you want (and there's much to criticize) but stop at drawing these false equivalencies because it is easy or because you believe in some global scale that must be equalized.

>The truth is, a world Order led by the United States looks a lot kinder than a world led by Russian or Chinese regimes

But that is a preconception you have due to your background. A world order the China way may mean no more narcos and narco killing in my country, no more each-to-its-own culture that is permeating my country.

You have to be aware that in my country we like socialism. We like social healthcare, social help for people. A lot of people believe that it's wrong that 10% of the people has 90% of the wealth.

Thing is, living in a bubble prevents people to see that there is more than what we learn from our country and its social constructs.

I was fortunate to live in 3 very different countries for a long time. It allowed me to both value watch I had at home but also to see other ways to do things. Again the narrative of "russia china bad" is a subjective idea that is given to us by our society.

> Again the narrative of "russia china bad" is a subjective idea that is given to us by our society.

I have already outlined a few examples for why it is not. If you insist on this damaging false equivalence, and for a taste of something on your continent, you need only look to the illegal violation of the territorial waters of Argentina by Chinese fishing vessels en masse. That is happening today.

The ruthless genocide of the Uyghur people is happening today. The illegal seizure of Hong Kong happened last year. I have personal experience here as a woman I grew close to openly wept for the loss of her freedoms happening in real time.

The Great Leap Forward killed between 13 and 55 million people of which it is estimated at least 2.5 million of these deaths were caused by beatings, tortures, or summary executions. Your vaunted CCP denies and distorts all of these events.

> You have to be aware that in my country we like socialism. We like social healthcare, social help for people. A lot of people believe that it's wrong that 10% of the people has 90% of the wealth.

I live in Denmark. I am quite familiar with socialized healthcare. Denmark and the rest of the EU are good examples of the benefits of what sharing the wealth looks like. China and Russia are authoritarian superpowers who treat history as a story of convenience and you have fallen for it.

Thanks for the one sensible take. You can bet that the USA would invade if say, Mexico or Canada decided to engage in a NATO-like alliance with China or Russia. In fact, you only have to look as far as Cuba, a mere 90 miles from the continental USA; a country the USA failed to invade in violation of international law during the Bay of Pigs invasion in the 1960s. It is pretty rich when Western countries whine about sovereignty when they would do exactly the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.

>However, the Crimea is quite different in one key respect: most of its people, being Russian, prefer to be in Russia. In fact, one can

>argue that it is in the political interest of Ukrainian nationalists to have Crimea in Russia. Without the votes from Crimea, Viktor

>Yanukovich would never have been elected president.

This is actually a very interesting point, and would explain Ukraine's recent shift to more nationalist politics, and pivot away from Russia - which (unintended consequences for Russia) sparked all these problems in the east.

I dunno how accurate this is, but back when protests against Yanukovich started, I saw people on reddit predicting his ouster and civil war, because of the history of Poland...

Seemly Poland in the run up to WW2 got parts of it conquered by URSS, and later when WW2 was over, some territory that was part of Germany became part of Poland to "restore" its territory, effectively shifting Poland westward, this means that eastern Ukraine had polish people inside it.

The guy then explained that Ukraine east side is full of ethnic Russians, even if they consider themselves Ukranians, while west side is filled with ethnic Polish and related groups.

He predicted then (the violent protests didn't had started yet when I read this) that the ethnic EU people would be pro-EU, and would oust Yanukovich in violent protests, and the ethnic Russians would retaliate in some form, either trying to retake the capital by force, or splitting away.

The part of Poland that was annexed during WW2 had 3 major ethnic groups there - Polish people, Ukrainians and Jews. Most of the Jews got executed during the war, Polish were sent back to Poland by Stalin.

Yet culturally Western Ukraine has much less ties with Russia, due to not being a part of Russian empire.

Again and again, I read this 'ethnic' treatment of conflict in Ukraine. That is not true, for example Kyiv is majority (even today) Russian-speaking, yet it always supported pro-West politicians in elections.

> Gorbachev had been assured in 1990 that the alliance would not expand

It's a myth perpetuated by Russia

Just to be clear, you are dismissing the words of the guy who actually was in the room when some of these assurances were given.

You may find the accounts from two Ambassadors presented in this write-up interesting: https://transatlanticrelations.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/1...

Here's the direct quote from Ambassador Braithwaite's letter. Braithwaite was UK’s Ambassador to the Soviet Union and Russia until 1992.

The assurances Russians point to the following:

Assurances given in 1990:

• James Baker, US Secretary of State, 9 February 1990: “We consider that the consultations and discussions in the framework of the 2+4 mechanism should give a guarantee that the reunification of Germany will not lead to the enlargement of NATO’s military organization to the East”;

• Helmut Kohl. German Chancellor, 10 February 1990: “We consider that NATO should not enlarge its sphere of activity.”

Assurances given in 1991:

• John Major. British Prime Minister, Speaking to Defence Minister Yazov, 5 March 1991: “He did not himself foresee circumstances now or in the future where East European countries would become members of NATO;

• Douglas Hurd, British Foreign Secretary, speaking to Foreign Minister Bessmertnykh, 26 March 1991: “[T]here were no plans in NATO to include the countries of Eastern and Central Europe in NATO in one form or another;”

• Francois Mitterrand, speaking to Mikhail Gorbachev, 6 May 1991: “Each of the [Eastern European] countries I have mentioned will seek to ensure its security by concluding separate agreements. With whom? With NATO, of course. ... I am convinced that is not the right way forward for Europe.” This was, of course, a prediction, not an assurance.

[Author’s note: recently declassified material published by the National Security Archive contains some additional references to similar “assurances.’]

This factual record has not been successfully challenged in the West. The remarks by Major and Hurd are confirmed by British records. I was present on both occasions.

I repeat, it's a myth, started to be perpetuated since putin https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/05/myths-and-misconception...

As someone who live in Russia and who lived there in 90th I can confirm that this is what Gorbachev publicly announced that time. Putin has nothing to do with this. Perhaps he use this broken promise in his speeches but he has not invented it.

> Russia trying grab bigger and bigger chunk of the territory

You're a little late, the Russian military moved into the Crimea back when British red coats were still stationed in New York City, and they have been there ever since.

On the contrary, the grab is the other way, the West is trying to push out Russian military bases in the Crimea which have existed for centuries.

When is the US going to close up the Guantamano Bay military base, something the Cuban government has been asking for decades?

> Will NATO come for let’s say Latvia or Lithuania? I honestly don’t think so.

Poland may, because they see Russia as a nr 1 threat. USA have to because they(NATO) will lose any credibility. If they won't Germany, Japan, Poland, Ukraine, South Korea and Taiwan will start nuclear programs right away.

Nobody wants nuclear proliferation.

This Russia-Ukraine issue is a negotiation tactic from Russia. There will be no invasion because it's too expensive to occupy a large country.

Short term: Russia would like a land connection to Crimea, cause they have a problem with water. They don't want Ukraine in NATO.

Long term: Russia negotiating position is weakening. They have army and natural resources. As world will be less dependent on carbohydrates, oil and gas in Siberia will be too expensive to extract.

There is also another way: building a nuclear weapons/ICBM arsenal. That's why there's always the topic of nuclear non proliferation among countries that already have this capability. But if Ukraine had nukes, it wouldn't have been invaded by Russia. Just like how Noth Korea isn't going to be invaded by anyone anytime soon.

> Will NATO come for let’s say Latvia or Lithuania? I honestly don’t think so.

I fear that you are right. And with Kaliningrad pretty much ideally positioned to pull another Donbass the stage is set for a lot of misery in Poland, Lithuania and possibly even Latvia and Estonia.

Ukraine is not part of NATO. The Western response is very different for Ukraine then it would be for a NATO country.

We'll see about that. I wouldn't put too much stock in that if that country is Latvia, Lithuania or possibly even Poland. If it were Germany, France, Finland, Sweden or the UK it would likely be a different matter. Article 5 of the treaty is nice in principle, but those principles have never been put to a real test (in some circles this is called the 'Riga test' for a reason).

It's worth mentioning that Finland and Sweden are not NATO member states.

That is true, at the same time they are part of the EU and part of the EU co-defense pact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Po...

They also collaborate on NATO exercises, and the reverse is also true: NATO partakes in Swedish and Finish military exercises.

> We'll see about that.

I understand your pessimism but we are talking about the most powerful military organization on the planet. If for some strange reason they decide they give up protecting their borders, they might as well not exist. If Russia decides to invade Latvia and NATO does nothing, the whole pact might as well dissolve itself as it serves no function.

The problem is that the rest of Europe doesn't really 'know' Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, they are just names to them. Possibly some people would be able to point them out on a map but the vast bulk of the people has absolutely no link with those countries on account of them being geographically isolated. Their only direct connection is a less than 50 km wide strip of border between Poland and Lithuania with exactly two roads running through it and relatively little cross border traffic.

There is little tourism and not that much in terms of import or export from that region where people will associate whatever product they are looking at with the Baltics.

A co-defense pact makes sense from a military perspective, especially because the Baltics are pretty useful as forward bases. But from a 'hearts and minds' perspective there isn't all that much there. And I'm saying that as someone who has a very direct connection with the Baltics and who has spent collectively probably close to a year (or even more by now) there.

Ask any Western European in which country Riga is situated, or Vilnius or Kaunas or even Tallinn and you're likely going to get a wrong answer or no answer at all. By contrast even Finland would do quite well.

I completely agree about hearts and minds, but this is not how NATO works. When the USA asked their partners to help them in the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq etc., nobody asked about hearts and minds. Many f not most people in the EU were against the war. There were demonstrations in most capitals[0]. But everybody sent their troops even if they didn't care about the war, because this is how NATO works in practice. Moreover, the EU did much more, and some of these things are unknown to the general public. Just some of these leaked, like illegal CIA prisons in Eastern Europe.

Of course France and Germany - the two countries traditionally closer to Putin and trying to keep a bit warmer diplomatic relations than the rest - will hesitate a bit, but rest assured that all other countries will join a NATO defensive operation in order to protect a member state from Russia. Putin knows this, and realizes he can win a conventional war with one small state, but not with many bigger ones. Therefore his main focus is on Ukraine that is not protected by NATO, and as for the Baltic states, he's just performing some minor non-military operations like bringing migrants to the border.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War

I'm quite concerned that this is a one way street. The United States is the first to lean on other countries to support them in their adventures but I somewhat doubt if the Baltics were in need that the US (for instance: under Biden or god forbid another run of Trump) would step in. They just pulled out of Afghanistan, a mess of their own making, without any consideration for the consequences.

For sure it won't be easy, because it would be the first time NATO would have to engage in a conventional war with a country with nukes. That's the whole point Russia counts on: that the nukes will scare NATO partners away. But this would be a suicidal move that would make no sense. And in a conventional war Russia stands no chances against the armies of NATO.

Mind that Baltic countries have been popular tourist destinations for Europeans.

Popular tourist destinations for Europeans are France, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Germany, the UK, Austria, Greece, Russia, Portugal, Poland etc.

Even Romania sees more tourism than all of the Baltics combined, and Romania is pretty far down the list of tourist destinations. I don't know how you define 'popular' but in my circle I'm the only person that has visited the Baltics for something other than work.

>There is only way for country’s protection and it’s Israel’s way where whole country is also an army.

Yugoslavia had that and a lot of good it did them.

Except it actually did. Yugoslavia managed to stay reasonably independent during the cold war from both blocks. That the militarization of society cam home to roost after the breakup along the ethnosocial fractures is another topic tho.

> where whole country is also an army

Yeah, imagine whole Russia is an army.

That was pretty much the case for USSR in Cold War. A country can last this way for several dozens of years at the cost of depleting economic resources.

And USSR was twice as big and populous as Russia is today.

The only good outcome for the whole world is Putin and allies being ousted out of power and replaced by actual non-warmonger democrats.

Imagine a future with Russia in the EU, best timeline.

Nobody wants nuclear war, maybe some kind of super-sanctions would be the only recourse for the west, cut them off everything, and I mean everything.

Russia doesn’t give a fuck about Ukraine for as long as it’s not in Nato. Just like the US didn’t like Russian military presence on Cuba, they don’t want the US presence in Ukraine.

It’s all fundamentally dead simple. Russia views Ukraine as a buffer country between itself and the West and will do anything to keep it that way.

> Just like the US didn’t like Russian military presence on Cuba, they don’t want the US presence in Ukraine.

Which was, funnily, in response to US military presence in Turkey, which is still there. It's understandable that Russia doesn't want to see itself surrounded by "enemies".

> Russia doesn’t give a fuck about Ukraine

They should probably stop invading more and more of it over time, then.

> They should probably stop invading more and more of it over time, then.

They should do it for the sake of security of Europe. Ukraine is not capable of controlling "own" territory.

That's falsified by Russia's ongoing metre-by-metre invasion of Georgia[0]. Not a NATO member, and won't become one either. Still Vova Putin saw some Lebensraum and decided it's his for the taking.

[0] https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/humanrights/2019/02/05/russias-new-s...

RF has border with USA.

> Russia doesn’t give a fuck about Ukraine

Their actions from 2014 until now show otherwise. Ukraine is not a part of NATO but Putin decided to grab Crimea, Donbas, and keep the military activity for over 5 years in order to destabilize the country.

Don’t misquote.

Current conflict is rooted exactly in Ukraine trying to aligning itself with the West. It would’ve been the EU first, Nato second for them. That would’ve created a massive headache for Russia, including the loss of its only warm port, hence the annexation and the invasion. And now Ukraine is in limbo, because the EU won’t touch it with a wooden pole while it is in an active conflict.

Current war of RF with Ukraine is about natural gas. Ukraine tried to drill natural gas near to Slovians`k by contracting Shell, to export natural gas to EU, to block RF from selling to EU. Also, Ukraine won a dispute with Romania about a natural gas field in the Black Sea. These actions threatened Gasprom plans to be $1 trillion company, so Gasprom owners started the war. Everything else is secondary.

Yes, even if they didn't make it into the EU, Putin's loss of political cronies at the highest level of government is dangerous for him, he has talked about the end of the Soviet Union being a tragedy so I wouldn't be so sure he doesn't want to re-unite the countries, and totally agree on the ports (plus it was insanely popular domestically, at least at first to annex Crimea)

Why invade Crimea? Ukraine has two choices now, join nato or develop nukes and ICBMs.

Too bad Germany blundered by making themselves dependent on Russian gas to survive.

Germany is not dependent on Russian gas to survive, Russia's just the cheapest source of it.

I guess the OP referred to the exit from nuclear power.

This exit was a big mistake. Netherlands are rushing up to build new nuclear plants. Belgium seeks ways to reverse its exit plan. France has never stopped beefing up its nuclear industry.

Only Germany is behaving irrationally.

> The only good outcome for the whole world is Putin and allies being ousted out of power and replaced by actual non-warmonger democrats.

I don't actually know anything about Russia or Europe or politics in general first hand. However, from listening to a few episodes of the Economist podcast, my impression has been that Putin is stuck. He can't quit because even though he might be above being punished for his crimes, his cronies who have amassed billions are not. These folks will do everything in their power to keep Putin in power or find someone who is better at diverting people's attention from the problems affecting the people in their regular lives. Chechnya, Crimea, Ukraine, ... all these are (in my understanding) in service of the government's attempt at consolidating power at home.

> Nobody wants nuclear war, maybe some kind of super-sanctions would be the only recourse for the west, cut them off everything, and I mean everything.

What is a super sanction? In my (uninformed) opinion, a sanction is a complete sealing of a nation backed by political will and military might, preferably consensus from all the neighbors of the nation. No person and no goods go into or out of the country. No funds get transferred into the country or out of the country. All communications get cut off.

Correct me if I am wrong but Europe (I am speaking geographically, so including Ukraine) relies a lot on Russian petroleum and gas? And even if we weaned ourselves off of everything Russian, there is a border between Russia and China PR (mainland China under control of the CCP). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Russia_border

tl;dr a sanction not enforced by military might is not really a sanction, it is just a silly little non-binding resolution.

We’ve been slowly boiling Russia with sanctions for the last decade to the point that they’ve developed & implemented plenty of work-arounds.

It's especially hard when the EU helps undermine them constantly because they're addicted to Russian gas

s/EU/Germany/

Yeah the gas thing is problematic.

Russia in EU would mean also Russia in NATO. Russia wanted to join NATO in 1990s and the answer of the alliance was "No". IIRC, one of the reasons behind that was that this means direct border with China. China is more important and there were hopes that China will democratize as it integrates itself into global economy, so that was an unnecessary risk. The times have changed, now everyone talks about containment - having Russia as part of the biggest military and economic alliance in history would mean a lot for it. But this also means including a right wing conservative power with the economy of the similar size to Germany, twice more people, nuclear weapons and ideology similar to the one of Poland or Hungary. Making Putin leave (or waiting until he dies) will not be enough to change this.

I think Russia in the EU would mean no more NATO.

NATO is first and foremost a tool of American power in Europe and against Russia. If the geopolitical landscape changed so much that Russia decided to join the EU and was accepted, I think it would have to mean that the EU/Europe had shifted (back) to standing up on its own.

> with the economy of the similar size to Germany

Russia's economy is not that big. Nominal GDP is between Spain and Italy.

>NATO is first and foremost a tool of American power in Europe and against Russia

Sure, but that's only because Russian and US foreign policy goals are so opposed.

Other than their territorial ambitions in Europe this need not be the case.

Not 'only'. That's key. Different countries have different interests. Powerful enough countries can remain independent and pursue them as they see fit.

The US want to keep control of Europe, that's partly what NATO is for. There's no reason for Russia to be OK with that. In fact no European country should be OK with that but for historically reasons I think they reckon that this is better than the fear of letting the "good old ways" (i.e. France or Germany trying to take over) come back, although Germany has pretty much taken over by peaceful means at this point, especially since Brexit...

> In fact no European country should be OK with that Russia's brutal annexations in the east following WWII pretty much assured that all European countries were, in fact OK with it.

WWII was the result of Germany trying to take over the continent. That led to Eastern Europe being invaded/liberated by the USSR and Western Europe being invaded/liberated by the US.

It's not correct to say that all Western European countries were/are OK with US power and presence. The major powers were divided on that. Germany obviously did not really have any say, France did not want the US to stay, the UK thought that it'd help them look more important than they had become. But smaller countries may see the US as a guarantee against larger neighbours trying to invade again, as I mentioned, a bit like South Korea does.

> WWII was the result of Germany trying to take over the continent.

Germany, and also that other country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...

And how do you enforce this? Another Cuba, 1960s style stand off?

Cuba is not cut off from "everything", though their massive media campaign has made it appear so.

There's flights from the US to Cuba now.

You could say, ban any airline that flights to Russia from flying into EU/US, heck, do it on an airplane basis to avoid shell companies and such. Any airplane that touches Russian soil, banned from ever entering any US/EU airspace/soil ever again.

No, I mean the stand off, where Soviet ships in transit to Cuba, were blockaded by US warships, almost starting WWIII.

And, with China being blocked off, talk about pushing two allies even closer together. Who needs 'the west'?

You sound pretty naïve. Putin holding on to power is likely the best outcome for the world vs unknown power vacuum & chaos that will ensue after Putin's gone.

A peaceful transition can happen, like when the USSR dissolved.

Of course I wouldn't like a power vacuum in a country with nukes.

There are a lot of Russians who don't support Putin yet will fight to make sure another one of these peaceful transitions doesn't happen in their home. Rampant crime, addictions, brain drain, internal wars - no thank you, please keep this peaceful transition.

I think Egypt was the last place that was gifted one of these. I hear it went well for them /s

I think the implication was that the Russian people should decide to oust Putin, rather than an external sovereign power doing it.

Installing non-warmonger democrats makes sense for non-warmonger nations only.

But is Russia a warmongering nation? I'd say most Russians hate war. Maybe more than anyone else because they were the nation that suffered most casualties in World War II. An emergence of a peaceful leader and friendly reactions with the West would mark the beginning of a completely new era in the history of our civilization. And would help both Russia and the West in the face of increasing Chinese power.

The individual people probably not, but the politicians at the top seem pretty obviously willing to engage in conflicts. Just think about Crimea for a second - when was the last time you saw a country actually annex territory? That is some old school shit (pardon my french) and a real shock to the IR community. Plus their actions in Georgia on a super flimsy pretext, troops in Moldova, etc. I'd say they're pretty warmongering...

Annex territory? Turkey, NATO member, 1974 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus)

Your parents were alive during that time, so it's not that old school.

We're lucky to live in time when figuring out what foreigners think is just a few clicks away, thanks to the internet and Google Translate. Please try to do it - even if you won't like what you see at first you can surely find some other sources that will confirm your view.

Well, that really depends on what kind of site you visit. I'm sometimes shocked seeing what comments my compatriots write under some articles. People tend to group around certain topics. So in order to understand what "Russians in general" think I'd have to survey many of them. For now, I rely on the opinion of my Russian friends.

Basically, nobody in their right minds want a war. In order to create favorable conditions for war, you need to create quite a few provocations, a lot of tensions, some murders, especially on children. At some point, people on the other side will get very emotional and demand a revenge. At that point you reached your aim: you changed the collective mind of the population and they crave for war now, they want "justice." This happened to a small degree in the USA after 9/11 - Bush did have some internal support although it was by no means unequivocal. I saw the same in the initial stages of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia: at some point people really hated each other.

But it is very, very far from it in Ukraine. There are many, many Russians in Ukraine, and many Ukrainians in Russia. In many parts of the country they speak Russians (I mean almost exclusively). Putin is trying some provocations and is also getting soldiers from distant areas of Russia so that they have less problems killing Ukrainians, but the spirit of "let's invade Ukraine" is just not there among Russians.

Well now, this is the question isn't it: what's going on with Russia? They've had a (smarter, more violent) version of Trump in power for 20 years, using violence to repress dissent, using fraud to fake poll numbers, cheated so bad at the Olympics they got a forever ban, and state-run media to broadcast propoganda. For the Russians, communism failed, then capitalism failed, and the national economy is the size of Italy suffering from rampant corruption. So what is it? They are deep in the bad corner of the Nash equilibrium, bitter about losing the Cold War, and determined to achieve some vestige of glory using the two levers that remain to them: nukes and gas? (Plus a 3rd lever: world-class hackers and online propagandists.)

I find it hard to imagine that in this environment there's much of a middle-class that cares about the best 3rd wave coffee in Moscow and which is the best Montessori school (e.g. the petty problems that remain once you feel safe in your society). Those Russians left for Germany or the US long ago, is my impression.

Russia is not in the EU because of fundamental geopolitical differences and diverging interests. Changing the Russian government does not change these aspects.

The same goes for China, for instance. It is naive to think that a democratic government in China would fundamentally change anything to the geopolitical situation or China's international policy and goals.

The government's leanings may influence the means by which a country pursues its geopolitical interests but do not change those interests. Just observe the US.

I mean we have an example of that, there was a radical change in the Russian government and nothing changed on either side.

Destabilizing Russia or China means the West can grab more from the Russian or Chinese people. Look what the West did in China in the 19th century.