Russia had a buffer state that was content to do its bidding in Yanukovich et. al. but after the Ukrainians overthrew their corrupt government and made moves to establish a genuine western-style democracy with rule of law, Russia were forced to shore up their vulnerable flank. This is part of that process. But they now face bad consequences, including neutral Finland and Sweden deciding to join NATO, perhaps Georgia also, and Germany (and Europe in general) starting to look for alternate energy sources in earnest (Russia supplies a huge percentage of Europe's energy needs, and is also a huge supplier of many rare earths and raw materials that are critical to the Semiconductor Industry).
EDIT: Belarus is also a client state of Russia's, and there has been unrest there, so perhaps Russia is sensing that they might slip as well. Putin is desperate to do whatever it takes to stay in power in Russia, and these things play into that as well.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Secur...
The first is a violation of the agreement, which is what Russia is doing currently.
The second is the lack of enforcement of the agreement against the above violator. If the other signatories enforced the agreement, then it would signal that the agreement is worthwhile, and other countries would be willing to enter into it.
Yes, of course Russia is the aggressor here and was the first to break the agreement. But the moment when these agreements become worthless, is when violations are not enforced, not when violations occur.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Secur...
Thus such agreements have become worthless.
Had the US said five days ago, "we will use our military to ensure the Budapest Memorandum is followed", and defended Ukraine when invaded, then in the future if a similar agreement was proposed the country would trust that it would be followed. They did not, and this means that no one will again enter into a similar agreement.
I'm not claiming that a US military intervention would be the "correct" thing to do, merely that it would be necessary to preserve worldwide trust in treaties similar to the Budapest Memorandum.
If you have neither of those things, you have no agreement at all.
Just because someone agrees to something in a contract doesn’t make it enforceable, and it’s even worse if the contract doesn’t specify what the consequences are for breaking it.
It is a bit unfair to blame it on US, France and UK only, when russia signed the document, too - and was the actual party to violate it by attacking ukraine already in 2014.
(russia's position is, that since Maidan 2014 the state with which they signed the treaty, does not exist anymore)
Well, I agree that this attitude "all bad things are the fault of 'the west'" is quite stupid.
But the US is the hegemonial power and wants to maintain it. So it is natural that those in charge get the flak for things going wrong.
And about things going wrong: how about the whole war on terror?
Was it really a surprise, that you can't make the world a safer place, if you attack countries(against international law in one case), to punish some individuals?
And Guantanamo is still open.
So yes, the west has some democratic and liberal values worth defending against dictators and co. And some only understand the language of raw power. But maybe that would still work better, if we would stick to those principles all the time and not just, when it suits us.
Putin just invaded a sovereign country, maybe you should mention some of the bad things he and the oligarchs who fund him have been up to? Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, polonium poisonings, journalists falling from windows or being killed on the streets, Alexei Navalny, there's plenty to choose from. Come on, let's hear it. We know "we" are sinners, enough of that - save it for a sunday sermon or something like that.
We Know. Now, it is time to pick up "The Western Burden" - or accept the defeat of what we call liberal democracy. And yes, we know that there are many flaws in what we call liberal democracy. It is still preferable, warts and all, over the alternatives, whether that be some harebrained plan from the World Economic Forum, a kleptocratic oligarchy like Putin's Russia, a dystopic surveillance state like Xi's China or some combination of these.
So, what's it going to be? More self-flagellation or, finally, some clear words on where we stand?
But Guantanamao is still open.
Assange is waiting for extradiction and a secret trial, under conditions the UN official called torture.
Snowden hiding from exposing illegal surveillance.
And Saudi Arabia still a formidable ally. Despite what they do in their own country or in places like Yemen (or in some embassies).
And the list goes on. (heard something about Turkey lately? I did, because I choosed to follow it a bit, but mainstream does not really care)
And russia is clearly not a real democracy, but despite all abuse and KGB shit, it is still way more democratic than saudi arabia (they have no voting at all, nor human rights)
"So, what's it going to be? More self-flagellation or, finally, some clear words on where we stand? "
So I can say in clear words, that I stand by any democratic country and any population fighting against occupying forces.
But I deeply distrust the motives of the western powers to actually care about democracy, but rather their stupid games of geopolitics.
So yes, I say we start cleaning our shit up. And then we can maybe start lecture other states and play world police.
Because the way I see it: western forces would love to help get russia their new afghanistan, with lots of losses, guerilla warfare and dragging it on for years. But this is not helping the people on the ground.
Putin is not cemented in power. He can get actually kicked out by elections.
So can Xi. It is just that there are elections, and then there are elections.
You're still doing it, detailing bad things about "the west". We know all those things already, yet still you insist on harping on the sins of "the west".
May I ask, what do you hope to achieve with this? You know everybody already knows all those things you mention yet still you use far more words describing "our" sins - over, and over, and over again - than you use to describe what brought us to this thread: the fact that Putin just ordered the invasion of a sovereign country on a fake pretence because he wants to re-create the Russian Empire. Yet, still, you bring up Saudi Arabia, Guantanamo, Snowden... who we all know about already.
Why? Are you afraid you'd commit an unforgivable sin if you forgot to do penance for "our" sins - and I put "our" in quotes since I do not know where you're from, nor do you know where I'm from but the chance of both of us being part of "the west" is rather high - before you wag a small finger at an opponent? Realise that it is exactly one of the achievements of "the west" that you can criticise "the west" to your heart's content without fear of repercussions. The same is not true in Putin's Russia (where peace protesters have been arrested in the last few hours), Xi's China (no explanation needed, I hope?) or many of "our" other opponents. That does not mean you need to base these discussions around a political version of the lord's prayer - forgive us our sins for we know we are a fallen people. We know we are fallen, but we also know we did not fall as deep as others did, others like Vladimir Putin who waited for a weak American presidency and a divided Europe to launch an invasion.
When Xi decides to invade Taiwan Guantanamo will probably still be open. Does that mean we should not do our best to keep that invasion from happening, or to make the PRC pay as high a price as feasible for their actions?
´Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.´ is how the King James translation of the Bible translates Matthew 7:5. This is true if your sins outweigh those of your opponent's. It is decidedly untrue when the opponent just launched an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation to satisfy his dreams of empire.
"When Xi decides to invade Taiwan Guantanamo will probably still be open. Does that mean we should not do our best to keep that invasion from happening, or to make the PRC pay as high a price as feasible for their actions?"
So why not stop our hypocrisy now and close guantanamo. End our alliances with murderous psychopaths. Etc.
Then we will have more credibility, when we deal with all those other murderous psychopaths. (there are plenty of them, I know)
But when we fight one evil overloard, while supporting another one, because he side with us - how can anyone in the world really believe, we care and fight for democracy and not rather our own selfish strategic goals?
This is what I am hoping to achieve, but don't get me wrong, I have no illusions about that. Self-rightousness is as strong as it ever was.
But yes. I am fully aware that it is a privilege and it is a difference, that I can say all of this here and not over there. And I do not want to loose that right, but rather want the whole world to have that right as well. I just want to go a different path, than the usual one, which has not really worked out so far in the past.
Indeed, we can, for now. There are some chinks in this armour - Trudeau in Canada activating the Emergencies Act to quell a protest which came a bit too close to the target, increasing censorship through an unholy alliance between industry and government, an unhealthy fawning over the endless possibilities offered by the social credit score system as implemented in China - but for now the bastion still holds.
> And I do not want to loose that right,
Nor do most of us, bar those who long for the chance to muzzle their ideological opponents - viz. Trudeau in Canada and his ilk, everywhere.
> but rather want the whole world to have that right as well.
Ah, but there you make a mistake. The whole world does not want to have this right - or at least they have been raised in societies which see "our way of life" in a wholly different way. What "we" gained in freedom to express ourselves any way we want, we gradually lost in things which bound us together - clan/tribal/national pride, religious affiliation, sense of purpose. Our freedom has its price in that it is up to the individual to find acceptable replacements for these factors with differing degrees of success - some find it in financial success, some look for it in political/ideological fervour, lately many people are looking for it in some aspect of identity and the related politics. Why, ever, would you want to leave your known position in the clan, with the elders to tell you what is good, the imam or preacher or priest to tell you what is holy and your future as predictable as that of your ancestors?
> I just want to go a different path, than the usual one, which has not really worked out so far in the past.
What will you do on that "different path" when an opponent comes up to you and holds a gun to your head?
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven. When the man with the gun in his hand comes to threaten you you either fight him, or you submit [1].
[1] and no, this is not a call for open war against Putin, for those who wondered. That time may come but we're not there yet.
Knock him down, if the situation allows it, otherwise give in, as long as the gun is pointed to my head. I never said flowers are the only option.
As high a price as Russia is now paying for invading Ukraine?
Victory must be magnanimous or it's just temporary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Saudi_Arabi....
Saudi has just called back a huge multi-billion dollar loan to Pakistan.
Why? Modi is leaving Russian military hardware for US one, or so he threatens.
Second, Pakistan is broke, and is on the road to becoming Argentina 2.0. Even with the sorry state of Russian exchequer, Russia can probably spare a billion or so.
If it is not just Modi, then Putin wants a platz-de-arme in the region.
The leaders just signed a piece of paper which was never ratified by legislators and doesn't even guarantee what you claim:
> The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
It was just a promise to have a meeting at the UNSC if something happens.
The premise of this agreement was that US, UK, etc... wouldn't invade the Ukraine to seize/secure the nuclear assets, if they gave them up willingly?
Not that the US, UK, etc... would protect the Ukraine if they gave it up?
Russia wasn't forced to do anything. They could've merely quietly dropped two of their delusions:
a) NATO was never going to attack them, unless it literally went crazy, or someone framed Russia so badly that a nuclear response was preferable to any other option. The West doesn't want to trigger a MAD scenario, and are keen to keep the post-WW2 peace and (in the case of the US) bomb less defended countries for their natural resources. Any claims or beliefs to the contrary are a projected reflection of their own priorities.
b) buffer zones outside of the neighborhood is getting more crowded. Big deal, if you are really so keen on a buffer zone, then maybe sacrifice a few square km out of the ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE part of the continent that they already control. Does that mean risking important areas? Oh noes. Security has a cost, so if you're not willing to pay for it, quit whining.
It's the same thing with Russia: Putin has struck a deal with Xi that allows him to move his military assets from the east to this theater, because he feels that it's a strategic imperative to 'clear the neighborhood'.
Russia has given up land and trapped foreign invaders, including Napoleon and Hitler, but it has done so at a huge cost in blood and treasure. From Russia's perspective, it's far more cost-effective to have weak client states that do their bidding on their hard-to-defend flanks, than to have strong, democratic, independent states that can ally themselves with their archenemies.
Might as well start preparing for the Mexican invasion of the United States.
Since my nation was literally behind the Iron Curtain, I can assure you that Russia _has no right_ to invade neighbouring sovereign nations, no matter how "unsafe" they are feeling. Invading Ukraine is an attempt to externalise the cost of having a land buffer, by stealing said land from a nearby nation.
No matter how "cost effective" it is, it has a real price in human blood and suffering. Only a sociopath would agree it's a reasonable solution, if one were to be (or pretend to be) a good-faith geopolitical player. Which is the current perception of the Western stance on the NATO-Russia tensions from the perspective of ~everyone who cares about human rights and the right to national and personal self-determination.
That's not terribly different from what Russia is doing with Ukraine - they will overwhelm a weaker country for their own strategic reasons, enjoying the impunity granted by a nuclear arsenal (and not just your average one: the largest!).
Ukraine not being in NATO means we aren’t obligated to intervene. We regularly intervene in various things without a treaty requiring it.
The US is not obligated to intervene in Ukraine, plain and simple. The US has a strategic partnership with Ukraine, I think, but it's not an ally. https://www.defense.gov/News/Feature-Stories/Story/Article/1... https://www.state.gov/u-s-ukraine-charter-on-strategic-partn...
Currently, as NATO members, they are not likely to be attacked, but if NATO declares war then that deterrent is gone.
Hopefully not a likely scenario, but who knows.. There's been a lot of tension lately, especially with the likes of Belarus bussing migrants across the border into Lithuania etc, but no idea where this will end.
"Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked."
So, the 9/11 attacks were considered an armed attack on the United States, and the alliance deemed it necessary to overthrow the Taliban in order to prevent Al-Qaeda from perpetrating similar attacks again.
One can disagree with the rationale behind the decision, or the cost-benefit ratio. But it did follow the protocols of the alliance.
... is a very different thing than ...
> occupying a foreign country for 20 years
When NATO invaded the towers were still smoking, the war-on-terror intelligence apparatus had yet to be built, and we (I) had no idea whether another attack was forthcoming. It felt pretty damn reasonable at the time.
This is the deterrent—and it also rhymes with the Triple Entente v. Triple Alliance tensions that set off the Great War.
Are they really?
> So while the use of armed force is one way to respond to aggression, the NATO has several options, for example:
> Nothing. They might decide that the best way to "restore and maintain security" is to just let the attacker have that country.
Germany aid to Ukraine was to send them 5k helmets.
Those helmets didn't do anything against Russia's missiles.
---
That is, attacking a member of NATO just means that all other members must help it, but how they help, is up to them, and that help can be just a pat in the back.
In the end, there is no supranational tribunal for military allegiances - in matters of conflict, Hobbes' jungle is still very much there.
(I'm unclear on how true the silent implication is, but seems reasonable).
Better to hit an enemy when they're not expecting it.
Every major power has had 50 years to prepare for it, and it won't work.
You want to respond proportionally, and make it hurt. But you also want to leave room for more pain, to give incentive for the behaviour to stop. And you need to make sure that your adversary believes that you'll keep hurting them. This is why we use some, but not all of the economic sanctions available:
1. If things get worse, we can make the sanctions worse. 2. We're much more likely to be able to maintain sanctions than soldiers in foreign wars.
I'm not talking about a nuclear strike. All out nuclear war is clearly in nobody's interest (what's the point in ruling over a nuclear wasteland). Putin is relying on the fact that we are all so scared about that scenario that we will be weak in our support of Ukraine (and Latvia, Lithuania, Poland....).
China talks a good game now but how long do you think China will tolerate Russia bombing their most valuable customers?
More flippantly, I think there are some serious questions to ask yourself if you find yourself staking out a more pro-war position than architects of the Iraq War, none of whom think NATO should send in troops here.
> and then talking afterwards about how Hitler's a peace loving guy who'll never invade anyone again.
We've had that stage already. It started in 2016. And instead of Chamberlain it was Trump.
Look at what he is saying. The parallels with "lebensraum" are there for all to see. What makes anyone think he will stop at Ukraine? If he is successful here, Poland will be next, mark my words.
That we don't actually have their back will be noted by despots the world over.
There is no way Putin will say after this war "Thank you sir, may I have another?" He'll be hard pressed to keep financing his military...
That might fade when/if the sanctions become serious, but thus far I have the impression that he's generally popular (if not as popular as rigged polls would suggest) for his hard-line stance against the US, NATO, and Europe.
Am I wrong about that?
There are already anti-war protests in Russia, and the war has barely started!
(if they do, I'm also curious for any analysis of their psyche that you have, because that seems to me like borderline insanity)
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/02/23/reac...
We are not in the same civilizational project, I guess you just don't realize it
Ukraine is being handed to Putin. He gets to flex his strongman ego and the world gets to not be ended (today).
Russia invading a NATO country would be akin to walking on a landmine. Putin's not a fool, so it is very unlikely to happen.
On the one hand, I feel bad for Ukrainians. On the other hand, the whole world saw it coming, just like we can see China invading Taiwan at some point in the future, and the calculus will be the exact same: Taiwan means more to China than it does to America, and the Ukraine means more to Russia than it does to the West.
It is perilous to fight somebody, whether it's Putin or Xi, with vested emotional interests in the subject matter of the fight when all you've got is ideology.
And so nothing will come of this except 'strong condemnations'. As if any strongman ever gave a fuck.
And that's the perspective this should be viewed from.
The US may not have a firm interest in Ukraine. The US has a fairly firm interest in Taiwan. The US has a serious interest in Korea, Japan, and the countries bordering the South China Sea.
You have to strongly and unconditionally support international order re: Ukraine, so that Xi takes away the right message.
Why only "fairly firm"? I've heard arguments that if Taiwan is invaded and TSMC falls under PRC control, then the US faces massive chip shortages for years (possibly leading to riots and a destabilized government), and those seem plausible to me.
People don't want a 'world police' anymore.
I suppose somebody might ask what I would prefer the US State Department say, and I guess I'd personally want more realpolitik: "Putin's a megalomaniacal piece of shit with nationalist historical aspirations that stretch back to Peter the Great; NATO's contributed to all this to the extent that it's been dick swinging in Eastern Europe for the past 20 years; the Ukrainians should probably just surrender since they're all basically (and historically were) Russian anyway, and they stand no chance of actually resisting, and no other country on Earth is going to risk nuclear war over them."
Not exactly feel good material for a bolded NYT headline, but at least it's honest.
Also the US has delivered weapons to Ukraine.
They don't want to engage in a war with Russia, and that decision I think is the right one for now. A couple years down the road, if the sanctions don't succeed in containing Putin's aggression, we might have a different discussion.
Yeah well we tried that back in 2014 when it was the Crimean Penensula. I think its time we have that discussion NOW.
In my opinion, Russia will not have a lot of appetite for further aggression after all those sanctions. Invading NATO members and setting off a huge, unwinnable conflict should be pretty far down the list of priorities in the next few years.
See this report for a brief example: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07...
The US and UK governments have been formally and repeatedly asked for help.
This information is also constantly in the news. The US has provided almost $3 Billion in military aid to Ukraine in the past several years alone. The UK has also provided significant amounts of aid. Ditto for NATO. All of these are not 'forced' on Ukraine!
I also hope that the US will share intelligence information; US's abilities here are far greater than Ukraine's.
If you let that genie out of the bottle, it better be a prelude to a winnable war, or you had better be happy to have all your government officials, diplomats, and their families on permanent lockdown.
Assassinating or targeting political leaders is a war crime. The CIA might have done that - quite a while in the past, mind you - but never against an adversary like Russia. At the very least you would expect a few US politicians to drop dead if there ever were such an attempt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Fide...
I totally forgot the "Communist Stooges" category that America had a special loathing for. I'm sure they were a no-holds-barred category!
But that kind of calculation "oh, the US won't have the stomach to fight a useless war if you hit them hard enough first" was exactly what doomed the Japanese Empire.
I don't think NK has currently credible launch systems to make it to the east coast (of the US)?
Also, the past century shows the US had the stomach to fight useless wars, so I'd hope NK has noticed that.
In any case, the state and capability of their missile arsenal isn't widely known. The issue here is that it's not so much the will to fight an expensive war but rather to risk nuclear strikes at home just for the benefit of revenge on North Korea.
Your explanation isn't bad but this choice of words is strange. No one "forced" Russia to do anything. NATO has never overtly threatened Russia. Neither NATO or any European country was going to roll tanks through Ukraine and attack Russia. Even if every Eastern European country decided to get back at Russia for a half century of abuse from the USSR, the existence of Russia's nuclear arsenal secured their borders.
The Putin propaganda about tanks rolling through Ukraine is simply absurd. It's just some recycled Stalinist propaganda trying to equate NATO/Europe with Hitler and the Nazis.
I don't think any description of Putin's actions using the word "forced" or anything like it make actual sense.
I think this debacle will jolt the the EU members' leadership out of its complacency, and there will be a renewed focus on European Security, now that Macron's deal-brokering has clearly failed.
Which country is going nuclear free? I hope it's not France, because I thought they are the leaders in nuclear energy.
Germany is intending to, once their current plants are decommissioned.
Did you hear evidence of that anywhere or is that just wild speculation?
This is Russian disinformation. Aegis Ashore (which is the system being installed in Poland) is designed to launched SM3 missiles that are designed to intercept ballistic missiles. They aren't nuclear armed at all. The Russians have been claiming that the silos could also launch Tomahawk missiles, some variants of which are nuclear armed. There have been no plans for this to happen, and the US has even offered to allow inspections.
according to Putin that treading is a major motivation for his current actions.
yes, as i already wrote during the last year, Ukraine got Turkish drones and with them the window of opportunity to win the Donbass war (like Azerbaijan/Turkey did against Armenia/Russia). The fall of Donbass would have been a large failure for Putin which his regime would have hard time to survive. Without bringing aviation though Russian forces couldn't operate successfully there (especially given the tank swallowing deep Spring mud what is going to happen in few weeks), and this is what happened yesterday across Ukraine - attacks on airfields and air-defenses, command and control centers, etc.
Fuck up Ukraine and go home. Belarus has already been turned into a puppet state, and if they manage to turn Ukraine into a similar puppet or at least a failed state, there will remain no prosperous alternative in Russian-speaking world to Putin's Russia.
Russians have massive inferiority complex since at least the 1960s when Soviet Union began to significantly fall behind the West and this is their way of dealing with it.
This guy nailed it 7 years ago!
It's believed by many that the US ran a coup that installed a US puppet. That alleged puppet ended the long-standing arrangement that granted Russia access to its only warm water port. Losing access to this port made it almost a certainty that Russia would annex Crimea, which it did.
With no strong opposition to that, drunk on success, ~~Hitler~~ Putin can go further.
In taking Ukraine, Putin just put Nato on Russia’s border.
did this affect Russia negatively ? from my seat it was no biggie, and nothing came out of the baltic states joining.. no threats, accident, economic problems in the news.. but maybe i'm just blind
If it’s an old fashioned land/riches grab then their current behavior makes perfect sense.
People seem to make the mistake of thinking about this in some kind of game theoretic way where Russia would have something to gain or lose but that's the wrong perspective, Putin couldn't care less about Russia or the Russians, what he cares about is to cling to power until he's dying, if he can't do that then his lot could well be worse.
You're not loving it, you want to make some sharp moves to prevent more states from considering it, and you'd like to get those states back somehow in the long run.
This is a wildly imperfect analogy, but...
Can you imagine resettling the whole Mormon population of Idaho to the furthest corners of Alaska? A knock on the door awakens you. You're given half an hour to pack a single suitcase, and then your whole family is pushed into a cattle wagon going to Alaska. No food beyond a slice of bread per day, no other supplies while traveling there over three weeks. If babies die, their bodies are just thrown overboard by soldiers. When you arrive, you're assigned a mine to work in for free as slave labor and a dirt mound to sleep in.
That's what took in Eastern Europe to seek isolation from Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Sov...
If the Pacific Northwest broke off tomorrow and tried to join Canada, I may still be opposed to war simply out of pacifism, but I wouldn't be terribly shocked if we had a Civil War II over the issue.
If the Pacific Northwest broke off tomorrow, the largest remaining Federal-ish government in the formerly United States recognized it as an independent country, and then thirty years from now it was contemplating an alliance with Canada...
However, in this admittedly flawed analogy, I thought it was pretty clear that Washington, Oregon, and Idaho were meant to be analogous to the multiple NATO countries already sharing borders with Russia.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine is a dastardly war crime, but it didn't happen in a vacuum either. Was attempting to explain the (shitty) reasoning behind Putin's actions.
Those neighbors are allowed to join defensive agreements. Also Gorbatshov denied being "duped" about NATO expansion. Also Putin has no reason to be bothered by NATO troops in neighbor countries. They aren't anywhere close to invasion strength (even if you are prepared to consider they would want to despite all the treaties).
It's just that the NATO troops would be in the way when Putin decides to reintegrate those neighbors too his historic empire.
I'm just trying to understand.
If not for this he would have to face the fact that Russia is on its last legs. They won't be able to sustain this war for very long either hence all the bluster about repercussions if other countries decide to help Ukraine prolong the conflict.
> The foreign ministers of the Baltic states called for Russia to be cut off from SWIFT, the global intermediary for banks' financial transactions. However, other EU member states were reluctant, both because European lenders held most of the nearly $30 billion in foreign bank's exposure to Russia and because China has developed an alternative to SWIFT called CIPS; a weaponisation of SWIFT would provide greater impetus to the development of CIPS which in turn would weaken SWIFT as well as the West's control over international finance.[262][263] Other leaders calling for Russia to be stopped from accessing SWIFT include Czech President Miloš Zeman[264] and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson.[265]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukrai...
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-rejects-calling-ru...
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/24/china-refuses-to-call-attack...
In fairness to nojs, I tried to search for it to back up my claim, and couldn't find it again.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/24/kyiv-furious-a...
All this politics theater of the past few days was to make everyone of notice show support for invasion, in public form. Lawmakers, Security council, oligarchs, senators, everyone. So they would know they won't be able to betray him and escape. They are all forced to make their bones.
Plus with Chernobyl, some of the fuel rods may well be weapons grade still, and Chernobyl almost bankrupted Russia, it certainly helped break up the Soviet Union according to Gorbachev, its also on the border with Belarus who are aligned with Russia, and uranium fuel rods are not cheap to make, it takes tonnes of Uranium, so grabbing Chernobyl would seem sensible.
So at this stage, I'm now thinking Russia is the next country to get a massive improvement in quality of life and infrastructure, a bit like we have seen with China over the last decade or so, whilst all the while the West is kept in the slow lane for other less developed countries to catch up.
That's practically impossible. They could have done in in last 30 years, but almost all the profit went to pockets of Kremlin's pyramid of power and tunneled to tax havens across the world. Corruption, laziness, incompetence of key people, and in some form also in the rest of nation will effectively prevent that.
Do this en masse and you have your present day Russian oligarchs.
All Putin & the KGB have been trying to do since is rebuild Russia whilst getting people adjusted to capitalism. Many people in remote rural areas still wish for the old communist days where there was much more state support like with better infrastructure thats now crumbling away.
Communism started in Russia in 1917, its an ideology just like there is a new AI ideology in play right now, but these ideologies are/were designed to further human advancement, and even the Chinese recognise, Capitalism has so far one out, at least the illusion of Capitalism if you ignore how search engines can control a countries economy.
All ideologies have their faults, but some are also dependent on technology, so I dont know if an AI communism/capitalism mix could be seen in the future?
So look at teh buildings that are being destroyed, are these happening to make way for a new supermarket, shopping mall, road interchange once the building starts?
Just look at what happened in Iraq, private companies stormed in there and capitalism was in full flow because of Uncle Sam, however I suspect its Mother Russia now looking to splash the cash which means likely many Russian firms getting a govt handout disguised as war disguises these things.
Revisit this comment in ten years time and see if your opinion changes!
Germany especially should really do some soul-searching. They are enabling Putin for the last few decades.
In the middle of the winter, economic sanctions have their hands basically tied. What is Europe going to do? Turn off the gas? I don't think so.
Maybe at least France will stop D%#$ing around and finish their reactor. The only question is can Putin put down the insurrections in Ukraine faster than the rest of Europe can untangle their energy dependence, or will it just be another Crimea where everyone forgets about it in a year or two, and Putin can pull it off somewhere else in another 5 years.
And because blocking them from some technology that the West has monopoly over will invite a strong(er) drive from the likes of China and Russia to create a competitor and weaken the West's power in that field.
Yup. Because when I think of superpower I think of an economy that is barely passing Italy's.
[Citation needed]
The softening of sanctions has arrived already.
He wants a warm water port.
The USA and UK already abandoned the Afghani people, feels like the once mighty US military really doesn't want to be in a shooting war against Russia. As someone living in Europe, I would also be wary of how it would escalate if NATO got involved.
You would have to weigh how things would escalate if NATO got involved, vs how things would escalate if Russia found out NATO isn't actually a thing any country intends to honor.
Ditto Russia, UK, France, the other nuclear powers involved.
That being said, it’s a Rubicon all, will be reluctant to cross.
But in general I'd agree with you. On the other hand, who and literally what army would stop them?
Among several others, the United States military. Which, contrary to claims made elsewhere in this thread, is a pretty formidable defensive force. In fact, it even has aircraft carriers that can move under their own power.
There is not a single chance that Russia would have touch a NATO country, it's a war they could not win.
The US isn't going to put boots on the ground and start an all out war, over Ukraine, and NATO doesn't have to do anything, as Ukraine isn't in NATO.
So what are the options? Well, Europe can start to unwind being dependent on Russia or energy, but that's a slow process that is already on its way.
There isn't much that can be done. It's very sad and messed up innocent people have to pay with their lives because of geopolitics and a dictator hell bent on shoring up his negative image.
1. There will be no EU or US troops coming to aid Ukraine, and Ukraine knows that. It was clear from the start that direct NATO involvement could lead to WW3 and there is currently no will to risk that for a non-NATO member.
2. In numbers, the Russian military is about 6 to 12 times stronger than the Ukrainian military (in terms of tanks, fighter planes, heavy weaponry). They have already gained air superiority, so they can move around airborne troops quickly, albeit with a certain risk from portable ground-to-air missiles. They are also trying to install an air bridge near the capital, although it's unclear at the moment whether they have succeeded.
4. The main target of the Russian military are currently all major cities in the East of Ukraine. Russian forces can be expected to occupy the capital Kyiv within hours or days from now. If the Ukrainian forces fight exceptionally well, they might delay this for weeks but that's unlikely.
5. Once Kyiv is occupied, Russia will quickly install a puppet regime, send around death squads, and basically instill terror to break active and passive resistance. Pro-Putin Ukrainians will emerge and take over. It's going to be similar to what happened in Chechnya in the past and the Donbas region. Armed men without insignia will snatch people from the street and torture them, citizens will disappear, etc. There will be fake elections.
I hope I'm wrong but that's about my prognosis. The civilized world can currently not do much about it except imposing sanctions and delivering arms to Ukraine. A good response now would be to break diplomatic ties with Russia and to exclude Russia from the Swift system. It would also make sense to sharpen media control and party financing laws in various countries since the Russian government has been using loopholes to finance willfully ignorant evil and divisive parties all over the world to weaken the EU and divide US and Europe.
The calm before the storm as Russia places their troops was the last few months. This is the storm, as Russia takes Ukraine by force. Assuming they succeed in taking it (which seems very likely) it's unclear what they plan to do - either installing a puppet government or incorporating Ukraine into Russia (or a mix of the two) seems most likely.
The EU and America (and other friends) have promised severe sanctions on Russia in response to this - which they are currently announcing, and they will probably continue to extend over the coming days. They have also promised to support Ukraine with intelligence, military supplies, and economic aid. They have been providing that over the past months, and every indication is that they will continue to do so as long as it's possible.
NATO is also greatly increasing it's readiness, in case Russia chooses to go beyond Ukraine/Moldova (Moldova is the only neighbor to Ukraine uninvolved in NATO and the conflict, and Russia already occupies a piece of it) into any NATO country. In that eventuality the various NATO countries have all committed to going to war - there's a reasonably high chance it would be a nuclear one - which also means it's very unlikely that Putin will try this.
The EU/US are attempting to retaliate in non-military ways, primarily through the form of economic sanctions. However, it seems like some of the most impactful actions available, like cutting Russia out of Swift, are being held up by Germany and Italy.
The US and NATO are sending military reinforcements to Eastern NATO nations such as Poland, but they will not actually engage or enter Ukraine so long as Russia doesn’t push through Ukraine into NATO nations, which I don’t think anyone expects.
As long as Putin doesn't try to advance out of Ukraine, I doubt that NATO will offer any direct support beyond supplying arms and training.
NATO should have been requested to by Ukraine and declared a no fly zone for military aviation west of the Dnieper, before Russia invaded.
An inability to use aviation would have severely slowed Russian plans.
And hence declaring it before Russia invaded. Which forces Russia to choose to shoot down NATO aircraft, or operate outside those zones.
They currently have ~4.
There's a reason Russia invests so much in SAM systems. They expect NATO to have air superiority.
Which EW systems are you talking about?
As is, they were able to move into Ukraine without nuclear risk, because the US explicitly said we wouldn't put troops there.
And let's not pretend Russia shooting down a US plane or vice versus would start a nuclear war. It happened fairly commonly during the Cold War, quietly.
What you're describing is reckless brinksmanship. One mistake or misread and the world ends.
"Reckless brinkmanship" is an odd phrase, when we're talking about responses to Russia invading a sovereign country.
So what if NATO puts some forces in Ukraine, but Putin calls their bluff and attacks anyway? Small contingent wouldn't be nearly enough to hold the territory, so you need to either engage for real (but you don't have political capital for that), or withdraw forces which would look like huge humiliation.
This is much less relevant for a constitutional democracy than for a dictatorship.
This is not the cold war, I don't think anyone can predict what Putin will do if provoked and he needs to save face.
NATO is not prepared or willing to start a war with Russia.
It seems that many in the West think they have unlimited power to do anything and interfere in any conflict. Reality is those days are over now.
That said, Putin is increasing his risk appetite. Ukraine will most likely fall and have a puppet government installed, probably within weeks at most.
But then next year, what if he decides to up his ante and target one of the NATO member ex-USSR Baltic states for "reasons"?
Will NATO come to their defense militarily? Will the UK, France, Germany, as well as the US decide it is worth going to war with Russia to defend Estonia, Latvia, etc.?
What about China and Taiwan? If China decides to invade Taiwan, will anyone decide it is worth going to war with China to defend Taiwan militarily?
My prediction to those questions is - no. The authoritarian regimes have the upper hand in the current global state of affairs because the Western democracies are afraid of the consequences of going toe to toe militarily against them. I don't not sympathize - to be honest I have no clue what the solution is.
I don't think the opposite is necessarily true. If the US were to attack a country that Russia or China would truly lose face over (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. frankly are not), I feel Putin or Xi would, in fact, choose to wage war.
See the dotted lines in this map - that's a rough estimate of how far the Russians have made it in a day. Even if they continue at the same pace overnight (unlikely), and the next day, and the next night, there's still a lot of the country they won't have physically reached yet.
https://twitter.com/OSINTNS/status/1496880680143568901/photo...
I can't see how Ukraine can put up any realistic defence given they now have no radar tracking or air support.
If your point is "it takes tanks a few days to get to Kyiv", then, yes, that is technically correct. If your point is "Russia needs to invade the whole country", no. They own the country when they control the governmental apparatus in Kyiv.
Ukraine knew that they would be able to take Kyiv quickly. Intelligence sources have been saying that for weeks. They (Ukraine and it's friends) have been preparing for this - openly talking about partisan style resistance.
I'm willing to bet that they need to seize pretty close to the entire country to maintain any sort of control.
The USSR went partially this way in Finland: sliced off half the country, though they left the other half alone, on sufferance. I don’t think Putin would be satisfied with that: he’ll want another Yanukovych or Lukashenko.
It appears that heavy tanks have yet to even reach kyiv. Lighter vehicles and paratroopers have, but failed to seize the city overnight. The vast majority of Ukraine remains unoccupied, the takeover attempt is far from over like you claimed it would be.
I still believe my claim. Unless Russia miraculously takes the rest of the country in a few hours it will come true.
The EU and America have explicitly not promised to help out with direct military action against Russia. The United States and Biden have said multiple times that the US will not have forces engage Russia directly in Ukraine.
What specific promises are you referring to?
The Budapest Memorandum. 1994 wasn't that long ago...
Here is the text of the memorandum: https://web.archive.org/web/20170312052208/http://www.cfr.or...
Can you point us to the provision that you claim the U.S./Europe have violated? It is only about 1-2 pages long, so I don't think this is too much to ask.
This could of course be blamed in Ukraine for not rejecting it at the time.
Meanwhile, I'll just note that it seems perverse, to say the least, to focus on hand wavy, alleged U.S./European violations of the "spirit" of the memorandum while Russia is literally dropping bombs on Kiev.
You give away your nukes, and we’ll protect you.
I don’t think Russia needs any extra condemnation, do you? But that was always kind of in the cards. I hold my own country (and the rest of the western world) to a higher standard.
If you have specific things that you think the west should be doing, like kicking Russia out of Swift, barring energy imports from Russia, etc. I'd be interested to hear it. I might even agree with you! But this talk about the US/Europe somehow violating the Budapest Memorandum just strikes me as misinformation that plays into the Russian narrative.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.[17]
Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to influence their politics.
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".
Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.[13][18]1. "[T]o respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine." Only Russia seems to have violated that one.
2. To "reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." Same. The only one breaking this promise is Russia.
3. "[T]o refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind." Haven't seen anyone claim that any party has violated this one.
4. "[T]o seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine." Again, I think only Russia has broken this promise.
5. "[N]ot to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons." So far so good.
6. To "consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments." OK.
Read the memorandum for yourself if you think I'm quoting selectively. It's short.: https://web.archive.org/web/20170312052208/http://www.cfr.or...
What could they have done, throw the unarmed nukes at Russia? You also leave out the fact that Russia and the UK signed as well.
Nevertheless when you have the resources of a state, it is very easy to disassemble them and discover, in a few weeks or months at most, how to replace the part that initiates detonation with one that you control.
I'm not sure what the west is expecting, some sort of massive retreat like when Iraq pulled out of Kuwait? It looks pre-ordained that Ukraine will fall and should we want to stop it, we probably need to strike Moscow or something like that. I don't know how much appetite there is for something like that in the US, Trump and his supporters seem to support Russia here.
How can you ask for source but then confidently claim otherwise. Ugh.
edit: https://old.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/comments/t0di4z/t... is a crappy Reddit link, but also goes on to include the nuclear mention as well.
How can you view this as anything but a nuclear warning?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-24/full-tran...
Here's the relevant part (interpret this as you will):
"I would now like to say something very important for those who may be tempted to interfere in these developments from the outside. No matter who tries to stand in our way or all the more so create threats for our country and our people, they must know that Russia will respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history. No matter how the events unfold, we are ready. All the necessary decisions in this regard have been taken. I hope that my words will be heard."
Some people think that his words imply nuclear, but as it's not directly mentioned, that's just one interpretation.
If you ask me, I think that means just some secret weapon pointed directly at whoever Putin believes may interfere... but no one really knows.
> As for military affairs, even after the dissolution of the USSR and losing a considerable part of its capabilities, today’s Russia remains one of the most powerful NUCLEAR states. Moreover, it has a certain advantage in several cutting-edge weapons. In this context, there should be no doubt for anyone that any potential aggressor will face defeat and ominous consequences should it directly attack our country.
Looks like it worked. I wonder what else are people willing to give up at the mere hint of a nuclear threat: their houses? Their freedom? Their friends? Their spouses? Their children?
Also, he did say it, according to that _transcription_. I don't speak Russian, so i wouldn't know beyond that. Regardless don't play dumb, you and everyone else knew what he meant. Whether or not he'll follow through is the question - but what he meant was obvious. He knew what he was implying.
It was an empty threat. And, sadly, the West fell for it and now the Ukrainians are paying the price.
> As for military affairs, even after the dissolution of the USSR and losing a considerable part of its capabilities, today’s Russia remains one of the most powerful NUCLEAR states. Moreover, it has a certain advantage in several cutting-edge weapons. In this context, there should be no doubt for anyone that any potential aggressor will face defeat and ominous consequences should it directly attack our country.
> Putin warned the West that he wouldn't hesitate to conduct a nuclear strike if they try to meddle.
I maintain he never said that and that interpreting the word nuclear which indeed appears at the beginning of the speech (I stand corrected) in the context of the retaliation threat at the end - is quite a stretch.
> Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear powers in the world
If you're using a different transcript then i'm not commenting on that. I was literally just pointing to what i posted, which may not be accurate - as i said multiple times.
Not sure why i had to type out what is clearly readable in what i posted, but /shrug
When are you gonna start caring? When Putin's knife will be at your jugular? It will be too late by then.
Careful with the friend though, if he's Russian the beverage might contain polonium...
This thinking really needs to go away. No, it's not ok of Russia to attack another country. But if your country then counter-attacks on behalf of Ukraine, you should expect Russia to then declare war on you immediately. This sounds far-fetched, but that could actually happen. And something like it did happen numerous times in history and we all remember very well how that ended (well some of us do, others seem to have never even heard of that).
We like to think Germany was defeated in WWII and the West and the Soviet Union (for those few who remember the USSR actually arrived in Berlin first, in fact - but lost more lives than everyone else combined) won... but that's not true; no one ever wins a full-scale war like that. Everyone loses, some just lose a bit less than the others... Germany was nearly flattened, but not before most of the rest of Europe was as well - priceless property, artistic treasures, not to mention lives, were lost well beyond anything that someone who claims to be a "victor" may admit. This is what happens when a country "helps" others just to stop a bully they don't like (and then the other side's allies help them, and so on).
I really, really hope Europe will never get flattened again, but seeing what is happening in Ukraine, and how people react online (some of whom may one day be in a position where they can actually act) makes me very doubtful of that even in my lifetime (I still have quite a few decades ahead, I hope...).
I don't think we should sit and do nothing! But please stop asking our leaders to lower themselves to the same level as the aggressor and just drop bombs on other human beings!
Let's show Russia that while they may, on the very short term, win a battle, that this kind of behaviour is not acceptable anymore in the 21st century, and that for a long time ahead, Russia should find itself isolated form the greates economies of the world, politically, financially and in any way possible to make sure they understand that they must never do this again, and anyone watching should take note that no one is above the law (that includes the USA!)... if you use violence, we will not use violence against you (well, not until we're the direct target of the aggression, even I would concede), but we'll see you with utmost distrust from then one and make you regret deeply to have behaved like that.
If NATO had from the beginning worked this way, we wouldn't have found ourselves in this situation... most things went on as normal after Russia took over Krimea. And Putin was not completely wrong in saying NATO has expanded a lot in the last 30 years, which entailed planting bombs right at the Russian's doorsteps from all directions, flagrantly provoking the bear knowing very well that this was not making them happy, in a behaviour quite similar to the bully of the story.
It's not about attacking someone who "do something we don't like" it's about Russia clearly breaking international laws, and behaving like an asshole. No irony here. If we can police individual citizens within a country, why not police the countries themselves?
>> no one ever wins a full-scale war like that. Everyone loses, some just lose a bit less than the others...
You have to decide which do you value more: your freedom or your life. And if you answer "my life" then be prepared to be a slave for the rest of it.
That's the problem, exactly. You think your country is just and can intervene in other countries' affairs, just like the police does. But what you see as just and fair, people on the other side of the world see as barbaric (quite literarlly, as that's the original meaning of the word).
That's extremely dangerous thinking. Only the International Court of Justice[1] can deliberate on whether a nation's actions are illegal, and luckily we do have laws that determine what sovereign nations may or may not do. That's an international organization where no one country can decide anything.
Military agression on another country is always illegal: so Russia is indeed commiting an illegal act by invading Ukraine... unless there's consensus in the UN Security Council (of which Russia is a permanent member), however, it would be illegal for another country to intervene. You may think comitting a crime is justified if it's to defend a victim of another crime, but that's not the law we have currently agreed on.
I urge everyone to read this document, "Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: What does International Law Have to Say?" [2], written in 2015!!! The international community somehow failed to stop Russia when it still could. It failed to address the situation, failed to communicate with Russia in an effective manner, it let Russia know that it's ok to break the law (according to Putin's message when he started the invasion, the West broke it first, multiple times, e.g. in Bosnia, Iraq, Syria etc which seems like have served as motivation for Putin to do the same as clearly there's no consequences), it just failed so much it's hard to believe it!
So, here we are and war is a reality.
> You have to decide which do you value more: your freedom or your life.
There's no threat to the freedom of anyone in NATO countries... if you're saying the people of Ukraine should decide that, as they're the only ones now suffering the consequences of our failures, then I'd say that they did all they could to save both, but that was not enough. Maybe they should've known that NATO wouldn't accept them, and refrained from seeking membership, which might have saved them from this aggression? Is that what you think they should've done? That would not really have limited their freedom because NATO was never a realistic prospect anyway, or at least it would not be for a few years for sure (and Russia knows that every passing year could cause that to change)... and their lives would've been fine too! Seeking dialogue with Russia, they might have been able to stop the war in its Eastern borders and have avoided losing Krimea, even!! However, those things happened and now we all have to live with the consequences. Thinking what we should've done is only useful in the sense it may inform what we do next... and that' the important thing to do: to think of what we should do next very carefully if we want to stop escalation... or if we want to go back to the Cold War, which seems almost unavoidable right now.
[1] https://www.icj-cij.org/en
[2] https://www.lawfareblog.com/russias-invasion-ukraine-what-do...
It is by far not as one sided and simple as many make it to be
in any case, Putin would likely respond with a nuke (he already basically hinted this), this is an endgame for everyone, Ukraine, Russia, Putin...there will be no de-escalation or peace process. Putin already said Ukraine "does not need to exist"...either the Ukrainians can fight him off or not. Probably not. Sanctions won't matter. Scolding Putin at the UN won't matter. China will golf-clap the whole thing. By the end of 2022, the only issue will be when the West just recognizes the new borders or not.