Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

[nett]

I do think the US and the EU might have blown it in terms of their negotiations with Putin - and I wonder if this war could have been prevented at the negotiating table.

As others have pointed out, Putin saw the encroachment of NATO as an existential threat. If the West would have concretely agreed that Ukraine not be offered entry into NATO (perhaps for a fixed time - say 50 years) perhaps Putin would have backed down, lives would have been saved, and the destruction of a country would have been averted.

While I think NATO expansion is a critical part of Russia's grievances with the West, I don't think that's all of it. I think any movement towards the West by Ukraine was seen as a threat by Russia, such as the 2014 Maidan protests, which prompted Russia's annexation of the Crimea.

At what point does Ukraine get to decide for itself its own destiny? Unfortunately, Russia is making a great argument for why NATO is necessary and should be expanded into Eastern Europe.

Putin views the collapse of the Soviet Union as one of the greatest tragedies of history. I'm not sure that promising not to include Ukraine as a part of NATO would have been enough.

He wants to rebuild the 19th Century Russian Empire or its successor, the USSR which is frankly impossible. And no more possible than say Spain rebuilding its Latin American empire. We no longer live in an imperial age. It isn't just Ukraine, everywhere he has attempted to expand Russian influence it has resulted in brutal military clashes with the local populations. In Georgia, in Chechnya, in Ukraine, in Armenia, and a dozen other places along the fringes of Russia. People simply don't want to live under the Russian yoke. And the places where Russia still has allies like Belorussia and Kazakhstan are kept that way by dictatorial puppet regimes that are propped up with heavy support from Russia. Ukraine was also like that prior to 2014 under the corrupt Viktor Yanukovych who Russia apparently wants to reinstall in Ukraine. But I expect that ship has sailed and the chances that a pro-Russian Putin crony will ever win election in Ukraine are zero to nil.

I must say, it is in interesting to get some insight into the west coast elite version of reality.

[Soloist]

Are those the issues cited by Russia?

We can go through them one by one.

I'm not defending Putin, just stating his reasons he gives. You can discredit them or seek to understand the opponent.

The Open Skies treaty was abandoned by the Trump Administration. The reasons cited were that Russia was in continual violation by not allowing US flights over Georgia and other parts of Russia. Was that a mistake? Probably. But it was also something of an obsolete cold war relic in the era of hyper-detailed satellite imagery. We no longer need to send planes over Russia to see what they are up to.

I doubt we were compliant either but that doesn't really matter.

The ABM treaty was abandoned by George W Bush in 2001, early in the Bush Administration when they wanted to accelerate development of "star wars" missile defense. Also probably a mistake as those efforts have failed and 20 years later we have no missile defense.

Intercepting a missile is very very tricky even with our advances in science.

The US has no missiles in Ukraine so I don't know what he is talking about there with missiles in Ukraine being 7 minutes from Moscow. Of course the reason why there are no nuclear missiles in Ukraine is that Ukraine gave them up thirty years ago. At that time Ukraine was the 3rd largest nuclear power. The US, Ukraine, UK, and Russia signed the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances which guaranteed Ukraine sovereignty and respect for existing borders in exchange for de-nuclearization, which Russia has repeatedly violated not just with this war, but going back to the seizure of Crimea and before. Ukrainians voted absolutely overwhelmingly for independence in 1991. Something like over 80% of the population voted and the vote was over 90% in favor of independence. Majorities favored it in every part of the country including Crimea and the Donbas. They willingly and openly chose their path. It is Russia that has chosen to violate their sovereignty.

You could listen to him if you wanted, but he wasn't saying there was missiles in Ukraine only that when/if they became NATO there would be missiles stationed there. Not illogical when you consider history. As for the treaty, the US has consistently said it was not a guarantee but rather just a political statement

The United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_ ... Assurances If you actually look, those were soviet warheads that Ukraine did not possess the skill or access to use. Could they have? sure with enough time. I'm not arguing that Russia invaded a sovereign country. I'm just looking at the reasons behind it. One could just as easily look at the justifications for us invading any number of lands and discredit it in a similar fashion. Nothing justifies killing in my eyes, but one who fails to understand their enemy (not my enemy) is defeated before they begin.

As for NATO? There was no agreement with Russia not to expand NATO. The Russian and Soviet leaders at the time have admitted as much. That is revisionist history or outright falsehood on his part. If there was an agreement he would be able to point to it, which he can't. And, in any event this war on the part of Russia is doing more to make the case for NATO than any previous event in the past 50 years. Sweden and Finland are now contemplating joining NATO and are already cooperating as if they were full members. And for the first time ever, majorities in both countries favor joining NATO. And now with Russia's action, countries like Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, and others are asking to join the EU which is probably a more significant step than NATO anyway.

Can you show me something where the Soviets or the Russians said that there was no agreement not to expand NATO? No one is arguing that this agreement wasn't on paper. The statement is similar to the secret agreement to remove missiles from Turkey during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I

n any event, Putin is right about Russia being a declining power. When I was young during the cold war in the late 1970s the USSR and Warsaw Pact commanded a vast stretch of the globe, covered a population of over 350 million, represented a major portion of the world economy, and had professional standing armies in the millions. Now Russia is basically standing alone with a population of about 140 million and an anemic corrupt kleptocratic economy that is smaller than that of Texas or Canada. And their poor performance in Ukraine to date is demonstrating to the world that Russian military might may not be what they thought. They are closer to Mexico in terms of population and GDP than they are to the US. Countries in Central Europe like Poland, Hungary, Romania, and the Baltic States can look at the political and economic examples of both the west and Russia and decide for themselves as free peoples which direction they want to go. It is pretty much a no-brainer.

I don't think Russia planned the attack very well, they are effectively the first country to wage war against a likewise modern country and they are using old tactics. That being said, they also have held back a large portion of their troops and one could ask why.

This crisis is only going to further accelerate the decline of Russia. It is likely to be one of the biggest "own-goals" in the history of international affairs. Far exceeding the brutal stupidity of the Bush Administration's decision to go to war in Iraq. But the biggest winner isn't likely to be NATO or western Europe. It will likely be China which will probably take advantage of Russian weakness to greatly expand its influence in all the border republics in Central Asia and expand its control over Russian oil, gas, mineral, and timber wealth in Siberia.

While the paper tigers fight, China plans.

If we were to analyze the war in Iraq, we could say the same stupid things in regard to the USA... time will tell what happens, but if NATO does not commit troops or the US, likely Taiwan will fall similarly and not too long from now. The golden age of the America's is long past and we feud with ancient enemy while the more dangerous enemy sells us cheap plastic toys and commits real genocide. Russia is not committing genocide in Ukraine, at least not yet and I don't really expect them to.

He wants to rebuild the 19th Century Russian Empire or its successor, the USSR which is frankly impossible. And no more possible than say Spain rebuilding its Latin American empire. Or the British rebuilding their empire. We no longer live in an imperial age. It isn't just Ukraine, everywhere he has attempted to expand Russian influence it has resulted in brutal military clashes with the local populations. In Georgia, in Chechnya, in Ukraine, in Armenia, and a dozen other places along the fringes of Russia. People simply don't want to live under the Russian yoke. And the places where Russia still has allies like Belorussia and Kazakhstan are kept that way by dictatorial puppet regimes that are propped up with heavy support from Russia. Ukraine was also like that prior to 2014 under the corrupt Viktor Yanukovych who Russia apparently wants to reinstall in Ukraine. But I expect that ship has sailed and the chances that a pro-Russian Putin crony will ever win election in Ukraine are zero to nil.

Similar things were said about Hitler.

[Ken]

As for NATO? There was no agreement with Russia not to expand NATO. The Russian and Soviet leaders at the time have admitted as much. That is revisionist history or outright falsehood on his part. If there was an agreement he would be able to point to it, which he can't. And, in any event this war on the part of Russia is doing more to make the case for NATO than any previous event in the past 50 years. Sweden and Finland are now contemplating joining NATO and are already cooperating as if they were full members. And for the first time ever, majorities in both countries favor joining NATO. And now with Russia's action, countries like Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, and others are asking to join the EU which is probably a more significant step than NATO anyway.

umm what about James Baker's assurance of “not one inch eastward”?

In any event, Putin is right about Russia being a declining power. When I was young during the cold war in the late 1970s the USSR and Warsaw Pact commanded a vast stretch of the globe, covered a population of over 350 million, represented a major portion of the world economy, and had professional standing armies in the millions. Now Russia is basically standing alone with a population of about 140 million and an anemic corrupt kleptocratic economy that is smaller than that of Texas or Canada. And their poor performance in Ukraine to date is demonstrating to the world that Russian military might may not be what they thought. They are closer to Mexico in terms of population and GDP than they are to the US. Countries in Central Europe like Poland, Hungary, Romania, and the Baltic States can look at the political and economic examples of both the west and Russia and decide for themselves as free peoples which direction they want to go. It is pretty much a no-brainer.

This crisis is only going to further accelerate the decline of Russia. It is likely to be one of the biggest "own-goals" in the history of international affairs. Far exceeding the brutal stupidity of the Bush Administration's decision to go to war in Iraq. But the biggest winner isn't likely to be NATO or western Europe. It will likely be China which will probably take advantage of Russian weakness to greatly expand its influence in all the border republics in Central Asia and expand its control over Russian oil, gas, mineral, and timber wealth in Siberia.

You have odd opinions about Russia. The way I can rationalize you thinking Russia is not a major player in the global economy, if that you don't think wheat, fertilizer or oil are important. Russia also has vertical supply chains for most of their military production, which is not something any other superpower can currently claim.

Seems you've been huffing a bit much hopium.

States and diplomats float all manner of proposals in the process of negotiations. The Russians floated all manner of proposals as well. If you dig back through the diplomatic negotiations of the 1990s you can find numerous and varied proposals and counter-proposals from both sides. What matters is what is agreed to on paper and signed by the heads of states. What treaty or accord can you point to in which both sides agreed to no NATO expansion and what security guarantees did Russia promise in exchange? You will find nothing actually, because it didn't happen.

Wheat, fertilizer and oil are important. But the US is an exporter of all of those things so Russian wheat, fertilizer, and oil are frankly not important to us. They are, however very important to China. Who is likely to come out the big winner from all of this.

[temporal1]

I do think the US and the EU might have blown it in terms of their negotiations with Putin - and I wonder if this war could have been prevented at the negotiating table.

As others have pointed out, Putin saw the encroachment of NATO as an existential threat.

If the West would have concretely agreed that Ukraine not be offered entry into NATO (perhaps for a fixed time - say 50 years) perhaps Putin would have backed down, lives would have been saved, and the destruction of a country would have been averted.

i think it’s reasonable to wonder.
without listening again to Putin’s above tape (from 2 months ago) i believe he referred to U.S. policy, not to any one POTUS, party, or administration. he was specific about NATO. not 1 person has said Putin is lying about NATO expansions.

i can’t think of anything more basic in diplomacy than recognizing opponents’ beliefs, agreed or not. esp when not agreed!
where are diplomats??! extinct? it’s bizarre to suggest DJT was effective. but??

over the years since the USSR collapsed, i’ve wondered if the U.S. could adjust to a world without the constant tension of 2 super-powers?? seriously. all of politics, media, education, is programmed around “big us versus big them.”

it takes 2, if 1 disappears, the remaining 1 can feel quite lost. does the U.S. flounder aimlessly without war?

the collapse represented a major shift in overall dynamics, and i’ve not been convinced U.S. career politicians could give up the
“low hanging fruit” of raw tribalism. Ukraine points in that direction.

i know it’s lengthy, but the above video on Crimea, page 35, has insights relevant to Ukraine, Russia, Europe, and also China.
i intend to view it again.

[Ken]

Can you show me something where the Soviets or the Russians said that there was no agreement not to expand NATO? No one is arguing that this agreement wasn't on paper. The statement is similar to the secret agreement to remove missiles from Turkey during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

How about this from 2014: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front ... v-says-no/

It is abundantly evident that Russian President Vladimir Putin is no fan of NATO. Indeed, he displays a pronounced—almost obsessive—antipathy toward the Alliance. He claims that NATO took advantage of Russian weakness after the collapse of the Soviet Union to enlarge to its east, in violation of promises allegedly made to Moscow by Western leaders. But no such promises were made—a point now confirmed by someone who was definitely in a position to know: Mikhail Gorbachev, then president of the Soviet Union.

I don't think Russia planned the attack very well, they are effectively the first country to wage war against a likewise modern country and they are using old tactics. That being said, they also have held back a large portion of their troops and one could ask why.

The fog of war prevents us from knowing entirely what is going on. But from what I have read, Russia has no deployed about 90% of it's pre invasion force into Ukraine and logistical problems are preventing them from doing it effectively. It turns out the Russian army is extremely heavy. Those mobile Russian rocket launchers you see for example? Those rockets are extremely bulky and heavy and it takes a large truck full of rockets just to reload every time they fire. So they need 30-40 trucks running back and forth between supply depots just to keep a single battery supplied. And that isn't happening on the clogged roads in Ukraine. Russia's military is the most rail-dependent on the planet. Inside Russia they have a whole militarized branch of the railroads designed to keep the fronts supplied. Which works well if you are fighting a defensive war on Russian soil. You can use rail to bring limitless supplies to the front. But it doesn't work so well in an offensive war outside its borders.

NATO armies are designed much differently. This goes back generations. During WW2, for example, neither Russia nor Germany fought a single major European battle that didn't involve rail transport for logistics. That is why the Germans built such massive Tiger tanks. They transported from the factory all the way to battle via rail. And other than North Africa, didn't fight any battles that involved an amphibious element. By contrast, every single battle fought by the US and UK contained an amphibious element meaning all equipment had to transported by ship and be designed to navigate beaches. And nowhere in any battlefield did they use or depend on rail.

If we were to analyze the war in Iraq, we could say the same stupid things in regard to the USA... time will tell what happens, but if NATO does not commit troops or the US, likely Taiwan will fall similarly and not too long from now. The golden age of the America's is long past and we feud with ancient enemy while the more dangerous enemy sells us cheap plastic toys and commits real genocide. Russia is not committing genocide in Ukraine, at least not yet and I don't really expect them to.

I agree entirely. The Iraq war was an illegal and indefensible action that has cost us dearly in lives and treasure and international standing and left the middle east a worse place than we found it. And yes, the US is certainly declining in world power since its post-WW2 peak. I don't think this is a bad thing. We should be focused on making our own world better, not spending trillions to expand American influence abroad where it isn't necessarily wanted. There are plenty of countries around the world that lack imperial aspirations and are still pretty nice places to live.

Similar things were said about Hitler.

Yes, and look how that worked out.

[nett]

States and diplomats float all manner of proposals in the process of negotiations. The Russians floated all manner of proposals as well. If you dig back through the diplomatic negotiations of the 1990s you can find numerous and varied proposals and counter-proposals from both sides. What matters is what is agreed to on paper and signed by the heads of states. What treaty or accord can you point to in which both sides agreed to no NATO expansion and what security guarantees did Russia promise in exchange? You will find nothing actually, because it didn't happen.

Written and signed agreements are not any more binding between nations than verbal agreements. There is no universal moral code between nations. If Putin doesn't like what he sees in regard to Western expansion in Ukraine, it is his prerogative to disarm them, which he chose to do, quite effectively so far.

Wheat, fertilizer and oil are important. But the US is an exporter of all of those things so Russian wheat, fertilizer, and oil are frankly not important to us. They are, however very important to China. Who is likely to come out the big winner from all of this.

Tell me you don't understand global trade without telling me you don't understand global trade...

[Soloist]

How about this from 2014: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front ... v-says-no/

It is abundantly evident that Russian President Vladimir Putin is no fan of NATO. Indeed, he displays a pronounced—almost obsessive—antipathy toward the Alliance. He claims that NATO took advantage of Russian weakness after the collapse of the Soviet Union to enlarge to its east, in violation of promises allegedly made to Moscow by Western leaders. But no such promises were made—a point now confirmed by someone who was definitely in a position to know: Mikhail Gorbachev, then president of the Soviet Union.

To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.

The later part is an assumption on the author's part and if the former president said it was a violation of the assurances given, that is basically the same thing Putin is saying. Basically, Russia believes there was an agreement and the US insists there wasn't.

Today we need to admit that there is a crisis in European (and global) politics. One of the reasons, albeit not the only reason, is a lack of desire on the part of our Western partners to take Russia’s point of view and legal interests in security into consideration. They paid lip service to applauding Russia, especially during the Yeltsin years, but in deeds they didn’t consider it. I am referring primarily to NATO expansion, missile defense plans, the West’s actions in regions of importance to Russia (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Georgia, Ukraine). They literally said “This is none of your business.” As a result, an abscess formed and it burst.

https://www.rbth.com/international/2014 ... 40673.html

RBTH: One of the key issues that has arisen in connection with the events in Ukraine is NATO expansion into the East. Do you get the feeling that your Western partners lied to you when they were developing their future plans in Eastern Europe? Why didn’t you insist that the promises made to you – particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East – be legally encoded? I will quote Baker: “NATO will not move one inch further east.”

M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it.
Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled. The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been observed all these years. So don’t portray Gorbachev and the then-Soviet authorities as naïve people who were wrapped around the West’s finger. If there was naïveté, it was later, when the issue arose. Russia at first did not object.

The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed.

Exactly what Putin is claiming.

With respect to Russia’s relations with Western Europe and the U.S., the first step is to abandon the logic of tit-for-tat accusations and sanctions. In my opinion, Russia has already taken that first step by refraining from tit-for-tat measures after the latest round of Western sanctions. The rest is up to our partners.

First and foremost, I think they need to cancel these so-called personal sanctions. How can we conduct a dialogue if you are punishing the people who make the decisions and influence policy? We need to talk to each other. This is an axiom that has been forgotten, quite unfortunately.

Interesting observation.

Yes, and look how that worked out.

Yeah, Hitler conquered most of Europe prior to him biting off more then he could chew by invading Russia. Required a massive world wide response to contain the threat he created which to a large degree was caused by world war 1 when Germany lost. World war one defeated Germany and laid the seeds of the next crisis.

[Sudsy]

I do think the US and the EU might have blown it in terms of their negotiations with Putin - and I wonder if this war could have been prevented at the negotiating table.

As others have pointed out, Putin saw the encroachment of NATO as an existential threat. If the West would have concretely agreed that Ukraine not be offered entry into NATO (perhaps for a fixed time - say 50 years) perhaps Putin would have backed down, lives would have been saved, and the destruction of a country would have been averted.

Maybe... the speech I watched of Putin suggested he considered any agreement with the US (he sees NATO as an arm of the US) to be worthless and basically states the US keeps breaking its word or pulls out of treaties whenever it suits us. Specifically he named the open sky treaty and the AMB treaty. He also made a jab over how we have missiles within 12 minutes of Moscow, 7 in Ukraine, 5 if they use hypersonic. I just remember how we reacted to the Cuban missile crisis... He also said what would the USA do if we had missiles in Canada? or Mexico? Of course he failed to mention the subs he has off our coast.

Sudsy, Putin believes the US made an agreement to not expand NATO eastward. He pointed to 5 expansion waves of NATO moving east as justification for his invasion. He wants a buffer between NATO and himself, I don't know if he wants to control Ukraine directly or just simply install a puppet, my guess would be on the later. I think Wikipedia has a reasonable historical account, but I haven't dug very far into it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO

Thanks for the input. I guess it often gets down to who can you believe will keep their word, if and when they give it. Or even in believing that someone gave their word in the first place. God knows the facts of matters and we can leave things in His hands.

“God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear though the earth gives way, though the mountains be moved into the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam, though the mountains tremble at its swelling.” Psalm 46:1-3

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. Psalm 23:4.

Praying that believers in Ukraine will experience the Holy Spirit as their Comforter in these horrific times of death and destruction.

[Ken]

The whole NATO expansion issue is history and we can hypothesize all manner of alternate scenarios. But it is all speculation.

I expect the real truth to the matter is that the reason why there was never any formal agreement on NATO expansion is because the Russians were not willing to make the necessary concessions to make such a thing happen. We can hypothesize a different past 30 years in which Europe is much more demilitarized and neutral than it is today. But that would have required equal demobilization on the Russian side. In international affairs, no one gives anything for free. What were the Russians willing to give up to ensure a neutral and demilitarized central Europe? And would such a deal have even been possible? Central European nations have their own agency and sovereignty. The US can't negotiate away the right of say Poland to make its own decisions.

As for the whole Hitler and Nazi Germany discussion. Historians have spent the past 70 years chewing that one over. What could the allies have done to prevent the rise of Nazism. I expect the Treaty of Versailles is where one starts. That is the lesson they learned and didn't make the same mistake twice after WW2. In fact, that was one of the main purposes of NATO.

In any event, if one sets aside NAZI Germany then by far the worst European actor over the past 100 years has been Russia. There isn't even a remotely close second. The list of Russian (or Soviet) atrocities and aggressions in Europe is endless. From the invasion of Finland and Poland to the Holodomor to Soviet collectivization to the Soviet occupation of Central Europe. In fact the Russians and Soviets may well have more blood on their hands than the Germans. I'm sure historians have done that accounting. I'm not going to bother to look for it.

Small wonder that the independent states in Central Europe want no part of being inside any Russian sphere of influence.

[temporal1]

nett:
Tell me you don't understand global trade without telling me you don't understand global trade...

diamond.