It was part of a way for the US to take over Europe's security concerns, probably to prevent another war. But its mission was explicitly to stop the USSR's sphere of influence. But of course, WWII caused all of this.

But after the USSR collapsed, it doesn't have a good reason to exist. more so with the overwhelming military advantage the US has over other countries.

Let's hope things don't escalate too much more. Welcome 2022 — Manuel

I did some reading here and encountered the proposition that atomic bombs are for defense only (even saw it mentioned that the use of these toys can be understood when that use is in non-urban area...). Whether you place these bombs in a frame of complementarity or deterrence, fact remains that they are still there, ready for launch or drop.It has to be admitted though that their destructive power has been reduced: the face of the Earth can now be destroyed only x (x >1) times instead of 10x... There are still 15 000 active warheads.

Yeah, in theory. But once one goes off to a civilian population, and another is returned, all go off. It’s playing with fire, to put it very lightly.

This article in Foreign Policy from a few days ago makes the same points:

Liberal Illusions Caused the Ukraine Crisis — jamalrob

Counterpoint in the same magazine: There’s Plenty of Blame to Go Around on Ukraine



What Russia is trying to accomplish with this sudden burst of hysterics is still an open question. Everyone here is taking their rhetoric at face value, but that could be a mistake. Perhaps the entire (un)diplomatic theater is to serve as a casus belli when their blatantly unacceptable demands are not met. Aggressors from Napoleon to Hitler have used such sudden ultimatums as a pretext for an invasion. Russia's very visible preparations could be the real thing, and not just a big stick that they are waving to gain leverage in negotiations.

I guess we'll find out within the next few weeks.

From sticks and stones to clashing hydrogen.

I think that Putin is trying to split the Western alliance. He thinks that the US public has turned against involvement in foreign wars - one of the reasons he favoured Trump is because Trump denigrated NATO and hated spending money on foreign wars. The Germans, meanwhile, are trying to appease Putin for very unclear reasons - see Germany’s appeasement of Putin risks disaster in Ukraine. So I think Putin's imagined best case scenario is that he installs a puppet government in Ukraine, the US is humiliated and its role in Europe vastly diminished. He in effect restores one part of the former USSR and extends his sphere of influence. However the vast majority of Ukrainians are looking West and want no part of Putin's plans, outside the Russian-speaking ethnic enclaves in the East. And whether Putin can engineer this outcome is still far from clear.

Ok, so the conflict is at the point that here in PF it got a dedicated thread!

Actually, I genuinely hope that this (or similar) threads aren't going to be very long or as long as the COVID thread. Everybody understands what would make this thread go on for long... I myself have commented the Ukrainian on the Biden adminstration thread two months ago (starting here), so it's not something out of the blue.

The bottom line is that the demands Putin put on the table were obvious non-starters, they simply won't be achieved, and that's the worrying issue. In fact, when Saddam Hussein decided to "solve" his financial troubles by annexing Kuwait, the fig leaf for deploying a huge army on the Kuwaiti border was far better than now with Putin. Hussein accused Kuwait of drilling into Iraqi oil fields and demanded OPEC countries to stick to their quotas in order to get the oil price up. This got several countries to support his actions...until he invaded the small neighboring country that had actually assisted it during the Iran-Iraq war (another war he started). Making demands you know the other side won't accept at start seems very, very worrying.

Now many might argue that this is a negotiating tactic, that Putin will now milk concessions from the West. Might be, but then, this is a guy who started his political career with war, has relied on wars and hasn't avoided using military force. And has actually sinister views about Ukraine, especially on the validity of the country's sovereignty. And above all, what's to stop a nuclear armed power doing whatever it wants, when the other side has already said it will only respond with economic sanctions.

As Neil Ferguson said, the chances for an enlarged war is 50/50. I agree, it's very worrisome.

did you live through the Cuban missile crisis? I didn't and for my generation Ukraine is a generally terrifying prospect if you consider it for extended periods.

But this is a time for clear-headed, measured, assiduous communication between all sides involved. Upon initially going through this thread I felt like insulting those I believe to be backing Putin (something about taunting certain people about not having a real Russian tradwife like another particular member presumably does), however, this ultimately gets no one nowhere. Just a microcosm of the overall discussion, but worth noting.

One reason this is different to the Cold War is that Russia is not the USSR. Russia is a large nation, but it's not the massive aggregation of nation-states that the USSR was. It is also no longer driven by an ideological opposition to capitalism that characterised the Soviets. And there's critical dependencies on either side - Europe can't get by without Russian gas, but Russia can't get by without access to the SWIFT banking system. It's not quite the same as the dreadful Mutually Assured Destruction scenarios of the Cuban Missile Crisis days, although it's still plenty frightening. :scream:

As long as we are speaking of nuclear powers it doesn't matter much. I don't know how they plan to fight a war without quite soon threatening to use them if one side sees itself in trouble...

Isn't there still a sense of there being mutual destruction if nuclear weapons are deployed? I don't think, or rather I hope, that Putin would not risk it.

Not only Putin, he's bad enough. The US destroys countries, as seen by mid 20th to early 21st century history. It can do that because it has the power to do so, the UK before them and France, Spain, etc. were no better.

No one wants to risk it, but then do you think Russia (or anyone else) will stand for mass casualties loss in terms of troops and complete humiliation in a war against NATO?

Nor would the US. Nevertheless, we've had awfully close calls before. A repeated high risk situation cannot sustain itself without error. Hope I'm being paranoid....

Hope I'm being paranoid.... — Manuel

me too, but I can't say I blame you, it's very dicey.

did you live through the Cuban missile crisis? — The Opposite

Nope, I've been born in the early 1970's.

But this is a time for clear-headed, measured, assiduous communication between all sides involved. Upon initially going through this thread I felt like insulting those I believe to be backing Putin (something about taunting certain people about not having a real Russian tradwife like another particular member presumably does), however, this ultimately gets no one nowhere. Just a microcosm of the overall discussion, but worth noting. — The Opposite

I think there's nobody here who is genuinely backing Putin, but many of course are very critical about US foreign policy and the West in general. This can then make people to actually mouth the views of what Putin is saying.

Yet one should really think twice just how "aggressive" the West is here. The Soviet Union collapsed. The countries that emerged from that rubble didn't genuinely want be part of any Russian-lead union and the idea of CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) was a non-starter. Ukraine, which was as wealthy as Poland when the Iron Curtain fell, has seen the East European countries and the Baltic States become far more prosperous countries while it hasn't basically gone anywhere economically. The desire to join the West is real among the people of Ukraine, it isn't some astroturf movement concocted by the US using George Soros as a front.

(How Polish and Ukrainian economies have been on totally different tracks, with one being a member of the EU and one not.)


This is the issue that those "understanding" the Putin line of NATO expansion forget: that a) these are independent countries have wanted to join NATO and b) Russia's actions, especially it's now several annexations of parts of it's neighbors, has just reinforced the reasoning why to do this. Putin's Russia obviously wants to have the power that the Soviet Empire once had. The denial that Russia lost it's empire is the crucial issue here.

To say that Russia has a right for a "sphere of influence" is basically an imperialist argument that Russia deserves somehow to have it's old empire. It doesn't and it surely hasn't tried to be friends with it's new neighbors. It has lost it just like Austria has and should face reality. And as it has been a real bully, it hasn't had the success that the UK has had with the British Commonwealth with CIS.

Judging by the latest news it looks like there will be war sadly.

If NATO is meant to be about protecting and preventing war then perhaps they should not look to expand towards the only country they deem as a threat and wait a few more generations so the nonsense of the Cold War is a memory or a memory rather than recalled by those playing power games right now?

Of course this won't happen so either the Ukrainian government will ease off or Russia will wreck the Ukraine one way or another in order to prevent NATO expansion.

I think war is pretty much what the US government is looking for. Why? Who knows. Maybe it is not Russia looking to destabilase Europe?

Either way this is looking unlikely to blow over as I first thought unless the media reports are exaggerating the tone of what is going on.

I think war is pretty much what the US government is looking for. — I like sushi

Would do you think so?

Did the US put over 100 000 troops on a border of Ukraine?

Did the US annex territory of Ukraine?

Has the US expressed doubts of the sovereignty of Ukraine?

A bit illogical.

I'm not saying it is logical.

The way Biden has spoken sounds a lot like they are trying to provoke/encourage Putin into a war. The remarks made don't seem sensible to me and so I assume they are doing exactly what they want them to do. Why? no idea. Even the Ukrainian leader has asked them to tone it down.

Undoubtedly there is a lot going on we don't know about. I do know Putin has remained fairly consistent regarding his dislike of NATO expansion and has not exactly been undiplomatic in his tone by repeatedly pointing out that he has been concerned about the creep of US military forces ... apparently that was a condition the US has offered to them but I think it has come to the imminent threat of war for the US to even bother doing that ... so, yeah. It looks to me like they are asking for it.

As for annexing Crimea there was a whole lot of unhanded US and Russian business going on in the Ukraine at the time where both were actively in disagreement about the Ukraine's position as a kind of 'buffer state' between Russia and the West.

Anyway, we could argue and disagree forever. I'm not here to debate one way or the other as this is not a pleasant situation. I just tend to not to assume too much nor get drawn into one camp or another when it comes to these kinds of disputes.

Both the US and Russia have some serious hang ups over the results from WW2 and the people in the area are still very much in the grip of what has passed since then and will remain stuck in it for another century or so ... I just hope 'nationhood' ends for a positive reason rather than as a final hurrah.

Main point being I find this whole thing more and more disturbing by the second. I'm much more concerned here than with what happened with Yugoslavia at that time (and that was pretty nasty!).

This is f*cking crazy. It boils down to who has more projected power and a bigger phallus (to not use the more vulgar word).

And for what? I don't see how this doesn't escalate if they start shooting bullets.

I do know Putin has remained fairly consistent regarding his dislike of NATO expansion and has not exactly been undiplomatic in his tone — I like sushi

So are you saying that demanding that independent countries have no right to make decisions on their own security policy is diplomatic?

One can say those things without ranting as Putin does. But they are threats.

As for annexing Crimea there was a whole lot of unhanded US and Russian business going on in the Ukraine at the time where both were actively in disagreement about the Ukraine's position as a kind of 'buffer state' between Russia and the West. — I like sushi

And just why would there be a right for Russia for a 'buffer state'?

Is Canada a 'buffer state' of the US?

After the war of 1812, when the British kicked the asses of the young upstart US, the US hasn't had claims for Canadian territory or had ideas that Canada ought to be part of the US. If the US still had such aspirations, I can guarantee US-Canadian relations wouldn't be so warm and friendly. With Ukraine, the present Russian leadership has quite different and in fact hostile ideas, starting from the idea of them being the same people. (Putin won't have Russia to join Ukraine, you know...)

And seems one has to remind that a de facto state of war already exists between Ukraine and Russia. So it's ludicrous to assume that Russia wouldn't be here the aggressor, but it somehow is the US and NATO. The sad fact is that prior to all this, prior to the annexation of Crimea, Putin actually was very popular in Ukraine.

He isn't anymore.

I'm not here to debate one way or the other as this is not a pleasant situation. I just tend to not to assume too much nor get drawn into one camp or another when it comes to these kinds of disputes. — I like sushi

Main point being I find this whole thing more and more disturbing by the second. I'm much more concerned here than with what happened with Yugoslavia at that time (and that was pretty nasty!). — I like sushi

The way Biden has spoken sounds a lot like they are trying to provoke/encourage Putin into a war. — I like sushi

Of course. The US will strike first, deny it, and blame Russia.
For over 70 years, the West has worked hard to build up an image of Russia as The Bad Guy. They can't just let it go.

And just why would there be a right for Russia for a 'buffer state'? — ssu

Either this, or Russia has every right to put tanks on its borders with the Ukraine.

The US has always worked hard to make it clear that it considers Russia an enemy. Why should Russia not take this seriously?

The US _wants_ to be on enemy terms with Russia, it accepts no other way of relating to it.

Yeah, I also agree that I wish this thread would close sooner rather than later. We're going to be in suspense for some time though...

I don't like Putin. He's authoritarian, brutish, savage and all other insults which are appropriately thrown his way. That doesn't mean that I think the US Administration is much better - in fact, in regard to foreign policy, arguably worse, due to having much more capacity for the use of force.

This for me isn't a "I'm with X side", I understand others will feel differently. If I were Ukrainian I may very well have a different opinion, likewise if I were Russian, I would likely have a different perspective.

Using "realpolitik", I don't think any powerful state would want an enemy military force at its border - it doesn't make any sense. Like, the US would not like Mexico to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

I think it's sensible to demand that Ukraine not join NATO.

At the same time, I also think it makes sense for Ukraine to ask for help on its borders to Europe.

But now this has gotten too big, and we aren't speaking about rifles anymore.

I hope cool heads prevail. I just don't like such situations to arise with such frequency, as cool heads will eventually not prevail, and then we're all in serious trouble.

I think there's nobody here who is genuinely backing Putin, but many of course are very critical about US foreign policy and the West in general. — ssu

Russia's covert online ops teams are also active in propogating false narratives about Western democracies through social media, and amplifying memes like the likely imminent collapse of American democracy and 'America the real aggressor' and so on, which people echo.

Here's a (rather reassuring) analysis in today's NYT by journo with long experience in covering Putin.

For over 70 years, the West has worked hard to build up an image of Russia as The Bad Guy. They can't just let it go. — baker

And of course the US keeps an iron grip on Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, East Germany, Hungary, the Czech countries, the Yugoslav countries, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine - which am I missing? - because as we all know, the citizens of these countries yearn for repatriation with Russia, with all of the social, civil, and economic benefits they would gain thereby. Nor forgot the invasions of Finland, Poland, Hungary, and Czecho.

As to building up an image as a bad guy, the Russians nee Soviets did, have done, a more than adequate job all on their own.

As to building up an image as a bad guy, the Russians nee Soviets did, have done, a more than adequate job all on their own. — tim wood

Riiight, let's not take any responsibility for our ideas about others. It's not like this is a philosophy forum or anything like that.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2022/01/russia-invasion-imminent-threat-hysteria-panic-washington

In other words, we have Ukraine’s president, its foreign and defense ministers, and a top national security official all urging calm, while denying there’s sufficient evidence to expect a coming Russian invasion, contrary to the tidal wave of messaging from US officials and the press. Of course, you could dismiss this as a country’s leadership playing down a threat they know is real to prevent panic and disorder. But they’re not the only ones saying it.

Earlier this week, the Center for Defense Strategies — a think tank headed by a former Ukrainian defense minister and on whose board sit a variety of other defense and diplomatic officials from both Ukraine and the United States — published an analysis of the risks of a Russian invasion. Its conclusion? That “a full-scale invasion capturing most or all of Ukraine in the near future seems unlikely,” citing the insufficient number of Russian troops and a number of other indicators, including the lack of mobilization of medical infrastructure and strategic military units. (There have been some more troop movements since then).

European governments have said likewise. The EU’s top diplomat accused Washington and Westminster of “dramatizing” the situation, saying that the EU would not evacuate its embassy “because we do not know any specific reasons.” The Dutch embassy in Kyiv similarly told the Telegraph it saw “no reason” to do so, while a French official said they’d “observed the same movements” but “cannot deduce from all this that an offensive is imminent.” And just today, Germany’s spy chief also contradicted the Washington line, telling Reuters he “believes that the decision to attack has not yet been made.”

Remember, the US are warmongering murderers and nothing they say ought to be taken seriously.

With the black hole of Afghanistan no longer supplying the American arms industry, what better opportunity to make up for lost profits?

:sweat:

Finally, a post I agree with you with! It's been a while! :joke:

No, but seriously, it was even reported that the Ukrainian PM told Biden to tone down the rhetoric. I think Germany and France have to step it up big time and lower tensions.

If Europe merely goes along with US admirals, then it's hard to prevent a war.

I think this can only be stopped if they can find a solution in which each side saves face to the public.

Not making a "both sides are equally wrong" claim. Diplomatically, you need to give something to each side.

The amount of consent manufacturing over conflict with Russia is insane - and obvious to anyone who has seen this happen over and over with every country America has fucked up time and time again.

This article nicely documents much American fucks-ups in the area has directly engineered the so-called 'crisis' going on today. The ultimate bad actor in this whole situation is the US, and anyone who looks at Russia being an active 'bad guy' with Western powers merely 'reacting' to Russian agression has no fucking idea what they are talking about.

In Ukraine, the IMF had long planned to implement a series of economic reforms to make the country more attractive to investors. These included cutting wage controls (i.e., lowering wages), “reform[ing] and reduc[ing]” health and education sectors (which made up the bulk of employment in Ukraine), and cutting natural gas subsidies to Ukrainian citizens that made energy affordable to the general public. Coup plotters like US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland repeatedly stressed the need for the Ukrainian government to enact the “necessary” reforms.

In 2013, after early steps to integrate with the West, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych turned against these changes and ended trade integration talks with the European Union. Months before his overthrow, he restarted economic negotiations with Russia, in a major snub to the Western economic sphere. By then, the nationalist protests were heating up that would go on to topple his government.

After the 2014 coup, the new government quickly restarted the EU deal. After cutting heating subsidies in half, it secured a $27 billion commitment from the IMF. The IMF’s goals still include “reducing the role of the state and vested interests in the economy” in order to attract more foreign capital.

The IMF is one of the many global institutions whose role in maintaining global inequities often goes unreported and unnoticed by the general public. The US economic quest to open global markets to capital is a key driver of international affairs, but if the press chooses to ignore it, the public debate is incomplete and shallow.

This kind of history is totally absent from almost any mainstream discussion on this topic, the latter of which is slavishly regurgitated by people on this forum, among others.