Why is the U.S. sending troops to Europe at all? It’s been 70 years since the end of World War 2, 30 years since the end of the Cold War. Let the wealthy democracies of Europe fund their own collective defense. They can easily afford it. France and the UK have credible nuclear deterrents. Young Americans from poor rural towns who enlist just for healthcare have no business in Ukraine or Bulgaria. Send the young Germans; maybe they’ll stop looking down their noses at countries with functioning armies.
> Why is the U.S. sending troops to Europe at all?
Perhaps because in order to get Ukraine to give up the then third largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world the US in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in 1994 gave Ukraine security assurances against threats to its territorial integrity and political independence?
I assume I don't need to explain why the US wanted that stockpile to go away.
One might argue that now that Ukraine does not have that huge stockpile the US should just leave them to their fate. But the US still wants to convince various countries to get rid of their nukes or curtail their attempts to develop nukes, and letting Ukraine fall would not instill confidence that the US would hold up its end in any deal to make that happen.
Not the person who asked originally, but I'm curious, because I think what happened with Libya is a clear enough warning for countries not to abandon their nuclear programs in exchange for Western assurances. I'm curious if you agree in that respect.
Young Europeans died in the US war in Afghanistan. So far, the only country to ever invoke article 5 of the NATO treaty is the US - on September 12, 2001.
You’re assuming that I or most Americans agree that the war in Afghanistan was worthwhile. Probably true at first, certainly not true after the initial objective of getting Osama bin Laden was achieved.
In any case, no NATO country has been attacked or invoked Article 5, so your observation is irrelevant. Ukraine cannot invoke it because they aren’t a member of NATO. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia etc. haven’t invoked it because they haven’t been attacked or invaded, nor do I expect them to be.
In my view NATO should not have been expanded once the Cold War ended. The US should have reduced its financial commitments to the alliance when it became clear that rich countries like France and Germany were acting as free riders. These countries reap the benefits of American military spending while contributing less than their fair share, and criticizing America at the same time for the size of its military:
>To make the principle work, all countries are expected to chip in. NATO's official guidelines say member states should spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense.
Of the 28 countries in the alliance, only five -- the U.S., Greece, Poland, Estonia and the U.K. -- meet the target.
>The rest lag behind. Germany spent 1.19% of its GDP on defense last year, France forked out 1.78%.
>According to NATO statistics, the U.S. spent an estimated $650 billion on defense last year. That's more than double the amount all the other 27 NATO countries spent between them, even though their combined GDP tops that of the U.S.
Germans (or at least their politicians) would be happy to sell most of Eastern Europe to Russia one way or another. France doesn’t care that much. UK does, but their conventional military capacity is limited and them leaving the EU also complicated things (UK was the primary advocate of expanding EU into Eastern Europe.
> Young Americans from poor rural towns who enlist just for healthcare have no business in Ukraine or Bulgaria.
Exactly the point. USA had no business in Iraq too. But they got some sweet multi-billion dollar reconstruction contracts after sending troops. And the troops will be entitled to a life-time veteran discount in diners across the US! What's not to like?
Ukraine is not part of NATO amd no NATO country is under attack or has asked for assistance, quite the opposite actually. EU countries won't even be pulling their diplomats from Ukraine as talls continue.
Is there a credible threat of NATO members being attacked on their own soil? Does anyone believe that Russian troops will just march through Ukraine to attack Poland or Romania?
"Sold their soul" - have you seen European energy prices?
Up 300% in the last 2 months. We cannot afford a war, it'd make the COVID crisis seem trivial.
US interference (see the Burisma board, supporting gas tariffs and opposing Nord Stream 2) brings us to the brink of war - and, much like with the Middle Eastern refugees, Europe must pay the price for US imperialism yet again.
It's painful to read so many American comments treating it like a game, when they have nothing to lose - safe thousands of kilometres away, and won't be affected by the energy prices, etc. either.
Everyone should be better than falling for the cliche narratives like that. Politics is complicated, and everyone has their own definition of what a soul is.
Well, I really am not an expert in geopolitics, nor military strategies.
But here is why I think first US and then other Western EU countries are increasingly irritated by what is happening in Rusia near Ukraine borders:
1) First lets understand why EU does not have a proper army? Because a) EU started as an economic alliance and b) because countries in Europe did a lot of damage in the history by fighting each other. So after WW2, even if some countries have armies, in general US assumed the role and used (as entitled) as advantage the protector of Europe. US still has soldiers in Germany, Italy and UK. Please notice I wrote US and not NATO => thus EU cannot protect itself right now, cannot form a proper army so quick (in 1 year lets say) nor I am not sure we should want this. There is a reason why WW2 started in EU.
2) Second, lets understand why US is irritated by Russia's movements. Because allowing Russia to make a stand will just allow more daring moves in the future. This is the beginning of an escalation that we don't know where it will finish. Imagine just economically what does it mean for Europe to get into a recession because of this kind of treats in the future? US will not be shielded by this.
3) Third, if there is even a slight chance that a large scale war might happen then it is better to act quick early. I know that behind our computers we all think a war cannot happen. But it can and it will if we are not fighting against. War is irrational and can happen quickly, it is a devastating and irreversible event. It happened in the history multiple times. So I am all for a disproportionate response to anyone that flexes military muscles. These are muscles that should not be flexed.
France and the UK don't have an economic and political problem like the US has at the moment. Which is why they have no reason to "change the narrative" by distracting the public with useless wars.
There are zero US interests to protect in and around Ukraine, so all of this looks like unwarranted poking of a lion/shark/whatever.
1. Starting a war with Russia is not the goal here. Deterring Russia is the goal.
2. A war with Russia wouldn't be a proxy war and it wouldn't be anything like Afghanistan or Iraq. It could quickly become nuclear. It's not the same as America's wars in Afghanistan or Iraq.
3. You're implying that Russia is not a threat to Europe even if America stopped using its military to deter Russia from conquering Europe. I don't think that's correct. If Russia believed it could conquer parts of Europe tomorrow, they would probably try. They don't care about public opinion in western countries.
> There are zero US interests to protect in and around Ukraine, so all of this looks like unwarranted poking of a lion/shark/whatever.
Not everything is about self interest - free people have a moral obligation defend freedom. Inaction on Ukraine will be especially egregious after taking away Ukraine's nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees.
Tons of business/trade with Ukraine that will evaporate immediately. Trade promotes peace and unity. This alone is enough to raise this as a political issue in the US. The same thing with the other NATO countries right now.
The idea of countries going to war over rational self-interest or actual tangible threats is an outdated notion. We pick our enemies along ideological and secular-religionist lines, and the continued existence (and god forbid, even flourishing) of polities that conduct their way of life differently from our own cannot stand.
Neoliberalism/neoconservatism (n.b. they are effectively two sides of the same coin) is the world's most prominent religion, and the United States is its Holy See. Refusal to kiss the ring will be punished.
Of course, this is nothing new. Constantine put heretics to the sword, pagan temples were burned and desecrated all over Scandinavia, and the Crusades were definitely a thing.
Religion will always be a part of the human condition, and the nonbelievers will always be the enemy. Just don't make the mistake of assuming that religion requires a God or the supernatural. All you need is a non-falsifiable belief system of some form, whose tenets cannot be demonstrated with facts, and must instead be validated by violence and the threat thereof.
Russia, Iran, and Syria (previously Iraq, Lybia, and Yemen) reject the blank-slatism and other patently false doctrines of neoliberalism and neoconservatism. Their existence cannot be permitted, so we need to invent reasons to destroy them.
> Americans from poor rural towns who enlist just for healthcare
The rest of the point aside, you're trying to tug a heartstring based on a stereotype. This is much more condescending and out of touch than it is accurate with regard to the modern US Military.
You’re right, they also enlist for free college and the signing bonus.
My entire extended family has connections to the military. I grew up on Army bases. I know friends who enlisted and others who did ROTC. I nearly did Air Force ROTC myself for purely financial reasons (ended up going to a cheaper school, still paid for largely my father’s post-9/11 GI Bill benefits). I’m familiar with the subject matter. Access to Tricare and the VA hospital system is a big part of the military’s recruitment appeal.
Why should the USA send troops to Europe? I'll remind you that article 5 of NATO was only invoked once: when you called for help to invade one of the poorest nations on earth: Afghanistan. Could the wealthy American democracy not defend itself?
Why does/did US try to influence Nord Stream 2? Because that's what they always do. Pretend that they are friends doing things in others favour, but actually trying to affect things for their own interest, isn't it?
But to have an influence, you have to show sometimes that you care, event if you actually don't.
Nord Stream is one of few sanctions that could actually bite.
If one wants to hurt Russia then sanctions are better than war. And we are running out of sanctions.
It’s important to separate NATO, the US, the EU, the international community as a whole etc.
These are overlapping actors with different interests and politics. They do have one thing in common and that is they want to avoid armed conflict and don’t accept Russia redrawing borders.
your assessment would make sense if we had any reason that US is considering that for humanitarian or altruistic reasons. rest assured - the only reason ever for any country (especially US) sending troops anywhere is for own benefit.
Ukraine can’t afford anything you arrogant fool. It’s sandwiched between two superpowers who are both hostile. If the USA has set itself up as the world democracy squad in the last hundred years, it should honour that bloody title.
If the USA cared at all about "democracy" in Ukraine, it would at least try to clean up that toxic dump that is run by Kolomoyskii, Poroshenko, Akhmetov and the same greedy oligarchs and thieves for many decades now, no matter who the front clown is. But it seems like the local democracy is not really a concern as long as Ukraine can be used for other purposes.
I don’t see how not wanting my friends and family to die in someone else’s far-away ethnic conflict makes me an “arrogant fool.” Were you also a fan of the democracy squad’s 2003 Iraq invasion? South Vietnam couldn’t “afford anything” either, and Ukraine’s democracy is at least as corrupt:
As an outsider looking in I haven't really read anything that explains the gameplay here from Russia.
Annexing Crimea gives them a port that doesn't freeze in the winter other than Murmansk. But they could stop there and everybody in NATO would shrug their shoulders and they would keep Crimea. Why insist on further escalation?
In short, Russia has no intention to conquer Ukraine, but Russia has vital strategic interest there. With its actions it pursues to block eastwards expansion of NATO by wrecking the candidate states.
At the same time, NATO policy is quite contradictory: Ukraine is not a vital strategic interest for USA, and thus NATO was not ready to fight for it in Donbass. At the same time they are happy to offer Article 5, which will oblige them to engage in the future conflicts in this area.
Policy of open doors that NATO declares does not make much sense: by design it supposed to be a defensive alliance, not an empire, so why inviting countries which won’t really contribute to your security?
As an American living in Ukraine, I can say that that the guy in the video obviously don't know Ukraine he's talking about.
He starts off from NATO expansion and Russian position on that. But little did he know that before 2014 (Crimea and Easter Ukraine war), no one here seriously thought of NATO. Russia was the biggest economical partner. NATO was considered no-quite-friendly entity, composed of foreigners, why joining?
Everything turned upside down after 2014 -- Russia basically pushed Ukraine into NATO (although NATO made it clear they don't see Ukraine as their member as well, their idea is to increase members safety, not decrease it).
If Russia didn't annex Crimea, it would be simply impossible.
Also he is wrong on how Russia quickly moved to Crimea in 2014. He is unaware that preparation for annexation began in 2011 (working with local governments and municipalities), it wasn't quick, it was planned (very well planned to tell the truth), and everyone here knows that.
As a befuddled onlooker myself, I am surprised that the movements of the Russian military inside its territory must be interpreted by the outside world as an escalation. I understand the nervousness of Ukraine, but not of the US. If Russia invades, then by all means, the West can destroy it economically; but until it does, what is the point of all this saber-rattling?
Just as I don't understand the point of NATO's eastwards expansion, which, in turn, makes the Russians nervous. If the European countries are worried by the military buildup along Russia's western border, surely it must be easy to empathise with the Russian worry about Nato including more Eastern European countries and being able to deploy missiles there, which can be used both defensively and offensively and which puts Moscow within 5-minute reach, or something like that.
It's not simply "movement", it's amassing quite a sizeable portion of its armed forces near borders. No country interprets that other than an escalation if it comes from a hostile neighbour... Even between friendly countries it's a bit eyebrows raising behaviour.
> Just as I don't understand the point of NATO's eastwards expansion
Because these formerly Russian-occupied countries want to defend themselves from a future Russian occupation.
You can see many comments here questioning why the west should care about Ukraine given that it's not part of NATO. Well, that's why all those countries, and more now, want to be part of NATO.
> As a befuddled onlooker myself, I am surprised that the movements of the Russian military inside its territory must be interpreted by the outside world as an escalation. I understand the nervousness of Ukraine, but not of the US. If Russia invades, then by all means, the West can destroy it economically; but until it does, what is the point of all this saber-rattling?
To bring Russian military movements in spotlight. Otherwise they will manufacture some pretext (stage a provocation or just claim they are defending me (Russian-speaking person) from raging Ukrainian nazis) and will muddy the water with misinformation campaigns. German and French governments will happily accept Russian reasoning because they don't really care about Ukraine and just want their cheap gas to flow. Current media attention makes it much harder for European leaders to just hold some post factum Normandy-format-or-whatever "peace" talks (giving Russia more and more Ukrainian territory in the process) without some level of condemnation from their electorate.
> Just as I don't understand the point of NATO's eastwards expansion, which, in turn, makes the Russians nervous. If the European countries are worried by the military buildup along Russia's western border, surely it must be easy to empathise with the Russian worry about Nato including more Eastern European countries and being able to deploy missiles there, which can be used both defensively and offensively and which puts Moscow within 5-minute reach, or something like that.
This is the narrative that Russia is pushing, but it makes no sense if you think about it for a second. NATO could have accepted Ukraine long ago (they had 7 years to do that even after the last war), if it just wanted to deploy missiles here. It seems like NATO goal is to not accept Ukraine (and Georgia) for as long as possible without stating this straight up (in order not to discourage peoples of these countries from pro-Western course, I guess). In fact, joining NATO was very unpopular in Ukraine until Putin's actions changed that.
>As a befuddled onlooker myself, I am surprised that the movements of the Russian military inside its territory must be interpreted by the outside world as an escalation
Russia is most populous in the Western areas near Ukraine, so certain military activity in that region doesn't necessarily mean a plan for a full-scale invasion. It borders 14 countries, so there's always movement of the Russian military near someone's border.
NATO's eastward expansion makes Putin nervous, so it's understandable why he would want to strengthen the Western border.
> a port that doesn't freeze in the winter other than Murmansk
They have had ports that don't freeze: Novorossiysk and Vladivostok.
I grew up in Eastern Europe, and I see it as the ages-long Russian policy -- more territory = good. All the way from Mongols conquest, they kinda continue what Mongols did.
As a highly anti-Putin Russian, Putin's the game is very clear. He has fixed costs of having a standing army, which he pays for anyway. It is no difference for him whether they are placed in Murmansk or in Crimea, the costs are the same. However, the benefits for him are different: it turns out that when these troops are stationed near the Ukraine border, the West loses their nerve and concedes to almost anything Putin wants.
Imagine a thug standing nearby, playing with his brass knuckles menacingly. A skinny college boy gets really nervous and tries his best not to provoke the thug.
Seeing the Russia situation from inside, I don't see how this new war is in Putin's interests. However, the West is unable to read this game and Putin plays the incapable leaders of the Europe and the US really well.
* Fulfils his old goal of expanding Russia to old soviet borders (see Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea etc).
* Distracts from internal problems with an external enemy (a tried and true tactic of dictators)
* Provides a buffer from Nato and Europe (long a preoccupation)
The bet here is that the West will do nothing if he takes Ukraine. Given the current messaging from the US and Germany (Embassy evacuations, disposition of fleet, Biden slipup Fri, 5000 troops), he's probably right.
You don't move this many troops and ships etc as a feint (nor would you need to), the die is already cast, and the only uncertainty is what the West will do about it IMO - at present it looks like not much, as they didn't do much about Crimea.
Worst case for Putin is a long war which bleeds the country of money and resources, so he'll want it over quickly and a puppet ruler installed, at which point he can withdraw and plan to slowly absorb the Ukraine or leave it as a satellite state like Belarus.
> It is no difference for him whether they are placed in Murmansk or in Crimea, the costs are the same
This makes no sense. Of course it costs money to move troops, resources, and cargo thousands of kilometers.
> I don't see how this new war is in Putin's interests
Besides the obvious goal of combating NATO expansion and taking control of the Black Sea, isn't Ukraine also sort of a threat to Russia? You've got a country with soldiers less than 800km from Moscow that is cozying up to the West and developing ICBM technology. From a military strategy perspective it makes sense to turn it back into a buffer zone.
I don't see how this new war is in Putin's interests.
Clearly it won't be in his interest. But if the West does not provide him with some major concessions -- will he do it anyway? To protect his image, or whatever?
Ukraine is in Russia's sphere of influence and allowing the EU/US to change that means the boundary encroaches closer creating great risk for the sphere.
The edge of Romania/Moldova are where the great plains start. Meaning if you get natural trade routes from that region on its a very easy march to Moscow.
Second, it is a test of the US to put up resources. It is a challenging time for the US to do so, so it just makes it expensive not to do so. I.e if the US does not and Russia invades it makes the US look very weak and it can seize on that. It is a very standard/typical balance of power move.
Thirdly, covid has been bad in Russia so projecting power looks very strong to maintain leadership. In Russia's history this is just a very common thing to do to maintain power in government.
In all it is a very optimal play for Russia to do. Any leader other than Putin wearing the 'Bear suit' would basically do the same.
The black sea is pretty much useless as a warm water port. The Bosporus limits the number of military ships that can pass through it by treaty and unless you conquer Istanbul there's nothing you can do about it.
Crimea was 90% ethnic Russian as were the majority of areas occupied by rebels. This is an ethnic conflict that started when the majority Ukrainian areas decided that they could rule the country without the majority Russian areas.
I imagine what we will see is North Ukraine being left as a majority Ukrainian speaking country and South Ukraine a majority Russian speaking country. Ironically enough North Ukraine then becomes small enough to join the EU.
I have read many not completely satisfactory "explanations," most of which are repeated in other comments. Those may be part of the story. The most convincing story that I have seen is as follows:
Ukraine is very similar culturally to Russia. Putin cannot afford to have a successful democratic Ukraine on his borders as an example to Russian citizens. They might decide that Putin's way of governing is not actually the best for the Russian people. So, he does everything he can do to undermine a democratic Ukraine. If a western style democracy fails in the Ukraine, well, clearly it is not suitable for Russia either. Ideally, he would like Ukraine within Russia's sphere of influence as Belarus is, but I am not sure that is vital.
This is actually fairly consistent with how the Soviet Union behaved in Eastern Europe. Romania and Yugoslavia moved away from the Soviet Union, but they were dictatorships, so they were left alone. Anytime there was even a glimmer of democracy, however, the tanks were sent in.
There isn't one simple answer here. This is partially about shoring up Russian reputation. Partially about Putin distracting people from a Russian economy that has suffered under covid right after the state reformed the pension system. Partially about lashing back at what's perceived as Nato expansionism. Partially exploiting a time when Americans are most war weary due to the Afghanistan pullout. The rest of Nato is busy with wrecked balance sheets and other issues like global warming. Nobody is itching for a fight right now so it's a good time to press.
And, lastly, probably good old fashion Russian incremental expansionism.
There is basically no escalation from Russia. The troop deployment on the Ukraine border mirrors a similar deployment in April last year[1].
It is just convenient (Biden's domestic issues/Nordstream 2/other unknown reasons) to claim imminent invasion and the media is incentivised to fuel that narrative since it seems to have captured the attention of the populace at large (perhaps based on the Russophobia that is prevalent in mainstream media).
There is a sizeable escalation. You didn't count unprecedented deployment in Belarus as well (Russia's marionette right now), and all the diplomatic ultimatums.
Yes, there were deployments previously, but never this size.
There are millions of Russians in Ukraine. They don't want closer relations with the eu at the expense of losing relations with Russia.
Russia imported a shit tonne of food from the Ukraine until this all started. Russia doesn't want to lose that supply permanently.
The current partition isn't the best from a strategic/defense position or from a political/objectives one. So it makes sense to correct that before making it permanent.
Negotiations for a peaceful settlement have failed or are stuck.
Now (roughly) is the peak demand for Russian gas in Europe so it's now or wait another 12months.
And that's without considering domestic political reasons for conflict...
"But they could stop there and everybody in NATO would shrug their shoulders and they would keep Crimea. Why insist on further escalation?"
They say, they stopped there - and that they will not tolerate a military occupation of the autonomous eastern ukraine provinces. Not that they want to occupy whole ukraine.
So I do not see them insist on further escalation. But the west has said - it will not accept the crimea annexion. So this conflict will remain unsolved, if no side will move.
This might be tin-foil-hatty, but the U.S. leaves Afghanistan and not long after this is happening. Really feels like its war machine needs to be busy.
In a similar vein - US military and industrial complex is without a war, and suddenly, out of the blue, a tiny European country that previously hosted US military bases and secret prisons - decides to irritate the main US geopolitical rival on the other side of the world, for no reason whatsoever, despite sharp majority public disapproval of these actions (Lithuania - China diplomatic spat)
It's shocking how the whole propaganda machine completely avoids Ukraine's conduct in ramping up the tensions:
* reneged on their ceasefire treaty pledge to provide reasonable minority rights to ethnic Russians in Ukraine (17% of the population)
* banned ethnic Russians from holding positions of power
* banned several opposition TV channels
* previous prime minister (democratically elected, ethnic Ukrainian) on trial for treason
* another diplomat, who tried good-faith negotiations with Russia - on trial for treason
* in a minor bureaucratic dispute with Poland about trucking quotas, Ukraine, in all their wisdom, decided to cut ALL RAIL to Poland
* all done by a prime minister with approval rating of below 20%
There are no good guys in this fight. It's either Russia's paranoia driven territory carving, or Ukraine's extreme levels of corruption and toxic nationalism
This is so laughable for anyone from Ukraine. President of Ukraine is a Russian-speaking Jew. There is no checking whether you are Ukrainian or Russian in Ukraine, most of the people are from mixed marriages between Ukrainian, Polish, Russian and so on. There are plenty of russian-speaking people, who are from east and south of the country in both parliament and Cabinet of Ministers.
Previous president is on trial for treason - why it’s a bad thing in itself? The guy was a war hawk, actually. It’s actually president, not prime minister, you don’t even understand how government work in Ukraine
There were no points about “minority rights” in ceasefire agreement.
Are you just some British dude, who likes Russia Today?
Or Polish, due to the very niche story about transit?
You are arguing that war in Ukraine is fine, because Ukrainians are bad people, amazing. Really hope to meet you someday.
This is so laughable for anyone from Ukraine. President of Ukraine is a Russian-speaking Jew. There is no checking whether you are Ukrainian or Russian in Ukraine, most of the people are from mixed marriages between Ukrainian, Polish, Russian and so on. There are plenty of russian-speaking people, who are from east and south of the country in both parliament and Cabinet of Ministers.
Previous president is on trial for treason - why it’s a bad thing in itself? The guy was a war hawk, actually. It’s actually president, not prime minister, you don’t even understand how government work in Ukraine
There were no points about “minority rights” in ceasefire agreement.
Are you just some British dude, who likes Russia Today?
Or Polish, due to the very niche story about transit?
You are arguing that war in Ukraine is fine, because Ukrainians are bad people, amazing. Really hope to meet you someday.
Why are you the only person to bring this up... Nobody seems to notice that these troop numbers have been almost identical (until yesterday) since April. There's some serious propaganda (by omission) going on here.
The 5k troop movement is suspicious when it happens right after Russia shifts 200k+ troops to create the threat the 5k troops were a response to? Whether or not the US “wants” to be busy seems irrelevant given the timeline.
Exactly. Invading Ukraine would be political and economical suicide for Putin and Russia. Yet here we are getting bombarded in the media with the supposed threat of an imminent russian invasion. The chief of the german navy criticises this narrative and is forced to apologize and resign. I don't know but this all feels very dishonest.
How would that be political suicide? It's an dictatorship, there is no working opposition, no antiwar movement, anyone can be shut down very quickly.
It's only economical suicide if the West makes it so, which it most probably would not - and then there is the question if that would be enough. What if China is able to provide whatever the West would not. Moreover, Russia has close to no debt and high currency reseerves. It is true that it mostly sells oil, gas and minerals, but there are enough buyers for that.
In short, maybe their calclulus is very different to ours.
> the supposed threat of an imminent russian invasion.
If Russia amasses several hundred thousand troops on Ukraines doorstep that’s not a supposed threat, it’s a threat since it’s perceived as a threat. Pointing a gun at someone is a threat. It’s not a supposed threat.
Also: The Russian invasion and occupation started 8 years ago!
It's worrying when an unpopular president starts banging the war drums. I always have this fear that there is immense incentive to create conflict since wartime presidents are always reelected in the US.
We sent warships to practice military war games right off Russia's coast in the black sea. We instructed embassy family in Ukraine to head back to the state to prep for a Russian invasion. How many times has Biden either directly attacked Putin by calling him a killer or saying the US will defend Ukraine if Russia invades?
The U.S. has many allies and we don't wake up to a president calling enemy territory leaders killers and reaffirming we're game to go to war every few weeks for any other territory. This is a very obvious political move that I hope doesn't escalate, but Biden appears to be doing plenty to provoke conflict.
The USA should arm Ukrainian citizens to the teeth ASAP and keep US forces out of Ukraine (i.e., avoid any NATO "solution" to Russian aggression). Let the Ukrainians do the training and organizing - any war should be a guerrilla war.
If every Ukrainian citizen (primarily talking about western Ukraine) had a rifle/shotgun and 5 grenades, the likely success of Russian forces in any incursion (short of a nuclear attack, which I presume absurd) would be nil. It might even increase self- and other-respect among the Ukrainian!8-))
They (the US and UK, mostly) did the actually working version of that: they provided the Ukrainian military with several hundred Javelins, Stingers and NLAW.
The Ukrainian army can’t defend any part of the country against mass invasion but it can at least make the cost of fighting in cities be extremely unappetizing to Russia due to the large cost in both casualties and equipment it would be.
No, no, no. What I meant was arm the Ukraines with rifles/shotguns and grenades. That's all. Set up for guerrilla warfare. Make it easy to participate.
Fighting with Javelins, Stingers and NLAWs is a wholly foolish endeavor, very costly for equipment and training. Time is too short also. And I'm talking about arming the citizenry, not the Ukrainian army.
OTOH if most Ukrainian citizens were well-armed it would be very difficult for anyone to occupy the country.
> If every Ukrainian citizen (primarily talking about western Ukraine) had a rifle/shotgun and 5 grenades, the likely success of Russian forces in any incursion (short of a nuclear attack, which I presume absurd)
It is not absurd because thermonuclear weapons would provide the highest propability of victory.
You think the Russians nuking Ukraine would give them a "win" of some sorts?
That's not even the equivalent of an angry child shutting down a ball game and taking the ball home. Instead it's the equivalent of blowing up everyone in the game to achieve, what, victory?!
That's a completely different discussion, but before branching into that, I would seriously question your sanity.
The Russians are only allowed to respond (by their government) when their boys come home in body bags. Until then, all wars are "glorious" wars.
If it is apparent that occupying a region will involve hand-to-hand combat (instead of massed artillery/air/rocket attacks) then the Russian soldiers and officers will refrain.
We (Ukraine) is not your backyard and would appreciate if you man the fuck up and help or at least stop bitching (you are rich enough to survive more expensive gas). Thanks!
The Ukrainian government has a... fascinating origin story.
Ever hear people say "oh politicians are just actors reading lines"?
Well, the President of Ukraine is an actual actual comedian and actor. His last acting job was the lead in a series that ran from 2015 to 2019, when he was elected president. The role?
An ordinary guy rants online about government corruption, goes viral, and is elected President of Ukraine.
That is not a mistake. The actual President of Ukraine was elected months after staring in a series as the President of Ukraine!
https://m.imdb.com/name/nm3305952
And that's not even the end of the craziness. To win the election, Zelensky had to beat Yulia Tymoshenko. At the last minute, another candidate entered the race, incidentally also called Y. Tymoshenko. So there where 2 Y Tymoshenkos on the ballot, causing confusion and splitting her vote. Leading to a comedian winning the race for president. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yulia_Tymoshenko#2019_presiden...
After being elected, Zelensky said
"Don't worry. We will not have nepotism. "
During the first year of Zelensky's presidency, more than 30 people who previously worked for, or with Kvartal 95 or its subsidiaries, received government positions.
Some highlights from the current roster..
Serhiy Trofimov - First Deputy Head of the Administration (Head of the Office) of the President of Ukraine , formerly - Executive Producer of the Quarter 95 Studio;
Yuriy Kostyuk - Deputy Head of the Administration (Head of the Office) of the President of Ukraine , screenwriter and author of the Studio "Quarter 95", creative producer of the series "Servant of the People"
Serhiy Shefir - First Aide to President Zelensky, formerly Screenwriter, Producer and Director of Kvartal 95 Studio;
It gets better....
Iryna Pobedonostseva - Director General of the Directorate for Information Policy of the Office of the President of Ukraine [30] , formerly (according to media reports) - Director of Development of the Studio "Quarter 95";
And my favourite...
Ivan Bakanov - Head of the Security Service of Ukraine , formerly a lawyer and head of the Studio "Quarter 95";
So, the government of Ukraine is made up of actors, screenwriters, and producers, who's work resembled a post-modern Ukrainian Monty Python. It is like John Cleese started the Monty Python party and got elected.
Thanks, I missremembered that aspect of the story. That is interesting, it means he was actually elected organically. What does that say about Ukrainian politics? What does it mean to elect a comedian as your president?
Russia took Crimea in 2014, Russia controls much of Donetsk, Luhansk in the east and 14,000 Ukrainians have died so far. I get a kick out of people who say Russia won't invade. They did!
Putin is like Xi they consider Russians and Chinese to be theirs no matter where they live. War, genocide, the constant harassment will never end until these two are gone.
Readit News
Perhaps because in order to get Ukraine to give up the then third largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world the US in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in 1994 gave Ukraine security assurances against threats to its territorial integrity and political independence?
I assume I don't need to explain why the US wanted that stockpile to go away.
One might argue that now that Ukraine does not have that huge stockpile the US should just leave them to their fate. But the US still wants to convince various countries to get rid of their nukes or curtail their attempts to develop nukes, and letting Ukraine fall would not instill confidence that the US would hold up its end in any deal to make that happen.
Adjusted for size of population, as many Danes as Americans died in Afghanistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghan...
So, Europeans should come when the US calls, but not the other way around?
In any case, no NATO country has been attacked or invoked Article 5, so your observation is irrelevant. Ukraine cannot invoke it because they aren’t a member of NATO. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia etc. haven’t invoked it because they haven’t been attacked or invaded, nor do I expect them to be.
In my view NATO should not have been expanded once the Cold War ended. The US should have reduced its financial commitments to the alliance when it became clear that rich countries like France and Germany were acting as free riders. These countries reap the benefits of American military spending while contributing less than their fair share, and criticizing America at the same time for the size of its military:
https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-c...
>To make the principle work, all countries are expected to chip in. NATO's official guidelines say member states should spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense. Of the 28 countries in the alliance, only five -- the U.S., Greece, Poland, Estonia and the U.K. -- meet the target.
>The rest lag behind. Germany spent 1.19% of its GDP on defense last year, France forked out 1.78%.
>According to NATO statistics, the U.S. spent an estimated $650 billion on defense last year. That's more than double the amount all the other 27 NATO countries spent between them, even though their combined GDP tops that of the U.S.
Exactly the point. USA had no business in Iraq too. But they got some sweet multi-billion dollar reconstruction contracts after sending troops. And the troops will be entitled to a life-time veteran discount in diners across the US! What's not to like?
Possibly because of a certain Atlantic defense treaty.
Nato cannot rely on these countries against Russian threat.
Up 300% in the last 2 months. We cannot afford a war, it'd make the COVID crisis seem trivial.
US interference (see the Burisma board, supporting gas tariffs and opposing Nord Stream 2) brings us to the brink of war - and, much like with the Middle Eastern refugees, Europe must pay the price for US imperialism yet again.
It's painful to read so many American comments treating it like a game, when they have nothing to lose - safe thousands of kilometres away, and won't be affected by the energy prices, etc. either.
> Nato cannot rely on these countries against Russian threat.
I think that's a big stretch.
Everyone should be better than falling for the cliche narratives like that. Politics is complicated, and everyone has their own definition of what a soul is.
But here is why I think first US and then other Western EU countries are increasingly irritated by what is happening in Rusia near Ukraine borders:
1) First lets understand why EU does not have a proper army? Because a) EU started as an economic alliance and b) because countries in Europe did a lot of damage in the history by fighting each other. So after WW2, even if some countries have armies, in general US assumed the role and used (as entitled) as advantage the protector of Europe. US still has soldiers in Germany, Italy and UK. Please notice I wrote US and not NATO => thus EU cannot protect itself right now, cannot form a proper army so quick (in 1 year lets say) nor I am not sure we should want this. There is a reason why WW2 started in EU.
2) Second, lets understand why US is irritated by Russia's movements. Because allowing Russia to make a stand will just allow more daring moves in the future. This is the beginning of an escalation that we don't know where it will finish. Imagine just economically what does it mean for Europe to get into a recession because of this kind of treats in the future? US will not be shielded by this.
3) Third, if there is even a slight chance that a large scale war might happen then it is better to act quick early. I know that behind our computers we all think a war cannot happen. But it can and it will if we are not fighting against. War is irrational and can happen quickly, it is a devastating and irreversible event. It happened in the history multiple times. So I am all for a disproportionate response to anyone that flexes military muscles. These are muscles that should not be flexed.
There are zero US interests to protect in and around Ukraine, so all of this looks like unwarranted poking of a lion/shark/whatever.
2. A war with Russia wouldn't be a proxy war and it wouldn't be anything like Afghanistan or Iraq. It could quickly become nuclear. It's not the same as America's wars in Afghanistan or Iraq.
3. You're implying that Russia is not a threat to Europe even if America stopped using its military to deter Russia from conquering Europe. I don't think that's correct. If Russia believed it could conquer parts of Europe tomorrow, they would probably try. They don't care about public opinion in western countries.
Not everything is about self interest - free people have a moral obligation defend freedom. Inaction on Ukraine will be especially egregious after taking away Ukraine's nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees.
Because of a thing called NATO, look it up
> Let the wealthy democracies of Europe fund their own collective defense.
They do and they're free to associate with defensive purposes, as opposed to what Russia wants them to think.
> Young Americans from poor rural towns who enlist just for healthcare have no business in Ukraine or Bulgaria.
And Young Russians that joined the army have no business invading Ukraine
That doesn't explain it. Is any of the NATO countries under threat?
To be fair, Ukraine is not a part of NATO, nor are the many Eastern European countries, and further east, Turkey is on the edge of leaving.
This region is like a 7-D chess game.
Deleted Comment
Neoliberalism/neoconservatism (n.b. they are effectively two sides of the same coin) is the world's most prominent religion, and the United States is its Holy See. Refusal to kiss the ring will be punished.
Of course, this is nothing new. Constantine put heretics to the sword, pagan temples were burned and desecrated all over Scandinavia, and the Crusades were definitely a thing.
Religion will always be a part of the human condition, and the nonbelievers will always be the enemy. Just don't make the mistake of assuming that religion requires a God or the supernatural. All you need is a non-falsifiable belief system of some form, whose tenets cannot be demonstrated with facts, and must instead be validated by violence and the threat thereof.
Russia, Iran, and Syria (previously Iraq, Lybia, and Yemen) reject the blank-slatism and other patently false doctrines of neoliberalism and neoconservatism. Their existence cannot be permitted, so we need to invent reasons to destroy them.
Such as it is, such as it has always been.
The rest of the point aside, you're trying to tug a heartstring based on a stereotype. This is much more condescending and out of touch than it is accurate with regard to the modern US Military.
My entire extended family has connections to the military. I grew up on Army bases. I know friends who enlisted and others who did ROTC. I nearly did Air Force ROTC myself for purely financial reasons (ended up going to a cheaper school, still paid for largely my father’s post-9/11 GI Bill benefits). I’m familiar with the subject matter. Access to Tricare and the VA hospital system is a big part of the military’s recruitment appeal.
Norway did actually achieve one of their goals in Afghanistan:
> ...the domestic goal of the mission, to prove Norway a trustworthy US and NATO ally, was fully achieved.
Sure, we can question the wisdom of going into Afghanistan. But that was kind of irrelevant to Norway given their domestic goal.
In any case, it seems pretty clear these troops would (if mobilized) be stationed in NATO countries -- not Ukraine!
Also note that many NATO besides the US has troops rotating through NATOs eastern members States.
If one wants to hurt Russia then sanctions are better than war. And we are running out of sanctions.
It’s important to separate NATO, the US, the EU, the international community as a whole etc. These are overlapping actors with different interests and politics. They do have one thing in common and that is they want to avoid armed conflict and don’t accept Russia redrawing borders.
Of course it's unfortunate even a single American has to be here.
Lack of faith in article 5 would hurt American influence and interest across the globe.
Yes, the US stands to benefit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Ukraine
And I suppose you promise not to call them Nazis if they do?
Dead Comment
Annexing Crimea gives them a port that doesn't freeze in the winter other than Murmansk. But they could stop there and everybody in NATO would shrug their shoulders and they would keep Crimea. Why insist on further escalation?
In short, Russia has no intention to conquer Ukraine, but Russia has vital strategic interest there. With its actions it pursues to block eastwards expansion of NATO by wrecking the candidate states.
At the same time, NATO policy is quite contradictory: Ukraine is not a vital strategic interest for USA, and thus NATO was not ready to fight for it in Donbass. At the same time they are happy to offer Article 5, which will oblige them to engage in the future conflicts in this area.
Policy of open doors that NATO declares does not make much sense: by design it supposed to be a defensive alliance, not an empire, so why inviting countries which won’t really contribute to your security?
As an American living in Ukraine, I can say that that the guy in the video obviously don't know Ukraine he's talking about.
He starts off from NATO expansion and Russian position on that. But little did he know that before 2014 (Crimea and Easter Ukraine war), no one here seriously thought of NATO. Russia was the biggest economical partner. NATO was considered no-quite-friendly entity, composed of foreigners, why joining?
Everything turned upside down after 2014 -- Russia basically pushed Ukraine into NATO (although NATO made it clear they don't see Ukraine as their member as well, their idea is to increase members safety, not decrease it). If Russia didn't annex Crimea, it would be simply impossible.
Also he is wrong on how Russia quickly moved to Crimea in 2014. He is unaware that preparation for annexation began in 2011 (working with local governments and municipalities), it wasn't quick, it was planned (very well planned to tell the truth), and everyone here knows that.
Russia has no strategic interests
But Russia has a president who is:
- a matric fail
- who spend most of his youth in mafia, running drugs, and stealing humanitarian aid
- who conducts himself accordingly to what you expect from those kind of people
As a befuddled onlooker myself, I am surprised that the movements of the Russian military inside its territory must be interpreted by the outside world as an escalation. I understand the nervousness of Ukraine, but not of the US. If Russia invades, then by all means, the West can destroy it economically; but until it does, what is the point of all this saber-rattling?
Just as I don't understand the point of NATO's eastwards expansion, which, in turn, makes the Russians nervous. If the European countries are worried by the military buildup along Russia's western border, surely it must be easy to empathise with the Russian worry about Nato including more Eastern European countries and being able to deploy missiles there, which can be used both defensively and offensively and which puts Moscow within 5-minute reach, or something like that.
Because these formerly Russian-occupied countries want to defend themselves from a future Russian occupation.
You can see many comments here questioning why the west should care about Ukraine given that it's not part of NATO. Well, that's why all those countries, and more now, want to be part of NATO.
To bring Russian military movements in spotlight. Otherwise they will manufacture some pretext (stage a provocation or just claim they are defending me (Russian-speaking person) from raging Ukrainian nazis) and will muddy the water with misinformation campaigns. German and French governments will happily accept Russian reasoning because they don't really care about Ukraine and just want their cheap gas to flow. Current media attention makes it much harder for European leaders to just hold some post factum Normandy-format-or-whatever "peace" talks (giving Russia more and more Ukrainian territory in the process) without some level of condemnation from their electorate.
> Just as I don't understand the point of NATO's eastwards expansion, which, in turn, makes the Russians nervous. If the European countries are worried by the military buildup along Russia's western border, surely it must be easy to empathise with the Russian worry about Nato including more Eastern European countries and being able to deploy missiles there, which can be used both defensively and offensively and which puts Moscow within 5-minute reach, or something like that.
This is the narrative that Russia is pushing, but it makes no sense if you think about it for a second. NATO could have accepted Ukraine long ago (they had 7 years to do that even after the last war), if it just wanted to deploy missiles here. It seems like NATO goal is to not accept Ukraine (and Georgia) for as long as possible without stating this straight up (in order not to discourage peoples of these countries from pro-Western course, I guess). In fact, joining NATO was very unpopular in Ukraine until Putin's actions changed that.
Russia is most populous in the Western areas near Ukraine, so certain military activity in that region doesn't necessarily mean a plan for a full-scale invasion. It borders 14 countries, so there's always movement of the Russian military near someone's border.
NATO's eastward expansion makes Putin nervous, so it's understandable why he would want to strengthen the Western border.
They have had ports that don't freeze: Novorossiysk and Vladivostok.
I grew up in Eastern Europe, and I see it as the ages-long Russian policy -- more territory = good. All the way from Mongols conquest, they kinda continue what Mongols did.
Imagine a thug standing nearby, playing with his brass knuckles menacingly. A skinny college boy gets really nervous and tries his best not to provoke the thug.
Seeing the Russia situation from inside, I don't see how this new war is in Putin's interests. However, the West is unable to read this game and Putin plays the incapable leaders of the Europe and the US really well.
* Fulfils his old goal of expanding Russia to old soviet borders (see Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea etc).
* Distracts from internal problems with an external enemy (a tried and true tactic of dictators)
* Provides a buffer from Nato and Europe (long a preoccupation)
The bet here is that the West will do nothing if he takes Ukraine. Given the current messaging from the US and Germany (Embassy evacuations, disposition of fleet, Biden slipup Fri, 5000 troops), he's probably right.
You don't move this many troops and ships etc as a feint (nor would you need to), the die is already cast, and the only uncertainty is what the West will do about it IMO - at present it looks like not much, as they didn't do much about Crimea.
Worst case for Putin is a long war which bleeds the country of money and resources, so he'll want it over quickly and a puppet ruler installed, at which point he can withdraw and plan to slowly absorb the Ukraine or leave it as a satellite state like Belarus.
On the one hand, they claim any talk about an invasion is absurd hyperbole, on the other hand they demand security guarantees or else.
Or else what? Like, if an invasion won't happen under any circumstances, then what exactly are they threatening to do if the demands are not met?
This makes no sense. Of course it costs money to move troops, resources, and cargo thousands of kilometers.
> I don't see how this new war is in Putin's interests
Besides the obvious goal of combating NATO expansion and taking control of the Black Sea, isn't Ukraine also sort of a threat to Russia? You've got a country with soldiers less than 800km from Moscow that is cozying up to the West and developing ICBM technology. From a military strategy perspective it makes sense to turn it back into a buffer zone.
Clearly it won't be in his interest. But if the West does not provide him with some major concessions -- will he do it anyway? To protect his image, or whatever?
That seems to be the key question here.
Last time (Crimea 2014) it greatly improved Putin political position within Russia.
The edge of Romania/Moldova are where the great plains start. Meaning if you get natural trade routes from that region on its a very easy march to Moscow.
Second, it is a test of the US to put up resources. It is a challenging time for the US to do so, so it just makes it expensive not to do so. I.e if the US does not and Russia invades it makes the US look very weak and it can seize on that. It is a very standard/typical balance of power move.
Thirdly, covid has been bad in Russia so projecting power looks very strong to maintain leadership. In Russia's history this is just a very common thing to do to maintain power in government.
In all it is a very optimal play for Russia to do. Any leader other than Putin wearing the 'Bear suit' would basically do the same.
Deleted Comment
Crimea was 90% ethnic Russian as were the majority of areas occupied by rebels. This is an ethnic conflict that started when the majority Ukrainian areas decided that they could rule the country without the majority Russian areas.
I imagine what we will see is North Ukraine being left as a majority Ukrainian speaking country and South Ukraine a majority Russian speaking country. Ironically enough North Ukraine then becomes small enough to join the EU.
I have a couple of questions for someone not that familiar with Ukrainian history:
- Was the south ukrainian population relocated there as a soviet 'settlement' or were they always historically there?
- Is there any political acceptance among north ukrainians to cut their loses and lose territory in order to be able to join NATO/EU?
Ukraine is very similar culturally to Russia. Putin cannot afford to have a successful democratic Ukraine on his borders as an example to Russian citizens. They might decide that Putin's way of governing is not actually the best for the Russian people. So, he does everything he can do to undermine a democratic Ukraine. If a western style democracy fails in the Ukraine, well, clearly it is not suitable for Russia either. Ideally, he would like Ukraine within Russia's sphere of influence as Belarus is, but I am not sure that is vital.
This is actually fairly consistent with how the Soviet Union behaved in Eastern Europe. Romania and Yugoslavia moved away from the Soviet Union, but they were dictatorships, so they were left alone. Anytime there was even a glimmer of democracy, however, the tanks were sent in.
And, lastly, probably good old fashion Russian incremental expansionism.
It is just convenient (Biden's domestic issues/Nordstream 2/other unknown reasons) to claim imminent invasion and the media is incentivised to fuel that narrative since it seems to have captured the attention of the populace at large (perhaps based on the Russophobia that is prevalent in mainstream media).
1. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11651
Yes, there were deployments previously, but never this size.
Russia imported a shit tonne of food from the Ukraine until this all started. Russia doesn't want to lose that supply permanently.
The current partition isn't the best from a strategic/defense position or from a political/objectives one. So it makes sense to correct that before making it permanent.
Negotiations for a peaceful settlement have failed or are stuck.
Now (roughly) is the peak demand for Russian gas in Europe so it's now or wait another 12months.
And that's without considering domestic political reasons for conflict...
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
They say, they stopped there - and that they will not tolerate a military occupation of the autonomous eastern ukraine provinces. Not that they want to occupy whole ukraine.
So I do not see them insist on further escalation. But the west has said - it will not accept the crimea annexion. So this conflict will remain unsolved, if no side will move.
It's shocking how the whole propaganda machine completely avoids Ukraine's conduct in ramping up the tensions:
* reneged on their ceasefire treaty pledge to provide reasonable minority rights to ethnic Russians in Ukraine (17% of the population)
* banned ethnic Russians from holding positions of power
* banned several opposition TV channels
* previous prime minister (democratically elected, ethnic Ukrainian) on trial for treason
* another diplomat, who tried good-faith negotiations with Russia - on trial for treason
* in a minor bureaucratic dispute with Poland about trucking quotas, Ukraine, in all their wisdom, decided to cut ALL RAIL to Poland
* all done by a prime minister with approval rating of below 20%
There are no good guys in this fight. It's either Russia's paranoia driven territory carving, or Ukraine's extreme levels of corruption and toxic nationalism
This is so laughable for anyone from Ukraine. President of Ukraine is a Russian-speaking Jew. There is no checking whether you are Ukrainian or Russian in Ukraine, most of the people are from mixed marriages between Ukrainian, Polish, Russian and so on. There are plenty of russian-speaking people, who are from east and south of the country in both parliament and Cabinet of Ministers.
Previous president is on trial for treason - why it’s a bad thing in itself? The guy was a war hawk, actually. It’s actually president, not prime minister, you don’t even understand how government work in Ukraine
There were no points about “minority rights” in ceasefire agreement.
Are you just some British dude, who likes Russia Today? Or Polish, due to the very niche story about transit?
You are arguing that war in Ukraine is fine, because Ukrainians are bad people, amazing. Really hope to meet you someday.
This is so laughable for anyone from Ukraine. President of Ukraine is a Russian-speaking Jew. There is no checking whether you are Ukrainian or Russian in Ukraine, most of the people are from mixed marriages between Ukrainian, Polish, Russian and so on. There are plenty of russian-speaking people, who are from east and south of the country in both parliament and Cabinet of Ministers.
Previous president is on trial for treason - why it’s a bad thing in itself? The guy was a war hawk, actually. It’s actually president, not prime minister, you don’t even understand how government work in Ukraine
There were no points about “minority rights” in ceasefire agreement.
Are you just some British dude, who likes Russia Today? Or Polish, due to the very niche story about transit?
You are arguing that war in Ukraine is fine, because Ukrainians are bad people, amazing. Really hope to meet you someday.
It's only economical suicide if the West makes it so, which it most probably would not - and then there is the question if that would be enough. What if China is able to provide whatever the West would not. Moreover, Russia has close to no debt and high currency reseerves. It is true that it mostly sells oil, gas and minerals, but there are enough buyers for that.
In short, maybe their calclulus is very different to ours.
If Russia amasses several hundred thousand troops on Ukraines doorstep that’s not a supposed threat, it’s a threat since it’s perceived as a threat. Pointing a gun at someone is a threat. It’s not a supposed threat.
Also: The Russian invasion and occupation started 8 years ago!
They did invade: Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Was not a suicide for Putin, quite contrary, his political position within Russia has greatly improved.
The U.S. has many allies and we don't wake up to a president calling enemy territory leaders killers and reaffirming we're game to go to war every few weeks for any other territory. This is a very obvious political move that I hope doesn't escalate, but Biden appears to be doing plenty to provoke conflict.
If every Ukrainian citizen (primarily talking about western Ukraine) had a rifle/shotgun and 5 grenades, the likely success of Russian forces in any incursion (short of a nuclear attack, which I presume absurd) would be nil. It might even increase self- and other-respect among the Ukrainian!8-))
The Ukrainian army can’t defend any part of the country against mass invasion but it can at least make the cost of fighting in cities be extremely unappetizing to Russia due to the large cost in both casualties and equipment it would be.
Fighting with Javelins, Stingers and NLAWs is a wholly foolish endeavor, very costly for equipment and training. Time is too short also. And I'm talking about arming the citizenry, not the Ukrainian army.
OTOH if most Ukrainian citizens were well-armed it would be very difficult for anyone to occupy the country.
It is not absurd because thermonuclear weapons would provide the highest propability of victory.
That's not even the equivalent of an angry child shutting down a ball game and taking the ball home. Instead it's the equivalent of blowing up everyone in the game to achieve, what, victory?!
That's a completely different discussion, but before branching into that, I would seriously question your sanity.
See: Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Palestine, Bosnia etc.
Your described solution will ensure just as much war/suffering as a direct involvement plan would.
let's be honest: no combination of armament OR good will will end this anytime soon.
If it is apparent that occupying a region will involve hand-to-hand combat (instead of massed artillery/air/rocket attacks) then the Russian soldiers and officers will refrain.
Ever hear people say "oh politicians are just actors reading lines"?
Well, the President of Ukraine is an actual actual comedian and actor. His last acting job was the lead in a series that ran from 2015 to 2019, when he was elected president. The role?
That is not a mistake. The actual President of Ukraine was elected months after staring in a series as the President of Ukraine! https://m.imdb.com/name/nm3305952Before his role as president, he and his comedy troupe, Kvartal 95, joked about the Maidan massacre. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33lY5LUPNbE&t=599s
And that's not even the end of the craziness. To win the election, Zelensky had to beat Yulia Tymoshenko. At the last minute, another candidate entered the race, incidentally also called Y. Tymoshenko. So there where 2 Y Tymoshenkos on the ballot, causing confusion and splitting her vote. Leading to a comedian winning the race for president. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yulia_Tymoshenko#2019_presiden...
After being elected, Zelensky said
Some highlights from the current roster.. It gets better.... And my favourite...https://uk-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%82%...So, the government of Ukraine is made up of actors, screenwriters, and producers, who's work resembled a post-modern Ukrainian Monty Python. It is like John Cleese started the Monty Python party and got elected.
She got 13.4%, other Tymoshenko got 0.62. Even if you add them she's still in 3rd place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Ukrainian_presidential_el...
To be honest, I would prefer a Monthy Python government.
Putin is like Xi they consider Russians and Chinese to be theirs no matter where they live. War, genocide, the constant harassment will never end until these two are gone.