Russia and American elections, now featuring radical republicans as co-stars

956 Worldwide · December 30, 2021

@Shady Ray is correct, the announcement came first with a pledge to review MAPs in December, and the invasion coming in between.

That aside, the report on who did what and who was bad when for Russia-Georgia is a master-stroke of Russian success in sidetracking the West with minutiae and completely missing the larger issue at hand— that no matter who started what, when, it was Russia and no one else who was acting with military force on the other side of a universally recognized international border. And that it was Russia and no one else who had supported and encouraged the “frozen conflict” in South Ossetia for decades. It is a classic Russian tactic to create a crisis and then threatening to lose control of it. Europeans, with their love of procedure and letter of the law, are especially susceptible to this.

Russia is the master of the old legal saw—- when the fact are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on your side, pound the table (Russia is usually pounding the table). It’s very easy to lose sight of the fact that it’s Russia and no one else who is claiming the right to tell its neighbors what trade agreements are acceptable.

Also, you are mistaken about Central European leadership. PiS Poland and Orban/Fidesz Hungary are the EU’s biggest headaches and serious concerns, but neither comes close to the corruption of either the Communist incarnation of those countries or Vladimir Putin’s Russia. And for that matter, the recently brought down Kurz government in Austria. The Fiala and Heger governments in the Czech Republic and Slovakia are boring, competent, technocratic, cabinets. Neither are as inspiring as Havel or Walesea, but then again that’s not what either place needs.

Shady Ray · December 30, 2021

12 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Also, you are mistaken about Central European leadership. PiS Poland and Orban/Fidesz Hungary are the EU’s biggest headaches and serious concerns, but neither comes close to the corruption of either the Communist incarnation of those countries or Vladimir Putin’s Russia. And for that matter, the recently brought down Kurz government in Austria. The Fiala and Heger governments in the Czech Republic and Slovakia are boring, competent, technocratic, cabinets. Neither are as inspiring as Havel or Walesea, but then again that’s not what either place needs.

Oh, for sure. I didn't mean to come across like that at all. I don't know of anyone, personal or private, who thinks the Czechs or Slovaks are anything other than perfect, model parts of the EU. And yeah, they have their shit wayyyy more together than the Austrians or others. No doubt about that. If I mischaracterized the Central Europeans, that was definitely an accident.

Edit: And also agree on your other point. Orban or PiS are not models, but they are lightyears better than Putin.

Edited December 30, 2021 by Shady Ray

Anastasis · December 30, 2021

Great exchange and great content guys. Thanks.

Shady Ray · December 30, 2021

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Great exchange and great content guys. Thanks.

What he doesn't know is that I am trying to keep it friendly in case anything ever goes south with my wife I can possibly hit him up for some intros on his side of the border.

Czech women....gottttttttttt dammmmmmm.

Edited December 30, 2021 by Shady Ray

El Diablo · January 1, 2022

I would have preferred that NATO stop its expansion years ago but I'm old and tired. As it once stood there would have been no question of the response by NATO and no doubt of that response in Russia if a member nation were attacked. Now we find ourselves here. Should have been thought of long ago.

Shady Ray · January 1, 2022

On 12/26/2021 at 4:11 PM, Brisketexan said:

Counterpoint 1: Baerbock is sexy, and would like to make sexy time with me.

Counterpoint 2: the anti-nuke stance isn’t just her position, or the Greens’ position, it’s Germany’s. They are stridently anti-nuke. I don’t agree with it, but it’s not a secret.

3: I ain’t gots no idear what the ultimate play by Putin is here.

Brisket's girl gonna need some comforting. EU Commission rightly coming down on the side of the French/Czechs/Finns in the big "Is Nuclear Energy Green?" fight with the German-speaking world.

Actually a bit surprised to see them go as far as they did on Nat Gas, as well:

Quote

EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

"Jan 1 (Reuters) - The European Union has drawn up plans to label some natural gas and nuclear energy projects as "green" investments after a year-long battle between governments over which investments are truly climate-friendly.

The European Commission is expected to propose rules in January deciding whether gas and nuclear projects will be included in the EU "sustainable finance taxonomy".

This is a list of economic activities and the environmental criteria they must meet to be labelled as green investments. By restricting the "green" label to truly climate-friendly projects, the system aims to make those investments more attractive to private capital, and stop "greenwashing", where companies or investors overstate their eco-friendly credentials."

...

A draft of the Commission's proposal, seen by Reuters, would label nuclear power plant investments as green if the project has a plan, funds and a site to safely dispose of radioactive waste. To be deemed green, new nuclear plants must receive construction permits before 2045.

Investments in natural gas power plants would also be deemed green if they produce emissions below 270g of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt hour (kWh), replace a more polluting fossil fuel plant, and receive a construction permit by Dec. 31 2030. Such plants must meet other conditions including that they are technically equipped to burn low-carbon gases.

Gas and nuclear power generation would be labelled green on the grounds that they are "transitional" activities - defined as those that are not fully sustainable, but which have emissions below industry average and do not lock in polluting assets during the shift to clean energy.

The Commission could not immediately be reached for comment.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/eu-drafts-plan-label-gas-nuclear-investments-green-2022-01-01/

Edited January 1, 2022 by Shady Ray

atomheartbevo · January 1, 2022

6 hours ago, El Diablo said:

I would have preferred that NATO stop its expansion years ago but I'm old and tired. As it once stood there would have been no question of the response by NATO and no doubt of that response in Russia if a member nation were attacked. Now we find ourselves here. Should have been thought of long ago.

Define "years ago", because Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia were in March of 2004.

We added Croatia and Albania in 2009, Montenegro in 2017, and North Macedonia in March of 2020. Those last four are of no interest to Russia.

And if we had not added Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, then would they be in the mix alongside Ukraine right now?

El Diablo · January 1, 2022

21 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Define "years ago", because Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia were in March of 2004.

We added Croatia and Albania in 2009, Montenegro in 2017, and North Macedonia in March of 2020. Those last four are of no interest to Russia.

And if we had not added Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, then would they be in the mix alongside Ukraine right now?

'99. I'd be okay if any of the others were in the mix right now.

atomheartbevo · January 2, 2022

3 hours ago, El Diablo said:

'99. I'd be okay if any of the others were in the mix right now.

Russia reconquering multiple Eastern European nations would be bad for everybody, worse than Ukraine.

While the NATO expansion ramped up Russian paranoia, it also kept Russia in check for the past 20 years.

Onboard 2.0 · January 2, 2022

7 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Russia reconquering multiple Eastern European nations would be bad for everybody, worse than Ukraine.

While the NATO expansion ramped up Russian paranoia, it also kept Russia in check for the past 20 years.

They don't need a reason to be paranoid. To be Russian is to be paranoid. It's part of their cultural psyche.

Russia is simply a mafioso state, and anything we can do to hem them in is good.

Edited January 2, 2022 by Onboard 2.0

El Diablo · January 2, 2022

4 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Russia reconquering multiple Eastern European nations would be bad for everybody, worse than Ukraine.

While the NATO expansion ramped up Russian paranoia, it also kept Russia in check for the past 20 years.

I disagree. Reconquering those smaller nations would have tied them up, drained their resources and kept them busy for years. The member nations that we had after '99 would have been a line in the sand that they wouldn't dare attempt to cross. The collapse of the Soviet Union was a lost opportunity to reassess our position. We'd achieved our goal but it seems like we were the dog that caught the car he'd been chasing.

Anastasis · January 2, 2022

On 12/30/2021 at 7:58 AM, Shady Ray said:

Jesus Christ, it is like I have lost my mind living in a world where any of this is seen as remotely normal or would remotely be acceptable if the other side wasn’t Russia. Like any of this would warrant one single American or European life or one single dollar of a US/EU taxpayer.

These countries are legit fucking insane. Russia. Ukraine. Georgia. All three of them.

They. Are. Fucking. Insane.

So, no, Western Europeans aren’t naive or heartless when they don’t want to expand our nice, secure, clean, peaceful social welfare states to include them. They are instead smart and informed.

The real punch was hidden behind the tags.

Shady Ray · January 2, 2022

11 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Define "years ago", because Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia were in March of 2004.

We added Croatia and Albania in 2009, Montenegro in 2017, and North Macedonia in March of 2020. Those last four are of no interest to Russia.

And if we had not added Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, then would they be in the mix alongside Ukraine right now?

I think there is also a discussion to be had regarding not only NATO's geographic expansion, but also "how" it expanded. For me, one of the big rationales that I struggle with understanding is the "forward operating deployment/weapons system" issue within the new NATO countries in the early 2000s, which is what truly upset the Russians. I am not saying that expansion was unjustified, but in retrospect, I can't see what warranted that at the time, and I think it did immeasurable damage for no reason.

Prior to the 2008 Georgian War, they hadn't shown any military aggression toward their neighbors as their 15 years as the Russian Federation. They had played ball with us internally in the 1990s under Yeltsin - much to their own detriment, if one is being honest - and were even cooperating with us by letting us use their former Soviet bases in Central Asia to carry out the post 9/11 Afghanistan operations. Yeltsin had a good relationship with the US, and Putin and GWB has famously started off on good terms. Yes, Russia had mixed it up in Chechnya, but ultimately, that was an internal matter with Russia attempting to keep a rebel province from breaking away. And in light of how brutal, humiliating and critical the First War in Chechnya was, it wasn't a good look for us - particularly John McCain (of course...who else) to regularly meet with Chechen leaders, support them from a PR perspective, and for us to even give political asylum (and then provide National Endowment for Democracy grants) to senior Chechen leader Ilyas Akmadov, with McCain, Madaleine Albright and Zbignew Brzezinski praising him as a peaceful democrat, which really furthered the deterioration of that relationship. As well as our allies in the Mid East sending the Chechens US weaponry (which I tend to believe was more of a Saudi/Wahhabi project as opposed to a fully-sanctioned "Operation Timber Sycamore-style" US one). This really concerned them, but I digress.

So, when I try to understand "how we got here", which I view as a series of "salami slicing" events stretching from the 1990s to let's say 2014, I think we were at a sustainable point after the 2005 expansion, where Russia had accepted the security guarantees of the Baltics, Poland, Romania and the other lesser-controversial ones like Czech, Slovakia and Hugary. And, Lavrov said, he understood and agreed that the NATO alliance had "legitimate" interests in the region, and we could have and should have called it a day there and held off on forward operating bases absent overt hostile acts coming out of Moscow. (and I agree with you...the Russians don't care about the last four you mentioned, but using 2005 since it was the last expansion prior to the toxic 2008 NATO Bucharest Ukraine/Georgia announcement). They had just had their asses handed to them in Chechnya before finally prevailing in a brutal war...they were still fighting terrorist insurgencies in the Russian Caucasus, and no one reasonably felt that they were in the mood for any more smoke from anywhere else, particularly to those countries with security assurances from the US.

So why the cutting edge, advanced weapons systems in forward operating bases? Did anyone seriously think that Russia in the mid-aughts was going to lob missiles into Warsaw or Bucharest? It isn't like it takes years to expand defensive protection Eastward if Russia started to get horsey, so why was it so urgent to accomplish when NATO was already extremely established in Western Europe? Did we really think that a Russia that was completely bogged down in its southern provinces was just going to go buckwild on the Poles? How did we not see that those otherwise relatively calm diplomatic lines were going to get real muddy, real fast with the Russians by doing that, particularly, when they were actively telling us that through the NATO-Russian Council? Of course, the surefire rationale for this was brought to us by the exact same individuals who brought us those timeless hits such as "Nigerian Yella Cake", "WMD Errrrwhere ya Look", and my personal favorite "We Gonna Be Greeted as Liberators", so I guess it makes sense.

Per Lavrov's position captured in Burns' early-2008 "Nyet Means Nyet" memo prior to moving forward with Ukraine Georgia accession, which was of course never meant for public consumption (so I put more stock in the apolitical/no-spin-job nature of it) the Russians were willing to accept NATO in its current configuration, but that the forward deployments deep into the former Soviet Union had caused them real concern:

"Foreign Minister Lavrov stressed that Russia had to view continued eastward expansion of NATO, particularly to Ukraine and Georgia, as a potential military threat. Russia might believe statements from the West that NATO was not directed against Russia, when one looked at recent military activities in NATO countries (establishment of U.S. forward operating locations, etc. they had to be evaluated not by stated intentions but by potential. Lavrov stressed that maintaining Russia's "sphere of influence" in the neighborhood was anachronistic, and acknowledged that the U.S. and Europe had "legitimate interests" in the region."

Furthermore, a fact that is hugely significant but often overlooked, was Lavrov specifically stating to Burns that they were planning on relocating the Black Sea Fleet from Sevastopol/Crimea and relocating to Novorossiysk ahead of their stated 2017 timeline, but that they hadn't yet had time to de-couple their defense infrastructure from Crimea. This is clearly a Russia that was withdrawing to shore up its own "house" at the time.

Isn't that exactly the position where we would love for Russia to be now? I really think we underestimate how objectively atrocious the Bush administration handled Russia, as many of the issues weren't as front and center as their other "Great Achievements."

Edited January 2, 2022 by Shady Ray

Shady Ray · January 2, 2022

8 hours ago, Anastasis said:

The real punch was hidden behind the tags.

Oh, and to add to that already completely insane saga, now a diplomatic row has broken out between the pro-Western/pro-NATO Ukrainian head-of state (who apparently isn't busy with that whole Russia thing), and the pro-Western/pro-NATO Georgians, as Ukraine now says that Saakashvili should be freed from prison after his coup attempt on Georgia, and returned to Ukraine on humanitarian grounds to be rehabilitated after Saakashvili did his best impression of a PCP-addled perp on COPS and fought the guards trying to move him from the hospital to his prison cell.

So the former-Georgian President, who was then twice found to have attempted to overthrow Ukraine's pro-Western Government, who was for some reason pardoned by the new pro-Western Ukrainian government, who then returned to Georgia to try and overthrow Georgia's newly elected, pro-Western government by calling for his followers to storm Tbilisi, is now a matter of dispute between these two NATO aspirants.

And now, the Ukrainians have requested the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, to step in and mediate.

Great look, guys. Great fucking look.

Volodymyr Zelensky: I receive letters from Saakashvili ... Charles Michel is involved

https://report.ge/en/politics/volodymyr-zelensky-i-receive-letters-from-saakashvili-charles-michel-is-involved/

You really can't make this shit up.

Hospitalized Saakashvili Refuses Prison Transfer

https://civil.ge/archives/464654

Ukrainian MFA Tells Georgia Not to Endanger Saakashvili’s Life

https://civil.ge/archives/464894

Quote

According to the statement, in the meantime, Kyiv continues to work on Saakashvili’s return to Ukraine for humanitarian reasons, for treatment and rehabilitation. “The need for such a step is obvious,” the Foreign Ministry asserted.

Kyiv reiterated its stance that the Georgian side should allow Ukrainian doctors to visit ex-President Saakashvili for an examination.

Saakashvili, who arrived secretly in Georgia in late September after eight years in exile, was arrested on October 1, on the eve of local elections. He is convicted in two cases in absentia and faces charges in three more. He denies all charges as politically motivated.

Edited January 2, 2022 by Shady Ray

atomheartbevo · January 3, 2022

Edited January 3, 2022 by atomheartbevo

Cacti · January 3, 2022

I’m interested in Shady Ray's and 956 Worldwide's reaction to this article: What does the Russian ultimatum to the West mean?

Quote

On December 17, the Russian Foreign Ministry unveiled two draft texts — a “Treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation on Security Guarantees” and an “Agreement on Measures to Ensure the Security of the Russian Federation and the Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO]”….

After the publication of the draft treaty, the possibility of a pre-emptive strike against NATO targets (similar to those that Israel inflicted on Iran), was confirmed by former Deputy Minister of Defense Andrei Kartapolov (Duma Defense Committee): “Our partners must understand that the longer they drag out the examination of our proposals and the adoption of real measures to create these guarantees, the greater the likelihood that they will suffer a pre-emptive strike.”

956 Worldwide · January 3, 2022

On 1/2/2022 at 9:19 AM, Shady Ray said:

I think there is also a discussion to be had regarding not only NATO's geographic expansion, but also "how" it expanded. For me, one of the big rationales that I struggle with understanding is the "forward operating deployment/weapons system" issue within the new NATO countries in the early 2000s, which is what truly upset the Russians. I am not saying that expansion was unjustified, but in retrospect, I can't see what warranted that at the time, and I think it did immeasurable damage for no reason.

Prior to the 2008 Georgian War, they hadn't shown any military aggression toward their neighbors as their 15 years as the Russian Federation. They had played ball with us internally in the 1990s under Yeltsin - much to their own detriment, if one is being honest - and were even cooperating with us by letting us use their former Soviet bases in Central Asia to carry out the post 9/11 Afghanistan operations. Yeltsin had a good relationship with the US, and Putin and GWB has famously started off on good terms. Yes, Russia had mixed it up in Chechnya, but ultimately, that was an internal matter with Russia attempting to keep a rebel province from breaking away. And in light of how brutal, humiliating and critical the First War in Chechnya was, it wasn't a good look for us - particularly John McCain (of course...who else) to regularly meet with Chechen leaders, support them from a PR perspective, and for us to even give political asylum (and then provide National Endowment for Democracy grants) to senior Chechen leader Ilyas Akmadov, with McCain, Madaleine Albright and Zbignew Brzezinski praising him as a peaceful democrat, which really furthered the deterioration of that relationship. As well as our allies in the Mid East sending the Chechens US weaponry (which I tend to believe was more of a Saudi/Wahhabi project as opposed to a fully-sanctioned "Operation Timber Sycamore-style" US one). This really concerned them, but I digress.

So, when I try to understand "how we got here", which I view as a series of "salami slicing" events stretching from the 1990s to let's say 2014, I think we were at a sustainable point after the 2005 expansion, where Russia had accepted the security guarantees of the Baltics, Poland, Romania and the other lesser-controversial ones like Czech, Slovakia and Hugary. And, Lavrov said, he understood and agreed that the NATO alliance had "legitimate" interests in the region, and we could have and should have called it a day there and held off on forward operating bases absent overt hostile acts coming out of Moscow. (and I agree with you...the Russians don't care about the last four you mentioned, but using 2005 since it was the last expansion prior to the toxic 2008 NATO Bucharest Ukraine/Georgia announcement). They had just had their asses handed to them in Chechnya before finally prevailing in a brutal war...they were still fighting terrorist insurgencies in the Russian Caucasus, and no one reasonably felt that they were in the mood for any more smoke from anywhere else, particularly to those countries with security assurances from the US.

So why the cutting edge, advanced weapons systems in forward operating bases? Did anyone seriously think that Russia in the mid-aughts was going to lob missiles into Warsaw or Bucharest? It isn't like it takes years to expand defensive protection Eastward if Russia started to get horsey, so why was it so urgent to accomplish when NATO was already extremely established in Western Europe? Did we really think that a Russia that was completely bogged down in its southern provinces was just going to go buckwild on the Poles? How did we not see that those otherwise relatively calm diplomatic lines were going to get real muddy, real fast with the Russians by doing that, particularly, when they were actively telling us that through the NATO-Russian Council? Of course, the surefire rationale for this was brought to us by the exact same individuals who brought us those timeless hits such as "Nigerian Yella Cake", "WMD Errrrwhere ya Look", and my personal favorite "We Gonna Be Greeted as Liberators", so I guess it makes sense.

Per Lavrov's position captured in Burns' early-2008 "Nyet Means Nyet" memo prior to moving forward with Ukraine Georgia accession, which was of course never meant for public consumption (so I put more stock in the apolitical/no-spin-job nature of it) the Russians were willing to accept NATO in its current configuration, but that the forward deployments deep into the former Soviet Union had caused them real concern:

"Foreign Minister Lavrov stressed that Russia had to view continued eastward expansion of NATO, particularly to Ukraine and Georgia, as a potential military threat. Russia might believe statements from the West that NATO was not directed against Russia, when one looked at recent military activities in NATO countries (establishment of U.S. forward operating locations, etc. they had to be evaluated not by stated intentions but by potential. Lavrov stressed that maintaining Russia's "sphere of influence" in the neighborhood was anachronistic, and acknowledged that the U.S. and Europe had "legitimate interests" in the region."

Furthermore, a fact that is hugely significant but often overlooked, was Lavrov specifically stating to Burns that they were planning on relocating the Black Sea Fleet from Sevastopol/Crimea and relocating to Novorossiysk ahead of their stated 2017 timeline, but that they hadn't yet had time to de-couple their defense infrastructure from Crimea. This is clearly a Russia that was withdrawing to shore up its own "house" at the time.

Isn't that exactly the position where we would love for Russia to be now? I really think we underestimate how objectively atrocious the Bush administration handled Russia, as many of the issues weren't as front and center as their other "Great Achievements."

I’m curious what forward operating advanced weapons systems in the early 2000s you’re talking about. U.S. presence in the “new” NATO Allies on a permanent or even semi-permanent basis got started in the 2010s, and was partly a response to Russia’s invasion of Georgia. As a reminder, we had planned to install ballistic missile defense in that region but the first Obama Administration pulled out as part of the vaunted “reset.” It caused real hard feelings with our friends.

The first real presence of U.S. troops in Poland was in 2010 with a rotational Patriot battalion (partly as a bone after the withdrawal from BMD) and also reassurance after Russia invaded a neighbor. About a year later the first F-16s came through. I was in Poland at the time, but here’s an article on it. Again, important to note— this is years after Poland entered NATO and AFTER Russia invaded Georgia:

https://www.france24.com/en/20100525-poland-set-unveil-patriots-missile-base-defence

The current big NATO presence in the region— enhanced forward presence— was started in 2017. A broader program to boost U.S. presence was announced in 2014 that was more than just troops. That program is called the European Deterrence (at first Reassurance) initiative and was loudly and explicitly announced as a response to Russia invading another one of its neighbors (Ukraine).

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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Enhanced_Forward_Presene

So bottom line— Russian aggression to its neighbors resulted in exactly what Russia claims not to want, which is U.S. and NATO Allied troops close to its borders.

956 Worldwide · January 3, 2022

1 hour ago, Cacti said:

I’m interested in Shady Ray's and 956 Worldwide's reaction to this article: What does the Russian ultimatum to the West mean?

The quote from Kartapolov is intended for European ears. Specifically, Central and Eastern European ears. They want to convince them that closed cooperation and integration with the United States won’t make them safer, but instead targets. This isn’t a new tactic.

Brisketexan · January 3, 2022

34 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The quote from Kartapolov is intended for European ears. Specifically, Central and Eastern European ears. They want to convince them that closed cooperation and integration with the United States won’t make them safer, but instead targets. This isn’t a new tactic.

This. The US isn't the intended audience. And honestly, I don't think that will get a lot of traction with the Central and Eastern ears.....it's just as likely to drive them further into our arms, so to speak.

MaybeACoordinator · January 3, 2022

Rodney King / John Lennon / Stupid questions thread....

"Why don't we, like, ask Russia to join NATO too, man?"

956 Worldwide · January 3, 2022

On 1/2/2022 at 1:44 AM, El Diablo said:

I disagree. Reconquering those smaller nations would have tied them up, drained their resources and kept them busy for years. The member nations that we had after '99 would have been a line in the sand that they wouldn't dare attempt to cross. The collapse of the Soviet Union was a lost opportunity to reassess our position. We'd achieved our goal but it seems like we were the dog that caught the car he'd been chasing.

Could not disagree more. First of all, fighting over that strip of land has led to millions of deaths and endless instability. Wars on the periphery of Europe have a nasty way of spiraling out of control and into all of Europe and further. A declining superpower lashing out and trying to recapture its glory is not stable.

Here are two incontrovertible facts about NATO. First, no NATO member state has ever had an armed conflict with another member state. And keep in mind, NATO members spent CENTURIES going to war with each other for sport. You could set a watch to intraeuropean wars. That is gone and has been since 1948.

Second, no state actor has ever gone to war with a NATO member. Hard to believe, but it turns out that being a member of the most powerful military alliance in history is a deterrent to aggression and has a powerful effect on the baddies. And again, keep in mind that for most of recorded history since the Jagellonian Empire, the technical term for these nations was “road apple,” in the immortal words of Cosmo Kramer.

Judged by the standard of “preventing major war in the Euroatlantic zone and keeping brush fires (Balkans) contained,” NATO is easily the most successful European peace project ever imagined.

Which really boils down to the roots of Russia’s neurosis. Is Russia really concerned that Ukraine in NATO will be a staging ground for a NATO invasion of Russia? Or is Russia frantic that a Ukraine in NATO is no longer vulnerable to Russian aggression and manipulation? The answer is patently obvious.

Onboard 2.0 · January 3, 2022

24 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Could not disagree more. First of all, fighting over that strip of land has led to millions of deaths and endless instability. Wars on the periphery of Europe have a nasty way of spiraling out of control and into all of Europe and further. A declining superpower lashing out and trying to recapture its glory is not stable.

Here are two incontrovertible facts about NATO. First, no NATO member state has ever had an armed conflict with another member state. And keep in mind, NATO members spent CENTURIES going to war with each other for sport. You could set a watch to intraeuropean wars. That is gone and has been since 1948.

Second, no state actor has ever gone to war with a NATO member. Hard to believe, but it turns out that being a member of the most powerful military alliance in history is a deterrent to aggression and has a powerful effect on the baddies. And again, keep in mind that for most of recorded history since the Jagellonian Empire, the technical term for these nations was “road apple,” in the immortal words of Cosmo Kramer.

Judged by the standard of “preventing major war in the Euroatlantic zone and keeping brush fires (Balkans) contained,” NATO is easily the most successful European peace project ever imagined.

Which really boils down to the roots of Russia’s neurosis. Is Russia really concerned that Ukraine in NATO will be a staging ground for a NATO invasion of Russia? Or is Russia frantic that a Ukraine in NATO is no longer vulnerable to Russian aggression and manipulation? The answer is patently obvious.

I'd wholeheartedly agree. Being a NATO member confers a great deal of security. Russia probably knows it can't defeat an allied NATO front as the US is a central figure in that organization, and wears the big poo bah hat.

atomheartbevo · January 3, 2022

36 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Rodney King / John Lennon / Stupid questions thread....

"Why don't we, like, ask Russia to join NATO too, man?"

It would be amusing to ask, simply because I can't envision them ever subjugating themselves to NATO commanders - it's already bad enough in their eyes that the Soviet Union had to break up, and then watched as the Warsaw Pact fell over each other clamoring for NATO membership.

I don't know how Putin would sell that to the Russian public, and I don't know that Putin's BMD/corporate backers want Russia (Russians) to have a closer relationship with Western Europe. I just couldn't see it with Putin in power - maybe a younger and charismatic true reform type.

It's already risky enough as it is for Putin and his BMDs, in terms of your typical Russian wondering why a small group of people got really rich after the Soviet Union fell, while the rest of them didn't, and then looking at Western European inhabitants and their much higher standards of living. We're only a century removed from a populist uprising against a small number of wealthy folks.

But talk about making China shit their pants.

956 Worldwide · January 3, 2022

I do need to say— in a way, Ukraine can emerge as strategic threat to the Russian regime and any regime likely to replace it. I can’t stress enough how much Russian authorities rely on framing the “West” and its ways as foreign, hostile and entirely unsuited to the Russian people as a source of internal legitimacy. Poland, the Baltics, and all of Central Europe can be absorbed by the West, but they have always been “other”— Catholic, or Germanic, or non-Slavic. They belonged TO Russia but were not OF Russia.

The absorption and integration of Ukraine into the West cannot be explained away in similar terms. Although much of the official Kyivan Rus to Moscow Princes timeline is bunk, it is firmly ingrained. Ukraine is not the other. Ukrainians are brothers.

And so a successful, prosperous, peaceful Ukraine integrated into Europe would be irrefutable proof that Russia is not mystically destined to be forever ruled by despots and would destroy the idea that what is good for the Westerner will not work for the Russian. And the Russian people would begin to really ask— like they did in the 1980s— why them and not us? The Kremlin knows the logical end to those questions.

This is not theoretical, it’s a very real fear. A similar terror that a Communist or Socialist state might actually WORK haunted o Western policy makers minds for decades, so the impulse should be understandable. And even if Shady Ray’s grimmest pronouncements on the state of Ukrainian democracy are true, the Kremlin can’t take any chances. And we need to remember that keeping Ukraine poor, corrupt and dysfunctional has been official Russian policy for years now, and that every step away from Russia they take presents a risk (to Russia) that they might actually clean up their own house.

Ted Dantzler · January 3, 2022

22 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I do need to say— in a way, Ukraine can emerge as strategic threat to the Russian regime and any regime likely to replace it. I can’t stress enough how much Russian authorities rely on framing the “West” and its ways as foreign, hostile and entirely unsuited to the Russian people as a source of internal legitimacy. Poland, the Baltics, and all of Central Europe can be absorbed by the West, but they have always been “other”— Catholic, or Germanic, or non-Slavic. They belonged TO Russia but were not OF Russia.

The absorption and integration of Ukraine into the West cannot be explained away in similar terms. Although much of the official Kyivan Rus to Moscow Princes timeline is bunk, it is firmly ingrained. Ukraine is not the other. Ukrainians are brothers.

And so a successful, prosperous, peaceful Ukraine integrated into Europe would be irrefutable proof that Russia is not mystically destined to be forever ruled by despots and would destroy the idea that what is good for the Westerner will not work for the Russian. And the Russian people would begin to really ask— like they did in the 1980s— why them and not us? The Kremlin knows the logical end to those questions.

This is not theoretical, it’s a very real fear. A similar terror that a Communist or Socialist state might actually WORK haunted o Western policy makers minds for decades, so the impulse should be understandable. And even if Shady Ray’s grimmest pronouncements on the state of Ukrainian democracy are true, the Kremlin can’t take any chances. And we need to remember that keeping Ukraine poor, corrupt and dysfunctional has been official Russian policy for years now, and that every step away from Russia they take presents a risk (to Russia) that they might actually clean up their own house.

This is the best explanation I have seen for the Russia/Ukraine conflict.

I interviewed for a job this summer where I would live in Kiev and train employee's at the company's Ukrainian office. Good pay, free condo to stay in, free travel, they talked up how first world Kiev is and not some Eastern European shit hole etc etc but I turned it down specifically because I didn't want to be stuck in Ukraine if Russia started screwing with them again....which is exactly what Russia wants, to keep Ukraine from sliding further into Western European/American influence.

TwiceHorn · January 4, 2022

On 12/29/2021 at 9:44 AM, Biff Tannen said:

Never get involved in a land war in Asia.

Russia:

956 Worldwide · January 4, 2022

10 hours ago, Ted Dantzler said:

This is the best explanation I have seen for the Russia/Ukraine conflict.

I interviewed for a job this summer where I would live in Kiev and train employee's at the company's Ukrainian office. Good pay, free condo to stay in, free travel, they talked up how first world Kiev is and not some Eastern European shit hole etc etc but I turned it down specifically because I didn't want to be stuck in Ukraine if Russia started screwing with them again....which is exactly what Russia wants, to keep Ukraine from sliding further into Western European/American influence.

I have to tell you that if you are unmarried you made the worst decision of your life turning that down. If you are married, possibly the best decision, although Russia was not the major, immediate asymmetrical threat to you.

Edited January 4, 2022 by 956 Worldwide

956 Worldwide · January 4, 2022

10 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

It would be amusing to ask, simply because I can't envision them ever subjugating themselves to NATO commanders - it's already bad enough in their eyes that the Soviet Union had to break up, and then watched as the Warsaw Pact fell over each other clamoring for NATO membership.

I don't know how Putin would sell that to the Russian public, and I don't know that Putin's BMD/corporate backers want Russia (Russians) to have a closer relationship with Western Europe. I just couldn't see it with Putin in power - maybe a younger and charismatic true reform type.

It's already risky enough as it is for Putin and his BMDs, in terms of your typical Russian wondering why a small group of people got really rich after the Soviet Union fell, while the rest of them didn't, and then looking at Western European inhabitants and their much higher standards of living. We're only a century removed from a populist uprising against a small number of wealthy folks.

But talk about making China shit their pants.

Well, it was actually a dream for a hot minute when we talked about how the "West" could extend from Vancouver to Vladivostok in the heady days of the 1990s.

Putting aside all the reasons that didn't happen and what is required to be a real NATO candidate, your first sentence contains what would really be a poison pill for Russia. And that is the fact that no nation is subordinate to NATO commanders, and in a very real sense NATO is subordinate to and constrained by even the smallest member state. NATO's decision making is based on consensus and a more-than-theoretical adherence to the "one country, one vote" principal. And while we can't say that it always works perfectly or that big countries don't use their leverage as much as they can, it actually does work more often than not. Most of the griping about NATO in U.S. policy circles (especially on the right) comes back to the fact that the largest, most powerful member can't just make everyone get on board with whatever we want to do. It takes a lot of work, a lot of persuasion, and quite frequently we DON'T get our way. But in a larger sense, this voluntary acceptance of restraints and rules is what makes the United States a credible and desirable partner.

Russia is not a country that can or will voluntarily accept rules and restraints in a multilateral forum and would view the constraints of NATO membership as unacceptable. The types of blocs Russia joins are ones it can dominate (Warsaw Pact), undermine constantly (OSCE, others), or that require virtually no commitments or restraints or cooperation (Shanghai Cooperation Organization-- which has as members both India and Pakistan and that's all you need to know about the level of meaningful cooperation).

Shady Ray · January 4, 2022

19 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I’m curious what forward operating advanced weapons systems in the early 2000s you’re talking about. U.S. presence in the “new” NATO Allies on a permanent or even semi-permanent basis got started in the 2010s, and was partly a response to Russia’s invasion of Georgia. As a reminder, we had planned to install ballistic missile defense in that region but the first Obama Administration pulled out as part of the vaunted “reset.” It caused real hard feelings with our friends.

Yeah, that's actually what I am talking about, as well. But my point is that while the Obama did indeed pull it back, I don't think we can discount how critical the announcement of that expansion was in the calculation re Russia's actions in 2008, because at the time of that decision (and, IMO a time of reasonable Russian insecurity given what all our leadership had been up to from 2003 onwards in other areas completely unrelated to 9/11) it hadn't been pulled back. This was mainly the context of my post to @atomheartbevo, in which I said the 2008 Russo-Georgian war was the point where my IMO the NATO-Russia relationship completely ruptured and this is what Lavrov was referring to in the Burns memo.  

And yeah, you are completely right. Obama's pull back really pissed off the Central Europeans, but the original unilateral announcement of the expansion that kicked the thing off infuriated the Western Europeans. Seems like a recurring theme in this stuff.

So, the MIM-104 Patriot System that the US announced in 2005/2006 (after being condemned by the EU), and agreed formally with the Poles in 2008, was set to unilaterally deploy in Poland and Czech (radar in Czech, Patriots in Poland) - over the strong objections of Russia, France and Germany as being unnecessarily provocative by the US.

So, only with the luxury of hindsight can we say “but, they weren’t deployed until years later”. In my view, that is irrelevant when considering the Russian perspective at the outbreak of the Georgian-Russian conflict, which no one disputes was the first instance of military hostilities between Russia and a former Soviet neighbor. The fact is that we HAD announced our intended missile deployment, even though we never once said that they had behaved aggressively or improperly between 1992 and that time (if my recollection serves me...could be wrong on that, but I can't think of a situation). In fact, we based the expansion on a terribly flimsy "justification" regarding Iranian nukes being lobbed at Southeastern Europe. So, one can’t remove that completely disastrous decision from the context of 2008 just because Obama ultimately (and wisely IMO) saw it for the complete bullshit neocon provocation that it was and scuttled it over a year later.

That is not to say that the eventual positioning of those systems in later years was not justified due to subsequent Russian behavior after August of 2008, or definitely after 2014, as I agree with you there. But by that point we were down the rabbit hole with Moscow. But IMO the actions by Russia in Georgia in 2008 were not foregone conclusions by any stretch and I believe that 2008 the point that we crossed the rubicon, fueled considerably by a terrible decision to move those missiles which many policy makers in Europe, as well as on the American left, were warning us against.  

But so what reason was given that justified that expansion? No one on the US side even claimed that there was Russian aggression towards its neighbors at the time because it would have been seen as complete bullshit, even to a largely inwardly focused American public. In fact, US 3-Star General Henry Obering and Condoleeza Rice came over here and stressed over and over that the expansion has nothing to do with Russia, who Obering praised in private NATO meetings and to the German Foreign Ministry as being constructive in its relationship with its neighbors and operating positively within the framework of the NATO-Russia Council.  

So without the Soviet aggressor, which was sorely needed to justify this type of expansion in Europe, they needed another one, so they went with the ol’ trusty “American-Hostage-Takin' Mullahs in Iran” as justification to the largely geographically uninformed American public. This reasoning was completely for domestic US consumption and was laughed off the stage here…it wasn’t even treated seriously in the European debates that raged on for a couple of years before the unilateral decision went into force in 2008. Here are Der Spiegel and Deutsche Welle’s contemporaneous pieces on it. Dated from early 2017 after the absurd proposal had been under public debate for quite some time. Notice how little Iran is even mentioned. This was seen even by US allies here as a total smokescreen designed to pull a neocon move into the East at a time when they could get by with it.

By the US’ own admission, Iranian missiles at the time were insufficient to reach Western Europe, which was already “covered” by its two existing NATO-BMD systems. Furthermore, Poland and Czech themselves were also protected by the existing systems (to the extent possible, as BMD systems are, of course, notoriously unreliable), as acknowledged by the US Defense Department. So the proposed scenario was - ahem - that Iran would someday get nukes and that they would someday lash out by, uh, attacking Eastern Europe/Balkan countries, ensuring their complete annihilation…because, uh, reasons.  

It was even acknowledged at the time that Turkey, Greece and Romania could not be protected by this third proposed European BMD expansion, so we literally are talking about entering into a destabilizing expansion to cover the Balkans, Ukraine and Hungary from some Bullshit fantasy Iranian attack. Iran firing off weapons into Europe was believed by idiots and Fox News viewers…but I guess I repeat myself there. But a whole lot of people in Western Europe saw it as playing around on fundamental fault lines with Russia, fault lines that up to that point were largely calm and unimpeded - so Brussels, Berlin and Paris at large told the US, meh, fuck off with this stupid idea.

Russia of course strongly voiced its objection to this on the grounds that it would destabilize the region, threaten their national security, and then Putin offered Bush the idea of opening a joint Russian-US missile defense/radar operations facility at their existing Gabala facility in Azerbaijan, to help protect against this Iranian “threat”. The Western Europeans supported this compromise, but the US said, “nah, thanks, but no thanks. We want it in Poland”.

So what did the Bush Admin do? Those paragons of honesty and thoughtfulness Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz and the neocon crew just decided to deploy them unilaterally outside of the formal NATO process. Why? “Because Iran’s gonna nuke us all and Ayatollah Khamenei and Saddam were the 19th and 20th hijackers or somethin’…cue some Toby Keith y’all…Todd Beamer said let’s roll, appeaser homo tapered-jeans wearin’ Europe loves terrorists yeeeeeeeeeet.” They never once mentioned Russian aggression as rationale...because they couldn't. Because there had been none.

So, just to be clear, none of this justifies Russia’s current position IMO. I fully support the full spectrum of diplomatic/non-military tools at our disposal if Russia invades. But I stand by my position that the Bush administration unnecessarily escalated tension all over the world - including wrt Russia - in the post 9/11 due to their blind adherence to the neocon Wolfowitz doctrine which sought to exploit our understandable rage, fear and insecurity as a result of the 9/11 attacks to accomplish large scale (and long sought after) geopolitical moves in completely unrelated geographical areas. Again, the behavior of the US is always seen by its own citizens in a light that is extremely self-benevolent and forgiving, without recognizing that to a whole lot of other countries we were justifiably viewed as irrational aggressors under the Bush Administration.

Edited January 4, 2022 by Shady Ray

Shady Ray · January 4, 2022

20 hours ago, Cacti said:

I’m interested in Shady Ray's and 956 Worldwide's reaction to this article: What does the Russian ultimatum to the West mean?

Totally agree with @Brisketexan and @956 Worldwide here. Terrible, terrible strategic move that is only going to solidify Central/Eastern commitment to NATO. Laughably boneheaded.

Shady Ray · January 4, 2022

Relatively significant news just now coming out re the German position on Russia policy. Sorry for the goofy translation, but Bild is Germany’s largest publication by circulation and it is very typical that the biggest governing partner leaks to it, but it is not the most “high brow” German..."speed over form" with the Bild.

Anyway, Scholz going full "Merkel-vellian" and formally taking the Russia portfolio away from Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, as well as the core portfolio of Energy Policy from her Green Co-Leader, Energy and Commerce Minister, Robert Habeck. They fought like hell for these spots for those exact reasons in the coalition negotiations a few weeks back, so Big Kraut Industry must be really stepping up the pressure on Scholz. Other outlets saying direct talks between Scholz and Putin set for later this month, as Putin has said he will not talk directly to the EU, but only with the US, with an exception for Germany on the basis of it being a huge gas customer.

Greens are gonna absolutely flip, as even by Merkel's standards, this is brutally hostile to a coaltion partner...particularly in a coalition less than a month old. Their left flank is going to be apoplectic over this, as this is exactly what they predicted would happen.

Quote

CHANCELLOR DUPES BAERBOCK AND HABECK: Scholz shrinks the Greens
by: LYDIA ROSENFELDER, NADJA ASWAD AND PETER TIEDE published on 01/04/2012 - 03:24 PM

Olaf Scholz (SPD) is Mister Schlumpf on comedy TV - as chancellor he is now Master Schrumpf (Shady Ray: Schrumpf means "to shrink"): He has now shrunk the Greens in the first days of government.

And that with the Merkel trick: Slow down ambitious partners from the start. Angela Merkel (67, CDU) collected the FDP's tax reform plans in 2010 - and then shrunk FDP leader Guido Westerwelle († deceased age 54) in his core area.

Scholz is now doing the same with Robert Habeck (52) on the ultimate green topic of nuclear power: In Brussels, the Chancellor supported the idea that nuclear power (wish of France) and climate-damaging Russian gas should be considered "sustainable" in the EU. The anti-nuclear power party has now been completely duped.

In the direction of Annalena Baerbock (41), Scholz has now made it clear: Foreign policy is now a matter for the boss. His chancellorship has now agreed on direct talks with Putin to explore the Ukraine issue and EU gas policy - all Baerbock core topics.

The Greens are Angry - but nevertheless they are helpless:

Formally, according to a top Green source to BILD, Scholz's approach is hardly to be criticized: "He is chancellor, EU and Putin are his level." But: “It is an unfriendly act and we can't really tolerate it."

Green MEP Dieter Janecek (45) makes it clear to BILD that he "expects clear language" from the Traffic Light (Governing Coaltion) on energy issues. He has no pressure available.

Green MEP Michael Bloss (35) only called for measures "against the greenwashing of nuclear and gas" - and then shared a petition. As if the Greens were only in opposition.

After all, when it comes to Russia policy (Scholz wants a "qualified new beginning"), the Greens get support from FDP foreign expert Frank Müller-Rosentritt (39): "We can only achieve a new beginning if the Russian troops and mercenaries leave Crimea and eastern Ukraine. We need a clear, common course in the EU that emphasizes this."

This is exactly the position of the Greens…But not that of Scholz and the SPD.

https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/politik-inland/kanzler-duepiert-baerbock-und-habeck-scholz-schrumpft-die-gruenen-78714484.bild.html

Edited January 4, 2022 by Shady Ray

Onboard 2.0 · January 4, 2022

23 minutes ago, Shady Ray said:

Relatively significant news just now coming out re the German position on Russia policy. Sorry for the goofy translation, but Bild is Germany’s largest publication by circulation and it is very typical that the biggest governing partner leaks to it, but it is not the most “high brow” German..."speed over form" with the Bild.

Anyway, Scholz going full "Merkel-vellian" and formally taking the Russia portfolio away from Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, as well as the core portfolio of Energy Policy from her Green Co-Leader, Energy and Commerce Minister, Robert Habeck. They fought like hell for these spots for those exact reasons in the coalition negotiations a few weeks back, so Big Kraut Industry must be really stepping up the pressure on Scholz. Other outlets saying direct talks between Scholz and Putin set for later this month, as Putin has said he will not talk directly to the EU, but only with the US, with an exception for Germany on the basis of it being a huge gas customer.

Greens are gonna absolutely flip, as even by Merkel's standards, this is brutally hostile to a coaltion partner...particularly in a coalition less than a month old. Their left flank is going to be apoplectic over this, as this is exactly what they predicted would happen.

So does that mean they want to roll over for Putin or tell him to fuck off ?

Shady Ray · January 4, 2022

23 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

So does that mean they want to roll over for Putin or tell him to fuck off ?

The last SPD Chancellor, Gerhardt Schroeder is currently the Chairman of the Board of BOTH Nord Stream AG AND Rosneft (Russian State Oil) , Russia's second largest state-company. Second only, of course, to Gazprom (Russian State Gas).

In Germany, you have two choices to lead your government: The CDU (Merkel's party), which will roll over for Gazprom. Or you can reject them and go with the SPD, which will roll over for Gazprom.

Edit: And just to clarify for context, the Greens are hardliners on Putin. They want to kill NS2 and they even mentioned providing arms to Ukraine, which they eventually walked back due to them taking a pounding in the polls for making the statement. But nevertheless, they are very anti-Putin and very Pro-US/NATO.

Edited January 4, 2022 by Shady Ray

956 Worldwide · January 4, 2022

2 hours ago, Shady Ray said:

Yeah, that's actually what I am talking about, as well. But my point is that while the Obama did indeed pull it back, I don't think we can discount how critical the announcement of that expansion was in the calculation re Russia's actions in 2008, because at the time of that decision (and, IMO a time of reasonable Russian insecurity given what all our leadership had been up to from 2003 onwards in other areas completely unrelated to 9/11) it hadn't been pulled back. This was mainly the context of my post to @atomheartbevo, in which I said the 2008 Russo-Georgian war was the point where my IMO the NATO-Russia relationship completely ruptured and this is what Lavrov was referring to in the Burns memo.  

And yeah, you are completely right. Obama's pull back really pissed off the Central Europeans, but the original unilateral announcement of the expansion that kicked the thing off infuriated the Western Europeans. Seems like a recurring theme in this stuff.

So, the MIM-104 Patriot System that the US announced in 2005/2006 (after being condemned by the EU), and agreed formally with the Poles in 2008, was set to unilaterally deploy in Poland and Czech (radar in Czech, Patriots in Poland) - over the strong objections of Russia, France and Germany as being unnecessarily provocative by the US.

So, only with the luxury of hindsight can we say “but, they weren’t deployed until years later”. In my view, that is irrelevant when considering the Russian perspective at the outbreak of the Georgian-Russian conflict, which no one disputes was the first instance of military hostilities between Russia and a former Soviet neighbor. The fact is that we HAD announced our intended missile deployment, even though we never once said that they had behaved aggressively or improperly between 1992 and that time (if my recollection serves me...could be wrong on that, but I can't think of a situation). In fact, we based the expansion on a terribly flimsy "justification" regarding Iranian nukes being lobbed at Southeastern Europe. So, one can’t remove that completely disastrous decision from the context of 2008 just because Obama ultimately (and wisely IMO) saw it for the complete bullshit neocon provocation that it was and scuttled it over a year later.

That is not to say that the eventual positioning of those systems in later years was not justified due to subsequent Russian behavior after August of 2008, or definitely after 2014, as I agree with you there. But by that point we were down the rabbit hole with Moscow. But IMO the actions by Russia in Georgia in 2008 were not foregone conclusions by any stretch and I believe that 2008 the point that we crossed the rubicon, fueled considerably by a terrible decision to move those missiles which many policy makers in Europe, as well as on the American left, were warning us against.  

But so what reason was given that justified that expansion? No one on the US side even claimed that there was Russian aggression towards its neighbors at the time because it would have been seen as complete bullshit, even to a largely inwardly focused American public. In fact, US 3-Star General Henry Obering and Condoleeza Rice came over here and stressed over and over that the expansion has nothing to do with Russia, who Obering praised in private NATO meetings and to the German Foreign Ministry as being constructive in its relationship with its neighbors and operating positively within the framework of the NATO-Russia Council.  

So without the Soviet aggressor, which was sorely needed to justify this type of expansion in Europe, they needed another one, so they went with the ol’ trusty “American-Hostage-Takin' Mullahs in Iran” as justification to the largely geographically uninformed American public. This reasoning was completely for domestic US consumption and was laughed off the stage here…it wasn’t even treated seriously in the European debates that raged on for a couple of years before the unilateral decision went into force in 2008. Here are Der Spiegel and Deutsche Welle’s contemporaneous pieces on it. Dated from early 2017 after the absurd proposal had been under public debate for quite some time. Notice how little Iran is even mentioned. This was seen even by US allies here as a total smokescreen designed to pull a neocon move into the East at a time when they could get by with it.

By the US’ own admission, Iranian missiles at the time were insufficient to reach Western Europe, which was already “covered” by its two existing NATO-BMD systems. Furthermore, Poland and Czech themselves were also protected by the existing systems (to the extent possible, as BMD systems are, of course, notoriously unreliable), as acknowledged by the US Defense Department. So the proposed scenario was - ahem - that Iran would someday get nukes and that they would someday lash out by, uh, attacking Eastern Europe/Balkan countries, ensuring their complete annihilation…because, uh, reasons.  

It was even acknowledged at the time that Turkey, Greece and Romania could not be protected by this third proposed European BMD expansion, so we literally are talking about entering into a destabilizing expansion to cover the Balkans, Ukraine and Hungary from some Bullshit fantasy Iranian attack. Iran firing off weapons into Europe was believed by idiots and Fox News viewers…but I guess I repeat myself there. But a whole lot of people in Western Europe saw it as playing around on fundamental fault lines with Russia, fault lines that up to that point were largely calm and unimpeded - so Brussels, Berlin and Paris at large told the US, meh, fuck off with this stupid idea.

Russia of course strongly voiced its objection to this on the grounds that it would destabilize the region, threaten their national security, and then Putin offered Bush the idea of opening a joint Russian-US missile defense/radar operations facility at their existing Gabala facility in Azerbaijan, to help protect against this Iranian “threat”. The Western Europeans supported this compromise, but the US said, “nah, thanks, but no thanks. We want it in Poland”.

So what did the Bush Admin do? Those paragons of honesty and thoughtfulness Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz and the neocon crew just decided to deploy them unilaterally outside of the formal NATO process. Why? “Because Iran’s gonna nuke us all and Ayatollah Khamenei and Saddam were the 19th and 20th hijackers or somethin’…cue some Toby Keith y’all…Todd Beamer said let’s roll, appeaser homo tapered-jeans wearin’ Europe loves terrorists yeeeeeeeeeet.” They never once mentioned Russian aggression as rationale...because they couldn't. Because there had been none.

So, just to be clear, none of this justifies Russia’s current position IMO. I fully support the full spectrum of diplomatic/non-military tools at our disposal if Russia invades. But I stand by my position that the Bush administration unnecessarily escalated tension all over the world - including wrt Russia - in the post 9/11 due to their blind adherence to the neocon Wolfowitz doctrine which sought to exploit our understandable rage, fear and insecurity as a result of the 9/11 attacks to accomplish large scale (and long sought after) geopolitical moves in completely unrelated geographical areas. Again, the behavior of the US is always seen by its own citizens in a light that is extremely self-benevolent and forgiving, without recognizing that to a whole lot of other countries we were justifiably viewed as irrational aggressors under the Bush Administration.

You’re mixing up some systems. The Bush-era proposed missile defense proposal included radar in the Czech Republic and silo-based interceptors in Poland. That’s what Bush wanted, not Patriots. The Patriots were an add-on— at Poland’s insistence— after the July 2008 invasion of Georgia. And Obama stuck to that deal even after cancelling the larger project as part of the heralded reset.

https://www.rferl.org/a/Poland_And_US_Sign_Missile_Defense_Pact/1192539.html

Onboard 2.0 · January 4, 2022

20 minutes ago, Shady Ray said:

The last SPD Chancellor, Gerhardt Schroeder is currently the Chairman of the Board of BOTH Nord Stream AG AND Rosneft (Russian State Oil) , Russia's second largest state-company. Second only, of course, to Gazprom (Russian State Gas).

In Germany, you have two choices to lead your government: The CDU (Merkel's party), which will roll over for Gazprom. Or you can reject them and go with the SPD, which will roll over for Gazprom.

Edit: And just to clarify for context, the Greens are hardliners on Putin. They want to kill NS2 and they even mentioned providing arms to Ukraine, which they eventually walked back due to them taking a pounding in the polls for making the statement. But nevertheless, they are very anti-Putin and very Pro-US/NATO.

Thanks, Good 'ol Gazprom....

956 Worldwide · January 4, 2022

Also, the differences between the ABM shield and a Patriot system is not theoretical or angels dancing on the head of a pin. ABM was a proposed theater level defense system with a marginal U.S. footprint on the ground and minimal utility in a conventional conflict in Eastern Europe. Patriots are short and medium range, come with a larger U.S. troop presence, and are designed to be deployed on a conventional battlefield. The Poles badly wanted the latter, correctly judging it as a more useful local deterrent, and were barely willing to swallow the former to get it. In fact, public opinion polling right up to 2008 in Poland was against ABM and the Poles were negotiating HARD.

So here we have another own goal by Russia, in that their aggression in Georgia prodded the U.S. and Poland to just move forward with EVERYTHING and when part of the deal DID fall through it was the part less directly threatening to Russia’s balance of power. Against its stated goals, Russia got more U.S. troops and more U.s. weapons in an eastern flank nation.

Shady Ray · January 4, 2022

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

You’re mixing up some systems. The Bush-era proposed missile defense proposal included radar in the Czech Republic and silo-based interceptors in Poland. That’s what Bush wanted, not Patriots. The Patriots were an add-on— at Poland’s insistence— after the July 2008 invasion of Georgia. And Obama stuck to that deal even after cancelling the larger project as part of the heralded reset.

https://www.rferl.org/a/Poland_And_US_Sign_Missile_Defense_Pact/1192539.html

That's incorrect. The US had already offered to place Patriots in Poland in early July of 2008. The open question under negotiation between the Poles and the US in early July was whether the Patriot deployment would be temporary or permanent. The Poles wanted it to be permanent and openly said it was not for Iran, but rather directly related to Russia, and the US said it would be temporary and wanted the Poles to stop saying it was for Russia, because it was blowing up their poorly-constructed Iran narrative.

The hostilities in Georgia didn't occur in July by anyone's timeline, and the invasion occured on August 8th.

Per Reuters on July 11th, 2008, which was well before even the most generous interpretation of when the war in Georgia began.

JULY 11, 2008 6:05 PM

"Last week, Prime Minister Donald Tusk rejected as insufficient a U.S. offer to base a Patriot battery on Polish soil for just one year, but the negotiations are continuing.

The Patriot is a long-range, high-altitude, all-weather system designed to counter tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and advanced aircraft.

“We want this (Patriot) battery to be placed on our territory permanently,” Defence Minister Bogdan Klich told the Dziennik daily in an interview.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-shield-poland/poland-says-u-s-shield-deal-hinges-on-patriots-idUKL1123584120080711

IFRI issued an in-depth paper on the negotiations. Relevant portion:

The war in Georgia started on the night of August 7th, and the Russian counteroffensive and subsequent invasion started at 2:30 PM on August 8th, as per the official report issued by the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia. The initial "tit-for-tat" sniper fire/improvised explosive attacks didn't start until August 1st in any version of events. Not even the Georgians have claimed that the Russian build up occurred prior to the conclusion of the joint US-Georgia "Immediate Response 2008" exercises, which occurred in late July.

We can certainly agree on the fact that Russia did itself a disservice in invading Georgia after the shelling of South Ossetia, but it was public knowledge at the time of the invasion that the US had agreed on moving Patriots to Poland for at least a temporary term at the latest on July 4th, when Tusk first mentioned the offer publicly.

Edited to say that I do agree with you that the hostilities backfired, though, and probably got the Poles a better deal. But it didn't open the door to the introduction of a Patriot battery being deployed.

Edited January 4, 2022 by Shady Ray

Brisketexan · January 4, 2022

2 hours ago, Shady Ray said:

Relatively significant news just now coming out re the German position on Russia policy. Sorry for the goofy translation, but Bild is Germany’s largest publication by circulation and it is very typical that the biggest governing partner leaks to it, but it is not the most “high brow” German..."speed over form" with the Bild.

Anyway, Scholz going full "Merkel-vellian" and formally taking the Russia portfolio away from Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, as well as the core portfolio of Energy Policy from her Green Co-Leader, Energy and Commerce Minister, Robert Habeck. They fought like hell for these spots for those exact reasons in the coalition negotiations a few weeks back, so Big Kraut Industry must be really stepping up the pressure on Scholz. Other outlets saying direct talks between Scholz and Putin set for later this month, as Putin has said he will not talk directly to the EU, but only with the US, with an exception for Germany on the basis of it being a huge gas customer.

Greens are gonna absolutely flip, as even by Merkel's standards, this is brutally hostile to a coaltion partner...particularly in a coalition less than a month old. Their left flank is going to be apoplectic over this, as this is exactly what they predicted would happen.

My main takeway from this is that Annalena will be upset, and will need to be comforted.....

[Annelena, seen here describing the length of Brisketexan's . . . . . Surly posts]

I mean, my OTHER takeaway is that this could be a coalition-killer and thus government-killer for the new Scholz government.

956 Worldwide · January 4, 2022

10 minutes ago, Shady Ray said:

That's incorrect. The US had already offered to place Patriots in Poland in early July of 2008. The open question under negotiation between the Poles and the US in early July was whether the Patriot deployment would be temporary or permanent. The Poles wanted it to be permanent and openly said it was not for Iran, but rather directly related to Russia, and the US said it would be temporary and wanted the Poles to stop saying it was for Russia, because it was blowing up their poorly-constructed Iran narrative.

The hostilities in Georgia didn't occur in July by anyone's timeline, and the invasion occured on August 8th.

Per Reuters on July 11th, 2008, which was well before even the most generous interpretation of when the war in Georgia began.

JULY 11, 2008 6:05 PM

"Last week, Prime Minister Donald Tusk rejected as insufficient a U.S. offer to base a Patriot battery on Polish soil for just one year, but the negotiations are continuing.

The Patriot is a long-range, high-altitude, all-weather system designed to counter tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and advanced aircraft.

“We want this (Patriot) battery to be placed on our territory permanently,” Defence Minister Bogdan Klich told the Dziennik daily in an interview.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-shield-poland/poland-says-u-s-shield-deal-hinges-on-patriots-idUKL1123584120080711

IFRI issued an in-depth paper on the negotiations. Relevant portion:

The war in Georgia started on the night of August 7th, and the Russian counteroffensive and subsequent invasion started at 2:30 PM on August 8th, as per the official report issued by the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia. The initial "tit-for-tat" sniper fire/improvised explosive attacks didn't start until August 1st in any version of events. Not even the Georgians have claimed that the Russian build up occurred prior to the joint US-Georgia "Immediate Response 2008" exercises.

We can certainly agree on the fact that Russia did itself a disservice in invading Georgia after the shelling of South Ossetia, but it was public knowledge at the time of the invasion that the US had agreed on moving Patriots to Poland for at least a temporary term at the latest on July 4th, when Tusk first mentioned the offer publicly.

No, the open question in July of 2008 was still whether Poland would host anything at all— not whether Patriots would be temporary or permanent. The Poles had dug in extremely hard on this, and right up to the end of July were not tipping their hand to the U.S. side. The Georgia crisis absolutely prompted both parties to get across the finish line. In early July negotiations between Sikorski and Rice failed. Even a CRS report on this frames the August 14 agreement as a “surprise,”.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA486536.pdf

956 Worldwide · January 4, 2022

I also want to point out that we’ve strayed pretty far from the original argument upthread, which was that NATO forward deployment and advanced weapons systems in new NATO states in the early 2000s made Russia feel threatened.

We’re now talking about the details of a timeline in 2008 (which is not the early 2000s) for an agreement to place a U.S. ABM system in Poland and the Czech Republic (which was a U.S. project pursued bilaterally and not within NATO).

So back to first principles, which is that no NATO forward deployments or weapons systems placements occurred in new NATO Allies in the early 2000s, no agreements to place U.S. systems (not within NATO) were reached until 2008, and the actual stuff didn’t show up till 2010. And so really the argument has shifted into Russia reacting to Very Threatening Negotiations.

Shady Ray · January 4, 2022

2 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

No, the open question in July of 2008 was still whether Poland would host anything at all— not whether Patriots would be temporary or permanent. The Poles had dug in extremely hard on this, and right up to the end of July were not tipping their hand to the U.S. side. The Georgia crisis absolutely prompted both parties to get across the finish line. In early July negotiations between Sikorski and Rice failed. Even a CRS report on this frames the August 14 agreement as a “surprise,”.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA486536.pdf

I think we might be talking past each other.

I agree that the Georgian deal spurred parties to act to get the final elements of a long, long negotiation between the Poles and Americans closed out, but your statement that: "The Bush-era proposed missile defense proposal included radar in the Czech Republic and silo-based interceptors in Poland. That’s what Bush wanted, not Patriots" and the Patriots were an "add-on after the invasion" is what I disagree with.

The Bush-era defense proposal did, in fact, eventually offer Poland Patriots, albeit for a fixed one-year deployment, weeks prior to the Russian invasion and the Poles had rejected that offer of a one-year Patriot deployment based on their desire for a permanent fixed deployment. So the offer of Patriots to Poland was not made in response to the invasion.

Now, if you are saying that the Poles were willing to walk away from the deal entirely and host nothing whatsoever prior to the invasion, I can see your point. And yeah, that is definitely an own-goal, as you said. But I think by that point, the missile defense deployment in general was the problem anyway, regardless of the specs of it and the Russians viewed the continuous march towards an agreement as essentially a done deal.

Shady Ray · January 4, 2022

48 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

My main takeway from this is that Annalena will be upset, and will need to be comforted.....

[Annelena, seen here describing the length of Brisketexan's . . . . . Surly posts]

I mean, my OTHER takeaway is that this could be a coalition-killer and thus government-killer for the new Scholz government.

Yeah, this is the wild part. I can't believe that I am about to type this, but German politics might actually be unpredictable and exciting in 2022.

The Greens are in a tough spot, but so is the SPD. The CDU just elected old-school hardnose operative Freiderich Merz - the German version of Darth Vader - as party leader, who is a far cry from the weak, bumbling Armin Laschet who squandered a massive post-Merkel lead in the September elections. And Merz is already circling. So a collapsed government would likely bring in another Grand Coalition between the SPD and CDU, likely led by the CDU, as I honestly don't think the Germans are digging this first attempt at a three-party coaliton and won't want to try it again if it goes south.

At the same time, this very likely is the only chance that the Greens are going to have in government for a long time. The more the real impact of Germany's misguided energy policy rises to the top of discourse, the worse their electoral chances are. Like I said a few pages ago, all the German parties outside of the loons with the AfD have been involved in this anti-nuke idiocy, but for some reason the Greens are going to end up with it around their necks. So, unless they are content with being relegated back to their 8-9% opposition role that they typically have, they can't walk from the coalition nearly as easily as they might like, regardless of how much Scholz jerks them around.

Meanwhile, the FDP is sitting quietly in the corner, legalizing recreational pot and ensuring that the budget is balanced, letting the two left-wing parties murder each other in the press.

This is very unlike German politics. And honestly, I didn't think little ol' Whisperin' Scholz had the stones.

Brisketexan · January 4, 2022

8 minutes ago, Shady Ray said:

Yeah, this is the wild part. I can't believe that I am about to type this, but German politics might actually be unpredictable and exciting in 2022.

The Greens are in a tough spot, but so is the SPD. The CDU just elected old-school hardnose operative Freiderich Merz - the German version of Darth Vader - as party leader, who is a far cry from the weak, bumbling Armin Laschet who squandered a massive post-Merkel lead in the September elections. And Merz is already circling. So a collapsed government would likely bring in another Grand Coalition between the SPD and CDU, likely led by the CDU, as I honestly don't think the Germans are digging this first attempt at a three-party coaliton and won't want to try it again if it goes south.

At the same time, this very likely is the only chance that the Greens are going to have in government for a long time. The more the real impact of Germany's misguided energy policy rises to the top of discourse, the worse their electoral chances are. Like I said a few pages ago, all the German parties outside of the loons with the AfD have been involved in this anti-nuke idiocy, but for some reason the Greens are going to end up with it around their necks. So, unless they are content with being relegated back to their 8-9% opposition role that they typically have, they can't walk from the coalition nearly as easily as they might like, regardless of how much Scholz jerks them around.

Meanwhile, the FDP is sitting quietly in the corner, legalizing recreational pot and ensuring that the budget is balanced, letting the two left-wing parties murder each other in the press.

This is very unlike German politics. And honestly, I didn't think little ol' Whisperin' Scholz had the stones.

Blah blah blah. Not one word about the prospects of Annalena seeking solace in Brisket's arms. What a worthless post.

Harrison Stafford · January 7, 2022

Putin sucks.

Shady Ray · January 7, 2022

Biden admin weighs offering Russia cuts to U.S. troops in Eastern Europe
U.S. troop cuts in Poland and the Baltic would have to be matched by Russian moves in the area. The U.S. is also working to get Stingers for Ukraine.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/biden-admin-weighs-proposing-cuts-us-russian-forces-eastern-europe-rcna11080

Edit: Interesting that they are floating this in exchange for reductions to Iskanders in Kaliningrad. The Russian's won't agree to that unless the systems in Poland / Romania are removed, IMO.

Edited January 7, 2022 by Shady Ray

956 Worldwide · January 7, 2022

The United States and all of NATO has, as expected, rejected Russia’s demand that the Alliance commit to not accepting new members. Although the narrative on this is nearly all Ukraine and Georgia, it’s worth noting that both Sweden and Finland have long quietly (less quietly in recent years) but explicitly and publicly left membership as an option that they could pursue. In the buildup to this recent meeting, Sweden explicitly said that their security policy would fall apart if NATO closed the books.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/swedish-defence-strategy-tatters-if-russian-demands-met-military-chief-2022-01-07/

And of course, Russia’s narratives begin to fray once you start talking about Sweden’s potential membership.

The Alliance also made some noise about “no-second class citizens” in the Alliance, directed at the demand that certain member states be a no-deploy zone. This one has some more wriggle room, but the positions are being staked out in advance of U.S.-Russia talks.

Mrs Whiggins · January 7, 2022

On 1/3/2022 at 5:22 PM, 956 Worldwide said:

I do need to say— in a way, Ukraine can emerge as strategic threat to the Russian regime and any regime likely to replace it. I can’t stress enough how much Russian authorities rely on framing the “West” and its ways as foreign, hostile and entirely unsuited to the Russian people as a source of internal legitimacy. Poland, the Baltics, and all of Central Europe can be absorbed by the West, but they have always been “other”— Catholic, or Germanic, or non-Slavic. They belonged TO Russia but were not OF Russia.

The absorption and integration of Ukraine into the West cannot be explained away in similar terms. Although much of the official Kyivan Rus to Moscow Princes timeline is bunk, it is firmly ingrained. Ukraine is not the other. Ukrainians are brothers.

And so a successful, prosperous, peaceful Ukraine integrated into Europe would be irrefutable proof that Russia is not mystically destined to be forever ruled by despots and would destroy the idea that what is good for the Westerner will not work for the Russian. And the Russian people would begin to really ask— like they did in the 1980s— why them and not us? The Kremlin knows the logical end to those questions.

This is not theoretical, it’s a very real fear. A similar terror that a Communist or Socialist state might actually WORK haunted o Western policy makers minds for decades, so the impulse should be understandable. And even if Shady Ray’s grimmest pronouncements on the state of Ukrainian democracy are true, the Kremlin can’t take any chances. And we need to remember that keeping Ukraine poor, corrupt and dysfunctional has been official Russian policy for years now, and that every step away from Russia they take presents a risk (to Russia) that they might actually clean up their own house.

I like your take on this, and I have been trying and failing miserably on keeping up with this discussion. Although I understand the thoughts to Russians considering Ukrainians as brothers, I can't blame Ukraine for not returning the sentiment given the history. And the subsequent paragraph of the Russian citizen on the street thinking, "hmmm, is it possible? Could there be?" with respect to a future w/o a tyrant, is as you say a real fear based on how they've cracked down on the internal opposition since Navalny's arrest.

Baconboy · January 8, 2022

On 1/3/2022 at 4:29 PM, MaybeACoordinator said:

Rodney King / John Lennon / Stupid questions thread....

"Why don't we, like, ask Russia to join NATO too, man?"

Supposedly Clinton and Putin actually discussed this, though I doubt either side was truly sincere or that Putin had noble intentions when he raised the subject.

Shady Ray · January 9, 2022

IMO, this has the potential to be the most significant week of diplomatic discussions relating to European Security since the end of the Cold War, or it could fizzle out by tomorrow night, with an all-but-inevitable breakdown obvious.

Schedule for the week:

Tonight, Geneva: A previously unscheduled “working dinner” has just been announced between the two lead negotiators, Wendy Sherman, US Deputy Sec State, and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, Sergei Ryabkov. Really wish I knew what brought this late addition to the agenda about...

Monday, Geneva: Bilateral discussions between the US and Russia. Leading the discussions on the US side will be Deputy Secretary Sherman and for the Russians, Deputy FM Ryabkov.

Wednesday, Brussels: NATO-Russia Council (NRC) Meeting between, well, NATO and Russia. The last meeting of the NRC was in 2019, and in the time since then the entire mechanism of the NRC has collapsed to non-existent. This will be a completely inconsequential circlejerk.

Thursday, Vienna: Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) will meet in Vienna. This will be the US, European allies, Ukraine, Russia and various other ex-Soviet republics. This will also be PR event generating nothing in the way of diplomatic substance.

Late January, Locations TBD: Direct one-on-one discussions between Putin and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and between Putin and Macron, respectively. The official dates have not been announced for either of these, apparently out of respect for the meetings this week, per German media.

Ultimately, IMO, the NRC meeting on Wednesday and the OSCE meeting on Thursday are pure diplomatic window dressing and have been pushed and agreed to by the US purely so as not to further embarrass the NATO Alliance or the EU Commission, both of which are throwing absolute fits right now for being “cut out” of discussions involving European security. But truth be told, the Russians could not give less of a fuck about the opinions/statements of NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg (and truth be told, neither could the German and French governments, respectively).

Really surprised to see the Russians even sending Ryabkov to Brussels for the NRC meeting…I figured he would bounce after meeting the US on Monday and they would then use that as a Middle-Finger Salute to Stoltenberg by sending an even lower underling in the unofficial hierarchy of the Russian Foreign Office. I assume that is being done completely out of respect for the US’ own NATO relationship, as the Russians genuinely view Stoltenberg as a clueless technocrat without even a modicum of actual decision-making authority.

Anyway, the real “meat and potatoes” with respect to first steps on a possible path towards de-escalation will happen tonight/tomorrow in the bilateral meetings bw Russia and the US. It is the only game in town.

Edited January 9, 2022 by Shady Ray

Brisketexan · January 9, 2022

IMO, this has the potential to be the most significant week of diplomatic discussions relating to European Security since the end of the Cold War, or it could fizzle out by tomorrow night, with an all-but-inevitable breakdown obvious.

Schedule for the week:

Tonight, Geneva: A previously unscheduled “working dinner” has just been announced between the two lead negotiators, Wendy Sherman, US Deputy Sec State, and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, Sergei Ryabkov. Really wish I knew what brought this late addition to the agenda about...

Monday, Geneva: Bilateral discussions between the US and Russia. Leading the discussions on the US side will be Deputy Secretary Sherman and for the Russians, Deputy FM Ryabkov.

Wednesday, Brussels: NATO-Russia Council (NRC) Meeting between, well, NATO and Russia. The last meeting of the NRC was in 2019, and in the time since then the entire mechanism of the NRC has collapsed to non-existent. This will be a completely inconsequential circlejerk.

Thursday, Vienna: Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) will meet in Vienna. This will be the US, European allies, Ukraine, Russia and various other ex-Soviet republics. This will also be PR event generating nothing in the way of diplomatic substance.

Late January, Locations TBD: Direct one-on-one discussions between Putin and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and between Putin and Macron, respectively. The official dates have not been announced for either of these, apparently out of respect for the meetings this week, per German media.

Ultimately, IMO, the NRC meeting on Wednesday and the OSCE meeting on Thursday are pure diplomatic window dressing and have been pushed and agreed to by the US purely so as not to further embarrass the NATO Alliance or the EU Commission, both of which are throwing absolute fits right now for being “cut out” of discussions involving European security. But truth be told, the Russians could not give less of a fuck about the opinions/statements of NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg (and truth be told, neither could the German and French governments, respectively).

Really surprised to see the Russians even sending Ryabkov to Brussels for the NRC meeting…I figured he would bounce after meeting the US on Monday and they would then use that as a Middle-Finger Salute to Stoltenberg by sending an even lower underling in the unofficial hierarchy of the Russian Foreign Office. I assume that is being done completely out of respect for the US’ own NATO relationship, as the Russians genuinely view Stoltenberg as a clueless technocrat without even a modicum of actual decision-making authority.

Anyway, the real “meat and potatoes” with respect to first steps on a possible path towards de-escalation will happen tonight/tomorrow in the bilateral meetings bw Russia and the US. It is the only game in town.

As to your last point, yep. When we were in Berlin, we spent a day with a senior producer at one of the bigger German news outfits. I asked him in particular about Annalena (because duh, I have a crush on her….and ALSO because it’s interesting to have a Green “in charge” of foreign affairs), and the conversation was kinda short. His take was to the point: when it comes to the foreign affairs that really matter, like relations with Russia, the US makes the decisions, and Germany is on the periphery. His tone was a good bit annoyed by that truth, but it is what it is.

It was an interesting perspective, as I tried to push back a little and give Germany more agency, but he was firm in not pretending the truth was anything but the US driving the bus and everyone else being along for the ride.

Sign In

Russia and American elections, now featuring radical republicans as co-stars

Recommended Posts

956 Worldwide 34820

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

brakeman

Neonmoon

Creasy Bear

Posted Images

Shady Ray 1633

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Anastasis 23473

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Shady Ray 1633

Link to comment

Share on other sites

El Diablo 4232

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Shady Ray 1633

Link to comment

Share on other sites

atomheartbevo 89858

Link to comment

Share on other sites

El Diablo 4232

Link to comment

Share on other sites

atomheartbevo 89858

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Onboard 2.0 9083

Link to comment

Share on other sites

El Diablo 4232

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Anastasis 23473

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Shady Ray 1633

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Shady Ray 1633

Link to comment

Share on other sites

atomheartbevo 89858

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Cacti 191

Link to comment

Share on other sites

956 Worldwide 34820

Link to comment

Share on other sites

956 Worldwide 34820

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Brisketexan 105465

Link to comment

Share on other sites

MaybeACoordinator 8350

Link to comment

Share on other sites

956 Worldwide 34820

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Onboard 2.0 9083

Link to comment

Share on other sites

atomheartbevo 89858

Link to comment