Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[GW Hayduke 1953]

56 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

I think China and Russia got their answers on this.

NATO is dead. US will rattle swords but won't get involved with boots on the ground. But why should we if the European members can't even be bothered to give a shit. Putin will turn his attention to another western front country to continue to stress NATOs resolve, which NATO again will buckle. The most genius thing Putin did was to make Germany it's bitch by making it dependent on Russian gas. Take out one of the heads of the table and the coalition is a coalition only in name.

China sees again that the rest of the world again doesn't want to get involved in conflicts outside of their borders. They have been and will continue to assert and take over what they think is theirs or should be theirs in the Pacific. We and the rest of the world will write sternly worded letters but will do nothing. They are committing genocide while the world leaders ignore it. They are claiming land/islands "owned" by Vietnam, Japan, and Philippines. Who's going to stop them from taking those territories? Will we stop them from establishing a naval base on the Atlantic in western Africa? 

This is just another nail on the coffin for dictating policy on the world. That's fine by many but our prosperity is tied to our relationships on/to countries which we exert influence. Our economic might is dependent on our position of military strength. The two go hand in hand. 

 

 

Why do you think NATO is dead?

Why do you think NATO buckled?

[Ghost of LL 15531]

1 hour ago, crash_davis said:

I think China and Russia got their answers on this.

NATO is dead. US will rattle swords but won't get involved with boots on the ground. But why should we if the European members can't even be bothered to give a shit. Putin will turn his attention to another western front country to continue to stress NATOs resolve, which NATO again will buckle. The most genius thing Putin did was to make Germany it's bitch by making it dependent on Russian gas. Take out one of the heads of the table and the coalition is a coalition only in name.

China sees again that the rest of the world again doesn't want to get involved in conflicts outside of their borders. They have been and will continue to assert and take over what they think is theirs or should be theirs in the Pacific. We and the rest of the world will write sternly worded letters but will do nothing. They are committing genocide while the world leaders ignore it. They are claiming land/islands "owned" by Vietnam, Japan, and Philippines. Who's going to stop them from taking those territories? Will we stop them from establishing a naval base on the Atlantic in western Africa? 

This is just another nail on the coffin for dictating policy on the world. That's fine by many but our prosperity is tied to our relationships on/to countries which we exert influence. Our economic might is dependent on our position of military strength. The two go hand in hand. 

 

 

I don't understand that take at all.

The fundamental purpose--arguably the sole purpose (at least the Germans would certainly argue it's the sole purpose)--of Nato is the collective-security covenant set forth in Article V.  An attack on one member is an attack on all other members.  Ukraine isn't a member.  So Nato isn't directly implicated.

If anything, this has shown the value of Nato.  I mean, there's a reason why membership is far more popular in Finland and Sweden than it has been since . . . maybe ever?  I mean, there's a reason why Putin is about to invade Ukraine and not Estonia, and it has nothing to do with hot Ukrainian chicks (Estonian are hotter).  It has everything to do with the fact that an attack on Estonia is the same as an attack on the United States, which would be met with "massive retaliation."

[crash_davis 23107]

Just now, Ghost of LL said:

I don't understand that take at all.

The fundamental purpose--arguably the sole purpose (at least the Germans would certainly argue it's the sole purpose)--of Nato is the collective-security covenant set forth in Article V.  An attack on one member is an attack on all other members.  Ukraine isn't a member.  So Nato isn't directly implicated.

If anything, this has shown the value of Nato.  I mean, there's a reason why membership is far more popular in Finland and Sweden than it has been since . . . maybe ever?  I mean, there's a reason why Putin is about to invade Ukraine and not Estonia, and it has nothing to do with hot Ukrainian chicks (Estonian are hotter).  It has everything to do with the fact that an attack on Estonia is the same as an attack on the United States, which would be met with "massive retaliation."

Ukraine wants to NATO. NATO wants Ukraine to join. Now more than likely, Ukraine will not join NATO because it would lead to war that NATO members don't have the appetite for.

Russia is already playing bullshit games with Sweden and Finland. You think Putin won't do something similar to thwart those countries from joining, especially if NATO agrees not to add Ukraine? Will Germany all of the sudden grow balls and man up to Russia over Sweden and Finland?

[956 Worldwide 34705]

So first, we are far from out of the woods here. Again, every indication is that Russia continues its build-up.  That said, assuming this is “the end,” then here is what Putin got:

- He assembled, at great cost, 70 percent of Russia’s military might and did nothing with it.

- He got the United States, publicly, to say that they will kill NS2 if he invades and the Germans to at the very least feel they couldn’t publicly say no.

- He got no change on NATO’s open door policy and at most a “we aren’t getting ready to do it now” for Ukraine (this was the status quo and he knew they very well. Until Donbas is resolved Ukraine will never join and that has always been the case).

- He got talks on some areas that the U.S had long felt like talking about anyway. 
 

- He caused immense damage to the Ukrainian economy, which is sort of a win. 

- He got lots more lethal aid shipped to Ukraine and many more U.S. and other NATO troops on the eastern flank, which is something he has said he does not want.

- He got, at best, a revival of the moribund Minsk talks and no change to the status quo in Donbas.

- He got some hints, sort of, from France and Germany on things that France and Germany don’t get to decide. 

To summarize: He got at best the status quo on core issues, he got things he didn’t want at all in some other spheres, and he got lots of people to come to Moscow and freak out.  Given that the party they produces a crises generally wants to change the status quo— that strategy has so fair failed completely. 

[Shady Ray 1633]

23 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

Ukraine wants to NATO. NATO wants Ukraine to join. Now more than likely, Ukraine will not join NATO because it would lead to war that NATO members don't have the appetite for.

Russia is already playing bullshit games with Sweden and Finland. You think Putin won't do something similar to thwart those countries from joining, especially if NATO agrees not to add Ukraine? Will Germany all of the sudden grow balls and man up to Russia over Sweden and Finland?

Germany would fall in line in that case. For a variety of reasons, including the political expediency of having most of the voters in the country support such joint defense. 

 

But also, because by failing to do it for a NATO member, then one of two things happens: NATO indeed dies, leaving Germany to pay for its own defense, or 2) NATO expells Germany, leaving Germany to pay for its own defense. You can see the common denominator in the two scenarios...it impacts Germany's bottom line.

 

Germany still supports the idea of NATO, just sans Ukraine.

[Parliament 14255]

Their "idea" of NATO is drafting off America.

[JerrysJheriCurl 977]

6 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

- He assembled, at great cost, 70 percent of Russia’s military might and did nothing with it.

This is what I hitched my wagon to and what has me vexed. 

Either something is afoot internally politically in Russia that we don’t know about, they miscalculated the situation or they are going in. 
One of the 3 is most likely true. 
The Slavs and their wild ways. 
Only time will tell. 

[Shady Ray 1633]

Just now, Parliament said:

Their "idea" of NATO is drafting off America.

I'll defer to Lord Hastings Ismay, the first Secretary General of NATO:*

 

 

*It originally said Soviets

[retread 2951]

20 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

So a few quick counter-/additional points:

  Hide contents

 

But again, . . . it really doesn't matter.  Because Germany fundamentally does not have freedom of movement.  Germany is completely beholden to Russia for a supply of raw materials to fuel its economy, and that's not changing.  So Germany has no ability to change that, and hence no ability to influence foreign affairs vis-a-vis Russia (or, by extension, China).

 

Always enjoy your takes and the long view of history that you provide. Sorry if already beaten to death, but what is your view of why Germany has allowed itself to be hemmed in by their reliance on Russian raw materials? I mean, the Germans are often regarded as pretty savvy in technical areas, so it's perplexing to the casual observer why they are where they are. I'm sure there are geographic and long-simmering political realities of which I'm just not aware.

[BabaYaga 15290]

51 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

Ukraine wants to NATO. NATO wants Ukraine to join. Now more than likely, Ukraine will not join NATO because it would lead to war that NATO members don't have the appetite for.

Russia is already playing bullshit games with Sweden and Finland. You think Putin won't do something similar to thwart those countries from joining, especially if NATO agrees not to add Ukraine? Will Germany all of the sudden grow balls and man up to Russia over Sweden and Finland?

This will more than likely end with diplomatic assurances between the Ukrainian and Russian leaders that they will not join NATO.....which was the catalyst that started all this in the first place.  Then everyone will scramble to take credit and pat themselves on the back

[Ghost of LL 15531]

40 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

Ukraine wants to NATO. NATO wants Ukraine to join. Now more than likely, Ukraine will not join NATO because it would lead to war that NATO members don't have the appetite for.

Russia is already playing bullshit games with Sweden and Finland. You think Putin won't do something similar to thwart those countries from joining, especially if NATO agrees not to add Ukraine? Will Germany all of the sudden grow balls and man up to Russia over Sweden and Finland?

Whoa--From where on Earth do you conclude that Nato wants Ukraine to join?

Article X requires unanimous consent for a country to join the Washington Treaty.  If you took a vote today, would there be unanimous agreement?  Would Ukraine even get a majority of the votes?  I think the answer to both is pretty clearly "no."  So I don't know where you come to the conclusion that Nato "wants" Ukraine to join.

Perhaps Ukrainian membership is some aspirational goal for the future.  But even that's not a unanimous opinion within Nato.  

The entire concept of Ukrainian membership comes from an ill-conceived commentary by George W. Bush, whom I would regard as a pretty poor strategic thinker in his own right.  But even then, the concept didn't have unanimous approval, and it wasn't something regarded as imminent or anything other than highly speculative.

Nato policy is that membership is open to any "European state in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area."  That hasn't changed.  But that's a far cry from "wanting" Ukraine to join.

 

14 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

So first, we are far from out of the woods here. Again, every indication is that Russia continues its build-up.  That said, assuming this is “the end,” then here is what Putin got:

- He assembled, at great cost, 70 percent of Russia’s military might and did nothing with it.

 

So maybe someone with more military experience than me can chime in here, but my understanding is that the kind of mobilization Russia has done comes with significant cost.

To move that amount of men and equipment puts a lot of strain on an organization.  Maintenance has been delayed; equipment is out of place; men have gone without leave.  When the troops return to their barracks and the tanks return to their parks, there's a whole lot of maintenance and refitting that's going to have to happen.  And that takes time.

The punch line is that Russia isn't going to be able to draw down their deployment, and then in May ramp back up for a new threat.  It's going to take a year to get everything back up to a place where they can redeploy.

That was the situation with us in Iraq in 2003.  Even if we'd wanted to, it would have been really tough not to use the troops we deployed, because it meant that we would have no real ability to deter Saddam for a year.  So the mobilization took on an imperative of its own (and it's something the French and the Germans never accounted for in their diplomacy, which is something for which I fault them to this day).

[BabaYaga 15290]

12 minutes ago, retread said:

Always enjoy your takes and the long view of history that you provide. Sorry if already beaten to death, but what is your view of why Germany has allowed itself to be hemmed in by their reliance on Russian raw materials? I mean, the Germans are often regarded as pretty savvy in technical areas, so it's perplexing to the casual observer why they are where they are. I'm sure there are geographic and long-simmering political realities of which I'm just not aware.

Wasn't it in part because their green coalition politicians wanted an end to nuclear power, but left them holding the rope on alternatives?  Welcome NS2.  They painted themselves into a corner

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

12 minutes ago, retread said:

Always enjoy your takes and the long view of history that you provide. Sorry if already beaten to death, but what is your view of why Germany has allowed itself to be hemmed in by their reliance on Russian raw materials? I mean, the Germans are often regarded as pretty savvy in technical areas, so it's perplexing to the casual observer why they are where they are. I'm sure there are geographic and long-simmering political realities of which I'm just not aware.

Not to butt in, but they got their shit pushed in badly by the Russians in WWII and there’s still a collective angst.  At least that’s what I’ve read in a couple sources.

['stache 21802]

34 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

So first, we are far from out of the woods here. Again, every indication is that Russia continues its build-up.  That said, assuming this is “the end,” then here is what Putin got:

- He assembled, at great cost, 70 percent of Russia’s military might and did nothing with it.

- He got the United States, publicly, to say that they will kill NS2 if he invades and the Germans to at the very least feel they couldn’t publicly say no.

- He got no change on NATO’s open door policy and at most a “we aren’t getting ready to do it now” for Ukraine (this was the status quo and he knew they very well. Until Donbas is resolved Ukraine will never join and that has always been the case).

- He got talks on some areas that the U.S had long felt like talking about anyway. 
 

- He caused immense damage to the Ukrainian economy, which is sort of a win. 

- He got lots more lethal aid shipped to Ukraine and many more U.S. and other NATO troops on the eastern flank, which is something he has said he does not want.

- He got, at best, a revival of the moribund Minsk talks and no change to the status quo in Donbas.

- He got some hints, sort of, from France and Germany on things that France and Germany don’t get to decide. 

To summarize: He got at best the status quo on core issues, he got things he didn’t want at all in some other spheres, and he got lots of people to come to Moscow and freak out.  Given that the party they produces a crises generally wants to change the status quo— that strategy has so fair failed completely. 

He also got Americans to continue in-fighting with cloak room stuff. I have thought this whole time it was a major part of this for Putin, to monitor response by Americans and parts of our media to see how far he had made inroads with his active measures. Based on what I've seen, I think he'd consider it a positive notch, but maybe not as much as he had hoped (I'm being uncharacteristically positive and a part of me thinks I might be completely wrong). 

[Bevo 13576]

19 minutes ago, retread said:

Always enjoy your takes and the long view of history that you provide. Sorry if already beaten to death, but what is your view of why Germany has allowed itself to be hemmed in by their reliance on Russian raw materials? I mean, the Germans are often regarded as pretty savvy in technical areas, so it's perplexing to the casual observer why they are where they are. I'm sure there are geographic and long-simmering political realities of which I'm just not aware.

They are the leaders of the Green Movement and hate nuclear power. By moving away from fossil fuels, they left themselves vulnerable - especially to the nearest supplier of fossil fuels.

[BabaYaga 15290]

6 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Whoa--From where on Earth do you conclude that Nato wants Ukraine to join?

In October, Our Sec Def Austin travelled to the region and stated something to the point of their being an "open door" into NATO membership

NATO Membership

Then on the matter of veto, this is interesting

Quote

The Kremlin also warned last month that any expansion of NATO military infrastructure in Ukraine would cross one of President Vladimir Putin's "red lines".

Austin said "no third country has a veto over NATO's membership decisions."

"Ukraine, as you heard me say earlier, has a right to decide its own future foreign policy and we expect that they will be able to do that without any outside interference," he said.

Veto power

It seems this can easily be construed by Russia as a campaign to add Ukraine into the west. 

[Shady Ray 1633]

16 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Whoa--From where on Earth do you conclude that Nato wants Ukraine to join?

Article X requires unanimous consent for a country to join the Washington Treaty.  If you took a vote today, would there be unanimous agreement?  Would Ukraine even get a majority of the votes?  I think the answer to both is pretty clearly "no."  So I don't know where you come to the conclusion that Nato "wants" Ukraine to join.

This is right. At present, you would definitely have "no" votes from:
 

-Germany*
-France*
-Italy*
-Hungary
-Greece
-Croatia
-Slovenia
-Bulgaria
-Spain (likely)
-Portugal (likely)
 

*now electorally immovable positions
 

And that is before this situation even started. Now that it would appear that a NATO accession would exponentially increase the likelihood of an eventual NATO war with Russia, it is probably (quietly) more. And add to this the countries dependent on Germany who would be on the receiving end of intense financial pressure from Germany, you'd get to a lot more than that. 

Edited February 16, 2022 by Shady Ray

[BabaYaga 15290]

If Putin can get something in writing from Ukraine to the effect of they are not joining NATO.  It's a win for him (as well as NS2).

If Putin then backs off, the West can also claim a win for de-escalating, etc.  

[956 Worldwide 34705]

Counting votes for Ukraine’s accession makes little sense because Ukraine isn’t eligible now and won’t be short of a sea change like the settlement of Donbas peacefully and a resolution of the status of Crimea that Ukraine accepts would make them eligible.  Given that both those things will require a compete change in Russian behavior and posture to Ukraine, it’s safe to say the entire environment would be different if this ever came to that.

Putin wants public withdrawal of the unspecified “can join when eligible” and didn’t/will not get that.  That’s the prize. 

[Skipper 6133]

14 minutes ago, 'stache said:

He also got Americans to continue in-fighting with cloak room stuff. I have thought this whole time it was a major part of this for Putin, to monitor response by Americans and parts of our media to see how far he had made inroads with his active measures. Based on what I've seen, I think he'd consider it a positive notch, but maybe not as much as he had hoped (I'm being uncharacteristically positive and a part of me thinks I might be completely wrong). 

It would be interesting to hear people's take on this without going full "Cloak Room" (which I think is certainly feasible without advocating positions).  Because I pretty much try to avoid US politics given it is largely bullshit theatre and a complete beatdown.  That being said, I've seen instances of some people falling in with the Russian propaganda that it's really the US that are the aggressors here escalating things while simultaneously seeing blurbs about senate republicans being adamant if Russia invades Sanction's should be harsh (including with respect to NS2) with presumably implications that the Senate R's want to go further with sanctions than their D colleagues have been willing to go in bi-partisan discussions (which headlines presumably would not be considered "de-escalation' of crisis).   So without advocating for any specific position, is there somewhat of a disconnect in MAGA world? 

[BabaYaga 15290]

4 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Counting votes for Ukraine’s accession makes little sense because Ukraine isn’t eligible now and won’t be short of a sea change like the settlement of Donbas peacefully and a resolution of the status of Crimea that Ukraine accepts would make them eligible.  Given that both those things will require a compete change in Russian behavior and posture to Ukraine, it’s safe to say the entire environment would be different if this ever came to that.

Putin wants public withdrawal of the unspecified “can join when eligible” and didn’t/will not get that.  That’s the prize. 

Yep.  He wants it in writing to point to

[Ghost of LL 15531]

16 minutes ago, retread said:

Always enjoy your takes and the long view of history that you provide. Sorry if already beaten to death, but what is your view of why Germany has allowed itself to be hemmed in by their reliance on Russian raw materials? I mean, the Germans are often regarded as pretty savvy in technical areas, so it's perplexing to the casual observer why they are where they are. I'm sure there are geographic and long-simmering political realities of which I'm just not aware.

It's just geography.  Russia has large petroleum deposits.  Central Europe has none.

But it's not just petroleum and natural gas.  Any modern manufacturer needs aluminum, titanium, nickel, and copper.  Germany has none of that; Russia has it in abundance.  

This isn't a new state of affairs.  It goes back about a century to the 1920s when the world's economies broadly began switching from coal-fired steam power to petroleum-fueled internal-combustion engines.  

This is the situation Germany faced in 1940.  Embroiled in an ongoing war with the British Empire that, contrary to Hitler's expectations and fervent desires, seemed to have no end in sight, Germany was beholden to the Soviet Union for the raw materials necessary to prosecute the war.  And it wasn't just petroleum.  It was everything from aluminum to build Messerschmitts to ammonium nitrate to fertilize the Reich's fields.  But above all, it was petroleum.

German did have an alternative source for petroleum in 1940--Romania.  And Romania was allied with Germany.  But what happened in 1940?  The Soviet Union put the screws to Romania.  It conquered Bukovina and Bessarabia and began trying to foment a Communist insurrection.  And there was really nothing Germany could do about it.  And that led to the question, why would one be Germany's ally when Germany can't protect its allies?

So Germany had a choice--it could either (1) continue the present state of affairs, in which the Soviet Union had a chokehold on its supply of raw materials, enabling Stalin to expand Soviet influence and territory through Eastern and Central Europe at Germany's expense (probably reaching a point at some point in the not distant future where the Soviet Union would be able to dictate policy to Germany or overthrow the Nazi government entirely and replace it with a puppet regime) or (2) go get those raw materials through an invasion of the Soviet Union.

We know what choice the Germans took in 1941.  And it's not a choice that is any longer on the table.  But the state of affairs persists--Russia has a chokehold on Germany's supply of raw materials.

There are choices that Germany could have made since 1949 that might reduce that chokehold.  Perhaps it could have built more LNG terminals at Hamburg and Bremerhaven.  Perhaps it could have invested in copper mines in Chile and built a logistics network to facilitate transit of Chilean copper to German factories.  But Germany is a capitalist country, and capitalism just isn't good at sacrificing near- and medium-term profit for (speculative) long-term security.

[bolverk 29665]

16 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

This will more than likely end with diplomatic assurances between the Ukrainian and Russian leaders that they will not join NATO.....which was the catalyst that started all this in the first place.  Then everyone will scramble to take credit and pat themselves on the back

It's useful to recall that the real catalyst that started all this was when the people of Ukraine rioted and eventually deposed their corrupt, Russia-backed oligarch of a president who refused to sign the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement, whose purpose was to bring the country's economics and politics in-line with EU standards and eventually lead them to be a fully "Westernized" country. That, I think, is what Putin fears more: a free and prosperous Slavic country on his nation's border that could serve as an inspiration for the Russian people.

What's going on now is just a continuation of that struggle. There was no recent, sudden movement on Ukrainian joining NATO culminating in this crisis. It's just a flimsy excuse, because he's already got two NATO-backed Baltic neighbors on his border and he knows full-well there's no way they are a threat of military invasion. This whole thing is just a continuation of Putin's ongoing efforts to fuck with Ukraine, which includes his previous annexation of Crimea and ongoing military support of separatists in the two eastern oblasts. The bottom line is he wants to further destabilize the country and is weighing whether it's worth it to invade.

If Putin ends up truly backing off, it's because he'll have learned that if he fucks around too much, he'll certainly find out.

[JerrysJheriCurl 977]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

It's just geography.  Russia has large petroleum deposits.  Central Europe has none.

But it's not just petroleum and natural gas.  Any modern manufacturer needs aluminum, titanium, nickel, and copper.  Germany has none of that; Russia has it in abundance.  

This isn't a new state of affairs.  It goes back about a century to the 1920s when the world's economies broadly began switching from coal-fired steam power to petroleum-fueled internal-combustion engines.  

This is the situation Germany faced in 1940.  Embroiled in an ongoing war with the British Empire that, contrary to Hitler's expectations and fervent desires, seemed to have no end in sight, Germany was beholden to the Soviet Union for the raw materials necessary to prosecute the war.  And it wasn't just petroleum.  It was everything from aluminum to build Messerschmitts to ammonium nitrate to fertilize the Reich's fields.  But above all, it was petroleum.

German did have an alternative source for petroleum in 1940--Romania.  And Romania was allied with Germany.  But what happened in 1940?  The Soviet Union put the screws to Romania.  It conquered Bukovina and Bessarabia and began trying to foment a Communist insurrection.  And there was really nothing Germany could do about it.  And that led to the question, why would one be Germany's ally when Germany can't protect its allies?

So Germany had a choice--it could either (1) continue the present state of affairs, in which the Soviet Union had a chokehold on its supply of raw materials, enabling Stalin to expand Soviet influence and territory through Eastern and Central Europe at Germany's expense (probably reaching a point at some point in the not distant future where the Soviet Union would be able to dictate policy to Germany or overthrow the Nazi government entirely and replace it with a puppet regime) or (2) go get those raw materials through an invasion of the Soviet Union.

We know what choice the Germans took in 1941.  And it's not a choice that is any longer on the table.  But the state of affairs persists--Russia has a chokehold on Germany's supply of raw materials.

There are choices that Germany could have made since 1949 that might reduce that chokehold.  Perhaps it could have built more LNG terminals at Hamburg and Bremerhaven.  Perhaps it could have invested in copper mines in Chile and built a logistics network to facilitate transit of Chilean copper to German factories.  But Germany is a capitalist country, and capitalism just isn't good at sacrificing near- and medium-term profit for (speculative) long-term security.

Co-signed.

If folk want to read a good book and get a better understanding of geopolitics, read The Prize. 

Edited February 16, 2022 by JerrysJheriCurl

[BabaYaga 15290]

1 minute ago, bolverk said:

It's useful to recall that the real catalyst that started all this was when the people of Ukraine rioted and eventually deposed their corrupt, Russia-backed oligarch of a president who refused to sign the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement, whose purpose was to bring the country's economics and politics in-line with EU standards and eventually lead them to be a fully "Westernized" country. That, I think, is what Putin fears more: a free and prosperous Slavic country on his nation's border that could serve as an inspiration for the Russian people.

What's going on now is just a continuation of that struggle. There was no recent, sudden movement on Ukrainian joining NATO culminating in this crisis. It's just a flimsy excuse, because he's already got two NATO-backed Baltic neighbors on his border and he knows full-well there's no way they are a threat of military invasion. This whole thing is just a continuation of Putin's ongoing efforts to fuck with Ukraine, which includes his previous annexation of Crimea and ongoing military support of separatists in the two eastern oblasts. The bottom line is he wants to further destabilize the country and is weighing whether it's worth it to invade.

If Putin ends up truly backing off, it's because he'll have learned that if he fucks around too much, he'll certainly find out.

Putin has stated publicly more than once that he seems the Russian and Ukrainian people as one of the same.  And like an oppressive spouse, will beat the ever living shit out of the other until they "love" them (see the invasion and 14K casualties)

[Hook1997 5354]

13 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

If Putin can get something in writing from Ukraine to the effect of they are not joining NATO.  It's a win for him (as well as NS2).

If Putin then backs off, the West can also claim a win for de-escalating, etc.  

so tell Putin they will never add them and a wink and nod from NATO to Ukraine saying we got you.  I’m not sure that’s enough for him at this point.

[MonkeyDoughnut 10232]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

So first, we are far from out of the woods here. Again, every indication is that Russia continues its build-up.  That said, assuming this is “the end,” then here is what Putin got:

- He assembled, at great cost, 70 percent of Russia’s military might and did nothing with it.

- He got the United States, publicly, to say that they will kill NS2 if he invades and the Germans to at the very least feel they couldn’t publicly say no.

- He got no change on NATO’s open door policy and at most a “we aren’t getting ready to do it now” for Ukraine (this was the status quo and he knew they very well. Until Donbas is resolved Ukraine will never join and that has always been the case).

- He got talks on some areas that the U.S had long felt like talking about anyway. 
 

- He caused immense damage to the Ukrainian economy, which is sort of a win. 

- He got lots more lethal aid shipped to Ukraine and many more U.S. and other NATO troops on the eastern flank, which is something he has said he does not want.

- He got, at best, a revival of the moribund Minsk talks and no change to the status quo in Donbas.

- He got some hints, sort of, from France and Germany on things that France and Germany don’t get to decide. 

To summarize: He got at best the status quo on core issues, he got things he didn’t want at all in some other spheres, and he got lots of people to come to Moscow and freak out.  Given that the party they produces a crises generally wants to change the status quo— that strategy has so fair failed completely. 

First and foremost Putin created an outside threat to Russia. He's dealing with a lot of internal issues and his party needs a reason to continue to not only exist but maintain firm control. I don't think there was ever a thought to invade, although he would not hesitate to "defend" if called upon. He's created a story of Russia defending itself from NATO encroachment and the western (mainly US) continued meddling in their affairs.

[retread 2951]

6 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

It's just geography.  Russia has large petroleum deposits.  Central Europe has none....

Appreciate the insight from you and others. 

[BabaYaga 15290]

1 minute ago, Hook1997 said:

so tell Putin they will never add them and a wink and nod from NATO to Ukraine saying we got you.  I’m not sure that’s enough for him at this point.

He needs something he can "sell" on his side of the fence as a win.  They have a smaller GDP that Italy.  They need to export this natural gas and other items as much as the EU recipients need it.  Their legacy military is not insignificant, but they are far from being a world actor on the larger stage in terms of sustained logistics and deployment.  

[BabaYaga 15290]

3 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

First and foremost Putin created an outside threat to Russia. He's dealing with a lot of internal issues and his party needs a reason to continue to not only exist but maintain firm control. I don't think there was ever a thought to invade, although he would not hesitate to "defend" if called upon. He's created a story of Russia defending itself from NATO encroachment and the western (mainly US) continued meddling in their affairs.

Giant red herring

[BabaYaga 15290]

6 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Without plowing this into full CR world, Putin and his cyberwarriors were able to infiltrate both campaigns to a great extent during the '16 election.  They really didn't care who won.  Their victory was Pyrrhic, a long slow burning of America from within.  They win if Hilary wins, they win if Trump wins.  They just needed two fucking stooges big enough to completely disrupt the American politesse from reality and fight each other rather than worry about everyone else's dirty laundry.  It's worked to great extreme.  

They've been doing this since the Cold War.  They just found a new and better medium.  

[JerrysJheriCurl 977]

Is it possible that we stay the course on this discussion as we were doing for the past few weeks?

I, for one, don’t want this going CR. Maybe folk can create a CR version in that space provided.

Thanks in advance. 

Edited February 16, 2022 by JerrysJheriCurl

[InkaUtexas 25909]

So online OSINT Groups are still posting a lot of moving equipment heading west. One of the more interesting items is construction of pontoon bridges near the border that shorten the run from Belarus to Kyiv substantially. 

Don't know what Ivan is doing, but really makes little sense. Spending a ton of fuel and cash to do this without an end game makes little sense. 

[Skipper 6133]

17 minutes ago, JerrysJheriCurl said:

Is it possible that we stay the course on this discussion as we were doing for the past few weeks?

I, for one, don’t want this going CR. Maybe folk can create a CR version in that space provided.

Thanks in advance. 

Fair.  Probably not possible to discuss US political interplay on this topic without falling down the slippery slope.

[Captainant 27655]

2 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Fair.  Probably not possible to discuss US political interplay on this topic without falling down the slippery slope.

Considering there was an impeachment on the matter of the attempt to withold defensive armament to Ukraine that was allocated by congress, I would agree. I moved followup to a more appropriate thread

[BabaYaga 15290]

19 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Don't know what Ivan is doing, but really makes little sense. 

[InkaUtexas 25909]

Russia telling OSCE nah, you are irrelevant. I said OSCE was toothless upthread and Russia just called them out. 

https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1493863076847927298

[Enchubben 5510]

1 hour ago, Bevo said:

They are the leaders of the Green Movement and hate nuclear power. By moving away from fossil fuels, they left themselves vulnerable - especially to the nearest supplier of fossil fuels.

France not far behind. They've done their part in shutting down US LNG because it's dirty in favor of future projects with Qatar etc.

[Brothahorn 10087]

The skirt stake comes from the plate section of meat. The chicken fried steak cut comes from a chicken so it isn't shown in this diagram. Russians are chickens also so I don't see how they could flank.

Nothing like a good smoked beef shank.

[utee94 15812]

10 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

France not far behind. They've done their part in shutting down US LNG because it's dirty in favor of future projects with Qatar etc.

Macron is all about nuclear, the Germans won't be pleased with them if they proceed as stated.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/10/france-to-build-up-to-14-new-nuclear-reactors-by-2050-says-macron

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/macron-bets-nuclear-carbon-neutrality-push-announces-new-reactors-2022-02-10/

Quote

France to build up to 14 new nuclear reactors by 2050, says Macron

French president says ‘renaissance’ of atomic energy industry will help end country’s reliance on fossil fuels

 

[gmr548 16576]

Oh I don't disagree.  I just mean with this specific issue (and as someone who will never watch fox news but hears "hot takes" from certain people that probably watch it non-stop). 
 I'm just trying to reconcile the disconnect between "Biden is a foreign policy disaster escalating this crisis with unreasonable positions through his puppets in "the MSM" and if Russia attacks we are forcing their hand" with public statements from R senators in support of sanctions to the effect that "If Russia attacks we  want harsher sanctions than our D colleagues are willing to support including absolutely killing NS2 (with maybe an nod to the potential upside of a conflict in energy and arms clients....err..financial supporters).

This vibes with the larger trend that, even as domestic politics have descended to the depths of the contemporary shitshow, politicians on both sides of the aisle have generally remained less polarized and dogmatic on matters of foreign policy.

I don’t have a good explanation as to why many Rupublican senators are willing to tell the MAGA/FOX a news crowd to fuck themselves here but not on other, seemingly more straightforward issues. My layman’s hypothesis is that the American public is just fairly ignorant on world events and foreign policy, and leaders feel less pressure to pander to party bases.

[Homercles 10205]

6 hours ago, Bevo said:

The skirt stake comes from the plate section of meat. The chicken fried steak cut comes from a chicken so it isn't shown in this diagram. Russians are chickens also so I don't see how they could flank.

[Brisketexan 105095]

9 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Macron is all about nuclear, the Germans won't be pleased with them if they proceed as stated.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/10/france-to-build-up-to-14-new-nuclear-reactors-by-2050-says-macron

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/macron-bets-nuclear-carbon-neutrality-push-announces-new-reactors-2022-02-10/

 

And the French response will be -- appropriately -- you can kiss our gallic asses.

[BabaYaga 15290]

20 minutes ago, Brothahorn said:

6 hours ago, Bevo said:

The skirt stake comes from the plate section of meat. The chicken fried steak cut comes from a chicken so it isn't shown in this diagram. Russians are chickens also so I don't see how they could flank.

Nothing like a good smoked beef shank.

Do you even smoked beef cheek?

[Hefeweizen 5311]

1 hour ago, Trey3216 said:

Well, the answer to that is both.  And the bigger answer to that is Russia made it easy and served it to both on a platter.  Are you forgetting/denying the sitting President's son's actions in Ukraine for the past 10 years or so?  That shit is documented, and goes well into the Ukrainian corruption department and into Russian interference.  

 

I'll leave it at that.   

Jesus H Christ not this smelly dogshit.  Negged for bringing that in here when there was a really solid discussion.  Slapdick.

[956 Worldwide 34705]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

It's useful to recall that the real catalyst that started all this was when the people of Ukraine rioted and eventually deposed their corrupt, Russia-backed oligarch of a president who refused to sign the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement, whose purpose was to bring the country's economics and politics in-line with EU standards and eventually lead them to be a fully "Westernized" country. That, I think, is what Putin fears more: a free and prosperous Slavic country on his nation's border that could serve as an inspiration for the Russian people.

What's going on now is just a continuation of that struggle. There was no recent, sudden movement on Ukrainian joining NATO culminating in this crisis. It's just a flimsy excuse, because he's already got two NATO-backed Baltic neighbors on his border and he knows full-well there's no way they are a threat of military invasion. This whole thing is just a continuation of Putin's ongoing efforts to fuck with Ukraine, which includes his previous annexation of Crimea and ongoing military support of separatists in the two eastern oblasts. The bottom line is he wants to further destabilize the country and is weighing whether it's worth it to invade.

If Putin ends up truly backing off, it's because he'll have learned that if he fucks around too much, he'll certainly find out.

This is it exactly correct. First- Russia remains fully capable of launching anything from a full to limited attack within hours.  Nothing about their force posture has changed.

Second, @bolverk accurately points out that this crisis was created by Russia in response to nothing.  No vote on NATO for Ukraine on the horizon or even talk of one. No new weapons systems deployed to Ukraine. No new buildups on the eastern wing of NATO.  Biden had climbed down on NS2.  Ukraine was not prepping an assault on Donbas. 
 

To geek out on international relations, a state creating a crisis is either looking to change or preserve the status quo. Given that no one in Ukraine or the West was threatening the status quo— Russia wanted to change it. 
 

So let’s go to the rare bit of candor in the Lavrov-Putin “give diplomacy a chance” tv appearance.  Lavrov said “l[paraphrasing] “our most fundamental demands have not been met, I have received unsatisfactory responses from European capitals.  The Americans have some interesting secondary level proposals we can discuss. And maybe yet we can find agreement on some core things.” 
 

I think that captures the state of play from the Russian angle.  They had core demands, those demands haven’t been met.  If— and it’s a big if— they still climb down, then there’s not a good way to call this a win for Putin. It is a return to status quo after freaking everyone the fuck out and deploying most of his army in an attempt to shift it. 

[FartingMonk 3606]

56 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Macron is all about nuclear, the Germans won't be pleased with them if they proceed as stated.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/10/france-to-build-up-to-14-new-nuclear-reactors-by-2050-says-macron

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/macron-bets-nuclear-carbon-neutrality-push-announces-new-reactors-2022-02-10/

 

We would be balls to the wall nuclear now if it wasn't for the little incident at Fukushima.  Obama was pushing it.  Green peace said that was the way to go.  All the NIMBY people were quiet.  Oil prices were at a high.  Then the fucking Nips didnt move their diesels after many lessons learned about coastal flooding and raised diesel generators

[BabaYaga 15290]

1 minute ago, FartingMonk said:

Then the fucking Nips

[bolverk 29665]

Far be it for me to contradict any of you who're on the ground in Europe about European sentiments toward Ukraine, but this recent poll kind of tells a different picture. Three-quarters are on Ukraine's side and a full quarter are willing to support Ukraine with military intervention in a conflict with Russia. Holy shit, that's a lot higher than I would've expected. 

https://www.politico.eu/article/european-favor-defense-ukraine-diplomacy-poll/

[Brisketexan 105095]

Had a chuckle with the boy yesterday.  He texts "So....Russia may be set to attack tomorrow?"  I said yeah, but nothing for you to worry about.  He replies "Says you -- I'm living in a NATO capital city within airstrike range."  I told him 1) he knows where his U-bahn station bomb shelter is -- it's right out his front door, so if he hears air raid sirens, hustle there toot sweet.  But again, he has nothing to worry about -- Russia isn't going to bomb its primary source of accounts receivable.  He replied with a laugh emoji and "that's probably right."