Europe at War

[milk]

The US has treaty obligations, but that does not mean that the US would live up to all obligations.  Nor does it mean it should.  The US most certainly should not engage in full scale war with Russia to protect the Baltics, for instance.  Expansion of NATO to the east was a potentially fatal decision.  The US has reneged on treaties in the past, so just because a treaty exists does not mean the US will fulfill its obligations.  This indicates some room for maneuver for America.  Thankfully. 

Note that it is essentially impossible to see NATO obligations as "moral".


What does 'gone rogue' mean?

But I find the position that goes against the grain to be interesting. This argument here, if I understand it, is that it's not necessarily in the U.S.'s interest to act on its NATO promises. It's worth considering what this means.

Nor, so far as I can tell, being able to care.

But it might be worthwhile to explore that position to better understand one's own. I think it is in the interest of the U.S. to defend its NATO partners. I want to ask, what are the repercussions of failing to act? I just want to make sure I understand my own position. Obviously, the U.S. is not in the business being the moral police but there should be red lines IMO. Where and why is the question. I also think the U.S. should do more to help the Ukraine. Or at least we should tell the Chinese that we will match any assistance they give Russia. I'm trying to follow different views of real experts to see what the best positions are on all sides.

[Que]

What does 'gone rogue' mean?

One could argue that all superpowers are rogue, in a way, since they are ultimately not bound by common rules and international law.

What I mean with it is that Russia broke with the "frozen" status quo of the Cold War in which both parties were focused on maintaining a stable relationship between the two blocks. Instead, it decided a decade or so ago on an aggressive campaign to "defend" its sphere of influence and target western interests. Cyber warfare has been used in attempts to influence political events (elections, Brexit) and disrupt vital infrastructure.

And we all know why: Russia lost the Cold War and its sphere of influence fell apart, because it was founded on coercion and suppression. The "other" block offered European nations peace and security, freedom and prosperity. Unlike many commentators I don't think this was "our own" fault. But we probably missed important opportunities to manage our relationship with Russia beter. The idea that the Russian empire would just continue a process of quiet decline was probably naive.

In an item I saw a couple of days ago on NATO troops in Lithuania a Danish general was interviewed. His comment was that Russia had been waging war against the west for years, but we thought it was peace.... And now Russia is waging war by way of a fully fledged armed conflict, it is telling us there is no war and this is just a security operation.

For those thinking this is "just" a conflict between Russia and Ukraine: make no mistake. Russia is, and has been, waging war against all of us (in the west). Ultimately these are the last spasms of a dying empire and in the long term Russia won't be a threat on itself. But I agree with Florestan: right now Russia is extremely dangerous - Putin has nothing to lose, or it least he acts like it.

Further down the road I do see the risk of an Russia-China axis, in which Russia will become the junior partner - enhancing China's power globally. Both parties already agreed upon such an alliance, but I'm sure that in Putin's mind this would be on equal footing. This means that after all this we cannot afford alienating Russia even more. Somehow it has to be reconnected again to the western world in a restored, mutually beneficial partnership. But for that we probably need someone else in the Kremlin.

[The new erato]

A musical reference:

[Mandryka]

I thought that President Biden made a good speech in Warsaw today - best I have heard from him.

Do you think it's good that Biden's objective is not peace in Ukraine but regime change in Russia, i.e. the Ukrainians must suffer war until Putin is gone?

Either that, or Biden's a POTUS who doesn't mean what he says.

[Que]

Do you think it's good that Biden's objective is not peace in Ukraine but regime change in Russia, i.e. the Ukrainians must suffer war until Putin is gone?

Either that, or Biden's a POTUS who doesn't mean what he says.

That was another of Biden's infamous gaffes.... The White House has already back peddled on regime change.

But the damage has already been done: this is something you don't want to say, but you don't want to have to deny it either...

It's old age, Biden is just too old for this office... But we already knew that.

[milk]

That was one of Biden's infamous gaffes.... The White House has already back peddled on regime change.

But the damage has already been done: this is something you don't want to say, but you don't want to have to deny it either...

It's old age, Biden is just too old for this office... But we already knew that.

I posted a link of a former Putin advisor interview above. It's interesting that he kept making the point over and over again that Putin succeeds by threatening the west, even with nuclear strikes, while the U.S. responds with fear and taking things off the table. Of course my first impulse is to take nuclear weapons off the table, direct military engagement and regime change, but I can at least consider what this Putin expert is saying. He's saying western powers tie their hands in dealing with Putin by giving up at the outset. He also lists examples of when the U.S. and other states used "hard power" or definitive action against Russia and saw it back down (in Syria). In those cases, Putin does backs down and never mentions it. He makes a case that there's no use making a policy out of fear since, he says, because it's like telling an intruder in your house that you won't use the baseball bat in your hands to to defend yourself no matter what.

[Mandryka]

That was another of Biden's infamous gaffes.... The White House has already back peddled on regime change.

But the damage has already been done: this is something you don't want to say, but you don't want to have to deny it either...

It's old age, Biden is just too old for this office... But we already knew that.

I think it possibly is the US objective, and that it's also true that it's bad to have said it, because it plays to Putin's narrative.

[BasilValentine]

I think it possibly is the US objective, and that it's also true that it's bad to have said it, because it plays to Putin's narrative.

Without action to achieve an end, the word objective is meaningless and what one is left with is called a wish. And yes, it's stupid to have said it.

[JBS]

Do you think it's good that Biden's objective is not peace in Ukraine but regime change in Russia, i.e. the Ukrainians must suffer war until Putin is gone?

Either that, or Biden's a POTUS who doesn't mean what he says.

He was stating a fact: until Putin is gone, Ukraine will not be out of danger.

[Mandryka]

He was stating a fact: until Putin is gone, Ukraine will not be out of danger.

That is not what he stated.

[Gurn Blanston]

That is not what he stated.

I'm good with my President being truthful,  whether it was intentional or not.  I am 100% in favor of regime change in Russia,  and if that's something you aren't supposed to say out loud,  well I guess that's just some hard cheese for Vlad to chew on. 

[Todd]

What I mean with it is that Russia broke with the "frozen" status quo of the Cold War in which both parties were focused on maintaining a stable relationship between the two blocks.

The blocs were frozen only until 1999, at which time NATO added three more countries.  NATO then expanded three more times, most recently in 2020.  The West has been actively ignoring a frozen status quo - something which, in fact, never existed.  NATO expansion to Russian borders is intrinsically provocative.  The perfect historical analogy to how western countries would react in a similar situation, the US in particular, is the Cuban Missile Crisis.  No major power just stands by as its main foe places military power on its border.  The US was ready to engage in nuclear war to protect itself.  That sounds rather familiar today.

For those thinking this is "just" a conflict between Russia and Ukraine: make no mistake. Russia is, and has been, waging war against all of us (in the west). Ultimately these are the last spasms of a dying empire and in the long term Russia won't be a threat on itself. But I agree with Florestan: right now Russia is extremely dangerous - Putin has nothing to lose, or it least he acts like it.

Russia has been waging war against The West and The West has been waging war against Russia.  The West has had sanctions in place for eight years.  That is modern day siege warfare.  Also, the US, in particular, has been very busy engaging in cyberwarfare against Russia - and other countries.  The US has the most developed capacity in this domain and does not hesitate to use it, purportedly only against bad actors.  The West, meaning primarily the US, does not hesitate to use its financial and diplomatic power to fund opposition parties, foment or aid movements (eg, the so-called "Color Revolutions", and I do not mean in the sense that they were or all US/Western organized operations, just that the US/West gleefully supports internal dissent of all varieties), and generally attempt to steer wayward states in the proper direction, namely one adhering to Western ideals. 

It is true that Putin is dangerous – to some countries.  The only security risk he poses to the US is through the Russian nuclear arsenal, and there is no current indication that even Putin is willing to engage in direct armed conflict with NATO, though he will most understandably engage in all other forms of warfare.  That is what The West is doing right now.  As the current war amply demonstrates, Russian ability to project power on a truly large scale is limited.  It poses no challenge at all to US naval power or global air supremacy.  No other country or combination of countries currently does, either, it must be noted, but that does not offer all the guarantees that may imply.  Russia is limited to small and mid-sized military excursions in its near abroad, or more targeted campaigns in select regions, like Syria.  That does not mean that The West should adopt triumphalist outlooks and talk tough about expanding direct armed conflict with Russia, because that will end badly for almost everyone. 

Further down the road I do see the risk of an Russia-China axis, in which Russia will become the junior partner - enhancing China's power globally. Both parties already agreed upon such an alliance, but I'm sure that in Putin's mind this would be on equal footing. This means that after all this we cannot afford alienating Russia even more. Somehow it has to be reconnected again to the western world in a restored, mutually beneficial partnership. But for that we probably need someone else in the Kremlin.

There is truth here, in particular the idea that The West will have to partner with Russia at some point to counter growing Chinese power as China expands its influence in central, east, southeast, and potentially south Asia.  But Russia will not be an effective transactional ally if it is threatened by The West.  The West must be willing to give something up.  This is one of the critical shortcomings of The West: Western leaders (appear to) believe that their values are universal and right and that all other states must adhere to them.  That is wrong.  It is a crusader mentality (in the contemporary foreign policy analysis sense of the word crusader), something which especially afflicts the US at various times.  It will inevitably lead to unnecessary conflict, political or economic or military.

[Todd]

That was another of Biden's infamous gaffes....

It was not a gaffe.  He was reading the teleprompter. 

[Todd]

While the President of the United States reads speeches with the most inflammatory rhetoric possible, and the kind sure to catch the attention not just of Russia but also of China, some more responsible and temperate leaders are willing to at least speak responsibly:

Turkey says world cannot 'burn bridges' with Moscow

France's Macron calls for restraint in words and actions regarding Ukraine conflict

We want to stop the war that Russia has launched in Ukraine without escalation -- that's the objective, if this is what we want to do, we should not escalate things -- neither with words nor actions

Maybe after Macron wins reelection he will sing a different tune.

[drogulus]

Do you think it's good that Biden's objective is not peace in Ukraine but regime change in Russia, i.e. the Ukrainians must suffer war until Putin is gone?

Either that, or Biden's a POTUS who doesn't mean what he says.

     China has announced it wants peace in Ukraine. The "no to war, no to NATO" faction wants that, too.

     All indications are Ukraine disagrees. They are paying a high cost to stay free of Russian domination and national obliteration.

     I don't know what's behind Biden's statement. What's curious is not that Biden wants Putin to be removed, but that he would say so.

     Here we really are in the dark. I'm not sure who Biden is talking to.

[JBS]

1)Western values--the idea of the individual human being must be free to think, to speak, to do--are universal values. The less a society adheres to that idea, the less it prospers materially, intellectually, spiritually.
2) Internal dissent is an integral part of democracy, and should always be allowed. Even if it comes from Trumpniks
3) Between the end of the Cold War and the rise of Putin,  the West and Russia were not foes.

[Todd]

1)Western values--the idea of the individual human being must be free to think, to speak, to do--are universal values.

They are not universal.

The less a society adheres to that idea, the less it prospers materially, intellectually, spiritually.

Correct, at least to the first two aspects of prosperity.  The bit about spiritual prosperity is dubious.

2) Internal dissent is an integral part of democracy, and should always be allowed. Even if it comes from Trumpniks

In a liberal democracy, informed by Western values, yes.

3) Between the end of the Cold War and the rise of Putin,  the West and Russia were not foes.

Nor were they allies.

[drogulus]

     Former DNI Clapper opined on CNN that Biden had a specific audience in mind. I think we (we know who we are) agree about that. It can be a "gaffe", too. Who says it can't?

     

[BasilValentine]

The blocs were frozen only until 1999, at which time NATO added three more countries.  NATO then expanded three more times, most recently in 2020.  The West has been actively ignoring a frozen status quo - something which, in fact, never existed.  NATO expansion to Russian borders is intrinsically provocative.  The perfect historical analogy to how western countries would react in a similar situation, the US in particular, is the Cuban Missile Crisis.  No major power just stands by as its main foe places military power on its border.  The US was ready to engage in nuclear war to protect itself.  That sounds rather familiar today.

The "expansion" of a defensive alliance, especially when it is figurative (that is, does not involve the expanded control of territory by a centralized power) is not intrinsically provocative. It's provocative in a particular circumstance to a particular audience.

Russia has been waging war against The West and The West has been waging war against Russia.  The West has had sanctions in place for eight years.  That is modern day siege warfare.

If by modern siege warfare you mean metaphorical siege warfare, then yes. 
[/quote]

[Todd]

The "expansion" of a defensive alliance, especially when it is figurative (that is, does not involve the expanded control of territory by a centralized power) is not intrinsically provocative. It's provocative in a particular circumstance to a particular audience.

It is intrinsically provocative.

If by modern siege warfare you mean metaphorical siege warfare, then yes.

It is modern siege warfare.