Europe at War

[Todd]

Interesting, but I'm not sure how Chomsky sees that as a possible out at this point, since NATO has in fact expanded since Bush 41 made his similar proposal. Given that I don't see a contraction of NATO as a realistic possibility, I should think that ship has sailed.

The word being used is accommodation, which can take multiple forms.  Ukrainian neutrality is one practical form of accommodation.  Biden has said he supports it - if Ukraine asks for it.  That may be able to be arranged.  A cessation of weapons shipments is another.  Discussions about future changes to the NATO charter is another.  Basically, keep all the NATO members, but put in place a mechanism that recognizes some members are more equal than others in terms of invoking Article 5 and that thresholds for action differ.  This of course could never be discussed in the current environment.  Even longer-term options like shrinking or dissolving NATO will take either several very non-interventionist administrations in succession (which of course would be tarred as "isolationist"), and that seems highly unlikely, or the defeat of the US in a great power war, which is today a very remote possibility.  The US will not maintain its current dominance forever, though, and risk of defeat, though not in terms of the US being conquered, will become more of a reality as time goes by.  I would say in the 2030s/40s the global balance of power will have shifted enough to create conditions where US military supremacy does not offer the same guarantees all around the world that it does now.  Economic dominance will also decline.  The Second Iraq War marks the beginning of the end of (never really existent) US military unipolarity, and the Russo-Ukrainian war marks the beginning of the end of some of the policy tools of US economic warfare that were put into place in the wake of 9/11.  The heavy-handed manner of implementation will also likely hasten, albeit in a very minor way, the end of dollar dominance more generally. 

It is also noteworthy that Chomsky states in his interview that the Pentagon has ended up being a peace keeping element in this crisis.

[krummholz]

The word being used is accommodation, which can take multiple forms.  Ukrainian neutrality is one practical form of accommodation.  Biden has said he supports it - if Ukraine asks for it.  That may be able to be arranged.  A cessation of weapons shipments is another.  Discussions about future changes to the NATO charter is another.  Basically, keep all the NATO members, but put in place a mechanism that recognizes some members are more equal than others in terms of invoking Article 5 and that thresholds for action differ.  This of course could never be discussed in the current environment.  Even longer-term options like shrinking or dissolving NATO will take either several very non-interventionist administrations in succession (which of course would be tarred as "isolationist"), and that seems highly unlikely, or the defeat of the US in a great power war, which is today a very remote possibility.

The only one of those options that seems to be a realistic possibility, in light of what the parties themselves have said, is Ukrainian neutrality. I don't see weapons shipments stopping without a lasting cease fire at the very least, more likely complete Russian withdrawal from Ukraine. I don't think changes to the NATO charter along the lines described are going to happen anytime soon. Shrink or dissolve NATO? Won't happen except as the negotiated outcome of a major war in which NATO forces are soundly defeated.

[Florestan]

The only feasible possibility is indeed Ulrainian neutrality, guaranteed by an international agreement / treaty, all others are not worth wasting time on. But let's not forget that such an agreement actually existed, guaranteeing Ukrainian territorial integrity --- until in 2014 Russia broke it and the other signatories did not enforce it, thus proving it was just a scrap of paper that nobody had taken seriously from the beginning. (The big irony is that Ukraine had been persuaded to give up their nukes in exchange for those guarantees). So if I were Ukrainioan I wouldn't put much trust in any such future agreement: who and how will guarantee that this time the guarantees will be effective should Russia break it again --- and we all know that this is a question of "when" rather than "if".

[Harry]

The only feasible possibility is indeed Ulrainian neutrality, guaranteed by an international agreement / treaty, all others are not worth wasting time on. But let's not forget that such an agreement actually existed, guaranteeing Ukrainian territorial integrity --- until in 2014 Russia broke it and the other signatories did not enforce it, thus proving it was just a scrap of paper that nobody had taken seriously from the beginning. (The big irony is that Ukraine had been persuaded to give up their nukes in exchange for those guarantees). So if I were Ukrainioan I wouldn't put much trust in any such future agreement: who and how will guarantee that this time the guarantees will be effective should Russia break it again --- and we all know that this is a question of "when" rather than "if".

But at least the borders will be effectively defended, by all the military equipment send to the Ukraine. And of course the Nato borders will have permanent protection, which is a good thing too. But lets not get ahead of ourselves, the war is still in full flight, who knows what will happy in the near future.

[Todd]

all others are not worth wasting time on.

It is intriguing that the cessation of large-scale shipments of weapons is seen as not feasible. 

[Todd]

And of course the Nato borders will have permanent protection

History is very clear on this: no security arrangement is permanent.  People alive today have no special insights or abilities when compared to those who came before.

[Florestan]

It is intriguing that the cessation of large-scale shipments of weapons is seen as not feasible.

I was referring mainly to the various scenarios about NATO's future.

[Todd]

I was referring mainly to the various scenarios about NATO's future.

They are definitely low probability or no probability outcomes, but they illustrate that options exist.  These options would generally be superior to defeat in an unnecessary great power war - and all such wars are pretty much unnecessary.  They do happen though, from time to time.

[drogulus]

     There's no point to relying on an agreement on Ukrainian independence that is not backed by sufficient weaponry. Once Ukraine can defend itself and Putin departs we can have agreements, even one that states Ukraine is neutral. Ukraine won't be neutral, but on paper it will be.

     The Russian invasion has created a fact about the convergence of interests of Ukraine and NATO that can't be agreed away. Poland must have a secure Ukraine, Germany must have a secure Poland. NATO is as much about the security of the East as it was the security of the West. The alliance has evolved to accommodate the present threat. Russia is dying inside and the solution chosen by Putin is expansion to bring as many Russians and quasi-Russians into the empire as possible before the country falls apart altogether.

     The answer to critics of NATO desperate to obsolete it is what's happening now, proof that it's capable of evolving to meet new conditions. Putin is not the only one shocked by this. One imagines how Xi is thinking about how his own military would fare in an invasion of Taiwan.

     

[Florestan]

    Poland must have a secure Ukraine,

A secure Ukraine is a must for Romania and Moldova as well. The farther Russia is kept from our borders, the better.

[Todd]

A secure Ukraine is a must for Romania and Moldova as well. The farther Russia is kept from our borders, the better.

What must the US have?

[drogulus]

     More than half of the 155mm howitzers the US will send to Ukraine have been delivered. A hated NATO can defeat Putin just as well as a loved one.

     I was hoping for F-16s. That's not feasible, at least not in the near term. It takes months of training to fly them according to the USAF.

A secure Ukraine is a must for Romania and Moldova as well. The farther Russia is kept from our borders, the better.

     Putin exhibits the Russian fear of being surrounded to an unhealthy degree. What happens to countries that fear being surrounded and treat neighbors as enemies? They are surrounded.

     Generally countries unsurround themselves by making agreements with neighbors and keeping them. Over time trust is built and terrible history is overcome. Alliances are created. Trade agreements are signed and dispute mechanisms are put in place.

     Russia hasn't figured out how to operate this way. It's not just a matter of historical inevitability, though. Russians are not wrong to doubt that the country can flourish in a cooperative mode with the advanced countries.

     I wish I was good at predicting the future. I'd predict that within a few years an international team will be operating in Russia hunting for every nuclear warhead.

[drogulus]

     The US doesn't want to be drawn into war by small countries far away that can't defend themselves. The solution is to see that they are defended. It turns out that bringing small threatened countries under the defense umbrella is safer than leaving them out. Putin proved the case, so no doubt remains.

[Florestan]

What must the US have?

Ideally (pun!),

(1) as much staunch allies/friends and as little bitter enemies as they can without compromising the principles of which they made themselves the beacon and guardian. While allies and friends come in different shapes and sizes, it's inevitable that enemies come in the form of other great powers

which requires

(2) a firm and principled foreign policy aimed at showcasing the benefits of belonging to the former group and the disadvantages of belonging to the latter group, with special emphasis on the fact that the transition from enemy to friend is entirely possible and welcomed,  and completely dependent on the rationality and goodwill of those who would want to take the step.

Idealistic, I know, but you asked, I answered.

[Florestan]

          Putin exhibits the Russian fear of being surrounded to an unhealthy degree.

Putin's claim: Russia is surrounded by NATO.

Fact-check:

[Todd]

Ideally (pun!),

(1) as much staunch allies/friends and as little bitter enemies as they can without compromising the principles of which they made themselves the beacon and guardian. While allies and friends come in different shapes and sizes, it's inevitable that enemies come in the form of other great powers

which requires

(2) a firm and principled foreign policy aimed at showcasing the benefits of belonging to the former group and the disadvantages of belonging to the latter group, with special emphasis on the fact that the transition from enemy to friend is entirely possible and welcomed,  and completely dependent on the rationality and goodwill of those who would want to take the step.

Idealistic, I know, but you asked, I answered.

I mean in terms of a basic geographic security analysis like used when stating that a secure Ukraine is a must for Romania and Moldova.  A secure Ukraine is not a must for the US, for instance.

[Madiel]

A secure Ukraine secures a significant part of the wheat supply for North Africa and the Middle East which stabilises that region. Which probably interests the USA.

The world is far more interconnected than someone with a lack of imagination supposes.

[Madiel]

Putin's claim: Russia is surrounded by NATO.

Fact-check:

It's not always clear to me how much even RUSSIA regards the Asian part of Russia as genuinely Russian. At times it almost feels like that's the bit of empire they kept holding onto but don't value much. It's a European country perpetually a bit annoyed at how geography was cruel enough to put it at the edge of Europe.

[Florestan]

It's not always clear to me how much even RUSSIA regards the Asian part of Russia as genuinely Russian. At times it almost feels like that's the bit of empire they kept holding onto but don't value much. It's a European country perpetually a bit annoyed at how geography was cruel enough to put it at the edge of Europe.

Well, then you will be greatly surprised to find out that Alexander Dugin, the official ideologue of Putinism, has been for years making the case for a Eurasian Union, extending from Lisbon to Vladivostok, completely anti-NATO and anti-US and under Russian hegemony, of course. 

Plus, many if not most of the soldiers currently operating in Ukraine come from beyond the Urals and have distinctly Asian physiognomy.

Napoleon was quite right: Scratch a Russian and you'll find a Tartar. 

[JBS]

Putin's claim: Russia is surrounded by NATO.

Fact-check:

Russia does have borders with NATO countries other than the Baltic States and Poland, but they're not in Europe and usually not thought of as borders: Canada (Arctic Ocean), USA (Bering Sea and Strait), Turkey (Black Sea).