Europe at War

[Todd]

The causes and consequences of the Ukraine war

A lecture by John J. Mearsheimer

Given at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies earlier this month.  About two hours long.  Includes a spirited Q&A.  Mearsheimer points out that actual control of Ukraine may not be needed for Russia to achieve its aims.  Destroying Ukraine, causing immense damage - the type that will cost a trillion or more to repair - may very well achieve many aims.  Conquest is not always the key objective.  He also points out that it was the George W Bush administration that pushed the idea of expanding NATO to include Ukraine, something some or a lot of people who loathed Dubya's hyperaggressive foreign policy now embrace.   

[Florestan]

I think that Ukraine should begin considering that certain territorial losses to Russia are really and truly unavoidable (Crimea first and foremost, then partially Luhansk and Donetsk). At this moment, territories for peace (be it even a prolonged armistice without a peace treaty) seems like the best options to end this bloody mess.

I mean, let's be honest and face it; for all the Western military aid, Ukraine alone cannot defeat Russia --- the best they can hope for is a prolonged stalemate. The only way that Ukraine can defeat Russia is a strictly conventional WWIII --- ie, there's no way thay can defeat Russia.

[drogulus]

I think that Ukraine should begin considering that certain territorial losses to Russia are really and truly unavoidable (Crimea first and foremost, then partially Luhansk and Donetsk). At this moment, territories for peace (be it even a prolonged armistice without a peace treaty) seems like the best options to end this bloody mess.

I mean, let's be honest and face it; for all the Western military aid, Ukraine alone cannot defeat Russia --- the best they can hope for is a prolonged stalemate. The only way that Ukraine can defeat Russia is a strictly conventional WWIII --- ie, there's no way thay can defeat Russia.

     The only reason Russia has lasted as long as they have is by expending the lives of conscripts from Luhansk and Donetsk. Russia is afraid to mobilize its own population, and it's uncertain how many effective soldiers that would produce in any case, given how poorly their "elite" units have fared against highly motivated Ukrainians that are fighting at close to NATO standards, even though they don't have much NATO equipment yet.

     As bad as the Russian hardware situation is, the manpower situation is worse. The Russian artillery advantage is offset by an inability to fully take advantage of it. When the Ukes withdraw from a heavily bombarded position, they shell Russian troops that occupy the vacated position. Russians are being "Kutuzov-ed". Like Russia when it has been invaded, Ukraine has plenty of room to retreat while resupplying and reinforcing.

     Wars do have periods of stalemate. Ukraine will grow in strength during this one, while Russia will not.

     

[Todd]

Warfare on the economic front heats up:

First, Russia defaults!  Well, sorta, kinda:

Russia defaults on foreign debt for the first time since 1918

What's happening with Russia's 1st default on foreign debt in a century


Second, Western leaders have concocted a harebrained scheme to explicitly control oil prices:

G7 Set To Impose "Price Caps" On Russian Oil; Unclear What This Actually Does

G7's Oil Price Cap For Russia: Easier Said Than Done


(Also, French energy company execs assumed a very Jimmy Carteresque stance over the weekend, beseeching the French to use less energy.  Which of course directly translates into a lower standard of living.  That is, it makes people poorer, by definition.  Always a good message to deliver.)

Maybe some policy making types should take a few minutes to read the following article: What Money Can't Buy: The Limits of Economic Power

[MusicTurner]

Finland's president now stating that some sort of agreement on NATO between Turkey, Sweden and Finland has been obtained, at least on some basic level.

Apparently includes Turkey getting 30 controversial persons (allegedly PKK, Gulen groups) for court procedures (?).

[Que]

Stoltenberg: 'We now have an agreement' for Finland, Sweden to join Nato

Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general for Nato, has announced that talks were successful with Turkey and that Finland and Sweden are now set to join the alliance.

"I am pleased to announce we now have an agreement that paves the way for Finland and Sweden to join Nato," Stoltenberg said.

[Florestan]

Finland's president now stating that some sort of agreement on NATO between Turkey, Sweden and Finland has been obtained, at least on some basic level.

Apparently includes Turkey getting 30 controversial persons (allegedly PKK, Gulen groups) for court procedures (?).

Stoltenberg: 'We now have an agreement' for Finland, Sweden to join Nato

Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general for Nato, has announced that talks were successful with Turkey and that Finland and Sweden are now set to join the alliance.

"I am pleased to announce we now have an agreement that paves the way for Finland and Sweden to join Nato," Stoltenberg said.

Did anyone really expected otherwise? I have predicted this outcome on day one. 

[71 dB]

Did anyone really expected otherwise? I have predicted this outcome on day one. 

Everybody knew the outcome. It was only a matter of when the agreement is achieved. This result was positively fast given the worst case estimates of about a year of delay! 

[Florestan]

The real problem is not the giving or taking of territory. It's the fact that Russia is treaty-bound to respect Ukraine's pre-2014 territorial integriry. It's completely screwed up on that treaty obligation. So what in Heaven's name will make it adhere to, and uphold, another treaty to which it pledges to respect Ukraine's post-2022 territorial integrity?!

I have said it numerous times here: any treaty to which Russia is a signatory part is not worth even the paper it's printed on.

I have said it numerous times here: Russia as a state and political entity is the scourge of the earth.

I have said it numerous times here: I'm a staunch, intractable political Russophobe and a staunch, dedicated cultural Russophile.

And I have said it numerous times here: I can find no way out of this conundrum, other than listen to, and read, exclusively works written, performed or conducted by Russians who never explicitly supported Putin.

[Florestan]

Everybody knew the outcome.

Oh, please! You didn't --- otherwise you wouldn't have been so aggressive with respect to Turkey. 

But it doesn't matter anymore. You will be a NATO member --- welcome! The more, the merrier, fuck Putin, fuck Russia!

[Todd]

But it doesn't matter anymore. You will be a NATO member --- welcome! The more, the merrier, fuck Putin, fuck Russia!

The war machine expands its scope yet again.  Humanity will benefit.

[Florestan]

The war machine expands its scope yet again.  Humanity will benefit.

[Todd]

I'm pretty certain a baby - or more likely babies - that looks much like that one will die as the war machine expands its scope. 

At least my streets will not be bombed.

[Florestan]

I'm pretty certain a baby - or more likely babies - that looks much like that one will die as the war machine expands its scope. 

And I'm pretty certain the death of such a baby would make you lose sleep --- but if and only if it's a US baby. All non-US babies are expendable, as you explicitly implied numerous times.

[Todd]

And I'm pretty certain the death of such a baby would make you lose sleep --- but if and only if it's a US baby. All non-US babies are expendable, as you explicitly implied numerous times.

I lose no sleep over any wars or any war dead. 

The bizarre thing is that there are people in the world who anxiously desire that the US war machine expand its scope yet again, so that it can notionally or actually kill more children here, there, and everywhere, and its "enemies" can do the same in response.  I advocate for the opposite, with no concern whatever for my sleep patterns.

The bizarre thing about the Russo-Ukrainian war is the cognitive dissonance on display regarding Russia.  On the one hand, its military is incompetent and weak, etc, and countries like Finland could defend themselves against the paper tiger, yet on the other hand, Russia is so evil and powerful that the US must expand NATO to defend against it.  Triumphalism meets phobia.

[Florestan]

The bizarre thing about the Russo-Ukrainian war is the cognitive dissonance on display regarding Russia.  On the one hand, its military is incompetent and weak, etc, and countries like Finland could defend themselves against the paper tiger, yet on the other hand, Russia is so evil and powerful that the US must expand NATO to defend against it.  Triumphalism meets phobia.

There's nothing bizarre about it. The possibility for a NATO country to be attacked by Russia is infinitesimaly smaller than the same possibility for a non-NATO country. That is all.

[Todd]

There's nothing bizarre about it. The possibility for a NATO country to be attacked by Russia is infinitesimaly smaller than the same possibility for a non-NATO country. That is all.

There is something very bizarre about it from an American perspective, and the simultaneous proclamations of Russian weakness and the need for protection from Russia are intrinsically contradictory and bizarre.  I understand very well why small, weak countries desire US protection.  I understand what Russia can do to many countries located in the Eurasian landmass and in certain geographically proximate portions of Africa.  I also understand that if Russia completely destroys Ukraine and/or a variety of other countries, US security will not be impacted; five million dead Eurasians would or will have the same impact as five million dead Congolese.  That is, zilch.  Also, NATO's scope is expanding to the Pacific, as NATO has officially changed its designation of China.  Despite US assurances that it will not put together an Indo-Pacific version of NATO, it will put together something similar.  Those who believe they benefit from an expanding empire will of course sing the empire's praises.

[Florestan]

I understand what Russia can do to many countries located in the Eurasian landmass and in certain geographically proximate portions of Africa.  I also understand that if Russia completely destroys Ukraine and/or a variety of other countries, US security will not be impacted; five million dead Eurasias would or will have the same impact as five million dead Congolese.

Exactly and precisely what I said before: five million dead Ukrainian / non-US Eurasian babies would or will have for you the same impact as five million dead Congolese babies. That is, zilch.

That is, zilch. 

QED.

[71 dB]

Oh, please! You didn't --- otherwise you wouldn't have been so aggressive with respect to Turkey. 

But it doesn't matter anymore. You will be a NATO member --- welcome! The more, the merrier, fuck Putin, fuck Russia!

Well, I have been struggling mentally even before the war, but I am better now. About 3 weeks ago I found my peace of mind. Yesterday hardly anyone knew how long this Sweden/Finland/Türkeya/NATO issue will go on.

And thanks,,

[Todd]

Exactly and precisely what I said before: five million dead Ukrainian / non-US Eurasian babies would or will have for you the same impact as five million dead Congolese babies. That is, zilch.

No, it is not precisely the same thing.  First, most war dead are not babies.  Second, the two Congo Wars were more troubling than what is happening in Ukraine because of the nature of those wars, the continued shameless exploitation of one of the poorest places on earth by many external parties (including the US) during both wars, and also because European nation states have the capacity to defend themselves, but craven European governments actively choose to instead rely on the US.  In short, the Congo got screwed and Europe is screwing the US.

Really, the crux of the issue is the cost-benefit analysis of American involvement in various security relationships.  There is financial cost and human cost.  The US already spends far too much money protecting irrelevant countries, and all the vested interests involved will more or less make sure that continues to happen.  The human cost is of course more important.  For example, how many American lives is Romania worth?  The correct answer is zero.  Unfortunately, if a sitting president were to take Article V of the Washington Treaty seriously in a situation where Romania was attacked by Russia, the possible number would be potentially much greater than zero.  But the US would not benefit.  All cost, no benefit.