Europe at War

[Todd]

Negotiations with the US, you mean?

Of course negotiations with the US.  No other Western country means anything.  Easing sanctions in return for even temporary Baltic security and Ukrainian neutrality (ie, being under Russian sphere of influence) seems quite reasonable to me.  Of course, I would prefer to see Ukrainians no longer die for American imperial ambitions. 

Instead, the US will continue on with underperforming sanctions and funneling money and weapons to Ukraine to prolong the war and add to the pointless civilian deaths.  Proxy wars are always tough on actual battlefield countries, while great powers an ocean away and small, insignificant northern European countries can talk tough as they bear no burden.  Internet warfare is always so easy.

[71 dB]

Now Greece and Türkeya are the only countries not having started the ratification process.

[Wanderer]

The Greek Parliament (Boule) is not in full session during the summer and by constitutional stipulation it cannot ratify international agreements when not in full session. I expect ratification of Finland's and Sweden's NATO accession protocols to be among the first things to be done when parliamentary full session begins again in October.

[LKB]

Unfortunately, l suspect Türkeya will stall matters for months yet. No true NATO ally would ever meet with Putin in the present circumstances, and Erdoğan will undoubtedly want to squeeze as much as possible out of both candidate nations while he appeases Putin at the same time.

[Que]

"The Russian state-controlled energy company Gazprom has announced a drastic cut to gas deliveries through its main pipeline to Europe from Wednesday.

The Russian gas export monopoly said it was halting the operation of one of the last two operating turbines due to the "technical condition of the engine", cutting daily gas deliveries via the Nord Stream pipeline to 33m cubic metres a day – about 20% of the pipeline's capacity."

More games, tactical games....

Actually, I think the quick downturn in gas supply is a sign of Russian weakness.
The current low-supply-high-price situation is in itd favour. A slow squeeze would be the optimal strategy.

But the war is going sideways for Putin and he is running out of time. Now he is rushing, which will backfire and dry up important Russian income. Unlike the situation with oil, Russia has no other clients for this gas because of the lack of infrastructure.

[Todd]

Actually, I think the quick downturn in gas supply is a sign of Russian weakness.
The current low-supply-high-price situation is in itd favour. A slow squeeze would be the optimal strategy.

But the war is going sideways for Putin and he is running out of time. Now he is rushing, which will backfire and dry up important Russian income. Unlike the situation with oil, Russia has no other clients for this gas because of the lack of infrastructure.

This is wishful thinking.

[Que]

This is wishful thinking.

Which part? The assumptions on Putin's motives are naturally speculative. That this move will dry up gas Russian revenues and that there are no pipelines to sell all that gas in any significant quantities to other buyers (China, India) are facts.

[Que]

[...] Of course, I would prefer to see Ukrainians no longer die for American imperial ambitions. 

Instead, the US will continue on with underperforming sanctions and funneling money and weapons to Ukraine to prolong the war and add to the pointless civilian deaths.  Proxy wars are always tough on actual battlefield countries, while great powers an ocean away and small, insignificant northern European countries can talk tough as they bear no burden.  Internet warfare is always so easy.

A very US-centric perspective, thinking that the US is the sole determining factor in this.
These are actually the sad results of Russian imperial dreams we are looking at. The drive between the rift between Ukraine and Russia was Ukraine's desire to get out of subservience to Russia and living under a repressive puppet regime. This all culminated in the 2005 Orange Revolution which ended Russia's hold on Ukrainian politics.

Like many Eastern European countries before, Ukraine aspired to join the EU and NATO as an alternative destination. Now we can rehash the debate whether the Bush administration should have encouraged closer ties to NATO or not, and whether Russia was "provoked". But ultimately it was Ukraine itself that decided on this course and to stick with it, even after the 2015 Russian invasion.

War is the most horrible thing. And I can assure you that the mories of two utterly devastating world wars are still vivid in the collective memories of European nations, including the small, weak and insignificant ones. But the other lesson learned was that peace at any price empowers aggressors and will be the end of freedom and democracy.

Ukrainiane is facing death and destruction, atrocities commited against civilians, human suffering on a massive scale. But it has decided that it will fight for its survival as a free and independent nation, even if its western allies cannot intervene directly.

Would the war be over if the supply of weapons would stop? Undoubtedly. But it is up to the Ukrainians to decide when and how this ends.

[Madiel]

"Hungary's nationalist prime minister Viktor Orban Saturday called for US-Russian peace talks to end the war in Ukraine, lashing out at the European Union's strategy on the conflict. In a speech in Romania, the 59-year-old ultra-conservative leader also defended his vision of an "unmixed Hungarian race" as he criticised mixing with "non-Europeans." Orban has condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February, but maintains an ambiguous position on the conflict."

Hoo boy. Unmixed Hungarian race? Not a lot of knowledge of history and/or science there.

[Todd]

Which part?

The whole thing. 

These are actually the sad results of Russian imperial dreams we are looking at.

American imperialism and Russian imperialism are both primary driving forces.  Growing Chinese involvement also plays a major role.  Ukraine is the latest battlefield in the Great Game, which has merely moved west a bit.

The idea that Ukraine or other Eastern European countries choose to join NATO and therefore NATO expansion is not imperialist is false.  NATO is a tool for US imperialism - by design.  It is much more palatable to market it as democratic.  It is military alliance that binds a few erstwhile great powers and a bevy of small, weak powers to the great hegemon of the age; European countries are mere hangers-on. 

But the other lesson learned was that peace at any price empowers aggressors and will be the end of freedom and democracy.

This is completely false.  History demonstrates this conclusively.  For centuries, Ukraine was not a free, democratic country.  Likewise, many other countries previously under the yoke of Russia or the USSR were not free and democratic.  To use another salient current example, Taiwan has been free and democratic for only a few decades.  Prior to recent democratic reforms and revolutions and such forth, the internal politics in these or similar countries and/or imperial control of these or similar countries did not prevent the development of democracy in Western countries.  Wars, invasions, revolutions, counterrevolutions, etc have occurred all over the world, all the time, and yet democratic countries continued on down their paths.  Sometimes – often, actually – democratic countries have themselves been aggressors. 

The idea or mere implication that the Russo-Ukrainian War represents a threat to freedom and democracy as a whole is preposterous on its face.  (The same applies to the fear mongering taking place regarding potential Chinese actions against Taiwan.)  At most, Russia will gain some territory in Ukraine and Ukraine will remain "neutral".  Russia will not conquer all of its neighbors.  European countries with long democratic histories will not revert to monarchies.  It is also very unlikely that these same countries will fall prey to vicious, domestic dictators bent on war and oppression, but perhaps some will.  That is a European problem.

WWII, which ultimately informs your assertion, is more or less the worst possible world historical event to evoke, directly or indirectly.  Its lessons do not really apply to the current world.  Democracy will not die as a result of this war, even if Russia "wins".  It just won't.  It is really quite clear that shoring up democratic institutions domestically is far preferable and more effective at ensuring democracy persists than pursuing foreign adventures to preserve democracy elsewhere.  There really is no reason to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.

[71 dB]

The Greek Parliament (Boule) is not in full session during the summer and by constitutional stipulation it cannot ratify international agreements when not in full session. I expect ratification of Finland's and Sweden's NATO accession protocols to be among the first things to be done when parliamentary full session begins again in October.

Thanks for this info! At this point it is completely understandable if the process hasn't started. October? That's a long summer Parliament not in session! 

[71 dB]

Unfortunately, l suspect Türkeya will stall matters for months yet. No true NATO ally would ever meet with Putin in the present circumstances, and Erdoğan will undoubtedly want to squeeze as much as possible out of both candidate nations while he appeases Putin at the same time.

It is what it is. The less I think about it the less depressing it is. 

[MusicTurner]

I think the complexities of established Greek bureaucracy are very famous generally. Maybe the parliamentarians have to rest for a long time, because of the strain they are enduring.

[Madiel]

Further Orban-related developments: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-27/hungary-prime-minister-viktor-orban-advisor-resigns-over-speech/101275582

[milk]

(The same applies to the fear mongering taking place regarding potential Chinese actions against Taiwan.)

I would like to see a strong counter argument here. So far, I'm not seeing it. I'd like to see Russia lose and I detest China. I was sad to see HK go, knowing some of those HK students personally. I've met some Taiwanese personally too though it doesn't take knowing them personally to feel for their plight. But is it worth WWIII? Or even a proxy war? It's interesting, because I saw such emotional arguments for why Russia needed to be stopped I felt quite swept away. But I can see Todd's argument. It's hard to stomach China just walking into Taiwan and wiping its feet all over it; it's hard to stomach its stomping its feet over Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, and all the shipping lanes, etc. there might indeed be a practical case for the U.S. and its Allies. And should there be any moral case for not doing business with countries that go over certain lines, I mean leaving aside possible fingers pointing back in this direction and cries of Hypocrisy, etc.?

[Que]

Stopping powerful aggressors is a matter of self preservation IMO. Peace at any price will lead to consessions that will only make them more powerful. Their acts of agression (wars) can cause major disruptions of the global economy and of international relations.

The case of the Ukraine war is a clear example. It has caused a security crisis in Europe and will cause a global food and energy crisis and a global economic recession. It has led to a breakdown of international relations. How are we going to fight climate change, pandemics and food shortages without globally consorted efforts? Or have international measures against the proliferation of nuclear weapons?

Chinese aggression in the Info-Pacific region will (and is) not be limited to Taiwan. It will have major implications for the region and the world.

[milk]

Stopping powerful aggressors is a matter of self preservation IMO. Peace at any price will lead to consessions that will only make them more powerful. Their acts of agression (wars) can cause major disruptions of the global economy and of international relations.

The case of the Ukraine war is a clear example. It has caused a security crisis in Europe and will cause a global food and energy crisis and a global economic recession. It has led to a breakdown of international relations. How are we going to fight climate change, pandemics and food shortages without globally consorted efforts? Or have international measures against the proliferation of nuclear weapons?

Chinese aggression in the Info-Pacific region will (and is) not be limited to Taiwan. It will have major implications for the region and the world.

I think China is a clearer case, though I don't know if Taiwan alone is. What will everyone really do, when push comes to shove? A lot of the game seems already lost as Taiwan isn't recognized as a country by anyone. It's such a perilous existence. I do know some people teaching there and I can't imagine waking up every day not knowing what will come. But maybe I'm not much better off here in Japan.
I'm not sure how clear the case of Russia is. I know there are some, like Glenn Greenwald, who are going to argue that the U.S. provoked the whole thing. "Peace at any price" sounds overdramatic. The U.S. isn't giving up anything that I can see. I'd like to see Russia lose and, especially, Putin gone but that's rather besides the point. If the cost is not too great then one can hope for a positive result in the Ukraine. Perhaps Putin will be gone as well. I don't know if a weakened Russia is necessarily a good thing. I suppose it depends who or what comes next.

[Todd]

Stopping powerful aggressors is a matter of self preservation IMO.

This is patently false.  For instance, US security has not been negatively impacted by the Russo-Ukrainian War at all.   

Peace at any price will lead to consessions that will only make them more powerful.

This is not only patently false, in the case of Russia specifically, it requires Doublethink.  One must simultaneously believe that Russia will become more powerful and that it is weakening, suffering from demographic decline and resource dependence which makes it vulnerable.  The power of pro-war propaganda is on full display in this war.  It works.

Their acts of agression (wars) can cause major disruptions of the global economy and of international relations.

This also occurs when democratic powers act as aggressors.  Do you suggest stopping democratic aggressors?  If so, how?

The case of the Ukraine war is a clear example. It has caused a security crisis in Europe and will cause a global food and energy crisis and a global economic recession. It has led to a breakdown of international relations. How are we going to fight climate change, pandemics and food shortages without globally consorted efforts? Or have international measures against the proliferation of nuclear weapons?

The western response to the war is at least as responsible for the current state of international affairs. 

Chinese aggression in the Info-Pacific region will (and is) not be limited to Taiwan.

What facts are this assertion based on?  Modern Chinese history has seen China the victim of aggression more than the aggressor.  The existence of Taiwan is an artifact of aggression against China. 

I know there are some, like Glenn Greenwald, who are going to argue that the U.S. provoked the whole thing.

George Kennan warned of dire consequences of NATO expansion back in the 90s.

[Madiel]

This is patently false.  For instance, US security has not been negatively impacted by the Russo-Ukrainian War at all.   

You are definitely the kind of person who can only see the link in the chain that is immediately next to you.

[Todd]

Schizophrenic reporting on the effectiveness of sanctions against Russia:

Sanctions not working as expected:

1.) Russian economy doing better than expected despite sanctions, says IMF

2.) Western sanctions sting but don't cripple Russia's economy: While sales of oil and gas are down, revenues are up — raising questions on the effectiveness of EU sanctions.


Sanctions are cataclysmic:

1.) Russia faces 'economic oblivion' as Western sanctions continue to eat away at GDP, new study says

2.) Actually, the Russian Economy Is Imploding


The big story doesn't get covered: Sanctions not having the promised massive deleterious effect demonstrates US weakness and decline and exposes the limits of the so-called "rules-based order".