Europe at War

[milk]

So hang on, you chose to spend all this time focusing on my comment, and you simply didn't bother to go back to the post I was responding to?

I mean, you figured out I was talking about Todd, yet you couldn't be arsed to read the sentence that Todd had written stating that the security of the USA was unaffected?

Wow. Thank you for wasting so much of my time. On something that you now say YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT. I shall feel very free to ignore you from now on.

I don't know. Me thinking has slowed. I think I've read everything lately. Click click. But I haven't memorized it. I'm not that kind of person. You know, principle of charity. But I do care deeply. Way down deep in me heart. ❤️

[milk]

So hang on, you chose to spend all this time focusing on my comment, and you simply didn't bother to go back to the post I was responding to?

I mean, you figured out I was talking about Todd, yet you couldn't be arsed to read the sentence that Todd had written stating that the security of the USA was unaffected?

Wow. Thank you for wasting so much of my time. On something that you now say YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT. I shall feel very free to ignore you from now on.

I thought you said I rehearsed the last bit pretty good anyway. I'm catching up.

[Todd]

While it may or may not prove to be correct in the end, the fact that that conclusion was reached by at least one carefully documented study shows that it is not mere wishful thinking.

The linked IMF study is likewise carefully documented, as are the qualified opinions of ratings agencies in the wake of faux sovereign default.  The reason I selected the phrase wishful thinking to describe Que's assertions is because they are wishful thinking, in the standard usage of that phrase. 

The war has caused Russophobia to at least match the Reagan era, at least online and in the press.  Articles and opinions regarding the weakness of Russia abound, and variants of these have been used for decades on and off when they suit, yet Russia keeps on going.  The latest casualty figures should set off a new round of prognostications of imminent collapse, or something, but it is doubtful.  Russia has not achieved autarky, but it has shown itself to be more resilient than western triumphalists have repeatedly proclaimed, and it seems very unlikely given established facts that Russia will collapse.  Policies and approaches to Russia that emphasize that outcome rely on wishful thinking - and they cost Ukrainian lives.

I thought his argument was just that it makes little difference to U.S. interests if Russia gains territory or influence there.

US national security is not affected by the fate of Ukraine.  It does not matter if Ukraine is autonomous or if it is a vassal state of Russia.  US physical security is not threatened under either scenario.  US economic interests in Ukraine are very limited.  The US imported about $2 billion of goods from Ukraine in 2021, and about half of that was iron and steel.  There are ready alternatives for imports.  US exports were slightly larger. The US federal government can provide emergency relief to the impacted companies if need be, adding the pittance into an infrastructure bill or something.  That will not be needed. 

Arguments, such as they are, for the significance of Ukraine remain nebulous at best.  No one on this forum can explain the actual national security interests for the US in Ukraine.  "Ukrainian Democracy" and so-called human rights do not matter in that they have no bearing on real US interests, let alone security.  I suppose one could argue that the current state of Ukraine impacts US security by increasing food insecurity around the world, thereby causing political instability elsewhere, which could cause the need for US intervention elsewhere, but that can be obviated by pursuing a political settlement to the war, ceasing hostilities, and allowing Ukrainian food exports to resume, as they would.  But this also requires a belief that the US should intervene elsewhere if there is instability.

That of course leaves the physical security of Europe as the main interest the US may have.  If triumphalists are right, and Russia is gravely enfeebled, then there is nothing at all to fear.  Russia can't do anything.  If Russia is very powerful, conquers Ukraine in the next couple months, then marches on Europe, then the geographic location of Ukraine and the resources contained therein represent the threat.  Except they don't.  Ukraine is devastated.  Whatever the outcome of the war now, Europe can finally get around to building up its own defensive capabilities.  The bold words, promises, and proposed budget increases from earlier in the year will not actually materialize, though.  Short-term martial spirit will give way to long term complacency. 

The US interests typically forwarded are basically fluff.  Democracy.  Human Rights.  The "rules-based order."  A just and verdant Europe.  Values.  Etc.  These interests are the window dressing for US imperialism.  They sure sound pretty, but not only do they not protect the US or advance US economic interests, they force the unnecessary and fruitless expenditure of American treasure.  Hopefully they do not require the expenditure of American blood. 

Of course, had the US not provoked tension with Russia by expanding NATO recklessly and relentlessly, the world would not be in the place it is now.

[Florestan]

Of course, had the US not provoked tension with Russia by expanding NATO recklessly and relentlessly, the world would not be in the place it is now.

Interesting how you blame the Ukrainian war and crisis entirely on US imperialism but not say a word about Russian imperialism. By listening to you, or to Mearsheimer et Co, an alien from Mars would get the idea that Russia was a peaceful, rule-abiding and benevolent international actor until the warmongering, illegal and malevolent NATO expansion forced them to do nothing else than protect their peaceful, rule-abiding and benevolent way of life,

[Todd]

Interesting how you blame the Ukrainian war and crisis entirely on US imperialism but not say a word about Russian imperialism.

This is factually incorrect.

[Madiel]

Todd, you still don't understand the argument about the US intervening elsewhere if there's a chain reaction. My argument was not that it's the job of the US to go around fixing political instability for the sake of it, but that in the case of a chain reaction it will eventually hit somewhere where America DOES have significant interests.

Exactly the kind of interests you're so busy pointing out that you don't have in Ukraine. The kind of interests that, based on your own argument, would justify intervention of some kind.

The question is not simply whether the USA is connected to Ukraine. But whether the USA is connected to a country that is connected to a country that is connected to Ukraine. Given the number of countries that both the USA and Ukraine are connected to, the answer is yes.

[milk]

Interesting how you blame the Ukrainian war and crisis entirely on US imperialism but not say a word about Russian imperialism. By listening to you, or to Mearsheimer et Co, an alien from Mars would get the idea that Russia was a peaceful, rule-abiding and benevolent international actor until the warmongering, illegal and malevolent NATO expansion forced them to do nothing else than protect their peaceful, rule-abiding and benevolent way of life,

I think the question I have is that being that Putin and his oligarchs and cronies are a bunch of thieves and murderers, does it serve the U.S.'s interests to arm their adversaries? Should the U.S. have been involved to the extent that it has? Perhaps we could outline several possible scenarios that could come out of this, several consequences. I guess one is that Russia is weakened, Putin is humiliated and toppled, and the Ukraine, though decimated, remains a free country? The U.S. is vindicated, neocon triumphalism takes a victory lap, China is taught a lesson, etc. Whats another possibility? World recession/depression, thousands upon thousands of deaths, more cities leveled, stalemate, MIC keeps raking in the $?

[Todd]

China is taught a lesson

The CCP is learning a lot of lessons in this war.  One of the most important is the limit of US power when it comes to economic warfare.  Not only can the US not use economic warfare to topple the governments in Cuba, or Iran, or North Korea, it cannot even get all European actors on board for a short period of time when billions are on the line.

[krummholz]

The linked IMF study is likewise carefully documented, as are the qualified opinions of ratings agencies in the wake of faux sovereign default.  The reason I selected the phrase wishful thinking to describe Que's assertions is because they are wishful thinking, in the standard usage of that phrase.

From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of wishful thinking

: the attribution of reality to what one wishes to be true or the tenuous justification of what one wants to believe

I would hardly call the justification put forth in that article "tenuous". It is well-documented, carefully worded, and clearly has a basis in reality. That does not mean it is correct or that the predictions made therein will come to pass. They may not, and Russia certainly has a long history of coming back from extremely difficult times. I agree that the current Russian regime will probably not fall as a result of this war. Other outcomes are certainly possible, including Russia's achieving total victory. All I'm saying is that the belief that Russia's campaign in Ukraine is stretching the Kremlin's resources dangerously thin has enough of a basis in fact that to call it "wishful thinking" is incorrect - again, using the Merriam-Webster definition.

[milk]

From Merriam-Webster:

I would hardly call the justification put forth in that article "tenuous". It is well-documented, carefully worded, and clearly has a basis in reality. That does not mean it is correct or that the predictions made therein will come to pass. They may not, and Russia certainly has a long history of coming back from extremely difficult times. I agree that the current Russian regime will probably not fall as a result of this war. Other outcomes are certainly possible, including Russia's achieving total victory. All I'm saying is that the belief that Russia's campaign in Ukraine is stretching the Kremlin's resources dangerously thin has enough of a basis in fact that to call it "wishful thinking" is incorrect - again, using the Merriam-Webster definition.

Is it so crazy to imagine that if the war drags on, enough important military people killed, resources are stretched, or things go wrong in various ways, etc., that Putin could find himself choking on his Cheerios? On the other side of things, would Ukraine be willing to let an eastern part of it go if it had security guarantees and it knew Russia were really on the ropes and were throwing the towel?

[Todd]

From Merriam-Webster:

I would hardly call the justification put forth in that article "tenuous". It is well-documented, carefully worded, and clearly has a basis in reality. That does not mean it is correct or that the predictions made therein will come to pass. They may not, and Russia certainly has a long history of coming back from extremely difficult times. I agree that the current Russian regime will probably not fall as a result of this war. Other outcomes are certainly possible, including Russia's achieving total victory. All I'm saying is that the belief that Russia's campaign in Ukraine is stretching the Kremlin's resources dangerously thin has enough of a basis in fact that to call it "wishful thinking" is incorrect - again, using the Merriam-Webster definition.

The dictionary thing is weak sauce.

In any event, I used the phrase "wishful thinking" primarily to describe Que's post and also to point out the dangers of relying on policies reliant on economic collapse as the main or even one of the main solutions to the current war.  Also, having read just the abstract, I see some problems with the paper.  The authors place a lot of emphasis on the so-called loss of business, purportedly representing ~40% of GDP, but reports in the business press have been more circumspect on the impact and intent of the exiting businesses.  Some business executives have been clear enough that they are being forced to leave and will return when they can.  This is rather different than when businesses leave because of deteriorating economic fundamentals.  Additionally, just the abstract uses sensationalist language - eg, crippling, oblivion, collapsed - which differs rather substantially from regular academic papers on economics.  What the reasons are for that, one can only guess.  Well, not really.  The authors credit The Kyiv School of Economics in putting together sanctions ideas.  The paper is not unbiased.  The paper has an agenda.  Which is fine.  Again, one can read articles and analyses from the IMF and other sources that are not quite so dire.  One can then pretend their selected articles are objective and represent the most probable outcome.  Or, if you prefer, one can wish that their selected articles are true.  Sanctions are hurting Russia, there is no doubting that objective reality, but it is typically best to view sensationalist proclamations with more than a little skepticism.

And of course, all the while, Russia and Ukraine keep fighting, and Russians and Ukrainians keep dying. 

[71 dB]

Thank you Montenegro! 
🇲🇪

Greece has started the ratification process.  0:)

[LKB]

580 Phoenix Ghost ( a nocturnal cousin to the Switchblade ) drones heading to Ukraine next month.

More reports of desertion and refusing combat within various Russian units, at every level. The morale issues which were being reported even early in the conflict continue.

https://www.newsweek.com/russian-troops-deserting-posts-kyiv-uses-us-weapons-1727916

Then there are the brutes who never have morale issues, or any trace of an inconvenient conscience ( not for the squeamish ):

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/07/29/graphic-footage-appears-to-show-russian-fighter-castrating-ukrainian-prisoner-of-war-a78442

As far as the theory of an affronted Putin reacting to NATO expansion, l wonder if the former Warsaw Pact states who are now NATO members would still exist if they hadn't have joined. Putin might well have attempted to annex the Baltic States at the very least, and if it came cheap enough might have gone for the rest in turn. As Putin has recently revealed his imperialistic vision ( which reportedly -  according to some " Putinists " - encompasses virtually all of Europe including the UK ), he has assumed Hitler's role, and should suffer a similar fate.

[Todd]

he has assumed Hitler's role, and should suffer a similar fate.

Godwin's Law on display yet again.  It has been a day or two on this forum.

[LKB]

Godwin's Law on display yet again.  It has been a day or two on this forum.

I won't bother reposting from February 25th again. Either you're not understanding Godwin's Law correctly, or have gone back to trolling for the lack of anything better.

[Todd]

I won't bother reposting from February 25th again. Either you're not understanding Godwin's Law correctly, or have gone back to trolling for the lack of anything better.

Interesting.

[BasilValentine]

Of course, had the US not provoked tension with Russia by expanding NATO recklessly and relentlessly, the world would not be in the place it is now.

Trifecta!: vague, naive, and factually absurd.

The question is not simply whether the USA is connected to Ukraine. But whether the USA is connected to a country that is connected to a country that is connected to Ukraine. Given the number of countries that both the USA and Ukraine are connected to, the answer is yes.

For some unburdened by imagination, the world is a simple place.

[Todd]

Trifecta!: vague, naive, and factually absurd.

For some unburdened by imagination, the world is a simple place.

Thought provoking.

[Madiel]

Thought provoking.

I wish it would provoke some thoughts.

[Que]

Well, it's clear that Puyin is pulling the trigger on cutting the gas supplies to the EU completely:

Gazprom stops Latvia's gas in latest Russian cut to EU

With the possible exception of Hungary, which is negotiating an increased supply via the pipeline that conveniently runs via neutral Turkey and Russian ally Serbia.

The cuts will preempt attempts by many EU countries to build up sufficient reserves befor the coming winter. This is going to be big.