Europe at War

[drogulus]

     Now I hear that the attack was from a Uke manufactured missile. That's what the Ukes are saying.

     Such a missile would most likely be the Neptune. Given the range of the Neptune and the distance to Ukrainian held territory this is certainly a possible means to attack the base.

[Karl Henning]

Not so sure about this.

It's not a hill I'd die on.

[Florestan]

You are more convinced than I am about the willingness of the population to fight.

Maybe not so much to fight as in armed fight (which is a job for professional soldiers anyway) but they certainly resent the Russian occupation, despise the Russian invaders and lose no opportunity to show it.

reliance on the old chestnut "tribal" contains hints of racism.  Don't feel bad]

I can assure you I won't lose my sleep over it.

Even given the messiness in the region, why shouldn't the millions of dead people in Syria, Yemen, and African nations take precedence over Ukraine?  More people have died, are dying, and will die.  Your response demonstrates indifference.

As different from your countless posts on the topic, expressing genuine concern and outrage. As in, the fate of Syria, Yemen or [insert African nation] is of no import to American peace and prosperity.

That is a rather quaint view of the causes and consequences of the American Revolution.

See Karl's post above,. Why don't you just paid the damn Tea Tax, shut up and get over it? You'd have spared the lives of thousands of American colonists and British soldiers. Why so much fuss and kerfuffle about an effing tax that all other British subjects paid without ever uttering the slightest protest? What on earth was so special about the American colonies that they not only claimed they should be exempted from it, they even fought a bloody war over not paying it?

[Todd]

Maybe not so much to fight as in armed fight (which is a job for professional soldiers anyway) but they certainly resent the Russian occupation, despise the Russian invaders and lose no opportunity to show it.

This suggests a political settlement, arrived at with some haste, is far preferable to continuing support for the war.

As different from your countless posts on the topic, expressing genuine concern and outrage.

Given your newly professed indifference, I trust you will henceforth shed any hint of moralizing.

Why don't you just paid the damn Tea Tax, shut up and get over it?

I shall leave it to you to find the appropriate history or histories of the American Revolution that go into more detail.

[Florestan]

This suggests a political settlement, arrived at with some haste, is far preferable to continuing support for the war.

The legitimate, uncontested representatives of the Ukrainians claim they want all their territory back, including Crimea fIf you are aware of any Ukrainian party or popular movement that claims otherwise, please make the case). The Russians wants the current Ukrainian government to go and the next one to acquiesce to Russian demands.

Good luck in finding, or brokering, a political settlement, arrived at with some haste.

Given your newly professed indifference,

Which is entirely a figment of your imagination.

I trust you will henceforth shed any hint of moralizing.

Given that you are the only one here that pretends to care about Ukrainian lives being lost in a protracted war, while at the same time professing total indifference about the fate of Ukraine, I trust all other GMGers will see to what degree the above moralizing phrase sounds highly (auto-) ironic.

I shall leave it to you to find the appropriate history or histories of the American Revolution that go into more detail.

The best I could find yet has been Alfred Jay Nock's Our Enemy the State and it covers the one and only single detail that counts: greed. The FF were as keen to establish a genuinely democratic and liberal state with equality and justice for all as I am to reestablish the Russian hegemony over Romania. All they wanted was to secure their privileges and gains against both British and domestic real or perceived enemies. The rest is romanticizing.

[Todd]

Good luck in finding, or brokering, a political settlement, arrived at with some haste.

The US can cease support for the war and apply political and economic pressure - that is, use coercion - to force Ukraine to bargain.  For now, the US is choosing another policy, and for reasons that are not solely focused on what is good for Ukraine.

Given that you are the only one here that pretends to care about Ukrainian lives being lost in a protracted war

My indifference to the fate of Ukraine because of its irrelevance and my expressed preference for limiting US interventionism and accompanying squandering of resources leads me to favor a political settlement, which would end the war more quickly and result in fewer excess deaths.  That's a spillover benefit, not a primary goal.

A good number of people who profess to care very much about Ukraine favor policies that will result in more dead Ukrainians and even more extensive physical devastation of the country.  It's kind of like burning down the village to save it.

[Karl Henning]

Breaking: President Biden has signed the official paperwork for U.S. approval of Finland and Sweden to join NATO.

[MusicTurner]

     Now I hear that the attack was from a Uke manufactured missile. That's what the Ukes are saying.

     Such a missile would most likely be the Neptune. Given the range of the Neptune and the distance to Ukrainian held territory this is certainly a possible means to attack the base.

Some suggest Lockheed Martin MGM-140, with a 90% probability. Their range is said to be 300 km.

[Florestan]

The US can cease support for the war and apply political and economic pressure - that is, use coercion - to force Ukraine to bargain. 

Kind of like coercing the victim into acquiescing to the aggressor's demands. Vicious and wicked by any standards, even the hypocritical FF ones. 

[drogulus]

     U.S. authorizes largest-yet military package to Ukraine

The United States has authorized its largest delivery yet of military aid to Ukraine, the Pentagon announced Monday — a $1 billion package of ammunition, weapons and equipment.

The package specifically includes ammunition for artillery rocket systems, munitions for surface-to-air missile systems, explosives, armored medical vehicles and medical supplies, according to a press release from Acting Pentagon Press Secretary Todd Breasseale.

     The article mentions:

The Department of Defense has estimated Russia has had 70,000 to 80,000 killed or wounded in less than six months. Russian President Vladimir Putin drew international condemnation when he invaded Ukraine in late February.

     That's the largest estimate I've seen, but it's significant because it comes from the DOD. No wonder Putin is recruiting prisoners. I'm sure they'll be more effective than the elite units that have been decimated.

[Madiel]

Dear God, linking the question of Ukrainian liberty to American prosperity has to be some of the most self-centred shit you could ever hope to see.

There are decades of Ukrainian political history centred around the degree to which Ukraine wants to be independent of Russia. That's the issue.

[Madiel]

Kind of like coercing the victim into acquiescing to the aggressor's demands. Vicious and wicked by any standards, even the hypocritical FF ones. 

Todd is inspired by mafia protection rackets. Nice place you've got here. It would be a shame if anything happened to it.

[drogulus]

     There's a traffic jam at the Kerch bridge leaving Crimea. The vacationers are going home. Bye bye.

[milk]

The concern that in a prolonged war more and more Ukrainians will be killed is legitimate, nay even admirable --- and I doubt there is any one of us who doesn't share it. Nevertheless, a school of thought seems to have developed whose GMG representative is Todd, which suggests that it really doesn't matter whether Ukraine is an independent state, a puppet state of Russia or even a Russian province, as long as Ukrainians are alive. Crudely expressed, better to be a living donkey than a dead lion. While the proposition has its merits and can certainly be argued for, it's not hard to see that, had it been consistently applied all throughout history, the world would have been a much worse place than it is now because every aggressive tyrant would have had their way unopposed. Liberty comes at a price and national liberty's price is sometimes blood. This is a lesson that history teaches us time and again.

I'm not in that place. I only see Todd with the non-interventionist view, not quite a school of thought HERE. I'm not sure what I think for the big picture. I'd like to see the Ukraine free and democratic but I also think Todd makes a thought-provoking case, especially when one considers American interventions over the last 70 years. At least if the U.S. is going to spend hundreds of billions on that particular war (and hundreds of billions more on the cost of rebuilding) and the fight is going to be long and costly in terms of human life, it should overcome his arguments resoundingly. How can we put this question in terms of the greater good? Maybe now Russia realizes it cannot do anything it wants and it would be a good time to reach some sort of settlement? What would Carter do? Not President Carter, Carter-Center Carter. I'd like to ask what are the different scenarios people see happening - like, maybe, what are the top five likeliest outcomes of this? Best case, worst case?
I think I used to be very "liberal" and willing to express confident beliefs along those lines. Now I just don't know the right answers but I am interested in the arguments. I can be persuaded. I definitely see Russia and China as bad actors in the world (I'd still like to see a global politics thread here).
But what are we to make of this liberal fever dream:

We're for freedom of speech everywhere. We're for freedom to worship everywhere. We're for freedom to learn... for everybody. And because, in our time, you can build a bomb in your country and bring it to my country, what goes on in you country is very much my business. And so we are for freedom from tyranny everywhere, whether in the guise of political oppression, Toby, or economic slavery, Josh, or religious fanaticism, C.J. That most fundamental idea cannot be met with merely our support. It has to be met with our strength. Diplomatically, economically, materially. And if Pharaoh still don't free the slaves, then he gets the plagues, or my cavalry, whichever gets there first. The USTR will go crazy and say that we're not considering global trade. Committee members will go crazy and say I haven't consulted enough. And the Arab world will just go indiscriminately crazy. No country has ever had a doctrine of intervention when only humanitarian interests were at stake. That streaks going to end Sunday at noon. So, if you're on board with this, what I need you to do...
—President Bartlet

[Madiel]

It's not simply about non-intervention, but on the basis for non-intervention.

Todd's arguments are relentlessly about what is directly in it for Americans. There seems to be no assessment at all about whether intervention or non-intervention is in the interests of allies (and therefore no insight into what makes allies STAY allies), and certainly no consideration of how Ukraine has asked for assistance.

Partly I suspect this is because Todd believes the USA will never itself need the assistance of other countries in any form. So there is no danger of such blatant selfishness having consequences in the future. 

[milk]

It's not simply about non-intervention, but on the basis for non-intervention.

Todd's arguments are relentlessly about what is directly in it for Americans. There seems to be no assessment at all about whether intervention or non-intervention is in the interests of allies (and therefore no insight into what makes allies STAY allies), and certainly no consideration of how Ukraine has asked for assistance.

Partly I suspect this is because Todd believes the USA will never itself need the assistance of other countries in any form. So there is no danger of such blatant selfishness having consequences in the future.

Yes I think it's interesting and important to ask not only what's in it for any given country that wants to intervene militarily in conflicts or assist allies, but also how should countries ultimately act in the world in order to achieve what's best for overall human flourishing (or even transcendence if one believes in such a thing).
I'm trying to work out Fermi's paradox here as well. Maybe intelligent life is just destined to destroy itself every time. What is the way out of that? Things feel pretty grim lately with Russia and China (and my sister keeps trying to convince my 80-something-year old parents that the 1/6 rioters were lured into the Capitol by ANTIFA crisis actors).
But then are we just not helping African peoples more because we think they can never do anything for us? But I understand the point that the Ukraine's proximity to Russia might make it more relevant in some way. Being where I'm situated in the world, I do worry that China is a worse problem. If China exerts itself, there are so many countries around here that cannot accept its threatening behavior and the way it goes at the territories and sea lanes of everybody. Maybe people here see Russia in the same light, I don't know.

[Que]

Being where I'm situated in the world, I do worry that China is a worse problem. If China exerts itself, there are so many countries around here that cannot accept its threatening behavior and the way it goes at the territories and sea lanes of everybody. Maybe people here see Russia in the same light, I don't know.

From a European perspective, that's definitely how it feels.... Just ask Sweden and Finland.

And Russia goes further with Ukraine - invading a sovereign independent country. For the 2nd time. And this time a full assault aimed at total subjugation, not some limited territorial claims.

Taiwan's independence is de facto. It is not recognised as an independent state by most countries, including the US, and is not a member of the UN. I think China will invade shortly. Don't mistake the recent exercises as posturing - these were real dress rehearsals. China conveniently used the Pelosi visit as a pretext, pretending this to be mere sabre ratling. This was prepared long time in advance.

In case of an invasion of Taiwan, I don't see military intervention by the US as a real possibility. I even don't see US arms supplies happening, at least not openly.  And that is if Taiwan manages not to be overrun instantly. Under international law, not that anyone cares much anymore, this would be a internal, domestic matter.

China is a more dangerous and more powerful adversary than Russia, and it will use the strategic and legal ambiguity surrounding the Taiwan issue to its advantage. Naturally the West will discuss sanctions against China, but how much economic leverage is left after the conflict with Russia, in the  midst of an energy crisis and with a global recession looming?   

China would be smart to move now, and use Taiwan as an springboard for further expansion.
On the other hand, if China decides not to invade, it will be for economic reasons. It wouldn't want to destroy its own economy, or the economic significance of Taiwan.

[milk]

From a European perspective, that's definitely how it feels.... Just ask Sweden and Finland.

And Russia goes further with Ukraine - invading a sovereign independent country. For the 2nd time. And this time a full assault aimed at total subjugation, not some limited territorial claims.

Taiwan's independence is de facto. It is not recognised as an independent state by most countries, including the US, and is not a member of the UN. I think China will invade shortly. Don't mistake the recent exercises as posturing - these were real dress rehearsals. China conveniently used the Pelosi visit as a pretext, pretending this to be mere sabre ratling. This was prepared long time in advance.

In case of an invasion of Taiwan, I don't see military intervention by the US as a real possibility. I even don't see US arms supplies happening, at least not openly.  And that is if Taiwan manages not to be overrun instantly. Under international law, not that anyone cares much anymore, this would be a internal, domestic matter.

China is a more dangerous and more powerful adversary than Russia, and it will use the strategic and legal ambiguity surrounding the Taiwan issue to its advantage. Naturally the West will discuss sanctions against China, but how much economic leverage is left after the conflict with Russia, in the  midst of an energy crisis and with a global recession looming?   

China would be smart to move now, and use Taiwan as an springboard for further expansion.
On the other hand, if China decides not to invade, it will be for economic reasons. It wouldn't want to destroy its own economy, or the economic significance of Taiwan.

Some say the Pelosi visit was a provocation Jinping couldn't ignore being that he's going for an unprecedented 3rd term as party leader. I hope you're wrong that this is coming soon. After all the bluster from Dems and Repubs alike can they really do nothing if China invades? They've been saying otherwise for quite a while. Taiwan has been preparing for decades; will it really just fold like an old card? What do the Japanese bureaucrats who run the show in Japan really want? And every other country that constantly buts heads with China in E. SE. and S. Asia? China pushes everybody in the neighborhood around (I know: they'll say the same about the U.S.); can everybody live with an even more imperious China? The Chinese leadership has a collective chip on its shoulder. But on the other hand, we don't want WWIII. No. No we don't.

[amw]

Syria, Yemen and most, if not all, African wars are mostly cases of civil wars, if not inter-tribal wars.

Worth noting that the war in Ukraine started out as a civil war as well, back in 2014. At the time, the residents of the Donbas region (and Crimea) supported Russia and wished for closer ties with it, and broke away from Ukraine for that reason. This desire was not engineered by Russia but rather came about as a natural result of factors of language, ethnicity and history (with these areas only having become part of Ukraine in the 20th century.)

Of course, arguably, one could describe the presence of pro- and anti-Russian factions within Ukrainian civil society as a cold proxy war between Russia and the EU that started in 1991, and turned hot in 2014. The situation only gradually ramped up from civil war/proxy war to full-scale invasion as Russia took steps to eliminate the existing leadership and civil society in the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, such as they were, and replace them with its own appointees in 2014-2017, while EU countries and the USA trained and provisioned the Ukrainian army under Poroshenko (and then Zelensky) to become the second-largest in Europe by some measures. Civil wars tend not to stay civil for very long.

China is a more dangerous and more powerful adversary than Russia,

China exerts power economically, rather than militarily. I get that war makes for good theatre and people want to see stuff blowing up; I haven't seen any evidence that China actually does that kind of thing, rather than simply making other countries sufficiently dependent on it that war becomes unnecessary.

[MusicTurner]

Worth noting that the war in Ukraine started out as a civil war as well, back in 2014. At the time, the residents of the Donbas region (and Crimea) supported Russia and wished for closer ties with it, and broke away from Ukraine for that reason. This desire was not engineered by Russia but rather came about as a natural result of factors of language, ethnicity and history (with these areas only having become part of Ukraine in the 20th century.)

Of course, arguably, one could describe the presence of pro- and anti-Russian factions within Ukrainian civil society as a cold proxy war between Russia and the EU that started in 1991, and turned hot in 2014. The situation only gradually ramped up from civil war/proxy war to full-scale invasion as Russia took steps to eliminate the existing leadership and civil society in the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, such as they were, and replace them with its own appointees in 2014-2017 (...)

It's sad that this Russian tale is repeated, given for example earlier votes in those areas, and that Girkin, the former Defense Minister of Donetsk, himself stated that without his expedition force from Russia, the demonstrations in the Eastern provinces would have fizzled out quickly and there would have been only a handful of casualties, since they didn't have enough local support. Girkin was also an important force in the professional take-over of Crimea before that. He is allegedly 'former FSB', but his activities have been unthinkable without support from the authorities, and recently, it has been revealed that he still travels a lot in Russia, say by airlines, with aliases, likewise impossible without support from the FSB. He is a Russian imperialist and publicly wants the Russian army to conquer all of Ukraine, even Lviv, with massive use of force, to annihilate Ukraine.