Europe at War

[Que]

This is already outdated news; it's a memorable day for the Ukrainians, who are advancing in many places, also further to the south. More towns have been liberated, including bigger ones. The Russian MD now officially talks of a 'regrouping'. The leader of the Donetsk 'People's Republic' published a video, where he looks like fleeing in a car - not a smart move (in this link, they had fun changing his name a bit) https://twitter.com/dimaFromUkraine/status/1568616989337296897

It seems that the town of Lyman is next....

Is this going to be a total collapse of the Russian defenses in the northwest?

[LKB]

It seems that the town of Lyman is next....

Is this going to be total a collapse of the Russian defenses in the northwest?

If l were Putin ( God forbid, though I'd happily accept custody of his wallet for safekeeping ), I'd be considering options for escalation.

As western worries have been focused on the Russians' tactical nukes, l wouldn't put it past Putin to attempt a stealthy biological or chemical action.

During the 1990's, evidence surfaced of the Russians having redesigned a number of MIRVs to carry biological rather than nuclear payloads. During the same period, other evidence suggested Russian attempts to create a strain of smallpox against which the vaccine available in the west would be largely ineffective.

I very much doubt any Russian leader would have done away with such capabilities, and given the greater deniability as opposed to any nuclear strike, it seems to me that Putin could be thinking about it.

[Que]

[prémont]

Hmm. Time will show.

[milk]

I have seen no evidence that the EU ended European nationalism.  At best, it keeps it suppressed, though national governments and populations do the heavy lifting.  Sometimes nationalism reemerges, though not in the most odious manner that only Europeans are capable of achieving.  Or at least not yet.  The (temporary) end of bloodshed has something to do with the now permanent stationing of a superpower's military in multiple countries on the continent. 

European governments along with the EU have contributed to the improvement in the quality of life around the world, but again it is Eurocentrism which overstates the contribution of the west.  The greatest improvement in the quality of life in human history occurred in China, as 800 million people were lifted out of extreme poverty in the last forty years.  Much is still to be done, but that is a major accomplishment, and it is not attributable to Europe (or the US).  It is worth noting that wealthy, enlightened Europe has done less for the global AIDS crisis than George W Bush and less to end malaria around the world than Bill Gates.  Indeed, if one counts not only governmental giving but also private giving, Europeans end up looking rather miserly.  Maybe not as bad as Japan, but not especially generous, either.  It is not unusual for some developing countries to provide more aid, as a percentage of GDP, than Europeans. 

Europeans should try mightily to reform the EU.  It could make for some light-hearted entertainment.

I would just give more credit to the EU for the significantly non-nationalist manner of government relations within Europe and I think that would hold, and would have held, absent U.S. troops. At the same time, the EU has created problems for itself that are leaving it in question. Have you weighed in on Russia's latest embarrassments? Are these temporary setbacks or evidence of more serious rot with more ominous consequences?
Yes, I didn't mean to suggest that Europe saved the world or give you another opportunity to scold us about Eurocentrism. I got the point. Reports I read suggests Africans, Indonesians and Iranians give the most to their communities and it's true that Chinese have come up in the world. It's wonderful that they have but too bad the government is so insecure about it that so many people must be paid to crow about it and no one will join China except if a gun is held to their heads.
I also know some Sri Lankans that aren't so happy that China owns their port.

[Todd]

I would just give more credit to the EU for the significantly non-nationalist manner of government relations within Europe and I think that would hold, and would have held, absent U.S. troops.

Asserting that the perceived reduction of nationalism in Europe would have held without a permanent US military presence is contrafactual.  There is no way to know.  What is known is that European nationalism absent US presence was gruesome business.  Also, as Hungary demonstrates, nationalism has not been squelched entirely, and the success of nationalists in France and Italy demonstrate that it is not entirely vanquished elsewhere. 

I suppose there is a way to see if European nationalism can remain marginalized: the US can remove all troops and also stop formal policy coordination at all levels, but especially between the Fed and the ECB.  I think that could make for an interesting experiment, and I am all for the US fully withdrawing from Europe, from NATO, and I support complete decoupling of monetary policy and no longer allowing the ECB to tap the Fed, ever, for any reason.  Ideally, those steps could start tomorrow.

Have you weighed in on Russia's latest embarrassments? Are these temporary setbacks or evidence of more serious rot with more ominous consequences?

I do not "weigh in" on anything - that is a worthless phrase.  I know the precise value of my opinions.  As to Russian troubles, I always keep in mind the old adage which I will repeat here: Russia is never as strong as she seems, Russia is never as weak as she seems.  If the current military setbacks represent a permanent shift in relative strategic positions of the combatants, then perhaps Russia will be forced out Ukraine entirely, and perhaps they will even cede Crimea, which Russia illegally annexed in 2014 as part of the Russian invasion of that year, something apparently forgotten by other posters.  Such setbacks could result in political chaos in Russia and Putin could be forced from power, handed over to the west, and tried and most certainly convicted.  Russia could then pay massive reparations and demilitarize, join the fraternity of nations as a junior partner, and liberalize in such a manner that everyone will see Russia as a true partner in peace going forward.  Or not. 

Another possibility, one of many, is that the setbacks are real, tactically damaging, but not strategically devastating.  (The press coverage in standard western outlets is so badly skewed and propagandistic that it cannot be trusted.  Other English language sources in India and Singapore should also be read for a less triumphalist take.)  Russia has already imparted damage to Ukraine sufficient to cripple it economically into the 2030s.  And if the war continues, and more crucially, if the economic war with Europe continues into the winter, then Russian actions could prove more politically destabilizing in several less resilient European countries, and that appears to be one of the objectives Putin and his advisors are pursuing.  Knowing about it does not prevent exogenous factors from giving a political boost to nationalists and other, less centrist parties in other European countries.     

Yes, I didn't mean to suggest that Europe saved the world or give you another opportunity to scold us about Eurocentrism.

Europe is declining more rapidly than the US in relative terms, yet most Europeans and many Americans succumb to Eurocentrism.  The 2030s will be very hard on people who believe in any type of perceived superiority of European "values", etc.

It's wonderful that they have but too bad the government is so insecure about it that so many people must be paid to crow about it and no one will join China except if a gun is held to their heads.

The CCP is unpleasant and rules in an unpleasant/oppressive/brutal manner.  So what? 

I also know some Sri Lankans that aren't so happy that China owns their port.

Maybe the Sri Lankans can cozy up to their big neighbor and force some type of new arrangement more beneficial to residents of the subcontinent.  From an American standpoint, Sri Lanka is small potatoes and worth nothing more than repeating some talking points and maybe saying diplomatically stern things at the UN.   

[drogulus]

     The Ukes, having reached the Russian border, are directing counterbattery fire into Russia south of Sumy in the Kharkiv district.

     Another encouraging sign is that Russian soldiers are calling a (heh!) Ukrainian help line to find out how to safely surrender.

     As I have said before, the Ukes make it hard for Russians to take heavy equipment with them as they run away. Many tanks and IFVs in pristine condition are now going to add to the strength of the Ukrainians.

[milk]

Asserting that the perceived reduction of nationalism in Europe would have held without a permanent US military presence is contrafactual.  There is no way to know.  What is known is that European nationalism absent US presence was gruesome business.  Also, as Hungary demonstrates, nationalism has not been squelched entirely, and the success of nationalists in France and Italy demonstrate that it is not entirely vanquished elsewhere. 

I suppose there is a way to see if European nationalism can remain marginalized: the US can remove all troops and also stop formal policy coordination at all levels, but especially between the Fed and the ECB.  I think that could make for an interesting experiment, and I am all for the US fully withdrawing from Europe, from NATO, and I support complete decoupling of monetary policy and no longer allowing the ECB to tap the Fed, ever, for any reason.  Ideally, those steps could start tomorrow.


I do not "weigh in" on anything - that is a worthless phrase.  I know the precise value of my opinions.  As to Russian troubles, I always keep in mind the old adage which I will repeat here: Russia is never as strong as she seems, Russia is never as weak as she seems.  If the current military setbacks represent a permanent shift in relative strategic positions of the combatants, then perhaps Russia will be forced out Ukraine entirely, and perhaps they will even cede Crimea, which Russia illegally annexed in 2014 as part of the Russian invasion of that year, something apparently forgotten by other posters.  Such setbacks could result in political chaos in Russia and Putin could be forced from power, handed over to the west, and tried and most certainly convicted.  Russia could then pay massive reparations and demilitarize, join the fraternity of nations as a junior partner, and liberalize in such a manner that everyone will see Russia as a true partner in peace going forward.  Or not. 

Another possibility, one of many, is that the setbacks are real, tactically damaging, but not strategically devastating.  (The press coverage in standard western outlets is so badly skewed and propagandistic that it cannot be trusted.  Other English language sources in India and Singapore should also be read for a less triumphalist take.)  Russia has already imparted damage to Ukraine sufficient to cripple it economically into the 2030s.  And if the war continues, and more crucially, if the economic war with Europe continues into the winter, then Russian actions could prove more politically destabilizing in several less resilient European countries, and that appears to be one of the objectives Putin and his advisors are pursuing.  Knowing about it does not prevent exogenous factors from giving a political boost to nationalists and other, less centrist parties in other European countries.     


Europe is declining more rapidly than the US in relative terms, yet most Europeans and many Americans succumb to Eurocentrism.  The 2030s will be very hard on people who believe in any type of perceived superiority of European "values", etc.


The CCP is unpleasant and rules in an unpleasant/oppressive/brutal manner.  So what? 


Maybe the Sri Lankans can cozy up to their big neighbor and force some type of new arrangement more beneficial to residents of the subcontinent.  From an American standpoint, Sri Lanka is small potatoes and worth nothing more than repeating some talking points and maybe saying diplomatically stern things at the UN.   

Yes, I wonder if it's better in the long term if there there's just some negotiation with Russia. But I think neither the Ukraine's spooner (typo, I meant sponsor), nor Russia, are for it. I suspect a broken Russia is one of those "be careful what you wish for" type things. Putin's fall might be another. It's a crap shoot.

[Karl Henning]

Tangentially, how's negotiating with Republican terrorists in the U.S. working out?

[Que]

[MusicTurner]

1) Likely update below. The yellow areas will probably be included. The Russians are pulling out of almost all of the Kharkiv region/oblast. They've confirmed it. There was some fighting in Izyum. But the map is not showing the minor advances in southern Ukraine (at Kherson, at Luhansk, possibly also north of Berdyansk etc).

2) A possible new line of defense for the invaders, in the South.

[Todd]

I suspect a broken Russia is one of those "be careful what you wish for" type things. Putin's fall might be another.

I do not even know what a broken Russia would look like.  Maybe an echo of the 90s - which resulted in Putin's rule.

[Karl Henning]

I don't know of a single democracy that's not been hit by mountains of Russian disinformation, all of which is trying to weaken people's confidence and trust in their existing institutions and leaders.

Opinion  Is Putin facing defeat? The 'End of History' author remains confident.

[LKB]

I don't know of a single democracy that's not been hit by mountains of Russian disinformation, all of which is trying to weaken people's confidence and trust in their existing institutions and leaders.

Opinion  Is Putin facing defeat? The 'End of History' author remains confident.

Thanks Karl, that made for some interesting reading. 👍

[Karl Henning]

China has been reluctant to provide direct military aid to support Russia's Ukraine invasion, and from time to time it has appeared quite uncomfortable with having a "best friend" that also regularly seems committed to demonstrating its incompetence. Differing Russian and Chinese statements in the run up to this week's summit further underscore that.

What Happens to Russia After It Loses?

[Wanderer]

It was been quiet for a month or so but I checked the NATO ratification process: Thanks Czech Republic! 
🇨🇿

Six countries left...

BREAKING: Hellenic Parliament ratified accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO! 🇬🇷🇫🇮🇸🇪

[milk]

China has been reluctant to provide direct military aid to support Russia's Ukraine invasion, and from time to time it has appeared quite uncomfortable with having a "best friend" that also regularly seems committed to demonstrating its incompetence. Differing Russian and Chinese statements in the run up to this week's summit further underscore that.

What Happens to Russia After It Loses?

I wonder if China fears some of that stuff might rub off. How flexible and dynamic is the Chinese military on the go? Do they want to find out? How good are their toys against whatever Taiwan has been buying. Maybe better not to find out. Putin was in a very strong position before. What does that shirtless dude on horseback look like now? He really threw away all his advantage and he had a lot previously for negotiating. That's the lesson I hope the Chinese would take. That's a good reason to hope Russia gets really routed, on top of all the others.

[Todd]

That's a good reason to hope Russia gets really routed, on top of all the others.

What does "really routed" mean?

[milk]

What does "really routed" mean?

I don't know what the metrics are for winning and losing. As far as what's best, my mind is open to arguments. My idea might be flawed. I'd like it if the Chinese leadership (as a consequence) kept preferring rhetoric over military action. Maybe your counter argument is that Ukraine's success will only encourage more adventurism in U.S. foreign policy and wasted resources?

[Todd]

I don't know what the metrics are for winning and losing.

No one does, which is why I asked what "really routed" means. 

Since the US faces no immediate, negative consequences as a result of the war, it will continue to pursue its increasingly interventionist foreign policy, with more domestic fans of interventionism.  Unfortunately/fortunately, the limits of US economic power are now more obvious, which will be taken advantage of by other rising powers, namely China and India. 

Putin and Xi are meeting today in Uzbekistan.  News alerts are going out from all the main sources.  One outcome of this war is that Russia is now more dependent of China.  But China is wisely looking at ways to reduce its reliance on Russia for things as mundane as non-fossil fuel trade, looking to expand southerly transport routes, not just by sea, but also by expanded rail networks through Central Asia and Iran.  (The Great Game really does continue.)  The 2030s, 2040s, and beyond could find Russia becoming a puppet of China.  Maybe that is part of what being routed looks like.