Europe at War

[71 dB]

I am pretty sure that among those Russians are not a few covert FSB agents who under the guise of fleeing the mobilization will spread in the EU with the official mission of sabotaging it. 

These kind of risks have been considered and estimated very low.

[Pohjolas Daughter]

I just found this article (Reuters) from two days ago saying that, as of the time of writing that article, that there was no evidence that Putin had put restrictions on the sale of plane tickets to men between certain ages.  Have we heard anything more recently?  https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-russia-airlines/fact-check-no-evidence-russian-airlines-were-ordered-to-stop-selling-tickets-to-russian-men-aged-18-to-65-idUSL1N30T1PD

Surprised that Putin hasn't put any driving/walking, etc. restrictions at border crossings--if he is in fact trying to stop men from leaving the country?

PD

[Todd]

U.S. warns Putin of 'catastrophic' consequences over nuclear weapons

One can watch the Meet the Press segment as well: 'There will be catastrophic consequences for Russia' if they use nuclear weapons: Full Jake Sullivan interview

[Florestan]

U.S. warns Putin of 'catastrophic' consequences over nuclear weapons

One can watch the Meet the Press segment as well: 'There will be catastrophic consequences for Russia' if they use nuclear weapons: Full Jake Sullivan interview

Russians will not use nuclear weapons, for two reasons:

(1) they will not use them against the West because that's where their offsprings and relatives live and spend their money: New York, Paris and London, not Kazan, Novosibirsk and Vladivostok;

(2) a tactic nuclear bomb detonated in Ukraine will impact Russia as well, see Chernobyl.

It's all bellicose propaganda for an increasingly sceptical and reluctant internal market.

[Todd]

(2) a tactic nuclear bomb detonated in Ukraine will impact Russia as well, see Chernobyl.

This is very likely wrong.  Depending on the tactical weapon used, the fallout may not be significant enough to deter Russia from using one.  There is no reasonable basis to think that Russia would use a weapon with a yield sufficient to cause widespread damage equivalent to Chernobyl.

The public exchanges regarding use of nuclear weapons is indeed wartime propaganda on both sides.  Sometimes, though, people act irrationally to save face. 

Fortunately, since I live on the West Coast of the US, it doesn't matter to me if one or two tactical nukes detonate in Ukraine, just as Chernobyl did not matter to me.

[Florestan]

Fortunately, since I live on the West Coast of the US, it doesn't matter to me if one or two tactical nukes detonate in Ukraine, just as Chernobyl did not matter to me.

I refuse to believe that you really mean that. I believe you're just playing the cynic for the sake of playing the cynic.

[Todd]

I refuse to believe that you really mean that. I believe you're just playing the cynic for the sake of playing the cynic.

No, I mean it.  It would obviously be far preferable if nuclear weapons were never used again by anyone.  However, if a tactical nuclear weapon is detonated in Ukraine, or in some other area in the case of a Russian show of force designed to force peace negotiations, the direct impact to me and to all other residents of the US is basically nil.  Obviously, a nuclear detonation in Ukraine would cause severe market declines, so my net worth would decline temporarily, but since I would not sell, I would realize no losses.  Clearly, the biggest risk would be in escalation, and specifically if the US retaliates in a direct, commensurate manner.  Again, if Russia does use a nuclear weapon, the manner in which one is used would determine the severity of the response, which I am certain they know.

It is a reductionist mindset without nuance that only evaluates the world by direct stimuli, ignoring all else.

Incorrect.

Also, I do not succumb to fear mongering about North Korea.  It is odd that a UK resident would.

[Todd]

The sky is green. There. It is, because I said so.

And here I thought the UK had reasonably clear air.

[Florestan]

No, I mean it.

Much as I will miss your strictly musical posts, straight on my ignore list you go --- the one and only GMGer ever to be so repugnant and disgusting to me.

[Todd]

Much as I will miss your strictly musical posts, straight on my ignore list you go --- the one and only GMGer ever to be so repugnant and disgusting to me.

You are a very good person.

[Karl Henning]

I refuse to believe that you really mean that. I believe you're just playing the cynic for the sake of playing the cynic.

When they tell you who they are, believe them.

Separately: What the Ukrainians Need to Succeed

[Florestan]

When they tell you who they are, believe them.

There's always room for repentance.

[Todd]

From Jeffrey Sachs: The West's False Narrative about Russia and China

He must be on Russia's payroll or something.

[LKB]

China's, perhaps, not Russia's:

' In a Jan. 24 interview with The Wire China, Sachs responded to two questions about China's genocidal policies in Xinjiang by accounting America's own human rights failings.

"We have huge human rights abuses committed by the U.S. on so many fronts that the first thing we need to do is think of Jesus's admonition: Why do you look at the mote in the other's eye, and not the beam in your own?" Sachs said.

Sachs said nothing about China's repression of the Uyghurs despite repeated prompting from the interviewer. '

https://www.axios.com/2021/02/23/china-uyghurs-columbia-rights-sachs

[Todd]

Sachs said nothing about China's repression of the Uyghurs despite repeated prompting from the interviewer. '

https://www.axios.com/2021/02/23/china-uyghurs-columbia-rights-sachs

The genocide against the Uyghurs is an internal Chinese issue.  It is dreadful.  It is also not America's problem to solve.  The same applies to other genocides around the world - eg, the genocide against the Rohingya in Myanmar. 

[Karl Henning]

Russians vote with their feet against Putin's folly

[Todd]

Lest anyone have any doubts about American intentions since the 90s, here's a little something from Zbigniew Brzezinski from 1997, the same year George Kennan warned against expanding NATO:

Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state, more likely to be drawn into debilitating conflicts with aroused Central Asians, who would then be resentful of the loss of their recent independence and would be supported by their fellow Islamic states to the south. China would also be likely to oppose any restoration of Russian domination over Central Asia, given its increasing interest in the newly independent states there. However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as its access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia. Ukraine's loss of independence would have immediate consequences for Central Europe, transforming Poland into the geopolitical pivot on the eastern frontier of a united Europe.

It is a straight line from this Mackinderian analysis to Bush's actions of 2008, Obama's of 2014, and statements by Biden and Austin this year.  Sometimes people really should believe what senior security professionals write.

The Tufts and Congressional Research Service catalogs of post-Cold War US military interventions also aligns with the aggressive, militaristic foreign policy of the US, under both parties, since 1991. 

'Murica.

[Madiel]

The Lithuanian Minister of Foreign Affairs made a good point: there is no reason why, in the name of humanitarianism, we should admit in our country Russian citizens who protest and flee the war in Ukraine only when it affects them directly.

I am not so sure it is a good point, given that protesting in Russia is not a very safe thing to do.

Of course there were already people who left Russia when the war started. I think many of them ended up in Georgia.

[Madiel]

Personally, I would have closed the EU borders long since. All those young men now fleeing? Tough. You serve Mother Russia by staying there and defending it from the predations of a maniac, not by taking the easy option of disappearing for a convenient amount of time.

I can't help but notice, also, that all these young men now so concerned about their futures were just fine with Russia breaking just about every international law and agreement they ever signed up to, including the commission of war crimes, until it came just a bit too close to home for their comfort. Where were their voices before the partial mobilisation? Nowhere, because they were just fine -fine enough to acquiesce in it, anyway- with what Putin was up to. Well, I don't think anyone should be granting refuge to such unprincipled, immoral actors.

If the only people left in Russia are the ones who are happy with what Putin is up to, his rule will never be brought to an end. So send the escapees back, after making them watch the news from places such as Bucha and Izium. Maybe that can make a difference.

You're making a HELL of a lot of assumptions here. How do you know they were "just fine" with what Russia was already doing? How exactly were you going to hear their voices before that?

If the only way to indicate your disagreement with a policy of your homeland is to leave your homeland, well... nearly every person on this forum can just be assumed to be in lock step with all of the policies of their national government, right? RIGHT? Because that's pretty much what you're saying.

Your willingness to assert that Russians ought to go home and face jail and torture does you no credit.

[milk]

The genocide against the Uyghurs is an internal Chinese issue.  It is dreadful.  It is also not America's problem to solve.  The same applies to other genocides around the world - eg, the genocide against the Rohingya in Myanmar.

What does this mean? Do you think think journalists and historians, for example, ought to cover events of the world, to document human suffering? I get the idea of non-intervention. That's a moral and policy question. But "internal issue" sounds like "none of our business." Anything that happens is fair game in a free society. Too bad if Chinese want to play by different rules. North Korea doesn't get to tell me what I can know about even when it happens inside their country. The plight of the Rohingya people matters outside of Myanmar.