Europe at War

[Karl Henning]

Geo. Will, "warmonger": Slinking away from aiding Ukraine would be a major strategic error

[Fëanor]

US Sounds Alarm Over 'Harmful' Iran-Russia Military Partnership

Maybe the US should impose sanctions on Iran.  That'd show 'em.

I've said before that rationally the USA should seek rapprochement or detent with Iran.  It might curb their lean towards Moscow, would certainly put some screws on Saudi Arabia, and would establish a better Sunni-Shia balanced foreign policy.

But of course this is difficult policy for the USA given its many decades long, uncritical support for Israel.  This policy has huge domestic support from from various soures.

[Fëanor]

NATO chief fears Ukraine war could spiral into wider conflict between West and Russia

Nothing to see here.  Keep fighting.  No negotiations.

What would be negotiated? A Donbas cession to Russia on account of the mock plebiscite?  Crimea?

In any case it would require that Putin admit failure to the goals of his "military action", (i.e. freeing Ukraine the neo-Nazi Western lackey government).

Personally if it would let Putin walk away without admitting total defeat, I might concede Crimea which was given to Ukraine only in the Khrushchev era.

[Todd]

I've said before that rationally the USA should seek rapprochement or detent with Iran.  It might curb their lean towards Moscow, would certainly put some screws on Saudi Arabia, and would establish a better Sunni-Shia balanced foreign policy.

But of course this is difficult policy for the USA given its many decades long, uncritical support for Israel.  This policy has huge domestic support from from various soures.

Iran has never scared me.  Iranian hatred of America is literally all America's fault.  There is no denying that the US removed Mossadegh, armed the corrupt and oppressive Shah, and then imposed decades long sanctions on Iran after the revolution and hostage crisis brouhaha.  (And the US suffered the secondary humiliation of a botched rescue mission during said crisis.  Oops.)  The US is the bad guy here, straight up.  But let bygones be bygones.  The US should openly pursue "friendly" relations with the Islamic Republic, reorganize the global oil markets as the world weans itself off fossil fuels, and then play off the House of Saud against the Islamic Republic, thereby blending the Carter Doctrine with something that Metternich might recognize.  Israel is a secondary concern.

What would be negotiated? A Donbas session to Russia on account of the mock plebiscite?  Crimea?

Recognition of the annexation of Crimea, a large-scale carve-up of Ukraine (I'd personally be willing to let Russia rule the whole country*, though one negotiates aways territory for concessions**), and a treaty guaranteeing that Ukraine will never become part of NATO, the EU, or any other Western political/economic/military organization.  Again, see what one has to negotiate away, and remember that the US can simply ignore treaties.  Putin and other Russians have been clear on their desire to keep Ukraine out of NATO or some other similar arrangement.  Keep in mind, I also think that the NATO itself should be dissolved (preferably) or scaled back to pre-1999 membership, so my willingness to carve up Europe like a turkey is rather more freewheeling than most.



* I see Ukraine as a super-sized Yugoslavia and not a country in the standard Western conception.

** This would have the long-term benefit to the US of having Ukraine serve as a source of uprisings and regional violence that would perpetually distract Russia.

[Fëanor]

Recognition of the annexation of Crimea, a large-scale carve-up of Ukraine (I'd personally be willing to let Russia rule the whole country*, though one negotiates aways territory for concessions**), and a treaty guaranteeing that Ukraine will never become part of NATO, the EU, or any other Western political/economic/military organization.  Again, see what one has to negotiate away, and remember that the US can simply ignore treaties.  Putin and other Russians have been clear on their desire to keep Ukraine out of NATO or some other similar arrangement.  Keep in mind, I also think that the NATO itself should be dissolved (preferably) or scaled back to pre-1999 membership, so my willingness to carve up Europe like a turkey is rather more freewheeling than most.

* I see Ukraine as a super-sized Yugoslavia and not a country in the standard Western conception.

** This would have the long-term benefit to the US of having Ukraine serve as a source of uprisings and regional violence that would perpetually distract Russia.

Needless to say, I disagree.  Possibly excepting the cession of Crimea which was Russian 'till 1954, otherwise no cessions nor concessions.  Absolutely no guarantees that Ukraine won't join NATO, much less the EU.

NATO always was and is essentially defensive organization whose adversary was the Soviet Union, and is with Putin as adversary by his own choice.  NATO was never a direct threat to the Soviet Union or the Russian Federation except in the paranoid obsessions of Stalin and his successors up to and including Putin.  Judging by its careful/timid behavior regarding Ukraine invasion, it still isn't.

[Todd]

Absolutely no guarantees that Ukraine won't join NATO, much less the EU.

This is a path to war.

To be clear, NATO is the important organization, and EU membership is the booby prize to be negotiated away.

NATO was never a direct threat to the Soviet Union or the Russian Federation except in the paranoid obsessions of Stalin and his successors up to and including Putin.

It absolutely was and remains so.

Judging by its careful/timid behavior regarding Ukraine invasion, it still isn't.

NATO, meaning the US, has poured weapons into Ukraine.  That is not timid.  Claims of timidity are keyboard warfare.

[Fëanor]

...
My point being, I agree with you that I don't get personally worked up about returning Crimea to Russia, since it was only Ukraine's by Khrushev mind-splat in the fifties; but that won't be enough to make Putin take his troops home. He will want (need) some sort of security and water guarantees for Crimea's future viability, such that I can't see him ever being content to give four provinces up for the one he really cares about.

You are quite correct that Putin wouldn't be content with Crimea, a land bridge to Crimea, plus the Donbas.  In fact what Putin wants is to restore the Tsarist/Soviet empire.

The only point of conceding Crimea would be to let Putin quite the aggression without seeming to have been totally defeated.  Then again he likely wouldn't accept this.

[Fëanor]

This is a path to war, {not guarantying that Ukraine won't joint NATO}

To be clear, NATO is the important organization, and EU membership is the booby prize to be negotiated away.

But of course you are missing the point of NATO, (quite deliberately I'm sure).  Its primary purpose is to defend nations against Russian aggression as demonstrate under both the Tsars and the Soviets.  The stronger and more inclusive NATO is, the more likely to achieve this purpose.

I really am trying to understand whether it's because you hate the USA so much or love Russia so much -- Presumably not the latter because if you (or Putin) loved Russia, you would grant the Russia and the Russians would have been much better off if Putin's goal 20 years ago had been to bring Russia into the EU.

[Todd]

But of course you are missing the point of NATO, (quite deliberately I'm sure).  Its primary purpose is to defend nations against Russian aggression as demonstrate under both the Tsars and the Soviets.  The stronger and more inclusive NATO is, the more likely to achieve this purpose.

The point you describe is how it was sold, that is certain.  It may even have been true even up through the end of the Cold War, at least from a certain standpoint.  As Senator Taft's quote provided earlier indicates, NATO has always had critics who questioned its necessity, actual purpose, and how it would ultimately be used.

After the collapse of the USSR, there was no longer a justification for NATO's continued existence.  Russia is not the USSR.  The USSR's economy was once a near peer to that of the US.  All of the former Soviet countries combined are not today, and Russia's GDP is now one-twelfth that of the US.  Russia is the most capable military threat the US faces right now, but as the Russo-Ukrainian War demonstrates, it is not, in fact, a near peer in conventional capabilities.  The expansion of NATO since the collapse of the USSR represents an expansion of American power and willful subjugation to that power by ever more European countries.  Imperial expansion is not always resisted by vassals.

There is a point that is typically missed in discussions about NATO, and it is always missed by small, weak countries that understandably crave US protection: the expansion of NATO does not enhance American national security or further US economic interests.  It overextends the US.  It costs too much, and it does so as transfer payments devour an incrementally yet relentlessly growing portion of the budget and GDP.  The United States is safe from Russia.  The United States will not be invaded by Russia.  (Canada can basically get a free ride, I should point out, since any attack on the North American continent would rightly be viewed as an existential threat to the US that should be met by all necessary force, up to and including the use of strategic nuclear weapons.) Eastern European countries may face threats from Russia, but so what?  If Ukraine or <insert NATO country added since 1990 here> is dominated or ruled by Russia, it does not threaten American national security.  Only material economic interests in older NATO allies make any threats posed by Russia significant, and those should be examined more thoroughly to assess whether even those make sense to defend, or if Europeans themselves should shoulder the entire burden of European security.  Given that European countries have a combined GDP that exceeds that of the US and greater aggregate wealth, the answer is obvious.  Europe should defend itself. 

It is not the responsibility of the US to protect Europe, to promote democracy, to ensure human rights, or to advance the other soft power goals of Western institutions.  Western ideals are not universal and attempts to further expand them are dangerous and foolish.  It is the responsibility of the federal government of the US to protect Americans and American interests.  Continuing expansion of or even just maintenance of NATO does not do that.  NATO will not last forever, so the more important question is how it is dissolved, by choice or as the result of defeat in war.  The former is infinitely preferable to the latter.

[milk]

I wonder if it can be seen as a cynical maneuver of Putin's to force the U.S. to take Griner only and first in exchange as this can only be divisive in American politics. Whelan should have been prioritized and Putin knows it? Just a thought.

[Todd]

I wonder if it can be seen as a cynical maneuver of Putin's to force the U.S. to take Griner only and first in exchange as this can only be divisive in American politics. Whelan should have been prioritized and Putin knows it? Just a thought.

What criticisms could one level against an exchange of a WNBA player for an arms dealer so infamous that he has a wicked nickname and got the 60 Minutes treatment?  The Griner-Bout deal is like my favorite coffee, fair trade.

[drogulus]

    I don't understand why people think Iranians hate the US. Israel don't signify. Iran and Israel were allies under the Shah. Iranian Jews had to flee after the revolution, along with many middle class Iranians who came to the US. Of course the poorer dumbass regions featured bigotry, just like in the US.

    Americans who visit Iran have a very different picture of what Iranians think. The regime is hated, the West is not. I would think recent events make that plain.

    I talked to my Iranian dentist and she said her family had to leave after she got her degree. I asked "In 1979?" and she said yes. I thought I'd tell a humanoid interest story for no reason.

[milk]

What criticisms could one level against an exchange of a WNBA player for an arms dealer so infamous that he has a wicked nickname and got the 60 Minutes treatment?  The Griner-Bout deal is like my favorite coffee, fair trade.

I'm happy for her but it does seem like a strange humiliation for the west. Why do I have a feeling they're laughing at the U.S.? And it only causes more divisiveness in American politics. She's very lucky. I hope she keeps her head down now or maybe quietly advocates for this specific cause.

[Madiel]

But of course you are missing the point of NATO, (quite deliberately I'm sure).  Its primary purpose is to defend nations against Russian aggression as demonstrate under both the Tsars and the Soviets.  The stronger and more inclusive NATO is, the more likely to achieve this purpose.

I really am trying to understand whether it's because you hate the USA so much or love Russia so much -- Presumably not the latter because if you (or Putin) loved Russia, you would grant the Russia and the Russians would have been much better off if Putin's goal 20 years ago had been to bring Russia into the EU.

In trying to understand Todd's motivations, consider the following options:

1. A complete disdain for centralised government as evidenced over many years (although hey, Moscow controlling Kyiv would apparently be fine because it isn't affecting him).

2. Trolling.

[Todd]

Why do I have a feeling they're laughing at the U.S.?

Nah, no way.  Both sides negotiated like champs.  Settlement negotiations should be smooth sailing with an optimal outcome when they happen.

[Fëanor]

...

After the collapse of the USSR, there was no longer a justification for NATO's continued existence.

Events have proven otherwise.

[Todd]

Events have proven otherwise.

No, they have not.  NATO expansion provoked Russian aggression.

[Todd]

From the Gray Lady (an ultra-wealthy family's plaything) via Yahoo: Spat Over Patriot Missiles Reveals Deepening Rifts in Europe Over Ukraine

Some Eastern European "allies" are reckless in the extreme, and their bellicosity risks needless and deadly escalation of the war.  I'm unambiguously Team Germany in the Germany-Poland spat. 


From the LA Times (a billionaire's plaything): U.S. policy makes Ukraine fight by rules Russia doesn't follow

Ukrainians must understand that this is America's proxy war.  Ukrainian interests really are secondary.  As Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has said publicly, US policy is to weaken Russia, but to quote Joseph Robinette Biden Jr from this article, "We're trying to avoid World War III."  Zelensky should take his Puppet of the Year award, be happy, and follow orders. 

Hopefully the people who matter will decide to negotiate soon.

[drogulus]

    The center of gravity of European defense has moved east from countries with big GDPs and small armies to countries with smaller GDPs and bigger armies.

    The US and I think the UK will hang with the Easties. France and Germany may find they are out of a job.

    In technical parlance Germany is kind of fucked. They go fucked themselves and then the world piled in. They can pay for expensive gas for heat but not for manufacturing.

   

     Yeah, it'll be something like this but with Ukraine. Russia will have these guys instead of the peacemongers of NATO to deal with. Well, it's their own fault they didn't know what a good thing they had with NATO expansion.

[Fëanor]

Ukrainians must understand that this is America's proxy war.

Far be it from YOU to tell the Ukrainians how to see the war.