Europe at War

[Florestan]

practically far more important from an American standpoint

What I infer from your American standpoint is that, as long as Russia will never threaten America, they (Russia, that is) can do whatever they want to whomever they want.

If I'm wrong, please correct me.

[Florestan]

It is clear that Russia does not present the same type of challenge that the USSR did

What world are you living in, I wonder?

Russia is far more dangerous today than the USSR ever was, rhetorically speaking.

[Todd]

What world are you living in, I wonder?

The real world.  Russia does not pose the same threat the USSR did.

How come that each and every single nation which Russia subjugated, the very moment they were allowed to make their own free will choice, they chose NATO and EU?

Because Russia is autocratic and violently oppressive. 

What I infer from your American standpoint is that, as long as Russia will never threaten America, they (Russia, that is) can do whatever they want to whomever they want.

If I'm wrong, please correct me.

You are wrong.  Russia cannot be allowed to directly attack America or material American economic or security interests physically without repercussion.  (I differentiate this from so-called "cyberwarfare".)  So, Russia would not be able to freely attack the UK or France or Germany, say.  If/when Russia attacks countries or regions where the US does not have material interests, responses could range from UN speeches to token or perhaps worse sanctions of sorts, though preferably not of the self-harming variety that have been imposed recently.  Maybe the US and NATO allies which can effectively field weapons systems can engage in some saber-rattling (eg, B52 flights near Russian airspace).  No one anywhere, on this forum or elsewhere, has provided a substantive explanation as to how the Baltic nations or even Ukraine represent a material economic or security interest for the US. 

[Todd]

Biden says of Putin: 'For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power'

Regime change is back in vogue.  I am certain the Chinese are watching.

[amw]

So the Russians have now supposedly completed the first phase of their " special operation ", and will now concentrate on eastern Ukraine ( translation: " We got beat like a drum for our incompetence, so we're fleeing back to friendlier territory " ).

Russian forces haven't withdrawn from anywhere—at least according to social media, they're still on the ground as far as Makariv, still encircling Chernihiv and Kharkiv, etc. There's no evidence that Russia's strategy is actually changing. This makes perfect sense if one assumes (again, as I have from the beginning) that they never intended to take all of Ukraine or even to collapse the government, and maintain those invasion forces in the north of the country for the sole purpose of tying up Ukrainian troops and preventing them from reinforcing their Donbas frontline.

I'm therefore inclined to believe that they are still on target for whatever their real objectives are, as opposed to the set of propaganda objectives Russian media have been pushing (regime change, denazification, preventing Ukraine from using biological weapons, etc), and that this is therefore not a good time to become complacent.

(Notably, Russia claims to have lost only something like 1300 troops in this press conference. US and other intelligence agencies claim it's lost closer to 7000-8000. Given the extent to which Russia has been relying on DPR/LPR militias, mercenaries, and other assorted death squads valiant defenders of Chechnya against Islamic extremism, I suppose it's possible that both numbers are accurate from a certain point of view. But I would not be surprised if Russian firepower in Ukraine was significantly higher than has heretofore been visible, and that the choice to largely avoid urban warfare/trying to capture cities has been a conscious choice rather than a result of military defeats/losses.)

[drogulus]

     Russia can't freely attack Germany with eastern Europe allied with the West.  Russia wants to expand beyond its present border and we know exactly where it wants to go, and how wonderful it would be for Putin if Europe accepted his assertion that NATO is obsolete or provocative or whatever. Of course defense is provocative. Everything is for the expansionist power, especially nondefense. That's super provocative.

     Germany seems to get it. Poland surely does. Russia has explained everything that needs explaining.

[Florestan]

Russia attacks countries or regions where the US does not have material interests

How about countries or regions where the US does have moral / principled interests, such as NATO countries?

[Que]

Russia is far more dangerous today than the USSR ever was

Agreed. Russia has gone rogue.

[Todd]

How about countries or regions where the US does have moral / principled interests, such as NATO countries?

The US has treaty obligations, but that does not mean that the US would live up to all obligations.  Nor does it mean it should.  The US most certainly should not engage in full scale war with Russia to protect the Baltics, for instance.  Expansion of NATO to the east was a potentially fatal decision.  The US has reneged on treaties in the past, so just because a treaty exists does not mean the US will fulfill its obligations.  This indicates some room for maneuver for America.  Thankfully. 

Note that it is essentially impossible to see NATO obligations as "moral".

Agreed. Russia has gone rogue.

What does 'gone rogue' mean?

[drogulus]

     

I'm therefore inclined to believe that they are still on target for whatever their real objectives are, as opposed to the set of propaganda objectives Russian media have been pushing (regime change, denazification, preventing Ukraine from using biological weapons, etc), and that this is therefore not a good time to become complacent.

     Their objective was to force a collapse of the Ukrainian government and install a Moscow puppet. Denazification and bioweapons fears were propaganda largely for internal consumption and foreign TrumPutinists like Tucker. Zelensky was supposed to run away along with the rest of the government while NATO expressed concern and lightly sanctioned. Everything went wrong.

     The Donbass pivot is pathetic. It makes no sense.

[Florestan]

Russia is autocratic and violently oppressive. 

Stephen Kotkin is absolutely right in that Russia has always been autocratic and violently oppressive.

[Florestan]

The US has treaty obligations, but that does not mean that the US would live up to all obligations.  Nor does it mean it should. 

What you imply is that the US is no better than Russia.


Now, I don't always trust Americans --- but I never trust Russians.

[Todd]

Stephen Kotkin is absolutely right in that Russia has always been autocratic and violently oppressive.

Yes, so?

What you imply is that the US is no better rhan Russia.

The US should pursue its interests first, those of its allies second.  And not all allies are equal, not even close.  That is the way of the world, always has been, and always will be.  Whether that makes the US morally equivalent to Russia to various observers is of no concern.

[Karl Henning]

What you imply is that the US is no better than Russia.


Now, I don't always trust Americans --- but I never trust Russians.

Given how many Americans are cool with an autocrat wannabe, selective trust in America is indicated.

[amw]

     
     Their objective was to force a collapse of the Ukrainian government and install a Moscow puppet.

I have yet to see any evidence for this claim, regardless of whether it comes from Putinists or from paranoid Westerners. If Russia actually had the capacity to do this one imagines they would have done it by now.

[drogulus]

I have yet to see any evidence for this claim, regardless of whether it comes from Putinists or from paranoid Westerners. If Russia actually had the capacity to do this one imagines they would have done it by now.

     They quite clearly thought they had the capacity, and then when Zelensky and co. didn't run away like the Afghans they tried multiple times to kill him.

     Do you think Russia would hold free and fair elections after they killed everyone they tried to kill? What kind of evidence do you need that you don't have?

[Mandryka]

How about countries or regions where the US does have moral / principled interests, such as NATO countries?

Please clear some space in your inbox.

AGAIN!

[Mandryka]

Note that it is essentially impossible to see NATO obligations as "moral".

Breaking a treaty freely undertaken is inconsistent with The Categorical Imperative.

[Karl Henning]

I have yet to see any evidence for this claim, regardless of whether it comes from Putinists or from paranoid Westerners. If Russia actually had the capacity to do this one imagines they would have done it by now.

That stands out even in this thread as weak analysis.

[drogulus]

     How do you "denazify" a country without removing the government? Isn't "denazification" the kind of rationale you'd expect for Russia to install a toady regime?

     For myself, I'm not so mean spirited that I refuse to understand the plain message Putin sends to the world. I read him loud and clear.