Europe at War

[Que]

This a more rational and reasonable article than the one about Russia's facing inevitable disintegration in the foreseeable future.

Sure, extrapolation of the current situation - an assumed military stalemate - is "rational and reasonable", but not very interesting as it offers only a short term view with a limited scope. Could be yesterday's news next week or next month.

[Florestan]

extrapolation of the current situatio

That's exactly what the other article does, too --- but its speculative elements are more numerous. I mean, come on, Russia's imminent disintegration has been announced repeteadly ever since the Russo-Japanese War, and what really happened is that of all the empires which had disintegrated after WWI, the Russian one is the only one which was reconstituted almost in its entirety. I think any notion that Russia will somehow disintegrate in any foreseeable future is at best wishful thinking and at worst delusional. Unfortunately, Russia is here to stay.

[Todd]

but not very interesting

Proper analyses may not be very interesting.  Articles heavy on wishful thinking may be very interesting.

People have been predicting the imminent collapse of Russia since last February, the imminent demise of Putin for as long, etc.

[drogulus]

     Is there an article about the inevitability of Russian disintegration? I just saw the article about preparing for the possibility so we wouldn't be caught off guard like with the not very inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union.

     A different tack would be mine. We are preparing. The lesson has been learned. The West is building bridges to the Stans and not just for oil and gas.

     No matter how intense the speculation on Putin is, what happens will be a surprise. That's how it usually goes.

[drogulus]

     Somebody will say "I knew it" and everyone else will say "sure you did". It's like predicting the next recession. I predict there will be a next recession.

[Que]

Proper analyses may not be very interesting.  Articles heavy on wishful thinking may be very interesting.

People have been predicting the imminent collapse of Russia since last February, the imminent demise of Putin for as long, etc.

The article doesn't predict an imminent collapse, but points out that the stability and position of Russia is becoming increasingly precarious, and describes different possible scenarios from a political-historical perspective.

There is nothing wishful thinking about it - an unstable, desintigrating Russia could be a very dangerous situation.

[Todd]

The article doesn't predict an imminent collapse, but points out that the stability and position of Russia is becoming increasingly precarious, and describes different possible scenarios from a political-historical perspective.

There is nothing wishful thinking about it - an unstable, desintigrating Russia could be a very dangerous situation.

I did not write that the article contained that assertion, but rather that those types of claims have been made for eleven months now.  Well, longer actually.  Russia is always on the verge of some great calamity.  Wishful thinking is common.  I suggest reading additional articles that contain different analyses, and not just analyses you prefer.  Perhaps consider various articles or interviews with Angela Stent.  She even gets published in Foreign Policy.

[Que]

I did not write that the article contained that assertion, but rather that those types of claims have been made for eleven months now.  Well, longer actually.  Russia is always on the verge of some great calamity.  Wishful thinking is common.  I suggest reading additional articles that contain different analyses, and not just analyses you prefer.  Perhaps consider various articles or interviews with Angela Stent.  She even gets published in Foreign Policy.

Interesting you mention her. Here is a interview with her from a few days ago.
Takeaways: Putin is a threat to Eastern Europe; the attack on Ukraine was unprovoked and not triggered by NATO or NATO expansion; Biden has done a good job and so has Zelensky; and since Putin has no intention to give up this war will probably continue in 2023. Does all sound quite sensible but not very much up your alley.

https://lithub.com/why-2023-probably-wont-bring-an-end-to-the-war-in-ukraine/

[Todd]

Interesting you mention her. Here is a interview with her from a few days ago.
Takeaways: Putin is a threat to Eastern Europe; the attack on Ukraine was unprovoked and not triggered by NATO or NATO expansion; Biden has done a good job and so has Zelensky; and since Putin has no intention to give up this war will probably continue in 2023. Does all sound quite sensible but not very much up your alley.

https://lithub.com/why-2023-probably-wont-bring-an-end-to-the-war-in-ukraine/

She's a conventional institutionalist, so she toes the warmonger line.  (Unlike you, I prefer to read and hear all sides.)  Her greater insights come in the realm of economics.  The reason I cited her specifically is because she has been clear that sanctions have not been as damaging to Russia as wishful thinkers claim, collapse is not imminent or even in the cards in the near term, that this year is when the sanctions will begin to hurt more - but so will the results of Russia's energy policies in Europe.  2023 will be worse than 2022.  She and her husband (Daniel Yergin) give more sober takes to investors trying to plan for the future.

[drogulus]

Does all sound quite sensible but not very much up your alley.

    That's a fairly civilized way of putting it.

   

[milk]

Interesting you mention her. Here is a interview with her from a few days ago.
Takeaways: Putin is a threat to Eastern Europe; the attack on Ukraine was unprovoked and not triggered by NATO or NATO expansion; Biden has done a good job and so has Zelensky; and since Putin has no intention to give up this war will probably continue in 2023. Does all sound quite sensible but not very much up your alley.

https://lithub.com/why-2023-probably-wont-bring-an-end-to-the-war-in-ukraine/

It seems like this really is a matter of how you're phrasing it. I mean, would you disagree with Chomsky on this? Perhaps this is just semantics at this point.

To wit:
Chomsky told us that it "should be clear that the (Russian) invasion of Ukraine has no (moral) justification." He compared it to the US invasion of Iraq, seeing it as an example of "supreme international crime." With this moral question settled, Chomsky believes that the main 'background' of this war, a factor that is missing in mainstream media coverage, is "NATO expansion."

"This is not just my opinion," said Chomsky, "it is the opinion of every high-level US official in the diplomatic services who has any familiarity with Russia and Eastern Europe. This goes back to George Kennan and, in the 1990s, Reagan's ambassador Jack Matlock, including the current director of the CIA; in fact, just everybody who knows anything has been warning Washington that it is reckless and provocative to ignore Russia's very clear and explicit red lines. That goes way before (Vladimir) Putin, it has nothing to do with him; (Mikhail) Gorbachev, all said the same thing. Ukraine and Georgia cannot join NATO, this is the geostrategic heartland of Russia."

From https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/06/25/not-justification-provocation-chomsky-root-causes-russia-ukraine-war

[Todd]

Lula is now unquestionably a hero, a world leader of great renown, a man of principle.  Let us see what he said about Ukraine earlier this year:

Brazil's ex-president Lula claims Zelenskiy equally to blame for war

Lula, who is leading President Bolsonaro in polls, also said Biden and EU are guilty and could have stated Ukraine would not join Nato

Putin shouldn't have invaded Ukraine. But it's not just Putin who is guilty. The US and the EU are also guilty

Like the Russians, Brazilians should just mind their own business, amiright?  And just what the hell does he think he is doing, calling for peace while meeting with Russian and Ukrainian leaders.

Keep fighting.

No negotiations.

[Todd]

But getting their facts right would be a good first move.

The white man's burden is a heavy one.

[Todd]

including the current director of the CIA

This is a reference to William Burns.  His warnings against Ukrainian NATO membership were dropped by WikiLeaks.  Below is a link to a short article from The Atlantic (I think that is considered credible) from way back in 2019.  No one could have foreseen trouble from reckless, aggressive expansion of NATO, openly endorsed in the Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership from September 1, 2021.

A Brief History of U.S.-Russian Missteps Bill Burns revisits NATO enlargement and other stories from a relationship gone bad.

[milk]

The article to which you refer also says this: "The United States has a lot of political clout. And Biden could have avoided war, not incited it," [Lula] said. "Biden could have taken a plane to Moscow to talk to Putin. This is the kind of attitude you expect from a leader."

Yet what did Reuters report on December 10th 2021: "Biden and Zelenskiy had a call two days after Biden held talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin to try to defuse a crisis over Russian troop movements near Ukraine's borders." The link in that quote goes on to explain that Biden had two hours of 'virtual' talks with Putin on December 7th that year. So, in fact, Biden did do precisely what Lula said he should have done, short only of actually wasting many hours by taking a plane.

The article you cite also has Lula saying: "The US and EU could have avoided the invasion by stating that Ukraine would not join Nato". Whereas what Biden actually said was, "(I) stand(s) by the proposition that countries should be able to freely choose who they associate with" or, as Zelensky put it, "President Biden said very clearly that the decision on Ukraine's accession to NATO is the decision of the Ukrainian people only, this is a sovereign and independent Ukrainian state," he said. "And it depends on Ukraine and NATO members." Which is correct: the EU has no say whatsoever in who joins NATO, since the EU isn't a NATO member.

So, no: Brazilians shouldn't "just mind their own business", so youarewrong. But getting their facts right would be a good first move.

Nevermind that if Biden turned round and told Brazil that they couldn't buy oil from, say, Venezuela; or had to buy all future airliners from Boeing, I am sure cries of 'Gringo Imperialsm' would flow swiftly at the temerity of Biden telling a sovereign nation what it can and can't do. Yet, apparently, Biden is supposed to have imposed his will on Ukraine because... reasons?

So, not being quite so hypocritical would be a good second move on their part, too.

This seems to me to be a lot of unintentional motte and bailey type stuff. I'll say this again: I'm against Russia (basically) but I'm not against reality and facts. I'll say this again: I don't know much about the politics and history of the region in general but you seem to be avoiding something that I'm seeing clearly from Chomsky (as in here for example:
https://rozenbergquarterly.com/chomsky-us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/)
Are you seeing it? The motte is that U.S. policy is merely based on not wanting to deny the Ukraine's sovereignty and right to join organizations that will have it. It's so innocent. Nothing more.
What's the bailey?

[Todd]

The motte is that U.S. policy is merely based on not wanting to deny the Ukraine's sovereignty and right to join organizations that will have it. It's so innocent. Nothing more.

It is much, much more.  It is good.  It is righteous.  It is another example, to borrow Jimmy Sciutto's comment so recently used, of the US exporting democracy.  But it goes beyond that, really.  The US is exporting and defending Western Civilization itself.  The US is a defender of the faith in a world of heathens.  The crusade cannot, must not, be stopped.

And it is so blindingly obvious that one of the gravest impediments to this crusade is Russia.  Russia is evil.  Putin more so.  As the article I linked yesterday so honestly and righteously described, Russia is an evil empire.  It desires nothing short of the destruction of Democracy (which should always have a big D).  For all we know, Putin and Kirill may be paving the way for the rule of Satan hisself.  Heavens!  So pernicious is Russia, so devious, so clever, so all-powerful, that they have figured out a way to directly influence NYU researchers still combing over 2016 election results.  It is a blatant lie that Russia is a declining power, one with a shrinking population, much lower than average life expectancy, and GDP one twelfth of the US.  It is an ascendant power, more powerful than ever, lusting for ever greater control over the lives of every person on earth.  It must be stopped now, here, in this time and in this war, and forever vanquished.  For without achieving these righteous ends, human civilization is in peril.

And then, you know, there's China.

[Todd]

IE, Lula was uninformed and hypocritical (in the article that was originally quoted, at least).

Lula should read GMG.  That would set him straight.

[Fëanor]

The article to which you refer also says this: "The United States has a lot of political clout. And Biden could have avoided war, not incited it," [Lula] said. "Biden could have taken a plane to Moscow to talk to Putin. This is the kind of attitude you expect from a leader."
...

The article you cite also has Lula saying: "The US and EU could have avoided the invasion by stating that Ukraine would not join Nato". Whereas what Biden actually said was, "(I) stand(s) by the proposition that countries should be able to freely choose who they associate with" or, as Zelensky put it, "President Biden said very clearly that the decision on Ukraine's accession to NATO is the decision of the Ukrainian people only, this is a sovereign and independent Ukrainian state," he said. "And it depends on Ukraine and NATO members." Which is correct: the EU has no say whatsoever in who joins NATO, since the EU isn't a NATO member.
...

Again and with emphasis:  The "NATO is a threat to Russia" narrative is complete BS;  no concession ought to be made to placate Russia.  NATO has never been a threat to Russia except in so far as it might interfere with Russian expansionary ambitions.

Putin is a particularly nasty example of the combination of a personal power-hungry dictator with a romantic nationalist with hegemonic ambitions.  The only relevant strategy in such a case is resistance.

Given this reality, it is unlikely that promising to keep Ukraine out of NATO (and/or the EU), (as suggested by Lula), would have prevented the Russian invasion.  The Russian (i.e. Putin's) goal is not mitigating a NATO threat, it is hegemonic domination of eastern Europe and the weakening of liberal democracy.

[Todd]

The "NATO is a threat to Russia" narrative is complete BS;  no concession ought to be made to placate Russia.  NATO has never been a threat to Russia except in so far as it might interfere with Russian expansionary ambitions.

Putin is a particularly nasty example of the combination of a personal power-hungry dictator with a romantic nationalist with hegemonic ambitions.  The only relevant strategy in such a case is resistance.

Given this reality, it is unlikely that promising to keep Ukraine out of NATO (and/or the EU), (as suggested by Lula), would have prevented the Russian invasion.  The Russian (i.e. Putin's) goal is not mitigating a NATO threat, it is hegemonic domination of eastern Europe and the weakening of liberal democracy.

Pro-war propaganda works.

[drogulus]

     I have no doubt that expanding NATO by admitting Soviet Socialist Republics would provoke the USSR.

     Ukraine and Georgia can't join NATO, didn't and won't. I think that was where we stood in Feb. '22.

     We need a Chomsky for what everyone knows?

     Now we have the war, caused by Russian expansion and not a provocation that didn't happen. Now Russia gets more of what it doesn't want. Putin gets more NATO than he could have imagined.

     Russia violates agreements and launches a war of conquest in Ukraine. I think that's a provocation. I don't know if you could say Russia has been warned that that would obliterate any previous understandings. I'm going to say yes.