Europe at War

[Madiel]

Indeed, all this nonsense about not knowing what is in Putin's mind ignores the fact that he's given speeches, for heaven's sake.

[LKB]

Indeed, all this nonsense about not knowing what is in Putin's mind ignores the fact that he's given speeches, for heaven's sake.

Your main point is valid, but I'd offer the reminder that Putin is a practiced liar. He denied the intent to invade last year, and has lied repeatedly to the Russian population since.

That's the main reason ( aside from the Russian military being back on its heels ) why negotiating would be foolish.

Putin cannot be trusted, so he needs to be either removed from power or destroyed.

[Madiel]

Your main point is valid, but I'd offer the reminder that Putin is a practiced liar. He denied the intent to invade last year, and has lied repeatedly to the Russian population since.

That's the main reason ( aside from the Russian military being back on its heels ) why negotiating would be foolish.

Putin cannot be trusted, so he needs to be either removed from power or destroyed.

Yes it's true that he lies. But he does also reveal a lot of his actual approaches. It's not for nothing that I've brought up the Russian attitude to Ukraine's existence and history, he's expressed it.

It's not entirely unlike how al-Qaeda used to actually explain how it felt about the West and why it was doing what it was doing, and many people resolutely insisted that they were madmen and we couldn't possibly understand any of their motivations because they didn't really have any, just a kind of irrational destructive impulse.

[Que]

Putin keeps changing generals amidst growing rivalry between different factions at the Kremlin!

Interesting article (Radio Free Europe) on military aspects and palace politics:

Surovikin's Down, Gerasimov's Up: Russia's War On Ukraine Pivots Into Politics

[milk]

Your main point is valid, but I'd offer the reminder that Putin is a practiced liar. He denied the intent to invade last year, and has lied repeatedly to the Russian population since.

That's the main reason ( aside from the Russian military being back on its heels ) why negotiating would be foolish.

Putin cannot be trusted, so he needs to be either removed from power or destroyed.

So it's a fight to the finish for Putin? Back him to the edge of a cliff? I don't know that a deal is possible but at least it never hurts to have a line of communication.

[Florestan]

Putin cannot be trusted, so he needs to be either removed from power or destroyed.

I'll have to disagree with this radical stance, if only because there's no warranty that Putin's successor would be more trustful and honest --- in fact, I'm sure that whoever succeeds him would be just as dishonest and untrustworthy, if not more. Plus, a cornered Putin might go crazy for good and order the use of nukes and I don't think anyone in his minds would want to gamble on whether the generals will disobey his orders.

In my sincere opinion (and you all know by now that I am a staunch and implacable Russophobe) Zelensky's maximalist rhetoric is misguided. There is really no way this effing war could be ended by a peace treaty without UKraine giving up Crimea for good, together with at least a terrestrial corridor linking it with Russia proper --- unless, that is, the Russian army in Ukraine is utterly annihilated and the Ukrainian army could march unopposed into Russian territory, but this case, besides being implausible in itself, would moreover prompt Putin to order the use of nukes, and then see above.

[Florestan]

Putin keeps changing generals amidst growing rivalry between different factions at the Kremlin!

Interesting article (Radio Free Europe) on military aspects and palace politics:

Surovikin's Down, Gerasimov's Up: Russia's War On Ukraine Pivots Into Politics

I'm tempted to say that eventually Putin will assume the command himself, following in the steps of Hitler --- but I'm not going to say it for fear that Todd will invoke once again Godwin's law. 

[Fëanor]

I'll have to disagree with this radical stance, if only because there's no warranty that Putin's successor would be more trustful and honest --- in fact, I'm sure that whoever succeeds him would be just as dishonest and untrustworthy, if not more. Plus, a cornered Putin might go crazy for good and order the use of nukes and I don't think anyone in his minds would want to gamble on whether the generals will disobey his orders.

In my sincere opinion (and you all know by now that I am a staunch and implacable Russophobe) Zelensky's maximalist rhetoric is misguided. There is really no way this effing war could be ended by a peace treaty without UKraine giving up Crimea for good, together with at least a terrestrial corridor linking it with Russia proper --- unless, that is, the Russian army in Ukraine is utterly annihilated and the Ukrainian army could march unopposed into Russian territory, but this case, besides being implausible in itself, would moreover prompt Putin to order the use of nukes, and then see above.

Agree that it's not a matter of removing Putin per se.  That would be hard to do from outside Russia and, I agree too, that a successor from amongst top Russian today wouldn't necessarily be an improvement.  What is necessary is to thoroughly thwart Putin's imperialist, anti-NATO & EU goals.

Even apart from Ukrainian military successes progress has been made:

• The EU has not be weaken;
• Germany and others affected will survive the fuel shortages;
• NATO has not been weakened, if fact it is made stronger with the Finnish and Swedish applications and there are likely to be others.
• Chinese support for Russia has been tepid;
• Turkey, India, and others who haven't thoroughly denounced Russian, have been passively neutral at worst;
• As for military support for Ukraine, this is ramping up, not down.

Also by now it must be evident even to Putin not to mention his lackeys that:

• Support for Russia within Ukraine was grossly over estimated, and
• The effectiveness of the Russian military was grossly overestimated.

While it isn't the moment for Ukraine to join NATO, the organization should demonstrate a willingness to consider the memberships of current non-member states, viz.  Austria, Ireland, Malta, Moldova, and Serbia.

[Florestan]

progress has been made:

• The EU has not be weaken;
• Germany and others affected will survive the fuel shortages;
• NATO has not been weakened, if fact it is made stronger with the Finnish and Swedish applications and there are likely to be others.
• Chinese support for Russia has been tepid;
• Turkey, India, and others who haven't thoroughly denounced Russian, have been passively neutral at worst;
• As for military support for Ukraine, this is ramping up, not down.

Agreed.

Also by now it must be evident even to Putin not to mention his lackeys that:

• Support for Russia within Ukraine was grossly over estimated, and
• The effectiveness of the Russian military was grossly overestimated.

Ditto.

While it isn't the moment for Ukraine to join NATO,

Ukraine will never join NATO short of WWIII and its aftermath, assuming there will be an aftermath.

the organization should demonstrate a willingness to consider the memberships of current non-member states, viz.  Austria, Ireland, Malta, Moldova, and Serbia.

Hey, beware! You're playing directly into Todd's hands with the above. 

As long as none of those countries have declared their desire to join, let alone officially applied for NATO membership (and honestly I'm greatly puzzled by your inclusion of Serbia, where anti-NATO sentiment / resentment is prevalent --- and rightly so, if you ask me), there is no need for NATO to encourage them to do so and I'm sure there will be no such encouragement. Plus, Moldova has unresolved (and possibly unresolvable) territorial issues that preclude them for applying to begin with.

[Florestan]

They've never accepted Kosovo's independence,

Romania (alongside Spain, Slovakia, Cyprus and Greece within EU) doesn't recognize Kosovo's independence and rightly so.

[Florestan]

ountries like Ireland and Austria are in no way going to apply for membership off their own bat.

Ireland, Austria and Malta are perfectly safe from any Russian aggression in any foreseeable future. Let's not paint the devil blacker than he is. 

[Fëanor]

As long as none of those countries have declared their desire to join, let alone officially applied for NATO membership (and honestly I'm greatly puzzled by your inclusion of Serbia, where anti-NATO sentiment / resentment is prevalent --- and rightly so, if you ask me), there is no need for NATO to encourage them to do so and I'm sure there will be no such encouragement. Plus, Moldova has unresolved (and possibly unresolvable) territorial issues that preclude them for applying to begin with.

You will note that I said that NATO ought to "demonstrate a willingness to consider membership for ...".  I chose my words:  I didn't say that NATO ought to immediately offer or actively encourage their memberships.  NATO membership has always been voluntary, (despite Toddian arguments to the contrary).

[Florestan]

have no idea what you mean by that last sentence.

I mean that Russia is not going to invade Ireland, Austria or Malta any time soon.

[Florestan]

I said that NATO ought to "demonstrate a willingness to consider membership for ..."

But, my friend, this is redundant. NATO will always be willing to, nay, will always do, consider an official application. I remind you that Romania officially applied for membership in 1993, together with Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and was admitted in 2004, after Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, which were admitted in 1999 - thus giving a big lie to any claim that NATO's expansion was accomplished at the mere dictation of the USA.

[Todd]

Putin cannot be trusted, so he needs to be either removed from power or destroyed.

Comical tough guy talk.

Agree that it's not a matter of removing Putin per se.  That would be hard to do from outside Russia and, I agree too, that a successor from amongst top Russian today wouldn't necessarily be an improvement.  What is necessary is to thoroughly thwart Putin's imperialist, anti-NATO & EU goals.

Even apart from Ukrainian military successes progress has been made:

• The EU has not be weaken;
• Germany and others affected will survive the fuel shortages;
• NATO has not been weakened, if fact it is made stronger with the Finnish and Swedish applications and there are likely to be others.
• Chinese support for Russia has been tepid;
• Turkey, India, and others who haven't thoroughly denounced Russian, have been passively neutral at worst;
• As for military support for Ukraine, this is ramping up, not down.

Also by now it must be evident even to Putin not to mention his lackeys that:

• Support for Russia within Ukraine was grossly over estimated, and
• The effectiveness of the Russian military was grossly overestimated.

While it isn't the moment for Ukraine to join NATO, the organization should demonstrate a willingness to consider the memberships of current non-member states, viz.  Austria, Ireland, Malta, Moldova, and Serbia.

This is basically incomprehensible emotionalism applied to international relations.  The last sentence demonstrates how it can turn as comical as tough guy rhetoric about removing or destroying Putin.

NATO doesn't drum up membership

It does.

NATO doesn't demonstrate a willingness to consider membership until such time as a country applies for membership.

The language of the Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership indicates otherwise.

[Florestan]

Well, since I never suggested that it was, it was a pointless observation. Way to divert an attempt to agree with you.

Come on, Howard, why must you always be so nitpicking? You said  you didn't know what I meant, I exolicitated what I meant, now that I did it you're even less satisfied than before... For God's sake, we're on the same side of the fence, we should be friends or at least on friendly terms, shouldn't we? Well, as far as I'm concerned, I consider you, if not exactly a friend, at least certainly not a foe. Remember our discussion about licquorice? I enjoyed it very much. 

[Todd]

Funny thing about that: it's a joint US/Ukrainian statement, not a NATO-wide one. So, even if the US considers NATO membership before a country applies for it, that's quite different from what I actually wrote (no surprise there, then).

What you wrote is detached from reality.  The NATO communique from June of 2021 is referenced, and that document together with the White House publication very clearly indicate that the fix is in.

I understand the desire for people who live in vassal states to pretend that NATO is something other than it actually is.

[Florestan]

I understand the desire for people who live in vassal states to pretend that NATO is something other than it actually is.

I am Romanian therefore I put Romanian interest first and foremost before any other. Accordingly, I'd rather be a US vassal than a Russian one. Like it or not, it's as simple as that --- and I am sure that, had you been born a Romanian too, you'd have thought alike.

[Todd]

I am Romanian therefore I put Romanian interest first and foremost before any other. Accordingly, I'd rather be a US vassal than a Russian one. Like it or not, it's as simple as that --- and I am sure that, had you been born a Romanian too, you'd have thought alike.

I completely understand the desire of people who live in smaller countries prone to domination to choose the (much) lesser of two evils.  It's perfectly rational.  In practical terms, most imperial subjects of the US have to worry only about the US exporting inflation and recession through economic policies.  Maybe they lose some national champions in select industries or have to accept certain US products from time to time.  Some countries may have to accept a US military presence.  If I lived in a vassal state or potential vassal state, I'd take that in a heartbeat over Russian or Chinese domination.

As an American, it is clear to me that US economic policies, domestic and trade, harm large portions of the population, and that the military-industrial complex erodes the liberty of the citizenry.  These are critically important issues.  The fate of a country of 10, 25, 50 million or whatever is much less important.  In some cases, it has no importance at all.

[Todd]

A pertinent quote potentially worth reading:

Of all the evils to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops every other. War is the patent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes, are the known instruments for bringing the many under the dominion of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force of the people! No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

But the world is a fundamentally different place now, etc.