Twenty Years On...

[Wraith]

Sanctions really aren't going to do anything unless they're substantially more aggressive than what we've seen before. The Russian government has clearly accounted for the possibility of sanctions in response to their activities in Ukraine and decided they can take it on the chin.

Yeah, I'm not confident the sanctions announced so far are going to be enough, but I guess we'll see. I hope Biden is serious about continuing to ratchet up the sanctions, and it shouldn't just be reactive - we need harsher sanctions to keep rolling in until Putin withdraws. Potentially, we could get away with using weaker sanctions than we'd otherwise need if we can generate a plausible threat of them continuing to build up as long as Russian aggression continues.

[wiggin]

Yeah, I'm not confident the sanctions announced so far are going to be enough, but I guess we'll see. I hope Biden is serious about continuing to ratchet up the sanctions, and it shouldn't just be reactive - we need harsher sanctions to keep rolling in until Putin withdraws. Potentially, we could get away with using weaker sanctions than we'd otherwise need if we can generate a plausible threat of them continuing to build up as long as Russian aggression continues.

I think it's abundantly clear - and has been since 2014 - that the West cares not one whit about Ukrainian territorial integrity. It is folly to believe that we will be able to muster enough political and economic pressure to cause a withdrawal, or to believe that Russia is in any way responsive to Western pressure on this issue. The current action by Russia is just a formalization of the existing status quo, and the world seemed quite content to let them get away with it for the last 8 years. I'm not sure why now will be any different.

I do think that action to capture Kiev would get people's attention, but mostly because of concerns of neighboring NATO members, not any actual concern about Ukrainian sovereignty. And even there it's highly probably that we'll have short lived disapproval and ineffective economic sanctions rather than anything effective. I'm not really proposing we should do more - Ukraine is frankly not worth risking a war with Russia over - but I think we should be clear-headed about how much we're really willing to do and how effective it's likely to be.

[LittleFuzzy]

I think it's abundantly clear - and has been since 2014 - that the West cares not one whit about Ukrainian territorial integrity. It is folly to believe that we will be able to muster enough political and economic pressure to cause a withdrawal, or to believe that Russia is in any way responsive to Western pressure on this issue. The current action by Russia is just a formalization of the existing status quo, and the world seemed quite content to let them get away with it for the last 8 years. I'm not sure why now will be any different.

I do think that action to capture Kiev would get people's attention, but mostly because of concerns of neighboring NATO members, not any actual concern about Ukrainian sovereignty. And even there it's highly probably that we'll have short lived disapproval and ineffective economic sanctions rather than anything effective. I'm not really proposing we should do more - Ukraine is frankly not worth risking a war with Russia over - but I think we should be clear-headed about how much we're really willing to do and how effective it's likely to be.

I have to add one note. This is Europe's back door. The European community has been insisting they're full grown-ups at the global table for a number of decades now. This is or should be their show. If the EU et al are not willing/able to effectively respond when a literal neighbor is undermined for years and literally invaded now, when will they be?

[Aimless]

I have to add one note. This is Europe's back door. The European community has been insisting they're full grown-ups at the global table for a number of decades now. This is or should be their show. If the EU et al are not willing/able to effectively respond when a literal neighbor is undermined for years and literally invaded now, when will they be?

Military/security aspects of Russia policy in the region has traditionally been the purview of NATO. The EU is designed to facilitate economic, social, and political integration—which it has continued to do, and which represents a major concern for Putin's regime. The 21 NATO member states in the EU already have a forum (NATO) for addressing the threat posed by Russia—they should prioritize that forum for that issue instead of wasting energy on trying to make the EU fulfill functions it isn't suited to fulfill. NATO has a long and substantial partnership with Ukraine, and Russia's military actions against Ukraine have a much clearer relevance to NATO's interests and indeed its raison d'être. If NATO isn't able to effectively respond when an important partner is undermined for years, invaded, annexed, and then invaded again, when will it be?

Moving on from that tangent, I think the Biden admin's successful marshaling of support from eg. Japan and Taiwan will prove to be significant.

[Being]

Military/security aspects of Russia policy in the region has traditionally been the purview of NATO. The EU is designed to facilitate economic, social, and political integration—which it has continued to do, and which represents a major concern for Putin's regime. The 21 NATO member states in the EU already have a forum (NATO) for addressing the threat posed by Russia—they should prioritize that forum for that issue instead of wasting energy on trying to make the EU fulfill functions it isn't suited to fulfill. NATO has a long and substantial partnership with Ukraine, and Russia's military actions against Ukraine have a much clearer relevance to NATO's interests and indeed its raison d'être. If NATO isn't able to effectively respond when an important partner is undermined for years, invaded, annexed, and then invaded again, when will it be?

Moving on from that tangent, I think the Biden admin's successful marshaling of support from eg. Japan and Taiwan will prove to be significant.

Yeah, right, keep it in NATO so Sweden can stay neutered, er, I mean, neutral.

[wiggin]

Yeah, right, keep it in NATO so Sweden can stay neutered, er, I mean, neutral.

Much as I agree that Russian aggression in Ukraine is a problem that should concentrate minds in Europe irrespective of NATO membership, it's really easy for you to criticize Swedish neutrality (at least theoretical neutrality) from the comfort of the US. It's a lot harder when you're in a country whose airspace and territorial waters are routinely violated by a much larger and aggressive neighbor. In such a circumstance official neutrality may look more wise than craven.

[Being]

Much as I agree that Russian aggression in Ukraine is a problem that should concentrate minds in Europe irrespective of NATO membership, it's really easy for you to criticize Swedish neutrality (at least theoretical neutrality) from the comfort of the US. It's a lot harder when you're in a country whose airspace and territorial waters are routinely violated by a much larger and aggressive neighbor. In such a circumstance official neutrality may look more wise than craven.

Have you ever heard of a place in the USA called Alaska? It actually shares more border with Russia than Sweden even has borders (maybe, looks like it on the maps anyway). If it comes down to it I'd prefer to trade Sweden to Russia in return for Ukraine. We'd have them surrounded in Sweden, never have that in Ukraine.

[LittleFuzzy]

Military/security aspects of Russia policy in the region has traditionally been the purview of NATO. The EU is designed to facilitate economic, social, and political integration—which it has continued to do, and which represents a major concern for Putin's regime. The 21 NATO member states in the EU already have a forum (NATO) for addressing the threat posed by Russia

The threat posed to them individually. Not the threat posed by Russia in general, as shown by Georgia, and the Crimea, and the eastern Ukrainian border unrest, and now the general Ukrainian invasion. The Ukraine is not and never has been a partner like that and to the extent NATO has served as a general shield against large-scale aggression historically, it's been primarily a matter of providing multilateral cover to one specific actor within NATO, one whose preeminent status mostly undermined the European aspiration to not be relegated to the kiddie table.

—they should prioritize that forum for that issue instead of wasting energy on trying to make the EU fulfill functions it isn't suited to fulfill.

So. . . the EU's function is to enrich itself at the rest of the world's expense as a trade and economic bloc and the devil take any other issue? It would seem to me that combining and integrating their economic and political response (if not social) in foreign policy and security to effectively respond to and deter aggression from threatening states in the region (or even across the globe) would be part of what it means to be the sort of integrating/integrated power bloc the EU purports to be.

If NATO isn't able to effectively respond when an important partner is undermined for years, invaded, annexed, and then invaded again, when will it be?

If Europe could step up when the US has already exhausted itself, wisely or unwisely, then NATO could effectively respond through them. Is/should NATO only be capable of anything when the US is the one providing the muscle for it? That would seem to kinda prove the complaints US conservatives have been making about NATO for the last 20 years.

[Wraith]

I think it's abundantly clear - and has been since 2014 - that the West cares not one whit about Ukrainian territorial integrity. It is folly to believe that we will be able to muster enough political and economic pressure to cause a withdrawal, or to believe that Russia is in any way responsive to Western pressure on this issue. The current action by Russia is just a formalization of the existing status quo, and the world seemed quite content to let them get away with it for the last 8 years. I'm not sure why now will be any different.

I do think that action to capture Kiev would get people's attention, but mostly because of concerns of neighboring NATO members, not any actual concern about Ukrainian sovereignty. And even there it's highly probably that we'll have short lived disapproval and ineffective economic sanctions rather than anything effective. I'm not really proposing we should do more - Ukraine is frankly not worth risking a war with Russia over - but I think we should be clear-headed about how much we're really willing to do and how effective it's likely to be.

I disagree. We guaranteed their security and independence, and after all of Trump's fuckery with them, we need to do this to ensure that our guarantees and treaties mean anything. We'll lose a lot more than Ukraine if we don't do whatever we can to keep our word and put a stop to Russian imperialism. Insert Taiwan mention here. Russia will not go to war with NATO, Putin will only take what he thinks he can get without a war with NATO. He's just trying to get us to back away while he advances, and all we have to do is not back away to stop him.

Have you been listening to that pinko soviet sympathizer Tucker Carlson?

[wiggin]

Have you ever heard of a place in the USA called Alaska? It actually shares more border with Russia than Sweden even has borders (maybe, looks like it on the maps anyway). If it comes down to it I'd prefer to trade Sweden to Russia in return for Ukraine. We'd have them surrounded in Sweden, never have that in Ukraine.

Thank you, Ms. Palin.

I don't think it should be difficult for you to understand the relative positions of the US and Sweden vis a vis a confrontation with Russia. What Sweden might gain in collective security and firepower by being part of NATO might be of little comfort if they were facing Russian hybrid warfare on their doorstep. The US is largely insulated from such immediate and pressing security concerns.

Also, your response above is more indicative of why Ukraine should claim neutrality, more so than Sweden. Ukraine actually shares a border with Russia. If Swedes don't want to piss off Russia by joining NATO why should we expect Ukrainians to join NATO and piss Russia off?

I think a very good argument can be made in favor of Ukraine maintaining a 'friends but not members' status with NATO akin to the existing Partnership for Peace arrangement. I was not suggesting otherwise.

I disagree. We guaranteed their security and independence, and after all of Trump's fuckery with them, we need to do this to ensure that our guarantees and treaties mean anything. We'll lose a lot more than Ukraine if we don't do whatever we can to keep our word and put a stop to Russian imperialism. Insert Taiwan mention here. Russia will not go to war with NATO, Putin will only take what he thinks he can get without a war with NATO. He's just trying to get us to back away while he advances, and all we have to do is not back away to stop him.

Have you been listening to that pinko soviet sympathizer Tucker Carlson?

Perhaps I should clarify my position. My point was not that the general apathy of the West toward continued Russian encroachment on the sovereignty of its neighbors (Ukraine is hardly unique in this regard - just look at Georgia) is good or acceptable. I was just saying that it exists, and any fantasies people might have that this time is different seem to fly in the face of history and reality. I have yet to see a sanctions package that would even make Putin pause, and I doubt the West can stomach anything more stringent (economic, political, or military) given that the current outrage perpetrated by Putin is just a minor extension of the existing status quo. You're behaving as if we haven't already broken our word to Ukraine, and we haven't already failed to put a stop to Russian imperialism.

We (meaning the West as a whole) are frankly not willing to endure any substantial hardship in order to support Ukrainian territorial integrity or sovereignty. And now that you bring up Taiwan, I have my doubts the US would do much other than tut-tut if China pursued a similar policy on Taiwan.

What would I want to do, in a fantasy world where my opinion mattered and the West was really willing to confront authoritarian dictatorships encroaching on their democratic neighbors? Sure, I'd work to sever any economic dependency on the offender (somewhere between difficult and impossible in both the cases of Russia and China, but moves towards such independence would get attention). I'd respond to military provocation with a greatly enhanced force posture in the regions the offender is most concerned about - e.g. moving divisions of allied troops into Poland and the Baltics (or Japan and S. Korea) and scale up investment in defensive infrastructure. I'd reach out to their traditional partners with sweetened deals for increased political and economic ties and go on a charm offensive to disrupt their sphere of influence. And I'd make it clear that additional provocations would be met with further encroachment.

But all of these options are expensive and unpopular, and it's doubtful that a consensus could be reached among Western nations to pursue such a course. So, in the absence of such a consensus, I think we need to be clear-eyed about what's actually going to happen.

[Wraith]

Perhaps I should clarify my position. My point was not that the general apathy of the West toward continued Russian encroachment on the sovereignty of its neighbors (Ukraine is hardly unique in this regard - just look at Georgia) is good or acceptable. I was just saying that it exists, and any fantasies people might have that this time is different seem to fly in the face of history and reality. I have yet to see a sanctions package that would even make Putin pause, and I doubt the West can stomach anything more stringent (economic, political, or military) given that the current outrage perpetrated by Putin is just a minor extension of the existing status quo. You're behaving as if we haven't already broken our word to Ukraine, and we haven't already failed to put a stop to Russian imperialism.

We have been failing, and we've already screwed Ukraine pretty bad, but it wasn't too late to fix past mistakes until about 12ish hours ago. In other words, no significant disagreement then.

We (meaning the West as a whole) are frankly not willing to endure any substantial hardship in order to support Ukrainian territorial integrity or sovereignty. And now that you bring up Taiwan, I have my doubts the US would do much other than tut-tut if China pursued a similar policy on Taiwan.

What would I want to do, in a fantasy world where my opinion mattered and the West was really willing to confront authoritarian dictatorships encroaching on their democratic neighbors? Sure, I'd work to sever any economic dependency on the offender (somewhere between difficult and impossible in both the cases of Russia and China, but moves towards such independence would get attention). I'd respond to military provocation with a greatly enhanced force posture in the regions the offender is most concerned about - e.g. moving divisions of allied troops into Poland and the Baltics (or Japan and S. Korea) and scale up investment in defensive infrastructure. I'd reach out to their traditional partners with sweetened deals for increased political and economic ties and go on a charm offensive to disrupt their sphere of influence. And I'd make it clear that additional provocations would be met with further encroachment.

But all of these options are expensive and unpopular, and it's doubtful that a consensus could be reached among Western nations to pursue such a course. So, in the absence of such a consensus, I think we need to be clear-eyed about what's actually going to happen.

Well, if we're what-iffing, I was disappointed when Biden said we weren't going to deploy any troops in Ukraine. IMO, what we should have done (with Ukraine's permission) is station troops in as much of the country as we could. We couldn't have put anyone in the eastern regions (Donetsk & Luhansk), but we could have had people in most of the rest. They wouldn't even need to be at fighting strength - Russia wasn't going to fire a shot that might hit NATO troops, and our refusal to put boots in Ukraine was taken as permission for the full invasion. I don't think there was a way to prevent the annexation of Donetsk and Luhansk without changing things from years ago or a NATO/Russia war, but the rest of Ukraine could have been protected.

Now since that ship has sailed, what we need to do is exactly what you said - fortify Poland and the Baltics. Possibly Taiwan too just out of nervousness that China might be getting ideas.

[LittleFuzzy]

We have been failing, and we've already screwed Ukraine pretty bad, but it wasn't too late to fix past mistakes until about 12ish hours ago. In other words, no significant disagreement then.


Well, if we're what-iffing, I was disappointed when Biden said we weren't going to deploy any troops in Ukraine. IMO, what we should have done (with Ukraine's permission) is station troops in as much of the country as we could. We couldn't have put anyone in the eastern regions (Donetsk & Luhansk), but we could have had people in most of the rest. They wouldn't even need to be at fighting strength - Russia wasn't going to fire a shot that might hit NATO troops, and our refusal to put boots in Ukraine was taken as permission for the full invasion. I don't think there was a way to prevent the annexation of Donetsk and Luhansk without changing things from years ago or a NATO/Russia war, but the rest of Ukraine could have been protected.

You mean like the Dutch peacekeepers were able to protect Srebenica from the Serbs? No, you don't deploy troops like that. It's way too dangerous. If you're not willing to go in with fighting strength and actually fight if necessary then you have no business sending your troops in at all. They are not pawns to bluff with.

[EyeKhan]

I disagree. We guaranteed their security and independence, and after all of Trump's fuckery with them, we need to do this to ensure that our guarantees and treaties mean anything. We'll lose a lot more than Ukraine if we don't do whatever we can to keep our word and put a stop to Russian imperialism. Insert Taiwan mention here. Russia will not go to war with NATO, Putin will only take what he thinks he can get without a war with NATO. He's just trying to get us to back away while he advances, and all we have to do is not back away to stop him.

Have you been listening to that pinko soviet sympathizer Tucker Carlson?

Wait, by "we need to do this" do you mean go to war with Russia? We need to do that, to save Ukraine from Russia, or all the European dominos will fall to the Russian onslaught? Sure, maybe Russia wouldn't use nuclear weapons. But they might. They would likely do some kind of massive cyber assault, which would be super inconvenient.

But I hear you saying its worth risking the death of everyone to stop Russia from conquering Ukraine. For that matter, same with Taiwan. It is worth it to you if everyone in the world died to make sure Taiwan and Ukraine don't become commies/ oppressed slaves, etc? Okay, maybe Putin is bluffing. Probably he is bluffing. But what if he's not? Or maybe he is, but then Russia starts to lose and they freak out in desperation and nuke a city or two. And then dominos fall, and everyone dies. The stakes of this game don't go higher. What would be better -- all of Europe bows down to resurgent Russia and all of Asia bows down to resurgent China, or everyone in the world dies. Those are the two worst case scenarios, no?