So you’re saying that this war is much more significant than the event that dominated the last 20 years of US geopolitics, then.
Tell me more about how this will “fall out of the headlines” in a couple of days.
It won’t be the only thing on the news, 24/7, maybe thats a better way of putting it.
Right.
And everyone’s going to stop worrying about this Hitler fellow and get back to business as usual as soon as Look! magazine moves on from this Anschluss fiddle-faddle.
Frankly if we are using the “German leader who started a World War” analogy, then Putin is much more like Kaiser Wilhelm. And if a world war start’s after this then we all have much bigger problem than sanctions and headlines.
So, if you think WWIII has just started, then we are having completely different conversation.
It hasn’t started yet, but it’s clear that we’re now in the midst of Cold War II, and the question is what is going to happen if/when it goes hot.
Cold War II is in its early days yet. It took sometime after 1948 for Cold War classic to settle down.
Will be the case here as well.
At the risk of repeating myself, it depends on the post invasion world, whatever shape it takes.
Next possible flashpoint will be Sweden/Finland. If they begin efforts to join NATO, which would make St Petersburg surrounded on three sides by NATO and expose Murmansk, then the possibility of clashes there can’t be ruled out.
I’d say it started in 2008 with the occupation of South Ossetia and we’re just now realizing how dire the situation has become.
Future historians and all that… 
I don’t see how this invasion is “rational” for Russia’s interests. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong, but right now it seems likely to strengthen NATO (and possibly expand it) and its resolve, unite Europe, increase the chances that most Ukrainians see Europe as a better partner and ally than Russia, and isolate Russia both diplomatically and economically. They might win in the short run, but what are the chances that this ends well for a not-terribly-rich country like Russa trying to invade and occupy (or otherwise massively change the internal workings of) a very large country?
Ukraine is bigger and stronger than Iraq was in 2003. Russia is weaker and poorer than the US was in 2003. How likely is it that this ends up better for Russia than the Iraq war of choice did for the US?
I suspect that the purpose of this war is internal propaganda more than anything else. Demonstrate that the Dear Leader is TOUGH and STRONG and that opposing him is pointless, just in case you were thinking about voting against him or some other kind of treason like that.
I’m on record, on this board, opposing the Iraq War on the grounds that it was morally wrong, that the intelligence was fabricated, that it was motivated by calculations driven by petroleum-captive western governments.
If you’re calling this “apologism”, then this demonstrates that your analysis is shallow, childish, and unserious. Find another schtick. This one’s just as tired as the other guy who immediately injects Pol Pot into every discussion about socialism because he’s got nothing else.
Early days.
but right now it seems likely to strengthen NATO (and possibly expand it) and its resolve, unite Europe,
We can’t predict how European leaders may act once this immediate crises has passed. It could go the way you suggested, or it could go another. The United States sincerely had no intention of expanding NATO in 1990, it changed its mind in the mid 1990’s. Always in motion the future is.
increase the chances that most Ukrainians see Europe as a better partner and ally than Russia,
One of the express points of this is to take that option away from Ukraine.
and isolate Russia both diplomatically and economically.
The Russians are expanding their relations with China for a reason. Its a tripolar world now, with three Superpowers. It would mean that the Russians would start joining with the Chinese affecting the balance of power.
(As an aside, the US will have to decide which of the two regions its going to prioritize, Europe or Indo-Pac. Focus on one and undertake a holding action in another.
They might win in the short run, but what are the chances that this ends well for a not-terribly-rich country like Russa trying to invade and occupy (or otherwise massively change the internal workings of) a very large country?
Very possible.
Ukraine is bigger and stronger than Iraq was in 2003. Russia is weaker and poorer than the US was in 2003. How likely is it that this ends up better for Russia than the Iraq war of choice did for the US?
Russia has two advantages the US did not have in Iraq, its gepgraphically contgious and it has cultural and ethnic ties with the region.
I believe you are not aware of the damage disgraced former president tanTrump has done to the credibility and reliability of the USA concerning treaties and the such:
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/01/politics/nuclear-treaty-trump/index.html
Glad to know the Republican Party is such a tiny minority by now. Was about time:
In sum, I believe the opinions you have expressed here are not compatible with the reality I perceive in Europe. Most of us do not trust the USA anymore, not only the left, as before, but the right and centre too. That is new. NATO is dead, but as long as we don’t have anything better, we will pretend everything is dandy. There are many jobs and careers at stake, and pretty serious money in defence budgets, but Putin knows he has knacked it.
The next steps in this escalation could be very irrational. The situation is very bad.
Now I wonder how good the Russian military machinerie and equipment really are, and how motivated their conscripts are. But that is another matter.
Well there are a few differences that work for Russia:
- A long shared land border
- Shared language and (in part) culture, with a large fraction of population
- Large regions already under Russian influence through not-so-subtle support for insurgents who are entirely dependent on and friendly to Russia
- Ukraine not being a dictatorship, but a (fresh and fragile) democracy where a non-zero fraction of the population have supported prioritizing connections with Russia over connections with the EU/NATO previously.
I’m not saying any of this guarantees success, and whatever fraction supported ties with Russia previously might shrink significantly with this invasion, but the comparison with the US invading Iraq seems inappropriate.
Interesting to hear that from Europeans. Matches my earlier comment that the Canadian diplomatic service does not consider US commitments to treaties as solid.
And, it’s not just Trump. It’s that the American voters elected Trump, and he still has major support, including his support for Russia and Putin, as the linked article above from WP shows. That’s a significant change in American political culture.
Other countries have taken note.
It’s true we can’t know yet how it will turn out. But there are a lot of other factors that ISTM put Ukraine in a stronger position relative to Iraq in '03 - international support seems much higher for Ukraine, multiple wealthy countries are likely to assist with supplying Ukraine’s defense and possible even long term insurgency, Russia will face very strong economic sanctions, off the top of my head.
We’ll see. I think it’s unlikely a modern war of aggression into a big country will work out for the aggressor in the long term.
I’m not sure why you’re so confident about this. As others have pointed out, Trump and many in the MAGAsphere are praising Putin right now. If they started talking about leaving NATO and letting Russia take whatever it wanted, do you really think most Republicans would push back? I don’t. I think “Should we abandon NATO” would get about a 40% “yes” response.
You can speculate that all you want, but what I seem to be seeing is that it’s fracturing the Republicans, many of who aren’t in the praise Putin camp. That Trump is doing this seems to me to be political suicide, so I’m happy he’s cutting his own throat. It will especially come home when we start seeing the causality totals coming in from Ukraine and see what all this Putin ‘savvy’ and ‘genius’ actually costs.
That’s my thought, and why I’m confident. YMMV as I’ve said. Others have vehemently disagreed with me in the past and in this thread, so it’s business as usual.
Treaties don’t order troops into battle.
Congress can’t order troops into battle.
Only the president, as Commander-in-Chief, can do that, and the courts have always recognised that presidents have significant independent action in foreign affairs.
If Russia invades the Balts, a President could say,
“Based on my communications with the President of Russia, whom I trust and respect, Russia’s intervention was necessary to protect Russian-speaking citizens of the Baltic states who were suffering oppression at the hands of the governments of the Baltic states, contrary to their international obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. It’s a rescue mission, just as Ronald Reagan said when he sent our troops to Grenada in 1983. I don’t consider Article 5 needs to be invoked. I will, of course, continue to monitor the situation, and take such military action as I see fit.”
And based on the Washington Post article, he would have strong support from certain sectors of the Republican Party.
And there is not a damn thing Congress could do to send troops to the Baltic states.
They could and would impeach him. I know you and others don’t agree, but that pile of handwaving you are speculating a president would say isn’t going to fly, at least not IMHO. I think both parties would turn on whoever was in charge and he or she would be deposed in short order. This really would be treason.
Anyway, this is all just wild speculation, so your answer is as correct as mine. I’m not going to change your mind…you all ganging up on me aren’t going to shift me on this either. So, it’s pointless.