That’s basically exactly what the Russians want here- to be able to exert control over Ukraine and NATO through the threat of force. Which is bullshit in the 21st century.
Fundamentally the problem is that Putin/Russia are bad actors on the international stage, and they’re basically saying “We bet you’re not willing to risk war for the sake of Ukraine/Crimea/wherever, and most certainly not nuclear war, so we’re going to push you as far as we can.”
At some point, the choice is that we(Western democratic nations) stand up to them, even if that does mean war, or we knuckle under. There’s not really a middle ground of a negotiated settlement- even that is to their advantage- they rattle their saber, the West gives in a little bit, and the cycle repeats.
That’s the problem- anything but the status quo ante is a win for the Russians and a loss for Ukraine and the West. There needs to be a way to check Russia short of war, and where they’re not constantly extracting concessions via saber rattling. I’m just not sure what that is.
I guess I’m not seeing this part. The ‘threats’ that the US and the west are issuing are basically economic and only IF Russia pulls the trigger on war. Considering the provocation, not sure how much more cool Europe or the US could be on this. It’s not like we are moving hundreds of thousands of troops to the border (or into Ukraine) and setting up the logistics to go to war. We aren’t even really supporting our allies in Eastern Europe all that heavily in case there is spillover…I think the US has mobilized something like 3-8k troops on standby and we MIGHT send a few of them to NATO countries in the region. That’s not exactly counter-threat territory wrt threat in kind. It’s not us pushing Russia towards war, and I have my doubts that most Ukrainians see it that way either, to be honest.
As to games Putin might or might not be playing, this is getting into folks who think Putin is always playing 3-D chess with everything he does. His obvious invasion plans, supported by over 100k troops AND the logistics and support to actually do an invasion is just a bluff, but his darker and more devious plans are X! Again, not seeing it. It’s pretty obvious that Putin overplayed his hand, and now is trying for damage control. I see that especially in his recent move towards China, backing China’s stance on Taiwan and hoping for Chinese support wrt his Ukrainian adventure.
Finally, as for negotiated solution, I’m unsure what there is to negotiate. Requiring NATO withdrawal from Eastern Europe? That’s a non-starter. NATO stopping any country from requesting admission? It’s in the freaking charter for them to do this, so, again, a non-starter. Those are really the core of his demands and neither one is really something NATO is going to do. Especially as this is Russia demanding concessions from NATO basically at the point of a gun…after all, it’s not NATO that moved a Russian invasion army to the border of Ukraine, and it’s not NATO that has a history of creative annexation of another sovereign nation’s territory.
Congress seems to be considering putting sanctions on them immediately, without waiting for the IF.
Personally, that seems dumb. If you punish them before they even do something, what’s the motivation to not just go ahead and do the badness anyways? Alternately, it seems like something organized by Russia itself - if we want to go into conspiracy mode - as an American-caused excuse for going for it.
Right, and those are certainly on the table, but those aren’t Putin’s core demands. And arms control talks have been a US thing for a while, both trying to get Russia back to the table and get China to the table also. I could certainly see the US making those sorts of concessions, and I think there is nothing wrong with those…but, again, that’s not what Russia is demanding. If they move away from their current list of demands and more towards the sort of thing you are talking about in that post then no problem and I think the US would be happy to go down that path and discuss that and other things, maybe even get a new arms limitation treaty or something along those lines.
Yeah, agreed, for all the reasons you gave here. Of course, that’s all internal politics…Republican verse Democrat or Republican verse Biden really. I don’t see it happening as a preemptive measure, but it could happen if we are particularly stupid.
No. Fundamentally the problem is that Russia is Great Power and is acting as assholish, as Great Powers are wont to be from time to time. Which is very inconvenient for the targets and other Great Powers…see United States–Iraq, 2003, United States—Libya, 2011, Russia—Syria, 2015, Great Britain, France–Egypt 1956, USSR–Afghanistan, 1979. USSR—everywhere, 1945-1991
But
Is it worth Russia losing St. Petersburg for Kyiv? If Putin doesn’t have the same calculus as we do, then we’ve already lost and may as well cut the dramatics and just let Putin/Xi take what they want.
Yes, actually….
The Kievian Rus was the first Russian state.
Think of it this way. The US will probably be willing to risk a nuclear war to defend Britain.
Take that and increase the emotional attachment exponentially.
Is anyone else getting a slight sense of deja vu about this and the Cuban Missile Crisis? Which eventually led to a tit for tat - removing missiles in Cuba and removing missiles in Turkey.)
Saw an article (can’t remember where) that said the most rational course of invasion would be a limited operation in the southeast of Ukraine to link Crimea up with the two splittist proto-Russian provinces. Not much point in going further west.
