Here’s some news:
Russia is doing or about to do whatever will make Russia scary. So whatever happens, can be blamed on Russia. So you will pay as much as it takes to stop Russia doing everything. And accept Russia did it as an excuse for everything.
Meanwhile, Russia just getting on with improving itself. Wondering what all the fuss is about. Your tax dollars at work?
I’m not sure I’m following you. If your claim is that Russia is taking actions that appear dangerous in order to provoke the west into a useless response, while at the same time granting it undue influence on the world stage. Then that is possible.
If instead your claim is that Russia is a benign actor, and any concern about its activities is a pure fabrication by the US in order to distract its populace. Then that seems unlikely.
I thought the Russian navy was in a sorry state but:
I don’t know the extent to which this is just local politics, but I just saw a piece by Deutsche Welt about Estonia providing additional training for its reservists, complete with an Estonian military official warning that they would make any invasion very expensive.
I mean, surely this mess isn’t going to go that far, is it?
Wars often start because of ambiguity. Russians might invade Ukraine because they become convinced that other powers will allow them to get away with it. They have good reason to believe that, too.
So, IF you believe that an invasion is possible, AND you know that that you will absolutely have to fight if the invasion happens, then the number one goal of diplomacy right now should be to make sure the Russians know that an invasion will not be tolerated and will cause a military response.
The best way to do that would be to send a bunch of American or other NATO soldiers to the suspected ‘front’ of a potential war, to act as a tripwire. Very publically announce that NATO is provisionally accepting Ukraine and that article 5 will apply should Ukraine be attacked. Begin openly wargaming a Russian invasion. Announce delivery of new weapons systems for Ukraine.
Also, as a further stick, announce that should any of the Baltic states or Ukraine be invaded, all,of them will be fast-tracked into NATO. Make it clear to Russia that any military aggression on their part will result in events that work much to the detriment of any future plans Russia might have for reconstituting the USSR.
While we are at the deterrent business, announce to Russia that any hacking of a government facility that can be traced back to the Russian government will be considered an act of war and responded to appropriately. And even if it isn’t tracked back to the regime, the regime will be held responsible for any economic harm done from a Russian citizen hacking any American citizen. If they won’t pay up, use tariffs to extract the money. Extend that polucy to all the other bad actors who look the other way while their citizens extract hard currency and information from other countries, or encourage them to do so.
If that doesn’t work, set up a program to start hacking the shit out of Russian interests, and let them know we’d be happy to stop when they do.
The cheapest time to stop a war is before it begins. But I suspect we will sleep-walk our way into disaster.
There are several potential spots for this sort of thing to happen around the world right now. It’s more than slightly terrifying how many of these sites of potential miscalculation can have us in a war. Personally, I think your plan should be the Europeans doing all of that, not the US, because this is essentially a European issue wrt Ukraine until and unless they do become a NATO member or at least are accepted wrt an application by NATO, but I doubt most of the European powers could actually provide a deterrent to Russia wrt Ukraine, so the US probably would be on the hook to provide the heavy lifting.
“We”? What “we” are you talking about?
Well, what would we do if Russia interfered with a conflict we were having with Mexico? We wouldn’t stand for it, I’m quite sure, so I imagine that would be the case here. So, would it be worth it? My opinion is, no.
The U.S. has to answer the question of what to do in both Ukraine and Taiwan. Hard questions both.
Taiwan is a somewhat different situation than Ukraine. With Ukraine we are only trying to deter one side. In order to maintain the peace we just need to convince Russia that we will intervene on Ukraine’s behalf so that they don’t take aggressive actions.
With Taiwan we need to deter both sides of the conflict. If we appear unwilling to interfere than that will give China the incentive to invade Taiwan. But we we unambiguously say that we will come to Taiwan’s aid no matter what, then that gives them incentive to declare independence which makes things more unstable. So we need to keep strategic ambiguity where neither side feels confident enough to take actions under the assumption that they know what we will/won’t do.
I don’t see that Taiwan is making this an issue at the present moment. Especially after China’s treatment of Hong Kong, convincing Taiwan that the ‘One Country Two Systems’ policy is a good deal is impossible. And that is totally China’s doing.
To me it’s largely the same issue. How much are we willing to extend ourselves militarily to support nations that are militarily difficult to support? And are we able to convince our allies and our people that it’s in their interest to do so?
Deploying the RCMP to Ukraine, of course
Military action is extremely expensive and could easily destroy trading relationships. Turning off a stream of revenue from trade would cause huge problems in Russia or China. They are dependent on pipelines and gobal shipping routes.
Consider how much the US spent on invading Iraq and Afghanistan and for what benefit. Russia and China both have seasoned political leaders who can assess risk. We are still at the stage of sabre rattling and a few sanctions hear and there. However, if their leadership was to change from chess players to some kind of irrational political maverick, then it would be a different story.
There is much to be said for diplomacy and ‘soft power’ working slowly behind the scenes. That is certainly China strategy - the long game.
Eh, people always give China credit for the “long game,” but this is a nation that gets its nose so out of joint over a comment by Australia, which its own populace will never see, that it cuts said nose off (coal imports).
That doesn’t seem very long game to me. In fact, it seems incredibly childish and insecure.
What OldOlds said.
Seasoned leaders?
Putin was much better his first term.
What if the U.S. candidates in 2024 are Trump and Buttigieg?
I’m going with unseasoned.
There’s this thing called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It is also referred to as NATO. Perhaps you’ve heard of it.
I have been talking about potential NATO responses. Another geopolitixal lesson for you since you seem to be confused about who ‘we’ could be: Canada is also a part of NATO. Perhaps you didn’t know that.
This has been a long aay around saying that your 'who’s ‘we’ schtick is getting old - and a veiled personal shot that has nothing to do with the argument being presented. You stop doing it, and I’ll stop responding with snarky answers.
At the risk of derailing the thread - and since this is the Ukraine thread, so I’ll only mention Taiwan once - that sort of situation could be easily avoided simply by laying down the lines a bit more clearly. “The U.S. will intervene if China attacks Taiwan without a Taiwanese declaration of independence. We will not intervene if Taiwan does first start with such a declaration.” That would directly obviate that problem as straightforward as can be.
With Ukraine, it’s a lot muddier and harder to figure out where, if any, such lines exist to be written down.
I am sure that combination would meet with some wry smiles in Russia and China if it means the US retreats from alliances tends towards isolationism. It would suggest the global balance of power is shifting in their favour and they would look for opportunities to expand their spheres of influence.
There would likely be ‘incidents’ contrived to test the commitment of any US adminstration to its existing strategic alliances.
The rest of the world would have to adjust if the Pax Americana disintegrates and each country looks towards its own security and seeks ways of strengthen other alliances.
There would be an arms race. Missile systems and drones are a very popular insurance policy and this is something the Russians are very concerned about in Ukraine.
Over the years I’ve been surprised at how little China seems to understand the west. Given the cultural exports, from movies to CNN, it’s all right there. But when they freak out to a US representative over some small town’s mural (that happened), they show they don’t understand that a Senator or Ambassador has NO control over that. When they pick up stories from The Onion about Congress demanding better facilities (also happened), they show they don’t understand how our press works.
What I’m getting at is that Wolf Warrior Diplomacy will be extremely counter-productive for them. I think that’s already evident. To everyone but China.