while true, I would venture the guess that it was not really possible en japan in the 1940ies to get “decent neutral information” … in russia in 2022 this is not the case …
I think there is a lot of trumpism going on in russia, where people CHOSE to only access certain information (and chose to not access other neutral sources) - to confirm their opinions.
we did not know - is not a valid answer in 2022 for somebody who owns a smartphone or computer (unless you are 84 and living in a village in sibiria)
the point here is - i think - you could be in a strategically way better position by making a statement that includes “ambiguity”.
We have no imediate plans to get involved but will revise this decision and reserve all necessary steps if the situation clearly escalates and we see war-crimes, WMD,etc… Of course diplomacy is the preferred way, BUT …
Now you loaded a brick-ton of “rather think twice before you do THIS” on Putin and his 3 stooges
Heck, they are kind of getting that already. The US is sending over several hundred million in emergency aid, and I understand Europe is talking about 400 million euros in additional aid as well. But if they set up a private gofundme, I’d be in for $20.
I don’t think anyone is talking about kicking Russia out of the UN. Just revoking its permanent seat on the Security Council, which allows it to veto any actions the UN might try to take against it.
However, I think China might not go along, not because it supports Russia, but because it’s subject to the same argument about taking over a predecessor government’s UNSC seat.
There has been some movement toward eliminating or otherwise reforming the permanent seats on the UNSC system, but of course it will never happen because any single member of the UNSC can veto it.
If the argument for removal is that they aren’t really the USSR then sure. If the argument for removal is that the purpose of the UN is to stop nations from invading one another, and it makes zero sense for someone guilty of that to be in a top-level position, then no.
If that’s the reasoning, then the answer isn’t kicking Russia out of its permanent seat. The answer is getting rid of permanent seats altogether and the special privileges (like veto power) that come with them.
If no one held a vote on the subject then how’s that our problem?
I, personally, would be willing to say that the US should step down from the UNSC until it’s handed over GW Bush and Bill Clinton to the ICC. But, from a practical standpoint, it’s a fairly common norm that if some crime goes unpunished for long enough then it’s considered water under the bridge. It’s also common for people to say things like, “the wealthy should pay more taxes” while themselves being wealthy and using every rule in the book to pay lower taxes. Taking advantage of the rules as they are doesn’t mean that a person believes that the rules are as they should be.
Yes, as I mentioned, there is a movement to do that. But, any member of the Security Council can veto any such change to the UN charter, so…I wish them luck, I guess.
It is possible that Russia is holding back the bulk of it’s forces for a future larger war with NATO. But that also presumes Putin thinks he’s in a position to win such a war.
War isn’t just about raw numbers though. A big part of it is getting your forces in the right place and being able to support them.
I think if the UN voted to send in peacekeepers en masse, and the vote was overwhelming, and almost every country was represented in the peace keeping force, then I would support US and NATO military involvement in Ukraine. But short of that, not right now, IMO. Too risky.
Something like that would go before the UNSC…and, can you guess how Russia would vote? Simply, it’s not going to happen. If it was going to be decided, it would be NATO itself, and I don’t see that happening. The US is opposed to direct engagement for one thing, so that’s pretty much it. I don’t think the US would shift its position (unless something really drastic happened) at this stage, and without the US NATO simply couldn’t go into Ukraine to do much of anything.
I expect that the war will broaden eventually, even if the US, UK, & France drag their heels. And it should. A crushed Ukraine is terrifying to places like Georgia, Kazakhstan, Finland, Armenia, but also a huge problem for NATO members Poland, Slovakia, Romania.
We will be in a conventional war with Russia, if maybe not this year. And given that France & the US are nuclear powers ourselves, we can exploit that. Make Russia afraid of continued warfare; no one wants to accidentally start a nuclear exchange.
Well we may have a fight thrust upon us. I have no idea of the validity but it sounds real and seems very Putinesque. This guy has been translating letters supposedly originating from a US/Iran analyst in the FSB to a Russian dissident living in France. The gist is that to stay in power, Putin will declare a defensive war on the West that potentially includes shelling Poland and/or the Baltics to scare NATO into a quick compromise. Again, can’t speak to authenticity.
If true, Putin is ultra-forked. The Russian army is losing to Ukraine. I would argue that in the land battle Russia has in fact already lost, they just don’t know it yet. NATO will cut up whatever remains of their forces in no time. The only reason the Russian army has not been pushed out of Ukraine is air power, and Russia cannot compete with NATO in air power.
I find it personally hard to believe unless Putin is delusional, which I do not think he is. I think he’s perfectly sane, but miscalculated badly on Ukraine and now cannot back out without “having an accident”. None-the-less, he cannot possibly be seeing the situation in Ukraine and then looking at NATO and saying “Ock, we can take 'em” in his best dwarvish accent.
The part at the beginning about Iran seems like it’s an extension of an earlier discussion - but I don’t see it. I’m not sure what war they’re expecting between the US and Iran?
At the very end, it says that they’ve evaluated that France wouldn’t be willing to fight.
Given that France is the leading force in trying to establish a EU army, I’d find that assessment to be questionable. If anything, if there is a fight with Russia it’s more likely to come from a unified EU military force than NATO, at the moment.
I think this is a vast overstatement. It’s not going well for Russia, they are having a lot more issues and problems…but they aren’t losing. I really think people are getting way ahead of themselves with all of the enthusiasm and looking at things from the perspective of seeing what they want to see and seeing the data that reinforces their preconceptions and conclusions. Putin, I think, did exactly the same thing in the run up to this cluster fuck…he cherry picked the data, had a bunch of folks telling him what he wanted to hear…then, seemed really angry and confused when things didn’t work out the way he wanted them too.
They are losing by the metric of failing to achieve any of their objectives while losing more soldiers in a few weeks than we did in 20 years in Afghanistan and Iraq. NATO is stronger. Ukraine is still Ukraine. Putin is farther away from reuniting the USSR. Russia is economically fucked for the foreseeable future. Can you think of any measure where they have achieved an improvement in an area they were looking to find improvement before the invasion? I can’t.
Yes, they are causing a lot of destruction and death, but I that doesn’t equate to winning. I’ve seen no expert on this that thinks they can take and hold Kyiv or that they can withstand a long term insurgent resistance.
Simply, it’s not going to happen. If it was going to be decided, it would be NATO itself, and I don’t see that happening. The US is opposed to direct engagement for one thing, so that’s pretty much it. I don’t think the US would shift its position (unless something really drastic happened) at this stage, and without the US NATO simply couldn’t go into Ukraine to do much of anything.
