Cold War, The Reimagined Series

[Roman Alymov]

4 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

The US policy failed in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, so if that's the plan in Washington they should get another plan.  :^)

Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan are in ruins (and Iraq and Afghanistan are also in chaos) so it is quite possible that having part of Russia named Ukraine, its former industrial heartland, ruined is part of the plan. West is actually not about helping Ukraine, but about making as much harm to Russia as possible. 

[Ssnake]

6 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Ukraine could go the way of Finland and steer clear of alliances.  This would assure no Russian invasion, especially if Zelensky started doing smart things like shopping for Russian jets.

Ukraine was in no alliance, and Russia invaded. Are you stuck in 2013?

[Roman Alymov]

51 minutes ago, Josh said:

Ukraine will never rejoin Russia willingly, by popular opinion. Though it may indeed rejoin Russia depending on the choices it makes.

That is heavily dependent on what are the geograpic borders of "Ukraine". If we throw out Western Ukraine (that were historically part of Austro-Hungary)  - remaining "Useful Ukraine" will be quite ok to join, especially if "active civil society" aka Nazis removed. 

[glenn239]

7 minutes ago, Josh said:

Eastern European nations have a habit of rotating NATO and US troops? If anything they are now requesting a permanent presence. That doesn’t seem like they just can’t give up smoking.

 The schism between Western Europe and Eastern Europe, and the way that the US can play one off the other, is part of the reason why Classic NATO isn't working that well anymore.   Germany would be much better off if it and France were calling the shots and the Americans, while still an important ally, would be summoned by the EU to Brussels and told by the EU what its role in Eastern Europe shall be.  All one big happy alliance still, but the US does not call the shots in Europe, the Europeans issue orders to the US which the Americans either choose to agree with or not participate.  The EU has to call the shots, not Washington.

 

Quote

a non NATO EU based organization is doomed to fail politically and militarily and in any case always loses the escalation cycle against Russia no matter what it does. They are welcome to put one together any time they want; the US isn’t going to put a hundred thousand troops on the French border if Macron wants to get that done.

The threat that Custer posed to the 7th Cavalry division was to provide stupid leadership that gets everyone killed by leading recklessly into danger.  The threat that the US poses to the EU is the same.  Biden's administration is reckless, toxic, and incompetent.  It's leadership almost automatically, as a matter of course, will put the EU across the Little Bighorn.   Why do you think the Germans and French are basically going around the Americans at full speed in all capitals?  Because Joe's team knows what they are doing? 

[glenn239]

12 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Ukraine was in no alliance, and Russia invaded. Are you stuck in 2013?

The West's decision to promote Ukrainian membership in the EU and NATO preceded, not followed, the events to which you refer.  Had the West not done this, Crimea would be Ukrainian today.

[Josh]

53 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

The West's decision to promote Ukrainian membership in the EU and NATO preceded, not followed, the events to which you refer.  Had the West not done this, Crimea would be Ukrainian today.

If the US told Canada which security and economic groups it could or could not join, and put100,000 troop on your border if you violated that mandate, presumably you would accept that as being in our sphere of influence.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Josh

[Ssnake]

The EU is no military alliance. The people of Ukraine voted for a political platform promising to investigate the possibility of joining; the official process of deciding to begin negotiations wasn't even made. Then the Russian puppet president broke off even these extremely tentative talks at the last minute after severe Russian threats, which is when Ukrainians started to riot, and disposed of him.

I don't remember serious talks with NATO either, at least no formal ones.

It's worth noting that the idea of EU membership had no support among the Ukrainian people before Russia first weaponized gas deliveries. We can debate all day long about cause and effect. What's obvious to me is that the people of Ukraine are drifting away from Russia because Russia simply is no attractive role model for development. Rather than trying to improve its own appeal, Russia resorts to military violence and threat of more violence to deter its neighbors from abandoning its lead.

Russian foreign policy seems to be the embodiment of the self-fulfilling prophecy.

That's not to say that the EU shouldn't have put more effort into diplomatic flank security when starting to respond to Ukrainian enquiries, and that leading NATO politicians maybe should have applied more discipline in their external communication both towards Ukraine and Russia about the slim to non-existant chances of Ukraine joining. That part of the blame lies squarely at the feet of our dear leaders which rotate every four years and have little to no formal training in strategic thinking. That's our central weakness.

I will concede that the absence of malice is no excuse in international dioplomacy for the lack of foresight, preparation, and clear communication. Nevertheless, this can't absolve the Russian leadership from their actions either and at the end of the day the ship has sailed. Tentative, non-binding offers were made, also quite real and committing invasions, and that set the course for everything that happened since then. At this point however it's largely the people in Ukraine who must make a strategic choice, and I just don't see them voluntarily crawling back to Russia like some women do to their no-good wifebeaters ("You know what happens, and you still do this to me!").

 

The Soviet Union (and with it, successor state Russia) is a signatory of a number of binding international treaties that affirm the right of peoples to self-govern and select their alliances (like, the OSCE Helsinki accord, the Budapest memorandum, and more). It would at least be honest if Russia retracted its signature under these agreements.

[glenn239]

21 minutes ago, Josh said:

If the US told Canada which security and economic groups it could or could not join, and out 100,000 troop on your border if you violated that mandate, presumably you would except that as being in our sphere of influence.

Yes, Canada's dilemma has always been that we are in bed with an elephant.  We would never put ourselves in a position to threaten the US to the extent where troop deployments could be a possibility.  

The article linked elsewhere about Putin's likely course of action contains this interesting part,

The coherence of a NATO reaction remains in doubt, however. The German government has shown great reluctance to support any effort to help Ukraine defend itself. 2 French President Emmanuel Macron has rhetorically fed a narrative started in the European Union foreign policy team and fueled heavily by Russian information operations that Europe should devise its own response and negotiate with Russia directly outside the NATO framework.3 On the other hand, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the eastern NATO states have leaned in to helping Ukraine prepare to defend itself, exposing divisions in the alliance that Russian information operations seek to exploit and expand.

This is exactly my impression of NATO.  This eastern expansion has created a new balance of power where the eastern members and the offshore members (which are more reckless) collude against the Franco-German centre.  Including Ukraine in the mix will make things worse, not better.

 

[Roman Alymov]

16 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

The EU is no military alliance. The people of Ukraine voted for a political platform promising to investigate the possibility of joining; the official process of deciding to begin negotiations wasn't even made. Then the Russian puppet president broke off even these extremely tentative talks at the last minute after severe Russian threats, which is when Ukrainians started to riot, and disposed of him.

I don't remember serious talks with NATO either, at least no formal ones.

It's worth noting that the idea of EU membership had no support among the Ukrainian people before Russia first weaponized gas deliveries. We can debate all day long about cause and effect. What's obvious to me is that the people of Ukraine are drifting away from Russia because Russia simply is no attractive role model for development. Rather than trying to improve its own appeal, Russia resorts to military violence and threat of more violence to deter its neighbors from abandoning its lead.

Russian foreign policy seems to be the embodiment of the self-fulfilling prophecy.

That's not to say that the EU shouldn't have put more effort into diplomatic flank security when starting to respond to Ukrainian enquiries, and that leading NATO politicians maybe should have applied more discipline in their external communication both towards Ukraine and Russia about the slim to non-existant chances of Ukraine joining. That part of the blame lies squarely at the feet of our dear leaders which rotate every four years and have little to no formal training in strategic thinking. That's our central weakness.

I will concede that the absence of malice is no excuse in international dioplomacy for the lack of foresight, preparation, and clear communication. Nevertheless, this can't absolve the Russian leadership from their actions either and at the end of the day the ship has sailed. Tentative, non-binding offers were made, also quite real and committing invasions, and that set the course for everything that happened since then. At this point however it's largely the people in Ukraine who must make a strategic choice, and I just don't see them voluntarily crawling back to Russia like some women do to their no-good wifebeaters ("You know what happens, and you still do this to me!").

 

The Soviet Union (and with it, successor state Russia) is a signatory of a number of binding international treaties that affirm the right of peoples to self-govern and select their alliances (like, the OSCE Helsinki accord, the Budapest memorandum, and more). It would at least be honest if Russia retracted its signature under these agreements.

Actually, not. Let me quote from my previous posts 

 "Ukraine's problems have only just begun, however, when the Ukrainians demanded a clear commitment from their government to the EU." - That is also false statement. Ukrainian problems started in 1991 when local Communist Party leadership decided it is nice idea to separate their administrative region into independent state, to create personal domain save from this “democrats” in Moscow (and yes, there were strong reasons for them to be afraid of this people – let me remind you that in Russia Communist Party was banned in 1991, while first President of independent Ukraine was before that local head of Communist Party). As result, artificial corruption-centric state was created. Then, after 20+ years of looting what was left of Soviet Ukraine, then-President Yanukovych decided that he and his friends are running out of assets to loot and it is time to implement Lukashenko’s model of “milking two cows”- so he started “Join the EU” gamble to get as much as possible from both EU and Russia. And he almost get that – but his mismanagement, combined with pressure from West, made the deal explode in his hands. 

 

[Josh]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

 The schism between Western Europe and Eastern Europe, and the way that the US can play one off the other, is part of the reason why Classic NATO isn't working that well anymore.   Germany would be much better off if it and France were calling the shots and the Americans, while still an important ally, would be summoned by the EU to Brussels and told by the EU what its role in Eastern Europe shall be.  All one big happy alliance still, but the US does not call the shots in Europe, the Europeans issue orders to the US which the Americans either choose to agree with or not participate.  The EU has to call the shots, not Washington.

 

The threat that Custer posed to the 7th Cavalry division was to provide stupid leadership that gets everyone killed by leading recklessly into danger.  The threat that the US poses to the EU is the same.  Biden's administration is reckless, toxic, and incompetent.  It's leadership almost automatically, as a matter of course, will put the EU across the Little Bighorn.   Why do you think the Germans and French are basically going around the Americans at full speed in all capitals?  Because Joe's team knows what they are doing? 

Germany and France are welcome to leave NATO and run their own circus with their own monkeys. The fact that they don't is their decision and inability to unify, as we are seeing now. Western Europe is divided even among itself. If they don't want to be in NATO, they can leave, and Eastern Europe will still welcome US troops because Russia is a constant threat to them. I definitely have no problem with that. But you and I both know they won't do that, because they couldn't create anything like a common EU defense policy and would simply shrink into further geopolitical irrelevance. But as far as NATO is concerned, I'd trade Poland for Germany and France any day. There's the door.

Biden is taking a strong tone against Russia and the Eastern Europeans like it. If Western Europe or Canada feel their needs aren't being met, or that they are being led into a blind ally, you can all leave. Unlike Russia, the US won't use military force to make your domestic decisions for you.

[Josh]

11 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Yes, Canada's dilemma has always been that we are in bed with an elephant.  We would never put ourselves in a position to threaten the US to the extent where troop deployments could be a possibility.  

The article linked elsewhere about Putin's likely course of action contains this interesting part,

The coherence of a NATO reaction remains in doubt, however. The German government has shown great reluctance to support any effort to help Ukraine defend itself. 2 French President Emmanuel Macron has rhetorically fed a narrative started in the European Union foreign policy team and fueled heavily by Russian information operations that Europe should devise its own response and negotiate with Russia directly outside the NATO framework.3 On the other hand, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the eastern NATO states have leaned in to helping Ukraine prepare to defend itself, exposing divisions in the alliance that Russian information operations seek to exploit and expand.

This is exactly my impression of NATO.  This eastern expansion has created a new balance of power where the eastern members and the offshore members (which are more reckless) collude against the Franco-German centre.  Including Ukraine in the mix will make things worse, not better.

 

The Elephant has had a very hands off approach to your country since the war of 1812, despite being able to take all of it at any given moment for a century or more. Do you think Russia would be as good a neighbor?

Edited February 10, 2022 by Josh

[glenn239]

5 minutes ago, Josh said:

The Elephant has had a very hands off approach to your country since the war of 1812, despite being able to take all of it at any given moment for a century or more. Do you think Russia would be as good a neighbor?

Not as good a neighbor, no.  I think if Russia were to our south and the US was in Central Asia that we would have to be barking mad to be allies with the United States.  We'd go Finland style neutrality in a heartbeat.

[Josh]

I guess we agree that some spheres of influence are more accommodating than others.

 

ETA: It doesn't seem like a great leap to understand why a country like the Ukraine would want to switch spheres if it had the ability.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Josh

[R011]

7 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

Listening to the local Russian ambassador, the Russians have the narrative down pat: NATO has declared Russia to be its main rival, so having the Ukraine join NATO would mean that Russia has a declared enemy on its border. It's all just like the Cuban missile crisis, and then no one complained that the US was being aggressive. And Russian forcesa re within Russia, after all...

 

The disturbing part was that the newsies were left speechless by these arguments...

In other words, an imaginary threat of Nato aggression - an aggression Nato doesn't actually need Ukraine for if they want to destroy Russia.

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

The EU is no military alliance. The people of Ukraine voted for a political platform promising to investigate the possibility of joining; the official process of deciding to begin negotiations wasn't even made. Then the Russian puppet president broke off even these extremely tentative talks at the last minute after severe Russian threats, which is when Ukrainians started to riot, and disposed of him.

Yes, had they not done that then Crimea would not have been annexed - at least in 2014.  In terms of platforms to be investigated, maybe we can cut the crap.  When NATO expanded to Poland and elsewhere they said that the Russians were in agreement because they didn't resist.  Yet, when the Russians resisted, NATO and the EU said that their intentions were misconstrued.  No, the intentions were not misinterpreted; had Russia not reacted strongly in 2014 in all probability Ukraine would be a member of NATO and the EU right now.   

Quote

It's worth noting that the idea of EU membership had no support among the Ukrainian people before Russia first weaponized gas deliveries. We can debate all day long about cause and effect. What's obvious to me is that the people of Ukraine are drifting away from Russia because Russia simply is no attractive role model for development. Rather than trying to improve its own appeal, Russia resorts to military violence and threat of more violence to deter its neighbors from abandoning its lead.

If the Ukrainian drift into the Western camp was such a sure thing, then why did they bother to depose the Russian stooge in 2013?   All they had to do was wait for the election, which I believe was coming up in less than a year.  (This goes to Putin's big mistake in this whole thing - he failed to pour troops into Kiev to crush the insurrection in 2013, no pissing around).

Quote

Russian foreign policy seems to be the embodiment of the self-fulfilling prophecy.

Looks to me like Germany is the one with the foreign policy crisis right now.   The Russians seem already to have picked their course.   It is, after all, the Germans and French running around desperately to all capitals right now doing the Chamberlain shuffle, and the Russians that are not, is that not correct?  Putin flew to Beijing, the Germans flew to Washington and Moscow.  Does that not tell you everything you need to know about whip hands?

Quote

That's not to say that the EU shouldn't have put more effort into diplomatic flank security when starting to respond to Ukrainian enquiries, and that leading NATO politicians maybe should have applied more discipline in their external communication both towards Ukraine and Russia about the slim to non-existant chances of Ukraine joining. That part of the blame lies squarely at the feet of our dear leaders which rotate every four years and have little to no formal training in strategic thinking. That's our central weakness.

The EU and NATO should have not entertained expansion after Poland and Rumania.  It's made Germany's position more untenable and made the alliance weaker.  

Quote

Tentative, non-binding offers were made, also quite real and committing invasions, and that set the course for everything that happened since then. At this point however it's largely the people in Ukraine who must make a strategic choice, and I just don't see them voluntarily crawling back to Russia like some women do to their no-good wifebeaters ("You know what happens, and you still do this to me!").

Generally speaking, weak countries as the subject of dispute between Great Powers are not the ones that are to make choices.   They are the ones that have choices imposed upon them.  That is a sad truth, but it is the way of the world.

Quote

The Soviet Union (and with it, successor state Russia) is a signatory of a number of binding international treaties that affirm the right of peoples to self-govern and select their alliances (like, the OSCE Helsinki accord, the Budapest memorandum, and more). It would at least be honest if Russia retracted its signature under these agreements.

I think the better way to look at it is that no treaty can be relied on if it requires a Great Power to cut off its own nut sack.  Geopolitically speaking.

 

 

[glenn239]

21 minutes ago, R011 said:

In other words, an imaginary threat of Nato aggression - an aggression Nato doesn't actually need Ukraine for if they want to destroy Russia.

NATO would be wiped off the face of the Earth if they moved to "destroy" Russia, so whatever threat would need to be of the slower, creeping vine variety.  The threat Ukraine poses to Russia is that US forces can base there.  That's US forces in Ukraine.  Not NATO;  Ukraine, US.  

[Stuart Galbraith]

5 hours ago, glenn239 said:

NATO would be wiped off the face of the Earth if they moved to "destroy" Russia, so whatever threat would need to be of the slower, creeping vine variety.  The threat Ukraine poses to Russia is that US forces can base there.  That's US forces in Ukraine.  Not NATO;  Ukraine, US.  

So hold that thought. If NATO would be wiped off the earth, why would Russia be scared of it?

Slower, creeping variety? You mean the way Russian money has been infiltrating Western political systems and trying to subvert and destroy them? Or just rabblerousing as they undoubtedly have with your Canadian Truckers, or the way they most certainly did with BLM?

Russia is most comfortable with this rhetoric, because its reflecting what it does. There is no surprise that it assumes everyone else is doing it to them. Indeed its a self justification for what they do. Can you find any evidence NATO or any political insitutions are trying to destabilise the Putin regime? No. And if there was any, you can bet your ass the Kremlin would be screaming about it from every news vehicle they could find.

[Ssnake]

7 hours ago, glenn239 said:

When NATO expanded to Poland and elsewhere they said that the Russians were in agreement because they didn't resist.

Another urban myth. Its constant repetition doesn't make it any more true.

It seems like no English Wiki page about it exists, but here it goes:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO-Russland-Grundakte

The 1997 paper between Russia and NATO is another binding agreement that Russia actively signed that is the foundation of NATO presence in Eastern Europe. NATO has been in full compliance with it ever since. Russia decided at some point that it didn't like what it signed. Rather than declaring that it would step back from the agreement it started violating the INF and KFE treaties, and even then NATO for a good decade decided not to do anything about it before stablishing mininal force rotations.

I don't think that you are arguing in good faith. The same topic has been brought up here on several occasions, but you choose to continue propagating Russian propaganda myths. Whatever merit some of your other arguments may have, they are tainted by your ignorant if not dishonest parroting of Russian lies.

[Stuart Galbraith]

You know the world has turned on its head, when Socialists are calling for more Tanks....

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

The B52s that deployed to Fairford, seem to have bombed Scotland on the way....

 

[seahawk]

Another provocation by NATO.

[Josh]

1 minute ago, seahawk said:

Another provocation by NATO.

After the Tu-22M3 provocation by Russia.

A little surprised F-15s are going to Poland instead of F-35/22. Maybe those would be based further back.

[Stuart Galbraith]

With supercruise, F22s would be over Poland in minutes, and it makes sense to base them out of iskander range.

[Stuart Galbraith]

This was an interesting wrinkle. I'm not sure how common on these kind of deployments. Live Amraams.