Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[StateBoiler]

Why though? Yeah, the ultimate coup d'grace is Zelenskiy is at a table and is forced to sign something, but once it's over and he's out of the room I expect diplomats and him to make the "agreements made under duress have no standing", which okay there buddy.

They'd either remove him and install another President, or make it clear that Zelensky would be removed if he goes back on agreements.

That would be a called a coup by all of Ukraine's present allies and they would say it has no standing again. I don't buy the Russians telling Zelensky "implement this agreement or we'll invade for a 3rd time 6 years from now". It'd be better to just take what you want, leave the humiliated loser president in power like happened with Saakashvili and has happened the past year with Pashinyan in Armenia: it does a better job undermining his internal authority than anything the Russians could do leaving in place a leader that lost a war.

The rest of your reply is a non sequitur to what we were discussing. I'm not talking about "Westphalian statehood" or whatever, just Russia's interests. 2014 showed that lopping off Ukranian territory piecemeal solves none of Russia's strategic issues: it merely pushed the greater part of Ukraine into seeking NATO membership and into developing drones and ballistic missiles targeted at the heart of Russia. The only way Russia can solve that militarily is by coercing a change of the political situation in Kyiv. And that requires decapitation.

It absolutely resolved an existential problem for the Russian Navy and the army somewhat of potentially losing their Sevastopol base that allowed them to project in the Black Sea and thererfore the Mediterranean and therefore partially in the Atlantic. If they lost Sevastopol in 2014, Russian intervention in Syria a year later that kept Assad in power and killed the West's goals in Syria probably never happens. The brilliance to me is they did it and took over Crimea without firing a shot. And the Ukrainians, Americans, and Europeans just stood by and watched like a bunch of castrated eunuchs.

[StateBoiler]

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/this-just-in-the-pm-has-been-phoning-cabinet-ministers/

Great Paul Wells article. He's a serious journalist for Canada. This article was lambasting a Trudeau government communication on Ukraine for being so useless to the point it told you that the Trudeau government has absolutely nothing to say about Ukraine, but he adds this:

First, if the Prime Minister of Canada had anything to say about Ukraine yesterday, he could have been on the evening news on half an hour’s notice. The same with anyone on that call. This Prime Minister seems to underestimate how easy it is to tell when he has nothing to say. The part of the communiqué where the Minister of National Defence apparently reads aloud the page in her briefing book listing troop levels in Eastern Europe is perhaps less impressive than it’s meant to be. The interesting questions are not answered or even acknowledged. If 140,000 Russians roll across the border, do the Canadians fight or come home? If overwhelmed would they be reinforced? Call us when you have answers. Or, come to think of it, never mind; we may find out soon anyway.

Second, and more broadly, everyone knows the real questions here. Should Ukraine be in NATO or, pending membership, defended by NATO with military force as though it already were? Should the pro-Western half of Ukraine, which lately includes its national government, receive lethal arms from NATO countries so it can participate in its own defence?

These are hard questions. They’re made harder by the news that the United States president, who alone could plan for a military rebuttal to a Ukraine invasion, has already called the likely invader to tell him he needn’t worry about anything worse than a salty banking invoice.

Let me upset some of my colleagues by saying this is probably the correct call. NATO is meaningless, and worse than useless, if it can’t guard its perimeter. So its members must be coherent democracies that joined the alliance of their own will and are willing to contribute to it. Defining “NATO” as “any country Vladimir Putin feels like threatening” is bad policy. This helps explain, incidentally, why Estonia and Latvia didn’t join NATO until 2004: because for the first 40-odd years of NATO’s existence they were constitutionally part of the Soviet Union, and then it took a decade and a half to get their democratic acts together. It will take Ukraine far longer, if ever. A country doesn’t need to be perfect to be in NATO—Hungary still is, for goodness’ sake—but it needs to not be a basket case.

Shipping lethal weapons is a matter of lesser consequence (though Russia could still construe it as an act of war, so, careful what you wish for), but as a practical matter almost anything that gets sent into a combat theatre is soon taken or sold and becomes fairly evenly distributed among all combatants. Not really a magic solution, then.

Short version: if Ukraine is invaded it’s substantially on its own, because Joe Biden already said so and because we need to be able to defend Latvia. I know it’s fantasy to imagine any Canadian government, especially this one, answering the hard questions as bluntly. But by the way, if you recognize the name Dominique de Villepin, it’s because once upon a time a cabinet minister from a non-superpower was willing to give blunt answers to hard questions in a crisis. In the meantime, any government activity on the Ukraine file should be understood as what it obviously is: a marketing exercise. I don’t know who’s going to break it to the PMO that the product being marketed (fecklessness) isn’t what they hoped it was (determination).

[Statilius the Epicurean]

That would be a called a coup by all of Ukraine's present allies and they would say it has no standing again.

Irrelevant if the new government would be in control of the Ukrainian state, which is what Russia wants for security.

It absolutely resolved an existential problem for the Russian Navy and the army somewhat of potentially losing their Sevastopol base that allowed them to project in the Black Sea and thererfore the Mediterranean and therefore partially in the Atlantic.

Again, irrelevant. It's Ukraine joining the western sphere that was the supposed threat in 2014 and is the same threat now. Lopping off more territory doesn't address that threat in any way. Russia wants recognition that Ukraine is in its sphere, more piecemeal actions like 2014 without changing the politics in Kyiv implicitly cedes most of the country to NATO.

[2952-0-0]

Irrelevant if the new government would be in control of the Ukrainian state, which is what Russia wants for security.

But Moscow will be forced to keep a permanent presence in Ukraine to keep that client regime in power, because it wouldn't last five minutes otherwise.

Again, irrelevant. It's Ukraine joining the western sphere that was the supposed threat in 2014 and is the same threat now. Lopping off more territory doesn't address that threat in any way. Russia wants recognition that Ukraine is in its sphere, more piecemeal actions like 2014 without changing the politics in Kyiv implicitly cedes most of the country to NATO.

I think what Putin wants is a short war that destroys Ukraine's military and keeps the nation too politically and socially divided to integrate into western institutions. He did that with Georgia in 2008

[StateBoiler]

Politico Playbook coverage from Biden's press conference yesterday:

http://www.politico.com/playbook

SAYING THE QUIET PARTS OUT LOUD — Biden is a far more disciplined speaker than he was a decade ago, but one reason his handlers keep him off stage is that he is often revelatory when he speaks.

He made two massive gaffes at the presser, under MICHAEL KINSLEY’s classic definition of the word: “When a politician tells the truth — some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.”

First he said that a “minor incursion” into Ukraine by Russian President VLADIMIR PUTIN might not be met with a drastic response from the West. Second, he said that Putin would indeed invade: “My guess is he will move in. He has to do something.” Finally, he added that NATO allies were divided over how to respond: “There are differences in NATO as to what countries are willing to do, depending on what happened, the degree to which they’re able to go.”

Biden later walked back his comments about a “minor incursion.” And after it was over, the White House quickly issued a cleanup statement: “If any Russian military forces move across the Ukrainian border, that’s a renewed invasion, and it will be met with a swift, severe, and united response from the United States and our Allies.”

But the damage was done. Our Alex Ward reported, “Source close to Zelensky admin on Biden’s Russia/Ukraine remarks: ‘The fallout [in Kyiv] will be nuclear.’” (Metaphorically.) More from NYT’s David Sanger

I think we've seen enough tea leaves to say with some confidence there's going to be a Russian military operation in Ukraine, they'll take more territory than they have now (Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk), but they're not going to overrun the country. (My opinion is attempting to take Kiev would be a strategic mistake by Putin.) And that will mean the Ukrainians will be on their own other than arms shipments they've been sent by various allies. There will be saber-rattling from the U.S. and Europeans but otherwise they won't do anything of material value (sanctions do not qualify as material value) because NATO are not unified, so Putin's goal should be to limit what he does to the point that NATO cannot agree on doing anything of value. Which Russian intelligence assets that have infiltrated the leadership of Western European capitals should be able to report what that line is. Probably the real red line for NATO is the underlying power structure of Ukraine stays intact (in other words, no regime change, which means the capital stands). So Russian goals of the invasion should probably be to further limit Ukraine's capability to pose a threat to Russia as the Russians see it while not doing so much as to invite other parties into the conflict.

We might in the end get a new unrecognized independent state of Donbass to replace the Luhansk and Donetsk republics.

Yes, that's very Sudetanlandish.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Biden gets it!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/19/takeaways-biden-news-conference/
5 takeaways from the Biden news conference

2. Playing down a ‘minor incursion’ by Russia into Ukraine?

Among the Biden comments that will probably be chewed over extensively was one suggesting that a smaller incursion by Russia into Ukraine might not merit the same response.

The comments were quickly clarified by the White House, which offered a significantly different message.

“I think what you’re going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades, and it depends on what it does,” Biden said. “It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion, and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do, etcetera.”

He added: “But if they actually do what they’re capable of doing, with the force amassed on the border, it is going to be a disaster for Russia if they further invade Ukraine. And our allies and partners are ready to impose severe cost and significant harm on Russia and the Russian economy.”

That is logical, but it’s one thing for it to be the approach, and it’s another to state it publicly. It seemed to suggest that maybe Russia could go into Ukraine without much in the way of a response, as long as it wasn’t a fuller invasion. It wasn’t long ago the Russia annexed Crimea; would something like that be considered a “minor incursion”?

In situations such as these, you generally avoid saying what might be acceptable — or more acceptable — even if you don’t want to commit to specific retaliatory action.

Biden reiterated later, “It depends on what [Vladimir Putin] does.” He also notably pointed to the negative impact severe sanctions on Russia could have on the West and suggested it would be harder to have a unified NATO response with a more minor Russian effort.

Shortly after the news conference, though, the White House put out a statement indicating a harder line and assuring the kind of unified response that Biden suggested he couldn’t guarantee.

“President Biden has been clear with the Russian president: If any Russian military forces move across the Ukrainian border, that’s a renewed invasion, and it will be met with a swift, severe and united response from the United States and our allies,” press secretary Jen Psaki said.

Thank you, Pr. Biden!

[StateBoiler]

Good article.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/19/ukraine-russia-nato-crisis-liberal-illusions/

[GoTfan]

Biden gets it!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/19/takeaways-biden-news-conference/
5 takeaways from the Biden news conference

2. Playing down a ‘minor incursion’ by Russia into Ukraine?

Among the Biden comments that will probably be chewed over extensively was one suggesting that a smaller incursion by Russia into Ukraine might not merit the same response.

The comments were quickly clarified by the White House, which offered a significantly different message.

“I think what you’re going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades, and it depends on what it does,” Biden said. “It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion, and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do, etcetera.”

He added: “But if they actually do what they’re capable of doing, with the force amassed on the border, it is going to be a disaster for Russia if they further invade Ukraine. And our allies and partners are ready to impose severe cost and significant harm on Russia and the Russian economy.”

That is logical, but it’s one thing for it to be the approach, and it’s another to state it publicly. It seemed to suggest that maybe Russia could go into Ukraine without much in the way of a response, as long as it wasn’t a fuller invasion. It wasn’t long ago the Russia annexed Crimea; would something like that be considered a “minor incursion”?

In situations such as these, you generally avoid saying what might be acceptable — or more acceptable — even if you don’t want to commit to specific retaliatory action.

Biden reiterated later, “It depends on what [Vladimir Putin] does.” He also notably pointed to the negative impact severe sanctions on Russia could have on the West and suggested it would be harder to have a unified NATO response with a more minor Russian effort.

Shortly after the news conference, though, the White House put out a statement indicating a harder line and assuring the kind of unified response that Biden suggested he couldn’t guarantee.

“President Biden has been clear with the Russian president: If any Russian military forces move across the Ukrainian border, that’s a renewed invasion, and it will be met with a swift, severe and united response from the United States and our allies,” press secretary Jen Psaki said.

Thank you, Pr. Biden!

Somehow I'm not surprised at an awful person like yourself backing this.

[Velasco]

Good article.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/19/ukraine-russia-nato-crisis-liberal-illusions/

Realpolitik

Had this rosy vision been accurate, spreading democracy and extending U.S. security guarantees into Russia’s traditional sphere of influence would have posed few risks. But that outcome was unlikely, as any good realist could have told you. Indeed, opponents of enlargement were quick to warn that Russia would inevitably regard NATO enlargement as a threat and going ahead with it would poison relations with Moscow. That is why several prominent U.S. experts—including diplomat George Kennan, author Michael Mandelbaum, and former defense secretary William Perry—opposed enlargement from the start (...)   

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Great Patriots think alike.

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1483612693827182596

[KaiserDave]

Find somewhere else to vomit Russian Bear.

[2952-0-0]

Is now the time to invest in Russian military suppliers, jaichind?

Only half joking 🤣

He would have invested in the rope-making companies that Lenin referred to.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Great Patriots think alike.

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1483612693827182596

I don't think anyone disputes that it's reasonable for Putin to see a NATO-aligned Ukraine as not in Russia's interests. The question is whether he has the right to tell Ukraine that it's not in Ukraine's interests.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I mean, would the US be justified in invading Cuba in 1980? Or tomorrow?

[Frodo]

If you want to help Ukraine keep their state sovereignty, actually commit stuff of material value to them like equipment and troops. I see the U.S. and UK have done this, although I read the UK were required to not use Dutch and German aerospace in their delivery.

Actually that's not entirely true:

No, Germany Did Not Deny RAF C-17s Bound For Ukraine Access to Its Airspace

In fact, it seems that the decision to avoid the German airspace was made deliberately by the RAF planners, and the British C-17s were not really forced to fly around the German territory: aircraft carrying specific kinds of cargo and/or weapons require a dedicated clearance that the UK did not apply for (for reasons yet to be disclosed – although time might have been a factor here); hence the route avoiding the German airspace.

At the same time, as noted by several reporters and analysts, while the nature of their mission is completely different, Germany has no problem in allowing NATO SIGINT/ELINT assets to fly through its airspace on their way to Ukraine, were several ISR (Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance) aircraft are operating in these days, to keep an eye on the movement of forces near the borders.

Although you do have to ask yourself why the Royal Air Force took it upon themselves to avoid German airspace.  

[new_patomic]

If you want to help Ukraine keep their state sovereignty, actually commit stuff of material value to them like equipment and troops. I see the U.S. and UK have done this, although I read the UK were required to not use Dutch and German aerospace in their delivery.

Actually that's not entirely true:

No, Germany Did Not Deny RAF C-17s Bound For Ukraine Access to Its Airspace

In fact, it seems that the decision to avoid the German airspace was made deliberately by the RAF planners, and the British C-17s were not really forced to fly around the German territory: aircraft carrying specific kinds of cargo and/or weapons require a dedicated clearance that the UK did not apply for (for reasons yet to be disclosed – although time might have been a factor here); hence the route avoiding the German airspace.

At the same time, as noted by several reporters and analysts, while the nature of their mission is completely different, Germany has no problem in allowing NATO SIGINT/ELINT assets to fly through its airspace on their way to Ukraine, were several ISR (Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance) aircraft are operating in these days, to keep an eye on the movement of forces near the borders.

Although you do have to ask yourself why the Royal Air Force took it upon themselves to avoid German airspace.  

Would you want to deal with German bureaucracy? The paperwork alone!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Worth noting that it is unofficially understood that Ukrainian accession to NATO is a nonstarter at present - the governments of quite a few member states are extremely not keen on the idea. And everyone in the foreign policy world knows this.

[Mr. Illini]

The British government says it’s intelligence indicates that Russia will attempt a regime change in Ukraine

https://apnews.com/article/d6425c531f277b9dfb099511999822f4

This would disgrace the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians that rallied for and won their self governance eight years ago. Biden and Boris better toughen up immediately.

[Frodo]

The British government says it’s intelligence indicates that Russia will attempt a regime change in Ukraine

https://apnews.com/article/d6425c531f277b9dfb099511999822f4

This would disgrace the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians that rallied for and won their self governance eight years ago. Biden and Boris better toughen up immediately.

The last thing Biden needs at this juncture is to appear as weak and feckless as President Carter was during the Iran hostage crisis.  Especially in the wake of our less-than-ideal withdrawal from Afghanistan last summer.  For heaven's sake, he tried to present himself during the campaign as the Democratic equivalent of President George H. W. Bush with his supposedly vast foreign policy experience as head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  I would like to see him prove it. 

[Storr]

Great Patriots think alike.

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1483612693827182596

Tucker Carlson in 1938: Imagine if Mexico fell under the direct military control of the Soviet Union. We would see that as a threat. There would be no reason for that. That’s how Germany views Western control of Czechoslovakia and why wouldn’t they?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Great Patriots think alike.

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1483612693827182596

Tucker Carlson in 1938: Imagine if Mexico fell under the direct military control of the Soviet Union. We would see that as a threat. There would be no reason for that. That’s how Germany views Western control of Czechoslovakia and why wouldn’t they?

1930s Mexico was Soviet-aligned, so I'm not sure that's the best comparison to what Carlson is saying.

[politicallefty]

I take the position for peace as much as I can, but I cannot honestly fathom that the West is about to let Russia take Ukraine. I'm not a hawk, but this is worth going to war over. Right now, I feel like this is Chamberlain giving up Austria. What happens when Russia goes after the Baltics, countries under Article 5 protections? I'm not fond as to how the US is treating this situation, but I have a far more negative opinion as to how the EU is dealing with this.

[nicholas.slaydon]

I take the position for peace as much as I can, but I cannot honestly fathom that the West is about to let Russia take Ukraine. I'm not a hawk, but this is worth going to war over. Right now, I feel like this is Chamberlain giving up Austria. What happens when Russia goes after the Baltics, countries under Article 5 protections? I'm not fond as to how the US is treating this situation, but I have a far more negative opinion as to how the EU is dealing with this.

Not just this, but what kind of message will the United States and Europe be sending to the world if we don't defend Ukraine? Will China now see its opportunity in Taiwan? Will Serbia see its moment to forcibly integrate Kosovo once and for all? Will the Republika Srpska push Bosnia into another violent civil war knowing the United States and NATO won't defend the territorial integrity of Bosnia? Allowing the Russians to harass Ukraine will only lead to cascading ill effects for the whole world order.

[CumbrianLefty]

So apart from actually starting WW3, what are our options?

Tough sounding rhetoric is all well and good, but apart from the real danger of things escalating out of control it doesn't take into account the immense war weariness throughout the democratic world.

(why else was Afghanistan abandoned?)

[Blair]

Once it's accepted that the US is not going to put ground troops into Ukraine than a military solution is basically off the table from the NATO side; even the whole of the EU would not be able to muster an Army that would make a difference and frankly I think we're saving that actual panic for when one of the NATO Article 5 allies gets invaded and we actually need to put on a show.