Russian Games: 120,000-140,000 Russian Troops on the Ukrainian border…

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Kalibuster said:

Russia sending an absurdly direct warning for the last 30 years that they will not put up with Ukraine joining or even being wooed to join NATO,

How is Ukraine being “wooed” by NATO?

[Kalbear]

33 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The counter argument is that Russia has had one NATO member directly bordering its territory for the past eighteen years (Estonia, not counting Poland and Lithuania bordering Kaliningrad) and another one for seventy-three years (Norway) and no NATO military incursion against Russian territory has taken place from either territory. In fact, if you want to seriously fuck Russia over, you invade via Estonia because you can have tanks and troops in Russia's second-biggest city on day one of the conflict.

The counterpoint is that as far as I can tell, Russia doesn't care about Estonia nearly as much as they've cared about Ukraine, and that has been a big point for a long time. I know it may not make a lot of sense but it's been very, very consistent about how much they care about Ukraine. Perhaps it's natural resources or farmland or they don't give a shit about their cities (or view them as a trap for others to fight in) but that calculus just doesn't appear to be particularly important. 

 

33 minutes ago, DMC said:

Of what you mentioned above I agree a neutrality pact would be a feasible concession to deescalate.  I don't think the US should allow Putin to dictate terms on NATO though, no.  No real reason to have NATO if that's the case.

There's a lot of reasons to have NATO, but the biggest one is that France, Germany and the US don't want a big war with Russia. Protecting Latvia or, yes, Ukraine is not the reason NATO existed in the first place, and having anyone who wants to join is a major realpolitik error that is causing precisely this kind of escalation. 

33 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is semantics - and not even a convincing semantic argument considering you yourself qualified that they may not invade if given concessions.

The concessions aren't the US's to give - they're Ukraine's. There is nothing at this point that NATO or  the US is likely able to concede that will work. 

17 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m absolutely talking about sanctions. I’m well aware that boots on the ground is off the table for good reasons.

That really wasn't clear, then. Even that statement isn't - there's a big spectrum between sanctions and boots on the ground there. 

Heck, I'm not even convinced sanctions are a particularly good idea given what kind of economic disruption it is likely to cause, but that ship has likely sailed at this point.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How is Ukraine being “wooed” by NATO?

"Following in the footsteps of his Lithuanian counterpart, Latvian Foreign Minister Edgars Rinkēvičs said that NATO should provide Ukraine with a membership action plan:[95]

We are watching closely as Russia draws troops to Ukraine's borders. It is not clear at this time what this is: a show of force or real aggression. But there is every reason to worry ... Ukraine has been trying to join NATO for 15 years by obtaining an Membership Action Plan. Apparently, it is time to provide this Plan to Ukraine. This will be at least a signal from us [NATO] that Ukrainians will not be left without support. I will definitely support this decision..."

"At the June 2021 Brussels Summit, NATO leaders reiterated the decision taken at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine would become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process and Ukraine's right to determine its own future and foreign policy course without outside interference.^[11] NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg also stressed that Russia will not be able to veto Ukraine's accession to NATO, as we will not return to the era of spheres of interest, when large countries decide what smaller ones should do:^[12]

Each country chooses its own path, and this also applies to joining NATO. It is up to Ukraine and the 30 NATO members to decide whether it aspires to be a member of the Alliance. Russia has no say in whether Ukraine should be a member of the Alliance. They cannot veto the decisions of their neighbors. We will not return to the era of spheres of interest, when large countries decide what to do with smaller ones."

"On 28 June 2021, Ukraine and NATO forces launched joint naval drills in the Black Sea codenamed Sea Breeze 2021. Russia had condemned the drills, with the Russian Defence Ministry saying it would closely monitor them."

 

Etc, etc.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine–NATO_relations

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

@Kalibuster,

So, not saying “no” is wooing?  Since when does the Latvian Foriegn Minister act as spokesperson for NATO?

[Kalbear]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

@Kalibuster,

So, not saying “no” is wooing?  Since when does the Latvian Foriegn Minister act as spokesperson for NATO?

Since he knows Russia is listening? This is how diplomacy works, after all. Probably the biggest issue is Ukraine doing joint drills with NATO - that was a big escalation I bet - but all of this public stuff is definitely NATO being viewed as welcoming Ukraine in and wanting them in. 

So yeah, explicitly saying that anyone can join, encouraging Ukraine to have a membership plan, doing war exercises - these are definitely not neutral actions. Nor were they meant to be! 

Another way to say it is this - NATO nations might not have meant to show that they wanted to be with Ukraine (I don't see this as plausible), but NATO nations should easily know that Russia would take these actions as NATO wooing them, because Russia has said exactly that. If I know this, I think that the intelligence services across the western nations should have known this too. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Kalibuster said:

There's a lot of reasons to have NATO, but the biggest one is that France, Germany and the US don't want a big war with Russia. Protecting Latvia or, yes, Ukraine is not the reason NATO existed in the first place, and having anyone who wants to join is a major realpolitik error that is causing precisely this kind of escalation. 

France, Germany and the US can unite against a war with Russia just fine without NATO.  Allowing Russia to dictate who can and cannot be in NATO because they're threatening to invade a sovereign state is, indeed, entirely antithetical to the conception of NATO.  The realpolitik error here is Putin's - him scaring the shit out of his western neighbors is exactly what's making such neighbors more and more pro-NATO and pro-western.  Rewarding him for that is truly Alice in Wonderland.

7 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

The concessions aren't the US's to give - they're Ukraine's. There is nothing at this point that NATO or  the US is likely able to concede that will work. 

...Huh?  Yes, obviously the neutrality pact would be on behalf of Ukraine - although also obviously the US/Biden administration can influence Ukraine's stance on that.  My point was I agree that's a feasible concession, don't see what you're arguing about there. 

As for US/NATO not having any concessions to give, obviously the biggest concession would be them ruling out Ukraine joining NATO.  I absolutely don't think they should to that, but really don't know what you're talking about considering that's Putin's primary demand and casus belli. 

[Werthead]

After the 2008 Georgian crisis and after the 2014 annexation of Crimea, NATO seemed to accept a de facto political reality that neither Ukraine nor Georgia could join NATO in the near future, and certainly not whilst Russian boots were on the ground in Donbas.

That mood music does seem to have changed recently, possibly because Ukraine has been asking for help for almost eight years continuously and Ukraine's military capability versus the rebels has dramatically improved. Whether that's just NATO making nice noises whilst privately thinking that Ukraine would not be able to join because of this very situation arising, or some lunatics somewhere think it's an actual viable idea, is unclear.

I suspect it's a mixture of things that NATO and the EU have said and done that Putin has seized on as a pretext, and changing political fortunes behind the scenes in Moscow, which are hard to fully divine within Russia, let alone outside it.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

France, Germany and the US can unite against a war with Russia just fine without NATO.  Allowing Russia to dictate who can and cannot be in NATO because they're threatening to invade a sovereign state is, indeed, entirely antithetical to the conception of NATO.  The realpolitik error here is Putin's - him scaring the shit out of his western neighbors is exactly what's making such neighbors more and more pro-NATO and pro-western.  Rewarding him for that is truly Alice in Wonderland. 

Again, this ain't Putin's doing; this has been the position of Russia for a long, long time with respect to Ukraine.

I think this is one of the major misunderstandings here - Russia's position with Ukraine and Georgia is not the same as it is with the Baltic states or other countries around Russia, and the idea that NATO can just say anyone can join without any restriction is antithetical to the Russian viewpoint for Ukraine. 

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

...Huh?  Yes, obviously the neutrality pact would be on behalf of Ukraine - although also obviously the US/Biden administration can influence Ukraine's stance on that.  My point was I agree that's a feasible concession, don't see what you're arguing about there. 

I guess I don't see a neutrality pact as a concession, and it's certainly not one that NATO or the US can do. 

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

As for US/NATO not having any concessions to give, obviously the biggest concession would be them ruling out Ukraine joining NATO.  I absolutely don't think they should to that, but really don't know what you're talking about considering that's Putin's primary demand and casus belli. 

I think that NATO doesn't have to do that per se if Ukraine announced that they are going to be neutral with respect to both Russia and NATO. That said, I don't know that even that is going to be acceptable to Russia, but it's the least bad option. 

[Werthead]

7 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

I think this is one of the major misunderstandings here - Russia's position with Ukraine and Georgia is not the same as it is with the Baltic states or other countries around Russia, and the idea that NATO can just say anyone can join without any restriction is antithetical to the Russian viewpoint for Ukraine. 

I think it's more the case that Russia absolutely 100% would have taken this stance with the Baltic States and maybe even Poland if they had not joined NATO in the 1990s and 2004, and instead were building up to it just now.

It's because those countries are already in NATO that Russia is not pulling the same shit with them, which reinforces the Ukrainian argument that if they were also in NATO, Russia would not be pulling this shit with them now because Russia would not risk a war with the United States (ignoring the Trump-era comments about American soldiers not dying for a country like Estonia that barely anyone in the USA has even heard of).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Werthead said:

It's because those countries are already in NATO that Russia is not pulling the same shit with them,

Didn’t the Russians just demand that NATO withdraw all troops and Material from former Warsaw Pact Nation-States that have joined NATO?

[DMC]

19 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Again, this ain't Putin's doing; this has been the position of Russia for a long, long time with respect to Ukraine.

 

Yes, it is.  Navel-gazing about Russia's long-held position on Ukraine doesn't change the fact Putin is the one preparing to invade it - nor negate his own responsibility in creating the conditions he fears, i.e. Ukraine and other states turning westward.

19 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

the idea that NATO can just say anyone can join without any restriction is antithetical to the Russian viewpoint for Ukraine. 

LOL, so this isn't Putin's doing because of Russia's long-held position on Ukraine, but NATO maintaining its even more long-held open door policy is somehow the cause of this?

19 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

I guess I don't see a neutrality pact as a concession, and it's certainly not one that NATO or the US can do.

You were the one who suggested it an hour ago!

[HoodedCrow]

Putin is working overtime for that Peter the Great persona, when he is a Littlefinger.

 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Werthead said:

I think it's more the case that Russia absolutely 100% would have taken this stance with the Baltic States and maybe even Poland if they had not joined NATO in the 1990s and 2004, and instead were building up to it just now.

It's because those countries are already in NATO that Russia is not pulling the same shit with them, which reinforces the Ukrainian argument that if they were also in NATO, Russia would not be pulling this shit with them now because Russia would not risk a war with the United States (ignoring the Trump-era comments about American soldiers not dying for a country like Estonia that barely anyone in the USA has even heard of).

I don't agree, per the historical record of Yeltsin's foreign policy minister saying as such. There's other examples like this from 1992 with respect to Yeltsin, but Russia has never cared as much about the Baltics as they did Belarus and Ukraine:

https://buffalonews.com/news/yeltsin-aims-oil-weapon-at-ukraine/article_7b9e96ec-5256-5b7e-bfbb-7cb80e3b7310.html

(though amusingly Lithuania is mentioned as being hit by this before putting in a more pro-Russian cabinet)

The other issue would be that Ukraine at the time of dissolution of USSR was both heavily independent AND heavily in alignment with Yeltsin, whereas the Baltic republics were already agitating heavily for independence from Russia entirely and had broken away a year before the USSR had officially dissolved.

It's not just that they're in NATO, though I'm sure that's part of it. 

[Kalbear]

19 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yes, it is.  Navel-gazing about Russia's long-held position on Ukraine doesn't change the fact Putin is the one preparing to invade it - nor negate his own responsibility in creating the conditions he fears, i.e. Ukraine and other states turning westward. 

That again is the point - it isn't "Ukraine and other states turning westward", it's specifically Ukraine turning westward. I'm sure that Russia and Putin would love more Russian-focused states and they love dividing NATO and were giddy about the UK leaving, but it is specifically about Ukraine. 

And sure, Putin has some culpability here too! But it shouldn't be that surprising that Russia is wanting the Ukraine to be a Russian satellite and is worried about a lot of it. 

19 minutes ago, DMC said:

LOL, so this isn't Putin's doing because of Russia's long-held position on Ukraine, but NATO maintaining its even more long-held open door policy is somehow the cause of this?

NATO's policy has been around for about as long as this policy and was instituted in the 90s. And that policy was almost certainly a mistake, though it was designed to specifically fuck over Russia. Russia and Yeltsin just couldn't do anything about it, but it pissed them off.

19 minutes ago, DMC said:

You were the one who suggested it an hour ago!

Sorry, there are a lot of conversations going on! I'm suggesting that the US and NATO have no concessions that they can give. Ukraine can obviously do a bunch of things. Something else to point out is that this isn't even a concession that Russia has asked for, so it's slightly different.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

tin would love more Russian-focused states and they love dividing NATO and were giddy about the UK leaving,

The UK left NATO?  I thought that was the EU?

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

A lot of what Russia's done is fucking wrong, but we shouldn't delude ourselves in thinking the US would've acted as if nothing happened, had things occurred the other way around.

We shouldn’t rely on hypothetical what-aboutisms to ignore the fact right now, in this particular situation  Putin is the baddie. Like Hitler was the baddie when he annexed Poland because security and shared ethnicity.

Ukrain wants to join NATO—like so many of the other former-Soviet states—because Russia wants to envelope in their autocracy through brute force.  They’re not wrong to want to defend themselves. Ukraine joining nato wouldn’t be a problem for Russia if Putin had no ambitions to attack them first.

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m absolutely talking about sanctions. I’m well aware that boots on the ground is off the table for good reasons.

Yeah this idea about nato either appease Putin totally or go to war is bullshit.

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

The counter argument is that Russia has had one NATO member directly bordering its territory for the past eighteen years (Estonia, not counting Poland and Lithuania bordering Kaliningrad) and another one for seventy-three years (Norway) and no NATO military incursion against Russian territory has taken place from either territory. In fact, if you want to seriously fuck Russia over, you invade via Estonia because you can have tanks and troops in Russia's second-biggest city on day one of the conflict.

It’s  really aggravating that so much of the left thinks the US and by proxy any group it’s aligned with must be at least somewhat in the wrong in a conflict.

 

 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The UK left NATO?  I thought that was the EU?

Wow, ya got me! Continue with those super charitable interpretations of things!

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

And sure, Putin has some culpability here too!

He has all the capability. He is the dictator preparing to invade a sovereign nation in hopes of annexing it.

This isn’t a both sides issue. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

That again is the point - it isn't "Ukraine and other states turning westward", it's specifically Ukraine turning westward. I'm sure that Russia and Putin would love more Russian-focused states and they love dividing NATO and were giddy about the UK leaving, but it is specifically about Ukraine. 

And sure, Putin has some culpability here too! But it shouldn't be that surprising that Russia is wanting the Ukraine to be a Russian satellite and is worried about a lot of it. 

Ok.  Again, this doesn't change the fact Putin is the one trying to change the status quo on the threat of invasion here, not NATO or the US.  

5 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

NATO's policy has been around for about as long as this policy and was instituted in the 90s.

NATO's open door policy is based on Article 10 of its founding document.

12 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

I'm suggesting that the US and NATO have no concessions that they can give. Ukraine can obviously do a bunch of things. Something else to point out is that this isn't even a concession that Russia has asked for, so it's slightly different.

My point is if Ukraine did agree to a neutrality pact as a concession to deescalate, that's certainly something that the US and other EU members could pressure them to do in order to get Putin to save face.  And, again, US/NATO definitely could just give in to Putin's primary demands.  I don't want them to (and they're not) - and you may be right that Putin would still go to war, but that's hardly a sure thing.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

We shouldn’t rely on hypothetical what-aboutisms to ignore the fact right now, in this particular situation  Putin is the baddie. Like Hitler was the baddie when he annexed Poland because security and shared ethnicity.

Sure! It's also important to understand that if we want to, ya know, avoid actual wars it's good sometimes to not push things towards that war.

Because this lesson? This is going to happen again with Taiwan in the very near future too. China is watching how we worked up to this and how we respond. China is almost certainly hoping for a regime change in the US to get someone who won't care about Taiwan or will be too busy with other shit, but how we respond here is going to definitely inform their view. 

3 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Ukrain wants to join NATO—like so many of the other former-Soviet states—because Russia wants to envelope in their autocracy through brute force.  They’re not wrong to want to defend themselves. Ukraine joining nato wouldn’t be a problem for Russia if Putin had no ambitions to attack them first. 

That's the thing - it would be a problem for Russia no matter what! They don't want Ukraine in NATO and are willing to go to war for precisely that! Ukraine certainly should defend themselves and have every right to do so, and they have every right for self-governance, BUT they also have to recognize that they have a very hostile nation at their doorstep who has said, repeatedly, over the last 30 years 'don't do this thing'. 

Really, the idea of whether or not it's fair, or right, or just - that's all things that people who don't have a dog in the hunt get to say. It would be awesome if Ukraine didn't have almost a hundred years of history with Russia, and it'd be great if Russia didn't have this massive hardon for them - but that's not the case, any more than it's the case that Taiwan is seen by China as their island too. Life sucks that way some times. 

3 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah this idea about nato either appease Putin totally or go to war is bullshit.

It’s  really aggravating that so much of the left thinks the US and by proxy any group it’s aligned with must be at least somewhat in the wrong in a conflict.

Being in the wrong doesn't matter! This ain't a value judgment. Who the fuck cares? Do the 14,000 people who died in Ukraine since 2014 care about being in the right? Do the Afghans who died care about the US invading care that the US had a rock solid casus belli?

5 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

He has all the capability. He is the dictator preparing to invade a sovereign nation in hopes of annexing it.

This isn’t a both sides issue. 

 That really isn't remotely what Putin's goals are, and again the ability to not recognize what the actual goals of Russia are here is going to cause this sort of conflict to happen again and again. 

Russia, point blank, does not want any more NATO eastward expansion. They very, very specifically do not want Ukraine to join NATO, and see that as a massive danger to their nation. They do not care particularly about the Ukraine as their own territory as a whole. But they are willing to go to war to ensure that Ukraine does not join NATO. This is a very specific red line that they have, and have stated as such for over 30 years now. 

That may suck! That may be unreasonable! But that is their stated political viewpoint, and they are 100% willing to go to war specifically about that and that alone and risk a whole lot of shit for that.