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

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that if Ukraine wants to make those concessions and it succeeds in deescalating, great!  Or at least I'm not.  My problem is when "understanding" Putin becomes adopting his very obviously bullshit reasoning and acting like Biden or the US or NATO should (or shouldn't) be doing anything they aren't already doing.  And it's especially preposterous when this is framed as a "realpolitik" perspective on the crisis.

Well the only people advocating for NATO or Bidn or the US to be doing something different seems to be people calling for preemptive sanctions or whatever Varys is all in a tizzy about.

[Varysblackfyre321]

4 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Well the only people advocating for NATO or Bidn or the US to be doing something different seems to be people calling for preemptive sanctions or whatever Varys is all in a tizzy about.

Eh

I do think NATO has mostly done everything that could be reasonably expected as of now for Ukraine—including give money, arms, to Ukraine in preparation for an invasion.

I just don’t think utter and total appeasement is a productive way to avoid war when dealing with a dictator with ambitions of expansions.

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Well the only people advocating for NATO or Bidn or the US to be doing something different seems to be people calling for preemptive sanctions or whatever Varys is all in a tizzy about.

And when people suggested the former I argued against that as well.  But my involvement in this conversation started by explicitly wondering what this has to do with the US/NATO doing anything differently.  As for the latter, I have not been following that.

[Derfel Cadarn]

6 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Eh

I do think NATO has mostly done everything that could be reasonably expected as of now for Ukraine—including give money, arms, to Ukraine in preparation for an invasion.

I just don’t think utter and total appeasement is a productive way to avoid war when dealing with a dictator with ambitions of expansions.

Let’s hope the money and arms don’t simply end up in Russian hands.

[Larry of the Lawn]

8 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Eh

I do think NATO has mostly done everything that could be reasonably expected as of now for Ukraine—including give money, arms, to Ukraine in preparation for an invasion.

I just don’t think utter and total appeasement is a productive way to avoid war when dealing with a dictator with ambitions of expansions.

You keep going on about "utter and total appeasement" and "flat-out appeasement".  No one is advocating that.  

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

28 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

You keep going on about "utter and total appeasement" and "flat-out appeasement".  No one is advocating that.  

 

 when a person keeps going on about nato needing to empathize with Russia’s violation of another nation’s sovereignty, and how Putin’s excuses for imperialism is reasonable, show hostility towards using sanctions against Russia over conquering Ukraine, and frame refusal to just give into Russia’s demands as unreasonable, I interpret that as arguing for appeasement because it is.

31 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

Let’s hope the money and arms don’t simply end up in Russian hands.

Hopefully not but hopefully they insure taking Ukraine would be a bit less profitable in the end.

[Larry of the Lawn]

19 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 when a person keeps going on about nato needing to empathize with Russia’s violation of another nation’s sovereignty, and how Putin’s excuses for imperialism is reasonable, show hostility towards using sanctions against Russia over conquering Ukraine, and frame refusal to just give into Russia’s demands as unreasonable, I interpret that as arguing for appeasement because it is.

Hopefully not but hopefully they insure taking Ukraine would be a bit less profitable in the end.

No one is doing that.  I would challenge you to actually quote where that's happening.  And describing Russia's or Putin's state of mind is not making excuses for imperialism, regardless of how much you want it to be so.   

Where on Earth did anyone suggest not sanctioning Russia if they "conquer" Ukraine?  The closest I've seen is people saying [sanctions, right now] 1) might not be effective 2) are stupid to do now if that's the only deterrent you have to offer 3) generally mostly hurt people you don't want to hurt.  

 

 

[Gorn]

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I don’t think you’d do this if a western colonial power trying to re-establish domination over a country they once subjugated, through the threat of military force. Like you wouldn’t openly wish  the former colony to submit to avoid bloodshed and say they shouldn’t have to bleed just deny their former masters a win.

You mean like... Cuba?

[Maithanet]

The US/EU/NATO has made it pretty clear that they are not willing to provide direct military support for Ukraine, but will respond with harsh sanctions in the event of an invasion, and that changing that NATO rules is a no-go.  Russia has made clear that Ukraine even potentially joining NATO is unacceptable to them, even if it isn't something that could happen in the next 10 years.  To prevent even that possibility they are willing to invade Ukraine (or they are just bluffing). 

IMO this has become a question for Ukraine to select the best of two bad options.  They can decide that they will not be bullied and call Russia's bluff, risking an invasion.  The downside of such a plan is obvious. 

Or they can try and avoid a war by giving Russia some sort of guarantee that they will never join NATO and will remain neutral in any Russia/EU alliances.  Such a guarantee coming from Ukraine, would obviously not bother the US/EU much, as that wouldn't result in any NATO restrictions.  It could also be packaged as a meaningful win for Russia, which is probably needed to avoid a war.  Such a guarantee might not be enough to forestall invasion, but that's not really a reason not to do it. 

The downside of such a plan is that Ukraine is submitting to Russian bullying, which establishes an unpleasant precedent AND limits Ukraine's options in the future, if they actually do want to join NATO.  In addition, Ukraine's idea of "neutral" is probably not the same as Russia's, and this could just be kicking the can down the road a little bit.  But unfortunately an unpleasant compromise might just be the best that Ukraine can do. 

[Kalbear]

9 hours ago, karaddin said:

Yeah, at the end of the day I think something adjacent to Kal's point is: if Russia are committed to this invasion to the point of the sanctions not mattering, then there's really only one thing the West can do about it - which is military action. If the West is unwilling to do this, irrespective of why we're not, then it's not unreasonable to hope for Ukraine to make the necessary concessions to satisfy Putin and avoid said invasion even if that outcome is 1) shitty and 2) rewards Putin for his belligerence. Ukraine shouldn't have to bleed just because it's wrong for Putin to win this way.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying the West getting involved militarily would be a good idea, just that it's the only truly concrete action.

Exactly this. Thanks for putting it better.

My attempted point was to point out that Russia for a variety of reasons has had a long, consistent and forewarned view that Ukraine is under their power and influence, and that any attempt to make it otherwise would be a thing they would be willing to go to war to stop. This isn't a moral statement or a statement arguing Russia is right to do so at all! This is simply stating what the actual political view is. Personally as someone whose generational families were from Lithuania and fled in waves of pogrom and USSR takeover - I think it really fucking sucks! There are a lot of things that suck out in the world, but their sucking doesn't make them go away.

And that means, among other things, that this isn't just Putin being a dick, this isn't Russia acting crazy, this isn't going to be solved by threatening sanctions or other things like that or even imposing sanctions, and this also isn't likely to encourage further adventuring by Russia if Ukraine does appease Russia in some way. It means that you essentially have two choices if you're Ukraine (and really the rest of the world)- you go to war, or you appease Russia. Russia is willing to actually go to war with Ukraine - a full, honest, actual invasion with near full mobilization and coordinated support and all of the non-nuclear power they can muster. They are willing to risk NATO and the US potentially causing a ton of economic hardship to them or accept that as the price of doing business, because their goal is to ensure Ukraine remains in their sphere of control.

Again, you can argue that that is an outmoded concept or a bullshit justification and I have zero care about that whatsoever! That is what the Russian worldview is. And you should be able to draw a line from that to seeing that Russia would, actually, care quite a bit about Ukraine doing joint exercises with NATO or NATO members actively asking to do a MAP for Ukraine to join or Ukraine installing a non-Russian friendly president, and how Russia would see all these things as provocative. 

Should they be? Doesn't matter! It shouldn't be the case that having a woman in the white house is provocative to a number of nations on the planet, but that's how it is!

Which goes back to what @karaddin and @Larry of the Lake said - at this point there are two outcomes: Ukraine appeases Russia and avoids war, at least for now. Possibly by declaring neutrality or declaring that they will not join any blocs, possibly by officially giving up Crimea, possibly more. Or Russia rolls over them. Sanctions aren't going to do anything to stop Russia or even make them think twice. Arms to the Ukraine might help a bit, but will only make things a smidgen more costly - but not so costly that Russia will blink. And if you personally believe that Ukraine should not be invaded, the only concrete action that's going to change Russia at all is US/NATO military support.

And even that I'm not sure is enough to dissuade Russia.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

The US/EU/NATO has made it pretty clear that they are not willing to provide direct military support for Ukraine, but will respond with harsh sanctions in the event of an invasion, and that changing that NATO rules is a no-go.  Russia has made clear that Ukraine even potentially joining NATO is unacceptable to them, even if it isn't something that could happen in the next 10 years.  To prevent even that possibility they are willing to invade Ukraine (or they are just bluffing). 

IMO this has become a question for Ukraine to select the best of two bad options.  They can decide that they will not be bullied and call Russia's bluff, risking an invasion.  The downside of such a plan is obvious. 

 

I think that's another really good point and one that I've been trying to state: this isn't a bluff by Russia. This is a consistent and logical extension of their stated geopolitical goals and behaviors since 1990. For whatever reasons Russia considers Ukraine going to the West to be something they are absolutely 100% willing to go to war to stop. The troop buildups, the organization, the diplomatic signals for the last two years all indicate this. Could it be, like, the most bestest bluff ever? I guess? But my point has been that this is in line with their geopolitical worldview and strategy, did not come out of nowhere, is not particularly the sign of a crazy person, and should likely be treated as such. 

[Kalbear]

7 hours ago, DMC said:

And when people suggested the former I argued against that as well.  But my involvement in this conversation started by explicitly wondering what this has to do with the US/NATO doing anything differently.  As for the latter, I have not been following that.

The main thing that NATO could have done differently would have been to state in vague terms that Ukraine joining is a loooong way off, openly reject any request for a MAP for Ukraine for randomly bad reasons, and make it really clear to Ukraine and Russia that Ukraine wasn't going to be joining any time soon. Definitely don't do joint military exercises with Ukraine. Definitely don't bang on the table and tell the world that anyone can join (even if that's what NATO wants). 

And you're right, that's a direct violation of the principles and viewpoints established in the charter and as part of Article 10. It's a direct change from their policy in 1999 too. But it also would have made it less likely that Russia would be in such a hurry to invade Ukraine. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

@Kalibuster,

I do see your point.  I sincerely hope no one bleeds.  If Ukraine were to declare itself a “neutral power” along the lines of Switzerland and that satisfies Russia I would absolutely support such an action.  

I simply fear the outcome for Europe generally if Putin is appeased with land… given that he has already demanded NATO abandon its member states that are former members of the Warsaw Pact.  This beligerancy suggests, to me, Putin doesn’t plan to stop with Ukraine, and I say that with the historic recognition that Ukraine has a special place culturally for Russians.

I think if Russia invades an attempt to punish Russia via sanctions should be made.

[Zorral]

Been watching Munich: The Edge Of War (2021), adapted from Robert Harris's 2017 novel.  I was thinking about Putin and Ukraine the whole time. 

[horangi]

35 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

@Kalibuster,

That he has already demanded NATO abandon its member states that are former members of the Warsaw Pact.  This beligerancy suggests, to me, Putin doesn’t plan to stop with Ukraine, and I say that with the historic recognition that Ukraine has a special place culturally for Russians.

Well- pulling up a map, other that actual NATO countries, the other remaining borders with Russia after Ukraine have such stable regions as Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh, and South Ossetia and a lot more rugged terrain than Eastern Ukraine.  Talk about headaches that the faltering Russian economy doesnt need to have.  I suppose Baku has value, but thats just doubling down on their petrol reliance. 

Edit to add: Its quite amazing that, now including Eastern Ukraine and Kazakhstan, Russia is almost completely surrounded by simmering or active civil wars. 

[Zorral]

The Emir of Qatar will meet with Biden in the White House Monday in part to discuss contingency plans to supply natural gas to Europe in the event of a Russian invasion of Ukraine.

[Clueless Northman]

So I had a look at Lavrov's comments, which should be a good hint of what the leadership thinks and of what their official goals are. As I said, it might be worth trying to meet them midway there to check if these are really their key goals or if they have ulterior motives - if their key concerns are taken into account and most of their requests fulfilled, it'll be trickier for Russia to push further than proclaimed, it might but there would be a heavier political price on the world stage.

Quote

As for the contents of the document, it contains a reaction, which makes it possible to expect the commencement of a serious talk but on secondary issues.

There is no positive reaction in this document on the main issue. The main issue is our clear-cut position on the inadmissibility of NATO’s further eastward expansion and the deployment of strike armaments that may threaten the territory of the Russian Federation.

Looks like he also hinted at the fact that these concerns were there since the 1990s and aren't just Putin's fever dream.

I think part of the "no Ukraine in NATO" comes also from the fear that, once in NATO, it'll be easier to station nukes in Ukraine proper, and of course it'll be way easier to stage an attack against Russia once the country is in the alliance. I know most people consider that possibility of NATO attacking Russia ludicrous, but that's how they feel and what they've feared for, literally, centuries.

Unlike Kal, I also suspect that Kazakhstan going NATO-wards would cause a strong Russian reaction, because it's a big land border and there is no realistic natural defense, apart from the Urals, which would still mean losing all Siberia.

I'm not sure what he has in mind when mentioning "secondary issues", but that he's positive on these is at least a good sign that there are things going on behind the scenes. I'm wondering if this isn't about arms control treaties and restoring channels of communication between NATO/US and Russian military.

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I simply fear the outcome for Europe generally if Putin is appeased with land given that he has already demanded NATO abandon its member states that are former members of the Warsaw Pact.

It should be made clear that if Ukraine more or less goes back to its pre-2013 international relationships and will be pretty much frozen in a neutral stance for decades, and if there's a deal/treaty about not stationing nukes in respective neighbourhood, that's it. It would probably mean a stop to NATO expansion, but current NATO members would stay in unless the alliance disbands or they leave on their own. I mean, Putin has stated his red lines, and it's legitimate for the other side to state their red lines (NATO membership, no annexion in the Baltic States or Poland, whatever else concern most Central-Eastern European countries).

43 minutes ago, horangi said:

Edit to add: Its quite amazing that, now including Eastern Ukraine and Kazakhstan, Russia is almost completely surrounded by simmering or active civil wars. 

Putin has frozen most of these conflicts - plenty of pro-Russian or independant separatist movements in parts of these countries. Then, Russia had to face Chechnia separatism for years as well. That's what happens when borders are a mess, and ethnic mix of people is a mess as well. Just look at Yugoslavia, or at post-WW I Europe, not to mention all the previous centuries of world history. Also, Putin cannot downright annex these separatist areas and they won't get international recognition as well, so the conflict remains. The only one that's been more or less sorted out is Karabakh, and that's merely because Azerbaijan was the strongest power and took back militarily its rebel province - and Russia wasn't directly involved.

[DMC]

4 hours ago, Kalibuster said:

The main thing that NATO could have done differently would have been to state in vague terms that Ukraine joining is a loooong way off, openly reject any request for a MAP for Ukraine for randomly bad reasons, and make it really clear to Ukraine and Russia that Ukraine wasn't going to be joining any time soon. Definitely don't do joint military exercises with Ukraine. Definitely don't bang on the table and tell the world that anyone can join (even if that's what NATO wants). 

Well, I definitely think NATO/the west HAS been as clear as possible that Ukraine isn't joining any time soon, short of contradicting the open door policy.  And I think the depiction of NATO "banging on the table" reiterating their open door policy is a complete fabrication.  They simply cited it in their response to Russia's demand because, well, that's their position.  As for joint military exercises, ok, but even those are/were simply reactions to clear Russian threats/escalation.  For instance, the drills in September - of about six thousand troops - were a direct response to Russia and Belarus holding exercises with upwards of two hundred thousand troops.

The bottomline is I think it's apparent that such military exercises - or anything you mentioned - are decidedly not the reason Putin is preparing to invade.  And more importantly, not doing these things was not going to alter his behavior.  The onus here is clearly on Putin.

[Varysblackfyre321]

7 hours ago, Gorn said:

You mean like... Cuba?

Sure. 

2 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

I know most people consider that possibility of NATO attacking Russia ludicrous, but that's how they feel and what they've feared for, literally, centuries.

It is ludicrous. Dictators don’t frame their land-grabs as anything but necessary for their nation’s security. And we’re not obliged to pretend their intentions are benign. Putin probably will use the same exact excuse as he continues to expand westwards. 

2 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

if their key concerns are taken into account and most of their requests fulfilled, it'll be trickier for Russia to push further than proclaimed, it might but there would be a heavier political price on the world stage.

If we appease them enough maybe they won’t be mean anymore.

Lets wait until they gobble up a few more sovereign countries before we do anything rash like something Russia would not like.

 

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Sure. 

It is ludicrous. Dictators don’t frame their land-grabs as anything but necessary for their nation’s security. And we’re not obliged to pretend their intentions are benign. Putin probably will use the same exact excuse as he continues to expand westwards. 

If we appease them enough maybe they won’t be mean anymore.

Lets wait until they gobble up a few more sovereign countries before we do anything rash like something Russia would not like.

 

Cool cool

So when are you enlisting in the Ukrainian army? Or is this more of a "many of you will die and that is a price I am willing to pay" situation?