Ukraine Part 2: Playing chicken with Kiev

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 2/3/2022 at 5:25 PM, Clueless Northman said:

That would be it, if NATO and Western people were actually his intended audience. What if they're not? What if his plan was either to have some significant concessions, or to be able to show that "we can't negotiate with the West"? You have to be realistic about these things: Outside the West

Outside the West it’s not a uniform block of anti-America or anti-west sentiments and in many countries—especially those rely on certain western powers for protection—the people there are generally going to see the west as in the right—as they should.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 hours ago, Mr Fixit said:

 

Among the usual consensus, this post stands out to me as rather relevant to the wider picture. It's easy to simply dismiss Russian concerns and accuse them of duplicity and aggression. Modern society loves these kinds of simple one-sided interpretations and echo chambers. And it's not like this anti-Russian stance is without merit. I don't think Russia's really above-board in this situation. I do think they love their Soviet playbook a bit too much. However, what Clueless Northman said is worth considering. The West *does* have a tendency to break their promises and/or treaties when those don't suit them anymore. Just three examples with very far-reaching consequences:

1. The (in)famous verbal promise to Gorbachev that NATO won't expand east, that has since been confirmed by declassified files. NATO broke it not even ten years later.

2. The bombing campaign in Yugoslavia over Kosovo crisis in 1999 was concluded with UNSC Resolution 1244. That Resolution with its annexes stipulated the withdrawal of Yugoslav forces from Kosovo but provided for the return of under 1.000 soldiers and police officers in order to perform various roles, for example to establish presence at the border crossings. The Resolution also on several occasions mentioned that any later final settlement re: Kosovo status should respect Yugoslav territorial integrity and sovereignty with "substantial autonomy" afforded to Kosovo. Needless to mention, even after Milosevic fell and democratic pro-Western government took power a year later, no Yugoslav police or army was allowed back and the final settlement most definitely did not respect sovereignty of Yugoslavia.

3. Iran deal. Even after IAEA reports on multiple occasions confirmed that Iran was basically upholding its part of the deal, US unilaterally withdrew from it, jeopardizing everything that was previously accomplished in regards to nuclear non-proliferation in the Middle East.

These and other things are grounds for serious concern for any country that finds itself in precarious position where US interests are involved. Again, I don't endorse in the slightest Russian saber-rattling (or their 2014 actions in Crimea and Donbass), I'm simply pointing out that the world is a complex place where all kinds of players are looking after what they perceive as their national interests. We all should carefully consider how and why those interests intersect and what's the best way to show modicum of respect to reasonable concerns other players may have before we sanctimoniously decide that WE=LAWFUL GOOD, THEY= CHAOTIC EVIL. It won't help us understand the world. Not really.

There are plenty of Realpolitik reasons to not simply acquiesce to Russian demands about Ukraine and the rest of Eastern Europe… you recognize that?

[Mr Fixit]

40 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Recognizing the Complexity of the world can be reasonable.

But we don’t have to buy every excuse a dictator gives for a power grab as truly genuine or at least rational.

 

I dunno, it seems we find Saudi excuses (backed with lots of petrodollars) rational. Look, I am all for debating international politics, but can we at least leave "dictators" out of it, at least not while quite a few of those dictators we happily endorse for geostrategic reasons. Sure, wanna contain Russia or whatever, go for it, but let's be frank about it and not hide behind "democracy" and "human rights". I am sure Saudi dissidents, Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank, and many many others believe the rhetoric something fierce.

[Mr Fixit]

32 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

There are plenty of Realpolitik reasons to not simply acquiesce to Russian demands about Ukraine and the rest of Eastern Europe… you recognize that?

Now this is honest. What do you think should be the long-term goal vis-a-vis Russia? Is there a path to a lasting and relatively friendly relationship?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

20 minutes ago, Mr Fixit said:

Now this is honest. What do you think should be the long-term goal vis-a-vis Russia? Is there a path to a lasting and relatively friendly relationship?

I think long term we should try to build a real relationship.  The difficulty is that Putin is well served by making the West and NATO his “Other” to flail against.  The other difficulty is that when we seek rapprochement with Russia Putin takes it as a sign of weakness when it isn’t.  

Given these factors I’m not sure how to move forward while Putin is at the rudder of the Russian State.

[Varysblackfyre321]

30 minutes ago, Mr Fixit said:

I dunno, it seems we find Saudi excuses

What you think the head of the state is just is going “MUAHAHHA, I LOVE PAIN AND MISERY!” in secret when they’re bombing Yemen? 
 

Does the fact they say they always say they’re merely acting defensively in the interest of their nation not oblige the US to believe them? The world is complex after all.

I’m being sarcastic of course. You—I am assuming and you can correct me if I’m wrong—don’t buy into at least a lot of the justifications the dictator of Saudi Arabia gives for when he does bad something on the world stage. 
 

There is no good reason to believe Putin is afraid of NATO or Ukraine using military force directly against him(unless provoked first.)

30 minutes ago, Mr Fixit said:

Look, I am all for debating international politics, but can we at least leave "dictators" out of it, at least not while quite a few of those dictators we happily endorse for geostrategic reasons.

Sure America, west is the baddie in other situations. Russia is the baddie here.

Curious if America decided to invade and annex Cuba  tomorrow in the name of self-defense  would you condemn America? Or would you see the claim of self-defense as legitimate?

30 minutes ago, Mr Fixit said:

Sure, wanna contain Russia or whatever, go for it, but let's be frank about it and not hide behind "democracy" and "human rights".

Sure the preservation of those things in this particular instance would be a side product for NATO and America’s interest in keeping Ukraine independent and western friendly.

33 minutes ago, Mr Fixit said:

I am sure Saudi dissidents, Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank, and many many others believe the rhetoric something fierce.

Nope, but too many Ukrainians it would be. They don’t dread nato or the US. They yearn for the West’s aid in fighting off a corrupt far-right autocracy?

It serves America’s geo-political interests to help them in this; so why shouldn’t they? Can you give a reason Other than it being inconsistent in your eyes given America’s actions in other situations.

[DMC]

55 minutes ago, Mr Fixit said:

Look, I am all for debating international politics, but can we at least leave "dictators" out of it, at least not while quite a few of those dictators we happily endorse for geostrategic reasons.

I don't see a problem calling Putin a dictator when that's exactly what he is.  Granted, the west's current problem with him doesn't have to do with him being a dictator, it's because of the country he's threatening to invade, but that doesn't change the fact he's a dictator.

[Werthead]

5 hours ago, Mr Fixit said:

Now this is honest. What do you think should be the long-term goal vis-a-vis Russia? Is there a path to a lasting and relatively friendly relationship?

The problem is that Putin has been blaming the lack of prosperity and change for the average Russian on the street on external forces rather than his own ineptitude or the corruption endemic in the country. Creating a peaceful relationship between Russia and the rest of the world should be trivially straightforward, it's not like there's massive inherent reasons why not, but Putin and the corrupt gang of oligarchs in charge of Russia are the ones standing in the way of that, and they will not tolerate any threat to their supremacy, as the Navalny situation shows.

The spectre of a colour revolution in Moscow and other Russian cities themselves - not exactly a stranger to revolutions - is by far Putin's worst nightmare, so the better he can forestall that by pinning the blame on external forces all the better for him. From that perspective, I don't think a change in stance with Russia can happen until Putin leaves power or an internal realignment takes place that brings Russia better governance that is more interested in solving Russia's internal problems than focusing on trying to revive the ghost of the Soviet Union.

[Spockydog]

Relax everyone, Macron is going to fix it.

LOL.

 

[Winterfell is Burning]

7 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Relax everyone, Macron is going to fix it.

LOL.

 

If Macron doesn't fix it, there's no problem, because next week Bolsonaro is going to Russia and he'll settle everything.

[polishgenius]

1 hour ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

If Macron doesn't fix it, there's no problem, because next week Bolsonaro is going to Russia and he'll settle everything.

By giving Putin Covid.

[Spockydog]

So yesterday, diplomatic commentators were saying it would be impossible for Macron to fly to Kyiv without first securing some kind of commitment to de-escalation from Putin.

The fact he is now in Ukraine, does this mean Macron was successful?

 

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

Biden has made his boldest claim yet, saying if Putin invades, Nord Stream 2 will be stopped.

https://news.yahoo.com/russia-invades-ukraine-no-nord-213240158.html

[Loge]

1 hour ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Biden has made his boldest claim yet, saying if Putin invades, Nord Stream 2 will be stopped.

https://news.yahoo.com/russia-invades-ukraine-no-nord-213240158.html

This made the headlines in Germany as Chancellor Scholz has not made such an announcement and refuses to comment on it.  Needless to say there is some resentment as Biden's announcement sounds as if the German government has no say in it.

On the other hand, the German government hasn't exactly shown a strong commitment to help Ukraine. There is also the case of the (now former) chief of the German Navy, Kay-Achim Schönbach, who gave a presentation to an Indian think tank, where he basically said: Forget Ukraine, we need Russia against the Chinese. Now the government denies that this is their position, but it looks like he was fired for spilling the beans.

[DireWolfSpirit]

^^^^It's a bigger controversy than the coverage is letting on imo. I'm not even sure whether Biden didn't overstate his hand unless he's willing to go against his own allies and target the pipeline independently?

[Loge]

4 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I'm not even sure whether Biden didn't overstate his hand unless he's willing to go against his own allies and target the pipeline independently?

That's what his statement implies. And it was the Trump administration's policy, but Biden had reverted it. Of course, Trump didn't stop the pipeline, so one has to wonder what threats Biden made in those talks with Scholz.

[DMC]

12 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Biden has made his boldest claim yet, saying if Putin invades, Nord Stream 2 will be stopped.

I'm not sure why this is a "bold claim," it's been the administration's position for weeks.  I'm also not clear how this is a "controversy" and/or indicative of a rift between Biden and Scholz.  Scholz was standing right next to him when Biden said this at the White House on Monday, and then later in the press conference Biden said this:

Quote

For Biden's part, he brushed off the notion that Germany could "win back trust" by publicly committing in more explicit terms to ending the Nord Stream project should Russia move ahead with an invasion.

"There is no need to win back trust. He has the complete trust of the United States. Germany is one of our most important allies in the world. There is no doubt about Germany's partnership with the United States. None," he said.

 

[Raja]

Trying to imagine Lavrov having a conversation with Liz Truss. Just picturing this conversation is making me laugh.

Quote

At the press conference that followed a stony faced Lavrov said he had spoken in detail about the security guarantees Russia wants from NATO.

But with Liz Truss standing barely feet away, looking equally glacial, he described that discussion in terms that were far from diplomatic. “It was like a conversation with a deaf person,” he said. “Who is here, but doesn’t hear.”

 

[polishgenius]

16 minutes ago, Raja said:

Trying to imagine Lavrov having a conversation with Liz Truss. Just picturing this conversation is making me laugh.

 

It's okay though, she's only there as a distraction anyway while we build up reinforcements in Ukraine. We know this coz Boris said so in a press conference:
 

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

15 hours ago, DMC said:

I'm not sure why this is a "bold claim," it's been the administration's position for weeks.  I'm also not clear how this is a "controversy" and/or indicative of a rift between Biden and Scholz.  Scholz was standing right next to him when Biden said this at the White House on Monday, and then later in the press conference Biden said this:

 

It had seemed as if Germany's position was cryptic previous to this though. I had been uncertain whether they were in agreement over using Nord Stream capacity as leverage or they were at loggerheads.