Russia Invades Ukraine pt XIII

[NationalTitles18]

All fair points. And I've no idea who that guy is that shared the video (the link was forwarded to me) - he may well be some hard-right idiot, hence the description.

If his quotes are in fact accurate, it seems that many foreign policy experts in the US felt / knew that these moves by NATO, regardless of their intention, would be viewed as aggression by the Russians. Of course that doesn't vindicate or rationalize Putin's war, but if we knew this move would likely be viewed as such it seems to be a massive foreign policy fail that bridges multiple administrations.

I'm in no way suggesting this war is due to the US, anymore than I'd suggest 9/11 was caused by American foreign policy. But both appear to be examples of US and European policies that ignored any potential fallout from those actions.

I’ve been told that you can’t let someone else’s feelings or especially their threats dictate what you do or who your friends are.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I’ve been told that you can’t let someone else’s feelings or especially their threats dictate what you do or who your friends are.

Excellent point! And the Russians have trotted out the nuclear threat every time they haven't liked something we've done...

 

[Padreruf]

I think it was a known risk and was taken into account. You would have to, if you know anything about Russian history at all. However, I can't agree with the POV that it was a certainty from the get-go. I would argue that the expansion may have saved the Baltic states from the embrace of the bear so far. And it will protect Finland...

Russia reminds me of a paranoid bully/gangster -- bluffing their way through life until someone stands up to them and in so doing exposes them for who they are.Giving in to them only feeds their pseudo self-image. Standing up to them is the proper response...without limits they will keep on bullying smaller nations.

What we could have done is had legitimate discussions with China based on our mutual interests and in so doing put China's fears at rest and have them on NATO's side. I find China much more predictable and pragmatic than Russia.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Russia reminds me of a paranoid bully/gangster -- bluffing their way through life until someone stands up to them and in so doing exposes them for who they are.Giving in to them only feeds their pseudo self-image. Standing up to them is the proper response...without limits they will keep on bullying smaller nations.

What we could have done is had legitimate discussions with China based on our mutual interests and in so doing put China's fears at rest and have them on NATO's side. I find China much more predictable and pragmatic than Russia.

That might have worked. They are natural enemies, as TW has pointed out...

 

[Tidewater]

I do not normally take foreign policy advice from comedians.

There is a lot to unpack there.
First, National Titles 18 is correct. Sovereign states decide with whom they will ally themselves. And the Alliance decides whom to admit. I would note that there are Russian troops in Moldova, Belarus, Georgia, and Armenia (all former Soviet Socialist Republics and none members of the Alliance), but there are no Russian troops in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (also former Soviet Socialist Republicans and now members of the Alliance). I realize correlation is not causation, but these facts might be causally linked.
Second, Ukraine and Georgia have not been extended invitations to join NATO. No nation with an unresolved territorial dispute can be invited to join the Alliance. Both Georgia and Ukraine have unresolved territorial disputed. 17% of Ukraine is Russian-occupied. 20% of Georgia is.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Thanks guys. This is why I bounce stuff off here - I trust y'all to have a balanced view of things I don't know much about. I kinda wondered if there was some 'slicing and dicing' of data here (hence my lack of certainty regarding the veracity of his claims) - especially since there's no one else talking about this stuff.

 

[NationalTitles18]

First, National Titles 18 is correct.

Well, there's something you don't hear every day.

I considered blue font, but why would I blue font the truth?



And (as a general comment tacked onto this post) Joe Rogan usually does not have very intelligent guests - usually a bunch of conspiracy nuts like himself.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Several reports indicate that Wagner really is withdrawing from Bakhmut, turning their positions over to the Russian Army.

So my question is, "OK....Wagner forces are leaving Bakhumt. Where are they going?"

Are they going home? I don't think so.

Are they going into reserve to plug gaps if / when Ukrainians smash through Russian lines?

Are they going into rest & regroup activities, waiting for the Russians to collapse and Putin to jump out a window, thereby giving Prigozhin his own personal army to propel him into Putin's still-warm chair?

Or is it something else I haven't considered?

 

[TexasBama]

Several reports indicate that Wagner really is withdrawing from Bakhmut, turning their positions over to the Russian Army.

So my question is, "OK....Wagner forces are leaving Bakhumt. Where are they going?"

Are they going home? I don't think so.

Are they going into reserve to plug gaps if / when Ukrainians smash through Russian lines?

Are they going into rest & regroup activities, waiting for the Russians to collapse and Putin to jump out a window, thereby giving Prigozhin his own personal army to propel him into Putin's still-warm chair?

Or is it something else I haven't considered?

This article says Wagner is still in the city, but have turned the suburbs over to regulars.

Wagner Says It Is Leaving Bakhmut, Posing Challenge for Russia

After seizing the city in eastern Ukraine after a long, brutal fight, the Wagner mercenary force is turning it over to the depleted Russian Army to defend.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Tidewater]

Several reports indicate that Wagner really is withdrawing from Bakhmut, turning their positions over to the Russian Army.

So my question is, "OK....Wagner forces are leaving Bakhumt. Where are they going?"

Are they going home? I don't think so.

Are they going into reserve to plug gaps if / when Ukrainians smash through Russian lines?

Are they going into rest & regroup activities, waiting for the Russians to collapse and Putin to jump out a window, thereby giving Prigozhin his own personal army to propel him into Putin's still-warm chair?

Or is it something else I haven't considered?

They might be going to other Wagner ops in Africa. More money and less dying to be had there.
Most likely, they will be pulled out of the line, to rest, refit, incorporate replacements, (get drunk, chase women) etc. and be thrown at the Ukrainian counteroffensive when it happens.

 

[Tidewater]

Thanks guys. This is why I bounce stuff off here - I trust y'all to have a balanced view of things I don't know much about. I kinda wondered if there was some 'slicing and dicing' of data here (hence my lack of certainty regarding the veracity of his claims) - especially since there's no one else talking about this stuff.

There is an academic, John Mearsheimer of the Univ. of Chicago, who is a realist. He believes international affairs are about power and what is right and wrong does not enter into it. Mearsheimer blames the West for the 2014 invasion because the West stupidly encouraged Ukraine to believe it could pursue whatever policy it wanted.
In 2013, what precipitated the Maidan protests that toppled the pro-Kremlin Yanukovich regime was that Yanukovich was about to sign an EU trade deal (not NATO membership). At the last minute had suddenly changed course and declined to sign it (presumably after a phone call from the Kremlin).
Protest broke out, and got worse and worse, Russian snipers were sent in, making the Maidan protests even more violent, and Yanukovich fled to Russia in a helicopter.
Putin decided this was a good time to annex Crimea while the Ukrainian government in Kyiv was trying to get itself sorted. The rest is history.
According to Mearsheimer, Ukraine had no right to pursue any policy but a pro-Kremlin one and the West set Ukraine up for failure by convincing them they could pursue closer trade relations with the EU.

Me personally, I think it is crappy to tell smaller countries they do not have the right to pursue whatever policy they want to just because a big bully is nearby. Know who I blame for Russia's annexation of Crimea and invasion of the Donbas? The annexer and the invader.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

There is an academic, John Mearsheimer of the Univ. of Chicago, who is a realist. He believes international affairs are about power and what is right and wrong does not enter into it. Mearsheimer blames the West for the 2014 invasion because the West stupidly encouraged Ukraine to believe it could pursue whatever policy it wanted.
In 2013, what precipitated the Maidan protests that toppled the pro-Kremlin Yanukovich regime was that Yanukovich was about to sign an EU trade deal (not NATO membership). At the last minute had suddenly changed course and declined to sign it (presumably after a phone call from the Kremlin).
Protest broke out, and got worse and worse, Russian snipers were sent in, making the Maidan protests even more violent, and Yanukovich fled to Russia in a helicopter.
Putin decided this was a good time to annex Crimea while the Ukrainian government in Kyiv was trying to get itself sorted. The rest is history.
According to Mearsheimer, Ukraine had no right to pursue any policy but a pro-Kremlin one and the West set Ukraine up for failure by convincing them they could pursue closer trade relations with the EU.

Me personally, I think it is crappy to tell smaller countries they do not have the right to pursue whatever policy they want to just because a big bully is nearby. Know who I blame for Russia's annexation of Crimea and invasion of the Donbas? The annexer and the invader.

Another way of looking at it is that Putin simply overreached and greatly underestimated the desire of Ukrainians to speak their own language and conduct their own affairs, because of his blindness to their existence as a distinct country and not just a "rump Russia." He also underestimated the will of the West to support Ukraine...

 

[Tidewater]

I would add that there are two main schools of thought in international relations: realism and idealism (or liberalism).
Realism says all international relations are about power.
Idealism or liberalism says that international affairs are governed by ideas (democracy, communism, fundamentalist islam) or institutions (UN, NATO, etc.).

Being a realist, does not mean having a more accurate view of matters. It means looking at international affairs through the lens of power.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I would add that there are two main schools of thought in international relations: realism and idealism (or liberalism).
Realism says all international relations are about power.
Idealism or liberalism says that international affairs are governed by ideas (democracy, communism, fundamentalist islam) or institutions (UN, NATO, etc.).

Being a realist, does not mean having a more accurate view of matters. It means looking at international affairs through the lens of power.

I understand that realists and neorealists have advocated for only power dictating international relations. I don't buy it. It's too rational and human beings are far from being solely rational. The war du jour is as much emotional as rational. You can argue that Viet Nam became emotional. You can also argue that Iraq was far more emotional than rational. I think it's a mix...

 

[AWRTR]

Russia reminds me of a paranoid bully/gangster -- bluffing their way through life until someone stands up to them and in so doing exposes them for who they are.Giving in to them only feeds their pseudo self-image. Standing up to them is the proper response...without limits they will keep on bullying smaller nations.

What we could have done is had legitimate discussions with China based on our mutual interests and in so doing put China's fears at rest and have them on NATO's side. I find China much more predictable and pragmatic than Russia.

China’s interest is in domination. If that happens to line up with us for a minute then fine, but they can’t be trusted. They will never really be on any side but their own as long as the CCP is in control. They will use Russia and NATO for their purpose if we let them.

 

[AWRTR]

I would add that there are two main schools of thought in international relations: realism and idealism (or liberalism).
Realism says all international relations are about power.
Idealism or liberalism says that international affairs are governed by ideas (democracy, communism, fundamentalist islam) or institutions (UN, NATO, etc.).

Being a realist, does not mean having a more accurate view of matters. It means looking at international affairs through the lens of power.

I would land a little more on the realist side when dealing with bad actors like Russia, China, and Iran. They are terrible dictatorships that only understand power. If they sense weakness they are like sharks with blood in the water. They must be dealt with from a power perspective because they don’t understand anything else and their worldviews aren’t compatible with anything else. You do t have to deal with everyone like that and you shouldn’t.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

I agree with Earle in that foreign relations isn’t a one-style-fits-all proposition.

When the opposite side doesn’t present a physical or economic threat, you tend to deal with them in a moralistic way…right vs. wrong, with that distinction defined in 10-year-old Sunday School.

When the opposite side presents a threat, and is rattling the saber, you handle them with either the threat of force, or force itself. Which, to maintain credibility, necessarily implies the occasional use of force.

Side Note: This is one of many places where Putin failed. He threatened nukes several times early on in the War for Ukraine, but followed up on none. Just kept re-drawing the line in the sand. While I freely admit to being unnerved at the time, his threats of nuclear war are no longer credible.

Even if I’m wrong and Putin decides to lob a nuke somewhere (major city or trackless uninhabited land doesn’t matter), the West has shown the ability to shoot down his “invincible” hypersonic missiles….and did it with weapons systems operated by crews with a few months training.

Think NATO’s true professionals can shoot down an ill-maintained Soviet-era ICBM? I do.

There’s a big space between the opponent being (1) neither an economic nor physical threat, and (2) a no-foolin’ existential threat. So you size your own saber-rattling and/or actual use of force according to where the opponent falls in the continuum.

The population has to trust its leaders to make that judgment call. So it needs to choose them carefully.

And it always, always, always pays to have 10x anybody else’s force.

 

[Tidewater]

Another way of looking at it is that Putin simply overreached and greatly underestimated the desire of Ukrainians to speak their own language and conduct their own affairs, because of his blindness to their existence as a distinct country and not just a "rump Russia." He also underestimated the will of the West to support Ukraine...

A gather you mean in 2022.
In 2014, Putin, I believe, saw an opportunity to grab Crimea and took it.
Then, the FSB & GRU told them that eastern Ukraine would could be whipped up against Kyiv. When the Donbas "peoples' republics" were about to collapse, he sent the Russian army in.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

A gather you mean in 2022.
In 2014, Putin, I believe, saw an opportunity to grab Crimea and took it.
Then, the FSB & GRU told them that eastern Ukraine would could be whipped up against Kyiv. When the Donbas "peoples' republics" were about to collapse, he sent the Russian army in.

Correct. I meant 2022. 2014 was what caused the overreach in 2022...

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Russia issues arrest warrant for Lindsey Graham over Ukraine comments

Russia’s Interior Ministry has issued an arrest warrant for U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham following his comments related to the fighting in Ukraine. Graham met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Friday. Zelenskyy's office later released an edited video of the encounter in which Graham...

apnews.com

Not really relevant to the conversation, but this did make me chuckle.