Russian Public Being Primed (update: Russia invades Ukraine)

[uafanataum]

I wish people would stop doing this. I do not know who Bill Bostock is, but I gather he is not a fan of Tucker Carlson and has fallen victim to the temptation of mis-stating the position of someone he disagrees with so he can pillory that person. It is as honest as going to Republicans or to Fox News and asking them to honestly state the Democrats' position on, well, pretty much anything. It is entertaining, and it bolsters our prejudices, but it is not particularly honest.

I had not seen the Tucker Carlson segment on Ukraine, so I went and watched it.

Carlson's first take is that NATO has served its purpose. (Questionable assertion, but not crazy).
He said a "NATO takeover" of Ukraine is unacceptable to Russia. That's an odd way to phrase that. If I could pose a question to Carlson I would ask, "What if the people of Ukraine want to join NATO?" And, for the record, NATO has not even submitted a Membership Action Plan (MAP, a mandatory intermediate step to NATO membership) to Ukraine because they have an unresolved territorial dispute.* Ukraine is pursuing closer ties with the EU (and maybe eventually EU membership, although that I still a long ways off, I would think.) Are the Ukrainian people allowed to pursue closer economic ties with the EU? I wish someone would ask Carlson that question.

What Carlson was getting at was this (his words): "The only question that matters is how does intervening in Ukraine help the core national interests of the United States?" That is not a crazy question either. Lots of people on both sides of the aisle have suggested that the U.S., before a foreign military intervention, should make sure that the proposed policy is tied to supporting U.S. national interests. If it is not, then do we really want to intervene? (The Powell Doctrine)

So, are Americans generally willing to go to war with Russia if they invaded Ukraine? Are you personally willing for the United States to go to war with Russia? If Russia were to invade Ukraine and conduct a "punitive raid" (kill Ukrainians and destroy stuff) before withdrawing, would you be willing to go to war with Russia? If Russia were to invade and seize the aqueduct connecting the Dnieper to Crimea and stop there, would you be willing to go to war with Russia? If Russia were to invade Kharkiv and start ethnic cleansing of all Ukrainians, would you be willing to go to war with Russia over that? What if Russia were to invade and entirely annex Ukraine? Context would seem to be key to the determination.

Then Carlson goes on to criticize the military-industrial complex and its willingness to urge America to go to war. This has also found supporters on both sides of the political spectrum. (Smedley Butler's "War is a racket," and all that.) Carlson then goes on to show politicians on both sides of the aisle who seem to be unthinkingly sliding towards a military conflict with Russia, including, in the case of one Republican senator, nuclear weapons.

The upshot is not that Carlson is priming the right for a war with Russia. He is arguing the opposite. He is arguing then U.S. not to get involved militarily with Russia in a country where core U.S. national interests are not at stake. It seems hard to argue that core U.S. national interests are at stake in Ukraine.



* In the April 2008 NATO Summit, the Bush Administration was pushing for a Membership Action Plan (MAP) for Georgia. France and Germany opposed. Rather than openly disagree, the diplomats agreed to characterize it this way, "No applicant country can have a MAP if they have an unresolved territorial dispute." In August 2008, Russia invaded Georgia and, voila, Georgia has an unresolved territorial dispute. Thus no MAP.

Whether supporting Ukraine is a part of our national security interest should not be a part of the equation. Usually I am a firm believer in using our military for national security only. However the U.S. and Russia gave Ukraine certain assurances in return for them giving up their nukes. Why should we be able to ignore those promises we made now? Russia likely would be afraid to invade Ukraine if they had not given up their nukes and we made promises when they did.

 

[mdb-tpet]

Whether supporting Ukraine is a part of our national security interest should not be a part of the equation. Usually I am a firm believer in using our military for national security only. However the U.S. and Russia gave Ukraine certain assurances in return for them giving up their nukes. Why should we be able to ignore those promises we made now? Russia likely would be afraid to invade Ukraine if they had not given up their nukes and we made promises when they did.

I see this as a replay of the buildup to WWII, with land being stolen by a power hungry dictator with lots of resources. Either you make the dictator pay severely for his aggression, or you get a lot more of it. I think it's very much in our economic and political interests to make any more aggression by Russia very painful.

Plus, I think a big bit of this is the tail wagging the dog. Russia is in a big hurt right now with COVID-19 and terrible vaccination rates. Putin is trying to act tough/provoke a fight on the international stage as his team has fumbled incredibly badly at home. He cannot convince his people of much anymore due to the poor use of his propaganda tools making fun of COVID-19 and then trying to convince the people to trust the government that COVID-19 is really a problem they have a solution to and should take the vaccine that was not really tested fully for political reasons.

 

[Bamaro]

FWIW (apparently not much )
from Wiki:

Budapest Memorandum
Main article: Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances
On December 5, 1994 the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Britain and the United States signed a memorandum to provide Ukraine with security assurances in connection with its accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state. The four parties signed the memorandum, containing a preamble and six paragraphs. The memorandum reads as follows:

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as non-nuclear-weapon State,
Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,
Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.
Confirm the following:
1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
5. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State.
6. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments.
— Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

 

[Its On A Slab]

This map illustrates the situation:

View attachment 21321

Ah, now I get it.

Those I had contact with were from "other" SSRs....Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan.....the lingua franca is Russian among those communities. We even had Ukraianians who felt a common bond with that community and spoke Russian. You would think the ethnic Russians in that community would feel like they were the overlords, but I never got that impression.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Ah, now I get it.

Those I had contact with were from "other" SSRs....Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan.....the lingua franca is Russian among those communities. We even had Ukraianians who felt a common bond with that community and spoke Russian. You would think the ethnic Russians in that community would feel like they were the overlords, but I never got that impression.

As I said earlier, the Russians (and other Russian-speakers) are largely an urban phenomenon and their reasons for being there are economic. The blue is a little deceiving, in that the countryside is much more lightly populated. Still, it's hard to view the Russians as anything but slow-motion invaders. The little grocery checker I mentioned earlier, something in the way she answered someone's question about her accent - "I am Ukrainian!" had a little defensiveness to it, like "Don't mistake me for one of those Rooskis!" It suspected that she might be from the contested southeast and guessed correctly. She did look a little surprised when I asked if she were from the Donbas...

 

[Its On A Slab]

As I said earlier, the Russians (and other Russian-speakers) are largely an urban phenomenon and their reasons for being there are economic. The blue is a little deceiving, in that the countryside is much more lightly populated. Still, it's hard to view the Russians as anything but slow-motion invaders. The little grocery checker I mentioned earlier, something in the way she answered someone's question about her accent - "I am Ukrainian!" had a little defensiveness to it, like "Don't mistake me for one of those Rooskis!" It suspected that she might be from the contested southeast and guessed correctly. She did look a little surprised when I asked if she were from the Donbas...

I get that. Lincoln has a sizable expat Azerbaijani (ethnic Armenian) refugee community. One of my wife's friends bristles when anyone makes Russian inferences about him(vodka, etc). He asserts his Armenian heritage. Though they all speak Russian as their 1st language. As I said earlier, it was the lingua franca of the Soviet Union. (Excepting East Germany).

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I get that. Lincoln has a sizable expat Azerbaijani (ethnic Armenian) refugee community. One of my wife's friends bristles when anyone makes Russian inferences about him(vodka, etc). He asserts his Armenian heritage. Though they all speak Russian as their 1st language. As I said earlier, it was the lingua franca of the Soviet Union. (Excepting East Germany).

I'm surprised by neither the Armenian chauvinism nor the east Germans, considering how Germans feel about Slavs. It's the opinion of many western Germans that the Soviet occupation ruined the work ethic of East Germans. There was a lot of resentment of the "Flüchtlinge." I had a friend, originally from the Rhineland around Mainz, who let it all hang out at a party once, a couple of years after unification. She referenced the way the government showered them with money and grants (in her opinion), and "They speak German correctly by definition" ("Sie sprechen per Definition korrektes deutsch")...

 

[Tidewater]

The Russian reason for the deployment begins to become clear.
Russia urges NATO to break promise to Ukraine as part of security package
Russia will demobilize their troops close to the border if NATO will rescind commitments of eventual NATO membership issued to Ukraine and Georgia in 2008. If one believes that Russia has privileged interests in the Russian "near abroad," this makes sense.
The Russians also agreed to set up a mechanism so we can coordinate when their aircraft fly dangerously close to ours. (NATO flies military aircraft close to but not in Russian air space. Russia scrambled interceptors, who fly dangerously and recklessly close to the NATO aircraft. Russia agrees to stop flying deangerously/recklessly if we set up a mechanism to coordinate.) I don't know, how about Russian Air Force pilots stop flying like Houston rush-hour drivers?

 

[TIDE-HSV]

The Russian reason for the deployment begins to become clear.
Russia urges NATO to break promise to Ukraine as part of security package
Russia will demobilize their troops close to the border if NATO will rescind commitments of eventual NATO membership issued to Ukraine and Georgia in 2008. If one believes that Russia has privileged interests in the Russian "near abroad," this makes sense.
The Russians also agreed to set up a mechanism so we can coordinate when their aircraft fly dangerously close to ours. (NATO flies military aircraft close to but not in Russian air space. Russia scrambled interceptors, who fly dangerously and recklessly close to the NATO aircraft. Russia agrees to stop flying deangerously/recklessly if we set up a mechanism to coordinate.) I don't know, how about Russian Air Force pilots stop flying like Houston rush-hour drivers?

This is a WaPo article. I'm sure it's paywalled. However, it's one of the best summaries I've seen recently on Russia's viewpoint on Ukraine...

• A chance to redo the end of the Cold War
• ‘You don’t understand, George, that Ukraine is not even a state’
• Russia’s security buffer
• ‘One Russia’
• ‘Exporting chaos’ — to solve your problems at home
• Echoes of Russia’s imperial history

WaPo

 

[Tidewater]

This is a WaPo article. I'm sure it's paywalled. However, it's one of the best summaries I've seen recently on Russia's viewpoint on Ukraine...

• A chance to redo the end of the Cold War
• ‘You don’t understand, George, that Ukraine is not even a state’
• Russia’s security buffer
• ‘One Russia’
• ‘Exporting chaos’ — to solve your problems at home
• Echoes of Russia’s imperial history

WaPo

I do not know who Robyn Dixon is, but that is a good write-up.
Mentions all the right names (Surkov, Simonyan, Patrushev). Surkov is out of favor now, but used to have influence in the Kremlin.
Putin may believe he can achieve a geopolitically neutral Ukraine under the Kremlin's protection, but public opinion inside Ukraine has swung hard in the opposite direction, especially with Crimea being considered part of Russia (and thus no longer eligible to vote in Ukrainian elections). Ukrainians ain't voting for politicians who want to chain Ukraine to Russia. Not any more.
I do not recognize the Russian tracked APC. Must be new.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I do not know who Robyn Dixon is, but that is a good write-up.
Mentions all the right names (Surkov, Simonyan, Patrushev). Surkov is out of favor now, but used to have influence in the Kremlin.
Putin may believe he can achieve a geopolitically neutral Ukraine under the Kremlin's protection, but public opinion inside Ukraine has swung hard in the opposite direction, especially with Crimea being considered part of Russia (and thus no longer eligible to vote in Ukrainian elections). Ukrainians ain't voting for politicians who want to chain Ukraine to Russia. Not any more.
I do not recognize the Russian tracked APC. Must be new.

Robyn

 

[Tidewater]

Robyn

If she's an alumna of Presbyterian Ladies' College, she is okay.
They have a great football team, I hear.

 

[Tidewater]

And the APCs appear to be versions of the Kurganets-25.

 

[81usaf92]

I would agree. There are tons of other possibilities.
Yet wars do sometimes happen and not infrequently due to miscalculation on the part of one side or the other.
Certainly the Austro-Hungarians did not envision the demise of the Austro-Hungarian Empire as a result of the decidsion to declare war on Serbia, but that was the end result of the decision.

Well Bismarck was sure Europe would change and go to war over some damn thing in the Balkans.

 

[Its On A Slab]

I'm surprised by neither the Armenian chauvinism nor the east Germans, considering how Germans feel about Slavs. It's the opinion of many western Germans that the Soviet occupation ruined the work ethic of East Germans. There was a lot of resentment of the "Flüchtlinge." I had a friend, originally from the Rhineland around Mainz, who let it all hang out at a party once, a couple of years after unification. She referenced the way the government showered them with money and grants (in her opinion), and "They speak German correctly by definition" ("Sie sprechen per Definition korrektes deutsch")...

One of the wife's somewhat expat Russian(she's Russian, but has lived in Holland until recently) friends was pretty down on Germany at the moment. Says immigration has made the country a problematic place to live. Although, I hear this country's nativist concerns in her opinions.

It seems like there is a huge longing in the East of Germany for the DDR. Stasi and shortages be damned. When you grow up and live in a country where everything is "free", and then you realize that you have to pay for all of those things.

 

[seebell]

Kurganets-25 Infantry Fighting Vehicle | Military-Today.com

The Kurganets-25 is a new Russian infantry fighting vehicle. It is a sucessor to the BMP-3. This new-generation IFV will replace the ageing BMP-1 and BMP-2 in service with the Russian Army.

www.military-today.com

 

[Go Bama]

Kurganets-25 Infantry Fighting Vehicle | Military-Today.com

The Kurganets-25 is a new Russian infantry fighting vehicle. It is a sucessor to the BMP-3. This new-generation IFV will replace the ageing BMP-1 and BMP-2 in service with the Russian Army.

www.military-today.com

It certainly looks Russian.

 

[Tidewater]

Whether supporting Ukraine is a part of our national security interest should not be a part of the equation. Usually I am a firm believer in using our military for national security only. However the U.S. and Russia gave Ukraine certain assurances in return for them giving up their nukes. Why should we be able to ignore those promises we made now? Russia likely would be afraid to invade Ukraine if they had not given up their nukes and we made promises when they did.

That is a good point. The alligator nearest the canoe in the 1990s was getting control over former Soviet nukes which were spread across the former USSR as one would expect. To sweeten the deal for the Ukrainians, as you note, the US guaranteed Ukrainian territorial integrity.

Sadly, President Obama effectively invalidated that policy. As the crisis in Crimea was unfolding, and the Ukrainians called Washington looking for military support of some kind, U.S. Told Ukraine to Stand Down as Putin Invaded (originally from Bloomberg, but Bloomberg has put it behind a pay wall, so here it is through Linked In). In fairness to the situation on the ground in February 2014 was confused and maybe Washington thought that a rogue Russian commander was behind the Russian troops blockading Ukrainian units in their casernes. At any rate, that momentary hesitation was all Putin needed to take over control over the entire peninsula. And citing the imbecility of the Ukrainian forces is not reason not to try. For all we know, if the Ukrainians had put up a fight, Putin might have told his military to back off. We do know that the lack of resistance encouraged Putin to try for more.

Michael McFaul, who served as ambassador to Russia under Obama ... said, the ease with which Putin was able to take Crimea likely influenced his decision to expand Russia's campaign in eastern Ukraine: "I think Putin was surprised at how easy Crimea went and therefore when somebody said let's see what else we can do, he decided to gamble.”

So the U.S. has not really honored its 1990s promise to Ukraine to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity, but the discussion is still worth having today, to what extend do we want to risk escalating things with Russia, (including potentially going to war), over Ukrainian territorial integrity?

 

[Tidewater]

This is a bit of a weird one.
U.S. to share Moscow's security proposals with allies amid standoff
So, a geopolitical rival (if not actual enemy) who has repeatedly tried to split the Euro-Atlantic alliance, gives the U.S. a security proposal and the U.S. officials agreed to hand it over to our allies?
Call me suspicious, but I cannot imagine that Russia's proposal is designed to further strengthen the Euro-Atlantic alliance. Isn't Russia a sovereign state, which can hand any proposal it wants to NATO?

 

[TIDE-HSV]

That is a good point. The alligator nearest the canoe in the 1990s was getting control over former Soviet nukes which were spread across the former USSR as one would expect. To sweeten the deal for the Ukrainians, as you note, the US guaranteed Ukrainian territorial integrity.

Sadly, President Obama effectively invalidated that policy. As the crisis in Crimea was unfolding, and the Ukrainians called Washington looking for military support of some kind, U.S. Told Ukraine to Stand Down as Putin Invaded (originally form Bloomberg, but Bloomberg has put it behind a pay wall, so here is is through Linked In). In fairness to the situation on the ground in February 2014 was confused and maybe Washington thought that a rogue Russian commander was behind the Russian troops blockading Ukrainian units in their casernes. At any rate, that momentary hesitation was all Putin needed to take over control over the entire peninsula. And citing the imbecility of the Ukrainian forces is not reason not to try. For all we know, if the Ukrainians had put up a fight, Putin might have told his military to back off. We do know that the lack of resistance encouraged Putin to try for more.


So the U.S. has not really honored its 1990s promise to Ukraine to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity, but the discussion is still worth having today, to what extend do we want to risk escalating things with Russia, (including potentially going to war), over Ukrainian territorial integrity?

I do not believe for a moment that Putin will go to war, except by accident...