A very brief history: Ukraine and Russia, plus NATO and nuclear weapons
I’m going to respond to this recent comment, not in order to especially pick on its author, but because I think it’s an example of the type of thought process and the sorts of analogies we see quite a bit lately, and it represents an opportunity for me to discuss some background to the Ukraine war.
First, the comment. I’ve made some small corrections for grammar/spelling. Then I take it point by point with the commenter’s remarks in italics and my reactions following:
I am sure a righteous democracy like America would be perfectly fine and a good sport about it if a scenario ever arose that Russian/Chinese propaganda had successfully convinced a majority of Californians to demand to secede from America; join forces with Russia, China, and Iran, and have a Russian military base built in Silicon Valley pointing missiles at what is left of America, right? I am very sure America would not take military action to neutralize this threat and just honor Californians’ wish in this factional scenario peacefully.
(1) a righteous democracy like America…
A great many Americans no longer think that America is especially righteous – particularly since this administration but certainly for much of the 21st Century. Nevertheless, its foundational ideals – to which it’s not living up – are among the best or perhaps the best in the world.
(2) that Russian/Chinese propaganda had successfully convinced a majority of Californians to demand to secede from America…
At this point, I’m not at all sure that most Americans would care if California left the Union. The thing is, there also is no clear mechanism by which a state can secede other than armed revolt. The Supreme Court has actually ruled on that:
Some have argued for secession as a constitutional right and others as from a natural right of revolution. In Texas v. White (1869), the Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.
And so it is possible that if California wished to secede and there was “consent of the states” to that secession, it would happen without all that much fuss. But of course, the comment isn’t just talking about a simple secession; it’s talking about a state that has seceded subsequently becoming an enemy country with an enemy missile base. In addition, because the commenter is apparently trying to make an analogy of California seceding from the US with Ukraine abandoning its former unity with Russia, let’s take a look at the huge differences in the processes involved.
The history of Ukraine is lengthy and I can’t possibly cover it in detail here. But for example, in the 15th and 16th centuries, Poland, Poland-Lithuania, and the Crimean Khanate were in charge there at different times. Then, after a war between Russia and Poland in the mid-17th Century, the eastern part of Ukraine came under Russian rule. This sort of back-and-forth was very common in eastern Europe as well as other parts of the world.
Close to the beginning of the 19th Century, Ukraine was under Russian and Austrian rule for about a hundred years until the Russian Revolution in 1917, when Ukraine became an independent country for a few years. Then Russia (the Bolsheviks) attacked again, and won the war. After that the Ukraine was part of the USSR. Note that this annexation was not voluntary (except that home-grown Ukrainian Bolsheviks supported it and became the new leaders). It was the result of both a civil war and a Russian Communist takeover by force.
At first, Ukrainians in the USSR were allowed to speak and teach in their own language. But then:
Policy in the 1930s turned to Russification. In 1932 and 1933, millions of people, mostly peasants, in Ukraine starved to death in a devastating famine, known as Holodomor. It is estimated by Encyclopædia Britannica that 6 to 8 million people died from hunger in the Soviet Union during this period, of whom 4 to 5 million were Ukrainians.
That famine was real, but its terrible effects were exacerbated greatly by the policies of the USSR in Ukraine.
That’s not really similar to California’s relationship with the US. Not even close. The analogy is mind-bogglingly poor, but I’ve seen it or its equivalent all over the right side of the blogosphere lately.
There’s more:
During World War II the Ukrainian Insurgent Army fought for Ukrainian independence against both Germany and the Soviet Union. In 1945 the Ukrainian SSR became one of the founding members of the United Nations.
So there’s been a long and highly-motivated struggle for Ukrainian independence from Russia when it was the larger entity the USSR:
After the death of Stalin in 1953, the Ukrainian Khrushchev as head of the Communist Party of Soviet Union enabled a Ukrainian revival, and in 1954 the republic expanded to the south with the transfer of Crimea from Russia. Nevertheless, political repressions against poets, historians and other intellectuals continued, as in all other parts of the USSR.
Ukraine became independent again when the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991.
The USSR dissolved in 1991. Repeat: it dissolved. I imagine that if the USA were also to dissolve (not so far-fetched a notion these days), California might indeed decide to become an independent country. But till then, there’s really zero analogy to anything in Ukrainian and Russian history.
(3) Now back to the comment:
…join forces with Russia, China, and Iran, and have a Russian military base built in Silicon Valley pointing missiles at what is left of America…
There is no NATO military base in Ukraine pointing missiles at Russia. Nor are the nations of Europe who form NATO analogous in their rhetoric or their behavior to the aforementioned countries – especially Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism all over the world, and a country whose leaders continue to chant “Death to America!”
But setting all that aside, let’s imagine that Ukraine does join NATO someday and does acquire such a base. Unlike California – which is nowhere nearby its hypothesized nuclear partners Russia, China, or Iran, Ukraine is already just about as close geographically to some NATO countries as it is to Russia. Russia is on Ukraine’s eastern border and the NATO countries of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania constitute Ukraine’s border on the west and south. As for Russia, it already has two NATO nations on its borders, Latvia and Estonia. Finland (threatened recently by Putin and not a NATO nation) also has a border with Russia, but it’s more northerly.
There are already missile defense systems run by NATO in Romania with one under construction; there are none in Estonia and Latvia, those NATO states that border Russia. The one in Romania has been operational for almost six years, and as far as I know there have been no incidents involving it.
The new Aegis Ashore ballistic missile defence system at Deveselu Airbase in Romania is a land-based version of the Aegis-class ships in Spain. It offers an advanced, permanent capability to detect and intercept ballistic missile threats.
After years of construction, the Aegis Ashore facility in Romania was declared operational in May 2016. A similar site is under construction in Redzikowo, Poland.
In response to the growing threat posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles, NATO Allies, decided in 2010 that the Alliance will develop a missile defence capability to protect all NATO European populations and territory against missile attacks.
This is what’s already in place, if Ukraine joined NATO it would bring the possibility of such a system only a very small bit closer to Russia. I believe that one of the reasons Putin has decided to strike before Ukraine might be joining NATO is that NATO membership would pledge other NATO nations to Ukraine’s defense if Russia attacked it. Putin has long wanted to reclaim the lost Ukraine for Russia, and he feared that time was running out.
Here was NATO’s policy on the use of nuclear weapons during the Cold War years:
After a great deal of debate in the 1960s, in December 1967 the alliance adopted a new nuclear strategy in MC 14/3 known as “flexible response.” NATO formally abandoned the strategy of massive retaliation (which had actually been dropped by the Eisenhower administration before the end of its term) and committed the alliance to respond to any aggression, short of general nuclear attack, at the level of force — conventional or nuclear — at which it was initiated. The alliance retained the option, however, to use nuclear weapons first if its initial response to a conventional attack did not prove adequate to containing the aggressor, and to deliberately escalate to general nuclear war, if necessary.
While adoption of the flexible response policy allowed the alliance to avoid a policy of prompt and mutual suicide (as many of NATO’s tactical nuclear weapons would have detonated on alliance territory), NATO still continued to rely on the first use of nuclear weapons to deter or counter a major conventional assault.
After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO reduced its force and changed its policy:
In early 1991, after the withdrawal and destruction of its INF systems and the voluntary retirement of about 2,400 excess tactical nuclear weapons, NATO’s European-based nuclear arsenal stood at approximately 4,000 tactical warheads. Then, in September of that year, in the aftermath of the failed coup in Moscow, President Bush announced a major unilateral withdrawal of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons worldwide. Gorbachev announced reciprocal Soviet withdrawals the following month. All U.S. ground-based and sea-based tactical weapons were affected, leaving only several hundred (around 400) air-delivered gravity bombs in NATO’s European-based nuclear arsenal by the end of the decade. (France and Britain subsequently decided to phase out their own tactical nuclear weapons.)…
…[NATO’s] 1991 concept noted that “the fundamental purpose of the nuclear forces of the Allies is political: to preserve peace and prevent coercion and any kind of war.” It stated specifically that “the circumstances in which any use of nuclear weapons might have to be contemplated by [NATO] are…remote.” The allies “can therefore significantly reduce their sub-strategic nuclear forces.”
It was only after that change that NATO began to expand eastward:
The new member-states — the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland — all sought protection under NATO’s nuclear umbrella without pressing for actual nuclear deployments on their territories…
Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, for example, stated in April 1997 that he could “perceive no security requirement for stationing nuclear weapons on Polish territory.” In the end, the NATO allies explicitly stated in the May 1997 so-called Founding Act that “they have no intention, no plan and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of new members…..
…[T]he current understanding [is] that the use of nuclear weapons [by NATO] would be considered only in “extremely remote” circumstances…
This was written in the late 1990s, when as far as I can tell Russia was seen as a failed empire with no designs on its neighbors.
NATO still reserves the right of “first use” of nuclear weapons in the event of chemical warfare or a large-scale invasion. Significantly, Russia has a “first use” policy as well.
The point is that NATO has never used nuclear weapons, nor has any other country except the US against Japan to end WWII. However, if you are Putin and are planning offensive attacks to take over a NATO country (if Ukraine became a NATO country, for example, or if Russia wanted to get back some of the previous Soviet satellites that hate its guts, such as Poland which is already a NATO member), you would be upset about the mere possibility of NATO putting nuclear weapons in Ukraine even – or maybe especially – for defensive use or as deterrent.
Again, under the supposedly analogous scenario postulated in the blog comment about California, it seems logical to assume that the reason Russia, China, or Iran would put a nuclear facility in California would be for offensive reasons. California has no proximity to Russia, China, or Iran, nor does any portion of the US have such proximity (except Alaska is near far far northeastern Russia).
(5) I’ll dispense with dealing with the last sentence in the blog comment I quoted – I am very sure America would not take military action to neutralize this threat and just honor Californians’ wish in this factional scenario peacefully – because I think any attempted analogy with Ukraine has been sufficiently critiqued.
A few more things: on the 25th of February, about a week ago, NATO did the following [emphasis mine]:
NATO, for the first time in its history, is activating its NATO Response Force (NRF) in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine…
The leaders stressed the moves “are and remain preventive, proportionate and non-escalatory.”
These are conventional NATO troops, not nuclear weaponry. In contrast, on February 27th Putin put his nuclear forces on “high alert”.
Also, the announcement of NATO’s Response Force activation was one day after a threat Putin made:
In a Feb. 24 speech, Putin warned that any interference in the attacks would lead to “consequences you have [never] seen,” AP reported.
The implication is a threat of either nuclear attack or some other catastrophic type of attack such as chemical or biological warfare, or perhaps cyber or electrical grid attacks. As I’ve written before, whether Putin’s threat is serious or not is unknown.
I think it is only since the US abandoned energy self sufficiency and abandoned the Trump opposition to Nordstream II that Putin decided to invade Ukraine. He depends on the Green Party in Germany and the various Green organizations in the US that Russia and the Saudis fund to handicap energy policy and limit his risk. Even a significant number of Democrats believe that if Trump was still president, Russia would not have invaded.
Mike K:
Agreed.
That influenced the timing of now. But he’s been intending this for a long time.
On the topic of the Crimean Khanate (about which, one must imagine, very few Americans have any knowledge), it stands as history’s most unfortunate example of a polity (Muslim, its inhabitants having long since been converted) based almost entirely, in its economy, upon the slave-trade. For around three centuries (until the region was incorporated into the Russian Empire), Crimean raiding parties would capture, mostly from Ukraine, poor peasants and villagers (largely women and children, but also men) to be sold in the slave-markets of Istanbul, the men destined to be worked to death, the women and children to be exploited sexually. In a hideous irony, Ukraine remains perhaps the worst region in Europe (along with Moldova) for human-trafficking, the victims often being sold in the Middle East.
“pointing missiles at what is left of America”…how is this different from the missiles that can be pointed at America, by Russia or any other power, from vessels off our extensive coastlines? Ballistic missiles can be launched from submarines or surface ships. So can hypersonic missiles and also drones. Innocent-looking container ships, tankers, or tramp freighters.
Maybe the psychology is different, but the actual threat doesn’t seem all that different.
I listen to Jordan B Petersen’s podcast with Dr. Frederick Kagan that makes many of your same points Neo. The only thing I heard from the podcast that I haven’t heard from you is the religious aspects of the Ukraine and Russia relationship. Key part is that the Orthodox Christian church is seen as being managed out of Istanbul, rather than the Vatican in Rome. Not too long ago, Ukraine sought to have its churches removed from the patriarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church, thus severing the religious ties between the two countries. This was important to the countries and particularly upsetting to Putin on a scale similar to the discussion of global political alignment to NATO.
It is important to note that then Ukraine asked for membership to NATO. That was an act on Ukraine’s/Zelensky’s part, not NATO, and NATO hasn’t responded, certainly not a response of accepting membership. With this information, I think Putin’s escalation threats are to head off any negotiations for NATO to make a decision. I also think it worked and it is probably a good thing it worked.
I also think all of the above is the emotional aspects necessary to incite a nation to war. The strategic objective is to gain control of Ukraine oil reserves and thus eliminate competition in the market of supplying Europe. If the US/NATO wanted to strike back, it ought to do so by being the trade competition. Instead, we have a government that rather the competition be Venezuela or Iran, if it can’t just be Russia.
Archbishop Kirill, the patriarch of the Russian Church in Moscow, made his church’s support for the war very explicit in his sermon this past Sunday. Ukrainians, you see, outside of the Donbass (the separatist areas) have participated in the grave sin of having gay pride parades, which is a symbol of all the degeneracy of the West from which Mother Russia wishes to rescue them.
https://archbishopcranmer.com/patriarch-kirill-ukraine-is-paying-for-its-gay-pride/
}}} that Russian/Chinese propaganda had successfully convinced a majority of Californians to demand to secede from America
Oh, PLEASE?!?!?!
PRETTY PLEASE??
DO IT DO IT DO IT!!
We DOUBLE DOG DARE YOU!!
SMH. It shows how utterly out of touch this idiot is right there that he chose to use Cali as an example of a state seceding.
Probably not less than half of the USA would celebrate. Actually, more, since Cali seceding would remove probably a third of the nation’s liberals, if not half.
}}} That’s not really similar to California’s relationship with the US. Not even close. The analogy is mind-bogglingly poor, but I’ve seen it or its equivalent all over the right side of the blogosphere lately.
This is because none of these idiots have any grasp whatsoever of history. It’s really, really pitiful their efforts to make equivalences that clearly have no semblance of validity because they’re, as with the above, making zero connection to the reality of either side… Their comprehension of the world — the Real World, not the world inside their little heads — is woefully defective.
Leland,
Re: “Not too long ago, Ukraine sought to have its churches removed from the patriarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church”
I just looked into it and apparently that occurred in late 2018.
Re: “It is important to note that then Ukraine asked for membership to NATO. That was an act on Ukraine’s/Zelensky’s part, not NATO, and NATO hasn’t responded, certainly not a response of accepting membership.”
In 2020, NATO officially announced its intention to incorporate the Ukraine into NATO. I consider that a response, if belated, to Zelensky’s frequent requests.
Kate; Geoffrey Britain:
There’s also this:
The dateline of that article is March 3. It’s quite a letter – very very critical.
Krill is the guy who took the opposite point of view mentioned in Kate’s comment.
OBloody:
And as far as I can tell, these “idiots” are people on the right. At least, they purport to be, and there are tons of them as commenters on the conservative blogs I regularly read. It appears to me that many are bona fide long-term commenters on the right, But it’s hard to tell for sure.
I’ve been thinking about it and planning another post on what might be going on with them.
• The real surprise would be to find MSM “analysis” that does not mention NATO, Putin, Russian border, red line, yadda-ya
• Does that mean they are not factors – no
• But Ukraine was no closer to becoming a NATO member in 2022 than it was in 2008
• 2004 NATO members Estonia and Latvia are former members of the USSR and border Russia too
• However, neither offers the Geographic or Economic strategic benefits of Ukraine
• Russia invaded Ukraine because the conditions are favorable, and the opportunity to benefit them – their perspective – was there
• Same reason they invaded Ukraine in 2014 (Crimea peninsula)
• A real surprise would be if the MSM presented “analysis” of why Russia felt the conditions & opportunity were favorable
• But that would bring them perilously close to acknowledging that Trump was the key difference concerning conditions & opportunity
• Or that Trump’ assessment of Europe’ energy policy was right – dependency
• Or that Trump’ assessment of NATO was right for these times – funding & future
• Or that the Trump Doctrine is right: ‘Economic security is National security ‘
• The MSM is using the Ukraine invasion to cover for Biden/ Dems as they pursue their agenda
I hope our check to pay for Alaska has cleared. Putin may want that back. Oil you know.
I think Trump was correct on his assessment “economic security is National security.
My grandparents left Ukraine in 1907 so avoided much of the turmoil. A high percentage of the prairie provinces of Canada are from there (Austrian ) But I can remember people going to see friends in the Old country and never seen again. The city where my grand parents are from are not to be found any more. Damn Kulaks ‘
neo,
I took as sarcasm “I am sure a righteous democracy like America”
Arguably, California, along with most of our coastal states are enemies of America. As they are effectively engaged in an internal revolt against the US Constitution.
“After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO reduced its force and changed its policy… It was only after that change that NATO began to expand eastward”
Agreed. Though from a strategic perspective that’s much less reassuring, given that at any point reduced forces can be strengthened again. And that policy’s can easily be ‘revised’ by changes in political leadership. Most recently demonstrated in the aftermath of the 2020 US election.
Re:“At first, Ukrainians in the USSR were allowed to speak and teach in their own language.”
I don’t dispute that, it’s certainly plausible given the Soviet’s ideology. Reportedly, in recent years Zelensky’s government has been suppressing the speaking of Russian in the Ukraine.
I suspect that if a vote had been taken preinvasion, on whether the Ukraine should become aligned with the West or with Russia, the Dniper river would be the dividing line with the majority on each side voting accordingly.
“There is no NATO military base in Ukraine pointing missiles at Russia.”
That’s not in dispute.
“let’s imagine that Ukraine does join NATO someday and does acquire such a base.”
That is exactly what concerns Russian military strategists. Putin has never disputed that concern.
“Ukraine is already just about as close geographically to some NATO countries as it is to Russia.”
Thats true but the geographic closeness of the Ukraine to some NATO members is irrelevant to Russia’s national security.
“Russia is on Ukraine’s eastern border and the NATO countries of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania constitute Ukraine’s border on the west and south.”
True, which is why Putin has just effectively stated that he doesn’t want western Ukraine. Seizing western ukraine would put NATO right on his border. Putin is demanding a permanently neutral western Ukraine.
“As for Russia, it already has two NATO nations on its borders, Latvia and Estonia.”
As they have no missile systems in place, defensive or offensive, it’s less of a strategic concern for Russia. Were NATO to build an airbase on the Latvian border it would trigger Russian security concerns.
“This is what’s already in place, if Ukraine joined NATO it would bring the possibility of such a system only a very small bit closer to Russia.
Not quite. The nearest Latvian NATO airbase Is 837km from Moscow. The nearest Ukrainian border town is 530km from Moscow. That’s not a huge difference but neither is it a very small difference.
“I believe that one of the reasons Putin has decided to strike before Ukraine might be joining NATO is that NATO membership would pledge other NATO nations to Ukraine’s defense if Russia attacked it.”
I entirely agree that is why he attacked now both believing that the Ukraine’s incorporation into NATO was immanent and his perception of the weakness of the Biden administration with the EU’s dependency on Russian energy.
As long as an opponent possesses a first strike nuclear capability, it will be assumed, as an existential necessity… that an ongoing national security threat exists.
Announced ‘policies’ mean nothing in the face of that potential threat.
neo,
I would expect well meaning representatives of a religion to deplore war and wish for it to end ASAP. That said, wishes do not address national security concerns.
that guy,
“Ukraine was no closer to becoming a NATO member in 2022 than it was in 2008”
We cannot know that to be factually true because we are not privy to the internal deliberations of NATO’s political leadership. In 2008 and in 2020 NATO announced its intention to bring the Ukraine into NATO. Upon what basis would Russia conclude that NATO had no actual intention to do so?
“Russia invaded Ukraine because the conditions are favorable, and the opportunity to benefit them – their perspective – was there
• Same reason they invaded Ukraine in 2014 (Crimea peninsula)”
Russia invaded the Ukraine in 2014 in reaction to a western backed coup that deposed a Russian friendly government for a western friendly government. That coup was in reaction to the then current Ukrainian President deciding to align the Ukraine with the Russian Economic sphere instead of the European Union’s economic sphere. That western oriented Ukrainian government was strongly indicating it intended to cut off Russia’s access to its Sevastopol Naval Base. A highly important strategic Russian military asset.
Russia has consistently and repeatedly insisted that the Ukraine is their red line for NATO advancement eastward.
To ignore or discount that factor is to dismiss Russia’s national security as they see it. Which ensures conflict at some point. A point we have reached.
Geoffrey:
If we can’t know what NATO’s intentions were in 2008 and 2020 because we weren’t privy to the details how can you claim to know with such assurance what Vlad’s intentions were in 2008, 2014, or in 2022? Do you have an inside line to Vlad Putupon? A special relationship? (not)
Same rules for both situations. Is NATO less trustworthy and less open than Vlad?
I call B.S. on that. Try harder.
We cannot know that to be factually true because we are not privy to the internal deliberations of NATO’s political leadership.
Yes we can, because Ukraine is ineligible for NATO membership and will remain so until it resolves its border dispute with Russia. Everyone in a position of power in the United States, in Europe, and in Russia knows this. In order to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, Russia had to do absolutely nothing. Instead, it chose to invade Ukraine, proving the invasion has nothing to do with NATO membership.
You seem to have a great psychological need to blame the West for the bloodshed and loss of life occurring in Ukraine right now. I don’t know why that would be, but most people in the West have figured out that the real villains in this tragedy are Russian, the greatest villain being its leader, Vladimir Putin.
Geoffrey Britain
1) “Upon what basis would Russia conclude that NATO had no actual intention to do so?”
• From my perspective “intention” and “no closer” – my words – are distinctions with a difference.
• NATO has a process for adding new members – before a vote is taken – that includes: a) completion of the NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP), and b) participation in NATO Accession talks.
• Former USSR members that have completed that process include: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
• As of 2022, NATO had not offered Ukraine a MAP or invited them to participate in Accession talks.
• While the general public may not know of the process – without doing their research – it is unlikely that Russia did not.
2) “Russia invaded the Ukraine in 2014 …”
• Not sure if your explanation of why Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 was intended to make the case that ‘conditions & opportunity’ were not ‘favorable & beneficial’ to them.
• Or if it was just supplemental information.
mkent
3) “…until it resolves its border dispute with Russia.”
• From what I understand/ have read, the border dispute is one of the key reasons that progress has not been made since the 2008 Bucharest conference.
• There are other key issues too – see MAPS criteria – but that is a key one.
om,
I base my assessments of Putin’s goals and intentions strictly upon military considerations regarding national security and upon what every Russian leader has said regarding Ukraine, from Soviet Era Gorbachev to Yeltsin to Putin. Russia’s leaders have been unanimous in pronouncing the Ukraine to be their red line.
I’ve agreed with neo’s assertions about Putin’s territorial ambitions at least as far as greater Russia goes and agreed that he’s a brutal dictator. I’m not arguing for Putin’s character.
I’m arguing that Russia’s red line cannot be dismissed.
I also think it unlikely that Putin will attack and/or invade a NATO member like the Baltic States because he would intentionally be seeking direct conflict with NATO. In such a case, Russia’s strategic calculus must include the much higher possibility of stumbling into a nuclear war.
Putin in my estimation wants to win and that, by creating a calculated buffer zone between Russia and the West. Look at his recent demands, they exactly match up with what I’ve been arguing.
Putin does not want Russia turned into a glass parking lot.
A certainty in an all out nuclear war, as regardless of how robust Russia’s defensive systems may be, in an actual nuclear war they are not going to save Russia from nuclear destruction, anymore than we would survive one.
NATO’s political leadership’s deliberations are opaque at best. All we can judge NATO is by its actions, while comparing those actions to its announcements. Just as is done with Putin.
The difference being that NATO has no security concerns here, NATO is not “all in”, whereas Russia has to be all in or once it accepts NATO upon its border with the Ukraine… its over for them. And Russia becomes the West’s bitch. A West being manipulated and effectively controlled by its ‘global citizen’ elite.
that guy,
For a moment assume that the Russians are truly serious that the Ukraine is their ‘red line’. That Putin and the Russian military high command are absolutely convinced that a NATO Ukraine would have the capability to strike Russia with an attack that its leadership, its command and control… could not survive.
And, that the capability itself cannot be justified as tolerable.
Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, that has been the Russian strategic position. It has never varied even one iota.
But because it’s an intransigent, absolute line in the sand… well, it just can’t be real. NATO’s political leadership, playing with fire, all the while insisting its water.
So, Russia’s strategic national security concerns requires it to assume that NATO’s 2008 and 2020 announcements are a unmistakable signal and adamant assertion that, when NATO judges the time to be right, it intends to start NATO’s process for adding new member Ukraine.
“Yes we can, because Ukraine is ineligible for NATO membership and will remain so until it resolves its border dispute with Russia.”
Until NATO decides to just let Ukraine in any way. We’re not dealing with the laws of physics here. These are political and diplomatic fictions that can be changed before the dropped hat hits the ground.
Mike
Geoffrey trusts the Russians but doesn’t trust the west. Geoffrey doesn’t feel that the west is threatened but accepts Russias fear of domination, and it seems Russian desire to dominate the west. Perpetual conflict. Geoffrey is all in on submission.
Geoffrey conveinently forgets that Ukraine already gave up it’s nukes once and that NATO has decreased its nuclear stockpiles.
All his talk of freedom these years has just been a ruse, or is that a roose? Sad.
I must say, this “neo v. Geoffrey Britain” clash is one of the most epic, yet polite I’ve ever witnessed on the web.
Hail!
It’s one sided, facts and a historical perspective vs obstinacy.
om:
I score it pretty much as you do.
Nonetheless, it has been epic … and polite. Credit where credit is due.
During World War II the Ukrainian Insurgent Army fought for Ukrainian independence against both Germany and the Soviet Union.
It’s not well known, because the USSR kept very quiet about it, but the Ukrainians kept up an insurgency long after they were retaken in 1944. In parts it was quite intense, and there were some assassinations of senior Bolsheviks as well.
Likewise the Baltic states didn’t all surrender in 1944, but kept up a guerilla operation for years afterwards.
Geoffrey Britain:
Putin is not the least bit concerned about Ukraine attacking him with nuclear weapons, nor about an attack on the part of the other nations that used to be part of the Soviet Union. I explained why in the post, plus in my other posts about Putin’s speeches as well as many of my comments.
A new Greater Russia has been his goal and dream since the undoing of what he sees as the great tragedy of the USSR’s breakup.
The rest is his propaganda for the gullible.
Oh, and those distance differentials are significant if you’re biking or driving a car. For a nuclear missile, they are very small.
“Reportedly, in recent years Zelensky’s government has been suppressing the speaking of Russian in the Ukraine.”
Is that from a reliable unbiased source like RT?
Reportedly, in recent years Zelensky’s government has been suppressing the speaking of Russian in the Ukraine.
Zelensky’s a native Russian speaker, as was his immediate predecessor. Does your source contend he employs a dom who hits him whenever he speaks Russian around the house?
Geoffrey:
Explain the grad strategic threat that Kyiv or other Ukrainiam cities pose to Russia that would justify Vlad in nuking them?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10588875/Ukraine-war-Russian-advance-slows-significantly-children-hurt-strikes.html
Ex-CIA official (always trustworthy) warns that in worst case Putin could use small tactical nukes on Ukrainian cities. Not to worry Geoffrey or Vlad, Ukrainian nukes were given up decades ago.
Sucks to trust the CIA ultimate suck is to trust the Roosians (that’s the Greater Russia tyrants).
I read a lot of criticism of California here, and I am not sure many readers of this blog know that there is strong political division in CA. When I drive across the state border with NV (where I live), I see signs “Welcome to the State of Jefferson” and many Trump flags and political slogans.
After the 2016 national election I looked at the county-by-county results for the state, and saw that nearly the entire state once you moved 100 miles in from the Pacific Ocean had voted for Trump. Since the highest concentration of population is in the western part of the state, those voters carried the day for Hillary.
But it is truly a divided state politically and electorally, and the division pretty closely tracks with the San Andreas fault. Meaning, of course, that if the big one ever hits and the western part of the state falls into the ocean, what is left will be more red than blue.
So please don’t continue to call for California’s separation from the USA — be more specific in your political criticism of the state. Call for secession from the San Andreas fault west!
“Putin is demanding a permanently neutral western Ukraine.”–I can understand and appreciate that wish. I would welcome an explanation of how a “neutral” Ukraine would remain protected from absorption by Russia. I worry that “neutral” simply means “permanently disarmed and helpless before a dictator with proven territorial ambitions on that exact country.”
None of which is to say that I can see a clear path to NATO membership for Ukraine. I have been using the analogy of a battered wife who intends to clear out the bank account and escape with her kids to a shelter. If she has to enter into public years-long negotiations with the shelter first, what will her abusive husband do to prevent her walking out the door? Unless NATO had some kind of provisional protection available for applicants during that supremely dangerous limbo period, it seems that even an application for NATO membership dooms some applicants, unless they are very well armed indeed. One of the few good things I see coming out of this disaster is a renewed clarity of thinking among Russia’s neighboring countries about what their defense spending and training should look like, not to mention their economic and energy independence needs.
The “NATO made him do it” argument isn’t particularly strong if you accept these propositions:
1). Putin is not a complete idiot.
2). Putin is largely sane.
3.) Putin’s ultimate goal and hoped for legacy is bringing the old Soviet Eastern Bloc countries with large populations of ethnically slavic peoples back into Russia’s sphere of control as suzerainties with puppet governments that answer to Moscow.
As for NATO expansion being any sort of motivator in Putin’s thinking, it is a factor only due to its usefulness as a pretense for this current invasion for the Russian people’s consumption, and perhaps as putting a timeline for the ideal opportunity to invade.
Assuming points 1 and 2 are true, Putin would’ve never believed that NATO would actually conduct some sort of unprovoked land invasion of Russia. He’d have to completely misunderstand Western thinking to believe that a ground invasion of Russia was ever likely to happen. Therefore the only reason he fussed about NATO expansion for years and years is simply because it would make it more difficult for him to seize territory in the future. The expansion of NATO in and of itself only encouraged him in so much as it put a timeline on his invasion plans. If he wasn’t planning on invading, there’d be little reason for him to care that much about NATO. In fact if anything, it could be argued that he may have invaded sooner if it weren’t for NATO.
But either way, at this point it’s clear that he always wanted to invade regardless of NATO expansion. It was really just a question of when. And all the stars aligned for him over the past year. We have a weak American president who has curtailed domestic oil drilling. We have an American public that has had a belly full of foriegn wars and is therefore deeply disinclined to intervene militarily. And we have an EU that is deeply dependent on Russian oil.
Nonapod:
The related argument that Vlad feared a nuclear strike from Ukraine that would be capable of decapitating his reformed is fatuous at best. Just do a tally of the number of warheads necessary to do that with reasonable probability (overkill), likely thousands, and the consider how Ukraine would produce or pay for such capability.
But NATO would do it! Not going to happen. Tripwires don’t in themselves destroy Roosia.
Not a serious argument, but a usefull pretext for Vlad.
“As for NATO expansion being any sort of motivator in Putin’s thinking, it is a factor only due to its usefulness as a pretense for this current invasion for the Russian people’s consumption, and perhaps as putting a timeline for the ideal opportunity to invade.”
Russia has been complaining about NATO expansion since at least the mid-1990s.
Does it bother ANYBODY that the people telling you Putin is just this evil guy doing an evil thing because he’s evil are pretty much the EXACT SAME PEOPLE who told you Russia put Donald Trump in the White House?
Mike
Another not serious argument IMO. All caps doesn’t help.
MBunge:
NATO is in the business of checking the expansionist desires of Russia to gobble up other countries. It’s in that business with good reason.
So of course Russia objects to it and has for ages. That is a given and also irrelevant.
It is now being used by Russia as an excuse to invade another country – a country that wasn’t really close to becoming a NATO member (although it wanted to be, also for obvious and completely understandable and justified protective reasons). The real question is why people in the US are embracing this reason from Russia. I can think of many reasons they are and intend to write a post on the subject.
Nor does disbelieving Russia’s NATO reasons mean that we must fight a war with Russia. The two are separate issues: what’s going on, and what we should do about it.
As for your question: “Does it bother ANYBODY that the people telling you Putin is just this evil guy doing an evil thing because he’s evil are pretty much the EXACT SAME PEOPLE who told you Russia put Donald Trump in the White House?”
Do you really think most commenters here listen to those people and follow their advice? Surely you know readers here better than to insult them like that. I can assure you that those people you mention are not my guides here.
Another commenter recently asked much the same question as you, and I’ve already answered him here. Take a look.
Neo pretty much sums it up nicely. It’s ridiculous to assert that just because there are people who may think of Putin as evil it necessarily also means that they absolutely want to start a full shooting war with Russia, or that they’re under the spell of Deep State knaves and fools.
Mike: “Does it bother ANYBODY that the people telling you Putin is just this evil guy doing an evil thing because he’s evil are pretty much the EXACT SAME PEOPLE who told you Russia put Donald Trump in the White House?”
Yes, Mike, it bothers me. It bothers me a great deal. Not because I’m incapable of evaluating arguments on their own merits or because I’m a Putin apologist, but because I see these people–some of whom are former friends and colleagues–cynically using the war in Ukraine as a way of destroying their domestic political opposition, discrediting populist political movements (e.g. Brexit) and leaders (e.g. Trump, DeSantis, Farage, Orban), and consolidating their own power. Since I’m for the populists–the Physicals, in N. S. Lyons’ formulation–and against our rotten political class, I hope the commentariat’s water-carrying on behalf of our rotten political class fails. That doesn’t mean I’m for Putin. It means I’m against them.
Some of those people are doing it, but they have “always” been sons of bachelors, see, “Leopards and spots.”
I just now returned to this thread. Believe it or not, it does get exhausting having to repeat the same points in response to accusations that either do not directly address the points I’ve made, or that simply discount them without offering any factual rebuttal of them.
Once more onto the breach.
om,
No, I do not trust the Russians. Nor on this matter do I trust the West. I do acknowledge obvious and undeniable National Security concerns that are confirmed by standard, universally accepted military doctrine and thus legitimised.
I do accept as legitimate, assertions by Russia of their ‘fears’ because every Russian leader has shared them and so many knowledgeable Western experts acknowledge them as legitimate. Experts that I have taken the time to list here. I can provide more if needed.
I do not accept as legitimate, assertions by NATO that it has no larger territorial ambitions based on its disregarding so many warnings not to enlarge NATO.
As for Putin’s purported territorial ambitions; it is a fact that Putin has limited himself to only securing territories adjacent to Russia’s borders. That continues to be the case with his invasion of the Ukraine. In each case he has done so after NATO and a hostile Ukrainian regime indicated through both their words and actions that they intended to, in NATO’s case place NATO upon Russia’s border and in Zalensky’s case, to deny Russia access to its important Naval Base at Sevastopol.
“one sided, facts and a historical perspective vs obstinacy.”
Nothing I have said has been counter factual. You haven’t a right to only your set of facts. It is you who obfuscates, responding to factual disagreement only with disparaging labels.
neo,
“Putin is not the least bit concerned about Ukraine attacking him with nuclear weapons”
It is not whether NATO would attack Russia with nuclear weapons. I agree that he cannot know whether that would ever occur. Which again, doesn’t matter. It is the ability, the capability to do so in a manner in which Russia could not defend itself that Russia cannot allow.
I recall your rationale in support of your POV. I disagree because that rationale does not comport with virtually every standard military doctrine in the world.
“A new Greater Russia has been his goal and dream since the undoing of what he sees as the great tragedy of the USSR’s breakup.”
I’ve never denied that not to be a factor. It’s just not dispositive in regard to Russia’s “red line”.
“The rest is his propaganda “
Legitimate national security “red lines” are not propaganda.
No Nation will willingly accept what they believe to be a hostile power upon its border. In that regard, whether NATO is actually hostile is irrelevant. What is relevant is Russia’s perspective. One they developed over decades in observing NATO’s words and actions, which have convinced the Russians of its accuracy.
FOAF,
Please provide us a reliable, unbiased source…
Art,
Zelensky is a native Russian speaker, Biden is a native American speaker…
om,
It is not Kyiv or other Ukrainian cities that Putin would nuke.
Expressing a resolve to use them, if forced to… is exactly our position as well. Both sides have claimed the right to decide if a first strike is justified. In effect, you’ve posited that Biden, Macron and Boris would be justified in launching a first strike while Putin, no matter what the West does, could never have justification for doing so.
Ex-CIA official… well, there’s an unimpeachable source…
“Call for secession from the San Andreas fault west!” F
Here, here! Where’s a tsunami when one is needed? But seriously, even in the heart of darkness there exist sane conservatives.
Wendy,
“I would welcome an explanation of how a “neutral” Ukraine would remain protected from absorption by Russia.”
Russia’s l leaders from Gorbachev to Yeltsin to Putin have consistently and repeatedly declared that a permanently neutral Ukraine best serves Russia’s National Security. As Russia sees an absolute necessity for a buffer state between it and NATO.
Nonapod,
There are and have been more than a few highly placed, knowledgeable officials directly involved with the Russians who argue otherwise.
om,
One nuclear cruise missile successfully detonated upon impact with the Kremlin, when Putin was conducting a high level meeting with Russia’s top military echelons would decapitate Russia’s command and control. If undetected until mere seconds remained Moscow’s defense system might well fail to stop it.
That is a scenario that any competent military strategist must consider. The only way to prevent it is to not allow the capability to occur in the first place. Thus Ukraine’s red line status for Russia.
In MBunge’s 100 word comment, 4 capitalized words used as emphasis is not unreasonable.
“NATO is in the business of checking the expansionist desires of Russia to gobble up other countries. It’s in that business with good reason.” neo
That presumption is contraindicated, Russia has not advanced toward NATO. NATO has advanced toward Russia. In the case of Georgia and now the Ukraine, Putin’s Russia responded to NATO’s announcement that NATO intended to park itself on Russia’s borders with the West actively involved in supporting that advancement. In the case of Putin’s annexation of the Crimea, the Ukrainian western oriented government was making a concerted effort to put in place conditions that would in time deny Russia access to its Sevastopol Naval Base. It is a fact that Putin has limited his “expansionist desires” to protecting his borders from NATO securing itself upon Russia’s borders. Nor are the Baltic States a contradiction, in 1999 when NATO accepted the Baltic States application to join NATO, Russia did not have the ability to resist and Putin had just assumed Russia’s leadership and had yet to secure full control.
Geoffrey Britain:
I didn’t say that Putin doesn’t know whether NATO would do a nuclear first strike on him. I have indicated that he knows they would not.
As far as the rest of it goes, I’ve answered you many times with specifics and have explained what Putin has actually said and what he has actually done. I see no purpose in going through the same facts and arguments again. But if you were addressing me by referring to “accusations that either do not directly address the points I’ve made, or that simply discount them without offering any factual rebuttal of them,” you certainly are wrong about the arguments I’ve mounted towards your assertions.
You either accept my arguments or you don’t at this point. We disagree and that’s that.
Once more onto the breach.
That’s 940 words worth of blather from you. Can’t be bothered.
Geoffrey:
All these years, since the 1980s at least, building nuclear weapons of various kinds were an absolute waste. If only we had known that it only took one cruise missile to destroy the leadership of Russia or the USSR! A nuclear “Land Shark” delivered in 13 minutes! (sarcasm entire paragraph)
Geoffrey, it’s a good thing that Vlad has never heard of deception, countermeasures, bunkers, or MAD. And of course that awesome nuclear candygram would be 100% accurate, 100% reliable, and we would know with 100% certainty where Vlad was and is.
Seriously, Geoffrey?