Remember that reset with Russia?
A little stroll down memory lane:
The appeasement policy began in February 2009. Russia had invaded its neighbor and former client state, Georgia, six months earlier. The lame-duck George W. Bush administration planned to put missile defense structures in Eastern Europe to deter Russian aggression against its neighbors.
But one of the Obama-Biden administration’s first foreign policy maneuvers was to cancel that plan via a “secret letter” to Putin’s placeholder, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. Why? U.S. leaders apparently wanted to make deals with Russia, and giant missile silos in Putin’s backyard were a nonstarter for Moscow.
But the canceled missile defense in Eastern Europe was only the beginning in a long line of concessions to Russia that not only emboldened Putin, but advanced Russian military capabilities in ways that are now having deadly consequences for Ukrainian civilians (think hypersonic missiles) while threatening the global economy.
Please read the whole thing. You probably remember a lot of the events it describes, but it’s really quite extraordinary when put all together in one article like that.
And now, in 2022, those events take on even more significance in retrospect.
It turns out that Hillary and Biden are tools of Russia. We know how Slow Joe was paid, but what about Barack and the Clintons?
All the Dems care about is money. China and Russia First,
The FBI need to check the crypto accounts of the Obamas, Bidens and Clintons. Sell outs.
Inconvenient truths. Facts are like that. Roosia being an aggressive predatory state enabled by corrupt Democrats, and 13 years later here we are.
Well, some Democrats were in league with the USSR from time to time, such as Teddy the swimmer, so the Democrats of late are not such a surprise.
The Obamas and Clintons are much smarter about hiding their foreign bribe money. But not Slow Joe. Crackhead Hunter had to be his bag man. That’s why Joe misses the smarter (but long dead) Beau.
The Obamas and the Clintons saw how much money the Street was making in China. They wanted their cut. It wasn’t enough to shake down the Street for just campaign money.
I read Webb Hubbell’s book. The reason why he stole from his law firm and its clients was because he was jealous about the money the WalMart and frozen yogurt people were making. Idiot! Just buy WMT stock.
Same deal with the Obamas, Clintons and The Street/Hollywood crew. Jealous.
BTW, if it wasn’t for China, Hollywood would be hurting. The Chinese love those stupid super hero movies.
Well now Grandpa Joe is calling for the ultimate reset ‘regime change’.
Oh wait no he’s not says his handlers.
Good lord.
The Clinton Global Initiative was designed as a front for bribes from foreign powers to be sent to Bill and Hillary. We’re going to help all those poor people all over the world who have been left out of life’s lottery. Donations fell to zero within six months of Trump winning the 2016 election. The biggest donors were the Ukranians.
This is something a lot of people don’t seem to remember, especially now with the Russia baiting from the left in order to conceal their own follies, crimes, and so on. IIRC I remember seeing MBunge writing in another thread (IIRC it was something like “Putin isn’t Hitler but seems to have read his playbook) that this wasn’t comparable because the West hadn’t been going out of its way to appease Putin in the years prior.
On some level I agree that the West did not bend over quite as profoundly as it did to Hitler, in large part because of the way Hitler, Mussolini, the Japanese, and Stalin helped wash the desire for full on public appeasement out of the West’s desire, but the West certainly has appeased Putin in many important ways. Nor is this a problem merely with the Left or its favorite demonization target, Trump.
Every single US President I’ve lived under has opened their Presidential term trying to make overtures to Russia, claiming that they will be able to balm the wounds of the past, to make that pragmatic alliance with Putin, to “reset” all the problems. Often involving making rather cringy and even dishonorable overtures that involve throwing the likes of Georgia under the bus.
And every single US President I’ve lived under has been heartily manipulated and taken advantage of by Vova Putin. Both parties. All political leanings. This points to something much more profound, and while there ARE and HAVE BEEN longstanding bipartisan clustereffs and logjams in US Foreign Policy (such as the slavishness about Detente with the Soviets, support for Pakistan against India, and so on) and I think that this is part of it, I really don’t think this lies at the heart of the problem. What I think lies at the heart of the problem in this particular case is at least Putin himself, and somewhat more broadly the clique of former Chekists, security state operatives, bureaucrats, and oligarchs he represents/leads. Mark Steyn called it well more than a decade and a half ago in America Alone and has continued that “Russia” or at least the Russian leadership believes we will return to a bipolar world order and that they will get more benefit from being aligned with the anti-American pole, which I think is handily supported by the way they have been rather omnivorous in courting anti-American regimes of every stripe (with the uneasy Axis they have with Beijing being most evident, but also extending to the likes of their precursor the USSR’s old allies in Cuba, and the Islamist apocalypticism in Iran) as well as the snubbing of most US diplomatic offenses for a kind of “Grand Bargain.”
(On a side note, Steyn has long been one of the most brilliant and prophetic but sober reading and I highly recommend looking through him. He has long had a note of bitterly observing how “respectable opinion” has been catching up with what he sad decades ago.)
This is also, I think, because even shallow appeals to reform, national self-determination in former Soviet space, and so on are rather profound threats to the power of this group and those close to him, not helped by how rather inconsistent they have been in engaging with it. One might argue that many of these proposals are insincere coming from a group of globalists that have helped expand the leviathan of the state through the “medical emergency”, have tried to clamp down on things like the right to protest, and so forth. This is often true but it is less important than what effect this can have.
One reason I think Euromaidan struck Putin so profoundly and made him act out was not only because of the valuable strategic place Ukraine has in Russia’s orbit, but also because of how profoundly similar their post-Soviet political cultures and histories were (albeit without such a strong authoritarian figure having emerged in Ukraine, in spite of Yanukovych’s efforts to be it and arguably that of some of the opposing Orange leaders). One reason I think he is so fervent at trying to delegitimize it as a “coup” in spite of how the crucial “coup” was actually a combination of protests and above all Yanukovych’s own Rada (just as “Democratically Elected” as he was) removing him for fleeing the country to avoid addressing his abuses of power.
Soros and a lot of globalists bad actors supported the Orange opposition and Euromaidan for a long time and support the Ukrainian effort now to a lesser degree, that is true. However, they had supported the Orange movement for years, often to limited effect such as during the rules of Kuchima and the “Doldrums” of Orange decline under Yuschenko and Yanukovych’s re-emergence during the opposite sides of 2010. What they DID NOT do (at least substantially) was cause growing anger at the Russo-Ukrainian tariff war in the traditionally pro-Russian, Russian-speaking Donbas and Crimea, or minority but non-trivial amount of those people to join Euromaidan. Let alone the “Mercenary Protestors’ that had sprung up in Kyiv over the decade and a half of prior civil unrest in Ukraine to turn firmly to the opposition because Yanukovych’s rough and crude attempts to stamp out public dissent (encouraged in no small part by Putin) threatened their livelihoods.
More than anything, Euromaidan provides a sort of crystal ball for one possible future for Russia, a possible way in which Putin gets removed from power, much like his Ukrainian client did. The fact that the event happened not just because of the actions of long-time opponents but also surgical defections from “their” voting bloc and culminating with the abandonment by “their” party just makes it worse. Especially for someone like Putin, who has everything to lose and at his age is probably thinking more like other old people do about security.
For all of his posturing as a ‘nationalist” or particularly a “traditionalist” who “loves Russia”, Putin has been awfully quick to sacrifice Russians and Russian traditions on the altar of his own power and the stability of his regime. Nowhere is this more evident than his involvement with Kadyrov, who has essentially turned Chechnya into a Diet-Islamist regime that pays nominal lip service for fealty to the Russian regime (and significantly more than lip service in terms of providing armed combat units) in exchange for vast autonomy and the ability to wage a silent cultural war against the region’s Christian institutions. Putin has permitted this in large part to avoid having to refight Chechnya again after making his political career off of “I won the Second Chechen War”, the fate of actual Russian nationals and cultural identity in the region be damned. But while he’s willing to patronize and defend Kadyrov as someone willing to kiss the ring (even against challenges and opposition from high up in his own regime), the prospect of factions that DO NOT is another thing entirely.
“With the “reset” in shambles, the Obama-Biden-Clinton players pivoted to Ukraine. In 2014, the U.S. helped overthrow the pro-Russian Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych and installed a more Western-friendly regime.
“Biden’s willing … to help to midwife this thing,” said Obama State Department official Victoria Nuland on a leaked call with the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt. She was talking about installing a pro-European Union, pro-NATO Ukrainian named Arseniy Yatsenyuk as prime minister of Ukraine.”
@Geoffrey Britain Mate, stop while you’re behind.
Even if we completely set aside the “interpretation differences” in which you tried to act as if a single sentence of Article 3 in Astana could nullify what that very article refers to as an “inherent right”….
You got caught clearly mis-reading a quote from Neo. turning:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas#Displaced_population
Into:
I hope I do not have to explain to you your inaccurate recitation differs from what Neo’s “Wiki link” actually says and how 1.3 Million internally displaced people and about 650,000+ displaced to Russia DOES NOT translate into 1.3 Million displaced Russophones fleeing into Russia.
To compound the fact that you mangled what Wiki said, you then used your erroneous reading of the evidence to claim.
Which is simply fucking absurd, since the assaults upon “Western sympathizing Ukrainians” and others by Russian forces and Donbas separatists had been noted well, and pace the source WOULD HAVE BY DEFINITION BEEN INCLUDED in the 1.3 Million displaced people.
And this is before we get into you mangling basic geography.
To those who are not so aware, here’s the rough location of “the Donbas region” consisting of the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts, from a few years back.
https://static.dw.com/image/60789828_7.png
And here is a map of Odessa (spelled “Odesa” here).
https://cdn.britannica.com/72/64472-050-F70D46EC/Odessa-Ukraine.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odessa_Oblast
As you might notice, they are on the OPPOSITE SIDES of the freaking country.
These are just the two most indisputable, factually objective, and easy-to-clearly-illustrate examples of how your fact-checking and verification frankly Sucks. Though there is more on my lengthy responses here, these two oopsies are important because tehy cannot be handwaved away as being a result of “different viewpoints” or “interpretations” or me being biased.
https://www.thenewneo.com/2022/03/22/siege/
In any case, it clearly underlines you neither know enough to opine, nor are careful enough fact-checking basic points of reference. And it’s kind of annoying.
Finally: “US helped overthrow the pro-Russian Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych and installed a more Western-friendly regime” is a hell of a lot more sinister and flattering than “Yanukovych refused to answer before his democratically-elected Rada (dominated by his own party and the coalition supporting it), resulting in him fleeing the country and being stripped of the Presidency due to incapacity.”
@Neo @Carmen
Damn Spammer detected.
What I don’t understand is why Geoffrey picked Vlad as the hill to on which to shred his credibility (if only on Roosia and the world).
I didn’t know the details but knew the enriching the powerful of all government personal could be the only reason a war is going on and why our Government cares.
Skip:
That’s quite a theory you’re got there. The only reason, eh?
Turtler:
I’m in transit right now and can’t fix it at the moment. I plan to take care of it later, though.
Thanks for great reminder of lousy real history – and how corrupt the Dems are.
@ om > “What I don’t understand is why Geoffrey picked Vlad as the hill to on which to shred his credibility (if only on Roosia and the world).”
I’ve been interested in that also.
GB’s history in comments here has not heretofore been overly controversial, or patently untrustworthy, as it seems to have become.
I’m not arguing that he is wrong to consider the NATO question as the primary motivation for Putin’s actions (many “famous pundits” are doing so), but his persistence against all contrary opinion and evidence is uncharacteristic.
He also persists in grabbing anything that exonerates Putin without regard to the sources (citing Russian media without any caveats, for one), and yet insists he is opposed to Putin’s grab in Ukraine.
Something just doesn’t add up.
And it didn’t start there. It started with Bill Clinton going soft on Yeltsin when Moscow was in clear violation of pretty much every strategic arms treaty they were a signatory to in the 1990s.
This includes not just START and SALT, but also the Biological weapons convention and the ban on chemical weapons.
And now of course we know that Moscow has been in violation of the INF treaty for decades as well.
Another “Biden” gift to his best buddy (or one of them)?
“https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/careless-talk-costs-lives-bidens-gift-to-putin/”
H/T Instapundit
Not only that, but a “gift” that—rhetorically—makes it appear that “Biden” wants Putin’s scalp.
Hmm. For the “conspiracy” theorists among us—who believe that “Biden” and Putin have this bromance going but that “Biden” MUST make it appear that no such thing exsts—that would be “simply perfect”… (especially since such an “awful mistake” HAS to be “walked back” by the State Department, led by DIS-HONEST A. BLINKEN….)
…As back in the “real” world, Israel’s political leaders prepare to bend down even lower…
“‘Normalization with Israel becoming the new normal’;
“Israel’s President Isaac Herzog held a diplomatic meeting with U.S. Secretary of State, Antony Blinken today.”—
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/324712
“‘The Middle East is changing for the better, we’re overcoming forces of darkness’;
“‘We’re working together to overcome forces of darkness,’ says Bennett during meeting with Blinken ahead of Negev Summit with Arab powers.”—
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/324720
“Foreign Minister Lapid: ‘We may disagree, but open dialogue is our strength’;
“US Secretary of State Blinken and Israel’s FM Lapid hold joint press conference, addressing Iran nuclear deal, war in Ukraine.”—
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/324705
Even as the White House worked to “walk back” Biden’s off-the-cuff call for regime change in Russia at the end of his speech in Poland, various left-wing commentators were calling this “historic,” comparable to Reagan’s “tear down this wall” speech. It was bad enough having Sen. Lindsey Graham shooting off his mouth about assassinating Putin.
The question remains…if we were willing to make significant concessions to Russia in terms of placing weaponry on NATO territory, why were we so indifferent to Russian concerns about Ukraine becoming a NATO member?
Mike
“He also persists in grabbing anything that exonerates Putin without regard to the sources (citing Russian media without any caveats, for one), and yet insists he is opposed to Putin’s grab in Ukraine.”
“Something just doesn’t add up.”
I suspect, though I can’t speak for GB, that he sees stuff like Twitter bluecheckmarks shouting “Hooray!” when Biden calls for Putin’s removal from power and feels like somebody needs to be shouting “Whoa!” in response.
Mike
Bunge:
Geoffrey rarely referres to Twitter, so you may be speaking for yourself.
Simple question…(for which there is likely no CONCRETE answer):
Does “Biden”‘s “Reagan moment” weaken Putin or strengthen him?
A. Doesn’t matter!
B. Yes! Absolutely!
C. No!! Positively!!
D. Maybe!!! Absolutely AND positively!!!
E. All of the above… (I think we have a winner!)
F. Don’t care!!!!!
G. Too soon to tell….?
H. Other….
Fire away all ye pundits? (Bumble away?)
I’m just curious why people are willing so militant about Putin now. The man has been a wolf prowling around the post block nations picking off stray sheep for over 2 decades. And now, when we know our political class is corrupt, we are asked to sacrifice and do extra ordinary things for people who have clear conflicts of interest.
It stinks. The whole thing stinks of manipulation and lies. I can’t discern what the real truth is, but I know propaganda when I see it. The west is filled with it, and I know the media alters the coverage of events to suit the interests of the monied class. Hell for all I know this might be an excuse to extract wealth from the middle class by justifying outrageous prices for energy.
Russia wants something from Ukraine. The Nato powers weren’t willing to provide support to deter the Russians before the invasion. They clearly aren’t willing to fight the Russians now. Yet, the propaganda machine keeps amping the pressure up on this crisis. So, pointing out the incongruity between the message and will isn’t pro-Putin.
Something about appeasement to a wolf upping his game and not changing his behavior after 20 years? Occam’s Razor.
I’m just curious why people are willing so militant about Putin now.
I dunno. Might have something to do with his attempt to conquer a neighboring country.
Russia wants something from Ukraine.
It wants it to cease to exist as such. For whatever reason, street-level Ukrainians aren’t on board with that and neither is their political leadership.
Barry Asks us “Does Biden’s ’Reagan moment’ weaken Putin or strengthen him?” is a trick question.
Because it really is two or three questions packed together — or a compound question.
First, consider the ‘moral force’ of sundowner. An aging grifter blowheart having a ‘senior’ presidency in fact, the kind of which was entirely and fatuously projected by the Left upon Reagan.
THIS, I submit, is pure gabblefab. Window dressing. It does not change the facts on the ground, which leads to the second question: can Putin be toppled? And then the third question: is there any reason to think, if he could be, would Russian policies about Ukraine change?
The serious answer to both questions is No. But we live in ridiculous, unserious times. And transparent lies about men becoming women are enthusiastically indulged.
Consider that 66% of Russian people agree that NATO or the US or Ukraine brought on this crisis, according to a Levada Center poll. Only 4% blame Russia.
Back in late February, when Russia sent troops into the Easternmost break-away Republics, “before the larger ongoing invasion, Levada’s director, Denis Volkov, noted that Russian respondents’ attitudes toward events in Ukraine had been years in the making. ‘They have several approaches to understanding the conflict and what’s happening more generally,’ he told the Meduza news site. ‘First: Everything is America’s fault. … America’s and the West’s. They’re pressuring Ukraine … and Russia must intervene … to help and to defend our own [people]’ there.”
https://russiamatters.org/blog/new-polls-what-do-russians-think-war-ukraine
So. There we are. We see the war as Putin’s evil choice. Russians see it as a war of necessity. Putin stays. And even if not, Russians will back staying in Ukraine.
Because you see our polls can be and have been manipulated and manipulative, but Roosian polls are objective and reliable. Yes, here we are, in the fog of war.
TJ:
One new factor could be a reluctance on the part of Russia to launch another full-scale invasion of Ukraine, though.
“I’m just curious why people are willing so militant about Putin now.
I dunno. Might have something to do with his attempt to conquer a neighboring country.”
When AD is right, he is right. I don’t dismiss questioning Ukraine joining NATO but talking about it is hardly sufficient justification for a full-scale war and invasion of a sovereign country.
Frank B:
Let me take stab at that one –
A huge invasion of a neighboring European country, complete with bombing civilians, that is preceded by an announcement that he’s ready and willing to nuke anyone who tries to stop him?
om: in the first place, as was noted in another thread, what the Russian “people” want may not have much to do with what their government does. Aside from that it is likely that most Russians are still not happy about losing the cold war and would like to restore Russia’s prominence as a superpower. How much pain they are willing to undergo for that is another question.
MBunge:
I don’t know what you are trying to say when you use the word “indifferent.”
I missed the part where Ukraine became part of NATO – which of course it never has, despite having wanted to be for a long time.
I also missed the part where Russia gets to dictate what nations NATO accepts and which it refuses.
FOAF:
I agree with you that what the Russian people want may not matter at all to Vlad.
As to whether they want to be a superpower again, well polls are a curious thing.
IIRC there was a vast difference during the superpower era of the USSR in the life of Soviet citizens (non-serfs) who lived within 10-20 km of Moscow (and Leningrad?) and all the rest (serfs). And there were restrictions and controls on who could be in the in those “prosperous” areas. A tangential thought probablly.
“may not matter at all to Vlad.”
Or to anyone who has ever ruled Russia/Soviet Union. Not trying to whitewash Putin but he is not an outlier for that country.
@MBunge
“ I suspect, though I can’t speak for GB, that he sees stuff like Twitter bluecheckmarks shouting “Hooray!” when Biden calls for Putin’s removal from power and feels like somebody needs to be shouting “Whoa!” in response.”
That’s a fair point and after years and years of fake news it is an entirely understandable instinct. One we could honestly use more of, and I do think it is not a coincidence that the left is going so hard on this just as public support and tolerance for COVIDiocy is collapsing. Likewise, I forget who and where it came up but someone did notice that many of the worst COVID/Mask Karen’s whave morphed into the most alarmist of the hawks on Ukraine.
Which is why my own stance- though very strongly anti-Putin and relatively pro-NATO and EU on this specific issue- is not to go screaming for a No Fly Zone or other theater that would escalate the West’s involvement (beyond what can be denied anyway) and distract from the greater struggle here.
But I have little patience for outright Kremlin disinformation and tortured or hypocritical logic.
“ The question remains…if we were willing to make significant concessions to Russia in terms of placing weaponry on NATO territory, why were we so indifferent to Russian concerns about Ukraine becoming a NATO member?”
We were in the whole NOT “so indifferent” to such Russian concerns, which is why they were repeatedly brought up. including in the now-much-belabored Astana Accords I’m which the Russian delegation (along with all others) agreed that- among other things- Ukraine had the right to join any alliance it wished, including none. Obviously they did not mean it, but that is on them.
Moreover, obsessing over Ukraine in NATO is ultimately a red herring. The war started in 2014 over an EU Association Agreement. So obviously Putin believes he has the right to violently inflict “takesy backsies” on a neutral nation and to violently crush any and all attempts to sign an agreements with the EU, let alone NATO.
And lest anybody think this was because of the Rada “couping” Yanukovych, Putin reacted very nastily to his chosen Ukrainian client the aforementioned Yanukovych trying to triangulate such an agreement, and the extremely heavy-handed pressure, the about face of Yanu’s turn around, and the token concessions Putin offered galvanized not just the usual “Orange” opposition but a lot of the Ukrainian mainstream and even some of the traditionally pro-Russian “Blues”, who it turned out are as fed up with siting in a rust belt with decaying economic prospects as anybody.
In part because Putin simply cannot wind down often decade long tariff wars, even with close Allie’s like Lukashenko.
Unexpected consequences of Vlad’s greater Roosia gamble? Time will tell.
https://redstate.com/streiff/2022/03/27/the-eu-khazakhstan-and-azerbaijan-all-show-how-moscows-power-is-slipping-away-because-the-russian-army-is-getting-thrashed-by-ukraine-n541647
Vlad better hope that his Belarussian vassal stays bought.
Cited in Powerlineblog.com
https://www.city-journal.org/does-putin-take-his-cue-from-alexander-dugin?wallit_nosession=1
Half baked or totally?
Om. Nothing I wrote about talked about appeasement. I’m talking about will.
The US and Western powers did not present the necessary will and ground work to deter the Russians from invading. Do they have the will to increase the cost of the invasion enough to stop it?
Frank B:
That is correct you did not use the A word. You just threw out a lot of chaff about manipulation and lies. And how the present situation stinks.
Well yeah, it stinks to be burned up in a burned out Russian HMMV clone or incinerated in a brewed up Russian tank or APC. Or to be on the other side of Russian brightness, in other words to be Ukrainian military or civilian. Pretty stinky all around.
Seems like the Ukrainians are showing quite a bit of will. And the evil West is sending ordnance and information to support them. Does Brandon have any will or smarts to do the right thing? The West shouldn’t count on that at all.
Will Vlad decide his Triumph of Will was a bad idea? Will he stop his aggression for now, and just wait for another opportunity? Sort of like Crimea, to Donbas, to the Ukrainian Road Show of 2022? What is it about Russia and despotism? Lies and mainpulation? Why can’t they have nice things?
“The question remains…if we were willing to make significant concessions to Russia in terms of placing weaponry on NATO territory, why were we so indifferent to Russian concerns about Ukraine becoming a NATO member?”
Ukraine is ineligible to join NATO and will remain so until it resolves its border dispute with Russia. In other words, Ukraine can’t join NATO without the acquiescence of Russia. To prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, all Russia had to do was absolutely nothing. No invasion was required. No anything was required.
I’ve come to the conclusion that people who keep repeating this NATO membership canard just want to blame the West for this war. Why that is, I don’t know. I wish I could figure it out.
@mkent
To be fair, the “border dispute” was and is a violent invasion and occupation of parts of Ukraine by the Russian military, whether openly or through proxies and “little green men”, or first secretly and then openly (as was the case in Crimea). So had Russia done absolutely nothing Ukraine might have been in a position to at least be further along the line of NATO membership.
Still, NATO Membership is overblown. The trigger for the invasion was not the NATO offers to allow Ukraine to start the joining process, it was Euromaidan and particularly the Rada’s removal of Yanukovych for a combination of his incapacity (due to fleeing the country) and crimes against the constitution.
@ om > “Unexpected consequences of Vlad’s greater Roosia gamble? Time will tell.”
Well, that post from streiff was interesting.
Stir it up in a pot with all the things that have gone on before, and add this –
https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2022/03/23/joe-biden-and-world-war-iii-for-dummies-n1583519
“Vladimir Putin has been informed reliably by the Western alliance that his exit — which in his case possibly includes a firing squad — is the price for peace.
Instead of building Putin a golden bridge to peace, Biden has backed him into a corner and dared him to lash out.
That’s the idiot’s way to start World War III, but from Joe Biden, what else did you expect?”
First, of course, Biden is not in charge; I’m not even sure Biden Inc. at the White House is in charge. I’m not even sure there IS a coherent Biden Inc. rather than multiple competing factions, all being played off against each other.
There is some suspicion that what has been treated as an ad-libbed gaffe (“For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”) was actually in his script, which makes the walk-back doubly strange, because it indicates that the Left Hand in the White House doesn’t know what the Lefter Hand is doing.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/03/chaos-in-the-white-house.php
At any rate, I don’t think this Game is ultimately about Ukraine at all.
My working hypothesis now is that the Players on Side X, whoever they may be, are out to dismantle Putin’s power in Russia, and either take control themselves or remove some perceived threat to whatever their Main Agenda is (New World Order, all the money in the universe, whatever).
To that end, they suckered him into the invasion, playing on: his own inclinations & prior “red lines” like the NATO pretext; a perceived opportunity in Biden’s waffling (whether authentic or contrived); and an optimistic scenario about the outcome.
Goading him into “lashing out” may be exactly what They want, because anger leads to mistakes, and a bruised ego is the worst possible foundation for successful warfare.
(I assume they are discounting the possibility that Putin will actually nuke anything; I sincerely hope they are correct, but goaded bulls are inherently unpredictable. Perhaps they have reliable insiders who can circumvent his doomsday orders, should he give them.)
Maybe they gambled that Ukraine would hold out as well as it has; maybe they were pretty sure about that; maybe it didn’t matter, because, in the long run, occupying Ukraine would be as bad for Putin as losing outright.
Regardless, Ukraine is the loss leader for their attempt to run their competitor into bankruptcy.
BUT the weird flip-flopping in Washington, the use of Russia to negotiate the Iran deal, the not-quite-enough help for Ukraine to win outright argue that there are also Players on Side Y who don’t want Putin ousted, in addition to the obvious set of Players on Side Z headed by Putin himself. Holdovers from the Communist infiltration in WW2, maybe?
Niall Ferguson doesn’t believe that the Game will work out for Side X.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-03-22/niall-ferguson-putin-and-biden-misunderstand-history-in-ukraine-war?sref=xzGl1Vcx
Nobody has a lock on the crystal ball for this one.
Aesop Fan:
Crystal ball? More like the old Magic 8 Ball is being used by all.
“Ukraine is ineligible to join NATO and will remain so until it resolves its border dispute with Russia.”
And if NATO decides to just change/ignore that rule and admit Ukraine as a member anyway? I think what aggravates those on my side of the argument is the sheer lack of independent thought demonstrated by the other side.
You don’t even have to believe NATO would break its rules to make Ukraine a member. You just have to consider that Russia might believe that.
Mike
Consider Bunge that NATO might just operate a little bit different that Vlad and The Russian Federation.
Oh, I forgot, that is inconceivable, because only my side (the Bunge opinion) is capable of independent thought.
“they suckered him into the invasion”
Oh please AF. I usually really like your comments but this is ridiculous. Unless you think Biden cratered American energy production strictly for the purpose of “sucker[ing] him into the invasion”.
However there is some evidence that Biden’s “gaffe” was scripted. Which makes you wonder what is happening since it was so quickly walked back by the adults in the administration (ok maybe late adolescents). I liked “the Left Hand doesn’t know what the Lefter Hand is doing”.
Frank B: Yet, the propaganda machine keeps amping the pressure up on this crisis.
Well, it IS a real crisis. Most likely it is because Biden has been failing and the media et al hoped this crisis would help Biden with a “rally around the flag” effect combined with distraction from his fuck ups. After all, Biden has tried to blame Putin for gas prices. And there has been clear effort to paint Biden’s speech as historic by some outlets.
Problem is he’s still Biden, his team is still a bunch of idiots, and everything they do fails.
My working hypothesis now is that the Players on Side X, whoever they may be, are out to dismantle Putin’s power in Russia, and either take control themselves or remove some perceived threat to whatever their Main Agenda is (New World Order, all the money in the universe, whatever).
To that end, they suckered him into the invasion, playing on: his own inclinations & prior “red lines” like the NATO pretext; a perceived opportunity in Biden’s waffling (whether authentic or contrived); and an optimistic scenario about the outcome.
They are not genies doing 47 dimension chess. They are idiots.
I don’t think the intent of anything was to bring down Putin. They are just reacting to things trying to have a “win”. Biden offered Zelensky an easy out he refused, had he taken it up Ukraine would have collapsed and Putin’s plan would have worked. I’m not sure if that was Biden being an idiot, or if that was Biden attempting to aid Putin.
The establishment in Western Europe and the US all were happy with Putin prior to this. He was a useful boogie man they didn’t take as a real threat. His invasion of Ukraine shocked them, since they don’t understand the true nature of the world. Hence why they trust China, asked China to help with Putin, etc.
Our elites are smart in a manner but their core beliefs are wrong and they are stupid in many respects.
Don:
I agree with you. They are “intelligent” and yet abysmally stupid, and this was not some grand conspiracy.
That’s not to say that things like The Great Reset aren’t real.
MBunge:
And yet NATO has given no indication of doing such a thing.
Anything is possible for just about anyone, but that’s not a very convincing argument for something.
If I’m a betting man I’m betting we’re going to war. Joey Plugs has no other play. His domestic agenda is in shambles & prospects for improvements are near zero. He needs to change the subject & the media is willing to do everything they can to help. We’re in for a bumpy ride.
Sadly you could be right Bill. One of the explanations for Biden’s mouthing off about Putin is that he knows he is perceived as weak so he had to say something that sounded “strong”. Without regard for the far-reaching implications. It reminded me of one of the key reasons I quit voting for Dems many years ago, because they treated national security as nothing but a political football.
I agree with you. They are “intelligent” and yet abysmally stupid, and this was not some grand conspiracy.
That’s not to say that things like The Great Reset aren’t real.
neo,
Yeah. Well we watched as they pushed Russia collusion for years, then flipped to the Ukraine phone call, then to Covid/BLM riots/altering election law via courts, then moved on to Jan6. Even as it became clear they lied about Covid origins.
It’s clear they are willing to use just about any means to maintain power over us. They use media and the legal system to further their goals. We certainly haven’t see the worst they will do. We have no reason to think they won’t do whatever any other authoritarians have done if they think they need to.
At the same time there is an incompetence and a strange stupidity that hampers them and might also make them more dangerous. I think this is related to the left rejecting reality, their focus on narrative, and a failure at practical competence. I find this fascinating, but it is also very bad for our country and civilization.
FOAF,
It is also like Biden calling Putin a killer to his face, according to Biden. Then later when we watched the beginning of their personal face-to-face (IIRC put out by the Russians) Biden was telling Putin how they hadn’t met in a long time, etc., acting like he was Putin’s close friend.
It is clear that Biden never called Putin a killer. He was lying, playing the tough guy, but he’s not like that with Putin face to face.
I’m pretty sure Putin, Xi, et al all know Biden is a phony. A weak man with no leadership skills who’s plan as POTUS was to slide by using the power of the US to shield him while his handlers dismantle America.
Don,
I think your right. The Western Media smack talk comes off as cope over the fact the NATO forces have a weak hand in Washington.
It’s just so weak and pathetic. Of course bad actors are going to act up when they think the Sheriff is a dope. It’s sprialling failure.
“And if NATO decides to just change/ignore that rule and admit Ukraine as a member anyway? I think what aggravates those on my side of the argument is the sheer lack of independent thought demonstrated by the other side.”
And what aggravates those of us on our side of the argument is the sheer lack of logical thought demonstrated by your side.
My pointing out Ukraine’s ineligibility for NATO membership is in response to your side’s blaming America, the West, and NATO for the Russia / Ukraine war. “This whole war could have been prevented” your side says “if only Ukraine renounced NATO membership or America / the West / NATO announced that Ukraine would never join NATO.” Some even say “The war would end today if a single NATO member announced it would never accept Ukraine as a member.”
Your argument above puts the lie to that claim. If NATO can’t be trusted to live by its own rules, then no assurance by either Ukraine or NATO can ever be enough to forswear Ukraine’s eventual NATO membership. Which means the Russian conquest of Ukraine was always inevitable. The argument implies the right of Russia to invade and conquer its neighbors regardless of circumstance.
On the flip side, the inevitability of Russia’s conquest of its neighbors makes NATO membership by said neighbors an absolute necessity. It’s either join NATO or live like serfs under the Russian yoke.
All of this follows logically from your first sentence quoted above.
(Under the same logic and GB’s “13 minutes” consideration, an all-out first-strike nuclear attack by Russia on the entire West is also inevitable regardless of circumstance. Fortunately for us, neither the Soviet Union nor Russia to date have operated under that consideration.)
@MBunge
This is at best an oversimplification or crude summary, and might be a strawman.
While I can speak only for myself, I am more than happy to admit that Russia might believe or consider that NATO would break its rules. HOWEVER, there is a difference between me conceding that the Russian Kremlin might believe or consider such a thing, and conceding that it would STRONGLY believe or consider such a possibility. I simply reject the latter.
The truth is, the Putin regime and its allied cliques have proven remarkably adept at predicting and even pre-empting Western decisions and this skill has allowed them to do things like repeatedly play Western leadership as dupes by taking one new US administration after another to the cleaners during the initial (and predictably failed) attempts at an early term “honeymoon” or “makeup” with Putin. Of course they have not been perfect and have repeatedly overplayed their hand, underestimated us or even the Left, and suffered the consequences (Such as this), but that does not remove the fact that they are rational or at least thinking actors capable of considering different possibilities and their probabilities.
Moreover, your argument ignores this very fact. A cursory study of post-Soviet history shows that the Russian government has repeatedly either started new or exacerbated existing internal conflicts in neutral nations on its “near abroad” in order to pre-empt NATO eligibility. Indeed, the 2014 invasion of Ukraine and now this escalation fit in with a LONG and readily visible pattern going through Georgia 2008, Georgia and Moldova in the early 1990s, and so forth.
Which is either predicated on or HEAVILY LEANS ON the rationale that by doing this, the Russian government will be able to prevent these nations from seeking to join NATO or vice versa. A calculation and methodology that so far has proven remarkably successful, given how we are still staring at a Russian puppet state in Transnistria and asking what the hell it will do (if anything) more than a quarter century after its “war of independence.”
Sure, maybe this calculus will backfire on the Russians from NATO changing the rules, and maybe some in the Kremlin considered this possibility as a contingency plan. But that doesn’t change the fact that Russian geostrategy has very clearly used, abused, and benefitted from NATO’s adherence to its membership rules by incorporating it into their planning. NATO possibly doing a 180 degree change will not change the facts of that prior planning and incorporation.
Apparently you and “your side” either do not consider or give short at LEAST as short shrift to that demonstrable pattern of Russian state behavior as you accuse your opponents of not considering the *hypothetical possibility* that Russia MIGHT have considered that NATO would change its rules and might act upon that (up until now mistaken) assumption.
In any case, the Russian Kremlin has happily set neutral nations alight in order to deter or block integration not just with NATO but also with the EU. So I find this rather moot, and it is a sad you think this is a lack of independent thought.
@ FOAF > “Oh please AF. I usually really like your comments but this is ridiculous. Unless you think Biden cratered American energy production strictly for the purpose of “sucker[ing] him into the invasion”. -”
Suckered may have been too strong a word; “baited a trap” for Putin might be closer to what might be going on, if my list of the “baits” holds up [his [Putin’s]own inclinations [to restore the Russian empire] & prior “red lines” like the NATO pretext; a perceived opportunity in Biden’s waffling (whether authentic or contrived); and an optimistic scenario [bad intel or wishful thinking or both] about the outcome.]
Some other people are thinking along the same lines, although they seem to think Biden Inc (or at least some faction thereof) is taking advantage of Putin’s invasion instead of having tried to induce it.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/03/how-low-can-biden-fall.php
Steven Hayward
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/mr-putin-end-this-war-bidens-blunder-was-no-reagan-replay
Byron York
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/what-if-the-u-s-really-did-want-regime-change-in-russia/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=blog-post&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=top-bar-latest&utm_term=fourth
Geraghty
I don’t know how cratering US energy fits into a regime change scheme, so I didn’t mention it before.
I don’t know how using Russia to broker the deal with Iran fits into any scheme to take down Putin.
I don’t know why Biden’s handlers let him off the leash at all.
The problem with connecting the dots in this situation is that they seem to have been splashed on the paper by a juvenile Andy Warhol.
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.7cvGWK4FGnLPjda56EqDLwHaFP%26pid%3DApi%26h%3D160&f=1
(continued)
FOAF > “However there is some evidence that Biden’s “gaffe” was scripted. Which makes you wonder what is happening since it was so quickly walked back by the adults in the administration (ok maybe late adolescents).”
Biden’s attempts to clean-up the walk-back just made everything even more confusing.
Those contradictions, plus the others, are why I introduced two factions in Biden’s White House (X and Y).
I don’t even think they are past the toddler-with-tantrums stage.
https://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2022/03/1-71.png?w=513&ssl=1
“I liked “the Left Hand doesn’t know what the Lefter Hand is doing”.”
Thanks – I kind of liked that bon mot myself! There doesn’t appear to be any Right Hand in the mix at all, but there may be a Gripping Hand somewhere about.
And om is probably right about them using the Magic 8 Ball to make decisions.
(continued)
And I forgot the other really puzzling contradiction to the regime change hypothesis, or even the “I Heart Ukraine” rah-rah, which was “Biden’s” offer to “help” Zelenskyy flee Ukraine – which he memorably declined – because if he had accepted, that would have almost guaranteed Putin a quick win.
(Only “almost,” because there might have been a grass-roots rallying of the opposition to the Russians, but having the Ukrainian President and his administration actually administering the fight is much more effective.)
Two factions in the administration and/or Deep State? Three? Serious in-fighting over the ultimate goal, or just mucking up each other’s stratagems for personal reasons?
The data points we have just don’t make sense, even as a politico-suspense-espionage thriller novel/movie with the obligatory twist ending.
Not sure one has to believe that there is anything but a single faction—Occam, etc.—which is trying to screw around with EVERYONE’s head and hence confuse the hell out of everyone…
…en route to NEW GREEN GLOBAL RESET, AKA perdition.
(‘Cuz they’re so brilliant. And so clever. And so cunning. And so fiiine…)
@ Barry > “Cuz they’re so brilliant. And so clever. And so cunning. And so fiiine…”
“You’re so vain, you probably think this war is about you.
You’re so vain, I’ll bet you think this war is about you.
Don’t you? Don’t you?”
There’s a song for every situation these days.
Don: “At the same time there is an incompetence and a strange stupidity that hampers them and might also make them more dangerous. I think this is related to the left rejecting reality, their focus on narrative, and a failure at practical competence. I find this fascinating, but it is also very bad for our country and civilization.”
Bingo. I have been saying this for a long time, that someone can be both a knave and a fool. More glaring under Biden even than when Obama was President.