Comments

Germany and Russia and Poland and Ukraine: some history and some speculation — 96 Comments

1. neo, I wondered the same thing regarding Putin’s mental stability. The tactics of the Russian army don’t seem logical in any sense, even if their motives are purely nefarious. It doesn’t seem like Putin is playing 3-D chess either.

   As you stated, why not go into the east and claim the Russian armies are aiding the Donbas in their wished for independence?

   But if one is going to breach other borders from other directions, AND move troops far into the interior why not a “shock and awe” approach? “Get rid of Zelenskyy and no one gets hurt?”

   And I have been watching news sources, including RT America and I have not heard the Russians state a clear goal. They are claiming to be protecting the Donbas and “eliminating nazis” from Ukraine, but there is no stated endgame.

   It’s not only an awful tragedy, and hellish, it’s absurd. When “war” meets “absurd” very, very bad things happen.

2. I wonder if some people who voted for Biden despite knowing he wasn’t really up to the job but figured it didn’t matter that much, are now having second thoughts. Wishful thinking I know.

   Historians often talk about the right man for the right time in history. We now seem to have the opposite. It’s hard to imagine a world leader who inspires less confidence than Biden. It is encouraging to see Europe finally starting to push back on Putin but the push back brings with it new dangers, if in fact Putin is really becoming more unstable. What would the response be if Putin decided to stop the arms flowing in to Ukraine from Poland?

3. I wonder if some people who voted for Biden despite knowing he wasn’t really up to the job but figured it didn’t matter that much, are now having second thoughts

   Gregory Harper:

   We have already seen Biden’s support dropping among blacks, hispanics and independents. So some people have had second thoughts and were willing to tell pollsters.

   I suspect there are a fair number of solid blue Dems who are wondering what they voted for and having second thoughts. But the trick would be getting them to admit it.

   Likewise I don’t believe the majority of Dems support the current trans mania, but they know better than to speak their truth aloud.

4. Putin and his army are getting a dose of reality. The Ukrainians (at least most of them) really don’t want to be dominated by Russia. There is a difference in motivation between an invading army who has no real provocation to motivate them as opposed to those defending their homes and land. The U.S. has seen the tenacity of resistance in our wars of resistance to first Communism and then terrorism. If Russia should overcome the Ukrainian army and try to occupy the Ukraine, they are likely to face a fierce underground resistance, as well as becoming a pariah among most nations. Putin may have gotten ahold of a tar baby.

   I don’t think Putin believed he would face much resistance. That was a big miscalculation. He also seems to be rather isolated and for some reason (illness – either mental or physical?) is not making carefully thought-out decisions. His mental stability is of importance because, like our C-in-C, he has access to the nuclear codes.

   I’m hoping and praying for a diplomatic solution. In the meantime, my admiration for the out-numbered, out-gunned Ukrainians is huge. FREEDOM!!!

5. I agree that Russia’s tactics don’t make much sense and if Ukrainians continue to resist with better arms, this could drag on for quite awhile. It’s hard to see an easy exit for Putin at this point. Watching his army slowly bleed in Ukraine while Russia is made a pariah on the world stage is not what he bargained for. I hope that cooler heads somewhere in the Russian military will prevail if Putin decides on further escalation.

6. One might consider the predictable result should Putin… lose.

   To protect the Ukraine from the possibility of future aggression by Russia’s ‘madman’… it’s a virtual certainty that NATO membership will be offered to the Ukraine. Zelensky has recently stated several times that he favors NATO membership for the Ukraine.

   Which would put NATO right on Russia’s doorstep.

   And of course, the Ukraine will have to be greatly strengthened militarily, again to deter the possibility of any future Russian aggression.

   The Russians will of course trust in the West’s future good intentions. Why would they not? We’re the good guys led by benign, for “the greater good”… leadership.

   But NATO right on Russia’s doorstep will be a reality any Russian leader will face, whether Putin or not.

   “Lord, what fools these mortals be!”

7. Geoffrey Britain:

   No, NATO membership for Ukraine is not a certainty, although it could indeed occur.

   However, help from Europe for Ukraine against Russian aggression would be a near–certainty, since it’s already happening now.

   NATO is already more or less at Russia’s doorstep, with friendly nations (except Belarus) in-between, and weapons that can reach Russia. That has been true for a long time.

   Would you like NATO to disband in order to please Putin?

   And give back all the countries that used to be part of the USSR? Would that please him? Or would he be upset if a non-Russian-controlled country had ANY borders with him?

8. If, indeed, the Russians are stymied, many things become possible. Putin could lose his support among the oligarchs. NATO could wind up becoming a real thing with an unstable Russia next door. China could see that Putin is a weaker ally and go for Siberia. He needed to win quickly to impress his “ally” China.

9. A couple of years ago, I would have said that the biggest threats to the planet are in Iran and North Korea, whereas Putin and Xi are at least rational; they’re not the good guys but they’re not going to blow us all up. I’ve definitely been rethinking that.

   Fear of NATO on Russia’s doorstep doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. NATO isn’t going to attack Russia and risk its member countries getting blown up. If Putin genuinely believes that NATO is going to be the aggressor, that really makes me wonder if he is thinking rationally at all.

10. I’m about half way through a book called “Stalin’s War” by Sean McMeekin. It covers thoroughly much of what neo writes about here. The most interesting revelation? That whole dividing up Poland thing? That was Stalin’s idea. The book also covers very well the Soviet invasion of Finland. I’m hoping the Russian invasion of Ukraine goes just as well.

11. “Breaking — Russia removed from SWIFT international banking system…”

    https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/breaking-russia-removed-from-swift-banking-system/

12. I do not speak or understand Russian, so my observations are limited to appearances and body language. Comparing videos of Putin in the past year in his speeches and public functions, his demeanor and bearing seem to have changed. Perhaps it is reaching the seventy year milestone, or lingering physical illnesses, or perhaps the great leader has developed a drug dependency.

    Undoubtedly he lives in a bubble without serious challenge or trusted advisors who are willing to push back on preposterous thinking or actions. Or maybe the stresses of having to ensure his continued survival and leadership have left him feeling he has nothing to lose. The old steely focus and firm confidence he previously showed isn’t the impression he gives these days, it’s something more unsettling and desperate.

    It seems the always trustworthy US intelligence community is dropping hints about his drug use affecting him, who knows? Their track record is not reassuring.

13. At this point, my guess, and that is what it is, a guess, is that Putin will eventually withdraw to the Eastern Portions of Ukraine and make some kind of peace treaty where he keeps the eastern portion.
    People are questioning why he would go past the eastern portion if that is all he wanted to take. Because he is taking the fight to the “ enemy” , and pounding them, then he withdraws, and the “ enemy” , ready for peace, agrees to the new eastern border.
    Yes, you heard it first here on NEO, from an old , former 96B , who spent a lot of time in the Balkans. Not that that matters much. But I could be wrong.

14. I rather doubt Putin is suffering from the sort of decline Biden is, but it does seem that Putin’s megalomania is out of control. He has previously been a bad actor, but a rational one. If he’d gone for just swallowing the eastern fringes of Ukraine, along the Sea of Asov to Crimea, he’d have gotten away with it.

    His line about Ukraine and Russia being one people historically doesn’t stand up to actual history.

    Viewing NATO as an aggressive force, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, is also not historically solid.

    Someone on Stuart Varney’s show on FoxBusiness on Friday commented that if he were Putin he’d be doubling his bodyguards. If Putin is now unstable, someone among the oligarchs may decide to get rid of him, as he has gotten rid of so many others.

15. Interesting thought on possible Putin drug problems. He accused the Ukrainian leadership of being drug addicts. Projection?

16. Understand, in the scenario I proposed above, Putin gets the Eastern portions of Ukraine recognized, in writing, by Ukraine and NATO nations. He gets it in writing.

17. He would be hard pressed to get it in writing if he had not gone pass the eastern Ukraine. Instead, he pounds them in the center and western parts of the nation and makes them weary of war.

18. neo,

    “No, NATO membership for Ukraine is not a certainty, although it could indeed occur.”

    If Putin is defeated, then IMO it is an absolute certainty that the Ukraine will become a member of NATO. Yet, I do hope I’m wrong because I greatly favor buffer states between NATO and Russia.

    “NATO is already more or less at Russia’s doorstep, with friendly nations (except Belarus) in-between, and weapons that can reach Russia. That has been true for a long time.”

    Again, IMO which I’ve now learned is an opinion shared by a number of experts, it is the proximity of the nations “more or less at Russia’s doorstep” that has led to Putin drawing a line at the Ukraine being seriously considered for NATO membership. Nor is this new, Putin’s government has been stating the Ukraine becoming a member of NATO to be a red line for Russia.

    I’m virtually certain that every Russian military strategist agrees on that point and so would any competent military strategist, if they were in that position. It’s military strategy 101.

    It’s probably true that those countries, as NATO members, possess “weapons that can reach Russia” but those weapons are not mere minutes away from Moscow, which they could be if placed in the Ukraine. Currently, Russia would have the time to safely determine if they were under attack from weapon systems launched from those countries. That would not be the case with weapon systems on Russia’s border. Especially nuclear cruise missiles, which are both hard to detect and have the destructive power to instantly wipe out Russia’s command and control.

    “Would you like NATO to disband in order to please Putin?”

    I’ve never suggested that, thought I am in favor of the US forcing the other NATO members to pay their fair share of the funding for NATO.

    “And give back all the countries that used to be part of the USSR?”

    No, I’m not in favor of that, since the possibility of Russia retaking those countries cannot be dismissed. All I’ve suggested is that when you place yourself in the Russians shoes, it’s entirely understandable that NATO on their borders is an entirely unacceptable national security risk for them.

    And that NATO’s long push eastward (which has to be driven by US pressure, since NATO is not about to cross the primary supplier of their security) is the primary driver of Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine. If he just wanted to gain territory, it would make more sense to limit himself to annexing just eastern Ukraine.

    “Would that please him?

    Of course it would please him but I do not think Putin has serious expectations of it even being a possibility.

    “Or would he be upset if a non-Russian-controlled country had ANY borders with him?”

    From a national security standpoint, Putin wants non-NATO, neutral, demilitarized buffer states on his borders because that is the optimum arrangement for Russia.

    Why is it so hard to even consider that, that might be the case?

19. Regarding Russia being removed from the SWIFT international banking system. I think it likely that his response will be to cut off both Europe’s and America’s gas imports from Russia. If so, it bodes ill for many of the Western European economies not to mention heating shortages. Their and our economy would take a hit. Add that to the other factors driving inflation and it could get nasty.

    I do not expect that banning Russia from accessing the SWIFT system will affect Russia’s military capabilities much at all. Putin has his own financial transaction system which reportedly can be connected to China’s proprietary financial transaction system.

    In fact, I wonder if it might accelerate China’s plans to displace the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency…

    As Tucker Carlson pointed out the other day, that would result in a depression with high inflation.

20. “US EIA Data on Russian Natural Gas and Oil”
    https://sites.uci.edu/energyobserver/2014/03/08/us-eia-data-on-russian-natural-gas-and-oil/

    This article is from 2014, with a good map of European countries dependence of Russian Gas and Oil. Given Germany’s reduction in fossil fuel electrical generation, it’s likely that Germany’s dependence is now even higher. The hit that Europe’s largest economy would take with a cutoff of Russian gas is likely to affect Germany’s trading partners in Europe.

21. Geoffrey:

    “America’s gas imports from Russia”? Do you mean crude oil? I’m pretty sure that the US doesn’t import any, repeat, any natural gas from Russia. That would be by LNG (liquified natural gas) tankers. Oopsie, Geoffrey.

22. As Tucker Carlson pointed out the other day, that would result in a depression with high inflation.

    Why not tell Tucker to show his work?

23. Oil and gas are fungible. Russian exports account for about 11% of the international trade in fuels. And, of course, Russia is dependent on its export revenue.

24. And that NATO’s long push eastward

    There is no long push eastward. The expansion of NATO eastward occurred in two installments the last of which was complete in 2004.

25. I suspect that what Putin is engaging in a Strategic Raid. He cannot hold onto Ukraine with less than 200,000 men if two or three millions take up arms and are willing to keep fighting and they continue to be supplied by the west. But he can conduct strategic level raids in order to gain concessions.
    Hopefully, I do not get into trouble with the powers that be for pointing out what seems ALMOST obvious to me at this point.

26. Willful blindness has a soundtrack;

    “la, la, la, la, la,
    NATO, NATO, NATO, NATO, oh no”

    Repeat with authority, mezzo forte?

27. I can’t speak to the Ukraine situation, except to note that the three Ukraine immigrants that I know get pissed if you call them Russian. Almost as bad as how Croats and Serbs get when you mistake them. 🙂

    Poland is arming itself to the teeth against Russia. They just purchased over 200 M1 tanks and a bunch (don’t have numbers) of F35s. This is a very major expense, but it has broad popular support. The Poles absolutely HATE the Russians, for good reason.

    I hope that Vlad hasn’t completely lost his marbles, because an attack into Poland would very quickly deteriorate for him, which would put us back to duck and cover, Apres and Deluge time.

28. Poland was for some time a part of the Czarist Russian Empire. The Russians tried to make good Russians out of the Poles then without much success. I read the account of Madame Curie as a young girl in school having to hide her Polish school books from the Russian school inspector.

    And the Cold War joke with a question directed to a Polish Communist:
    ‘Do you consider the Russians to be your brothers or your friends?’
    ‘Brothers, of course. You choose your friends.’

29. Putin’s demeanor in his recent diatribe reminds me of Jim Jones of Jonestown infamy. He has convinced himself, like Jones did in Guyana, that ‘they’re out to get him’.

    For Putin there’s no turning back, which is a scary thought. Being boxed in like it appears to be happening, he could resort to the unspeakable.

30. M Williams:

    It all comes down to how mature and advanced the Russian Federation is regarding authority to use nuclear weapons. Do they have robust and adequate safeguards to deal with a Vlad gone Mad? I assume It isn’t a new problem, but did such systems survive the breakup of the USSR?

31. If reports that the Russians had outrun their own resupply and reinforcement capacities are accurate, it may indicate that their original plans had been altered recently and opportunistically – i.e. that recent events motivated a more ambitious incursion.

    I’m thinking specifically of how the actions of the Biden admin have likely been perceived – knowing that the government is too addled to intervene but likely to continue their escalation of hostility towards Russia. So the Russian’s may have seen a window of opportunity to render Ukraine less threatening, even as a future NATO protectorate or member.

32. “Which would put NATO right on Russia’s doorstep.”

    NATO has been on Russia’s doorstep since 1949.

    Nor is this new, Putin’s government has been stating the Ukraine becoming a member of NATO to be a red line for Russia.

    As I said before, Ukraine is ineligible for NATO membership and will be until it resolves its border dispute with Russia. In other words, Ukraine had *no chance* of joining NATO without Russia’s acquiescence.

    But as you said yourself, Russia’s full-up invasion of Ukraine has spooked Europe enough that they may waive the requirement that a country resolve its disputes with its neighbors before joining. In other words, Russia’s invasion, far from preventing it, is causing the very thing you say they fear the most. And this was all very predictable — and was predicted — before the invasion.

    If folks here and throughout the military and political commentariat could predict this, why not the Russians?

    I would posit that they could and did predict that but invaded anyway, because the NATO membership issue is a red herring and not the real reason they invaded.

33. If reports that the Russians had outrun their own resupply and reinforcement capacities are accurate, it may indicate that their original plans had been altered recently and opportunistically – i.e. that recent events motivated a more ambitious incursion.

    As the war drags on, it shouldn’t be surprising that Russian forces are running low on supplies. Russia is not invading with the full divisions that they normally operate with. Those have a large dedicated logistics tail. Instead, they are invading with a large number of battalion tactical groups (BTGs). BTGs are smaller, more agile, and logistically self-contained, but only for a relatively short period of time.

    It doesn’t appear that Russia planned for a long drawn-out conflict.

34. People who call Putin “irrational” are, as usual, totally ignorant of history. Russia has been invaded repeatedly over it’s history. The Russians lost twenty million of it’s citizens during World War Two, which still looms large in the minds of it’s leaders and people. The Russians never invaded Europe other than a wars in the 20s in Poland (they lost) and a short war with Finland that they won (and the Finns then joined the Germans in invading Russian in 1941. Both countries had been part of Russia up until the end of World War One.
    They view the push eastwards of NATO as an existential threat. They no longer have Eastern Europe as a buffer, and now they have a hostile military alliance on their borders.
    The simple truth is that NATO is a paper tiger. Outside the French, most of their militaries are jokes. The Germans recently had issues where they did not even have the small arms to fully arm their infantry for military exercises. Most of them do not have the numbers under arms they had at the height of the Cold War. The whole purpose of NATO has become to allow Western Europe to hide behind the United States military and nuclear shield while they divert their military budget to social programs.
    Trump was right when he called the EU on this. The EU has a population much larger than the US, and had a GNP higher than ours. Why are they not responsible for their own defense. Why are American forces even stationed there any more, much less being moved from Germany to Poland (Gee, if I was a Russian, with their history, I’d view that as a threat.
    Even when the Soviet Union fell, and their military was reduced to a shadow of it’s former self, Europeans reacted to moves to reduce our commitment with horror. Why? They didn’t want to take responsibility for their own defense. They still don’t. Add to this they depend on Russia for their energy supplies. The Russian military attacking the Ukraine was paid for in Euros.
    Simple truth. If the Ukraine had done what Putin demanded, i.e. to drop their desire to join NATO, this invasion likely would not have happened. Another simple truth. We don’t have the military we had at the height of the Cold War. The United States no longer can be the shield the rest of the World hides behind. Hell, we can’t even secure our own borders any more. What business do we have wasting resources around the world guaranteeing other countries borders?
    For us to even be involved in this is stupid. We have problems enough of our own. Let the EU and Europe solve their own problems.

35. Query for those more familiar with European politics, economics, sociology:
    The European Union countries dwarf Russia’s population, economy, and productivity. What is the justification for the USA being the daddy there? This morning’s news included a long overdue decision by Germany’s leader to start spending 2% GDP on their military. Why do I have to pay for the defense of Europe from Russia? Maybe time for some tough love for the Europeans?

36. Russia has been invaded repeatedly over it’s history. The Russians lost twenty million of it’s citizens during World War Two, which still looms large in the minds of it’s leaders and people.

    Quite number of countries have been invaded repeatedly throughout their history. Very few as we speak approach foreign relations with the assumption that they’re entitled to any piece of land they can grab. See, for example, Poland, which does not have territorial designs on anyone.

    As for Soviet Russia’s war casualties, other countries’ war time losses were proportionately more severe (see Poland during World War II and Serbia during World War I). We might also give consideration to the thesis advanced by Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko that about 3/4 of Soviet Russia’s war time losses are attributable to the manner in which Joseph Stalin elected to conduct the war.

37. Why do I have to pay for the defense of Europe from Russia? Maybe time for some tough love for the Europeans?

    In re the period since demobilization in 1945-46, American troop levels in Europe were at their peak in 1968. Currently, we allocate about 5% of our manpower to European deployments.

38. They view the push eastwards of NATO as an existential threat.

    Only if they’re idiots.

    They no longer have Eastern Europe as a buffer, and now they have a hostile military alliance on their borders.

    It isn’t hostile and it’s only ‘on their their borders’ for a 300 mile stretch along the eastern edge of Estonia and Latvia and for the 260 mile long perimeter of the Kaliningrad exclave (which they insisted on seizing after World War II, expelling its German inhabitants). There are about 2,500 NATO troops in Latvia and Estonia.

39. This morning’s news reports are that Putin is now putting his nuclear forces on high alert. I hope this is only bluster, but who can tell? He seems to have slipped from brutal and smart into brutal and crazy.

40. NATO is a paper tiger but this paper tiger poses an existential threat to Russia.

    Otay, makes complete sense.

    Vlad’s existense, his “box free being” is threatened by paper Tiggers but not by Winnie the Pooh.

41. Kate, I just saw that also. This raises everything to a whole new level. I’m now wondering if we will all be commenting here in another week, or less.

    https://www.foxnews.com/world/putin-orders-nuclear-deterrent-forces-be-put-on-high-alert

42. This morning’s news reports are that Putin is now putting his nuclear forces on high alert.

    Many years ago, Ronald Steel wrote one of his template pieces arguing for passivity in response to Soviet Russia’s latest maneuver adding “we do, after all, live in an era of nuclear weapons”. A reply to the piece was penned by Leon Wieseltier, who said he thought it extremely unlikely that the Soviets would respond to a declaration that Poland is in default on its debt by firing off an SS-20. Evidently Putin is considering that in response to being kicked off the SWIFT system, or wants us to think he is.

43. Glenn Greenwald is clearly a putin asset continue to invite him on his show makes Tucker carlson a russian useful idiot if not also a Putin asset himself, so are many america first people.

44. NATO is a paper tiger but this paper tiger poses an existential threat to Russia.
    Otay, makes complete sense.

    Game, set, match.

45. Glenn Greenwald is clearly a putin asset

    Actually, Greenwald is one of an odd minority of portside commentators who has a fixed viewpoint and not a set of improvisations.

46. he criticizes every American military actions but keeps rationalizing and defending putin’s invasion, that is not consistent. He send Snowden to russia, what more need to say about him?

47. Vlad’s boxers in Moscow are moving in IMO. His own exisential threat speaks Russian.

48. Putin has been visibly distanced in recent public appearance photos. Perhaps he is not afraid of COVID so much as he is afraid of assassination. When will the oligarchs get tired of what he is doing to their country and their business interests?

49. Dave, the solution to your distress is easy. Stop watching Tucker Carlson. Or any TV.

50. “He seems to have slipped from brutal and smart into brutal and crazy.”

    Kate, it now appears Rice agrees with you, and backs up Rubio’s previous statement. A nightmare scenario where a possible madman has nuclear control. I fear we are as close to annihilation as we were in 1962. What is happening in the internal workings of the Kremlin may be the world’s only hope at this point.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/condoleezza-rice-putin-russia-erratic-ukraine

51. “What Putin Wants”
    https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/what-putin-wants/

    “Did NATO Just Declare War on Russia?”
    https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/did-nato-just-declare-war-on-russia/

    “Tulsi Gabbard speaks out… Russia had a legitimate point…”
    https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/tulsi-gabbard-speaks-out/

52. “And that NATO’s long push eastward”

    “There is no long push eastward. The expansion of NATO eastward occurred in two installments the last of which was complete in 2004. Art Deco

    “Albania and Croatia joined on 1 April 2009, prior to the 2009 Strasbourg–Kehl summit.

    The most recent member states to be added to NATO are Montenegro on 5 June 2017 and North Macedonia on 27 March 2020.

    As of 2021, NATO officially recognizes three aspiring members: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, and Ukraine.”

    This is the third time I’ve posted the above, yet Art continues to ignore it… clearly, his ‘truth’ ignores facts on the ground.

53. Russian protest back with the inevitable crackdowns:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10557215/Ukraine-war-Russians-turn-Putin-Kremlin-threatens-jail-traitors-try-help-Ukraine.html

54. Geoffrey finds the root of all evil, NATO, cites a putz, and finds Tulsi acceptable now.

    Vlad Putupon’s fans do what they have to do.

    NATO invades the Roosian province of Ukraine, the heart and soul of the Motherland! Vlad’s peace will soon prevail! Death to those Nazi Finlanders and Swedes!

    Geoffrey shows his skills by posting quotes in bold, all caps, and shouting at clouds is forecast today, 100% chance of slander.

55. FWIW (and it may not be much…but one must hope that this may lead to some common sense):
    ‘Ukraine President Agrees To Hold Talks “Without Preconditions” With Russia At Belarus Border’—
    https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ukraine-president-agrees-hold-talks-without-preconditions-russia-belarus-border

    Zelensky continues to show that he is a very brave man.

56. Geoffrey decides that Art Deco must speak when spoken to. Egotistical or something else?

    Oh well, sigh.

57. It’s curious to find arguments I once heard from the Left now appear from the Right.

    For instance, Chomsky rebutted the notion that the USSR was an expansionist, imperialist force by enumerating small attacks on the newly formed USSR by the US and Europe. Which was true. The US even sent 7950 American soldiers to Vladivostok on the Sea of Japan in 1918.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force,_North_Russia

    So by Chomsky’s reasoning the capitalist West was to blame when the USSR undersandably expanded into nearby states for its own security.

    Of course, this ignores the heady “Workers of the World Unite” rhetoric of international communism, which the USSR led then.

    In a similar fashion Putin’s ambitions for a Russian empire, which neo has documented, are ignored in the current crisis. Instead some wish to see Putin’s actions as defensive, purely in terms of the threat posed by NATO.

    It’s not that Chomksy or the Putin defenders are entirely wrong, but to my mind they are leaving out important context.

    This seems to be an argument based on propositions which are not at all black-and-white, but are treated as A, B, C -> conclusion. However, the situation doesn’t reduce to such nice syllogisms.

58. I guess you had to know this was coming:
    “ECB’s Lagarde Urges Immediate Crypto Regulation To Stop Putin Evading Sanctions”
    https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/ecbs-lagarde-urges-immediate-crypto-regulation-stop-putin-evading-sanctions

59. Huxley, I doubt very much that the sane Right supports Russian expansionism or tries to defend it or rationalize it.

    It may try to understand it, but that does NOT mean that it condones it. In fact, speaking personally, I would think that the Right is asking “How the hell did we get to this moment?” (Even if at the moment, there may not be the “luxury” to ask this particular question. Nonetheless, a way forward relies on an appropriate answer.)

    And they are, to put it mildly, NOT finding either NATO or the “Leader of the Free World” (sic?) totally blameless in the creation—existence? evolution?—of this mess.

    (Especially not when the “Leader of the the Free World” (sic?) boasts of having exposed American military weakness to the world (in the case of Afghanistan), sucks up to China (for all the best reasons, no doubt), is doing everything “he” can to get Iran back on track to develop a Bomb, snubs purported allies with flair and panache (and sickening consistency), demonizes half the population of “his” country, works overtime to ensure that “his” country is NOT energy-independent, does “his” absolute best to cause inflation to ignite. And basically prevaricates non-stop…. And I’m not going to even mention Russiagate or the stolen election.)

    In the end, should push come to shove, should it come to that point, then the West—I’ll stick my neck out and declare—WILL support NATO in spite of all efforts—by NATO members it must be said—to undercut it and reduce its power and effectiveness. (And yes, this is a problem of peacetime; a problem when there is no obvious enemy on the horizon (or if the enemy is successfully devious); or more accurately, a problem when there is NO WILL to call an enemy by its name and/or NO WILL to do anything effective to counter such an enemy EVEN if it IS identified. And it is NOTHING NEW. When one thinks that the US allowed Britain and her allies to fight the NAZIs and Japan for two years without helping out military—yes, there was landlease, true, BUT!—one is ashamed, but as they say, OMMV….)

60. “What Putin Wants” https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/what-putin-wants/

    You’ll find Mr. Whitney’s musings near Laurent Gueynot’s articles on Israel’s false-flag operation on 9/11, in the same roster with Mr. Gueynot’s discussion of Israel’s successful operation to assassinate President Kennedy.

61. It’s not that Chomksy or the Putin defenders are entirely wrong, but to my mind they are leaving out important context.

    Aye, time, scale, and direct evidence. Call it motivated reasoning.

62. P.S. One must hope (against hope? certainly “things” are not terribly encouraging right now) that Churchill’s assessment of America—that she will try all the wrong responses before arriving at the right one (I’m paraphrasing here)—is still accurate.

    And for additional “moral support”(?), von Bismarck (no slouch he) may also have to be invoked at this particular juncture….

    Or maybe, leaving America aside, maybe cooler heads will realize the wisdom—and absolute necessity— of stepping back from the brink. (Not that past history is an encouraging indicator; still…)

63. Huxley, I doubt very much that the sane Right supports Russian expansionism or tries to defend it or rationalize it.

    Barry Meislin:

    I guess one can get tricky with defnitions, but it seems to me that while neither Chomsky nor elements of the Right support Soviet/Russian expansionism, they certainly seemed to be defending it or rationalizing it to some degree.

64. mkent,

    “As I said before, Ukraine is ineligible for NATO membership and will be until it resolves its border dispute with Russia. In other words, Ukraine had *no chance* of joining NATO without Russia’s acquiescence.

    But as you said yourself, Russia’s full-up invasion of Ukraine has spooked Europe enough that they may waive the requirement that a country resolve its disputes with its neighbors before joining. In other words, Russia’s invasion, far from preventing it, is causing the very thing you say they fear the most.”

    You have it backwards, not surprising since we’ve been bombarded since the breakup of the Soviet Union with negative propaganda about Russia’s actions.

    That was the case with both the Crimea and with Georgia and now with the Ukraine.

    Ukraine’s border dispute could have been settled in 2014, had western elements controlling the Ukraine’s government stopped the on and off shelling of the Donbas region, as the agreement between Russia and the Ukraine required. They’ve kept it up for the last 8 years.

    The West has always known that the Ukraine becoming a member of NATO was Russia’s red line. The US and NATO have also known that their agreements with Russia prevent the Ukraine from becoming a member of NATO.

    By installing through a western backed coup a friendly to the West government and heavily militarizing the Ukraine and, with talks going nowhere, the West has forced Russia to invade the Ukraine as its only remaining means to ensure that the Ukraine remains a buffer state.

    But Putin doesn’t want to take over a country that would descend into constant guerrilla warfare and which would place NATO right on his border through Poland.

    That’s why he’s using far less military power than he could. It makes no sense for Putin to use much less power than he could if he’s intent upon incorporating the Ukraine into the Russian Federation.

    Rather, Putin wants to force the West to simply guarantee in a new agreement that the Ukraine’s is permanently banned from NATO membership and back up that guarantee with demilitarization of the Ukraine. He’s wrecked the Ukraine’s military bases to demilitarize it.

    He’s counting on protests against the fighting to force the West to negotiate sincerely. Zelensky has agreed to new talks with Putin but the US State Dept. just came out in opposition to them. Since when is continued fighting preferable to talks?

    The US claims that talks are useless while Russia continues military operations. That’s hypocritical, as the West rushes more military hardware into the Ukraine. If the US wanted the fighting to stop, it would demand a cease fire with the condition that supplies be halted by both sides.

    Here’s what I’m beginning to suspect is really going on. The Global Elite i.e Great Reset members… have wanted control of Russia’s vast natural resources since the breakup of the Soviet Union. Putin and Russia’s Oligarchs stand in the way of the West gaining control of those resources. NATO’s eastward expansion has been sold to the public with the unending refrain of… Putin bad! He of course facilitates that meme by being in fact a brutal dictator and talking about reestablishing the S.U.’s status. So it’s an easy sell, as so many here have bought into.

    Once NATO is established on the Ukraine/Russia border, launching a ‘justified’ attack upon Moscow and taking out Putin becomes much more doable than from say Poland. As the shorter the time to target, the less time for an enemy to react.

    Cut off the head and in the resulting chaos, the opportunity to seize control of Russia through a pre-positioned new leader friendly to the West becomes achievable. Contracts highly favorable to the West are then signed and a now ‘peaceful Russia’ provides the excuse for wasting the Kremlin in a sneak attack. Hey! It was for the greater good.

    Of course that is a risky gambit given the nuclear arms in play but blaming the attack upon “rogue elements” is a tried and true tactic with a fair chance for success given the media’s propaganda. But if there is a brief nuclear exchange, it has the side benefit of reducing the world’s pop. needed to save the planet.

    I’m sure this is going to result in mockery and accusations of another conspiracy theory from the usual suspects. I have no deep throat source, it’s just the only explanation for NATO expansion I can think of besides the popular one of protection from the ambitions of a long gone Soviet Union to conquer Europe being NATO’s motivation for its repeated eastward expansion, in direct violation of its formal agreements with Russia.

    As for conspiracies, how many here 3 years ago would have believed that the CDC, NIH, FDA, FBI, WHO and nearly every Federal agency and nearly the entire medical establishment would collude in mass murder? Does anyone here actually believe that after everything that the Global Elite have revealed about themselves, that moral compunctions would prevent them from constructing such a strategy against Russia?

    And once again, I hope I’m wrong about this.

65. I won’t bore you with a long story (for once!), but I chose my on-line persona in honor of Groucho Marx’s character in, “Duck Soup.” I love the irreverence the Marx Brothers relate regarding politics, war, statecraft, tiny, random, middle-European countries and their history, the noble classes, stuffed suit leaders…

    It’s not surprising it was the sons of Jewish immigrants* growing up in turn of the century New York who skewered war and politics so brilliantly and courageously!

    I’ve seen some great stuff coming out of Ukraine that reminds me of the Marx Brothers and “Duck Soup.” Locals changing names on road signs to misdirect Russian military convoys (and some of the invented city names are not very polite). A brewery changing its production to Molotov cocktails with a new label with equally impolite messaging regarding Russians. And, most all of you have heard of the Ukrainian woman offering a Russian soldier flower seeds and advising him to put them in his uniform pocket, “so flowers will grow over his grave!”

    These people are literally living in hell right now, and yet the human spirit shines through. Slava Ukraini! The real, Rufus T. Firefly would be proud!

    *Mom was from East Frisia(!) and dad was Alsatian, about as believable as a country named, “Freedonia.”

66. Geoffrey has become Vlad’s spokesman and spinner.

    How far the once mighty have fallen.

    Sad.

67. is the Ukrainian winning story real? My friends believe not only are they winning they are going to invade and capture Moscow soon based on the Ukrainian tweets…

68. Rattling the nuclear option may be a real thing, or , and I agree with others who have suggested it, it is part of a negotiating tool on Putin’s part. In my mind, as I have stated before, he is after a written treaty recognizing Eastern Ukraine as Russian.
    That does not necessarily preclude him using a tactical nuke in a demonstrative way.

69. Historically, the Russian military is less afraid of “ nukes” than Western civilians are. I mean the old Soviet Army had tactical nukes to use as an extension of conventional warfare. More along the lines of a spectrum of force, unlike the western view of either / or.

70. Jon, if I remember correctly (AND understood what I read), the Soviets believed that they had the wherewithal (enough bunkers? toughness? inured to death and destruction?) to “win” a nuclear engagement. (Whatever “win” might mean. I guess “survive” is more accurate.)

    And so:
    1. Was all this sheer bluster and propaganda?
    2. If not bluster and propaganda, do the Russians still believe it?

71. Huxley,
    No doubt. But the issue (or problem) can be simplified as follows.
    1. “Biden” lies about EVERYTHING.
    2. Why should anyone believe “him” (or “his” media helots) about Ukraine?

    …And if one were to wish to give “Biden” the benefit of the doubt, one can reconfigure point #1 as:
    1. When it comes to Ukraine, “Biden” lies about EVERYTHING…..
    2. Why should anyone believe “him” (or “his” media helots) about Ukraine?

72. Russians don’t give a darn whether they are ruled by Putin or Nato or Americans, only person that Nato is a threat to is Putin and his admin, so all these military actions are nothing accomplish nothing but putin’s self preservation.

73. Barry,
    I was not talking about Strategic Nukes and scenarios involving them. I was talking about the Russian military using tactical nukes like artillery , to destroy massed enemy troop formations. When planning to fight a land war with Russians, commanders have to weigh options about how tightly to “ mass” their units. What might be optimal in a pure conventional war, becomes, too many , too close when the enemy is willing to nuke your brigade with a tactical nuke. In other words, facing Russians, a commander may spread his troops and armor out thinner than he would against a non nuclear power.

74. OK.
    In that case…maybe that’s what Putin is referring to.
    A tactical nuke here; a tactical nuke there.
    (As he warns the West NOT to retaliate, or defend for that matter.)
    Maybe.

    OTOH, do you think the West would respond by saying, “Oh, it was ONLY a tactical nuclear device…”?
    (“And it’s ONLY Ukraine”?….)

    Actually, the West just might do that….(as they spin madly, blaming Trump and his Deplorables for “supporting” Putin).

75. Dave:

    I very much doubt that’s real. I believe that the Ukrainians have put up far more resistance than Putin thought they would. But now more troops and material on the Russian side have been arriving. I don’t know whether any of the NATO or US assistance has gotten there, or how long it will take to get there. They better hurry.

76. “…as they spin madly, blaming Trump and his Deplorables for “supporting” Putin…”

    Occurs to me that this may be, if not THE raison d’etre for “Biden”‘s behavior in this deadly farce, then right up there…

    (As “Biden” then feels “reluctantly obligated” to declare a “NATIONAL EMERGENCY”…which would be the perfect endgame, the cherry on the cake.)

    Just another crisis—no, that’s wrong; it’s a FANTASTIC crisis—to be milked for all it’s worth.

    (…With profound gratitude to the illustrious “Rahm Emanuel School of Crisis ‘Management'”….)

77. My sense is that the use of a tactical nuke would unleash the apocalypse. In this case, size doesn’t matter. We are in very dangerous waters.

    I would hope, but given Biden who knows, our Tridents are on station with fast attack support against the Russian subs.

78. Ukraine gets nuked again, first Chernobyl and now Crackow (Krykiv?). Or is it Poland, the Baltics, Roumania, Bulgaria, Norway, or Finland, Sweden, or the USA?

    After all NATO is forcing him to do this. Sort of like the Sheriff Bart in Blazing Saddles. And just like the Sheriff, Vlad is the victim.

79. I do not think a nuke used on a non NATO country would guarantee a nuclear response. Just a bunch of hand wringing and maybe a boycott of Russian oil.
    Our people are overly afraid of the virus, do not know up from down, boy from girl, etc, etc…

80. I certainly do not want to get into an exchange of strategic nukes over a tactical nuke.

81. So an exchange of a few tactical nukes, delivered by air, would be just another border incident?

    Vlad’s threat didn’t seem limited to theater strikes. Something about consequences you have never experienced. Not trying to be argumentative, but Vlad seemed to be talking strategic not tactical.

82. Unlike in Stalin’s time, Vlad doesn’t have populations available to repopulate the Ukraine if he attempts Holodolmor, The Sequel.

    Vlad had to turn the Breadbasket into the Empty Basket. Because, NATO.

83. Geoffrey Britain:

    Why are you beating a dead horse?

    In other words, why is it hard for YOU to understand that most people here (including me) understand that Putin thinks NATO’s a threat?

    We just think that he’s wrong in the sense that NATO’s not out to attack or destroy him, but he’s right in the sense that NATO is against his plans of empire.

    And in any case that invading Ukraine is the wrong thing to do.

84. neo,

    I’ve gone on about this because it’s of great importance.

    I get that some who disagree with me do believe that Putin thinks NATO’s a threat.

    What I find distressing is the failure to acknowledge the obvious and, from a military perspective, the legitimate nation security concerns that for Russia are a literal necessity to ensure the continued survival of Russia.

    Many here and clearly the West’s leadership fail to grasp just how serious this is for Russia. The common perception is that this is just a power play for Putin, a relatively risk free opportunity to expand Russia. That is not the case for Russia. This is much bigger than Putin’s personal ambitions.

    Russia feels that their backs are against the wall. Ukraine is not just another desired ‘acquisition’. Russia can accept an independent, neutral, demilitarized Ukrainian buffer State. They simply cannot risk, even the possibility that NATO weapon systems could be just 13 minutes away from Moscow and within range, all the way to the Urals.

    But you’re right that some here are certain of their certainty and that nothing I’ve said has apparently made the least impression upon them. So be it, events shall unfold as they will.

85. “But you’re right that some here are certain of their certainty and that nothing I’ve said has apparently made the least impression upon them.”

    That’s because you’re the one who’s grabbed onto a preposterous idea and won’t let it go. NATO is not now nor ever has been an existential threat to Russia. The idea that NATO could launch an invasion of Russia from Ukraine and take Russia by force is flat-out bonkers. NATO doesn’t have the offensive firepower to do that, and every military analyst from Russia to deepest, darkest Africa knows it.

    Your crazy scenario of 2:46 pm is downright ridiculous and as believable as the plot of the movie Avatar. That you are holding to that scenario more tightly than the actual reality of Russia actually invading Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova and threatening Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, and Sweden speaks volumes and should be a warning sign to you that you’re losing grips with reality.

    I apologize to Neo for my tone, but that scenario is sci-fi level crazy to anyone with the slightest understanding of military power. That I’ve been wasting my time debating a conspiracy theorist is more than a little annoying.

86. When Geoffrey gets a fancy he is remarkable in his persistent defense of it.

    Tenacity in defence of a fallicy is not a sign of sagacity.

87. “NATO is not now nor ever has been an existential threat to Russia.” mkent

    Yes, that is the dogma we’ve been fed.

    “The idea that NATO could launch an invasion of Russia from Ukraine and take Russia by force is flat-out bonkers.”

    I never said that “NATO could launch an invasion of Russia from Ukraine and take Russia by force“.

    Strawman argument.

    I did propose the possibility that NATO could take out the Kremlin at an opportune moment if they had cruise missiles in place very near the Ukraine/Russian border.

    What you either fail to grasp or simply ignore is that it doesn’t matter whether NATO would actually launch an attack upon the Kremlin. What matters is that the Russians can’t afford to allow even the ability of NATO to do so.

    Not once have I denied that Russia invaded Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova. Nor have I denied that Russia has threatened Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, and Sweden.

    I have insisted that the West has forced Russia into invading Georgia and now the Ukraine by steadily advancing toward Russia and arming eastern NATO member states as though they still faced the Soviet Union.

    I have mentioned that much of Putin’s threats are in reaction to NATO putting in place within those nations offensive weapons systems.

    Categorizing Russia’s legitimate national security concerns as conspiracy talk is a tried and true way to dismiss debate.

    But as neo has expressed displeasure at my continued participation in this debate, I’m bowing out of it here. So have it your way guys, some lessons have to be learned the hard way. Tragically, millions will suffer as the current dogma is supported.

88. What you either fail to grasp or simply ignore is that it doesn’t matter whether NATO would actually launch an attack upon the Kremlin. What matters is that the Russians can’t afford to allow even the ability of NATO to do so.

    They’re affording the ability to hit them with an ICBM from Dublin right now. And, again, the Ukraine is not a member of NATO.

89. I have insisted that the West has forced Russia into invading Georgia and now the Ukraine by steadily advancing toward Russia and arming eastern NATO member states as though they still faced the Soviet Union.

    Except they haven’t advanced toward Russia in 17 years, and never advanced at all in the Near East.

90. And galloping to the rescue (and not a moment too soon…):
    “Democratic Socialists blame US imperialism for Russian invasion of Ukraine”—
    https://nypost.com/2022/02/28/democratic-socialists-blame-us-imperialism-for-russian-invasion-of-ukraine/

    (Can we call a cease-fire here and ROFL? I mean, is that allowed here? Neoneocon-berry Rules? Just a short laugh, mind you; and then we can back to bashing one another…)

    File under: “Silent Night” on the Western Front…

91. Geoffrey:

    That is not what Neo said, don’t try to spin us and Neo.

    And the West (NATO?) forced Vlad to invade Georgia? Such a poor put upon puppet, that Vlad. With such forcefullness the West most assuredly could have forced him not to invade the Ukraine? Sad.

    Barry: Yep, as Geoffrey said it’s the West not Vlad. AQOTWF: That butterfly looks interesting, CRACK! fade to black.

92. “We just think that he’s wrong in the sense that NATO’s not out to attack or destroy him, but he’s right in the sense that NATO is against his plans of empire.”

    Ever try to reason with a paranoiac (e.g., Putin)?
    Not all that much fun. (Unless one enjoys a challenge and/or is a masochist.)
    After long, patient, argumentative, frustrating, exasperating travail, you just might convince that person that no, you’re not out to get him/her. In fact it’s the very last thing you want to do. And it might actually “work”; and things will seem OK; and you’ll breathe a deep sigh of relief…and all is fine and dandy….until a few minutes or hours or days or weeks or months go by and your interlocutor reminds him/herself that you’re out to get him/her.

    (Might remind some of living with an alcoholic; somewhat. Not quite the same, though…)

    Now Putin may or may not be paranoid; but if he isn’t, he might have developed the notion that it’s in his interest to act like one…. (Besides there’s a centuries-long tradition to uphold…and all that history of being overrun from time to time by hordes from the East, the North, the West, the South…)

93. And in the latest on-line version of “Paranoia for Dummies”:
    ‘Russian TV Host Threatens Nuclear “Destruction” Of America”‘—
    https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russian-tv-host-threatens-nuclear-destruction-america

    Interesting what passes for late-night entertainment in the motherland.
    Frankly, though, he really could learn some “nuance” from Rachel Maddow or Joy Reid. Keith Olbermann?

    (OTOH, not sure that the Russians actually “do” nuance….)

94. Geoffrey Britain:

    Western Europe is already loaded with nuclear weapons, as is Russia. Should Russia attack France because it might threaten Russia? Should NATO take try to invade and take over Russia now because it’s a belligerent state that has such weapons?

    Until now, the function of nuclear weapons (except for the very end of WWII) has been as a deterrent.

    Russia (Putin) has made it clear for nearly 2 decades that it wants to take over Ukraine, a state he says is not even an independent state but part of mother Russia. He thinks Ukraine has no right to self-determination if that self-determination leads it to reject Russian domination.

    The Ukrainians are well aware that Putin wants to take them over, even before the invasion. The desire to have nuclear weapons is not to attack Russia, it’s to keep Russia from attacking Ukraine because of the deterrence factor such weapons would represent. Putin knows this and that’s why he must attack and annex Ukraine before it has a chance to be nuclear-armed (which I doubt was going to happen anyway).

95. Geoffrey Britain:

    If you think that NATO “forced” Putin to attack its neighbors and former possessions, I think that word “forced” doesn’t mean what you think it does.

96. Geoffrey Britain:

    You write: ” as neo has expressed displeasure at my continued participation in this debate…”

    What are you talking about? I’ve argued with the points you’ve made. I don’t care whether you continue to participate or not. I’ve also asked you why you’re beating the dead horse of saying no one here understands what you’re saying about what Putin believes.

    That’s not the same as “expressing displeasure” at your “continued participation in this debate.”

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>