What would security guarantees for Ukraine look like?
Commenter “Niketas Choniates” writes:
If a country is in NATO, that is saying “America (and Europe) will send their boys to die there and take a nuke for it if necessary”. The more countries get added to NATO, the less likely that is, and NATO just becomes a paper tiger, its bluff will get called eventually, and then we either get a real war we never wanted, or NATO ends up on the ash heap with the League of Nations.
All the people saying “Neville Chamberlain”: do you or do you not support sending US troops to Ukraine, taking a nuke for it if necessary? If yes, awesome, convince the rest of us that Ukraine is worth dying for. If no, don’t pretend that we can fight half or a quarter of a war with no risk to us at home. Russia is not Iraq or Iran, that we can work our will on with no consequences at home. Keep pushing against red lines, and finally you’ll cross one, and then we WILL have years of flag-draped coffins and possibly some nukes. If you think the risk is worth it, have the integrity and the courage to say so.
And yet no one here is saying Ukraine would or should join NATO, and Trump has made it clear that NATO membership is off the table for Ukraine, as are US boots on the ground there. For that matter, I wonder if people in the US would “take a nuke” or send US troops in order to defend France or England or Germany at this point.
Ukraine has demanded security guarantees as part of any deal, and European nations committed to providing them with the assistance of the US – but what would they look like without NATO membership? Would they have any teeth at all? They would need some formidable fangs, given Putin’s continuing desire to take over Ukraine.
The details have not been made clear – surprise, surprise – and yet I have a feeling they would need to be at least moderately convincing for Zelensky to agree to them, or for Trump to advocate them. I don’t think Trump wants a peace deal that quickly falls through.
Here’s an article that tries to describe the security possibilities:
Zelensky said the U.S. had sent a strong signal on security guarantees but said he could not offer any more concrete information until more details were nailed down in roughly the next 10 days.
Ukraine has been wary of exactly what security guarantees will look like. Just before Monday’s meetings, Zelensky said peace must be “lasting” and not echo the “so called ‘security guarantees’ in 1994.”
“They didn’t work,” Zelensky continued.
In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine agreed to give up nuclear weapons in the country in exchange for security “assurances” from the U.S, U.K. and from Russia. The agreement—a political pledge worded to safeguard the “independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine”—became known as the Budapest Memorandum. Russia violated the memorandum in 2014 and 2022. …
Zelensky also said security guarantees would also include an arms deal worth roughly $90 billion between the U.S. and Ukraine.
Russia has said it wants strict long-term limits on Ukraine’s military. Bloomberg reported on Tuesday U.S. and European officials will immediately start work on the security guarantees, and making sure there are no restrictions on Ukraine’s armed forces is a top priority.
Sounds like an impasse.
There’s talk of an Article 5-like type of guarantee, which would mean something similar to what NATO nations pledge to each other. But Article 5 has never been invoked except after 9/11, and that situation doesn’t resemble this one.
More possibilities:
Trump suggested that he wants Europeans to be “the first line of defence”, with the US providing intelligence, weapons (paid for by Europe) and air support of some kind. He was quite clear there would be no US “boots on the ground”.
Ukraine’s European allies are now mulling over what their role as guarantors of security for a peace deal might look like. It has been reported the head of the UK’s armed forces, Tony Radakin, will tell a meeting of military commanders at the Pentagon that the UK is prepared to send troops to Ukraine – not as a frontline fighting force, but to provide security at ports and air bases. How many members of the coalition of the willing are prepared to do the same remains uncertain.
It’s worthless if Putin doesn’t believe any of it will happen. It’s also at least partly dependent on who’s in charge in each country when any future Russian aggression towards Ukraine would take place. Another variable is Putin himself; he’s 72 years old, which in the present climate seems relatively young, but will his health hold out? And would a successor be inclined to have the same designs on Ukraine in the face of promised security guarantees?
And yet no one here is saying Ukraine would or should join NATO
Sure about that?
It’s worthless if Putin doesn’t believe any of it will happen
I agree with this 100%, which is why I insist that those who say we should make a security guarantee come out and say that yes, Ukraine is worth sending our boys to die and/or take a nuke over, because that is what it means, we understand that and we accept it. If we don’t mean it, Putin won’t believe it, and then we sleepwalk into a war, either with Putin or someone else who sees that we made promises we never intended to keep.
With Iraq and other countries we had the choice to what level we wished to be involved, and we could and did take our ball and go home when we wanted. With a country like Russia or China, they have the power to raise that level without our consent. I am not seeing much acknowledgment or realization of that among the Ukraine hawks here. They’re like people asking me to cosign a loan, and not worry about what’s in the fine print, none of that is ever going to happen.
And would a successor be inclined to have the same designs on Ukraine in the face of promised security guarantees?
Just like Putin, he would have to believe them. Don’t cosign a loan if you’re not prepared to be on the hook. Don’t make security guarantees against a nation with ICBMs unless you are prepared to be nuked and your kids and grandkids to die over there. If you are, say so, make that case. It’s not like Americans never did it before. But we don’t get the option to fight half or quarter of a war in this case and Ukraine hawks need to be honest and admit it.
Niketas:
I try to at least skim every comment, but sometimes I’m sure I miss something. But I don’t recall anyone here advocating NATO membership at this point or even in the last year or two. Maybe at the very beginning, after the invasion? But certainly not at all recently.
If you’ve got a link to a statement from a commenter here who has advocated it in the last year or so, feel free to provide it.
@neo:If you’ve got a link to a statement from a commenter here who has advocated it in the last year or so, feel free to provide it.
You and I both know how tall an order that is, to search comments here. I’ll do what I can. It would be way easier for any commenter who believes Ukraine should be in NATO, or that Ukraine should get a security guarantee from the US, to just say so here.
While I’m doing that, the larger point is that whether it’s called “NATO” or not, a security guarantee implies that we go to war for the country we guarantee. And we don’t have the sole choice, with Russia or China, to limit the level of our engagement: they have the power to raise the stakes. A failure on our part to be very clear with ourselves and everyone else about what our commitment actually is, is a good way to start a war that nobody really wants.
Personally I’m not convinced that Putin would attempt to take the rest of Ukraine at this point assuming he gets what he wants out of this deal, which I’m guessing is the entirety of Dunbas. This isn’t because I believe he’s trustworthy in any way. I just don’t believe he currently has the military capability to do so without literally using nukes. Perhaps down the road a few years after the Russian military has had some time to recover and build back up he’d be tempted to try again (assuming he’s still alive and in power that is).
Niketas:
Of course it’s hard to search the comments. But you challenged my contention that no one was saying it here, and for that you really need to have something or someone in mind.
Security guarantees don’t necessarily mean boots on the ground in terms of “going to war.” They can be about weapons, for example. They can be about money. They can be about intelligence. They can be about economic sanctions with real teeth on them. If it involves Western Europe as well (not buying Russian energy?) it would be more meaningful.
I’m pessimistic, none of this stuff will work.
From Trump Clarifies: No US Boots On The Ground In Ukraine
At this point Trump seems to be envisioning certain European nations providing arms and personnel while the US provides air support in some capacity. What exactly all that will look like, who knows?
I’m not at all sure I’d be willing to defend Britain at this point, albeit I’m aware there are a few bases chock-a-block with US military organizations and equipment there. On the other hand, conquering Britain is worth a look, I think, only to hand it right back to the Britains who’ve f’ed up and lost it once already.
@neo: But you challenged my contention that no one was saying it here, and for that you really need to have something or someone in mind.
It is easy to find people saying “NATO has to do this” and “NATO shouldn’t do that” as recently as today. It is not easy to find someone explicitly saying “I think Ukraine should get to join NATO”, and I have to find words at least as clear as that, or it just descends into quibbling about what the words meant. That’s why it’s hard.
So far Turtler’s of February 2025 is the closest I’ve seen to that explicit language, but I will keep looking, and he might say that’s not what he meant.
Security guarantees don’t necessarily mean boots on the ground in terms of “going to war.”
The historical examples of guarantees did most certainly result in “boots on the ground” war, or they accomplished nothing. Sometimes they manage to do both, of course.
I don’t want us in NATO. The EU is a big rich populated bunch of countries, two of which have nukes, with a well developed defense industry. This is their problem. They will never step up unless we say bye.
@Chases Eagles:I don’t want us in NATO
I think I agree, but the thing is once we’re in, we have to mean it, or it’s worse than not being in. If I were President I’d try to get the EU to take full responsibility for themselves, and THEN wind up NATO, which the provisions of NATO allow for, but that’s much easier said than done because even trying to do it diminishes the credibility of the collective security. So for second best I’d try to get the EU to do its share and resist taking on any more commitments involving the US. If the EU wants to offer whatever to Ukraine, they can and should, they’re grownups and have their own nuclear arsenal.
Early 90s might have been the best window to do that and now it’s gone.
Niketas C., Your point is well taken.
A security guarantee must be believable and long lived for it to make a difference.
What comes into play is the fact that Russia does not keep its promises, and it uses the threat of nuclear war as a tactic to scare people. MAD has long been the idea that nuclear war is unthinkable, and when you look at the nuclear arsenals of the big three (U.S., Russia, & China) it certainly is. There would be no winner.
Putin is counting on the fickleness of democratic nations to eventually elect people like Obama/Biodun. He’s pretty sure those types of men would renege on any promises made by the Trump administration. So, he plays the long game. And by that, I’m talking the next 50 years. Putin won’t be here, but he’s pretty certain his successor would be just like him because he will choose him.
The view from30,000 feet shows that the world is much smaller and more interconnected than ever. And there are two forces that are trying to shape the polices of mankind. It’s the authoritarians (Communists, dictators, theocracies, etc.) against the democracies. (NATO, SEATO, and a few others.) Given that big picture, it seems to me that the U.S. and any democracy that will join us needs to be ready to defend ourselves against the aggression of the authoritarians. That means being willing to use military and economic policies as necessary to hold the aggressors in check. War costs money. Reduce their income and their war making ability decline’s. Reagan used these ideas to bring down the USSR.
If a durable peace agreement is out of reach (and I think it is) Russia can be restrained with economic policies and increasing the level of weaponry and their uses to Ukraine. At some point Putin may realize he is wasting time and money. Peace could then be had, but it may even then be fragile.
IMO, all choices are risky because of the nuclear background. But what is obvious is that Putin and many other authoritarian regimes will do whatever they can to to try to destroy us. To maintain peace, we must be both economically and militarily strong. Peace through strength.
@J. J. But what is obvious is that Putin and many other authoritarian regimes will do whatever they can to to try to destroy us.
I really doubt that. Whatever they might like to do if they could, what they can do is very limited–for example Putin has no working aircraft carriers and it’s not like such things can be built secretly–and quite a few authoritarian regimes are allied with us because when they are, they can do more or less as they like at home without any hassle from us.
Perfect example, plenty of commenters here[1] will give you chapter and verse about how Islam is inherently warlike and anti-Western and will destroy the West if not destroyed first. But Turkey is in NATO, which makes it difficult to destroy them, and they get more authoritarian every day. I’ve never seen one of these Islam-must-be-destroyed commenters say we should even as much as kick Turkey out of NATO[2].
To maintain peace, we must be both economically and militarily strong. Peace through strength.
I agree with this, and part of it is being judicious about our commitments, because some commitments make us weaker. We can’t, even if we wanted to, which we don’t, protect everyone from everybody.
[1] I can provide links to such comments if need be, but I don’t want to single out specific people unnecessarily, as it is a common sentiment here.
[2] Maybe they have and I missed it.
What use would any security guarantee be? Ukraine had one already from the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine surrendered their Soviet-era nukes in return for guarantees of Ukrainian sovereignty. Didn’t stop Russia from violating it, or prompt the west to respond in any meaningful way other than with sanctions.
“I’ve never seen one of these Islam-must-be-destroyed commenters say we should even as much as kick Turkey out of NATO[2]. Niketas Choniates
We all agree that the Nazis were evil. Islam is evil, period. Many Muslims are not evil, just as in 1940 many Germans were not evil.
Turkey’s admission into NATO made sense during the cold war. Since Erdogan’s Islamic regime seized control of the political process, the only compelling rationale for Turkey’s continued membership in NATO is that the UK, France and Germany’s political establishments are as authoritarian as Turkey’s. I’m entirely in favor of the US pulling out of NATO.
@Alan Colbo:Ukraine surrendered their Soviet-era nukes in return for guarantees of Ukrainian sovereignty.
Ukraine had no control over those nukes; those nukes were no more Ukraine’s than the nukes America keeps in Turkey are Turkey’s. South Africa is the only country which had its own nukes and got rid of them.
Didn’t stop Russia from violating it, or prompt the west to respond in any meaningful way other than with sanctions.
And there it is. Fake guarantees are the worst of both worlds. And sanctions hurt our own side, at least some of the connected ones anyway, who evade them when they can, or get them lifted as Obama did with Iran.
Most people have a misimpression of NATO’s Article V provision. While it does state that any attack upon a NATO member state will be considered an attack on all NATO member states, it also states that each member state can respond as it deems best. So if Russia attacked Germany, the US could state that, “the United States chooses not to involve itself. Germany has repeatedly poked the bear, now deal with it.”
@Geoffrey Britain: So if Russia attacked Germany, the US could state that, “the United States chooses not to involve itself. Germany has repeatedly poked the bear, now deal with it.”
No one believes that in the case of Germany, which is one reason why it was never tested, and if that ever happened NATO would be done, exposed as worthless–unless the EU steps up and starts carrying the weight it can and should. They can easily field a military as advanced and powerful as ours, if they choose to, though they can’t have it by next week. They spend over three times as much as Russia on their defense right now, though it took a few years to get there.
Now when the US invoked Article 5 over 9/11, it wasn’t as though the other NATO members immediately went to war in Afghanistan, they didn’t. Some of them helped and some of them did damned little, but it was always primarily the concern of the US anyway.
“….–for example Putin has no working aircraft carriers and it’s not like such things can be built secretly–…..” – Niketas C.
Aha, one of my issues. I was a Navy pilot who operated off aircraft carriers. They helped win WWII and were useful in Korea and Vietnam. With today’s smart weaponry, they are very vulnerable to any foe that has some air power and smart missiles. Their weak point is that you only need to damage the flight deck slightly to put them out of action. Mirror landing system, arresting gear, and catapults are all easy targets. They’re also inordinately expensive to build and operate. Putin doesn’t need them.
If he has maintained his supply of nukes, they are all the deterrent he needs.
You may not agree that the authoritarian nations are trying to destroy us. I ask what about the pro-Hamas riots on college campuses? What about anti-Israel hatred against the only democracy in the ME? What about the undermining of democracy and free enterprise in academia? What about a candidate like Mamadi being able to secure a primary win? What about the leftists throwing our borders open to all comers? I see these kinds of economic and propaganda attacks on us and people not realizing what it means. They don’t necessarily have to invade us to cut us down to size. In fact, China and Russia would like to see us become a part of their axis without firing a shot.
Yes, I’m paranoid, but I’m also realizing that Reagan was right: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. The only way they can inherit the freedom we have known is if we fight for it, protect it, defend it, and then hand it to them with the well fought lessons of how they in their lifetime must do the same.” Amen.
Given the history of Biden et al involvement with Ukraine, let Russia have it (and Zelensky). NATO is long out-dated; let Europe have NATO – we no longer need to be involved, it’s not 1947. For that matter, the UN has outlived its usefulness as well. We need to disengage from these now damaging (to the US) “agreements”. Unfortunately, I think it will take a major war to rearrange alliances.
@J. J. Putin doesn’t need them.
He needs them to project power away from his borders. Same with China. Without them, they are primarily dangerous to their immediate neighbors (including each other). And that’s not going to change any time soon, even if neither had a navy of any kind. As for nuclear weapons, so far they have been a shield rather than a sword–actually using them makes the entire war retroactively pointless. Because they are nuclear-armed there is a limit to what you can do to stop them bullying their immediate neighbors. Which is why we have to be judicious about what we try to stop them doing.
I ask what about the pro-Hamas riots on college campuses? What about anti-Israel hatred against the only democracy in the ME? What about the undermining of democracy and free enterprise in academia? What about a candidate like Mamadi being able to secure a primary win? What about the leftists throwing our borders open to all comers?
It’s our own elites that are doing this to us, the same elites who’d be in charge of implementing any collective security arrangements…
The only way they can inherit the freedom we have known is if we fight for it, protect it, defend it, and then hand it to them with the well fought lessons of how they in their lifetime must do the same.
I don’t disagree, but this starts at home. Extending guarantees to Ukraine is pretty far down the list of priorities to accomplish this. And a big war is one of the most freedom-destroying things you can think of, the government gets involved in everything and everyone gets dependent on it. Not just our government, though it happened here after WWII it also happened after WWI (but didn’t get permanently set) both here and in the UK.
Sure, we need to clean up our act at home, but Russia and China are aging and dwindling populations with problems they can’t fix through wars. Russia’s war in Ukraine has already cost it more than it could ever possibly recoup. The foreign commitments we’ve already undertaken are plenty.
Pingback:False Dilemmas and Russian Expansion: When MAGA Commenters Use Straw Man Arguments
“Ukraine had no control over those nukes”…
That’s a rather silly claim. To the extent that it’s doubtful that the U military could use them to bomb anyone, it’s true, but the broader definition of control certainly applies. No one else was going to use them, and, given enough time, the U’s could have worked their way around Soviet security measures. The Russians were willing to sign that agreement just to get them back.
To another point – NATO is not going to be the only sticking point for Putin. Allowing U to have any sort of official arrangement with the EC is something that Putin has bitched about in the past. Don’t be surprised to see Russia demanding that U forswear any entanglement with western economic alliences.
Lol our friend Karmi can’t quit us it seems.
@buddhaha:but the broader definition of control certainly applies. No one else was going to use them.
They were controlled from and in continuous communication with Moscow. That’s why the former Soviet republics gave them up: they couldn’t use them themselves, or stop Russia from using them, they were only a liability because nuclear weapons are also nuclear targets.
given enough time, the U’s could have worked their way around Soviet security measures.
Not without Russia immediately knowing, and there’s really no way to talk your way out of being caught in the attempt. It’s not like nuclear weapons are stored passively in a warehouse and anyone can start them up who’s in the area.
Putin need only wait until Obama v2 gets elected, then he can grab some more (again) and Obama v2 will do nothing.
Dem Ruskies has super special nuclear skilz that enabled then to actively monitor their (Soviet not Russian) nukes remotely at all hours every day forever. So says Nick’s sources. Yep even though the entirety of the Russian military post 1991 was bankrupt and falling apart, their nuclear skills remained sharp as ever. Those peasant Ukrainians could never figure out how to use the nuclear weapons in Ukrainian possession (IIRC Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union but somehow the nukes were solely Russian property).
Another one of Nick’s “Just so, stories.”
Optimistic Ukraine fatigue has settled over the land like a moist fog. Hopes abound that we’re as done with the perenially corrupt state as we are with the rotten Bidens.
It was a bad dream. Go away, Zelenskyy, and take your extra ‘y’ with you.
“What use would any security guarantee be? Ukraine had one already from the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine surrendered their Soviet-era nukes in return for guarantees of Ukrainian sovereignty.” – Alan Colbo
Have you read the Budapest Memorandum?
Here’s our obligation if any country, including Russia threatened Ukraine:
That’s it. Each of the signatories promised not to do certain things, but I haven’t found the part which spells out how any aggression would be stopped other than #4. Because there was none.
There is no commitment to provide military assistance if any of the terms of the memorandum were violated.
The Stanford paper Budapest Memorandum Myths makes it clear their were no guarantees in the memorandum.
https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/news/budapest-memorandum-myths
Boned Looser laments that Vladdy is now working on his next million Russian casualties, to what end. Eventually Vladdy will learn that he can’t take infinite losses.
I am still wondering why Ukraine is worth a second thought. Ukraine is a line on a map drawn by politicians after the collapse of the USSR. It has not historically ever been a separate country, but has been at various times the home of numerous ethnic tribal groups such as the Scythians, then the Slavs, following which it was conquered by or merged into various empires, starting with the Kievan Rus, then the Mongol Empire, followed by Poland, Lithuania then the Russian Empire, Austria-Hungary, Nazi Germany and most recently Soviet Russia, which killed off about forty million or so of its inhabitants in an official genocide called “the Holodomor.” We did NOTHING then and the world spun on. It has been marched over by more armies than one can count. Since it was given official recognition as a separate geopolitical entity in 1991, it has been among the “sick men” of Europe, losing population year-over-year. I am Ukrainian and Slovak by ethnicity, so I have great sympathy for all the suffering experienced by its citizens, but I rejoice that my grandparents had the pluck and foresight to get out of their natal homelands. I was born when Ukraine was simply another of the Soviet Socialist Republics and IT MADE NO DIFFERENCE TO ANYONE! Whether Ukraine remains a separate political entity or not is irrelevant to those both inside and outside the lines on maps drawn by politicians. Putin is a brute, but he is merely the most recent in a long line of Russian brutes who have used Ukraine for their purposes. Ukraine’s political existence is of no moment to the United States; it may be of concern to the European countries to its west, but at the rate those countries are absorbing islamic and african migrants they won’t exist either in a few decades, should The Lord tarry. Somehow, I don’t think Mayor Khan of London cares one whit about Ukrainian independence; he is too busy adding (formerly) GreatBritain to the islamic ummah.
‘I am still wondering why the law matters to anyone, let the biggest thug win ….. Why should I care …… ‘ Shortened for Steve (the recovering lawyer).
Dear om:
Please feel free to go to Ukraine and fight the dreaded russkies. Or send a son or daughter. I hear they’re taking volunteers. Until you have skin in the game, it’s just idle talk. In case you hadn’t noticed, the world is populated by thugs who rule over their people, many of whom compose the “government,” but others who don’t. Do you propose to fight all of them? Why not start with Xi Jinping, whose enslavement of the Uighuirs is notorious. Or how about a closer target, like the narco gangs in Mexico, who clearly have no compunction against the most vicious torture inflicted on their opponents. Or is your righteous indignation reserved exclusively for Putin because you have been told to hate him? I have no love for Putin, but when he passes, there will be enough of his ilk remaining to give you multiple opportunites to go to war, unless you think his passing will put right all the wrongs across this benighted globe we inhabit.
@steve (retired/recovering lawyer): Ukraine is a line on a map drawn by politicians after the collapse of the USSR.
This is not quite true. Ukraine’s 1991 borders were drawn by Khrushchev in 1954 when Crimea was added, and Stalin before, during, and after WWII ethnically cleansed many of the minorities living there (such as Poles, Greeks, Italians, Tatars), a few of which have been finding their way back since. It would be more correct to say the border (like all the SSR borders) was drawn by Russian politicians for their own reasons, and made more reasonable by the destruction of many people who had been living where Stalin didn’t want them to be.
You’re right that an independent country called “Ukraine” has only existed about 30 years. Before it was conquered by Mongols in 1240 there was a country of Slavs ruled by Vikings, called Kievan Rus’ by modern historians, but in those times I don’t think there was any distinction between Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian peoples and all three today claim to be the heirs of Kievan Rus’.
But it would seem that Ukrainians have at least as good a right to an independent ancestral homeland as Jews do; it would be nice if all peoples could have their own, but it only happens when it suits the existing order in some way, and unfortunately lots of people can claim the same territories as their homelands. No one is proposing independence for Crimea, for example, and as I mentioned above three nations claim Kiev as an ancestral homeland.
at the rate those countries are absorbing islamic and african migrants they won’t exist either in a few decades
Russia has an analogous problem, the Muslims in Russia are the ones with above-replacement birth rates. Russia’s median age is 41.5, driven by falling birth-rate (1.47 TFR) and higher life expectancy (though still below world average) since 1991.
Ukraine is a line on a map drawn by politicians after the collapse of the USSR
==
In your imagination only. A political unit resembling the 2012 boundaries of the Ukraine appeared in 1917 as peripheral areas of Tsarist Russia attempted to go their own way (Finland, the Baltic states, and Poland succeeded, other areas did not). It was a political unit throughout the Soviet era.
==
The Ukrainian language and institutes of culture were considered enough of a threat by the central government that they were targets of suppression by the central government from the first decade of the 19th century onward. The Ukrainian Church emerged at the end of the 16th century.
==
There is a distinction in political orientation and culture between western Ukraine and eastern Ukraine, but both sides were agreed on secession from the Soviet Union in 1991. The referendum on sovereignty passed in all 25 regions. To favor merger with Russia has been a common sentiment in White Russia, but not in the Ukraine, where it is something favored by < 5% of the population.
Steve (retired/recovering lawyer):
I’ve never found the “chickenhawk” argument to be a convincing one.
If this is how Steve made his cases it may be a good thing that he is retired.
Steve argues for cosmic justice for all or don’t bother at all?
Is not quite true the same as false? Or do we have a retired lawyer and an apologist for falsity?
Please feel free to go to Ukraine and fight the dreaded russkies. Or send a son or daughter. I hear they’re taking volunteers. Until you have skin in the game,
==
There are no American troops in the Ukraine. Whether American policy is advisable or not does not turn on what ‘om’ does in his own life (or what you do). I seem to recall ‘om’ is in late middle age. He hasn’t mentioned any children, or if his children have dependent children of their own. No clue why you fancy his posited daughter should volunteer for military service.
==
I imagine the original budapest memorandum did not an expectation of intervention, the folllowing year was the first airstrikes in bosnia, which had proven an embarassment for the EU, now would the French or British or German really intervene, would smaller states, that is the crux of the matters,
if there were a strike against a Nato country would be something else,
I’m not sanguine about the twitter general donahue who did not distinguish himself in the kabul evacuation who is posted to NATO
@Art Deco:There are no American troops in the Ukraine.
Not what steve said. He said Ukraine is taking volunteers. Americans have and are volunteering to fight for Ukraine.
As for age, Ukraine’s soldiers are middle-aged, since they don’t conscript young people at the moment; middle age is no barrier.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/29/malcolm-nance-msnbc-pundit-ukraine-soldier-michael-harriot
Some more stories:
Couple of points from the view of some Russians, including, supposedly, Putin, a form of justice, Russian justice, requires getting Ukraine back entirely. Security guarantees do not stop “justice”. They stop actions, presumably. But the justice I mentioned remains and will take advantage of any advantage which may surface. Even if it’s not particularly an advantageous advantage. “justice” will inflate the wishful thinking. It’s different from a financial transaction, whatever the currency may be.
Putin, despite his career in intelligence, mostly internal intelligence in the FSB, had no idea how crappy his military was. How on earth did he not know? Or did he know and go anyway? How canny will his successor be? To start a fight which cost so much and which could have been foreseen with the slightest though… Putting obstacles in the way…. Could there be any obstacles more serious than a crumbly military on your side and a total lack of knowledge about the resistance of the victim and its supporters?
Point is that no amount of “guarantees” are guaranteed. And the question is whether we, which is to say Europe in general and the US, are going to send our sons in the thousands or our grandsons in the tens of thousands.
And if we send enough of our sons that…nothing happens, that will prove they were unnecessary.
There is more to this than another piece of paper.
not noodle head nance, seriously, one of the lower level russia hoaxers one of the more disreputable udt grads since Jesse Ventura,
Putin had replaced a more reform minded defense minister, Serdyakov with that Tuvan Shoigu, whose incompetence I have remarked on in the past, he was the one that commissioned the battle plan, which would have earned someone a failure notice and revocation, at Frunze Academy, which has cost it’s share of officers,
@Richard Aubrey:a form of justice, Russian justice, requires getting Ukraine back entirely
Sure, but we’re seeing this all over. Everybody draws a line and says “history started here” to get the result they already decided on. Ukraine’s claim to Crimea goes all the way back to a 1954 decision by Khrushchev, and its claim to its westernmost region goes all the way back to Hitler and Stalin’s pact of 1940 and the deportation and murder of the Poles and Jews and others who had long lived there.
On the other hand, Russia’s claims to anything are basically conquest and settlement. Easy to cast aspersions on, but no American has a leg to stand on in this regard: Russia’s conquest and settlement of Crimea started in 1783, the same year Britain ceded to us the area covered under the Northwest Ordinance–Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota–which we began settling. (Yes, I know, we’re the Good Guys and Russians are the Bad Guys and it’s not like the Indians were making good use of that land, and how many could there possibly have been anyway–we have excuses that would make Putin blush, because it’s not enough for us to have the land, not enough for us that no one is trying to take it, but we have to pretend it was all obtained by high moral principle.)
Justice and principles are not operating well here. Most Ukrainians probably don’t care to be a national minority in Russia, but their own national minorities, including their Russians, may not care to be national minorities in Ukraine, and there’s very little talk in the American right blogosphere about any of them other than the Ukrainian Russians.
About all you can say is that Russia invaded and occupied Ukraine, not the other way around, and I think the “justice” case rests sufficiently on that point, but that’s about what DID happen and not about what SHOULD happen. I don’t think there’s any principle to say what should happen, except maybe that the killing should stop and not start again, and I don’t know how to do that or what that looks like.
What can I say, life is not a comic book and we don’t have the luxury of victims without a spot of black or villains without a spot of white. Yet as adults we have to navigate the world and make decisions as best we can. The stakes for any of us commenting here, personally, are exceedingly low, except in the event that the US gets drawn into a war with Russia.
@miguel cervantes:not noodle head nance, seriously
Too cryptic for me. Noodle head, perhaps, but are you saying he didn’t actually go fight for Ukraine? Drop me a link if you have one. But he’s not the only one, of course happy to replace him with someone else. Noodle head or not, if he went to fight for Ukraine, he at least gets credit for putting his money where his mouth is.
Niketas. Perhaps I wasn’t clear. It’s not your justice. It’s not my justice. It’s not our justice. It’s not a half dozen historical analogies’ worth of justice.
It’s what the Russians think, irrespective of the preceding paragraph. But if things go sideways, maybe somebody can get Putin or his successor on the phone and explain this to him so he’ll stop.
They must be made to not even start. To not even think of starting, whatever grievances they nourish in their souls.
Because, for the Russians, justice is always the next country over. And there’ll always be some treaty, some letter written by some big shot…maybe Marlborough…which implies the Russians do, indeed, have a case here.
Eventually….I presume there’ll be an eventually where maybe trotting out another piece of paper isn’t what’s called for just then.
Thats what i need to know about nance
https://thepostmillennial.com/malcolm-nance-claimed-great-soldiers-dont-get-killed-like-shannon-kent
@Richard Aubrey:They must be made to not even start. To not even think of starting, whatever grievances they nourish in their souls.
What they’ve tried to do in Ukraine has already cost them so much that I doubt they’ll have much left with which to start anything else, and it’s not going to get better; their people are getting older and they are not having enough children to replace themselves, except their Muslim population.
@miguel cervantes:Thats what i need to know about nance
Ok, you’ve shown he’s an asshole, but he’s an asshole fighting Russians in Ukraine, and the point I made stands, that there are American volunteers fighting in Ukraine even if some of them are assholes.
Ukraine’s claim to Crimea goes all the way back to a 1954 decision by Khrushchev, and its claim to its westernmost region goes all the way back to Hitler and Stalin’s pact of 1940 and the deportation and murder of the Poles and Jews and others who had long lived there.
==
The public works on the Crimea are enmeshed with the public works on the mainland, as they discovered after the Russians seized the territory.
==
Again, the Crimea in 1991 voted for sovereignty, along with every other region of the Ukaraine.
==
The population of the southwestern region of inter-war Poland was largely Ukrainian. The Polish governments in the immediate post-war period were able to grab and hold some territory east of the Curzon line. The Poles are not contesting any Ukrainian territory.
”This is not quite true. Ukraine’s 1991 borders were drawn by Khrushchev in 1954 when Crimea was added, and Stalin before, during, and after WWII ethnically cleansed many of the minorities living there…”
Which is completely irrelevant to the situation at hand. The international order established after World War II (with its 80 million dead) to end such wars of conquest fixed national borders as they were and required changes to be implemented by negotiation, not conquest. Hence, Czechoslovakia peacefully split with a boundary acceptable to all.
When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991 its people voted on how to divide up. Every single oblast within Ukraine voted to leave Russia and join Ukraine. The borders were finalized and agreed to in principle with the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 and set in stone with the Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty of 1997. Everyone agreed to these borders: the United Kingdom, the United States, the United Nations, the Ukraine, **and Russia**.
The 1954 borders are irrelevant. The 1917 borders are irrelevant. The 1783 (!) borders are irrelevant, as are the borders of 1240. Russia has no right to change any of it by conquest. The 1997 borders have the force of international law and must be enforced. To allow otherwise is to abandon the modern age and return to the Age of Empires. Millions will die as a result.
Weve been really bad at understanding our adversaries for about 70 years if not more, mirroring our sentiments have been terrible in almost every instance
International law is a really bad joke ask tibet vis a vis china
In vietnam we had the matter nearly wrong from the outset see mark moyar first two books
In latin america we were almost as blind one would think the end of the cold war would have imparted some wisdom but not really
When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991 its people (Ukraine) voted on how to divide up. Every single oblast within Ukraine voted to join a new Russian union as an independent sovereign republic before the December vote where Ukrainians were asked one question– “Do you confirm the Act of Independence of Ukraine?”
In March of the same year Ukrainians were asked “Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any ethnicity will be fully guaranteed?”
It’s possible/likely some voters were confused and thought the December referendum was just a continuation of the March referendum.
Both questions received overwhelming support across Ukraine. Every oblast voted in the affirmative to both questions. It’s likely the answer is closer to the March referendum, at least in the East and South of Ukraine. A sovereign, independent Ukraine in a new union with the former Soviet republics– but as equals.
Both referendums produced independent sovereignty– it was the alignment that was at issue.
Those Ukrainian apologists/propagandists keep pounding the drum that there was no question all Ukrainians wanted a western aligned country– but it’s not so clear if you take the time to look deeper.
Why did the voters of Ukraine vote 82% to stay Soviet in March 1991 but 92.2% to leave in December?
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/txl15c/why_did_the_voters_of_ukraine_vote_82_to_stay/
Niketas
You know the Russians have paid too much to try again in the future, as far as we can tell. D
Does Putin know this?
Keep in mind how much he didn’t know, had to not know, to start the current festivities. Or if he knew–you pick it–figured the shortfalls weren’t significant.
Think he’s learned his lesson?
The German General Staff knew that they didn’t have the combat power to deal with the likely combination of their enemies going into WW II. So they loaded up their wonder weapons and superAryansoldiers and effete potential enemies with good hopes. Think the Russians can be more realistic if they really, really want something they think they really, really deserve?
@Richard Aubrey:Think the Russians can be more realistic if they really, really want something they think they really, really deserve?
Well, if you’re saying they can’t be deterred, then what? You just said
“They must be made to not even start. To not even think of starting, whatever grievances they nourish in their souls.”
How you do suggest this be solved then?
ArtDeco:
I am well past middle age and could have retired a few years ago but have decided to keep working as a geologist in the Cold War legacy cleanup here in Eastern Washington.
A Waste is a terrible thing to mind. The work is still interesting and keeps myself and my spouse solvent and saving for retirement. We have no children, and are currently without canine companions (sorely missed). Work, home remodeling projects, and church keep me out of trouble.
”What would security guarantees for Ukraine look like?”
Yesterday Russia let us know what the security guarantees for Ukraine will look like:
1) No troops from a NATO or a European country would be permitted to provide those guarantees, or even to set foot in the country.
2) Russia would have final say on when, where, and how any such troops could be used should hostilities resume. So if Russia attacked, those third-world guarantors would need Russian permission to leave their barracks.
3) Russian foreign minister Lavrov then floated the idea that *Russian troops* would provide those guarantees, so if Russian troops attacked Ukraine, it would be Russian troops who would be tasked to stop them, subject to veto by the Russian government, of course.
If you’re surprised by any of this, consider that the day after the Trump / Putin summit Russia showed its commitment to peace by bombing a civilian apartment building in Kharkiv, killing an entire family that included an 18-month-old child. It was not an accident. The apartment building was attacked by five separate Shahed drones which circled the building before attacking it from five different directions.
Great pacifist that Putin, and a great peacemaker in Trump. Truly a meeting of the minds that summit was.
Trump has ruled out having American boots on the ground* as part of those security guarantees, saying that having American business interests in Ukraine will prevent another Russian attack on the country. Lest you think the stable genius is on to something, Russia answered that question as well.
Yesterday Russia directly attacked an American-owned factory in Ukraine with two long-range missiles, injuring 15 workers. The factory made coffeemakers. The attack was no accident. The factory was 700 miles behind the front lines in a city way out west by the Hungarian border, a city that had not been attacked before.
What did Trump do after an American factory along the Ukrainian / Hungarian border was bombed by Russia? He suggested meeting with Putin again *in Budapest.* It boggles the mind.
*I agree with him on that but for very different reasons.
Oh, remember that “peace deal” that Trump made with Armenia and Azerbaijan? The one that involved an American defense contractor manning a transportation corridor along southern Armenia and Azerbaijan, bypassing both Russia and Iran?
Well, both Russia and Iran have publicly stated that they will destroy that corridor using military force if they have to. To emphasize the point, Russia has poured additional troops into Armenia and has begun gathering troops at its border with Azerbaijan. Iran seems to be moving men and equipment north toward the borders as well. The Azeris are desperately calling for Turkey to send troops to protect them from invasion. I guess the Armenians are just SOL.
So much winning.
Those Ukrainian apologists/propagandists keep pounding the drum that there was no question all Ukrainians wanted a western aligned country– but it’s not so clear if you take the time to look deeper.
==
Such people do not exist outside your imagination. Foreign policy orientation was a live question in Ukrainian politics for over 20 years. There’s a distinction between wanting co-operative relations with a neighboring power and wishing to be swallowed up by that power. Merging with Russia is an option that had almost no takers in the Ukraine. Russian behavior over the last dozen years has largely destroyed the constituency for a Russian-oriented foreign policy as well.
==
The “Commonwealth of Independent States” had no more function that the British Commonwealth.
Art Deco, you’re missing the point. Both western and eastern Ukraine wanted sovereignty/independence but were deeply divided whether to align with the west (the EU didn’t exist at this point) or with Russia. The tug of war over the next 20 years culminated in the Revolution that ousted Yanukovych precisely over the issue whether Ukraine should align with the European Union or the Common Union.
The highlights the divisions in Ukraine between western and eastern Ukraine.
After our Civil War, the south was so completely defeated that there was no capability for southerners to secede again. Ukraine doesn’t have the military ability to do what we did to the south. The best solution Ukraine can hope for is a peace along the front lines as they exist. Ukraine doesn’t have/isn’t willing to draft an army the size necessary to reclaim those territories– even with continued/increased US support. As Ukrainian attacks on Russian infrastructure increase, the likelihood is for increased escalation by Russia, not for Russia to agree to withdraw from the territories it now controls.
Yesterday Russia directly attacked an American-owned factory in Ukraine with two long-range missiles, injuring 15 workers. The factory made coffeemakers. mkent
That’s certainly curious. Why would Russia bother to bomb a coffeemaker factory? Well that’s the narrative. The Flex Ltd. plant in Ukraine is a injection molding plant that makes plastic parts for various products, including coffeemakers.
While Ukraine denies the plant makes anything but civilian components, there is the dual use aspect and all it takes for an injection molding factory to produce a component is a mold.
At this point, I’m skeptical about both sides press releases.
Art Deco, you’re missing the point. Both western and eastern Ukraine wanted sovereignty/independence but were deeply divided whether to align with the west (the EU didn’t exist at this point) or with Russia.
==
I’m “missing the point” and then you proceed to restate something I just said.