Program Note
[ Posted Monday, July 10th, 2023 – 16:58 UTC ]
Due to houseguests arriving unexpectedly early, I regret to announce that there will be no new columns here all week long. I am going to try to spend some time tomorrow setting up re-run columns for the rest of the week (so the site won't be entirely dark), but my original plan of posting today and tomorrow is now no longer operational. Have a great summer week, everyone, and rest assured I will be doing so as well! New columns will resume next Monday.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
That's okay - I gotcha covered. Have fun! :-)
So, isn't it interesting that Putin met with Prigozhin for almost three hours and, apparently, offered him and his fellow mercenaries new employment and new roles in combat?
Is Prigozhin - and Putin - on track to achieving what they set out to do?
Hey, what else can we do but have fun speculating about stuff like this while the counteroffensive has stalled out?
Cluster munitions have been used in Ukraine by Ukraine all the way back to 2014. Russia has used cluster munitions in Ukraine during the current war in Ukraine. Both sides currently possess these bombs.
Human Rights Watch - Use of Cluster Munitions in Ukraine
What is clear, now that the Biden administration has decided to send cluster munitions in unknown quantity to Ukraine, is that both sides in this war are destined to increase their use of these bombs with high dud factors and therefore high probability of harming civilians long after use.
I see the use of these weapons as acts of desperation. The Biden administration certainly sounds like it is feeling desperate enough to resort to desperate measures.
What will the increased use of these weapons mean for the counteroffensive, in particular, and for the dynamics on the battlefield, in general. And, how long will they have to be used while conventional artillery stockpiles are being replenished?
Most media reports downplay the use of cluster munitions by Ukraine but Human Rights Watch has documented widespread use of these weapons by Ukraine since 2014 ...
https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions
This is why they need more. I just can't see how providing more of these weapons ends well for anyone involved in this war.
Just couldn't resist, eh?
Nope. This war is really getting to me.
Joshua,
Just couldn't resist, eh?
Am I out of line? Is it a taboo subject? Should we just go away for the duration ... of Chris's holiday, that is?
@liz,
You're the one who wrote that you didn't want to discuss it. If you do want a real discussion, it's going to have to include all the reasons why you're wrong. ;P
JL
I don't think I ever said I didn't want to discuss anything, just like that.
I think I don't like being called names or responding to insulting comments.
I'm always open to discussing why I might be wrong about something. Why the frak else would I be here in the first place?
I may have said that we shouldn't discuss the Ukraine War until Chris writes about it.
That may be the way to go. But, since he has now told us that there won't be any new columns until next week, I'm thinking ... why not have a discussion about it here in the meantime?
Of course, I keep thinking that the name-calling and insulting comments will subside, and they have for the most part, I should note ...
Putin's Unwise War of Choice. Or, How to "Fast-track" Ukraine's Membership in NATO!
I hope NATO isn't being duplicitous or disingenuous all for the sake of a public face of unity. Because that would just add insult to injury considering how its current members have already sacrificed Ukraine on the altar of weakening Russia at all costs.
I am beginning to understand how Z feels about all of this. And, he understands more than any of us that Ukraine ain't Sweden or Finland - not in any way that matters in the current context.
Back in the 1990s when Russia wasn't trying to conquer its neighbors, NATO expansion was not an issue. I really don't at all understand why you'd ascribe to them all these nefarious motives.
Russia doesn't need to be weak, it just has to stop invading other countries.
Actually, NATO expansion is all about weakening Russia. NATO expansion has always been a issue for Russia. Ukraine is ...er, was a bridge too far for Russia.
In any event, Putin's war of choice has made Ukraine's membership in NATO very much an issue. Of course, that won't happen until after the war and then a good long time after that, if ever. It will depend on how this war ends, too ...
Nefarious motives? Oh, I don't know that I'd call them nefarious ... NATO is motivated to enlarge NATO as much as is possible while being very short-sighted about the consequences of such expansion. This war could have been and indeed probably was predicted if NATO/US continued on the long path toward welcoming Ukraine into the fold.
It never made sense to include Ukraine in NATO. It did make sense for Ukraine to be neutral and be a buffer between Russia and the west. But all of that is out the window now with few options left to resolve any issues between Ukraine and Russia...except for what is happening now.
So, the infamous military industrial complex will come out alright, regardless. Meanwhile, the existential crisis facing our entire planet continues on its course toward inhabitability. There's always Mars.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. When NATO began its expansion, Russia wasn't a threat, and was even considered for potential membership. Expansion isn't its motivation, keeping order and preventing threats is. Ukraine membership became sensible in 2004 when it first came under threat for deciding to clean up its elections. I really don't mean to be insulting, it's just that you're so incredibly wrong about almost everything historical.
Also, the causes of the Ukraine conflict have exactly nothing to do with NATO; Putin just put that out as a red herring. The ongoing military conflict is and always has been about one thing only, Ukraine's independence from Russia, full stop.
Joshua,
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. When NATO began its expansion, Russia wasn't a threat, and was even considered for potential membership.
Yes, and I remember that I was actually advocating for Russian membership in NATO. Russia even considered it - for one brief shining moment! And, that was that.
Russia had been a threat for a very, very, very long time. Do you recall the cold war?
Also, the causes of the Ukraine conflict have exactly nothing to do with NATO; Putin just put that out as a red herring. The ongoing military conflict is and always has been about one thing only, Ukraine's independence from Russia, full stop.
It's going to be very interesting to watch how the rest of this war unfolds with NATO ...er, the US supplying just enough support for Ukraine to keep up with Russia all the while hanging out the prospect for NATO membership that will always be just out of reach.
I can certainly understand Z's frustration.
Hardly, full stop. How, when and why do you think Russia soon after the heady but shortlived days of democratization decided not to join NATO but to keep fighting it?
NATO isn't really about defense.
Meanwhile, from the BBC, "Russian defence minister Sergei Shoigu was quoted by Russian news agencies as saying that Moscow would be forced to use [cluster munitions] if the US supplied controversial cluster munitions to Ukraine."
Z is unhappy today. But, wait until the F-16s arrive! That'll be the real game changer ... until it isn't. Then, what!?
@16,
Russia and the Soviet Union aren't exactly the same thing. Putin may not realize this and you may not realize this, but that's his problem and also yours. They're not expanding rationally based on a competing economic and political philosophy, they're conquering for pride and nostalgia. That's one of many reasons your "rational actor" arguments make no sense.
JL
Elizabeth,
If Canada decided to switch over to Russia or China by your logic us Yanks would be perfectly justified in seizing Ontario.
@caddy,
Yes but that's beside the point. The main argument Liz is making isn't that Russia is justified, it's that Russia might have responded differently to NATO backing off Ukraine. They wouldn't have, because Putin's actions aren't based on geopolitical logic or competing philosophies, they're based on pride, nostalgia, personal animus and nationalist resentment.
RE: the anderson/meaney op-ed
i will concede that SOME members of NATO have had SOME motivations other than its primary purpose, but they're not mutually exclusive, and the article presents it as if they were.
that's a false-dilemma fallacy (aka either-or fallacy) - side note to kick, it's not one of the panda fallacies, so we may need an additional call sign.
[3]
I see the use of these weapons as acts of desperation. The Biden administration certainly sounds like it is feeling desperate enough to resort to desperate measures.
Desperate? The Rooskies have been fortifying occupied Ukraine for a year and a half yet you expect success to come, what, instantly?
[13]
It never made sense to include Ukraine in NATO. It did make sense for Ukraine to be neutral and be a buffer between Russia and the west. But all of that is out the window now with few options left to resolve any issues between Ukraine and Russia...except for what is happening now.
Why? Why do you believe that taking Ukraine’s NATO membership off the table doesn’t tell Putin, “Go ahead, help yourself to Ukraine?”
Having said all that it’s clear that NATO would rather dribble out just enough military aid to Ukraine to keep her in the fight, but not enough to win (at least too quickly) because this war keeps Russia from conducting other military aggression.
[26]
Geopolitically this is NATO’s best choice, Ukrainian casualties be damned. Countries don’t have friends they have interests.
Joshua,
Russia and the Soviet Union aren't exactly the same thing. Putin may not realize this and you may not realize this,
You really do think I'm an idiot, don't you ... ;)
They're not expanding rationally based on a competing economic and political philosophy, they're conquering for pride and nostalgia. That's one of many reasons your "rational actor" arguments make no sense.
Maybe I am an idiot ... 'cause I have no idea what you're talking about here.
Caddy,
If Canada decided to switch over to Russia ----- by your logic us Yanks would be perfectly justified in seizing Ontario.
Abso-freakin'-lutely! And, you'd be wise to take more than Ontario. Hehehehehehehe
Finally, you have the right analogy, at the ver least. :-)
Caddy,
Of course, by that I certainly don't mean that Putin is justified in his war of choice in Ukraine. Because, he is not.
My ONLY point since this war began was to say that NATO/US/Biden did not even try to prevent it AND their actions since the cold war began until now AND their plan for the last few decades to expand NATO eventually to OSTENSIBLY 'include' Ukraine with apparent little regard for the consequences all went quite a long way to paving the way for the outcome we see today. I also contend that NATO/US has done Ukraine no favours by choosing this course.
Does this mean that I think Putin would have chosen differently if NATO/US hadn't been pushing the expansion agenda pretty consistently since the fall of the Soviet Union? No, that is not what I think. What I think is that NATO/US/Biden administration made sure we'd never find out!!!
Caddy,
Why? Why do you believe that taking Ukraine’s NATO membership off the table doesn’t tell Putin, “Go ahead, help yourself to Ukraine?”
I don't think you mean what you wrote there ...
Desperate? The Rooskies have been fortifying occupied Ukraine for a year and a half yet you expect success to come, what, instantly?
When do you expect success to come?
[30]
Abso-freakin'-lutely! And, you'd be wise to take more than Ontario. Hehehehehehehe.
You’re just joking, right? As half of Canada’s population lives in the Southernmost quarter of Ontario…and as we don’t need Canadian shale oil…I think Ontario would suffice. I’d be able to get back up to Moosonee without a bleeping passport.
Heh.
@liz,
i don't think you're an idiot at all. at least no more so than putin, and he's certainly no idiot. very smart people are still capable of shockingly flawed thinking. what i AM saying is that your post [16] referred to "russia" being a threat during the cold war, which to me suggests that you (and putin too, but i already knew that about him) have conflated the russian federation with the soviet union.
while the two entities have many things in common geographically and socially, as forms of government and as nations of identity they function very differently. many ukranians (and other former members of soviet socialist republics) who had been more or less content as SSR's did not want to be part of the new russian order, and chose to chart their own path.
putin's thinking has still not adjusted to this reality. case in point, he went to ukraine in 2004 confident that his words would be heeded and the orange revolution would fall. they weren't, and it didn't, but i believe he still hasn't accepted those events as a true reflection of ukraine's new national identity. he still regards himself as a soviet premier, and perhaps on some unconscious level so do you and/or the sources you follow. perhaps not, but it would explain why you've written as if NATO backing off of ukraine membership might somehow have resulted in meaningful negotiations over ukraine rather than russian invasion.
Joshua[36],
I think what we have here is a simple failure to communicate and, on top of that, me being a slopy writer. You do indeed think I'm an idiot if you think I don't know the difference between the Russian Federation and its predecessor, the USSR. If I don't then I have no business being here and participating in this blog.
Shall I try #16 again?
_________________________________________________
[16] Redux
Joshua,
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. When NATO began its expansion, Russia wasn't a threat, and was even considered for potential membership.
Yes, and I remember that I was actually advocating for Russian membership in NATO. Russia even considered it - for one brief - very brief - shining moment! And, that was that.
The Russian Federation, and the Soviet Union before it, HAD been a threat for a very, very, very long time. Do you recall the cold war? The moment in history, after the collapse of the USSR, in which Russia contemplated joining NATO was brief and may even have been, in hindsight, non-serious.
Also, the causes of the Ukraine conflict have exactly nothing to do with NATO; Putin just put that out as a red herring. The ongoing military conflict is and always has been about one thing only, Ukraine's independence from Russia, full stop.
Full stop? Hardly. It is also about Russia's perceived sphere of influence and its perception of NATO and of NATO's rampant expansion eastward as a threat to its own existence. To assert that the causes of this conflict have nothing to do with NATO flies in the face of A LOT of history of ALL entities involved.
How, when and why do you think the Russian Federation decided not to join NATO soon after the heady but short-lived days of democratization but rather to keep fighting it?
In any event, it's going to be very interesting to watch how the rest of this war unfolds with NATO ...er, the US supplying just enough support for Ukraine to keep up with Russia all the while hanging out the prospect for NATO membership that will always be just out of reach.
I can certainly understand Z's frustration about the current situation. I also understand that the current situation is not likely to change, any time soon or any time at all! In other words, I think it is the height of fantasy to presume that Ukraine will gain back all of its lost and disputed territory through military means.
__________________________________________
Now, a note about your [36],
[Putin] still regards himself as a soviet premier, and perhaps on some unconscious level so do you and/or the sources you follow. perhaps not, but it would explain why you've written as if NATO backing off of ukraine membership might somehow have resulted in meaningful negotiations over ukraine rather than russian invasion.
First off, Putin may still regard himself as a 'soviet premier', as you say but, I do not and neither does William Bradley.
Secondly, no one is asserting, least of all me, that if NATO had "backed off of Ukraine membership" then meaningful negotiations over the situation in Ukraine might have ensued instead of war. What I AM asserting, however, is that THAT course of action on the part of NATO/US was never ventured nor contemplated and, in fact, was most decidedly taken OFF the negotiating table, explicitly so by Biden himself in the period just before the invasion began. And, so, we will never know what might have been. Which has also been my prima facie point all along during this long war and discussion.
You might assume from that last bit that, before Putin's unwise war of choice, I firmly believed that NATO/US were wrong, wrong, wrong to have contemplated allowing Ukraine to become a member of its club. After all, NATO is an organization that is free to decide which countries it chooses to bring into its fold AND dreams of expansion can be taken too far. Ahem.
Zelensky Forced to Recalibrate to Avert NATO Summit Falling-out
"we will never know what might have been" implies that something different might have happened other than full-scale war in ukraine, had NATO behaved differently. and that IS wrong.
also it's inaccurate to claim that NATO didn't try to avoid provoking russia. they tried very hard. ask angela merkel. she is directly responsible for the diplomacy that delayed the onset of the current invasion.
[37]
In other words, I think it is the height of fantasy to presume that Ukraine will gain back all of its lost and disputed territory through military means.
I dunno about that: Ukraine has already (1) NOT simply gotten rolled over in three weeks and (2) gained back half of the territories Russia initially occupied and (3) the sanctions are hurting Russia’s ability to sustain both it’s war production and it’s gas and oil infrastructure and the effects are accumulating. The moment Ukraine reaches the Sea of Azov — however many weeks or months it takes — the front will be split in half with the western and Crimean portions cut off from supplies.
Joshua[40-41],
That is your opinion. I can't say whether it is a wrong opinion.
If what you are saying is that this current war in Ukraine was inevitable, regardless of what NATO/US did or did not do, then I must fully disagree with the notion that this current situation in Ukraine was inevitable, no matter what.
I am actually quite surprised that you would reason that way. If NATO had not been so long obsessed with flouting the idea of Ukraine being in NATO, how can you be so damned sure that we would still be where we are today?
And, I NEVER claimed that NATO didn't try to avoid provoking Russia. One can certainly argue that NATO has indeed tried not to provoke Russia during this war. Which is rather amusing, in and of itself. I AM claiming that NATO refused to do the one thing (advocate for a strong, sovereign and NEUTRAL Ukraine) for the last four decades that might have avoided a lot of what has happened in Ukraine over that same time period, including what is happening now and resulted in a different resolution of what had developed into a regional security crisis.
Caddy,
(2) gained back half of the territories Russia initially occupied
But, that wasn't so much gained back as it was that Russia retreated, no?
no
I AM claiming that NATO refused to do the one thing (advocate for a strong, sovereign and NEUTRAL Ukraine)
your choice of capitalization indicates priorities that fundamentally misunderstand the relationship between ukraine and vladimir putin. neutrality would have been nice, but what made war inevitable was a ukraine that was SOVEREIGN, and what made it imminent was that they weren't able to become sufficiently STRONG.
as you've acknowledged repeatedly, the sole individual responsible for initiating the war is putin, and he's the one who would have had to be convinced for it not to happen. if mr. bradley claims that putin would have tolerated the existence of a ukraine that was SOVEREIGN just because it was NEUTRAL, he's either delusional or lying.
[44]
You mean Ukraine’s counteroffensive had nothing to do with Russians retreating? C’mon, Liz. Also, would you kindly provide a link to this Putin apologist William Bradley? I can’t find him via Google.
[I]f mr. bradley claims that putin would have tolerated the existence of a ukraine that was SOVEREIGN just because it was NEUTRAL, he's either delusional or lying.
This is the crux of this discussion and Joshua summed it up perfectly.
Bradley claims no such thing, Caddy. He just analyzes the situtation as it is.
You mean Ukraine’s counteroffensive had nothing to do with Russians retreating? C’mon, Liz. Also, would you kindly provide a link to this Putin apologist William Bradley? I can’t find him via Google.
Did I say that? No, I did not.
I implied that it's kind of hard to engage in a combative counteroffensive when there is no enemy there to counteroffense against. :)
You really do need to cease and desist from going around calling people Putin apologists just because they don't agree with you or see things that aren't there, okay? It's just not a great way to carry on a discussion.
Caddy,
Do I have to stipulate before every comment I make on this subject that Putin was not justified in starting this stupid and unnecessary war in Ukraine and that he has only succeeded in driving forward the scenarios he had hoped to crush? Do I really have to do that? Give me a freakin' break.
Joshua,
your choice of capitalization indicates priorities that fundamentally misunderstand the relationship between ukraine and vladimir putin.
Ha! my choice of capitalization indicates my level of frustration over how my words are being construed. Ahem.
I don't fundamentally misunderstand the relationship between Ukraine and Putin. My capitalized words in that comment were not referring to Putin alone. I'll write it AGAIN:
I AM claiming that NATO/US refused to do the one thing (advocate for a strong, sovereign and NEUTRAL Ukraine) for the last four decades that might have avoided a lot of what has happened in Ukraine over that same time period, including what is happening now and resulted in a different resolution of what had developed into a regional security crisis.
What is happening in Ukraine today is a result of so much more than Putin coming to power!
Joshua,
if mr. bradley claims that putin would have tolerated the existence of a ukraine that was SOVEREIGN just because it was NEUTRAL, he's either delusional or lying.
Well, that's a pretty big if - even if it's not capitalized - and NOT at all what he is claiming. I can see I will have to keep posting his analysis here, from time to time. :)
Caddy,
I keep telling you that, unfortunately, William Bradley has retired from public writing and so his analysis is limited to those who had been following his take on politics, from the inside/outside when he produced his blog and contributed to various publications. You had your chance back then to be on his list to receive these analyses so stop complaining about it now.
Note to all:
We are discussing a very complicated subject matter when we comment about what is happening in Ukraine today and all that preceded it, through the decades.
So, it is important to write clearly and precisely so as not to invite misunderstanding. In future, I will do my part and endeavour to try harder and make full use of the preview thingy before hitting the submit button!
Caddy,
I can’t find him via Google.
Here you go!
Just scroll down past his bio to find past articles he contributed to Huffington Post. Sorry, that's the best I can do for you.
Enjoy!
Joshua,
ask angela merkel. she is directly responsible for the diplomacy that delayed the onset of the current invasion.
That may be true, as far as it goes. But, her opposition to NATO welcoming Ukraine into the fold in 2008 was not absolute. She rightly believed that Ukraine was not ready for what the US was pushing at that time and that it would exasperate her diplomacy with Russia.
One critical reason for her failed diplomacy with Russia was that she believed that Ukraine was indeed destined to be inside NATO at some point in the future when it met the necessary conditions. And, this was not a secret that she kept from Putin!
No NATO Expansion
Again, with this cause-effect thinking regarding NATO expansion. At most NATO expansion speeded up the process. More likely it is a red herring and an excuse; Ukraine's ongoing sovereignty is what putin has never been able to tolerate.
Joshua, you seem to be stubbornly ignoring all that happened before Putin came to power.
NATO Expansion Timeline
I'm not ignoring history, I'm placing it in its proper context. The Soviet Union was a threat, but it was also a rational actor. It followed rules - perhaps not our rules, but a coherent system that valued cooperation and solidarity.
Putin follows no such rules, but expects to be afforded diplomatic consideration as if he did. If one wishes to contextualize Putin vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, it's Stalin who rates the best comparison. As an expansionist dictator, force is the only rule he respects.
I would not give NATO credit for intentional expansionism, although given the way Russia developed post millennium, it's probably the wisest course they could possibly have chosen.
I would not give NATO credit for intentional expansionism, although given the way Russia developed post millennium, it's probably the wisest course they could possibly have chosen.
Right, because it has led to a disastrous war in Ukraine. ;)
A war, by the way, pitting NATO against Russia and, in the process, depleting NATO weapons stockpiles to dangerously low levels, not to mention diverting attention and resources to the actual existential crisis that is the dawning climate apocalypse.
Right, because it has led to a disastrous war in Ukraine.
no, because ukraine is the ONLY country russia has invaded on its western border. admitting the baltic states probably prevented three more disastrous wars.
Admitting the Baltic states, while it angered Russia, did not cross the red line that Ukraine represents.
My bottom line on all of this? NATO expansion was a worthwhile endeavour but it was taken too far.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO expansion made little strategic sense and, in fact, became an impediment to the forces of democratization in Russia as well as a catalyst for the actions taken by Putin since he came to power.
Joshua often states that NATO expansion is a red herring and a convenient excuse for Putin's own expansionist tendencies. That may be quite true. But, that doesn't make the obsession of NATO and the US to expand ever further eastward irrelevant.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/opinion/putin-ukraine-nato.html
okay, friedman isn't saying anything crazy. he starts off with the acknowledgement that the only territory that bears directly on the present conflict is the space between putin's ears. second, the proposition that NATO expansion (which mostly occurred in 1999 and 2004) was a mistake. and finally, that NATO expansion was exploited by putin to shore up his domestic support via russian nationalism. Putin and Russia saw NATO expansion as humiliating, which in turn fueled the desire to re-institute soviet borders by force.
this all makes sense internally, and may even be true. however, when you do the math it doesn't add up to any share of responsibility for russia invading ukraine. you and william bradley are doing the equivalent of blaming the civil war on the missouri compromise (which happened 40 years earlier). of course they're not completely unrelated, but the amount of emphasis you're putting on it makes no sense whatsoever.
JL
Joshua,
The only reason that I'm putting so much emphasis on NATO/US obsession with Ukraine being in NATO is that, number one, it just doesn't make any strategic sense to offer NATO membership to Ukraine, especially when the chances of it ever happening, regardless of what you hear these days from NATO and the media, are slim to nil. And, number two, because talk of Ukraine inside NATO, especially since the fall of the Soviet Union AND dismantlement of the Warsaw Pact, unnecessarily provoked the powers that be in Russia - not just Putin!
In addition to all of that, my emphasis stems from the fact that Putin's war in Ukraine is so freakin' unnecessary and stupid - I see it ending with the status quo ante, more or less - and I would have loved to see more effort on the part of US/NATO to advocate for a more peaceful resolution to a regional security crisis by simply NOT taking the idea of Ukrainian membership in NATO decidedly off of the negotiating table.
In case it hasn't been more than obvious of late, I am a big fan of diplomacy when done effectively. So, I thought, was Biden. But, he has proven me wrong as president. Which saddens me to no end. I expected so much better after he surprised me by naming one of my top favourite diplomats, William Burns, as CIA director!!!
[69]
it just doesn't make any strategic sense to offer NATO membership to Ukraine, especially when the chances of it ever happening, regardless of what you hear these days from NATO and the media, are slim to nil.
Ukraine has the same post-Soviet oligarch problems as Russia and Russian stooges like Yanukovich did nothing to clean up corruption. Don’t confuse Russian thieves running the show for much of thirty years yields with some endemic Ukrainian proclivity for corruption.
In fact Zelenskyy campaigned and won on being anti-corruption. Furthermore, with all of the NATO involvement and concomitant influence in and on Ukraine things cannot help but improve — sunlight being the best cure blah blah blah. There’s lots of heavy lifting to finish cleaning things up for admission to NATO but it’s already in motion.
NATO was formed to defend the West from the USSR/Russia. The bigger the alliance the bigger the deterrence, hello? Do you really think the Baltic states would still be independent if not for NATO? Or do you think Finland and Sweden joining NATO “makes no strategic sense” either? What’s the difference between them and Ukraine?
I see it ending with the status quo ante, more or less
That’s already a very wrong prediction! A unified and energized NATO (with Finland adding 800 miles of NATO on Russia’s doorstep) is a massive strategic loss for Russia, a dreadful departure from “the status quo ante” not to mention sanctions that are trashing Russia’s economy and will permanently trash their energy export capacity. Oh, and hundreds of thousands of young Russians have either fled Russia or are destined for the meat grinder, and…
You get my point.
Hey Elizabeth,
Whether or not you come around to our thinking this has been a good thread. IMO the only “off limit” topics would be something like Don Harris-type comments. We probably won’t see Michale around here until the GQP fever breaks — I’d be as embarrassed as hell to admit being a Republican. Like, since Dubya.
Here’s something I wrote and saved last year:
More to the point, are you aware that 92% of Ukrainians voted to be independent of Moscow back in 1991? That the Orange Revolution '04 and Maidan '14 were popular revolts against Moscow trying to impose its will on Ukraine? That pre-invasion polling showed even Russian speaking Ukrainians want to be Ukrainian.
If you're against Ukrainians having the same rights to self rule as we enjoy, you could just come out and say it. Because, in effect, that's what you're saying. Oh, and do you think Poland and the Baltics weren't next on Putin's list? They thought giving Hitler chunks of little countries would mean "peace in our time," too.
Oh yeah spank you very much for the William Bradley link. I’ll plow through and familiarize myself with his views — first blush is that Hillary was determined to encircle Russia with NATO…
@caddy,
Another silver lining is the eurozone moving MUCH quicker to wean itself off fossil fuels.
Hmm, just realized I answered [64] as well.
Joshua[73],
Not so fast. The Eurozone is looking to replace its Russian gas supplier and instead of ramping up its clean energy initiatives it is importing gas from the US and other sources that have higher emission and even resorting to an increased use of coal.
But, you know what, I think we have long past the point of no return on mitigating to any great extent the dawning climate apocalypse, anyways. :(
Eurozone Replaces Russian Gas With Fossil Fuels That Have Multi-fold Times Higher Emissions!
And, then there is this ...
Oil Giants Increase Fossil Fuel Exploration/Investment As Profits Trump Climate
Russian Death Toll In Ukraine War Rises to 237,180
That's as of today, according to the Ukrainian government. And, it amounts to almost 90,000 more deaths than there were Russian soldiers who invaded Ukraine last year!
So, how is the counteroffensive going? Right, it's stalled on pause. For as long as it takes!
Caddy,
Ukrainian membership in NATO will have to wait until the war is won. Which means all Russian troops out of all parts of Ukraine, including Crimea AND no further threat from Russian incursions across its borders, now and forever.
For as long as it takes!
Caddy,
What's the difference between the Baltic states/Sweden/Finland and Ukraine?
A lot of history with the USSR/Russia. One could point to similarities, too but, they're irrelevant in the context of the current discussion. Why do you keep asking the same question?
fact Zelenskyy campaigned and won on being anti-corruption.
In reality, Z is part of the corruption problem, not the solution. But, this is the least of Ukraine's concerns for the foreseeable future.
not to mention sanctions that are trashing Russia’s economy and will permanently trash their energy export capacity.
That has not happened.
Hey Caddy,
Oh yeah spank you very much for the William Bradley link. I’ll plow through and familiarize myself with his views — first blush is that Hillary was determined to encircle Russia with NATO…
You're most welcome and I think he was talking about her campaign-sabotaging husband. :)
You're referring to a temporary spike in a market that is drastically changing.
I stand by my assertion, and so does the EU.
I knew you would. :)
Joshua,
From the article you cite above ...
"Renewable energy developers continue to experience difficulties with projects due to the rising cost of finance and capital expenditure.
"The cost of offshore wind projects has gone up 20% to 40% since Russia's invasion, Sven Utermöhlen, RWE's offshore wind CEO, said at the Global Offshore Wind conference in London on June 14."
This a big problem.
And, I meant that in a wider context of developing renewable energy platforms, beyond wind.