Europe under extreme duress

[Hair Warrior]

Frankly it isn’t our business to cater to any Russian angst. The stage for US/Russian relations was set by Stalin’s post-war lies and aggressions and the Russians have been sticking with that playbook ever since. Russia will Russia no matter how many reset buttons we offer because any willingness to deal is seen, by the Russian mindset, as a weakness to be taken advantage of. All of this was predicted by Keenan’s “long memo” back in the late 1940’s.

As for Russia’s military prowess, my analysis is that they are hardly a regional power and one with very poor operational and intelligence capability. Yes, they have nukes…but our cowering to that fear only feeds Russian adventurism.

I agree with you.

There was a good biography on Putin - The New Tsar by Myers - which talks about Putin’s motivations being rooted all the way back to the fall of the USSR; Putin witnessed it firsthand and felt powerless. His rise to power and decisions in power have been shaped by his desire to overcome what he felt was an unjust end to Soviet Russia’s hegemony.

 

[vxc961]

It's been a top foreign policy issue for Russia going back to Gorbachev.

We shrug and say "hey, come on in, you're a free country!" and Russia views it as an existential threat.

Ukraine started talks to join NATO in the mid 00s.

The question isn't whether NATO expansion makes Putin change his ends wrt Ukraine, but to what extent it influenced the ways and means.

I'm sure I'll get accused of propaganda again for linking a German authored analysis on the genesis of Putin's thinking using official documents.

I’m on board with a lot what you say and what you’re referencing. I can believe that in the 1990s we pinky swore with Yeltsin that NATO wouldn’t expand eastward. I can also believe we might have meant it, thinking if the USSR was gone, what’s the point?

The article you cite points out that there’s no treaty or official signed document saying the same. It also points out that former eastern bloc countries were immediately clamoring to join NATO. Maybe they knew something then we know now?

 

[Spekkio]

The article you cite points out that there’s no treaty or official signed document saying the same. It also points out that former eastern bloc countries were immediately clamoring to join NATO. Maybe they knew something then we know now?

Undoubtedly, eastern bloc countries wanted the security of US military power to ensure their sovereignty. It also prevents Russia from infiltrating their political elections to install Russian friendly leaders that would revert them back to pseudo-satellite states. No contention here that their membership is good from their standpoint, and up until recently they weren't even held accountable to spending 2% of their GDP on military capabilities.

But by supporting their admission, we inherently took actions that Russia would view as a significant security threat at a time when we were trying to build post cold war relations, and our political leaders knew it.

As I contended, NATO membership is not a necessary requirement for the U.S. to assist a nation in maintaining its sovereignty against Russian aggression. It does limit our response options if Russia decides to attack and test our resolve.

If our relationship continues down this path, I think Russian aggression into the Suwalki gap is more likely to happen in the next 5-10 years than a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

 

[Random8145]

Sorry, lots of back and forth. To summarize, I contend that:

• I think it's not really up for debate that Putin seeks to restore Russian hegemony in Eastern Europe in a 'multi-polar world' (his words in his national security policies going back to since he took office)
• Putin's decision to invade Ukraine was informed by an estimation that Russian annexation would be popular and therefore the operation would be short (RUSI article)
• Putin's decision to invade Ukraine was also partially based on NATO's force build-up in the Baltics (Professor interview) and actions taken by the US over the last 10-15 years that he interprets as provocative.

NATO didn't really start any serious force build up until Putin invaded Crimea in 2014, and that was after he invaded Georgia in 2008.

• Were I running for President, I would continue to support Ukranian sovereignty (which in reality is costing us very little despite MSM making it sound like we're breaking the budget over this) while also attempting to warm relations with Putin. Economically and militarily, we have to stop making him believe that he needs to take territory by force to create a self-sufficient Russia to hedge against US military and economic power.

That will never happen. The Russian mindset has been imperialistic going back before the Soviet Union but then with WWII, the extreme brutality of the German invasion in 1941 psychologically stunned the already imperialistic Russians. The Russians lost anywhere from 20 to 40 million fighting off the Germans. The Russians will never trust the West because even if they knew the government of a particular Western liberal democracy was trustworthy, their fear is such a government could fall prey to a Hitler and then it's WWII all over again.

If an agreement to reduce our force posturing in the Baltics and remove US sanctions in exchange for pulling back from Ukraine is what needs to be done, then I'd be willing to do it. I would not outright withdraw from NATO, but I don't see what our alliance with these countries does for the U.S. except commit us to an undesirable and unpopular conflict while provoking a nation we need to have diplomatic and economic relations with on some level to achieve global prosperity and security. Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.

What NATO membership does is serve as a bulwark that stops the Russians from trying to retake the Baltic states and then going possibly further west, which would likely cause a major war depending on the stomachs of the major European powers, which would then inevitably drag the U.S. in (basically like a repeat of Hitler's actions). It is better to just be part of NATO, because a NATO with the U.S. serves as a major check on the Russians. If Russia is a bear, the U.S. is a big powerful elephant, and a bear will think twice before attacking a group of animals backed up with such.

Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that the world map is probably going to be re-drawn with borders currently mimicking the front lines. I would not be willing to commit the ground forces necessary to enable the Ukranian army to recapture its lost territory, and the longer this conflict goes the more Russia's military is going to un-fuck itself.

This happens to be more aligned with the historical GOP pragmatic approach to Russia, whereas the Democrats take the more moralistic approach that Russia is an enemy that cannot be trusted and must be met with force. President Biden is the poster child of that mentality, and I contend his unwillingness and inability to reach a common understanding with Putin does more harm than good to the U.S. and tilts Putin toward using force to achieve his desired end-state. It also increases popular support for Putin among the Russian people who blame US economic sanctions for their hardships. Putin tells his people "the west doesn't dislike me, it dislikes all of you" and they believe it. I wish Putin were not President of Russia for life, and I wish Russia had free elections with an actual opposition party, but those are facts we cannot control.

The major challenge any President faces at this point is that Putin has seen 4 administrations that have run the gamut from calling him an ally to a threat, and at this point has very little reason to trust that any policy or agreement we make with Russia won't flip every 4-8 years.

Biden's unwillingness and inability to reach a common understanding with Putin...? Bush and Obama both tried the appeasement/common understanding approach and it failed. The old Russian/Soviet mentality favors deception and deceitfulness. So the Russians perceive such Western behavior as weak or lying, an it is that which tilts Putin towards using force. Their nation was already imperialistic pre-Soviet, then Stalin's tyranny was a psychological stunner that made everyone paranoid and deceitful and untrusting, then WWII was a secondary psychological stunner. You cannot apply regular Western reasoning to such, especially to a Cold War-era former KGB man.

 

[Spekkio]

We have had several political leaders who conducted successful, deescalatory negotiations and treaties with Russia since Operation Balbarossa commenced in 1941. I don't think it's the impossible feat you make it out to be.

I do agree it takes a cultural knowledge of what makes them tick. Luckily, that exists in spades inside the beltway.

Bush and Obama both tried the appeasement/common understanding approach and it failed.

It's very easy to blame Obama for Ukraine, but only if you ignore the fact that the country had a revolution after Russia's annexation of Crimea.

The political conditions in Ukraine (and the rest of Europe) didn't exist during his administration to have the option of bolstering Ukraine militarily to deter aggression. The country was in disarray and that's what contributed to Putin seizing the initiative... it'll be about 30 more years until we find out to what extent Russia caused that disarray. And even if conditions did exist to provide military support, the Obama administration did not view Ukraine as strategically important to the U.S. and therefore not the hill to die on wrt Russia.

As I mentioned before, economic sanctions don't work with Putin. It forces his corrupt oligarchs to move their investments back to Russia instead of siphoning them to the west while giving him a boogeyman to bolster his popularity among a suffering population.

Yes, when dealing with the Russians you always have to have the threat of superior force on your side. Doesn't mean that we can't ever strike deals with them.