Every day as the situation unfolds I come ever closer to the conclusion that with the benefit of hindsight in retrospect - the West will come to painfully regret their inaction at each crucial point of this conflict.
There’s an apt compound word in Russian - “братоубийцы» that translates to brother-murderers. Russia and Russians, regardless of what their feelings about this disgusting act is - will never wash away that stain. There will forever be monuments to remind people of what they have done.
I am Russian-speaking, and when I was younger as I would travel to Western Ukraine or Baltics on some occasions I would encounter hostile treatment that I found so unfair - I enjoyed visiting there, I liked the places, I had no ill will against the people.
Now I’ve come to viscerally understand exactly what they felt towards me.
"NATO’s naval response to Russia also has implications for the West's ability to assert its interests elsewhere, such as the South China Sea, where Beijing claims sovereignty.
"If, with the whole world watching, we cannot deter the Kremlin, I don't think the Chinese will be terribly impressed about what we say about Taiwan or the South China Sea," said retired U.S. General Ben Hodges, who commanded U.S. Army forces in Europe from 2014 until 2017 and who met Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in Kyiv in early February."
If the good general wants the US to declare war on Russia, he should man up and say it. The US specifically has treaty obligations to Taiwan it doesn’t have to Ukraine.
The US has no treaty obligations to Taiwan. The Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty expired in 1980.
We do have the Taiwan Relations Act but it's not a treaty. It only requires sales of necessary military equipment. It doesn't require the US to defend Taiwan against China. The US probably would mount some kind of defense against an invasion but ultimately it's up to the President.
No, it doesn't. By my reading, it obliges the signatories to respect Ukrainian sovereignty, but not defend it. Our only defense obligation is to seek UN Security Council action. But, Russia is a permanent member, so that's not going to materially change anything.
Are you sure? It says “The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan.” So there were assurances, not just “respect”
The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the Principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The United States of America reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.
Ukraine, The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.
Edit - Russia is in breach for failing to respect Ukrainian sovereignty. The US and UK are not in breach for failing to send troops. The EU (nor any other member states) wasn't a signatory, so it doesn't apply to them at all.
The memorandum only required signatories to respect Ukrainian borders. It didn't contain any provisions for enforcement or defense if one of the signatories violated the memorandum. Since the US and UK didn't commit to do anything (beyond perhaps bringing the issue to the UN Security Council) then the question about whether the memorandum is binding of kind of moot.
Yeah it's been odd seeing the quick move to bring up Taiwan in every conversation about Ukraine, all across the major news outlets. Drawing parallels where they don't exist, I wonder why..
I really think those two sentences are non-sequitur. I think the general's statement is true to a degree - our inability to deter Russian action surely emboldens China, but at the same time, the situation in the Pacific is not quite the same.
But regardless of the truth (or usefulness of his statement), I am almost certain that he would not extend that to NATO's naval response. Firstly, since NATO straight up said that it's not going to engage Russia in Ukraine, it's not clear what NATO naval forces in the Black Sea would do other than increase the risk of escalation. Second, as the article points out, NATO has to deal with Turkey - a situation that the US does not quite have in the western Pacific (though exactly how supportive South Korea and Japan would be in the case of a Taiwan invasion is a bit of an unknown).
Also, there is nothing that NATO can do to stop Russian Naval deployments into the Black Sea. Asking Turkey to close the straits would a) almost certainly be refused, b) be an incredibly bad look for the side that performs freedom of navigation missions into the south china sea and c) cause a shit load of kerfuffle as the split between Turkey and the rest of NATO gets forced to the surface in an awkward manner.
There's a carrier strike group deployed in the Mediterranean, and one in the western Pacific. There's a forward deployed carrier in Japan. As the article notes, there's also an French and Italian carrier group deployed into the Mediterranean. There is plenty of "real" naval strength nearby.
In a cold blooded way, staying out of Ukraine is a way for the US to remain focused and available for Taiwan. Which realistically is a more important entity than Ukraine for the US.
Russia isn't a credible long term strategic threat to the US in the way that China is. Russia is a declining belligerent power attacking a country of lesser importance (to the US) than Taiwan. China is a much more dynamic country that's growing in relevance and could realistically outgrow the US within 30 to 50 years.
If the US were to engage in Ukraine, Taiwan would be up for pickings. I believe it would be a mistake. The US doesn't have the dynamism it once had, it's population in large part isn't fit for combat, or resilient to casualties, and is preoccupied with internal striffe. Defense budgets are high but what a US DoD buys with 1$ is a lot less than what China buys with the same value, since US defense industry is bloated and burning through budgets. All this to say, the US can't sustain two flanks against two strong foes, it needs to pick its focus and China is the real strategic opponent.
I hope this international environment will wake up the US public and industry, and that this will all end better. I also hope that Germany will stop using so much gas and being a pawn to Russia, and that the EU will take care if their defense more, as the US isn't in a position to do like it did during the Cold War.
Right now, for better or worse, Ukraine is fighting for the whole of Europe and maybe for the world's future. The fact that they are alone and we aren't doing anything to help them will hunt Western (and NATO) countries forever.
Germany sent 5000 hats to Ukraine. It also prevented the export of actual military equipment to Ukraine from the baltics. And it shot down sanctions related to the SWIFT banking system.
They didn't even send the helmets, now they are citing logistical issues to be the reason for their lack of support. They are feigning incompetence to hide their unwillingness to actually do something
They must be scared of losing gas access. And they need gas more than Puțin needs money. That's why he allowed himself this gamble at this time. And it seems to be working.
This is surely the cause. Germany has foot-gunned itself horrifically when they gutted their nuclear power generation. The idea was to replace it medium-term with natural gas.
Natural gas is also quite common in germany for building heating + cooking.
Maybe you should focus your ire on the leaders of the countries doing the invading? Taking the opportunity to attack one of the invaded nations allies for not doing enough seems unhelpful to the point of being counterproductive.
Critiquing does very little against someone who has committed to invade a country. Rarely has it stopped a bullet, much less a tank. Russia has already accepted the cost of being criticized.
But for the record, Putin has shown himself to have little regard for anything besides ending up in the history books next to Stalin & Hitler.
And yet there's nothing you could think of to say that didn't equate Germany and Putin as Ukraine's enemies?
This is all very reminiscent of "Hillary is just as bad as Trump". Seems to be a common logical fallacy that you can't have something that is better than the alternative but still not good enough.
Instead people have to exaggerate to make the better one just as bad, which then has the implicit claim that the worse one is just the same as the better one in this metric.
Whatever Germany is doing or not doing, it seems unlikely to approach the same level as invading Ukraine and killing a whole bunch of people.
Europe and the US's energy dependence on Russia emboldened Putin to attack because now sanctions will harm us as much as they harm him. No, we're not the ones attacking Ukraine, but we are complicit.
Direct military intervention increases the risks of massive nuclear or cyber war. Given the frailty of power grids and the season, the US can't justify the risk of death and chaos over supporting Ukraine.
Hopefully anonymous and independent hackers don't escalate to infrastructure attacks.
If Putin wins, I think we'll get an even higher chance of nuclear or cyber war. He has no reason to stop at Ukraine and has no moral issue with using whatever weapon he can get his hands on to win.
> Other nations have been training Ukrainian Troops and supplying Stinger missiles and so on. Lots of diplomacy and financial sanctions happening.
A lot of that has been too little, too late (e.g. last minute transfers of some equipment). Some of it was an embarrassment (Germany sending hats).
IIRC, the US gives far more military assistance to Israel than it ever has to Ukraine. In retrospect, that really should have changed circa 2014. Most of Europe continues to live in a fantasy-land where war is unthinkable and Putin cares about the easy half-measures they're willing to take.
Putin's done a bully thing by making one of his demands that his victims be kept weak. The Western powers more or less obliged him.
Ukrainians are definitely not alone.A lot of them are coming here(a EE,NATO/UE country) and other neighboring countries and they're received well: most people in EE naturally dislike russia for obvious reasons.
I understand somewhat US not doing much of anything militarily speaking, and it's nothing new: happened before, it's precisely why Putin does it: he dares the west to do something, because (and this is the bigger, more overlooked picture) he knows he's mainly there to play a role: to distract the west from Taiwan, Kazakhstan[people already forgot about this one, it's critical for China's development of the 'Silk road' train route], etc. If sh1t hits the fan, he also knows China backs Putin.That's why also the Chinese are threatening TW lately: the western leadership(Biden, Germany's Scholz,somewhat even Boris & Macron) is weaker right now.
What if China's future moves in Taiwan are being determined by the Ukrainian outcome? A Russian victory (I think) will show a weakened, divided West and will embolden China.
I think china's plans for tw are not necessarily determined by Ukraine, mainly because getting TW hurts the west and empowers China way more.(chips,obviously)
It's a reasonable assumption to make and personally I think China wants tw regardless. Hybrid wars that are being started and slowed down : I.e. joggling with your opponent's forces are very dangerous.
Assuming "we" is either the US or the entirety of the western world, I'd disagree. Any decision to engage Russia with NATO or NATO-adjacent forces must be lead by the nations of Europe.
There are still other sanctions that can be applied. Removal from the Swift network is probably the nuclear option in terms of financial sanctions. But, Germany and Italy (at least), as of yesterday, were opposed because of the likely impact on their own economies.
It's not like NATO to deploy forces there to fight the Russians. This is a more complex military, strategic and political issue with many implications.
As disgusting and insane as this invasion of Ukraine is, the current state of European treaties would not necessitate a world war as an outcome.
Putin, the evil war making scum that he is, has been explicit for DECADES that the armament and NATO flirtation with Ukraine is completely unacceptable to Russia, Russia sees Ukraine as a buffer zone against the West, and that Ukraine belongs in the Russian sphere of influence. History does not disagree with him. Ukraine was for centuries part of the Russian empire and then the Soviet Union. Ukraine has a large population of ethnically and/or culturally Russian peoples. All of these facts have been known and communicated for many years. In fact, these are some of the reasons Ukraine has never been on the path to NATO membership.
In other words, while we can and should condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it does not, per se, set us on a deterministic path to a world war.
Quoting Obama circa 2016:
"The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do."
I'm surprised to see so many moral narratives, like this one, surrounding war start popping up. I thought it was pretty well understood and established that the narratives we tell about war are mostly propaganda/myth making after the fact.
War is about resources and control. That's it. There are no "good/bad" guys (or more specifically they're all "bad" guys). We're not participating in some grand moral struggle, we're taking calculated risks to maximizes gains when the opportunity appears and minimize losses when we have no other options.
For the last 70 years world power has be set so there was primarily one global hegemon (the US) so there was not much movement on the world stage among powerful nations. Economic strategies remained the safest way to control resources among world powers, but military actions still dominated in cases of extreme power asymmetry. The US has been invading and bombing countries and regions virtually continuously for the last few decades.
The resource situation is starting to change, so risks that made no sense suddenly start to seem more reasonable. But absolutely none of what we're seeing now has anything to do with some silly narrative about NATO powers and Russia. Russia has ceased the opportunity of low risk acquisition of resources, NATO powers have worked to minimize their own loses given the risk of any major action is high.
As resources grow more scare we'll see increased military conflict. The severity of which will be proportional to the scarcity. None of this will "haunt" anybody, it's just a game to survive which as been fairly easy the last few decades and that is changing.
People on internet, especially on twitter, reddit and here are too innocents and/or naives. War is what you described and that will never change.
It doesn't matter what system or ideology people invent, war will always appear in order to to get power or resources. Or just because there are bored, just like Dostoevsky said it.
How? If power and resources are not scarce, then people will start doing despicable things just because they can and want to. As I said, most of you here are naive and will not see it.
Don't you think conflicts and wars also have an ideological/cultural component? Freedom vs dictatorship, communism vs capitalism, democracy vs authoritarianism?
No, these are always the tools used to convince people to go to war, and later to justify the results.
They are part of the ways power maintains power. Every first king is just a warlord, a thug more brutal than the rest, and after defeating their enemies they suddenly declare the role of king is ordained by the god(s) and to challenge it is heresy. They set up the notion that rulers are more noble than common men, which is why they should rule over them and control the land. In later years they will use these tools to again convince their people to fight for them in the name of "country" or some other such notion.
And what peoples are against "freedom"? Do you really believe terrorists attacked the US because they "hate our freedoms?" No, it's because the US systemically destroyed their homelands, denied them of their own freedoms, and forcibly took their resources. But when you fill your gas tank you aren't comfortable recognizing that a hidden part of the price of the gas is the civilians murdered so you could have it.
I'm endlessly surprised to see educated adults buying into the stories will tell children about how the world works.
There’s an apt compound word in Russian - “братоубийцы» that translates to brother-murderers. Russia and Russians, regardless of what their feelings about this disgusting act is - will never wash away that stain. There will forever be monuments to remind people of what they have done.
I am Russian-speaking, and when I was younger as I would travel to Western Ukraine or Baltics on some occasions I would encounter hostile treatment that I found so unfair - I enjoyed visiting there, I liked the places, I had no ill will against the people.
Now I’ve come to viscerally understand exactly what they felt towards me.
I am ashamed to the point of anger.