The most amusing part of yesterday's press conference was Joe Biden's response to questions abut Ukraine. Everyone knows that there's only one acceptable answer here: If Putin puts one foot over the border we'll kick his ass so hard he'll end up in orbit. Then, when Putin invades and the US does more or less nothing, conservative hawks will be up in arms about red lines and weakness and failing our friends—even though they themselves oppose putting American troops into battle.
So instead, Biden just shrugged and said what everyone already knows: Putin is probably going to invade one way or another, and he'll eventually be sorry if he does. It'll be a rerun of Afghanistan or Vietnam. But Europe, as usual, is deeply divided about what to do, so there's not a whole lot we can do either.
Everyone already knows this. We know it. Putin knows it. Europe knows it. Hell, even I know it. But for some reason it's pearl clutching time if a president says it.
The hell with that. Better to tell the truth now than to make promises everyone knows we can't keep. It's Putin's call now, and Biden is right: invading Ukraine will send Russia down a rat hole for years. But in the face of a divided Europe, there's not much that the US can or should do about it.
One might naively think that Europeans -- and maybe the British -- would have more skin in this game than the United States. Just sayin' ...
They have lots of skin in the game in the sense that the purchase massive amounts of Russian gas and are terrified of losing that source of fuel.
Ah. Of course. So they probably would not like the US sticking its oar in.
Sure, we just let one country invade another without comment.
It's not going to go without comment. There will be sanctions. There will be covert support of the Ukraine resistance. There will be internal erosion of Putin's position as a result of getting himself into another endless war.
What's your argument? We know you can grumble about "without comment", which is gross overstatement, but let's imagine you were in power. What would you do?
One might naively think that Europeans -- and maybe the British -- would have more skin in this game than the United States. Just sayin'..
Western countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States, managed perfectly well for many decades with Ukraine being of the Soviet Union (and before that, the Russian Empire). I don't see much "skin in the game" for anybody outside of Ukraine itself.
The interest of the EU and the US is to enforce, to the extent possible, that borders are not be changed through force of arms. And that is a core interest, since past violations caused the two most destructive wars in history, devastating Europe and drawing in the US.
The interest of the EU and the US is to enforce, to the extent possible
Sure. It's just not terribly likely to be "enforced" when A) the territory in question was was traditionally a part of one of the aggressors and B) said aggressor has 5,000 nuclear weapons. Rather similar to the example of Georgia.
Meh. It's a rat hole if Russia plans to occupy Ukraine, but I don't believe it does. The goal will be to do enough damage to destroy the Ukrainian economy and faith in the Ukrainian government and then withdraw. Putin doesn't want to govern Ukraine, he just wants it as a buffer state. As long as it's a basket case, NATO and the EU won't touch it, and that's enough for Putin.
What he wants is to put the pro-Russian puppet government back into power that was run out on a rail in a popular uprising in 2014 (and for whom a bunch of corrupt AF goons who later ended up in Trump's orbit, including his campaign manager Manafort, were working for at the time).
+1
Putin wants to do what his puppet tried to do to the US.
Humans do love to fight, don't they. Why do so many allow themselves to be led by such nasty creatures as Putin, Xi, and Trump? It's the oldest question in all of human history, and yet there is still no answer beyond the silly myths in religion. (Fallen nature etc.)
Personally, I don't know anyone in Russia or Ukraine and don't see any reason to get involved in their conflicts. No doubt there will be a cost to inaction, but there is a cost regardless.
Please let Joe B. know the countries where you know anyone so the US can adjust it international relations accordingly.
Maybe that's not what you meant ... but it sounded that way to me.
BTW I don't think our response would be inaction, but economic sanctions & possibly more, but short of troops on the ground. Russia will bear a cost. How big ... TBD.
It means I have neither a personal interest nor a national interest in the conflicts outcome.
I happen to know a teacher in Kyiv so I'd rather she not get blown up.
Well then let’s send the entire US military there to defend and rescue them. Let us all contribute $10,000 toward her security.
We can’t save the world from itself. I’m not interested in trying. Good luck to your acquaintance.
There are options between doing nothing and launching our own counter-invasion I think.
We tried taking the middle ground in Vietnam and many other places. Really, the decision ends up being “are you going to use overwhelming force and win or are you not going to intervene at all?”
Because all those middle ground approaches end up devolving to a shittier version of overwhelming force once our guys start dying
If you’re talking sanctions or something thats probably ok though. But if you want us to air strike the Russians that is ill-advised
Of course. They depend on Russian natural gas…
Which is a stupid own-goal on the part of the Euros. EU GDP is ~$21 trillion and Russian GDP is less than $1.5 trillion. European countries could, quite easily, afford to shift their power generation and heating needs so that they don't have to buy any Russian gas.
Whether or not Russian oligarchs parking dark money to the tune of billions in European real estate (looking at you, London) plays a role is another issue, though.
Made all the worse, IMO, by further enabling Russia by building a pipeline which does not pass through Ukraine. One of the few visceral ways Ukraine could “encourage” tangible European support in the event of further (have the first ones been a rat hole Kevin?) Russian incursion would be to shut the pipeline through Ukraine to the rest of Europe.
I have this recollection that back two administrations ago the Baltic states were asking the US to increase its ability to ship LNG to them/Europe. My recollection at the time was the then-President dismissing it as taking too long to come online. That was a decade or so ago now…
If Russia goes into Ukraine, v. likely the pipeline does not get completed.
But oil does give Russia outsize leverage over Europe given its puny economic clout otherwise. One more reason the world needs to quit fossil fuels. The bigger oil is a part of the economy, the more likely the state is a bad actor.
The pipeline is already completed.
Sen. Chris Murphy:
“ I think Russia's gotten the message. And part of that message is that Nord Stream 2, that pipeline is not going to go forward if they proceed with an invasion. This is a commitment that we believe the Germans have made and has been translated to Russia.”
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/20/1074317339/bipartisan-senate-delegation-traveled-to-kyiv-to-meet-ukraines-leadership
It's construction is pretty much complete, but it has not been turned on.
"I have this recollection that back two administrations ago the Baltic states were asking the US to increase its ability to ship LNG to them/Europe." Sorry but you are completely delusional.
Not completely: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-centraleurope-usa/central-europeans-want-u-s-gas-to-cut-dependence-on-russia-idUKBREA270QU20140308
https://www.ceep.be/continuing-international-interest-u-s-lng-exports/
"European countries could, quite easily, afford to shift their power generation and heating needs so that they don't have to buy any Russian gas."
silver lining i guess, maybe this will push european nations to do just that.
Here's hoping. I look forward to the day that the Russias and Saudi Arabias of this world are desperately trying to sell increasingly worthless piles of fossil fuels to a global market that doesn't need or want them.
That would be a BIG silver lining. Let's hope...
Russian oligarchs parking dark money to the tune of billions in European real estate? Brings to mind the former guy. Eric Trump: " we don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia . . .We’ve got some guys that really, really love golf, and they’re really invested in our programs."
Indeed. Nowhere is safe from the corruption these gangster kings are spreading.
Bingo--if we're lucky, this might collapse the money-laundering markets...
Russian graft pays the salary of American MAGA Superhero Christian Pulisic at his club team Chelsea FC.
"European countries could, quite easily, afford to shift their power generation and heating needs so that they don't have to buy any Russian gas." Utter nonsense. Natural gas is the most economical fuel when it can be delivered by pipeline and is 4 times the price and generally uneconomical if it has to be delivered by ship. Only idiot republicans could possibly think europe would be willing to pay 4 times the price just to make the US happy and buy american gas. The europeans using US natural gas would be the equivalent of americans volunteering to pay 8$ a galleon gasoline.
So by all means they should continue to buy Russian gas and do business as usual as Russia invades and occupies one of their neighbors.
Only idiots think the only other way to get energy is to pay four times as much for the same stuff.
You do know there are other sources of energy, right?
Another lie from the Russian troll.
“The EU is willing to double its imports from the United States from 2018’s level of 4 (bcn) to 8 bcn by 2022. This would decrease Russia’s dominance of Europe’s LNG market … Poland and the Baltic states are building LNG terminals at an unprecedented pace in their eagerness to break their dependence on eastern supplies.”
https://www.gmfus.org/news/baltic-sea-perspective-us-lng-europe
Not to mention that the populist right in a number of European countries (as it is here) is overtly aligned with Putin's Russia.
Assuming “someone” provides sufficient material support to the presumed Ukrainian resistance.
I wouldn't be too surprised on that front. I'm continually surprised that Putin doesn't seem to understand that as experienced as Russia is with ratfucking the US, we're just as experienced at ratfucking Russia, with the difference being that we can outspend them ten-to-one.
He knows we actually can't get our shit together to do it. Why do you think he's spent so much time on aligning with the republicans?
That's a big mistake, then. The U.S. doesn't have a Russian-style gangster king that can deploy its military based on the whims of Dear Leader, but Biden does not need Congress to screw with Russia. If there's one thing Americans do not get upset about, it's spending hundreds of billions on military aid to some far-off country. We may be too divided to affirmatively do anything big, but good luck getting together the political unity to *stop* the executive branch from gleefully arming Ukrainians to the teeth.
"The U.S. doesn't have a Russian-style gangster king: Apparently you've been living under a rock for 6 years and think donald trump is still a tv gameshow host.
he's a desperate wannbe gangsta'
"everyone already knows....It'll be a rerun of Afghanistan or Vietnam."
Huh? I don't see that this is at all obvious. It seems to me the situation is very different from either Vietnam or Afghanistan in very important ways. Ukraine is a former member of the USSR. Russians in Ukraine are the largest ethnic minority in the country at around 18%. There is a great deal of cultural overlap. The vast majority of Ukrainians are fluent Russian speakers. And from what I've read, a significant percentage of Ukrainians are pro unification with Russia. And Russia has already occupied Crimea for almost a decade without anything like the Afghanistan or Vietnam military resistance.
Yeah, I agree with this analysis.
To me assuming "It'll be a rerun of Afghanistan or Vietnam" is the same sort of desperate hope that a war (in this case someone else's war) will go the way that is maximally convenient for us that drives most US politico-military thinking.
Certainly in the absence of US/European driving a resistance, I don't see why Russia has much difficulty. And if US/Europe DO try to drive a resistance, well, the blowback from that will NOT be pretty -- both deliberate (but highly camouflaged) Russian interference in US/Europe, and the usual consequences of giving serious weapons to wild cards whose primary characteristic is that they love anarchy and destruction.
Contra your points, however:
Ukrainians were a minority in Crimea ~24% before the seizure, Russians ~60%, most of the remainder Tatars.
Western Ukraine is majority ethnic and linguistically Ukrainian.
Ukraine has already deposed a pro-Russian President, and a majority favors closer ties with the EU, which would be vastly better for the Ukrainian economy than Russian dominance.
A large number of Ukrainians speak Russian as a second language. Virtually all Canadians speak English as a first or second language, and there is ‘a great deal of cultural overlap’ with the US. But Canadians would emphatically oppose ‘unification’.
Holodomor.
Yes.
Next you will be telling us Greenland really doesn't want to be the 51st state.
Hate to break it to you buddy….
Greenland isn’t that green anyways
All true, and I have no idea how a Russian invasion would play out. But my point was that a presumption it would definitely and obviously turn into a Vietnam or Afghanistan-esque quagmire seems unwarranted.
Yes, it does.
The Crimean's voted in a free and fair election over 95% to leave the Ukraine. There have never been ethnic Ukrainians living in the Crimea. In fact most of it's population are retired members of the soviet navy.
free and fair is questionable contention. via wikipedia:
Organizing and holding the referendum on Crimea's accession to Russia was illegal under the Constitution of Ukraine.[80] According to article 73 of the 1996 Constitution of Ukraine[81] and article 3 of the 2012 Ukrainian law "On all-Ukrainian referendum", territorial changes can only be approved via a referendum where all the citizens of Ukraine are allowed to vote, including those that do not reside in Crimea.[82] The Central Election Commission of Ukraine also stated that there are no judicial possibilities, according to the legislation of Ukraine, to initiate such changes.[83][84]
The reactions of many nations to the referendum—particularly of Western-nations—were addressing the matter of Crimean secession from Ukraine, whereas the Crimean referendum itself was not about secession from Ukraine, but took Crimea's secession from Ukraine to already be de facto following its government's declaration.[original research?] Crimea's March 16 referendum occurred following the March 11 declaration of Crimea's independence from Ukraine made by Crimea's parliament, which was made following a controversial parliamentary vote of 78 in favour of, and 22 against Crimea's secession from Ukraine.[citation needed] Both of the ballot options for the March 16, 2014 Crimean referendum acknowledged that Crimea was already an independent state at that time,[85] despite the declaration of independence occurring without a national vote in Ukraine, as the constitutions required.
The interim Ukrainian government, European Union, and several other bodies stated that any referendum held by the local government of Crimea without the express authority of Ukraine is unconstitutional and illegitimate. The interim government in Kyiv and the pro-Russian Crimean faction do not recognize each other as legitimate.[15][86] Additionally, the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People—the unofficial political association of the Crimean Tatars—called for a boycott of the referendum.[15][16][87]
The Venice Commission declared that the referendum was illegal under both Ukrainian and Crimean Constitutions, and violated international standards and norms.[93] The Venice Commission stressed that self-determination was to be understood primarily as internal self-determination within the framework of the existing borders and not as external self-determination through secession. Moreover, the Venice Commission opined, any referendum on the status of a territory should have been preceded by serious negotiations among all stakeholders, and that such negotiations did not take place.
Many scholars and politicians (Neil Melvin, Robert McCorquodale, John Kerry, John B. Bellinger III, Marc Weller among others) have stated that the referendum was conducted under the cover of assault rifles and, thus, the result was obtained through violence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum
No, it did not.
The Tatars did not get to vote, neither did the Roma nor the ethnic Ukrainians nor the soldiers, nor a good deal of the Crimean people altogether,
So how was it 95%, again?
None of this is true. But thanks for outing yourself, товарищ
Then a rerun of Yugoslavia, 1991-99.
Not to mention that Russia is more likely to go gloves off than we are during counter-insurgency operations. With that being said, that didn’t work very well for them in Afghanistan, so who am I to say
I would say that there is nothing like an invasion of your homeland to inspire violent nationalism. Even assuming 90% of occupied Ukrainians support unification (very very high estimate) that’s a lot of potential insurgents to deal with. Look at the recurring issues in Chechnya for an illustrative example. Middle Easterners and Southeast Asia aren’t the only people capable of organizing an insurgency
The point being argued is not whether Russia will be welcomed with open arms and little opposition.
Where the skeptics like me are coming from is that we see the essential element of *effective* opposition as foreign support for Ukraine; in the absence of such support, well, brave little Poland (or Norway, or Holland, or Belgium, or ...) can fight all it likes, but that doesn't change how the story ends.
So the question is: will such foreign support be forthcoming (as it was in both Vietnam and Afghanistan)? Perhaps so, but I've given my analysis as to why it would be very problematic to the US and Europe. Yes there's risk, and it's not ideal, to have Russia get its way – but it's not like getting into a shooting war with Russia (albeit by proxy) is any less risky...
"Better to tell the truth now than to make promises everyone knows we can't keep"
Totally agree. Just not used to getting that from .... well, any president in my lifetime.
Krowe, you're younger than me. I still remember Harry Truman.
Well, I guess most folks are younger than me, these days. "In my lifetime" is becoming more rare, whether it's politics, popular music, or the ability of Jeopardy contestants to remember the details of the GI Bill, the Korean War, or even the Eisenhower presidency.
So it's discouraging to me to remember two consecutive presidents who pretty much meant what they said and mostly did (to the best of their ability) what they promised. And to realize that most folks don't have a clue about that.
Two thumbs and two big toes up. It's unpopular to say it, but Kennedy turned the Presidency into a Telenovela and it hasn't been the same since.
Just finished H R McMaster’s book on the entry to Vietnam. As a member of the younger generation, I can say we look on JFK’s presidency with rose colored glasses but he did not set a good example in foreign policy. Give him credit for Cuba (kind of) but besides that it’s all blunders and mismanagement
Lies and lies and lies and holding maneuvers and lies. Military matters have always been somewhat subservient to political concerns but under JFK it got out of hand and stayed that way
I think Biden learned a pointed lesson from Obama's "red line" debacle in Syria. Don't write foreign policy checks you can't cash.
"The hell with that. Better to tell the truth now than to make promises everyone knows we can't keep. It's Putin's call now, and Biden is right: invading Ukraine will send Russia down a rat hole for years. But in the face of a divided Europe, there's not much that the US can or should do about it."
Also agree. It's Putin who will be making the blunder with military force instead of the U.S for once.
First of all what's the causus belli here, hmm? That Ukraine is an independent state, that there are Russian speakers in the eastern part of the country that need to be "protected"? Any act of aggression by the Russians in this case will be so blatantly naked just like Afghanistan that will turn much of the world against Russia and severely affect their economy and world standing. Secondly, 14,000 people have died in the war already going on in the far eastern part Ukraine. If the Ukrainian state was that so weak, they would not have resisted see huge chunks of the country that were Russian-leaning go with Moscow. Instead you have two small, pathetic "statelets" basically propped up by the Russians whose people want what the Crimea has, annexation to Russia instead of this in-between status. So why haven't the Russians done this already? Because they know that won't be like Crimea this time and shitstorm will come down on them if they do. That's why haven't done so now. Several months is a long time to deploy over 100,000 troops at combat readiness. They can't remain that way forever.
The U.S. is not completely blameless here, encouraging a mob-induced coup de tat against an elected government in 2014 corrupt though it may well have been, so the Russians do have some greviance here. The interesting thing here is, in spite of what, most of the Russian influenced areas of Ukraine have remained loyal to Kyiv. The separatist areas are very small. Putin has failed to pull most of eastern Ukraine (up to the Dnepir River) away in spite of the fact the Maiden Revolution was clearly a move against Russian interests. If he could not accomplish this in spite of what happened back in 2014, how an invasion will do so with death and destruction to follow is beyond any logic beyond some tragic, lost nostalgia. If he's truly smart, he'll forget about trying to rebuild the Soviet Union and just leave well enough alone.
Same. It's refreshing. I wish Clinton had that policy. Or Carter. Though he tried to keep his promises.
"It'll be a rerun of Afghanistan or Vietnam."
Or maybe Syria or Crimea.
You're downplaying the threat of militarization and the spread of war, though.
Once he steps into Ukraine, every NATO member that was formerly a part of the USSR will push to have a significant American military presence within their country in order to provide a serious front line defense against a Russian incursion. That, in turn, will alarm Russia who will then commit more troops to the western periphery.
Afghanistan was an occupation far away from the borders of NATO and European nations. The attempted invasion and occupation of Ukraine will involve a lot more than just a proxy war in a distant place over worthless land.
Well, Russia, or more correctly Putin, will pretend to be alarmed. He knows full well that Russia itself is not threatened by the West, who aren’t unaware of the fate of Napoleon and Hitler. I think Western Europe is all out of megalomaniacs.
I think you downplay the threat of nationalism on the part of all sides, but particularly, Russian nationalism.
No, I’m downplaying Russian ‘fear’ of a military threat from NATO. Putin is probably not the only Russian who resents Russia’s shrinking influence in world affairs, though, and that is a nationalistic sentiment, of course.
So, your point is...
NATO members and other countries bordering Russia will not seek US help, or if they do, Russia will go about doing whatever it wants, but will fail?
I'm trying to understand why you think an incursion won't result in rising tensions and direct flows of troops and weapons.
No, I agree with you that things could well play out as you surmised, just not for the reason you gave. Putin will certainly continue to spin fantasies of a Western ‘threat’ to Russia for public consumption, but he knows full well that NATO’s posture is purely defensive, and that the only aggressor to be feared in Europe is - Putin’s Russia (cf. Abkhazia, South Ossetia, the Donbas, Crimea).
The Russians are very much threatened by what the west is appearing to do in the Ukraine. Why would we possibly believe that Russia's attitude towards the ukraine would be different that the US's attitude towards Cuba?
How is this at all like Cuba?
No one is asking to station nuclear weapons in Ukraine,
Oh, since you bring it up, the US made one half-assed attempt to invade Cuba (by proxy) six decades ago and hasn’t even considered repeating that mistake since.
I wonder if memyselfandi is one of the accounts Kevin was talking about in: https://jabberwocking.com/hmmm-heres-more-about-my-odd-spike-in-user-registrations/ and https://jabberwocking.com/why-are-so-many-people-registering-on-my-blog/
It’s a U.S. election year, expect a spike in Russian trolling.
As many have pointed out, the press conference was long (setting a new record!). I left midway to pick up my son from school and take the dog for a walk, and I still was back in time to catch most of it.
My sense of the White House press corps: what a bunch of morons, buffoons, and jerks. A total embarrassment. Our media problem is not (just) Fox. In fact, this county can survive Fox. But not when our so-called straight media is as bad as it this.
I'm in total agreement with you about the White House press corps. A bunch of layabouts, hanging around waiting to be lied to ... on a good day.
And they all must always seek ways to interpret everything that happens to follow the "conventional wisdom". Right now the conventional wisdom is that Biden is the next Jimmy Carter so all White House actions must be interpreted in this light.
I don’t know what Putin expects to gain, but then I’m not a kleptocrat dictator atop an oligarchy. If he were to achieve his apparent dream of reconstructing a rump USSR, the same forces that tore the first one apart would still be operative - an underperforming economy, widespread corruption, restive ethnic groups. Maybe he figures that if Gorbachev had had the stomach to ruthlessly crush the opposition, the USSR would still exist.
If Putin tries to occupy the entire country, the Europeans will be forced into some serious response. If he only expands the area of Russian control, I would expect a situation more like Gaza, only more so, with constant harassing fire from the free territories. The Yemeni Houthis have managed some damage to Arab states with Iranian technology; I expect Ukrainian technology is at least as advanced.
I expect small drones will become the AK-47 of the mid-21st century for irregular forces and small nations, with large numbers making up for the heavy-weapons asymmetry. The US has concentrated on long-endurance, high-altitude drones that can loiter awaiting a target, then fire a missile. But conventional forces like artillery batteries or armor would be better countered with small, fast nap-of-earth drones with a warhead.
He needs a distraction--domestic situation not all that good...
Bingo. Some of the multi-rotor ones could deliver a nasty phosphorous bomb right next to the gun crews. You don't have to blow up the gun (they couldn't carry something that heavy) if you subject the gun crew to sticky third-degree burns.
Not to mention it’s very poisonous
But to be honest, is something so exotic really needed? I would think a suicide drone with conventional explosives would make more sense. I agree that we will see more of this in some form though
The response to Biden's press conference illustrated everything that stinks about politics in America in general and the role of the Washington Press Rabble in particular.
Stories after the event consisted overwhelmingly of variations on "Oh dear Joe made awful gaffes!" The first "gaffe" consisted of a statement that America's response to a minor Russian incursion into Ukraine would be different from the response to a full-scale invasion. According to the media, this statement of the bleedin' obvious was so clumsy the White House had to "walk it back", while Republicans whooped'n'hollered manically that Biden had invited Putin to invade but if he called it an "incursion" it would be OK.
The second supposed gaffe was an acknowledgement by the president that the voting rights bills being considered by the Senate weren't exercises in empty symbolism, but actually necessary to ensure federal elections were fair and legitimate. Failure to pass the bills, it logically follows, means there's a risk the 2022 elections may NOT be fair and legitimate. For some reason the media got frightfully agitated about this, pulling a new "historical convention" out of their collective arses that US presidents never sow distrust of elections. Even when one party is passing lots of laws to rig them, apparently.
One simply despairs of public discourse in America. Biden gave a press conference for almost two hours and hardly anyone listened to what he said for the purpose of understanding administration policies and positions. They listened for words they could take out of context and misrepresent, either to write clickbait stories or to score partisan political points.
well duh....
And then people ask why Biden doesn't give a lot more press conferences to discuss policies... A robust debate can not happen with the press insisting on presenting "both sides" of the story when one side just is not acting in good faith...
Yes. A robust debate can only happen when the press only presents one side of the story.
Perhaps you should move to China - I think you would find political discourse there more appealing to you. The press there does not present "both sides" of the story.
China is also watching to determine what they will do about Taiwan.
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be MUCH MUCH MUCH more difficult. Taiwan is an island separated from mainland China from a body of water at least 4 times wider than the English Channel. Ukraine shares a land border with Russia that is hundreds of miles long. And Taiwan is armed and ready. So no. China will not invade Taiwan.
It would also crash their economy. They both make lots of electronics that get shipped between them.
So no. China will not invade Taiwan.
In 2022 they won't. I think that's a safe bet. But the consensus in the national security community is that an actual PRC invasion of Taiwan is highly likely in the medium term. Rightly or wrongly, Beijing views Taiwan as Chinese soil. We'd do the same thing in their shoes to bring Hawaii back in the fold.
Hawaii? Maybe not them
I can’t think of a corresponding American example honestly. It’s as if a certain state off our coast never incorporated into the Union in 1787 but we feel it is ours historically speaking. A clean parallel is hard to think of
If so, they're not very bright. For decades, America has given Taiwan explicit guarantees unlike any commitments it ever gave to Ukraine. More to the point, incorporation of Taiwan into the PCR would have a real, substantial, harmful impact on US interests, whereas no such interests hinge on the outcome of the Ukraine standoff.
Russian is not going to invade Ukraine unless the US does something catastrophically stupid (like make Ukraine a member of NATO despite even GWBush telling them under no circumstances would that ever happen).
Only pearl clutching if it’s a Democrat. In which case it’s a “flub.”
For the former Republican occupant, it would have been “refreshingly authentic.”**
** But of course only in a non-Russian foreign diplomacy scenario, since the former occupant was, among other things, tied to Putin by a string (of cash). Sure would have been nice to have a proper counter-intelligence investigation actually conducted, but once again, a case of IOKIYAR.
Actually, there is. Paint Ukrainian symbols on a couple of squadrons of F-35's and start blowing the hell out of any armor that crosses the border. It's an open secret that Russians were flying the "North Korean" Mig's during the Korean War. Let's give Putin a taste of some Russian Vodka.
Maybe in that case Putin gives America a taste of Hiroshima.
Laugh. Seriously?!?
He isn't going to do that for the same reason we didn't give Stalin a taste of Hiroshima over Korea.
Regardless of what he does, I prefer to avoid such a blatant escalation
Not to be an asshole but I don’t really care about Ukraine. And if Russians shoot down a jet with the proud “Ukrainian” airman John Wilson inside can you imagine the shitstorm that ensues? No thank you
Joe Comes Through....Gaffs be Damned, Stinger Missiles to Ukraine:
"WASHINGTON, Jan 19 (Reuters) - The U.S. State Department has cleared Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia to send U.S.-made missiles and other weapons to Ukraine, three sources familiar with the decision said, as President Joe Biden predicted Russia would move on Ukraine.
Under export control regulations, countries must obtain approval from the State Department before transferring any weapons they received from the United States to third parties.
The third-party transfer agreements will allow Estonia to transfer Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, while Lithuania will be permitted to send Stinger missiles, said one of the sources.
A State Department spokesperson confirmed that the U.S. government had approved third-party transfers allowing Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Britain to provide U.S.-made equipment from their inventories to Ukraine, but gave no details on which weapons would be sent."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
People can bitch about Mr. Biden....but unlike Republicans....he is trying to do things, to fix bridges, to be an honest friend over seas...to my dismay, he is not a good speaker or very inspiring....but he actually does things.
Re Stingers:
The reason we hear so much about the Stinger in these contexts is because the Stinger missile is an extremely effective weapon for shooting down aircraft. The missile uses an infrared seeker to lock on to the heat in the engine's exhaust, and will hit nearly anything flying below 11,000 feet.
Traveller
Why is the choice presented as total war or acquiescence? What about just raising the price.
For example, why shouldn't the US provide Ukraine with air cover and do missile attacks on Russian military formations once they enter Ukrainian territory?
What will Russia do? Nuke New York?
Let's add that there is precedent for this in Vietnam and Korea when Russian and China planes provided the North Vietnamese and North Koreans with air support.
We can't handle the truth - to borrow from Sorokin.
People will die. Children will grow up without fathers. Nothing much changes when it comes to geopolitics, save the names.
shrug
Move along now, nothing to see here...
"People can bitch about Mr. Biden....but unlike Republicans....he is trying to do things, to fix bridges, to be an honest friend over seas...to my dismay, he is not a good speaker or very inspiring....but he actually does things."
Agree with you. It's pathetic trying to pretend otherwise
Pingback: interfluidity » Dreams and kindness are all we have
A few days later we have: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/23/us/politics/biden-troops-nato-ukraine.html
Pingback: Russia’s Vietnam: Why an Invasion of Ukraine Would Be a Disaster for Putin | taktik(z) GDI (Government Defense Infrastructure)