It has been striking to see how openly NATO has been interfering in this war, sometimes in ways that cross the traditional lines for combatant status. Selling weapons to Ukraine is one thing; funding Ukraine and then 'selling' them weapons with the money you gave them, then providing trainers so they can use those weapons effectively, then providing actionable intelligence and targeting solutions... at some point you've crossed the line. (That leaves as unknowable the truth of reports of NATO special operations forces being more directly involved even than that.)
So Putin, who is now seeing attacks inside Russia itself,
mentioned that defending Russia is the reason for his nuclear force array. As indeed it is.
I wish I had some confidence that there was anyone in charge on our team who understood any of this, and wasn't just blundering along. "We mustn't underestimate American blundering. I was with them when they blundered into Berlin in 1918." Yes, and if we blunder into Moscow, we may blunder into a nuclear war as well.
16 comments:
Despite the misgivings of some combatants, a lot of people in 1914 thought that blunder would be over in time for Christmas at home, and not Christmas 1918, either.
Let him bring it.
I spent 14 years sitting across the fence from the barbarian. It's time to burn him to the ground and scatter the ashes.
Eric Hines
For 20+ years every second-rate semi-enemy thought it was fine to help insurgents blow up American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, I kinda see Ukraine as a fun round of "Two can play that game."
Now they're going to whine and threaten to nuke us? Two can play that game, too, but much like the first round, I think they'll get the worse of the second one if they take it there.
Thinking about this more, I really don't think Putin would hit the US directly, but he could nuke something in Ukraine. Like Grim, I don't trust any of our leadership to make the right call if that happens.
I think Putin needs to get something out of the invasion of Ukraine to save face or he will just keep on. If he gets nothing, his career is over and very possibly his life. However, Ukraine shouldn't have to give up any territory. There may be some kind of mutually agreeable exchange that would work, but I don't know the region well enough to have any idea what that might be.
There may be some kind of mutually agreeable exchange that would work....
There is no exchange that would work other than this: Russia departs Ukraine and tears up its roads and railroads back from the Ukraine border a distance agreeable to Ukraine and plants trees and dense shrubbery in the road beds. In return Russians get to stop dying.
Putin lives or dies according to the interests of the Russians. I don't give a rat's patootie about that.
Eric Hines
I assume Putin feels like staying alive strongly enough to use nukes against Ukraine if he feels his own life is in danger. I also assume that getting nuked would be a bad thing for Ukraine. Hence my willingness to see a compromise.
Absolute victories are great when you can get them, but getting nuked doesn't constitute any kind of victory.
Or, is it the case that you also don't care about Ukraine and just want to see Russia lose?
We have been swimming in a sea of anti Russian propaganda our entire lives. It is hard to sift out any moral clarity from this.
I trust our own leaders and media no more than I do the Russians.
especially after the last two years of lies, damned lies and obfuscations derived from a US assisted lab enhanced virus resulting in medical malpractice, thousands dead due to lack of care, and an deliberate lockdown blow to the US and world economy.
Both fair points, without either being complimentary to Putin.
Or, is it the case that you also don't care about Ukraine and just want to see Russia lose?
The insulting nature and otherwise stupidity of this is its own reply, and I won't dignify it with anything further.
Eric Hines
That would not be a weird position for a Cold Warrior, really. I’ve learned a lot about the Soviet successor states; I’m not sure how much I care about any of them. Although I like Ukrainians; Mr. Wolf married one, and we all went up to the wedding. Seemed like a pleasant culture.
My favorite story about that is that the mother of the bride came over to us at the reception afterwards and asked, “Excuse me, but why is he called ‘Wolf’?”
I laughed and answered, “Ma’am, you should have asked _that_ question _before_ the wedding!”
Mr. Hines, it was not my intention to insult you. I sincerely apologize.
Please clarify your question; I've plainly misunderstood it.
Eric Hines
In explaining, I don't wish to defend my wording. The way I phrased the question was thoughtless and clumsy, and I wish I had read it over and given a moment of thought to how my words could be interpreted before I hit the publish button. It was intended as a rhetorical question, at which it obviously failed. It was never intended as a comment on your character.
My overall point was that sometimes compromises are necessary. My first two statements above the question, that Putin might use nukes on Ukraine if he felt his position was threatened, and that faced with that it might be best to compromise, really made the point by themselves. I think your proposed exchange is right in terms of ideal outcomes, but I also think it's unrealistic.
Given that, maybe I just don't understand how you would go about achieving your exchange, which you stated as:
"Russia departs Ukraine and tears up its roads and railroads back from the Ukraine border a distance agreeable to Ukraine and plants trees and dense shrubbery in the road beds. In return Russians get to stop dying."
Given Putin's ability to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine, what path do you see that leads to that result?
Russia could alternatively pay for Ukraine to adopt the European standard rail gauge instead of the Russian one. That would be partly effective in terms of slowing Russian troop movements across the border, while allowing Ukraine to tie into Europe's economy more completely.
I expect that's nearly as objectionable to Russia, though.
Tom, the problem for Ukraine is that Putin intends to erase the nation altogether and absorb the land and population into what might be called Metropolitan Russia. Since Ukraine already is in a fight for its existence as a people, a society, and a polity, the difference between Putin overrunning Ukraine with conventional forces or nuking it into submission/being conquered and erased is nonexistent.
There can be no compromise with an enemy whose sole goal is your own destruction. The only possible outcome is the utter destruction of that enemy or the utter destruction of yourself. That's the choice Putin has set from the outset. For instance (along with one person's analysis of the accuracy of his claim), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=womcXuMjrPs skip ahead to 00:39. He's held that position as far back as his meetings with President Bush the Younger: Addressing Bush, he said: , George, that Ukraine is not even a state! What is Ukraine? Part of its territory is Eastern Europe, and part, and a significant one, was donated by us!" from https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/877224 (Google Translate is friendly enough).
Regarding negotiations with the barbarian, Grim has one possibility that fits nicely with my suggestion of the only legitimate negotiation. "...a distance agreeable to Ukraine" plainly allows for a distance of zero, but with a change in rail gauge. And I add, dragon's teeth across the roads and railroads at the border. Across the flattish lands along the border between road and rail beds the Ukrainians might plant thickets of the aptly named Russian olive trees. But the going in position for Ukraine, I suggest, would be some considerable distance back into Russia.
Eric Hines
Thanks for the response. That's a logical position. I'll check out the material you linked.
Post a Comment