Putin Will Place Nuclear Weapons in Ukraine. Once he clears Ukraine of most resistance and claims possession of airfields and enough land, he will fly and transport Nukes into the newly conquered state and set them up only this time closer, and once again pointing at the West. The West will be confronted with the same scenario that exists today. Except that Putin will control more geography and be willing to use mass emigration as a weapon against Europe. This needs to stop now.
"Russia needs: Territory in the south and east to claim as its own."
Some reports say that Russia is determined to have a land-bridge to Crimea, which would likely have to go through Mariupol and cut Ukraine off from the Sea of Azov.
Mr. Last, your latest Triad forced me to sign up just to be able to respond to you. Section 1 left me gasping for air. You may guess why. Yes, I am a Ukrainian whose family is in Ukraine and lives with a prospect of dying from a dropped bomb daily.
I have a big problem with three things in your newsletter: 1. contested sky; 2. escalation and 3. 'prudential matter'.
1. I strongly feel that you, as well as a number of highly respectful voices in the US are being disingenuous and misleading at the very premise of your argument against the No-Fly-Zone. You use the term 'contested skies', a military term, not a legal definition, as if it negates Ukrainian sovereignty over its territories. As a matter of fact the Chicago Convention of 1944 states that Ukraine has 'complete and exclusive sovereignty' over its skies. The fact that Russia is bombing Ukrainian land from its jets doesn't make the sky not Ukrainian.
My husband gave a simple analogy: if a purse snatcher grabs a bag from a lady on the street it means that the bag is "contested" in the colloquial sense of the word (meaning two people are struggling for it) but does it mean that legal owner of the bag is now ambiguous and "contested" (in the legal sense) and the would-be purse snatcher has as much right to the purse as the woman? Of course not.
And despite the fact that the status of the bag is "contested (again, colloquially) we don't wait for the bag snatcher to take her bag in hopes that he won't go after other ladies. Primitive? Yes. Close to the situation? Yes. Ukrainian skies would not have been contested in the first place if the 'guarantors' (do we remember that in 1994 Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons in return for protection?) didn't allow an aggressor to violate it.
2. Escalation. There's a lot of talk about avoiding 'escalation' of the situation or starting the Third World War. Would bombing a Polish village on the border be enough escalation? Yavoriv air base that was bombed just a few days ago is 20-30 km from the border. Would blowing up a mine in Zaporizhya Nuclear Plant so that the wind could blow a cloud over the border be enough escalation? Another hundred or more children and pregnant women (does it really matter that they are not Polish or Slovak but Ukrainian) blown up enough escalation? I hope you read what happened in Melitopol. Putin already escalated. He escalated to the utmost inhumane level. But not enough for the world to respond? Going back to my simple analogy, do we hesitate to step in to help the woman because the purse-snatcher may accuse us of escalating?
3. I was shaken by your comment about 'prudential matter'. That stepping in would do more harm than help. Mr. Last, maybe it's because you don't have family there who may die from a bomb dropped on their heads tomorrow, that you feel free to make such off-handed comments. The Melitopol pregnant lady, who became the face of the inhumane bombing of the Melitopol maternity unit, didn't make it, you may have heard. Neither did her unborn child. Hundreds of Melitopol citizens, many with little children, would not have died today if the world stepped in two weeks ago, even a week ago. Where is your humanity, Mr. Last? Does it have to be your loved one for you to think about it differently?
I went ahead and paid for the right to write this comment because it is too important for you to hear. I have greatly respected the Bulwark contributors and always valued their honest and profound analysis of the issues. A lot of people read what you have to say because they trust your analysis. Mr. Last, I think you owe an apology to every Ukrainian that read your newsletter. And every Ukrainian who lost a loved one or lives in fear of losing one.
However, I will argue that that while the world is "reluctant" for a world War with Russia, they are the very definition of a paper tiger.
The Ukrainian people deserve every ounce of direct military support that the West can provide. The Ukrainian people have directly displayed to the world how very inept the Russian military actually is.
Zelensky said to Putin... "Fuck around and find out..." And we are watching every day the ineptitude.
If the world was to actually man the fuck up and actually take this seriously? Not even China would make a stand.
I strongly argue for hanging that purse snatcher, Iryrna. Shoot that S.O.B. in the gut.
JVL. I love you bro, and I've been ride or die since damn near day one, but She's right on this.
Thanks Iryna! I hope you keep posting and providing your perspective.
The Ukranian people deserve to have all of the protection and assistance that you advocate. The NATO countries are being self-centered in not risking direct hostilities with Russia. However, it is understandable that NATO is reluctant to risk war with Russia. The self-centeredness is rational.
Out of a sense of justice, I would like to see the U.S. and other NATO countries warn Russia that their troops attacking Ukraine will be destroyed if Russian forces do not immediately leave Ukrainian territory. But I also understand the perspective of those who fear that direct hostilities between NATO and Russia risks starting a nuclear war.
Marc, thank you so much for your comment, I appreciate your thoughts. I absolutely agree with you that there are no easy answers. I also can understand the hesitation and self-centeredness. I am a mother of three little children, seven and under. I have a lot to lose here, as well as in Ukraine. The reason my husband and I have been advocating for urgent and decisive action (we have been mobilizing our friends to reach out to Congress and hope that our little effort has helped build support in Congress) is this: the world is dealing with a man who is a maniac madman terrorist. Drawing red lines and giving warnings work only with rational strategic people who have something to lose. That's a big reason in our view why the sanctions, while choking Russian people, have not stopped Putin. Instead we see him escalate. If anything, today he is more dangerous than two weeks before. We are dealing with the situation of a terrorist capturing a plane, who keeps killing his hostages each day of hesitancy. At some point one has to storm the plane. We believe the world's hesitation isn't helping us avoid Nuclear War, but has actually brought us much closer to the Nuclear War. We can delay no longer - for both the Ukrainian people and for our families too.
There is always the argument that countries have legitimate self-defense interests. We have constantly seen Russian behavior (and our own, TBH) excused on that basis.
This argument always seems to ignore the legitimate self-defense interests of people who do not already have guns or nuclear weapons--you know, the people that REALLY do have such interests (unlike the people with a lot of guns and nuclear weapons).
This is a symptom or expression of the old dictum that the powerful do what they wish and the weak suffer what they must--which is both contrary to law and morality.
I would argue that the facts on the ground argue that the people with legitimate self-defense interests here are the Ukrainians rather than the Russians.
We also have the ethno-nationalist argument that is used to excuse violations of national sovereignty--the whole some people that speak the same language as us live there and should be part of us. Hitler liked that one. We saw how that worked out in the end.
On point #2 and ceasefires being the best we can hope for:
Putin attempted regime change, and has active non-cover operatives inside Ukraine trying to hunt and kill Zelenski *as we speak*. Putin has also killed thousands of innocent Ukrainians on top of having launched a prolonged static military conflict since 2014 that had racked up over 10,000 Ukrainian KIA *prior* to said attempted regime change. This is not just some normal neighbor you can just work out some kind of international divorce settlement with after they've signed a piece of paper. Remember the fucking Budapest Memorandum folks? What good was that international divorce agreement as of 2014? That's why a ceasefire is the *best* that we can hope for because the default reposition back to where we were before the full invasion three weeks ago is a frozen conflict that already had a Ukrainian body count close to double what the US saw across 20 years of prolonged insurgencies in two separate conflict zones.
Unless y'all wanna saddle up and do to Putin in Ukraine what we did to Saddam in Kuwait in '91. I know I'm fuckin game. And don't give me any of that "oh but they got nukes" bullshit. Deterrence works both ways, but for some reason it's working a lot better from their end even though they're the ones with a military that is clearly hollow. Like, how shook are we of a broken saber that's being rattling around in a rusty sheath by a sad little klepto-goblin?
I would love to see us give Putin a bloody nose and it irks me to no end that we allow Putin to threaten all he wants while we keep saying things we won't do.
Clarity in this regard is a good thing--PROVIDED that if you say something, when the time comes you do that thing. We do not need or want red lines that aren't actually red lines.
This means that there needs to be agreement and commitment on the part of those involved (which means all NATO partners--which also in practice means popular support in NATO nations for such action).
This essentially needs to be pre-approved, meaning that is as soon as X happens, Y happens in response in short order (hours at the most).
You are also going to need to be prepared for the inevitable counter-escalation--because at this point Putin is stuck and he doesn't have much choice but to counter-escalate if he has any hope of personal survival.
Here is the reality of the situation if you get involved in this escalatory cycle:
Things will continue to escalate up to the point where the military will no longer follow Putin's orders and/or the oligarchs act against him. In other words, the odds of this ending (once is starts) with Putin remaining in power are very low.
He will either be killed in a strike of some kind by NATO forces or the Russian military will mutiny (in which case things in Russia probably get pretty ugly as the security services and the military go at each other), or he will suffer some sort of "medical emergency" and die/ be removed.
At this point, the only acceptable endgame is either regime change in Russia and the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine or some deal that the Ukrainians, themselves, make with Russia, with the support of NATO... or the (seemingly to me) unlikely outcome of a total Russian military victory and the Russians dictating the outcome.
I do not see the last as a high probability outcome at this point.
The BIG question: How far will the escalation go before Putin is out?
Loved this sentence, " but a successful career in agriculture, construction and catering has helped teach him how to strategise: "
That looked like my resume when I was 40, none of which qualified me to take on the Russian army. There are 2 obvious things, he is a good bullshitter and he knows his limits so he doesn't get in the way as his military folks fight the war.
"[Biden's transparency] helped invigorate and solidify our alliance." It did indeed, and it also helped solidify public opinion at home. In addition to which, it completely frustrated Putin's false flag tactics. Whoever thought this up deserves a big promotion. And a book deal.
And we have the Murdoch father and son directing Fox News commentators, specifically Carlson, to spout pro Russian propaganda. What more do we need before realize this news source is carefully orchestrated anti American brainwashing? I bet there are die hard Fox fans wanting to go to Ukraine to fight with Putin.
I'm don't see what kind of security guarantee or alliance there could be for Ukraine outside of NATO membership. A bilateral treaty with any military power in the region will necessarily be a bilateral treaty with a NATO member. For the sake of argument, let's say that Turkey signs a defense treaty with Ukraine. So when Russia strikes again, a NATO member is fully involved, and you know that Russia would attack Turkish military assets, including ports on the Black Sea. So now it's a NATO conflict anyway.
This is not like Austria during the Cold War - the USSR didn't want Austrian territory, and there wasn't economic integration or dependency between the two states that made it imperative for the USSR to have a veto over Austria's trade relationships.
Oh, and for reciprocity's sake, would we insist that Belarus have the same status - no foreign bases, etc?
Many criticize Biden for unilaterally taking US/NATO direct defense of Ukraine off the table. But none of us know what Biden knows. There may well be solid strategic reasons for his statements (see comment below on a Chinese audience), based on intelligence that is not going to be disclosed. The chances of him speaking independently of the national security agencies is very low in this situation, the opposite of how it would be under Trump. But it is important to make it quite clear to Putin what happens if he escalates. That might not stop him, but he might choose less-kinetic escalators such as cyber war instead of nuclear Armageddon.
One thing that wouldn't surprise me (even if I have absolutely no hard evidence to it) is if Zelenskyy and Biden worked out behind the scenes Zelenskyy's calls for escalation (no fly zone, etc.). Zelenskyy knows already there's no way the USA intervenes to that degree but it makes him look strong and bold and highlights the humanitarian horrors inflicted by Putin. Biden gets publicity for attempts to de-escalate and cuts against Putin's attempts to spin this as NATO's war. Both sides win
There doesn't seem to be much that the two sides can agree on in a treaty. I don't know that this ends until Putin falls. He's pot committed at this point.
I thought cluster munitions were against some international treaty or other. Am I mistaken?
We are also not a signatory to the Mine Ban Treaty and in 2020 reversed previous policies that put us in line to end up signing the treaty--meaning we are a go on using land mines, legally.
We like it when other people sign treaties like that but aren't so big on signing them ourselves.
Well, here is the thing--the last time a war was fought on American soil was basically the Civil War (I don't think that the Japanese invasion of two Aleutian Islands in WW2 really counts and the various Pacific Islands and the PI weren't REALLY American (meaning not populated by white people)).
What this means is that if use we landmines, we aren't putting them down where Americans might trip over them after the war... and there are military advantages to using mines.
And ya, somebody will have to deal with that later, but it probably won't be us cleaning that mess up.
A very American attitude/practice... not so much moronic stupidity as it is a self-centeredness of "exceptional" quality.
I'm right there with you on item #2. I don't think "isolated and disarmed by treaty" is going to be something Ukraine can or would adhere to and both side know it. The best outcome at this point is that Putin's hand gets forced either by military collapse in the field or by massive domestic unrest at home.
I think the audience for the no-escalation policy is China. As long as China sees the US as behaving with restraint, it may refrain from acting to support Russia and rescue it from this mess. That leaves the Russians facing an extended quagmire that will ultimately leave them without the ability to project power if they don't reverse course. However we should be sending Zelenskyy literally every weapon he asks for and cutting off Russian oil sales, whatever the cost.
1. What happens if Russia launches a cruise missile strike on a Polish base using strategic bombers that took off from deep within Russia? That would dare NATO to launch a risky strike far from the front lines.
2. I think the Ukrainians should offer something like this: Russia keeps Crimea, self-determination for DPR/LPR (which probably keeps them in Ukraine), no NATO for 20 years but EU membership ASAP.
I wouldn’t compromise on Ukraine and NATO. Ukraine is autonomous and they have the right to seek membership. If you compromise there then that’s a big win for Putin IMO.
I’m not advocating that the U.S. pressure Ukraine into staying out of NATO. An autonomous Ukraine might, however, decide to offer Russia a partly real, partly symbolic concession before Russia uses chemical weapons against Ukrainian civilians.
Does Ukraine need article 5 protection if NATO commits to arming them to the teeth so that they can defend themselves? Maybe they decide they don’t.
On the other hand, maybe they don’t want to offer any concessions. There’s a decent chance that Ukraine can hold on until economic collapse forces Putin from power, at which point they may get an unconditional withdrawal.
In doing so, they run the risk of getting nukes or chemical weapons lobbed at them by a desperate Putin who is losing his grip on power.
I guess if it’s a condition of withdrawal, but I don’t see Putin making a conditional withdrawal without it being a horrible deal for the Ukrainians. I don’t see Ukraine making that deal, so NATO membership is probably not a big bargaining chip. If he makes a $hitty deal then a lot of the sanctions likely stay. There really is no good off ramp for him, and I don’t see him making it through this. However, I’m usually wildly disappointed though.
I think our first dip of the toe in the water will be creating “humanitarian corridors” using drones and SAMS. This will either be NATO or a few NATO countries, mostly US, France and Britain. Creating “humanitarian corridors” is a euphemism for destroying Russian batteries, drones and possibly supply lines. I would not be surprised if our drones are there now. That’s my guess though.
Any damage to their supply lines will reverberate deeper through the Russian army. They could very well view that damage as an excuse to really ramp up the damage. Not that it should stop us, but it's important to keep in mind.
You’re probably right, and it would be an escalation, but you can do it under the guise of a humanitarian effort. As far as hitting supply lines, we’ll those would be Ukrainian drones, wink wink. Escalatory, but a little bit different than boots or planes.
Putin Will Place Nuclear Weapons in Ukraine. Once he clears Ukraine of most resistance and claims possession of airfields and enough land, he will fly and transport Nukes into the newly conquered state and set them up only this time closer, and once again pointing at the West. The West will be confronted with the same scenario that exists today. Except that Putin will control more geography and be willing to use mass emigration as a weapon against Europe. This needs to stop now.
"Russia needs: Territory in the south and east to claim as its own."
Some reports say that Russia is determined to have a land-bridge to Crimea, which would likely have to go through Mariupol and cut Ukraine off from the Sea of Azov.
Mr. Last, your latest Triad forced me to sign up just to be able to respond to you. Section 1 left me gasping for air. You may guess why. Yes, I am a Ukrainian whose family is in Ukraine and lives with a prospect of dying from a dropped bomb daily.
I have a big problem with three things in your newsletter: 1. contested sky; 2. escalation and 3. 'prudential matter'.
1. I strongly feel that you, as well as a number of highly respectful voices in the US are being disingenuous and misleading at the very premise of your argument against the No-Fly-Zone. You use the term 'contested skies', a military term, not a legal definition, as if it negates Ukrainian sovereignty over its territories. As a matter of fact the Chicago Convention of 1944 states that Ukraine has 'complete and exclusive sovereignty' over its skies. The fact that Russia is bombing Ukrainian land from its jets doesn't make the sky not Ukrainian.
My husband gave a simple analogy: if a purse snatcher grabs a bag from a lady on the street it means that the bag is "contested" in the colloquial sense of the word (meaning two people are struggling for it) but does it mean that legal owner of the bag is now ambiguous and "contested" (in the legal sense) and the would-be purse snatcher has as much right to the purse as the woman? Of course not.
And despite the fact that the status of the bag is "contested (again, colloquially) we don't wait for the bag snatcher to take her bag in hopes that he won't go after other ladies. Primitive? Yes. Close to the situation? Yes. Ukrainian skies would not have been contested in the first place if the 'guarantors' (do we remember that in 1994 Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons in return for protection?) didn't allow an aggressor to violate it.
2. Escalation. There's a lot of talk about avoiding 'escalation' of the situation or starting the Third World War. Would bombing a Polish village on the border be enough escalation? Yavoriv air base that was bombed just a few days ago is 20-30 km from the border. Would blowing up a mine in Zaporizhya Nuclear Plant so that the wind could blow a cloud over the border be enough escalation? Another hundred or more children and pregnant women (does it really matter that they are not Polish or Slovak but Ukrainian) blown up enough escalation? I hope you read what happened in Melitopol. Putin already escalated. He escalated to the utmost inhumane level. But not enough for the world to respond? Going back to my simple analogy, do we hesitate to step in to help the woman because the purse-snatcher may accuse us of escalating?
3. I was shaken by your comment about 'prudential matter'. That stepping in would do more harm than help. Mr. Last, maybe it's because you don't have family there who may die from a bomb dropped on their heads tomorrow, that you feel free to make such off-handed comments. The Melitopol pregnant lady, who became the face of the inhumane bombing of the Melitopol maternity unit, didn't make it, you may have heard. Neither did her unborn child. Hundreds of Melitopol citizens, many with little children, would not have died today if the world stepped in two weeks ago, even a week ago. Where is your humanity, Mr. Last? Does it have to be your loved one for you to think about it differently?
I went ahead and paid for the right to write this comment because it is too important for you to hear. I have greatly respected the Bulwark contributors and always valued their honest and profound analysis of the issues. A lot of people read what you have to say because they trust your analysis. Mr. Last, I think you owe an apology to every Ukrainian that read your newsletter. And every Ukrainian who lost a loved one or lives in fear of losing one.
I will echo Marc's thank you to Iryna.
However, I will argue that that while the world is "reluctant" for a world War with Russia, they are the very definition of a paper tiger.
The Ukrainian people deserve every ounce of direct military support that the West can provide. The Ukrainian people have directly displayed to the world how very inept the Russian military actually is.
Zelensky said to Putin... "Fuck around and find out..." And we are watching every day the ineptitude.
If the world was to actually man the fuck up and actually take this seriously? Not even China would make a stand.
I strongly argue for hanging that purse snatcher, Iryrna. Shoot that S.O.B. in the gut.
JVL. I love you bro, and I've been ride or die since damn near day one, but She's right on this.
Thank you Matthew, I appreciate your support
Thanks Iryna! I hope you keep posting and providing your perspective.
The Ukranian people deserve to have all of the protection and assistance that you advocate. The NATO countries are being self-centered in not risking direct hostilities with Russia. However, it is understandable that NATO is reluctant to risk war with Russia. The self-centeredness is rational.
Out of a sense of justice, I would like to see the U.S. and other NATO countries warn Russia that their troops attacking Ukraine will be destroyed if Russian forces do not immediately leave Ukrainian territory. But I also understand the perspective of those who fear that direct hostilities between NATO and Russia risks starting a nuclear war.
There are no easy answers in this situation.
Marc, thank you so much for your comment, I appreciate your thoughts. I absolutely agree with you that there are no easy answers. I also can understand the hesitation and self-centeredness. I am a mother of three little children, seven and under. I have a lot to lose here, as well as in Ukraine. The reason my husband and I have been advocating for urgent and decisive action (we have been mobilizing our friends to reach out to Congress and hope that our little effort has helped build support in Congress) is this: the world is dealing with a man who is a maniac madman terrorist. Drawing red lines and giving warnings work only with rational strategic people who have something to lose. That's a big reason in our view why the sanctions, while choking Russian people, have not stopped Putin. Instead we see him escalate. If anything, today he is more dangerous than two weeks before. We are dealing with the situation of a terrorist capturing a plane, who keeps killing his hostages each day of hesitancy. At some point one has to storm the plane. We believe the world's hesitation isn't helping us avoid Nuclear War, but has actually brought us much closer to the Nuclear War. We can delay no longer - for both the Ukrainian people and for our families too.
There is always the argument that countries have legitimate self-defense interests. We have constantly seen Russian behavior (and our own, TBH) excused on that basis.
This argument always seems to ignore the legitimate self-defense interests of people who do not already have guns or nuclear weapons--you know, the people that REALLY do have such interests (unlike the people with a lot of guns and nuclear weapons).
This is a symptom or expression of the old dictum that the powerful do what they wish and the weak suffer what they must--which is both contrary to law and morality.
I would argue that the facts on the ground argue that the people with legitimate self-defense interests here are the Ukrainians rather than the Russians.
We also have the ethno-nationalist argument that is used to excuse violations of national sovereignty--the whole some people that speak the same language as us live there and should be part of us. Hitler liked that one. We saw how that worked out in the end.
On point #2 and ceasefires being the best we can hope for:
Putin attempted regime change, and has active non-cover operatives inside Ukraine trying to hunt and kill Zelenski *as we speak*. Putin has also killed thousands of innocent Ukrainians on top of having launched a prolonged static military conflict since 2014 that had racked up over 10,000 Ukrainian KIA *prior* to said attempted regime change. This is not just some normal neighbor you can just work out some kind of international divorce settlement with after they've signed a piece of paper. Remember the fucking Budapest Memorandum folks? What good was that international divorce agreement as of 2014? That's why a ceasefire is the *best* that we can hope for because the default reposition back to where we were before the full invasion three weeks ago is a frozen conflict that already had a Ukrainian body count close to double what the US saw across 20 years of prolonged insurgencies in two separate conflict zones.
Unless y'all wanna saddle up and do to Putin in Ukraine what we did to Saddam in Kuwait in '91. I know I'm fuckin game. And don't give me any of that "oh but they got nukes" bullshit. Deterrence works both ways, but for some reason it's working a lot better from their end even though they're the ones with a military that is clearly hollow. Like, how shook are we of a broken saber that's being rattling around in a rusty sheath by a sad little klepto-goblin?
I would love to see us give Putin a bloody nose and it irks me to no end that we allow Putin to threaten all he wants while we keep saying things we won't do.
WRT: Escalation
Clarity in this regard is a good thing--PROVIDED that if you say something, when the time comes you do that thing. We do not need or want red lines that aren't actually red lines.
This means that there needs to be agreement and commitment on the part of those involved (which means all NATO partners--which also in practice means popular support in NATO nations for such action).
This essentially needs to be pre-approved, meaning that is as soon as X happens, Y happens in response in short order (hours at the most).
You are also going to need to be prepared for the inevitable counter-escalation--because at this point Putin is stuck and he doesn't have much choice but to counter-escalate if he has any hope of personal survival.
Here is the reality of the situation if you get involved in this escalatory cycle:
Things will continue to escalate up to the point where the military will no longer follow Putin's orders and/or the oligarchs act against him. In other words, the odds of this ending (once is starts) with Putin remaining in power are very low.
He will either be killed in a strike of some kind by NATO forces or the Russian military will mutiny (in which case things in Russia probably get pretty ugly as the security services and the military go at each other), or he will suffer some sort of "medical emergency" and die/ be removed.
At this point, the only acceptable endgame is either regime change in Russia and the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine or some deal that the Ukrainians, themselves, make with Russia, with the support of NATO... or the (seemingly to me) unlikely outcome of a total Russian military victory and the Russians dictating the outcome.
I do not see the last as a high probability outcome at this point.
The BIG question: How far will the escalation go before Putin is out?
Lots of people are saying Putin may have Impendingium Defenestrationa Syndrome.
Loved this sentence, " but a successful career in agriculture, construction and catering has helped teach him how to strategise: "
That looked like my resume when I was 40, none of which qualified me to take on the Russian army. There are 2 obvious things, he is a good bullshitter and he knows his limits so he doesn't get in the way as his military folks fight the war.
The US has bilateral defense treaties with Japan and Korea, which include siting of US bases there. Why not in Ukraine?
"[Biden's transparency] helped invigorate and solidify our alliance." It did indeed, and it also helped solidify public opinion at home. In addition to which, it completely frustrated Putin's false flag tactics. Whoever thought this up deserves a big promotion. And a book deal.
And we have the Murdoch father and son directing Fox News commentators, specifically Carlson, to spout pro Russian propaganda. What more do we need before realize this news source is carefully orchestrated anti American brainwashing? I bet there are die hard Fox fans wanting to go to Ukraine to fight with Putin.
I think this was John Fetterman's idea.
I'm don't see what kind of security guarantee or alliance there could be for Ukraine outside of NATO membership. A bilateral treaty with any military power in the region will necessarily be a bilateral treaty with a NATO member. For the sake of argument, let's say that Turkey signs a defense treaty with Ukraine. So when Russia strikes again, a NATO member is fully involved, and you know that Russia would attack Turkish military assets, including ports on the Black Sea. So now it's a NATO conflict anyway.
This is not like Austria during the Cold War - the USSR didn't want Austrian territory, and there wasn't economic integration or dependency between the two states that made it imperative for the USSR to have a veto over Austria's trade relationships.
Oh, and for reciprocity's sake, would we insist that Belarus have the same status - no foreign bases, etc?
Many criticize Biden for unilaterally taking US/NATO direct defense of Ukraine off the table. But none of us know what Biden knows. There may well be solid strategic reasons for his statements (see comment below on a Chinese audience), based on intelligence that is not going to be disclosed. The chances of him speaking independently of the national security agencies is very low in this situation, the opposite of how it would be under Trump. But it is important to make it quite clear to Putin what happens if he escalates. That might not stop him, but he might choose less-kinetic escalators such as cyber war instead of nuclear Armageddon.
One thing that wouldn't surprise me (even if I have absolutely no hard evidence to it) is if Zelenskyy and Biden worked out behind the scenes Zelenskyy's calls for escalation (no fly zone, etc.). Zelenskyy knows already there's no way the USA intervenes to that degree but it makes him look strong and bold and highlights the humanitarian horrors inflicted by Putin. Biden gets publicity for attempts to de-escalate and cuts against Putin's attempts to spin this as NATO's war. Both sides win
I wouldn't doubt it. Biden is a crafty politician.
There doesn't seem to be much that the two sides can agree on in a treaty. I don't know that this ends until Putin falls. He's pot committed at this point.
I thought cluster munitions were against some international treaty or other. Am I mistaken?
We are also not a signatory to the Mine Ban Treaty and in 2020 reversed previous policies that put us in line to end up signing the treaty--meaning we are a go on using land mines, legally.
We like it when other people sign treaties like that but aren't so big on signing them ourselves.
Well, here is the thing--the last time a war was fought on American soil was basically the Civil War (I don't think that the Japanese invasion of two Aleutian Islands in WW2 really counts and the various Pacific Islands and the PI weren't REALLY American (meaning not populated by white people)).
What this means is that if use we landmines, we aren't putting them down where Americans might trip over them after the war... and there are military advantages to using mines.
And ya, somebody will have to deal with that later, but it probably won't be us cleaning that mess up.
A very American attitude/practice... not so much moronic stupidity as it is a self-centeredness of "exceptional" quality.
"Like"
I'm right there with you on item #2. I don't think "isolated and disarmed by treaty" is going to be something Ukraine can or would adhere to and both side know it. The best outcome at this point is that Putin's hand gets forced either by military collapse in the field or by massive domestic unrest at home.
I think the audience for the no-escalation policy is China. As long as China sees the US as behaving with restraint, it may refrain from acting to support Russia and rescue it from this mess. That leaves the Russians facing an extended quagmire that will ultimately leave them without the ability to project power if they don't reverse course. However we should be sending Zelenskyy literally every weapon he asks for and cutting off Russian oil sales, whatever the cost.
1. What happens if Russia launches a cruise missile strike on a Polish base using strategic bombers that took off from deep within Russia? That would dare NATO to launch a risky strike far from the front lines.
2. I think the Ukrainians should offer something like this: Russia keeps Crimea, self-determination for DPR/LPR (which probably keeps them in Ukraine), no NATO for 20 years but EU membership ASAP.
I wouldn’t compromise on Ukraine and NATO. Ukraine is autonomous and they have the right to seek membership. If you compromise there then that’s a big win for Putin IMO.
I’m not advocating that the U.S. pressure Ukraine into staying out of NATO. An autonomous Ukraine might, however, decide to offer Russia a partly real, partly symbolic concession before Russia uses chemical weapons against Ukrainian civilians.
Does Ukraine need article 5 protection if NATO commits to arming them to the teeth so that they can defend themselves? Maybe they decide they don’t.
On the other hand, maybe they don’t want to offer any concessions. There’s a decent chance that Ukraine can hold on until economic collapse forces Putin from power, at which point they may get an unconditional withdrawal.
In doing so, they run the risk of getting nukes or chemical weapons lobbed at them by a desperate Putin who is losing his grip on power.
I guess if it’s a condition of withdrawal, but I don’t see Putin making a conditional withdrawal without it being a horrible deal for the Ukrainians. I don’t see Ukraine making that deal, so NATO membership is probably not a big bargaining chip. If he makes a $hitty deal then a lot of the sanctions likely stay. There really is no good off ramp for him, and I don’t see him making it through this. However, I’m usually wildly disappointed though.
I think our first dip of the toe in the water will be creating “humanitarian corridors” using drones and SAMS. This will either be NATO or a few NATO countries, mostly US, France and Britain. Creating “humanitarian corridors” is a euphemism for destroying Russian batteries, drones and possibly supply lines. I would not be surprised if our drones are there now. That’s my guess though.
Any damage to their supply lines will reverberate deeper through the Russian army. They could very well view that damage as an excuse to really ramp up the damage. Not that it should stop us, but it's important to keep in mind.
You’re probably right, and it would be an escalation, but you can do it under the guise of a humanitarian effort. As far as hitting supply lines, we’ll those would be Ukrainian drones, wink wink. Escalatory, but a little bit different than boots or planes.