Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

It's More Than Sabre Rattling Now

A few weeks ago, in the China-Taiwan thread, I mentioned we should not take our eyes off the Ukraine-Russian border. At the time, I think Russia had 20,000 troops on the border.

Tonight, CBS News reported there are 174,000 troops on the border--the equivalent of 12 divisions. While it is the beginning of winter, it seems like things are getting a little hot there.

Biden is to have a video call with Putin on Tuesday. He has told Ukraine we will make sure Ukraine can defend itself.

I understand Ukraine is purchasing a couple of naval ships from Britain. Is it true, Britain is helping to construct two naval bases in Ukraine? I have also seen it reported Ukraine has made some adjustments to accommodate American warships at some of its bases.

So the question is: how far do you think this is going to go before someone blinks?

Should Ukraine be allowed to enter NATO?
«13456756

Comments

  • If this is intimidation to prevent them from joining NATO, then rush them in and force Russia's hand.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    If this is intimidation to prevent them from joining NATO, then rush them in and force Russia's hand.

    Not saying you're wrong, but this sounds a lot like a game of chicken.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    I really hope I'm not wrong, but the Russian military exercises practically on the Ukrainian border are still sabre-rattling ... just making a lot more noise. As @mousethief said, intimidation with the aim of scaring the Ukrainian government into stopping moving towards the West.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    If this is intimidation to prevent them from joining NATO, then rush them in and force Russia's hand.

    Not saying you're wrong, but this sounds a lot like a game of chicken.

    It is, except it's a Schwinn bicycle playing chicken with a tank.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited December 2021
    I think Europeans should have a big say on strategy, and I'll bet Biden is consulting widely on it. Its a NATO matter, of course.

    My view is that Putin has runs on the board as a bully who will use direct military action to further Russian interests as he sees them. He wants Russian control of Ukraine, directly or indirectly. He will go to war if he thinks he can avoid NATO intervention.

    NATO should ask Ukraine for permission to station troops there, and should move troops and military hardware in ways that show the Russians that they are in a position to defend Ukraine militarily within a very short timeframe - measured in minutes, not hours.

    Every diplomatic contact from now should say, "We will attack you if...". This might well be happening already. I hope so. The public messaging needs to be different, because a great many people are fundamentally wrong about what it takes to maintain peace in an anarchic international order.

    A rules-based international order is a pipedream in my lifetime. In my lifetime, liberal democracy is playing defence, domestically and internationally. The structures of the UN and other international umpires are there. They can be strengthened and built upon in better days.

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited December 2021
    In the medium to long term, the aim of western diplomacy should be to show Putin that his aim of reintegrating former Soviet territories directly is unattainable. There will be no more Crimeas, no more Georgias. We will hurt Russia if he tries it again, no ifs, no buts. It should be to show him that the best way to achieve his aims is to stop fucking with us, and thaw relations to a point where we are comfortable with sizeable Russian influence in the countries that surround it.

    The ultimate, very long term and possibly also unachievable goal in my lifetime is the integration of Russia into the West to replace England as the third major force in the EU. The German/French tug-of-war needs an internal umpire.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    It's what is still is; just sabre rattling. This running sore suits Russia perfectly. So when (when?) Ukraine joins NATO, does that include Crimea? And the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics? And you're all happy to kill and die for that?
  • Ukraine should join the EU at the same time as Belarus and Russia, arm in arm. Then Trump can say he was right back in 2017 when he said that NATO was redundant.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    And you're all happy to kill and die for that?

    The important question is: is Putin? If he is then we only have two choices - try to stop him or let him do whatever he wants.

    As Tolkien wrote, those who do not bear swords can still die on them.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Obviously Putin's more than happy to kill for it as long as there are no negative consequences whatsoever. Conquering Ukraine would benefit him how? Not cost him how?
  • He’s trying to rebuild the Soviet Union as a new Russian Empire. That’s the primary benefit to him of conquering Ukraine.

    Additionally, as well as having significant oil and gas reserves of its own Ukraine is also a (if not the) major transit route for Russian gas to Europe, which presumably costs Russia quite a lot of roubles in transit costs. That’s a pretty significant secondary benefit.
  • I don't know, but it might benefit him as regards votes, and it might cost him nothing but a few expendable soldiers (and civilians).

    The above is irony, of course.
  • You think putin cares about votes? How cute.
  • :lol:

    I did say I was being ironic...
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    Putin cares so much about votes that he gets people to stuff votes for him (or his cronies) into ballot boxes.
  • Putin cares so much about votes that he gets people to stuff votes for him (or his cronies) into ballot boxes.

    As far as it's possible to tell from the outside, Putin's foreign policy positions are fairly popular ones within Russia, with even the most oppositional of opposition figures taking similarly nationalistic stances.

    They may move into Ukraine again of course, but the Russian Army is very much set up to prevent another Barbarossa rather than being a mobile annexing machine.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    He’s trying to rebuild the Soviet Union as a new Russian Empire. That’s the primary benefit to him of conquering Ukraine.

    Additionally, as well as having significant oil and gas reserves of its own Ukraine is also a (if not the) major transit route for Russian gas to Europe, which presumably costs Russia quite a lot of roubles in transit costs. That’s a pretty significant secondary benefit.

    And there would be no consequences? Ukraine rolls over, the West does nothing at all as it needs the gas, and there's be no guerrilla warfare? Against 2000 miles of pipeline to the West?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    He’s trying to rebuild the Soviet Union as a new Russian Empire. That’s the primary benefit to him of conquering Ukraine.

    Additionally, as well as having significant oil and gas reserves of its own Ukraine is also a (if not the) major transit route for Russian gas to Europe, which presumably costs Russia quite a lot of roubles in transit costs. That’s a pretty significant secondary benefit.

    And there's that long coastline to the Black Sea, more than 3 times the length of Russsia's.
  • I recently listened to the audiobook by Alexander Vindmann, Here, Right Matters. which actually details Trumps quid pro quo attempt with the president of Ukraine. One of the points he made over and over again was when dealing with Russia is not to equivocate. Putin is betting we will blink first or hesitate. If we do that, he wins.

    Its much like the old Middle East proverb: If a camel gets its nose into tent, it will be impossible to prevent the rest of if from entering.
  • I agree Gramps. Given our inadequate responses to Russian aggression in the past, we need to actually do something this time. We need to engage Russian forces if they attack UKR. Our engagement is more likely to prompt a hasty ceasefire than an escalation.

  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I agree Gramps. Given our inadequate responses to Russian aggression in the past, we need to actually do something this time. We need to engage Russian forces if they attack UKR. Our engagement is more likely to prompt a hasty ceasefire than an escalation.

    Who's we?
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited December 2021
    Not us here in England, I hope - but I bet Johnson jumps onto any military bandwagon he can, to force his vaunted Global Britain into a conflict. He could do with a little war abroad, to divert attention from his mucky behaviour at home.

    I read *we* as NATO forces, though I'm open to correction.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Not us here in England, I hope - but I bet Johnson jumps onto any military bandwagon he can, to force his vaunted Global Britain into a conflict. He could do with a little war abroad, to divert attention from his mucky behaviour at home.

    I read *we* as NATO forces, though I'm open to correction.

    Worked for Tharcher
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Not us here in England, I hope - but I bet Johnson jumps onto any military bandwagon he can, to force his vaunted Global Britain into a conflict. He could do with a little war abroad, to divert attention from his mucky behaviour at home.

    I read *we* as NATO forces, though I'm open to correction.

    Worked for Tharcher

    My point exactly.
    :fearful:
  • Apart from Crimea I don't think Mr Putin has annexed anywhere. He seems to specialise in perpetuating frozen conflict zones and unrecognised states.

    I'm not sure if this is an actual strategy - on the 'divide and rule' principle - or if he genuinely doesn't know how to finish things that he's started. (I do get the impression he's a master of reacting to whatever happens as though it's part of some dastardly long game, and not just the random consequences of a bunch of unstable gangsters being let loose with Kalashnikovs.)
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    "Apart from Crimea" is quite a major caveat.

    @Bishops Finger are you saying that if Russia invades Ukraine (again) NATO should make no military intervention (again)?
  • "Apart from Crimea" is quite a major caveat.

    @Bishops Finger are you saying that if Russia invades Ukraine (again) NATO should make no military intervention (again)?

    I'm not quite sure what I meant, except to express fear and horror at the prospect of the UK being embroiled in war yet again.

    I do take the point that membership of NATO carries obligations with it, but I loathe the thought of the jingoism from the Meeja, and the gleeful war-cries Johnson and his cronies would utter, if push comes to shove.
  • "Apart from Crimea" is quite a major caveat.

    There are a number of reasons why - to Russia - Crimea may be an anomalous case. Crimea was transferred to the then Ukraine SSR by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet when the USSR was still in existence, and plenty of Russians view it as part of Russia. Similarly there were plenty of people in the east of the country who think of themselves as Russia and the 2004 election results are very good at illustrating the issue (okay - you can invoke ballot stuffing, but that only goes some way to explaining the split).
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    We’d need to be very sure starting world war three is better than any other alternative, before we send another generation to be slaughtered.
  • We’d need to be very sure starting world war three is better than any other alternative, before we send another generation to be slaughtered.

    Yes, and even if it doesn't lead to all-out World War III, it won't be the bloody politicians who get slaughtered...
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Not us here in England, I hope - but I bet Johnson jumps onto any military bandwagon he can, to force his vaunted Global Britain into a conflict. He could do with a little war abroad, to divert attention from his mucky behaviour at home.

    I read *we* as NATO forces, though I'm open to correction.

    'Little'?
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Apart from Crimea I don't think Mr Putin has annexed anywhere. He seems to specialise in perpetuating frozen conflict zones and unrecognised states.

    I'm not sure if this is an actual strategy - on the 'divide and rule' principle - or if he genuinely doesn't know how to finish things that he's started. (I do get the impression he's a master of reacting to whatever happens as though it's part of some dastardly long game, and not just the random consequences of a bunch of unstable gangsters being let loose with Kalashnikovs.)

    This.
    "Apart from Crimea" is quite a major caveat.

    There are a number of reasons why - to Russia - Crimea may be an anomalous case. Crimea was transferred to the then Ukraine SSR by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet when the USSR was still in existence, and plenty of Russians view it as part of Russia. Similarly there were plenty of people in the east of the country who think of themselves as Russia and the 2004 election results are very good at illustrating the issue (okay - you can invoke ballot stuffing, but that only goes some way to explaining the split).

    And this. Khrushchev's meaningless gesture.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    Hmm. I wouldn't be surprised if many Russians view Ukraine as part of Russia, too. Not to mention the Baltic states. I'm not surprised the Latvians are concerned, to put it mildly.
  • Here is the Reuters report on the virtual summit between Biden and Putin. It seems like Putin does not want to see offensive weapons on UKR soil. He does not want Ukraine to have the capability to retake Crimea.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Pure BS.
  • I think if Putin's end goal was expanding ever wider the borders of Russia, he would have annexed Donetsk and Luhansk by now. They have a similar demographic to Crimea, and since the West did nothing about Crimea (which actually has some strategic significance), annexation seems pretty risk-free.
  • We’d need to be very sure starting world war three is better than any other alternative, before we send another generation to be slaughtered.

    Does any other alternative include just letting Putin annex Ukraine?
  • We’d need to be very sure starting world war three is better than any other alternative, before we send another generation to be slaughtered.

    Does any other alternative include just letting Putin annex Ukraine?

    It does have a certain Czechoslovakia feel to it, doesn't it? I say this as someone very uneasy about war, but I'm aware it's easy to be anti-war when you're not the one losing out as a result. At the same time my feeling is that Putin doesn't want to annex Ukraine any more than the US wants to annex Cuba. He wants safe, compliant buffer states on all of Russia's borders, but particularly in the west. I don't know how to begin to figure out if slaughtering Russian teenagers and risking nuclear confrontation is better than Ukraine's people putting up with a Putin-adjacent government and all the Belarus-style brutality that may accompany it.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    One of the problems of starting a war with Russia (one of many, many, many, problems) is the uncertainty as to whether we would win - if we lose Ukraine is no better off and everyone else is a lot worse off.

    Alternatives might include: espionage, targeted assassination, bribery, effective sabre rattling, effective diplomacy, understanding what need taking over Ukraine actually meets for Russia and trying to find another way of meeting that.

    One argument I’ve seen is that Russian aggression has been a response to NATO expansion because they feel surrounded.
  • understanding what need taking over Ukraine actually meets for Russia and trying to find another way of meeting that.

    I do get the impression that the deadlock in Donetsk and Luhansk is not solely on the Russian separatist side; that is, there is a bloc of far-right opinion in Ukraine that sees any concession towards Russian-speakers as equivalent to sacrificing one's firstborn child to Stalin, and this limits the degree to which the Ukrainian government is able to implement the Minsk Accords without massive blowback. IOW, just because the Russian government are in the wrong, it doesn't automatically follow that the Ukrainian government are in the right.
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    understanding what need taking over Ukraine actually meets for Russia and trying to find another way of meeting that.

    I do get the impression that the deadlock in Donetsk and Luhansk is not solely on the Russian separatist side; that is, there is a bloc of far-right opinion in Ukraine that sees any concession towards Russian-speakers as equivalent to sacrificing one's firstborn child to Stalin, and this limits the degree to which the Ukrainian government is able to implement the Minsk Accords without massive blowback. IOW, just because the Russian government are in the wrong, it doesn't automatically follow that the Ukrainian government are in the right.

    True. In the past I've seen a few tankie types (don't ask me why they support Putin; I think their understanding of geopolitics got wedged in place circa 1955) shouting very loudly about the neo-Nazis cheering on the current Ukrainian government. While in that case it's whataboutery, I think your point is well made. We've got to consider that a Ukraine without Russian interference will look an awful lot more like Poland or Hungary than it does Sweden or Germany, and weigh that into considering the impact of intervention.
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    understanding what need taking over Ukraine actually meets for Russia and trying to find another way of meeting that.

    I do get the impression that the deadlock in Donetsk and Luhansk is not solely on the Russian separatist side; that is, there is a bloc of far-right opinion in Ukraine that sees any concession towards Russian-speakers as equivalent to sacrificing one's firstborn child to Stalin, and this limits the degree to which the Ukrainian government is able to implement the Minsk Accords without massive blowback. IOW, just because the Russian government are in the wrong, it doesn't automatically follow that the Ukrainian government are in the right.

    True. In the past I've seen a few tankie types (don't ask me why they support Putin; I think their understanding of geopolitics got wedged in place circa 1955) shouting very loudly about the neo-Nazis cheering on the current Ukrainian government.

    It goes a little bit further than that, insofar as there are a swastika wielding paramilitaries (many of whom believe that Putin is a Jew) working alongside the official Ukrainian forces.
    While in that case it's whataboutery, I think your point is well made. We've got to consider that a Ukraine without Russian interference will look an awful lot more like Poland or Hungary

    It may look more like Hungarian^squared in terms of its treatment of minorities.
  • We've got to consider that a Ukraine without Russian interference will look an awful lot more like Poland or Hungary than it does Sweden or Germany, and weigh that into considering the impact of intervention.

    Agree, except insofar as the choice would seem to be more that we can either have a Ukraine that looks like Poland or Hungary; or a Ukraine that looks like Russia or Belarus. Sweden and Germanyalikes aren't near (let alone on) the table.

    I've got no idea how you choose tbh.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate

    ...... understanding what need taking over Ukraine actually meets for Russia and trying to find another way of meeting that.

    And as for the Ukrainians?
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    They are probably going to be better off not being invaded ?
  • "Apart from Crimea" is quite a major caveat.

    There are a number of reasons why - to Russia - Crimea may be an anomalous case. Crimea was transferred to the then Ukraine SSR by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet when the USSR was still in existence, and plenty of Russians view it as part of Russia. Similarly there were plenty of people in the east of the country who think of themselves as Russia and the 2004 election results are very good at illustrating the issue (okay - you can invoke ballot stuffing, but that only goes some way to explaining the split).

    Not just to Russia, to anyone who's studied 19th century European history. After fussing about a warm water port for all those years (and fighting a war in the 1850s) the oddest part of the whole story is the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet allowing Ukraine ever to have the Crimea. I presume the Presidium thought they would always have effective control of Ukraine as a whole. Nothing else makes any sense.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    One of the problems of starting a war with Russia (one of many, many, many, problems) is the uncertainty as to whether we would win - if we lose Ukraine is no better off and everyone else is a lot worse off.

    Alternatives might include: espionage, targeted assassination, bribery, effective sabre rattling, effective diplomacy, understanding what need taking over Ukraine actually meets for Russia and trying to find another way of meeting that.

    One argument I’ve seen is that Russian aggression has been a response to NATO expansion because they feel surrounded.

    They feel surrounded by Western capitalism. They know the West is no military threat whatsoever. Western capitalism is a threat to Russian self image.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    Why ?
  • Marama wrote: »
    I presume the Presidium thought they would always have effective control of Ukraine as a whole. Nothing else makes any sense.

    I assume they thought the USSR would last for a lot longer than it did.
  • People seem to think that allowing for the possibility of attacking Russian troops invading UKR is basically the same as going to war. But its not. The aim of the threat is to keep the peace, and the best way to do it, given the fantasyland that many of the chattering classes live in when it comes to international relations, is privately, along the range of contacts that exist between NATO and Russia, from leadership down.

    There are leaks to that effect - I believe I read of one in the NYT, but I'm glad nobody is playing it up.

    Make no mistake: nobody in the West (the "we" Martin asked about above) wants war in UKR. Nobody. It is too bloody dangerous. But given our failure in the past to get in Putin's face over the course of the Trump, Obama and George the Shorter administrations, we have to be prepared to go further than usual to drive the message home. It will be a staged thing though. Actual shooting will be down the list. Hitting a Russian base with a missile barrage will be down the list. Moving military hardware will be an early step.

    At each stage, Russia will be presented with decision points. Do they continue, do they pull back. That is how you keep the young ones from being slaughtered. This is peacemaking in volatile situations.

    People are right, above, when they say that Russia has every right to influence Ukraine. They are right when they say that Russians tend to view Ukraine as Russian territory. People are right to say that dangling the prospect of EU/NATO membership to UKR without just freaking doing it when Russia was weak and internally focused was, in hindsight, batshit crazy. UKR can't be in NATO or the EU now, until Russia is in NATO or the EU. Same with Belarus. But the Baltic States are in, just like Finland. One of us. One of us. One of us (bangs beer mug).

    As I posted above, Putin must understand that the best way to achieve his desired outcome (puppet state status for Ukraine and Belarus) is to make the EU comfortable with that outcome. The EU (not Britain, the US or anywhere else) should drive policy here, and the question is when to swear off Ukraine. Because until they do, the Eastern border will be a flashpoint for them, and the rest of us.



  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    @Doublethink, better to reign in Hell, than to serve in Heaven. And we were not magnanimous in victory. Remember? They do. They are a proud people who have suffered repeatedly like no other. As far as they are concerned they saved themselves repeatedly and they have been repeatedly great. Being told what to do by Brussels? 'K churtu.'
Sign In or Register to comment.