Where Do Things End With Vlad? (h/t romad1)

[1984Echoes]

I've long thought... but specifically after Putin invaded and took Crimea...

 

That the solution to Ukraine's/ Russia's/ and NATO's "Ukraine Problem" is for Ukraine to declare Permanent Neutrality.

Putin would immediately (or close to it): celebrate, offer to double the transit-gas through Ukraine, back out of the Donbass, would never give up Crimea however would offer free port visitation/ usage to Ukraine's Navy or Coast Guard in exchange for energy & other supplies to Crimea... Russia would gain: their desire for a "buffer zone" between NATO and Russia, or, from their perspective, a non-threatening neighbor.

Ukraine would gain: An immediate back off from Putin, a permanent (or as close to it as one can get) reduction in Russian hostilities against Ukraine, their manufacturing region back (intensively located in Lugansk & Donetsk provinces or... the Donbass), other benefits from Russia (as noted above).

Ukraine also could still: arm themselves to the teeth (with conventional weapons) with anti-tank and drone weaponry (anti-Russian materials mostly) while still maintaining neutrality, work with NATO forces in joint "project" work that is non-threatening to Russia, work intensively with the European Union economically, etc...

NATO promised Ukraine they could "one day" join NATO. They would gain with Ukraine's Permanent Neutrality status... a face-saving way out of that, and a "silent partner" as they would still work with Ukraine, maybe even extensively... just without the Article 5.

Ukraine loses the Article 5 commitment. But I think Neutrality gains them far more then joining NATO does... just my 2 cents.

Good article on current tensions:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nato-says-yes-ukraine-no-130900960.html

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, 1984Echoes said:

I've long thought... but specifically after Putin invaded and took Crimea...

 

agreed. The USSR fell, but being a 'bad winner' in the cold war won't get the West any better an outcome than it got the allies in Germany after WWI. "In your face" triumphalism may be fun when it's Larry Bird on a basketball court, but it's generally not helpful in international relations. The objective should be a path to calm Putin down and give him his domestic policy fig leafs (what he probably really wants) without abandoning self-determination for the people of Ukraine. NATO is an irrelevancy to those objectives.

NATO is a means to an end, not an end itself. If it's actions generate conflict that is contradictory to its charter. Of course I would note from the article that it was that most triumphalist and lest deep thinking of president's, 'Dubya' who pushed hardest on NATO for the offer of membership to Ukraine in the first place.

Edited December 18, 2021 by gehringer_2

[romad1]

8 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

agreed. The USSR fell, but being a 'bad winner' in the cold war won't get the West any better an outcome than it got the allies in Germany after WWI. "In your face" triumphalism may be fun when it's Larry Bird on a basketball court, but it's generally not helpful in international relations. The objective should be a path to calm Putin down and give him his domestic policy fig leafs (what he probably really wants) without abandoning self-determination for the people of Ukraine. NATO is an irrelevancy to those objectives.

NATO is a means to an end, not an end itself. If it's actions generate conflict that is contradictory to its charter. Of course I would note from the article that it was that most triumphalist and lest deep thinking of president's, 'Dubya' who pushed hardest on NATO for the offer of membership to Ukraine in the first place.

Collective security in the face of bullying is the only solution.

[romad1]

What will cause a war is cowardly equivalence 

[gehringer_2]

22 minutes ago, romad1 said:

Collective security in the face of bullying is the only solution.

which is more secure, a Ukraine that looks like Finland or a Ukraine that looks like Dunbass writ large? The nationalist imperatives inside the Russian State will not allow it to see itself as being 'bullied' anymore than those inside the US ever would. Alliances in and of themselves do not prevent wars. Having Ukraine or Georgia in NATO would actually turn article 5 into a hollow promise because the American public would not support the US presence in a war for either. What matters is each side understanding clearly what the other will really do, not what may be on paper in Brussels. 

Edited December 18, 2021 by gehringer_2

[romad1]

9 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

which is more secure, a Ukraine that looks like Finland or a Ukraine that looks like Dunbass writ large? The nationalist imperatives inside the Russian State will not allow it to see itself as being 'bullied' anymore than those inside the US ever would. Alliances in and of themselves do not prevent wars. Having Ukraine or Georgia in NATO would actually turn article 5 into a hollow promise because the American public would not support the US presence in a war for either. What matters is each side understanding clearly what the other will really do, not what may be on paper in Brussels. 

REFORGER 1988 is what led to West Germany becoming Germany in 1990. 

[romad1]

What we cannot do is reward Putin for electing Trump, Brexit and his general malign activity.  He must be punished in the extreme for any transgression. 

[romad1]

 

[mtutiger]

Seems like this will mute the saber-rattling on the Ukrainian border for a while

[romad1]

10 hours ago, mtutiger said:

Seems like this will mute the saber-rattling on the Ukrainian border for a while

Lets hope.  

[chasfh]

On 12/14/2021 at 11:19 AM, Jim Cowan said:

There is a foreign policy columnist that I read regularly, Gwynne Dyer, who sees no threat of Russian invasion.  He thinks that there would be no military response from NATO, but that the resulting sanctions would cripple Russia's economy and possibly cost Putin some of his considerable popularity.  And it suits Biden very well right now to play up the supposed threat, to pull some attention away from domestic issues.  So that's an interesting assessment.

As I read this, it occurs to me that sanctions work differently against different countries.

In the old days, whenever we put sanctions on countries like Iran, North Korea, Cuba, or other small countries, they could run into the arms of another superpower like USSR or China to bypass it. These days, those same small countries need only open up to China to bypass them. And putting sanctions on China itself would be pointless these days since their economy is basically self-sufficient. But putting sanctions on Russia should hurt them a lot, because not only is their economy is teetering, but also, there are no other superpowers who will prop them up in the face of our sanctions.

I could see sanctions working under this circumstance.

[romad1]

30 minutes ago, chasfh said:

As I read this, it occurs to me that sanctions work differently against different countries.

In the old days, whenever we put sanctions on countries like Iran, North Korea, Cuba, or other small countries, they could run into the arms of another superpower like USSR or China to bypass it. These days, those same small countries need only open up to China to bypass them. And putting sanctions on China itself would be pointless these days since their economy is basically self-sufficient. But putting sanctions on Russia should hurt them a lot, because not only is their economy is teetering, but also, there are no other superpowers who will prop them up in the face of our sanctions.

I could see sanctions working under this circumstance.

China and Russia are quite cordial.   Russia does need to sell fuel to Western Europe though.  That will hurt them a lot.  It will hurt the oligarchs a lot.  

 

[chasfh]

Just now, romad1 said:

China and Russia are quite cordial.   Russia does need to sell fuel to Western Europe though.  That will hurt them a lot.  It will hurt the oligarchs a lot.  

 

Do you think China would prop up Russia economically in the face of US sanctions? That seems so unlikely to me.

[romad1]

2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Do you think China would prop up Russia economically in the face of US sanctions? That seems so unlikely to me.

My fear is that Taiwan and Ukraine ops are linked.  That would stress the West a lot.   China might be constrained by the need for a successful olympics.  I don't know how much Xi cares about that though. 

[mtutiger]

👀

[romad1]

8 hours ago, mtutiger said:

👀

Might have been the plan for Vladdie all along. 

[1984Echoes]

On 12/18/2021 at 8:41 AM, 1984Echoes said:

I've long thought... That the solution to Ukraine's/ Russia's/ and NATO's "Ukraine Problem" is for Ukraine to declare Permanent Neutrality...

An argument for Ukrainian neutrality:

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/01/03/ukrainian-neutrality-golden-bridge-out-of-a-current-geopolitical-trap/

 

And an argument against Ukrainian neutrality:

https://theweek.com/world/1008720/if-we-offered-russia-a-bridge-would-they-buy-it

 

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, 1984Echoes said:

An argument for Ukrainian neutrality:

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/01/03/ukrainian-neutrality-golden-bridge-out-of-a-current-geopolitical-trap/

 

And an argument against Ukrainian neutrality:

https://theweek.com/world/1008720/if-we-offered-russia-a-bridge-would-they-buy-it

 

I think Ukrainian neutrality is fine, the question is would Putin leave it at that or constantly be meddling in Ukrainian governance and just restarting this over and over. Then again, I suppose if that is his stance, there is no way out until he is gone from the scene and there will be continual tension until then. I've noted before that the Russians have been willing to leave the Finns  alone - also directly on their border and with lots of strategic relevance in terms of being able to interrupt Russian access through the arctic sea. But Putin clearly has more of a hard on for Ukraine than a couple of generations of Russian leaders ever did for Scandinavia

[romad1]

12 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I think Ukrainian neutrality is fine, the question is would Putin leave it at that or constantly be meddling in Ukrainian governance and just restarting this over and over. Then again, I suppose if that is his stance, there is no way out until he is gone from the scene and there will be continual tension until then. I've noted before that the Russians have been willing to leave the Finns  alone - also directly on their border and with lots of strategic relevance in terms of being able to interrupt Russian access through the arctic sea. But Putin clearly has more of a hard on for Ukraine than a couple of generations of Russian leaders ever did for Scandinavia

He's thinking of his legacy.  Without too much psycho-babble about terminal urgency, He can't be leader of Great Russia like his heroes unless he recovers all of greater Russia.  His recent scare over COVID caused him to accelerate a timeline or two.   He's sick of Russia having the economy the size of Italy.  He sees endless contraction and withering of what Russia was under the Soviets.   So, fascist bully will fascistically bully and will seek to expand without or with bloodshed as best he can.  

Cannot allow it to occur.  

[1984Echoes]

17 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I think Ukrainian neutrality is fine, the question is would Putin leave it at that or constantly be meddling...

That in summary is the argument against Ukrainian neutrality.

[1984Echoes]

4 hours ago, romad1 said:

He's thinking of his legacy.  Without too much psycho-babble about terminal urgency, He can't be leader of Great Russia like his heroes unless he recovers all of greater Russia.  His recent scare over COVID caused him to accelerate a timeline or two.   He's sick of Russia having the economy the size of Italy.  He sees endless contraction and withering of what Russia was under the Soviets.   So, fascist bully will fascistically bully and will seek to expand without or with bloodshed as best he can.  

Cannot allow it to occur.  

Their economy will never grow with:

A) Their kleptocracy.

B) Their tendency to do basic research but not apply that to commercialization.

C) Lack of business law that protects businesses from Putin's vindictiveness, oligarch's, etc. Venture capital pretty much goes nowhere there...

D) Low birth rate = no population growth = no economic stimulus through population growth. Also, there is still brain-drain and Hot-Russian-girl drain as people leave to get away from Putin's fascist kleptocracy in the hope of a better life somewhere else...

E) The over-reliance on petrol. They are a petro-state with oil and gas swiftly falling out of favor. Almost like being a coal miner in West Virginia.

They are an economy the size of Italy and will be shrinking, and surpassed, by multiple other Western and SE Asian Democracies/ economies in short order...

[romad1]

48 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

Their economy will never grow with:

A) Their kleptocracy.

B) Their tendency to do basic research but not apply that to commercialization.

C) Lack of business law that protects businesses from Putin's vindictiveness, oligarch's, etc. Venture capital pretty much goes nowhere there...

D) Low birth rate = no population growth = no economic stimulus through population growth. Also, there is still brain-drain and Hot-Russian-girl drain as people leave to get away from Putin's fascist kleptocracy in the hope of a better life somewhere else...

E) The over-reliance on petrol. They are a petro-state with oil and gas swiftly falling out of favor. Almost like being a coal miner in West Virginia.

They are an economy the size of Italy and will be shrinking, and surpassed, by multiple other Western and SE Asian Democracies/ economies in short order...

Dead right all down the line. 

He knows his skillset.  He knows how to be a KGB officer.  He had a bunch of German east and west politicians under his thumb and still does in some key cases.  He has a bunch of oligarchs who owe their lives and treasure to his continued goodwill.   But, for inspiring people he's crap.   

He does want innovation but he only sees foreign military sales and doesn't see the value of investment in any other aspect of tech.   Their COVID vaccine is shit (he didn't trust it).  

[gehringer_2]

2 minutes ago, romad1 said:

he only sees foreign military sales

this is the Achille's heel. Russia cannot afford its weapons splurge except by third party sales. But as the US could tell them, sell enough arms in enough places and sooner or later it's your troops looking down the barrels of the guns you made.

[romad1]

6 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

this is the Achille's heel. Russia cannot afford its weapons splurge except by third party sales. But as the US could tell them, sell enough arms in enough places and sooner or later it's your troops looking down the barrels of the guns you made.

Most terrorist groups and revolutionary governments with weapons in their livery have the AK-47 and its variants in there.  

[gehringer_2]

29 minutes ago, romad1 said:

Most terrorist groups and revolutionary governments with weapons in their livery have the AK-47 and its variants in there.  

Yes - but I'm thinking even more along the lines of the big ticket items like air defense systems and the like.

Edited January 10, 2022 by gehringer_2