How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[lpetrich]

Tim Skellett on Twitter: "Nord Strom 2, North Stream 2, has now had its certification stopped. No Russian gas can flow to Germany. About damn time. Thank heavens; Germany might have waited till the actual invasion. Now is better.
cc. @CathyYoung63" / Twitter

Germany freezes Nord Stream 2 gas project as Ukraine crisis deepens | Reuters

Germany on Tuesday halted the Nord Stream 2 Baltic Sea gas pipeline project, designed to double the flow of Russian gas direct to Germany, after Russia formally recognised two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine.

Europe's most divisive energy project, worth $11 billion, was finished in September, but has stood idle pending certification by Germany and the European Union.

5 questions for the EU if Russia turns off the gas – POLITICO - "Europe’s gas market will be thrown into turmoil if Russia attacks Ukraine."

The European Union is hooked on Russian natural gas, but a Russian attack on Ukraine could force it to go cold turkey.

That’s causing a scramble to secure alternative supplies and figure out how long the bloc could survive on the gas it has in storage.

"The United States and the EU are working jointly towards continued, sufficient, and timely supply of natural gas to the EU from diverse sources across the globe to avoid supply shocks, including those that could result from a further Russian invasion of Ukraine," U.S. President Joe Biden and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Friday.

Von der Leyen discussed additional gas purchases with the emir of Qatar on Thursday, and will follow up on Tuesday, according to a senior EU official.

On Friday, EU Energy Commissioner Kadri Simson is expected to bring up increased flows from Azerbaijan when she visits Baku.

A good reason to get off fossil fuels.

 

[lpetrich]

Russia-Ukraine crisis: Journalist reporting in 6 languages is flawless | Metro News

"eporting on the developing conflict between Russia and Ukraine from Kyiv last night as an international affiliate correspondent for The Associated Press, Crowther shared a clip of himself bringing the news live on camera in English, Luxembourgish, Spanish, Portuguese, French and German, and tickle us impressed."


On Ukraine, the left and right parrot Putin’s propaganda
Started with mentioning an alleged Russian propaganda video where fake Ukrainians attack Russia, and the US State Department's unwillingness to release further details.

On the one hand, the left, in the form of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is deeply suspicious of military intervention. In addition to generally being anti-war, they fear a reprisal of Iraq and Afghanistan. Would we intervene for the sake of liberty or for profits?

The Congressional Progressive Caucus: “diplomacy needs to be the focus” and “We have significant concerns that new troop deployments, sweeping and indiscriminate sanctions and a flood of hundreds of millions of dollars in lethal weapons will only raise tensions.”

US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appeared on Mehdi Hasan’s show to say the “military-industrial complex” outside the Pentagon that “just left Afghanistan” is “starved for revenue.” So she’s concerned about the “urgency” of the situation being “exploited by military interests.”

She went farther than her fellow progressives. They stressed diplomacy but didn’t rule out a military reaction to Russian aggression. “But there is not a military solution to this problem,” she said.

Which reminds me of this:
 Merchants of death

Merchants of death was an epithet used in the U.S. in the 1930s to attack industries and banks that had supplied and funded World War I (then called the Great War).

...
Origin

The term originated in 1932 as the title of an article about an arms dealer named Basil Zaharoff: "Zaharoff, Merchant of Death".[1] It was then borrowed for the title of the book Merchants of Death (1934), an exposé by H. C. Engelbrecht and F. C. Hanighen.[2]

United States

The term was popular in antiwar circles of both the left and the right, and was used extensively regarding the Senate hearings in 1936 by the Nye Committee. The Senate hearing examined how much influence the manufacturers of armaments had in the American decision to enter World War I. Ninety-three hearings were held, over 200 witnesses were called, and little hard evidence of a conspiracy was found. The Nye Committee came to an end when Chairman Nye accused President Woodrow Wilson of withholding information from Congress when he chose to enter World War I. The failure of the committee to find a conspiracy did not change public prejudice against the manufactures of armaments, thus the popular name "merchants of death".[3][4]

 

[lpetrich]

One the other, the right, in the form of Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz, is skeptical because China is to them of greater international concern, but also because Europe’s problems are Europe’s. “Our interest (regarding NATO and Ukraine) is not so strong,” Hawley said.

Sen. Josh Hawley's letter: Hawleyletter - DocumentCloud

“Our interest is not so strong,” the Missouri lawmaker said in a letter to the White House, “as to justify committing the United States to go to war with Russia over Ukraine’s fate. Rather, we must aid Ukraine in a manner that aligns with the American interests at stake and preserves our ability to deny Chinese hegemony in the Indo-Pacific.”

...
That’s an odd thing to say. The former president conspired with the Kremlin to sabotage his Democratic opponent in 2016 for the purpose of “winning” the election and destabilizing America from the inside.

As a direct result of his investment in a criminal president, Vladimir Putin now “believes that the United States is currently in the same predicament as Russia was after the Soviet collapse: grievously weakened at home and in retreat abroad,” said Fiona Hill in the Times.

Opinion | Fiona Hill: For Russia’s President Putin, It's Not Just About Ukraine - The New York Times - Fiona Hill, Jan 22

“George,, you have to understand that Ukraine is not even a country. Part of its territory is in Eastern Europe and the greater part was given to us.” These were the ominous words of President Vladimir Putin of Russia to President George W. Bush in Bucharest, Romania, at a NATO summit in April 2008.

Mr. Putin was furious: NATO had just announced that Ukraine and Georgia would eventually join the alliance. This was a compromise formula to allay concerns of our European allies — an explicit promise to join the bloc, but no specific timeline for membership.

...
In the 1990s, the United States and NATO forced Russia to withdraw the remnants of the Soviet military from their bases in Eastern Europe, Germany and the Baltic States. Mr. Putin wants the United States to suffer in a similar way. From Russia’s perspective, America’s domestic travails after four years of Donald Trump’s disastrous presidency, as well as the rifts he created with U.S. allies and then America’s precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan, signal weakness. If Russia presses hard enough, Mr. Putin hopes he can strike a new security deal with NATO and Europe to avoid an open-ended conflict, and then it will be America’s turn to leave, taking its troops and missiles with it.

Seems like Vladimir Putin has believed for a long time that Ukraine is not a proper country.

 

[lpetrich]

Moreover, the left and the right, said Kimberly St. Julian-Varnon, a PhD student and presidential fellow in the Department of History at Penn, “are on the same side in terms of limiting the American response to the crisis and in terms of oft-repeating Russian talking points.”

Then an interview with him/her.

The progressive caucus in the House appears to think troop surge and other defensive measures for Ukraine would escalate tensions with Russia? Are they right? If not, what are they missing?

I do not agree with the Progressive Caucus’s assessment of the American response to the Ukraine-Russia crisis. They fundamentally misunderstand the causes of the conflict, the fact that Ukraine has been at war with Russia since 2014, and the diverse set of options the United States has at hand to deal with the conflict.

What do they need to understand?

That the Ukrainian situation is nothing like the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, and that perpetuating that narrative is irresponsible.

This is an active conflict. Thousands of Ukrainians have died in Eastern Ukraine. The Ukrainian territory in the Donbas is still occupied. This is not a hypothetical or “weapons of mass destruction” moment.

...
The progressives seem to be approaching this as if Russia were a little government the US is going to beat up, as we did in Iraq. But it’s a de facto superpower with dangerous intentions. Am I right?

Absolutely.

I’m surprised by this underlying narrative that Russia is somehow a victim of American aggression. I fundamentally do not understand where this comes from. In no sense is Russia a victim here.

Russia has violated and continues to violate the sovereignty of Ukraine, which gave up all of its nuclear arsenal in exchange for a guarantee that its territorial sovereignty would be respected. (The United States and Russia signed this agreement in 1994.) Russia is the aggressor, and it will continue to destabilize Ukraine if given the chance.

Some people on the Left seem to think that the US is a big international villain, and even uniquely villainous. People like Noam Chomsky, for instance.

 

[lpetrich]

On the Right, however, is many people who never found a US military adventure that they didn't like. They sometimes make exceptions, blaming some wars on politicians that they consider villains, like LBJ for Vietnam and Bill Clinton for ex-Yugoslavia and the like. During the Clinton years, I marveled at the latter bits, because I knew that the right wing normally considers opposition to military adventures dangerously naive, if not outright traitorous.

I often find Hawley’s thinking baffling.

His statement about abandoning Ukraine’s addition to NATO is in-line with the GOP shift in narrative following the Afghanistan withdrawal. Ted Cruz blames Biden for that conflict, as if it started a month ago.

If Hawley is like Donald Trump, he’s going to question the usefulness of NATO and think further engagement is the same as conflict with Russia. Ukraine is not worth it, he said.

The article didn't mention the likes of Tucker Carlson with his Putin-loving.

 

[lpetrich]

Republicans used to compare talking to Moscow to talking to Hitler. Trump changed that. - The Washington Post - December 14, 2017

The Dec. 14 story in the Washington Post was the most detailed yet on how far Donald Trump will go to avoid admitting Russia’s interference in last year’s U.S. presidential election, and how much his advisers tiptoe around the subject for fear of destroying any meeting with him. As one former U.S. intelligence official is quoted as saying, “If you talk about Russia, meddling, interference — that takes the [Presidential Daily Brief] off the rails.” For a Republican president, it’s an extraordinary turnabout after decades of GOP toughness toward the Kremlin.

,,,
Republicans used to compete with each other over who was tougher on Russia (or, more precisely, the Soviet Union), and to condemn Democrats for their purported softness. Now, Trump sees nothing wrong with his son meeting a person who had been described to him as a “Russian government attorney,” in order to provide “high level and sensitive information” that was described as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Here’s how dramatically the Republican position has changed.

Republicans attacked Democrats quite a lot as soft on Communism, and some Republicans attacked other Republicans for being insufficiently anti-Communist. Republicans like Ronald Reagan. A few years after he was elected, he delivered this speech: Reagan, "Evil Empire," Speech Text - Voices of Democracy

Yet he ended up meeting Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev a few years later, something that Newt Gingrich called “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”

He still seems to think that:
Newt Gingrich on Twitter: "The Biden Administration talks and Putin acts. This is such a clear replay of Chamberlain trying to deal with Hitler that it is more than a little frightening. Putin is pushing day by day and has no fear of NATO because he has no fear of the United States or its President." / Twitter

No comment about Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson, however.

 

[Copernicus]

...

To add--Rus was the name that Vikings gave to the region and there were different groups in the region and those groups diverged more over time. The Vikings also called Native Americans skraeling, but it wouldn't mean that all Native Americans would eventually be the same country and speak the same language.

They did not give anything. They took the name of one of the tribes.

There is some controversy over whether the Rus' were Viking (i.e. Varangians) or Slavic, but the accepted view is that they were Swedish Vikings that had adapted to Slavic customs and the local Ruthenian language. Kyiv itself was founded in 482 CE, whereas Muscovy (Moscow) was founded in 1147 by a Ukrainian prince, but it was overshadowed by Vladimir and Suzdal in regional importance until much later. The Mongol invasion in 1237 wiped it out, and it broke up into smaller principalities after that. Novgorod became the important city in the North. Belarusans were generally known as "White Ruthenians" and Ukrainians sometimes as "Red Ruthenians" in Medieval times. The area of Moscow was under Mongol rule longer and they were sometimes referred to as "Black Ruthenians". White and Red Ruthenians were united for centuries in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Moscow finally threw off Mongol rule and, with the fall of Constantinople (Tsargrad or "Caesar City"), styled itself pretentiously as the "Third Rome" that would defend all Orthodox Christians. They renamed their prince the "Tsar" and claimed to rule over "all the Russias". Of course, other regional rulers were also claiming title to ruler of "All the Russias". Moscow was not alone in that respect, and it was under the claim of that title that the Polish King, who was also Grand Duke of the huge Duchy of Lithuania, tried to set up his son as Tsar in Moscow at one point. Ukraine was never part of Russia until Russians allied themselves with the Zaporazhian Cossacks and began the process of gobbling it up.

Both Russia and Ukraine are descendants of Kievan Rus.
Anyway, as I said, the name "Ukraine" itself suggests that they are part of Russia.
Think about that.

The same name was used during the rule of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth, which was much bigger than the tiny Grand Duchy of Muscovy. Ukraine was at the southern border of that huge state, which was the largest in Europe at the time. Crimea was held by Muslim Tatars, and the main southern border was always fighting wars with the Khazar empire. Russia also fought wars to the south and west, trying to enlist the help of the Cossack tribes, who shifted loyalties often. They were mostly Orthodox and so ended up aligning more with Russia, but they were not Russians any more than Ukrainians were. Anyway, Russian historians tend to suppress or ignore those parts of the regional history that don't fit well their national mythology. Poles, Ukrainians, Belarusans and Lithuanians all prefer to emphasize those parts of history that cast themselves in the best light.

 

[steve_bank]

The issues over land with Mexico was settled by treaty and money.

If we wanted to be like Russia we could declare the Mexican drug cartels an existential threat, invade Mexico, and fly the flag.

Same with Cuba. I believe part of the agreement that ended the Cuban Crisis was an agreement not to invade Cuba.

The question for the Russian people is why on Earth would the USA, NATO, and the EU ever want to invade Russia, With obvious problems western economies have been stable and providing a lot of material goods and services. Plenty of good food. Who wnats to upset that?

The Europeans have largely put aside a long history of conflct and decided mutual assured prsperity is better than regulat mutially assured devastation. Both China and Russia are stuck in the past.

Normalizing economic relation aside from politics with the EU and having a true free market economy free of the oligarchs would benifit Russia.

Putin's false pride is in the way.

After watching the news today I am thinking Puyin is crazy, mentally ill. Analogous to Trump. Delusions of glory and grandeur. fFlled witlh self importance.

 

[skepticalbip]

All the ancient history spin is nothing but a smokescreen. The facts are that Russia is an independent country and the Ukraine is an independent country. Ukraine was recognized as an independent country by the world's nations including Russia. Originally the president of Ukraine was pretty much a Russian puppet and Russia was happy to recognize them as independent. That president was ousted by the Ukrainians and replaced with one not as swayed by Moscow. This pissed Putin off even though it was an internal Ukrainian decision. Putin thinks he has the right to ignore international law and dictate what happens in Ukraine even if it means an invasion of that country to give him control.

 

[steve_bank]

China is doing the same thing.

When Tibet was found to have mineral resources China annexed on the pretext it was always part of ChinNobody really cares what happens to Ribet. It claims and threatens Taiwan. It has made a claim to Okinawa. It arbitrarily redrew maritime maps of the South China sea.

 

[steve_bank]

All the ancient history spin is nothing but a smokescreen. The facts are that Russia is an independent country and the Ukraine is an independent country. Ukraine was recognized as an independent country by the world's nations including Russia. Originally the president of Ukraine was pretty much a Russian puppet and Russia was happy to recognize them as independent. That president was ousted by the Ukrainians and replaced with one not as swayed by Moscow. This pissed Putin off even though it was an internal Ukrainian decision. Putin thinks he has the right to ignore international law and dictate what happens in Ukraine even if it means an invasion of that country to give him control.

That goes to show Putin may not be acting rationally. He must believe he has winning strategy.

 

[skepticalbip]

All the ancient history spin is nothing but a smokescreen. The facts are that Russia is an independent country and the Ukraine is an independent country. Ukraine was recognized as an independent country by the world's nations including Russia. Originally the president of Ukraine was pretty much a Russian puppet and Russia was happy to recognize them as independent. That president was ousted by the Ukrainians and replaced with one not as swayed by Moscow. This pissed Putin off even though it was an internal Ukrainian decision. Putin thinks he has the right to ignore international law and dictate what happens in Ukraine even if it means an invasion of that country to give him control.

That goes to show Putin may not be acting rationally. He must believe he has winning strategy.

He probably does have a winning strategy. The E.U. doesn't appear to be concerned enough to do anything and it is in their backyard. And then it doesn't pose any immediate threat to the security of the U.S. so no reason for a serious reaction from this end.

Maybe the E.U. will become concerned enough to react if he moves to "reclaim" Estonia and Latvia.

It is much more of a potential problem for Europe than it is for the U.S.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

All the ancient history spin is nothing but a smokescreen. The facts are that Russia is an independent country and the Ukraine is an independent country. Ukraine was recognized as an independent country by the world's nations including Russia. Originally the president of Ukraine was pretty much a Russian puppet and Russia was happy to recognize them as independent. That president was ousted by the Ukrainians and replaced with one not as swayed by Moscow. This pissed Putin off even though it was an internal Ukrainian decision. Putin thinks he has the right to ignore international law and dictate what happens in Ukraine even if it means an invasion of that country to give him control.

I don't mind, though. Some of my ancestors were Swedish which means I can go conquer Russia.

 

[Copernicus]

All the ancient history spin is nothing but a smokescreen. The facts are that Russia is an independent country and the Ukraine is an independent country. Ukraine was recognized as an independent country by the world's nations including Russia. Originally the president of Ukraine was pretty much a Russian puppet and Russia was happy to recognize them as independent. That president was ousted by the Ukrainians and replaced with one not as swayed by Moscow. This pissed Putin off even though it was an internal Ukrainian decision. Putin thinks he has the right to ignore international law and dictate what happens in Ukraine even if it means an invasion of that country to give him control.

It isn't a smokescreen except to those who think like Americans and not Europeans, where loyalties to ethnic groups are much more closely associated with nationhood. All indications are that Putin really believes this very distorted version of history, and he is sincere when he says that he does not consider Ukraine a real country. He has been saying such things for years, and it is a popular irredentist myth among Russian ultranationalists. Putin himself is no historian or intellectual. He is a right wing fanatic who wants to go down in history as having Made Russia Great Again. He will have restored the great triune nation that was first established by the Kevan Rus' princes.

What most people in the west have failed to grasp is that NATO was always an annoying side issue with Putin. He hates NATO, because it was obviously established to contain Russian expansionism to the west and influence in Europe. But no concessions concerning NATO were ever going to stop this invasion. Putin's scheme to install a pro-Russian government in Kyiv failed, so he went to plan B with outright invasion and annexations. I don't think that Putin's view of history is popular with everyone in Russia, especially not with intellectuals and pro-democracy types. However, it does have broad appeal. Nevertheless, the coming violence may sour more Russians on Putin than he realizes. Just as Putin is no historian, he is also no general and probably isn't prepared for the occupation of a very hostile nation.

 

[skepticalbip]

All the ancient history spin is nothing but a smokescreen. The facts are that Russia is an independent country and the Ukraine is an independent country. Ukraine was recognized as an independent country by the world's nations including Russia. Originally the president of Ukraine was pretty much a Russian puppet and Russia was happy to recognize them as independent. That president was ousted by the Ukrainians and replaced with one not as swayed by Moscow. This pissed Putin off even though it was an internal Ukrainian decision. Putin thinks he has the right to ignore international law and dictate what happens in Ukraine even if it means an invasion of that country to give him control.

I don't mind, though. Some of my ancestors were Swedish which means I can go conquer Russia.

And Italians actually own most of Europe, much of the Middle East, and Northern Africa as a legacy from the Roman Empire.

 

[zorq]

And Italians actually own most of Europe, much of the Middle East, and Northern Africa as a legacy from the Roman Empire.

Mongolia has entered the chat...

 

[Hermit]

Ukraine belonged to Russia from the start?

Yeah, sure.

You are trying to create an impression that these buildings are 1000 years old.

Not at all. The point made by whoever created this array of pictures is that Kiev existed for centuries before Moscow. Though depicting the churches and monasteries in their present state is a bit cheeky, the point it makes is valid. Kiev was known to have existed as a commercial centre as early as the 5th century. The first document mentioning Moscow appeared in 1147.

 

[Hermit]

And Italians actually own most of Europe, much of the Middle East, and Northern Africa as a legacy from the Roman Empire.

Mongolia has entered the chat...

Hello there, Mongolia. Nice to see you. Have you moved to Europe, the Middle East or Northern Africa while we were not looking?

 

[Copernicus]

Mongolia has entered the chat...

It was a pretty important even when it entered the lives of those living in the Kievan Rus' principalities. The Russian word for "money"-- деньги d'en'g'i--is from Kipchak Turk, the language of the Mongol overlords. In Ukrainian, it is гроші hroshi, which ultimately came from the Latin expression "denarius grossus". Ukraine was always more Europe-oriented than Russia. Still is.

 

[Copernicus]

Ukraine belonged to Russia from the start?

Yeah, sure.

You are trying to create an impression that these buildings are 1000 years old.

Not at all. The point made by whoever created this array of pictures is that Kiev existed for centuries before Moscow. Though depicting the churches and monasteries in their present state is a bit cheeky, the point it makes is valid. Kiev was known to have existed as a commercial centre as early as the 5th century. The first document mentioning Moscow appeared in 1147.

Those cathedrals may have looked a little different back in those days, but they are essentially the same buildings that were built in those years. Moscow also had the Kremlin in 1147, but it was made out of wood and got burned down a few times when the town was overrun. Moscow was even sacked and burned by Crimean Tatars. They finally got the idea to construct the walls out of stone in 1485, before they managed to win independence from the Golden Horde in 1552.