Concur. Adding to your above, it's not like all of this came out of the blue IRT the Ukraine.
Even Bill Burns (now Director of the CIA), back in 2008 as AMB to RUS noted, "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”
How so? Agreeing that Ukraine has the right to defend herself in an aggressive war by Russia is not warmongering. Putin and his supporters are the war mongers.
Similarly, I visited the former Czechoslovakia (now the Czech Republic) in 1988 and I had been studying Russian at the local university. My contact in Prague told me that all Czechs (under Communism and the Iron Curtain) had to study 5 years of Russian. So I thought I'd give it a try. ''Don't bother'', said my English-speaking contact, ''nobody will speak to you. They will say they don't understand what you're saying in our language.''
The adage in Poland was no one speaks Russian, but everyone understands it.
Someday in the future, we may be all thanking Putin for launching a war when he did it. NATO, frankly was asleep at the switch. And we now have a badly needed wake up call to be prepared for the future and a Russia that is prepared to dish out even worse. And, Ukraine will be one of the most valuable NATO members in the future. You have to hand it to them; not only do they fight a war, they need to transition from a Soviet block military to a Western military and had to make that transition in the past year while actively engage in combat.
It's not to say that NATO is a failure, far from it. As an organization of international cooperation it exceeds the accomplishment of just about every other international organization. Starting with the UN. On a continent that has been the site of countless wars for the past two millennia, the last 80 years of peace is unprecedented in European history. All thanks to NATO. From here on, I see NATO as having a full time job for at least the next 200 years. Maybe another millennia.
Russia had energy money rolling in, which it was pouring into military upgrades, but Putin was too impatient, just like the guy with the funny mustache who invaded Russia yes before the armor, logistics, and airpower would've been built up enough to ensure success.
I, too, would like to see everyone come home from Europe, but i have little faith that Europe can act like adults, without a Bald Eagle keeping an eye on all of them.
AAGH!! You know how to hit a soft target. I'm old enough to weasel out from under that one, having left when that boss appeared on the horizon. In the words of e e cummings, "there is some shit i will not eat."
Putin has in essence shown the Russia military to be little more than a border guard with nuclear weapons. His chances vs NATO (which means mainly the US as most European Allies deplete their munitions)is small.
Playing this out…what if the Russian Army collapses and that leads to Putin’s ouster? Who takes over? What happens to their nukes, and how do we secure them? I do not believe the Biden Admin and his back bench Nat Sec and State Dept have any idea or have given any thought.
It is strategically sound, so long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight for their territorial integrity, to provide material aid, so as to make Russian territorial aspirations unbearably expensive.
I do worry that the rhetoric of the situation will have its own momentum; I see people talking fantasy scenarios about "we should make Russia do this! Or that!". Russia is a major regional power with global-delivery nuclear weapons systems. Bear the endgame in mind. Russia collapsing would only help China in the resulting scramble for power and fighting over the pieces.
Clearly we want Russia to respect and ideally join the rules-based order. Clearly, anything that looks like a "victory" for Russia in Ukraine is harmful to that goal. But there are limits and we don't want to be talking ourselves in to escalation without limit.
"But there are limits and we don't want to be talking ourselves in to escalation without limit."
I hear that a lot but curiously no one provides a "for example".
Clausewitz defined "war" as "the use of force to compel one's adversary to fulfill one's will".
I suggest that Ukraine's "will", in this context, is ejecting all Russian forces from Ukrainian territory, which includes Donbas and Crimea.
I further suggest that ANY conventional force applied to Russian combatants, both in Ukraine and in Russia, is appropriate, i.e., not an "escalation without limit", and U.S. logistics support for same is also appropriate.
What is this rules-based order that you keep talking about in the West? Board seats on Burisma? 10% for the big guy? Strzokist DAD and Elvis Chan? FISA 702 non-compliance on an industrial scale? Color Revolutions when somebody doesn't like the cut of somebody else's jib? Maidan Madness? Let's talk about how we got here a bit. Sure, Revanchist anything is bad, Revanchist Russia is worse. But systemic destabilization and our current train wreck that you can't look away from is because our nat sec elites have poked, prodded and blundered us to this sad state. Talk about the hubris. And the grifting has been epic the whole way. Pipe line go boom.
Credentialwise, I speak Russian and Arabic. I've got some military experience and a fancy MPA from The Anatomy of Courage School of Grifting. I'm an armchair analyst now naturally but maybe we should be focusing on de-escalation and containment at this point and not insisting that Khruschev's Gift and a Donbass that the Ukes have no compunction against shelling for 8 years be returned for the Slava of Ukraine.
At the risk of being shot for defeatism, I should point out things don't look so great in the bleed them dry school of thought. We might show signs of anemia first. Ask the logistics experts, I suspect they will tell you that we can't make the war materials fast enough. For the present at least. Do we want no fly zones? Do we want direct military confrontation? If you are going to accept the slippery slope argument for Putin's greater Russia plan then you should concede the escalator to WWW III slope too, I should think. And can I ask somebody to define our vital national interest here? Please no Hegemon in Eurasia B.S. One year of hefty casualties on both sides argues against the immediate threat of the dreaded Hegemon.
So, deescalate and contain. Maybe somebody, anybody smart play Kennan in 47? It won't be Jake Sullivan or Colin Kahl LOL. And we might also add a few years onto the petro dollar run before the new trading blocks like BRICS accomplish their planned usurping.
In conclusion, I may be a dope, but I'm smarter than Jake Sullilvan and Victoria Nuland and only half as arrogant and vain.
"Few have a better national understanding of Russia than the Estonians" - so blind hatred makes for better understanding? Wow great insight, I guess I'll talk to a nazi to better understand the Jews.
What a disappointment this blog has become.
If you care so much about Ukraine, put your money where your mouth is and take your gun and fight there. No one is stopping you. They are drafting 60 year old's, I'm sure they would be happy to put you in a trench.
Its wholly inappropriate and hypocritical to advocate for military assistance to a backward totally corrupt "democracy" like Ukraine that could lead to all out war if you personally wont fight it.
You used to have decent military analysis. Now its just mindless poorly thought through drivel. Your foreign policy analysis is utter garbage.
Oh well, Armchair general is gonna armchair general I guess.
No, I've been to Estonia (and Poland) many times and had many discussions with the people there. I can attest, the Estonians have an absolute blind hatred of the Russians, almost to the level of the Poles. Almost.
I don't think anyone hates a people as much as the Poles hate the Russians.
For a quick lesson in argumentation (because your response regarding definitions is incomprehensible gibberish), I was NOT stating that "better national understanding" meant "blind hatred", I was mocking his notion that Estonians possess a better understanding of the Russians.
To have a understanding of something, one must be emotionally neutral toward it. Emotion will cloud judgement and effect someone's ability to reason. In this case, the Estonians notoriously revile the Russians, therefore their analysis of Russians will be quite poor due to being emotionally compromised. Hence why I compared such an idea to asking a nazi about the Jews (who they notoriously hated)
Its odd I have to explain that. Someone with almost any degree of education should have innately understood this.
"your response regarding definitions is incomprehensible gibberish"
If my directly quoting your first sentence is "incomprehensible gibberish", then we don't speak the same language, which was already obvious, given your equating "better national understanding" with "blind hatred".
Your ad hominem excesses, together with a fake name, says it all.
No, it means you aren't articulating your point coherently.
Outside that, I did respond to what I believe you were saying. Perhaps you need to read it again if you feel you missed it.
Bloviating on about grammatical equivocations that I wasn't making and ad hominems seems evasive at this point. I'm beginning to think you don't have a counter point to what I was saying.
Feel free to respond to the content of my argument.
You can't read a map, or OSCE cease fire violations just prior to war - which explode the myth of Ukraine on defense. Of course you're pro-Ukrainian, but not anti-Russian.
You're pro- US - taking over the world.
Perhaps someday when war is marching over CONUS and foreign powers likely intervene from opportunity or the necessity of 'fighting the Americans over there so we don't have to fight them here'
you'll learn geography and what 'aggression' means.
And Estonia is a money laundering operation run by a government from New Jersey, installed by us.
They have one Light Infantry Battalion. I'm sure their MOD is at least Battalion sized though, we built their MOD and our bureaucracy always duplicates itself down.
Here's the OSCE on 20 Feb 22.
"Based on information from the Monitoring Teams as of 19:30 20 February 2022. All times are in Eastern European Time.
Summary
In Donetsk region, between the evenings of 18 and 20 February, the SMM recorded 2,158 ceasefire violations, including 1,100 explosions. In the previous reporting period, it recorded 591 ceasefire violations in the region.
In Luhansk region, between the evenings of 18 and 20 February, the Mission recorded 1,073 ceasefire violations, including 926 explosions. In the previous reporting period, it recorded 975 ceasefire violations in the region."
Great article, no matter what the latter day 1930s Isolationists shout.
That said, "recreating buffer zones are the key steps in turning the current international order around for Russia" is the Russian rationalization for making a prison of half the continent of Europe for half a century.
If "buffer zones" were all the Bolsheviks wanted, East Europeans would have been allowed to freely emigrate to the west.
But the barbed wire and guard towers with automatic weapons insisted otherwise.
Concur. Adding to your above, it's not like all of this came out of the blue IRT the Ukraine.
Even Bill Burns (now Director of the CIA), back in 2008 as AMB to RUS noted, "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”
How so? Agreeing that Ukraine has the right to defend herself in an aggressive war by Russia is not warmongering. Putin and his supporters are the war mongers.
Thanks Sal. I was an exercise planner in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Every body speaks Russian there, except, no body speaks Russian there.
The Baltic Countries know Russia.
Similarly, I visited the former Czechoslovakia (now the Czech Republic) in 1988 and I had been studying Russian at the local university. My contact in Prague told me that all Czechs (under Communism and the Iron Curtain) had to study 5 years of Russian. So I thought I'd give it a try. ''Don't bother'', said my English-speaking contact, ''nobody will speak to you. They will say they don't understand what you're saying in our language.''
The adage in Poland was no one speaks Russian, but everyone understands it.
Someday in the future, we may be all thanking Putin for launching a war when he did it. NATO, frankly was asleep at the switch. And we now have a badly needed wake up call to be prepared for the future and a Russia that is prepared to dish out even worse. And, Ukraine will be one of the most valuable NATO members in the future. You have to hand it to them; not only do they fight a war, they need to transition from a Soviet block military to a Western military and had to make that transition in the past year while actively engage in combat.
It's not to say that NATO is a failure, far from it. As an organization of international cooperation it exceeds the accomplishment of just about every other international organization. Starting with the UN. On a continent that has been the site of countless wars for the past two millennia, the last 80 years of peace is unprecedented in European history. All thanks to NATO. From here on, I see NATO as having a full time job for at least the next 200 years. Maybe another millennia.
Russia had energy money rolling in, which it was pouring into military upgrades, but Putin was too impatient, just like the guy with the funny mustache who invaded Russia yes before the armor, logistics, and airpower would've been built up enough to ensure success.
I think that the people who worked for the mustache knew that if they waited much longer, the invasion would have been from Russia, instead.
John in Indy
I, too, would like to see everyone come home from Europe, but i have little faith that Europe can act like adults, without a Bald Eagle keeping an eye on all of them.
I’ve tried to unsubscribe from this site; STOP sending me posts, Please!!
You're free Dorothea. Have a great 2023.
I'm a former CIA case officer. I think you're wrong; otherwise total agreement.
Your former boss voted communist. I'm OK with our disagreement.
AAGH!! You know how to hit a soft target. I'm old enough to weasel out from under that one, having left when that boss appeared on the horizon. In the words of e e cummings, "there is some shit i will not eat."
Good stuff.
Putin has in essence shown the Russia military to be little more than a border guard with nuclear weapons. His chances vs NATO (which means mainly the US as most European Allies deplete their munitions)is small.
Playing this out…what if the Russian Army collapses and that leads to Putin’s ouster? Who takes over? What happens to their nukes, and how do we secure them? I do not believe the Biden Admin and his back bench Nat Sec and State Dept have any idea or have given any thought.
It is strategically sound, so long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight for their territorial integrity, to provide material aid, so as to make Russian territorial aspirations unbearably expensive.
I do worry that the rhetoric of the situation will have its own momentum; I see people talking fantasy scenarios about "we should make Russia do this! Or that!". Russia is a major regional power with global-delivery nuclear weapons systems. Bear the endgame in mind. Russia collapsing would only help China in the resulting scramble for power and fighting over the pieces.
Clearly we want Russia to respect and ideally join the rules-based order. Clearly, anything that looks like a "victory" for Russia in Ukraine is harmful to that goal. But there are limits and we don't want to be talking ourselves in to escalation without limit.
"But there are limits and we don't want to be talking ourselves in to escalation without limit."
I hear that a lot but curiously no one provides a "for example".
Clausewitz defined "war" as "the use of force to compel one's adversary to fulfill one's will".
I suggest that Ukraine's "will", in this context, is ejecting all Russian forces from Ukrainian territory, which includes Donbas and Crimea.
I further suggest that ANY conventional force applied to Russian combatants, both in Ukraine and in Russia, is appropriate, i.e., not an "escalation without limit", and U.S. logistics support for same is also appropriate.
Agreed?
I certainly agree.
What is this rules-based order that you keep talking about in the West? Board seats on Burisma? 10% for the big guy? Strzokist DAD and Elvis Chan? FISA 702 non-compliance on an industrial scale? Color Revolutions when somebody doesn't like the cut of somebody else's jib? Maidan Madness? Let's talk about how we got here a bit. Sure, Revanchist anything is bad, Revanchist Russia is worse. But systemic destabilization and our current train wreck that you can't look away from is because our nat sec elites have poked, prodded and blundered us to this sad state. Talk about the hubris. And the grifting has been epic the whole way. Pipe line go boom.
Credentialwise, I speak Russian and Arabic. I've got some military experience and a fancy MPA from The Anatomy of Courage School of Grifting. I'm an armchair analyst now naturally but maybe we should be focusing on de-escalation and containment at this point and not insisting that Khruschev's Gift and a Donbass that the Ukes have no compunction against shelling for 8 years be returned for the Slava of Ukraine.
At the risk of being shot for defeatism, I should point out things don't look so great in the bleed them dry school of thought. We might show signs of anemia first. Ask the logistics experts, I suspect they will tell you that we can't make the war materials fast enough. For the present at least. Do we want no fly zones? Do we want direct military confrontation? If you are going to accept the slippery slope argument for Putin's greater Russia plan then you should concede the escalator to WWW III slope too, I should think. And can I ask somebody to define our vital national interest here? Please no Hegemon in Eurasia B.S. One year of hefty casualties on both sides argues against the immediate threat of the dreaded Hegemon.
So, deescalate and contain. Maybe somebody, anybody smart play Kennan in 47? It won't be Jake Sullivan or Colin Kahl LOL. And we might also add a few years onto the petro dollar run before the new trading blocks like BRICS accomplish their planned usurping.
In conclusion, I may be a dope, but I'm smarter than Jake Sullilvan and Victoria Nuland and only half as arrogant and vain.
"rules based order"
--------------------
There is only one rule in realpolitik> "The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must" ~ Thucydides, Athenian General, c 400 BC.
"Few have a better national understanding of Russia than the Estonians" - so blind hatred makes for better understanding? Wow great insight, I guess I'll talk to a nazi to better understand the Jews.
What a disappointment this blog has become.
If you care so much about Ukraine, put your money where your mouth is and take your gun and fight there. No one is stopping you. They are drafting 60 year old's, I'm sure they would be happy to put you in a trench.
Its wholly inappropriate and hypocritical to advocate for military assistance to a backward totally corrupt "democracy" like Ukraine that could lead to all out war if you personally wont fight it.
You used to have decent military analysis. Now its just mindless poorly thought through drivel. Your foreign policy analysis is utter garbage.
Oh well, Armchair general is gonna armchair general I guess.
You consider "better national understanding" to be synonymous with "blind hatred".
You're entitled to use your own dictionary and thesaurus but that doesn't make it true.
No, I've been to Estonia (and Poland) many times and had many discussions with the people there. I can attest, the Estonians have an absolute blind hatred of the Russians, almost to the level of the Poles. Almost.
I don't think anyone hates a people as much as the Poles hate the Russians.
For a quick lesson in argumentation (because your response regarding definitions is incomprehensible gibberish), I was NOT stating that "better national understanding" meant "blind hatred", I was mocking his notion that Estonians possess a better understanding of the Russians.
To have a understanding of something, one must be emotionally neutral toward it. Emotion will cloud judgement and effect someone's ability to reason. In this case, the Estonians notoriously revile the Russians, therefore their analysis of Russians will be quite poor due to being emotionally compromised. Hence why I compared such an idea to asking a nazi about the Jews (who they notoriously hated)
Its odd I have to explain that. Someone with almost any degree of education should have innately understood this.
"your response regarding definitions is incomprehensible gibberish"
If my directly quoting your first sentence is "incomprehensible gibberish", then we don't speak the same language, which was already obvious, given your equating "better national understanding" with "blind hatred".
Your ad hominem excesses, together with a fake name, says it all.
No, it means you aren't articulating your point coherently.
Outside that, I did respond to what I believe you were saying. Perhaps you need to read it again if you feel you missed it.
Bloviating on about grammatical equivocations that I wasn't making and ad hominems seems evasive at this point. I'm beginning to think you don't have a counter point to what I was saying.
Feel free to respond to the content of my argument.
"you aren't articulating your point coherently"
"you need to read it again if you feel you missed it."
"Bloviating on about grammatical equivocations that I wasn't making and ad hominems seems evasive at this point."
"I'm beginning to think you don't have a counter point to what I was saying."
OK, you win, I can't beat your ad hominem "you" arguments.
Hey man, my argument was clearly articulated. If you had an adequate counter-argument I'd see it by now.
Instead you mindlessly quote farm looking for offense when I disagree and call out your lack of actual intellectual arguments.
My advice, don't wade into arguments completely unprepared, as you have here. Better luck next time.
You can't read a map, or OSCE cease fire violations just prior to war - which explode the myth of Ukraine on defense. Of course you're pro-Ukrainian, but not anti-Russian.
You're pro- US - taking over the world.
Perhaps someday when war is marching over CONUS and foreign powers likely intervene from opportunity or the necessity of 'fighting the Americans over there so we don't have to fight them here'
you'll learn geography and what 'aggression' means.
And Estonia is a money laundering operation run by a government from New Jersey, installed by us.
They have one Light Infantry Battalion. I'm sure their MOD is at least Battalion sized though, we built their MOD and our bureaucracy always duplicates itself down.
Here's the OSCE on 20 Feb 22.
"Based on information from the Monitoring Teams as of 19:30 20 February 2022. All times are in Eastern European Time.
Summary
In Donetsk region, between the evenings of 18 and 20 February, the SMM recorded 2,158 ceasefire violations, including 1,100 explosions. In the previous reporting period, it recorded 591 ceasefire violations in the region.
In Luhansk region, between the evenings of 18 and 20 February, the Mission recorded 1,073 ceasefire violations, including 926 explosions. In the previous reporting period, it recorded 975 ceasefire violations in the region."
https://www.osce.org/special-monitoring-mission-to-ukraine/512683#:~:text=Based%20on%20information%20from%20the,are%20in%20Eastern%20European%20Time.&text=In%20Donetsk%20region%2C%20between%20the,ceasefire%20violations%2C%20including%201%2C100%20explosions.
Great article, no matter what the latter day 1930s Isolationists shout.
That said, "recreating buffer zones are the key steps in turning the current international order around for Russia" is the Russian rationalization for making a prison of half the continent of Europe for half a century.
If "buffer zones" were all the Bolsheviks wanted, East Europeans would have been allowed to freely emigrate to the west.
But the barbed wire and guard towers with automatic weapons insisted otherwise.
Yes, lets's defeat Russia so it's easier for China to take the East! That should work out well, strategy wise.
The word "defeat" is not used anywhere in the article.
Do you consider Ukraine ejecting Russians from Ukrainian territory to be "defeating" Russia?
Yes, as will they and the rest of the world. Wouldn't you?
There simply is no doubt that if Russia prevails in Ukraine, the Baltic States will be invaded next by Russia.
Russia has a 1000 year history of being the bully in that region and Russia's neighbors know this better than anybody.
Uhhh...no. Russia will not invade the Baltic states if they prevail in Ukraine, and they were not the dominant/bully in the region for 1000 years.