Everybody wants to be a new Kissinger. The Ukrainians have it right, even if they don't have the means to achieve it - they will not give in even one inch of Ukrainian territory. The problem they face are the costs of a war of attrition. the West simply has to bite this bullet and support the Ukrainians, with all the costs that entails, because the alternative will be far, far more costly.
"The only way you would have the conditions for a "Congress of Vienna" would be if NATO APCs were on every street corner in Moscow and the remains of the Russian government east of the Ural mountains."
While you're correct, it's also worth saying that this no longer seems as far-fetched as it did a month or two ago. The threats against Poland keep getting louder; yesterday, the Russian Duma introduced a bill to retract their recognition of Lithuania's independence. Lukashenko keeps saber-rattling. Is it intended for domestic consumption? Sure. Could a General take things too far in his zeal to please? Definitely the potential there. And you'd forgive the smaller states for being unwilling to take the chance that it's all "just joking".
But more than that, imagine what happens if Russia starts to meaningfully drive back the Ukrainian army in spite of the materiel support they've been given. There is a very credible argument that the Russian Army wouldn't stop at the Dnieper, that they wouldn't stop with Kiev in their hands, and thus they might not stop at the Poland/Hungary/Slovakia border, either. At that point, why not annex Transnistria? Why not concoct some other BS story like the Nazis fig-leaf or the bio-labs fabrication and drive on Moldova? They've been weakened by 30 years of Russian meddling and string-pulling - "is Romania really going to the mat for their little brothers, after witnessing a year of Russia conquering? And Finland hasn't been admitted to NATO yet, has it?" Putin might well think to himself.
These, of course, are scenarios that while plausible are still unlikely. But nobody, not even Biden, wants to be in the position of having to decide whether to unleash the full measure of hell on a Russia who, even if 90% of their nukes are in fact inoperable, can still blow up the world.
Seems to me that avoiding NATO being put that choice is clearly the most urgent priority. Which then suggests exactly what conclusions Salamander here has been drawing for months: arm Ukraine to the teeth, enable them to win the war as fast and as decisively as possible, and you get a result that is far better than any alternative.
The worst takes are the ones that work hard to avoid that obvious conclusion, such as the examples above.
Sal! Your post made my day (again!). Your ability to call out pure uselessness and self-licking organizations such as this one approach my reverence for the likes of our man Mencken to point out the truths of such imposters. To quote our man, “Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”. The OSCE indeed. Find more white space and hold forth against the hypocrisy.
Yeah, "Peace in our Time", Chamberlain gave Hitler what he wanted in 1938, and then ... Hitler wanted more. Same case here - here's a relevant article from 2004, remarkably prescient for something from 18 years ago:
"One way in which Russia will be able to turn other states against Atlanticism will be an astute use of the country's raw material riches. "In the beginning stage [of the struggle against Atlanticism]," Dugin writes, "Russia can offer its potential partners in the East and West its resources as compensation for exacerbating their relations with the U.S." (276). To induce the Anaconda to release its grip on the coastline of Eurasia, it must be attacked relentlessly on its home territory, within its own hemisphere, and throughout Eurasia. "All levels of geopolitical pressure," Dugin insists, "must be activated simultaneously" (367). Within the United States itself, there is a need for the Russian special services and their allies "to provoke all forms of instability and separatism within the borders of the United States (it is possible to make use of the political forces of Afro-American racists)" (248). "It is especially important," Dugin adds, "to introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements-- extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics." https://tec.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/aleksandr-dugins-foundations-geopolitics And so forth and so on, Putin is interested in a lot more than Ukraine. Condoleezza Rice has him all figured out - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBxw53tEurY
And China will exact a price for its "friendship", there's a lot of energy resources in Russia's Far East that China would love to have - and the Chinese have invaded before. So there's that to consider.
Re: China - isn't it easier for China to just buy/trade its way to energy resources it requires from Russia?
Have you even heard a Chinese FM spokesperson mention anything except good wishes between China-Russia Xi-Putin? Contrast this to the words over Taiwan to the US.
If Russia continues to degrade its military in Ukraine, at some point it will become very tempting for the Chinese to come across the border and do a "five finger discount". My bet is that the second the Chinese figure that they can get away with it, they'll do it, FM statements of filial piety notwithstanding.
I don't understand why China would take such action, when they have the economic means to get access to the resources.
It strikes me a particularly US/western mode of thought to steal things when you are able to.
My reason to mention the Chinese FM is because there are many statements about TW and India (LAC), and there is much observed PLA actions in those areas.
Are there *any* reported PLA activities along the Russian border?
So it makes zero sense (outside of some peoples fantasy) for China to take such action on Russia.
If you are reading this blog, then you will have read Sal's thoughts on the PRC/PLA deliberate planning and ticking off boxes to achieve their strategic goals. Invading Russia does not fit that plan.
The Chinese have invaded that part of Russia before, and deception and theft is a strong part of the national character, "rule of law" - especially as applied to intellectual property - is simply non-existent, Han wins out over non-Han every time, the ultimate in "hometowning".
As for geopolitics and Russia and China, have a look at Aleksandr Dugin's Foundations of Geopolitics - "Like the United States, the People's Republic of China is seen as constituting an enormous danger for Eurasia-Russia. Once it rejected Mao's healthy path of "peasant socialism," China set about instituting economic reforms that have been achieved "at the price of a deep compromise with the West" (232- 233). China, in Dugin's perverse view, verges upon being an Atlanticist factotum.
At several points in his book, Dugin gives vent to a fear that China might at some time in the future "undertake a desperate thrust to the North--into Kazakhstan and Eastern Siberia" (172). In a section titled "The Fall of China," Dugin directly warns: "China is the most dangerous geopolitical neighbor of Russia to the South" (359). China, he maintains, is a danger to Russia both "as a geopolitical base for Atlanticism and by itself, as a country with heightened demographic compactness in quest of 'no man's land'" (360).
Because of the threat to Russia's vital geopolitical interests represented by China, Dugin holds that the PRC must be dismantled. He underlines: "Tibet-Sinkiang-Mongolia-Manchuria taken together comprise a security belt of Russia" (363). Eurasia-Russia must seek, at all costs, to promote "the territorial disintegration, splintering and the political and administrative partition of the [Chinese] state" (360). "Without Sinkiang and Tibet," he concludes, "the potential geopolitical breakthrough of China into Kazakhstan and Siberia becomes impossible" (362)." https://tec.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/aleksandr-dugins-foundations-geopolitics
Everybody wants to be a new Kissinger. The Ukrainians have it right, even if they don't have the means to achieve it - they will not give in even one inch of Ukrainian territory. The problem they face are the costs of a war of attrition. the West simply has to bite this bullet and support the Ukrainians, with all the costs that entails, because the alternative will be far, far more costly.
"The only way you would have the conditions for a "Congress of Vienna" would be if NATO APCs were on every street corner in Moscow and the remains of the Russian government east of the Ural mountains."
While you're correct, it's also worth saying that this no longer seems as far-fetched as it did a month or two ago. The threats against Poland keep getting louder; yesterday, the Russian Duma introduced a bill to retract their recognition of Lithuania's independence. Lukashenko keeps saber-rattling. Is it intended for domestic consumption? Sure. Could a General take things too far in his zeal to please? Definitely the potential there. And you'd forgive the smaller states for being unwilling to take the chance that it's all "just joking".
But more than that, imagine what happens if Russia starts to meaningfully drive back the Ukrainian army in spite of the materiel support they've been given. There is a very credible argument that the Russian Army wouldn't stop at the Dnieper, that they wouldn't stop with Kiev in their hands, and thus they might not stop at the Poland/Hungary/Slovakia border, either. At that point, why not annex Transnistria? Why not concoct some other BS story like the Nazis fig-leaf or the bio-labs fabrication and drive on Moldova? They've been weakened by 30 years of Russian meddling and string-pulling - "is Romania really going to the mat for their little brothers, after witnessing a year of Russia conquering? And Finland hasn't been admitted to NATO yet, has it?" Putin might well think to himself.
These, of course, are scenarios that while plausible are still unlikely. But nobody, not even Biden, wants to be in the position of having to decide whether to unleash the full measure of hell on a Russia who, even if 90% of their nukes are in fact inoperable, can still blow up the world.
Seems to me that avoiding NATO being put that choice is clearly the most urgent priority. Which then suggests exactly what conclusions Salamander here has been drawing for months: arm Ukraine to the teeth, enable them to win the war as fast and as decisively as possible, and you get a result that is far better than any alternative.
The worst takes are the ones that work hard to avoid that obvious conclusion, such as the examples above.
Doesn't providing more/increasing arms to Ukraine, just increase the likelihood of Russian escalation?
For whatever reason, Biden/Pentagon likes making announcements but not actual shipments of substance for Ukraine defence.
Sal! Your post made my day (again!). Your ability to call out pure uselessness and self-licking organizations such as this one approach my reverence for the likes of our man Mencken to point out the truths of such imposters. To quote our man, “Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”. The OSCE indeed. Find more white space and hold forth against the hypocrisy.
Yeah, "Peace in our Time", Chamberlain gave Hitler what he wanted in 1938, and then ... Hitler wanted more. Same case here - here's a relevant article from 2004, remarkably prescient for something from 18 years ago:
"One way in which Russia will be able to turn other states against Atlanticism will be an astute use of the country's raw material riches. "In the beginning stage [of the struggle against Atlanticism]," Dugin writes, "Russia can offer its potential partners in the East and West its resources as compensation for exacerbating their relations with the U.S." (276). To induce the Anaconda to release its grip on the coastline of Eurasia, it must be attacked relentlessly on its home territory, within its own hemisphere, and throughout Eurasia. "All levels of geopolitical pressure," Dugin insists, "must be activated simultaneously" (367). Within the United States itself, there is a need for the Russian special services and their allies "to provoke all forms of instability and separatism within the borders of the United States (it is possible to make use of the political forces of Afro-American racists)" (248). "It is especially important," Dugin adds, "to introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements-- extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics." https://tec.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/aleksandr-dugins-foundations-geopolitics And so forth and so on, Putin is interested in a lot more than Ukraine. Condoleezza Rice has him all figured out - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBxw53tEurY
And China will exact a price for its "friendship", there's a lot of energy resources in Russia's Far East that China would love to have - and the Chinese have invaded before. So there's that to consider.
Re: China - isn't it easier for China to just buy/trade its way to energy resources it requires from Russia?
Have you even heard a Chinese FM spokesperson mention anything except good wishes between China-Russia Xi-Putin? Contrast this to the words over Taiwan to the US.
If Russia continues to degrade its military in Ukraine, at some point it will become very tempting for the Chinese to come across the border and do a "five finger discount". My bet is that the second the Chinese figure that they can get away with it, they'll do it, FM statements of filial piety notwithstanding.
I don't understand why China would take such action, when they have the economic means to get access to the resources.
It strikes me a particularly US/western mode of thought to steal things when you are able to.
My reason to mention the Chinese FM is because there are many statements about TW and India (LAC), and there is much observed PLA actions in those areas.
Are there *any* reported PLA activities along the Russian border?
So it makes zero sense (outside of some peoples fantasy) for China to take such action on Russia.
If you are reading this blog, then you will have read Sal's thoughts on the PRC/PLA deliberate planning and ticking off boxes to achieve their strategic goals. Invading Russia does not fit that plan.
The Chinese have invaded that part of Russia before, and deception and theft is a strong part of the national character, "rule of law" - especially as applied to intellectual property - is simply non-existent, Han wins out over non-Han every time, the ultimate in "hometowning".
Why do you even bother to read this blog if you can't use logic or understand geopolitics?
As for geopolitics and Russia and China, have a look at Aleksandr Dugin's Foundations of Geopolitics - "Like the United States, the People's Republic of China is seen as constituting an enormous danger for Eurasia-Russia. Once it rejected Mao's healthy path of "peasant socialism," China set about instituting economic reforms that have been achieved "at the price of a deep compromise with the West" (232- 233). China, in Dugin's perverse view, verges upon being an Atlanticist factotum.
At several points in his book, Dugin gives vent to a fear that China might at some time in the future "undertake a desperate thrust to the North--into Kazakhstan and Eastern Siberia" (172). In a section titled "The Fall of China," Dugin directly warns: "China is the most dangerous geopolitical neighbor of Russia to the South" (359). China, he maintains, is a danger to Russia both "as a geopolitical base for Atlanticism and by itself, as a country with heightened demographic compactness in quest of 'no man's land'" (360).
Because of the threat to Russia's vital geopolitical interests represented by China, Dugin holds that the PRC must be dismantled. He underlines: "Tibet-Sinkiang-Mongolia-Manchuria taken together comprise a security belt of Russia" (363). Eurasia-Russia must seek, at all costs, to promote "the territorial disintegration, splintering and the political and administrative partition of the [Chinese] state" (360). "Without Sinkiang and Tibet," he concludes, "the potential geopolitical breakthrough of China into Kazakhstan and Siberia becomes impossible" (362)." https://tec.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/aleksandr-dugins-foundations-geopolitics