I see this mostly coming from US and UK based news outlets, and of course the White House. I have this nagging feeling the US really wants a proxy war in Ukraine for whatever reason. It only needs a trigger, like the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Whatever gets the ball rolling. I hope cooler heads will prevail.
> I have this nagging feeling the US really wants a proxy war in Ukraine for whatever reason
For what reason? There's no upside for the US. Russia overtly wants a protected hegemonic sphere of influence in Eastern Europe — heck, it expressly uses the idea of such a fear as it's argument, and it's propaganda proxies invoke the idea of a parallel US sphere in North America as a defense — and overtly wants NATO not merely not to expand to include Ukraine but to withdraw troops (and demonstrate a lack of security commitment) to other Eastern European states to facilitate that hegemonic sphere.
Russia is the only side with anything to gain by war (establishing a Ukrainian puppet state) or it's threat (getting NATO to back off and enable Russian hegemony in Eastern Europe beyond Ukraine.)
It’s also the only side doing anything threatening. The US has moved forces too small to be anything but tripwire forces against conflict spilling out of Ukraine to other Eastern European allies, while pulling trainers and civilians out of Ukraine with the overt explanation that it is doing so because military intervention to extract them in the event of an invasion would lead to a world war. It is doing everything possible (including not mobilizing forces that would give it credible capacity to intervene) to indicate that it will not fight Russia, not only not aggressively, but also that it won't allow itself to be drawn into conflict if Russia invades Ukraine. Russia, on the other hand, has stripped the entire country to deploy essentially the entire combat power of it's military exactly where you’d want it for an invasion of Ukraine, and unleashed propaganda about whose fault it will be if it chooses to use it.
The US doesn't want a strong Russia. Looking at the US track record of invading Iraq, destabilize Lebanon and Yemen, I can see why Russia is protective of its borders.
"It’s also the only side doing anything threatening."
NATO and US forces have been creeping up since 30 years and the buffer zone that once existed is pretty much gone short of Belarus. I'm not rooting for Russia but I can see why they are on edge given the history and tactics of the US.
There is often a complete lack of seeing things from the Russian perspective.
> There is often a complete lack of seeing things from the Russian perspective.
...you say after rephrasing the exact hegemonic sphere of influence argument described as the Russian goal in the post you are responding to.
Understanding why Putin wants Lebensraum doesn't make that desire a justification for invading and occupying neighbors anymore than understanding why Hitler wanted it did.
(And understanding that the US committed unjustified aggression in Iraq in 2003 doesn't justify Russian aggression against Ukraine because yada yada NATO yada yada in the same way that Iraq’s aggression in 1990 doesn't justify aggression against them directly, not merely someone connected by alliance, in 2003.)
Oh come on. Don't try comparing modern Russia to Nazi Germany. The reason for the tension is simple and you just need to look at it from other side. If Russia made a coalition in South America that would be spanning into mexico, US would act the same way. I see the argument that Russia deserves to be looked down upon because it's a threat to nations around it, but the same can be said about the US. US is no stranger to invasions of nations in South America or even brutal economic domination of them. What Russia is doing is your standard and even rational geopolitics.
> The reason for the tension is simple and you just need to look at it from other side. If Russia made a coalition in South America that would be spanning into mexico, US would act the same way.
Even if one were to agree that that were true, it wouldn't be a justification. Customary international law, the UN Charter, and the multilateral treaty Russia signed on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine do not admit to any “unless they make friends with people we don’t like” exception.
Whataboutism—and even moreso hypothetical counterfactual whataboutism—doesn’t change that. This is an extension of the ongoing crime of aggression being committed by Russia against Ukraine, for which Russia is solely responsible and culpable.
Agreed. Also, Russia has been attacked 3 times in its history already: Napoleon, Wilhelm II + Hitler, despite there being buffer zones back then. And peace is never eternal.
To play the devil's advocate, if the US were to allow Ukraine to enter NATO, that would be just as "aggressive" from Russia's point of view as Russia projecting its influence further into Eastern Europe would be from a US perspective.
Also, the US always has a lot to gain through war, or even the threats thereof. Even though no war has been declared, loads of expensive military equipment has been sold and shipped to the front lines just because of this saber-rattling exercise. The revolving door between the boards of Raytheon and Lockheed, lobbyist groups, and the cabinets of elected politicians means someone in a position of power always stands to gain from keeping the arms trade rolling.
The corporate media has always played lackey to those interests, and this time is no different. That can be true AND the fact that Russia is behaving aggressively can also be true at the same time.
USA has compliant neighbours that if necessary, they can crush, easy peasy. Then it's surrounded by two oceans. Transit across the pacific for a US carrier group is around 7 days.
Latvia and Estonia, NATO members, shares land borders with Russia.
Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey, also NATO members, have coasts on the Black Sea, right around the area.
Last time the US has anything to worry about hostile military hardware on its doorsteps was in the 60s.
You might justifiably disagree with almost all the suppositions in this article, but I think it is correct to say that the US does not want the Nord Stream II pipeline to become operational. If Russia invades, the US would have a good excuse to block the pipeline a part of the imposed sanctions. I doubt the US policy is as focused on achieving this as the article implies, but it would be an upside.
Not if you ship them to Ukraine for free. And even if it stops being the case Ukraine is still too poor to be lucrative customer in high-tech weaponry that US would like to sell.
The upside to USA is to distract from problems at home such as: soaring food prices, energy prices 5 year highs, soaring rent house prices, collapsing COVID lockdown narrative, ridiculous levels of govt debt, Pres polls in toilet with midterm elections approaching.
> The upside to USA is to distract from problems at home such as: soaring food prices,
War would exacerbate that.
> energy prices 5 year highs,
War would really exacerbate that
and it's the single strongest economic force, historically, against the party of the sitting President.
> ridiculous levels of govt debt,
While the GOP wants to make that a narrative (as they usually do when out of power, despite running it up when in power), it doesn't really seem to be working, so I don't think anyone cares about distracting from it. (And certainly not the GOP.)
> Pres polls in toilet with midterm elections approaching.
Yes, I’m sure that’s why leading members of the GOP in Congress and GOP-aligned media are pushing for a firm stand and that “Congress must do more” on Russia, they are desperately worried to get the attention off the President’s sagging approval numbers.
If this was the runup to the NATO-Yugoslavia war in the 1990s, the wag-the-dog domestic politics argument would at least make some sense, and be consistent with the domestic alignment of views, but for that to work in this case you have to think that both the major parties want—enough to start a war— to get people's minds off a bunch of things that (1) are very good for one of those parties, (2) about half of which would be intensified by war.
And that, in pursuit of getting this US-involved war of distraction started, they are carefully pulling US civilians and troops out of Ukraine so that there is no excuse for the US to get involved even if a war does start there, while deploying US troops in numbers FAR too small to meaningfully intervene in Ukraine, but far too large for the message to be missed by Russia, to neighboring NATO countries to deter any action beyond Ukraine that would oblige US involvement under the terms of the Washington Treaty.
Lots of upsides for the US here: democracy vs. autocracy, oil fields, strategically important military base in Sevastopol, take a bite out of Russian/Soviet history, weaken Putin, expand sphere of influence (plus later NATO), and, most importantly, to get the money-making war machinery moving again - the country’s biggest industry.
No one, among the prime actors, wants war. What they all want is for the other side to back down.
The danger is that this doesn't happen before Putin runs out of non-military options. Doesn't happen before the ground turns to mud, troops get tired of sleeping in tents, fresh blood stocks go stale.
Either Zelenskyy or Biden needs to find his inner adult, and announce that Ukraine won't be joining NATO any time that's on his own watch. Soon.
> The danger is that this doesn't happen before Putin runs out of non-military options.
Putin has the non-military option of being the one to back down.
> Either Zelenskyy or Biden needs to find his inner adult, and announce that Ukraine won't be joining NATO any time that's on his own watch.
NATO hasn't even approved admitting Ukraine to the Membership Action Plan; it's pretty clear that they have no near term prospects for membership. What Russia wants is more NATO abandonment of existing members.
There are news hast currently talking about implementing sanctions already. Russia has not yet invaded but they are talking about imposing sanctions as of they did.
At this point it probably doesn't even mater if Russia invades, according to these news channels Russia will be sanctioned.
Can you provide sources for any preemptive sanctions towards Russia? I only know about US Republican party initiative, but it was rejected by ruling party (Democrats).
I see this as well and I can't watch them at the moment.
The local Swiss news are more cautious as to what they say and there is also a feeling of that there is still hope of preventing this war.
Like all conflicts this is an extremely complex situation and the US painting it black and white is neither right nor a way to find a peaceful solution.
I don't see the same thing as you. Everyone knows that NATO will deny Ukraine's application if they make one because it requires all 30 countries to accept it. Biden has slow rolled the process, publicly supporting their potential "application" but helping prevent them from doing so. France, Germany, and others are very hard no's as far as I remember. They're afraid to poke Russia and dislike Ukraine in general.
Whatever Putin's ultimate goals, I think NATO has already accepted they are fait accompli, but will still pump out some empty rhetoric to quell their conscience.
Any sanctions down the road will be a joke, Europe is too reliant on Russian gas to do more than sabre rattling.
Germany has blocked 3rd path arms shipments to Ukraine and is bypassing Ukraine with a gas pipeline directly to Russia. Something like half of Germans supported the Crimea annexation and their Head of Navy had to resign after causing international outcry by publicly backing Putin. They’ll pay lip service to the idea, but Ukraine will never be “ready” to join NATO in their eyes.
Macron is calling for a new security order in Europe that doesn’t involve NATO, and has been working to that end. He seeks appeasement and has been meeting and speaking with Putin directly. If Russia annexes Ukraine I’m sure he’ll speak out against it, but that’s all it seems he’ll do.
That’s only my take at least, based on reading major US/EU news sites.
