I can think of a lot of things worse. Full war between Russia and NATO. Nuclear bombs going off. Hell, even if Russia decides it cares less about civilian deaths and damage in Ukraine.
Yes they can, and we may well get to that. But keep one thing clear: Putin is the aggressor here and no matter what he will determine whether or not this turns into a nuclear war or not. But effectively we are already at war, and that it is on just side a proxy war.
The second a Russian boot crosses a NATO/EU border it will likely escalate so rapidly that you won't have time to make coffee to see how it ended. Until then Putin is can make all the noise he wants. Or he may try a nuclear first strike on NATO.
Other possible escalations, which I'm not sure about what the response would be, would be the use of the TOS-1 against civilian targets in Ukraine and the use of tactical nukes in Ukraine.
I agree that Russia initiated military action, that is plain for all to see.
I think the question of who is the aggressor is less clear because wars usually stem from a long series of escalating aggressions and threats before military action.
I don't think Russian boots will cross a NATO border, but am very concerned about NATO boots crossing into Ukraine.
> am very concerned about NATO boots crossing into Ukraine
Officially we are far away from that point, unofficially there is an endless stream of weapons flowing right now and I've seen some evidence of 'individuals' from NATO countries are enlisting in the service of Ukraine.
Just like Russia never had a presence in Ukraine until last week. Right?
Russia has had several aggressive incursions into Ukraine. Most notably the 2014 annexation of Crimea and arming of Ukrainian separatists. At the same time they were losing ground on other fronts in Ukraine. They were unable to prevent NATO troops and arms shipments from coming in. They were also loosing the propaganda and economic competition in Ukraine.
Ukraine’s in no way shape or form a liberal democracy. It will take them decades to become one, assuming they can ever escape the Russian sphere of influence.
“Ethnofascist dictatorship” and “liberal democracy”!
This is more like if Pakistan invaded Bangladesh to get it back. Wars where very similar people who speak slightly different languages fight over whether they should be two countries or one country are a dime a dozen. One country being a democracy for all of five minutes doesn’t change that math.
Ironic, from an English-speaking American, and a lawyer at that. I would think someone familiar with our founding would recognize that, yes, a free people has a right not to be subjugated to a major power just because they speak a similar language.
Also, "get it back"? Kievan Rus predates Muscovite Rus by over half a millenium. If you would like a beginner's primer on the history of ethnic and cultural ties and conflicts involved, I recommend Suzanne Massie's Land of the Firebird.
I’m from Bangladesh. While I believe our independence war was absolutely a good thing, it absolutely wasn’t the west’s business. “Everybody who wants one gets their own country” isn’t a workable approach.
(Of course the US did intervene in the Bangladesh-Pakistan war, on the wrong side: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/us-forces-had-orde.... But even if it had supported Bangladesh, at the end of the day it wasn’t any of its business or risking the life of American soldiers.)
Yes, but I'm not talking to them right now, I'm talking to you.
The world is far more integrated than you seem to want to see, what happens in Ukraine today will have effect in Europe tomorrow (in fact it already has effect here) and in the United States the week after. Isolationism only works for countries that have no standing, even China could not afford to stand with Putin on this.
You want safety and stability for yourself and your family. And so does everybody else. Unfortunately the country that you are living in is well known for taking up arms in conflicts around the world precisely for the same reason that you ended up there: it is a country made up of large numbers of immigrants (and obviously some of the original population as well, but let's leave them out of this to not complicate things even further).
When WWII was well underway America was still neutral, and many of the things that you are saying today were said by people in the United States as well. Then Pearl Harbor happened and the rest as they say is history.
Sometimes you get to choose how long you will be neutral, but not if you are going to be neutral. I have friends and family very close to this conflict, on both sides of the divide. None of them want war, and yet, here we are. So consider yourself lucky that you are 1000's of km away from the hotspot, but realize that Putin can ruin your life in about 15 minutes and that if you do not want to be in a situation that is dangerous there are very few places in the world that do not have a warhead with it's coordinates programmed in aimed at it.
That is how the world works. You can deny it or you can accept it, that is obviously your choice.
Five minutes or five centuries, Ukraine is internationally recognized as a separate democratic nation (unlike, say, Transnystiria which is a breakaway from Moldova and is NOT recognized as a separate state by anyone who matters).
I’m not sure why you’re downplaying the horrific tragedy occurring in Ukraine right now.
I get the sprit of what you’re saying, but it makes an immense difference whether a country is democratic for 5 years or 50. It takes decades for the democracy to diffuse into society, institutions, education, etc.
No guarantees yet that it won't, but this article isn't about any escalation. This is just details about providing US forces for the NATO response force, in NATO countries around Ukraine.
Given the circumstances, this is the definition of escalation. Obviously they will have Putin fire all first shots. If there’s anything NATO is best at, it’s evading responsibility.
I’m not sure what you want explained, but you’ll probably find it in this very straightforward talk by John Mearsheimer on this very conflict. https://youtube.com/watch?v=Nbj1AR_aAcE
> While President Biden has said U.S. troops will not enter Ukraine to participate directly in the fight against Russia, U.S. forces may eventually be called upon to participate in NATO-led missions as part of the NATO Response Force to bolster the defense of alliance partner nations should they ask for assistance.
Am I missing something? I was expecting something far more drastic from reading the other comments.
After being in Ukraine for seven years, the USA withdraw was touted as,
"This repositioning does not signify a change in our determination to support Ukraine's Armed Forces, but will provide flexibility in assuring allies and deterring aggression," Kirby said.
How short are peoples memories theses days? Just a month ago Biden was literally telling the world that Russia would likely invade and it was front page news. Now people act like it is a shock and conspiracy theory.
January 19th,
>Biden said a full-scale invasion would be “the most consequential thing that’s happened in the world in terms of war and peace since World War Two”, with the risk of spilling outside Ukraine’s borders, and “could get out of hand”. He said that Russia would prevail militarily in an invasion but would suffer heavy casualties. “This is not all just a cakewalk for Russia militarily,” he said, noting the military aid the US has provided recently. “They’ll pay a stiff price, immediately, short-term, medium-term and long-term if they do it.”
This is the same day Russia gave its last and final request for US assurance that it would vote no to Ukrainian NATO membership.
It’s a press release. It’s intentionally written in such a way that various audiences can glean what they want to from it.
Reading between the lines is hardly even necessary here. War escalation is an art form. This notice reveals without a doubt that Biden is willing to deploy U.S. troops to Ukraine. If recent history can tell us anything, this means U.S. troops will be deployed to Ukraine. Regardless of whatever guise they use to entertain domestic confidence, U.S. troops will be deployed to Ukraine.
It’s goddamn stupid. The better example is World War I, not World War II. We’re being dragged into a war over a intra-Slavic dispute that has nothing to do with the rest of us.
If France had had that attitude in the past the United States would likely not even exist. And if the USA would have that attitude in the past then they would be speaking German in France right now.
The United States has a pretty strong foundation when it comes to trying to do the right thing. They may not always actually do the right thing, they may not always do it timely, especially not when looked at through the lens of history. But they will try their very best to do what is right. And right now, what's right is to stand with Ukraine (where quite a few Americans, about a million, can find some of their roots), even if that has risks associated with it. And if you don't want to do that then there are plenty of options on the table.
> If France had had that attitude in the past the United States would likely not even exist.
And it probably would have been better that way! The British would have ended slavery earlier, and we would have developed like Canada and Australia.
Nobody knows what’s the “right thing” when it comes to the development and history of nations. The United States has good intentions, but it’s foreign policy is tremendously destructive because Americans have a childlike understanding of how the world works.
That's not how it works. The British would have faced the same problems that the Americans did: Half a country that is deeply dependent on slavery and completely unwilling to let go
Germany is still immensely traumatized from WWII, believe it or not, and has lots of internal issues resulting from the reunification, ironically, after the fall of the former USSR.
That is why there is tremendous friction before Germany will get involved in anything that looks like a war.
It is understandable that the average German voter was surprised, but if the German government really could not conceive that Russia might attack one of its neighbors, then it is definitely incompetent.
Agreed. I have not seen any indication of either preparations underway or a more coordinated response, it looked like they got caught flat footed.
Compared to the intelligence out there, the speech by Biden and the troop movements it seemed to me that the writing was on the wall, but it is possible that the German authorities/BND were given false assurances, there is definitely some precedent for that during this conflict.
Not even just in the past 3 days, I've seen a staggering number of people on HN who apparently don't know the USSR ended in 1989 or that Putin openly dislikes communism, among the plethora of other stereotypes of American arrogance and hubris, so yes, probably unlike the user "rayiner".
Having seen the whole thing from up close and having lots of contacts in Eastern Europe - former USSR countries and also in Russia I have a bit of a home court advantage here but still it boggles the mind how short sighted and detached from reality some of this is. Weirder still how exactly those people are accusing others of not knowing how the world works. The world is a messy, extremely interconnected hairball with several major fraction lines running through it each of which has the power to reduce our population problems in a heartbeat. To ignore that - or to try to live as though these problems do not exist - has to be the ultimate in being willfully blind. It probably is just some kind of fear response, like being told that your safe little haven isn't really safe. But as long as nuclear weapons are armed and ready to go - on all sides - there are no safe places, and any conflict that involves a nuclear power has the potential to spiral completely out of control, more so when autocrats and dictators are involved.
Yes, there is a pointed reason for the Western elite to compare every foreign affair (and even domestic affairs nowadays) to WW2. It was “the good war” and if every other war is just like it then adventurism is justified.
So, what should Ukrainians do if they want to live in a society not controlled by Putin? Do they just have to leave? Do they need to get enough non-Slavic residents to immigrate so your racist policy no longer applies?
It's reprehensible that the West is standing by while a fellow Western country is overrun. We're so scared of some hardship (or convinced that only Anericans have the mental stability to not shoot nukes) that we're allowing Ukraine to be demolished by Russia while we have the equipment to stop the whole thing in its tracks, just standing by all around Europe.
> So, what should Ukrainians do if they want to live in a society not controlled by Putin?
Fight like hell? The Afghans have fought off two world powers in the last century. The Ukrainians can do the same (with plenty of low-key, low-risk support).
> It's reprehensible that the West is standing by while a fellow Western country is overrun. We're so scared of some hardship (or convinced that only Anericans have the mental stability to not shoot nukes) that we're allowing Ukraine to be demolished by Russia while we have the equipment to stop the whole thing in its tracks, just standing by all around Europe.
It is not reasonable to expect the NATO members to risk nuclear annihilation to actively defend Ukraine.
Ok, so a single nuke gets dropped on NYC or LA. Just the one. And Europe stands back and says: "Well, unfortunately we'll let them burn, because otherwise Putin might do the same to us." What would you make of that?
The US is in NATO. If Russia nuked a NATO member, all NATO members would respond with force. That’s the entire point of NATO—-to deter Soviet/Russian aggression against any of its member countries. The failure of any member country to respond accordingly would be a breech of faith.
Ukraine is not in NATO. There is no obligation to intervene.
Right, like how after 9/11 Europe had a responsibility to ignore the USA?
But we didn't. And even if the way that was handled sucks and the intelligence was faulty and I was utterly against invading Iraq because it seemed the wrong thing to do, right after 9/11 the whole world stood with the USA.
They fucked up the aftermath of that but in the moment there was zero doubt about what was the right thing to do: to stand as one.
> But we didn't. And even if the way that was handled sucks and the intelligence was faulty and I was utterly against invading Iraq because it seemed the wrong thing to do, right after 9/11 the whole world stood with the USA.
The cost-benefit analysis was entirely different. Europe got on the bandwagon with the global superpower. The benefit was that they stayed in the good graces of the global superpower. The risks were not existential—-they signed on for a pair of wars against third world countries. There was zero risk of provoking a world war. There was zero risk of atomic bombs being dropped at home.
Compare to the current crisis. The benefit to the US of fighting the Ruskies is—-what? We would gain weak ally. The costs would be our THIRD Great War fought in Europe for the benefit of Europeans. With the risk of world war or even nuclear war.
And don’t preach to Americans about doing “the right thing” in Europe. Hundreds of thousands of our boys are buried on your soil—-the cost of a long history of ‘standing as one’ with our European allies.
> Hundreds of thousands of our boys are buried on your soil—-the cost of a long history of ‘standing as one’ with our European allies.
I haven't heard that one in a long time, but thank you for reminding me. You were there? My grandparents and parents were there. And I've seen up close what a Russian annexed country looks like. Believe me you don't want either.
> Europe got on the bandwagon with the global superpower.
Sure, if the EU wants to field a million troops I’d fully support the US sending over a few thousand to staff some backlines bases, which would be the equivalent there.
Again, the EU needs to worry about their own backyard first.
> It is not reasonable to expect the NATO members to risk nuclear annihilation to actively defend Ukraine.
Yes, it is? Didn't we go through this in 1936 already?
You say this as if Putin isn't the one risking nuclear annihilation. To radically simplify the situation, take a cue from Putin's playbook: Drop some bombs and deny involvement. It's not like we aren't already sending weapons and material to Ukraine. We're already involved.
Ukraine has far more in common with Russia culturally than with America. My dad worked extensively in Ukraine doing public health development. He was remarking to me the other day how even though it and Russia purported to be part of Europe, they reminded him much more of the developing nations in Asia that he’s worked in than Western Europe.
> Ukraine has far more in common with Russia culturally than with America.
So do Serbia, Bulgaria and to a much lesser extent Poland, Latvia and a bunch of others. That does not mean that they are not sovereign countries though.
> My dad worked extensively in Ukraine doing public health development. He was remarking to me the other day how even though it and Russia purported to be part of Europe, they reminded him much more of the developing nations in Asia that he’s worked in than Western Europe.
They are culturally and ideologically closer than anything in Asia. Economically, maybe.
Good call. I was expecting a reference to Lenin’s revolutionary defeatism, which was ironically the strategic precedent behind his signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany that defined the modern day borders of Ukraine.
> ”Arguing that the proletariat could not win or gain in a capitalist war, Lenin declared its true enemy is the imperialist leaders who sent their lower classes into battle.”
