Ukraine reacts to fears of Russian invasion as troops build up at the border

[Jub]

When its the US that's in violation of the anti-ABM treaty (or simply withdrew it, however you want to think about the issue; for my money, you don't just withdraw from a treaty without consequence), that distinction is pretty much meaningless from any except the most pedantic point of view.

Being in the ABM treaty was a terrible idea for the US in the first place. Russia only wanted that treaty because at the time their economy was in shambles and they knew they couldn't build an ABM system worth a damn.

It almost certainly isn't the viewpoint the Russians have, and why should it be? None of the NATO powers that have nukes have taken serious nuclear disarmament steps, especially not the elephant in the room wearing red white and blue.

Nobody has and none of the treaties signed seem to even want that as an end goal. It isn't as if the agreed limits negotiated from SALT to New START have ever pushed either nation below MAD levels of capability. When neither side is willing to drop their weapon first it's hard for anybody to want to disarm.

When they're all allies of the US, and the US always gets its way, then joining NATO is a de-facto statement that a country approves of US military doctrines. None of our allies stopped us from invading Iraq and Afghanistan, after all, and several of them even joined in the fun!

None of Russia's allies stopped them from annexing Crimea so...

You missed the point, not surprisingly. Nukes do actually make you special, because they make you a peer to other nuclear powers.

It's not much of a special trick when you can't use them. The US couldn't use a nuke on a country unaligned to either power without kicking off a shit storm that is a detriment to them. There's a reason why nations that could easily arm themselves with nukes have generally chosen not to do it and it has little to do with non-proliferation.

Allying with NATO is implicitly a threat to Russia that the US might just put ABMs in that country in violation of the anti ABM treaty (IIRC they've already done so in Poland).

You can't violate a treaty you've withdrawn from. That would be like saying there should have been fallout over literally everybody violating the Washington and London naval treaties, everybody knew everybody else would cheat. The powers that signed all just wanted to limit things for a period to catch their breath.

Before you say "Russia can kick rocks" you need to understand what is actually at stake. Its not that Russia needs to be actively threatening to use its nukes. Its that the US military is infamous for having had generals in the past who honestly believed that a nuclear war was winnable. It is not known at the moment if there are still such idiots in the Pentagon who have never heard of a pyrrhic victory, but that's the the doomsday situation right now. That we have people there who think like you do.

It's not much of a doomsday scenario unless somebody is a supreme idiot and that could happen in any nuclear-armed nation. It only takes a couple of nuts stationed at a silo to kick off doomsday which is precisely why you really want to have ABM systems that work.

Because the way you deal with a peer power in the age of nukes is not to kick the beehive by threatening military action. Not even implicitly.

If this is the case shouldn't Russia be operating under the same rules? They seem perfectly happy to threaten military action against their neighbors and play a game of brinksmanship with NATO over sanctions that their own reckless actions caused.

Deals you then honor or else.

There aren't many treaties, especially military treaties, that one side or both haven't broken or rules-lawyered before the ink was dry. Nations understand this and understand that treaties are a lot of show and even more finding ways to honor them as little as possible.

A) your country might be in the wrong, actually,

I'm sure defending weaker nations from Russian invasion is a massive wrong...

B) the status quo may be better than a nuclear wasteland, but that hasn't stopped the status quo from being changed through diplomacy in the past, and ironically if it weren't for MAD then NATO may never have gone the diplomatic rout in the first place.

Raise ironfisted dictators, win stupid prizes. The Russians made themselves pariahs by constantly fucking up their political stability to the point where no power could deal with anybody because they were either embroiled in a civil war, were a genocidal dictator, or were part of a system that was tearing itself apart via internal struggle and literal assassinations.

[Straha]

You care because that's how international relations works. Escalation is how grievances are aired and addressed, and is the way in which nations make clear just how concerned they are about international situations.

I'll add that it's interesting you focus on this rather than the rest of the post which contextualizes this. Also, it's interesting that this vision of Russia as a petulant whiner of a country gets circulated so widely considering how this applies to every country. It's especially interesting because Russia's complaint is "Hey, We are uncomfortable when nations that are directly hostile to us get to put their guns and troops on our border." which is, basically, the oldest and most understandable concern in the history of International Relations.

When you go around annexing your neighbors you don't get to complain when they start calling in favors to keep your thugs away. Russia is welcome to give back the annexed portions of Crimea and Kaliningrad and then we can talk de-escalation.

There's a sequencing issue with your reading here.

The US, NATO, et al. promised there would be no encroaching into traditionally Russian spheres of influence, and that there would be no basing of US troops in those areas in the early 90s. In the mid-90s to early '00s that was torn up and thrown away, and then the US engaged in a series of escalatory actions (killing the ABM treaty, forward basing in the baltics, etc.) that were all targeted towards Russia, and were things that the US made clear if it was done to them they would go to war over (see: the Cuban Missile crisis.) The annexations and harsh interventions are A. responsive and B. absolutely in line with the rules of the game as played by the United States and NATO.

If your issue here is with how the rules of the game are played, that's fine, but then you need to propose an alternate set of rules and ways to bring about compliance therein. Putin is playing the game as the rulebook has been given to him.

[Jub]

There's a sequencing issue with your reading here.

The US, NATO, et al. promised there would be no encroaching into traditionally Russian spheres of influence, and that there would be no basing of US troops in those areas in the early 90s. In the mid-90s to early '00s that was torn up and thrown away, and then the US engaged in a series of escalatory actions (killing the ABM treaty, forward basing in the baltics, etc.) that were all targeted towards Russia, and were things that the US made clear if it was done to them they would go to war over (see: the Cuban Missile crisis.) The annexations and harsh interventions are A. responsive and B. absolutely in line with the rules of the game as played by the United States and NATO.

You can't really equate events from the Cold War with events outside of them. The Cuban issue came at a time when the idea of the two sides having a nuclear exchange was one false radar signal away. The actions taken by the US came in a time of peace, and the situation in the Balkans needed somebody to step in and enforce peace. It's hardly as if Russia would have been happy if it was German or French forces there instead of American ones.

If your issue here is with how the rules of the game are played, that's fine, but then you need to propose an alternate set of rules and ways to bring about compliance therein. Putin is playing the game as the rulebook has been given to him.

Putin's a petty tinpot dictator who happens to be in charge of a second-rate power with a fragile economy, America can't take care of its own infrastructure because it can't help giving its money to the military and billionaires, the Uk has decided to blow both feet off by leaving the EU, and Germany has decided it doesn't need electricity. If you toss in climate change being ignored and it's pretty clear that not only is the game of national dick-waving pointless but that the rules of the game are so stupid they need to be thrown out and burned.

[Straha]

There's a sequencing issue with your reading here.

The US, NATO, et al. promised there would be no encroaching into traditionally Russian spheres of influence, and that there would be no basing of US troops in those areas in the early 90s. In the mid-90s to early '00s that was torn up and thrown away, and then the US engaged in a series of escalatory actions (killing the ABM treaty, forward basing in the baltics, etc.) that were all targeted towards Russia, and were things that the US made clear if it was done to them they would go to war over (see: the Cuban Missile crisis.) The annexations and harsh interventions are A. responsive and B. absolutely in line with the rules of the game as played by the United States and NATO.

You can't really equate events from the Cold War with events outside of them. The Cuban issue came at a time when the idea of the two sides having a nuclear exchange was one false radar signal away. The actions taken by the US came in a time of peace, and the situation in the Balkans needed somebody to step in and enforce peace. It's hardly as if Russia would have been happy if it was German or French forces there instead of American ones.

I think your distinction of times of peace versus incipient conflict is a pretty facile one, but even if we spot it as accurate I think it falls apart under its own premises. The question that has to be asked is "Peace on what terms?"

When the Soviet Union negotiated its demise and helped to create the framework of the 90s and the 21st century there was a negotiated peace wherein Russia gave away significant treaty concessions and rights it had both externally in Eastern Europe but also internally, and I've cited those sources on this at some length above.

Russia followed through on what it had agreed to, NATO et al. did not.

I think it's particularly interesting that you cite the Balkans in your response (as opposed to the Baltics, which was what I discussed in the post you replied to) because significant elements of the American NatSec leadership was clear that the mutual cooperation as displayed in responding to the Balkans scenario was what was necessary as a path forward for a sustainable peace between NATO/the EU and Russia. I know I cite him a lot, but William Perry's memoir about the US intervention in the Balkans and his dealing with Russia is absolutely straight forward on this, an internationally cooperative security framework was viewed as a sine qua non of future peace by significant factions of the senior leadership in the West as well as the active leadership of the Yeltsin administration. When NATO expanded that was viewed as a violation of that future, and one being orchestrated by elements which viewed the Cold War as not being truly over until Russia was surrounded and its viability as a potential great power was dead and buried. Russia picked up on that and acted in response to that hostility, and not inaccurately. Any read of Russian action now has to be done in that context.

If your issue here is with how the rules of the game are played, that's fine, but then you need to propose an alternate set of rules and ways to bring about compliance therein. Putin is playing the game as the rulebook has been given to him.

Putin's a petty tinpot dictator who happens to be in charge of a second-rate power with a fragile economy, America can't take care of its own infrastructure because it can't help giving its money to the military and billionaires, the Uk has decided to blow both feet off by leaving the EU, and Germany has decided it doesn't need electricity. If you toss in climate change being ignored and it's pretty clear that not only is the game of national dick-waving pointless but that the rules of the game are so stupid they need to be thrown out and burned.

Sure, that's fine, I don't disagree with you in the abstract. What's the new rulebook then? And how ought national compliance with the transition to the new world be orchestrated and ensured? Simply declaring "burn the rulebook" is not a sufficient response here.

[Formless]

Being in the ABM treaty was a terrible idea for the US in the first place. Russia only wanted that treaty because at the time their economy was in shambles and they knew they couldn't build an ABM system worth a damn.

Wow, so you basically admit you are just in the "fuck Russia" camp unapologetically? Because treaties don't just exist to benefit one party, but to keep the peace between countries. Abrogating the ABM treaty has only resulted in Russia increasing its stockpile of nukes, and possibly leaking rocket technology to North Korea. Gee whiz Mr. Bush, what a great chess move that was.

That's what I'm trying to get at, you can't just abrogate a major treaty like that without consequences. Abrogating that treaty confirmed to Russia that the Cold War was still on, and that it wasn't about them being communist after all. The West (read: the US) just couldn't stand having them exist as a peer power to NATO. And what's more, this is a conflict we can't win economically because Russia is an ally to China, which is the country that manufactures something like 90% of all our stuff. All we can do is threaten them militarily... and that's a bad idea.

None of Russia's allies stopped them from annexing Crimea so...

Yeah, but the difference is no one is pretending Russia isn't responsible for its actions. As opposed to the pretense that you can somehow disentangle NATO's agenda from that of the US.

It's not much of a special trick when you can't use them.

You don't need to use them. Just having them is enough. Just having them changes how other countries have to approach you, because they can't go to war with you. Next time read the whole paragraph and stop chopping it to bits when formulating your response. Its the lowest form of argument this forum has produced.

You can't violate a treaty you've withdrawn from.

And traditionally you can't unilaterally withdraw from a treaty. They are the international version of a contract, and its well established contract law that refusing to honor your side of a contract is illegal. Every time the US does this it undermines its credibility in the international arena because no one can trust us at our word. And what's worse is, the traditional way of enforcing treaties is going to war with the transgressor. Which we have already established is a bad idea for everyone... so as counter-intuitive as it sounds, its no wonder Russia has been building more nukes. Escalation is the next best thing to war, hence why the status quo for half the twentieth century was two countries pointing an increasing number of doomsday bombs at each other that they mercifully never launched.

Are you starting to get it yet? Nothing Russia is doing should be surprising. They are just following the Cold War playbook to the letter because that's what the US has been doing ever since Shrub the Warmonger. You would think we could do better than following the example set by the Bush family.

It's not much of a doomsday scenario unless somebody is a supreme idiot and that could happen in any nuclear-armed nation. It only takes a couple of nuts stationed at a silo to kick off doomsday which is precisely why you really want to have ABM systems that work.

No, ABM systems just encourage sloppy thinking by strategic planners. It gives the illusion of safety from nuclear threats when the reality is that it encourages Russia to develop weapons those ABM systems can't shoot down. Right now last I heard, they've been developing nuclear powered cruise missiles that actually go around the Antarctic, where we don't even have radar installed that could see it coming; as well as nuclear torpedoes that are more like long duration autonomous subs, designed to sneak into ports and then on command they blow up the whole goddamn bay, destroying critical shipping infrastructure or fleets of warships at dock. Or, you know, you can just launch too goddamn many conventional ICBMs for the ABM system to shoot down all of them, because it doesn't take that many nukes of the size Russia developed during the Cold War to deliver a crippling blow to our ecosystem and farmable land, let alone our culture. So even if you dismiss the previous two claims as just Russian military propaganda, you can start to see why they would increase the size of their arsenal. We put an ABM system on their doorstep, and they decided to answer that threat by escalating. THAT is why the US agreed to the ABM treaty in the first place, because back then someone did the math and realized that a foolproof technological solution to nuclear war simply does not exist, and even if it did, scientists like Carl Sagan proved that any sufficiently large nuclear strike would just ruin the planet's climate anyway. What, do you just want them to abrogate the Outer Space Treaty like the US abrogated the ABM treaty? Because the playbook we handed them says they can totally do that, and there isn't a goddamn thing an ABM system can do to stop a de-orbiting bomb! And that is NOT new technology!

Assuming the enemy is dumber than you are is a recepie for disaster. Assuming they are smarter than you are may be equally disasterous. Standoffs are fun that way.

If this is the case shouldn't Russia be operating under the same rules? They seem perfectly happy to threaten military action against their neighbors and play a game of brinksmanship with NATO over sanctions that their own reckless actions caused.

That assumes they are reckless, but as far as I'm concerned that's just your bias talking. No one actually cared enough about Crimea to do anything about it militarily. Likewise Russia has frequently stated that they don't actually want to annex the Ukraine (no one wants to invite a bunch of Nazis to the party after all, least of all the Russian people), which may or may not be bullshit but is at least carefully phrased bullshit. The important thing is that they don't want any more countries on their border joining NATO because it has become clear that NATO is no different now than it was during the cold war. Their threats are best seen as reminders that they cannot be bullied, and they are completely indifferent to accusations of being the bullies. They know the Chinese don't give a fuck about those accusations, since Bush and Trump have thoroughly shredded our credibility in that regard. But it doesn't really matter. The Russians are playing by the same rules. We test the waters to see how far they will go before relenting; now they're pushing back to see how far we will allow it before inevitably Putin and/or Biden invites the other to talk in private. Escalation followed by diplomacy followed by either another round of escalation or de-escalation. We can only hope for the latter, but only if we are willing to compromise with them about something. Being in the "fuck Russia" mode doesn't get us anywhere. You have to learn to live with the fact that sometimes you have to wait on justice rather than hoping the background context of nuclear weapons ceases to be relevant.

[Formless]

Let me expand on something here. A non-nuclear country cannot meaningfully attack a nuclear country because their strategic planners aren't suicidal, and that's why it simply has never happened. Strategic planners are not the kind of people to plan around the political fallout of getting nuked, only the practical reality of it. The closest they come to such thinking is to advise allying with another nuclear country in order to ensure their safety, otherwise they have to assume they are on their own. The closest any non-nuclear power has come to such an act was the Falklands conflict, which was basically a mouse VS a rattlesnake. Argentina's military was not up to the task of taking on the British even in a conventional war, so the British responded with conventional military force. Since that was all they needed, and since the British mainland was never in danger, the British didn't go for overkill. Why bother? The thing to remember is that almost all of the nuclear powers are also former or current imperial powers as well, and so all of them have extremely powerful conventional military forces. But look at how jealously they guard nuclear technology. They were extremely paranoid about North Korea getting their hands on it, so much so that Bush frequently made it sound like that was the next country they were going to invade. I can only assume the Chinese deterred the US from ever actually doing it (again, it pays to ally yourself with a nuclear power). The US has also been very hostile towards Iran on the excuse of non-proliferation, though again we haven't invaded them yet. And just to add one more irony on this, if ABM technology really was foolproof, why don't we share that with all the non-nuclear powers and even the playing field? Probably because it either doesn't work, or the advantage of nuclear weapons is too much to give up, or a combination of the two.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Boris Johnson says intelligence suggests Russia is planning a 'lightning war' on Kyiv

Boris Johnson has said intelligence suggests Russia is planning a lightning raid on Kyiv, as he warned Vladimir Putin that invading Ukraine would be a “painful, violent and bloody business”.

The prime minister said that an invasion of Ukraine would be a “disastrous step”, which could see Russia bogged down in a protracted conflict with casualties on both sides.

His stark assessment came as some British staff and dependants started to withdraw from the embassy in Ukraine, after intense diplomatic negotiations failed to ease tensions.

Officials said that around half of the staff working in Kyiv will return to the UK.

In an interview on Monday, Mr Johnson said he did not believe war was inevitable, but said defensive weaponry is being supplied to Ukraine to bolster defences against the tens of thousands of Russian troops massed around the border.

US orders families of American personnel at Ukraine embassy to leave as war fears mount

The State Department has ordered the families of all American personnel at the US Embassy in Ukraine to leave the country amid heightened fears of a Russian invasion.

The department told the dependents of staffers at the US Embassy in Kyiv that they must leave the country.

It also said that non-essential embassy staff could leave Ukraine at government expense.

The move came amid rising tensions about Russia’s military build-up on the Ukraine border that were not eased during talks on Friday between Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Geneva.

State Department officials stressed the Kyiv embassy will remain open and that the announcement does not constitute an evacuation.

The move had been under consideration for some time and does not reflect an easing of US support for Ukraine, the officials said.

[Ralin]

So obviously the Russian government has elected to telegraph their intentions and wait an extended period of time before doing this, thereby allowing NATO/the US to bolster Ukraine with an unknown but likely significant amount of military aid and support and also begin the process of drumming up domestic support back home?

I realize invading another country is a big deal and that it takes time to have all your ducks in a row logistically, but how exactly does that make sense?

[Formless]

Well Germany has already objected to the British flying that military aid over their airspace, for their own reasons. Which suggests a reason, but not the one most people expect: political maneuvering, or even outright bluffing. If the NATO countries continue infighting, its good for Russian interests, and over time might even end with countries breaking off from NATO. If the British end up supplying military hardware a country run by literal Nazis to prevent an invasion that never happens, it could look so bad Germany might just quit, and that's as good for Russia as taking more territory. Maybe. Just a thought.

[Col. Crackpot]

Literal Nazis you say? Poe’s law. Take a lap Formless.

[Crazedwraith]

Literal Nazis you say? Poe’s law. Take a lap Formless.

Do you mean Godwin's law? That's the one about nazis. Poe's law is when you can't make satire extreme enough that it isn't plausible.

-

As to Russia maybe they don't actually want to invade but do want the concessions from sabre rattling and brinkmanship but to be plausible well you do have to have enough forces in the area to actually invade.

[Coop D'etat]

So obviously the Russian government has elected to telegraph their intentions and wait an extended period of time before doing this, thereby allowing NATO/the US to bolster Ukraine with an unknown but likely significant amount of military aid and support and also begin the process of drumming up domestic support back home?

I realize invading another country is a big deal and that it takes time to have all your ducks in a row logistically, but how exactly does that make sense?

To make a serious military incursion requires a serious build up which cannot be hidden from Western intelligence. Moscow was able to seize the Crimea with what was on hand at the moment while Kiev was in chaos but to make a move against a Ukraine that's been fighting a low grade war for eight years and has reason to suspect Russian military action requires a lot more prep. There's no other way of doing it to try a Pearl Harbor.

Moscow still retains the ability to disguise when and if they'd act, how big an action it is and what the goals are, so strategic surprise hasn't been lost to them either.

[Col. Crackpot]

I blame the Sudafed. Lol

And if not for Crimea I would be inclined to completely agree. But here we are. Look, we just ended 20 years of ‘adventure’ and I don’t want yet another war to defend Kiev of all places.That said, Putin is an assclown and I hope this blows up in his face in a totally non thermonuclear way.

[Highlord Laan]

Anyone that hopes or expects uhmurrikuh to actually intervene or respect any of it's treaties is an idiot at this point. Putin will invade, NATO will try to intervene, and the nation of worthless fatass retards on this side of the Atlantic will choke, vacillate, wave a few flags, then go back to bitching out da libs and Covid being Democrat plot.

Russia will have free reign. Welcome to 2022.

[Marko Dash]

Well Germany has already objected to the British flying that military aid over their airspace, for their own reasons. Which suggests a reason, but not the one most people expect: political maneuvering, or even outright bluffing. If the NATO countries continue infighting, its good for Russian interests, and over time might even end with countries breaking off from NATO. If the British end up supplying military hardware a country run by literal Nazis to prevent an invasion that never happens, it could look so bad Germany might just quit, and that's as good for Russia as taking more territory. Maybe. Just a thought.

this sounds like repercussions of Germany being reliant on the Russian gas pipeline during winter, exactly the reason Russia built that pipeline in the first place.

[Col. Crackpot]

this sounds like repercussions of Germany being reliant on the Russian gas pipeline during winter, exactly the reason Russia built that pipeline in the first place.

Welcome to the Moral Bankruptcy in exchange for fossil fuels club Germany!
Sincerely,
America

PS Nice helmets you sent the Ukrainians. I’m sure they are super helpful and not at all insulting. Good Job, Good effort!

[Ralin]

Welcome to the Moral Bankruptcy in exchange for fossil fuels club Germany!
Sincerely,
America

PS Nice helmets you sent the Ukrainians. I’m sure they are super helpful and not at all insulting. Good Job, Good effort!

Do you have anything other than swarminess to contribute here?

[Col. Crackpot]

Pointing out hypocrisy is swarminess? Also, The mockery of stupid people is what this website was founded on, and offering Ukraine 5000 helmets to fight off a Sovi.. err Russian invasion is the pinnacle of stupidity.

Maybe to help out our German friends without russian gas heat this winder we Americans should donate a few dozen scarves and a couple old pairs of boots.

[Gandalf]

For pointing out hypocrisy, it's hard for me to go past Biden's being against this conflict, but being so pro-invading Iraq back in 2002-03 under the "we'll do what we want" school of foreign policy.

[Crazedwraith]

The hypocrisy of having two different positions on two different situations nearly 20 years apart.

If it's even hypocritical except on a binary is war good or bad level. It's consistent under an unadmirable policy of 'we get to fuck up any one smaller than us but won't risk MAD with another nuclear power'

[Gandalf]

The hypocrisy of having two different positions on two different situations nearly 20 years apart.

If it's even hypocritical except on a binary is war good or bad level. It's consistent under an unadmirable policy of 'we get to fuck up any one smaller than us but won't risk MAD with another nuclear power'

There's more to it than that. Biden is mentioning the possibility various sanctions in response to an invasion, some against Russian officials, some against the country itself.

But until Biden tries to put similar sanctions on those who did similar in Iraq (those still alive anyway), then it's hypocrisy. Iraq is not a concluded issue.

[Ralin]

Yeah, the horrible hypocrisy of opposing a war and supporting sanctions as an alternative if you don't personally support sanctions for every other war of aggression that happened during your career.

We can tell you're trolling, Gandalf. You're not fooling anyone.

[Gandalf]

Iraq 2 wasn't something that "happened during his career." He drummed up support for it when he was on the Foreign Relations Committee, and then voted for it.

[Ralin]

And as such it is hypocritical for him to 1) not support war with Russia 2) threaten to retaliate with sanctions to discourage Russia from invading Ukraine.

You are dumb.

[Broomstick]

So, Gandalf, do you WANT the US and Russia in an open war with each other? Would that somehow be better? How? I mean, maybe you know something I don't that would be a positive but I can't see it.

I don't look at the stupid, shitty, useless wars started under trumped-up pretexts and their stupid, shitty, bloody, painful, and terrible results and think "gee, let's shit on the head of people who suggest trying to avoid another war" even if they are hypocrites. Consistency is not always a virtue. I'd be thrilled if a viable (as opposed to bullshit) peace broke out.

This time around it looks to me like it's Putin & Friends trumping up bullshit reasons to start a military adventure rather than the US administration, but it's still another heap of bullshit on course to result in heaps of rubble and dead bodies.

If the Russians do invade the only thing I can say for certain is that the Ukrainians will lose. A lot of them will die and a lot of their infrastructure will be destroyed.