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

[Tribble]

America is not the world’s police. They can’t nor shouldn’t have to get involved with everything. And to be blunt, Ukraine is not of such vital importance that it must be brought into NATOs fold at all costs.

IMO Biden should be pushing to guarantee Ukraine as a neutral buffer state rather than his power play to get NATO military assists closer to Moscow.

By all means they can go ahead sanction Russia if they invade, but it isn’t worth fighting an actual war over.

[Gandalf]

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.

How you got here from my post is odd, but not wholly unexpected.

Allow me to lay it out more sequentially. At about three decades in national politics, Biden used his position in the legislature to advocate for a big country to invade a smaller one, backing a leader who told the rest of the world to join in or fuck off. Since then he's become a variously powerful politician, but done nothing whatsoever to hold those responsible for said invasion possible. When another large country is invading another smaller one and he's in the big chair, the response is very different. It's a really quick growth it seems. Goodo?

I don't deny that Biden might pull out a decent outcome somehow, but at this end it's like he's the president from the film Canadian Bacon, looking for a chance to score foreign policy points and help the polls, not so much wanting peace as he wants a comfortable order. Ultimately Biden has to deal with the idea that if Russia invades Ukraine, it might be a "minor incursion," so the old Cold War era tripwire thought might prove useless, because the US is not going to actual war over a part of Ukraine most American's can't find on a map. Add in every other problem the US has right now as a failed state, and Putin effectively has him snookered.

I reserve the right to shit on Biden at all times.

[Tribble]

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.

How you got here from my post is odd, but not wholly unexpected.

Allow me to lay it out more sequentially. At about three decades in national politics, Biden used his position in the legislature to advocate for a big country to invade a smaller one, backing a leader who told the rest of the world to join in or fuck off. Since then he's become a variously powerful politician, but done nothing whatsoever to hold those responsible for said invasion possible. When another large country is invading another smaller one and he's in the big chair, the response is very different. It's a really quick growth it seems. Goodo?

I don't deny that Biden might pull out a decent outcome somehow, but at this end it's like he's the president from the film Canadian Bacon, looking for a chance to score foreign policy points and help the polls, not so much wanting peace as he wants a comfortable order. Ultimately Biden has to deal with the idea that if Russia invades Ukraine, it might be a "minor incursion," so the old Cold War era tripwire thought might prove useless, because the US is not going to actual war over a part of Ukraine most American's can't find on a map. Add in every other problem the US has right now as a failed state, and Putin effectively has him snookered.

I reserve the right to shit on Biden at all times.

Well ya, that’s American politics 101.

America invading a country is ALWAYS justified because they are doing God’s Work and Liberating the People from their country’s wealth and resources Evilz!

Anytime anyone opposes something that American wants, then they are Evilz! Even when America tries to setup another military ally to dump weapons and/or WMDs on their front door!

Biden should simply insist that Ukraine remain a neutral buffer state. But he won’t (at least publicly atm) because that’s not the American Way.

[Crazedwraith]

Isn't up to Ukraine if they want to be a neutral buffer state or not? Or is self-determination not a thing? They have every right to ally with the US and apply to join NATO if they want and Russia, the country that NATO is ostensibly there to defend against is the last country that should be allowed to veto a member.

[Zaune]

Also, it bears mentioning that this criosis started brewing up when the Ukranian government was expressing an interest in joining the European Union, which does include some mutual defence obligations but doesn't directly involve the US (although if an EU member that's not part of NATO invokes those obligations and hostilities don't stay limited to that one country then that's going to get complicated) and doesn't present any obstacle to them continuing to lease the Russians a naval base.

Not being keen on the idea of the Americans garrisoning troops in every state they share a border with is one thing, but if Putin and his crew are pitching a fit because the Ukraine is the only one of their neighbours they can still bully then they can piss up a rope.

[Tribble]

Like any country (including Russia and China!) Ukraine is more than welcome to apply all it wants.

NATO (aka USA) should be saying no. We can’t police the whole world. We can’t realistically defend Ukraine apart from threatening nuclear retaliation. Any strategic benefit to adding Ukraine and moving in NATO military asserts and/or WMDs is being more than offset by the rise in tensions it is causing.

The USA/NATO have ZERO moral ground to stand on here either, given all their own atrocities over the past few decades.

And let’s be clear, this isn’t about helping Ukrainians. The USA/NATO doesn’t give a sh!t about the Ukrainian people, apart from using their land as another base of operations and being another meat shield.

[Crazedwraith]

NATO doesn’t give a sh!t about the Ukrainian people, apart from using their land as another base of operations and being another meat shield.

Whereas you don't seem to give a shit about them so long as they are a neutral buffer zone and meat shield for you.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Also, it bears mentioning that this criosis started brewing up when the Ukranian government was expressing an interest in joining the European Union, which does include some mutual defence obligations but doesn't directly involve the US (although if an EU member that's not part of NATO invokes those obligations and hostilities don't stay limited to that one country then that's going to get complicated) and doesn't present any obstacle to them continuing to lease the Russians a naval base.

Not being keen on the idea of the Americans garrisoning troops in every state they share a border with is one thing, but if Putin and his crew are pitching a fit because the Ukraine is the only one of their neighbours they can still bully then they can piss up a rope.

Well Russia is sending troops to Belarus so they can invade Ukraine from three sides when they want to. Russia already shares a border with three NATO members- Norway, Latvia and Estonia. Taking over Ukraine would add Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania to that list.

[Tribble]

NATO doesn’t give a sh!t about the Ukrainian people, apart from using their land as another base of operations and being another meat shield.

Whereas you don't seem to give a shit about them so long as they are a neutral buffer zone and meat shield for you.

Actually, IMO negotiations guaranteeing Ukrainian neutrality is less likely to result in an invasion than having another NATO country smacking up against Russia’s doorstep.

We can’t realistically defend Ukraine barring nuclear retaliation. It’s obvious that we won’t end up defending Ukraine via conventional means if the Russians invade. Trying to make Ukraine a part of NATO anyways is likely going to cause an invasion before the ink dries, and if that happens a lot of Ukrainians will die. Far more, I think, than pursing a guarantee of neutrality which IMO has a much better chance of success at de-escalation than them joining NATO.

Are you prepared to go nuclear over Ukraine? ‘Cause that’s the only way they will realistically be defended if the Russians are serious about invading; we don’t have enough conventional military assets in the area to stop them.

If the answer is no, and the most likely cause of an invasion is Ukraine about to join NATO… then mayyyyybe some other solution that doesn’t result in an invasion and a high body count is preferable.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Don't forget that in addition to barring Ukraine, Russia is also demanding that NATO remove any troops or weapons deployed to countries that entered the alliance after 1997, which would include much of eastern Europe including Poland, the former Soviet countries of Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and the Balkan countries. NATO is never going to do that.

[Crazedwraith]

Don't forget that in addition to barring Ukraine, Russia is also demanding that NATO remove any troops or weapons deployed to countries that entered the alliance after 1997, which would include much of eastern Europe including Poland, the former Soviet countries of Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and the Balkan countries. NATO is never going to do that.

Well obviously we'll be much safer if they are not in NATO and are a neutral buffer between NATO and Russia.

Go to give them breathing room after all.

[Tribble]

Don't forget that in addition to barring Ukraine, Russia is also demanding that NATO remove any troops or weapons deployed to countries that entered the alliance after 1997, which would include much of eastern Europe including Poland, the former Soviet countries of Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and the Balkan countries. NATO is never going to do that.

Well obviously we'll be much safer if they are not in NATO and are a neutral buffer between NATO and Russia.

Go to give them breathing room after all.

Haven’t answered my question.

Would you call Russia on this, let Ukraine join and see what happens?

If they are bluffing, then congrats goes out to the American Industrial military complex to adding another member to deploy its weapons in.

If Russia DOES in fact invade Ukraine when it looks like they are about to join NATO, what would YOU do?

Declare war on Russia? Do you seriously believe think we can win a conventional war with Russia over Ukraine? Would you deploy conventional troops to fight? If not, are you prepared to go nuclear if it looks like Ukraine is about to be overwhelmed? Are you prepared for Russia retaliating in kind? And how many Ukrainians (let alone everyone else) do you think would die in the process? Would you be prepared to die over this?

If you are not prepared to go all the way in defending a military alliance member (up into and including nuclear war since NATO realistically cannot stop a Russian invasion via conventional means), then you shouldn’t be advocating for having that country join your alliance in the first place.

[Broomstick]

Allow me to lay it out more sequentially.

Thank you. I appreciate the time you took to write that out. I do want to understand your position, whether I agree with you or not.

I reserve the right to shit on Biden at all times.

Be my guest. I am totally OK with you having all manner of disagreements with the assholes running my country.

[Crazedwraith]

Don't forget that in addition to barring Ukraine, Russia is also demanding that NATO remove any troops or weapons deployed to countries that entered the alliance after 1997, which would include much of eastern Europe including Poland, the former Soviet countries of Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and the Balkan countries. NATO is never going to do that.

Well obviously we'll be much safer if they are not in NATO and are a neutral buffer between NATO and Russia.

Go to give them breathing room after all.

Haven’t answered my question.

Would you call Russia on this, let Ukraine join and see what happens?

If they are bluffing, then congrats goes out to the American Industrial military complex to adding another member to deploy its weapons in.

If Russia DOES in fact invade Ukraine when it looks like they are about to join NATO, what would YOU do?

Declare war on Russia? Do you seriously believe think we can win a conventional war with Russia over Ukraine? Would you deploy conventional troops to fight? If not, are you prepared to go nuclear if it looks like Ukraine is about to be overwhelmed? Are you prepared for Russia retaliating in kind? And how many Ukrainians (let alone everyone else) do you think would die in the process? Would you be prepared to die over this?

If you are not prepared to go all the way in defending a military alliance member (up into and including nuclear war since NATO realistically cannot stop a Russian invasion via conventional means), then you shouldn’t be advocating for having that country join your alliance in the first place.

What if you just let Russia call all the shots, don't go near Ukraine and they invade anyway? Like, you know, they've already done? So then your buffer's gone and Russia knows you're going to pull out whenever they rattle their saber. And like ES said, they also want NATO to pull out of Poland, the former Soviet countries of Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and the Balkan countries, do you do all that rather than confront Russia, what are your limits?

You say am I willing to die over defending Ukraine? It's Mutually Assured Destruction remember, do you think Russia is prepared to die to invade Ukraine?

Or is Putin saber rattling for internal consumption and has no real desire to invade Ukraine, that's entirely possible as well. See what he can get out of the West, look good, flag up his ratings at home, he's got it set up so he can take advantage whatever happens in all likelyhood.

It would be easy me to say 'oh yes absolutely' for the sake of my argument but of course that be utterly meaningless. Nuclear Armageddon isn't something anyone wants. Negotiation and Diplomacy is obviously the first resort. And maybe you're right maybe that will end up that Ukraine will get hang out to dry and be neutral but that can't be something they go into willing to concede.

Russia going in this making a lot of demands for the sake of its 'security concerns' but what concessions are they going to make? That's how diplomacy and negotiation works. You all ended up something that's not perfect but you can spin as win at home. And has far as I can tell all Russia has is 'we promise not to invade' and 'we'll all say we're friends'.

Because to go back to what I was so politically, you can't have NATO accept that Russia can dictate who can join NATO where it can operate and what exercise it can do because then well it will just be admitting Russia can do whatever it likes and NATO isn't fit for purpose.

[Ralin]

Russia going in this making a lot of demands for the sake of its 'security concerns' but what concessions are they going to make? That's how diplomacy and negotiation works. You all ended up something that's not perfect but you can spin as win at home. And has far as I can tell all Russia has is 'we promise not to invade' and 'we'll all say we're friends'.

Except that as noted before this is happening after a substantial history of Russia making concessions and not getting what they were promised in exchange. Not hard to see why Putin et al would come to the conclusion that force is the only thing NATO/the US will respect here.

Because to go back to what I was so politically, you can't have NATO accept that Russia can dictate who can join NATO where it can operate and what exercise it can do because then well it will just be admitting Russia can do whatever it likes and NATO isn't fit for purpose.

Were I Russian I suspect I would feel much the same way about my government if it accepted that NATO/the US can dictate that sort of thing to Russia.

[Formless]

Isn't up to Ukraine if they want to be a neutral buffer state or not? Or is self-determination not a thing? They have every right to ally with the US and apply to join NATO if they want and Russia, the country that NATO is ostensibly there to defend against is the last country that should be allowed to veto a member.

Uh huh, tell that to the president of the Ukraine, who actually doesn't think a Russian invasion is going to happen, and moreover thinks all NATO is doing is causing panic; panic that's hurting his economy. This isn't really about the Ukraine. They're just a pawn in Washington's eyes. The idea that this has anything to do with self determination of the Ukraine or any other country is nothing more than propaganda by NATO, who promised no former Soviet Union countries would enter the alliance. That was NATO's self determination. And we also chose to break that promise, and now if there is an invasion-- and maybe the president of the Ukraine knows something we don't!-- than it is nothing more than the raptors coming home to roost for NATO.

[Crazedwraith]

Just on the point that Russia was promised NATO wouldn't expand do we have any good sources on that please? I did a quick google. And 1 2 3 Those sources are obviously going to bias (one being nato's own website). It appears it was verbally stated a few times but never actually put it formally down in a treaty.

Uh huh, tell that to the president of the Ukraine, who actually doesn't think a Russian invasion is going to happen

Cool? I never said anything like Russia is definitely going to invade and that statement doesn't contradict anything I said in that quote.

[Crazedwraith]

double post.

[Broomstick]

IMO Biden should be pushing to guarantee Ukraine as a neutral buffer state rather than his power play to get NATO military assists closer to Moscow.

Maybe I'm weird or something, but my first thought on reading something like that tends to be "shouldn't we ask the Ukrainians what they want?" Ukraine shouldn't be a vassal to either Russia or the US.

[Formless]

The Ukrainian government has already spoken. They want the US to shut the fuck up about a potential invasion because even the talk of it is causing damage to their economy. Besides, it doesn't take a quantum physicist to predict that a war between the US and Russia fought on Ukraine's soil is not something they will want-- and that's making the generous assumption no one nukes anyone here. The Ukraine has already lost enough lives to its own civil war, they probably don't want anyone else to get involved on either side. More than they already are, anyway.

[Broomstick]

Yes, the Ukrainian government has told Biden to STFU. As is their right and good on them.

But for all that the Ukraine government says an invasion is not likely, stay calm everyone, they're still caught between a rock and a hard place. Russia very much could invade - was this all political posturing? Did Putin think the US would back away and let him do what he wants, much as what happened in 2014 with Crimea? Did Putin think this would be an easy win of whatever he was aiming for?

The business of Putin/Russia wanting a guarantee that Ukraine would never be able to join NATO is basically him saying that Ukraine can never be anything but someone's vassal, that it's not a sovereign nation in its own right, and has to choose one master or another. I find that a very disturbing point of view. If Putin forces this on Ukraine who will he attempt to beat into that mold next?

As for the Evil Western Hegemony - yes, the west, and the US, has its own laundry list of atrocities. But in this particular instance the US is NOT the country threatening to invade another. Indeed, it might have been the US withdrawal from Afghanistan that lead Putin to think that the US no longer cared about the rest of the world/allies and he could get away with annexing more of Ukraine. Or maybe he was thinking something else - I am not a mind reader.

Putin/Russia has also demanded that NATO be rolled back to 1997 - that's a party outside a treaty demanding that parties to the treaty be removed. Conceding to that is essentially conceding that Russia is in charge - which I'm sure would absolutely delight Putin but I can't imagine the NATO members would like that at all. It is, again, denying the sovereignty of NATO members and demanding that these nations declare their status as vassal to someone. It's plain Putin is in an expansionist mood. Yes, other nations have also done such a thing, but they're not the ones doing this right now, it's Russia.

[Broomstick]

Isn't up to Ukraine if they want to be a neutral buffer state or not? Or is self-determination not a thing? They have every right to ally with the US and apply to join NATO if they want and Russia, the country that NATO is ostensibly there to defend against is the last country that should be allowed to veto a member.

Uh huh, tell that to the president of the Ukraine, who actually doesn't think a Russian invasion is going to happen, and moreover thinks all NATO is doing is causing panic; panic that's hurting his economy.

My gut feeling is that Ukraine would prefer EVERYONE to just STFU and go away and leave them alone.

NATO is causing a panic? You think 100,000 Russian troops and hardware on the eastern border would cause absolutely no concern if people would just not mention them being there? The average Ukrainian is as smart as any other average person, I'm assuming most of them have a plan to get out of Dodge if the shit hits the fan, and some of them are likely finding a reason to visit relatives in distant parts right now.

While NATO (and the US, and more specifically loose-lips Biden) can certainly make this mess worse it is Russia that is precipitating a crisis here.

This isn't really about the Ukraine. They're just a pawn in Washington's eyes.

Oh, and what do you think they are in Moscow's eyes?

The idea that this has anything to do with self determination of the Ukraine or any other country is nothing more than propaganda by NATO, who promised no former Soviet Union countries would enter the alliance. That was NATO's self determination.

There was certainly discussion of that but - and this is an important point - it was never put into writing. It was never a formalized promise. It had even less standing than a written treaty which, as we all know from history, typically do not stand forever.

So... Here's the Russia viewpoint (as I understand it): You promised us you'd never do X!

Here's the NATO version: We talked about it, but we never made it a formal agreement, so it's not binding.

And make no mistake - that is a NATO decision because, as you have already pointed out, the US government really doesn't give a shit about for former USSR members, and whether or not they join NATO. US interests would be served just as well by Ukraine and other former SSR's being neutral "buffer states". Belarus is openly allied with Russia and no one in the US gives a fuck. Hell, most Americans probably don't have a clue what this place called Belarus is, or where it is. There are 30 nations in NATO, and there are a bunch of European nations that aren't in NATO - Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta, and Sweden - and they're not all on the fringes of the block. The US has a big influence on NATO but it's not a dictator, it's not pushing for additional nations to join, and at the moment there's no expansionist push. I get that Russia and its allies aren't happy about the US-influenced NATO being on its borders, it makes perfect sense they're not happy about it. But one reason former SSR's are knocking on NATO's door and asking about joining is that Russia is looking like it wants to grab some territory or re-assert authority over them. More than one former SSR was not happy about living under the USSR yoke and are suspicious of the government of Russia. Makes sense to me that they'd be looking at their options, either neutrality or joining NATO. As they should be free to do.

[Elfdart]

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?

I suspect they're doing the equivalent of a football team that lines up like they're going to run a play, but the whole purpose is to wait for the other team to jump offsides. The Russians could be lining up their forces, hoping some Azov Battalion yahoo shoots first and PRESTO! -only they get to slap Ukraine around, not 5 yards.

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.

I just can't imagine why the Germans want no part of so much as a possible bitch-fight with Russia.

[MKSheppard]

I'd like to point out the main issue here is the same thing that was for Kuwait in 1990.

Post-WW2, everyone agreed following Nuremberg, that wars of conquest were pretty much over; along with irredentist movements (after much redrawing of the borders of Europe and moving millions of people)

Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 over oil slant drilling and annexing Kuwait as the 19th Province of Iraq has many parallels with the entire Crimean mess; while the whole thing with the "Donetsk People's Republic"; "Luhansk People's Republic", "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" etc reminds Europe of the whole irredentist mess just before and during WW2.

Unlike the Russo-Georgian War which was provoked by the Georgians launching the Battle of Tskhinvali (who knew that shelling a town and then assaulting it wouldn't cause a war, *I'm a smarmy asshole*); the Russians pretty much out of nowhere flooded Crimea with Little Green Men and annexed it on the pretext of "lol unrest in Ukraine".

Yes, I know that in 1954, Khrushchev had Crimea transferred from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR by decree; and that there had been irredentist movements in Crimea dating to the breakup of the USSR...the way the Russians went about the whole business totally pissed off the Ukrainians; to the point that the Ukrainians formally severed Russian/Soviet era lineages and heritages for the Ukrainian military in around 2015-16.

That's a pretty big deal; and I think the Ukrainians are mad enough to basically do some cleaning up of the current borders in the Donbass and then formally abandon the Donbass and Crimea, in order to close out the "must not have active border conflicts or disputed territory" lede required forNATO membership.

BONUS: Don't forget Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17), shot down by the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade with a firing unit that just mysteriously disappeared back into Russia following the shootdown, which quite annoyed the Netherlands.

[MKSheppard]

Are you prepared to go nuclear over Ukraine? ‘Cause that’s the only way they will realistically be defended if the Russians are serious about invading; we don’t have enough conventional military assets in the area to stop them.

Fly in all the VOLCANO minefield deployment equipment we have in storage and give them to Ukraine; along with thousands of tons of antipersonnel mines we have in storage. You can't advance into Ukraine if you keep running into minefields -- and the Ukrainians foolishly signed the Ottawa Treaty in 2005 that mandated destruction of antipersonnel mines -- and you kind of need AP mines to keep anti-tank minefields from being easily cleared.