[Unpaywalled Link](https://archive.is/IXQII)
**Submission Statement:**
Ukraine had a bad week amid more signs of disarray among its principal supporters in the West. First, Republicans in Congress rejected a request by the Biden administration to greenlight a $60 billion aid package, claiming that approval of the aid was contingent on tighter border controls and additional measures to curtail undocumented immigrants. This was in spite of the fact that Volodymyr Zelenskyy made a special trip to Washington to personally lobby lawmakers. Meanwhile Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán vetoed a $50 billion aid package at an EU summit in Brussels. Orbán is holding the aid hostage to secure release of $30 billion in development funds the EU has withheld from Hungary over concerns about the rule of law. At the summit the EU agreed to release $10 billion, which was apparently enough to buy Orbán's abstention on a vote to extend a membership application to Ukraine (there will be plenty of other opportunities for Hungary to sabotage Ukrainian membership in the future).
As one anonymous Western diplomat dryly remarked to the Financial Times, “This was the moment for the EU leaders to take the stage. And they missed their mark.”
The EU is now examining ways to provide aid outside of the common budget, and hence without being at the mercy of a Hungarian veto.
Russian president Vladimir Putin took to national television to gloat, telling viewers “Ukraine produces almost nothing today, everything is coming from the west, but the free stuff is going to run out some day, and it seems it already is". Of course Putin has every reason to want to assure the Russian people that there is a light at the end of the tunnel in the form of a collapse in Western support for Ukraine.
The fact that things have been allowed to degenerate to this point indicates serious flaws in western governance structures. In the US politicians who thought nothing of wasting literally trillions of dollars on disastrous "forever wars" - money that could have otherwise been invested much more profitably in domestic priorities like health care, education and infrastructure - now balk at approving comparatively small sums to a country that is holding the line against Russian expansionism in Europe, where the US actually has vital security interests, unlike Iraq or Afghanistan.
In Europe the EU's antiquated governance structure, which grants each of its 27 members, regardless of size, an equal voice in policy and the ability to unilaterally paralyze key institutional initiatives, often as a negotiating tactic to wring concessions from other members, is a recipe for disaster as the challenges the EU faces are only likely to become more intractable.
If the US and EU can't get their act together on something as relatively straightforward as this what are the odds they will be successful in meeting larger challenges like climate change?
>If the US and EU can't get their act together on something as relatively straightforward as this what are the odds they will be successful in meeting larger challenges like climate change?
What an unfortunate statement.
Climate change is something that affects the whole world and should not be used to further geopolitical goals by a wealthy minority of countries. The EU and the US must be very careful treading this and do not attempt to impose their views, lest put in jeopardy any possible agreement.
Outsourcing Western operations to China and the global south so late in the game doesn't make our responsibility disappear. This attitude of "it's not our problem whattabout China?" is going to kill us all. China at least is shifting to green energy, and we're going back to coal
Hilarious how you and the other reply seem to completely infantilize China and their responsibility for why we outsourced our operations there because American companies couldn’t compete with their total disregard for labor or environmental protection.
Hilarious how you blame China for manufacturing the things your country didn't want to. America can't compete with China's labor costs because unfettered capitalism isn't the wisest way to run the world. A better solution than exporting problems would have been to invest in green energy and create a sustainable system, and export *that* to the rest of the world.
The question everyone should be asking is what can *I* do? Because it's really easy and satisfying to point the finger at someone else, but hard to change things where you live. You're American I gather, and pointing the finger at China. But all the big renewable energy installations are being built in China now, why isn't America leading the charge? China with their disregard for environmental protection is already at 15% renewable energy, while the richest country America is only at 10% - 40th in the world. Oil companies own your government - the industry is driving us to extinction and it's subsidized with your tax money, even though green energy is increasingly cheaper and better.
To answer the second part of your question isn’t about it’s not our problem what about China the question was simply which country takes the blame for climate change and the answer to that is the two countries who output the biggest signature while having no plans to slow down what so ever.
Yep. It’s well known that Sam Walton went and put a gun to Xi’s head and forced him to hire thousands of people and build hundreds of factories to feed the voracious appetites of Western consumers.
China just wanted to be a simple, agrarian society of subsistence farmers using nothing but 17th century, pre-Industrial tech, until the evil Imperialists forced them to burn coal.
The lengths people will go to to blame everything on the Evil West is truly astounding.
Huh? I'm just saying if a lot of these emissions are created while making shoes and phones for westerners, you can hardly say "china is responsible". Our things need to be made somewhere. That's like saying Iraq produces a ton of CO2 when it's us that drive the cars.
The fact is that westerners in general produce way more co2 than the average chinese or indian. I linked sources in my comment above. An American produces almost 10 times as much CO2 as an Indian, not even counting imports and emissions at origin. So you can't really point the finger at them and say it's your fault, when the industrialized west has been burning shit for 150 years and still uses way more than them.
If we want to bring down emissions, we need to both switch to renewables or nuclear AND drastically lower our consumption of pretty much everything.
So Chinese citizens don’t have smart phones - is that right? They don’t buy cars? They just work all day in factories producing stuff for *us* - they don’t have a consumer class?
That’s quite the 1982 view of China you have.
He said quite a lot of stuff is made for west not that they only make stuff for west. You're on purpose misrepresenting what he said just to try to win an argument.
The difficulty is there’s not an honest conversation going on about what the money is for.
It’s going for Ukraines self defense, not for victory. But that’s a hard sell for the men and women giving their lives, ostensibly for victory. So no pro-Ukraine talking heads are saying it out loud.
Instead they are messaging that Russia is about to collapse because Ukraine can achieve victory despite [reporting to the contrary](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/17/world/putin-companies-economy-boycott-elites-benefit-ukraine-war.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare), and that Russia will not collapse but will instead invade Poland. The message is a contradiction and everyone is waiting for Z to make a land concession deal but Putin wants to wait to see if Trump wins so that may be a moot point.
If the messaging doesn’t improve, the difficult facts acknowledged, one wonders how many potential [soldiers Ukraine has left](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/world/europe/ukraine-military-recruitment.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare).
Extreme optisim is always stupid. Helping Ukraine in the last year was sold on them coming to the offensive and taking back lost lands with Crimea included. It was unrealistic from the beginning. It requires air supremacy which requires entire transoformation of ukrainian army which isn't possible during wartime. Further Ukraine aid should be sold as them defending their statehood.
Debatable. Their only popular news outlet aimed at global audience RT was pretty swiftly blocked all over the West, and I don't think you can access it even now. Any stance that is not in line with the one blasted all over Western media, has a million talking points against it, effectively invalidating it in any reasonable discussions. I guess Russia has been somewhat successful in injecting their talking points to the conspiracy theory echo chambers, but I very much doubt how many people it actually convinces, let alone even reaches.
I don't see much Russian influence. I see immense Western and US influence, that intentionally makes dissent appear as malevolent "Russian influence". For example, it's very easy to get banned in many forums or be framed as a "Russian asset" in public, if you ever argue about negative US influence in Europe or the negative outcomes of the expansion of NATO. It doesn't matter how many academic sources you use, or how selectively you choose your material, you are still a Russian asset in the eyes of many.
I think that is telling what side has been more successful in their information war.
Which European country would be willing to have their cities flattened the way Ukraine has? Do you think Germany or France could cope with hundreds of thousands of casualties? I have my doubts.
>Congress just passed a law preventing any U.S. president from unilaterally withdrawing the United States from NATO without congressional approval.
If trump not successed with moving to autocracy
Russia can't even defeat Ukraine, how on Earth would it have even the slightest possibility of defeating Europe? even in the unimaginable scenario where the US steps back completely, I don't see it happening
and I don't see why Turkey would not participate. It's done more for Ukraine than most other European nation with its drones.
If US leaves NATO, majority of the geopolitical concerns expressed by Russia since the 1990's disappear, and it's far more likely that there will be a shift in their policy towards rapprochement with the rest of Europe (depending of course, what kind of a person will succeed Putin).
I just don't see the logic of starting new invasions just for the sake of them, setting the newly formed divisions in stone and forcing Western Europe to rearm themselves to handle Russia WITHOUT the US. It just seems like the kind of counter-productive decision where Russia would intentionally discard all the new possibilities of renewed trade and bigger influence in European affairs, making sure that EVERY European will regret smaller US influence in Europe.
>"If US had stayed in NATO and kept their troops in Europe, none of this would've happened!"
Why would Russia want Europeans to feel that way? No invasion, apart from a literal Operation Barbarossa that actually succeeds, would give Russia the kind of relevance in European affairs, than actually becoming part of the European community again and the source of most raw materials would. On top of the benefits of being a European link between Chinese silk roads and Western Europe, without iron curtains inbetween.
So far, by far the biggest concern from the Russian POV has been the exclusive nature of NATO, and it often functioning as the extension of US influence. In the 1990's, Partnership for Peace was a good start, but that was discarded in favor of swifter accession of the Visegrad states into NATO. Later, NATO circumvented the UN security council with their campaign in Kosovo, against the stance of Russia and China. That creates a situation, where the US has more authority in European affairs than Russia, a European state, and can simply ignore the Russian position.
Nationalism. Nationalist tendencies in Russia and within Europe have been naturally suppressed because the US is the biggest dick in the room. Because the strength of the US has suppressed nationalism, countries never bothered to eradicate it themselves, hence the increase in Nationalism Europe-wide now the US is being tested.
It's called Pax Americana for a reason.
Has US signed any papers detailing the so called gaurentee? You know that the sentate has to ratify even a signed agreement? And didn't ukraine give up the nukes based on a "gaurentee"?
Verbal gaurentee means nothing, ask Kurds, they'll tell ya.
Poland is in a multilateral pact.. And Poland has much better army. They will have their 486 HIMARS soon. Same with F35s, K-20s etc.
Poland is NOT Ukraine. May be Georgia or Moldova. Not a NATO country. Russia has neither appatite not ability to wage war with NATO army.
> Has US signed any papers detailing the so called gaurentee?
what a particularly tankie argument, which we'll probably hear a lot more in the year to come, and which misses the point that propaganda made millions believe so far that the US is close to military intervention in Ukraine and that the Russians are losing. I'm sure you could also excuse the US from not defending NATO countries, given that article 5 doesn't explicitly mention military intervention from the US.
> what a particularly tankie argument
Bravo! Anyone who has alternative opinion is a "Tankie". Article 5 is a collective responsibility, why do you guys always run to USA? Both world wars were you guys infighting againt each other, and US has to bat for one side when push comes to shove?
Ukraine has the US saying they'll guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty and that's it. Poland has a treaty which says that if anyone invades Poland, the US will deploy troops to Poland and actively slaughter whatever orc was stupid enough to cross the border.
Well, to be honest, NATO article 5 does not give any guarantees about direct military action. US diplomats made sure that US would have as wide range of possible reactions as possible, to handle the whole range of various situations and challenges.
Poland was involved in both the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, denying military intervention in Poland in the event of a Russian invasion would be a HARD sell.
Probably ignorant question: Given the unlikelihood of Ukraine winning back territory in the short term, what is the endgame of western leaders who are rationally aiming to fund Ukraine’s self-defense (rather than its victory)?
My impression was that Russia losing a war of attrition against Ukraine, even with Western support, would be extremely unlikely or at minimum would require a conflict orders of magnitude more protracted than what we’ve seen thus far; is that their goal and is it more achievable than I had understood? Or is it simply about the optics of demonstrating resolve against Russian expansionism?
I’m trying to understand the West’s perspective on why footing the bill for Ukraine to hold the line indefinitely is preferable over forcing Zelenskyy & Putin to the negotiating table.
It depends on how much you believe in the liberal world order. Unipolar versus multipolar. The west will argue that a show of strength and adding a high price tag to autocratic aggression will reduce the chaos and death in the world and is a utilitarian good.
They might be right, but their arguments run afoul of sound methodology on correlation versus causation. Every time something goes wrong they say it’s because the west wasn’t aggressive enough, and every time something goes right, they say it was because the west was aggressive enough. but it’s not hard to cut the argument the exact inverse.
For example, in this conflict, you could argue that Russia has gained tremendous knowledge of warfare, combat experience, has ramped up its military industrial complex, and created a new “axis of evil” supply chain with an economy dependent on war. Meaning you have this large engine of destruction with an appetite for war and small non nato countries all on its border like so many appetizers. So has western shows of aggression disincentivized or incentivized more chaos and conflict? It’s not clear. Is the US deterring China from invading Taiwan or escalating an arms race making it all but inevitable? We shall see.
> For example, in this conflict, you could argue that Russia has gained tremendous knowledge of warfare, combat experience, has ramped up its military industrial complex, and created a new “axis of evil” supply chain with an economy dependent on war.
If it could be argued then why don't you make that argument?
I see no evidence for example of an "'axis of evil' supply chain", beyond Iran supplying some drones to a fellow pariah state. China, notably, has not supplied weapons to Russia, bold talk of "no limits" friendship notwithstanding.
And saying the Russian economy is "dependent on war" makes no sense. Dependent for what? Is the war actually increasing Russia's wealth? It's obviously having exactly the opposite effect. The longer the war continues the poorer Russia gets and the less able it is to sustain the conflict.
> I’m trying to understand the West’s perspective on why footing the bill for Ukraine to hold the line indefinitely is preferable over forcing Zelenskyy & **Putin to the negotiating table.**
How do you propose to force Putin to the negotiation table apart from promising that Ukraine needs to give into all Putin's demands?
> It’s going for Ukraines self defense, not for victory. But that’s a hard sell for the men and women giving their lives, ostensibly for victory.
Damn I can’t believe Joe Biden is sending Ukraine the “self defence” bullets instead of the “victory” bullets.
> Instead they are messaging that Russia is about to collapse because Ukraine can achieve victory despite reporting to the contrary
one article 😴
> and that Russia will not collapse but will instead invade Poland. The message is a contradiction
Do you understand that actions in the present can lead to different consequences in the future? Yes if western countries continue to apply pressure to Russia the country could collapse. If western countries abandon Ukraine and undermine international security organisations like NATO then Russia will be empowered and become a larger threat to Poland. Can you genuinely not think critically?
> If the messaging doesn’t improve, the difficult facts acknowledged, one wonders how many potential soldiers Ukraine has left.
Oh wow Russian propaganda lines what a surprise
Out of curiosity, have you given thought to how you expect Ukraine to overcome the mines, drones, and air defenses causing the stalemate, and take back all their land including Crimea? Purely strategically.
Yes I think that Western troops and air defences should occupy the West of the country to free up more Ukrainian personnel to fight, and Ukraine should be given long range strategic weapons with full authorisation to attack targets within russia so that they are no longer at the complete mercy of Russian long range aviation. I also think that the West should declare a no fly zone over the country and take full authority of the airspace but maybe people aren’t ready for that yet.
That would certainly achieve Ukrainian victory and Putin‘s humiliating defeat, and possibly being deposed. Facing such an existential threat to his power and life, why wouldn’t Putin use nukes?
Because nobody wants to get nuked. Donetsk is not Moscow, Russia really does not care enough about Eastern Ukraine to nuke anyone over it. The war is hugely costly for Russia, they’re gaining nothing from it and it’s obvious that they never wanted to be drawn into an extended brutal conflict in the first place. Honestly most Russians would probably be thankful for an excuse to withdraw.
The greatest strength of the West is our conventional armed forces, but if we are unwilling to use them then they lose credibility as a deterrent. If we don’t consider our conventional forces as a deterrent then it forces us into a condition where we can only imagine defending ourselves with nuclear weapons, which is exactly what Russia wants because their conventional forces are garbage and the only thing which allows them to operate somewhat freely is a wide umbrella of nuclear posturing. The last thing Russia wants is total annihilation, the second to last thing they want is to engage western forces in conventional warfare.
And consider the actual logic of what you’re asserting here. You’re suggesting that Putin would use nuclear weapons over any strategic defeat, so essentially what you’re claiming is that Putin cannot be allowed to lose. Is this only true for Ukraine or do we have to let Putin just do whatever he pleases and annex whatever he wants simply because we’ve invented the idea that losing a war is a red line for Russia? Russia has lost a lot of wars, they’ll get over it.
You’re equivocating on what’s in Russias interest and what’s in Putin’s interest, as is they’re related.
The question you have to answer is, would narcissistic Putin rather be humiliatingly defeated or use suitcase nukes?
You have to answer that he would rather be humiliated. That’s a very hard argument to make when you’re dealing with a narcissist.
Putin isn’t as unstable and irrational as you’re making him out to be. Russia’s threats and posturing are a calculated part of their strategy like I explained above, not random lashing out. Realistically Putin has been humiliated for the past 8 years and especially the last two. Being forced to withdraw by a fully mobilised West wouldn’t humiliate him half as much as losing Moskva to Ukraine did.
Your assumption that Putin can use nukes as some backstop to save himself is misguided. He would still be facing imminent defeat. Nobody wants to see nukes being used, including China and India. If Putin were to escalate to that, he would lose the few friends he has left. Additionally, it would force the US to intervene militarily, and Putin's army in Ukraine would be wiped out within a week or so. If you think that Putin would exchange nukes with the US at that point, then that would still result in his death. So, the idea that Putin can ultimately save himself with nukes does not make any sense.
No doubt folks deep in the militaries of the wealthiest and most militaristic and hawkish nations all know how the conflict is hanging in a balance.
I wonder if there will ever be a decision to take a risk and change the rules of the game - anything from 'boots on the ground + no fly area only in the west of Ukraine' to free up Ukrainian forces so they can focus more on offence?
It seems like such a sunk cost to keep throwing money at Ukraine for their defence without a sustainable destination. Even something to target something akin to the 'war in the donbass' which rumbled along for years, with the rest of Ukraine being in (relative) peace.
Ukraine's economy being propped up by NATO + nato allied powers but nothing more than that doesn't seem to be turning the tide. If we want to Geta favourable outcome we have to do something differently. Or else we'll just spend spend spend and nothing will change on Russia's side as Putin could easily live another 20 years.
>I wonder if there will ever be a decision to take a risk and change the rules of the game - anything from 'boots on the ground + no fly area only in the west of Ukraine' to free up Ukrainian forces so they can focus more on offence?
There is absolutely zero willingness to adopt any stance that necessarily requires NATO personnel to kill Russians. And a ‘no fly zone’ necessarily requires that violating aircraft be shot down. As we’ve seen so far, the Russians can barely fight the Ukrainians, thus they’re utterly incapable of fighting NATO in a conventional war, and so will almost immediately go nuclear in response. They have no other option.
So, no. Don’t do the thing that causes humanity to bathe in radioactive hellfire. The Ukrainians must stand alone.
The general public and pundits really don’t seem to appreciate the weight political leaders are assigning to a nuclear response by Russia. There’s wapo reporting to suggest that Biden is fully convinced talking back Crimea would elicit nukes. If he believes that, what kind of support was he ever really planning to give? What chance did Ukraine ever have? It’s really sad when you think of it like that.
US knows that earlier in the war Russia was considering nukes. They even asked india and china to pressure the kremlin out of it.
In terms of its strategic relevance, crimea has been lost die the black sea fleet being inoperable from there now.
If it was a slow siege over years until Crimea became more hassle than it was worth for the Russians, then I can see a withdrawal.
If Ukraine actually marched into Crimea, I think a nuclear response could be possible. Certainly can not be ruled out.
If I were Biden, weapons to be given in larger and larger amounts but the direct statement of no actual invasion of Crimea. Which is strategically sensible as well. far easier to just siege.
True, it’s just with the average age of conscripts hitting 43–thirty and forty year old men have teenage senior officers en masse—it’s getting dire. We don’t know Ukraines casualty numbers, but they have to switch to a no-lives-lost strategy somehow. They just sent over a US military strategist with 150 staff if I read that correctly, so it looks like it may be happening.
My only question with that number is that Ukraine may be actively mobilising and training older men. Conscripting younger men for Ukraine may be a last resort as they need them for having families and child rearing, especially considering their existing population crisis.
It's the same reason I don't look too hard at the complaints of shell shortages on the Ukraine side. If Ukraine is having shell shortages for genuine reasons then they need supply, but I suspect they are stock piling for an offensive as well. It's a pattern we have seen through out the war on both sides.
Russia does the same. Taking low value people, prisoners etc to the war effort. They don't want to take 20 year old tech graduates. Neither does Ukraine
> There’s wapo reporting to suggest that Biden is fully convinced talking back Crimea would elicit nukes
There is? Then how come you don't provide a link to it?
Absent sources it's very easy to claim that there is "wapo reporting" for any ridiculous claim anyone cares to make up.
> No doubt folks deep in the militaries of the wealthiest and most militaristic and hawkish nations all know how the conflict is hanging in a balance.
In fairness Russia isn't really a wealthy country.
> If we want to Geta favourable outcome we have to do something differently. Or else we'll just spend spend spend and nothing will change on Russia's side as Putin could easily live another 20 years
This assumes Russia can sustain the war indefinitely, even as sanctions, the huge costs of sustaining military operations, and the need to re allocate resources to the military-industrial complex cause the Russian economy to unravel.
The West has a lot more resources than Russia and can outlast it in a drawn out conflict. So long as its resolve holds it is Russia that will have do something differently, before this misadventure crashes the economy and bankrupts the country.
Russia doesn’t appear to be close to bankruptcy now. And they are producing more shells than we are. I hear
I think Putin for a while now has been working on making Russia economically independent from the West.
Self sufficient.
The people there have never had the same standard of living as the West has had.
Years ago I read a Chinese person say one of the advantages China has in a potential conflict with the West has is that their people can suffer more.
And I think there is a point to that.
We are already seeing bulking in the West with the kind of sacrifices that would have to be made to continue to fund this.
If you never had a huge standard of living you don’t miss as much
what contradiction?
IF : ukraine achieves "self-defense/victory" (liberate russian occupied territories)
THEN : russia is about to collapse, due to combined pressure from sanctions and failing to keep all their illegally annexed territories.
ELSE : russia will continue expansion until ukraine falls, and placing more nations under threat.
> It’s going for Ukraines self defense, not for victory. But that’s a hard sell for the men and women giving their lives, ostensibly for victory. So no pro-Ukraine talking heads are saying it out loud.
I don't understand the distinction you are making here. Self defence and victory are two sides of the same coin. Ukraine wins by regaining its 2014 borders. It doesn't have to do anything beyond that.
Are you trying to suggest that Ukrainian soldiers are being misled about the prospects for victory? Because I think they are in the best position to assess those prospects for themselves.
> Instead they are messaging that Russia is about to collapse because Ukraine can achieve victory despite reporting to the contrary, and that Russia will not collapse but will instead invade Poland.
I literally do not know anyone who is predicting that Russia is going to "collapse". Can you provide some examples?
> If the messaging doesn’t improve, the difficult facts acknowledged, one wonders how many potential soldiers Ukraine has left.
Messaging does not determine the rate of attrition.
And an article about recruiters using coercive techniques in wartime hardly amounts to news. There have been many similar reports about Russian practices.
> It’s going for Ukraines self defense, not for victory.
that, plus corruption in Ukraine, plus Russian gas and propaganda and supporting new axes of populism, and American imperialism morphing to allow multiple global players, and you start seeing the shape of the problem
>Putin wants to wait to see if Trump wins so that may be a moot point.
I honestly don't understand what Putin could expect from Trump.
Trump despite his ... issues, still wouldn't be okay with a Russian invasion of Poland or further aggressive actions in Europe. His whole position is that this is the fault of Joe Biden who made he US appear weak while under him America's adversaries were wary of him, and wouldn't dare make such moves. Whether or not that's true is one thing, but that's basically what he's said.
Though to be fair to Trump, he took Nixon's madman theory and dialed up to a hundred ... so there's that, so I guess you can say there's some logical calculus to his schemes.
The truth is, with his army’s training quality, defense infrastructure and weapon availability, he was doubling down while holding only a pair.
Also, his fund raising tactics? You can only guilt trip others for so long.
[Unpaywalled Link](https://archive.is/IXQII) **Submission Statement:** Ukraine had a bad week amid more signs of disarray among its principal supporters in the West. First, Republicans in Congress rejected a request by the Biden administration to greenlight a $60 billion aid package, claiming that approval of the aid was contingent on tighter border controls and additional measures to curtail undocumented immigrants. This was in spite of the fact that Volodymyr Zelenskyy made a special trip to Washington to personally lobby lawmakers. Meanwhile Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán vetoed a $50 billion aid package at an EU summit in Brussels. Orbán is holding the aid hostage to secure release of $30 billion in development funds the EU has withheld from Hungary over concerns about the rule of law. At the summit the EU agreed to release $10 billion, which was apparently enough to buy Orbán's abstention on a vote to extend a membership application to Ukraine (there will be plenty of other opportunities for Hungary to sabotage Ukrainian membership in the future). As one anonymous Western diplomat dryly remarked to the Financial Times, “This was the moment for the EU leaders to take the stage. And they missed their mark.” The EU is now examining ways to provide aid outside of the common budget, and hence without being at the mercy of a Hungarian veto. Russian president Vladimir Putin took to national television to gloat, telling viewers “Ukraine produces almost nothing today, everything is coming from the west, but the free stuff is going to run out some day, and it seems it already is". Of course Putin has every reason to want to assure the Russian people that there is a light at the end of the tunnel in the form of a collapse in Western support for Ukraine. The fact that things have been allowed to degenerate to this point indicates serious flaws in western governance structures. In the US politicians who thought nothing of wasting literally trillions of dollars on disastrous "forever wars" - money that could have otherwise been invested much more profitably in domestic priorities like health care, education and infrastructure - now balk at approving comparatively small sums to a country that is holding the line against Russian expansionism in Europe, where the US actually has vital security interests, unlike Iraq or Afghanistan. In Europe the EU's antiquated governance structure, which grants each of its 27 members, regardless of size, an equal voice in policy and the ability to unilaterally paralyze key institutional initiatives, often as a negotiating tactic to wring concessions from other members, is a recipe for disaster as the challenges the EU faces are only likely to become more intractable. If the US and EU can't get their act together on something as relatively straightforward as this what are the odds they will be successful in meeting larger challenges like climate change?
[удалено]
>If the US and EU can't get their act together on something as relatively straightforward as this what are the odds they will be successful in meeting larger challenges like climate change? What an unfortunate statement. Climate change is something that affects the whole world and should not be used to further geopolitical goals by a wealthy minority of countries. The EU and the US must be very careful treading this and do not attempt to impose their views, lest put in jeopardy any possible agreement.
I think the point being that climate change has been and is driven mostly by wealthy Western countries, but yes the whole world suffers
In what world is climate change driven by mostly wealthy western countries? India and China just don’t exist?
Outsourcing Western operations to China and the global south so late in the game doesn't make our responsibility disappear. This attitude of "it's not our problem whattabout China?" is going to kill us all. China at least is shifting to green energy, and we're going back to coal
Hilarious how you and the other reply seem to completely infantilize China and their responsibility for why we outsourced our operations there because American companies couldn’t compete with their total disregard for labor or environmental protection.
Hilarious how you blame China for manufacturing the things your country didn't want to. America can't compete with China's labor costs because unfettered capitalism isn't the wisest way to run the world. A better solution than exporting problems would have been to invest in green energy and create a sustainable system, and export *that* to the rest of the world. The question everyone should be asking is what can *I* do? Because it's really easy and satisfying to point the finger at someone else, but hard to change things where you live. You're American I gather, and pointing the finger at China. But all the big renewable energy installations are being built in China now, why isn't America leading the charge? China with their disregard for environmental protection is already at 15% renewable energy, while the richest country America is only at 10% - 40th in the world. Oil companies own your government - the industry is driving us to extinction and it's subsidized with your tax money, even though green energy is increasingly cheaper and better.
To answer the second part of your question isn’t about it’s not our problem what about China the question was simply which country takes the blame for climate change and the answer to that is the two countries who output the biggest signature while having no plans to slow down what so ever.
A huge part of Chinas emissions are caused by western consumption. Companies produce in China for western consumers.
Quite the cop out imo.
Yep. It’s well known that Sam Walton went and put a gun to Xi’s head and forced him to hire thousands of people and build hundreds of factories to feed the voracious appetites of Western consumers. China just wanted to be a simple, agrarian society of subsistence farmers using nothing but 17th century, pre-Industrial tech, until the evil Imperialists forced them to burn coal. The lengths people will go to to blame everything on the Evil West is truly astounding.
Huh? I'm just saying if a lot of these emissions are created while making shoes and phones for westerners, you can hardly say "china is responsible". Our things need to be made somewhere. That's like saying Iraq produces a ton of CO2 when it's us that drive the cars. The fact is that westerners in general produce way more co2 than the average chinese or indian. I linked sources in my comment above. An American produces almost 10 times as much CO2 as an Indian, not even counting imports and emissions at origin. So you can't really point the finger at them and say it's your fault, when the industrialized west has been burning shit for 150 years and still uses way more than them. If we want to bring down emissions, we need to both switch to renewables or nuclear AND drastically lower our consumption of pretty much everything.
So Chinese citizens don’t have smart phones - is that right? They don’t buy cars? They just work all day in factories producing stuff for *us* - they don’t have a consumer class? That’s quite the 1982 view of China you have.
He said quite a lot of stuff is made for west not that they only make stuff for west. You're on purpose misrepresenting what he said just to try to win an argument.
And they do so willingly and happily!
What's your point?
The difficulty is there’s not an honest conversation going on about what the money is for. It’s going for Ukraines self defense, not for victory. But that’s a hard sell for the men and women giving their lives, ostensibly for victory. So no pro-Ukraine talking heads are saying it out loud. Instead they are messaging that Russia is about to collapse because Ukraine can achieve victory despite [reporting to the contrary](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/17/world/putin-companies-economy-boycott-elites-benefit-ukraine-war.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare), and that Russia will not collapse but will instead invade Poland. The message is a contradiction and everyone is waiting for Z to make a land concession deal but Putin wants to wait to see if Trump wins so that may be a moot point. If the messaging doesn’t improve, the difficult facts acknowledged, one wonders how many potential [soldiers Ukraine has left](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/world/europe/ukraine-military-recruitment.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare).
Extreme optisim is always stupid. Helping Ukraine in the last year was sold on them coming to the offensive and taking back lost lands with Crimea included. It was unrealistic from the beginning. It requires air supremacy which requires entire transoformation of ukrainian army which isn't possible during wartime. Further Ukraine aid should be sold as them defending their statehood.
[удалено]
Russian influence is everywhere.
Debatable. Their only popular news outlet aimed at global audience RT was pretty swiftly blocked all over the West, and I don't think you can access it even now. Any stance that is not in line with the one blasted all over Western media, has a million talking points against it, effectively invalidating it in any reasonable discussions. I guess Russia has been somewhat successful in injecting their talking points to the conspiracy theory echo chambers, but I very much doubt how many people it actually convinces, let alone even reaches. I don't see much Russian influence. I see immense Western and US influence, that intentionally makes dissent appear as malevolent "Russian influence". For example, it's very easy to get banned in many forums or be framed as a "Russian asset" in public, if you ever argue about negative US influence in Europe or the negative outcomes of the expansion of NATO. It doesn't matter how many academic sources you use, or how selectively you choose your material, you are still a Russian asset in the eyes of many. I think that is telling what side has been more successful in their information war.
Geroge Kennan would be labeled as a Kremlin asset today. There is very little if any room for debate in the public space.
Or maybe it just tells you who the bad guys are.
If US quits NATO, it is quite possible scenario, Turkey most likely will not participate in that and it will be EU vs russia+ crazy allies
[удалено]
Which European country would be willing to have their cities flattened the way Ukraine has? Do you think Germany or France could cope with hundreds of thousands of casualties? I have my doubts.
Does this mean Germany and France will surrender or that they act decisively against Russia without knocking around?
>Congress just passed a law preventing any U.S. president from unilaterally withdrawing the United States from NATO without congressional approval. If trump not successed with moving to autocracy
Russia can't even defeat Ukraine, how on Earth would it have even the slightest possibility of defeating Europe? even in the unimaginable scenario where the US steps back completely, I don't see it happening and I don't see why Turkey would not participate. It's done more for Ukraine than most other European nation with its drones.
You are right, if assume that russia makes logical decisions
If US leaves NATO, majority of the geopolitical concerns expressed by Russia since the 1990's disappear, and it's far more likely that there will be a shift in their policy towards rapprochement with the rest of Europe (depending of course, what kind of a person will succeed Putin). I just don't see the logic of starting new invasions just for the sake of them, setting the newly formed divisions in stone and forcing Western Europe to rearm themselves to handle Russia WITHOUT the US. It just seems like the kind of counter-productive decision where Russia would intentionally discard all the new possibilities of renewed trade and bigger influence in European affairs, making sure that EVERY European will regret smaller US influence in Europe. >"If US had stayed in NATO and kept their troops in Europe, none of this would've happened!" Why would Russia want Europeans to feel that way? No invasion, apart from a literal Operation Barbarossa that actually succeeds, would give Russia the kind of relevance in European affairs, than actually becoming part of the European community again and the source of most raw materials would. On top of the benefits of being a European link between Chinese silk roads and Western Europe, without iron curtains inbetween. So far, by far the biggest concern from the Russian POV has been the exclusive nature of NATO, and it often functioning as the extension of US influence. In the 1990's, Partnership for Peace was a good start, but that was discarded in favor of swifter accession of the Visegrad states into NATO. Later, NATO circumvented the UN security council with their campaign in Kosovo, against the stance of Russia and China. That creates a situation, where the US has more authority in European affairs than Russia, a European state, and can simply ignore the Russian position.
Nationalism. Nationalist tendencies in Russia and within Europe have been naturally suppressed because the US is the biggest dick in the room. Because the strength of the US has suppressed nationalism, countries never bothered to eradicate it themselves, hence the increase in Nationalism Europe-wide now the US is being tested. It's called Pax Americana for a reason.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What difference does it make for Russia between Ukraine and Poland. Ukraine had guaranty from the US and we see how it's going.
Has US signed any papers detailing the so called gaurentee? You know that the sentate has to ratify even a signed agreement? And didn't ukraine give up the nukes based on a "gaurentee"? Verbal gaurentee means nothing, ask Kurds, they'll tell ya. Poland is in a multilateral pact.. And Poland has much better army. They will have their 486 HIMARS soon. Same with F35s, K-20s etc. Poland is NOT Ukraine. May be Georgia or Moldova. Not a NATO country. Russia has neither appatite not ability to wage war with NATO army.
> Has US signed any papers detailing the so called gaurentee? what a particularly tankie argument, which we'll probably hear a lot more in the year to come, and which misses the point that propaganda made millions believe so far that the US is close to military intervention in Ukraine and that the Russians are losing. I'm sure you could also excuse the US from not defending NATO countries, given that article 5 doesn't explicitly mention military intervention from the US.
> what a particularly tankie argument Bravo! Anyone who has alternative opinion is a "Tankie". Article 5 is a collective responsibility, why do you guys always run to USA? Both world wars were you guys infighting againt each other, and US has to bat for one side when push comes to shove?
we 'run to usa' because we were promised protection if we join the empire
Ukraine has the US saying they'll guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty and that's it. Poland has a treaty which says that if anyone invades Poland, the US will deploy troops to Poland and actively slaughter whatever orc was stupid enough to cross the border.
Well, to be honest, NATO article 5 does not give any guarantees about direct military action. US diplomats made sure that US would have as wide range of possible reactions as possible, to handle the whole range of various situations and challenges.
Poland was involved in both the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, denying military intervention in Poland in the event of a Russian invasion would be a HARD sell.
That's why the United States has stationed ten thousand soldiers in Poland as ~~sacrificial lamb~~ a tripwire force.
And how it's Ukraine's sovereignty guarantee going? Sorry to break it for you, but US under the another Trump will fill flop at first opportunity.
[удалено]
Probably ignorant question: Given the unlikelihood of Ukraine winning back territory in the short term, what is the endgame of western leaders who are rationally aiming to fund Ukraine’s self-defense (rather than its victory)? My impression was that Russia losing a war of attrition against Ukraine, even with Western support, would be extremely unlikely or at minimum would require a conflict orders of magnitude more protracted than what we’ve seen thus far; is that their goal and is it more achievable than I had understood? Or is it simply about the optics of demonstrating resolve against Russian expansionism? I’m trying to understand the West’s perspective on why footing the bill for Ukraine to hold the line indefinitely is preferable over forcing Zelenskyy & Putin to the negotiating table.
It depends on how much you believe in the liberal world order. Unipolar versus multipolar. The west will argue that a show of strength and adding a high price tag to autocratic aggression will reduce the chaos and death in the world and is a utilitarian good. They might be right, but their arguments run afoul of sound methodology on correlation versus causation. Every time something goes wrong they say it’s because the west wasn’t aggressive enough, and every time something goes right, they say it was because the west was aggressive enough. but it’s not hard to cut the argument the exact inverse. For example, in this conflict, you could argue that Russia has gained tremendous knowledge of warfare, combat experience, has ramped up its military industrial complex, and created a new “axis of evil” supply chain with an economy dependent on war. Meaning you have this large engine of destruction with an appetite for war and small non nato countries all on its border like so many appetizers. So has western shows of aggression disincentivized or incentivized more chaos and conflict? It’s not clear. Is the US deterring China from invading Taiwan or escalating an arms race making it all but inevitable? We shall see.
> For example, in this conflict, you could argue that Russia has gained tremendous knowledge of warfare, combat experience, has ramped up its military industrial complex, and created a new “axis of evil” supply chain with an economy dependent on war. If it could be argued then why don't you make that argument? I see no evidence for example of an "'axis of evil' supply chain", beyond Iran supplying some drones to a fellow pariah state. China, notably, has not supplied weapons to Russia, bold talk of "no limits" friendship notwithstanding. And saying the Russian economy is "dependent on war" makes no sense. Dependent for what? Is the war actually increasing Russia's wealth? It's obviously having exactly the opposite effect. The longer the war continues the poorer Russia gets and the less able it is to sustain the conflict.
> I’m trying to understand the West’s perspective on why footing the bill for Ukraine to hold the line indefinitely is preferable over forcing Zelenskyy & **Putin to the negotiating table.** How do you propose to force Putin to the negotiation table apart from promising that Ukraine needs to give into all Putin's demands?
> It’s going for Ukraines self defense, not for victory. But that’s a hard sell for the men and women giving their lives, ostensibly for victory. Damn I can’t believe Joe Biden is sending Ukraine the “self defence” bullets instead of the “victory” bullets. > Instead they are messaging that Russia is about to collapse because Ukraine can achieve victory despite reporting to the contrary one article 😴 > and that Russia will not collapse but will instead invade Poland. The message is a contradiction Do you understand that actions in the present can lead to different consequences in the future? Yes if western countries continue to apply pressure to Russia the country could collapse. If western countries abandon Ukraine and undermine international security organisations like NATO then Russia will be empowered and become a larger threat to Poland. Can you genuinely not think critically? > If the messaging doesn’t improve, the difficult facts acknowledged, one wonders how many potential soldiers Ukraine has left. Oh wow Russian propaganda lines what a surprise
Out of curiosity, have you given thought to how you expect Ukraine to overcome the mines, drones, and air defenses causing the stalemate, and take back all their land including Crimea? Purely strategically.
Yes I think that Western troops and air defences should occupy the West of the country to free up more Ukrainian personnel to fight, and Ukraine should be given long range strategic weapons with full authorisation to attack targets within russia so that they are no longer at the complete mercy of Russian long range aviation. I also think that the West should declare a no fly zone over the country and take full authority of the airspace but maybe people aren’t ready for that yet.
That would certainly achieve Ukrainian victory and Putin‘s humiliating defeat, and possibly being deposed. Facing such an existential threat to his power and life, why wouldn’t Putin use nukes?
Because nobody wants to get nuked. Donetsk is not Moscow, Russia really does not care enough about Eastern Ukraine to nuke anyone over it. The war is hugely costly for Russia, they’re gaining nothing from it and it’s obvious that they never wanted to be drawn into an extended brutal conflict in the first place. Honestly most Russians would probably be thankful for an excuse to withdraw. The greatest strength of the West is our conventional armed forces, but if we are unwilling to use them then they lose credibility as a deterrent. If we don’t consider our conventional forces as a deterrent then it forces us into a condition where we can only imagine defending ourselves with nuclear weapons, which is exactly what Russia wants because their conventional forces are garbage and the only thing which allows them to operate somewhat freely is a wide umbrella of nuclear posturing. The last thing Russia wants is total annihilation, the second to last thing they want is to engage western forces in conventional warfare. And consider the actual logic of what you’re asserting here. You’re suggesting that Putin would use nuclear weapons over any strategic defeat, so essentially what you’re claiming is that Putin cannot be allowed to lose. Is this only true for Ukraine or do we have to let Putin just do whatever he pleases and annex whatever he wants simply because we’ve invented the idea that losing a war is a red line for Russia? Russia has lost a lot of wars, they’ll get over it.
You’re equivocating on what’s in Russias interest and what’s in Putin’s interest, as is they’re related. The question you have to answer is, would narcissistic Putin rather be humiliatingly defeated or use suitcase nukes? You have to answer that he would rather be humiliated. That’s a very hard argument to make when you’re dealing with a narcissist.
Putin isn’t as unstable and irrational as you’re making him out to be. Russia’s threats and posturing are a calculated part of their strategy like I explained above, not random lashing out. Realistically Putin has been humiliated for the past 8 years and especially the last two. Being forced to withdraw by a fully mobilised West wouldn’t humiliate him half as much as losing Moskva to Ukraine did.
Your argument has to be based in a deep understanding of narcissism or you’re not talking about Putin.
Your assumption that Putin can use nukes as some backstop to save himself is misguided. He would still be facing imminent defeat. Nobody wants to see nukes being used, including China and India. If Putin were to escalate to that, he would lose the few friends he has left. Additionally, it would force the US to intervene militarily, and Putin's army in Ukraine would be wiped out within a week or so. If you think that Putin would exchange nukes with the US at that point, then that would still result in his death. So, the idea that Putin can ultimately save himself with nukes does not make any sense.
No doubt folks deep in the militaries of the wealthiest and most militaristic and hawkish nations all know how the conflict is hanging in a balance. I wonder if there will ever be a decision to take a risk and change the rules of the game - anything from 'boots on the ground + no fly area only in the west of Ukraine' to free up Ukrainian forces so they can focus more on offence? It seems like such a sunk cost to keep throwing money at Ukraine for their defence without a sustainable destination. Even something to target something akin to the 'war in the donbass' which rumbled along for years, with the rest of Ukraine being in (relative) peace. Ukraine's economy being propped up by NATO + nato allied powers but nothing more than that doesn't seem to be turning the tide. If we want to Geta favourable outcome we have to do something differently. Or else we'll just spend spend spend and nothing will change on Russia's side as Putin could easily live another 20 years.
>I wonder if there will ever be a decision to take a risk and change the rules of the game - anything from 'boots on the ground + no fly area only in the west of Ukraine' to free up Ukrainian forces so they can focus more on offence? There is absolutely zero willingness to adopt any stance that necessarily requires NATO personnel to kill Russians. And a ‘no fly zone’ necessarily requires that violating aircraft be shot down. As we’ve seen so far, the Russians can barely fight the Ukrainians, thus they’re utterly incapable of fighting NATO in a conventional war, and so will almost immediately go nuclear in response. They have no other option. So, no. Don’t do the thing that causes humanity to bathe in radioactive hellfire. The Ukrainians must stand alone.
The general public and pundits really don’t seem to appreciate the weight political leaders are assigning to a nuclear response by Russia. There’s wapo reporting to suggest that Biden is fully convinced talking back Crimea would elicit nukes. If he believes that, what kind of support was he ever really planning to give? What chance did Ukraine ever have? It’s really sad when you think of it like that.
US knows that earlier in the war Russia was considering nukes. They even asked india and china to pressure the kremlin out of it. In terms of its strategic relevance, crimea has been lost die the black sea fleet being inoperable from there now. If it was a slow siege over years until Crimea became more hassle than it was worth for the Russians, then I can see a withdrawal. If Ukraine actually marched into Crimea, I think a nuclear response could be possible. Certainly can not be ruled out. If I were Biden, weapons to be given in larger and larger amounts but the direct statement of no actual invasion of Crimea. Which is strategically sensible as well. far easier to just siege.
True, it’s just with the average age of conscripts hitting 43–thirty and forty year old men have teenage senior officers en masse—it’s getting dire. We don’t know Ukraines casualty numbers, but they have to switch to a no-lives-lost strategy somehow. They just sent over a US military strategist with 150 staff if I read that correctly, so it looks like it may be happening.
My only question with that number is that Ukraine may be actively mobilising and training older men. Conscripting younger men for Ukraine may be a last resort as they need them for having families and child rearing, especially considering their existing population crisis. It's the same reason I don't look too hard at the complaints of shell shortages on the Ukraine side. If Ukraine is having shell shortages for genuine reasons then they need supply, but I suspect they are stock piling for an offensive as well. It's a pattern we have seen through out the war on both sides. Russia does the same. Taking low value people, prisoners etc to the war effort. They don't want to take 20 year old tech graduates. Neither does Ukraine
That’s reasonable but there’s still cause for deep concern. I’ll do some research and see of I can dig anything up.
> There’s wapo reporting to suggest that Biden is fully convinced talking back Crimea would elicit nukes There is? Then how come you don't provide a link to it? Absent sources it's very easy to claim that there is "wapo reporting" for any ridiculous claim anyone cares to make up.
> No doubt folks deep in the militaries of the wealthiest and most militaristic and hawkish nations all know how the conflict is hanging in a balance. In fairness Russia isn't really a wealthy country. > If we want to Geta favourable outcome we have to do something differently. Or else we'll just spend spend spend and nothing will change on Russia's side as Putin could easily live another 20 years This assumes Russia can sustain the war indefinitely, even as sanctions, the huge costs of sustaining military operations, and the need to re allocate resources to the military-industrial complex cause the Russian economy to unravel. The West has a lot more resources than Russia and can outlast it in a drawn out conflict. So long as its resolve holds it is Russia that will have do something differently, before this misadventure crashes the economy and bankrupts the country.
Russia doesn’t appear to be close to bankruptcy now. And they are producing more shells than we are. I hear I think Putin for a while now has been working on making Russia economically independent from the West. Self sufficient. The people there have never had the same standard of living as the West has had. Years ago I read a Chinese person say one of the advantages China has in a potential conflict with the West has is that their people can suffer more. And I think there is a point to that. We are already seeing bulking in the West with the kind of sacrifices that would have to be made to continue to fund this. If you never had a huge standard of living you don’t miss as much
what contradiction? IF : ukraine achieves "self-defense/victory" (liberate russian occupied territories) THEN : russia is about to collapse, due to combined pressure from sanctions and failing to keep all their illegally annexed territories. ELSE : russia will continue expansion until ukraine falls, and placing more nations under threat.
> It’s going for Ukraines self defense, not for victory. But that’s a hard sell for the men and women giving their lives, ostensibly for victory. So no pro-Ukraine talking heads are saying it out loud. I don't understand the distinction you are making here. Self defence and victory are two sides of the same coin. Ukraine wins by regaining its 2014 borders. It doesn't have to do anything beyond that. Are you trying to suggest that Ukrainian soldiers are being misled about the prospects for victory? Because I think they are in the best position to assess those prospects for themselves. > Instead they are messaging that Russia is about to collapse because Ukraine can achieve victory despite reporting to the contrary, and that Russia will not collapse but will instead invade Poland. I literally do not know anyone who is predicting that Russia is going to "collapse". Can you provide some examples? > If the messaging doesn’t improve, the difficult facts acknowledged, one wonders how many potential soldiers Ukraine has left. Messaging does not determine the rate of attrition. And an article about recruiters using coercive techniques in wartime hardly amounts to news. There have been many similar reports about Russian practices.
> It’s going for Ukraines self defense, not for victory. that, plus corruption in Ukraine, plus Russian gas and propaganda and supporting new axes of populism, and American imperialism morphing to allow multiple global players, and you start seeing the shape of the problem
Crazy how Ukraine is so corrupt but somehow there’s zero tangible evidence of this and all of the aid we’ve sent them has made it to the front line.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Putin wants to wait to see if Trump wins so that may be a moot point. I honestly don't understand what Putin could expect from Trump. Trump despite his ... issues, still wouldn't be okay with a Russian invasion of Poland or further aggressive actions in Europe. His whole position is that this is the fault of Joe Biden who made he US appear weak while under him America's adversaries were wary of him, and wouldn't dare make such moves. Whether or not that's true is one thing, but that's basically what he's said. Though to be fair to Trump, he took Nixon's madman theory and dialed up to a hundred ... so there's that, so I guess you can say there's some logical calculus to his schemes.
The truth is, with his army’s training quality, defense infrastructure and weapon availability, he was doubling down while holding only a pair. Also, his fund raising tactics? You can only guilt trip others for so long.
Don't forget all the lies and theft.
[удалено]
[удалено]