The problem is exactly that sort of narrow regional thinking. Whether or not Ukraine is “Western” is immaterial. It’s a sovereign nation with UN membership and under international norms to which pretty much every nation at least gives lip-service, it should not be invaded and occupied by another sovereign nation. What Putin is asserting is really the idea that Ukraine is not a legitimate nation, because it’s really a part of Russia, and always has been.
What is under attack here is not “the West” but the entire post-WWII international order. Maybe it’s an inevitable phase of the post-Cold War era, but however you slice it the emerging global landscape consists of Russia and China, who each in their own sphere believe they have absolute sway and will brook no interference; the USA, which oscillates between nearly random and often ill-considered intervention and equally random and ill-considered abandonment of allies and principles; the EU, which can’t decide whether it is merely a neo-liberal marketplace unconcerned with who actually runs the show, or whether it actually has some sort of ideological commitment to things beyond fat bank accounts; the rest of Asia which is trying to protect itself from Chinese expansion while simultaneously being enmeshed in the Chinese economic orbit; and everyone else, just trying to get by.
tl;dr, there is no international order any more. It’s becoming a Hobbsean state of nature because clearly collective security does not work except at the far ends of the spectrum. The natural result of all of this is going to be Orwellian, for pretty much everyone, unless things change drastically.
Russian ministry of defense reports they have no losses at all.
Who would have thought they’re so effective.
The dilemma is exactly the same, though. NATO members can still in effect refuse to fight. We worried about that a lot in the Cold War, whether realistically or not. During that era, if the USSR had decided to attack, they would have done exactly what they are doing now, in terms of propaganda and diplomatic pressure. They would have lobbied hard to convince NATO nations like Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, etc. as well as West Germany that a Soviet victory was inevitable, that there was no need to die to defend Washington and London, all that jazz. And the decision would still have to be made: resist, and risk Soviet nukes (because that was always the threat they offered), or roll over?
That would be even more a problem today, because we lack the Cold War’s infrastructure of inherited beliefs and practices that at the very least contextualized resistance to the USSR as a normal thing. Today, it is very possible that NATO members would decide–rather rationally, from one POV–that a destructive war was less acceptable than allowing the Russians to occupy the Baltic states, say. There is nothing in a treaty that literally compels participation. Sovereign nations still make their own call, and unless you position forces (like ours in South Korea, or NATO forces during the Cold War on the inter-German border) so that they automatically get involved, there is always the option to betray the alliance.
Don’t kid yourself into thinking governments, any governments, are honorable. Honor has zero input in these calculations.
I think it’s certainly true that one thing to worry about in a collective security alliance is whether you can really depend on all the other members to honor the alliance. That said, I don’t really understand what there is about this current Ukraine situation that makes this concern greater or more worrying than it was before. I don’t see how you get from NATO members aren’t willing to risk nuclear war on behalf of a non-member to this means they won’t risk nuclear war on behalf of a member. Maybe the latter is true, but nothing about the Ukraine situation makes it more likely to be true IMO.
It’s a good analysis. This paragraph:
Consequently, the policy has always been to avoid any situation in which two nuclear powers are trading conventional fire whenever possible; in my view that policy is wise and should be kept to (though doing so likely demands, in this case, extracting considerable non-military punishment on Putin to discourage further efforts that might require a NATO response).
is the crux of the matter. I can’t dispute his analysis in general, but it raises a question few want to look at, which is, if military responses to a nuclear armed power are not feasible, and non-military responses only really work on exactly the sorts of nations that are not going to be invading their neighbors, what do you do? At some point, you still come back to the need to defend yourself. The only logical answer presented here is for everyone to get nukes. Seriously. Non-proliferation only helps the bad guys, it seems.
MrGrumpy
3149
I don’t have anything meaningful to add except to say thank you for your thoughtful posts, 100% agreement.
Fair enough, but the way I see it, there isn’t a clear cut difference between an invasion of Ukraine and, say, an invasion of Estonia. Sure, Estonia is in NATO, but the question is would Germany, for example, be willing to go to war to protect it just because it’s in NATO? You are presupposing the mere fact of the alliance’s requirements will compel countries to do things they really don’t want to do. I’m suggesting that the real problem is that most of NATO does not really believe in the alliance per se, only in their own self preservation. And given what we’ve seen in the past decade or two, it’s unclear to me whether any of the European nations would actually defend themselves vigorously if the Russians threatened nuclear escalation.
MrGrumpy
3151
Edit to add an entry from that Politico blog:
[Khodorkovsky used to be one of Russia’s richest people until jailed by Putin and stripped of his wealth.]
WEST NEEDS BETTER LEADERS, KHODORKOVSKY SAYS
Struggling to hold back his tears, Russian businessman Mikhail Khodorkovsky said the sanctions approved by the U.S., the EU and their allies will have an impact “in about three years” from now.
If the West had better leaders, Ukraine would have received support from volunteer fighters and Putin “wouldn’t feel so confident and safe,” he told a press conference.
“But there are no such leaders in the West,” he said, warning Ukraine faces a “very heavy, hard, prolonged and bloody occupation.”
I’m not presupposing anything. I’m pointing out that Germany has, in effect, agreed that they would go to war to protect Estonia, while they have not agreed anything of the sort with respect to Ukraine; so you can’t use Germany’s non-intervention in the case of Ukraine as ‘evidence’ that they won’t intervene in the case of Estonia. I think the NATO agreement is a material difference in the two cases that ought to be considered, and you seem to think it isn’t.
Again, it may very well be true that there are NATO members who aren’t prepared to live up to the agreement, but nothing about the Ukraine situation makes it more likely to be true, because Ukraine isn’t part of the agreement.
Gotta say I’m with @scottagibson here. The whole point of NATO is that it provides the red line. “They’re unwilling to go to war to protect a country they didn’t agree to protect” does not seem to be great evidence for being unwilling to go to war to protect a country they’re obligated by treaty to protect. If anything, “they’re unwilling to implement even moderate sanctions against an obviously immoral, expansionist power in their (relative) backyard” is stronger evidence, though again, not direct evidence by any means.
It’s untested, and thank goodness for it, but if it ever comes to it, we’ll only know in hindsight (or not at all, taking into account what we’re talking about), but there’s a chance that Russia can convince several members that actually, you don’t need to intervene.
Even the US can be convinced, all it takes is the right President. Hopefully, we’ll never need to know.
And for all the talk of sanctions, I have no idea if the ones approved are hard, semi, or not at all. All I can think of is sanctions in Iran, and it appears like this long term, we’ll get them in the end measure, and BTW, it looks like Iran can still develop atomic weapons under sanctions.
So, I dunno. But I would like it very much if the EU moved yesterday to disentangle from Russia, financing the people that are trying to break down the order you depend on is probably not very wise in the long run.
And I hope the situation in Ukraine resolves itself as best it can for the Ukrainian people, whatever that means right now.
Gazprombank is not covered I believe.
No it really isn’t.
Yes, we could, but by joining the alliance we have commited to doing so.
There are always going to some segment of the populace susceptible to propaganda, but you underestimate the militiaries of these lands if you think they would roll over. They definitely knew that they were a “speed bump” for the Soviets - I know the training in some cases was very explicit about this (I had one mate who was told - in the event of a war, you’ll be the first to die) - but they also understood that they were doing this in defence of democracy
I don’t. But we in Europe also know - in ways maybe not so obvious to someone living in the USA - that once a conqueror gets going, he’s not going to stop with just a little nibble. We still have people here who lived through WW2, and Putin is doing a great job of reminding everyone why we can never forget that.
Treaties are mutual. If Germany, for example, were unwilling to go war to protect Estonia, then why would France, UK or anyone else lift a finger for Germany? So it is in every NATO member’s interests to step up when called, because the alternative is standing alone when the time comes. Except for the US, which is why Trump is the greatest disaster the alliance has experienced ever.
According to The BBC, the Russians have retaken Antonov Airport with another airmobile assault, and there is Russian armor in the northern Kyiv suburbs. And this:
Timex
3160
In the treaty we signed with Ukraine to give up their nukes, we committed to them not getting invaded by Russia, but here we are.
Yeah, that bothers me a lot. Unlike in 1914, it turns out it really was just a scrap of paper.
abrandt
3162
I don’t believe we signed a defense pact with them. Russia is the one breaking that agreement by violating their sovereignty, not us.
wahoo
3163
Europe needs to hit hard with sanctions and Italy doing carveouts for Gucci shoes isn’t helping. Reason is that only thing Putin will respect is force and his plan is to rebuild Russian empire. Turn Ukraine into a vassal state and then next on agenda will be Baltic states. I give it a 50/50 odds that Putin will test Nato resolve by hitting a Nato member. If you were Putin, what do you see from Europe that makes you think Europe will resist if you attack Baltics and threaten nukes if Nato responds?
Few other notes: Russia is moving Chechens into Ukraine as peacekeepers. Will be more aggressive against civilians there. Russia taking pains not to use mass destruction so far. But if city/street fighting intensifies not sure what next step is.
Best outcome for world is Ukraine goes to intense city fighting driving up costs to Russia and brings Russia to table and strengthens critics of Putin. But that is terrible outcome for Ukraine.
