Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
If Ukraine Wins, Who Loses?
There’s the obvious answers – Putin, the image of Russian might, the Duginist dream of solidifying Russian control over its insolent children.
Who else? The Russian Orthodox Church, for declaring this a holy war? Xi, for his association with a loser whose actions renewed Taiwanese determination to stave off an invasion? The countries that have been buying Russian military gear and now have a rep, however justified, for buying junk? US pundits who backed Russia’s invasion? Renewable energy advocates, suddenly on the back foot because nuclear is a better option than Russian gas? US intelligence agencies that failed to figure out how the Russian forces are ancient and hollowed out by corruption?
You could also note who else wins: the West, for one. Superior armaments and tech, better logistics, the products of a more energetic and innovative culture. I suspect there’s a non-insubstantial intersection between those who are comfy with Russian control of Ukraine and those who would be irritated by a Western win, because the West is decadent and subject to rule from our Davos overlords, and ought not to prevail until it is overhauled and remade.
This is not a thread about whether Ukraine will win, or what victory looks like. Just a question about what shakes out when it is apparent to all that Russia could not prevail.
Published in General
Sweden has confirmed that the United States has given Sweden security assurances if Sweden applies for NATO membership.
Swedish Foreign Minister Ann Linde:
Boris Johnson addresses Ukraine parliament – YouTube
Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s speech to the Ukraine parliament.
There’s always this little prodedural ‘out’ that accompanies grand announcements like ‘NATO membership open to Ukraine’ or whatever they said. They’re good that way, Europe and NATO…
Zelensky has said that he thinks the best model for Ukraine going forward is Israel, a nation that is constantly under threat from its neighbors and is determined to use its military to fight its enemies.
I think the Russian aggression against Ukraine has demonstrated that pacifism and appeasement don’t work. Weakness is provocative.
“You probe with bayonets: If you find mush, you push. If you find steel, you withdraw.” – Vladimir Lenin
Drew, Drew, Drew, sweet, naive Drew…Which US interests were served in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria (just for eg)?
The interests which make money from war – winning or losing is irrelevant. So long as they are able to sell stuff, paid for by nervous neighbours, or by the US taxpayers themselves.
The twenty year Afghan caper just ended. Albeit spectacularly, with a truly vast amount of stuff to replace. (kaching!)
You have to have known there was a new, relatively low tech, war in the making? I mean you’re getting the bill for it, surely they mentioned something?
Well, if you’re going to have another quagmire, seem like Sweden would be a nice place to have it.
If Zelensky is delusional enough to think that Ukraine can be a version of Israel…
Otoh, sure, why not? An unsinkable battle ship in the middle of Eastern Europe. What could go wrong?
That’s certainly the lesson Russia has drawn from the Minsk Agreements and NATO expansion.
This is the mark of a world super power! You select your next quagmire based on shopping and vacation options.
Iraq was a menace to the United States for decades prior to the US led invasion of Iraq.
Afghanistan was the country that hosted the 9-11 terrorists.
US and European intervention in Libya was in reaction to the Libyan leader’s intention to slaughter people. So, that should be viewed as a humanitarian intervention that went bad.
Syria could also be viewed as an intervention to deter the use of chemical weapons. Thus, Obama’s “red line,” which Obama ultimately did not enforce and Trump’s missile strikes on Syria.
Sure. (kaching!)
It’s actually the Finns and the Swedes that have looked at what Putin is doing in Ukraine and deciding that they would rather their nations of 6 million people (Finland) and 10 million people (Sweden) form a military alliance with other liberal democracies as a deterrent to Putin.
If you were a citizen of Finland or Sweden, wouldn’t you want to join NATO?
In Finland, support for joining NATO was always in the low 20 percent. But then Russia invaded Ukraine and now about 60 percent of the people of Finland want to join NATO.
Sometimes dramatic events change peoples’ worldview.
Remember how President Jimmy Carter said that he changed his opinion of the Soviet Union after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan? Well, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has had a huge impact on the thinking of many Europeans, not just the leaders, but public opinion as well.
In German the parliament voted overwhelmingly to provide weapons to Ukraine. Prior to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, Germany (post World War II) had never been willing to provide weapons to another nation, outside of NATO, engaged in a war.
That policy evaporated within a week of Putin’s invasion.
I’d certainly be tempted. But look what happened to the people of Ukraine when Ukraine wanted to join NATO. I might consider whether there were other options to get security. (There might not be, but I’d have a think about it.)
If nothing else, you might want to hold off while Biden is president.
Well, Ukraine wanted to join NATO. Yes.
But the people of Sweden and Finland probably have noticed that Russia has not attacked a country that has already joined NATO. So, there could be some nerves during the period between the application to join NATO and acceptance into NATO (which could be about a year, maybe).
But the United States has already provided Sweden (and probably Finland) a security guarantee during the transition period.
And also, not being part of NATO doesn’t persuade Putin to take a kindly approach to your country either, as the invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated. Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. Ukraine was not part of NATO nor part of the EU.
They were left alone and that made Putin think that Ukraine would be an easy victim.
From the Guardian:
I think the United States (and I think this is bi-partisan) policy is to escalate, to dramatically step up military aid to Ukraine and assist Ukraine in decimating Putin’s military.
Yes.
Since I am not a pacifist, I wholeheartedly support the new policy. Victory over Putin !
Ukraine was never really ‘out of play’. No formal NATO membership, but a colour revolution or so later the East tried to secede with the consequence of an ongoing war since 2014 that’s left 14,0000 civilisans dead (mostly in the secessionist repoublics, and at the hand of the Ukrainian army), every major Ukrainian opposition party banned, opposition allied radio stations banned and the leader of the opposition under house arrest for treason. All with no substantively negative response from the US or the West and all before Russia invaded (this last time, to be fair).
Specifically – setting up Western military ‘training’ bases in Ukraine while Ukraine didn’t join NATO really pushed the line for Russia, imho. Russia itself (both as Russia and as the successor state to the USSR) has experience with being the easy victim – when Gorbachev opened up politics before opening up the economy and the people died and suffered with the economic collapse and restructuring during which (of course) the stock market soared and a lot of people (Russian and Western) made a lot of money. It’s easy to recognise that the Baltics’ (for eg) experience with Russia shapes their perceptions and responses. But that’s also the case with Russia’s experience with the West. Fair?
It sounds like we’ve already guaranteed their security if they apply, at least according to Sweden’s Defense Minister.
You already guaranteed Ukraine’s security when they gave up their nukes (that would be according to Ukraine’s Defense Minister maybe?) and where are we now?
Yes, sadly it is bipartisan. Our elected officials don’t give a rat’s ass about America. To quote the great Larry Norman, “We are far across the ocean in a war that’s not our own. And while we’re winning theirs, we’re going to lose the one at home.”
At what cost to America?
I actually really like how Trump is all ‘let’s make a deal!’ about this. It seems a much healthier response for the US than not trying to make a deal. jmho. (And also Noam Chomsky. I had to pinch myself when I saw Chomsky on Trump re Ukraine.)
Ukraine has looked West, towards Europe and East, towards Russia and generally speaking, Ukraine has found Europe more attractive.
So, Ukraine has decided that it wanted to be part of the European Union and NATO.
This isn’t surprising, really. The attitude in Ukraine is probably very similar to the attitude within Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.
These people see Russia as a harmful country. They might hope that Russia will one day move away from totalitarianism/authoritarianism. But the Russia that actually exists is quite different from the Russia that Lativa, Estonia, Lithuania and Ukraine hope for.
So, they look to the West for support and assistance. After all, if you are a nation of 44 million people (Ukraine) or 2 million (Latvia), you have to figure out how you are going to defend yourself against a country like Russia, with its population of 144 million and a huge nuclear stockpile.
One option is to look to the nuclear powers that are liberal democracies: United Kingdom, France and the United States and also the liberal democracies that are not nuclear powers but will provide other types of support.
So, I think Ukraine was in a bind. The Ukrainians wanted to join the world of freedom and representative democracy and not be part of the world of brutal dictatorships like Putin and Kim Jong-Un and Xi Jinping.
But it’s like in the Godfather movie: “Just when I thought I was out, they drag me back in.”
On this, the day of my daughter’s wedding…Finnlandisation came with a big cost to Finnland – the loss of a lot of land after a very bitterly faught war – but it also lasted a long time. NATO didn’t make Finnland safe, Finnland made Finnland safe.
That’s right. But if you live in a nation of 6 million people (Finland) and don’t have nuclear weapons, trying to defend yourself against Russia, a nation of 144 million people and a huge nuclear stockpile, the idea of hooking up with the nuclear powers of France, United Kingdom and the United States along with Norway, Denmark, Spain, Italy, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Well, it starts to sound attractive as you watch Ukrainian civilians get slaughtered by Russian missiles.
Clinton made a personal promise not to invade Ukraine. I don’t know if he even kept it.
Came with a big cost? Finland lost that land as a consequence of that war. “Finlandization” didn’t occur until later, and was the consequence of being a small country bordering an untrustworthy neighbor.
That was brilliant. It described the situation completely.
Thank you.
Yup. I have seen this parallel with Israel since this started.
I think Israel is probably an inspiration to Ukraine.