domain:parrhesia.substack.com
Even assuming that this is true, could they really have done it without support or at least acquiescence+aftercare from the US?
Acquiescence+aftercare from the US was reportedly that the Americans told the Germans before the attack, as well as soon after.
As for being puzzled by regional parties whose security concerns Germany dismissed and ignorred in pursuing Nord Stream, I suspect you believe they have a far greater fear and/or positive opinion of Germany than they do. Germany's Nord Stream policy was not exactly considered a benign or neutral policy by its Baltic neighbors. German politicians had not only insisted it was ridiculous to oppose Nord Stream on grounds of Russian concerns, but also that it was ridiculous to believe Nord Stream interests might sabotage Germany's willingness to support its European neighbors security if Russia did do something stupid. Both of these concerns were validated by the German response to Putin.
If anything, rather than a snub the non-cooperation was both a retaliation and a warning. Germany could not defend Nord Stream when it was warned in advance. Germany could not pursue Nord Stream saboteurs without the cooperation of its neighbors in the present. And Germany would not be able to protect any future Nord Stream in the future, if it disregarded its neighbors security concerns. The Nord Stream concept was not a German-Russia bilateral concern. It was a concern of far more people, and far more veto authorities in practice.
Germany was never so adored and/or feared that it could expect other countries to defend Germany's privileged energy relationship with Russian at their own expense. If that surprised the Germans, well it wasn't for a lack of being warned.
phailyoor
19hr ago
The Taiwanese are Chinese. They may be die hard against Communist rule, but they have no history as a state that wasn't thoroughly Chinese. Unless maybe you count the Japanese occupation but I don't think so.
4bpp
Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs
19hr ago
I wouldn't be so dismissive of the possibility that solutions exist which simultaneously make Ukraine too weak to make it attractive for it to resume the war at a later point and reclaim territories (what is really Russia's minimum condition) and too strong to make it attractive for Russia to do so and capture more. The most obvious option is for NATO to provide a binding, boots-on-ground guarantee to defend it should Russia attack again. As far as I can see, the problem with this option is strictly that neither the current Ukrainian government (which surely would collapse in such a situation) nor the West (for whom a neutral Ukraine with present borders is of little value, and they would have to credibly signal that they would defend it, vs. the option to have it cheaply continue killing Russians and gamble on the absolute bonanza that a surprise Russian collapse would be) would actually want it.
Without EU membership/emigration opportunities/gibs, even the Ukrainian people (who are largely happy to accept a chance of death for a chance of climbing the butter mountains and swimming the wine lakes) would see no reason to accept such a peace, though I thought Russia at one point softened its stance on accepting an Austria-like "EU but no NATO" arrangement.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
19hr ago
I get ya, I just have a hobby of linguistic nitpicking.
phailyoor
19hr ago
their sole foray into Russian Territory
From a purely military perspective the invasion may have been the right move. They inflicted serious losses on the unprepared Russian defenders and diverted an impressive amount of manpower away from the main attack in Ukraine.
But from that perspective they should have cut their losses and run when the Russians brought their entire war machine to bear on the pocket. Trying to replicate attacks like the Kursk attack in other places along the Russian border would probably have been smart. But the fact of occupying Russian land was probably too much to just give up without a fight.
UwU
19hr ago
The population would mostly flee and be happily snapped up by European union which needs wagies. Baltic sea navigation wouldn't be improved, actually seizing the Baltic state could possibly make western Europe close the Danish straits.
If you read the latter part of his post, I think it's pretty clear he means we shouldn't mind the Baltics getting invaded, but of course correct me if I'm wrong.
I kinda hold a similar opinion. I don't really want to care about the Baltics. But they are in NATO, and we (the US) are allied to them, so we do have to mind the Baltics getting invaded. If there's a politically feasible way to extricate ourselves from having to protect the Baltics, like somehow removing them from NATO, then I would support it.
phailyoor
19hr ago
If it's just the position of the front, most available maps should be accurate enough. As biased as the reporting may be, they can't fake the front more than a few miles.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
19hr ago
This social structure is extremely common in history and is dishonestly presented as proof of how people can be “multilingual”.
I do not see what's dishonest about such a claim. Being multilingual isn't the same as being equally or maximally fluent in all the languages of concern. Being able to be conversational at all is the bare minimum, and counts by itself.
anon_
19hr ago
They fought way harder than was reasonable to expect when this first started.
And, for many purposes, they established a very credible lesson about it for the future.
That is to say, even if they end up losing some eastern territory, they will have demonstrated that the cost to get it was extremely high -- both in absolute terms and relative to expectation.
Fortunately the story was fake from start to finish and from top to bottom. Anyone who felt an iota of shame over it was played for a sucker, a cheap mark.
So I think the right choice is to continue to be unashamed and unrepentant, especially when people who hate you are tying to stop the things you want done.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
19hr ago
Or maybe you just can't stop yourself from expressing it in maximally vitriolic ways.
He doesn't, though. AFAICS @WhiningCoil is a lot less vitriolic than SteveKirkland or Bernd.
Like, yeah, he might not be the most pleasant person to have around, but neither is @The_Nybbler. WC's not, TTBOMK, a flaming jackass who tries to drive out his opponents and claim the space.
anon_
19hr ago
Because it wasn't my position that we need to accept 'full scale ethnic replacement' or anything of the sort. Or that the solution is just "be more lenient". Neither of those was actually what I wrote.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
19hr ago
It doesn't work like that. Threats don't have unlimited range and effect.
The US can't go 'back out of Ukraine or we'll attack you'. The Russians would call that bluff. The Russians can't likewise say 'end all arms support tomorrow and Starlink too or we'll nuke X, Y and Z'. The US would call that bluff. In the Cold War, there was discussion over whether the US would really trade New York for Paris with reference to nuclear forces. It is not at all accepted that the US would trade New York for Kiev. Credibility is based on proximity of target, perceived value and the provocativeness of behaviour to be deterred. It depends on many factors.
Those who'd pat themselves on the back over 'very, very obvious game theory' should move onto merely obvious game theory.
FarmReadyElephants
19hr ago
Ironically, there's a far stronger natural argument for defending Ukraine against Russia than there is for defending a rogue Chinese province from its sovereign government
This is a hilarious way to compare an anti-communist Western-backed nation that has existed since 1949, versus a province that was ruled by Russia for over 300 years up to 1991 and remained a pretty neutral border state up until 2014
ChickenOverlord
19hr ago
FWIW I've been warned by the mods here a couple times for not being sufficiently charitable towards feminists, and I didn't think what I had written was particularly unkind.
Dean
Flairless
19hr ago
Truly, Antony Blinkin's word is Ukrainian law forever into the future, and 'the State Department isn't going to lean on them' is the same as 'State Department approval.'
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
19hr ago
If you include economic damage to Europe from the sanctions, then easily that much or more. From a 2023 speech:
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/singapore-speech-hrvp-borrell-shangri-la-dialogue_en
if you include the support that the European governments have had to pay in order to help their families and firms to face the high prices of electricity, of food, the subsidies to our people in order to face the consequences of the war is €700 billion
Costs to the US are lower naturally but Big Guy is probably talking about the bloc as a whole.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
19hr ago
I'm aware of what the word means, but thank you for the concern.
Tiber727
19hr ago
No idea. Every option for Ukraine is losing. Making a deal with Russia is pointless because the only condition they will accept is not having a military, which is the same as surrendering their country to Russia. Either they accept being taken over by Russia and enduring whatever Putin does to secure control, or they throw themselves into debt on the hopes that they barely survive. If they win, then throw themselves on the mercy of Europe and endure having nothing while they try to rebuild.
4bpp
Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs
19hr ago
· Edited 19hr ago
My suspicion is rather that the main consideration behind non-delivery of Taurus is that it weighs heavily on one side of a mutual restraint agreement. Taurus can hit Moscow; having to evacuate the Kremlin into hardened command bunkers would certainly be a symbolic and morale hit on Russia, cause friction on its entire government apparatus and possibly destabilise the country down the line regardless of what else happens in Ukraine. However, Russia also has plenty of militarily eminently sensible moves that it has not taken yet, presumably because of Western sensibilities, such as bombing Ukraine's NPPs to actually turn off the lights or turning to indiscriminate bombing of cities to obstruct the civilian economy implicitly supporting the military one (surely Ukrainian drone innovation would be hampered if its drone innovators can no longer buy a warm meal, take a shower or have a warm bed to sleep a full night in).
Would they still not take them if countries like Germany exhausted all escalation steps short of boots-on-ground? Would Germany go boots-on-ground over bombed out NPPs? (I am skeptical that this would necessarily entail significant radiation leaks. Russia could even announce their targets in advance and demand a preemptive shutdown, leaving the offense against the West to be limited to the vague notion of "nuclear terrorism", especially toothless after the latest Iran happenings.)
Unfortunately, the Western propaganda posture requires denying this (as it must be asserted that Russia is maximising for evil, and non-manifestation of any evil outcomes is strictly due to its incompetence), and therefore prevents questions like "What could Russia do if we delivered Taurus? Would it actually be a net positive for Ukraine?" from entering the public discourse.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
19hr ago
while barely even lifting a pinky
The US has been exhausting reserves of hard-to-replenish weapons for Ukraine. Air defence, missile defence is possibly the most important thing for Asia. Yet Patriot batteries and interceptors have been sent to Ukraine. Not to mention the rest of the munitions shortages.
Britain fighting Germany in Europe didn't send a signal to Japan that Britain would also fight in Asia, it only weakened British strength in Asia due to forces being tied down in Europe. Japan entered the war for its own reasons which were independent of whether Britain was feeling isolationist or interventionist.
Chinese decisionmaking is mostly concerned with the balance of power in Asia, economic autarky, immediate concerns to China. They'd like the US to be tied down in Europe so the Pentagon doesn't focus all its strength against them. They'd also like the US to be embroiled in the Middle East.
It's not cowardice to assess costs and benefits of a policy and refrain from maximal engagement in a theater. There's much to learn from China's attitude overseas - trade with the Middle East is a cheap and easy way to make friends, wars are a costly and hard way of making enemies. Warfare should only be planned or pursued for key strategic goals with core relevance to national interests. For China that might be securing Taiwan, uniting the Chinese nation, securing a key base in the region. For America that could be ensuring that there are no hostile regimes in the Americas, preventing any hostile power becoming a regional hegemon like the US in the Americas or stopping any one power securing the bulk of the world's energy supplies.
Well, given the history of the USSR and Russian Empires, I’d say your priors are improperly calibrated
My main point is pretty much that the strategic situation Russia faces today is nothing like the strategic situation the Soviet Union faced in 1945 when they had overwhelming military force, favorable demographics, a vital pan-national ideology, neighboring countries which had been hollowed out by war, a neutral-to-friendly United States, and a regional power vacuum.
So yes, I did consider the Soviet Union and it is precisely that consideration that makes slippery slope arguments seem farfetched
I don’t know how you can observe the last 3 years of war and think Russia would roll over a NATO country
Yeah, and the Ukrainians didn't have a great time. Which is why they're trying pretty dang hard to avoid that fate.
Some Ukrainians didn’t have a great time. Which is why some Ukrainians try pretty hard to avoid that fate. Of all its neighboring countries, Eastern Ukraine is by far the closest linked to Russia
yofuckreddit
20hr ago
You're more right than not! I'm most digitally loquacious after 2 beers.
4bpp
Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs
20hr ago
Tactical drones are nice and all in trench warfare, but good old-fashioned air dominance is even better when you can get it.
Well, can you? The closest we have seen to an attempt to get it over a country with a modern multi-layered air defense system was in fact Russia over Ukraine, and it failed. Of course, the question is to what extent the conclusion should be "Russia sucks" and to what extent it should be "this is a hard problem", but it's not like Ukraine can fly manned planes close to Russian-held territory either. I imagine the US is actually not convinced that it could pull it off either, and is more interested in maintaining the strategic ambiguity (that maybe it could) than risking rolling the dice and establishing that the answer is no for all to see. (Of course, the possibility that the answer being yes leads to nukes is also a factor.)
I can only say I am looking forward to the day China goes for Taiwan, as it will finally re-peg some of the nationalist hypothesizing about who could win if they really tried to reality.
The whole Ukrainian govt is on US and EU payroll, about half their money comes from the West vs Ukrainian taxes.
"So I'm on trial for war crimes. Where is the justice? We are all individuals, making our own decisions. I never forced anyone to do anything. This prosecution is based on spooks, naïve conceptions of conspiracy and a simplistic understanding of a complex world of interrelated cause and effect."
"Well you did pay the soldier's wages. You provided them armaments, training and intelligence. You're responsible for their actions, your support is implicit."
More options
Context Copy link