Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,161 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 2 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Confirming YMS comment
Ukraine’s foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba’s said: “They are still missing some key military elements and systems to mount a big, full-scale offensive.”
The foreign minister added that Russia’s intention was to destabilise his country by “spreading panic, raising pressure on Ukraine‘s financial system and launching cyberattacks”.
Deadlock
Biden and NATO told Russia there will be no U.S. or NATO concessions on Moscow’s main demands to resolve the crisis over Ukraine.
“There is no change, there will be no change,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said.
The Iraq war game-plan replayed.
American intelligence resources would use British reports to support their allegations of the Iraq threat.
UK communiqué provided asserted how Russia might go about imposing a new government on Ukraine. British officials familiar with the situation, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The British communiqué provided no evidence to back up its assertion that Russia was plotting to overthrow the Ukrainian government.
Anonymous officials within the U.S. government reviewed the intelligence gathered by anonymous British spies and concluded that the evidence is solid. That’s called independent corroboration.
UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace told the BBC there’s still “a chance” that an invasion by Russia could be stopped, but he added “I’m not optimistic”.
The Western powers will not react militarily to a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Some of them such as Germany are even against economic sanctions as Russia could retaliate by cutting gas supplies to Europe so provoking an economic crisis. Russia doesn’t need to (and probably doesn’t want to) invade as it is in the stronger bargaining position since it is the West that is seeking to change the status quo. I would guess that the most likely outcome is that the West finds some face-saving formula to back down on its insistence that Ukraine join NATO. Meanwhile the rhetoric and sabre-rattling on both sides continues.
How do you think they could back down now?
My guess would be that they will
drop the insistence that Ukraine join NATO while asserting or even proclaiming Ukraine’s abstract right to do so — a question of replacing the word “should” by “could”. But whatever the diplomatic formulation Ukraine won’t join NATO.Here’s the measure of Germany’s support for Ukraine.
Re: Nordstream: the War nerd discussion touches on this, noting that Putin has more leverage over Ukraine once it’s done, so they add it as another reason why invasion is unlikely now.
Re: way out. Paul Mason has been pushing the line that NATO can keep the principle that Ukraine could join, but in practice refuse to admit a state to a defensive alliance that is in a current state of war with a disputed border.
But now, Russia has said they’re sending a military support presence to Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua, I.e. “Two can play that game, mush!”
And we have thought of this way out for them, but are they that subtle or rational?
Exactly but I think it’s bluff just like NATO sending a few thousand troops to Poland and other NATO states bordering on Russia. That’s how diplomacy works. Diplomats don’t just draw up ideal solutions. They take into account the real balance of forces on the ground. Might is Right. So sabre-rattling and bluff, as well as states equipping themselves with the most destructive weapons they can afford, are an essential part of international relations and diplomacy. War is only resorted to as a last resort when a state feels that its vital interests are at stake.
You don’t think Russia’s vital capitalist interests are at stake here?
Actually, I do. But the interests of the Western capitalist powers are not. They want to change the status quo to their advantage and are in that sense the aggressors. But they are not prepared to go to war to gain this advantage. They will know that Russia’s vital interests are at stake while theirs are not and so they cannot press Russia too far. That’s why I am guessing they will back down. Capitalist Russia will want to avoid war but, to get the West to back down, has to demonstrate that it would if the West doesn’t back off. Which they seem to be doing convincingly enough.
That’s my take but I’m not claiming to be a latter-day Engels “the General”.
They just want to finish the job that they started in 1989-91, they want Russia capitalist interests for themselves, to take their spheres of influence and raw materials, and to bring Russia to their side instead of allying with China
Russia has more interests to lose than the western powers and they want Russia to capitulate, Russia does not have the same muscles as the Soviet Union, and they have many internal problems to take care of, and Putin is not in good standing at present.
Sending troops or aeroplanes to Venezuela, Nicaragua or Cuba will not make any difference and it will not affect the interests of the USA in the region, they have been in Venezuela for several years, and it might create more problems for Cuba and Nicaragua, and Cuba is negotiating with the USA to reactivate Obama agreement.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.