Silvaire wrote:
Putin is acting when he sees a clear opportunity, this is not a new idea but it is one that former US administrations would have countered much more forcefully and effectively.
Certainly not his fanboy Trump who fawned over Putin. Neither Obama, with his ‘red lines’ in Syria which were breached by Putin and Assad with impunity.
The real problem here is Germany which not only made itself totally dependent on Russia, but even now vacillates and effectively does nothing. Seems that country has learned absolutely zero from its own horrific past.
As per a previous post here, in relation to former president Trump’s relationship with Putin I think it is useful to know and understand this concept. It’s the oldest game in any New York blowhard salesman’s book, and that’s what Trump is at his core, but it often works to manipulate people like Putin who are weak through being self impressed. Being ‘crazier than you are’ also works pretty well in that circumstance. Trump is a quite successful and effective blowhard salesman 
For sure Obama was completely useless in projecting power and in useful foreign relation ideas, making friends with the housewives of the world doesn’t count, but at least he did not give off the same unmistakable aura of ineffective anger, frustration, senility and weakness as his then-VP, now. This has been absolutely terrible for Europe.
Agree 100% on Germany, in terms of effective values and policy it seems as much Disneyland as Deutschland.
A rather depressing prediction, but from someone with the experience to make the prediction.
Essentially his prediction is that Russia will hold 20% of Ukraine, the war will go into a deep freeze with Ukraine unable to eject Russia but Russia bring a spent force and not interested in pushing further and the West forced to lift sanctions in return to getting grain exported to avoid a famine in much of the third world.
I really hope he is wrong.
The real problem here is Germany which not only made itself totally dependent on Russia, but even now vacillates and effectively does nothing. Seems that country has learned absolutely zero from its own horrific past.
It would be interesting to hear what Germans think, but I agree with your statement. From what I’ve read they have promised lots of heavy hardware but don’t send any. Now talking about sending it at the end of the year, when it will no longer be needed. When the Ukrainians try to by weapons from German manufacturers, the government won’t sign the export authorisation (nor state that they won’t sign it). When the EU tries to cut off SWIFT Germany insists that certain banks are left out so that it can still pay for its energy. When the EU tries to ban fuel imports Germany refuses to allow gas imports to be banned.
I think that Germany is carrying so much guilt over previous wars that they just don’t want to be involved in any way. Unfortunately that is the wrong lesson to learn from their history. Instead they should be helping to stand up against the wrong being done now. The less charitable interpretation is that their economy is more important to them than doing the right thing. Personally it think the guilt is the correct interpretation.
And yes my own country isn’t exactly a shining example either. Sending some helmets and sticking plasters and taking in some refugees doesn’t exactly cut it. Militarily we don’t have much to offer. But dropping our long held neutrality and offering what heavy equipment we have and perhaps the one or two aircraft that we can spare would be hugely symbolic and might help nudge bigger counties to do more.
I’m afraid @dublinpilot I don’t share your optimism over German motivation. I don’t think there’s any war guilt left, they’re just doing what is in their own immediate interests.
Perhaps it is time Germany (and Turkey) was threatened with ejection from NATO.
While I don’t believe Trump offered any great insight on the NATO question (he was just playing to his voter base and PROB99 has zero understanding of the historical context) the idea that Europe needs to conduct and pay for its own defence is right on the money. Fortunately, nukes aside, it’s been shown that Russia is a much less serious military threat than was previously thought.
The problem with any European defence organisation is the command structure. The old nations (the French in particular) are too proud to cede authority to each other and each demands pre-eminence. Witness the permanently-stillborn attempts at creating an EU army. The involvement of the US not only brought much of the capability but also a leadership role that European nations could countenance ceding to a ‘higher power’, but never to each other.
I am hoping (probably in vain) that the UK will see the foolishness of the last 50 years of constant defence cuts and take steps to rebuild scale and capability in our military. What we have at the moment are bulging and very expensive support organisations that have very little combat capability to actually support, the result of constant and inappropriate political redefining of what the military is actually for: with definitions arrived at to suit policy and spending decisions already taken.
I doubt the British Army could even put a division in the field, and the Royal Navy probably could not assemble a task force like the one that re-took the Falklands in 1982. When 70 military aircraft conducted the platinum jubilee flypast, it was noticeable that only a small proportion were combat aircraft.
RTE news : Some Russian-flagged ships allowed dock at Irish ports
Stanley wrote:
Merkel veto’d Ukraine joining in 2008 or there about for which Putin was greatful.
That is one way of putting it. Merkel vetoed it because she knew the man better than anyone and even then believed when he made it clear that allowing Ukraine into NATO means war. It would have meant then, it means it now. The trigger for the current war was Selenski’s insistence to go in this direction which Russia saw as a violation of the “red line” they had put what they would tolerate and what not and some Europeans encoruaging him. It was a game of chicken which Putin has won, at least for now. And personally I am perfectly clear that he or his successor will win this one: Ukraine will not get access to NATO as Ukraine is a country at war and therefore excluded from entering membership until it is no longer. So all Russia has to do is to continue the war in Donbass or elsewhere, even on the small flame it was on since 2014.
Stanley wrote:
Finland and Sweden have Turkey as the objector.
Correct. And quite possibly Germany as well, behind closed doors. I am sure that Germany is really happy that they have the useful idiot in the South whom they can blame so they don’t have to do it themselves. Because again, Russia has long declared that them joining NATO means WW3. Well, they mean it.
hanski wrote:
Perhaps the biggest problem would be that Nato can not accept countries which happen to be in war or under occupation at the moment – and for Ukraine that may continue for some decades (Krim) if they will not get enough weapons from the west in the near future. It sure would be wonderful to throw Russians away from all Ukraine but does not look very likely to happen in the short run.
Exactly.
Silvaire wrote:
Many people including former President Trump, correctly, believe that time has come and gone and that Europe needs to step up in its own defense.
Not that this was Trump’s idea or even something he really is interested in. Radical Republicans talked about dissolving NATO and getting out of the UN for years. All he did is materialize on the issue to get elected, like just about all of his political program, copied from people like Bannon and other Tea Party extremists. He used this to stamp on Europe to satisfy his votership, for no other reason.
Silvaire wrote:
I personally think the current situation in Europe is the direct result of the current federal executive administration being elected.
If I think back to the 2016 contest, you may well be right factually. Putin threatened even then that if Clinton got elected, the risk of WW3 would be imminent. Putin wanted Trump as POTUS, very clearly, he said so many times.
Silvaire wrote:
It’s the oldest game in any New York blowhard salesman’s book, and that’s what Trump is at his core, but it often works to manipulate people like Putin who are weak through being self impressed.
The concept works both ways. Putin and Trump are quite alike. They both are of the opinion that democracy is foolish and and “real” leader should be left to do his stuff without the ants having a say in it. Both of them are very self centered and like power games. So yea, they kept telling each other how much they admire each other and this might well have kept Putin to risk having the POTUS on his side by invading Ukraine, particularly since he knew that Selenski and Trump were not quite happy with each other as Selenski refused to help him against Biden. So Putin knew very well that under Trump he would not have to worry about Ukraine becoming NATO member.
Of course, there is a massive difference between the two: Putin is much more intelligent. And he is a spook at heart and knows how to play people, even if he has lost his touch recently quite massively. Old age and a feel of his time running out to achieve his ends might do that.
Now if you recall what Trump did when he was pissed off, I’d think there is all the reason to be VERY concerned about what Putin may do in a similar situation. Trump merely tried to stage a coup d’ etat in the US, but always shied away from international warfare. Putin on the other hand, has nothing left to loose. And if he is going down, he might as well take as many with him as he can.
So quite maybe he would not have done this with Trump in power, mainly because he knew that Trump had no interest to allow Ukraine into NATO and he was more buddy with Putin than with any European leader, all of whom despised him. Putin would not wish to antagonize someone that good for his own ends. Or he would have struck a “deal” with Trump and gotten what he wanted anyway.
172driver wrote:
The real problem here is Germany which not only made itself totally dependent on Russia, but even now vacillates and effectively does nothing. Seems that country has learned absolutely zero from its own horrific past.
There is one other elephant in the room which seems to go strangely unnoticed. Most theorists believe that Putin hates America. Quite clearly that is the case, mainly because America stands in his way of what he wants to achieve. But that is nothing against the hatred the Russians and Putin in particular have against the Germans. Merkel knew and understood that. After all, they could talk 1:1 and often did, in German. Putin came up in East Germany, he knows his way there very well indeed. Merkel said in a recent interview that there was a shism in Putin’s relation to her and the West after 2014, before it had been cordial, after that purely confrontational. Her calculation that she could keep the Russians peaceful by making them wealthy and as she thought dependent on them, did not work out, in the end, but it did for quite a while. Putin now is in a situation where riches don’t matter anymore and that is what nobody took into account.
Graham wrote:
Perhaps it is time Germany (and Turkey) was threatened with ejection from NATO.
Germany would be rightly scared of that. Turkey, I think Erdogan would be ejected with pleasure and throw out the hated Americans from their air bases. I think it would be a mistake to kick them out (Turkey) as Erdogan is only kept halfways from fulfilling his own territorial ambitions by his armed forces who in turn lean on NATO for that. Also the relation between Greece and Turkey could escalate really fast and mean an almost immediate Articel 5 conflict if Turkey is ejected. As long as Turkey is inside, they are on the leach.
Graham wrote:
While I don’t believe Trump offered any great insight on the NATO question (he was just playing to his voter base and PROB99 has zero understanding of the historical context) the idea that Europe needs to conduct and pay for its own defence is right on the money.
Yes. Unfortunately this may well mean going nuclear in terms of deterrence. If Russia did not have that trump (pun coincidental for the lack of a better word) in their hands then they could never have dared the agression they do now, as they would have been attacked frontally by just about everyone.
Graham wrote:
I doubt the British Army could even put a division in the field, and the Royal Navy probably could not assemble a task force like the one that re-took the Falklands in 1982. When 70 military aircraft conducted the platinum jubilee flypast, it was noticeable that only a small proportion were combat aircraft.
Maybe XH558 needs to be put back into action one last time… Crying shame that one was grounded for good.
I see others have put a few names forward, of possible objectors to Ukraine joining NATO. To these I add the following brilliant article
giving a pointer to what French policy might be.
Please ignore the provocative headline for the article and soak up some history from the Franco-Prussian war 1870 to the present day
Tea Party extremists
I would maintain that the Tea Party phenomenon was
a return from extremism to principle and reason. It made me very happy to see ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ used again as a slogan. Naturally the opposition and press, which like yourself in my view tend to see totalitarianism as a solution not a problem, don’t like it one bit. And in time tested fashion, they accuse the opposition of being exactly what they are. Another very old but predictable ploy.
Unfortunately I see the advancement of principled Tea Party values having been at least temporarily set back by the authoritarian period from which we are (hopefully) emerging now. We will see how things progress again as the current US administration loses its grip on federal power, which I think is fairly certain given its remarkably poor performance by all accounts. I suspect the pendulum will swing back toward liberty considerably even though the politics of fear since 2001 and even more so in 2020-21 clearly has had an effect on manipulating those who are susceptible to it.
The concept works both ways. Putin and Trump are quite alike. They both are of the opinion that democracy is foolish
That is just silly, not the basis for a rational discussion, and I’m not going to respond further to it.
Most theorists believe that Putin hates America.
You don’t say? 
As stated and fairly obviously, US military power and willingness to use it to defend against wrongdoing is the main factor that’s stopping him from expanding his Soviet style rampage in Eastern Europe. That and the apparent incapability of the Russian military.
Merkel vetoed it because she knew the man better than anyone and even then believed when he made it clear that allowing Ukraine into NATO means war. It would have meant then, it means it now.
That is just one POV. Mine is that Putin will not go nuclear because it will instantly change absolutely everything, and events will no longer be under his control or even much influence. He ultimately wants to live, enjoy his mistress(es), his $1BN palace on the Black Sea coast, his multi-BN empire… IMHO, even a single “tactical” nuke will change the world. And he won’t explode one over the empty sea because that won’t have any positive benefit since everybody knows that nukes work (in terms of physics; it was known since ~1910 but not proven until 1945).
The trigger for the current war was Selenski’s insistence to go in this direction which Russia saw as a violation of the “red line” they had put what they would tolerate and what not and some Europeans encoruaging him
Well, that is the Putin apologists’ standard line i.e. Putin was provoked. I reckon 75% of the “not unattractive” and thus “quite succesfully married” Russian women living here will come out with that line… they do deserve sympathy though since their CPU is running at full stretch when jewellery shopping or performing some other activities. The problem with that is that Europe has been a melting pot of conflict, wars and death, ever since for ever. Anyone running a European forum will know why, too Anyone who thought nationalism died out in 1945, look at the vaccine business, 2020/2021, and that was sanctioned at the highest level by the very institution that was set up in the 1950s to prevent wars. You can always find a reason to hit somebody. Slovakia invades Russia, to recover land stolen by Stalin in 1945. Germany invades Czechoslovakia, to recover the Sudetenland. All perfectly justified, but complete bollox Back to the joke about the orthodox priest who builds two churches.
Ukraine was/is a sovereign country, with UN-recognised borders. Russia invaded it. That’s wrong, and they need to get back out. Completely. It’s really quite simple.
Realpolitik will probably turn out different, because even US+UK together can’t supply enough hardware to drive Russia out. Europe is divided (by gas, mainly ) and the KGB has always been brilliant at orchestrating division. So Russia will end up keeping some of the land they stole. Much of it will be rubble, and I am sure Putin supporters living there will enjoy it, especially minus their €200 Indesit washing machines. Cruel irony, but could have been worse – they might have been Miele
Trump is history; he won’t get back in. Not unless he is embalmed.
To these I add the following brilliant article giving a pointer to what French policy might be.
Great writeup. Yeah; he is running a complicated agenda… On the positive side, he is not trying to starve the British Middle Classes by blockading the Channel Tunnel and stopping avocados getting through
Right now I find Scholz a bigger mystery but I have already posted on that; if/when Russia capture the Donbas and declare a “unilateral armistice” due to “completed de-nazification project”, one can immediately make a list of which of Ukraine’s supporting countries will immediately support that line. Well, none of those countries have sent anything much anyway…
