When and where will Putin make his move?

[Phrossack]

And who will be punishing the United States for their own litancy of offences?

Whoever wants to, and can. And they should.

But this is not the Whataboutism thread, it's about what Putin might do.

 

[Imaus]

If the EU doesn't stand up for the Baltics, then the EU is defunct. The EU will bleed for Estonia simply to ensure its own survival. If it is apathetic, then why even have Article 42? Why advance beyond the Iron Curtain? Why let one of your smallest, newer members be taken out by the other team? Either stand together or disband the whole thing and revert back to some bland economic free trade zone.

Ukraine was fair game because it belonged to no bloc officially. Ditto Georgia, Armenia, Moldava, Serbia. But the EU, and NATO, are blocs, blocs Russia does not poke outright - even at their post-cold war height. Because they mean something.

 

[innonimatu]

Why is this about Putin, actually? Whenever the US destroys one more country it is the US that gets its reputation hit, more that the sitting president (even if they too are). Why in Russia's case it is all about Putin, Putin, Putin?

Perhaps because it is easier to speculate "leader x does terrible thing" that "country x does terrible thing", easier to pass off very unlikely scenarios as a plausible threats? In other words, it is about the ease of demonization.

 

[Phrossack]

If the EU doesn't stand up for the Baltics, then the EU is defunct. The EU will bleed for Estonia simply to ensure its own survival. If it is apathetic, then why even have Article 42? Why advance beyond the Iron Curtain? Why let one of your smallest, newer members be taken out by the other team? Either stand together or disband the whole thing and revert back to some bland economic free trade zone.

Ukraine was fair game because it belonged to no bloc officially. Ditto Georgia, Armenia, Moldava, Serbia. But the EU, and NATO, are blocs, blocs Russia does not poke outright - even at their post-cold war height. Because they mean something.

That is what remains to be seen. The EU has never been called to defend its members before. It, and NATO, included the Baltics because they petitioned to join and, in the days after the fall of the USSR, it probably seemed like the right thing to do. The "end of history," ex-Soviet states wanting to be like the West and all that.

In practice I'm skeptical about the rest of the EU/NATO's willingness to truly fight and bleed for them. There are still those who see them as nothing more than post-Soviet states in Russia's backyard. Hell, there are still western Europeans who are blissfully unaware that the Baltic states have their own, non-Slavic languages; I've met them.

Since any Russian offensive would be swift, and since Putin would not attack unless he knew he could win quickly, odds are the EU/NATO would have no chance to join the defense and would have to evict Russian occupiers with a counterattack. I can't see them having the will to do that. Germans don't have the will to fight. Most of the rest of western Europe would have a rather anti-war public that could argue they're a safe distance. I could see Poland having the public support to resist...but not alone, and odds are they'd be alone. And America under Trump cannot be trusted to oppose Russia militarily, no matter the circumstances.

So I really have no trust in EU/NATO willingness to contest the Baltics.

 

[Ajidica]

That is what remains to be seen. The EU has never been called to defend its members before. It, and NATO, included the Baltics because they petitioned to join and, in the days after the fall of the USSR, it probably seemed like the right thing to do. The "end of history," ex-Soviet states wanting to be like the West and all that.

In practice I'm skeptical about the rest of the EU/NATO's willingness to truly fight and bleed for them. There are still those who see them as nothing more than post-Soviet states in Russia's backyard. Hell, there are still western Europeans who are blissfully unaware that the Baltic states have their own, non-Slavic languages; I've met them.

Since any Russian offensive would be swift, and since Putin would not attack unless he knew he could win quickly, odds are the EU/NATO would have no chance to join the defense and would have to evict Russian occupiers with a counterattack. I can't see them having the will to do that. Germans don't have the will to fight. Most of the rest of western Europe would have a rather anti-war public that could argue they're a safe distance. I could see Poland having the public support to resist...but not alone, and odds are they'd be alone. And America under Trump cannot be trusted to oppose Russia militarily, no matter the circumstances.

So I really have no trust in EU/NATO willingness to contest the Baltics.

Suppose the Russian Federation were to try and militarily annex all or part of a NATO member, they wouldn't be stupid enough to place NATO in a position where NATOs only option out is to engage in a massive military response or total thermonuclear Armageddon.

 

[Phrossack]

Suppose the Russian Federation were to try and militarily annex all or part of a NATO member, they wouldn't be stupid enough to place NATO in a position where NATOs only option out is to engage in a massive military response or total thermonuclear Armageddon.

Seen it, and those are definitely not the options. Given a fait accompli conquest of Narva, or all Estonia, or even all the Baltic States, the options for NATO are:

1. Slowly marshal an army large enough to evict the Russians (this requires American help, which is unlikely given Trump); or

2. Complain, sanction, but do not fight back.

At no point would France, Britain, or America even consider nuclear retaliation. Nobody wants to end human civilization over the Baltic. No nuclear power would be existentially threatened by this.

The question is strictly, "Is NATO willing to spend weeks or months rallying a multinational coalition to launch a major ground invasion into the teeth of entrenched Russian positions backed by the majority of the Russian army and air defenses for the sake of the Baltic States?" And the answer is almost certainly, "No."

 

[Ajidica]

So don't let the situation deteriorate to such a level where we are in such a position.

For example, by not recklessly expanding NATO and EU borders into areas Russia understood to be in its sphere of influence. The blatant American/EU imperialism behind the various color revolutions undid in the Russian mind any of the evidence of genuine local opposite to the complacent and corrupt kleptocrats looting the country.

 

[Phrossack]

So don't let the situation deteriorate to such a level where we are in such a position.

For example, by not recklessly expanding NATO and EU borders into areas Russia understood to be in its sphere of influence. The blatant American/EU imperialism behind the various color revolutions undid in the Russian mind any of the evidence of genuine local opposite to the complacent and corrupt kleptocrats looting the country.

What do you want NATO to do, exactly? Get in a time machine and go back to 1990?

The Baltic States are in both NATO and the EU. They will not willingly leave, and resent claims that they're Russian property. What would you do about it?

 

[Ajidica]

What do you want NATO to do, exactly? Get in a time machine and go back to 1990?

The Baltic States are in both NATO and the EU. They will not willingly leave, and resent claims that they're Russian property. What would you do about it?

Make it clear to the Russian Federation Ukraine can remain in their sphere of influence would be perfectly fine place to start. The Russian emotional attachment to Ukraine is far greater than their attachment to the Baltics - any State Department official who slept through an Eastern Europe class in college should know that. It isn't like Ukraine's 'pro-West' kleptocrats were any better than the 'pro-Russian' ones, except that they know how to say the magic words to get the EU/America to look the other way as they launder their money through German banks and play footsy with neo-Nazi paramilitaries who set journalists on fire.

Think of how America would react if Canada started signing trade deals and political agreements advocating a closer relation between Ottawa and Moscow, severely cutting trade and political relations with the United States. Trudeau would likely be found floating in the St Laurence Seaway after mysteriously falling down a flight of stairs within a month.

 

[Phrossack]

Make it clear to the Russian Federation Ukraine can remain in their sphere of influence would be perfectly fine place to start. The Russian emotional attachment to Ukraine is far greater than their attachment to the Baltics - any State Department official who slept through an Eastern Europe class in college should know that. It isn't like Ukraine's 'pro-West' kleptocrats were any better than the 'pro-Russian' ones, except that they know how to say the magic words to get the EU/America to look the other way as they launder their money through German banks and play footsy with neo-Nazi paramilitaries who set journalists on fire.

Think of how America would react if Canada started signing trade deals and political agreements advocating a closer relation between Ottawa and Moscow, severely cutting trade and political relations with the United States. Trudeau would likely be found floating in the St Laurence Seaway after mysteriously falling down a flight of stairs within a month.

I would have made it clear Ukraine and Georgia cannot join NATO since they can provide no security and would suck NATO into conflicts. Nonetheless they are independent whether Moscow likes it or not. But the Baltics are here to stay.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Why is this about Putin, actually? Whenever the US destroys one more country it is the US that gets its reputation hit, more that the sitting president (even if they too are). Why in Russia's case it is all about Putin, Putin, Putin?

Perhaps because it is easier to speculate "leader x does terrible thing" that "country x does terrible thing", easier to pass off very unlikely scenarios as a plausible threats? In other words, it is about the ease of demonization.

I think it has to do with Putin being in charge of Russia for as long as most posters have been alive, with no end in sight, so it is pretty easy to look at Russia's actions as "Putin did it." USian misdeeds are a lot harder to personalize to anyone in particular.

 

[Traitorfish]

Whoever wants to, and can. And they should.

But this is not the Whataboutism thread, it's about what Putin might do.

I'm just trying to figure out this theory of international justice you're advancing differs from "might makes right". If the United States is not expected to live up to the standards it holds other nations to, if it can only be brought to heel by some other, greater superpower - which of course does not exist- then I'm not convinced that it does so differ in any substantive way.

I'm not saying that you're wrong in principle, but "punishment" invokes authority, and what legitimate authority exists that could "punish" Russia? It is not whataboutism to ask why the United States, or indeed any of the core EU state, are permitted to set aside their own imperial histories and appoint themselves supreme global magistrate. It would be like appointing a habitual criminal to the Presidency of the Uni- ah. Right. Worst timeline.

 

[Phrossack]

I'm just trying to figure out this theory of international justice you're advancing differs from "might makes right". If the United States is not expected to live up to the standards it holds other nations to, if it can only be brought to heel by some other, greater superpower - which of course does not exist- then I'm not convinced that it does so differ in any substantive way.

I'm not saying that you're wrong in principle, but "punishment" invokes authority, and what legitimate authority exists that could "punish" Russia? It is not whataboutism to ask why the United States, or indeed any of the core EU state, are permitted to set aside their own imperial histories and appoint themselves supreme global magistrate. It would be like appointing a habitual criminal to the Presidency of the Uni- ah. Right. Worst timeline.

Russia committed offenses against the EU and US, EU and US have the right to choose not to do business with Russia and its oligarchs. Just because the US has done similar bad things does not in any way justify the shootdown of airliners, incitement of extremism, and invasion of other countries. If another country or group of countries feel wronged by the US, they should likewise retaliate. I am truly tired of explaining this to people who think that one party's offenses instantly excuse another's, and this thread is decidedly not for that. So let's get back to discussing what Putin may or may not do, or else let's avoid this thread.

 

[red_elk]

US has the right to retaliate if it feels offended, of course. It doesn't have the authority to judge other countries, "punish" them or decide who is right or wrong from the international law point of view. If a mafia boss condemns other bosses for misdeeds, it's nothing more than hypocrisy.

 

[Phrossack]

And I suppose that therefore makes mafia activity perfectly noble and righteous--as long as it's from the right people...

Look, we've been over this Whataboutism dozens of times in countless threads. Nobody will ever budge. Ever. It is pointless derailment to continue. Let's get back to discussing potential Russian geopolitical moves, shall we?

 

[red_elk]

And I suppose that therefore makes mafia activity perfectly noble and righteous--as long as it's from the right people...

I didn't say that. Only that mafia boss lecturing others about morality and abiding the law, doesn't sound convincing.

 

[Traitorfish]

Look, we've been over this Whataboutism dozens of times in countless threads. Nobody will ever budge. Ever. It is pointless derailment to continue. Let's get back to discussing potential Russian geopolitical moves, shall we?

It's not whataboutism. We're specifically puzzled by this claim that action taken against Russia constitutes "punishment". As I said, to "punish" invokes authority. What authority? Derived from where? Bestowed upon who? If these questions cannot be answered, or if the answer is simply that the United States has bestowed this authority upon itself, then you're simply proclaiming that might makes right- the same politics you condemn in Putin- and you shouldn't really be surprised if that turns out to be controversial.

 

[Phrossack]

It's not whataboutism. We're specifically puzzled by this claim that action taken against Russia constitutes "punishment". As I said, to "punish" invokes authority. What authority? Derived from where? Bestowed upon who? If these questions cannot be answered, or if the answer is simply that the United States has bestowed this authority upon itself, then you're simply proclaiming that might makes right- the same politics you condemn in Putin- and you shouldn't really be surprised if that turns out to be controversial.

We've been over this many times before, we've gotten nowhere, it most certainly is Whataboutism, and this isn't the place for it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's not whataboutism. We're specifically puzzled by this claim that action taken against Russia constitutes "punishment". As I said, to "punish" invokes authority. What authority? Derived from where? Bestowed upon who? If these questions cannot be answered, or if the answer is simply that the United States has bestowed this authority upon itself, then you're simply proclaiming that might makes right- the same politics you condemn in Putin- and you shouldn't really be surprised if that turns out to be controversial.

The punishment is ostracism, and the authority is the (nebulously defined) international community.

 

[Traitorfish]

"The mayor, who is a lizard-person, has pursued an ineffective public transport policy."
"Wait, what was that about lizards?"
"Ugh, not this again. Can we just stay on topic?"