George Friedman, Geopolitical Futures: Russia and Ukraine: War or Bluff?
Two weeks ago, I wrote an analysis of Russian strategy titled “Russia’s Move.” Here’s a brief recap: When the Soviet Union collapsed, it lost control of the western borderlands that had been the bedrock of its security for hundreds of years. Those borderlands created a strategic depth that forced invaders into an extended and exhausting campaign that Russia could resist. Russia had been attacked in the 18th century by the Swedes, in the 19th century by France, and twice in the 20th century by Germany. There had also been wars with Turkey in the 18th and 19th centuries. In 1991, these borderland regions became independent, and from the Russian point of view, the West generally and the United States specifically sought to control the newly formed states. This constituted nothing less than an existential threat to Russia.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: My must read post for today.
Hat tip to Robert for the link.
26 comments:
If Russia decides to invade Ukraine, I assume they will do that around the same time when China invades Taiwan, that would be the most efficient way to do so.
Mao pointed something out, which everyone knows. Somehow Milley, Austin and Biden will still be caught with their pants down. Milley likes it like that.
Who needs roller coaters or horror movies in such a fucked world?
I suspect they're going to be coordinated. As to the outcome, we cannot "know" for certain but can make inferences based upon available information. I expect Taiwan to fall very quickly? Probably with roughly the same speed the former Afghan government fell. As for Ukraine, I expect a similar result but we cannot "know" without an actual armed conflict that I pray we are able to avoid.
Part of the understandings that ended Cold War 1 was an understanding that the US and NATO would not expand into former Soviet or Eastern Bloc countries. Perhaps if the US and it's "allies" wouldn't have violated this understanding the current tensions in Ukraine could have been avoided.
Part of the understandings ... (blah) (blah) (blah) ... I am a Russian troll ... (blah) (blah) (blah)
Part of the understandings?
Russian oligarchs must have their feelings assuaged. The Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles, Romanians, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Czechs, Slovaks Ukrainians and Georgians can go fly a kite. Is that your take slow roll troll?
In 1994, Ukraine signed an agreement with the U.S., the UK and Russia under which it gave up its nuclear arsenal in return for certain assurances.
The US is obligated to protect Ukraine under the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. Perhaps you have not read the agreement sue to dyslexia. Perhaps you do not have a copy in Cyrillic. Perhaps you can read just fine, but you know you job is to push propaganda.
If you are going to troll try to make it interesting and do not be so dry. Trolls like hos should not be dry.
Creating two different crises to divide world attention is certainly a possibility. It does offer some advantages, but also carries the huge risk of escalating both crises and generating a larger blowback than either would alone because they'd be seen as linked.
I don't think there's a danger of Taiwan falling quickly. They have 165k active personnel and ten times that number as reserves. Amphibious invasions is one of the hardest military operations to carry out because the beachhead needs to receive reinforcements and supplies at a faster rate than the opposing land forces can muster which is very hard. I think the danger to Taiwan is the long term ability to withstand a blockade. Any comparison to Afghanistan is just ignorance. The two are nothing alike. Afghanistan was a corrupt and incompetent government that could not control its own territory and dependent on foreign aid. Taiwan's government enjoys complete legitimacy among its own people, a population overwhelmingly dedicated to being free, and a successful modern administration and economy.
Cold War ended because the Soviet Union collapsed. There's no record of any agreement stating NATO could not expand. Gorbachev has said there was an oral agreement between him and Bush, but Bush (or anyone else from the West) never confirmed that, and Gorbachev would well know that oral statements don't have binding force of international law. Most likely it is something he WISHES he had gotten at some point, or made some sort of comment he later imagined was some kind of binding agreement.
In fact, at the time there was very little protest at NATO expansion. The former Warsaw Pact nations of Eastern Europe and the Baltics were traditionally parts of Western civilization, their peoples adhering to Latin Christianity and having other strong ties to Western institutions. we didn't start hearing Russian complaints until after the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. Unlike Poland, the Baltics, and the Balkans, both Ukraine and Belarus are Eastern Slavs that were traditionally part of Russian civilization. Putin considered them part of Russia's "Near Abroad" and were essential to his plans of restoring Russia to superpower status. Ukraine's path towards democracy and its own nationalism threatened those plans. That's when the Russians started making accusations about Western betrayal and aggression.
Russia certainly has legitimate security concerns, but the best guarantee would be both Belarus and Ukraine to become neutral borderlands whose borders were guaranteed. But Putin doesn't want that because what he really wants is to dominate both and incorporate them into a new Russian empire in some fashion. He's causing the very crisis he claims he wants to prevent. If Russia did not invade Ukraine, likely there would only limited support in Ukraine for NATO membership like it was in 2014.
Chris
Perhaps the Estonians etc need to form their own defense agreement. At the very least, Perhaps Ukraine should refrain from actively provoking Russia.
I'm aware of the 1994 agreement. We've been beaten over the proverbial head with this and a number of others numerous times. This was quite dumb on the part of the Ukrainian government to agree to voluntarily give up their nuclear deterrent. It was also dumb on the part of our government to agree to take on the defense of yet another country. We can't be bound to flawed agreements in perpetuity. Such actions are best misguided and sap our strength and treasure. At worst, such things are suicidal.
The generally astute Mr. Friedman says it well in the article. The US has no real interests here whereas Russia views this as existential. Working constructively to solve the outstanding issues isn't "assuaging" their feelings. I refer to it as prudent diplomacy and statesmanship.
Mr. Friedman suggests that Russia may be bluffing. H3 suggests perhaps not. He also suggests that KGB men tend to be patient but Putin may be after glory. Personally I don't know what Putin is thinking. He does generally seem patient and disciplined. In contrast, our leadership class is rash and impulsive acting without properly thinking things through. I think it is highly likely that it is they who are seeking glory. Perhaps it's more primal. Certain members of the leadership class need protecting.
"The US is obligated to protect Ukraine..." As stated, this was a bad agreement from the start and we can't be bound by it. It wouldn't be the first one our government has violated either. I don't really expect the UK to help much either. Perhaps if the chump Ukrainian government is so important to you, go there and sign on to serve in their armed forces.
If you are going to "protect" someone, you must first provide for your own needs. Until then you aren't going to be much good to anyone else. At this point, the defense of our own isn't being properly handled. The leadership class needs to focus on this rather than a misguided 1994 agreement.
"Perhaps the Estonians etc need to form their own defense agreement."
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania will form their own defense pact called the 3 Amigos. That will stop Putin from coveting them for sure.
Any more stupid or troll ideas?
"We can't be bound to flawed agreements in perpetuity. "
The agreement is flawed why?
Speak up troll сука.
Overall good analysis. Perhaps the comparison of Taiwan to Afghanistan is "ignorant." Part of the problem with Afghanistan was the "ghost soldiers" due to the corruption. US and "allied" leaders likely assumed Afghanistan was I'm better position than it actually was.
I like your take on Taiwan and hope you're right. My take on this is both Taiwan and China are in agreement that Taiwan is a part of China and Taiwanese actions here are designed to better their position I'm some type of negotiated settlement when reunification happens.
I suspect there would have been a written agreement at the time if either party believed our leadership would later go insane. Belarus and Ukraine as neutral may be a good starting point. Our leadership class could try and move Ukraine in this direction and away from actively promoting conflict. The 1994 agreement was misguided to begin with and we cannot be bound by it. We certainly can't be sucked into a fight that runs contrary to our interests. Perhaps a better way to help them would be try and move them toward peace.
Seven sentences on the allegations that the 1994 agreement is flawed but not one reason why?
So many words to say nothing. If trolling does not work out, you can always be a diplomat.
Why is the agreement flawed? We are barely able to defend our own interests much less those of another country whose interests and values run contrary to us. Ukraine gave up it's nuclear deterrent?!!? That alone should be red flag to anyone that their government at the time was non serious. Interlocking agreements that risk sucking us into conflicts that run contrary to our interests aren't good. They drain our resources, place our people in unnecessary danger, and gain nothing of value for us.
As the article points out, there aren't any overriding interests for us in this fight. As our Founding Fathers pointed out, we can't go through the world looking for monsters to slay.
Perhaps the models employed by countries like New Zealand, Australia, and Canada should be studied and implemented where and when possible. They are far more secure than we are.
Perhaps the comparison of Taiwan to Afghanistan is "ignorant."
Going straight up the middle with a straight up lie didn't work. So let's try a sweep. Milley is not the only one caught with his knickers down.
Perhaps I could have been more clear. I thought it was obvious but perhaps not. This type of agreement doesn't fit with our just interests. Certainly agreeing to defend someone who voluntarily gives up a nuclear deterrent is unwise. It's not worth the blood and treasure. Smart leaders don't waste resources on such things besides I doubt they're going to be anywhere to be found even we're invaded.
I didn't lie. Sometimes I err but I do not lie. Admittedly Taiwan and Afghanistan may not be the best comparison.
With that said China is a major world power, arguably the strongest country on earth. Whether nations of earth like it or not they have to make nice with China sooner rather than later. I believe they'll tire of Taiwan very quickly. I think the Taiwanese know this and aren't going to allow it to get to that point. Essentially like the government of Afghanistan I wouldn't expect them to last long. I can see how someone could interpret my comments to suggest that other comparisons might be valid.
Until communists are gone why should Taiwan negotiate with the PRC? We all saw what happened in Hong Kong except you. You must be blind or a commie-tard.
Taiwan already is negotiating with the PRC. We negotiate all the time as do they.
We all know about Hong Kong. They didn't have a military deterrent. Taiwan has one even if it's primary use is to better their position in the inevitable reunion negotiations.
As I stated awhile back on this site, if Taiwan were serious about long range independence they'd do the following. 1.) Develop a robust nuclear deterrent capable of eliminating major Chinese cities very quickly, 2.) Develop military capabilities that are completely independent of the US or anyone's else that would make the inevitable Chinese victory so pyric that they wouldn't try it, and 3.) find a product or service that China needs and supply it to them at a quality and price combination that no one else can match while making it clear that hostile acts will result in the loss of this product or service.
I pointed this out several years ago. In all this time, I've seen no movement on 1 or 3 and only minimal movement on 2. It's as though they're trying to keep their American pawns from catching on!! While they could be serious about their independence, right now I'm skeptical.
A little bit more about the communists, the editor's father observed there's more communists in the "west" than in Russia. He also observed that the communists in Russia are old and alone. If I misunderstood, he can correct me. Additionally, when I young I knew some people who emigrated from Eastern Europe and they alluded to the notion that there's more communists in America than in Russia. If you're interested in fighting commies, fighting our own democratic party would be a great place to start!!
Now some more about negotiating with the PRC. The US announced a "diplomatic boycott" or something silly like that of the Olympics. We along with everyone else negotiates with them. Of course the "boycott" is meaningless. Nobody else is going along and if we need to engage in diplomacy in this forum messages will be sent back and forth through intermediaries.
"Taiwan already is negotiating with the PRC. We negotiate all the time as do they."
Well that is a news flash. Not!
Sometimes it is done to be prudent. Sometimes it is done in earnest. Often times it is done just so diplomats can jack their jaw or pretend to earn their keep. Kerry jacks his jaw all the time to get his ugly mug on camera and to justify his expense account and salary.
3.) find a product or service that China needs and supply it to them at a quality and price combination that no one else can match while making it clear that hostile acts will result in the loss of this product or service.
That would be oil and food and it has not persuaded them.
True, 3 always was going to be the hardest. With oil and food there's plenty of suppliers for anything they can't obtain or produce domestically. As far as I can tell, no effort has been made here. If significant movement were made on 1 and 2, might be convinced that they're serious about their independence. Until then I'm highly skeptical and would be reluctant to commit our limited resources to them. The order in which the items are listed is in order of importance.
"True, 3 always was going to be the hardest"
False.
The US did it with the Japanese oil embargo of 1940.
Number one, there is precedent.
Number two, the 1940 embargo is a blueprint.
There is precedent indeed. Japan obviously couldn't find other suppliers. I don't see Taiwan being able to meet China's needs for oil or food. They will need to find something else. I never said it couldn't be done but it will be difficult. With the oil and food example multiple suppliers clamor to supply China with what they need/want that can't be produced in country.
For what it's worth, it's beyond dumb on the part of our (US) leaders to limit our oil production. It takes a valuable resource essentially off of the proverbial table when providing for the needs of our people and representing our interests.
You are real mother fucker. Yes, you are. Argue you do at the the 30,000 foot level in a verbose power point style of a sorority girl or Jen Psaki saying nothing much at all.
Russia can't make up any OPEC oil China would lose. Were Russia to stop exporting to the West and focus solely on China, it could not make up for the loss of OPEC. There is also these little buggers called SLOC and choke points.
Insults aren't necessary. Don't like my style? If there's something that you would like clarified, I'm happy to try and do so. At this point in time, I simply do not expect anyone to cut off oil or food from China. Right now they aren't going to help us and they're certainly not going to help Taiwan. Relations and trade with China is simply to valuable.
Maybe if we could get cooperation from Russia and other countries this might be different. This will require smarter diplomacy. Russia has it's own issues with China. This may be doable. I think Trump had the right idea, as did those who fought WW2. They understood the importance of going into the fight with powerful allies.
Given our current policy, I project a 99.95% probability the US will be a shooting war with Russia, China, and their allies within the next six months. The editor seems to think this would escalate to a nuclear war very quickly. I pray he is wrong.
I also expect the US to be blockaded by Russia, China, and their allies during this war meaning nothing or no one goes on or leaves without their approval and I don't think there's going to be much enthusiasm on the part of anyone to try and run this blockade. Essentially we'll be alone. Combine this with most of our infrastructure being eliminated by a combination of military and cyber attacks we are going to be experiencing some very tough times here. What is our leadership class doing to counter this? I pray my assessment of this situation is wrong.
You're the one doing the insulting. This makes you the troll. In contrast, I've always tried to be respectful to everyone.
If there's an issue with my analysis, please point out where you think my analysis is flawed. Perhaps having weak arguments you feel the only option is insulting me. Perhaps you need an echo chamber. Very respectfully if the comment section becomes an echo chamber nothing is gained.
Did I claim that I did not insult you? No.
What I did was insult you and call you troll.
Back on 2014 someone commented and asked me not to feed the troll (you).
Part of the problem with anonymous posters is I don't always know who I'm addressing. Therefore it can be hard not to "feed" you. In contrast, we know exactly who I am and enough information has been provided to ascertain my full bio.
If there's a problem you see with my analysis, kindly point it out. Such things are productive. Insults aren't and add nothing of value to the discussion. Perhaps you want an echo chamber. I'm not sure you'll find that here.
Post a Comment