Russia has invaded Ukraine

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by jfman

He made it quite clear the plan was to talk to both sides and force a settlement. That might appear alien to anyone bogged down in Cold War rhetoric but to anyone with eyes in October it was obvious Trump was going to end the Biden era pretence that Ukraine were any more than a short term ally for the period American and Ukrainian interests aligned.

What happens if Russia rejects the ceasefire proposal? I'm clearly bogged down in the cold War so obviously would expect anyone in a position of strength to reject it and you're an itk on Russia and know they're not on their knees so why would they accept it, especially as donnies already given them what they want, mind you they do, in a very similar way the Soviets used to, keep claiming to be the peacemakers so perhaps there's something in that

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Actually, Trump’s plan was to withdraw earlier, but don’t let facts get in the way of your assumptions.

Here’s a gifted/readable link…

https://wapo.st/4iDkKt6

I repeat, it’s a false equivalence.

Trump was not in power and did not do the withdrawal. So we have no idea how good or bad it would have been.

Biden was in charge and it was a shambles.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I repeat, it’s a false equivalence.

Trump was not in power and did not do the withdrawal. So we have no idea how good or bad it would have been.

Biden was in charge and it was a shambles.

Nope, Trump agreed the deal and started it before he left office. Biden was handed a a sht show to deal with. He had no time to amend it or negotiate a better deal.

Originally Posted by jfman

He made it quite clear the plan was to talk to both sides and force a settlement. That might appear alien to anyone bogged down in Cold War rhetoric but to anyone with eyes in October it was obvious Trump was going to end the Biden era pretence that Ukraine were any more than a short term ally for the period American and Ukrainian interests aligned.

You have a particular lens through which you understand American military adventurism and it is distorting your view of what’s happening here.

American and Ukrainian interests were perhaps a happy alignment, but the interests here are fundamentally different than pursuing Islamists or Communists in far-flung corners of the world. The defence and stability of Europe, from which sprang the only two wars ever to get so big and bloody as to be dubbed ‘world war’, has the bedrock of US foreign and defence policy since 1945.

Whatever the strengths or weaknesses of the Biden plan, the aim was perfectly aligned with long-term, bilaterally-supported policy of keeping Russia stable and contained in the East, and Europe safe and untroubled with thoughts of massive rearmament in the west. Many of us squealed long and loud about the injustice of giving Ukraine only what it needed to hold on, rather than what it needed to inflict a devastating defeat on Russia (which the US could have done, and would have resulted in a shorter conflict with fewer casualties), but the reasoning behind it is at least understandable in terms of long-term strategy.

Trump is emphatically not acting in the spirit of every US administration since 1945 (barring his own, and in 2017-2021 he didn’t go nearly as far as he is now, though he seemed to want to). He is treating Europe, and this conflict, as a cost-centre on his spreadsheet. He has no grand strategic vision and he has no depth of understanding of why the US is so financially committed to NATO and why settling the Ukraine conflict on terms that favour Russia is a strategic mis-step that will inevitably lead to further conflict down the line.

This, ultimately, is why you’re misunderstanding what you’re seeing - because you’re incapable of seeing Trump is not behaving like any US president since at least 1945. He is not motivated by any of the statescraft that typically motivates someone who gets as far as the presidency. Sure, you can go on construing this as simply the US losing interest in another foreign conflict as it has many times before, but if you do so you will miss the major strategic changes that are underway across Europe, precisely because this is all happening in Europe, the one part of the world that every major power on earth has long agreed is the last place you want massive military proliferation. When you understand that even Germany is poised to change its debt rules to allow it to re-arm, you know something has changed, and not for the better.

This is not special pleading - Europe is different and American policy has long recognised that. Until now.

Also, the US bases in Europe are not only there as a deterrent/protection for the Countries they are in, they are there to support power projection and minimise the "loss of strength gradient*". As we have seen in the current conflict, soldiers win battles, logistics win wars - by having permanent bases in Europe, many of the benefits that US military forces have operating in the United States are replicated overseas, and the loss of strength gradient starts from Europe, rather than the United States.

Also, the bases in Europe allow the USA to react quicker to hot-spots/issues in the Gulf/Mediterranean/Eastern Europe much faster/more consistently than if they had to ship everything over from 'Murica...

* the farther a military is operating from "home", the less power they can project to that area.

[1andrew1]

Yes, was just reading this article on the subject

"One of the things we know about the Pacific is the 'tyranny of distance' - you have to fly for many more hours to touch a few countries," said Gen Armagost from RAF Fairford, in Gloucestershire.

"But the Bomber Task Force is incredibly effective in the European theatre because, for that same duration, we can almost touch the entire continent.

"From Europe, we can fly to Africa, we can fly to the Middle East. And that has been done just in the last few weeks. This is of incredible value."

Because it takes three months of preparation before every arrival - including the securing of parts for maintenance - it means the Bomber Taskforce is keeping RAF Fairford constantly busy.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/tech...074dd70c2&ei=6

[jfman]

I guess the question is really whether you view Ukraine as economically, politically or in any military sense (NATO membership) Europe as defined in any kind of post-1945 order. Self-evidently the Biden administration did not, hence being willing to sacrifice it on the battlefield in a war of attrition that you’d never see with Brits, Germans or even Turks. Also self-evidently the Trump administration also does not - merely a useful buffer zone between Poland and Russia.

I’m more than happy with my great powers lens. You don’t get the same optics comparing meetings like that between Rubio, Lavrov and their respective delegations around grand tables with anyone else. You get Starmer and his coalition of the willing at school desks arranged like three sides of a square.

Europe is being successfully mugged for defence spending by the US. Nothing has actually materially changed in respect of whether there is an actual threat from Russia to the European - EU, NATO, etc. borders.

Originally Posted by jfman

I guess the question is really whether you view Ukraine as economically, politically or in any military sense (NATO membership) Europe as defined in any kind of post-1945 order. Self-evidently the Biden administration did not, hence being willing to sacrifice it on the battlefield in a war of attrition that you’d never see with Brits, Germans or even Turks. Also self-evidently the Trump administration also does not - merely a useful buffer zone between Poland and Russia.

Actually I’d argue that Europe and Biden’s White House saw it as a useful buffer zone between Poland and Russia. Trump sees it as he sees everything - a business opportunity and/or an opportunity for narcissistic supply (to the extent he can prove himself to Putin, whom he admires) and, now the problem has proven to be more complex than his limited intellect assumed, a risk of narcissistic injury.

I’m more than happy with my great powers lens. You don’t get the same optics comparing meetings like that between Rubio, Lavrov and their respective delegations around grand tables with anyone else. You get Starmer and his coalition of the willing at school desks arranged like three sides of a square.

Europe is being successfully mugged for defence spending by the US. Nothing has actually materially changed in respect of whether there is an actual threat from Russia to the European - EU, NATO, etc. borders.

I’m aware there is an argument that Trump is being awfully clever and simply trying to get Europe to pay its way. Maybe he is, but if so, that again is a function of his lack of intellect and not his skills at 4D chess. He is emboldening the Russians, who this week have started opining that they don’t think any sort of cease-fire is necessary. (Note also, at the exact same time Ukraine seems to have convinced the Americans that a peace plan preceded by a 30-day cease fire actually is a good idea, a Russian-captained vessel manages to bullseye an American tanker full of USAF jet fuel off the English North Sea coast - I’m blessed to know a number of current and former members of HM armed forces and absolutely none of them think this is a coincidence).

As to whether there is an active threat to NATO from Russia, well, while Trump, whether recklessly or due to some perceived master plan, is making such love to the Russians with his grand promises of getting them the Donbas, Crimea and who knows what else, arguably yes there very much is. I leave you in the capable hands of Mike Martin MP, former squaddie and current member of multiple relevant Parliamentary committees, who has just returned from a fact-finding visit to Estonia.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...424157861.html

We are in a very dangerous moment in European history
In a nutshell, Europe has allowed its own defences to wither as it has felt safe and secure under an American security blanket.
European countries have taken successive peace dividends by downsizing their military capabilities since the end of the Cold War to the point that they are unable to operate without the United States.
And now … with the (re)election of Donald Trump, there is an ambivalence (at best) or downright hostility (at worst) towards Europe from America.
It is clearly accepted by the European powers (but not the UK, yet) that America is not interested in European security any more, and probably wouldn’t respond to a testing of Article 5.

It is well worth reading the whole thing.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Nope, Trump agreed the deal and started it before he left office. Biden was handed a a sht show to deal with. He had no time to amend it or negotiate a better deal.

Nonsense, He’s the president of the US, they’re thevTaliban, he could have done anything he wanted.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Nonsense, He’s the president of the US, they’re thevTaliban, he could have done anything he wanted.

There was an agreement in place. Biden stuck to it as he had no choice. Direct quote from Trump after he had left office at a rally

June 26 — At a rally in Ohio, his first since leaving office, Trump boasts that Biden can’t stop the process he started to remove troops from Afghanistan, and acknowledges the Afghan government won’t last once U.S. troops leave.

“I starI started the process,” Trump says. “All the troops are coming back home. They [the Biden administration] couldn’t stop the process. 21 years is enough. Don’t we think? 21 years. They couldn’t stop the process. They wanted to, but it was very tough to stop the process when other things… It’s a shame. 21 years, by a government that wouldn’t last. The only way they last is if we’re there. What are we going to say? We’ll stay for another 21 years, then we’ll stay for another 50. The whole thing is ridiculous. … We’re bringing troops back home from Afghanistan.”

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/ti...m-afghanistan/

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Stephen

There was an agreement in place. Biden stuck to it as he had no choice. Direct quote from Trump after he had left office at a rally

Of course he had a choice, What was preventing Biden from ignoring, or changing the agreement, or at the very least the timeline?

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Of course he had a choice, What was preventing Biden from ignoring, or changing the agreement, or at the very least the timeline?

Not possible as the process had already begun. The quote from Trump is literally there for you to read!

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Of course he had a choice, What was preventing Biden from ignoring, or changing the agreement, or at the very least the timeline?

The fact withdrawl was already well in motion, by the time sleepy Joe got the top job there were only 2500 American troops left in the whole country, 5000 Taliban had been released to rejoin the insurgency including iirc their leader, to turn it round then would have meant a monumental cost in both lives and money, there was no choice

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

Actually I’d argue that Europe and Biden’s White House saw it as a useful buffer zone between Poland and Russia. Trump sees it as he sees everything - a business opportunity and/or an opportunity for narcissistic supply (to the extent he can prove himself to Putin, whom he admires) and, now the problem has proven to be more complex than his limited intellect assumed, a risk of narcissistic injury.

I’m aware there is an argument that Trump is being awfully clever and simply trying to get Europe to pay its way. Maybe he is, but if so, that again is a function of his lack of intellect and not his skills at 4D chess. He is emboldening the Russians, who this week have started opining that they don’t think any sort of cease-fire is necessary. (Note also, at the exact same time Ukraine seems to have convinced the Americans that a peace plan preceded by a 30-day cease fire actually is a good idea, a Russian-captained vessel manages to bullseye an American tanker full of USAF jet fuel off the English North Sea coast - I’m blessed to know a number of current and former members of HM armed forces and absolutely none of them think this is a coincidence).

As to whether there is an active threat to NATO from Russia, well, while Trump, whether recklessly or due to some perceived master plan, is making such love to the Russians with his grand promises of getting them the Donbas, Crimea and who knows what else, arguably yes there very much is. I leave you in the capable hands of Mike Martin MP, former squaddie and current member of multiple relevant Parliamentary committees, who has just returned from a fact-finding visit to Estonia.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...424157861.html

It is well worth reading the whole thing.

The problem is if you ask nurses they say we need to spend more on healthcare, you ask teachers they say education, you ask the military industrial complex and they say defence. Scaremongering stories about what could happen elsewhere ignore that the Ukraine issue (Russian narratives or otherwise) was a decade in the making.

The short story, while an entertaining read, seems to ignore that it’s not the absence of troops or equipment preventing intervention - it’s not having an independent foreign policy from the United States (Article 5 or otherwise).

I don’t think there’s anything 4D chess about straightforward extortion. Trump could have picked up the idea from countless TV movies about “the mob”.

Originally Posted by jfman

The problem is if you ask nurses they say we need to spend more on healthcare, you ask teachers they say education, you ask the military industrial complex and they say defence. Scaremongering stories about what could happen elsewhere ignore that the Ukraine issue (Russian narratives or otherwise) was a decade in the making.

The short story, while an entertaining read, seems to ignore that it’s not the absence of troops or equipment preventing intervention - it’s not having an independent foreign policy from the United States (Article 5 or otherwise).

I don’t think there’s anything 4D chess about straightforward extortion. Trump could have picked up the idea from countless TV movies about “the mob”.

Surprisingly, on these points, we are in substantial agreement

---------- Post added at 09:28 ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 ----------

I should add by the way that Mike Martin’s ‘short story’ was actually a Xitter thread compiled by a thread-reader app, which may have given the impression that it was presented as a more substantial piece of analysis than it was intended to be. As a threaded series of posts on Twitter it should be taken for what it is - a simple set of observations. His proposal is that we don’t realise how quickly Art.5 could crumble in the current climate and I think his outline scenario demonstrates that. The strategic failings that brought us here aren’t ignored, they’re just part of a different discussion he happens not to have addressed here.