The Situation in the Ukraine. #31

miketheterrible wrote:

Newsweek: America is making a strategic mistake



Newsweek (USA): whose borders should America protect?

Polls have shown that only 15% of Americans want the US to send its soldiers to Ukraine. At the same time, nothing destroys America's authority as much as a promise to come to the aid of countries that we are not really ready to defend, the expert emphasizes.

A few years ago, the New York Times published a political cartoon that drew even more ridicule from the right than usual. The cartoon was published in response to President Donald Tampa's decision in October 2018 to send more than 5,000 troops to the US border to strengthen its security. It showed a line of armed soldiers standing at attention as President Trump ordering them to go to the United States-Mexico border. One of the soldiers turns his head to his comrade and says: "I joined the army to fight in the Middle East, not in the congressional elections."

This New York Times cartoon was ridiculed by conservatives, and not just for the choice of words. First of all, they drew attention to the absurdity of the idea that the artist put into his caricature - that the need to fight for the 17th year in a war thousands of miles from the United States, of course, was in America's key interests, while protecting its own border from drug cartels, human traffickers, would-be terrorists, and millions of illegal migrants was just a cheap voter-targeted ploy.

This cartoon came to mind during a recent debate about Ukraine. One of the encouraging features of this debate has been the growing coalition of right-wingers who are skeptical of militaristic aspirations. And now it includes not only paleoconservatives and supporters of MAGA ("Make America Great Again"), but also many influential representatives of the Republican Party.

Now the military hysteria around Ukraine is actively fueled only by the defense industry lobby, congressmen who are its clients, as well as some think tanks. Most of our most conservative congressmen are strongly opposed to this. And only the most gullible voters really buy into what the hawks are giving them. A recent poll showed that only 15% of Americans would like the United States to send its soldiers to Ukraine.

Meanwhile, many well-known conservative presenters, including Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, explain to their audiences why Russia feels threatened by NATO expansion and why Russia is rightfully interested in having a friendly environment in Ukraine. government. NATO's interventions in Kosovo and Libya clearly demonstrated to Russia that the alliance can play more than just a defensive role.

Ukraine is a corrupt quasi-democratic state where we have no strategic interests. However, it represents an obvious strategic priority for Russia, with which it has close cultural, historical, ethnic and linguistic ties. (Ukraine was indeed part of the Russian Empire for several centuries.) And Russia is well aware that the US government played a major role in toppling the pro-Russian government of Ukraine in the 2004 Orange Revolution.

Of course, none of this can justify an invasion of Ukraine or even interference in its internal affairs. And this is not at all about the fact that we should not develop a response plan in case Russia decides to do so. However, we must understand our adversary's strategic priorities in order to accommodate their legitimate goals and concerns without sacrificing our own interests. It is this – and not the hysterical bullying of Russia – that is the cornerstone of effective diplomacy.

However, while a military solution to the situation in Ukraine is ill-considered, a reflexive rejection of non-military American intervention is also not adequate.

As in Afghanistan, the Biden administration's blatant incompetence has once again confused our strategic calculations. There must be a way to develop – together with our European allies – a strategy to contain the most extreme forms of Russian misbehavior in Ukraine so that our President does not have to say (contrary to the claims of the Ukrainian government) that an invasion is imminent.

The provocative evacuation of the families of American diplomats from Ukraine was a sign of weakness, especially since European countries did not follow our example. "Americans are safer in Kiev than they are in Los Angeles or any other American city that suffers from rampant crime," one Ukrainian diplomat remarked with obvious annoyance.

Of course, the United States could well carry out the evacuation from Afghanistan without leaving a lot of military equipment and thousands of US allies there, but we did not succeed. Trump understood the value of strategic ambiguity and unpredictability. Trump's critics were right to say that Biden brings us predictability. However, this predictability of Biden's America is its weakness and strategic mistake.

By and large, it is the Europeans who should lead the process of implementing a plan of action in response to any possible violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a European country. Yet despite years of US urging, most NATO countries still spend less than 2% of their GDP on defense. Meanwhile, the United States spends 3% of its GDP on defense, and in absolute terms it spends more on the military than the next 11 countries combined. With regard to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Germany and France show obvious hesitation about the need for serious intervention. While the United States does have an interest in ensuring that European countries' borders cannot be changed by force, America does not need to "be holier than the pope."

The best argument for any involvement by the United States in Ukraine would be that failure to act could jeopardize American power in other strategic areas—that is, that weakness could provoke others. However, this truism only highlights the inconsistency of our current strategic position.

During the Cold War, we had many mutual defense arrangements that served as an effective defense against Soviet expansionism. More than 30 years have passed since then, but we still have not seriously revised these pacts to reflect America's contemporary priorities. Is it important now that the United States maintain a mutual defense treaty with Haiti or Thailand or Paraguay?

Nothing destroys America's credibility more than promising to come to the aid of countries we are not really prepared to defend by shedding the blood of our soldiers and wasting our taxpayers' money. My late mentor, former Secretary of State to President Ronald Reagan George Shultz, used to repeat to me a phrase he heard at a boot camp during World War II: "Never point a gun at a man unless you're ready to pull the trigger." .No empty threats." America has collective defense agreements with more than 50 countries, but Ukraine is not among them. We are frantically pointing our rifle at a lot of trouble spots on the planet, including Ukraine, but we really have no intention of shooting.

Serious allied politics involves abandoning empty mutual defense arrangements with countries that are no longer our key allies and carefully choosing allies that are important enough for us to risk the lives of our sons and daughters to protect them, while convincingly explaining our decisions. American citizens.

As for our politicians, many of them are still much more concerned about the state of affairs on the Ukrainian border than on our own border. This week we received photos and videos of illegal migrants entering the United States by the thousands at the expense of American taxpayers.

Republicans should sternly tell Biden that his claims of some serious threats to America's security on the Ukrainian border are completely unconvincing as he actively undermines the security of the United States' own border. And this position is not only held by Republicans, it finds support across the political spectrum.

Regardless of what our strategy toward Ukraine ultimately looks like, conservatives must explain to President Biden that America's greatest threats lie 6,000 miles from its shores. They are much closer. If we're going to spend money and shed the blood of soldiers defending the frontiers, let's start with our own.

https://vpk.name/news/576148_newsweek_amerika_sovershaet_strategicheskuyu_oshibku.html

kvs wrote:No worries, a few false flags and Americans will roll themselves up in their flag and move like logs down a sawmill ramp.
I wish that most people woke up, but like in Canada, they are in the thrall of their delusions maintained by the fake stream
media and kept in this cage by cognitive dissonance.   There is a reason why the education system in the US and Canada
has been dumbed down since the 1960s.   Think of the brain like a muscle because biologically it has similar features.   If
you do not exercise or move it, then you have less ability to move and respond.   Cognitive dissonance is essentially lack
of mental flexibility where you can respond to new information in the correct manner.   If your brain is an undeveloped, limp
clump of tissue, then you cannot exert a response.   All you have is zero-thought effort delusions with which you perceive
reality.   Most people are not functionally intelligent.   Their potentiality is not realized.

 

1 February 2022 20:56
Text of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia Mr. Sergey Lavrov`s written message on Indivisibility of Security addressed to the Heads of Foreign / External Affairs Ministers / Secretaries of the US, Canada and several European countries
134-01-02-2022

Unofficial translation

You are well aware that Russia is seriously concerned about increasing politico-military tensions in the immediate vicinity of its western borders. With a view to avoiding any further escalation, the Russian side presented on 15 December 2021 the drafts of two interconnected international legal documents – a Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on Security Guarantees and an Agreement on Measures to Ensure the Security of the Russian Federation and Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The U.S. and NATO responses to our proposals received on 26 January 2022 demonstrate serious differences in the understanding of the principle of equal and indivisible security that is fundamental to the entire European security architecture. We believe it is necessary to immediately clarify this issue, as it will determine the prospects for future dialogue.

The Charter for European Security signed at the OSCE Summit in Istanbul in November 1999 formulated key rights and obligations of the OSCE participating States with respect to indivisibility of security. It underscored the right of each participating State to be free to choose or change its security arrangements including treaties of alliances, as they evolve, as well as the right of each State to neutrality. The same paragraph of the Charter directly conditions those rights on the obligation of each State not to strengthen its security at the expense of the security of other States. It says further that no State, group of States or Organization can have any pre-eminent responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in the OSCE area or can consider any part of the OSCE area as its sphere of influence.

At the OSCE Summit in Astana in December 2010, the leaders of our nations approved a declaration that reaffirmed this comprehensive package of interconnected obligations.

However, the Western countries continue to pick up out of it only those elements that suit them, and namely – the right of States to be free to choose alliances for ensuring exclusively their own security. The words ‘as they evolve’ are shamefacedly omitted, because this provision was also an integral part of the understanding of ‘indivisible security’, and specifically in the sense that military alliances must abandon their initial deterrence function and integrate into the all-European architecture based on collective approaches, rather than as narrow groups. The principle of indivisible security is selectively interpreted as a justification for the ongoing course toward irresponsible expansion of NATO.

It is revealing that Western representatives, while expressing their readiness to engage in dialogue on the European security architecture, deliberately avoid making reference to the Charter for European Security and the Astana Declaration in their comments. They mention only earlier OSCE documents, particularly often – the 1990 Charter of Paris for a New Europe that does not contain the increasingly ‘inconvenient’ obligation not to strengthen own security at the expense of the security of other States. Western capitals also attempt to ignore a key OSCE document – the 1994 Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security, which clearly says that the States will choose their security arrangements, including membership in alliances, ‘bearing in mind the legitimate security concerns of other States’.

It will not work that way. The very essence of the agreements on indivisible security is that either there is security for all or there is no security for anyone. The Istanbul Charter provides that each OSCE participating State has equal right to security, and not only NATO countries that interpret this right as an exceptional privilege of membership in the ‘exclusive’ North Atlantic club.

I will not comment on other NATO guidelines and actions that reflect the aspiration of the ‘defensive’ bloc to military supremacy and the use of force bypassing the prerogatives of the U.N. Security Council. Suffice it to say that such actions contravene the fundamental all-European obligations including the commitments under the aforementioned documents to maintain only such military capabilities that are commensurate with individual or collective security needs, taking into account the obligations under international law, as well as the legitimate security interests of other States.

Discussing the present situation in Europe, our colleagues from the United States, NATO and the European Union make constant appeals for ‘de-escalation’ and call on Russia to ‘choose a path of diplomacy’. We want to remind: we have been moving along that path for decades. The key milestones, such as the documents of the Istanbul and Astana summits, are exactly the direct result of diplomacy. The very fact that the West now tries to revise to its benefit these diplomatic achievements of the leaders of all OSCE countries raises serious concern. The situation demands a frank clarification of positions.

We want to receive a clear answer to the question how our partners understand their obligation not to strengthen their own security at the expense of the security of other States on the basis of the commitment to the principle of indivisible security. How specifically does your Government intend to fulfil this obligation in practical terms in the current circumstances? If you renege on this obligation, we ask you to clearly state that.

Without having full clarity on this key issue related to the interconnection of rights and obligations approved at the highest level, it is impossible to ensure the balance of interests embodied in the instruments of the Istanbul and Astana summits. Your response will help to better understand the extent of the ability of our partners to remain faithful to their commitments, as well as the prospects for common progress toward decreasing tensions and strengthening European security.

We look forward to your prompt reply. It should not take long as the point is to clarify the understanding on the basis of which Your President/Prime Minister signed the corresponding obligations.

We also expect that the response to this letter will be given in the national capacity, as the aforementioned commitments were undertaken by each of our States individually and not within any bloc or in the name thereof.

Ex-commander of the airborne troops of Ukraine: The population of a number of Ukrainian regions seeks to become part of Russia


The population of a number of Ukrainian regions is striving to become part of Russia or separate from independent Russia, creating their own state in the person of Novorossiya.

This opinion was expressed by Lieutenant General Mikhail Zabrodsky, who previously commanded the air assault troops of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. As he believes, a good half of the country is included in the list of regions "disloyal" to Kiev.

According to the ex-commander of the landing troops of Ukraine, in order to subjugate the country, it is not necessary to capture the capital. To do this, it is enough to establish control over the left-bank part of the country, whose inhabitants want separation from the independent one - “Kharkov, Dnieper, Kherson and right up to Odessa,” the military believes. After that, the operational space will open before the Russian troops, and Moscow will be able to demand conditions of surrender that suit it from the current government or even appoint its own leadership of the country.

According to Lieutenant General Zabrodsky, who is a member of the Verkhovna Rada, since 2014 the Kremlin has been actively fueling such sentiments of the population of the Left Bank, allegedly conducting a hybrid war in Ukraine.

His statements fit into the general outline of military hysteria, fanned in the West and in the most independent. Against the background of the expectation of the invasion of the Russian army, there is a sharp outflow of investments from Ukraine, which adversely affects the already difficult economic situation of the country. However, as one can judge, this is of little concern to the authorities and the "independent community", like the same Zabrodsky - the main thing is not to stop feeding people's fears to please the Western masters.

https://en.topwar.ru/191827-ot-harkova-do-odessy-ukrainskij-general-perechislil-prorossijskie-regiony-ukrainy.html

Sujoy wrote:So from the joint UK-Ukraine press conference it now becomes clear that Russia's demand related to stopping the flow of weapons from the West to Ukraine has not been accepted by NATO.

UK reaffirmed their policy of arming Ukraine. During the days of the USSR, the UK had armed Afghan militia groups who were fighting against the USSR. The Kremlin responded by arming the lRA in Northern Ireland. Even today the Kremlin will have to think about similar strategies directed against the UK.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has signed an order to expand the country’s military, including bolstering the ranks of its army by at least 100,000 soldiers over the next three years, prolonging service contracts, and boosting pay.

Zelensky announced the news on Tuesday at an open session of the Rada, the Ukrainian parliament, saying, “I’ve signed an order to strengthen the defense capabilities of Ukraine. It stipulates an increase of 100,000 in the size of the army, an expansion of the program for housing troops, and an increase in their salaries.”

ATLASCUB wrote:https://www.rt.com/russia/547953-ukraine-massive-military-expansion/

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has signed an order to expand the country’s military, including bolstering the ranks of its army by at least 100,000 soldiers over the next three years, prolonging service contracts, and boosting pay.

Zelensky announced the news on Tuesday at an open session of the Rada, the Ukrainian parliament, saying, “I’ve signed an order to strengthen the defense capabilities of Ukraine. It stipulates an increase of 100,000 in the size of the army, an expansion of the program for housing troops, and an increase in their salaries.”

The more postponement the worse the options for Russia. Conflict erupting now is actually beneficial to the Kremlin.... 2014 being the ideal chance but that is history now.