#Putin must fail | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

zvaigzdelasas · 3 months

Text

If we want a prosperous Ukraine with a viable path toward liberal governance and European Union membership, we will have to concede that it cannot be a NATO or U.S. ally, and that this neutral Ukraine must have verifiable limits on the types and quantities of weapons it may hold. If we refuse to agree to those terms, Russia will quite probably turn Ukraine into a dysfunctional wreck incapable of rebuilding itself, allying with the West, or constituting a military threat to Russia.

Russian progress is not yet evident on the map, where the battle lines have not moved appreciably over the past year. Ukraine’s counteroffensive failed to break through Russian defenses, and Russia has not pushed Ukrainian forces significantly westward. An observer comparing territorial holdings in January 2023 with January 2024 might reasonably conclude that the war has become a stalemate.

But this picture is misleading. The Kremlin is almost certainly not seeking such a breakthrough, at least not yet. Rather, it is methodically grinding down Ukraine’s capacity not only to wage war, but also to reconstitute a post-war military, by killing and wounding enormous numbers of Ukrainian soldiers and exhausting Ukrainian and Western arsenals of arms and ammunition. Ukraine is running short of artillery shells, and the U.S. and Europe cannot manufacture new ones quickly enough to meet Ukraine’s needs. Russian barrages of long-range air and missile strikes are increasingly overwhelming the capacity of Ukrainian air defenses, and the West simply lacks the ability to continue providing Patriot missiles or other advanced air defense systems.

It is quite true, as the Biden administration has warned, that ending U.S. aid to Kyiv would quickly result in Ukraine’s collapse. Sufficient aid to help Ukraine to stand successfully on the defensive should therefore continue. But what U.S. policymakers need to understand and honestly acknowledge is that absent a compromise peace settlement, massive levels of aid will have to continue not just for the coming year, but indefinitely. There is very little realistic chance of the West being able to outlast Russia and force it to accept peace on Ukrainian terms. The controversies in Congress over aid to Ukraine reflect these realities and are unlikely to diminish.

Under such circumstances, for the Biden administration to pledge American support to Ukraine for “as long as it takes” to defeat Russia is unwise, and even dishonest. It is widely believed in Washington that the failure of Ukraine’s counteroffensive means that the West has no choice but to back Ukraine’s fight against Russia for many years to come. Seeking compromise with Moscow is regarded as not only undesirable but also futile. Lacking alternatives, we must stay the present course, hoping that time will improve Ukraine’s position.

But time is not on Ukraine’s side, either militarily or economically, and so Ukraine’s position in any future negotiations may well be very much worse than at present. Russia’s population is at least four times that of Ukraine and its GDP 14 times. The Russian army is far better led and more tactically adept than it was at the start of the war, and Western sanctions show no signs of being able to cripple the Russian economy, which is more and more geared for war.

And whatever Brussels may say, as long as the war continues it is exceptionally unlikely that Ukraine will be able to develop economically and begin the extremely difficult process of joining the European Union.

Most importantly, the United States has not tested the assumption that Russian President Vladimir Putin has no interest in talking. It is indeed very likely that Putin believes Russia now has the upper hand in the war and can afford to wait. Nonetheless, Putin has repeatedly insisted that Russia is ready to talk, and also that Washington – not Kyiv – makes the key decisions in the war and therefore it is for Washington to engage in talks.

This may be posturing; but it is also possible that Putin recognizes that absent a settlement, Russia is headed toward the dangers of a permanently volatile confrontation with the West, an economy distorted by the demands of military production, and a constricting degree of dependence on China. Russians’ concerns about these problems are likely to grow as their fears they may lose the war in Ukraine diminish.

It is further alleged that Putin believes that a future Donald Trump presidency would be the Kremlin’s best hope for a settlement on Russian terms. However, Trump’s first term produced some friendly rhetoric but much hostile action toward Moscow, including withdrawal from nuclear arms agreements and increased flows of U.S. weapons and training for the Ukrainian army.[...]

Given that Russia now has the advantage on the battlefield and senses that time is on its side, to get Putin to end the war and end his ambition to subjugate Ukraine or seize more territory, Washington will have to offer some serious incentives. These will need to include showing that the U.S. is prepared to meet Russian concerns about the U.S. and NATO security threat to Russia (concerns that are genuinely held throughout the Russian establishment).

This will mean agreement to a Ukrainian treaty of neutrality, with security guarantees for Ukraine, that will allow that country to follow neutral Finland and Austria during the Cold War and develop as a free market democracy. Western sanctions against Russia would need at least to be eased if not suspended, but with a binding commitment that they would automatically resume if Russia launched new aggression.

An agreement along these lines would be extremely painful for both Ukraine and the Biden administration. However, we should see preserving the independence of 80 percent of Ukraine as a real victory, even if not a complete one. It is certainly far better than what appears to be the alternative: a war of attrition with dreadful losses for Ukraine, leading sooner or later to a far greater Ukrainian defeat.

11 Jan 24

#anatol lieven continues to be one of the only prominent people in the anglo world with any sense

52 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 2 months

Text

mike luckovich :: [@mluckovichajc]

* * * *

"America last."

February 8, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

On Wednesday, the dysfunction of congressional Republicans plumbed new depths: Senate Republicans blocked a procedural vote to advance funding for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. Supporting each of those nations is in America’s vital interest. Failing to do so undermines global order and brings America closer to active confrontation with Russia, China, and Iran, at least.

The defeat was expected because Donald Trump wants to continue the crisis at America’s southern border to advance his partisan political interest. But the move also advanced the partisan interests of another politician—Vladimir Putin. Like Trump, Putin is temporizing, biding time in the hope that the clock will run out on Ukraine’s resources to resist Russia’s invasion. In Donald Trump's world, the hierarchy of interests is Trump first, Putin second, and America last.

The notion that Trump has re-ordered the national interests to put America last is not mine. It belongs to Thomas L. Friedman, who wrote an op-ed in the NYTimes, The G.O.P. Bumper Sticker: Trump First. Putin Second. America Third. (Accessible to all.)

Friedman writes,

There are hinges in history, and this [aid bill] is one of them. What Washington does — or does not do — this year to support its allies and secure our border will say so much about our approach to security and stability in this new post-post-Cold War era. Will America carry the red, white and blue flag into the future or just a white flag? Given the pessimistic talk coming out of the Capitol, it is looking more and more like the white flag, autographed by Donald Trump. “Trump First” means that a bill that would strengthen America and its allies must be set aside so that America can continue to boil in polarization [and] Vladimir Putin can triumph in Ukraine . . . .

A meme is developing that asserts that the GOP has surrendered to Trump. While that may be true, the deeper truth is that Trump has delivered the GOP into the hands of Vladimir Putin. The GOP is no longer serving the interests of the Americans who elect Republicans to Congress but instead acts as a skulk of useful idiots who unwittingly advance Putin’s interests.

Just ask Tucker Carlson, the poster boy for MAGA’s Putin Caucus. He traveled to Moscow to interview Putin because Carlson believes that major media outlets have not reported the truth about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Tucker Carlson believes that Putin will “tell the truth” about Russia’s invasion.

Remember that time when Putin assured the world he had no intention of invading Ukraine? See CBS News (2/24/22), Putin attacked Ukraine after insisting for months there was no plan to do so. Shortly after issuing those denials, Putin brutally attacked the civilian populations and infrastructure in Ukraine and kidnapped hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian children. The International Court of Claims has issued an arrest warrant for Putin for the war crime of unlawful transportation of children from Ukraine to Russia.

It is that Vladimir Putin—the fugitive war criminal and inveterate liar--that Tucker Carlson is preparing to lionize in an interview that will be lapped up by useful idiots who skitter at the mere arching of an eyebrow by Trump. As Trump prolongs a crisis at the US border and delays aid to Ukraine, he is serving Vladimir Putin’s interests first. Commentators are right in asserting that a megalomaniac has engineered a hostile takeover of the GOP—but it is not Trump. It is Putin.

How should we react? Should we despair? Should we shrink from another story that seems to turn the world on its head? No. We need only recognize that the rot in the GOP is beyond repair and that electing Joe Biden is a necessary condition to preserving democracy.

There is no gray area in the 2024 election. A vote for Trump is a vote for Putin. A vote for RFK Jr. is a vote for Putin. A vote for No Labels is a vote for Putin. Staying home is a vote for Putin. A vote for Joe Biden is a vote for Democracy. It’s that simple.

Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter

#Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter #Robert B. Hubbell #The Putin Caucus #MAGA extremists #Putin #Tucker Carlson #Tom Friedman #war in ukraine

16 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 2 months

Text

Vladimir Putin must be enjoying this moment.

Not only did the Russian president manage to snuff-troll the Munich Security Conference with news of the death of his main political rival, Alexei Navalny (“slowly murdered” by his jailers in Siberia, according to the European Union’s top diplomat Josep Borrell); he also scored a well-timed battlefield success when, over the weekend, his troops finally took the town of Avdiivka in eastern Ukraine following a tactical retreat by ammunition-starved Ukrainian troops who had defended the town since 2014.

According to one participant in Munich, the mood at the gathering of Western security and diplomatic elites — typically a chance to project unity and resolve between exclusive cocktail receptions — was grim. “There is a sense of urgency, without a sense of action,” said Jan Techau, Germany director for the Eurasia Group, a think tank. “It’s a very strange state of affairs.”

Indeed, two years after Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the situation has never looked more perilous for Kyiv — and for its neighbors along Russia’s western frontier — since the dark days of February 2022, when U.S. President Joe Biden offered his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a one-way ticket out of Ukraine (declined), and much of the world assumed (wrongly) that Russia would overrun the country.

U.S. Republicans, following orders from ex-President Donald Trump, are blocking arms deliveries to Ukraine, subjecting troops to “ammo starvation” with immediate, deleterious effects on the battlefield. After taking Bakhmut and Avdiivka, Russian troops are now trying to press their advantage in the directions of Marinka, Robotyne and Kreminna, according to battlefield observers. European leaders, despite having become Ukraine’s chief material backers, are failing to fill the gap in military supplies left by the U.S. and, thanks to France, insisting on “Buy European” provisions despite a lack of manufacturing capacity and refusing to shop outside the bloc for shells.

Meanwhile Putin, who’s still very much in power despite efforts to sanction his regime into submission, is ramping up his campaign of intimidation against the West. In his interview with ex-Fox News host Tucker Carlson, the Russian leader mentioned Poland more than a dozen times, placing the NATO member squarely within his vision for Grand Russia, and his deputy prime minister has started to make threatening noises toward the Norwegian leadership of the island of Svalbard, in the Arctic Ocean, of all places.

With a deepening sense of gloom and resignation, leaders in countries most exposed to Russia’s flank are preparing for scenarios that would have been laughed off, in Berlin and Washington, as the fever dreams of Cold War nostalgics just 25 months ago. A top Swedish defense official told his countrymen in January to “prepare mentally” for war, and the defense ministers of Denmark and Estonia warned earlier this month that Russia was likely to start testing NATO’s Article 5 commitment to collective security within the next five years — i.e. attack the world’s most powerful military alliance just for a chance to “find out.”

It’s a parabolic slide down from the burst of “can-doism” that delivered weapons, sanctions and Germany’s “Zeitenwende” (epochal shift) during the first months of the war. A NATO official speaking to POLITICO said the prevailing view within the alliance is that Ukraine is “not about to collapse” and that the “gloom is overdone.” Some battlefield observers aren’t so sure. “What we’re hearing from the front is increasingly worrying,” a senior European government official said in January. “The risk of a breakthrough [by the Russians] is real. We’re not taking it seriously enough.”

It may be too early to say the West will lose the war in Ukraine — but it’s becoming increasingly clear that it could. As Kyiv and its allies contemplate a gruesome menu of possibilities for the coming year — including an all-fronts push by Russia’s allies, Iran and China, to trigger World War III — it’s worthwhile to pause for a moment and ask: How did we get here? How did the West, with its aircraft carriers and combined economic footprint approaching €60 trillion (dwarfing China, Iran and Russia combined) cede the initiative to a shrinking, post-Soviet country with the GDP of Spain, and end up in a defensive crouch flinching at the next affront from Putin? And if repelling Putin’s invasion of Ukraine isn’t the West’s real objective — what is?

Drip-drip deterrence

According to diplomats, security officials and experts on both sides of the Atlantic who spoke to POLITICO for this article, the answer to the first question lies partly in the fact that the West’s response to Russia has been, at least in part, dictated by fear of nuclear confrontation rather than a proactive strategy to help Ukraine repel its invaders.

“It all started in the beginning of the war when [German Chancellor Olaf] Scholz and the [U.S. President Joe] Biden administration agreed on this gradual approach towards arming Ukraine and sanctioning Russia,” said one senior EU diplomat on condition of anonymity. “Some governments were arguing, ‘We need to use the full force of our dissuasive capacity against Russia. But the argument we heard in return was, ‘No, we don’t want to.’”

“There was fear in Biden’s administration and Scholz’s entourage about the possibility of a nuclear confrontation,” the diplomat continued. “This fear was very strong in the beginning. It shaped the world’s response.”

According to Techau and Edward Hunter Christie, a senior research fellow at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, the likelihood that the Russian leader formulated some sort of nuclear threat directly to both Biden and Scholz early on in the conflict, scaring the bejesus out of them, is high. “We know that Putin told [former British Prime Minister] Boris Johnson that he could strike his country within five minutes,” said Hunter Christie. “If he did that to Johnson, it’s perfectly possible that he did the same thing to Biden.” Techau added: “There has been fairly well-informed speculation about a direct [nuclear] threat to Scholz, warning him that such a strike could happen.”

Public discussion of a Russian nuclear strike died down after the first few months of the war, replaced by conventional wisdom that Putin would gain little from a first-use strike. But there is evidence to suggest that, far from fading as a consideration for Biden, Scholz and their aides, fear has, in fact, shaped every aspect of their approach to Ukraine, particularly as regards deliveries of weapon systems.

“There is an obvious pattern here,” said Hunter Christie. “We saw it with tanks. We saw it with aircraft. We saw it with caveats on how the HIMARS [a rocket artillery system] could be used. There is an obsessive attention to detail, to caveats on how these weapons can be used, even though some of the considerations are militarily absurd. What this obsession is covering up for is a fear of triggering some escalatory response. That’s understandable — nobody wants nuclear war — but that’s what it is.”

A case in point: the topsy-turvy debate, starting in late 2022, about the danger of sending Western-made tanks, namely the German Leopard II and the American Abrams tank, to Ukraine. In October of that year, Wolfgang Schmidt, one of Scholz’s closest advisers and a fellow traveler dating back to his time as mayor of Hamburg, came out with a bewildering array of reasons not to send the tanks, including that a) Ukraine couldn’t possibly maintain them and b) that the Iron Cross painted on them would somehow be used to suggest Germany had joined the war, or something.

As it turned out, Berlin or Kyiv discovered the existence of paint, fears were overcome, and the tanks were delivered. But a pattern had been established whereby the West agonizingly debates the wisdom of sending a weapons system for months, until some trigger pushes Scholz and Biden over the line.

More than a year later, Berlin and Washington are still following the same playbook, except now the debate centers on long-range missiles that would help Ukraine disrupt Russian supply lines, namely the U.S.-made ATACMS and German Taurus cruise missiles and the possibility of using Russia’s frozen assets — some €300 billion is held in Western countries — to help Ukraine. Until Navalny supposedly died while taking a walk in his Siberian prison, Scholz was pushing back on sending Taurus missiles which, according to German officials, shoot too far and too precisely and therefore raised the risk of direct attacks on Russian soil that could, in turn, prompt retaliation from Moscow against Germany.

Navalny’s untimely death — he was 47, and healthy-looking — seems to have changed the calculus. Media in Germany and the U.S. are now reporting that Biden and Scholz are getting ready to hand over Taurus and ATACMS missiles to Ukraine. Similar debates are under way regarding the use of Russian frozen assets to help Ukraine — currently held up due to opposition from Germany and Belgium, among other EU countries — and on purchasing ammunition for Ukraine from outside the bloc, opposed by France, Greece and Cyprus.

In each case, complex arguments are set up to establish the danger, complexity or impossibility of a particular option, only to be swept away and forgotten when a fresh provocation from Russia “justifies” the additional step. “This has been the pattern since day one,” said a second EU diplomat. “It’s no, then no but, and then yes once the pressure has become too great. Not much has changed.”

“Some people live under the illusion that limited support for Ukraine is enough to keep Russia at bay and that the situation doesn’t pose any real danger to the EU,” said Virginijus Sinkevičius, a European commissioner from Lithuania. “But I think this is wrong absolutely. The war itself, both as a humanitarian disaster and a security problem, is highly problematic for the EU.”

Not so dynamic duo

Beyond fear, diplomats and experts pointed to the dynamic between Scholz and Biden as a driving force behind the West’s overriding strategy of incrementalism and escalation management, rather than a focus on strategic outcomes, in dealing with Ukraine. Despite a 16-year age difference, both men came of age politically during the Cold War and its widespread fears of nuclear armageddon. Both are deeply wedded to the U.S.-led international order and NATO protections for Europe. Both are men of the left who are instinctively suspicious of armed intervention and, temperamentally speaking, risk-averse and uncomfortable with geopolitical gamesmanship, experts and diplomats argued.

“Biden, we know, has always been ideologically opposed to the idea of intervention and war — see his chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan,” said the first diplomat. “In this case, he is doing everything possible not to have a confrontation with Russia. America used to be strong on strategic ambiguity. But Biden has gone out of his way to telegraph moves in advance throughout this conflict. In this sense, he has found commonality with Chancellor Scholz, who is also cautious by nature.”

A former far-left activist who traveled to Moscow in his youth and rose through the ranks of a German Social Democratic Party known for its historic sympathy toward Russia, Scholz wasn’t naturally configured to be a Russia hawk. “He has come a huge distance, but nobody knows to what extent that legacy [of deference toward Russia] is still with him.”

Experts also pointed to the key role of advisers, namely U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan and Scholz’s advisers Schmidt and Jens Plötner, a foreign policy adviser, in shaping their bosses’ approach. Diplomats and experts consulted for this article described Sullivan as being “highly intelligent,” “not deeply experienced on national security,” “ultimately career-driven” and “a bit short on emotional intelligence.” Schmidt gets “inseparable from Scholz,” “very cautious,” “basically terrified of Russia,” “not as big a foreign policy expert as he thinks he is.” Plötner, in turn, is described as “a super close confidante,” “Russia-friendly,” “unconvinced by the narrative that an attack on Ukraine is an attack on all of us.”

“Together these two [Sullivan and Schmidt] engineered the idea that Russia would eventually get ground down and be discouraged,” said Hunter Christie. “That may have avoided nuclear war, but it has trapped us between two suboptimal outcomes: a bigger war with Russia or the collapse of Ukraine, which would be a shock and a humiliation and a demonstration of Western weakness.”

The role of other leaders in shaping Western policy is not to be under-estimated. Ukrainian sources tend to identify the United Kingdom, under both ex-Prime Minister Boris Johnson and current PM Rishi Sunak, as a staunch ally that helped to break Western reticence on delivering certain weapons. They credit acting Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte with having broken a taboo on the delivery of Western fighter jets, as the Netherlands is currently preparing to deliver 24 F-16s to Ukraine at some point later this year, according to the Dutch Defense Ministry. Nordic, Baltic, Central and Eastern European states, namely Poland, win high marks from Ukrainian officials for the depth of their commitment to Ukraine’s victory — exemplified by Denmark’s recent decision to send all of its artillery to Kyiv.

French President Emmanuel Macron, who recently signed a defense agreement with Ukraine, comes in for more mixed reviews. While he is praised for having abandoned his insistence on dialogue with Putin and sending long-range SCALP missiles, his current insistence on “Buy European” has opened him to charges of leading a “cynical” policy more focused on rebuilding Europe’s defense industry than on helping Ukraine in the battlefield.

Yet in the broadest sense, interviewees agreed it was Scholz and Biden and their aides who set the overall pace. Their caution, incrementalism and fear of nuclear escalation has defined a Western strategy primarily focused on defensive measures, escalation management and avoidance of nuclear confrontation, with Ukraine’s battlefield success against Russia being a secondary consideration. Except that not everyone agrees that this amounts to a “strategy.”

“There is no strategy,” said a third European diplomat. “Things are just happening. Later on, it’s easy to say there was a strategy, this was all part of a plan. But that has never been the case.” A fourth diplomat concurred. “There are slogans — ‘As long as it takes,’ ‘Russia cannot win,’ this kind of thing. But what does any of this really mean? They are things that people say. What matters is what they do.”

‘The long term’

Having squandered an opportunity to equip Ukraine’s forces with air power during the early months of 2023 — a key factor in the failure of a much-touted counteroffensive — Western leaders now see their hands increasingly tied by politics: The U.S. presidential election and Donald Trump on one side; the European Parliament election and the rise of right-wing forces led by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán on the other. Critics warn that the window of opportunity for the West to help Ukraine turn the tide is, if not already closed, closing.

The anti-Ukraine MAGA caucus led by Trump, with U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson as chief whip and Republican Senator J. D. Vance as its top ambassador (who couldn’t find time to meet with Zelenskyy while in Munich), looks unlikely to greenlight the next package of Ukraine funding anytime soon. Europe’s right-wing forces — from Marine Le Pen’s National Rally party in France to Italy’s Matteo Salvini to Dutch populist Geert Wilders and Hungary’s Orbán — are expected to bolster their influence after the election in June, with further sanctions and aid packages for Ukraine a possible casualty.

Yet there is still time and the basket of options is far from empty. As the reports on ATACMS and Taurus suggest, Western leaders are still able to deliver game-changing weapons to Ukraine if the incentive is strong enough (in this case, officials say deliveries could be justified by sending Putin a “Navalny signal” following the opposition leader’s death). But the deliveries aren’t a done deal, and other possibilities — including confiscating Russian assets, taxing Western companies that continue to operate in Russia, or stepping up sanctions against Putin’s regime — remain on the table, visible to all, yet undeployed. Even after Navalny’s killing, there has been no “Mario Draghi moment” signaling resolve to do “whatever it takes” to help Ukraine prevail, added Techau.

“We see that the sanctions we have agreed — [on Feb. 21] we adopted another round — don’t bite enough,” added Sinkevičius. “So we need to fix our approach, globally.”

The restraint suggests that, behind the bold speeches on helping Ukraine “as long as it takes,” another unspoken agenda may well be dictating Western actions. When asked to describe the optimal outcome for Ukraine in the coming year, several European diplomats talked about a “stabilization” of the conflict. Pressed on what this would entail, the diplomats said it would mean nudging Kyiv to open negotiations with Putin to freeze the conflict and lock in current territorial gains, in exchange for Western “security guarantees” (such as those recently signed with France, the Netherlands and the U.K.) and a path to membership of the EU.

Acting Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, who’s seen as a likely pick to become the next secretary-general of NATO, hinted at this “day after” vision during remarks at the Munich Security Conference. While saying that only Kyiv can trigger peace negotiations with Moscow, he added: “But when that happens, we will also have to sit down with the US, within NATO, [and] collectively with the Russians to talk about future security arrangements between us and the Russians.”

Diplomats acknowledge that such negotiations have failed in the past, and might buy Putin time to prepare for his next offensive. Yet the alternative — a surge in Western financial and military aid during 2024 that would let Ukraine deliver a decisive punch against the Russian invader — is greeted with even greater skepticism in European embassies.

Another, unspoken aspect of the Western approach is that some factions hope to return to business as usual with Russia soon after a hypothetical freezing of the war. This might explain the profound reticence, namely in Germany, to confiscate Russia’s frozen assets and face the risk that Moscow could hit back by repossessing the hundreds of billions of euros worth of assets still held by European firms in Russia. It also chimes with a report in Germany’s Welt newspaper (like POLITICO, a member of Axel Springer) asserting that Scholz opposed naming European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen as NATO’s next secretary-general because she is “too critical toward Moscow, which could become a disadvantage in the long term.”

In a speech at the Munich conference, Scholz gave a hint of how the West is quietly redefining its war aims in Ukraine. Rather than say “Ukraine will win,” or “Russia must leave Ukraine,” the German Chancellor argued that Putin should not be allowed to dictate the terms of peace in Ukraine. “There will be no dictated peace. Ukraine will not accept this, and neither will we,” Reuters quoted Scholz as having said.

“This is certainly softer than ‘Ukraine cannot lose,’” said Techau. “And essentially [it] means to cement the status quo.”

The West hasn’t given up on Ukraine. But its overriding focus on risk management reveals a desire to wind down the conflict and make a deal with Putin, if possible sooner rather than later. The question looming over the conflict is whether that approach will stave off disaster — or invite something worse to come.

9 notes · View notes

ernestbruce · 1 month

Text

when you have to use force to create fake citizens, you admit that you are an enemy of humanity

“People in occupied territories, these are the first soldiers to fight against Ukraine,” said Kateryna Rashevska, a lawyer who helped Ukraine bring a war crimes case against Putin before the International Criminal Court. “For them, it’s logical not to waste Russian people, just to use Ukrainians.”

Russia must be defeated

Putin must be deposed and brought to justice

Ukraine will regain the people and territories that Russia has stolen

RUSSIA WILL FAIL

FUCK RUSSIA AND ITS COWARDLY LEADER

PUTIN IS A FUCKING COWARD

FUCK PUTIN

#Russia #fuck Putin #Ukraine #Russian occupation of Ukraine #slava Ukraini #boycott Russia #fuck Russia

9 notes · View notes

hussyknee · 4 months

Note

You probably already know but in case you haven't heard since the tweets in your last post seem to have been made before this: The US did veto the UN resolution and the UK abstained. Goes to show how powerless the UN really is.

Yeah it was a foregone conclusion they'd veto it. The UN has always been a bedtime story for liberals and the US is the country who got so mad they let Palestine in the ICC and opened Israel to criminal charges that they passed a legislation that made it legal for the US to invade the Netherlands and extract anybody they were holding at the Hague. They're determined to exterminate Palestine by any means necessary, and if it leads to the creation of more organisations like the Islamic State after the Iraq war then so much the better.

All hopes are on the three resistance groups now I guess. And maybe Khomeini and Putin (this shit must be like winning the lottery for him), which is a thought that makes me want to die a little, but the US is clearly the bigger fish that needs frying. The resistance won in South Africa and Rhodesia and Vietnam, I believe Palestine can as well. And I hope they can get rid of fucking Abbas while they're at it.

Still, I wonder at what point this kind of humiliation and unrest will outweigh the US's money for the Arab nations. The people are unbelievably angry.

Edit: my bad, the Hague Invasion Act was passed in 2002 during the Afghanistan war. I misread this part:

When they failed to prevent Palestinian accession (to the International Criminal Court), Israel in particular went berserk. It began withholding Palestinian taxes it was legally obliged to transfer to the Palestinian Authority, imposed a variety of restrictions on Palestinian officials, and threatened to punish the PA in multiple additional ways. The US also made its displeasure clear, but directed the brunt of its retaliatory measures directly at the ICC. Washington at one imposed sanctions on Khan’s (Prosecutor of the ICC) predecessor, Fatou Bensouda, normally reserved for designated criminals. It was Washington’s way of informing the ICC it had no right to investigate either Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians or US conduct in Afghanistan. In 2002 the US had already adopted legislation known as The Hague Invasion Act, which authorizes the US military to invade The Netherlands, a fellow NATO member, and free any US citizen in ICC custody.

#asks #anon #free palestine #fuck israel #fuck the USA #genocide joe #knee of huss

11 notes · View notes

deborahdeshoftim5779 · 2 months

Text

A video clip from the late Russian dissident, Alexei Navalny, condemning the war in Ukraine while in prison and calling on Russians to continually oppose it. The title says, Navalny on the criminal war in Ukraine.

In it, while quoting Tolstoy, Navalny made the important point that despots need war. And war fuels and maintains despotism. Fabricating a "national enemy" and "foreign threats" is a well-worn tactic of dictators, used to distract and fool the population and justify maintaining authoritarian control.

The answer to why Putin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine two years ago is simple: to preserve his dictatorship. His convoluted excuses about Russia's historical claims (which have no legal validity once Ukraine has declared independence), Western threats from NATO, and his deliberate exaggeration of neo-Nazism in Ukraine, were all concocted to mask this central reason.

Therefore Russia is being bankrupted both financially and morally in order to keep Putin in power. As Zelenskyy correctly said, 'Putin doesn't care who dies, as long as he retains his position.'

Foreign wars also provide dictators with a cover for continuing and enhancing their terrorist deeds at home. Both Alexei Navalny and Boris Nemtsov were murdered in the middle of a Russian war; Nemtsov, during the time that Russia was sending mercenaries into eastern Ukraine to stir up provocation and steal more territory.

Two years into Russia's illegal war against Ukraine, the world must ensure that Putin's delusions of impunity come to an end. He and his terrorist regime have violated all morality, and they have been allowed to get away with it for too long. How many times have foreign powers promised punishment against the Russian terror state, and delivered nothing?

Every failure to punish Putin and his regime enables him to continue fortifying his terrorist state, from murdering political dissidents, to stealing more and more Ukrainian territory. Avdiivka has now fallen to Russian occupiers, and the amount of Ukrainian territory stolen by Russia totals between 16-18%. Once such territory has been stolen, it is then filled with munitions and booby traps, which explains why the Ukrainian counter-offensive last year failed. The plain truth is that it is and will be extremely difficult to reverse Russian occupation.

Punishment of Putin's regime, which should be maintained regardless of what happens in Ukraine, is the key to restoring peace and security abroad, as well as holding him accountable for all of his domestic crimes. Total non-recognition of Putin as a "leader", multiple cases against Russia in international courts, a permanent international arrest warrant on Putin (irrespective of whether Ukrainian children are recovered from Russia or not), and enhanced sanctions that last beyond the war are desperately needed now to isolate and undermine the Kremlin.

STOP THE WAR!

#stop the war #free ukraine #russia ukraine #russia war #stop russian aggression #stop russian terrorism #stop putin #putin #vladimir putin #russia without putin #alexei navalny #ukraine #avdiivka #bakhmut #boris nemtsov #despot #tolstoy #court

7 notes · View notes

highlights-of-the-lowlife · 10 months

Text

okay i need to get this out because its consuming me. today’s attempted coup in russia was WILD. its truly unprecedented.

wagner has shot down at least 6 aircraft. 5 helicopters and a fucking airborne command unit. think a 737 full of expensive surveillance equipment and maybe some commanders. the death toll is possibly in the dozens. there’s no way this was a false flag or a psy op. wagner committed literal murder today.

and yet putin backed down. the roads to moscow were dug up and the bridges mined while he fled. at least according to the public facing agreement they have dropped all arrest records for wagner troops who i must emphasize marched on a russian city and killed russian solders. prigozhin has left? been sent to? exiled to? belarus of all places but is evading consequences publicly.

of all the things to happen i would not have picked that. putin just rolled over and took it. it can only lead me to believe that either russia had nothing to fend off the wagner convoy or the fight would have been too militarily disastrous for russia to continue the fight in ukraine. it wasn’t out of concern for civilians caught in the crossfire. russia has proven time and time again they don’t care about that even for optics. just look at their ‘counter-terrorist’ missions for proof.

behind the scenes who the fuck knows what is going on. prigozhin probably has a price on his head and so does putin. now they will become increasingly paranoid. wagner and russian forces camped near each other will spend more time monitoring for a backstab than monitoring ukraine. a failed assassination attempt will kick off the hostilities all over again and there will be attempts at some point because putin can’t leave priggy alive.

putin has ruined his hard man image which is vital to maintaining a dictatorship. if its proven that motivated people can move on the capital then nobody takes your shit anymore. it will embolden priggy because at least outwardly he’s gotten away with a coup. if you take one thing away from this its that this is chapter one. there will be another internal conflict in russia within 6 months.

as for the war effort in ukraine: six airframes down, probably a dozen pilots dead, internal reshuffling of wagner forces causing gaps on the frontline temporarily and possibly russian forces being permanently relocated to moscow in order to prevent another coup. we all hoped for a rip each other’s dick off situation but we will have to wait for that. not for long tho.

#ukraine #every time i expect russia to act rationally they dig their hole even deeper #what the fuck even is this war

34 notes · View notes

saywhat-politics · 4 months

Text

President Joe Biden on Friday condemned Russia for launching its "largest aerial assault on Ukraine" since the start of the war, warning that Russian President Vladimir Putin "must be stopped," and used the attacks to implore Congress to pass additional aid for Ukraine.

"Strikes reportedly hit a maternity hospital, a shopping mall, and residential areas -- killing innocent people and injuring dozens more. It is a stark reminder to the world that, after nearly two years of this devastating war, Putin’s objective remains unchanged. He seeks to obliterate Ukraine and subjugate its people. He must be stopped," Biden said in a written statement following the attack.

Russia launched 122 missiles and dozens of drones against Ukrainian targets in an onslaught that killed at least 30 civilians across the country, officials said Friday. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy vowed following the attacks that his country would "surely respond to terrorist strikes" and that "Russian terror must and will lose."

Biden said that Ukraine was able to deploy their air defense systems to intercept some of the missiles, thanks to support from America and other allies, but warned that the help from the United States has run out, once again calling on Congress to pass supplemental aid for Ukraine in the new year, after they failed to pass to take action earlier this month.

#russia #ukraine #united states

45 notes · View notes

ohsalome · 1 year

Text

It’s hardly a secret that the country has been experiencing a shortage of locksmiths, welders, and turners for a very long time. And now Russia just doesn’t have enough workers to manufacture missiles and tanks for Putin’s war in Ukraine.

Uralvagonzavod, the largest tank manufacturer in the country, failed to hire enough workers, even the unskilled, and has no choice but to use convicts to fill the gap. Hundreds of prisoners from a penal colony in the Sverdlovsk region will soon be sent to Uralvagonzavod.

[…]

Since Putin’s plan to win a short military war in Ukraine has visibly failed, Russia is getting ready to wage a long and devastating war in Ukraine. To do so, it must adjust the economy to the new conditions and increase weapons production. Many military plants and manufacturers have been working around the clock for months now, but still cannot satisfy the growing demand without new supplies of workers. Russia’s prison population of 450,000 provides a potentially large number of unskilled workers.

#now watch the self-proclaimed ''socialists'' who were crying murder about american prison system ignore ths #russia #war in ukraine #prison system

70 notes · View notes

simply-ivanka · 2 months

Text

Volodymyr Zelenskiy welcomed western leaders to Kyiv on Saturday on the second anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, declaring that Vladimir Putin “must lose absolutely everything”.

Ukraine’s president met the prime ministers of Italy, Canada and Belgium – Giorgia Meloni, Justin Trudeau and Alexander De Croo – as well as the European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen.

IT is a position like this that will be the downfall of Ukraine. They would rather fight than negotiate the peace, even though Ukraine does not have a chance of victory. It is unfortunate that the West, with its weak and failing leadership supports this position.

#ukraine #Russia #NATO #EU #USA #trump 2024

5 notes · View notes

unhonestlymirror · 8 months

Text

A reply to this post from @eywind:

"Maria, you probably won't see my reply. But I will try to remind you of your own reality.

Since 2014, your leader and your team have refrained from condemning the annexation of Crimea and the war in Donbas. Aleksei Navalny even stated that “Crimea is not a sandwich” and, in fact, proposed to hold some other referendums on the clearly illegally occupied territory of Ukraine out of some kind of fright.

Why is that? First, of course, this apparently largely coincides with your personal positions. But even if this is not so, and deep down in your soul, you really support Ukraine with all your heart, there is a critical “second”.

You, as politicians, miraculously understand that direct support for Ukraine - an absolutely moral, honest, and legal (corresponding to international law) position - actually means political death in Russia.

You know very well that you will not win popularity among the Russian people if you say directly that Russia must give up territories to Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, pay reparations and repent for several decades more for the crimes committed. Although this is what would be right and moral.

You know very well that the majority of the Russian people either support the war or treat it with positive neutrality. Therefore, they are forced to shift the focus in their domestic political messages to the fight against corruption, which translates into “they steal, therefore they do not produce missiles that kill Ukrainians efficiently enough” (this would be as funny as jokes about a shark if there were no deaths).

You are afraid to take a moral position even after the start of a full-scale war. On international platforms, where naive Western leaders are happy to invite you, not a word is heard from you on the topic of Ukraine. You consider all the crimes of the Putin regime only from the standpoint of your personal suffering, in order, again, to shift the focus from the fact that the Russian people are not that much suffering now. That the Russians, even having got out from behind the Iron Curtain, do not even try to organize mass anti-war protests. How many of you left there, more than a million? Where are they?

Putin is taking away Russians' pensions and future. You are silent about what Putin takes from Ukrainians. Because the very Russians whose psyche you protect so much will stop loving you. Who voluntarily go to war (for evading the mobilization of ZERO criminal cases) and wish Ukrainians death every day in thousands of comments (and not all of them are bots).

Whereas an effective Russian state, if you build it for those people from whom you now want to earn the trust - Russian voters - it will be better to fight.

It turns out that you, indulging the immorality of your own people, taking an absolutely immoral and cynical position, designed for the political future, have the audacity to teach morality to Ukrainians.

Your calculation is wise and cunning. I would do the same in your place. With one caveat - if you put your political future in your country in the first place, then shut your mouth to the Ukrainians. You are not our friends, at best, negotiators, and your Putin is your problem (we will solve our problem, but you and collective Putin will still remain).

And if you really want to put morality in the first place and want Ukrainians to at least not show contempt for you (you won’t reach respect anyway), then put your system of values in order."

"The Putin regime can be dismantled, but the Russian people will remain the same 100 millionth collective Putin.

Without revision and rethinking of Russian culture, politics, and everyday life as well, real changes in Russia are impossible.

That's why I don't trust FBK. They can not fail to understand this, but at the same time, they do nothing in this direction. This means that their goal is not real change in Russia, but simply to become a new regime themselves, which for the first conditional 10 years, will be friends with the West in order to accumulate funds again and then take revenge."

#stop russian aggression #support ukraine #genocide of ukrainians #russia is a terrorist state

9 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 2 months

Text

Bill Bramhall

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

February 16, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

FEB 17, 2024

At the Munich Security Conference, where leaders from more than 70 countries gather annually in Germany to discuss international security policy, Vice President Kamala Harris today responded to Trump’s recent attacks on America’s global leadership with a full-throated defense of global engagement.

People around the world have reason to wonder if the United States is committed to global leadership, she acknowledged. Americans, she said, must also ask themselves “[w]hether it is in America’s interest to continue to engage with the world or to turn inward. Whether it is in our interest to defend longstanding rules and norms that have provided for unprecedented peace and prosperity or to allow them to be trampled. Whether it is in America’s interest to fight for democracy or to accept the rise of dictators. And whether it is in America’s interest to continue to work in lockstep with our allies and partners or go it alone.”

Harris spoke at least in part to people at home, saying that upholding international rules and democratic values “makes America strong, and it keeps Americans safe.” Isolating ourselves and embracing dictators while we “abandon commitments to our allies in favor of unilateral action” is “dangerous, destabilizing, and indeed short-sighted,” she said. “That view would weaken America and would undermine global stability and undermine global prosperity.”

The Biden administration’s approach to global engagement is not “based on the virtues of charity,” Harris said, but rather is based on the nation’s strategic interest. “Our leadership keeps our homeland safe, supports American jobs, secures supply chains, and opens new markets for American goods. And I firmly believe,” she added, “our commitment to build and sustain alliances has helped America become the most powerful and prosperous country in the world—alliances that have prevented wars, defended freedom, and maintained stability from Europe to the Indo-Pacific. To put all of that at risk would be foolish.”

Turning to the defense of Ukraine in the face of Russia’s invasion, she said: “we have joined forces with our friends and allies to stand up for freedom and democracy…. The world has come together, with leadership from the United States, to defend the basic principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity and to stop an imperialist authoritarian from subjugating a free and democratic people.”

The European Union has recently committed $54 billion to support Ukraine in addition to “the more than $100 billion our European allies and partners have already dedicated,” she said, noting that that support makes it clear that Europe will stand with Ukraine.

“I will make clear President Joe Biden and I stand with Ukraine,” Harris said. “In partnership with supportive, bipartisan majorities in both houses of the United States Congress, we will work to secure critical weapons and resources that Ukraine so badly needs. And let me be clear: The failure to do so would be a gift to Vladimir Putin.”

“If we fail to impose severe consequences on Russia” for its invasion of Ukraine, she warned, “other authoritarians across the globe would be emboldened, because you see, they will be watching…and drawing lessons. “In these unsettled times, it is clear,” she said. “America cannot retreat. America must stand strong for democracy. We must stand in defense of international rules and norms, and we must stand with our allies.”

“[T]he American people will meet this moment,” Vice President Harris said, “and America will continue to lead.”

News that arrived just before Harris began to speak underscored her argument: Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny has died in a Russian prison a day after being recorded on video in court, seemingly healthy. Navalny’s crusade against Putin’s corruption had led Putin to try repeatedly to murder him, then finally in 2021 to imprison him on trumped-up charges. Navalny’s widow, Yulia Navalnaya, took the stage after Harris and vowed that Vladimir Putin and his allies “will be brought to justice, and this day will come soon.”

Russian elections will be held next month, and while Putin is assumed to be the certain victor, his recent disqualification of Boris Nadezhdin, who was running on a platform that opposed the Ukraine war, suggests he is concerned about opposition. Eliminating Navalny at this moment sends a warning to other Russians that, as Anne Applebaum noted in a piece today in The Atlantic, courage in opposing Putin is pointless.

In the U.S., Navalny’s apparent murder creates a political problem for Republicans. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) yesterday recessed the House for two weeks without taking up the national security supplemental bill that would support Ukraine in its fight against Russia, just as its supplies are running out.

On Saturday, former president Trump told an audience he would encourage Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” to NATO countries that are not devoting 2% of their gross domestic product to building up their militaries. Meanwhile, former Fox News Channel personality Tucker Carlson has been in Moscow, interviewing Putin and favorably comparing Russia to the United States.

On Monday, in Dubai, Egyptian journalist Emad El Din Adeeb asked Carlson why, when interviewing Putin, he “did not talk about Navalny, about assassinations, about restrictions on opposition in the coming elections.” Carlson replied by equating Russia and the U.S., saying: “Every leader kills people…. Some kill more than others. Leadership requires killing people.”

The death of Navalny at just this moment appears to tie the Republicans to Putin’s murderous regime, and party leaders scrambled today to distance themselves from Putin. House speaker Mike Johnson, who has resisted passing aid to Ukraine and insisted the House would not be “rushed” into passing such a measure, released a statement saying that “as international leaders are meeting in Munich, we must be clear that Putin will be met with united opposition…. [T]he United States, and our partners, must be using every means available to cut off Putin’s ability to fund his unprovoked war in Ukraine and aggression against the Baltic states.”

Republicans trying to carve out distance between themselves and Trump’s MAGA Republicans used the occasion to call out MAGAs, saying, as former vice president Mike Pence did, “There is no room in the Republican Party for apologists for Putin.” Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who has pushed hard for Ukraine aid, wrote: “Putin is a murderous, paranoid dictator. History will not be kind to those in America who make apologies for Putin and praise Russian autocracy. Nor will history be kind to America’s leaders who stay silent because they fear backlash from online pundits.”

Navalny attacked the Putin regime by calling attention to its extraordinary corruption, and somewhat fittingly, the corruption of former president Donald Trump, who won the White House with Putin’s help, was also on the docket today.

In Manhattan, in the case concerning Trump and the Trump Organization’s manipulation of financial statements in order to get better loan terms and to pay fewer taxes, Justice Arthur Engoron ordered Trump and the Trump Organization to disgorge about $355 million in ill-gotten gains as well as more than $98 million in interest on that money from the time Trump obtained it through fraud. The total came to just under $454 million. Engoron also barred Trump from running a business or applying for a loan in New York for three years. The judge ordered Trump’s sons Donald Jr. and Eric to pay more than $4 million each and barred them from serving as officers or directors of any New York corporation or legal entity for two years.

“[D]efendants submitted blatantly false financial data to…accountants,” Engoron wrote, “resulting in fraudulent financial statements. When confronted at trial with the statements, defendants’ fact and expert witnesses simply denied reality, and defendants failed to accept responsibility….” Engoron detailed the reluctance of the Trumps, including Ivanka, to tell the truth on the witness stand, and concluded: “Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological.”

New York attorney general Letitia James, who brought the lawsuit, commented: “Donald Trump is finally facing accountability for his lying, cheating, and staggering fraud. Because no matter how big, rich, or powerful you think you are, no one is above the law.”

In his 2022 documentary about Alexei Navalny, director Daniel Roher asked Navalny what message he would leave for the Russian people if he were killed. “Listen,” Navalny answered. “I’ve got something very obvious to tell you. You’re not allowed to give up. If they decide to kill me, it means that we are incredibly strong. We need to utilize this power to not give up, to remember we are a huge power that is being oppressed by these bad dudes. We don’t realize how strong we actually are.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#Letters from An American #Heather Cox Richardson #Alexei Navalny #VP Kamala Harris #EU #Munich Security Conference #NATO #War in Ukraine #Cowardly House Republicans #Speaker Mike Johnson #National Security

11 notes · View notes