Tag Archives: #NATO

Posted on by

World War III Watch: The liberal newspapers are going all out neocon!

I have said it before: There has been a whole lot of World War II thinking applied to the Russo-Ukraine War — or perhaps I should call it Russo-Ukraine War 2.0, considering Russia’s seizure and annexation of part of Ukraine in 2014 — with the logic that pushed the United Kingdom and France to declare war on Nazi Germany two days after the Wehrmacht rolled into Poland, but that is such superficial thinking that I am amazed no one has realized it. In that event, the UK and France could not and did not actually do anything to liberate Poland; the liberation of Poland came in 1944, when the Red Army pushed out the Germans, and ‘liberation’ by the Soviet Union hardly freed the Poles.

And there’s that biggest of differences: no one in Europe, or anywhere in the world, had in 1939 what Russia has now: a strategic and tactical nuclear arsenal. As he was losing the war, Adolf Hitler tried everything he could, used every weapon he had, but, other than the V-1 and V-2 terror rockets, and a short-range bomber force that could reach only parts of England, had no power to strike at his enemies. We do not and cannot know what Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin will do if, in the end, he sees Russia really losing RUW 2.0, but we do know that he could cross that nuclear threshold, and use tactical nukes against Ukrainian troop concentrations and other targets. And once that nuclear threshold is crossed, who can know when things will stop? And if the United States and NATO nations are supplying Ukraine from bases in Poland, how are those bases not legitimate targets if Russia has the weapons to reach them . . . and Russia does.

But that doesn’t really seem to concern a lot of “strategic thinkers” these days:

At the NATO summit in Vilnius: Will Biden seize or squander the chance to end Putin’s war on Ukraine?

Biden must offer Kyiv a clear path to NATO membership after the end of the fighting and ensure it has the weapons to win.

by Trudy Rubin | Sunday, July 9, 2023 | 7:00 AM EDT

Does Joe Biden want to be remembered as the president who lost Ukraine?

“(T)he president who lost Ukraine”? What, are we back in 1949, and the “who lost China” political idiocy? There was a lot of that around, as though the United States could have sent the Army into China to stop Mao Zedong and the Communists from routing Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalists, chasing them off the mainland and into Formosa?

That question must be asked as NATO allies prepare to meet at a historic summit in the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius on Tuesday and Wednesday, which will focus on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s continued aggression in Ukraine.

This is the moment when NATO members, led by Biden, should be laying out a clear path for Ukraine to join the alliance once the war ends. This is the moment, which, if seized, could plausibly lead to Ukrainian victory by year’s end.

“(P)lausibly,” huh? Nothing in this war has proceeded in anything like what the military “experts” predicted. Russia was not able to brush the Ukrainians aside, but the rosy projections that the Ukrainians could push the Russians back out have not materialized, either. The only things which have really advanced in this war are the mud, the blood, the devastation, and the death.

This is also the moment when Biden should be announcing that the United States will finally expedite the arrival of critical weapons systems — long-range missiles and F-16 fighter jets — that are vital to the success of Ukraine’s counteroffensive.

As of this writing, though, all signs are that Biden will squander the moment, and none of the above will happen. As John Herbst, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, said during a webinar last week, ”Very thin gruel is likely in Vilnius.” If so, Biden and NATO will be gifting Putin big time, even as he reels from a failed mutiny attempt by one of his closest allies.

There’s still a bit of time for Biden to shift gears and surprise us. Here are the vital steps he should take at the summit to help end Putin’s war.

Make clear that the United States and NATO support a Ukrainian “victory” according to Kyiv’s definition, which means regaining all territory seized by Russia, including Crimea. The White House keeps saying we are with Kyiv “as long as it takes,” but never clarifies “takes for what?” Why not say we are with the Ukrainians until they win?

President Putin had sent his troops into the eastern half of Ukraine back in 2014, seizing a large chunk of the territory, including Crimea, which Russia directly annexed. Mrs Rubin now wants the current war to continue until Ukraine not only holds off and then pushes out Russia from the parts of Ukraine that it tried to seize when she invaded in 2022, but also to expel Russia from land it has held for the last nine years, the seizure of which our NATO allies and we condemned in 2014, but which Presidents Obama, Trump, and, initially, Biden actually did nothing about.

Also see: William Teach: Ukraine Totally Vows Not To Use The Cluster Bombs Biden’s Giving Them In Russia

There’s a lot more of Mrs Rubin’s column, in which she advocates sending 300 KM range ATACMS tactical ballistic missiles to Ukraine, which has “promised” not to use them on targets inside Russia, but who can know, in advance, whether that promise would be kept if a desperate Ukraine identified targets inside Russia — or Byelorus — against which the weapons would be useful?

In what almost seems as though the Head Neoconservative sent a memo around to his minions, The Washington Post had several articles on the subject. A straight news piece noted that U.S. leaders insist war with Russia must end before Ukraine joins NATO, and even neoconservative Max Boot, very much a Ukraine supporter, realized that, as much as his “heart” says Ukraine should be admitted into NATO, his “head” says no.

Yet there is deep and understandable reluctance among Western European states and the United States to admit Ukraine to NATO, because it is at war with Russia and will be for the foreseeable future. This isn’t a stable stalemate like the division of East and West Germany or North and South Korea. This is a dynamic, ongoing conflict that, if NATO were to take in Ukraine, could draw other members into a shooting war with a nuclear-armed Russia.

It’s true, as Scheunemann and Farkas argue, that Article 5 — which holds “that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies” — “does not mandate a specific response by member states.” NATO members could say they are complying with Article 5 by doing what they are already doing: supplying Ukraine with weapons, training and intelligence and imposing sanctions on Russia. But there has always been an implicit assumption that an armed attack on a NATO member would result in military action by other NATO members. If that’s not the case, it would risk watering down Article 5 and reducing the overall effectiveness of the NATO alliance. Do we really want to send a message to Putin that he could invade, say, Lithuania and the West won’t fight to defend that embattled democracy?

If Mr Boot was uncommonly cautious, Marc A. Thiessen and Stephen E. Biegun were less so, arguing that only NATO membership can guarantee peace for Ukraine.

No serious person advocates NATO membership for Ukraine while the current fighting continues. That would be tantamount to a declaration of war with Russia. But it is equally true that after a cease-fire, a durable peace cannot be achieved unless that peace is guaranteed by NATO membership.

Even Mrs Rubin said that NATO membership for Ukraine should only come after Ukraine wins its war, or a cease-fire is somehow declared.

But what would that mean? If declaring a cease-fire means that Ukraine would them be offered NATO membership, then any incentive President Putin has for agreeing to a cease-fire is greatly diminished. More, if a ‘path’ to membership is specified, President Putin would know what he needed to do, and when he needed to do it.

We do not know what a post-Putin Russia will look like, but there’s one point I do not see the neocons considering. With all of the comparisons to ‘we should have stopped Adolf Hitler in 1938’ that we see concerning Vladimir Putin, the Nazi leader was 49 years old in 1938, while Vladimir Vladimirovich will turn 71 in three months time. With a Russian military which will have to rebuild following the war with Ukraine, regardless of how that war ends, the argument that we have to deter future aggression from him seems short-sighted. Even if Russia finally wins in Ukraine, and Mr Putin manages to hang onto power for the rest of his miserable life, he could be approaching, or even over, 80 years old before Russia would be ready for another aggressive move, and Russian military leaders of tomorrow, who today are the field-grade officers mired in the Ukraine war, are going to have the experience to know that another such assault against another nation will not go according to plan.

When NATO was formed, there were ‘buffer states’ between NATO and the Soviet Union; today, NATO nations are directly on Russia’s borders, and that fact gets a lot more serious if Ukraine becomes one of them. Many Western analysts say that, since NATO is a wholly defensive alliance, that shouldn’t really be a concern of the Russians, but they are thinking in Western terms, and not with a Russian mindset. When an American ‘analyst’ tells us how the Russians should feel, should think, he’s talking out of his ass, because it’s not necessarily how the Russians will feel about things.

How did we react when the USSR prepared to install nuclear weapons in Cuba? President Kennedy risked a direct military conflict with Soviet naval forces, at a time when the Soviets’ nuclear forces existed, but were vastly inferior to our own.

Posted on by

They all looked scared

I wish I could more fully remember the scene from the movie The Right Stuff in which Scott Glenn, playing Alan Shepard is describing some people and says, in a normal tone of voice, “they all look” and then changes his tone to a sinister “scared.” Why? Because all of a sudden the people who have been pushing more and more support for Ukraine just started defecating in their pants. From The Wall Street Journal:

Missile Blast in Poland Risked Russia-NATO Clash Before Both Sides Dialed Back

Ukraine air-defense likely fired the missile, officials said, and responses from Biden and the Kremlin showed a shared wish to avoid escalation

By Daniel Michaels, Laurence Norman and Drew Hinshaw | Wednesday, Nov 16, 2022 | 12:54 PM EST

BRUSSELS—The explosion of a stray air-defense missile in Poland on Tuesday offers an unsettling reminder of how close Russia’s war in Ukraine is to NATO territory, and with that the risk of confrontation between nuclear powers.

But fast efforts by both sides to ease rising tensions indicate that despite the conflict’s brutality and mounting toll, neither Russia nor NATO countries want fighting to spill west of Ukraine.

The first sign of efforts to prevent escalation came hours after the missile crashed in Poland and killed two people, when President Biden said that preliminary information indicated that the missile strike was unlikely to have been fired from Russia and pledged to investigate the incident.

Hours later, top officials from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization said the missile was likely a Soviet-made weapon fired by a Ukrainian air-defense system, and that there was no evidence it was directed there intentionally.

The North Atlantic Treaty was signed on April 4, 1949, as the Western democracies were worried that the huge Red Army could roll right in and conquer what was then the Federal Republic of Germany, West Germany more colloquially, and the Europeans hadn’t the strength to stop it. NATO’s guarantee was that an attack on one was an attack on all, which was, in effect, a guarantee that the United States, with its large forces and its nuclear weapons, would come to West Germany’s defense.

The USSR detonated its first atomic bomb on August 29, 1949, far earlier than it was estimated they could.

NATO was a military alliance, including the nuclear-armed United States, against the wholly conventionally-armed Soviet Union; that lasted for 4½ months.

Of course, the Soviets had no way of delivering atomic bombs to targets at the time, and only a few of the devices, but they kept building, and building, and building. By 1951, the USSR tested an air-dropped atomic bomb, which meant that the USSR now had deliverable nuclear weapons.

If NATO had kept to itself, and not expanded following the fall of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact, NATO might still be a credible deterrent. But NATO expanded into Poland, and the Baltic States, right on Russia’s doorstep. Russia now has the nuclear arsenal to completely destroy the United States; does anyone seriously believe that Joe Biden, or any American President, would put the lives of 330 million Americans in danger of nuclear incineration to defend Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia?

And now we’ve seen that first military “accident” from the Russo-Ukrainian War spill into a NATO country, and the policy-makers are all looking scared. They should look scared. They should look scared fecesless.

Further down:

(NATO Secretary-General Jens) Stoltenberg — a relentless critic of Russian aggression — sought to stress that events never got out of hand.

“NATO is prepared for situations like this,” he said, first by trying to prevent them, and if that fails, by working “to ensure they don’t spiral out of control.”

Russia also demonstrated a desire to contain the incident. Its Defense Ministry said Wednesday that precision strikes were carried out on targets only on Ukrainian territory and no closer than about 20 miles from the Ukraine-Poland border.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on Wednesday offered some rare praise for the U.S. — while criticizing some Europeans — in his comments welcoming what he described as the “restrained and much more professional reaction of the American side and the American president” to the news.

Speaking to reporters, Mr. Peskov dismissed European and Ukrainian comments Tuesday blaming Russia as “another hysterical and frenzied Russophobic reaction,” which he said wasn’t based on any solid data.

Oleksiy Danilov, secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, said on Twitter on Wednesday that Kyiv was ready to participate in a joint investigation into the incident and requested immediate access to the site.

NATO ambassadors on Wednesday held an emergency meeting in Brussels to discuss the missile incident and to coordinate the alliance’s next moves. The incident also dominated a meeting of European Union ambassadors, who unanimously agreed “that Russia bears direct responsibility for yesterday’s tragedy, for the death of two Polish citizens,” said Poland’s ambassador to the European Union, Andrzej Sadoś.

The “alliance’s next moves” need to be to resist the pressure to increase military and economic aid to Ukraine. We’re going to see that pressure coming, from those who are stuck in World War II conventional thinking, to resist Russia more strongly, forgetting that the lessons of a war which ended 77 years ago among parties which were still limited in what they could do militarily by weaponry and geography might not be all that applicable to a situation in which Russia has the capability to rain down nuclear fire on every NATO country in 30 minutes after taking a decision to do so.

It’s no fun, no fun at all, to think that Russia could just start a war like this, could get away with killing thousands upon thousands of Ukrainians, could get away with devastating that benighted country, but at some point people have to consider that all of the rules and old ideas have changed with the development of strategic nuclear arsenals.

Posted on by

There’s no threat quite like an empty threat!

President Joe Biden didn’t do too well in his recent news conference, leading the White House to issue a clarification on his statements about possible Russian ‘incursions’ into Ukraine. From The Washington Post:

    Biden insists U.S. won’t accept a ‘minor incursion’ by Russia into Ukraine after remarks drew criticism

    by Amy B Wang | Thursday, January 20, 2022 | 8:42 AM EST | Updated: 12:19 PM EST

    President Biden insisted Thursday that the United States would not accept even a “minor incursion” of Ukraine by Russia, as the White House continued efforts to clarify Biden’s remarks Wednesday suggesting that it might.

    “I’ve been absolutely clear with President [Vladimir] Putin. He has no misunderstanding: Any, any assembled Russian units move across the Ukrainian border, that is an invasion,” Biden told reporters Thursday at the start of a White House event on infrastructure.

    Such an invasion would be met with a “severe and coordinated economic response,” Biden added, noting that those consequences have been “laid out very clearly for President Putin.”

    “Let there be no doubt at all: If Putin makes this choice, Russia will pay a heavy price,” Biden said.

    In the second news conference of his presidency Wednesday, Biden said he expected Russia to take some sort of action to “move in” and invade Ukraine and that the U.S. response “depends on what it does.”

There’s much more at the original.

I’d like to think that I am not the only one who remembers how President Barack Obama, and the rest of the NATO leaders, breathed a collective sigh of relief in 2014 that Ukraine had declined an offer of NATO membership when President Viktor Yanukovych came to power following 2010 elections. Mr Yanukovych was more closely aligned with Russia, and was deposed in 2014 Maiden revolution, but Ukraine was still not a NATO member when President Putin sent the tanks rolling into eastern Ukraine, and annexed Crimea.

The North Atlantic Treaty specifies that an attack on any member nation is an attack on them all, and the last thing any of the NATO leaders wanted was to go to war against nuclear-armed Russia over Ukraine.

And let’s tell the truth here: the Baltic States, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, along with Poland, had to have taken notice: if the NATO leaders were so relieved that they didn’t have to fight Russia over the 2014 invasion, they wouldn’t want to fight Russia if Vladimir Vladimirovich sent the tanks rolling into their countries, either.

    “It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do, et cetera,” Biden said. “But if they actually do what they’re capable of doing with the force they’ve massed on the border, it is going to be a disaster for Russia if they further invade Ukraine.”

    Biden was swiftly criticized for appearing to give a green light to Russia to attack Ukraine as long as it didn’t amount to a full-scale invasion. Soon after, the White House issued a statement seeking to clarify Biden’s comments, saying that if Russia sends its forces across the border, it will be met with “a swift, severe, and united response from the United States and our allies.”

Yeah, uh huh, right?

    Putin’s gas weaponization hits a hot spot in Berlin

    Germany is pumping Russian gas back into Poland as Gazprom cuts supply to the EU. As Russia plays its hybrid war games with an increasingly divided EU, the new front appears to be the Yamal-Europe gas pipeline.

    by Jo Harper | December 28, 2021

    Yamal-Europe, Europe’s longest gas pipeline, usually transports Russian natural gas overland to — rather than from — Germany. Now it has spent the last week sending mainly Russian gas from Germany back to Poland. The purpose? To meet a shortfall as temperatures drop to -10 degrees Celsius (14 F) and Russia cuts gas supplies.

    Observers have warned that Russian President Vladmir Putin could use energy as a weapon should the troubled gas pipeline Nord Stream 2 (NS2) go ahead. He is, in fact, already doing so.

    On December 21, Russia halted the supply of gas via Yamal-Europe, immediately spooking markets. The wholesale price in the benchmark Dutch TTF contract for January deliveries rocketed to €160 ($185) from €100 on December 9. High gas demand in Asia is also fed the spike in prices. Consumers in Europe will feel some of the increases in 2022, adding to rapidly rising inflation there.

    According to the Germany Network Agency, two-thirds of the gas imported into Germany comes from Russia and former Soviet countries via the Yamal pipeline, which runs across Russia, Belarus, Poland and Germany. Its capacity is 32.9 billion cubic meters of gas per year. In 2020, 23% of Russian gas reached Germany via Belarus and Poland along its 4,107-km (2,552-mi) length.

    Worryingly, the gas price on futures markets is also rising. January 2023 prices are up to €90 per megawatt hour, a clear signal that the market expects European gas supplies to be low by the end of this winter and that little gas will come from Russia over the summer to replenish supplies before winter next year.

There’s more at the original, but one thing is clear: it’s the middle of January, the coldest part of the winter, and if Mr Putin decides to shut off the flow of gas to Europe, the Europeans will knuckle under; none of the NATO leaders want to see their people freeze this winter. And Russia loses leverage every day that passes toward warmer weather.

It doesn’t matter what threats President Biden makes to somehow hold President Putin accountable; it’s the Russian who holds the hammer here. No one wants to go to war over Ukraine, and Vladimir Putin knows that just as well as anyone else.