Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[HVC]

They could refuse to fight without having a deal with Russia. You're making it sound like it the US's fault. If you want to contain Russia work on your capabilities.

[Tamas]

They could refuse to fight without having a deal with Russia. You're making it sound like it the US's fault. If you want to contain Russia work on your capabilities.

I have no desire to trigger Armageddon to save the Eastern half of Ukraine from becoming Russia. You are reading emotions I rk it which I do not have.

[Eddie Teach]

EU army would deal with Russia?  Them and what army?

Looked on a map of the former soviet union states, one of them Ironyistan has a pretty decent army.

I hear it always rains during weddings in Ironyistan.

That's why you have it inside. The greater hassle is trying to cut the cake with a spoon.

[Jacob]

IIRC one of the big ways the US hit back for the 2014 Crimea thing was making it illegal for US businesses to work on it, causing significant delays to it. I think this is now gone, although I can be wrong.

So the US relents on letting US companies work on the pipeline in return for letting Russia annex parts of Ukraine? I don't think that's a deal the US would push forward, giving Russia two things for nothing.

You posited a secret deal between the US and Russia, in which the US secretly acquiesced to Russia annexing parts of Ukraine. The question is, what is the US getting in return? I don't think the US lifting a ban on companies doing business with Russia is the likely quid pro quo.

[Tamas]

IIRC one of the big ways the US hit back for the 2014 Crimea thing was making it illegal for US businesses to work on it, causing significant delays to it. I think this is now gone, although I can be wrong.

So the US relents on letting US companies work on the pipeline in return for letting Russia annex parts of Ukraine? I don't think that's a deal the US would push forward, giving Russia two things for nothing.

You posited a secret deal between the US and Russia, in which the US secretly acquiesced to Russia annexing parts of Ukraine. The question is, what is the US getting in return? I don't think the US lifting a ban on companies doing business with Russia is the likely quid pro quo.

There's a myriad of things they could possibly gain. A promise from Russia not to escalate further i.e. a clear division of spheres of influence, a promise from Russia not to mingle with China etc. Who knows. But dismissing this possibility -even if not the most likely one- would be naive. It happened in 1939, during WW2, it was re-affirmed in 1956, etc.

[Sheilbh]

IIRC one of the big ways the US hit back for the 2014 Crimea thing was making it illegal for US businesses to work on it, causing significant delays to it. I think this is now gone, although I can be wrong.

I think they're still discussing it - Germany is pushing hard for the US not to do this (though it's not clear to me how this fits with the incoming coalition/who has a say):

Scoop: Germany urges Congress not to sanction Putin's pipeline
Zachary Basu

The German government has urged members of Congress not to sanction the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, arguing that doing so will "weaken" U.S. credibility and "ultimately damage transatlantic unity," according to documents obtained by Axios.

Why it matters: At a time when roughly 100,000 Russian troops are massing at its border, Ukraine views Nord Stream 2 as an existential threat to its security. The pipeline would circumvent Ukrainian transit infrastructure and deliver Russian gas directly to Germany, eliminating one of the last deterrents Ukraine has against an invasion.
    Biden and German Chancellor Angela Merkel struck a deal in July in which Germany agreed to take action — including pushing for sanctions at the EU level — if Russia "used energy as a weapon" against Ukraine and Europe.
    Some experts say that's already happening, as Russia has stoked Europe's energy crisis and suggested that soaring gas prices could be alleviated by expediting Nord Stream 2's certification.
    Dissatisfied Senate Republicans are now pushing for new sanctions as an amendment to the annual must-pass defense bill, with a vote possible as soon as this week.

Driving the news: In an attempt to reassure Congress, the German embassy in Washington privately detailed what retaliatory action against Russia could look like in a "non-paper," which is typically used in closed discussions to convey candid policy positions.
    A Nov. 19 document marked as "classified" outlines steps Germany would take at the national level, including "strong public messages" condemning Russia's behavior; "assessing" the suspension of future political meetings; and reviewing "possible" restrictions on future Russian fossil fuel projects — not including Nord Stream 2.
    At the EU level, the document says Germany is "actively participating in the process to identify options for additional restrictive measures," without going into further details.
    The paper claims that Nord Stream 2 currently presents "no threat to Ukraine as long as reasonable gas transit is ensured," and refers to potential sanctions on the pipeline as "a victory for Putin" because it would divide Western allies.

Between the lines: The paper is intended to show how serious Germany is about its commitments in the July joint statement, which the Biden administration has held up as the basis for waiving sanctions. But it will do little to satisfy Ukraine or Nord Stream's critics on Capitol Hill.
    An adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told Axios that Ukraine is "shocked, saddened, and confused" by Germany's efforts to save Russia's "most dangerous geopolitical project." Zelensky himself took to Twitter this month to urge senators to support sanctions.
    Top Biden officials like energy envoy Amos Hochstein, who has previously said Russia is "getting close" to using energy as a weapon against Europe, have also been lobbying Democrats in Congress not to support sanctions in order to avoid straining relations with Germany.

What they're saying: "Our approach is about far more than alliance maintenance; it's about doing what will be most effective to protect and preserve Ukraine's energy security," a senior State Department official told Axios.
    "Preserving relations with Berlin and standing up for Ukraine's interests isn't an either/or proposition. We're doing both in the most effective way possible."

Although even if Putin isn't using energy as a weapon against Europe now (and I don't actually think he is), he definitely is in, say, Moldova.

There's a myriad of things they could possibly gain. A promise from Russia not to escalate further i.e. a clear division of spheres of influence, a promise from Russia not to mingle with China etc. Who knows. But dismissing this possibility -even if not the most likely one- would be naive. It happened in 1939, during WW2, it was re-affirmed in 1956, etc.

I don't agree with spheres of influence - certainly not in Europe. But also I don't see how Russia can not get more entangled with China if they remain a very fossil fuel focused economy and if Europe keeps decarbonising. China by contrast is moving off coal (and there are pipelines being built there too) and gas is a very attractive bridge fuel.

Also to the extent there are spheres of influence I think, ultimately, Russia is in China's and would struggle to get out.

[Tamas]

So are we really ruling out Russia making backroom deals to ensure they don't trigger WW3 when they move against Ukraine?

[garbon]

IIRC one of the big ways the US hit back for the 2014 Crimea thing was making it illegal for US businesses to work on it, causing significant delays to it. I think this is now gone, although I can be wrong.

So the US relents on letting US companies work on the pipeline in return for letting Russia annex parts of Ukraine? I don't think that's a deal the US would push forward, giving Russia two things for nothing.

You posited a secret deal between the US and Russia, in which the US secretly acquiesced to Russia annexing parts of Ukraine. The question is, what is the US getting in return? I don't think the US lifting a ban on companies doing business with Russia is the likely quid pro quo.

There's a myriad of things they could possibly gain. A promise from Russia not to escalate further i.e. a clear division of spheres of influence, a promise from Russia not to mingle with China etc. Who knows. But dismissing this possibility -even if not the most likely one- would be naive. It happened in 1939, during WW2, it was re-affirmed in 1956, etc.

Because deals with Putin have worked out so well for America in the past?

[Sheilbh]

I don't know if they'll move against Ukraine again - I think they have a situation they're happy with.

But even if they did - why would they need to make a deal? Wouldn't it be easier just to make the same bet as in 2014: that they'll get away with it. Disinvited from a few conferences, some sanctions - but give it 5 or so years and Germany and France will be pushing to start bringing you back in from the cold. What's the Russian incentive for a deal?

And that may not be the wrong policy from the West - but I think until Russia meets a response in Europe it won't necessarily keep invading countries and seizing territory but it will keep pushing and destabilising where it can.

[Berkut]

So are we really ruling out Russia making backroom deals to ensure they don't trigger WW3 when they move against Ukraine?

I don't think anyone is ruling anything out.

That doesn't mean your theory is plausible or credible though, what with there being no evidence that it is happening, nor a rational explanation for why it would make sense. I mean, you've got some angst there I suppose, so there is that.

[Berkut]

What is Germany's reason for wanting the pipeline to go ahead?

They are claiming that if the US doesn't do as Putin demands, why, that is going to make Germany upset.

Why?

[Sheilbh]

What is Germany's reason for wanting the pipeline to go ahead?

They are claiming that if the US doesn't do as Putin demands, why, that is going to make Germany upset.

Why?

Germany really wants the pipeline for its own energy policy - and obviously Schroeder is still working for GazProm. But I think the Greens and the FDP are more dubious so this may shift a little with the new coalition and Germany is starting to find technicalities to slow things down.

But I think ultimately commercial interests a re very important in German foreign policy. I also think there is a strong view/ideological perspective in Berlin with both Russia and China but other countries as well - that it is possible to separate commercial, business, society-to-society contacts and relations from political concerns. Not only that you can but that you should because it helps avoid shutting down lines of communication. Something like a permanent ostpolitik to the world - one foot very firmly Atlanticist, but one not wanting to close off avenues with other powers such as Russia or China to avoid trapping countries and the world into conflict/strictly drawn lines.

I think Germany would also say that they very much position within a European context - but this is one of those circumstances where I think Germany says Europe when it means France, because I don't see that Warsaw or the Baltic states or, on China, other countries such as the Czech Republic have any sway over Germany's policy at all, but they tend to be aligned with France. I'm not sure if that's a bit of old Europe v new Europe and not seeing those countries as fully integral to the EU in the way that the Franco-German motor is, or if it just reflects failure/weakness of those countries in getting their message heard.

Edit: And of course ostpolitik was a very succesful and courageous policy - but I'm a Willy Brandt fanboy (so I also love the new coalition nicking the "dare more" line )

[Tamas]

What is Germany's reason for wanting the pipeline to go ahead?

They are claiming that if the US doesn't do as Putin demands, why, that is going to make Germany upset.

Why?

Isn't their economy very gas based, thanks to traitorous Schroeder? They need to be directly dependent on Russian gas, instead of indirectly, which means also being dependent on Ukraine. They can let Ukraine go once that pipeline is done, I guess.

[Berkut]

So Germany *wants* to be lackies to Putin?

[Tamas]

So Germany *wants* to be lackies to Putin?

Their Chancellor of the 00s switched the whole country over to Russian gas then went on to be employed by Gazprom, if that answers your question.