Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[alfred russel]

His point is that key architecture of that system was constructed before the Cold War started and its builders did not anticipate the Cold War when they made their plans.  The major exception was NATO, which was an adaptation of those plans to respond to emerging Cold War realities.  It's a significant exception but it didn't come out of nowhere; it was an operationalization of the principles of Atlantic Charter and the revived principles of multi-lateral collective security that emerged during and out of WW2

Come on. If you want to backdate things to 1944/1945 then the "post war order" is cool with population transfers and ratifying transfers of territory achieved through aggressive military attacks on peaceful neighbors. See eastern Poland.

[Berkut]

His point is that key architecture of that system was constructed before the Cold War started and its builders did not anticipate the Cold War when they made their plans.  The major exception was NATO, which was an adaptation of those plans to respond to emerging Cold War realities.  It's a significant exception but it didn't come out of nowhere; it was an operationalization of the principles of Atlantic Charter and the revived principles of multi-lateral collective security that emerged during and out of WW2

Come on. If you want to backdate things to 1944/1945 then the "post war order" is cool with population transfers and ratifying transfers of territory achieved through aggressive military attacks on peaceful neighbors. See eastern Poland.

Those were adjustments made coming out of the largest war the world has ever seen. They were tactical in nature, not at all a reflection on the desired post war order. Indeed, the need for such adjustments was what drove the desire to create a better order.

[Jacob]

Come on. If you want to backdate things to 1944/1945 then the "post war order" is cool with population transfers and ratifying transfers of territory achieved through aggressive military attacks on peaceful neighbors. See eastern Poland.

Pretty sure the "war" in "the post-war order" has always referred to WWII?

In any case, it seems to me you're using "post war order" differently than what I'm familiar with.

[alfred russel]

Pretty sure the "war" in "the post-war order" has always referred to WWII?

I agree!

And after that war, the USSR dominated eastern europe and effectively made those countries vassal states, militarily intervening in them when they began to assert uncomfortable levels of autonomy.

This granting of the USSR a sphere of influence was a critical component of the post WWII order. It was envisioned within the peace treaties ending WWII. if you want to look outside of europe, see the division of korea.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The way you are using the phrase "post war order" is not in line with norms in international relations or etc. You're conflating "Cold War" with "post war order." Post war order is generally used to refer to the rules based international system, centered on the UN and the broad doctrine of "no wars of territorial expansion". There were two major and explicit violations of this order during the Cold War: DPRK's invasion of ROK, and Saddam's Iraq invading Kuwait. In both cases the international community responded with military force to counter it.

The order was not and is not perfect to this day--it was paralyzed by "gray areas", situations where sovereignty was vague or ill defined. For example in legal terms the entire Warsaw Pact were independent countries whose sovereign governments chose to operate in conjunction with, and in alliance with, the USSR. The order was important enough that none of the major powers blatantly violated it. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was justified under the veneer of the Afghan government requesting Soviet assistance, never mind that the Afghan government was a coup government of the Afghan Communist Party that had little popular legitimacy.

The Cold War and the post war order are not totally unrelated, obviously. A desire by both superpowers in the Cold War to uphold this order is why the Cold War functioned as it did, and possibly why it remained cold, in terms of direct conflict. It is why the U.S. didn't just invade Cuba, and why Russia was continually careful to structure all of its meddlings as being in conjunction with the desires of local governments (that just happened to have communist governments who often came to power with significant Soviet soft power assistance.)

[Tamas]

Sikorski's "offending" tweet:



He then posted this:

BTW, there's no shortage of pipeline capacity for taking gas from Russia to Western Europe, including Germany. Nordstream's only logic was for Putin to be able to blackmail or wage war on Eastern Europe with impunity.

All Ukrainian and Baltic sea states have opposed Nordstream's construction for 20 years.
Now $20 billion of scrap metal lies at the bottom of the sea, another cost to Russia of its criminal decision to invade Ukraine.
Someone, @MFA_Russia, did a special maintenance operation.

And also retweeted a press conference by Biden in which he said:

Pres. Biden: "If Russia invades...then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."

Reporter: "But how will you do that, exactly, since...the project is in Germany's control?"

Biden: "I promise you, we will be able to do that."

I mean he is not wrong and it was totally a dick move from Germany, but there is a bigger picture where you don't want to fuel Russian propaganda toward the European public.

[alfred russel]

The way you are using the phrase "post war order" is not in line with norms in international relations or etc. You're conflating "Cold War" with "post war order." Post war order is generally used to refer to the rules based international system, centered on the UN and the broad doctrine of "no wars of territorial expansion". There were two major and explicit violations of this order during the Cold War: DPRK's invasion of ROK, and Saddam's Iraq invading Kuwait. In both cases the international community responded with military force to counter it.

The order was not and is not perfect to this day--it was paralyzed by "gray areas", situations where sovereignty was vague or ill defined. For example in legal terms the entire Warsaw Pact were independent countries whose sovereign governments chose to operate in conjunction with, and in alliance with, the USSR. The order was important enough that none of the major powers blatantly violated it. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was justified under the veneer of the Afghan government requesting Soviet assistance, never mind that the Afghan government was a coup government of the Afghan Communist Party that had little popular legitimacy.

The Cold War and the post war order are not totally unrelated, obviously. A desire by both superpowers in the Cold War to uphold this order is why the Cold War functioned as it did, and possibly why it remained cold, in terms of direct conflict. It is why the U.S. didn't just invade Cuba, and why Russia was continually careful to structure all of its meddlings as being in conjunction with the desires of local governments (that just happened to have communist governments who often came to power with significant Soviet soft power assistance.)

The USSR obviously dominated the Warsaw Pact through force, and arguably the Russian Republic dominated the USSR. They'd send in tanks when the situation demanded it. In the post cold war era, they have militarily intervened in a number of former soviet states have established something of spheres of influence.

Without entering into apologetics for Russia, it isn't clear this is about absorbing Ukrainian territory as much as forcing a vassal back into line sort of like Georgia a few years ago (Czechoslovakia in 1968, which was i think larger in scope than even this).

[grumbler]

The Cold War was an aberration as far as the post-war system was concerned,

Fascinating perspective on what constitutes the "post-war system".

Yeah, well, that was part of my major, so I know something about it.

[Valmy]

Without entering into apologetics for Russia, it isn't clear this is about absorbing Ukrainian territory as much as forcing a vassal back into line sort of like Georgia a few years ago (Czechoslovakia in 1968, which was i think larger in scope than even this).

I don't see how forcing another country to be your vassal through military invasion vs military invasion to take territory is apologetics. Were the invasions of Georgia and Czechoslovakia admirable actions somehow?

[Barrister]

This granting of the USSR a sphere of influence was a critical component of the post WWII order. It was envisioned within the peace treaties ending WWII. if you want to look outside of europe, see the division of korea.

The USSR was never "granted" a sphere of influence.  The treaties ending WWII called for free and fair elections in all liberated countries.  The US frequently called for democracy and human rights in eastern europe.  Countries in fact even fell out of the USSR's sphere of influence: Yugoslavia was completely out, and Romania while technically a Warsaw Pact member, refused to be involved in any Warsaw Pact military activities.  The US and western powers also never recognized the soviet annexation of the Baltics.

[alfred russel]

Without entering into apologetics for Russia, it isn't clear this is about absorbing Ukrainian territory as much as forcing a vassal back into line sort of like Georgia a few years ago (Czechoslovakia in 1968, which was i think larger in scope than even this).

I don't see how forcing another country to be your vassal through military invasion vs military invasion to take territory is apologetics. Were the invasions of Georgia and Czechoslovakia admirable actions somehow?

This granting of the USSR a sphere of influence was a critical component of the post WWII order. It was envisioned within the peace treaties ending WWII. if you want to look outside of europe, see the division of korea.

The USSR was never "granted" a sphere of influence.  The treaties ending WWII called for free and fair elections in all liberated countries. 

Seriously BB? Yes the treaties called for those things but well before Hitler shot himself people knew the score. Mostly it was a situation where the spheres of influence were just where the armies stopped, but there were exceptions like Berlin and North Korea that I mentioned earlier.

And yes i agree there was more to the cold war than force of arms. There was a major sino-soviet split, albania, and the stuff you mention. but there was also raw power that was both exercised and tolerated.

valmy, no of course those other things weren't admirable. but they were major events that helped define the international order between the end of WWII and today.

[Zanza]

I mean he is not wrong and it was totally a dick move from Germany,

Poland did not mind enough to not buy the gas that streamed through Nordstream 1, even after Februarythis year. I guess political grandstanding stops when it comes to cold hard cash.

[Barrister]

Without entering into apologetics for Russia, it isn't clear this is about absorbing Ukrainian territory as much as forcing a vassal back into line sort of like Georgia a few years ago (Czechoslovakia in 1968, which was i think larger in scope than even this).

Well for starters the Russians already absorbed Ukrainian territory in 2014-2015: Crimea, which already makes it unlike any other example.

And while it's hard to know for sure Putin's intentions based on the number of different stories he's told, given how many time he's said Ukraine is not a real country, and Ukrainians are Russians little brothers, I think the conclusion he intends to absorb as much Ukrainian territory as he can is a safe one.

[alfred russel]

And while it's hard to know for sure Putin's intentions based on the number of different stories he's told, given how many time he's said Ukraine is not a real country, and Ukrainians are Russians little brothers, I think the conclusion he intends to absorb as much Ukrainian territory as he can is a safe one.

Suppose that the Russian military did a lot better in the initial attack and despite fierce resistance ended up in control of all Ukraine. Would he absorb the country? I dunno, such an action would be really really stupid. Who rationally wants to absorb 40 million people that hate you, are poor, and are on a lot of land that don't have the resource extraction potential that generates the wealth you depend on? But then the whole war is really stupid so i dunno.

[Barrister]

And while it's hard to know for sure Putin's intentions based on the number of different stories he's told, given how many time he's said Ukraine is not a real country, and Ukrainians are Russians little brothers, I think the conclusion he intends to absorb as much Ukrainian territory as he can is a safe one.

Suppose that the Russian military did a lot better in the initial attack and despite fierce resistance ended up in control of all Ukraine. Would he absorb the country? I dunno, such an action would be really really stupid. Who rationally wants to absorb 40 million people that hate you, are poor, and are on a lot of land that don't have the resource extraction potential that generates the wealth you depend on? But then the whole war is really stupid so i dunno.

Why does he want to absorb any of the land that he is now?