Russia-Ukrainian War

[Xerxes]

https://ca.yahoo.com/news/nato-papering-over-cracks-zelenskiy-153040460.html
 

You got to give the Zelenskyy credit. He fights tooth and nail for his flag. 
 

Not the same clean shaven junior statesman who got stuck between H. Biden and Trump on weird allegations. 

[cubsfan]

14 hours ago, Dinar said:

Aren't the Baltic countries part of Nato?  So then obviously the mutual defense treaty applies.   I don't understand why American taxpayers ought to bail out incompetence and graft of the Ukrainian government.  

yeah, fair point.

 

Bailing out one of the most corrupt countries in the world, requires one to hold their nose. The real stealing probably starts with the rebuilding of Ukraine.

[changegonnacome]

https://ca.yahoo.com/news/nato-papering-over-cracks-zelenskiy-153040460.html

 

"Crucially, it was the US and Germany that insisted on dialing back the commitment to Ukraine joining the alliance. Earlier drafts of the communique offered a clearer pathway to Ukraine eventually joining, but Biden and Chancellor Olaf Scholz were wary of going too far."

 

Nice to see common sense from the US/Germany........if they were confused about Russian red lines before the Feb 22 invasion it might be understandable.......if you are confused now your an idiot........strategic ambiguity is the correct posture now on Ukrainian NATO membership.......and as Zelensky's early peace deal proposal from last year shows he knows, they know and we all know that any potential deal that might bring stability back to Ukraine such that it has a prosperous future and it isnt a failed state, involves them surrendering any NATO membership aspirations forever.....end of story.

 

It's an uncomfortable truth......but a reality.......this war completely and utterly destabilizes Ukraine.....its not helpful to the Russian economy either....but the asymmetry in economic damage alone is stark.....then take the population & war machine asymmetry between the two its just not smart to continue with this conflict in its current form.

 

The reality of the situation is captured in the below:

 

 

We like to talk about the Russian economy "reeling" from the sanctions regime......your GDP contracting by 2.5% is a kind of a medium size recession........GDP contracting by 30% as it has in Ukraine is a different story.

 

As I keep saying I hope Ukraine has some major victories in their counter offensive (good news on this front seem scarce right now) but they really do need to get around a negotiating table soon and ekk out the best pragmatic deal they can..........being a hero is fun for a while......but the reality & enormity of going toe to toe with Russia (even with the West's support) is becoming clear......Jake Sullivan said the quiet bit out loud a couple of months ago........Ukraine needs to put some kind of workable peace solution on the table by year end......the realpolitik of this is as follows.......there is still enormous goodwill towards Ukraine & Zelensky right now.....but as the recent "ungratefulness" chatter shows coming out of NATO summit......goodwill is a fickle friend and as the Ukraine war moves from the headlines to page 3,4, 5 it dissipates......Zelensky needs to think about rebuilding Ukraine......and right now the goodwill and energy that still exists......can be channelled into securing more consumable artillery that will get destroyed advancing Ukrainian front lines what 50 metres?.......or it can be channelled into securing billions upon billions of development aid from the West to rebuild his economy and society.

[John Hjorth]

3 hours ago, Xerxes said:

https://ca.yahoo.com/news/nato-papering-over-cracks-zelenskiy-153040460.html
 

You got to give the Zelenskyy credit. He fights tooth and nail for his flag. 
 

Not the same clean shaven junior statesman who got stuck between H. Biden and Trump on weird allegations. 

 

Both parts are somewhat stuck in this warfare, generating desperation in the situation on both sides. Ukraine is desperate, because it would be run over if not for the support by the NATO and G7 countries. No need to complicate things here.

[Spekulatius]

Michael Clark is always a good listen. He discusses the the current aid packages (lots of rumored vehicles), the NATO summit and the (lack of) russian command Post Wagner Coup.

 

 

I say this much. There is almost no way Ukraine does not become a NATO member eventually.

[Xerxes]

13 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

Michael Clark is always a good listen. He discusses the the current aid packages (lots of rumored vehicles), the NATO summit and the (lack of) russian command Post Wagner Coup.

 

 

I say this much. There is almost no way Ukraine does not become a NATO member eventually.

I agree with his comment that Feb 2022 was meant to be essentially a military backed coup. toppling the old government and installing a new one that is pro-Kremlin. But not his subsequent comment about its full annexation to Russian Federation. Frankly it is a bit silly that he even thinks that. Eastern provinces for sure but for the whole country … ehehe 
 

Even Belorussian that is already pro-Kremlin sits as buffer state on the fringe of Russian Federation between it and NATO. 
 

 

[Spekulatius]

20 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

I agree with his comment that Feb 2022 was meant to be essentially a military backed coup. toppling the old government and installing a new one that is pro-Kremlin. But not his subsequent comment about its full annexation to Russian Federation. Frankly it is a bit silly that he even thinks that. Eastern provinces for sure but for the whole country … ehehe 
 

Even Belorussian that is already pro-Kremlin sits as buffer state on the fringe of Russian Federation between it and NATO. 
 

 

If I recall Michael Clarks talk correctly, the end state is to do what he did with Belarussia and create a vasal state with a leader that is his puppet. In fact for quite some time in the early 2000, he had just that in place. He almost had Ukraine under control until it slipped away in the orange and the Euromaiden revolution. Must be infuriating for him and that's his issue, not the NATO expansion (imo).

 

Putin is going to grab any part of the former Soviet empire that is not going to join another power center like NATO. Maybe Kazakhstan goes to China which would put it out of his reach. Otherwise they are next most likely. Their leader for now seem Putin friendly, although not enthusiastically so recently.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Spekulatius

[Xerxes]

1 minute ago, Spekulatius said:

If i recall correctly, the end state is to do what he did with Belarussia and create a vasal state with a leader that is his puppet. In fact for quite some time in the early 2000, he had just that in place. He almost had Ukraine under control until it slipped away in the orange and the Euromaiden revolution. Must be infuriating for him and that's his issue, not the NATO expansion (imo).

 

Putin is going to grab any part of the former Soviet empire that is not going to join another power center like NATO. Maybe Kazakhstan goes to China which would put it out of his reach.

I think your “end state” is correct. I am not disagreeing with anything you are saying.
 

The good professor however got a bit too excited in that interview podcast about “full annexation”. 
 

 

 

It is even entirely possible that a very pro-Kremlin Kiev government (say Orange never happens) in the 2010s would have somehow granted special control over Crimea to Russia. Keeping it in the grey zone. As they already had joint control over Sevastopol.
 

A full and proper annexation of Crimea while already having control/influence of Kiev could have “awaken the giant that is Ukrainian nationalism”. A bridge too far. Land grabbing Crimea came only after Orange revolution toppled its influence in Kiev.  

[Spekulatius]

This Sputnik_not parody account has some great posts:

 

 

 

 

Edited July 14, 2023 by Spekulatius

[John Hjorth]

Here we go again - 'same procedure as last year':

 

Politico [July 12^th 2023] : Ukraine warns key Russian gas supply to Europe will be cut.

 

Counter measures from Western Europe :

 

Baltic Pipe : Delivering Norwegian gas to Eastern Europe [mentioned by me upstream in this topic],

Danish Tyra Gas field coming online again after redevelopment, expencted now January 2024.

 

Continued shift away from gas to other energy sources.

 

I have no idea how this is going to play out. Likely it will harm both Russia and the NATO member states in  Europe in varying degrees.

 

[John Hjorth]

So much for retaliation for international seizure of Russian oligarchs assets - naturally it has political consequences, that seem to hit - more or less - to misfire, by logic based on actual opportunity, not in any way based on logic :

 

Reuters [July 16^th 2023] : Moscow takes control of Russian subsidiary of Danone and Carlsberg's stake in brewer.

[changegonnacome]

Artillery asymmetry between Russia and Ukraine/West is outrageous and a real problem. It’s disappointing to find the western allies so lacking in a war machine infrastructure…..another hollowing out perhaps of our collective industrial capability…..Biden/EU might need to sponsor an Artillery Act to build out the wests war machine again….it’s embarrassing to run out of artillery and so have to send cluster bombs instead…..while a fading power like Russia can seemingly supply infinite artillery to its troops…..I thought we were the ones with infinite economy resources and advanced military technology…..turns out, a bit like COVID supply chains, that we’ve atrophied another muscle we used to have…..Germany needs to stop making so many ball bearings for China and turns its not small engineering talents to artillery production and general weapons manufacturing.

[beerbaron]

1 hour ago, changegonnacome said:

Artillery asymmetry between Russia and Ukraine/West is outrageous and a real problem. It’s disappointing to find the western allies so lacking in a war machine infrastructure…..another hollowing out perhaps of our collective industrial capability…..Biden/EU might need to sponsor an Artillery Act to build out the wests war machine again….it’s embarrassing to run out of artillery and so have to send cluster bombs instead…..while a fading power like Russia can seemingly supply infinite artillery to its troops…..I thought we were the ones with infinite economy resources and advanced military technology…..turns out, a bit like COVID supply chains, that we’ve atrophied another muscle we used to have…..Germany needs to stop making so many ball bearings for China and turns its not small engineering talents to artillery production and general weapons manufacturing.

The below is a much more accurate picture. Russia does not have infinite supply and they have not ramped up their manufacturing 10X like some commentor would like us to believe.

 

 

 

 

 

[changegonnacome]

56 minutes ago, beerbaron said:

The below is a much more accurate picture. Russia does not have infinite supply and they have not ramped up their manufacturing 10X like some commentor would like us to believe.

 

 

But its fair to say that Ukraine is severely constrained for artillery and Russia not so much? Which given the nature of the current battlefield is a big advantage.

[Luca]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/11/opinion/nato-summit-vilnius-europe.html

 

NATO isn't what it says it is:

 

Only four years ago, on the eve of another summit, the organization looked to be in low water; in the words of President Emmanuel Macron of France, it was undergoing nothing short of “brain death.” Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the situation has been transformed. As NATO plans to welcome Sweden into its ranks — Finland became a full-fledged member in April — and dispatch troops to reinforce its eastern flank, European Union allies are finally making good on long-deferred promises to increase military spending. Public opinion has followed suit. If Russia sought to divide Europe, President Biden could plausibly declare last spring that it had instead fully “NATO-ized” the continent.

 

But NATO, from its origins, was never primarily concerned with aggregating military power. Fielding 100 divisions at its Cold War height, a small fraction of Warsaw Pact manpower, the organization could not be counted on to repel a Soviet invasion and even the continent’s nuclear weapons were under Washington’s control. Rather, it set out to bind Western Europe to a far vaster project of a U.S.-led world order, in which American protection served as a lever to obtain concessions on other issues, like trade and monetary policy. In that mission, it has proved remarkably successful.

 

Many observers expected NATO to close shop after the collapse of its Cold War rival. But in the decade after 1989, the organization truly came into its own. NATO acted as a ratings agency for the European Union in Eastern Europe, declaring countries secure for development and investment. The organization pushed would-be partners to adhere to a liberal, pro-market creed, according to which — as President Bill Clinton’s national security adviser put it — “the pursuit of democratic institutions, the expansion of free markets” and “the promotion of collective security” marched in lock step. European military professionals and reform-minded elites formed a willing constituency, their campaigns boosted by NATO’s information apparatus.

 

Whatever the levels of expenditure, it is remarkable how little military capability Europeans get for the outlays involved. Lack of coordination, as much as penny-pinching, hamstrings Europe’s ability to ensure its own security. By forbidding duplication of existing capabilities and prodding allies to accept niche roles, NATO has stymied the emergence of any semiautonomous European force capable of independent action. As for defense procurement, common standards for interoperability, coupled with the sheer size of the U.S. military-industrial sector and bureaucratic impediments in Brussels, favor American firms at the expense of their European competitors. The alliance, paradoxically, appears to have weakened allies’ ability to defend themselves.

 

Yet the paradox is only superficial. In fact, NATO is working exactly as it was designed by postwar U.S. planners, drawing Europe into a dependency on American power that reduces its room for maneuver. Far from a costly charity program, NATO secures American influence in Europe on the cheap. U.S. contributions to NATO and other security assistance programs in Europe account for a tiny fraction of the Pentagon’s annual budget — less than 6 percent by a recent estimate. And the war has only strengthened America’s hand. Before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, roughly half of European military spending went to American manufacturers. Surging demand has exacerbated this tendency as buyers rush to acquire tanks, combat aircraft and other weapons systems, locking into costly, multiyear contracts. Europe may be remilitarizing, but America is reaping the rewards.

 

In Ukraine, the pattern is clear. Washington will provide the military security, and its corporations will benefit from a bonanza of European armament orders, while Europeans will shoulder the cost of postwar reconstruction — something Germany is better poised to accomplish than the buildup of its military. The war also serves as a dress rehearsal for U.S. confrontation with China, in which European support cannot be so easily counted on. Limiting Beijing’s access to strategic technologies and promoting American industry are hardly European priorities, and severing European and Chinese trade is still difficult to imagine. Yet already there are signs that NATO is making headway in getting Europe to follow its lead in the theater. On the eve of a visit to Washington at the end of June, Germany’s defense minister duly advertised his awareness of “European responsibility for the Indo-Pacific” and the importance of “the rules-based international order” in the South China Sea.

 

Left parties in Europe, historically critical of militarism and American power, have overwhelmingly enlisted in the defense of the West: The trajectory of the German Greens, from fierce opponents of nuclear weapons to a party seemingly willing to risk atomic war, is a particularly vivid illustration. Stateside, criticism of NATO focuses on the risks of overextending U.S. treaty obligations, not their underlying justification. The most successful alliance in history, gathering in celebration of itself, need not wait for its 75th anniversary next year to uncork the champagne.

Edited July 17, 2023 by Luca

[changegonnacome]

2 hours ago, Luca said:

In fact, NATO is working exactly as it was designed by postwar U.S. planners, drawing Europe into a dependency on American power that reduces its room for maneuver.

 

For Europe.......with friends like the US who needs enemies

 

Back to what I mentioned a couple of pages back.......Macron has articulated this view.........Europe is a price taker of US foreign policy in the region and most certainly in other regions......Europe minus a robust German (& French) military capability....is a toothless tiger from strategic autonomy point of view.....the US and Europe are sympatico on so many things...we are great allies in that respect.......but there's divergence there too.......and the Ukraine/Russia stuff is an example.....perpetuating the war in Ukraine......is a mechanism by which the US can ensure structurally higher energy prices for German manufacturers they compete with......and the list goes on.......minus the billions of dollars the war is costing the US....in some respects there's lots of upside with limited downside.....the US gets to slowly cripple the Russian state/army fighting with other people soldiers......energy intensive European manufacturing becomes structurally uncompetitive vs. the US's unlimited

 

Then you get interesting little incidents like the US spending a decade protesting against Nordstream 2 & ever closer energy integration between Europe and Russia..............and a gas pipeline getting blown up by mystery saboteur that no European country wants to talk about right now...

 

The realpolitik of all this is very simple - and explained by the realist IR perspective:

 

- a great power looks to secure its own region first....becoming a regional hegemon...the US spent much of the 1800's and early 1900's doing this...and was hugely successful....not a single person in the USA ever wakes up with concerns about neighbouring sovereign aggression....the US is totally secure with the Monroe Doctrine in place

 

- regional hegemon then seeks to play in other regions (Europe/Asia/Africa) to contain and box in the rise of regional hegemon emerging that one day could go global

 

- boxing in & constraining the emergence of regional hegemons is very logical.........a regional hegemon once they have dominated and secured their own region.....seeks to 'play' in other regions....potentially your region!!!!....cause thats exactly what you started doing once you'd secured yours....the US understands the playbook

 

- the pivot to Asia by the USA....is not some charity exercise its concerned with ensuring China never fully dominates Asia in the way the USA dominates the Americas......if China achieved this regional hegemon state.....it would be likely to begin to play deeper games in South America/Caribbean bringing 'trouble' to the US's doorstep........its why a conflict in the South China sea at some point is so likely.....better to go toe to toe with China there....than the Caribbean Sea!

 

- nations are chiefly concerned with their own survival and security....it drives everything in international relations....while we tell a heroes story about WWI & WWII.....great powers joined the conflict (WWI - britain, then the USA...and WWII (both)...as it became clear that Germany, if successful, would potentially emerge as a regional hegemon ala the Unites States if they didn't.....Britain and the USA at various junctures identified this as a strategic threat to their own sovereignty and security and joined the French in fighting.

 

To contain China...and stop its emergence as a regional hegemon....we've already got bases all over Asia.....and are ready in various arenas to go toe to toe with China.....Korea, Taiwan, Japan....ideally you do it in a Ukraine fashion......send money/arms and let others die doing the fighting and furthering your strategic objectives of containing/diminishing a potential rival/competitor.

 

Europe, as I mentioned needs to step up now with its own military capability aspirations, balance of power dynamics I think requires a third force between the USA and an emergent China.....left alone in a bilateral global competition the escalation dynamics are too easy to get out of control.....the situation is best served by a kind of EU referee but a referee with an army, nukes & artillery (the EU is already an economic superpower) and enough strategic autonomy to be neither China or US's "bitch".

[cubsfan]

12 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

Artillery asymmetry between Russia and Ukraine/West is outrageous and a real problem. It’s disappointing to find the western allies so lacking in a war machine infrastructure…..another hollowing out perhaps of our collective industrial capability…..Biden/EU might need to sponsor an Artillery Act to build out the wests war machine again….it’s embarrassing to run out of artillery and so have to send cluster bombs instead…..while a fading power like Russia can seemingly supply infinite artillery to its troops…..I thought we were the ones with infinite economy resources and advanced military technology…..turns out, a bit like COVID supply chains, that we’ve atrophied another muscle we used to have…..Germany needs to stop making so many ball bearings for China and turns its not small engineering talents to artillery production and general weapons manufacturing.

No doubt President Biden has severely weakened the US military and his pentagon staff is filled with baffoons. His Afghan strategy was non-existent and disgraceful. If you’re a US ally, you have to be worried sick and seriously considering your own nukes.

 

And yes, he’s certainly let our armaments run down, as well as making terrorist countries among the most well armed.

 

There is a lot for Europe & Asia to worry about in the case of the US.

[changegonnacome]

1 minute ago, cubsfan said:

No doubt President Biden has severely weakened the US military

 

You don't weaken a military in the just two years.....you help weaken a military in that time.....weakening was occurring under Obama and most recently Trump (for all his rhetoric about doing the opposite)

[John Hjorth]

9 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

But its fair to say that Ukraine is severely constrained for artillery and Russia not so much? Which given the nature of the current battlefield is a big advantage.

 

The way I personally perceive the total situation as of now from all my steady ongoing reading here, there and everywhere, is that the above is about right.

 

And from a Western politics point of view, it's a disgrace, a scandal and just so embarrassing. The perils of democracy [yes, democracy also has a back of the coin, perhaps several more, - one of them being it's inefficient, slow, and cumbersome!], perhaps combined with bureaucracy, again combined with NATO organizational bloat makes efficicient execution almost impossible.

 

It's so frustrating to be an observer to this. *shaking head*

 

The long range Cruise missiles made available to Ukraine will be a game changer going forward, if used intelligently.

 

The next step to up the ante I speculate will be to include donated F16 fighters from the West to Ukraine in the the combat actions - oh wait ! : Training of Ukrainian pilots in flying this has not started yet! 

 

 

[Spekulatius]

1 minute ago, changegonnacome said:

 

You don't weaken a military in the just two years.....you help weaken a military in that time.....weakening was occurring under Obama and most recently Trump (for all his rhetoric about doing the opposite)

Biden was the first US president who stood up to Putin. None before did anything and the list is long - Bush, Obama, Trump all were in the appeasement camp. Putin's miscalculation was that Biden would just be another on in the appeasement list and that clearly isn't the case.

 

The blunders in Afghanistan and how to get out of there are a different matter. The bigger mistake was probably to get in in the first place.

 

The discussion here reveals much more about personal biases than the topic at hand. I am including myself here to blame as well.

[cubsfan]

Your strong or weakened military is useless if it’s backed up by cowards running your foreign policy. Biden’s cut and run in Afghanistan was an idiotic move that worries your allies sick - and got a lot of innocent people killed in the process. That move had NOTHING to do with military strength- only the courage to use it.

 

Likewise, Obama’s supposed “red line” for Russia invading Crimea. Same thing - empty talk and no action.

 

Empty leaders that back a strong military are the biggest fear for our allies.

[cubsfan]

Say what you like , but Trump knew how to project strength and show his adversaries he was NOT afraid to use US strength.

 

He dropped the MOAB on an Taliban terrorist encampment- and the result was NO more US deaths for 18 months.

 

When Putin screwed around in Syria , he killed 200 Russian mercenaries with not a single US casualty.

 

Not need to avoid the true facts in making your arguments boys.

 

And don’t forget the fat little terrorist in N. Korea - against all criticism, Trump charmed him at the same time as threatening him. After he saw the above - no trouble from him.

[Xerxes]

I do agree with @cubsfan and his comment about Trump. Like it or not, hate him or not, Trump was a game changer. For better or worse.

 

 

That said, I also agree that Biden did stood up to Putin. Eventhough in hindsight he should not have said some of the thing he said on the eve of the invasion. Biden (much like McCain, or Bush Senior) was a children of the Cold War. And he saw Putin for what he was. Therefore, that historical bias that he had did help shape his foreign policy toward Ukraine & Russia, eventhough it was clumsy at times in hindsight in some occasions.

 

 

On the other hand Bush Junior and largely Obama did not see that. Well Obama just pretended Putin was not there and gave the dossier to Vice President Biden. And lastly Trump had a different way of handling things (i.e transactional).

[Spekulatius]

22 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

I do agree with @cubsfan and his comment about Trump. Like it or not, hate him or not, Trump was a game changer. For better or worse.

 

 

That said, I also agree that Biden did stood up to Putin. Eventhough in hindsight he should not have said some of the thing he said on the eve of the invasion. Biden (much like McCain, or Bush Senior) was a children of the Cold War. And he saw Putin for what he was. Therefore, that historical bias that he had did help shape his foreign policy toward Ukraine & Russia, eventhough it was clumsy at times in hindsight in some occasions.

 

 

On the other hand Bush Junior and largely Obama did not see that. Well Obama just pretended Putin was not there and gave the dossier to Vice President Biden. And lastly Trump had a different way of handling things (i.e transactional).

Agree pretty much on everything. Unfortunately a lot of things from the 70's seems to come back - energy shortage (in some parts), inflation, cold war, decline of the big cities.

 

Some older folks may be more suited to understand the landscape than the younger ones who have seen none of this. But then again, I may be showing my own bias here.

[changegonnacome]

53 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

That said, I also agree that Biden did stood up to Putin.

 

Seen as some are beating up on Biden - I'll join in but care neither for Biden or Trump...put an electoral gun to my head I vote Biden all day long. 

 

Biden is/was perceived by Russia as a Ukraine 'hawk' in that under his watch as VP with portfolio responsibility for Ukraine under Obama....he was seen to have encouraged supported and maneuvered the most hard West pivot that Ukranian leadership had ever taken raising alarm in the Kremlin (if you care to look at it from a singular Russian security perspective). Add in the barisma stuff with Hunter....and you can see....if you pause for a moment and walk in a Russian's shoe for second....the strange feeling that Ukraine was becoming a US puppet state & Biden during his time as VP was chiefly responsible for what Mearsheimar refers to as "the leading Ukraine down the primrose path period" which is to encouraging them to pivot to us more completely as means by which WE ehanced our security in the West....better Ukraine is a western puppet state...than like Belarus a Russian puppet state.

 

When Biden assumed the presidency and given his prior Ukrainian portfolio responbilty and 8yrs a Ukraine hawk......paradoxically for all the Republicans out there that like to pretend that Russia invaded Ukraine because Biden is WEAK......they actually invaded Ukraine after he assumed the presidency because the calculation was that Biden was the most AGGRESSIVE i.e. hawkish president to sit in the Oval Office (vis a vie Ukraine's) in decades.

 

It's no coincidence that Russia invaded Ukraine a year after Biden's inauguration.....they perceived the most Ukrainian hawkish president in decades sitting in the oval office with potentially 8 full years in front of him to transform completely Ukraine into a Western bulwark on Russia's doorstep......a project he'd started as Vice President......or what we euphemistically call a vassal state.

 

I agree with a poster above.......Trump's transactional foreign relations stance......from a Russian standpoint was infinitely more preferable vis a vie Ukraine & Russian security concerns there......than Biden's Ukraine track record....and his idealistic/zealot democracy vs. autocracy rhetoric that characterized his first year in office.

 

Remember the "Summit for Democracy" in December 2021...three short months before Russia's Ukraine invasion:

 

Sitting in Beijing or the Kremlin....and you see the picture above.....you the know the 'deal' as Biden would say.....its projecting liberal democracy because you beleive in it but also because it hurts your enemies (Russia, China, Iran, N.Korea)...and that photo to an autocrat looks like a tonne of future mischief making by the new US president in your part of the world coming down the tracks!!!!!!! I assume Zelensky's in that photo somewhere? (EDIT: to answer my own question, he sure did attend...Ukraine released this statement that was translated and carried on US state departments website no less afterwards: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/UKRAINE-Summit-for-Democracy-Written-Commitment-eng-2021-12-20-Accessible-Final.pdf with this paragraph on the front page : "Ukraine is currently an outpost of democracy and freedom in Europe. For the eighth year in a row, Ukrainians are defending with arms not only their freedom, but the values of democracy and the free world")

 

In international relations - WEAK/STRONG leaders have different meanings depending on your viewpoint......Russia invaded Ukraine during Biden's presidency not because he was perceived to be weak but quite the opposite...Biden was intent, and his track record was flawless, on projecting US power via liberal democratic ideals in far flung regions.....all the better if that liberal democratic idealism also strategically weakened autocratic regimes that were US enemies. In this respect Putin the mad man, Putin the imperialist....is really Putin the calcuting statements (miscalculating for sure based on what happened)....but on Feb 2022 he made a deeply aggressive move to assert dominance on his Western flank. He miscalculated for sure based on subsequent events.......but the calculation contained undoubtedly the above variables....and Biden was a key part.....not because Biden is weak....but because Biden is strong (again weak/strong are subjective and I use them here in terms of a dove vs. a hawk on Ukraine).

Edited July 17, 2023 by changegonnacome