The Biden/NATO/Putin/Zelensky conundrum

[Ronson]

Actually, it was just before Putin moved to Moscow and entered politics.

In 1994 Ukraine, Russia, U.S., and Britain signed the "Budapest Memorandum" (a Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine's Accession to the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) where the latter three pledged to "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine."

Moreover, the signers also confirmed their commitment to "seek immediate" U.N. Security Council action "to provide assistance to Ukraine … if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression."

Needless to say, even though Ukraine handed their nukes over to Russia, the agreement isn't worth the paper it is written on given Russia's subsequent behavior.

So, do you believe the US is obligated to protect Ukraine from Russia?

[rogue06]

So, do you believe the US is obligated to protect Ukraine from Russia?

At the risk of pulling an H_A, define "protect"

[Ronson]

At the risk of pulling an H_A, define "protect"

Reasonable request. "Protect" inasmuch as putting western/US troops in Ukraine and daring that they'd be touched. I wouldn't be surprised if Biden does something like that, putting troops in far eastern Ukraine as a dare.

[rogue06]

Reasonable request. "Protect" inasmuch as putting western/US troops in Ukraine and daring that they'd be touched. I wouldn't be surprised if Biden does something like that, putting troops in far eastern Ukraine as a dare.

Not to be flippant but...

3d1803a8-7590-40af-a747-f91d3ccd6662.jpg

[seanD]

Just a thought that occurred to me. Do people here remember that Ukraine was (until recently) called "The Ukraine"? Because it was always considered a region of greater Russia. Like in America saying "The Midwest" or "The East Coast" or something, The Ukraine was a vague region. It's borders became more definite after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Again, just a thought about this shadowy area of the world that the U.S. really should stay clear of. I can't imagine Americans would want to get embroiled in something like this. It's not like someone flew jets into the World Trade Center and Pentagon or something, attacking America and killing thousands of Americans.

I asked that question in another thread -- why should we care about Ukraine -- and seer argued that if Russia were to invade, we'd be obligated to protect the Americans living there. Americans always seem to find an excuse for war, especially the political right. War just seems to be ingrained in their brain. I doubt there would be any resistance from the left either, because not only is the modern left not anti-war anymore (at least not since the 60s), but they absolutely detest Russia.

[Ronson]

I asked that question in another thread -- why should we care about Ukraine -- and seer argued that if Russia were to invade, we'd be obligated to protect the Americans living there. Americans always seem to find an excuse for war, especially the political right. War just seems to be ingrained in their brain. I doubt there would be any resistance from the left either, because not only is the modern left not anti-war anymore (at least not since the 60s), but they absolutely detest Russia.

The U.S. government should not be obligated to protect Americans who choose to live and work in dangerous areas of the world. Ukraine - especially east Ukraine - has been a well-known danger zone for most of the decade. So there is no excuse for Americans there to say "Come save me! I didn't know!"

It's akin to living or visiting in Iran or Somalia. Best to just stay out of there.

[Stoic]

As an aside, all of this really puts the final nail in the coffin of the Ukraine phone call hoax. Even those who thought Schiff's reality-free "interpretation" of the call was sacred writ and the heard from a friend, who heard it from a friend who heard some water cooler gossip is the gold standard of eye-witness, must realize that if Trump had actually been strong-arming Ukraine that Zelensky would be telling everyone about that to please the Democrats and get even more aid. With Trump out of office for over a year now, the claim that Zelensky was lying out of fear of Trump is even less credible now than it was then.

Hardly.

If Zelensky was lying out of fear of Trump, he might still fear that Trump could be elected again.

And the other reasons given for why Zelensky might not admit to feeling pressured (avoiding the appearance of trying to influence US politics and not wanting to appear weak to the voters in Ukraine) also still apply.

[Ronson]

Hardly.

If Zelensky was lying out of fear of Trump, he might still fear that Trump could be elected again.

And the other reasons given for why Zelensky might not admit to feeling pressured (avoiding the appearance of trying to influence US politics and not wanting to appear weak to the voters in Ukraine) also still apply.

Actually, Zelensky already said why he's trying to ratchet down the rhetoric. He said western money is being yanked out of Ukraine and it is really starting to hurt the economy. Panic pull out. So whether or not he actually thinks a conflict is imminent isn't his motivation for taking the calm route.

[Stoic]

Actually, Zelensky already said why he's trying to ratchet down the rhetoric. He said western money is being yanked out of Ukraine and it is really starting to hurt the economy. Panic pull out. So whether or not he actually thinks a conflict is imminent isn't his motivation for taking the calm route.

That's a good point, but it's separate from the issue that rogue brought up.

[Ronson]

That's a good point, but it's separate from the issue that rogue brought up.

Wow, my post was seriously misplaced. My batting average is poor today. Excuse please.

[seanD]

Actually, Zelensky already said why he's trying to ratchet down the rhetoric. He said western money is being yanked out of Ukraine and it is really starting to hurt the economy. Panic pull out. So whether or not he actually thinks a conflict is imminent isn't his motivation for taking the calm route.

Which goes to show you the west doesn't really care about the people of Ukraine. The propaganda is to ratchet up a war frenzy because war profiteers are salivating at the thought, at the expense of everything else, including their economy (unless there's some other reason we don't know about -- like the Burisma/Hunter scandal?).

[Ronson]

Which goes to show you the west doesn't really care about the people of Ukraine. The propaganda is to ratchet up a war frenzy because war profiteers are salivating at the thought, at the expense of everything else, including their economy (unless there's some other reason we don't know about -- like the Burisma/Hunter scandal?).

I'm not sure what Biden's motivation is for talking tough and refusing to concede anything. He acts like Russia doesn't have a single legitimate complaint about broken NATO promises (or perceived promises anyway). Catering to the warmonger fringe? An attempt to distract Americans from domestic problems? Probably a combination of reasons, but none of which are actual concern about Ukrainians or their sovereignty.

[seanD]

I'm not sure what Biden's motivation is for talking tough and refusing to concede anything. He acts like Russia doesn't have a single legitimate complaint about broken NATO promises (or perceived promises anyway). Catering to the warmonger fringe? An attempt to distract Americans from domestic problems? Probably a combination of reasons, but none of which are actual concern about Ukrainians or their sovereignty.

I think it's something deeper than politics, since both establishment Reps and Dems are fully on board. If not just purely for war profit, perhaps it's something to do with the Hunter scandal. I can definitely see the political establishment wanting to protect against that type of corruption disclosure since they probably engage in it themselves.

[Stoic]

I'm not sure what Biden's motivation is for talking tough and refusing to concede anything. He acts like Russia doesn't have a single legitimate complaint about broken NATO promises (or perceived promises anyway). Catering to the warmonger fringe? An attempt to distract Americans from domestic problems? Probably a combination of reasons, but none of which are actual concern about Ukrainians or their sovereignty.

I can think of a couple of reasons for talking tough. One is to try to deter Russia from invading, and the other is to avoid being blamed for taking too weak a stance in the event that Russia does invade.

They may not be particularly good reasons, but I can't remember the last time a president did NOT talk tough in such a situation, and was praised later for his restraint.

[Sparko]

We don't want to get into an actual war with Russia. That could easily escalate into something neither side wants. At best we will yell, write strongly worded letters, and do sanctions.