The mainstream US media loves war. It provides them the opportunity, especially in the early stages when things usually are going well militarily, to openly engage in forms of jingoism that it would not be able to do at other times. It is only when things go sour, as they usually do, that they start to tone down that rhetoric. You would think that given that the US has just painfully pulled out of its disastrous war in Afghanistan, the media would be more circumspect about beating the drums for a new war. But it is startling to me how quickly the US media seems to have decided that the US has reached a point of confrontation with Russia over Ukraine.
News reports lead with alarming stories of how Russia has amassed troops on the Ukraine border in preparation for a takeover of that country and that the only issue in doubt is when they will invade (speculation is after the Beijing Olympics) or whether they will trigger some sort of provocation first or whether they will launch some non-military destabilizing effort such as cyberattacks to paralyze the country. It is almost as if the media in the US have decided that an attempted Russian takeover of Ukraine is inevitable and that the only issue for debate is how the US should respond when it does. The US and UK took the alarming step of evacuating the families of its embassy personnel but none of the other countries have followed suit. It is notable that, apart from the UK, other countries in the NATO alliance are not talking as belligerently and are trying to play down the threat of war. The mood in Russia also seems to be not that concerned about the prospect of war.
The Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky seems fed up with the fate of his country being seen as a geopolitical football between the US and Russia with their own views being ignored. He held a press conference a few days ago in which he urged everyone to calm down instead of causing panic.
Branko Marcetic tries to make sense of why war talk is being hyped so much.
The world has been gripped for the past two months by the Ukraine crisis, with Moscow seemingly poised to invade Ukraine at any moment, and US officials calling for war — even nuclear strikes — in response.
…Last week, just hours before Biden told the White House press corps he thought Russian president Vladimir Putin would “move in” because he “has to do something,” Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky was urging his people to “take a deep breath” and “calm down,” assuring them things were “under control.”
“The risks have not just existed for a day, and they have not become bigger. The only thing that has become bigger is the hype around them,” he said, adding that media should strive to “be methods of mass information and not mass hysteria.” Later, after Washington and the UK evacuated their Ukrainian embassies, Zelensky thanked Charles Michel, president of the European Council, and leaders of European Union countries for not following suit.
…In other words, we have Ukraine’s president, its foreign and defense ministers, and a top national security official all urging calm, while denying there’s sufficient evidence to expect a coming Russian invasion, contrary to the tidal wave of messaging from US officials and the press. Of course, you could dismiss this as a country’s leadership playing down a threat they know is real to prevent panic and disorder. But they’re not the only ones saying it.
Earlier this week, the Center for Defense Strategies — a think tank headed by a former Ukrainian defense minister and on whose board sit a variety of other defense and diplomatic officials from both Ukraine and the United States — published an analysis of the risks of a Russian invasion. Its conclusion? That “a full-scale invasion capturing most or all of Ukraine in the near future seems unlikely,” citing the insufficient number of Russian troops and a number of other indicators, including the lack of mobilization of medical infrastructure and strategic military units. (There have been some more troop movements since then).
While Russia and the US have been in talks, the media has been pushing the narrative that the two sides have irreconcilable positions and thus war is portrayed as being almost inevitable. But wars are never inevitable. I cannot imagine that given the disastrous experiences of the US and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, that Russia is not aware of the dangers of what would be a similarly protracted and messy occupation of Ukraine.
*Nuclear strikes*? Well, that sure would be good for the people of Ukraine, huh? And, no retaliation from Russia, of course! /s This is how crazy media-stoked, war-hungry, US officials get.
I rather think that Putin can be talked down off the edge, although it is said (?) that his motive is longing for the past days of Soviet empire. If he’s that irrational--perhaps he caught it from Trump--it may be difficult.
But, as Mano says, I don’t see any win for Putin here. Things would not go well for him, especially since there are apparently sanctions that can be done against Russia and against Putin personally.
Also, Mano is right, war is never inevitable. If you have skilled enough diplomats who will talk, talk, talk, possibly for years or even forever, anyone will get beaten down and worn out by that and succumb to some other solution.
Taking the long term view, I sometimes get the idea that:
-- Russia lost the Cold War because they could not keep up with the US financially.
-- But the US lost it too, since the only way it could keep itself on a war footing for 80 years is to turn half the country into an insane jingoistic war-machine, which, lacking a target, has been tearing the country apart for the last 30 years.
-- We’re now seeing the end of the Cold War, two countries choking each other for almost a century.
-- China is emerging as the winner of it all, simply by sitting it all out.
“The US and UK took the alarming step of evacuating the families of its embassy personnel but none of the other countries have followed suit.”
MS’ sources on world news probably are not that much more relliable than the main stream media in the USA. Because this is very, very onesided.
https://www.nederlandwereldwijd.nl/landen/oekraine/reizen/reisadvies
“Stay out of the Ukraine if not strictly necessary. Some areas only can be visited at your own risk.”
Germany also has evacuated some personel -- and that country has a huge interest in good relations with Russia. So have Australia and Canada.
“other countries in the NATO alliance are not talking as belligerently and are trying to play down the threat of war.”
Equally onesided. France, not exactly an unimportant member of both EU and NATO, has a president who told
“Russian counterpart Putin that France is ready to defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine.”
“The mood in Russia also seems to be”
and the mood in Ukraine apparently doesn’t matter. Wow.
MS might want to google “Ukrainians prepare for war”.
“I cannot imagine that given the disastrous experiences of the US and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, that Russia is not aware of the dangers of what would be a similarly protracted and messy occupation of Ukraine.”
That didn’t prevent Putin from occupying 20% of Georgia, invading the Crimea and pseudo-annexing territories in Eastern-Ukrain. MS is utterly naive. I only hope that Biden isn’t. One of my first predictions already has come true (with Biden the risk of war is bigger than with Donald the Clown, due to the latter’s incompetence) and if it’s going to happen it won’t make me happy to remind you of who supported him at the last elections.
@1 and 2 Garnetstar: “Also, Mano is right, war is never inevitable.”
On the long term it will be if Russia’s (and hence Putin’s) main problem is not even recognized: the politicians of the country are paranoid after several invasions (Teutonic Order, Sweden, France and Germany twice). It wants satellite states as a safety measure. Thus far European and American politicians have stressed the right of Ukraine to become member of any organization it wants (read: NATO and EU) and that’s not going to decrease tensions for anytime soon.
As for China, the Olympic Games will start next week, a huge propaganda event. For the time being China has exactly zero interest in a war that will overshadow is. As usual Putin’s timing has been perfect.
My best guess is that it’s going to play out like this: Putin is bluffing and has previously moved troops up and backed down.
The US, in cooperation with NATO allies (some of which as less enthusiastic than others) have made public satellite photos of Russian troop concentrations. The announce reason is to “shame” Russia. Putin, like Trump, doesn’t strike me as subject to shame but I think he gets the hidden message. Such photos are essentially the civilian version of military targeting information. Missiles loaded with cluster bombs can make quite a mess of troop concentrations.
Which leaves the ‘little green men’ option open for Russia. Except low-level incursions are always best against an unprepared population. Ukraine doesn’t seem unprepared and it is getting stronger every day.
It might be worth noting that Russia had the GNP of Italy and if it fights and ends up at anything short of decisive victory it will be a blow to their reputation. If Germany cancels the pipeline the Russian economy may collapse.
Of course not everything is up to the leaders of either side. Accidents, right up to and including nuclear war, are not impossible.
There is also another factor I haven’t seen mentioned. Russia is facing down a COVID-19 wave. As I understand it the Russian vaccine is somewhat less effective against COVID delta and is perhaps even less so again omicron. I mention this in the context of the long history of diseases and wars. Russia is said to have 100,000 troops around Ukraine. It’s winter. They are likely in makeshift barracks or tents. Seems to me to be a possible super-spreader event in the making. Damn hard to organize an invasion if everyone is sick.
If it goes this way it isn’t something you can just delay and restart. The border region is not rich with medical facilities and treating masses of sick soldiers housed in tents during a Russian winter is not the most effective setting. Then again, hauling tens of thousands of sick soldiers back to urban Russia seems a great way of seeding the wider population for a truly epic outbreak.
This wouldn’t be the first military action thwarted by a germ.
There is a class of warhawks/warmongers who professionally predict trouble and encourage military response; they are the “useful idiots” of American hegemony, which depends on absurd claims that, basically, we invade places and bomb the shit out of people to make the world a better place. It’s ridiculous. It is always going to be easier to negotiate with someone if you don’t apply high explosive in their neighborhood, first. But that is the global terror method of US imperialism: “we’re the planet’s cop” -- which is a scarier and more accurate claim than anyone should want to believe -- nobody wants cops showing up to “help”. It never ends well. We never send help, economic aid that is not conditioned to bolster US capitalism or fossil fuel extraction -- all help is conditional and counterbalanced with ruthless war crimes. And the US has placed itself above every form of international law: the international criminal court we ignore, the UN security council we have a veto on, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty we bypass, the chemical weapons we use and the area bombing and assassination that have become public policy etc. etc.
It’s a huge money machine cause A) it sucks down a massive part of the US economy but B) it controls the global economy, to enrich the US. We drop illegal “sanctions” wherever we like, to manipulate other nations’ economies ignoring sovereignty. Who died and elected us global police? Well, we killed off the USSR and claimed that role. Nobody except the US elite think this is a good idea.
mnb0:
The official Australian travel advice for Ukraine is here:
https://www.smartraveller.gov.au/destinations/europe/ukraine
It starts:
I don’t think that Australian diplomatic personnel have left Ukraine yet. They are still offering consular services, though the travel advice says that conditions in Ukraine may make them difficult to access.
Russia has amassed troops on the Ukraine border in preparation for a takeover of that country
That was about 84 days ago. Damn dilatory Russians! Cannot even schedule an invasion!
Russia usually has about 60 or 70 thousand troops in the Western & Southern military districts anyway. A few more-- meh. Ukraine is estimated to have about 100,000 on the Eastern border if we include the neo-Natzi formations such as the Azov Brigade.
Russia has been saying for months that it has no intention of invading Ukraine and Russia usually does not lie. Of course, a serious attack on the Donbass republics means all bets are off. Russia is committed to defending Russians both ethnic Russians and Russian citizens. There are millions of both in the Donbass.
What Russia is doing is challenging US dominance in European affairs. It is telling the USA to back off their attempt to totally encircle Russia with NATO countries; Russia has had enough. One might notice Russia’s friend China seems to be feeling the same.
Economically and militarily Russia can do this. NATO in Europe is not much more than a couple of spavined horses in an almost empty barn. In the long run, maybe 3--5 years the USA could develop conventional forces to challenge Russia if it was willing to pay the price; otherwise the USA and the rest of NATO just do not have the forces to oppose Russia.
Any proposed economic sanctions against Russia are more likely to hurt the EU than Russia. Russia has become the premier exporter of wheat based on one sanction.
I cannot imagine that given the disastrous experiences of the US and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, that Russia is not aware of the dangers of what would be a similarly protracted and messy occupation of Ukraine.
Oh it is very aware. It learnt from its time in Afghanistan, when it was invited in as as ally, and from the subsequent US invasion. From what I read, Russia has no desire to acquire Ukrainian territory. It, probably does not even want the Donbass Republics as most or all of Ukraine is a financial basket-case and Russia does not need the drain on resources. It certainly does not want West Ukraine where it is sincerely hated and would run into a US -s-supported insurgency.
@ 1 garnetstar
I don’t see any win for Putin here. Things would not go well for him, especially since there are apparently sanctions that can be done against Russia and against Putin personally.
Win: NATO is splintering (or at least dithering badly) as we watch. Not a great win so far but not a “nothing”.
Russia is very close to being “sanction-proof”. It is one of the few countries that is close to being self-sufficient albeit at a cost. It has survived many sanctions before and actually found many of them helped Russia. Russian farmers probably pray every day that the West maintains sanctions. Russia is in the top three exporters of wheat in the world. Another sanction made Russia produce its own helicopter engines.
As for Putin, just what US sanctions are likely to affect the President of the Russian Federation when he is unlikely to travel outside the RF other than as a Head of State and who has no identified assets outside the Russia Federation.
It’s like the way I laugh when the USA sanctions Chinese Officials. just how many have beachfront properties in Malibu?
I can’t see it as other than geopolitical posturing.
The definite downsides far exceed the speculative gains, at best.
(Also, Russia has severe economic and demographic problems)
Nice bit of Russian propaganda from jrkrideau. CпасиБо, comrade! Way to go! Brother Putin commends you.
Nice bit of Russian propaganda from jrkrideau. CпасиБо, comrade! Way to go! Brother Putin commends you.
Is that “see your propaganda and raise you!” I thought red-baiting had finally gone out of style.
@ 12 Marcus
Thanks. I did not even get my regular cheque from the GRU this month. I may have to start shilling for the CIA. Do they do direct deposit?
@ 11 No Respect
It might help to write спасибо correctly. Normally one does not have a capital Б in the middle of a word.
@ 6 lorn
Putin is bluffing and has previously moved troops up and backed down.
No, the Russians are totally pissed. They have watched NATO (aka the USA) march up to within 140 km of Saint Petersburg and start building missile emplacements in Poland and Romania that can be converted to nuclear weapons in a day or two.
The Russians feel that they have the advantage in Europe at the moment and are using it. If you look at Putin’s behaviour over the last 20 years, he never bluffs. If anything he tends to be conciliatory until pushed too far. Then he acts. Crimea is a good example.
jrkrideau, you sure amuse me.
So, in your estimation, each and every one of his threats over the last twenty years has been actual and real. And he’s always followed through.
Heh.
It follows you think he’d be a shitty poker player, only ever betting when he thinks he actually will win the hand.
Heh heh.
(such a deep understanding of realpolitik!)
Marcus:
That only makes sense if you think the Russians are ‘reds’.
#15
“Heh … Heh heh.”
That only makes sense if you think the Russians are ‘reds’.
Idiom, twit.
jrkrideau @14:
Are you referring to the current deployments in the Baltics? The closest they could get is about 160 km (NE Estonia). And Estonia is a member of NATO.
The foreign NATO contingents are from UK, Denmark and Iceland.
FWIW, the Baltics have watched Imperial Russian, and then Soviet, armies, march in and take over since the early 18th century. Russians have always made them nervous.
“The foreign NATO contingents are from UK, Denmark and Iceland.” In Estonia, I mean.
What has freaked out the folks at home (and anything that freaks people out in turn excites the media) is all the pictures of Russian troops at the border. “Shit,” the homebodies think, “that looks expensive! And why pay for all those troops and war machines to do nothing? Russia must be planning to attack, otherwise there’s no economic justification for it!”
This argument might even make sense if the world were a logical place, but when has war ever been logical? The US also spends a stupid amount of money on the military, and they too are going to play their war games somewhere. The difference is that Russia has a border where there might be political gains to be made from sabre rattling, and what do they lose by doing so?
Marcus, it’s an idiom, but one with a particular meaning. Not the one you apparently imagine.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-baiting)
@ Marcus
That only makes sense if you think the Russians are ‘reds’
I really do not think that most people in the USA, especially the “Russian” advisors at gov’t level have mastered that concept. They really think that Russia == USSR which has led to some astoundingly stupid moves.
Of course, the habit in Anglo countries to refer to the USSR as “Russia” did not help.
Yes, no one loves a war as much as the US. While Russia is an old foe, Europe is an old ally they want to destroy just as much as their foes. But this time, what they really want is to force Europeans to stop buying gas from Russia and buy it (at a much higher price) from the US instead. They have even promised Australia they will be allowed to sell some of theirs. As if!
And nobody cares what happens to the Ukrainians. With friends such as these…