4 ms·

> The impact on geopolitics extends to a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine. Disruptions to European energy supplies would have a less direct effect on the U

> The impact on geopolitics extends to a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine. Disruptions to European energy supplies would have a less direct effect on the U.S. than they might have in an earlier era. Put another way, the USA now has less incentive to "keep the peace." Putin's drama and posturing, plus the USA being untethered...that's not a good combination.

jimmygrapes 5y ago
I don't actually expect any conflict there, but I also remember the old saw: "gas is up, polls are down? start a war!" I hope that joke doesn't apply. As Sting said, "Russians love their children too"
- chiefalchemist 5y ago
  That is certainly a consideration. There's what Biden will do (in the context of his unflattering polling numbers). And then there's what Putin would like to see Biden do. If I were to wager I'd say currently Vlad is more than covering the spread.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
tootie 5y ago
It's the other way around. Russia is agitating because they can't support their regime with oil anymore. The US has no obligations in Ukraine but have working overtime to prevent escalation.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > The US has no obligations in Ukraine It depends on defining 'obligation'. The US doesn't have a treaty obligation to defend Ukraine but does have that obligation to NATO members, and a Russian attack on Ukraine threatens NATO members. Also, the US has a different kind of 'obligation' to democracy, peace, prosperity - all of which are not only essential in themselves, but essential to the peace and prosperity of Americans - and to the rules-based international order that provides those things. We don't want to return to the first half of the 20th century, with two major wars, but now with far more destructive power.
  - avgcorrection 5y ago
    Negotiations are one thing, but Nato countries can’t just ship out military to the vicinity because an attack on one country would then mean that Russia is closer to Nato member countries. Who gets to be a member of Nato is a delicate balance, and there’s a reason why countries like Finland and Sweden are not. Russia apparently wants a buffer between itself and Nato (there are some exceptions like Norway). Sending a lot of Nato troops to Ukraine would signal that Ukraine is a de facto Nato border. > Also, the US has a different kind of 'obligation' to democracy, peace, prosperity To find someone that still believes that line feels like finding a time capsule.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      > Nato countries can’t just ship out military to the vicinity because an attack on one country would then mean that Russia is closer to Nato member countries. This raises many issues: 1) Sending military resources isn't the only response. 2) What is the vicinity? NATO territory nearby (which is happening)? Ukraine itself (which isn't happening)? 3) Finland and Sweden are not members because they choose not to be; afaik NATO would accept them. 4) You say NATO 'can't' send military to the vicinity (though they are) because Russia is closer (which is a clear military risk), but you imply that NATO being closer to Russia is a reasonable concern for the latter. There's also a difference between a revanchist, violent power which has already annexed parts of two countries and threatens many more (Russia), and one which hasn't annexed anything (NATO). >> Also, the US has a different kind of 'obligation' to democracy, peace, prosperity > To find someone that still believes that line feels like finding a time capsule To find someone who makes replaces evidence and reason with mockery is not, unfortunately, uncommon these days. But regardless, that's all you've provided, which amounts to nothing. Do you have any evidence or reason, or even a clear assertion, or just mockery?
landemva 5y ago
USA should leave peace keeping and war mongering with Russia to the Europeans who live there and who seem to want to import Russian energy. USA can withdraw from NATO and spend that tax money at home.
avgcorrection 5y ago
The drama-and-posturing could potentially come to an end if Nato would be willing to negotiate. The US arming Ukraine—or even putting boots on the ground—is not the only solution.
- emptysongglass 5y ago
  They are negotiating, desperately but Putin's terms are so unhinged as to be ingenuous: "The Russian draft treaties call for NATO to remove any troops or weapons from countries that joined the alliance after 1997, meaning most of Eastern Europe, including Poland, the Baltic states and Balkan countries. It also calls for the U.S. and Russia to refrain from deploying troops in areas where they could be perceived as a threat to each countries' national security, and a ban on sending their aircraft and warships into areas where they could strike each other's territory. The treaty would also ban the deployment of intermediate-range missiles in Europe." Those countries that joined after '97 are largely ex-Soviet republics seeking succor. Poland would sooner draw a sword through its own belly than agree to the terms of a former autarch with 170,000 troops right at its belly. Positioning 170,000 troops in a half-circle around Ukraine is not a recipe for diplomacy.
  - avgcorrection 5y ago
    Looks like Putin wants back to the 1990 deal that Gorbachev and President Bush made and that American presidents broke: that Nato wouldn’t expand an inch to the east (to East Germany at the time). His demands will obviously not be met. But is Nato even considering any concessions? You don’t have to accept the initial demand (it’s supposed to be a negotiation, after all).
    - emptysongglass 5y ago
      "In 2014, the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev marked the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall by noting in an interview that Nato’s enlargement 'was not discussed at all' at the time: 'Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either.'" [1] [1] https://theconversation.com/ukraine-the-history-behind-russias-claim-that-nato-promised-not-to-expand-to-the-east-177085 https://theconversation.com/ukraine-the-history-behind-russi...

jimmygrapes 5y ago

I don't actually expect any conflict there, but I also remember the old saw: "gas is up, polls are down? start a war!" I hope that joke doesn't apply. As Sting said, "Russians love their children too"

chiefalchemist 5y ago
That is certainly a consideration. There's what Biden will do (in the context of his unflattering polling numbers). And then there's what Putin would like to see Biden do. If I were to wager I'd say currently Vlad is more than covering the spread.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

tootie 5y ago

It's the other way around. Russia is agitating because they can't support their regime with oil anymore. The US has no obligations in Ukraine but have working overtime to prevent escalation.

wolverine876 5y ago
> The US has no obligations in Ukraine It depends on defining 'obligation'. The US doesn't have a treaty obligation to defend Ukraine but does have that obligation to NATO members, and a Russian attack on Ukraine threatens NATO members. Also, the US has a different kind of 'obligation' to democracy, peace, prosperity - all of which are not only essential in themselves, but essential to the peace and prosperity of Americans - and to the rules-based international order that provides those things. We don't want to return to the first half of the 20th century, with two major wars, but now with far more destructive power.
- avgcorrection 5y ago
  Negotiations are one thing, but Nato countries can’t just ship out military to the vicinity because an attack on one country would then mean that Russia is closer to Nato member countries. Who gets to be a member of Nato is a delicate balance, and there’s a reason why countries like Finland and Sweden are not. Russia apparently wants a buffer between itself and Nato (there are some exceptions like Norway). Sending a lot of Nato troops to Ukraine would signal that Ukraine is a de facto Nato border. > Also, the US has a different kind of 'obligation' to democracy, peace, prosperity To find someone that still believes that line feels like finding a time capsule.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > Nato countries can’t just ship out military to the vicinity because an attack on one country would then mean that Russia is closer to Nato member countries. This raises many issues: 1) Sending military resources isn't the only response. 2) What is the vicinity? NATO territory nearby (which is happening)? Ukraine itself (which isn't happening)? 3) Finland and Sweden are not members because they choose not to be; afaik NATO would accept them. 4) You say NATO 'can't' send military to the vicinity (though they are) because Russia is closer (which is a clear military risk), but you imply that NATO being closer to Russia is a reasonable concern for the latter. There's also a difference between a revanchist, violent power which has already annexed parts of two countries and threatens many more (Russia), and one which hasn't annexed anything (NATO). >> Also, the US has a different kind of 'obligation' to democracy, peace, prosperity > To find someone that still believes that line feels like finding a time capsule To find someone who makes replaces evidence and reason with mockery is not, unfortunately, uncommon these days. But regardless, that's all you've provided, which amounts to nothing. Do you have any evidence or reason, or even a clear assertion, or just mockery?

landemva 5y ago

USA should leave peace keeping and war mongering with Russia to the Europeans who live there and who seem to want to import Russian energy. USA can withdraw from NATO and spend that tax money at home.

avgcorrection 5y ago

The drama-and-posturing could potentially come to an end if Nato would be willing to negotiate. The US arming Ukraine—or even putting boots on the ground—is not the only solution.

emptysongglass 5y ago
They are negotiating, desperately but Putin's terms are so unhinged as to be ingenuous: "The Russian draft treaties call for NATO to remove any troops or weapons from countries that joined the alliance after 1997, meaning most of Eastern Europe, including Poland, the Baltic states and Balkan countries. It also calls for the U.S. and Russia to refrain from deploying troops in areas where they could be perceived as a threat to each countries' national security, and a ban on sending their aircraft and warships into areas where they could strike each other's territory. The treaty would also ban the deployment of intermediate-range missiles in Europe." Those countries that joined after '97 are largely ex-Soviet republics seeking succor. Poland would sooner draw a sword through its own belly than agree to the terms of a former autarch with 170,000 troops right at its belly. Positioning 170,000 troops in a half-circle around Ukraine is not a recipe for diplomacy.
- avgcorrection 5y ago
  Looks like Putin wants back to the 1990 deal that Gorbachev and President Bush made and that American presidents broke: that Nato wouldn’t expand an inch to the east (to East Germany at the time). His demands will obviously not be met. But is Nato even considering any concessions? You don’t have to accept the initial demand (it’s supposed to be a negotiation, after all).
  - emptysongglass 5y ago
    "In 2014, the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev marked the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall by noting in an interview that Nato’s enlargement 'was not discussed at all' at the time: 'Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either.'" [1] [1] https://theconversation.com/ukraine-the-history-behind-russias-claim-that-nato-promised-not-to-expand-to-the-east-177085 https://theconversation.com/ukraine-the-history-behind-russi...