Here we go again-Ukraine once again

[Catfish]

One idea was that Putin waits until february 20ieth to not spoil or distract from, his friend's Xi Jin Ping's winter party (which officiall ends then).

[Skybird]

Focus writes:

Putin wants to break up the clueless EU - his only question is, "Already?"

NATO has moved too close to Russia after the Cold War, Putin says. He feels his sphere of influence is in danger. The U.S. is no longer the sole world power. More distance from Russia is needed. Of course, the U.S. is not only concerned with Ukraine, but above all with geopolitical interests - just like Putin.

For thirty years, the German governments failed to seriously discuss basic questions of the international order and their consequences for German foreign policy and to draw conclusions from them. In other words, not just talking about what kind of world one would like to see, but what kind of global order can realistically emerge.

Former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's attempt to position Germany in confrontation with the United States (together with France and Russia) did not bear fruit beyond his term in office, which is why he has since propagated the dissolution of NATO. The EU's independence, agreed upon in many documents, was never seriously pursued; the Charter of Paris was never backed up with its own power to act. The fourth wave of democratization in the Middle East and North Africa was cheered without serious support, and its slide into authoritarian regimes was merely registered.

The result of this heedlessness is the current German taciturnity and lack of conception in the conflict with Russia.

It was different in Russia. The Russian leadership has answered for itself the basic questions of international order after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It has openly communicated this and all other governments have known since 2007 at the latest which European order Russia is striving for. However, for 15 years it was pretended that this was less important, because there was no self-education to be able to act in the expected conflicts.

Russia's leadership reaffirms the claim to establish a larger space dominated by Russia to reinforce its importance in world politics. Small states - including Ukraine for Russia's leadership - have no right of their own to choose their political order or alliances in it, but must have their place assigned in the geopolitical balancing of the great powers. In Russia's view, states may not intervene in the internal affairs of other states, let alone support political forces abroad that are working toward a coup d'état or a revolution (i.e., a democratic order).

Russia's view is that the major powers negotiate with each other, in accordance with their respective power and willingness to escalate, where the boundaries between their spheres of influence lie. The smaller states have to fit in there.

In this thinking, the U.S. overstretched its sphere of influence vis-à-vis Russia in its phase of sole world power. They ventured too close to Russia - as well as too close to China in the Pacific. Great powers, however, should strive to maintain distances, establish buffer states and keep their distance because of surprises. In this thinking in geopolitical zones of influence of the determining great powers, it is now appropriate, since the USA is no longer the sole world power, to take back this American overstretching. This could be agreed by treaty, as was done in Yalta in 1945, or it would have to be achieved by force. Whereby force includes both military and civilian means, which can complement each other in the context of hybrid warfare.

Either way: The restoration of a new balance in the zones of influence of the great powers must be achieved. Unbalanced orders always evolve into a new balance. They cannot remain unbalanced. In the process, the stronger states prevail. In this way of thinking, the references to the right of states to self-determination, the inviolability of their sovereignty and the right to freely choose alliances are no more than propaganda behind which the USA hides geopolitical interests.

For the last four federal governments, this thinking should have been overcome. It was dismissed as "19th century". In contrast, for the present and the future, non-interference in the internal affairs of other states should be replaced by the responsibility to protect. It means that states have the right, even the duty, to intervene in other states if the government there threatens the population with the most serious crimes. As it was implemented in Libya when Gaddafi's troops threatened to attack Benghazi. And why now the situation of the Uighurs in China must trigger reactions from the West.

All societies should have the right to shake off authoritarian rule, organize democratically, and receive the support of democracies worldwide in the process. That is why Foreign Minister Westerwelle was in Tahrir Square in Egypt and EU High Representative Ashton was in the Euromaidan in Ukraine. Finally, all states should cooperate in a multilateral order that no longer recognizes zones of influence and regional superpowers. The asymmetric order of great powers and zones of influence should be replaced by an alliance for multilateralism. Tragically for German foreign policy, all three projects never had a chance to be implemented and thus failed, and currently the policy of zones of influence and the ban on intervention is visibly prevailing.

But the enforcement of these three principles: Responsibility to Protect, Democratization, Self-Determination, no federal government had backed them with capabilities. I wonder if they thought that the mindset would be enough to put things in order. In any case, President Putin is now showing the world public that these are empty words that cannot be enforced against the conflicting claims of the great powers that think and act in terms of zones of influence. Unless the U.S. takes up the cause and continues to act as the primary world power, which it no longer is in the eyes of Russia (and China). But the EU states cannot rely on America in the long run.

The politician with the highest approval ratings in the U.S. at the moment demanded that the U.S. government send the mobilized soldiers to the border with Mexico rather than to Eastern Europe. Donald Trump. His prospects of becoming the next president are so good that the federal government should now be forced to provide answers to the basic questions of international governance that it can enforce. President Biden's hands are tied domestically vis-à-vis Russia, as not even a third of citizens would support engagement over Ukraine. And there are elections in November.
Russia wants to gut the EU and divide the NATO countries

Russia will continue to pursue its goals of dividing the NATO states apart, taking away the EU's ability to make political decisions, and bringing Europe under its influence. Unlike in earlier times, it has no effective resistance to expect from European states in this reach for an expanded zone of influence. President Putin has completely upset the diplomatic situation in Europe with forceful troop movements. Turkey is offering to act as a mediator, Hungary is warning against escalation, as is Germany, fear of Russian pressure is rising in the Baltic states, and Sweden and Finland are facing Russian claims to remain permanently neutral. The United States is organizing the cohesion of the NATO states, but the question is how long it will last. In the EU, there seems to be a lack of awareness of the severity of the threat to the independent development of the integration community. Russia wants to gut the EU.

President Putin has clearly and openly communicated his goals in two treaty proposals: The former Soviet republics are to be placed under Moscow's direct influence; Scandinavia and Eastern Europe are to act as buffers to Western Europe; the American and European security space is to be severed. The question he now faces is whether he sees the present moment as favorable to push through his goals, for which he would have to use force and would face some resistance. Or whether he is stalling for time because the U.S. is turning away from Europe anyway, the European states are increasingly at odds with each other, and he can realize his goals successively.


// About the expert

Prof. Dr. Thomas Jäger has held the Chair of International Politics and Foreign Policy at the University of Cologne since 1999. His research focuses on international relations as well as American and German foreign policy. //


Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

https://www.focus.de/politik/ausland..._48157399.html

The European ambitions have no chance, realistically seen. On this topic, and many others as well.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Russia has assembled about 70% of the military capability needed for a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in the coming weeks, US officials say.

Not long ago they said that the Russians already had amassed the needed combat power to start going.

I read that once the currently in transit reinforcements have arrived, over 60-70% of Russiam total combat powers will be at the Ukraine borders. Talk is of close to 100 batallion battle groups.

How times have changed. 35+ years ago it was NATO being about batallions and companies - the Russiand were counted by divisions. One did not expect highly mobile and individual "combat teams", but orchestrated first and second "waves" or army groups that drive the attack as deep as possible before they get bogged down by their own losses - and then a third echelon should achieve the penultimate breakthrough through the already battered NATO lines, then cannibalize the units from the first two waves.

Well, nobody has the numbers for such plans anymore.The loss of one fighterplane is many times as costly than it was 40, 50 years ago. When the UK lost Tornados in the Kuwait war, the loss was expressed by the BBC in fractions of the GDP.

If all this is just Russian bluff, then it is the most convincing bluff I have ever seen one. And where is the bluff? Maybe regarding the Ukraine invasion. But with the strageic goal of Putin to divert and divide the EU, there is nom bluffing at all, it is long estalbished policy founded on long lasting strategic thinking - something the EU and especially Germany is not capable of.

[Skybird]

A different view on things, one I not necessarily ahgree with in full, but it might be a realistic perspective as well.



https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ov...ss-11643901699

But while Putin manufactured Ukraine crisis believing he held a clear advantage vis-à-vis the West, he committed an error that can prove dangerous even for a skilled martial-arts practitioner: he underestimated his opponent.
While Biden and NATO have said they would not intervene directly on behalf of Ukraine, this is not the same as accepting Russian dominance. In fact, the U.S. has organized a comprehensive response. It has sent arms to Ukraine to increase the costs to Russia of any invasion and occupation. There are plans to fortify NATO member countries closest to Russia. Substantial economic sanctions are being prepared. And rerouting gas to Europe would partly offset the possible loss of Russian supplies.
All of which is to say that Putin’s initial thrust failed to score a decisive blow. Those who say that Russia’s president has the West where he wants it have things backward. Putin has placed himself in an unenviable position: he must either escalate or find a face-saving way to back down.
The U.S. has wisely provided Putin with a diplomatic off-ramp. This could entail a new structure to help underpin European security, as well as arms-control arrangements that would limit the scale and location of a range of systems. A revitalized and revised Minsk process would seek a political settlement in eastern Ukraine that would allow for considerable autonomy for the region’s inhabitants (many of whom are ethnic Russians) and the replacement of Russian soldiers by international peacekeepers.
The U.S. has also signaled that Ukraine will not enter NATO any time soon, and then some.
Whether such an outcome will be enough for Putin is uncertain. He is not going to hear what he wants—that Ukraine will never be able to join NATO, or that NATO forces will pull back to where they were more than two decades ago, before the Alliance expanded into Central and Eastern Europe.
But Putin will probably have a few weeks to ponder his next steps. He will soon travel to Beijing for the opening of the Winter Olympics—and Xi has likely made it clear that he would not appreciate a war in Ukraine overshadowing the opportunity to showcase China ahead of the Communist Party congress this fall, where he will seek a third term.
Putin does have another option. He could increase Russia’s military presence in the Western Hemisphere, claiming to be doing to the U.S. what it and NATO had done to Russia. But this would be risky, and would do nothing to deal with his concerns in Europe.
It is impossible to predict what Putin will do, and it may be that he has yet to decide. He may well opt for a so-called “minor incursion,” or limited intervention, possibly to increase Russia’s military presence in eastern Ukraine.
Such a course of action would give Putin something to show for his aggressive diplomacy without incurring major penalties, as NATO’s 30 members would be unlikely to reach a consensus on how to respond. It would also be consistent with the martial-arts approach of looking for tactical openings to unbalance one’s opponent.

[mapuc]

If I remember correctly from my history books people knew/expected a war would come very soon this was in the year -37,-38.

Today we know/expect a war will come very soon.

Markus

[ET2SN]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I read that once the currently in transit reinforcements have arrived, over 60-70% of Russiam total combat powers will be at the Ukraine borders. Talk is of close to 100 batallion battle groups.

This would be a good time for the DPRK to invade and annex Vladivostok.

[Reece]

In for a penny in for a pound!!

[mapuc]

In Ukraine there's hope

Ukraine tracks diplomatic solution
According to Ukraine, there is a greater chance that the crisis in and around Ukraine will be resolved through diplomacy than through military escalation.

"An honest assessment of the situation suggests that the chance to find a diplomatic solution to the downsizing
is still significantly higher than the threat of further escalation ", says Presidential Adviser Mykhailo
Podolyak in a statement.

The message comes as the United States warns that Russia is further intensifying preparations for one
invasion, reports TT

Markus

[Skybird]

https://www.dw.com/en/why-the-eu-nee...rom/a-60674774

[mapuc]

The President in Belarus Lukasjenko has threaten Ukraine that if they cross the red line, Belarus will join forces with Russia. This red line should be in the Donbass region. If Ukraine conduct any military offensive operation He and Putin will act with a firm hand.
(Heard this in the news-Can't find any article about it)

Markus

[Jimbuna]

World leaders are stepping up efforts to reduce tensions over Ukraine as fears of a Russian invasion grow.

French President Emmanuel Macron is meeting Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Moscow, while US President Joe Biden hosts German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Washington.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60292437

[Skybird]

Is that Russian sense for comedy?

[Catfish]

The russian idea of a cordon sanitaire extends everywhere

[Platapus]

All they need is:

[Jimbuna]

Kremlin media: Ukraine preparing to attack, not Russia
Just like in the West, in Russia the media is closely following the chance of further conflict in Ukraine.

However, Kremlin-controlled outlets have their own version of who is likely to start it.

They portray Ukraine as the aggressor preparing to mount an unprovoked attack on areas controlled by Moscow-backed separatists.

Pro-Kremlin media say the government in Kyiv is encouraged by the West, which is driven by a blind hatred of Russia.

The likelihood of a Russian invasion of Ukraine is laughed off, but the Kremlin's media messaging seems designed to convince Russians that it would be entirely justified.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60140566

No surprises here then.