Posted on 04/17/2015 3:40:50 PM PDT by Kaslin
"Could a U.S. response to Russia's action in Ukraine provoke a confrontation that leads to a U.S.-Russia War?"
This jolting question is raised by Graham Allison and Dimitri Simes in the cover article of The National Interest.
The answer the authors give, in "Countdown to War: The Coming U.S. Russia Conflict," is that the odds are shortening on a military collision between the world's largest nuclear powers.
The cockpit of the conflict, should it come, will be Ukraine.
What makes the article timely is the report that Canada will be sending 200 soldiers to western Ukraine to join 800 Americans and 75 Brits on a yearlong assignment to train the Ukrainian army.
And train that army to fight whom? Pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine whom Vladimir Putin has said will not be crushed, even if it requires Russian intervention. Says Putin, "We won't let it happen."
What are the forces that have us "stumbling to war"?
On our side there is President Obama who "enjoys attempting to humiliate Putin" and "repeatedly includes Russia in his list of current scourges alongside the Islamic State and Ebola."
Then there is what TNI editor Jacob Heilbrunn calls the "truculent disposition" that has become the "main driver of Republican foreign policy." A "triumphalist camp," redolent of the "cakewalk war" crowd of Bush II, is ascendant and pushing us toward confrontation.
This American mindset has its mirror image in Moscow.
"Putin is not the hardest of the hard-liners in Russia," write the authors. "Russia's establishment falls into ... a pragmatic camp, which is currently dominant thanks principally to Putin's support, and a hard-line camp" the one Putin adviser calls "the hotheads."
The hotheads believe the way to respond to U.S. encroachments is to invoke the doctrine of Yuri Andropov, "challenge the main enemy," and brandish nuclear weapons to terrify Europe and split NATO.
Russian public opinion is said to be moving toward the hotheads.
Russian bombers have been intruding into NATO air space. Putin says he was ready to put nuclear forces on alert in the Crimea. Russia's ambassador has warned Copenhagen that if its ships join a NATO missile defense force, Denmark could be targeted with nukes.
In coming war games, Russia will move Iskander missiles into the Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad on Poland's northern border.
"Russia is the only country in the world that is realistically capable of turning the United States into radioactive ash," brays the director of the television network Rossiya Segodnya.
As of now, the "pragmatists" represented by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov retain the upper hand. They believe Russia can still do business with the United States and Europe.
"The 'hotheads' take the opposite view," the authors write, "they argue that NATO is determined to overthrow Putin, force Russia to its knees, and perhaps even dismember the country."
In Ukraine, Putin has drawn two red lines. He will not permit Ukraine to join NATO. He will not allow the rebels to be crushed.
Russia hard-liners are confident that should it come to war in Ukraine, Russia would have what Cold War strategists called "escalation dominance." This is what JFK had in the Cuban missile crisis -- conventional and nuclear superiority on sea and land, and in the air around Cuba.
With Ukraine easily accessible to Russian forces by road and rail, sea and air, and Russia's military just over the border while U.S. military might is a continent away, the hard-liners believe Russia would prevail in a war and America would face a choice -- accept defeat in Ukraine or escalate to tactical atomic weapons.
The Russians are talking of resorting to such weapons first.
The decisive date for Putin to determine which way Russia will go would appear to be this summer. The authors write:
"Putin will attempt to exploit the expiration of EU sanctions, which are scheduled to expire in July. If that fails, however, and the European Union joins the United States in imposing additional economic sanctions such as excluding Moscow from the SWIFT financial clearing system, Putin would be tempted to respond, not by retreating, but by ending all cooperation with the West, and mobilizing his people against a new and 'apocalyptic' threat to 'Mother Russia.'
"As a leading Russian politician told us, 'We stood all alone against Napoleon and against Hitler.'"
As of now, the Minsk II cease-fire of February seems to be holding. The Ukrainian army and pro-Russian rebels have both moved their heavy weapons back from the truce lines, though there have been clashes and casualties.
But as Ukraine's crisis is unresolved, these questions remain:
Will the U.S. train the Ukrainian army and then greenlight an offensive to retake the rebel-held provinces? Would Russia intervene and rout that army? Would the Americans sit by if their Ukrainian trainees were defeated and more Ukrainian land was lost?
Or would we start up the escalator to a war with Russia that few Europeans, but some Americans and Russians, might welcome today?
Tell our paratroopers and the Ukrainians and the Poles and all the NATO troops and the Finns and Estonia, how much you admire your little corrupt, violent, monster of a hero, the man who is our enemy.
You guys have always been with us, in the 20s, and 30s, in the 40s and 50s, during the 1960s, and when Reagan was in office.
Putin is a KGB sleaze ball who has looted between 40 and 200 billion dollars and is rebuilding the evil empire and threatening to destroy our nation and the Western world in nuclear war, and you admire the man, want to give him a little Ho Chi Minh love.
Now to get back to dealing with our military threat, do you want Obama to be weaker, or stronger in dealing with the little KGB trash?
As the Russian said, it would come down to tactical nukes and I think Putin would use them on troops. Next problem, Europe doesn’t care and doesn’t want to fight except for former USSR states that are also threatened. The biggest problem is logistics. Russia’s border to our half way around the world. Being realistic and supporting Pooty Poot are two very different things.
We are, and always have been ready to fight with tactical nukes and their equivalent, I don’t know why you suddenly think that going nuclear is only possible for Russia.
NATO is ready to fight and includes most of the former USSR states, and most of NATO is in Europe, it is why we preposition our gear there and maintain tens of thousands of men, getting ready to meet Russia is nothing new to NATO.
NATO would be fighting from home, Russia would be trying to invade and having to deal with logistics.
What part of it don't you agree with?
“When are you going to drop all the 1939, us going to war nonsense?”
“Why don’t you stay with the actual conversation?”
That’s the problem. You don’t seem to grasp the scale of destruction said war would bring. That isn’t something you close your eyes, raise your axe, let out a crazy yell and run into. Do you really want this war today or maybe it’s best to wait for a new POTUS? Maybe when western Europe gets nervous enough we could act but that isn’t today and debate is an interesting thing to fill the time between today and the day we have to do it. Its ok man you don’t have to be so harsh to other opinions we will still respect yours.
I understand the difference between ready and open fire, yes. I just realized you’re crazy and it won’t matter what I say next I’ll still be kgb or something like it.
“I don’t know why you suddenly think that going nuclear is only possible for Russia.” So you want to nuke what city on Friday? I’m guessing there won’t be a huge crowd at that rally.
“Russia would be trying to invade and having to deal with logistics.” That’s at the Russian border.
I used to be part of NATO, I know better than most.
And quit pretending someone here is talking about war.
That’s just it, we are talking about war.
No that isn’t it, but nice try at a melodramatic line.
If you want war then don’t anything and face a real enemy as Russia conquers what it wants to once again become a threat to the world.
I have no love of Putin—But, like the British troops in North Africa who faced Rommel, The desert Fox, I respect him and understand his actions. i don’t think Obama would fight Putin—even if New York was nuked. (Putin would blame it on Terrorists)— I don’t think Poland would fight for the corrupt Ukainians—nor would the Germans or French.
If a war started—It would quickly turn into WW III. This time —we might not win. I don’t believe the Average American has the balls to fight and die—and sacrifice for such a war. Once the Body bags start rolling in—in the hundreds of thousands—the Anti-War movement would start. Better learn to speak Russian —Da!
“Now to get back to dealing with our military threat, do you want Obama to be weaker, or stronger in dealing with the little KGB trash?”
What do I want from Obama? Maybe All I want from my President is to be a little less “flexible” after the election. He said it. Not me. He put a line in the sand in Syria and Putin told him to go pound sand. And what did our President do? Went golfing. 4 people were killed in Benghazi and what did our President do? Come on, everyone...”He went golfing.”
I want a President who is a leader. Who believes in a strong America. Who believes in our Constitution and our god given liberty. No, I don’t want Putin, but I want someone with his leadership skills. So to suggest that people here wanted Putin to govern us instead of Obama is your opinion which I humbly disagree with. What some people wanted as I interpreted it, was someone with Putin’s leadership skills.
I want someone to make a decision, bad or good, but make one. I don’t want someone who when the going gets tough, he cries like a little girl, stamps his feet, holds up his middle finger and then goes golfing.
“Anti-War movement would start. Better learn to speak Russian —Da!”
Only if a Republican is in office. With Obama, the anti war crowd would say his response is nuanced.
“I have no love of Putin—But, like the British troops in North Africa who faced Rommel, The desert Fox, I respect him and understand his actions”
Rommel was an honorable man who loved his wife. Exactly what are the many character traits and actions you find in Putin that you respect? Having children with his mistress? Theft? Murder? His crushing of dissent and all hopes of a future democracy in Russia? Starting proxy wars in neighboring countries? Threatening the world with nuclear weapons?
Your complaint is that he isn’t being “flexible” enough, you don’t want any resistance offered to the man that you admire so much, the enemy leader.
So you support the Russian military goals, your types have always been with us.
“Your complaint is that he isn’t being “flexible” enough, you don’t want any resistance offered to the man that you admire so much, the enemy leader.
So you support the Russian military goals, your types have always been with us.”
Let’s try this again, since you are obviously not getting it. Obama told Medneved to tell Putin that “OBAMA” will have more flexibility after the election. The same President who just gave Iran cover for building nukes to destroy Israel.
I don’t want Obama flexible nor did I say I did want Obama flexible. Next, please show me where I said I support Russia’s military goals, since you are openly accusing me of that. And frankly, to me that’s a pretty serious charge, especially since I spent 4 years underground protecting this country from Putin’s ilk and ideology.
Furthermore, please show me where I said anything about the war going on in Ukraine. You are the one who brought up the Putin lovers. My point and I think I was pretty succinct in making my point is that Putin is a leader, Obama isn’t. If Obama had 1/10 Putin’s leadership skills, America wouldn’t be in the position we are in now. I never said I support Putin, I never said I support his ideology and I never said I support Russia’s military goals.
I was speaking strictly in terms of leadership skills. Nothing more, nothing less. And something you can be damn sure of in this forum, those who said anything positive about Putin was referring to the same thing I was. So you not only offended me, you offended them.
I really don’t care to hear your continued fawning over Putin.
I oppose Putin’s military goals, and I want Obama to be even tougher against him on Ukraine than he is being, although Obama has sent paratroopers in to train Ukrainians, and has continued our military exercises in Ukraine, is moving troops and supplies East to better position them for defense against Russian attack, and is helping create a spearhead for our NATO quick reaction force, among other things.
While that is good, I want more, for instance for him to listen to Cruz, and supply weapons to Ukraine.
Is that what you want from Obama also in regards to Putin, to be tougher, or to be weaker?
““Now to get back to dealing with our military threat, do you want Obama to be weaker, or stronger in dealing with the little KGB trash?”
“What do I want from Obama? Maybe All I want from my President is to be a little less “flexible” after the election. He said it. Not me. He put a line in the sand in Syria and Putin told him to go pound sand. And what did our President do? Went golfing. 4 people were killed in Benghazi and what did our President do? Come on, everyone...”He went golfing.”
I want a President who is a leader. Who believes in a strong America. Who believes in our Constitution and our god given liberty. No, I don’t want Putin, but I want someone with his leadership skills. So to suggest that people here wanted Putin to govern us instead of Obama is your opinion which I humbly disagree with. What some people wanted as I interpreted it, was someone with Putin’s leadership skills.
I want someone to make a decision, bad or good, but make one. I don’t want someone who when the going gets tough, he cries like a little girl, stamps his feet, holds up his middle finger and then goes golfing.”
I answered your initial response. Please try to keep up.
No you didn’t, do you want the United States to be stronger or weaker in dealing with Russia?
I oppose Putin’s military goals, and I want Obama to be even tougher against him on Ukraine than he is being, although Obama has sent paratroopers in to train Ukrainians, and has continued our military exercises in Ukraine, is moving troops and supplies East to better position them for defense against Russian attack, and is helping create a spearhead for our NATO quick reaction force, among other things.
While that is good, I want more, for instance for him to listen to Cruz, and supply weapons to Ukraine.
Is that what you want from Obama also in regards to Putin, to be tougher, or to be weaker?
Ahh... Now I get it. You want my position on Ukraine.
Invite them into NATO, put defensive missiles there as well as Poland and fast track Keystone. Russia will be out of there in a week.
Sending weapons and advisors is useless because there is no pressure on the Russians to change anything. You have to force Russia to spend money and attack them electronically. The scary part of all of this is we have no space capabilities to protect satellites. Russia and/or China can make us go dark and there isn’t a thing we could do.
What gets me is you really think Obama will do something to help Ukraine. He is going to pull a Libya because that’s who he is. He purged the military so now our commanders are all worried about whether Manning should be called miss instead of destroying Russia’s proxies in Ukraine. HE IS NOT A LEADER! which has been my point from the beginning.
So now my question to you. There are two different leadership skills at work. Putin’s and Obama’s. Which leadership skill would you rather have in your President to address what’s going on in the Ukraine?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
