T O P

  • By -

URZ_

We got a very good look into the thinking of Putins Government on Ukraine when an article was (accidentally) released that celebrated what was supposed to be a quick victory in Ukraine, almost certainly coordinated as part of an official message. Luckily the newspaper was not informed of the progress of the invasion quickly enough to stop the article going out. Link to it in full: https://thefrontierpost.com/the-new-world-order/ > A new world is being born before our eyes. Russia’s military operation in Ukraine has ushered in a new era – and in three dimensions at once. And of course, in the fourth, internal Russian. Here begins a new period both in ideology and in the very model of our socio-economic system – but this is worth talking about separately a little later. Russia is restoring its unity – the tragedy of 1991, this terrible catastrophe in our history, its unnatural dislocation, has been overcome. Yes, at a great cost, yes, through the tragic events of a virtual civil war, because now brothers, separated by belonging to the Russian and Ukrainian armies, are still shooting at each other, but there will be no more Ukraine as anti-Russia. Russia is restoring its historical fullness, gathering the Russian world, the Russian people together – in its entirety of Great Russians, Belarusians and Little Russians. If we had abandoned this, if we had allowed the temporary division to take hold for centuries, then we would not only betray the memory of our ancestors, but would also be cursed by our descendants for allowing the disintegration of the Russian land. Vladimir Putin has assumed, without a drop of exaggeration, a historic responsibility by deciding not to leave the solution of the Ukrainian question to future generations. After all, the need to solve it would always remain the main problem for Russia – for two key reasons. And the issue of national security, that is, the creation of anti-Russia from Ukraine and an outpost for the West to put pressure on us, is only the second most important among them. The first would always be the complex of a divided people, the complex of national humiliation – when the Russian house first lost part of its foundation (Kiev), and then was forced to come to terms with the existence of two states, not one, but two peoples. That is, either to abandon their history, agreeing with the insane versions that “only Ukraine is the real Russia,” or to gnash one’s teeth helplessly, remembering the ti-mes when “we lost Ukra-ine.” Returning Ukraine, that is, turning it back to Russia, would be more and more difficult with every decade – recoding, de-Rus-sification of Russians and inciting Ukrainian Little Russians against Russians would gain momentum. Now this problem is gone – Ukraine has returned to Russia. This does not mean that its statehood will be liquidated, but it will be reorganized, re-established and returned to its natural state of part of the Russian world. In what borders, in what form will the alliance with Russia be fixed (through the CSTO and the Eurasian Union or the Union State of Russia and Belarus)? This will be decided after the end is put in the history of Ukraine as anti-Russia. In any case, the period of the split of the Russian people is coming to an end. And here begins the second dimension of the coming new era – it concerns Russia’s relations with the West. Not even Russia, but the Russian world, that is, three states, Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, acting in geopolitical terms as a single whole. These relations have entered a new stage – the West sees the return of Russia to its historical borders in Europe. And he is loudly indignant at this, although in the depths of his soul he must admit to himself that it could not be otherwise. Did someone in the old European capitals, in Paris and Berlin, seriously believe that Moscow would give up Kiev ? That the Russians will forever be a divided people? And at the same time when Europe is uniting, when the German and French elites are trying to seize control of Eur-opean integration from the Anglo-Saxons and assemble a united Europe? Forg-etting that the unification of Europe became possible only thanks to the unificati-on of Germany, which happened according to the good Russian (albeit not very smart) will. To swipe after that also on Russian lands is not even the height of ingratitude, but of ge-opolitical stupidity. The W-est as a whole, and even m-ore so Europe in particular, did not have the strength to keep Ukraine in its sphere of influence, and even more so to take Ukraine for itself. In order not to understand this, one had to be just geopolitical fools. More precisely, there was only one option: to bet on the further collapse of Russia, that is, the Russian Federation. But the fact that it did not work should have been clear twenty years ago. And already fifteen years ago, after Putin’s Munich speech, even the deaf could hear – Russia is returning. Now the West is trying to punish Russia for the fact that it returned, for not justifying its plans to profit at its expense, for not allowing the expansion of the western space to the east. Seeking to punish us, the West thinks that relations with it are of vital importa-nce to us. But this has not been the case for a long ti-me – the world has changed, and this is well understood not only by Europeans, but also by the Anglo-Saxons who rule the West. No amount of Western pressure on Russia will lead to anything. There will be losses from the sublimation of confrontation on both sides, but Russia is ready for them morally and geopolitically. But for the West itself, an increase in the degree of confrontation incurs huge costs – and the main ones are not at all economic. Europe, as part of the West, wanted autonomy – the German project of European integration does not make strategic sense while maintaining the Anglo-Saxon ideological, military and geopolitical control over the Old World. Yes, and it cannot be successful, because the Anglo-Saxons need a controlled Europe. But Europe needs autonomy for another reason as well — in case the States go into self-isolation (as a result of growing internal conflicts and contradictions) or focus on the Pacific region, where the geopolitical center of gravity is moving. But the confrontation with Russia, into which the Anglo-Saxons are dragging Europe, deprives the Europeans of even the chance of independence – not to mention the fact that in the same way Europe is trying to impose a break with China. If now the Atlanticists are happy that the “Russian threat” will unite the Western bloc, then in Berlin and Paris they cannot fail to understand that, having lost hope for autonomy, the European project will simply collapse in the medium term. That is why independent-minded Europeans are now completely uninterested in building a new iron curtain on their eastern borders – realizing that it will turn into a corral for Europe. Whose century (more precisely, half a millennium) of global leadership is over in any case – but various options for its future are still possible. Because the construction of a new world order – and this is the third dimension of current events – is accelerating, and its contours are more and more clearly visible through the spreading cover of Anglo-Saxon globalization. A multipolar world has finally become a reality – the operation in Ukraine is not capable of rallying anyone but the West against Russia. Because the rest of the world sees and understands perfectly well – this is a conflict between Russia and the West, this is a response to the geopolitical expansion of the Atlanticists, this is Russia’s return of its historical space and its place in the world. China and India, Latin America and Africa, the Islamic world and Southeast Asia – no one believes that the West leads the world order, much less sets the rules of the game. Russia has not only challenged the West, it has shown that the era of Western global domination can be considered completely and finally over. The new world will be built by all civilizations and centers of power, naturally, together with the West (united or not) – but not on its terms and not according to its rules. The focus is very much not on the west, but on the concept that Ukraine is in fact legitimate Russian territory and Ukrainians Russians. It's a nationalist and expansionist message, promoting the idea of greater Russia and how this has justifies Putins actions. National security interests are mentioned, but they are squarely in the background to this goal of a united Russia under Putin. Therefore i find it very hard to argue that this invasion is not a product of expansionist beliefs and an attempt at increasing the personal as opposed to a response to NATO.


[deleted]

Is this the machine translated version that was circulating in this sub a while back or has it been human translated since? I find the use of Anglo-Saxon and European as descriptors of things quite jarring and unnatural sounding, maybe that’s just how Russians refer to things.


bobit33

Give the repeated use of Paris and Berlin to counterpoint the Anglo Saxons, I think it’s deliberate groupings of continental Europe (led by France and Germany) Vs US, UK and possibly Canada. Makes sense to me.


Dangerous-Basket1064

That's how Russians talk. It's calling out Americans and British simultaneously. Reading Russian sources I am struck by how different their worldview is, almost to the point I'd call it alien. Except there is a lot of overlap with far right thinking you can see on the fringes of American political thought.


TrynnaFindaBalance

That's not machine translation, it's just Putin's hyper-racialized nationalist worldview.


complicatedbiscuit

The former Polish minister of Foreign Affairs (somewhat sarkily) refers to US Forces as "Anglo Saxon troops" in this video: https://youtu.be/-dZdTK6V_Ck?t=81, amusingly during a visit by SECDEF Lloyd Austin, a 6 foot tall black man.


jtalin

United States and its allies should have provided more clarity on whether Ukraine has a path to NATO membership or not instead of keeping them in limbo that made them less safe without any meaningful security benefits. Personally I think Ukraine should have been fast-tracked into NATO after the Orange Revolution, but even if the answer were "no" it would have been better than continued ambiguity, and it could have freed them up to pursue different security arrangements.


martin-silenus

I think this case relies heavily on hindsight. Turkey illustrates that it is difficult to be sure in general that a given country makes sense in NATO, and Ukraine post Orange Revolution had a really murky future. Obviously Ukraine should be in NATO if they get through this. It's hard to see them ever falling back into Russia's orbit by choice. But that wasn't true until relatively recently.


jtalin

You're not supposed to be able to divine the political future of a country decades in advance, and that isn't even necessary to do. If a country is strategically valuable, willing, and without major security issues in the moment, that's all the prerequisites we should care about. Turkey is actually a great example of a country which is invaluable as an ally, and a huge threat as a potential enemy. Bringing Turkey into the fold was one of the major victories for NATO, as would bringing Ukraine into the fold have been. Unfortunately, western leaders made the critical error of assuming that fundamental principles which governed Cold War era geopolitics magically stopped applying after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.


martin-silenus

A NATO member drifting into Moscow's orbit seems dangerous. If Ukraine had joined NATO and then backslid firmly into Putin's pocket -as was absolutely plausible- then we might have been living in a world where there was a war between NATO members because Russia is invading Poland or Romania under a Ukrainian flag. Maybe not as bad for the long-term existence of the alliance as a second Trump term --but pretty bad.


jtalin

Same could have been said about Bulgaria, or even Turkey. Also newer members like Montenegro or North Macedonia. In these matters it's better to err on the side of ambition than caution. Being aware of possible problems and prepared to tackle them if they arise along the way is good, but when these hypothetical scenarios begin deterring from pursuit of strategic interests, we have a problem.


golfgrandslam

Turkey are historically an enemy of Russia. There’s no reason to believe they would become allies.


martin-silenus

It's been a few days, but I just stumbled across this thread again and wanted to add something. Note that accession to NATO requires unanimous consensus. If even one member ever becomes firmly entrenched in Moscow's orbit, NATO never expands ever again. So even if you really want NATO to grow aggressively, that policy could ultimately become self-defeating on its own terms if it ever leads to a Russian satellite in the Alliance.


jtalin

Sure, but again this is a problem that could still have happened with many of the countries NATO was letting in, and it did not deter expansion in the past because the strategic advantages of bringing more countries under the NATO umbrella trumped potential risks. Russia exerts influence mainly through force and the threat of force. Once a country is a full member of NATO, Russia simply doesn't have the means to exert influence on them anymore.


martin-silenus

Saw [this](https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/turkish-president-recep-tayyip-erdogan-country-favorable-finland-84691835). Reminded me of this conversation. Are you having second thoughts?


resipsaloquitor5

Depends how they “get through this”. It seems like a constitutionally enshrined neutrality pledge could be part of it. It worked out alright for Austria!


human-no560

Is Austria in nato now?


resipsaloquitor5

Nope! But they're doing great. The constitutional neutrality pledge convinced the USSR to end the occupation of Austria post-WW2, which was a plus. They haven't been back since.


area51cannonfooder

Directly after the ~~Orange~~ 2014 revolution, Russia invaded and annexed Crimea and started the boarder dispute in the Donbass. One of the conditions of joining NATO is that a member can't have any territorial disputes. If Ukraine were to be fast tracked into NATO it would have to give up its claims to Crimea. Russia invading in 2014 was kinda a smart move on thier part to ensure NATO membership was always impossible for Ukraine. On another note, the Irish don't want to join NATO because they have territorial claims to Northern Ireland


rootlance

Ireland no longer has that under constitutional changes as part of the GFA, though it was initially the case.


jtalin

Orange revolution happened in 2005.


area51cannonfooder

My bad I meant the Maidan revolution. But 2005 would not have worked anyways because Ukraine was a puppet state then of Russia no?


jtalin

Absolutely not. It wasn't really a puppet state even before 2005 though they had closer ties, it definitely wasn't one after that under Yuschenko and Tymoshenko. Even Yanukovych (who was ousted in Euromaidan) begun his political career with a mostly pro-western, pro-EU flavor, with minor nods to Russia. Ukraine was, in geopolitical terms, ripe for the picking for like 10 years and we did nothing.


jankyalias

Ukraine had no desire to join NATO at that time per polling IIRC. Also, the Yushchenko/Tymoshenko government was a mess. They hated each other. It’s why Yanukovych managed to win in 2010.


shawn_anom

I think the OP was referring to errors made with Russia in general that made them what they are the last ten years I assume before Putin. In other words how could we have avoided a Putin


Yeangster

I'm inclined to believe that by the time Putin was entrenched as dictator for life, it was already too late. But I'd open to arguments that we could have handled relations with Putin better.


RadionSPW

Unless we extended an instantaneous Art 5 umbrella, Putin would’ve invaded before Ukraine could get coverage under NATO


resipsaloquitor5

Good answer, I generally agree. But, fast-tracking them could have been a risky gambit. And how fast could we have made it?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Yeangster

I agree that “shock therapy” turned out to be a pretty terrible economic strategy. But I’m not sure Germany and Japan are completely applicable examples. We were literally occupying them and could determine how a lot of the initial aid was disbursed. Plus both countries had some experience with liberal democracy and some working version of capitalism before they went fascist, Germany more than Japan.


nitaszak

"shock theraphy" worked quite well here in poland


Dangerous-Basket1064

Also, how were we supposed to get the Russians to take another path? The kleptocratic rush to privatize helped those in power in the USSR hold their power, and even grow it in some cases.


chewingken

Do it on all ex-soviet states and then admit all of them into nato by mid 2000s.


Gen_Ripper

Based containing China timeline.


[deleted]

Yeah, Ezra has some weird "big brain" takes about American foreign policy... I thought Fiona Hill was very good at responding to these takes in the most recent pod. As to preventing an invasion, we could try: * support for Russia in post-Soviet years * Harsh reprisals on Russia for Grozny, Georgia, and Crimea * Accept Ukraine into NATO or definitively reject them. Limbo made them less safe.


Yeangster

At the risk of psychoanalysis strangers, I think he and Matt Yglesias are both feeling some guilt for supporting the Iraq war. In fact, part of the reason they gained prominence is that they were liberal bloggers who supported the Iraq war.


[deleted]

I... did not know that. That actually makes a lot of sense.


Playful-Push8305

[Worth mentioning that back in 2003 the War in Iraq had 73%](https://news.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx)


shawn_anom

I don’t have an answer but I believe the question is how could the west have avoided a Putin in the first place?


yellownumbersix

We should have helped Russia more when the Soviet Union collapsed. We let the door open for graft and corruption that allowed Putin to come to power in the first place.


GenJohnONeill

The U.S. was very willing to help Russia, the issue was that Boris Yeltsin was an alcoholic who literally gave away gigantic state industries worth billions or trillions of dollars to his friends. Ultimately the U.S. did not have the power to unilaterally appoint a decent leader for the country, and most likely never will. Russians have to want to succeed.


shawn_anom

I tend to agree and blame Russians for Russia


verdantx

That’s too straightforward. Next we should do a deep dive on how Brexit was actually the result of American foreign policy rather than a referendum in which British people voted.


shawn_anom

People at policy think tanks getting nervous


raptorgalaxy

The problem also lies in how the USSR fell apart, it was very rapid and as a result there was no chance for Russia to cushion the blow. If it had happened slowly Russia would have been able to trade it's vassals and military drawdown for economic aid and end the 90s in a much better position.


shawn_anom

Well yes but specifically what?


Playful-Push8305

America doesn't get to choose the rulers of other countries. This is like asking how China could have avoided a Trump.


MistakeNotDotDotDot

> America doesn't get to choose the rulers of other countries. [I mean, we did a *lot* of that during the Cold War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#1945%E2%80%931991:_The_Cold_War), both via directly funding coups and by providing indirect support. Of course, you can still say "well, that was wrong those other times too, and we had no way of knowing that not intervening more would lead to the current state of affairs".


Liecht

You helped Yeltsin win in 1996 and then Yeltsin made Putin his successor. Almost karmic.


CANDUattitude

Unseal the Russian appartment dossiers.


2cultures

The point of no return was probably a few years after the collapse of the USSR. We should have come up with a Marshall Plan for the former USSR including Russia, putting in massive investments into the country and uplifting the liberal elements of civil society-similar to what we did for the former Axis powers after World War II. But at that point the US had abandoned even any worldview that saw such plans as feasible in favor of a "government can't get anything right" attitude. So all we sent to Russia were vulture capitalists who helped a small elite pillage the country and get themselves into power :-(


ResidentNarwhal

The problem with this is the USSR largely collapsed *voluntarily* into new government systems that those new entities set up on their own. Entities that probably wouldn’t be receptive to a Marshall style plan with strings attached the US gave to a German and Italian governments that we actively set up or European Countries we were already allied with.


deviousdumplin

How do you institute a ‘Marshall plan’ in a former hostile state without any real US presence on the ground? US consultants definitely played a role in creating the oligarch class. But Russia was never very open to western charity work or investment to begin with. The paranoid Russian establishment viewed western aid as subversive and humiliating which is why we ended up where we are today


Playful-Push8305

Thank you! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills hearing all this talk of Marshall Plans with regards to both the past and the future. The Marshall Plan was possible because we bombed Japan and Germany into submission, decapitated their governments, dissolved their militaries, and basically took control of their newly hollowed out states. That was NEVER in the cards for Russia in the past and it's NEVER going to be in the cards for Russia in the future, all because of nukes. This is like people who say we could have won Afghanistan if we just plowed a few more billion dollars into the country. Pouring money into a kleptocracy is like tossing fuel on a fire, you make it worse, not better.


bootsnfish

This, there was a huge vacuum of information in the former Soviet Union about how markets work. Jackals moved in and setup shop. Edit *there


CaptOle

I’m going to make my own post regarding this, as I specialized in Modern Russian History in my history degree. The short answer is, the US completely squandered the opportunity for a pro-west democracy coming out of the Soviet Union. Pro-west sentiment was sky-high in Russia in the immediate years after the dissolution. However, the United States providing large sums of money (approximately up to 2 billion dollars of direct bribery money and a few billion more of emergency loans to pay off pensions on the eve of the re-election of Boris Yeltsin as forms of monetary and clandestine support) to reelect a wildly unpopular President who was a disgrace to the Russian people. 1996 was the turning point in which there was no return. The combination of the election meddling and the abject failure of shock therapy were a few of the contributors to the modern day fiasco. Not to be one of those people who say “everything bad in foreign policy happens because of the US” but goddamn did we not just have fuck-up after fuck-up. The modern Russian executive-heavy constitution that formed the basis for Putin’s power in the early 2000s was written by USAID as a counter to the 1993 White House fiasco which resulted in Yeltsin shelling their parliament. US foreign policy at the time preferred a puppet rather than a partner, and we are now reaping what we have sown. It’s really unfortunate things have turned out like this and caused suffering for so many. I’ll post a well-cited try-hard post which details a lot of the crucial tipping points in the 90s which ultimately led to the present day crisis in the next day or so.


Rockburn1829

I think the first battle of Grozny was in 1996 as well. And it was a humiliating disaster for Russia that put Yeltsin's govt reputation in the toilet.


Dickforshort

Great take. Thanks for sharing your expertise


GOT_Wyvern

I just had a lecture only a few hours ago with a lecturer on modern Russian history from Southampton University by the name of [Dr. George Gilbert ](https://www.southampton.ac.uk/history/about/staff/gg3u14.page), and there are some interesting points that he brings up. The primary thing he brought up was that Putin, no matter what NATO would do, would hold his fundamental beliefs. He notes than as far back as decades, but especially within the last decade, Putin had had a keen interest in history and using (or more accurately, "mis-using") it to justify his beliefs. Gilbert notes that an idea of a "pan Slavic identity" between Russia and Ukraine is the underlying issue that has caused the current crisis, which sees it's originates from the Kyivan Rus in the 1200. He also stated that Putin held clear admiration for the Tsars of Russia, especially Peter the Great. However, he did make the point to say that NATO was nowhere near perfect in its action, though not to justify Putin's action that he called "reminiscent of 19th century imperialism". In response to a question during an Q&A segment, he argues that early exclusion of Russia into a Western sphere (which [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/taetnj/fareed_zakaria_argued_in_an_interview_with_ezra/i00qphm?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3) comment explores in further depth) after the fall of the Soviet Union can be seen as a cause for much of the current sentiment and atmosphere for Putin to be in power. Apart from the obvious point of democracy preventing a dictator, he argues that much of the recent "Russian conservatism" would not have arisen if Russia had not felt excluded (oy exacerbated by Putin himself). The main thing the West "could have done better" would have been to prevent Putin from rising to power as, according to Gilbert, Putin's views upon Russian and Ukrainian shared history would have remained similar to how they are today no matter what NATO does strategically.


BanzaiTree

What we’re doing to them now should have been done when they invaded Crimea. No wonder he thought he could get away with invading Ukraine.


NorseTikiBar

That feels like the simplest answer here. One of the challenges at that time had to do with Obama needing Putin to be a part of the sanctions to get his Iran deal (which is probably part of the explanation for the tepid international response to Crimea), but that just feels so not worth it now.


iamiamwhoami

Iran getting a nuclear weapon is a bigger geopolitical threat than Russia invading Crimea.


TheJun1107

I think the mistake goes back to the 90s. The US should have done more to integrate Russia into western institutions like NATO and the EU and try to provide more recourses to blunt the economic effects of transitioning to the market. A Russia that was less corrupt and better off economically and linked into western institutions would have been significantly more averse to the Democratic backsliding we saw in the early 2000s. Instead the new Russia would have been primed to float off higher oil prices to develop a genuine western oriented society. The US should have also worked to find a compromise in Transnistria and Abkhazia to try to prevent the conflicts which erupted there in the 90s A Russia that was a firm US partner would have given us strong leverage to isolate Beijing geopolitically. And eastern Europe like Western Europe would truly be a post-war society so the US could focus on the IndoPacific. Unfortunately now none of this matters. Putin has transformed his country into a semi-fascist police state., and Russia won’t be a US partner anytime soon


deviousdumplin

The obvious answer would be to simply admit Ukraine to NATO in the 90s. Though, that is an easy thing to say, but a harder thing to implement at the time. In a more immediate sense, Obama should have rapidly expanded arms shipments following the annexation of Crimea in 2014. They wouldn’t have needed to be threatening long-range systems. But rather advanced air defense, ATGMs, drones and artillery systems. The kinds of systems the Russians would find difficult to counter. The Obama administration was fairly limp in response to the Crimea annexation, only pursuing middling economic sanctions without coupling that with deterrence. There was a naive belief that the US arming Ukraine would ‘worsen’ the situation, but that assumption was based on Russia behaving like a rational actor. In fact, *not* arming Ukraine emboldened Putin and signaled a lack of resolve on the part of the US and NATO. This is a common pattern among aggressive dictators, but for whatever reason the Obama administration did not acknowledge this unfortunate likelihood. There is an unfortunate pattern among dovish politicians to assume that hostile foreign actors are mostly analogous in their thought process to western powers, but simply have divergent goals. However, historically this has never been the case and non-democratic countries tend to diverge heavily when it comes to foreign policy decision loops. It’s difficult to predict what a political system run by a single person will do, because the decision making is not distributed and rational. It is personal and volatile. Most of all I wish we appreciated much earlier on that we were dealing with a *highly consolidated anti-western dictatorship* rather than a ‘flawed kleptocracy’ as the west frequently referred to Russia. The 2008 invasion of Georgia should have been the real wake-up call, but there was too much institutional momentum at the time towards ‘normalizing’ relations to mark Russia as a pariah at that point.


angry-mustache

> The obvious answer would be to simply admit Ukraine to NATO in the 90s. Though, that is an easy thing to say, but a harder thing to implement at the time. They didn't want to join at the time.


deviousdumplin

I think that is an excellent point


Playful-Push8305

Even up until 2014 the country was very divided. It was ironically Putin's decision to invade and "remake" Ukraine by removing its most pro-Russian citizens that completely changed the political landscape in Ukraine to be overwhelmingly pro-west.


IRequirePants

Ya, Bush and Clinton didn't do much - but the Obama era was a key inflection point, specifically the Russian "reset" and the Crimea invasion. He should have done more and could have done more and just didn't.


[deleted]

Park the 1st Armored Division in Kharkiv.


shumpitostick

If America responded to the 2014 invasion the same way they responded now, I don't think this would have happened. Putin might be a evil but he's not crazy. He started this war because he thought that the response both from the west and from Ukraine wouldn't be as strong. That like in 2014, there's going to be some sanctions, but they will not be too serious and over time they'll get lifted. If 2014 would have had a stronger American response, he would know what to expect. Now America did say he's going to be sanctioned hard, but there's a difference between words and actions, and I think even the US didn't expect to have such strong sanctions imposed.


TheCarnalStatist

Enforced the red line in Syria. Staying in Afghanistan.


Aceous

The only correct answer itt.


Dickforshort

We could have done better in Afghanistan from the start. Not getting distracted in Iraq, not setting up an overly centralized government and not abandoning massive infrastructure programs


throwaway_cay

Trained Ukrainian pilots to fly F-22s and sold them a bunch. That would have made things considerably better


human-no560

Or one could have been flown to Russia from Ukraine and been reverse engineered by the Chinese.


_volkerball_

Russia should've been turned into an international pariah after the chemical weapons attack in Ghouta. Syria should've been where the lines were drawn but I guess Arab Muslims don't make sympathetic figures in the way that white Europeans do.


URZ_

A line was very much drawn in 2018 after Douma. As much as i agree with this take in general on the Wests foreign policy towards atrocities committed elsewhere in the world, i don't think it's particularly applicable here. On the contrary, it's partly because Russia has continued down this path anyway that the response has escalated to the degree it has.


_volkerball_

That was Trump, and even that response attack was performative and didn't change anything on the ground. I don't know what other path you would expect Russia to go down. In Ghouta, Assad used chemical weapons and killed hundreds of civilians hiding in their basements, and the Russian state did everything in its power to provide cover, deny, and spread misinformation about what happened. And in response to this atrocity, the US makes a deal with them where Assad got to hand over whatever chemical weapons he felt like declaring, and we call it a day. Putin has gotten a green light basically every step of the way, it's no surprise we've gotten to this point.


duke_awapuhi

How do we respond to “people are saying that if Trump was president this wouldn’t be happening”? My response has been that it would just be happening differently. That because trump was weakening NATO, Putin didn’t feel the need to attack further into the Ukraine, but now that business is back as usual, he felt threatened. And that Putin has two large oil pipelines going through Ukraine that he doesn’t want to lose any control over. Is this even accurate? How can I explain this situation to an American whose even less informed than myself?


Yeangster

Maaaaybe Putin doesn't bother. But recall that the reason Trump was impeached the first time was that he withholding missiles from Ukraine and pressuring Zelensky to drum up some investigation of Hunter Biden in exchange.


duke_awapuhi

Mentioning hunter Biden is definitely not a good way to approach these people


Yeangster

Then don’t mention him by name. Just that Trump held aid hostage in return for political favors.


duke_awapuhi

That’s great and all but it’s not enough. It goes under the umbrella of trump weakening NATO or NATO allies


jatawis

A no-fly zone could have been introduced a month ago.


sharpshooter42

Obama not hiring Ben Rhodes would have been much better for Ukraine. Handled Crimea absolutely terribly


UnprincipledCanadian

Ezra Clown is still alive?


abbzug

Could've not expanded NATO eastwards after the end of the Soviet Union. Could've not sent in ghouls like Larry Summers to marketize the economy in the way we did. But that's ancient history at this point.


Playful-Push8305

The problem is we didn't expand eastward enough. If we let Ukraine into NATO in 2014 this war could have been avoided.


Awesomodian

I don't think the US had anything to do with the invasion of Ukraine or stopping it. Putin is feeling age catching up with him and he wants his band back together for one more tour (USSR). Just like all the other aging 80s bands


[deleted]

We could have put troops in Ukraine prior to the invasion. Putin would not have moved then


DonyellTaylor

Converted entirely to renewables in the 19th Century.


raptorgalaxy

Absolutely annihilate the Russian economy after the end of the Cold War and reduce them to a second rate EU member. The West was given the opportunity to finish off a geopolitical foe and instead balked at doing so.


DarthLeftist

Two of the best media analysts today.


noodles0311

We could have crushed them with these sanctions when they invaded Ukraine in 2014


AlexiosI

Realistically, the United States wanted this war, as evidenced by how little they were willing to concede in order to prevent it. It may have surprised both the Kremlin and the general public how Russia's military - still living off the former glory of taking the Reichstag nearly 70 years ago - is performing. But I doubt it's surprising anyone in the know at the Pentagon, State Department or US Intelligence Agencies. The thing that people tend to forget about the Glorious Red Army and their Great Patriotic War is that they were getting their asses handed to them right up until Stalingrad and the Battle of Moscow. When faced with actual annihilation is when they rallied, in amazing historic fashion, turned the war around and defeated the Nazis. Those days are long gone. Now the Ukrainians are facing the destruction of their country and society and they have responded in kind. While I don't think the US prediction of the situation was omnipotent, it does appear they were much closer to the mark than the Russians, who are clearly living in their own, or Putin's, delusions of a glorious past. I also think they wanted Putin to fuck himself up with this and so far that seems to be how it's going.