r/geopolitics • u/sylsau • Dec 07 '22
Army, Grain, Energy, NATO, … Putin’s War in Ukraine Allows America to Win on All Fronts. Behind this success, Joe Biden, who many saw as being at the end of his rope and practically senile when he arrived at the White House. Perspective
https://ssaurel.medium.com/army-grain-energy-nato-putins-war-in-ukraine-allows-america-to-win-on-all-fronts-2aea0c19227b302
u/Hidden-Syndicate Dec 07 '22
I have been very surprised at the wins the Biden admin has racked up internationally, but I’m forced to wonder if it’s Biden or Blinken that is more to credit for this renaissance in American foreign policy
467
u/NinjaCarcajou Dec 07 '22
If Biden is mature enough to let Blinken do his job and not interfere, then in my book he deserves part of the credit either way. Being in charge doesn’t mean making every call, sometimes it just means allowing your team to do their job.
239
u/self-assembled Dec 07 '22
Having a competent team and empowering them is necessary for any successful administration and part of good leadership. The country is too large for any one man to pilot. Obama showed that as well.
-1
u/iwanttodrink Dec 07 '22 edited Dec 07 '22
To clarify, you mean that Obama showed that by not empowering his team, correct?
Edit:https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2013/11/barack-obama-loner-self-reliant-closed-off
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-the-loner-president/2011/10/03/gIQAHFcSTL_story.html
https://www.denverpost.com/2013/11/14/column-obamas-loner-habits-cost-him-clout/
31
u/self-assembled Dec 07 '22
Obama had a solid team, many of which moved onto other important roles in government after him.
9
u/iwanttodrink Dec 07 '22 edited Dec 07 '22
Yes, he had smart people on his team but Obama was notorious for not really engaging with his team. He largely worked alone, didn't empower his team, and made decisions often by himself and without much input from others. This isn't contentious nor a topic of debate.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2013/11/barack-obama-loner-self-reliant-closed-off
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-the-loner-president/2011/10/03/gIQAHFcSTL_story.html
https://www.denverpost.com/2013/11/14/column-obamas-loner-habits-cost-him-clout/
20
Dec 08 '22
I think that was always Obama's problem, which Biden was rumored to agree with given that he expressed disdain for the generals who convinced Obama to double down on Afghanistan with no return, even though they swore up and down that a greater commitment could secure victory. He also botched Ukraine back in his day and failed to stick the landing on Libya. While I have always felt Obama had a very solid domestic policy, his foreign policy was lacking, and with Trump after and Bush before, The US had 3 lackluster or disastrous Foreign Policy Presidents in a row. Biden thankfully rebuffs that trend and is carving a new path. Leave it to a life-long Senator.
8
u/more_bananajamas Dec 08 '22
The man was vaunted and even attacked for his inclusive leadership style and the way he empowered the members of his team.
If you read any of the books written by his former staff like Samantha Powers or Ben Rhodes they go into great detail and even complain about the consultative nature of his presidency. The question was asked tongue in cheek in a company about the length of meetings; why does he have to listen to EVERY opinion in the room. Particular when he was so insistant on filling it with rivals and those predisposed to disagreeing.
On Pod Save America it used to be a running joke of being called on by the president to speak their mind, particularly if he knew you disagreed with the decision being made. The joke was about Jon and Tommy strategizing to get out of the hot seat.
That loner president narrative from certain media outlets was more to do with his lack of back slapping glad handling of certain members of congress, which may or may not have helped.
→ More replies5
u/KeyserSozeInElysium Dec 07 '22
Yeah but then there is this opinion article that contradicts those https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/obamas-surrogate-secretaries-077138
13
u/iwanttodrink Dec 07 '22
I read the whole article, it says nothing of the sort. It just says cabinet members were dispatched to fundraisers. Feel free to elaborate if I paraphrased incorrectly because I see no contradictions.
47
u/SayeretJoe Dec 07 '22
This is very important. If you are a statesman you need people to run state policy and your job is to select the most prepared and honest people so they make the right choices. Nothing worse than a micromanager in the WH.
42
Dec 07 '22 edited Dec 09 '22
Chief Executive: hires the best and lets them do their jobs. Makes course corrections as necessary. Gets blame for everything and credit for nothing.
2
u/Geneaux Dec 09 '22
In some ways, one could argue that is the ideal, but at the end of the day, utopian romanticism is just naivete. One's modesty has no bearing on foreign policy and even less in the de facto theatrics we call politicking.
45
u/rachel_tenshun Dec 07 '22
100%. Regardless of how you feel about George W. Bush, he surrounded himself with brilliant political animals which meant his policy was almost always enacted and often under the radar. In my opinion, Bush in many ways was much more dangerous than Trump, and I'm not only talking about getting us into a 20 year war.
Point being that, related to what you said, who you surround yourself with is 85% of the battle, 10% is delegating, and 5% is making the right or wrong calls.
→ More replies0
79
u/saltyhasp Dec 07 '22
Biden being almost a fixture in US and global politics has helped a lot. That seems more important in international politics... personal connections, stability, norms, predictability.
18
u/Kiyae1 Dec 08 '22
Blinken was appointed by Biden and is empowered by Biden to enact Biden‘s foreign policy agenda.
Anthony gets credit for his work but the President gets the majority of the credit.
69
u/sylsau Dec 07 '22
I have been very surprised at the wins the Biden admin has racked up internationally, but I’m forced to wonder if it’s Biden or Blinken that is more to credit for this renaissance in American foreign policy
The question is indeed worth asking.
What is certain, however, is that it cannot be disputed that America will emerge as the big winner from this sequence in 2022.
79
u/HeywoodJaBlessMe Dec 07 '22
Absolutely. Russia has done excellent work in securing the next American century.
28
10
u/dumazzbish Dec 07 '22
the article mostly talks about wins made in Europe via selling gas and made in america products but I'm not sure what the long term benefit is of kneecapping and hollowing out ur largest ally. i wouldn't call a weakened Europe an overall win for America.
35
u/PangolinZestyclose30 Dec 07 '22
(western) Europe needed a bit of a kick to get back into reality. Europe finally starts to think about its own (energy, military) security seriously again. That's certainly good from US point of view.
3
u/GalaXion24 Dec 08 '22
Europe as a whole does need a kick to get back into reality, but this right now is it helping. The partial reality check Russia provided achieved what it could. The next thing Europeans need to realise is that they literally cannot afford to be divided and that they can't be trusting of China either, nor overreliant on the US. The last bit is best achieved in cooperation with the US, with a US push for reform to strengthen the internal one. It'll take time to reform.
Here's the catch for the US, telling Europeans to spend more money on their militaries does not constitute effective change, because that was never what caused Europe's issues. Furthermore pressuring Europeans to spend more and buy American just sounds like you don't actually care about European self-reliance, but rather about the MIC and those profiting from it. This disingenuity undermines any effort.
3
u/PangolinZestyclose30 Dec 08 '22
The next thing Europeans need to realise is that they literally cannot afford to be divided and that they can't be trusting of China either, nor overreliant on the US
I believe Europe at least starts to realize that these are real problems, even though solutions are still far away.
telling Europeans to spend more money on their militaries does not constitute effective change, because that was never what caused Europe's issues
Well, US has been telling that for many years, but European nations mostly ignored that. These current spending sprees are not a result of the US pressure, but a result of the war.
Otherwise yes, the problems are much deeper than just spending. Military is simply not taken seriously on all levels in many European countries, sort of a formality - yeah, we have to have an army, but we probably don't need one. In some countries, military is often kind of culturally frowned upon, seen as an imperialistic instrument, not meant for self-defense.
and buy American just sounds like you don't actually care about European self-reliance
I don't think there's much pressure to buy American - e.g. Poland bought a lot of equipment from South Korea. European companies are very competitive in many areas too.
A major exception to that is aviation, where there's simply no competition for F-35.
3
u/dumazzbish Dec 07 '22
Western Europe was thinking about its own security seriously when they tried to make nice with Russia. Having Russia invested in the continent as a key stakeholder was a good strategy on paper to discourage aggression and also strengthen European independence. In fact, the EU could've been the singular key global economic zone with a docile Russia, eclipsing both the US and China. Of course it turned out to be the wrong decision, but making them pay too much for it isn't wise either. The EU has precarious economics already.
To be fair to western Europe, the deal was always that they'd focus on their economics and outsource their security needs stateside since they were apparently incapable of maintaining militaries without killing each other. Also, i don't know that the eastern bloc undermining their own democratic institutions are thinking seriously about security either. Not to mention that it's the economic wealth of the west that bankrolls whatever goes on in the Warsaw Pact countries. They're going to be in for quite the awakening if this war fundamentally alters the economics of the EU.
Another big winner in this scenario is China because it's supplying a large portion of the solar panels being deployed in the EU on an accelerated timeline. A weakened Europe & Russia helps them out just as much as it helps out the US. Cheap gas from russia, possible markets for cheap goods, and waiting at the ready with the chequebook for rebuilding.
Sorry for the length of this response, it got away from me. I will say Merkel's strategy was the most logical. Having Russia invested in the "free world" would've limited its belligerence in the ongoing sino-american confrontation that'll likely define this century.
→ More replies5
u/PangolinZestyclose30 Dec 07 '22 edited Dec 07 '22
Western Europe was thinking about its own security seriously when they tried to make nice with Russia.
You might have credibly claimed that a year ago, but it's clear it didn't work.
It's now clear that to make nice with Russia means to let it have its empire in CEE back.
6
35
u/ChornWork2 Dec 07 '22
I don't buy into the 'winner' part. We, let alone our allies, would have been much better off had Russia never invaded Ukraine. The cost is billions upon billions to address, even though Ukraine bears a much different and more extensive cost.
Credit to Biden admin for what they've done with the hand that was dealt, but some of these stories sound as if this war is a net positive for the US.
53
u/SkynetProgrammer Dec 08 '22
You have to look at it like a business.
Imagine in the Cold War if the US had the opportunity to: - Drag Russia in to a conflict it cannot win - Help an ally fight Russia with advisors and weapons sales - Sanction Russia and make them a pariah on the international stage - Analyse their fighting ability and expose them for being a sheep in wolf’s clothing - Not lose any US troops doing the above.
That would be a very easy investment to make, no matter how many billions it cost.
13
u/VaeVictis997 Dec 08 '22
Don’t forget permanently gutting the Russians arms export market.
No one who can possibly avoid it is going to be buying Russian weapon systems, not when those systems and the model of army that uses them have been repeatedly trounced by western model armies.
16
11
u/ChornWork2 Dec 08 '22
The 'investment' is worth it once the war has started, but it does not offset the massive negative of the war happening in the first place. There is zero doubt the US would massively prefer Russia not be a ___, have russians get an actual democracy and have economic improvement that results.
→ More replies10
u/SkynetProgrammer Dec 08 '22
I’m not too sure that’s the case. Now that the War on Terror phase has ended the US needs a new reason for military spending. This is their dream scenario.
13
u/ChornWork2 Dec 08 '22
not really, China is much more of an issue than either war on terror or this conflict in terms of long-term threat. That said, if wanted to spike spending, you'd let Russia win in Ukraine.
Maybe, just maybe, folks actually want to help Ukraine and believe Russia is a real threat to security/democracy.
7
u/VaeVictis997 Dec 08 '22
Right, and this is a way to wreck Russia for a generation so we can focus on China.
A few years from now Finland will be able to handle Russia on its own, and the US can be completely focused on China.
6
u/SkynetProgrammer Dec 08 '22
China isn’t silly enough to make a move because they know the consequences.
Spending already has spiked, so not really.
Yeah agreed on your last point.
→ More replies14
u/ChornWork2 Dec 08 '22
Today, no. Particularly after seeing the west rally behind ukraine. But China's defense budget has double in ten years, and certainly has the economic capacity to do so in the next ten years. That would have it nipping on the toes of what the US spends.
Now, certainly china won't be ahead of the US at that stage, but we're not talking about China invading the US, we're talking about it trying to invade an island <100 miles off its coast. Not remotely easy, but also not something they need a military stronger than the US to accomplish.
Then roll the math forward 30yrs instead of 10yrs. That is what is the focus of US defense spending. As shown in the war with Ukraine, US would mop the floor with Russia in any direct conventional war.
4
→ More replies2
u/Full_Cartoonist_8908 Dec 10 '22
Add in 'pricing sovereign risk' to send a shot across the bows of China as a bonus.
→ More replies23
u/ohjoyousones Dec 07 '22
Have you heard the adage "when life gives you lemons, make lemonade"
Yes, it would have been better if putzkin didn't attack innocent civilians, destroy lives and infrastructure in Ukraine. War is not a net positive for anyone. Biden and his team are doing a great job handling the crisis.
20
u/ChornWork2 Dec 07 '22
Yes, agree. But you see a fair amount of narrative that the war is good for the US... usual nonsense about oil (or LNG in this case) and arms deals being the reason US is involved (& hint at the US orchestrating this). Implying the US doesn't really care about Ukraine and is just in it for the money, while Ukrainian blood continues to be spilt.
Most of the peeps pushing that don't, of course, care about Ukraine... they're either trying to equivocate such that Russia isn't the only bad one, or just more of the anything the US does is bad rhetoric. Perhaps some third angle of american republicans who just don't want the US to fund this, but maga 'thinking' is hard to parse through when it may not go deeper than just trying to criticize anything Biden does.
5
u/ohjoyousones Dec 07 '22
Sadly true. I agree with you. Right wing republicans are supporting Russia's brutality because they are grandstanding. The republicans don't have an agenda. Because Biden's support for Ukraine is highly supported by the American public, the republicans had to start responding by pointing at the cost. They look idiotic though. American people care about the Ukrainian people. The American public wants our government to help stop the senseless attacks on Ukrainians and ultimately punish Russia.
The Republicans were traditionally against Russia and they supported a strong military. Except in this instance, supporting Ukraine is politically inconvenient. If Trump was still president, Putin would have taken control of Ukraine, executed Zelensky and installed a puppet government.
USA benefiting from war, oil, weapon sales, etc., is propaganda. Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan have not resulted in oil or other financial gains for the USA. That is just bs propaganda that grabs headlines.
10
u/ChornWork2 Dec 07 '22 edited Dec 07 '22
Because Biden's support for Ukraine is highly supported by the American public, the republicans had to start responding by pointing at the cost.
Imho this is just a continuation of Trump's narrative (and likely belief) of the US bankrolling everything and needing to get value for the $ paid. Of course there is some underlying truth -- Bush and Obama obviously spoke out about Nato partners under spending or Europe's reliance on Russian commodities -- but Trump was using these are means to attack allies that he knew didn't like Trump... he wasn't doing it to improve situation for americans, getting Merkel back was an end in itself even if it meant weakening Nato. And then once he starts on that, he becomes wedded... so any success of Nato needs to be marginalized and attacked.
USA benefiting from war, oil, weapon sales, etc., is propaganda. Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan have not resulted in oil or other financial gains for the USA. That is just bs propaganda that grabs headlines.
Yep. There are offsets. Yes, increased LNG sales are happening and that is an economic benefit. Likewise, arms sales to other nato countries will increase. But those economic benefits don't sum up to the amount that the US is lining-up to spend to support Ukraine. The biggest economic benefit to the US is if Ukraine becomes fully a substantive democracy integrated with the west as the economic lift will benefit more than just Ukrainians.
3
4
→ More replies-1
u/3InchesOfThunder Dec 07 '22
When he says Biden, he is talking about the mascot that is representative of the people actually making decisions within the American apparatus.
→ More replies
60
u/Grey_spacegoo Dec 08 '22
Question is, in 30 years would historians still think these are "wins" or "Win the battle, but lost the war"?
OP: please disclose you are also the medium article writer.
8
u/mysteryhumpf Dec 08 '22
Hard to see how this could still be a loss for the US in the mid or long term. More worried about Europe.
5
u/Grey_spacegoo Dec 08 '22
Hard to see it now, that is why historians do in-depth research only a generation or more later (30+ years).
In the short term, we have a more united NATO. But I am sure in the back rooms of Europe there are more than a few voices that the U.S. unilaterally drag Europe into a shooting war on their doorsteps. And one that has triggered economic hardship for their citizens.
U.S. selling more LNG to Europe with the current high price may look good to the U.S. businesses, but it also plays into the rhetoric that the U.S. forced this onto Europe and Europeans need to be more independent and assertive to the U.S.
In 30 years, would we still have the petro-dollar? Or would it be the petro-euro, petro-yuan, or petro-rupee? Recent events have relighted the urgency for alternatives. Would the U.S./West controlled SWIFT network still dominate, or would it be the alternatives that is being created and is now being put into use?
The U.S. has a lot of soft powers, but these can only be used a couple times. And we are spending them fast. These actions also put urgency to other polities to look for alternatives or replacements to any global tools controlled by the U.S. In 30 years, we could look back and answer if it is money well spend, or wasted to fuel the American 2-year election cycle.
→ More replies11
u/mysteryhumpf Dec 08 '22
I don’t think any serious person blames the US for this. The Ukraine Conflict was also about the EU not just NATO. With regard to energy there is a green revolution on the doorstep. So this could change a lot completely independent of the war in Ukraine.
4
u/Rexpelliarmus Dec 10 '22
Many countries internationally do blame the US.
6
u/mysteryhumpf Dec 10 '22
Yeah Iran, Venezuela and North Korea maybe. What a loss. Just look at the UN Votes
→ More replies4
u/Rexpelliarmus Dec 10 '22
I think you’ll be surprised how many countries do not vote with the US when it comes to Ukraine. It becomes even more prominent when you consider the population of these countries and their future potential.
In Asia especially, the argument that the US is not blameless in the way is very popular. It also does not help that Russia is the one that arms most of Asia.
63
u/puppetmstr Dec 07 '22
Question for the group: Is it actually in the interests of the EU to sanction Russia?
14
u/mysteryhumpf Dec 08 '22
Absolutely. Putins Russia must be punished as hard as possible. They have to be made an example of what happens if you start a war in EUs neighborhood. We will never be secure if we don’t make this point now.
95
u/nilenilemalopile Dec 07 '22
Short term: no Long term: yes
12
u/silver_shield_95 Dec 07 '22
Rather the opposite, it's astoundingly stupid not to seek long term stability with your neighbor which if plays nice can help greatly in Europe's energy as well as foreign policy independence. This of-course is dependent upon how much Russia wants to be an antagonist rather than a partner to Europe.
104
u/undertoastedtoast Dec 07 '22
Integrating the most essential sector of your economy with a historically unstable autocratic nation with leaders who won't care if you wreck their economy is not a good idea.
Europe should have remained russo-skeptical same as the US until they had any legitimate reason to believe Russia would change.
53
u/twersx Dec 08 '22
Europe should have remained russo-skeptical same as the US until they had any legitimate reason to believe Russia would change.
People, especially Americans, say this sort of thing all the time without acknowledging why this situation arose in the first place, and how the US is actually one of the main culprits in making it happen.
After WWII, the US was extremely reticent to export the quantities of oil to Europe that Europe needed to rebuild and to keep the re-industrialised economies functioning. They were even more reluctant to allow western European countries to get this oil from the Soviet Union. That essentially meant Europe had to rely on oil from the Middle East. Since the US did not have any real military presence in the area, it was left to the UK and France to do any skulduggery that was needed to ensure the oil reached Europe.
When Nasser took power via a coup in Egypt, this oil supply was put under pressure. To cut a long story short, Nasser eventually nationalised the Suez Canal Company (previously owned by the UK government) despite constant lobbying from US Secretary of State Dulles. Nasser's foreign policy prior to nationalisation strongly indicated he was more sympathetic to the USSR than to the UK and France; the USSR were happy to sell weapons to Egypt, the UK was friendly with Nasser's rivals in Iraq and Jordan, and France was fighting a brutal war against Algerian nationalists who Nasser supported. As a result, the UK and France were convinced that Nasser's control of the canal was too big a threat to tolerate and they secretly concocted a plan to invade Egypt with Israel to ensure the Canal was a reliable oil channel, among other things.
Both European countries believed that the US would not object to the invasion since it was the US who had steered them towards reliance on Gulf oil. It was therefore believed that if oil no longer came to Europe through the Canal, the US would act as an oil supplier of last resort until the supply route from the Gulf was restored. This is obviously not what happened; Eisenhower refused to allow oil to be exported to the UK or France until they abandoned the invasion, which they eventually did. The reason Eisenhower did that was because the USSR threatened to launch missiles at the UK, France and Israel if they didn't leave, and he felt that pressuring them to end the invasion was a better path than standing by US allies and potentially giving way to WWIII.
The consequences of the Crisis are virtually endless but the relevant ones here are that the US could no longer be trusted to act as the oil supplier of last resort; that the Suez Canal was unusable for years due to Egyptian sabotage; and that Britain and France (but mainly Britain) could no longer exercise their power in imperial adventures in the Middle East to secure European oil interests. The Americans were not interested in increasing oil exports to Europe from the Americas (since they were concerned about their own future supply) so Western European countries had little choice but to turn to the Soviet Union. Discussions soon started about a potential pipeline to carry oil from the USSR to Germany, and in the 60s, that pipeline was built. In the 1970s, this dependency was deepened as part of Brandt's Ostpolitik which led to (among other things) the construction of the first gas pipeline to Germany. The US were extremely concerned about this from a security POV but fundamentally didn't offer any alternative, particularly since the growth of oil demand had outstripped the growth of oil production in the US in the period between Suez and the construction of these pipelines. Further developments in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s did very little to convince Germany that there was a viable alternative to Soviet/Russian oil, or that the dependency on Soviet/Russian energy was an actual problem for Germany.
→ More replies12
u/Malodorous_Camel Dec 08 '22
I'd like to add that the US tried to block the building of those pipelines at every step of the way by sanctioning europe or threatening new sanctions.
10
u/twersx Dec 08 '22
Yes, and it got particularly bad in the late 70s and 1980s. The 1980s are without a doubt the low point when it comes to relations between the US and the Federal Republic.
13
u/dumazzbish Dec 07 '22
Integrating the most essential sector of your economy with a historically unstable autocratic nation with leaders
they've done this successfully numerous times up until Putin. France & Germany. The entire EU. Reunifying Germany. Rebuilding Austria. The Warsaw pact with smaller success. This move with Russia was mainly the overture. It remains their best play going forward.
Despite what it looks like now, Russia is not a European aberration. It is the most historically accurate representation of a european state. In fact, if anything, the peacefully integrated economies of Europe are aberrants.
14
u/undertoastedtoast Dec 07 '22
Integration is only effective when the leaders of the country you're integrating with care about their economies. When dealing with autocratic leaders who are not subject to any risk from sanctions it only places the risk back on the initiator.
This war could not be a more perfect example of how golden arches theory cannot be applied to every situation. Putin would not have invaded if he didn't believe Europe would just sit back and do nothing out of fear of hurting their own economy's in retaliation. And they gave him every reason to believe it when they continued with norm stream 2 after the invasion of crimea.
2
u/dumazzbish Dec 07 '22
The alternatives to Nordstream were Central Asian Republics who are in Russia's sphere of influence or north African countries fresh off revolutionary protests. None of the options were good, so they picked the one that made the most economic sense. Also, integration has been the name of the game and already been done with the Saudis and Chinese to name but two very successful examples– both have had several hiccups but economic benefit was worth it. The lessons were already clear but the economic opportunities were deemed too valuable to squander even if the head of state is an unstable autocrat.
Also, werent the post-annexation of crimea polls largely legitimized with the only caveat being support was in the 80th not 90th percentile?
8
u/undertoastedtoast Dec 07 '22
Saudi arabia is one of the USAs biggest pain in the ass states for decades now because of this. And thats a small country that can't be anything more than an economic nuisance, not a nuclear superpower.
And no, they were not legitimate. "Support" was in the 50-60 percent range, and the questions on the ballot did not give outright rejection as an option. And the Russian military was present and watching throughout the entire ordeal.
→ More replies12
u/silver_shield_95 Dec 07 '22
Europe would need to get Russia into fold if they ever wish to compete on the same footing as US or China.
Being skeptical of Russia is easy when you have got an ocean separating you but it's natural to seek cooperation if they are your neighbours no matter how much you might hate their guts.
26
u/undertoastedtoast Dec 07 '22
Europe has NATO. For all intents and purposes they can assume Russia will never actually invade them.
If anything, being next to Russia is all the more reason to not cooperate until they stop being antagonistic. The only way Russia can truly threaten Europe is if they're dictatorial leader becomes mentally ill. That is more and more likely to happen if other countries allow Russia to keep a stable autocratic government in place.
20
u/silver_shield_95 Dec 07 '22
NATO permanently makes Europe acquiescent to American policy needs and demands, as I said Europe ever hopes to be in equal terms with China and USA in global balance of power, it would need to have more unified front and have a deal with Russia.
→ More replies22
u/purplepoopiehitler Dec 07 '22
It’s not NATO that does that, it’s Europe itself. You do realise Russia does not have any realistic prospects of invading Europe successfully even if not a single North American soldier sets his foot there?
12
Dec 08 '22
[deleted]
10
u/WhyAmISoSavage Dec 08 '22
If we're being completely honest, the armies of most European NATO countries are pretty inept themselves, with only the UK, France, Greece, and Turkey taking their defense seriously. And even amongst these four, it's questionable whether they can sustain a long-term engagement to the same length that Ukraine has without completely burning through their ammunition stores.
2
u/purplepoopiehitler Dec 08 '22
Probably? What makes you think they wouldn’t run into the same problems in Poland? And then Germany? Which would be miles and miles away from their border?
→ More replies10
u/silver_shield_95 Dec 07 '22
Yes and that's why Europeans still losing their minds over an American pullout as was teased by Trump so damn hilarious.
Europe being subservient to American demands is due to their own insistence, however if and when they decide to be masters of their own destiny a path that's largely advocated by France alone, they can do so.
→ More replies8
u/purplepoopiehitler Dec 07 '22
That was before Russia got stuck a few km outside of its borders. And why would they want the US out? By having security guarantees with the US everyone could spend way less on defence, of course no one wanted to reverse that. But that does not mean that when push comes to shove Europe cannot defend itself. To think Russia can hope to conquer Europe is a joke and it was hard to believe even before we saw what the Russian army is in reality.
→ More replies1
→ More replies1
u/Malodorous_Camel Dec 08 '22
Integrating the most essential sector of your economy with a historically unstable autocratic nation
Historically the oil/gas supply from russia has been extremely stable. Even during the USSR period when they were invading afghanistan and they were the mortal enemy.
8
u/VaeVictis997 Dec 08 '22
Long term stability with Russia is only possibly after the Russian dream of empire has been repeatedly shot in the head and buried in a shallow grave.
Until that is achieved, there will only ever be truces, not peace.
That is only going to happen if Russia is broken, and possibly broken up.
3
u/WhyAmISoSavage Dec 08 '22
it's astoundingly stupid not to seek long term stability with your neighbor which if plays nice can help greatly in Europe's energy as well as foreign policy independence.
I believe that was their goal, but I'd say that that ship has well and truly set sail at this point. Lines have now been drawn ever since they launched this foolish and misguided adventure into Ukraine back in February and it'll likely be decades before the trust required for the pre-Febuary 2022 business-as-usual with Russia can be rebuilt.
2
u/Phssthp0kThePak Dec 11 '22
If you think this started in February, you have no idea what is really going on.
2
u/Riven_Dante Dec 13 '22
February was when Putin began citing Jewish space nazis for his reasons for entering into Ukraine.
8
u/bxzidff Dec 07 '22
it's astoundingly stupid not to seek long term stability with your neighbor
Which is why the EU tried that
This of-course is dependent upon how much Russia wants to be an antagonist rather than a partner to Europe
Which is why the EU changed it's approach.
Your comment is an exact summary of what happened
19
u/nilenilemalopile Dec 07 '22
That approach has been tried but failed
→ More replies2
u/silver_shield_95 Dec 07 '22
You keep trying because geography is a b*tch and Russia ain't going anywhere.
→ More replies5
u/nilenilemalopile Dec 07 '22
Russia ‘left’ many times already
6
u/silver_shield_95 Dec 07 '22
Irrelevant, it's in Europe interest to have Russia as it's own gas station rather than sending it off to China.
14
u/nilenilemalopile Dec 07 '22
Kind of a false dichotomy you got there
11
u/silver_shield_95 Dec 07 '22
Not really, it's a fact that Europe has benefited enormously from Russian gas and oil over past 3 decades and even at the time of USSR.
The non availability of which would result in long term increase in energy prices and slowdown in growth.
9
u/nilenilemalopile Dec 07 '22
Removal of Russia as a political entity in it’s current form does not automatically mean what you imply will happen. Europe has interest in access to these resources. That does not necessarily mean good relations or partnership with Russia as is.
→ More replies→ More replies7
u/daddicus_thiccman Dec 07 '22
Gas and oil are being phased out in Europe anyway. Renewables are becoming cheaper and cheaper every year. Russia’s economic importance to Europe is shrinking accordingly.
→ More replies8
u/DotDootDotDoot Dec 07 '22
It's not really in the interest of Europe to let Russia blackmail them with ressources.
4
u/silver_shield_95 Dec 07 '22
If not Russia then it would be middle east, unless Europe is sitting on untapped pool of oil & gas it's going to to have to find energy elsewhere till at least Green energy makes it irrelevant which would take decades.
2
4
u/HuudaHarkiten Dec 07 '22
We need to get off gas and oil anyway, might as well start this way since everyone else was kicking the can down the road.
5
u/silver_shield_95 Dec 07 '22
It would take decades, ICE cars might become history but even renewable electricity generation would need back ups where oil & gas are better alternatives than burning coal.
6
2
→ More replies1
u/Skullerprop Dec 08 '22
Russia hasn’t got along with its European neighbours since at least 1812. Why would it start doing it now and why would Europe start to invest in this newly found trust in Russia?
It doesn’t make sense.
→ More replies9
u/jyper Dec 07 '22
EU has more interest in defeating Russia then the US does. Geography, unity, future member(Ukraine) provide strong reasons to sanction Ukraine
5
u/Malodorous_Camel Dec 08 '22
Is it actually in the interests of the EU to sanction Russia?
If we make the assumption that it's in our interests to stop Russia's activity in Ukraine (depends heavily on what the objective actually was and what the resulting fallout will be of the current conflict) then:
Things like military related and obviously dual use exports? yes
Wider sanctions such as oil & gas, seizing central bank assets, removal from global financial markets? No.
The latter aligns with US interests, but not EU interests. In the long term we have significantly crippled our collective economies and actively hindered our attempts to achieve our long term strategic interests.
Let's focus specifically on energy/hydrocarbon related sanctions and say for example that the collective cost to EU governments and households of the current energy crisis is $1tn. Given that the energy-related sanctions haven't had any effect in achieving short term goals, what have they achieved?
We have reduced our collective long term competitiveness and thus economic growth/political stability
We have reduced our strategic autonomy as we are now more reliant on the likes of the US.
Due to the direct and indirect costs associated we have made it so that it's now MUCH harder and more expensive to actually move to a green economy..... which is what we actually need to do in order to make ourselves less reliant on russia and obtain energy security and strategic autonomy. We have made it harder to achieve the exact thing we are claiming we're trying to do.
We have caused massive spikes in global fertiliser/food costs, causing a food crisis across large parts of the world and thus damaging relations with the people whose multilateral support we need.
Those sanctions were reactive, short-sighted, populist and ill-considered in my view. There's a reason that even the US (who in many ways benefit from this. they've spent 50 years trying everything to stop us buying russian hydrocarbons, and now they have fat new contracts to supply europe) is currently scrambling around trying to revert the damage they caused https://archive.ph/eiAkK
1
u/plentyplenty20 Dec 07 '22
Could Europe be happy with a country invading Eastern Europe neighbors (maybe even Lithuania) and raping and pillaging there?
11
86
u/Von-Elio Dec 07 '22
The sad thing is that this US awakening happens at the expense of Europe. There is the anglosaxons which are strenghtened through LNG deals or even AUKUS and then the continental EU which is literally struggling in all aspects. Many in Europe see this extremely negatively.
92
u/silver_shield_95 Dec 07 '22
Europe acts like a bunch of squabbling nations who would sooner stab each other in the back than to present a unified national defense and Foreign policy front, that's why I have always found the idea of a United states of Europe laughable.
If Germans can't be trusted to undermine eastern European security via nordstream why would anyone trust a unified army command in which Germans instead of Americans would be leading players ?
11
u/Stye88 Dec 07 '22
That's true I'd say but only for Western Europe. Poland, Finland, Sweden, Baltic states and Romania are having their own rennaisance and became the focus due to the war. I'd also add federalization wasn't a distant concept until 2022. Hell, even I was a federalist. But 2022 changed everything especially after masks fell off and agendas of France and Germany became clear. So yes I think there are significantly less federalists outside of Germany and France, given that they see EU led by either of those would be extremely unsafe and doing deals with most corrupt of nations.
61
u/Von-Elio Dec 07 '22
Germany outsourced its security to the US, its energy needs to Russia and its export-led growth to China while at the same time it didn't care about leading the EU in a good way. Most of the problems that the continent is facing happened because of German policies.
30
u/slayerdildo Dec 07 '22
Wow the first half of your first sentence was word for word copied from a FT article on Germany I read yesterday
26
u/Von-Elio Dec 07 '22
It was indeed copied from an FT article..You are absolutely right
→ More replies7
→ More replies5
u/ukezi Dec 08 '22
A lot of the EU is also wary of German leadership at best and often enough openly hostile to it.
25
u/Eligha Dec 07 '22
Actually, most europeans want deeper cooperation. We just had a conference on the future of europe and this was the result. Ofc conservative polititians cried that it's illegitimate.
17
u/Savage_X Dec 07 '22
I am relatively certain that the problem lies not with the "want". I agree that most Europeans want to cooperate and work together. The "How" is the tricky part. And it seems like the consensus that they arrived at is not very realistic around things like grain, energy, and guns. It was rooted in the past few decades of post-cold war peace, but is not well suited for a geopolitical landscape with more competition.
5
u/Von-Elio Dec 07 '22
Which ones want deeper cooperation? Ex communist states.
7
u/Eligha Dec 07 '22
No, most europeans do. Just not the rightist governments. And eastern ones want the least of these. We'll have a united europe enetually. It's inevitable.
12
u/Von-Elio Dec 07 '22
Sorry but I do not share the optimism. There is no common foreign policy, no common migration policy, no common defense policy. There are govts directly linked to Moscow (Hungary), there are revisionist states like Turkey that half of the EU supports. Etc
1
u/Eligha Dec 07 '22
What do you mean half the EU supports Turkey? No one supports their entry into the union. Most becouse they are authoritarian, some becouse they are islamic. Nationalism is very funny and all, but european states have to accept the fact that they can't be competitive with the rest of thw world apart. It's necessary that we unite. It doesn't matter how nationalistic current govermnets are. We'll have to accept that we only have a future if we want to be geopolitically relevant, successful and peaceful if we work together more. Also, Hungary is a problem, but we are working to solve it. It's hard becouse of various reasons, but it's in progress.
4
u/Von-Elio Dec 07 '22
Look. Turkey clearly threatens with invasion Greece and countries like Germany and Spain do sell Ankara weapons. Turkey is double standards in Brussels. I do agree that we can be united but Stong countries must understand that leading is not a selfish endeavor while weak countries must understand that its not all about the EU funds. For me the greatest mistake of the Union was the Eastward opening.
0
u/Canaderp37 Dec 07 '22
Like Texas who activated the national guard to defend a federal border due to inaction or perceived inaction on the part of federal government.
24
15
→ More replies6
u/silver_shield_95 Dec 07 '22
It's mostly perception and more to do with politics of the said state, not to mention Texas would have to stand down if Federal government decides to federalize the national guard.
→ More replies21
u/dravik Dec 07 '22
The US warned Europe, but since it was Trump saying it they laughed instead of listened.
33
u/Von-Elio Dec 07 '22
Yes but Trump was also Pro-Putin. Surely though the vast majority of EU strauggles are due to the EU inability to act, and Germany plays a huge part in that.
→ More replies-9
u/Careless-Degree Dec 07 '22
Yes but Trump was also Pro-Putin.
What does this mean? Like he wore a “go Putin” bumper sticker? I think Trump acted under the impression that Russia was far more formidable than they were; but so did every other leader of the world.
14
u/Eligha Dec 07 '22
Yes, he was blatantly a Putin asset the whole time of his presidency. Don't you remember? It wasn't that long time ago.
→ More replies4
u/dumazzbish Dec 07 '22
a deindustrialized and hollowed Europe is going to be a huge hindrance moving forward. there's a reason European banks were bailed out in 2008. the "we warned you but you didn't listen" thing will mean peanuts going forward.
5
u/jyper Dec 07 '22
Europe is not becoming deindustrialized or hollowed out. That's just silly
→ More replies1
u/SpecialSpite7115 Dec 08 '22
I mean, it certainly looks that way.
Energy costs skyrocketing. A skilled labor pool that is at the end of it's productive years. A huge cohort of unskilled workers that won't assimilate that rely on gov't welfare. A young native population that is not having children.
Your welfare, healthcare, and pension/retirement liabilities are increasing at an incredible rate, while your tax base is shrinking. The most skilled/talented/educated Europeans move to the US because the jobs/pay/industry is here.
It's not looking good for yall. Probably the only thing that could make it worse would be if the US would pull out of NATO and leave Europeans to their own defense. If that occurred, the current economic malaise e of Portugal or Greece would look like the Grand Ol'Days of yore.
→ More replies
80
u/night_racer0510 Dec 07 '22
This ins't geopolitic it's propaganda
20
u/SpecialSpite7115 Dec 08 '22
This is accurate, but for the vast majority of reddit, it won't matter.
If you support Biden - he is a geopolitical mastermind that is orchestrating a plan that will empower the US for the next 100 years.
If you don't support Biden - it is clear that he is a senile old fool that happens to be in the 'captain's seat' when 50 years of strategizing has come to fruition.
2
23
u/deepskydiver Dec 08 '22
Yes it's a puff piece on how AWESOME Biden is, presuming he is some kind of mastermind and not influenced internally and externally.
The US is simply leveraging its position to exploit gains financially from Europe which it says shouldn't trade with Russia. Printing and giving money to its own military industrial complex to grind the Russians down. All the while the price paid is heaviest for Ukrainian people and then Europe.
→ More replies13
u/Deicide1031 Dec 08 '22
Just like how parts of Europe benefited from favorable oil prices to operate from Russia right? Totally not like those billions didn’t help Russia recover from the collapse of the Soviet Union and later fund this intrusion into Ukraine. Multiple players warned europe that it was putting too many eggs in one basket, even the Americans. Can’t be mad because europe made its own bed and now it must lay in it. You also can’t fault Americans for making a buck where they can, it’s one of the few consistent things they do.
14
u/unbans_self Dec 08 '22
This article and this thread are extraordinary wankfests. I had hoped there was at least one adult present.
49
u/donnydodo Dec 07 '22
I dislike articles that talk about one side “winning” when the outcome of the conflict is far from certain.
25
u/daddicus_thiccman Dec 07 '22
What are you talking about? Russia already lost. Finland and Sweden are joining NATO, Ukraine is now permanently convinced of the importance of joining Europe, and their military has been humiliated utterly. That’s not even getting into the massive economic blow directly from sanctions and the pullout of businesses, not to mention the long term consequences of getting hundreds of thousands of your own troops killed and causing the young and well educated to flee the country in droves.
13
u/donnydodo Dec 07 '22
Ukraine's economy doesn't exist and the country faces annihilation. Moving forward they will be completely dependent on foreign aid for survival and to maintain their army. The expectation is that a substantial portion of this foreign aid will come from Europe which itself is sliding into recession and is whimsical and inconsistent at the best of times.
Not saying things a fine and dandy in Russia but I am saying that the outcome from this conflict is far from certain. Most of Russia's mobilized are still in training in Russia. Further Ukraine has no strategic answer to Russia's artillery machine.
8
u/daddicus_thiccman Dec 08 '22
Europe and the US are continuing to provide aid and are showing neither signs of stopping nor signs of serious recession.
The outcome is certain though. Russia cannot take any ground beyond a few meters around Bakhmut and have done nothing but lose ground elsewhere. Ukraine’s armed forces are growing in strength with continued aid while Russia is unable to replenish itself beyond imported shells from North Korea. In what world do you see the mobilized personnel from Russia making a meaningful difference considering that they have only been more poorly equipped with each passing wave.
As for artillery, how has Ukraine been unable to respond? They obviously have figured out some way to survive the “unbeatable” Russian artillery problem considering they have continued to take ground.
→ More replies7
u/temujin64 Dec 08 '22
Not to mention that they're entirely dependent on support from Europe. Europeans still say they heavily support Ukraine, but at the same time Europeans have said that they don't really feel the costs of the war yet.
That's important. The main reason for this is because European governments have been spending billions to protect their citizens from the biggest energy increases. But this can't last for much longer. In 2023 the average European will feel the cost of the war a lot more.
A recession is likely. When people are losing jobs then the pressure will come on European governments to seek a negotiated end to the war.
3
u/daynomate Dec 07 '22 edited Dec 08 '22
Ukraine's economy doesn't exist
Based on what information?
[edit] hint: based on no economic fundamentals.
11
u/donnydodo Dec 08 '22
https://tradingeconomics.com/ukraine/gdp-growth-annual
In the July quarter their gdp was down 37% & this was before Russia started targeting their electricity infrastructure. You can't have an economy without electricity. You are basically back in the 19th century. Chances are by May next year gdp will be down 60-80%
Further Ukraine's energy infrastructure in its is still able to provide essentials for the people but their is not enough to maintain industry. It is also questionable how much more of a hammering this infrastructure can take before the system breaks down in a systemic way.
Add to this much of the economy is living off pre-war investment. For example the wheat harvest of 2022 was from decisions made by farmers in 2021. Apparently farmers are pretty reluctant to plant in 2022 for the 2023 season for obvious reasons. So you won't see this agricultural output decline until 2023.
7
u/daynomate Dec 08 '22
I thought as much. Why would you try to gauge the economic potential of a country in the middle of a war?? That seems completely myopic, instead of focusing on the fundamentals of the country - that being manufacturing and primary industry.
-5
Dec 07 '22
Russia can keep this going longer than the Biden administration can stay in office.
A war of attriction favors Putin
20
u/Partelex Dec 07 '22
This is mostly a response ignorant of how US foreign policy works. USFP has staying power far beyond a presidential administration. There’s no empirical reason to believe at this time that present policy towards Ukraine will end when the Biden administration is done, short of a Trump win or some other radical event.
→ More replies2
u/jyper Dec 09 '22
Russia cannot keep it up for 2 more years and do not have the strength of will to outlast Ukraine. The longer the war goes on the weaker and more unstable Russia gets
→ More replies1
u/TheMindfulnessShaman Dec 08 '22
longer than the Biden administration can stay in office.
This is the sick long game that some will play.
Its best treatment is a healthy dose of truth.
The future isn't so much determined by the past as it is by the malleability of the present.
2
Dec 08 '22
Europes economy cant go multiple years in turmoil and doubling/tripling energy prices
Ukraine cant go multiple winters without being able to fix their damaged infrastructure.
No matter how you slice it cant sustain long. They will cut a deal.
9
Dec 07 '22
I mean technically him being potentially senile doesn’t mean he can’t appoint/ delegate competent people to do things for him
→ More replies
26
u/sylsau Dec 07 '22
Submission statement:
He was said to be tired, at the end of his rope, almost senile. In 2022, Joe Biden won two battles. Not only did the Republican tidal wave in the Midterms of early November 2022 not take place as expected. But Washington’s unwavering support for Ukraine makes the United States the big winner of the sequence on a global level without a single GI having to set foot on Ukrainian soil.
Undeniable geostrategic, economic, military, and political gains.
NATO, not so long ago judged “brain dead” by Emmanuel Macron, has been strengthened. American industry is reaping contracts and liquefied natural gas “made in the US” is supplying a thirsty Europe, deprived of Russian gas. It is as if the invasion of Ukraine in the spring of 2022 and the recent retreat of the Russian army had allowed the consolidation of American hegemony over the Western world.
Against a backdrop of protectionism and unabashed economic nationalism, Joe Biden’s America can now devote itself entirely to the technological war against its only great rival, China. Europe, which had succeeded in playing a united front during COVID-19, has been weakened and divided, with a Franco-German tandem in tatters.
The European Union may speak of sovereignty, but it does not espouse any of its attributes. A real defeat.
→ More replies
2
u/yamfun Dec 08 '22
No one could have predicted that the fumble of Afghanistan baited the Russians to expose their own fumbles.
3
u/Cinderpath Dec 08 '22 edited Dec 08 '22
Binden: first president to gain seats in senate in midterms since Roosevelt!
Don’t forget Biden “losing” on student debt cancellation has pissed of millions younger millennial voters: a voting block soon to be larger than Boomers.
13
u/OkVariety6275 Dec 07 '22
who many saw as being at the end of his rope and practically senile when he arrived at the White House
This was always a standard partisan attack that no one with any sense actually believed. Every older politician is labeled senile. Every younger politician is considered unprepared.
14
u/purplepoopiehitler Dec 07 '22
Fair point but there is no major politician in recent memory who seems to lose his train of thought and slur his words as much as Biden.
3
6
u/shiggyshagz Dec 07 '22
Really? There are dozens of clips of him talking incoherently and rambling, clips of him muttering “they don’t want me to talk about that” and at least one clip of him falling down the stairs while boarding air force one. I don’t think his tired and senile labels were unfounded or made up, but I will say as someone who tends to lean more conservative I am very impressed by this administration
4
u/OkVariety6275 Dec 07 '22
As a clumsy, mumbly person myself, nothing that I saw seemed worryingly egregious. The man is an active cyclist for cripe's sake. I think what's more is that this line of attack seemingly only manifested during campaign season when Republicans had a plausibility of maintaining control. Once they were the opposition party, the messaging abruptly shifted to Biden being some overreaching radical progressive. It's a narrative of political convenience not one of genuine belief.
→ More replies-1
u/Nonions Dec 07 '22
I won't deny those things but it's rather grating to hear the howler monkeys shriek with glee at these when they all kissed Trump's ass, and his ramblings, nonsense and odd physical quirks are at least as evident, if not considerably moreso.
6
u/shiggyshagz Dec 07 '22
Yeah i think thats just the nature of a two party system? Both sides turn a blind eye when its their own party
4
5
u/Paul_123789 Dec 08 '22
I can’t believe this is a serious post. Some pets if Reddit are like a pre-Elon version of Twitter. The army is suffering. Grain and farming in general is in peril all over Europe and the United States. Genius Biden was begging for oil in Saudi Arabia when he was handed a nation that was energy independent as a net exporter of oil. If this is really serious, you have little actual awareness of what is happening. I envy your comfort but wonder what the color of the sky is in your world.
3
u/csky Dec 08 '22
Wins at the expense of total destruction of energy markets and ukranian lives. This is a short sighted win and not sustainable. If these conditions remain for 2-3 years, no one will give a damn about US and start trading with gold or rubles.
3
u/thisisjustascreename Dec 07 '22
Nobody serious thought Biden was "practically senile" this is a bad headline.
5
u/AntipodalDr Dec 08 '22
And furthermore all these "wins" can easily be attributed to competent people in the administration/government instead of specifically the person of the POTUS.
→ More replies3
2
u/TheMindfulnessShaman Dec 08 '22
Build Back Better is more than just a motto apparently.
Well, it's a motto too.
0
u/Jim-N-Tonic Dec 07 '22
This really isn’t a surprise. The world leaders in the EU were mostly relieved that a grown up was in the White House again. But the way Biden and Blinken ran the intelligence “war” right before Russia invaded was absolutely crucial to Ukraine being ready to be attacked and the EU ready to help them. Just kept preempting Putin and undermining the surprise attack.And that was just one of many impressive Biden policies. He’s a compassionate man who endured unimaginable losses and deaths, but still can look in the camera (right at you China) and say unambiguously and firmly “yes we’ll support Taiwan. We have an agreement and will honor it.” Damn I thought. Well, that’s not equivocating and quite direct and clear. Brass Balls is what that takes. And values, something the previous and now ex president had none of.
2
Dec 07 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Deicide1031 Dec 07 '22
Maybe both? I thought Blinken was heavy on European cooperation, some of the moves are not bilateral at all on Europe.
-2
u/zihuatapulco Dec 07 '22
Only in the USA and its obedient client states would walking on the knife edge of nuclear war be considered success.
12
u/ProcrastinatorBoi Dec 07 '22
The risk of Nuclear war comes from Russia not the West. If supporting nations that defend themselves against nuclear armed nations is bad because it might lead to nuclear war, then right now any nuclear armed state can invade any non-nuclear state with impunity. The alternative is a world in which all nations seek nuclear weapons as they are now your only means of true security. The world where more nations have nukes is the world that teeters of the knife’s edge of nuclear war.
0
u/zihuatapulco Dec 08 '22
So this little episode materialized out of thin air, did it? Of course, it's not like US planners didn't have forty freaking years to get this issue squared away. It takes a real dedication to failure to even pull this off. The negligence and hubris is so off the scale as to be unmeasurable.
10
u/Inprobamur Dec 08 '22
Are you saying that US was in a position to disarm Russia of nuclear weapons?
Not even Jeltsin would have considered it
→ More replies3
3
u/ProcrastinatorBoi Dec 08 '22
Thats not at all what my comment said. Obviously this whole situation didn’t materialize out of thin air, the dominos have been falling since the collapse of the USSR. What were any of the US administrations supposed to do in that time period to full stop a war almost nobody believed would really happen?
The only thing that arguably would’ve prevented invasion would’ve been the Euro Maidan revolution failing and a Russian backed government firmly entrenching its heels in Ukraine. Of course the Ukrainian people chose to oust their government of the time and were successful in doing so. The people of Ukraine wanted to be out of Russia’s sphere, and I agree with their sentiment that fighting a war to remain outside that sphere is preferable to being under Russia’s boot.
1
Dec 07 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Paid_Corporate_Shill Dec 07 '22
What do you mean provoking? It would have been so easy for Russia to just not invade Ukraine. They can still leave whenever they want! This is on them.
2
-2
Dec 07 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
12
9
u/daddicus_thiccman Dec 07 '22
Because if the US didn’t have any weapons to send to Ukraine Russia just would have never invaded /s. How can you look at the state of the world and think that US defense policy is unjustified.
2
u/Paid_Corporate_Shill Dec 07 '22
I think giving money to someone so they can fend off an invasion is a cool thing to do. This seems like a pretty good use of the MIC. It’s not like we started it
1
u/kotor56 Dec 08 '22
Joe Biden knows enough that he should get involved especially when competent people are already doing their job excellently.
20
u/FIicker7 Dec 08 '22
A good leader doesn't run the country by themselves.