On the Ukraine-Russia situation.

My unpopular opinion is that a great deal of the opposing takes on this complex issue can all be true at the same time. This never sits well with those who want such a complex dynamic boiled down into a convenient dichotomy.

So what are these realization? Remember that the truth value of each is not mutually exclusive.

source: legalinsurrection

• The Western world is correct in standing behind Ukraine. They are a sovereign nation with a democratically elected government that was attacked by a neighboring power.
• Putin has an expansionist mindset. We have already seen this in Georgia (2008) and Crimea (2014).

Russia says Georgia war stopped NATO expansion

NATO would have expanded by now to admit ex-Soviet republics if Russia had not invaded Georgia in 2008 to defend a rebel region, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Monday.

https://www.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-60645720111121

Crimea: Six years after illegal annexation

Six years after Russia illegally annexed Crimea, Ukraine lacks the leverage to restore sovereignty over the region, but the West should not accept it since doing so would only encourage Russia to believe it can get away with annexing territory from other countries.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/03/17/crimea-six-years-after-illegal-annexation/

• The invasion of the Ukraine is likely not going to plan. The Ukranians appear to be putting up a stiffer resistance to Russians forces in the north and east of the country in particular. The invaders have made substantial progress in the south.
• Ukraine and Russia are both corrupt countries. Unscrupulous western interests have benefited from this corruption. Nevertheless Zelenskky has served his country well, far better than the last Afghan President that fled the country before the Taliban takeover. He may go down as a modern day Churchill but it is far too early to tell.
• In retrospect a great deal of this problem can be traced back to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum (championed by the US State Dept) whereby the Ukrainians gave up their nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances. Naturally with hindsight this begs the question would Putin have been so fold if faced with a Nuclear armed Ukraine? Methinks not.

What is the Budapest Memorandum and how does it impact the current crisis in Ukraine?

In 1994, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in return for security assurances from Western countries that its sovereignty will be respected from Russian threat. CTVNews.ca looks at the Budapest Memorandum and its impact on the current crisis in Ukraine.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/what-is-the-budapest-memorandum-and-how-does-it-impact-the-current-crisis-in-ukraine-1.5804369

• The Russians have a legitimate claim to being threatened by NATO expansion. Washington would feel the same way if a government hostile to the US took power in Mexico. We already saw this with Cuba during the Cold War. One cannot expect to keep poking a bear and expect it to sit there.
• NATO’s expansions have established a series of trip wires that if triggered could have dangerous consequences. We are on the verge of witnessing that right now. Lets hope this doesn’t come to fruition. Cooler heads must prevail.
• If a No-Fly zone or a red line within the Ukraine is established by NATO it will likely bring the alliance into direct conflict with Russia. The idea should be avoided unless there are no other options. Zelenskyy is pushing for such action but NATO needs to exercise caution. Russia is not Iraq. Moscow for one is a nuclear power. We cannot afford to be cavalier.
• Sanctions will not harm Russia as much as its leading proponents claim it will. To begin with the Chinese will undercut the sanctions and the Russians will find others ways of selling their resources. They will likely use Iran or Venezuela as a way of laundering their oil.
• The war will have many winners regardless of the military outcome. This is a boom for the Military Industrial Complex globally. It also serves the Green Lobby well in the United States who are looking to use the rising oil prices as a way of force a restructure in our energy profile. It has helped the Biden Administration well as it detracts from the administration’s problems on the domestic front. There is an uncanny convergence of selective wins here, I don’t believe it to be coincidental.The establishment always needs a bogeyman and in Putin they have found the perfect character.
• Stinger and Javelin missiles will likely be the saving grace for the Ukrainian forces. We could be seeing the end of the tank as the primary land weapon of war.
• Germany under Olaf Scholz is emerging as the de facto leader of Europe on more than just an economic level. What this heralds for the future remains to be determined but I am heartened to see that the continent as a whole is starting to take greater responsibility for its own security. For far too long they have delegated this role to the US taxpayer. The Germans will likely, by pure necessity, be forced to rethink their ill-conceived anti-nuclear policy.

Inside Olaf Scholz’s historic shift on defense, Ukraine and Russia

The German chancellor’s big moves were the result of pressure, panic and a painful recognition of past failure.

https://www.politico.eu/article/olaf-scholz-historic-shift-defense-ukraine-russia-war/

• The Biden leadership’s handling of the issue has been poor. They claimed to have been aware for a while (months in fact) about Putin’s intentions but do not appear to have acted with any authority in utilizing that information pro-actively. The White House took their time over SWIFT and were hesitant to initiate oil sanctions even though the US had far less to lose than many of its NATO allies. The idea of using Venezuela and Iran to meet oil shortfalls, instead of loosening domestic restrictions, is a move that is both deplorable and morally questionable. It will likely create more folly on the international front. These pariah regimes should not be empowered. Once again the vision from Washington is lacking.
• Enthusiasm for the war is breaking down along class lines in the US. The ‘Chicken-hawk’s in the Establishment (including a resurgent neocon arm) are cheering on tough action. The lower classes are showing more resistance to further involvement which is understandable as they will likely bare the cost of any high level decision making. Ukraine should not be allowed to become a meat grinder for American lives.
• Upping military supplies though to the Ukrainians on a go forward basis makes sense. The Ukrainians need to bog down the Russians as much as possible in a war of attrition. They may not win on the battle field but they will succeed if they force the cost beyond the acceptable Russian tipping point. This happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan.
• Reporting on war deaths is very much source dependent with figures differing by a factor as high as ten. Making a judgement on these values should be contingent on the acknowledgement that such an evaluation carries with it a high degree of error. This is rarely spoken about by the various talking heads framing a particular narrative.
• The refugee crisis, rather than the advancing Russian forces, is more of a concern to the surrounding NATO countries at this point in time. Indeed the crisis may be Putin’s best method of destabilizing the NATO front.
• I have no idea how this will end but it would not shock me if the going gets rough that the Russians cut a face saving deal, brokered by the Western powers, that will also boost the public relations images of the NATO leaders, making them look more competent than they really are.