The report is absolutely scathing. Some choice quotes:

But when the next crisis came, both the US and the governments of Europe fell back on old models of alliance leadership. Europe, as EU high representative for foreign affairs Josep Borrell loudly lamented prior to Russia’s invasion, is not really at the table when it comes to dealing with the Russia-Ukraine crisis. It has instead embarked on a process of vassalisation.

But “alone” had a very specific meaning for Scholz. He was unwilling to send Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine unless the US also sent its own main battle tank, the M1 Abrams. It was not enough that other partners would send tanks or that the US might send other weapons. Like a scared child in a room full of strangers, Germany felt alone if Uncle Sam was not holding its hand.

Europeans’ lack of agency in the Russia-Ukraine crisis stems from this growing power imbalance in the Western alliance. Under the Biden administration, the US has become ever more willing to exercise this growing influence.

  • albigu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Russia can’t even fucking match Ukraine which is being drip-fed surplus.

    Hasn’t Russia been holding on to the claimed regions for almost an year now?

      • albigu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        From what I gathered their demands for a peace deal for a very long time are basically for recognition of the new areas, without added land claims. This would imply that their war goal was just those. Am I incorrect there? Could you provide a source, if so?

          • albigu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            So what you’re saying is that, despite the main demand for peace from Russia not being met for more than an year being that of accepting their annexations, they actually have some other unstated greater war goal? Am I really incorrect in saying that from the very beginning the main Russian demands were the control of the currently annexed lands and Crimea, demands which are still unmet today? Can you provide me any sources for that? Don’t see why it matters so much which side wins in the end for the sake of this argument.

            Also I don’t think “beelining for Kyiv” is such a big tell, as since you are a paradox fan you know that taking a capital is usually a good move even if you don’t intend to control it.

              • albigu
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes and no. Russia did have a greater goal, and now Putin (no “they”, any more) is left with the goal to stay in power.

                Could you please provided me with an extensive source that goes in-depth on this “greater goal”. Googling has not provided me with any in-depth results.

                  • albigu
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m not claiming I know much about Russia, much to the contrary I wish to learn more. Which is why I’d like it if you recommended some trusted source that replicates and expands your analysis because, as you know, the internet is riddled with disinformation. If the speech you refer to it this one, it doesn’t seem to have any issue with an independent Ukraine outside the currently annexed lands. What is wrong in my interpretation there of the war goal then?