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.
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?
Removed by mod
Oh sorry, I didn’t mean to implied you suggested that their plan was annexation, but rather that the general war goal was to topple the Ukrainian govt instead of just keeping the current regions, which was the official war goal from the very beginning. None of the words I’ve found coming directly from the Kremlin seem to support such notion. Apparently Ukraine has already conceded to all but the land demands for an year now. If those demands are all met, is there any reason to believe Russia would escalate the conflict? Remember, this discussion started because of my disagreement with your following statement on the grounds that Russia doesn’t seem intent on controlling any more than the currently annexed areas.
Removed by mod
Considering you didn’t really push back on the basis of the claim that Russia has very little interest in anything but the formally annexed areas, I don’t see why this matters. If Russia needs only to hold onto what they annexed, it’s not on them to match the Ukrainian army, but on the Ukrainian army to match and surpass the Russian defence now. They have more or less been holding on the position for 1 whole year, despite sanctions and economic warfare. And they still mainly only lay claim to the annexed territories and demand Ukraine out of NATO (which I’m pretty sure is already a settled deal) in order for peace talks. So if the ball is in Ukraine’s court to push out the Russian forces off of those regions, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that “Russia can’t match Ukraine” on a stalemate with Russia on a favourable position for so long, with only now some sign of Ukraine retaking the territory. I don’t think it matters too much what speculation we have on what is “going to” happen for the sake of that argument. Also, for the sake of my curiosity, do you want this war to end as soon as possible?
Removed by mod
I would never suggest such hypothetical as it doesn’t even make sense from a geopolitical perspective for either party in my opinion. Neither would ever declare war on each other alone as things stand. My point is that I don’t believe you are correct in saying that “Russia can’t match Ukraine” given that they have achieved their official war goal a whole year ago. Feel free to correct me with some official Russian statement on how they actually want anything more than those 4 Oblasts and Ukraine out of NATO, things that are already well within their grasps.
That seems to be the definition of a stalemate, yes. If the stalemate is ending now, we will only be able to tell in the future. If neither side is making gains due to logistics, strategy or elements outside of their control, I don’t know what to call it other than a stalemate.
Do you dislike Russians as a people or something? That seems like a weird comparison to make on basis of ethnicity alone.
Are the Russian forces supposed to be able to match both Ukrainian and Russian forces now?
But is that more important than ending the war as soon as possible? Can there be no peace so long as Russia occupies the 4 oblasts? In other words, can peace only come if Ukraine wins a decisive victory and not a day before? For the record, I am generally in favour of an immediate cease fire so that negotiations can happen without further spilling of blood.
Removed by mod
I certainly have no side in this war, I only wish for the bloodshed to end however it needs to. I have not even defended Russia from any moral standpoint, and am specifically only arguing about that specific point you made. If you think saying “Ukraine is not winning right now” is defending Russia, you might be conflating (controversial) assessments of war performance with some kind of endorsement for the winning side. Germany defeated France in WW2, doesn’t mean they were the goodest good boys.
Your point does not really stand because 1) I have never mentioned the rest of Europe myself here and am only attempting to understand and correct a possible misrepresentation of the conflict as if Russia is not “matching” Ukraine itself, which would require Russia to be trying and failing to advance in Ukraine rather than defending conquered positions, and 2) Ukraine is receiving a good chunk of material support from NATO and other NATO countries, which should count against the notion that Ukraine is single-handedly blocking some complete Russian advance.
From my very humble understanding, Russia’s official stance is only to maintain their annexation, in which case they already achieved all that they sought to through war, and need only defend their new positions. Can you provide me any source that goes in-depth on how this not true?
The mercs they employ is part of their total forces, but counting a revolt of a corp as some victory for Ukraine seems misguided. Were the mutineer communist soldiers in WW1 in Russia a victory for the Kaiser?
Everything below here is beside the point and tangential.
Taking this rather simplistic chess analogy, Russia controls the parts of the board it intends to, and Ukraine has finally started pushing it back. Either way chess is a terrible analogy because there are no peace treaties in that game and it only ends when one side wins definitively or in a complete draw. Since you like Paradox, it’s more like if Russia currently occupies the the war goal and is just waiting for the war score to go up while defending counter-offensives. Still simplistic, but I believe it is more appropriate. Real life complexities don’t translate well into games though.
Taking your word for these, why exactly is the only way to stop that with direct warfare? Has Russia ever denied the condition of free passage of Ukranians in the 4 Oblasts to the rest of Ukraine in case of a ceasefire? How is soldiers dying in the front materially helping those people? And why does Ukraine not evacuate all of their civilians who want no part in the war if they want to avoid such atrocities?