‘Yes, He Would’: Fiona Hill on Putin and Nukes

.

Read my posts. There were four more, in my reply, prior to the one you quoted. Also, I addressed your argument, in that first reply. I'm sorry it took so long to get back to you, but I got tied up in other arguments, and I frankly was not looking forward to the job of gleaning through my old posts, and then trying to transfer all the material, on my phone. For me, this is a time-consuming, and frequently troublesome, procedure.

Anyway, the point is, I have had the same position, for a year. I still don't know what you mean by, "negotiate with Putin." I addressed that in my first reply. I never said I was against negotiating. I only said that there were some lines, that should not be crossed, in trying to appease Putin. Do you consider having any firm conditions whatsoever, de facto unwillingness to negotiate? You've never clarified that point.

 

Why don't you clarify on what exact issue you are disagreeing with me about. Since that was a week ago, and you disagreed with my characterization of the posts you made today, maybe we don't have any serious disagreement.

 

Are you kidding-- you don't remember, or it's too much trouble to look back, a few posts? There are NO posts, in between your last questions to me, and my replies. In fact, except for about a half a dozen short posts, the entire 12th page of this thread, is your & my disagreement.

But I'll humor you. I said that it was unacceptable, as it would undermine the underpinnings of international law and order, to allow the leader of one nation (Putin), to dictate the international alliances of another. So Putin's demand of barring Ukraine from NATO, was appropriately rejected, & should remain off the table. That's the only stipulation I ever made, and yet you took that to mean that I was against negotiating (and wanted war). Hence, your position, was that we should allow Putin to call the shots as far as other nation's international agreements. If he can do it with Ukraine, why not any other nation, on or near Russia's borders? How big of a step is it, from barring membership to NATO, to barring it from the EU? And, from there, to dictating from whom, other countries have to buy their natural gas (for instance)? For Russian security reasons, of course.

You can't expect Putin, or any dictator, to be reasonable, once we have already catered to any of their unreasonable demands

 

Well if that issue is non negotiable for you, don't worry. Putin is likely to either win the war outright or put enough pressure on Zelensky to get his way. Zelensky is starting to move that way already.

Ukraine's Zelensky says he has 'cooled' on joining NATO

I'm even more convinced that if these issues had been negotiated with earlier, we could have avoided this war, but here we are. Now Putin is still likely to get what he wants, but he will have killed a lot of people in the meantime.

 

There is nothing in your article to make any reasonable person even speculate, that Ukraine might change its constitution, to prohibit itself from making any military alliances, which is just one of the several demands, Putin has made, for the fighting to stop. Less than that, will not be acceptable. The way that Russia approached negotiations, prior to war, made it blatantly obvious that Putin does not negotiate. So when you advocate for "negotiating," you are in reality only saying that we should roll over to Russia's demands.

The other conditions, by the way, were acknowledgment, by Ukraine, that Crimea belonged to Russia (just like that-- what a great "negotiator!"), and that the Donetsk & Lugansk regions are now independent-- that is, until Putin decides that he has reason, to get more concessions, so brings his troops back to the border.


I guess you don't subscribe to the precept: you don't "negotiate," with a gun to your head.

 

Heh, he has a gun to his head now!

Anyway, OK. If you think this way (the war) is better than my way (pre-war negotiations) than I doubt I'll do anything to change your mind. The end result will be roughly the same, only with a high causality count.

 

The only thing that allows you to think of your way as superior to what I have laid out, & which the Allies are following, is because you are focused on the same, short timeline, as had Neville Chamberlain.

Sure, Russia says, "No NATO for Ukraine," and we answer, "you got it, Vlad, whatever you want-- we don't care that our Charter guarantees that all nations are welcome to apply for membership; we'll just change it for you! Because any compromise is better than anything that leads to 'casualties.' It's not like interfering with peoples' self- determination, we consider as making casualties of democracy and international law. We have no principles, that we have the spine to stand up for. Screw Ukraine. Is there anything else we can do for you?"

And yes, you are correct, for a brief time, Russia has got what they wanted, without anybody, "getting hurt." But if you really believe that a reaction like you advocate, would not embolden Putin to go for way more than he'd ever dreamed of, then you are the one, who's dreaming.

Eventually, we're gonna reach a point, when even you are going to say, "that's too much!" The only difference between our approaches is:
your way, we've already shown our words & ideals to be just meaningless, hot air; and we've already made all kinds of compromises to Putin, which: A) will have strengthened Russia's position and, even more consequentially; B) will have destroyed any good faith trust between the allies, who would, at that point, need to finally try to stand up to Putin.

My way, we never let things get to that ugly point. We show our true colors from the outset, letting Putin know what he can get away with, and what he can't. Even if you want to base your assessment, strictly on casualty count-- in the long run, my way is going to be less costly.

 

As I said in post #287, "Now, is Russia a trustworthy partner? No. Do they eventually break all of their agreements? Yes. But we have continued to enter into agreements with Russia, and before that the Soviet Union, because they provided space and time to stabilize situations."

Any agreement with Russia is not forever. Eventually they will cheat, just as they did in every arms control agreement we made with them. Is the lesson to never have any agreement with Russia, or to understand they are time limited?

Meanwhile, "your way" of standing up to Putin is what Biden did. He stood up to Putin, and Putin invaded. The truth is you don't have a way of standing up to Putin except for sanctions. Since we've played that card, what else have you got?

 

Nope. Not a bit.
Putin has his plan.

 

Agree.
Since you posted nothing.

 

Only if we one is full of Shiite.

 

And, as I'm sure that I have already explained, sanctions work gradually; they take time.
Think of the way a boxer breed operates in a dogfight: it doesn't bite & tear at the flesh of various parts of its opponent; it only snaps it's jaws over the other dog's snout & mouth. Then it just clamps down, and waits.
This doesn't produce the quick & flashy results, of tearing open another dog's throat or guts, but it is just as sure to bring the other animal, ultimately, to the same end.

If you will forgive my saying so, you are not good with recognizing what situations are, and are not, analogs. In the example you give above, of the U.S., making a deal with Putin-- as I also explained, earlier-- we would maintain a lever of force over them; there was an immediate consequence, which we could wield, if they broke their end of a deal.

We have never merely trusted them. If they came across NATO's borders, there were troops awaiting them, there. If they broke any kind of arms agreement, we always could do so, as well, which they did not want us to do. So, we always provided a strong INCENTIVE for them to stick to an agreement.

In this case, since your whole pitch on why we should have been more deferential to Russia, was supposedly to avoid conflict, what lever would we hold over Putin, that would de-incentivize his returning with troops to Ukraine, if we had promised to not let them join NATO, and so guaranteed that there would be no American troops in Ukraine, in that future, when even you say, you'd expect them to break their word? How would we have gained anything, if we were to merely find ourselves back, again, in the same position?

 

So when do the sanctions we imposed after Russia annexed Crimea start to work? And how many years from now will the sanctions we imposed this year to protest the invasion of Ukraine start to work?

If sanctions are your only card to play then we are done. We've done all we can, and now Ukraine is on it's own, correct?

 

First of all, they have obviously begun to work. But the actual withdrawal of troops comes at some point in their working, depending on the stubbornness & resolve of the leader. Most leaders, by this point, would have conceded, because we already have made this not worth the cost. And yet, if Putin is willing to pay such an exorbitant price, you can hardly blame the sanctions.

They are not, however, anywhere close to being exhausted. The Biden Admin and NATO, if you have been paying attention, have been adding more, on an almost daily basis. The thing is, that these sanctions will also have an effect on us, and on certain of our allies, in particular, so we are not going balls to the wall, at the start. It is much closer to A turn of the Screw, to slowly ratchet up to the necessary point. Again, if you'd read the 6 posts I'd provided, in answer to your question about had I always had the same attitude, I know that I addressed this idea, already.

So think of having a rusty mechanical part, or a really dirty cooking pan, that needs to soak in some solution, in order to loosen up the binding material. The sanctions are that solution. While you are soaking whatever it is, that solution is working on the problem; that does not mean that the rust or grime is immediately eliminated.

Or, in this case, it might be better to think in a chess analogy. This is like when it is clear that one player (the West) has effectively won the game, even though he has yet to checkmate the opponent's king. Most world class players recognize this, and just concede, at that point, rather than go through the slow process of the other player stalking his king, removing every avenue of escape. Yet-- and I have done this, myself-- there are some players who will want to play things out, to the bitter end, in the hopes that the other player will make a mistake, allowing one whose goose was rightly cooked, to claim a draw (stalemate). This is, more or less, where we are, now, though Putin may be deluded enough to believe that he can still, actually win. Nevertheless, we have to keep playing this out, for as long as King Putin wants, or is able, to.

 

The history of sanctions against authoritarian regimes isn't very good. They will cause the common folks a great deal of pain, but Putin will be just fine. So check back with me in a decade or so and let me know how those sanctions are going.

 

If we last that long. I like your optimism though.

Russia-Ukraine latest news: Russia kills 35 in attack on military base used by foreign soldiers

https://uk.yahoo.com/russia-ukraine-latest-news-russian-225051124.html

At least 35 people have been killed after Russia bombed a large Ukrainian military base near the Polish border that is used by some foreign soldiers.

Regional governor Maksym Kozytskyy said that 134 people have been wounded in the airstrike on the Yavoriv military facility on Sunday.

The military base in Yavoriv, located some 40 kilometres (25 miles) northwest of the city, was a training centre for Ukrainian forces with foreign instructors, including from the United States and Canada.

It is understood that foreign military instructors were present at the base, which is about 12 miles from the Polish border. The victims’ identities remain unclear.

 

Two problems with your assumptions. First, the current sanctions already have gone farther than ever before against Putin's Russia, so you can't use history as a guide, there. While sanctions were harsher against Iraq, and did take years to work, during that time, the regime was crippled, not conquering large swathes of the Middle East so, again, that would really not be an accurate analogy.

And it can be very misleading to try to apply past circumstances, to present conditions. Trying to do that, in fact, was a large contributor to the devastating loss of the French, at Agincourt (15th cent.). There had been another great battle, years earlier, in which the fact that the French had stayed on horseback in trying to mount their charge, was their downfall. The conditions at Agincourt were different, and a mounted charge would have served them far better. But their minds focused on the debacle from recent history, and they tried to learn from their lesson. Therefore, they dismounted and began walking slowly, in their heavy armor, toward the English who, for this battle, were equipped with longbowmen, who launched fusillade after fusillade at the French.

The result was that King Henry's force of less than a third the size of the French armored force, wiped them out. IIRC, the French losses were around 6,000, while English losses were about 400.

Also, you forget, sanctions are not the only weapon fighting the Russians; so are the strongly- resolved Ukranians, who we are feeding weapons, as fast as we can. I do regret that we haven't yet gotten the jet fighters to them. By the time we do, it will be too late to use them for the mighty blow the Ukranians could land, were they to have enough fighter support, to allow bombing runs, over that 40 mile Russian caravan, which had been an exposed, slowly writhing worm, begging to be eaten up, by aerial attack, but which should, by now, should be finally reaching Kiev.

If you look in the thread about the jets, I speculate that I think the Biden Administration is actually afraid of what Putin will do, to Ukranians, if they actually start winning the battle. So this may have played a role in slowing things down; or maybe the loose- lipped European politician who let this plan become public is what put in all the speed bumps.

But, it seems like Putin is planning to use chemical and/or biological weapons, anyway, so I supported the transfer of jets. Biden is probably more concerned with the possibility of nuclear weapons, being used on the Ukranians, by Russia. And, even if he is being especially restrained because of this, it is hard to fault a leader for being "overly- cautious," when nuclear weapons might potentially come into play.

Other than using banned substances, or bombing the city into the ground, a conventional assault on Kiev would seem madness. Maybe they'll go old school, & just try to starve them out.



P.S.-- I almost forgot: the second big problem with all your assumptions, is that none of us, can know the future. There are numerous things that could happen, to change the dynamics of the situation, markedly. We just have to stick to our guns, for now, and react, based on how things develop. One thing is for certain: if NATO troops were in Ukraine, they would be kicking the Russians' asses; but this would greatly increase the possibility of Putin's deployment of tactical nuclear weapons, on the battlefield, which would hold the potential of spiraling into a larger, nuclear conflict.

 

Not sure what that has to do with sanctions but...OK

 

As much as I appreciated your tour down memory lane of Henry V, that has nothing to do with anything in the Ukrainian issue we're talking about. Ukrainian longbowmen won't be saving the day. In fact, it still looks like the Russians will win regardless of aid we provide. Putin may end up getting what he wants long before the years required for sanctions to work (if they ever do).

 

@Lil Mike

BTW, if you didn't see it-- I added an additional paragraph to my last reply, beyond what you had quoted.

 

I hope that whoever he gave such an insane order to would disobey it, and ensure he didn't give the order to anyone else.

 

MAD has evolved with social media. It's now exclusively assured destruction, by the world. Putin sees that Western leaders are getting close to being able to fully mobilize their populations against him based on just the footage from what he has done in Ukraine thus far. Even if he was able to first strike the US without suffering a single casualty, it is obvious now, the world would destroy him.

 

How is biden better than President Trump? Is biden better because you enjoy higher prices (inflation, gas, and goods) more illegals (bidens open southern border) less security (putin never invaded Ukraine when President Trump was in office)???
Please explain what I missed because when President Trump was in office life was better for the people around me.

 

trying to blame higher prices on Biden is ridiculous, the higher prices are due to a global pandemic and us not being able to get the supply of imports we need, it's a supply and demand issue - it's the Pandora's box of depending on excessive amounts of imports

Trump weakened Ukraine with his quid pro quo nonsense and made NATO seem less united, Putin noticed

2020 was a good year for you and those around you?

 

This one too.

Trump supporters and How they really feel.