The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
International Criminal Court Issues War Crimes Arrest Warrant Against Vladimir Putin
The charge is the crime of illegal kidnapping and deportation of Ukrainian children.

Earlier today, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin and one of his underlings, for the crime of kidnapping and deporting Ukrainian children. Here is the ICC's official announcement of the charges:
Mr Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, born on 7 October 1952, President of the Russian Federation, is allegedly responsible for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population (children) and that of unlawful transfer of population (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation (under articles 8(2)(a)(vii) and 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute). The crimes were allegedly committed in Ukrainian occupied territory at least from 24 February 2022. There are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Putin bears individual criminal responsibility for the aforementioned crimes, (i) for having committed the acts directly, jointly with others and/or through others (article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute), and (ii) for his failure to exercise control properly over civilian and military subordinates who committed the acts, or allowed for their commission, and who were under his effective authority and control, pursuant to superior responsibility (article 28(b) of the Rome Statute).
Ms Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, born on 25 October 1984, Commissioner for Children's Rights in the Office of the President of the Russian Federation, is allegedly responsible for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population (children) and that of unlawful transfer of population (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation (under articles 8(2)(a)(vii) and 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute). The crimes were allegedly committed in Ukrainian occupied territory at least from 24 February 2022. There are reasonable grounds to believe that Ms Lvova-Belova bears individual criminal responsibility for the aforementioned crimes, for having committed the acts directly, jointly with others and/or through others (article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute).
Pre-Trial Chamber II considered, based on the Prosecution's applications of 22 February 2023, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that each suspect bears responsibility for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population and that of unlawful transfer of population from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation, in prejudice of Ukrainian children.
Russia (like the US and China) is not a party to the treaty establishing the ICC. But the Court can claim jurisdiction based on the fact that the relevant crimes were committed in Ukraine, and Ukraine has accepted the ICC's jurisdiction.
The abduction and deportation of thousands of Ukrainian children is one of the most horrific Russian war crimes in Ukraine. But it's also just the tip of a much larger iceberg of Russian atrocities in this conflict.
So long as Putin remains in power, it is unlikely that either he or his senior subordinates will actually be tried and convicted for their crimes, except perhaps in absentia. They certainly aren't likely to face meaningful punishment. But pursuing the issue of Russian war crimes is still desirable for reasons I outlined in a previous post on this subject:
Despite the strong—and growing—evidence against Putin and other Russian leaders, the odds against trying and convicting them for war crimes are long….
But there is still value to pursuing the war crimes issue, including by investigating offenses and laying the groundwork for potential indictments and trials. First, there is some chance, even if small, that Putin will lose power if the war goes badly enough for him. History—including Russian history—has plenty of examples of despots who lost their grip on power after defeat in war.
Second, even if it turns out to be impossible to try and punish Putin, the same may not be true of other Russian officials and military personnel. Ukraine has taken many Russian prisoners, and some of them may be perpetrators of war crimes. Other Russian officials and military officers could potentially be arrested and detained if they travel beyond Russia's borders in the future. For that very reason, they might choose to avoid such travel. But that denial itself functions as a modest (though far from properly proportional) form of retribution.
Finally, emphasis on the war crimes issue can help maintain opposition to Putin's war in the West, and continue to mobilize international opinion against it. The criminal nature of the enterprise is one of the reasons (though certainly not the only reason) why the war has drawn so much international opposition, and turned Russia into a near-pariah state.
None of these admittedly modest gains will be anywhere near as satisfying as a Nuremberg-style tribunal in which Putin and other high-ranking Russian officials get tried, convicted, and punished. Sadly, such proceedings are usually only possible if the regime in question is overthrown. But we should not let the best be the enemy of the good—even the modestly good.
In the past, the ICC has sometimes been criticized for focusing primarily on various African despots and war criminals, often after they have already lost power. This has led to accusations that they are unwilling to go after major powers. Today's arrest warrant for the leader of one of the world's most powerful states is something of an answer to that critique.
Finally, the issue of child abduction should put to shame those Western social conservatives who sympathize with Putin because of his opposition to "wokeness." The large-scale brutalization of children and separation of families should outweigh any possible common ground on things like transgenderism or pronouns. Those who turn a blind eye to the former because of the latter cannot credibly claim to be defenders of "family values."
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I assume he's allowed to go to the UN in New York because the US does not recognize ICC jurisdiction. In countries that recognize ICC jurisdiction, does head of state immunity still apply? Will the Russian armed forces go nuclear to rescue him?
"Will the Russian armed forces go nuclear to rescue him?"
ICC is in Holland. The unionized Dutch military couldn't stop Putin's mistresses from rescuing him, ask the Bosnians.
Fun fact, US has a law authorizing the President to attack the Hague if the ICC tries to prosecute US service members.
"couldn’t stop Putin’s mistresses from rescuing him"
Rescued by his mistresses. Sounds like a Bond movie plot. I imagine a young Barbara Bach storming the Hague.
Mmmm, Barbara Bach…I imagine her too.
Agent X? Surely you jest. The hottest Bond girls, in order, are as follows:
Mayday
Honey Ryder
Everyone else ties for third
I was always a Pussy Galore guy myself.
Yes… but, again — mayday
Kara Milovy
Natalya Simonova
Holly Goodhead
Solitare
Don't forget all the airspace he'd have to cross to get there. Signatories are obligated to arrest, it isn't optional . Presumably any country in between could force his plane down.
"The first flight over the North Pole was achieved on June 18, 1937, by Soviet pilot Valery Chkalov. He flew from Moscow, Russia to Vancouver, Washington, a distance of 5,475 miles (8,811 km), in a Tupolev ANT-25 aircraft."
As long as he stayed out of Canadian airspace, Putin could do this -- he may have to land in Alaska to refuel and then head a couple hundred miles offshore to avoid Canadian airspace south of Alaska (probably going for LAX would be his best bet) and then the hop to JFK.
He would have to avoid Canadian airspace: https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-welcomes-iccs-decision-issue-arrest-warrant-putin-2023-03-17/ -- and this would create turmoil in NORAD.
The wild card is a third party attempting to arrest him on the "high seas" (international airspace west of Canada) and that would mean firing on state-owned aircraft, an act of war.
Does that also apply to an unmanned aircraft flying in international airspace, I wonder?
Waiting for Clinton, Bush and Obama arrested for the bombing and droning of millions of innocent people in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan.
"Millions" is quite the overstatement.
Either way, genocide is quite a bit worse than collateral damage.
And don't "forget" Trump, who ordered more drone strikes in his first two years than Obama did in his eight.
But, in all of these other cases, there does generally need to be an indictment before an arrest can be authorized. Was there?
Even better - arms merchants who provide the drones and bombs.
This could get messy if a 3rd country forces down his airplane.
That's already a separate violation of international law under the various treaties that govern international air travel. No country is going to say: we care about international law so much we are going to break it to follow it. Besides, Putin's aircraft has about as much chance of complying with such a demand as air force one does.
Putin knows that any country that wasn't already willing to shoot down his plane is going to do it because he refuses their demand to land.
There is precedent: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/belarus-ryanair-diverted-flight-leaders-condemn/
This isn't a serious concern. Countries will either assure him he'll remain protected by head of state/diplomatic immunity or he won't go. The idea that a country who wouldn't be willing to arrest Putin before on a visit would be willing to commit to not arresting him and then break that commitment isn't plausible. No one thinks that's what international law requires.
The consequence is at most that he doesn't personally visit certain states/conferences. Shrug. You can always hold summits in places that promise not to arrest him.
Don't forget "False Flag"
We STILL don't know who blew up the pipeline.
I'm thinking more about a Yamamoto -- any number of rogue states shooting his plane down under the auspices of this. It would *not* be an act of war because of the ICC warrant.
Well, I guess we can add “diplomacy” and “international law” to the topics you’re completely ignorant of.
This feels somewhat like Al Capone ultimately going down for tax evasion.
Even by your standards, kind of an strained tangent to go from kidnapping to transgenderism for your daily 'lets turn whatever random thing I'm talking about into a trumpbashfest or a diatribe on how conservatives are just as bad'. Might as well say a proopen borders advocates and gender neutralists are hypocrites for supporting zelensky since he's preventing foot voting for the men in his country
Aren't you the one bringing up Trump? Sure, I think it's probably a subtweet (subblog?) of Carlson but if you don't believe that Trump/DeSantis/etc.. are sympathizing with/minimizing the crimes of Putin why bring him up?
Hell, I'm on the left and while I hate Trump and DeSantis and think they are letting their desire to criticize Biden push them into a mistaken critique on Ukraine even I wouldn't put them in the bucket of people excusing Putin's crimes because he's anti-woke nor assume that this line was about them.
Worthless virtue signaling but for the ICC it is totally on brand.
What they really should be doing if they had any balls is going after china since there really isn't anything thats been more international in decades than COVID.
What violation of international law was "COVID"?
Germ warfare.
No matter if it was bats or labs, once it got out, the Communists deliberately allowed it to spread internationally by locking down internal travel while allowing travel to other countries to insure everybody's economy went to hell, not just theirs.
I was asking a sane person.
We're probably about to go into a "no true Scotsman" cycle, but I'll adopt LTBF's indisputably correct factual point re China's asymmetrical/backwards travel freeze so we can hear your attempt at a benign explanation.
Let's suppose that LTBF's description of what China did were 100% accurate. In what way would that constitute a violation of international law?
Before I spend any time fetching you rocks, let's nail down the endgame. You're taking the position that it's impossible--under any circumstances--for it to be so?
This is a spectacularly bad idea. How do you negotiate an end to the Ukraine war with war crimes against Putin waiting in the wings? Do these people think at all? The only way Putin leaves is feet first.
It gives Ilya a tortured segue to rant how much he hates people who want to slow down a bit on the mutilation and drugging of children. Totally worth all the potential deaths and destruction.
It's a negotiating point. Ukraine wants its territory back, a trillion dollars in reparations, Russia disarmed, and lots of war crimes prosecutions. Russia wants half of Ukraine for itself, a puppet government in the disarmed other half, and lots of war crimes prosecutions. I do not expect either side to get all it wants.
I recall once looking over the ICC statute, and and if there was a provision for pardon or amnesties, even as part of a peace deal, I missed it.
National governments repose the pardon power somewhere, and this generally includes the power to grant amnesty, especially after a war or as part of a wartime settlement.
But not, it seems, for this international tribunal. It seems their process can grind on and on regardless of the terms of any peace treaty.
Can any legal eagles fill me in if I’m missing anything?
The ICC doesn't answer to any government, so it is unlikely to turn a blind eye to heinous crimes just because it is asked to do so by one government or another.
Some might consider that to be a good thing.
So, no pardon power for international crimes to correspond with the President’s power to pardon federal offenses in the U. S.?
No possibility of an amnesty as part of a peace deal, even if the alternative is continued war?
“[The ICC] is unlikely to turn a blind eye to heinous crimes just because it is asked to do so by one government or another”
I find that a bit difficult to believe. The decision to *initiate* (or not initiate) proceedings is different from an amnesty. We know of the political tendencies of prosecutors in the U. S., would an international bureaucrat in the Hague be made of superior human materials to his/her U. S. counterpart?
The only end I can see is when they are driven back to the 91 borders. Then negotiations can commence as to how much reparations they owe, whether they can exist as a contiguous nation, how the occupation zones will be set up, and what form any future governments take.
How does this make negotiation harder? It might even make it easier. Putin would never ever agree to a settlement that involved him leaving power and as long as he's in power he's not going to be prosecuted. Sure, some people worry it would look too bad to reach a deal with a war criminal but the Ukraine war has been covered too much and is too close to the rest of Europe for this to make a difference. The public knows who Putin is and what he's done so I don't really see how the official charge makes a difference.
Now, if Putin somehow loses power then things get more interesting. But this charge might actually make the situation easier if that happens. Whoever performs the coup gets to eliminate their political rival and restore Russia's diplomatic status all with a good cover story for the international community (can't really criticize arresting a war criminal can they) and without the complications/blowback of having to execute someone who may still have substantial support.
Yup.
You think Putin is interested in negotiating?
He's waging a war of conquest, the only way he negotiates is if his army collapses and Ukraine retakes its territory.
I wasn't saying anything of the kind. If he's not interested in negotiating ever then it follows trivially that this didn't make that solution less likely.
The thing to be aware of he isn't interested in negotiating, but he is interested in stalling in the hopes that a pro-Russia GOP candidate wins the 2024 US election and kills US support for Ukraine.
So on that count I hope this reduces the pressure on Ukraine to "negotiate" because all a cease fire does is run out the clock and give Putin a better chance of outlasting international support for Ukraine.
"Finally, emphasis on the war crimes issue can help maintain opposition to Putin's war in the West, and continue to mobilize international opinion against it."
Yes, it's certainly in the interest of a UN Security Council member like the U. S. to bypass the major-power veto and allow some other body to usurp the Council's functions.
well said!
Hmmm... Sure sounds like a strawman! I followed the link, to see if Prof. Somin actually found one such "social conservative." Nothing doing -- it's a Wall Street Journal column by Walter Russel Mead, who (1) is not a social conservative, (2) does not support Putin. (And he doesn't name any such "social conservatives" either.) In conclusion: my initial hunch was right -- Prof. Somin is setting up (& knocking down) strawmen.
A "libertarian's" work is never done! Not until the last "social conservative" strawman has been knocked down!
Putin is a strident opponent of speech. His critics keep falling out of windows. Cancelled with a capital ‘C’. With no due process. He has a persecution complex related to mistreatment of the Soviet communists.
He’s sorta woke on his own.
Remember, less than a decade ago the left characterized criticism of Russia and Putin as ‘80s foreign policy.
Putin has become another symbol in America’s Great Trump War. There’s a presumption, real or not, that Putin and Trump are aligned somehow. That’s all the left needs to know - they hate Putin because Trump. Which is all the current right needs to know - they must reflexively oppose the left in everything. Russia/Ukraine included.
I would certainly like to learn about the *actual* Putin apologists in America, so I can avoid their insidious propaganda.
Tucker Carlson.
“Why shouldn’t I root for Russia? Which I am.”
“It may be worth asking yourself… why do I hate Putin.. Has Putin ever called me a racist? Has he threatened to get me fired for disagreeing with him?” – a long monologue implying Putin isn’t a bad guy…..the very eve of his invasion of Ukraine (leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, the kidnapping of children, etc., never mind the numerous journalists and dissidents he ordered to be murdered prior to that, but nothing to hate there, according to the leading douche on Fox “News”.)
I’m not exposed to Carlson’s propagands since I don’t watch him. So I’m safe from his insidious remarks, except of course the one you quoted.
It’s clever of him to riff off of Ali’s comment “no Vietcong ever called me a [bleep].” Here’s some more of Carlson’s speech:
“Why do I hate Putin so much? Has Putin ever called me a racist? Has he threatened to get me fired for disagreeing with him? Has he shipped every middle class job in my town to Russia? Did he manufacture a worldwide pandemic that wrecked my business and kept me indoors for two years? Is he teaching my children to embrace racial discrimination? Is he making fentanyl? Is he trying to snuff out Christianity? Does he eat dogs? These are fair questions, and the answer to all of them is no. Vladimir Putin didn’t do any of that.”
Like Ali, Carlson thinks the establishment is trying to divert him into a foreign war to distract from its own wrongdoing.
Then the Hot Air summary says he said the following:
“Carlson then described Russia’s incursion into Ukraine as a “border dispute.” The host claimed that President Joe Biden is indebted to Ukrainian oligarchs and stated that Ukraine is a tyranny, explaining that the main opposition leader is in jail and said the country’s president has banned certain opposition TV stations.”
https://hotair.com/headlines/2022/02/23/why-do-i-hate-putin-so-much-has-putin-ever-called-me-a-racist-n450458
Borden incursion is not correct. But is the stuff about Biden and Ukraine right or wrong?
If Carlson actually said he’s rooting for Russia, then of course that would make him pro-Putin, but as I said, I don’t listen to him so I don’t know if he said that or not. But I’ll certainly avoid such remarks and continue not-watching such propaganda.
"Like Ali, Carlson thinks the establishment is trying to divert him into a foreign war to distract from its own wrongdoing."
I'll grant it's clever of you to try to compare Ali and Carlson. But Ali was a man of conscience who made sacrifices for his principles. Carlson is a propagandist who sacrifices principles for his profits. They could hardly be more different. Though, Carlson apparently has charisma, though I can't discern it.
"Borde[r] incursion is not correct."
Not correct is putting it mildly. In truth, it was just another of his lies in the service of his propaganda.
"But is the stuff about Biden and Ukraine right or wrong?"
Wrong.
Carlson makes up everything, or, as with the Capitol tapes, so selectively shares the truth as to turn sort of true statements into outright lies. That is very much the case with these spurious allegations of Carlson's.
I’m just interested in avoiding Russian propaganda. I keep hearing about it, but since the war started I haven’t seen it, unless it’s some kind of insidious subliminal propaganda. But if this Carlson fellow is in favor of Putin – in the sense of thinking he’s a good fellow whose war effort must be supported – then I will avoid his propaganda, just as (for example) I would avoid the propaganda of someone who promotes a war on behalf of some country with which America previously had no alliance, formal or informal.
You appear to be ignoring DeSantis, Carlson and a number of other Putin fans.
You're also ignoring Don Trump's child-theft, which lots of Xians and your fellow revanchists cheered on.
Which actually explains why "social conservatives" are totally on board with this. Xians have a long history of child theft, it fits right in.
Speak English.
Yes the czar was bad to people 150 years ago and Trotsky lost to Stalin. There you go the reason the US foreign policy elites (who are overrepresented by those with Russian and Eastern European ancestry) want a regime change in Russia. They desire is of course a cosmo "globalist" trotky leader of Russia. All hail the EU, Goldman Sachs, and Zelinsky. Ukraine has zero strategic interest to the US...Putin is a thug but he isn't Stalin...
Let’s set aside any interest in the general protection of democratic regimes from seizure by foreign dictators and consider the more concrete interest we have in supporting Ukraine.
1) We (along with the UK and ironically Russia) signed a treaty with Ukraine promising to protect them from foreign aggression in exchange for them giving up their nukes. We benefit greatly the more countries believe they can trust our commitments and this is about the minimum we can do and not take a massive hit to our credibility.
2) We spend about 1.7 trillion on defense a year. We’ve contributed about 30 billion so far to Ukraine or 1.7% of one year’s budget and lost no US personal. In exchange for that contribution Russia has lost, conservatively, over half of it’s total fighting power.
Given that a huge chunk of what we spend that 1.7 trillion on each year is about deterence/matching Russia it’s hard to even imagine a better return on investment for military dollars. Do you think Russia or China would pass up the chance to sacrifice 1.7% of a year’s defense spending to deplete our military capacity by 50%?
And remember, the weaker the Russian army is the less we need to spend countering them with weapons development and troops in Europe, and the more we can move to naval/air/marine programs needed to counter China (counterfactually, if Ukraine fell/had fallen leaving Russian forces intact we'd need even more troops in Europe to protect Poland and other NATO countries).
Thank you, Peter. Very well and concisely stated explanation of the U.S.'s vital interests in defending Ukraine from Russia's attempt to annihilate them as an independent, democratic, Western-leaning country.
And you manage to show, convincingly, what an ignoramus DeSantis is for, apparently, failing to grasp these rather simple points of foreign policy. Alternatively, DeSantis isn't an ignoramus but he thinks anyone who would vote for him is, so he'll pander to the stupidest among them rather than, well, lead.
Wow, nothing like a bit of abject simping over a post riddled with basic factual errors to start off the weekend. And bonus points for pivoting into Desantis Derangement Syndrome in the very same post!
It's the opposite of clever to call any criticism of your heroes X-derangement syndrome.
What DeSantis said is stupid. Russia invaded a sovereign country with the goal of conquering it. The war in Ukraine is not a "territorial dispute" any more than Germany's invasion of France was a territorial dispute.
the DS part goes to you gratuitously pulling him into a conversation that had nothing to do with him at all. But I know you knew that.
You think potential US President Ron DeSantis' recently expressed views--effectively abandoning Ukraine in its valiant struggle against Russian imperialism--has "nothing to do with" this conversation?
Can you think of another prominent US "social conservative" who has a notable focus on opposing "wokeness", as Ed had highlighted?
1) The Budapest Memorandum did not obligate the US, or anyone else, to protect Ukraine. The largest obligation the US had was to seek UN Security Council action to provide assistance.
2) The US passed $50 billion in Ukraine aid by May, 2022. We're now somewhere around $100 billion, depending on how you value things. As a comparison, that's about two-thirds of Ukraine pre-invasion GDP.
Also, Russia has not lost anywhere close to 50% of its military. Between 50,000 and 100,000 dead, out of 1 million under arms. Equipment losses have been worse, especially among the most modern vehicles, buy still far less than 50%. I don't think you realize how much stuff the Soviet Union left sitting around.
While I agree that exposing and damaging the Russian military is a good thing, especially when it happens 'over there', I don't think there is any vital US interest in doing so - especially when dealing with a nuclear power run by a dying insane man. It's a lot like 1980s Afghanistan.
And that only "if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used."
Speaking of errors: Putin has threatened Ukraine with the use of nuclear weapons.
(And, of course, Russia has violated basically every provision of the Budapest Memorandum. The other nations, as signatories, do have contractual, ethical, and moral obligations. Sure, the Budapest Memorandum does not contractually obligate the U.S. or England to provide military aid. But, if it contains no obligation of any sort but to seek UN Security Council action, then that obligation is entirely illusory as the only likely aggressors (or nations allied with them) would have a UN Security Council veto, as Russia does now.)
The point remains, Ukraine was given assurances. The U.S., England, and the rest of Europe ignoring what Russia is doing violates precisely the moral obligation they incurred in encouraging Ukraine to give up their nuclear weapons. The U.S. has an interest in ensuring that those who give up nuclear weapons feel secure after giving up the weapons. In short, Ukraine can either be an example to every country with nuclear weapons why they should never give nukes up, or Ukraine (and our support of them) can be an example of how the West, at least, will step in to ensure you don't lose your country when you make that bargain. But the eagerness to walk away from Ukraine is most prevalent by the same people who wanted to walk away from the Iran deal after the down payment had been made, U.S. credibility as a negotiating partner be damned (and never mind Iran unsurprisingly proceeded to accelerate its nuclear program).
Unlike Trump or P.T. Barnum, there aren't an unlimited number of dupes for us to screw over. There are only 200 some nations and much fewer of those that really matter in a geopolitical sense. They see what we do and learn whether they can trust us. Republicans, lately, seem intent on ensuring that we are entirely unreliable. That's how you piss away power.
South Vietnam was already an excellent example of why not to trust the US, and Libya proved why countries with nuclear weapons programs should not give them up. The Iran 'deal' was terrible to begin with, as it merely kicked the can down the road a little while throwing away billions of dollars and decades of pressure (and expenditure of political capital to maintain that pressure). If you want to talk about pissing away trust, think about the allies in the Middle-East the US betrayed with that 'deal'.
Ukraine was given assurances, which don't include much of anything. You feel sympathetic, so you've invented a 'moral and ethical' obligation that isn't spelled out anywhere - and that's great for you. But that's bad policy for a country.
If the US considers maintaining the Ukraine as an independent west-aligned nation a vital interest, then it's reasonable to give major military support, or even deploy troops.
But you need to actually consider US interests and balance them against the risks, rather than just say "I feel bad, so I'll risk WW3". And that's what there has been very little debate about.
"South Vietnam was already an excellent example of why not to trust the US."
The lesson of Vietnam wasn't one of trust. It was an example of how to defeat the militarily superior United States. (For us, it should have been an example of why we should't carry the load in fighting someone else's battle. Before you jump on that, with our troops. The Ukrainians are doing the fighting, which is as it should be. You can give people tools, but, ultimately, you can't fight their battles for them. Well, except maybe the French in WW2, we kind of did fight their battle for them. jk, France, jk.)
Libya is a so-so example of why you shouldn't give up nukes. The U.S. did not, nor did anyone else, invade Libya. Rather, there was a civil war and then various western countries put their thumb decidedly on the scale. Would Libya have nuked France? Maybe. But it is fundamentally different to lose your country to a civil war (against which nuclear weapons aren't very useful) and to lose it to a foreign adversary (against whom nuclear weapons are a deterrent).
The Iran deal was what could be accomplished with the world's major powers (P5+1, i.e. US, UK, Russia, China, France, and Germany) (Japan, excepted, I suppose). Yes, Israel didn't like it, but what alternative did they or Trump manage? Saudi Arabia maybe didn't like it, though all I see is they wanted to be consulted. An effective deal requires Russia and China. In place of the deal, we got nothing. Again, nothing minus the down payment from which we walked away. We didn't piss away anything by making the deal. We never promised Israel veto over our foreign policy. We did demonstrate that we couldn't be trusted to stick to any deal because internal politics trumps, pun intended, our national interest.
"Ukraine was given assurances, which don’t include much of anything."
Again, you advocate the United States just pissing away any semblance of reliability. I know we made you think we'd have your back, but good luck with your Russian adventure!
"And that’s what there has been very little debate about."
Actually, that's precisely what the debate is about and why people who actually know things about foreign policy know there is something between committing U.S. troops to Ukraine (thereby risking WW3) and abandoning Ukraine to fend for themselves. Even Russia understands that providing military weapons and logistical support is not the same as actively engaging their forces, given they've done the same for our enemies. Proxy wars are a thing.
As I said elsewhere, there's a reason Ukraine has not been striking Russia on Russian territory and it's not entirely about capability. We've set limits in order to minimize, practically eliminate, the possibility of WW3. Ukrainian troops advancing on Moscow, well, that changes things. So we and our allies are taking great pains not to escalate things. China wouldn't support expansion of the war under these circumstances. Russia can't lose China.
South Vietnam did not fall because the US was militarily defeated. The US destroyed the Viet Cong, and nearly destroyed the NVA. North Vietnam signed the Paris Peace Accords in January 1973, and the US pulled out. North Vietnam invaded again in 1975, and took Saigon in a few months - because the US had stopped selling fuel, parts, and ammo to the South Vietnamese government, which was absolutely dependent on US support. That was an open and clear betrayal.
In Libya, Gaddafi shut down the chemical and nuclear weapons programs at US insistence, and allowed the UN to oversee their destruction. But as soon as it was convenient for them, the US and its allies launched a war "to protect" the rebels, and left Gaddafi tortured, sodomized by a knife, and dead in a ditch.
Do you think the US would have done so if Libya had nukes? Or even a chemical stockpile? Well, let's ask North Korea. I'm sure our "duty to protect" the starving citizens has done wonders there...
"Actually know things about foreign policy" - Huh, who would that be? You haven't demonstrated it, and you obviously are claiming I don't know anything. Can you back up your assertion with something substantial? Remember, the State Department is full of experts that have been confidently wrong about the world for decades.
Want to listen to Henry Kissinger? He's supposedly an expert on the topic, without a doubt more than you or I. He's made a few statements on this topic; I'm sure anyone that knows anything about foreign policy has heard of them.
And finally, since you haven't noticed, Ukraine has been attacking inside Russia's borders, and Russia has been escalating steadily - including firing missiles at NATO aircraft, and the recent drone downing. Thankfully no deaths so far, but it hasn't been as safe and calculated as you try to claim. It's chaotic and dangerous, and you really need to think rather than feel.
And finally, since you haven’t noticed, Ukraine has been attacking inside Russia’s borders
Uhh, yeah, because Russia is launching attacks from inside Russia's borders.
Though unlike Russia Ukraine has been sticking to military targets (or targets with significant military value).
and Russia has been escalating steadily
Not really. Russia has been about the same level of escalation since day 1. Bomb Ukrainian cities, play chicken with NATO airspace and aircraft (they were doing this before the invasion), and make vague Nuclear comments.
– including firing missiles at NATO aircraft
Huh?!?
and the recent drone downing.
Crappy Russian pilots overdoing it.
Thankfully no deaths so far, but it hasn’t been as safe and calculated as you try to claim. It’s chaotic and dangerous, and you really need to think rather than feel.
Have you noticed that Russia, despite having nukes, has been very careful to keep the Nuclear rhetoric in check?
There's a fairly obvious threat for Russia to play "if we start to lose on the battlefield we'll have to pull out the Nukes!!"
Yet they've not only avoided this threat, Putin has actively downplayed it.
The problem is that Russia has realized it's completely outmatched by NATO. IF they tried a Nuke against Ukraine the likely NATO response is the use of NATO air power to destroy the Russian forces in Ukraine.
If they tried a limited Nuclear assault against NATO that would also likely fail since NATO's anti-missile capabilities are too strong.
The only way for Russia to actually hurt NATO is to attempt a full out Nuclear holocaust. But not only is that classic MAD... it might not even be MAD since NATO's anti-missile capabilities might be good enough to win conventionally.
So Putin's escalation capabilities are limited since he has far more to lose in a full conflict. Putin's only winning play is to drag out the war until 2024 when he can maybe get Trump or DeSantis into office in the US and hope that they kill US support for Ukraine and the rest of NATO and Europe aren't able to pick up the slack.
“South Vietnam did not fall because the US was militarily defeated.”
Perhaps, but South Vietnam did not survive because the US wasn’t militarily victorious either.
“That was an open and clear betrayal.”
Accepting that characterization for purposes of this discussion, then you agree that the United States ending support for Ukraine would be “an open and clear betrayal”?
But as soon as it was convenient for them, the US and its allies launched a war “to protect” the rebels, and left Gaddafi tortured, sodomized by a knife, and dead in a ditch.
The US didn’t launch any war in Libya. The civil war was well underway, with Gaddafi having lost roughly a third of the country, including the second largest city (Benghazi) to rebels, before the Canadians showed up, followed by American and British cruise missiles. You seem upset that Gaddafi, who tortured and sodomized, probably with sharp objects, thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Libyans, was tortured and left dead in a ditch. And you’re so upset, that you baffling claim the U.S. left Gaddafi “tortured…and dead” though the U.S. and its allies didn’t have anything to do with his torture or death, unless by “left Gaddafi tortured…and dead” you mean they have some moral culpability via being part of the causal chain in his defeat by rebels in a war already started. It’s not clear what you would have had the U.S. do to prevent the rebels torturing and killing him.
“Do you think the US would have done so if Libya had nukes? Or even a chemical stockpile?”
As noted, the U.S. didn’t do any of what you claim they did. Would the U.S. have given support to the rebels via cruise missiles and air power had Libya had nukes? Probably not, but that also partly depends on how things had gone. So, again, a so-so example as nuclear weapons don’t prevent a civil war which is what occurred in Libya.
Want to listen to Henry Kissinger?
Sure. Here’s what he says:
I don’t much care for Kissinger, but even he sees the obvious. Now that Russia has started a war in Europe, they must lose.
“including firing missiles at NATO aircraft,”
You’re resorting to making things up. Like the U.S. “launch[ing] a war” in Libya, this is simply not true. A Russian jet accidentally fired a missile while near (but beyond visual range of) an RAF jet. They didn’t fire at the RAF jet.
Unlike Vietnam, the US did not tell Ukraine it would protect it, nor that it would sell supplies, or anything other than what was listed: Appeal to the UN for assistance.
So, not, it would not be a clear betrayal.
As for Libya, trying to play word games to pretend the US launching military action didn't matter because there was already a rebellion is just silly. The US invented a new doctrine to voluntarily participate in a war that it had nothing to do with. Gaddafi would probably not have lost without US and European joining the fighting. And it is unlikely that anyone would have been willing to join the fighting if Gaddafi has controlled any nuclear weapons. And trying to debate the details does not hide that you are 100% failing to address that point: Libya gave up its nuclear weapons program, and the US&Friends took advantage of that to make sure he lost. Do you think any other would-be ruler with nuclear ambitions is going to review that situation and say "Oh, the US is trustworthy, and I should give up my programs, because they supported Ukraine"?
As for Kissinger, I notice you're only quoting part of his statements. Not the part where he recommends limiting involvement, or the part where he suggests only aiming for a return to pre-war territory, or the part where he warns against any desire to render Russia 'impotent', and suggests that a cease-fire followed by a referendum would be better than continuing the fighting. Quite opposite from what you suggested: that he says "Russia must lose".
If Ukraine WERE to join NATO, then the US would have a clear obligation to protect its territory. But that isn't the case now.
And finally, perhaps you are such a wide-eyed innocent as to believe that a Russian fighter "accidentally" pulled up behind an RAF signals plane and then "accidentally" fired an air-to-air missile that "accidentally" passed underneath the RAF jet, and the RAF was neither targeted nor in danger. But if you really believe that, I suggest you stop participating in this discussion at all, because you are way too credulous.
But, like your response about Libya, you playing word games to try to minimize the dangers of the actions you endorse is not good argument.
I love how you're going through here and writing book-length posts trying to prop up OP's post you randomly fawned over. I love even more the attempt to massage "are used" into "might someday be used." Keep digging.
As opposed to you who say nothing useful.
You’re the one massaging.
“if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.”
Are you trying to say they just repeated themselves by meaning the same thing when they said “act of aggression” and “object of a threat of aggression”? Or are you trying to say that “a threat of aggression” is somehow not an actual act of aggression despite nuclear weapons being actually used (i.e., detonated on Ukrainian territory in your interpretation)?
The only sensible reading is that threats to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine also trigger the signatories’ obligations. Be smarter.
Poppycock. There are plenty of more precise words in the English language they could have chosen to use if they wanted to be clear that the obligation could be triggered by a threat in which the actor merely mentions in passing in some semi-random context that he DOES have a nuclear arsenal, ya know (or, in this circumstance, whatever sort of even more attenuated, cloud-gazing interpretation of "nuclear threat" you may be getting at).
What they instead chose to say is that it's limited to threats in which the nuclear weapons "are used."
If I walk up to you, hold a gun to your head, and threaten to shoot you if you don't give me your money, I've used a gun to threaten you.
If I walk up to you and say "give me your money or maybe something really bad will happen to you someday -- I've got quite a collection of firearms, ya know," I haven't used a gun to do squat.
If I say "I have an SS-27 trained directly on the center of Kiev -- surrender immediately," I've used a nuclear weapon to threaten you. Not whatever sort of inferential, little birdie told me so crap you're appealing to.
And zoom out for a second: we're debating the interpretation of imprecise language that -- even under your interpretation -- only gives rise to "seek UN Security Counsel action." So you're a full two levels away from the confident pronouncement of your new-found friend (who, you may have noticed, has had zero interest in defending his initial loosey-goosey comment and has left you to try to clean up the mess).
It's a bit more complicated than that. Yes, we insisted on the usage "security assurance" not "security guarantee" as both Clinton and Bush wanted to be clear we weren't making a legally binding commitment to go to war. However, at the same time it's clear that we were making a political (though not legally binding) assurance to do something more than just not invade them and less than article 5.
Regardless of the language I think it's clear that not helping would have a negative effect on our credibility regardless of what was intended.
"Russia has not lost anywhere close to 50% of its military. Between 50,000 and 100,000 dead, out of 1 million under arms. Equipment losses have been worse, especially among the most modern vehicles, buy still far less than 50%. I don’t think you realize how much stuff the Soviet Union left sitting around."
You're wrong. Over a month ago, Russia had lost upwards of 40% of its tanks and likely already 50% of its best tanks, forcing them to reach into Cold War stocks. Of course, the fighting in Bakhmut has been intense, so undoubtedly that number has gotten worse.
And simply counting dead Russian soldiers obviously severely undercounts the manpower lost. Casualties are roughly 3-4 times dead. Meaning, if your 50k to 100k numbers are accurate, then casualties are 150k to 400k. And, several weeks ago, the estimate quoted by The Hill 60k-70k killed and up to 250k killed or wounded. Add in those fleeing the country or mentally unavailable, and you're getting fairly close to half their pre-war personnel.
But, the equipment is the bigger issue. They are depleting their artillery, have lost half or more of their modern tanks, and similar story with other equipment. While it may not be precisely 50%, it will be by the end as they can't replace their equipment very quickly.
And, at the end of the day, it's still dollars well spent to weaken Russia and send a useful message to other would be aggressors against democracies. The free world stands together or it falls. Reagan understood this. Trump and DeSantis, obviously do not.
You'd think the reference to the Soviet Union, which you quoted, would be indicative of the not-modern equipment I was talking about.
So, I'll say it again, in simpler words: Russia has lost nowhere near 50% of their equipment. The Soviet Union left them entire divisions of equipment that are currently unused and can be made available for use in Ukraine. Russia's modern equipment is being used up quickly, but you're just as dead if you're killed by a 1970s artillery shell as you are if blown to pieces by a 1990s era shell.
Russia has proven itself far weaker than expected, but they are anything but helpless. And at the same time, if you actually think Ukraine falling to Russia would the fall of the "free world", you are insane. It would be a political inconvenience, primary a matter of concern to Georgia and the Baltic states. The US would face reputation loss... but there's not a chance in Hell that Russia would send troops marching through Germany, and you're a looney if you think there is.
Somehow, I believe journalists like those at the Guardian and The Hill, and the sources they quote, than your ipse dixit. They explicitly accounted for the stockpiles of old equipment. That's why I pointed out they had lost roughly half or more of their modern tanks and over 40 percent of their entire stockpile of tanks, including the old Soviet era tanks.
Artillery shells aren't equipment, they are ammunition. But it's a fair bet they have used up more than half of those stockpiles. The Russians are running short of ammo just as the Ukrainians are. If they had it, they would be using it now to take Bakhmut. Instead, they are attacking gunmen with shovels due to the lack of equipment and ammo. (The poor schmucks are being used as cannon fodder to determine Ukrainian firing positions and, in the unlikely event they aren't shot, to dig positions for subsequent waves of cannon fodder.)
"And at the same time, if you actually think Ukraine falling to Russia would the fall of the “free world”, you are insane."
Nobody said that. Don't be stupid. But the question isn't what the world looks like on March 19 if Ukraine surrenders today. The question is "what does the world look like going forward?" There is one fewer free country. Russia is stronger. The U.S., Germany, England, and NATO writ-large look and are weaker. The alliance of free countries worldwide is weaker, which would embolden China. Taiwan and all their semiconductor production would likely be next.
Again, we should have learned from World Wars 1 and 2 that letting wanna be empires across the ocean do their thing, including invading peaceful neighbors, is not a thing that works out well. The whole point of Chamberlain as an example of how not to conduct foreign policy with respect to unfriendly, authoritarian, expansionist regimes, is that he made a historically daft strategic error by thinking Germany could be satisfied by the restoration of some of its colonies.
Trump, DeSantis, and the like seems to think Putin will be satisfied by the "restoration" of Ukraine as a colony of Russia. Only a fool thinks that's true. Trump is one, so may actually believe it. DeSantis isn't a fool, so it's actually more concerning that he pretends to believe it (personal ambition over the national interests, always for him).
OK, great, you accept the unsupported claims of journalists you like over that of some other guys online. Fine.
According to CIA Factbook, again, Russia has more than 1 million active duty troops, and another 2 million in the reserves. Plus another 5 million men in the current draft range of 18-27.
There is no chance of Russia running low on manpower.
As for tanks, pulling up GlobalFirepower and Janes for quick checks, shows estimates of 13000 modern tanks, and 'tens of thousands' of older tanks. Plus tens of thousands of APCs, self-propelled artillery, etc.
Oryx claims more than 1000 Russian tanks destroyed, with another 500 or so captured or otherwise lost. Even using their low estimates of 'operational' vehicles, that's between one-quarter and one-third of modern equipment.
Again, this was simply a correction of your wild exaggerations of Russian losses. I'm not sure WHY you feel so obsessed with your inflated numbers, but they just aren't accurate. Also, the Ghost of Kiev was real.
You: "The free world stands together or it falls."
I'm not sure how else to interpret you here. If the "free world" doesn't "stand together" and support Ukraine as you want, "it falls". Are you saying these arguments are just hyberbole?
Between your inflated claims and your apparent hyperbole, it isn't clear what you are arguing as fact anymore. Would you like to try again, this time without any of the wild substance-free material?
Having been caught out as wrong, you are now trying to transform the claim that Russia has lost half its war fighting power into has lost half its manpower. That's neither honest nor convincing.
"Even using their low estimates of ‘operational’ vehicles, that’s between one-quarter and one-third of modern equipment."
Um, since you cite Oryx, let's see what Oryx says...
So they've potentially lost 2/3, but certainly a half, of their usable tanks. (I say certainly given this is an estimate from early February and the number has undoubtedly grown substantially since then.)
Yours are the inflated numbers (of tanks they have), mine are well sourced. (Another source, quoted in the link below, gives the number of moth-balled tanks as up to 5,000.)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/15/russian-army-has-lost-up-to-half-of-key-battle-tanks-analysts-estimate-ukraine
"I’m not sure how else to interpret you here. If the “free world” doesn’t “stand together” and support Ukraine as you want, “it falls”. Are you saying these arguments are just hyberbole?"
I already explained. Read this again: But the question isn’t what the world looks like on March 19 if Ukraine surrenders today. The question is “what does the world look like going forward?” There is one fewer free country. Russia is stronger. The U.S., Germany, England, and NATO writ-large look and are weaker. The alliance of free countries worldwide is weaker, which would embolden China. Taiwan and all their semiconductor production would likely be next.
When you misinterpreted my statement as predicting what would immediately follow a loss in Ukraine, I corrected you. At this point, you are willfully misinterpreting what I said.
Check the record. You are claiming, contrary to your own source (Oryx) that Russia hasn't lost 40 percent of its modern tanks. You claimed the U.S. "launched a war" in Libya. Nope. You claimed a Russians have been "firing missiles at NATO aircraft" which is an embarrassing embellishment. One missile was fired, not at a NATO aircraft.
And there's more, but, yeah, you don't get much right.
Oooh, boy. Lot to unpack with your obsession with exaggerating Russian losses, in some strange attempt to distract from you lack of support for other arguments.
I've not been caught out being wrong on anything here, yet, despite you repeated absurd claims. There have been several posts about Russian casualties already, including by you, so stop trying to pretend I'm "transforming" anything but making it clear that your arguments there are anything but blatantly incorrect.
For example, your mention of Oryx's data here clearly while ignoring other sources of data to ignore the estimate of originally 13000 Russian tanks, with low estimates for operational numbers being at least 8000.
Why didn't you mention the other sources I pointed to? See, I'm willing to cite Oryx as a source for Russian losses, because they're one of the few sources for that and are more reliable than Russian or Ukrainian press releases, but I'm going to trust the CIA Factbook, Janes, and other traditional trackers of the Russian military overall equipment totals and readiness rates. Oryx gives a methodology for counting losses (social media review) but nothing for their "3000" operational tanks. Again, I'll trust the government intelligence agencies over social media viewers on this topic. Why won't you?
As for your "well source" quote, you're ignoring the fact it very clearly says it's talking about modern tanks, and does not include Soviet-era tanks. In fact, it refers to the cold-war era stockpile as "still sizable".
As for your suggestion that the free world will fall if the Ukraine does, even your own justifications don't suggest that. You suggest "looking weak" and "embolding China". That's a far cry you 'the free world will fall' rhetoric. And incidentally, since you're being snippy about words again, I never said "immediately", so attacking for saying something I didn't (because you misunderstood) is yet another poor choice of arguments to make.
When it comes to willfully misinterpreting, I'm going to suggest you look in a mirror. You have repeatedly tried to play word games, and altered statements, while pursuing a nitpicking obsession with almost irrelevant numbers. You were wrong about your initial claims of Russian losses, and you've gotten worse as this thread has gone on. Your ignorance and dissembling about the other points raises has also moved from "argument" into "outright false". Again, playing word games about Libya or the fact that the Russians have already fired on a NATO jet (Yes, the UK is a member of NATO, since you seem to not know that) does actually distract from the point that your arguments (about US reliability and reputation, or Russian escalation) fail. Just like your claim that Ukraine was not attacking Russian territory failed.
To go back to the beginning of this subthread - Russia's losses are nowhere as severe as you make them about to be, and Russia could still defeat Ukraine even with continued US assistance.
Oh, also:
Why do you keep bringing in Trump and DeSantis? I've never mentioned them. If you have a problem with their statements, take it up with them.
If you're trying to use it as some sort of guilt by association thing, I'll just point out that Hitler was also big on fighting the Russians.
Of course, any rational person would consider that an idiotic argument.
Because they are the Republican front runners for 2024 and, so, two of the biggest names pushing the narrative you're buying. It's worth everyone reading this to be reminded how dangerously wrong they are.
"I'm buying", huh? Impossible for me to have a thought of my own, then?
As you admit here, this is quite clearly you trying the idiotic "guilt by association" thing, and pursuing your 'argument' for unrelated domestic political reasons.
You Hitler lover.
So, I’ll say it again, in simpler words: Russia has lost nowhere near 50% of their equipment. The Soviet Union left them entire divisions of equipment that are currently unused and can be made available for use in Ukraine.
I heard that almost a year ago, turns out that fields of tanks left to rust and get picked clean by corrupt logistics groups aren't that easy to restore to service.
Russia’s modern equipment is being used up quickly, but you’re just as dead if you’re killed by a 1970s artillery shell as you are if blown to pieces by a 1990s era shell.
That's also a point, but not a useful one.
A HIMARS and an M1955 (built in the 50s) are both a single piece of equipment. One is notably more useful to an army.
Russia has proven itself far weaker than expected, but they are anything but helpless.
Nope, but they're still easy enough for Ukraine to beat if aided with a small fraction of your military budget.
And at the same time, if you actually think Ukraine falling to Russia would the fall of the “free world”, you are insane. It would be a political inconvenience, primary a matter of concern to Georgia and the Baltic states.
Hmm,
You can be the country with a loyal and grateful Democratic Ukraine as an ally.
Or you can be the country who let a friendly Democracy be conquered and subjected to genocide because you were too cheap to help out.
I really can't fathom what's going through your head.
In any case, helping an enemy deplete 50% of its best weapons at little cost to us (even if they still have plenty of the obsolete stuff) is probably still a worthy expenditure. I haven't run the numbers, of course.
This.
Where's the end? How many billions need to be sent to Ukraine, for how many years?
If all you want to do is use some puppets to wear down a political rival's military, that's pretty disgustingly immoral in and of itself.
And what makes you think that Ukraine would be "loyal and grateful" or "democratic" (assuming you meant a small 'd') or even an ally, for long? Take a look at the history of the government there, and how it's vacillated during the past decades.
As for what's going through my head, it's very simple: "Is this worth it?" You, and NOVA Lawyer, seem to care for nothing but your own feelings. And to assuage those feelings, you'll happily sign up tens of thousands of foreigners to die. All for the low cost of someone else's money, too.
If all you want to do is use some puppets to wear down a political rival’s military, that’s pretty disgustingly immoral in and of itself.
No. What we have expressly stated is that we want to assist a nascent democracy avoid being swallowed its totalitarian neighbor for multiple reasons, including respecting their right of self-determination. One beneficial result of Russia's folly is the destruction of their own military. The primary point is to avoid Ukraine being anyone's puppet.
Do try to keep up.
You, and NOVA Lawyer, seem to care for nothing but your own feelings.
You keep saying things like this, but you're the one over emotional, failing to base your arguments on actual facts and sound reasoning but instead on hyperventilating fear ("firing missiles at NATO aircraft"!!!). myself has set forth very cogent arguments as to why the U.S. has an interest in defending Ukraine and all you have is your fear of WW3. And, yes, the leaders of the U.S. and NATO have discussed that, another fact of which you don't seem to be aware.
you’ll happily sign up tens of thousands of foreigners to die.
Who are we signing up to die? The Russians are signing up Ukrainians to die (both by starting the war and how they are conducting it). The Ukrainians are fighting the Russians rather than capitulating (which appears to mean, to you, that Ukrainians are signing up to die....which is a weird way for you to look at it). You want the U.S. to help Ukraine lose the war quickly so fewer Ukrainians die in the short run? Talk about arguing from fact-free and logic-free emotion.
In the list of countries responsible for "foreigners" dying in the Ukraine war, the United States isn't even on the list.
Wow, the utterly lack of self-awareness in your post here is truly remarkable.
You literally just replied "This" to a post celebrating using Ukrainians to die fighting and killing Russians right before you suddenly try to pretend that you're on some sort of general moral principles.
And now you're accusing me of being "emotional" when I'm not the one arguing for moral or ethical obligations, rather than treaty obligations. You hand-wave about "nascent democracies", and then ignore the facts I cite (when you don't just outright put your fingers in your ears and deny them) to claim I'm not presenting facts. Right.
Finally, you are clearly claiming that without US support, the Ukraine will lose - which would obviously stop the fighting. When you give a side in a war just enough support to keep fighting but not win, then you most certainly are contributing to their deaths. Solely responsible, no, but contributing. Don't confused about those words again, like you have so often elsewhere.
When the CIA first started supporting Afghanistan rebels against the Soviets, the CIA did not want the Soviets to lose. The idea was to keep the fighting going, in order to kill more Russians. It wasn't until later, when oversight found out and said "That's fucking evil" that the program was changed to give enough support to actually drive out the USSR.
And this half-assed support we're giving Ukraine falls into the same category.
As for what’s going through my head, it’s very simple: “Is this worth it?” You, and NOVA Lawyer, seem to care for nothing but your own feelings. And to assuage those feelings, you’ll happily sign up tens of thousands of foreigners to die. All for the low cost of someone else’s money, too.
Are you serious? We're talking about an attempted genocide.
Yes, genocide. Russia is deporting Ukrainian children to be adopted by Russian families, often murdering the parents first. They are banning kids from speaking Ukrainian in occupied territories, they are trying to erase the Ukrainian identity.
What the hell is wrong with you that you'd abandon a people to genocide and then act like you're doing them some kind of favour?
Just to clarify I didn’t claim that it had lost 50% of it’s forces (maybe it has dunno). Rather that it’s capability to fight was degraded by 50%. That’s different. As you run down stockpiles of munitions, wear out equipment, and lose officers etc your ability to effectively work as a fighting force diminishes over and above any direct losses.
Russia has had to spend a bunch of money and use stockpiled rounds and has drawn on the pool of able bodied men it has available and diverted money from weapon development to fighting this war. All of those withdrawals make it less able to project force in the future.
Also, remember that not all tanks guns etc work all the time. They need to be repaired and maintained. As the war both destroys some vehicles and requires the use of others that ratio shifts and fewer of your units are fully capable and more of them need service.
(I know you didn't say this but got lost in thread)
First, Ukraine's prewar GDP was $200 billion, so it's more like half. But comparing our aid to their GDP is meaningless. The return is maintaining a free country, weakening Russia, strengthening NATO and the alliance of free nations, and deterring China from similar aggression against Taiwan.
Second: "It’s a lot like 1980s Afghanistan." Um, yeah. The Afghan war was a disaster for the Soviet Union and it undoubtedly contributed to the USSR falling apart. So, if it's like 1980s Afghanistan, that's all the more reason we should support Ukraine. Let Putin destroy himself by picking a stupid fight.
Of course, we shouldn't make the same mistakes we made in Afghanistan in the 1980's when we encouraged the radicalization of Afghans, somewhat dimwittedly not realizing that religious zealots fighting the infidel wouldn't be our friend either. But Ukraine doesn't have the same inherent conflict with western values that 1980s Afghanistan had.
According to the CIA Factbook, Ukraine's 2019 GDP was "$155.082 billion (2019 est.)" That looks a lot like $150 billion, and not much like $200 billion. Would you care to give your source for 2019's GDP being $200 billion?
Afghanistan was an embarrassment for the USSR. But had the US done nothing it still would have been one, and the USSR still would have fallen. Did it contribute? Sure! Everything did. But you'll notice the aid the US sent to Afghanistan was a) covert, and b) fairly minimal. Total funding was between $2 billion and $3 billion in the '80s - less than $10 billion today.
If the first aid package from March 2022 was the only thing sent to Ukraine, I doubt you'd see much objection. Rand Paul, probably. But the US is way past that, and very public, and openly supporting the enemy of a nuclear power. That's a risk Afghanistan never brought the US.
Finally, if you really think that the independence of Ukraine is so vital to US interests that it must be secured, then stop playing around with Ukrainian lives and advocate for sending US troops in. If the US gets directly involved, the war will be mostly over in weeks.
Assuming everyone doesn't die in a nuclear holocaust before that, of course.
“Would you care to give your source for 2019’s GDP being $200 billion?”
$200.09 billion in 2021, to be precise. Worldbank. (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=UA)
“Finally, if you really think that the independence of Ukraine is so vital to US interests that it must be secured, then stop playing around with Ukrainian lives and advocate for sending US troops in. If the US gets directly involved, the war will be mostly over in weeks. Assuming everyone doesn’t die in a nuclear holocaust before that, of course.”
You answered your own question. Sending U.S. troops in to directly fight Russian troops is inviting nuclear holocaust. Nobody in the world, particularly including Putin and China, sees supplying Ukrainians with weapons as the same thing as sending troops. It’s why we have been adamant that Ukraine not attack Russia on Russian soil, but merely push them off Ukrainian land.
But you are definitely smart enough to know that. In fact, you said it. Which makes me wonder why you even raised the point which you knew was easily refuted.
Wow, yeah, I'm going to say "no fucking way did the Ukrainian economy grow 25% between 2020 and 2021 during COVID", and take the CIA Facebook as the last reasonable estimate. Rather than the 2022 GDP, which is estimated to be -50%, too.
It's beginning to be obvious you aren't parsing my arguments. So, once again, I'll try to restate for you:
If you think that protecting Ukraine is vital to US interests, why are you pursuing a path that drags the fighting out for years, kills tens of thousands of Ukrainians AND still might not succeed?
If you really think that it is essential to US interests, then why aren't you willing to risk war with Russia? Do you really think that Russia will do nothing if they lose in Ukraine?
Or do you think that Russia might use nukes if US troops are involved but not if the same thing is accomplished through US armed and trained foreign puppets?
So, which is it? Do you think this IS a vital US interest, or not?
Or do you think that Russia might use nukes if US troops are involved but not if the same thing is accomplished through US armed and trained foreign puppets?
That's what basically everyone thinks. And what Putin has encouraged everyone to think. But, given you claim to know things, you know the Soviet Union and the United States have carefully avoided direct confrontation for years, despite both supplying the others' enemies. It's not a hard point to grasp. Frankly, I don't believe you don't grasp it. Which leaves bad faith.
And your bad faith is confirmed by your continuing to argue that the only two logical options are to abandon Ukraine to its fate or for the U.S. and NATO to engage in all-out direct war with Russia. Luckily, leaders in all the relevant countries (and probably all countries) understand the point you are trying really, really hard to pretend not to understand.
I’ve argued with talkies. This circular change of theses around and around is exactly like that, inky with fewer Lenin quotes.
Toranth has stumbled into the horseshoe.
Wow, now you've deteriorated into distraction, with flat out lying and Sarcastro-ism (and right on cue, see Sarcastro show up! Hi!).
The sheer selectivity that you are editing my posts with is remarkable. You still haven't explained why you think Ukraine is vital-but-not-vital.
And by the way, no, nowhere near "everyone" thinks that Russia would only use nukes if the US sent troops. There's been plenty of concern that Russia would use tactical nukes if Ukraine starts taking back territory. In fact, there are plenty that think it would be less likely to happen if there are US troops in Ukraine, because the US has nukes while the Ukraine cannot counterstrike.
And in the end, I've never argued that there are only two options. That's another strawman you've made up (in traditional Sarcastroan fashion). I've made arguments against certain options, but so what?
Tell me, what is my position on support for Ukraine? I haven't stated it here. So why do you think you know it? Are you borrowing Sarcastro's telepathic-strawman machine?
This is just BS and fantastical thinking = Russia has lost, conservatively, over half of it’s total fighting power...
Definitely 20%+, but NFW over half. Sorry. The facts on the ground don't support that.
I do agree with your point about spending little to have a disproportionate impact.
I do not agree that Ukraine is a vital US national interest. It is not.
It has been said that Ukraine's survival is of vital national interest to the U.S. To determine the validity of this hypothesis, I propose the following hypothetical:
It is March of 2022, Ukraine has capitulated and has committed to never join NATO. Discussion point, in what way is our national security threatened?
Russia is not our friend and they are stronger. Plus, emboldened, how long will Moldova, the Baltic states, Poland, etc. remain independent of Moscow? Are you saying the United States was not protecting its vital interests in the Berlin Airlift? Reagan wasn't furthering any U.S. interests by demanding that Gorbachev "tear down this wall!" and providing military and other aid to countries that would help ensure the Soviet Union fell? Just because Russia will not militarily attack us next, the United States has a vital interest in expanding the number of relatively free democracies and we have a vital interest in a world in which authoritarian states don't run roughshod over their neighbors (which results in brutality against previously free people, which we should care about, and creates instability inherent in armed conflict which is bad in lots of ways, economic, political, and militarily). Moreover, Ukraine is in a very strategic position and has considerable resources. It's better if Ukraine's agricultural output, for example, is part of the open and free markets rather than available for Putin to use to cause havoc in the world. Ditto the industrial capacity of eastern Ukraine.
Shorter version, our national interests are threatened in multiple ways that, frankly, are painfully obvious.
If your point is Russia would not have invaded us next, that's a stupid point. I thought we learned by the end of the Second World War that, just because we're across the ocean, what happens on other continents does matter to us.
“Russia is not our friend”
So?
“and they are stronger.”
And still extremely weak in comparison. By orders of magnitude.
“Plus, emboldened, how long will Moldova, the Baltic states, Poland, etc. remain independent of Moscow?”
I’m thinking NATO membership will likely be a deterrent…
“Are you saying the United States was not protecting its vital interests in the Berlin Airlift?”
If you can’t discern between The Soviet Union’s military power in 1948 vs. today, I can’t help you.
“Reagan wasn’t furthering any U.S. interests by demanding that Gorbachev “tear down this wall!” and providing military and other aid to countries that would help ensure the Soviet Union fell?”
The Soviet Union fell several decades ago, the world is a different place.
“Just because Russia will not militarily attack us next, the United States has a vital interest in expanding the number of relatively free democracies and we have a vital interest in a world in which authoritarian states don’t run roughshod over their neighbors (which results in brutality against previously free people, which we should care about, and creates instability inherent in armed conflict which is bad in lots of ways, economic, political, and militarily).”
I would dispute that expanding democracy is in fact of vital national interest. Nice to have, maybe. Our efforts didn’t work out so well in the middle east. But in any case, you’ve strayed far from the question at hand, i.e. whether our national security is in more or less danger under the hypothetical.
“Moreover, Ukraine is in a very strategic position and has considerable resources. It’s better if Ukraine’s agricultural output, for example, is part of the open and free markets rather than available for Putin to use to cause havoc in the world. Ditto the industrial capacity of eastern Ukraine.”
Very far attenuated as a threat to our national security.
“Shorter version, our national interests are threatened in multiple ways that, frankly, are painfully obvious.”
Things that are clear and obvious need no explanation. Things may be obviously clear to yourself but your task is to convince others.
“If your point is Russia would not have invaded us next, that’s a stupid point. I thought we learned by the end of the Second World War that, just because we’re across the ocean, what happens on other continents does matter to us.”
Assuming an opposing argument and calling it stupid. Very persuasive.
The question was, “in what way is our national security threatened?”
"And still extremely weak in comparison. By orders of magnitude."
Depending on which expert you asked, they were ranked second or third in the world prior to invading Ukraine. If they had succeeded, they would have been stronger yet, having Ukraine's resources, military equipment, and manpower to add to their own.
"The Soviet Union fell several decades ago, the world is a different place."
And Putin's avowed goal is to rebuild it. If you admit it was a vital U.S. interest to oppose Soviet expansion and encourage it's demise, the burden is on you to explain why it isn't a vital interest in thwarting Putin's avowed interest in reconstituting the Soviet empire. The world is different, but partly because we helped cause the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
"I would dispute that expanding democracy is in fact of vital national interest. Nice to have, maybe. Our efforts didn’t work out so well in the middle east."
Making the world safe for liberal democracies is a vital interest of the U.S. I opposed the war in Iraq for various reasons, but among them was that it was foolish to think we could impose democracy on another country and another was that it sets a bad precedent for us to invade a country on a thin pretext to promote our interests. You've heard no end of people calling out the hypocrisy of us opposing Russia when we unwisely invaded Iraq. But the situations are not the same. Unlike in Iraq, Ukraine was already a (wobbly, but improving) democracy which got invaded by Russia to stop its drift towards the West and bring it back into Moscow's orbit. Defending a country from takeover by a hostile, authoritarian nation is different than deposing an authoritarian leader and trying to impose democracy in the aftermath. It's the difference between starting wars and finishing them.
"But in any case, you’ve strayed far from the question at hand, i.e. whether our national security is in more or less danger under the hypothetical."
You haven't defined national security. If Ukraine had fallen and Russia expanded its reach and military power, by definition our national security was in more danger. Unless you have the narrow definition I noted was stupid. If you have some other idiosyncratic definition, then set it out. Otherwise, the fact that Russia would have had more land, more military power, more economic might, and larger population would place our national security in greater danger, given I believe it is undisputed that Putin's Russia was and remains a geopolitical foe who wishes the U.S. nothing good. (I mean, it is arguable whether China or Russia is the bigger threat, but they are indisputably the two biggest national security threats we face, so what makes them stronger and our allies fewer or weaker necessarily impacts our national security.)
"Very far attenuated as a threat to our national security."
You keep saying things like this which suggests you have a very narrow definition of national security that, frankly, is dangerously myopic.
"The question was, “in what way is our national security threatened?”"
Asked and answered.
In what way is Ukraine a vital US national interest?
That was the original question I posed.
To me, a vital US national interest is existential, or close to it; it means we will fight a 'hot war', period. That is the definition I understand. So, with that in mind, how does that change your answer? (if at all)
Even if you are correct that it's not a threat to our national security it doesn't change the fact that we spend a bunch of money each year to assure our NATO allies that they are well-protected against Russisn attacks.
Maybe if you were in charge you wouldn't do that but provided that we seem to be committed to such a policy if Russia has less military capability we don't have to spend as much assuring allies that they are safe from it. 30 billion is such a sma part of our overall defense budget it's hard to see how (given that Russia invaded and spooked lots of NATO countries) this isn't a net win.
Ok, but the point is: Ukraine is not a vital US national interest, and it never was.
The ICC issuing an arrest warrant condemns many thousands of people to needless death; the only way Putin capitulates is because he has left the land of the living. It was idiotic to do this (arrest warrant), it does not serve the cause of peace. It doesn't even service the cause of law; quite the opposite, it is a cynical manipulation of the law.
"in what way is our national security threatened?"
Because Putin hasn't made much of a secret that he intends to reconquer what used to be the USSR and Warsaw Pact. The Baltics, Poland, etc are NATO members. When he goes after them we are treaty bound to enter an unlimited war to ensure their integrity.
We have a lot more flexibility in Ukraine. If he fails there, we won't have to enter a general war. It is the cheapest, lowest risk place to derail Putin's ambitions.
Now, this is because we are members of NATO. If Bolivia invades Paraguay, we can aid Paraguay on moral principles, or just ignore it, or whatever.
If you want to ignore Ukraine, then I think you should also be advocating that we withdraw completely from NATO. If we do that, then we can ignore the invasion of Ukraine (Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, ...). But as long as we are a member of NATO, we ignore Ukraine at our peril.
Hmmm. Who else wants the US to exit NATO?
Oh, that's right. The same guy the alt-rightists here fanatically support...
Estimates a month ago were they've lost half their modern tanks and over 40 percent of all of their tanks. Killed and wounded were estimated at 250,000 weeks ago, with sometimes 1,000 killed a day in Bahkmut since then.
Half of their warpower may be optimistic, but it's well over 20%.
We didn't do this, actually. Read the Budapest memo: while it commits us (and the UK and Russia) to respecting Ukraine's territorial integrity, it does not commit us to defend Ukraine against foreign aggression.
Did you try looking in the mirror
Putin’s a monster but contra your earlier piece (and what was said at Nuremberg and in various international treaties) I’d argue that aggression is far from being the “supreme international crime.” Indeed, in *practice* it’s not really an international crime at all and shouldn’t be. It’s just too squishy and vague to be good law and trying to prosecute it risks creating the perception that losers will always be prosecuted by the winners (or at least leaders of countries that the European states side against). And that undermines the incentives to obey the rest of the law of war: no torture, no child abduction, no rape, good treatment of POWs etc..
I mean yes, aggression is ultimately the original sin of a war but it's not the right sort of thing for the ICC to try and prosecute and I'm glad they only indicted on the child abduction (which is deserved).
The biggest problem with GW Bush's invasion of Iraq was he deliberately tried to make aggression as fuzzy a concept as possible. It really opened the door for Russia's invasions of Georgia in 2008, Ukraine in 2014, and Ukraine again in 2022.
The current attempted genocide of Ukrainians is certainly a cause for war crimes, but so are the 2008, 2014, and 2022 invasions. Not to mention Bush's original 2003 invasion of Iraq.
I agree that was a problem with that invasion but it was always inherently going to be a fuzzy concept. I mean, suppose Ukraine had seen the Russian invasion lining up and felt that they could substantially improve the odds by striking the build up of troops. I think that clearly doesn't qualify as aggression. And what about cases like with the Golan heights or Afghanistan where a state is unable or unwilling to stop non-state actors from using it's land as a safe-haven and launching pad for attacks?
The reason we can have a relatively clear idea of self-defense/aggression in criminal law is only because there are police. If you discover someone is plotting your murder you can go to the police rather than having to either wait for them to catch you alone in a dark alley or get your own friends together and take them out first. Unless and until we have an international mechanism of enforcement the existence of ambiguity between defense and aggression is unavoidable.
Besides, if you tried to get more technical one could try and say technically the conflict from the invasion of Kuwait between Iraq and the USA had never ended. I think that's a pretty silly argument but note that it wouldn't be silly to use that same argument to defend actions taken to enforce a no fly zone over southern Iraq (to prevent them from attacking Kuwait again) even in the absence of a UN resolution so the notion of aggression is inherently pretty tied up with judgements about reasonableness and isn't determined by some technical rules.
That doesn't mean I don't agree that Bush further blurred the concept in a harmful way. But my point is that over issues like this countries are always going to have strong differences of opinion over what's reasonable.
Ok, fine, that doesn't necessarily mean we can't prosecute very clear instances of aggression but it does mean that if we don't want to undermine the other laws of war that standard needs to be crazy high so that everyone doesn't assume it just means: will the Europeans disagree.
You’re having trouble parsing an unprovoked military invasion and the documented war crimes that accompany it as “aggression”? Or you don’t think an unprovoked military invasion and the accompanying documented war crimes should be illegal?
The debate on whether the US should increase assistance to Ukraine in its defense against Putin’s invasion is not yet available for comment, so I will give my opinion here that I agree with the “negative” position that the Ukraine war does NOT pose an existential threat to the US. I disagree, however, with the point that the risk of escalation to the point of a nuclear exchange is the deciding factor here. Sometimes we must convince madmen that we ARE, in fact, willing to risk a nuclear war in order to prevent them from invading peaceful neighbors. Mutually Assured Destruction seems to have been successful for several decades and there is no reason to suppose we should abandon the policy now in the face of new aggression from Russia. We should sell Ukraine whatever conventional weapons they need to repel Russian troops from their territory. The failed “making the world safe for democracy” narrative does not apply here, and although Putin is unlikely to be put on trial in person by the ICC any time soon, we have the recent example of Slobodan Milošević to justify the effort.
“Despite the strong—and growing—evidence against Putin and other Russian leaders, the odds against trying and convicting them for war crimes are long….”
Yeah, well, in December 2020, 97 year old Irmguard Furchner was convicted of her role — she was a typist in the commandant’s office at Stutthoff concentration camp — in the crimes of the Nazis.
Time is on the side of justice, is what I’m saying.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/12/20/german-court-convicts-97-year-old-ex-nazi-camp-typist#:~:text=Irmgard%20Furchner%20has%20been%20found,killings%20at%20WWII%20concentration%20camp.
As for this:
“Those who turn a blind eye to the former because of the latter cannot credibly claim to be defenders of ‘family values.’”
The only “conservative principle” that has ever been borne out as fact is “white supremacy.”