Great Power contentions

[Seamus Fermanagh]

One can't help but observe that if such a mobilization were feasible in the first place, the fact might have laid a prohibitive threshold for escalation in Ukraine as a proximate concern. As Putin surely understands, one doesn't gin up a maximal response on the fly.

You are correct, sadly. USA efforts to counter Russian ambitions over the last decade or so have been pretty feckless. Nor has NATO taken up the challenge of seriously ramping up its deployment capabilities and general readiness. Were we to attempt such a rapid deployment now it is fairly likely that it would be a bit of a flustercluck.

The NATO powers would do better to accept that Russia is a resurgent power and enable themselves to set up a credible deterrent. It may not be the "halcyon" days of the Cold War reborn, but the Russian push for power and for the status of a (the?) premier European power predates the CCCP by a long time. Russia is no longer a Soviet state, but it remains Russia.

[Montmorency]

You are right, no admin would have made this a priority since Bush Sr, we've been dealing with people pretending that Europe is at the end of history and bad stuff can't happen to it anymore despite the Yugoslavian civil war, the Serbian genocide of the Kosovars, the Russia-Georgia war, the Russian invasion of Crimea, and the warfooting tensions.

As for sending 1000s of troops, why do assume that it would be done without coordination or preparation? I know you think poorly of the US military but you really think it'd be as daft as just driving into the Ukraine and setting up a defense independent of any coordination with Ukraine itself? Really?

It certainly wouldn't be a sacrificial gesture, much rather an overt and undeniable statement of where the 'line in the sand' is.

What I said was to demonstrate why they wouldn't do it. Russia has spent years preparing to fight in Ukraine with and against allies and proxies, and is very close to Ukraine geographically and sociopolitically. The US has not, and is not. This isn't a condemnation of the US military, it's just the facts on the ground. No US commander could condone rushing into Ukraine to contest a Russian advance with whatever forces on hand because it would be an operationally-catastrophic maneuver in our present world. And because it would be so reckless and doomed a maneuver, the threat of transporting some thousands of US or Euro soldiers toward Ukraine wouldn't deter Putin (though I assume he would try to simply avoid American concentrations if they pushed into Ukraine while staying west of the Southern Bug). Maybe a large "show of force" would have been taken as deterring in September, when most of the Russian combat elements and troop numbers were already in place, but it's at least as likely that Putin made the decision a while ago, and the rest is psyops and squaring away the logistics.

Regardless, this has gone on too long and at too great a monetary and political expense for Putin to back down without something to show for it. Pace Russian ambassador Konstantin Gavrilov, the wolf's been howling wolf around the glebe daily for a long time.

As for responses, Russian elites still have plenty of assets and properties in US and European jurisdictions, don't they? Expropriate all of it as frozen assets pending Russian policy change. To whatever extent possible, degrade the survivability of any collaborationist Ukrainian government.

But if Ukrainians can't or won't credibly resist, we shouldn't try to recklessly exploit their status by funding guerillas. Except Azovites. Stoking unrest in South Russia would be fair game however (though I don't believe we have the tools or credibility for it).

I don't know what specific platforms you're thinking of as asymmetric but generally self-propelled artillery, SAM sites and so on are all mobile, the size of them is directly related to the capability.

There's a list of procurements in the first essay, which I think the author most dichotomizes well, as well as a list of recommendations (quoted in my post). Taiwan doesn't need additional tanks, at least?

[Shaka_Khan]

The US seems to be making the Far East a bigger priority for now.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The US seems to be making the Far East a bigger priority for now.

Not sure if that is because we are focusing more on issues in the Western Pacific rim, or if the NATO/EU powers functionally make us take at least the appearance of a more collegial role.

[Pannonian]

What's this about the Ukrainian PM warning the west not to escalate things? Have I missed any news?

[spmetla]

I think he's worried about the flight of capital and people, if he says "yes, there's war in a week" then he'd be expected to call up the reserves and so on. Foreigners in the business sectors would also likely leave the country and there might be a run on the banks etc... so oddly enough it is in his interest to keep the appearance of tensions down.

Also, by calling out the West it chips away at Russian excuses to invade to secure Ukraine from the West. As the President of the country stuck in the middle between the two power blocs he has a very delicate balancing act, especially when he's been told outright that no one will fight for Ukraine but themselves, means he needs to avoid any stance that would give the Russians excuses to go in.

Ukraine’s Zelensky’s message is don’t panic. That’s making the West antsy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...-russia-biden/

Now the 44-year-old Zelensky is enmeshed in some of the highest-stakes brinkmanship in Europe in decades.

Zelensky’s Ukraine finds itself in the crosshairs of Moscow’s attempts to reassert its influence in what it considers its sphere of influence and prevent the North Atlantic Treaty Organization from moving into the states that once constituted the Soviet Union.

So Zelensky treads a fine line, knowing that Ukraine’s economy could take a major hit even if Russian forces hold back. He must speak of the threat to the country. Yet, at the same time, he seeks to avoid, as he put it, “panic in the markets, panic in the financial sector.”

“Zelensky is struggling with crisis communications,” said Orysia Lutsevych, an expert on Ukraine at the Chatham House think tank in London. “Clearly he wants citizens to remain calm, but panic may spread from conflicting or lacking information. It’s a hard task to deliver.”

Zelensky accused Western officials and media of causing panic and destabilization in Ukraine by insisting that, as he put it, “tomorrow there will be war.” Russia’s real intention, he also said, could be not to invade, but instead to weaken Ukraine internally.

“We could lose the economy,” he said.

At another point, he challenged NATO to make up its mind whether to admit Ukraine to the alliance. Moscow has issued a list of demands to NATO, including a guarantee that the former Soviet states of Ukraine and Georgia will never become members.

“Tell us openly we will never get into NATO,” he said.

His posture though and trying to thread the line will mean little though if Russia does invade at which point everyone will wonder why he ignored the West so long. With Ukraine's public opinion not in belief of an imminent invasion it would be difficult to actually mobilize the reserves which if there is no invasion would hurt him terribly in Ukraine's domestic political scene.

The US seems to be making the Far East a bigger priority for now.
Not sure if that is because we are focusing more on issues in the Western Pacific rim, or if the NATO/EU powers functionally make us take at least the appearance of a more collegial role.

I think part of it is that the US expects Europe to be more pro-active in its own defense too. If Biden did what I want and put divisions in Europe right now (edit: I mean by stationing divisions there, not necessarily to war or even the border of NATO, but back to Germany and maybe Poland/Romania ) there'd be little need for the other NATO members to put up much of a force. Given that except for Japan the entire G7 are NATO members should mean that they can put more than a token of effort into their own defense, especially for nations such as Germany and France which are major arms exporters.
The UK vowing to double their NATO contributions to the Baltics is a good sign but France, Germany, and Italy need to do more too. If they don't then it'd be extremely difficult in US domestic politics to justify a build up in Europe.

Keeping the focus on the PRC though is vital and I agree with, we no longer have armed forces capable of the long held "two war policy" so best to martial resources where our direct interests are under threat. Taiwan and the South China Sea are more important than the Ukraine. A threat against the Baltic States and NATO though would be more important than Taiwan and the South China Sea though but at least in Europe there are more Allies available, at least on paper.
In the Far East only the US has the capability to challenge the PRC. South Korea, Japan, and Australia are good and capable allies but without anywhere near the numbers, quality, or capability to challenge the PRC and project power beyond bases on their own soil.

[Montmorency]

If Biden did what I want and put divisions in Europe right now

I just can't get over how the extraordinarily-consequential, costly, and unauthorized unilateral decision to do this (not that any available American president would), could, in theory, be legally upheld in Republican-ruled courts, but even the small-bore, legislatively-backed customarily preferential policies of the current executive just get casually struck down. It's annoying (with Korean intonation). Also ruinous to state and society, but there's a lot of insult in these injuries.

Anyway, some interesting factoids in this article on punitive measures against Russia available to the US, such as:

Intellectual property law is another such node; the chief elements of the global intellectual property regime were designed by the United States, largely for the benefit of US firms. To participate in the global technology economy, Russia had to adapt to this legal structure after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This now makes Russia vulnerable across an array of fronts. Effectively, the administration can take steps that would make Russia’s tech sector toxic, preventing Russian companies from exporting devices that have any US components or other US intellectual property. This would definitely hurt the Russians on the international market, and it also would deter European and Asian tech firms from collaborating with their Russian counterparts. The US won the Cold War in part because it could cut the USSR off from international developments in information technology, and the weapons at the disposal of the United States have only grown more lethal. The use of these weapons of course requires the active cooperation of European, Korean, Taiwanese, and Japanese companies, but a vicious attack on Ukraine might well make that cooperation more forthcoming. Indeed, the Russian military itself depends on foreign chips (largely from Taiwan) in its more sophisticated equipment.

Watta plot twist! Unify the plot strands, now that's good writing for once.

Here's a planet-brain idea, two birds with one stone: Offer Iran a deal whereby they publicly drop relations with Russia, in exchange for which the US expresses legitimate gratitude to the Iranian government, providing cover for both sides to formally recommit to JCPOA. There's a missing incentive for Iran there, but the structure of the gambit makes sense IMO. The biggest obstacle to rapprochment between the US and Iran, at least over nuclear proliferation, is America's belligerent uncredibility and reactive public sentiment in both countries, something a double maneuver banking off Russian escalation, with immediate payoffs for both parties, could neutralize.

Relatedly, reshuffling a major US OOB into Europe would probably no longer even be the deterrent it used to be considering that everyone knows that China is mightier than Russia and that the American military has its hands full with its West Pacific commitments.

[spmetla]

Ukraine tensions: US boosts troops in Europe
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60234377

US President Joe Biden is to send extra troops to Europe this week amid continuing fears of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Pentagon says.

Some 2,000 troops will be sent from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to Poland and Germany, and a further 1,000 already in Germany will go to Romania.

Moscow denies planning to invade but has deployed an estimated 100,000 troops near Ukraine's borders.

It fiercely opposes Ukraine joining the Nato military alliance.

The tensions come eight years after Russia annexed Ukraine's southern Crimea peninsula and backed a bloody rebellion in the eastern Donbas region.

Moscow accuses the Ukrainian government of failing to implement the Minsk agreement - an international deal to restore peace to the east, where Russian-backed rebels control swathes of territory and at least 14,000 people have been killed since 2014.

Glad to see the US doing this, notable though that this is being done bilaterally between the US and Poland/Romania and not under the NATO C2 chain.
I hope that this will start the conversation within our Congress to go and restation a heavy BCT permanently again in Europe. The current deployment of paratroopers and Strykers are certainly not the type of capability that would make Putin worry about the US deploying into Ukraine as to do without multiple heavy BCTs would be stupid and this is clearly more about reassuring Poland and Romania. This crisis may also be useful for getting NATO contributions from some of the lagging member states as well as internal conversations about the future of NATO.

I just can't get over how the extraordinarily-consequential, costly, and unauthorized unilateral decision to do this (not that any available American president would), could, in theory, be legally upheld in Republican-ruled courts, but even the small-bore, legislatively-backed customarily preferential policies of the current executive just get casually struck down. It's annoying (with Korean intonation). Also ruinous to state and society, but there's a lot of insult in these injuries.

As I clarified in my edit, I wasn't wanting him to put divisions in Ukraine but neighboring NATO states. As for costly, if there permanent bases in Europe for these larger units it would be cheaper than our currently rotating brigades in for nine month tours to Europe. Permanent basing though is a straight up Congressional matter, the president can request and propose but Congress, specifically the Armed Services committees would have the final say in it.
As it is for temporary boosting of troops in an area I don't see what's illegal about it so long as Biden doesn't unilaterally start a war. The US did sign the Budapest Memorandum that would give casus-belli to intervene on behalf of Ukraine but the US isn't obligated to do so.

The memorandum has been invoked recently in response to some on the right, including Fox News host Tucker Carlson and some congressional Republicans, arguing that the United States effectively has no business taking sides between Ukraine and Russia. One popular Twitter thread responding to Carlson said the Budapest Memorandum amounted to the United States having agreed to serve as “the guarantors of Ukrainian security.” A bipartisan group of members of Congress last week wrote an op-ed stating that the memorandum assured the United States “would come to the aid of Ukraine in the event it was preyed upon.”

The reality is much murkier. The agreement is not an official treaty. It is neither legally binding nor does it carry an enforcement mechanism. And while it provides security assurances, they do not include specific promises with regard to a potential invasion.

The brief memorandum contained five points that the signatories — which also included Britain and Northern Ireland — said they would “reaffirm,” including:

“None of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.”
“To refrain from economic coercion” in accordance with other agreements.
And, perhaps most pertinent with regard to a potential U.S. response today:

“To seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine … 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.”
Indeed, the agreement was murky enough that, when it was announced in early 1994 but before Ukraine ratified it, there was plenty of confusion about just the kind of situation we now find ourselves in. U.S. officials often talked around the issue, but they also stated on multiple occasions that it wouldn’t mean the United States was suddenly entering into new and novel security commitments. (Hence, the repeated use of the word “reaffirm.”)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ns-us-ukraine/

The vagueness of the treaty certainly hasn't helped resolved the last eight years of Russian occupation and intervention, guess that's what Ukraine gets for voluntarily giving up its nuclear arsenal, not a good example in the cause of non-proliferation.

Relatedly, reshuffling a major US OOB into Europe would probably no longer even be the deterrent it used to be considering that everyone knows that China is mightier than Russia and that the American military has its hands full with its West Pacific commitments.

Would reshuffling US Army units into Europe really affect America's West Pacific commitments? As I've argued on here I don't see many situations in which Heavy BCTs would be used against China, Korea yes, China not so much which would be 90% an air and sea campaign with likely only Marines and lighter US units put in Taiwan if that were somehow safe and prudent to do but certainly not to the level of retaking Taiwan.
Heavy BCTs in the US are hard to deploy as they have so much equipment to ship, strategically they are useless unless forward deployed or against an opponent that cannot stop the buildup of combat power over a period of months (ie Iraq in Desert Storm and OIF).
If the US does decide with more commitments to Europe, I hope this will be matched with further commitments by our larger NATO partners already there as they certainly have the ability to pony up for their own defense which is less the case for our allies in the West Pacific.

Edit: Also crazy to see the reaction to this on right-wing forums/etc is a mix of "why aren't we sending them to our border instead" and "why bother defending Europe." Both of which are just crazy, especially the first one, not sure why everyone on the right thinks that troops on the border is going to help much, how about reform immigration and more money for border patrol. As for the other aspect, the new isolationist slant of the right is mind-boggling to me, crazy how they don't see that we benefit from maintaining the current world order, expensive as it is.

[Montmorency]

Interesting from a Finnish Internet commenter:

The Latvian military is truly weak. They went all-volunteer as part of the NATO accession plan. The reason was mainly the one-size-fits-all approach of NATO. The former Warszaw Pact states were pressured strongly to give up conscription and reduce their military establishments into forces that couldn't pose a credible threat to any neighbour. The point of the modernised military would be to supply NATO with a rapid reaction battalion or two for allied deployments. Essentially, the NATO expansion meant the disarmament of Eastern Europe.

In fact, this nature of NATO accession was one of the main reasons why Finland didn't join the NATO. It would have ruined our capability to fight a land war.

As I clarified in my edit, I wasn't wanting him to put divisions in Ukraine but neighboring NATO states. As for costly, if there permanent bases in Europe for these larger units it would be cheaper than our currently rotating brigades in for nine month tours to Europe. Permanent basing though is a straight up Congressional matter, the president can request and propose but Congress, specifically the Armed Services committees would have the final say in it.
As it is for temporary boosting of troops in an area I don't see what's illegal about it so long as Biden doesn't unilaterally start a war. The US did sign the Budapest Memorandum that would give casus-belli to intervene on behalf of Ukraine but the US isn't obligated to do so.

I was making a Pann-type aside about political realities in the American executive, that there is near-unlimited deference to the authority of President as CinC in the commitment of American military personnel, assets, and clout, but a conservative judiciary is fully comfortable with defying objectively more modest policy preferences in such domains as public health or immigration/the border, even when such actions have the explicit imprimatur of enabling statute. One wonders whether in theory an American president would even fact intervention against an order for all US military personnel to rebase to Moscow or Beijing. I think it's a sad testament to the bizarre militarization of American society (and of course the lawlessness of our reactionaries).

I don't doubt that our armored formations are more useful and imposing in Europe than in Taiwan.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ns-us-ukraine/

The vagueness of the treaty certainly hasn't helped resolved the last eight years of Russian occupation and intervention, guess that's what Ukraine gets for voluntarily giving up its nuclear arsenal, not a good example in the cause of non-proliferation.

Provisions of the memorandum:

Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.[16]
Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to influence their politics.
Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.[12][17]

America commited itself to "respect" Ukrainian sovereignty, not to uphold it unilaterally. This is the stuff @rory_20_uk loves to see. Respect is free (though our governments don't always remember).

Would reshuffling US Army units into Europe really affect America's West Pacific commitments? As I've argued on here I don't see many situations in which Heavy BCTs would be used against China, Korea yes, China not so much which would be 90% an air and sea campaign with likely only Marines and lighter US units put in Taiwan if that were somehow safe and prudent to do but certainly not to the level of retaking Taiwan.
Heavy BCTs in the US are hard to deploy as they have so much equipment to ship, strategically they are useless unless forward deployed or against an opponent that cannot stop the buildup of combat power over a period of months (ie Iraq in Desert Storm and OIF).
If the US does decide with more commitments to Europe, I hope this will be matched with further commitments by our larger NATO partners already there as they certainly have the ability to pony up for their own defense which is less the case for our allies in the West Pacific.

What I was trying to say is that, logically following from previously stated facts - most importantly the known US focus on East Asia and the need to reserve most American air and naval power for a potential conflict there - is that more heavy forward deployments in Europe could be perceived more as an attempt at deterrence rather than a force that the US really intends to support in combat against Russia. Because the US would typically find itself unable or unwilling to commit naval and air combat/transport assets necessary to support a war against Russia while the situation in the SCS remains unsettled. Without that support any US forward deployment under these doctrinal and geopolitical constraints would have to be defensive from where it's located, which unlikely to be Ukraine or the Baltics (though of course Putin would have to be astonishingly adventuristic to try to act on this perception even if he held it). The only exception would be a remarkable expansion and integration of European airpower in NATO. Basically it's about the effectiveness and true potential scope of an American committment to European combat.

[Hooahguy]

Interesting from a Finnish Internet commenter:

I dont think what this commentator says is really true. Lithuania, Norway, and Estonia all have conscription in some form, and Greece and Turkey have mandatory service. Poland had it until 2008, 9 years after joining NATO. Lithuania abolished it in like 2007 I think and then brought it back in 2015. So I have a feeling that if Finland wanted to join they wouldnt have an issue with their conscription. From looking up the issue, it seems that there was pressure to remove the conscription based service format, however this was more due to striving to get up to the level of quality of other NATO allies than a desire to not be a threat to their neighbors. Which is a dumb concept anyways because in what world is Latvia a threat to Russia?

[Furunculus]

also a little problematic to describe poland as 'disarmed', given that it has four operational divisions right now, at least three of which are mechanised.

while france, germany and UK each field circa 200 tanks, poland has the best part of a thousand, which by 2030 will likely be composed to M1A3 and K2-PL.

[Pannonian]

I dont think what this commentator says is really true. Lithuania, Norway, and Estonia all have conscription in some form, and Greece and Turkey have mandatory service. Poland had it until 2008, 9 years after joining NATO. Lithuania abolished it in like 2007 I think and then brought it back in 2015. So I have a feeling that if Finland wanted to join they wouldnt have an issue with their conscription. From looking up the issue, it seems that there was pressure to remove the conscription based service format, however this was more due to striving to get up to the level of quality of other NATO allies than a desire to not be a threat to their neighbors. Which is a dumb concept anyways because in what world is Latvia a threat to Russia?

Eurovision Song Contest?

[Montmorency]

This is why you gotsta have the expertise:

nobody remembers that the 82nd Airborne is also pretty good at embassy evacuation, expat evacuation, HA/DR and even refugee management. All things folks near this mess might need/appreciate.

Yes. If Russia does what Russia has visibly prepared to do (but which it may not do!) then there will be refugees, retreating Ukrainian troops, questions about borders, and general disruption of life across the region.

I've made the point before that the crisis will have deterrence, Mitigation, and Punishment components. The deployment of [NATO] troops is less important to Deterrence and even Punishment than it is to Mitigation.

[spmetla]

EU’s chip production plan aims to ease dependency on Asia
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden...85beb93d04e8cf

BRUSSELS (AP) — The European Union announced a $48 billion plan Tuesday to become a major semiconductor producer, seeking to curb its dependency on Asian markets for the component that powers everything from cars to hospital ventilators and game consoles.

At a time when natural gas shortages and Europe’s reliance on Russia for energy shows the political risks of economic dependency, the 27-nation bloc is moving to boost its economic independence in the critical semiconductor sector with its Chips Act.

“Chips are at the center of the global technological race. They are, of course, also the bedrock of our modern economies,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said. The plan still needs the backing of the EU parliament and the member states.

The EU move mirrors U.S. President Joe Biden’s $52 billion push to invest in a national chip-producing sector to make sure more production occurs in the United States.

As the economy has bounced back from the COVID-19 pandemic over the past year, there has been a supply chain bottleneck for semiconductors. In Europe, some consumers have had to wait up to almost a year to get a car because of a lack of spare parts.

“The pandemic has also painfully exposed the vulnerability of its supply chains,” von der Leyen said. “We have seen that whole production lines came to a standstill.”

“While the demand was increasing, we could not deliver as needed because of the lack of chips,” she added. As a result, factory belt lines ground to a halt, some factories had to temporarily close and workers were left unemployed because of lack of electronic parts.

Semiconductors are the tiny microchips that act as the brains for everything from smartphones to cars, and an extended shortage has highlighted the importance of chipmakers, most of which are based in Asia, to global supply chains.

Von der Leyen said Europe’s Chips Act will link research, design and testing and coordinate EU and national investment. The 43 billion euro plan pools public and private funds and allows for state aid to get the massive investments off the ground.

The prospect of massive industrial subsidies at first seems like a blast from Europe’s past, when overreaching state involvement stifled creativity and kept ambitious newcomers out of the market. The EU itself has been trying to undo this over the past decades with rigorous vetting whether state aid was not impeding competition.

The EU Commission promised that every Chips Act project will be carefully vetted on anticompetitive grounds, but that the sheer size of setting up production facilities demand a push if the bloc is to become a global player.

“Europe needs advanced production facilities, which come, of course, with a huge upfront cost. We are therefore adapting our state aid rules,” said von der Leyen.

Now, EU nations only have 9% of the global market share of semiconductors, and von der Leyen wants to increase that to 20% by 2030. Because global market production is expected to about double over the same time, “it means basically quadrupling our efforts,” she said.

She said the plan will add 15 billion euros ($17 billion) in public and private investment on top of funds already committed in the EU’s budget.

The EU also wants to get involved in chip production for geopolitical reasons and become more resilient in its strategic independence. Still, von der Leyen did hold out her hand for cooperation.

“Europe will build partnerships on chips with like-minded partners, for example, the United States or, for example, Japan,” she said.

With the US and EU both looking to relocate 'strategic' manufacturing to their own shores to reduce dependency (on chips so far and perhaps rare minerals too) I wonder if we'll see that push in other industries as well such as the EUs fuel imports. Can only hope that future energy sources like fusion can become realized sooner than later as burning various forms of hydrocarbons and the inability to store 'green' energy in the quantities needed hurt economically not to mention the environment too.
The COVID crisis and subsequent supply chain hits have certainly put cracks into the global trade system we've all relied upon for 30 years or so. One ship blocking the suez for several weeks had huge effects on European supply chains, the increasing tensions and risk of war in multiple parts of the global makes for few 'safe' manufacturing hubs for importing key components.

[Pannonian]

EU’s chip production plan aims to ease dependency on Asia
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden...85beb93d04e8cf


With the US and EU both looking to relocate 'strategic' manufacturing to their own shores to reduce dependency (on chips so far and perhaps rare minerals too) I wonder if we'll see that push in other industries as well such as the EUs fuel imports. Can only hope that future energy sources like fusion can become realized sooner than later as burning various forms of hydrocarbons and the inability to store 'green' energy in the quantities needed hurt economically not to mention the environment too.
The COVID crisis and subsequent supply chain hits have certainly put cracks into the global trade system we've all relied upon for 30 years or so. One ship blocking the suez for several weeks had huge effects on European supply chains, the increasing tensions and risk of war in multiple parts of the global makes for few 'safe' manufacturing hubs for importing key components.

I'd look to recycle as much material for high-tech products as possible. Something that isn't reflected in the raw numbers of pure capitalism.

[Pannonian]

Britain's foreign secretary goes to meet her Russian counterparts to re-emphasise Britain's hard line on Ukraine. Russian diplomat asks her whether Britain recognises Russia's sovereignty over Rostov and Vornoezh oblasts. Liz Truss states that Britain will never back down over Ukraine. Russian diplomat points out they're not in Ukraine (Rostov and Voronezh are in Russia).

He probably twigged her level after she talked about our Baltic allies coming over the Black Sea.

[rory_20_uk]

Britain's foreign secretary goes to meet her Russian counterparts to re-emphasise Britain's hard line on Ukraine. Russian diplomat asks her whether Britain recognises Russia's sovereignty over Rostov and Vornoezh oblasts. Liz Truss states that Britain will never back down over Ukraine. Russian diplomat points out they're not in Ukraine (Rostov and Voronezh are in Russia).

He probably twigged her level after she talked about our Baltic allies coming over the Black Sea.

At one level, talking is better than fighting.

Why Russia would care what our tiny armed forces might do it almost funny. Germany should be taking the lead and since they're not the USA seems to be content to spend money the Europeans would rather not.

[Pannonian]

At one level, talking is better than fighting.

Why Russia would care what our tiny armed forces might do it almost funny. Germany should be taking the lead and since they're not the USA seems to be content to spend money the Europeans would rather not.

Just because talking is better than fighting doesn't mean our foreign secretary has to be as idiotic and ignorant as she is though. I'm not a professional diplomat, and even I know that the Black Sea is nowhere near the Baltics. The Russian diplomat also noted that there was no negotiation or even discussion going on, but only Truss passing slogans at him as though they were supposed to achieve something. I'm not sure if that counts as talking. I suppose the Tories have been used to Brexit diplomacy, being there in person but actually passing the message for the benefit of the audience at home, that they've forgotten that diplomacy is supposed to engage with the person you're talking to, not the papers back home.

[rory_20_uk]

Of course she's an ignorant idiot. For a minister to not be would be noteworthy.

There is nothing the UK can offer nor threaten that Russia needs or wants. It is purely something to distract the papers from what the PM does.

[Furunculus]

Just because talking is better than fighting doesn't mean our foreign secretary has to be as idiotic and ignorant as she is though. I'm not a professional diplomat, and even I know that the Black Sea is nowhere near the Baltics. The Russian diplomat also noted that there was no negotiation or even discussion going on, but only Truss passing slogans at him as though they were supposed to achieve something. I'm not sure if that counts as talking. I suppose the Tories have been used to Brexit diplomacy, being there in person but actually passing the message for the benefit of the audience at home, that they've forgotten that diplomacy is supposed to engage with the person you're talking to, not the papers back home.

hmmm, i prefer these views:

https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1491868196714029058

What Lavrov did to Truss in Moscow is as boorish as if Johnson had spent an hour abusing Von Der Leyen over Northern Ireland and then deliberately played a trick on her about which Ulster counties are in the UK names and leaked it. Tyrone and Fermanagh? Or Monaghan and Cavan?

https://twitter.com/DanielKorski/sta...96846150242322

I’m not sure I get all the hot takes on the Truss/Lavrov meeting. It looks to me like the British Foreign Secretary was clear, denounced Russia’s illegal behaviour, defended the freedom of European states and that the Russian foreign minister, true to form, was rude and bullying

and this one:

https://twitter.com/john_ritzema/sta...52868256354306

sorry, but FBPE twitter getting excited about Sergei Lavrov being thuggishly rude to Liz Truss is just a golden example of people continuing to beclown themselves because of brexit

[Pannonian]

hmmm, i prefer these views:

https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1491868196714029058


https://twitter.com/DanielKorski/sta...96846150242322


and this one:

https://twitter.com/john_ritzema/sta...52868256354306

And you've brought FBPE into it. I referred to "Brexit diplomacy" earlier to describe the behaviour of supposedly being on a diplomatic engagement but where the messaging is aimed at the papers and media back home rather than with the person in front of you. You've presumably taken that as free rein to go full on linking the discussion with Brexit,

See rory, this is the kind of behaviour I've been talking about. Everything the Tories do is excused, because they are getting Brexit done, with Brexit being an identity to be defended rather than a policy to be enacted.

[Montmorency]

Of course she's an ignorant idiot. For a minister to not be would be noteworthy.

There is nothing the UK can offer nor threaten that Russia needs or wants. It is purely something to distract the papers from what the PM does.

OTOH, Putin met personally with Macron over at least 5 hours. A head of government's time is rarely valueless, so there's probably something to it.

hmmm, i prefer these views:

https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1491868196714029058


https://twitter.com/DanielKorski/sta...96846150242322


and this one:

https://twitter.com/john_ritzema/sta...52868256354306

Bruh your minister told a foreign government that the UK will never recognize Russian sovereignty over provinces whose Russian sovereignty has not been questioned. The haste and intemperacy of the minister is on display, even if the gaffe doesn't have wider diplomatic implications. There's only three Eastern European names any official really needs to know: Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea.

The British Foreign Secretary told the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry about the need to withdraw Russian armed forces from the Ukrainian border. Sergei Lavrov replied that the military is on the territory of his country. Liz Truss repeated that they should be withdrawn. To this, the Russian minister again objected that the military is not violating anything, since they have the right to conduct any maneuvers on the territory of the Russian Federation.

After that, he himself addressed a question to his British colleague: “Do you recognize the sovereignty of Russia over the Rostov and Voronezh regions?”

“Great Britain will never recognize Russian sovereignty over these regions,” the Foreign Minister replied after a short pause.

British Ambassador to the Russian Federation Deborah Bonnert had to intervene in the situation, who delicately explained to Mrs. Truss that we were really talking about Russian regions.

[Furunculus]

Nonsense, your own quote shows it:

Truss - The British Foreign Secretary told the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry about the need to withdraw Russian armed forces from the Ukrainian border.
[talking about little green men in Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea]

Lavrov - Sergei Lavrov replied that the military is on the territory of his country.
[pretending there aren't any little green men in Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea]

Truss - Liz Truss repeated that they should be withdrawn.
[still talking about little green men in Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea]

Lavrov - To this, the Russian minister again objected that the military is not violating anything, since they have the right to conduct any maneuvers on the territory of the Russian Federation.
[attempting to shift the conversation as if we have all accepted "that [all] the military is on the territory of his country."]

Lavrov - After that, he himself addressed a question to his British colleague: “Do you recognize the sovereignty of Russia over the Rostov and Voronezh regions?”
[pretending that we have all accepted that russia's military isn't sitting inside others peoples borders, asks: why do you object if our military is inside our border?]

Truss - “Great Britain will never recognize Russian sovereignty over these regions,” the Foreign Minister replied after a short pause.
[refusing to accept the premise - continues with the understanding we all share: that there are little green men in Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea]

No. I think i prefer the quoted tweets above, thank you.

[Furunculus]

And you've brought FBPE into it. I referred to "Brexit diplomacy" earlier to describe the behaviour of supposedly being on a diplomatic engagement but where the messaging is aimed at the papers and media back home rather than with the person in front of you. You've presumably taken that as free rein to go full on linking the discussion with Brexit,

See rory, this is the kind of behaviour I've been talking about. Everything the Tories do is excused, because they are getting Brexit done, with Brexit being an identity to be defended rather than a policy to be enacted.

the first two were the substantial points, from serious FP/IR pov.

the third was more of a bit of gentle fun for those who choose to beclown themselves by making everything about brexit (which was why i referred to it separately).
something you have accused me of, no?

[Montmorency]

[refusing to accept the premise - continues with the understanding we all share: that there are little green men in Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea]

That's what you wish she had done, but she wasn't thoughtful enough to detect/reject the red herring.

'Comment on the rightful ownership of Alaska.'
'Alaska belongs to Ukraine!'

or

'A lasker? Wozzat? No to Russian military buildup in annexed territories.'


Throughout the rising tensions President Zelensky has tried to keep life in Ukraine going, though some Western administrations have taken alarmed/alarmist postures since the start of winter. Ukraine's been on Level 4 travel advisory for a while now (though so have many other countries, due to Covid, so it's hard to tell.) In late January the State Department ordered embassy family members in Ukraine to leave, and recommended voluntary departure of staff, offering repatriation loans. Similar to Afghanistan at the beginning of summer 2021. Now, as in Afghanistan early last August, the US is issuing a blunt outright call for American nationals to leave the country; other countries are as well, including the UK, Norway, and South Korea. Such a disruptive move levied at a sovereign partner hopefully isn't being taken lightly, as some sort of bluff by Western powers. If there is a war, I hope @Gilrandir can take the time to delurk at some point to let us know if he's OK.

[Pannonian]

That's what you wish she had done, but she wasn't thoughtful enough to detect/reject the red herring.

'Comment on the rightful ownership of Alaska.'
'Alaska belongs to Ukraine!'

or

'A lasker? Wozzat? No to Russian military buildup in annexed territories.'


Throughout the rising tensions President Zelensky has tried to keep life in Ukraine going, though some Western administrations have taken alarmed/alarmist postures since the start of winter. Ukraine's been on Level 4 travel advisory for a while now (though so have many other countries, due to Covid, so it's hard to tell.) In late January the State Department ordered embassy family members in Ukraine to leave, and recommended voluntary departure of staff, offering repatriation loans. Similar to Afghanistan at the beginning of summer 2021. Now, as in Afghanistan early last August, the US is issuing a blunt outright call for American nationals to leave the country; other countries are as well, including the UK, Norway, and South Korea. Such a disruptive move levied at a sovereign partner hopefully isn't being taken lightly, as some sort of bluff by Western powers. If there is a war, I hope @Gilrandir can take the time to delurk at some point to let us know if he's OK.

The fact that the UK diplomat intervened to explain that Rostov and Voronezh were in Russia shows the error that Truss had made, no matter how Furunculus tries to spin it.

You guys are lucky. At least you've got rid of your Russian flunkies. Ours are still in charge.

[spmetla]

Russia’s military build-up enters a more dangerous phase
New satellite images show troops and equipment massing ever-closer to Ukraine
https://www.economist.com/interactiv...angerous-phase

.....Around 100 Russian battalion tactical groups—fighting formations of 1,000 or so troops, accompanied by air defence, artillery and logistics—have gathered on Ukraine’s borders with Russia and Belarus. The build-up has entered a new phase. Russian units are heading from large bases into staging areas near the border. Troops are moving to link up with their equipment. Vital enablers for war, like field hospitals and engineering units, are being put into place. All of this is visible. America and its nato allies scrutinise Russia’s mobilisation using spy satellites, surveillance flights and other means of gathering intelligence.

..........taken together, these satellite images show that Ukraine is now ringed by Russian forces to its north, east and south. That gives the Kremlin options: a thrust into the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine to support Russian proxies there; a deeper attack along Ukraine’s southern coast all the way to the Dnieper river; punitive raids against Ukraine’s armed forces—or even a drive all the way to Kyiv. On February 11th America urged its citizens to leave the city within 48 hours. As Antony Blinken, America’s secretary of state, noted on the same day: “We're in a window when an invasion could begin at any time.”

Looks like all the open-source indicators are showing an invasion likely happening the middle of next week. I see that the US has sent B-52s to aid in deterrence, nuke 'sniffing' aircraft, and now another 3000 paratroopers from 82nd Airborne to Poland.

I can only hope that this is some gigantic bluff but from what I think of Putin this is the real deal, he'll certainly cement himself into Russian history.

If it does happen I do wonder how far he will go. Given the economic repercussions that will happen I can imagine that he's just gonna go all out and puppet/annex 'Novo-russiya' and puppet Ukraine sorta like the union status that Belarus has with Russia.

[Furunculus]

The fact that the UK diplomat intervened to explain that Rostov and Voronezh were in Russia shows the error that Truss had made, no matter how Furunculus tries to spin it.

You guys are lucky. At least you've got rid of your Russian flunkies. Ours are still in charge.

How can 'ours' be described as Russian flunkies?

Who are they and what have they done that is flunkey'ish?

[Pannonian]

Bruh your minister told a foreign government that the UK will never recognize Russian sovereignty over provinces whose Russian sovereignty has not been questioned. The haste and intemperacy of the minister is on display, even if the gaffe doesn't have wider diplomatic implications. There's only three Eastern European names any official really needs to know: Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea.

Even her fellow Tories have noted the volume of content on her Instagram, surmising that her reading of her office of foreign affairs is to use it as a platform to campaign for the office of prime minister, rather than to do the job that it's supposed to involve. I suppose it's hard to blame her, since her predecessor has shown how that can be done. Either way, she's not in the Ukraine to engage with the Russians, she's in the Ukraine to engage with the Tory members.

[Furunculus]

Interesting twist with the UK being suggested to head a european security council:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-ne...-new-security/