Ukraine conflict
#111
Banned
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 96
I would bet they are…likely really back in the back channels right now…probably going on in a 3rd country with minimal news cameras around. It’s tough to put a finger on, though. You probably remember that President Obama (rightly) put a lot of diplomatic controls into place after the first russian invasion in 2014.
I’d bet my pension that the State department is doing everything in their power to get to diplomatic solutions. I also think that the senior leaders in the DoD ascribe to the Mattis notion that (paraphrasing) the DoD exists to: #1 support diplomatic solutions and #2 prosecute American foreign policy when no diplomatic solution can be achieved.
I have no proof of any this, but I have faith in most of our leaders.
I’d bet my pension that the State department is doing everything in their power to get to diplomatic solutions. I also think that the senior leaders in the DoD ascribe to the Mattis notion that (paraphrasing) the DoD exists to: #1 support diplomatic solutions and #2 prosecute American foreign policy when no diplomatic solution can be achieved.
I have no proof of any this, but I have faith in most of our leaders.
#112
I would bet they are…likely really back in the back channels right now…probably going on in a 3rd country with minimal news cameras around. It’s tough to put a finger on, though. You probably remember that President Obama (rightly) put a lot of diplomatic controls into place after the first russian invasion in 2014.
I’d bet my pension that the State department is doing everything in their power to get to diplomatic solutions. I also think that the senior leaders in the DoD ascribe to the Mattis notion that (paraphrasing) the DoD exists to: #1 support diplomatic solutions and #2 prosecute American foreign policy when no diplomatic solution can be achieved.
I have no proof of any this, but I have faith in most of our leaders.
I’d bet my pension that the State department is doing everything in their power to get to diplomatic solutions. I also think that the senior leaders in the DoD ascribe to the Mattis notion that (paraphrasing) the DoD exists to: #1 support diplomatic solutions and #2 prosecute American foreign policy when no diplomatic solution can be achieved.
I have no proof of any this, but I have faith in most of our leaders.
So do UR and RU at this point, but in both cases some face has to be saved and UR is so pizzed off that they're not going to make many concessions while the momentum is in their favor... why settle if you're confident you can win at trial?
It will be interesting to see what they come up with.
#113
The USG is not engaging in combat in UR, and no regular military personnel are there.
USG people, or any US persons, are free to travel to most places in the world, including UR.
You're a big freedom guy, why would USG tell people they can't go to UR? That would be blatant and overt support to RU.
#114
But in my experience, we would be studiously avoiding any direct or indirect combat under the circumstances, to avoid provocation or feeding into the RU narrative. Any hard men in UR are there for intel/coordination purposes only (might be two-way intel).
My guess, any training of UR forces which we may be involved in is being done outside UR borders (Poland is right there). Only common sense.
#115
The US government has admitted they just moved a Patriot defense system in there. The Ukrainian military cannot be trained on those operations instantly. Which means that US operatives are there running it at least until the Ukrainians are trained, manned, and up to speed on it.
It will take months to train UR forces, and it's doubtful they will transfer the hardware until it can be manned and fully operational. This is a mid-term project at best.
Who said there's a battery already there? Some fringe blogger?
It would take about 100 people to operate such a system, and I can guarantee you that's not a skillset that exists in the black socom world... those folks have, shall we say, an offensive bent.
#116
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,902
#117
As US diplomacy loses sanctions leverage…
…will they turn more to military action? Because the leverage of sanctions is becoming less and less.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/unite...-age-sanctions
Paywall, but they’ll give you the first article free.
Sanctions have long been the United States’ favored diplomatic weapon. The Biden administration’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a case in point: it immediately imposed a raft of punitive economic measures on Moscow and rallied other governments to do the same. That sanctions are a popular tool of U.S. policymakers makes sense. They fill the void between empty diplomatic declarations and deadly military interventions. Yet the golden days of U.S. sanctions may soon be over.
As Washington has come to rely more and more heavily on sanctions, many rogue states have begun to harden their economies against such measures. Three events over the past decade in particular have convinced them to do so. In 2012, the United States cut Iran off from SWIFT, the global messaging system that enables virtually all international payments, in a bid to isolate the country financially. Other U.S. enemies took note, wondering whether they might be next. Then, in 2014, Western countries imposed sanctions on Russia after it annexed Crimea, prompting Moscow to make economic autonomy a priority. Finally, in 2017, Washington started a trade war with Beijing, which soon spilled over to the technological sector. By restricting the export of U.S. semiconductor know-how to China, the United States put its adversaries on notice that their access to crucial technology could be severed.
These three episodes have fueled the emergence of a new phenomenon: sanctions resistance. The United States’ power to impose sanctions on other countries derives from the primacy of the U.S. dollar and the reach of U.S. oversight of global financial channels. It makes sense, then, that enemies of the United States would seek out financial innovations that diminish these U.S. advantages. Increasingly, such countries have found them with currency swap agreements, alternatives to SWIFT, and digital currencies
As Washington has come to rely more and more heavily on sanctions, many rogue states have begun to harden their economies against such measures. Three events over the past decade in particular have convinced them to do so. In 2012, the United States cut Iran off from SWIFT, the global messaging system that enables virtually all international payments, in a bid to isolate the country financially. Other U.S. enemies took note, wondering whether they might be next. Then, in 2014, Western countries imposed sanctions on Russia after it annexed Crimea, prompting Moscow to make economic autonomy a priority. Finally, in 2017, Washington started a trade war with Beijing, which soon spilled over to the technological sector. By restricting the export of U.S. semiconductor know-how to China, the United States put its adversaries on notice that their access to crucial technology could be severed.
These three episodes have fueled the emergence of a new phenomenon: sanctions resistance. The United States’ power to impose sanctions on other countries derives from the primacy of the U.S. dollar and the reach of U.S. oversight of global financial channels. It makes sense, then, that enemies of the United States would seek out financial innovations that diminish these U.S. advantages. Increasingly, such countries have found them with currency swap agreements, alternatives to SWIFT, and digital currencies
Paywall, but they’ll give you the first article free.
#118
…will they turn more to military action? Because the leverage of sanctions is becoming less and less.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/unite...-age-sanctions
Paywall, but they’ll give you the first article free.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/unite...-age-sanctions
Paywall, but they’ll give you the first article free.
#119
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post