>Stoltenberg says that NATO has—since 2014—“provided significant support with equipment, with training, 10s of 1000s of Ukrainian soldiers have been trained”. And “then when we saw the intelligence indicating a highly likely invasion Allies stepped up last autumn and this winter”.
You make this sound like a bad thing, when it is one of the many important factors that has allowed Ukraine to survive.
Can you help me understand something? We've been talking in Substack comment sections for a while; I appreciate your comments and find them interesting. But why are your comments always single sentences? For me personally, it gives our interactions a very odd dynamic, almost as if we're trading jabs or trading pithy little one-liners instead of having a serious conversation to shed light on interesting and important issues. So going forward, what do you think about typing full paragraphs?
Also, typing full paragraphs is way more efficient because if I can get the context of your thoughts on a topic then I don't have to query you 50 times in order to figure out your actual thinking and your actual argument.
Because I feel like when I have put more effort into a comment you respond by just referring to another piece you've written, which isn't much of a discussion.
To expand on the above discussion regarding 2014. Ukraine was moving towards the west and NATO, where it could rely on the multi-nation bloc as a defense against russia. NATO's article 10 is an "open door" policy, where countries that meet specific requirements can ask to join. One of those requirements is no territorial disputes. This is how putin kept Georgia out of NATO in 2008 and he did it again by seizing Crimea in 2014. A low to medium war has been simmering there ever since. There hasn't been a ceasefire longer than 2 weeks in that time. Now NATO could not defend Ukraine but it could help it to defend itself, which it clearly needed, and they did. Your neighbor has already broken in the front gate. Is it a "provocation" to give you the training and equipment to defend the rest of your house?
Thanks for doing a more robust comment. I'll make sure not to just link to something; I apologize for doing that.
I don't understand the relevance of pointing out that there was conflict before 2022. Surely you would agree that the invasion has had enormous human consequences for Ukraine? And for Africa? And for the Middle East? So surely you agree that preventing the invasion would've been a huge deal? Surely you're not suggesting that stopping the invasion wouldn't have had an enormous impact? It seems like you're downplaying how important the invasion was, but maybe I'm misunderstanding.
The issue (regarding Stoltenberg) is whether Washington tried to stop the invasion from happening. Pouring weapons and training into Ukraine might not have been the best way to stop that from happening; there is a history of warnings on this from top-level US diplomats saying "This is a red line and you shouldn't do this...this is dangerous". But Washington pressed forward and made zero effort (it seems, anyway) to take into account Russian concerns. None of this justifies the invasion of course; the point is simply that Washington knew what it was doing (they were warned) and simply didn't care.
Feb 14, 2023·edited Feb 14, 2023Liked by Andrew Van Wagner
>I don't understand the relevance of pointing out that there was conflict before 2022.
I'm making the point that we weren't sending weapons and giving them training for no reason. They were in a conflict and we were helping them to defend themselves. There's nothing wrong with that at all. That's not a provocation, that's a reaction.
>It seems like you're downplaying how important the invasion was, but maybe I'm misunderstanding.
Maybe I misunderstood the point of your above article, because all of it has to do with events prior to the invasion.
>The issue (regarding Stoltenberg) is whether Washington tried to stop the invasion from happening. Pouring weapons and training into Ukraine might not have been the best way to stop that from happening; .... the point is simply that Washington knew what it was doing (they were warned) and simply didn't care.
It very much refutes many of the points you've often tried to make. Especially the US "blocking diplomacy" prior to the invasion.
To give you a brief summary, it details the US identifying that an invasion was likely. Struggling to convince the Euros and the Ukrainians that it was going to happen. Attempting to engage the russians in diplomacy, as late as february of 2022, when Biden told putin over the phone that "the US remains prepared to engage in diplomacy." and providing defensive assistance to ukraine while holding back more offensive resources and intelligence that could be a construed as a PROVOCATION by the russians.
There's even a relevant quote for you on this last point:
<<Ukrainian officials have expressed unending gratitude to the United
States for what it has provided since the start of the war. “No other
country in the world did more for Ukraine to get the necessary
weapons than the United States since 24 February. No other country
in the world,” Kuleba said recently. But from the beginning, he said, he and other Ukrainian officials have believed that the “non-provocation” strategy was the wrong one.
“Where did it take us to?” Kuleba said. “I think this war — with thousands killed and wounded, territories lost, part of the economy destroyed ... is the best answer to those who still advocate the non-provocation of Russia.”>>
Thanks Andrew for this exhaustive summary of the debates and propaganda surrounding the Ukraine War. With the Cold War, the Middle East Wars, and now the Ukraine War, the old saying "Truth is the first casualty of war" was never more true.
>Stoltenberg says that NATO has—since 2014—“provided significant support with equipment, with training, 10s of 1000s of Ukrainian soldiers have been trained”. And “then when we saw the intelligence indicating a highly likely invasion Allies stepped up last autumn and this winter”.
You make this sound like a bad thing, when it is one of the many important factors that has allowed Ukraine to survive.
But isn't this the circular logic that Kennan warns about in the piece above?
No, because it happened after 2014, when the russians had already invaded.
Can you help me understand something? We've been talking in Substack comment sections for a while; I appreciate your comments and find them interesting. But why are your comments always single sentences? For me personally, it gives our interactions a very odd dynamic, almost as if we're trading jabs or trading pithy little one-liners instead of having a serious conversation to shed light on interesting and important issues. So going forward, what do you think about typing full paragraphs?
Also, typing full paragraphs is way more efficient because if I can get the context of your thoughts on a topic then I don't have to query you 50 times in order to figure out your actual thinking and your actual argument.
Because I feel like when I have put more effort into a comment you respond by just referring to another piece you've written, which isn't much of a discussion.
To expand on the above discussion regarding 2014. Ukraine was moving towards the west and NATO, where it could rely on the multi-nation bloc as a defense against russia. NATO's article 10 is an "open door" policy, where countries that meet specific requirements can ask to join. One of those requirements is no territorial disputes. This is how putin kept Georgia out of NATO in 2008 and he did it again by seizing Crimea in 2014. A low to medium war has been simmering there ever since. There hasn't been a ceasefire longer than 2 weeks in that time. Now NATO could not defend Ukraine but it could help it to defend itself, which it clearly needed, and they did. Your neighbor has already broken in the front gate. Is it a "provocation" to give you the training and equipment to defend the rest of your house?
Thanks for doing a more robust comment. I'll make sure not to just link to something; I apologize for doing that.
I don't understand the relevance of pointing out that there was conflict before 2022. Surely you would agree that the invasion has had enormous human consequences for Ukraine? And for Africa? And for the Middle East? So surely you agree that preventing the invasion would've been a huge deal? Surely you're not suggesting that stopping the invasion wouldn't have had an enormous impact? It seems like you're downplaying how important the invasion was, but maybe I'm misunderstanding.
The issue (regarding Stoltenberg) is whether Washington tried to stop the invasion from happening. Pouring weapons and training into Ukraine might not have been the best way to stop that from happening; there is a history of warnings on this from top-level US diplomats saying "This is a red line and you shouldn't do this...this is dangerous". But Washington pressed forward and made zero effort (it seems, anyway) to take into account Russian concerns. None of this justifies the invasion of course; the point is simply that Washington knew what it was doing (they were warned) and simply didn't care.
>I don't understand the relevance of pointing out that there was conflict before 2022.
I'm making the point that we weren't sending weapons and giving them training for no reason. They were in a conflict and we were helping them to defend themselves. There's nothing wrong with that at all. That's not a provocation, that's a reaction.
>It seems like you're downplaying how important the invasion was, but maybe I'm misunderstanding.
Maybe I misunderstood the point of your above article, because all of it has to do with events prior to the invasion.
>The issue (regarding Stoltenberg) is whether Washington tried to stop the invasion from happening. Pouring weapons and training into Ukraine might not have been the best way to stop that from happening; .... the point is simply that Washington knew what it was doing (they were warned) and simply didn't care.
I disagree with this when you apply it to US actions from 2021 to the invasion and I suggest you read this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/interactive/2022/ukraine-road-to-war/
It very much refutes many of the points you've often tried to make. Especially the US "blocking diplomacy" prior to the invasion.
To give you a brief summary, it details the US identifying that an invasion was likely. Struggling to convince the Euros and the Ukrainians that it was going to happen. Attempting to engage the russians in diplomacy, as late as february of 2022, when Biden told putin over the phone that "the US remains prepared to engage in diplomacy." and providing defensive assistance to ukraine while holding back more offensive resources and intelligence that could be a construed as a PROVOCATION by the russians.
There's even a relevant quote for you on this last point:
<<Ukrainian officials have expressed unending gratitude to the United
States for what it has provided since the start of the war. “No other
country in the world did more for Ukraine to get the necessary
weapons than the United States since 24 February. No other country
in the world,” Kuleba said recently. But from the beginning, he said, he and other Ukrainian officials have believed that the “non-provocation” strategy was the wrong one.
“Where did it take us to?” Kuleba said. “I think this war — with thousands killed and wounded, territories lost, part of the economy destroyed ... is the best answer to those who still advocate the non-provocation of Russia.”>>
Thanks Andrew for this exhaustive summary of the debates and propaganda surrounding the Ukraine War. With the Cold War, the Middle East Wars, and now the Ukraine War, the old saying "Truth is the first casualty of war" was never more true.
Great piece!