Input | Output |
---|---|
Link | YouTube |
Published | 2023/01/27 |
Theme | |
Status | article incomplete |
Beau says:
Beau explains the recent decision to supply Ukraine as an escalation in equipment quality, not conflict, and underscores the importance of empowering Ukraine as a major power in Europe to deter aggression.
Foreign policy analysts
The full transcript provides a detailed analysis of the ongoing conflict dynamics and potential implications of foreign policy decisions.
#ForeignPolicy #Ukraine #Russia #NATO #Empowerment
Well, howdy there, internet people, Lidsbo again.
So today we are going to talk about escalation
and provocations in relationship to foreign policy.
There are a lot of people who are framing
the recent decision to supply Ukraine more as an escalation.
And there are people wondering if that is an accurate framing.
It depends on what they mean.
Is it an escalation in the quality of equipment being provided?
Yeah, absolutely. It definitely is.
Is it an escalation in the conflict itself?
No, no, not at all in any way.
What's this equipment going to be used for?
It's going to be used to mount a counteroffensive.
What has Ukraine been doing mounting counteroffensives?
It doesn't really change that.
It doesn't escalate that, it just shifts the dynamics and makes them more capable at doing that.
Now, as far as an escalation goes, you have to remember how this started.
Russia launched an unprovoked surprise invasion in violation of international law.
law. The only real escalations from there would be for NATO to get involved
directly or strategic arms. One of those isn't going to happen because most
people aren't insane. The other is unlikely to happen because it doesn't
appear to be needed and it would be better for Ukraine to do it on their own.
They don't come out on the other side as a country that NATO had to protect.
They come out the other side as a major power in Europe, under their own power.
Aside from that, when people talk about escalation, the worry is the response escalation.
What's Russia going to do, invade?
They're already there.
This has already started.
The war is ongoing.
Ukraine is holding its own against Russia.
Russia understands it cannot go toe-to-toe with NATO.
That isn't a real concern.
The flip side to this, at what point does Putin begin to see foreign aid packages no
differently than directly engaging?
If there's no response, or if there's no difference in risk of a nuclear response, why not just
go in and finish it?
Putin probably does view the aid packages as directly engaging.
He's definitely not happy about it.
But the question you have to ask is, what's he going to do?
can't go toe-to-toe with NATO. Take it out of foreign policy. Put it into a
normal street fight. You walk up and hit someone, bang! Okay, knock them down, they
get up and they hit you. And when you're taking a step back, somebody
beside them hands them a lead pipe. You're probably really unhappy with the
person who handed that lead pipe over, right? But what are you going to focus on?
You're not going to start a fight with another person, especially because in
the analogy there's like an army of people with lead pipes right behind them.
So he probably does view it, and I don't know if he views it as direct
engagement, but he definitely views it in an unfavorable light. Now as far as the
the nuclear response option, NATO getting directly involved does escalate
the risk of that, but that's probably not why NATO isn't getting involved. It has
to do with the situation on the ground, the political situation at home, and the future
stability of Europe.
It is much better for NATO, for Ukraine, to come out of this a major power in Europe.
Long-term poker table strategy right there.
It means that if there is further Russian aggression, they have to go through a major
power first.
It's better for Ukraine because they don't end up a country within NATO that is just
that one NATO accepted after they saved it.
major power under their own power. As far as the nuclear response, a strategic
response, it's the same thing that we've talked about before. It's unlikely. Putin
understands that if that happens, he's number one. He is the number one
target him, his family, they're gone.
That is going to happen if that occurs.
So he probably wants to avoid that.
Even in a conventional US response or a conventional NATO response to something very limited that
is using strategic arms, Putin and his family are gone, and even conventionally, Russia
is destroyed.
That takes it to a whole new level of devastation that nobody wants.
Nobody wants.
Clinton wanted wealth, safety, security, all of that stuff.
That's what it was about.
Going from that, trying to expand and rebuild the Russian Empire, to being the person who
totally destroys Russia, probably doesn't want that as his legacy.
The key thing here is Russia cannot go toe-to-toe with NATO.
It's not a possibility.
It's not something they can do.
So NATO is in the position of being able to supply this without really worrying about
a conventional response.
And relatively safe in the assumption that Putin isn't going to want to trigger the
devastation of his country. So that's where we're at. This isn't an escalation in the
conflict. It's not broadening the conflict. It isn't deepening it. If anything, it might
speed the end of it, which is good. Again, the equipment that is being supplied, when
When you view it all together, that's a pretty amazing force.
It would be great if Russia understood that it can't go toe-to-toe with NATO.
And by extension, it can't go toe-to-toe with NATO's equipment, even if only used at half
of its capabilities.
it just isn't what it used to be.
Anyway, it's just a thought.
Have a good day.
{{Shirt}}
{{EasterEgg}}