Sorry I wasn't too clear, the simplistic part that I was referring to was that "only the US counts" when it comes to projection of militaristic power. The fact that Ukraine has so far held its own for over a year shows that militaristic power is a nuanced thing. Have they been getting loads of aid? Yes. Is almost all of the man power fighting on the ground Ukrainian? Also yes. Does it count from a purely militaristic point of view whether the other nations are part of NATO? Yes, because the point of NATO is a collective approach. The US is the dominant player in terms of military projection of power, but there is no exact way of quantifying the extent of their dominance. If you go by expenditure, US dominance looks very large, like ~65%. If you go by total boots on the ground, the US is still the biggest single member of NATO, but its total number of military personnel as a part of NATO is about 30%.
It must be acknowledged that the Ukrainians have put up an incredible fight and all credit to them in that regard... but people should not get too carried away when drawing conclusions from the Ukraine conflict in terms of lessons learned for future grand scale conflicts between Russia and NATO or the US and China... and two issues I will raise as an example: (1) Russia has not committed the majority of their forces to the war in terms of manpower (about 200,000 have been used for much of the war from a country with 140+ million people and even many of their mobilised troops have not been committed as yet) nor of its air force and weaponry; and (2) Ukraine has benefited greatly from the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance provided to them by NATO which in effect has gotten rid of the potential for surprise by either sides with any major push... pretty much, both sides know what the other is about to do... but in a proper all out war, Russia or the US would look to destroy all such infrastructure and ISR gathering equipment (eg. satellites) before committing troops... imagine a Ukraine on its own with no intelligence or support from the US and with the Russians destroying its power grids, oil refineries, air fields, bridges, radar etc., a blockade of its coastline, its air defence destroyed etc... lambs to the slaughter
People also overestimate the collective nature, unity and strength of NATO... for example, Turkey is a NATO member with the largest NATO army in Europe with important NATO military installations and which controls the entrance to the Black Sea... and yet, it has not implemented sanctions on Russia, it has itself launched a special military operation into Syria, sold arms to Ukraine, deepened economic ties with Russia, talked about joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, agreed in principle (I think) to acting as Russia's gas hub for continued gas supplies to Europe etc... there is even now talk about a rapprochement between Turkey and Syria... Turkey weren't even invited to the US's Summit for Democracy recently and you have had the likes of Bolton calling for Turkey to be kicked out of NATO... Hungary is clearly not on side... the Balkan NATO members are useless... the Western powers armies' atrophied with, for example, Britain's army dropping from about 130,000 personnel to about 80,000 and their tanks levels dropping from about 1,200 during the Cold War to less than 300
People should also not be too impressed by Article 5 of the NATO treaty and what protection it provides fellow members
Insofar as the US has had interest in what has gone on in and around Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the biggest single factor has been private self-interest. The US really missed a trick in the early 90s, when it allowed a bunch of capitalists a free hand to get in and do their thing. This is NOT what they did in central Europe at the end of WW2, and the differing outcomes are plain to see.
I have brought up the Wolfowitz Doctrine previously and I will do so again as I think it is pretty clear what the US plan was for Russia post-Cold War:
"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power."
in other words, the US need to ensure to keep the Russians down
"The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. In non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."
in other words, no other country must aspire to any greater influence than may challenge US global leadership
and since this was a leaked document not intended for public consumption and its author continued to have significant influence on US policy afterwards (eg. the Iraq War), we know that this is what these elements within Washington truly want
I will give the US credit post-WWII as they did a lot to restore war ravaged Europe and Japan
I somewhat disagreed because no sane person can deny the damage that US projection of power has caused in a range of areas around the world, I agree on that point. It is simplistic, however, to take that knowledge and apply it in areas of the world where the US has historically been either more of a force for good, or less of a source of evil compared with someone else. This is certainly the case in Europe, where the US played a key role in putting the boot to Hitler and crew. In that context, and over to Eastern Europe where the Russians are used as scary bedtime stories to make children behave, the US are broadly seen as the good guys, and the reality elsewhere such as in the Middle East is not going to transfer. Smart international operators don't go around telling peoples "this nation is XYZ because of what they did in some distant country", they find out what the people believe and operate based on that. The Russians have stuffed up in the Ukraine because they failed to read the pulse of the people.
1. 80%+ of the Wehrmacht was destroyed on the Eastern Front at a cost of 27+ million Soviet citizens... so.. while the US was saving private Ryan, the Russians were destroying the Third Reich
2. this united, harmonious vision of one Europe is a relatively recent phenomenon considering the two great conflicts of the 20th Century were in effect European wars not started by the Russians... and in particular, much of Eastern Europe is full of fanatics with long held grievances and aversions to more than just Russians (and I am an East European fanatic myself)
3. The Russians have read the pulse of people, just not the Europeans because the Europeans are becoming less and less important... just consider what changes we are seeing in the Middle East with Iran and Saudi Arabia, with OPEC+, with India, with China throwing their lot in with Russia (because the Chinese are next), in Latin America, in Africa etc... just look at the world map of nations that have and have not sanctioned Russia... it tells a story... a story of a world less dominated by the West... Europe is the past, Eurasia and the Pacific are the future
You can actually mount a pretty good argument that the US finally got out of Afghanistan because they DID take the pulse of the people. Better late than never, but it finally dawned on them that they couldn't make the people believe and act they way they wanted them to. So they got out.
"When it comes to Russia’s war against Ukraine, if we were still in Afghanistan, it would have, I think, made much more complicated the support that we’ve been able to give and that others have been able to give Ukraine to resist and push back against the Russian aggression." - Antony Blinken
The war in Ukraine would end the moment Putin understands this, but he has other priorities right now. It isn't the US prolonging the war, it is Russia. Insofar as there was civil war in Ukraine, Russian provocation and meddling is a factor, perhaps a large one. Civil unrest and war is typically predicated on a mix of factors. The Arab spring was a factor in what is happening in Syria to this day, and the superpower that had the most involvement in Syria in the lead up to that particular unrest? Russia.
"Ukraine and Georgia's NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia's influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war." William Burns, US Ambassador to Russia (2008)
This was a confidential memorandum written by the then US Ambassador to Russia in 2008 leaked by Wikileaks
Don't give me unprovoked or that the US was unaware what would happen or that we have some harmonious and united Ukraine pre-2014 or a Russia intent on expansion
So far as Sweden is concerned, they've been neutral ever since a disastrous war against Russia that ended over 200 years ago and resulted in the toppling of the then monarchy. They have been steadfastly neutral towards Russia ever since, and a majority of the Swedish people have been in support of this neutrality, until now. It would be a bit of a stretch to say that the US is controlling the mindset of the Swedish people.
not what I am saying... I am saying that there is a history of aversion between the Russians and Swedes dating back to the conflicts of their respective empires and that Sweden has been a de facto partner of NATO
The current president of Ukraine doesn't have half a billion dollars, that is incorrect. He has about $20M according to most sources, and most of that is because the Presidential income was set by corrupt predecessors. A number of high ranking ministers and officials have been fired by him for being corrupt.
This is wrong and the pre-2022 reporting of the corruption in Ukraine is evidence of that... but of course, we cannot be sending tens of billions of dollars and ruin our own economies for a corrupt figurehead with a penchant for far right political parties, can we?
