European Council of Foreign Relations openly talks about vassalisation of Europe by the US

ecfr.eu The art of vassalisation: How Russia’s war on Ukraine has transformed transatlantic relations

Europeans’ response to Russia’s war on Ukraine confirms their profound dependence on the US – an unwise position given the security challenge in Europe and coming geopolitical competition with China.

The report is absolutely scathing. Some choice quotes:

But when the next crisis came, both the US and the governments of Europe fell back on old models of alliance leadership. Europe, as EU high representative for foreign affairs Josep Borrell loudly lamented prior to Russia’s invasion, is not really at the table when it comes to dealing with the Russia-Ukraine crisis. It has instead embarked on a process of vassalisation.

But “alone” had a very specific meaning for Scholz. He was unwilling to send Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine unless the US also sent its own main battle tank, the M1 Abrams. It was not enough that other partners would send tanks or that the US might send other weapons. Like a scared child in a room full of strangers, Germany felt alone if Uncle Sam was not holding its hand.

Europeans’ lack of agency in the Russia-Ukraine crisis stems from this growing power imbalance in the Western alliance. Under the Biden administration, the US has become ever more willing to exercise this growing influence.

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

171 comments

If you knew anything about Russia you'd know the popular myths about Ukraine and Crimea.
...also, just watch Putin's start of the war speech. He lays it all out plain to see. It's of course bullshit from a historical or facts on the ground perspective, but it does match the Russian legend of "Ukrainians don't exist, they are confused Russians". Already back in 2000 when I was over there otherwise completely reasonable people would react with confusion and even anger to things like Ukraine mandating a certain percentage of songs on the radio being Ukrainian, to claw back against Russification policies that had been in place since the 18th century, starting with Peter I.
There's plenty of translations and analyses of that speech around on the internet, not hard to find. Also, talk to people from the Baltic states some time.
A single word for that "greater goal" would be раздолье (both "expanse" and "liberty"), pretty much the Russian version of Manifest Destiny and core to the "justification" of imperialism in Muscovite national myth. You don't seriously believe that a country came to be continent-sized without being imperialist, do you?
- I'm not claiming I know much about Russia, much to the contrary I wish to learn more. Which is why I'd like it if you recommended some trusted source that replicates and expands your analysis because, as you know, the internet is riddled with disinformation. If the speech you refer to it this one, it doesn't seem to have any issue with an independent Ukraine outside the currently annexed lands. What is wrong in my interpretation there of the war goal then?
  
  What is wrong in my interpretation there of the war goal then?
  I never said anything about annexation of the whole in the legal sense, I said they wanted to install a puppet regime. Yet another Yanukovich, though this time with military backing because as in Belarus, the people provably don't like Kremlin puppets (irrespective of native language). Annexation would come later, in the fullness of time, at the appropriate juncture, when noone is looking. Or via the Union State, just as in the USSR where the different SSRs were nominally independent.
  If you want Russian impressions, try NFKRZ on youtube, currently in Georgian exile. For analysis, Vlad Vexler (CW: trained philosopher), also there, long time in UK exile. For general Ukraine stuff, raw interviews, boots on the ground journalism Dylan Bourns, also youtube.
  
  Oh sorry, I didn't mean to implied you suggested that their plan was annexation, but rather that the general war goal was to topple the Ukrainian govt instead of just keeping the current regions, which was the official war goal from the very beginning. None of the words I've found coming directly from the Kremlin seem to support such notion. Apparently Ukraine has already conceded to all but the land demands for an year now. If those demands are all met, is there any reason to believe Russia would escalate the conflict? Remember, this discussion started because of my disagreement with your following statement on the grounds that Russia doesn't seem intent on controlling any more than the currently annexed areas.
  Russia can’t even fucking match Ukraine which is being drip-fed surplus.
  
  Apparently Ukraine has already conceded to all but the land demands for an year now.
  That stuff is off the table. Initially Ukraine was willing to say "leave us the hell alone, stop occupying our territory, and we won't join NATO" and such things, but given that Russia failed to leave them alone (and also can't be trusted to use treaties as anything but toilet paper, see e.g. the Budapest memorandum), things like the Bucha massacre, hitting civilian infrastructure front, left and centre, everything, joining NATO is the only realistic way forward to security for Ukraine.
  Even if Zelensky wanted to at this stage the people wouldn't let him. The peace negotiations won't be about territory but how many reparations (I'd guess in the form of mining concessions) Russia has to pay before sanctions are getting lifted.
  Remember, this discussion started because of my disagreement with your following statement on the grounds that Russia doesn’t seem intent on controlling any more than the currently annexed areas.
  Russia can’t even fucking match Ukraine which is being drip-fed surplus.
  I still 110% stand by that sentence: Russia is on the retreat, its defensive lines are soon going to break, they have major logistical issues (thanks, Storm Shadow) and all that is not even including that after Prigoshin's stunt the Kremlin is currently occupied with running around like headless chicken. That is: No, they're not holding the occupied territories. Don't let the apparent crawl of progress confuse you defensive lines are always hard to crack, the fast stuff comes once they're breached and you can attack other parts of the line from behind.
  You know the by now I think classic saying: First everyone thought that Russia had the second strongest army in the world, then we all realised that it has the second strongest army in Ukraine. European countries OTOH did build their capabilities based on the "second in the world" impression, and even if they fall a bit short based on that measure -- Russia isn't the second strongest army in the world.
  Random point to give a sense of scale difference: Ukraine is keeping the Russian air force at stalemate (neither side has air dominance) with what 50 ageing MiGs (model "uses civilian GPS"), as well as ground-based systems (of which Russia also has plenty). The EU fields about 1700 jets, a vast number either modern or very upgraded, with capabilities specifically designed to kill ground-based air defence and establish air dominance. Good ole NATO doctrine: Hit so fast and hard and deep in the air that the opposing force is dealing with a ground front"line" consisting of all of their land area.
  
  Russia is on the retreat, its defensive lines are soon going to break.
  Considering you didn't really push back on the basis of the claim that Russia has very little interest in anything but the formally annexed areas, I don't see why this matters. If Russia needs only to hold onto what they annexed, it's not on them to match the Ukrainian army, but on the Ukrainian army to match and surpass the Russian defence now. They have more or less been holding on the position for 1 whole year, despite sanctions and economic warfare. And they still mainly only lay claim to the annexed territories and demand Ukraine out of NATO (which I'm pretty sure is already a settled deal) in order for peace talks. So if the ball is in Ukraine's court to push out the Russian forces off of those regions, I don't think it's accurate to say that "Russia can't match Ukraine" on a stalemate with Russia on a favourable position for so long, with only now some sign of Ukraine retaking the territory. I don't think it matters too much what speculation we have on what is "going to" happen for the sake of that argument. Also, for the sake of my curiosity, do you want this war to end as soon as possible?
  
  If Russia needs only to hold onto what they annexed, it’s not on them to match the Ukrainian army,
  Ok let me stop you right there. Russia put everything it has into the Ukrainian frontline. If you have any illusions about that consider their military response to an armed rebellion: A couple of planes (all of which were lost), mountains of police forces -- with like three armored vehicles between them. Transports, not tanks or artillery. In technical terms Russia right now has exactly zero defence in depth, and their other borders are pretty much deserted.
  The situation you're looking at right now is nowhere close to a stalemate. The reason we only now see Ukrainian gains is because a) weather and b) Ukraine training troops, receiving hardware from the west, etc, for the last months. Why would Ukraine start an offensive in unsuitable weather with disorganised forces with cracked tires and reactive armor replaced by cardboard: They're not Russians.
  Summing up: Ukraine is currently rolling, slowly but surely, over the combined might (minus nukes) of the Russian armed forces. And you wanted to tell me Russia would stand a chance even against, say, France, alone.
  Also, for the sake of my curiosity, do you want this war to end as soon as possible?
  I want Russia's imperial aggression to cease as soon as possible. And as they don't seem to be willing to leave willingly they will need to be driven out.
  
  And you wanted to tell me Russia would stand a chance even against, say, France, alone.
  I would never suggest such hypothetical as it doesn't even make sense from a geopolitical perspective for either party in my opinion. Neither would ever declare war on each other alone as things stand. My point is that I don't believe you are correct in saying that "Russia can't match Ukraine" given that they have achieved their official war goal a whole year ago. Feel free to correct me with some official Russian statement on how they actually want anything more than those 4 Oblasts and Ukraine out of NATO, things that are already well within their grasps.
  The situation you’re looking at right now is nowhere close to a stalemate. The reason we only now see Ukrainian gains is because a) weather and b) Ukraine training troops, receiving hardware from the west, etc, for the last months.
  That seems to be the definition of a stalemate, yes. If the stalemate is ending now, we will only be able to tell in the future. If neither side is making gains due to logistics, strategy or elements outside of their control, I don't know what to call it other than a stalemate.
  Why would Ukraine start an offensive in unsuitable weather with disorganised forces with cracked tires and reactive armor [sic] replaced by cardboard: They’re not Russians.
  Do you dislike Russians as a people or something? That seems like a weird comparison to make on basis of ethnicity alone.
  If you have any illusions about that consider their military response to an armed rebellion.
  Are the Russian forces supposed to be able to match both Ukrainian and Russian forces now?
  I want Russia’s imperial aggression to cease as soon as possible. And as they don’t seem to be willing to leave willingly they will need to be driven out.
  But is that more important than ending the war as soon as possible? Can there be no peace so long as Russia occupies the 4 oblasts? In other words, can peace only come if Ukraine wins a decisive victory and not a day before? For the record, I am generally in favour of an immediate cease fire so that negotiations can happen without further spilling of blood.
  
  yogthos said:
  Given that Europe is in no position to match Russia militarily, it is therefore reliant on US for military strength.
  (I first thought that was you but it actually wasn't, however, doesn't matter it's still the context)
  To which I replied:
  Russia can’t even fucking match Ukraine which is being drip-fed surplus.
  Now, if you accept that Europe as a whole has more military might than Ukraine alone, my point stands. I rest my case.
  If neither side is making gains due to logistics, strategy or elements outside of their control, I don’t know what to call it other than a stalemate.
  Do you play chess? You can have long exchanges of moves without one player capturing a piece, yet any observer with knowledge of the game will be able to tell you that one is winning, and the other is losing.
  Are the Russian forces supposed to be able to match both Ukrainian and Russian forces now?
  An army indeed should be able to match a mercenary company it employs, yes.
  Can there be no peace so long as Russia occupies the 4 oblasts?
  Ask the people lying in mass graves in Bucha. Ask the prisoners of war Russians castrated with pocket knives. If Russia is given the territories they will not know peace, they will know genocide and tyranny: No, there cannot be peace as long as Russia is occupying, categorically so precisely because genocide and tyranny aren't peace.
  Also besides the point countries cannot be allowed to get away with wars of conquest. As a tankie I'd expect you to hold that imperialism is bad in any and all circumstances, but, it seems, you're blind on the Russian eye. I wonder why, it's not that current-day Russia would be anywhere close to communist, in either name or action, why are you taking their side?
  
  I wonder why, it’s not that current-day Russia would be anywhere close to communist, in either name or action, why are you taking their side?
  I certainly have no side in this war, I only wish for the bloodshed to end however it needs to. I have not even defended Russia from any moral standpoint, and am specifically only arguing about that specific point you made. If you think saying "Ukraine is not winning right now" is defending Russia, you might be conflating (controversial) assessments of war performance with some kind of endorsement for the winning side. Germany defeated France in WW2, doesn't mean they were the goodest good boys.
  Russia can’t even fucking match Ukraine which is being drip-fed surplus.
  Now, if you accept that Europe as a whole has more military might than Ukraine alone, my point stands. I rest my case.
  Your point does not really stand because 1) I have never mentioned the rest of Europe myself here and am only attempting to understand and correct a possible misrepresentation of the conflict as if Russia is not "matching" Ukraine itself, which would require Russia to be trying and failing to advance in Ukraine rather than defending conquered positions, and 2) Ukraine is receiving a good chunk of material support from NATO and other NATO countries, which should count against the notion that Ukraine is single-handedly blocking some complete Russian advance.
  From my very humble understanding, Russia's official stance is only to maintain their annexation, in which case they already achieved all that they sought to through war, and need only defend their new positions. Can you provide me any source that goes in-depth on how this not true?
  An army indeed should be able to match a mercenary company it employs, yes.
  The mercs they employ is part of their total forces, but counting a revolt of a corp as some victory for Ukraine seems misguided. Were the mutineer communist soldiers in WW1 in Russia a victory for the Kaiser?
  Everything below here is beside the point and tangential.
  Do you play chess? You can have long exchanges of moves without one player capturing a piece, yet any observer with knowledge of the game will be able to tell you that one is winning, and the other is losing.
  Taking this rather simplistic chess analogy, Russia controls the parts of the board it intends to, and Ukraine has finally started pushing it back. Either way chess is a terrible analogy because there are no peace treaties in that game and it only ends when one side wins definitively or in a complete draw. Since you like Paradox, it's more like if Russia currently occupies the the war goal and is just waiting for the war score to go up while defending counter-offensives. Still simplistic, but I believe it is more appropriate. Real life complexities don't translate well into games though.
  Ask the people lying in mass graves in Bucha. Ask the prisoners of war Russians castrated with pocket knives. If Russia is given the territories they will not know peace, they will know genocide and tyranny: No, there cannot be peace as long as Russia is occupying, categorically so precisely because genocide and tyranny aren’t peace.
  Taking your word for these, why exactly is the only way to stop that with direct warfare? Has Russia ever denied the condition of free passage of Ukranians in the 4 Oblasts to the rest of Ukraine in case of a ceasefire? How is soldiers dying in the front materially helping those people? And why does Ukraine not evacuate all of their civilians who want no part in the war if they want to avoid such atrocities?
  
  Ukraine is receiving a good chunk of material support from NATO and other NATO countries, which should count against the notion that Ukraine is single-handedly blocking some complete Russian advance.
  Ukrainian manpower is, with NATO surplus materiel. Going up against even just the EU, not the whole of NATO, would involve going up against more than twice the current size of the Ukrainian army, and that's without conscription, it's all professional soldiers. Well-equipped ones at that.
  In Russia, in the meantime, well, Shoigu has some very nice villas, so do his generals. Not terribly useful in a war, though.
  Since you like Paradox, it’s more like if Russia currently occupies the the war goal and is just waiting for the war score to go up while defending counter-offensives.
  If you compare Russian vs. Ukrainian morale Russia's war exhaustion was at like 50% the moment the three-day offensive failed. In Ukraine people were queuing at recruitment centres, the army didn't have capacity to train that many people at once. Contrast Russia which wanted to conscript 300k people, upon which 700k (conservative estimate) fled the country. Many more would like to but don't have the means. Russia is a big place if you want to vanish in the woods there's pretty much nothing stopping you but your survival skills.
  Has Russia ever denied the condition of free passage of Ukranians in the 4 Oblasts to the rest of Ukraine in case of a ceasefire?
  Russia has been force-relocating people to filtration camps. They have abducted children. Give me one good reason to believe they'd grant freedom of movement.
  Also, irrelevant: Those areas would still be under Russian rule. That's imperialism and remember imperialism bad and must be opposed.
  And why does Ukraine not evacuate all of their civilians who want no part in the war if they want to avoid such atrocities?
  Because the Russian army would shoot at them. They also shoot at aid workers trying to bring supplies to people affected by the Nova Kakhovka dam breach while themselves not lifting a finger to help people.
  But to bring out a more general point: None of this is your decision. Mine, neither, it's just that my position aligns with what Ukrainians themselves want: Their country back, and Russia to fuck off. Had the three-day offensive succeeded Ukrainians would've started a partisan war, they're tenacious bastards.
  Also I find this whole "pacifism is when you roll over and let me kick you" line of thinking highly distasteful. No, maybe I want to break my fist on your skull when you fuck with me and my loved ones because отъебись и ёб твою мать.

171 comments