Ukraine and world politics
February 25, 2022 4:52 PM Subscribe
Why did the United Nations and all of Europe not flood troops into Ukraine before
Russia invaded? Is it a matter of not being invited? Are they all just chickenshit? Is it just politics?
Best answer: Ukraine is not a member of the European Union or NATO. The United Nations doesn't provide for the defense of any member state (and, in fact, UN member states regularly are in conflict of each other). Even if Ukraine was a member of the European Union, while the EU military is larger than Russia, it is also split between 27 countries, and coordination between those countries would be a logistical nightmare.
Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in the entire world, and roughly 4x that of the EU, with a leader in charge that is arguably most likely in the world to use that arsenal.
In short, such an action would likely start a massive war with potentially world-wide casualties.
posted by saeculorum at 5:00 PM on February 25, 2022 [40 favorites]
Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in the entire world, and roughly 4x that of the EU, with a leader in charge that is arguably most likely in the world to use that arsenal.
In short, such an action would likely start a massive war with potentially world-wide casualties.
posted by saeculorum at 5:00 PM on February 25, 2022 [40 favorites]
Best answer: There's a lot going on in foreign affairs:
1) The US was not pretending that they were going to go to full scale war over Ukraine, a country that we don't have a formal defense treaty with. (I know about that the Budapest Memorandum, but the US has never thought that was a treaty and has been at pains to say it doesn't guarantee a military response for decades.) If they're not going to fight, why would they send troops?
2) Sending troops would have escalated the conflict. It would have been a de facto rush-entry of Ukraine into NATO and put NATO into a situation where it's troops are strategically threatening Russia, forming a half circle around it and Belarus.
3) Related to (2), not everyone believed--not even Ukrainians!--the threat. So many countries would have been averse to this action.
4) They weren't invited to place troops there, so it's all kind of moot. I suppose thy could have pressured Ukraine to be invited in . . . but see (2) and (3).
5) Rushing troops there right before an invasion would have left them in a militarily weak and exposed situation, uncoordinated with local defenders and each other to a large extent. NATO doesn't really prioritize foreign deployments of troops outside of NATO countries.
I haven't read it all yet, but military historian Bret Deveraux is popular among many MeFites and seems to be making some of these points about how we ended up here.
The "chickenshit" line makes me think you also want to as why NATO wasn't eager to get into a shooting war with Russia right now. "Nuclear weapons" is one part of this. But even leaving that aside (which you can't) and assuming everyone knew diplomacy was hopeless (which they didn't), there's a lot of geopolitical logic to intervening only indirectly here. Modern conquest is not usually profitable; the invasion is highly likely to weaken Russia and strengthen NATO.
posted by mark k at 5:18 PM on February 25, 2022 [25 favorites]
1) The US was not pretending that they were going to go to full scale war over Ukraine, a country that we don't have a formal defense treaty with. (I know about that the Budapest Memorandum, but the US has never thought that was a treaty and has been at pains to say it doesn't guarantee a military response for decades.) If they're not going to fight, why would they send troops?
2) Sending troops would have escalated the conflict. It would have been a de facto rush-entry of Ukraine into NATO and put NATO into a situation where it's troops are strategically threatening Russia, forming a half circle around it and Belarus.
3) Related to (2), not everyone believed--not even Ukrainians!--the threat. So many countries would have been averse to this action.
4) They weren't invited to place troops there, so it's all kind of moot. I suppose thy could have pressured Ukraine to be invited in . . . but see (2) and (3).
5) Rushing troops there right before an invasion would have left them in a militarily weak and exposed situation, uncoordinated with local defenders and each other to a large extent. NATO doesn't really prioritize foreign deployments of troops outside of NATO countries.
I haven't read it all yet, but military historian Bret Deveraux is popular among many MeFites and seems to be making some of these points about how we ended up here.
The "chickenshit" line makes me think you also want to as why NATO wasn't eager to get into a shooting war with Russia right now. "Nuclear weapons" is one part of this. But even leaving that aside (which you can't) and assuming everyone knew diplomacy was hopeless (which they didn't), there's a lot of geopolitical logic to intervening only indirectly here. Modern conquest is not usually profitable; the invasion is highly likely to weaken Russia and strengthen NATO.
posted by mark k at 5:18 PM on February 25, 2022 [25 favorites]
Best answer: The purpose of a military, especially a military deployed abroad, is to hurt and kill people. Besides the direct harm that more troops would do, their presence would also escalate other nations' responses, drawing more militaries into the fray, causing more harm, and so on.
A better response would be to open our borders and invite in as many refugees as we possibly can. That's what we'd be doing if we weren't so "chickenshit".
posted by panic at 5:18 PM on February 25, 2022 [17 favorites]
A better response would be to open our borders and invite in as many refugees as we possibly can. That's what we'd be doing if we weren't so "chickenshit".
posted by panic at 5:18 PM on February 25, 2022 [17 favorites]
1. Nuclear war
2. Armies have other things to shoot at, they can't just all pop over to wherever is getting the most news coverage.
posted by kingdead at 5:26 PM on February 25, 2022 [5 favorites]
2. Armies have other things to shoot at, they can't just all pop over to wherever is getting the most news coverage.
posted by kingdead at 5:26 PM on February 25, 2022 [5 favorites]
Best answer: Don’t interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake.
posted by mr_roboto at 5:29 PM on February 25, 2022 [46 favorites]
posted by mr_roboto at 5:29 PM on February 25, 2022 [46 favorites]
Best answer: Is it just politics?
There is definitely politics, and foreign affairs, and realpolitik involved in why Ukraine is not part of NATO. The Ukrainian leadership have sometimes been aligned with Russia and sometimes with Europe (under different leaders!). Broadly, speaking at the point at which Ukraine was interested in joining NATO, Russia had indicated that would make it deeply unhappy, and people do not always want to poke a bear with a stick.
The only former Soviet republics to join NATO are the Baltic states. Russia was less powerful in 2004 when happened, and none of those countries have ever been interested in aligning with Russia, having a very different history.
Ukraine is also interested in joining the EU. That would also annoy the Russians, but it's a more challenging path as it's also about having harmonised economic structures and the four freedoms. It would always take time to deliver that and get all the EU states comfortable with the admittance.
posted by plonkee at 6:46 PM on February 25, 2022 [2 favorites]
There is definitely politics, and foreign affairs, and realpolitik involved in why Ukraine is not part of NATO. The Ukrainian leadership have sometimes been aligned with Russia and sometimes with Europe (under different leaders!). Broadly, speaking at the point at which Ukraine was interested in joining NATO, Russia had indicated that would make it deeply unhappy, and people do not always want to poke a bear with a stick.
The only former Soviet republics to join NATO are the Baltic states. Russia was less powerful in 2004 when happened, and none of those countries have ever been interested in aligning with Russia, having a very different history.
Ukraine is also interested in joining the EU. That would also annoy the Russians, but it's a more challenging path as it's also about having harmonised economic structures and the four freedoms. It would always take time to deliver that and get all the EU states comfortable with the admittance.
posted by plonkee at 6:46 PM on February 25, 2022 [2 favorites]
Best answer: The "chickenshit" line makes me think you also want to as why NATO wasn't eager to get into a shooting war with Russia right now. "Nuclear weapons" is one part of this.
Even a conventional war with Russia would be disastrous for Europe, a continent that has set up major international institutions specifically to avoid descending into war (again). NATO operates on sort of a consensus and 28 of its 30 member states are wholly or partially in Europe.
posted by plonkee at 6:53 PM on February 25, 2022 [6 favorites]
Even a conventional war with Russia would be disastrous for Europe, a continent that has set up major international institutions specifically to avoid descending into war (again). NATO operates on sort of a consensus and 28 of its 30 member states are wholly or partially in Europe.
posted by plonkee at 6:53 PM on February 25, 2022 [6 favorites]
Best answer: the United Nations
Regarding the UN, there's a bunch of things going on.
One is that the UN does not have any standing military force of its own. It never has.
The other is that are a bunch of countries that aren't "chickenshit." They place personnel in harm's way for a whole bunch of UN peacekeeping operations that most people in the U.S. couldn't even find on a map.
Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and has voted "no" on condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This means that UN intervention, as far as a chapter mandate, is off the table.
China, India, and the UAE abstained, which would not have prevented a mandate from being issued, but Russia's "no" was a veto.
When the UN approves a peacekeeping mission and provides it with a mandate via the Security Council, it then turns to member nations to offer up force contingents to staff the mission.
Member nations need to pony up the resources to staff and supply a mission.
Often, this is a "beg, borrow, and steal" proposition for military personnel, equipment, and financial support for these mission mandates. And the countries who step up, time after time, are poorer countries.
The UN keeps statistics on contributions to peacekeeping missions by country. You know who barely contributes, both in absolute terms, and as a percentage of its population and vast military budget?
The United States.
It's pretty staggering.
The countries that punch above their weight in personnel contributions (particularly when considered on the basis of population) are Ghana, Nepal, Senegal, Rwanda, and Ethiopia, among others.
The U.S. contributes less personnel, in total, to current UN peacekeeping operations than Romania does, just to pull out one example.
And then there's the way in which these drag out:
UNFICYP (Cyprus) has been in operation since 1964.
UNDOF (Golan Heights) has been in operation since 1974.
UNIFIL (Lebanon) has been in operation since 1978.
UNMIK (Kosovo) has been in operation since 1999. Additionally, KFOR, a NATO mission, is still in operation as well. For just as long.
All of this is to say the the number of moving parts in a UN peacekeeping operation -- should it even come to fruition -- are many.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 8:23 PM on February 25, 2022 [27 favorites]
Regarding the UN, there's a bunch of things going on.
One is that the UN does not have any standing military force of its own. It never has.
The other is that are a bunch of countries that aren't "chickenshit." They place personnel in harm's way for a whole bunch of UN peacekeeping operations that most people in the U.S. couldn't even find on a map.
Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and has voted "no" on condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This means that UN intervention, as far as a chapter mandate, is off the table.
China, India, and the UAE abstained, which would not have prevented a mandate from being issued, but Russia's "no" was a veto.
When the UN approves a peacekeeping mission and provides it with a mandate via the Security Council, it then turns to member nations to offer up force contingents to staff the mission.
Member nations need to pony up the resources to staff and supply a mission.
Often, this is a "beg, borrow, and steal" proposition for military personnel, equipment, and financial support for these mission mandates. And the countries who step up, time after time, are poorer countries.
The UN keeps statistics on contributions to peacekeeping missions by country. You know who barely contributes, both in absolute terms, and as a percentage of its population and vast military budget?
The United States.
It's pretty staggering.
The countries that punch above their weight in personnel contributions (particularly when considered on the basis of population) are Ghana, Nepal, Senegal, Rwanda, and Ethiopia, among others.
The U.S. contributes less personnel, in total, to current UN peacekeeping operations than Romania does, just to pull out one example.
And then there's the way in which these drag out:
UNFICYP (Cyprus) has been in operation since 1964.
UNDOF (Golan Heights) has been in operation since 1974.
UNIFIL (Lebanon) has been in operation since 1978.
UNMIK (Kosovo) has been in operation since 1999. Additionally, KFOR, a NATO mission, is still in operation as well. For just as long.
All of this is to say the the number of moving parts in a UN peacekeeping operation -- should it even come to fruition -- are many.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 8:23 PM on February 25, 2022 [27 favorites]
Best answer: There is also the point that Ukraine wants to survive on its terms, and massive influx of troops, even if it does stop the Russians, would lead to long-term garrison of foreign troops on their land, something they are trying to PREVENT Russians from doingin the first place. It also make them look weak.
They know they don't have a chance against an all out assault by the Russian forces, but they can make it bloody enough for the Russians that Putin may be satisfied with the two breakaway provinces. Ukraine has no nukes, and Russians wouldn't dare to use a nuke on the weaker Ukrainians to force a breakthrough, as it'd be an admission that they messed up.
What's interesting is almost EVERY antivaxxer on Twitter had lined up behind Putin, suggesting that the antivaxxer movement was long infiltrated by Russian cyberops.
One wonders if similar cyber-astroturfing is happening all across the world at the behest of Russian cyber-ops trying to prevent a cohesive responsive against Russian aggression.
posted by kschang at 12:02 AM on February 26, 2022 [10 favorites]
They know they don't have a chance against an all out assault by the Russian forces, but they can make it bloody enough for the Russians that Putin may be satisfied with the two breakaway provinces. Ukraine has no nukes, and Russians wouldn't dare to use a nuke on the weaker Ukrainians to force a breakthrough, as it'd be an admission that they messed up.
What's interesting is almost EVERY antivaxxer on Twitter had lined up behind Putin, suggesting that the antivaxxer movement was long infiltrated by Russian cyberops.
One wonders if similar cyber-astroturfing is happening all across the world at the behest of Russian cyber-ops trying to prevent a cohesive responsive against Russian aggression.
posted by kschang at 12:02 AM on February 26, 2022 [10 favorites]
> Don’t interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake.
I don't think Putin has considered the high cost of occupying a country like Ukraine. It won't be pretty for the Russians.
posted by yclipse at 7:16 AM on February 26, 2022 [4 favorites]
I don't think Putin has considered the high cost of occupying a country like Ukraine. It won't be pretty for the Russians.
posted by yclipse at 7:16 AM on February 26, 2022 [4 favorites]
Best answer: I'd also just like to mention that the USSR/Russia and NATO have spent decades assiduously not shooting at each other. That's why it was a Cold War and not a hot war. Obviously we fought lots of hot wars as part of the whole thing but we didn't actually fight head on*.
Most of the reasons for that haven't changed: the battlefield would be Europe, which would very much not like to be the chessboard upon which US and Russia blow each other up if they can possibly avoid it. Going to war for a non-NATO, non-EU country- when the risk is an even bigger conflagration- is a tall order.
And that's not even getting to risks of nuclear escalation, which can't be discounted.
*mostly, but that's the exception that proves the rule
posted by BungaDunga at 9:17 AM on February 26, 2022 [1 favorite]
Most of the reasons for that haven't changed: the battlefield would be Europe, which would very much not like to be the chessboard upon which US and Russia blow each other up if they can possibly avoid it. Going to war for a non-NATO, non-EU country- when the risk is an even bigger conflagration- is a tall order.
And that's not even getting to risks of nuclear escalation, which can't be discounted.
*mostly, but that's the exception that proves the rule
posted by BungaDunga at 9:17 AM on February 26, 2022 [1 favorite]
The internal politics of the UN are arcane but I wonder when Putin claimed genocide in Donbas there was not at least a suggestion of sending in UN troops?
posted by sammyo at 10:08 AM on February 26, 2022
posted by sammyo at 10:08 AM on February 26, 2022
Best answer: Sending in UN peacekeepers into Donbas/Luhansk would require the consent of the main parties to the conflict. And right there you have some roadblocks. Ukraine pointed to Russia as the aggressor in the conflict in Eastern Ukraine; Russia denied it. Russia framed the conflict as being only between the Ukrainian government and the self-proclaimed "Luhansk People's Republic" and "Donetsk People's Republic". But Ukraine has understandably refused to recognized those republics. (There was some fancy footwork with the Minsk agreements where reps from the LPR and DPR were signatories without the republics themselves being recognized, and Russia was a signatory without admitting to being party to the conflict. In fact Russia later claimed to not be party to the Minsk agreements themselves).
So tl;dr, if the main parties to the conflict can't agree on who the parties to the conflict in fact are, then they can't agree to UN peacekeepers.
Despite all that, both sides have played with the idea. "In March 2015, Kyiv asked the UN to examine whether it was possible to deploy peacekeepers, but Moscow stood against it. In the spring of 2017, it was, unexpectedly, Putin who mentioned the prospect of UN peacekeepers in the Donbas, but he proposed giving them only a mandate to protect members of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe mission in Ukraine, which, in practice, would not change anything on the front line, and this initiative went no further" [link]. So generally, Ukraine might oppose a peackeeping force if it just served to freeze the conflict to the point where they could not regain their territory, or if Russia (not admitting to being party to the conflict) contributed its own troops to the peacekeeping force. Russia on the other hand might oppose sending peackeepers because they might bring some stability to area it was using to destabilize Ukraine.
And "The UN" (i.e. all the other countries of the world) cannot just arbitrarily send in UN peacekeepers wherever they feel like it. These are peacekeepers, not peace enforcers. And regardless, Russia possesses a veto on the UN Security Council to stop it anyway.
posted by Kabanos at 8:07 PM on February 26, 2022 [1 favorite]
So tl;dr, if the main parties to the conflict can't agree on who the parties to the conflict in fact are, then they can't agree to UN peacekeepers.
Despite all that, both sides have played with the idea. "In March 2015, Kyiv asked the UN to examine whether it was possible to deploy peacekeepers, but Moscow stood against it. In the spring of 2017, it was, unexpectedly, Putin who mentioned the prospect of UN peacekeepers in the Donbas, but he proposed giving them only a mandate to protect members of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe mission in Ukraine, which, in practice, would not change anything on the front line, and this initiative went no further" [link]. So generally, Ukraine might oppose a peackeeping force if it just served to freeze the conflict to the point where they could not regain their territory, or if Russia (not admitting to being party to the conflict) contributed its own troops to the peacekeeping force. Russia on the other hand might oppose sending peackeepers because they might bring some stability to area it was using to destabilize Ukraine.
And "The UN" (i.e. all the other countries of the world) cannot just arbitrarily send in UN peacekeepers wherever they feel like it. These are peacekeepers, not peace enforcers. And regardless, Russia possesses a veto on the UN Security Council to stop it anyway.
posted by Kabanos at 8:07 PM on February 26, 2022 [1 favorite]
« Older Feeling stuck with a decision: moving or not? | Trying to remember a book (series?). Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Alensin at 4:57 PM on February 25, 2022 [13 favorites]