In Russia's case, a limited attack on Ukraine would demonstrate NATO's un-reliablity and un-trustworthiness to Ukraine and the world, while at same time demonstrate Russian willingness to assert sphere of influence and confront NATO. In China's case, a limited attack on Vietnam is most visible proof that USSR-Vietnam mutual defense treaty is a paper tiger and useless, China is willing to protect it's tributaries and sphere of influence in SEAsia, and China will never be contained by USSR-Vietnam axis.
Except it won’t. Nobody expects NATO to fight and die for Ukraine, a non-NATO member. But if Ukraine was admitted to NATO, the organisation would be treaty bound to fight for Ukraine or else face the immediate collapse of the NATO alliance. That is why Ukraine is desperately pushing for NATO membership now, and a pointlessly petty Russian punitive war will only make Ukraine more determined to join to prevent another sub attack.
I think it's this specific area that we are not talking on the same page. We both ultimately agree!
I agree NATO will never defend Ukraine in event of full Russian invasion, because it's a non-NATO member. Russia knows this 100%, and this proven by Russian annexation of Crimea and non-response from NATO. At best, NATO will supply intelligence, training, ammunition, weapons, money, but never NATO troops.
Of course, given Western culture of "showing strength/not appearing weak", NATO will never publicly say Ukrainian full membership is "off the table" (avoid perception of weakness), but NATO has privately notified Ukraine that full membership is highly unlikely because majority of NATO member does not support and NATO charter says no membership can be extended to nations at war (see
and
)
That is why Ukraine is desperately pushing for NATO membership now, and a pointlessly petty Russian punitive war will only make Ukraine more determined to join to prevent another sub attack.
I agree that a full-scale Russia invasion would cause Ukraine to seek even more NATO membership. However, as mentioned above, NATO has a policy of not extending membership to nations at war or in conflict with other states.
The closest analogy is Georgia's NATO membership. Less than
4 months after NATO offered full membership to Georgia and Ukraine in 2008, Russia invaded Georgia to start the
. Georgia aspired to be NATO member, and Russia subtly threatened that Russia will recognize South Ossetia independence if Georgia continued NATO membership. Russia later invaded Georgia to support South Ossetia independence forces, and NATO did NOTHING.... and Georgia membership forever stalled and went nowhere because NATO policy of not extending membership to nations at-war or in conflict.
My theory is, Russia has already started the low-level, limited
to forstall the prevent Ukrainian membership. It's not a full-scale invasion, but low-level enough that prevents NATO extending membership. If it's not low-level enough, Russia is willing to salami-slice and escalate until it's Georgia-level conflict, in which NATO definitely cannot and will not extend membership because the Ukraine is in war or conflict. It's about using NATO's policies against itself.
Of course, NATO can still say: "We will defend Ukraine even if it's already in conflict/war before membership was extended".... but Russia's logic is: "If they are willing to do that, then why haven't they done it already"? It's like game theory, and Russia's salami-slicing and gradual phased escalation of pressure is breaking NATO willpower down.
In Russia's case, they may annex small parts of Ukraine (Crimea), just like China annexed small parts of Vietnam (Nam Quan Gate)
China shattered the USSR-Vietnam mutual defense pact and encirclement containment effort, and Russia is attempt the same punitive attack to achieve similar results vis-a-vis NATO encirclement.
Two major issues. First, there is no mutual defence pact between NATO and Ukraine to shatter. Attacking Ukraine now would almost certainly lead to the creation of just such a pact.
Secondly, there was zero chance of Vietnam forming an alliance with America as a consequence of the Sino-Vietnam war, but every chance of Ukraine entering just such a pact after. The two are nothing alike.
I agree the situation is not exactly the same (Ukraine has no NATO alliance to shatter, whereas China shattered the USSR-Vietnam Mutual Defense Treaty, which is anti-China encirclement alliances).
The USSR-Vietnam Mutual defense treaty was very clearly an anti-China encirclement/containment alliance. There are similarities between Russia attempt to pre-empt the Ukrainian-NATO encirclement/containment efforts, and Chinese attempts to shatter a pre-existing USSR-Vietnam encirclement/containment effort.
They are not the exact scenarios, but the alliance and encirclement strategy is very similar between the two. China did it reactively and proved USSR-Vietnam MDT as a paper-tiger treaty, whereas Russia is being proactive, applying huge public pressure on NATO and salami-slicing Ukraine to the point where NATO will privately tell Ukrainie that there is zero chance they will join NATO (privately). Same outcome, different methods.
I would like to clarify, I totally agree with you: The MORE pressure Russia applies, the HIGHER the Ukrainian desire to join NATO. So it's counter-productive.... Ukrainians will always view this as threat, full-invasion or salami-slicing. However, the very public display of force and troop mobolization is more to pressure NATO to tell Ukraine (privately, via private conversation) that NATO will very likely not offer full membership. Russia is pressuring NATO to tell Ukraine in private that no chance in hell they will join, so they hope Ukraine will be demoralized and at very least revert back to neutral status. (akin to bufferzone of Korea between China and US-backed Japanese puppet)
That's why this talk that Ukraine is to Russia as Taiwan is to China is non-sense. Ukraine is Russian sphere of influence (ex-colony too) encroached by West just like Vietnam is Chinese sphere (ex-colony too) encroached by West/Soviet. China even mobolized 1 million troops along Sino-Soviet border to dare them to protect Vietnam (which they didn't, shattering the encirclement effort).
Just as comparing Ukraine to Taiwan is nonsense, comparing Ukraine to Vietnam also doesn’t make sense.
I think the USSR-Vietnam mutual defense treaty is an anti-China encirclement/containment effort, just like NATO-Ukrainian alliance is an anti-Russian encirclement/containment effort. (I recognized China is reactive to USSR-Vietnam MDT, whereas Russia is pro-active against NATO-Ukraine)
Both China and Russia did annex parts of their enemies, with Russia annexing Crimea via salami-slicing, and China annexing Nam Quan Gate and Gioc Falls via salmi-slicing.
Actually, the comparison is much better than Taiwan because it involves alliance-structures and salami-slicing annexations, whereas Taiwan is about wholesale conquest.
Any military kinetic action short of total annexation will only strength Ukraine’s desire to join NATO, rather than make them disillusioned with the prospect of getting security assurances from NATO.
This 100% total agreement.
Rather, like you said, Putin is psyching NATO out, via salami-slicing annexation and public show of force, so that NATO will privately tell Ukraine "no."
Maybe Putin is trying to psych NATO out by showing them in no uncertain terms that NATO expansion to include Ukraine is a red line Russia cannot and will not allow NATO to cross.
Totally 100% total agreement.
But my main issue with that is that it is only a bandaid at best, and does not and cannot address the fundamental core issue of both Ukraine and NATO wanting to join. After the war, Russia will still be in exactly the same position as it is now, with NATO wanting to admit Ukraine despite Russian war threats. So what has Russia achieved?
You have to ask what did China achieve after shattering USSR-Vietnamese encirclement effort, and salami-annexation of Nam Quan Gate..... China got an unruly, ungrateful, cunt neighbor that is constantly trying to play China and West off each other, but ATLEAST Vietnam respects China's redlines about encirclement/containment alliances and proved untrustworthiness of USSR (even US) to intervene to defend Vietnam. So yea, China didn't get much material gain/concession, but the symbolism of China's intervention reverberates throughout Southeast Asia today.
