Ukraine: It's "on," but what is "it"?

"Russia looks poised to launch an attack on Ukraine" ... doesn't that Wednesday headline mean that the invasion Biden claimed happened Tuesday HASN'T HAPPENED YET? OOOPS.

That said, it has now reportedly happened. Beyond that, there's lots of "framing" involved. That's by Russia, by Ukraine, by the US and others.

Yeah, Status Quo Joe has ruled out US troops going there. But, most Americans (even if they don't know the facts about Ukrainian history, NATO promises broken and more) don't want him to do much of anything. Fortunately, he won't be dumb enough to engage in a cyberattacks battle with Putin. Russia and China both have hardened their cybersecurity much more than the US.

As for what "it" is? I put 3-2 odds in favor of Putin crossing the lines of control in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, but only if he things the native rebels can't take over all of both oblasts on their own. For more on the territories involved, go here. For more on recent duplicity by all parties involved over the Minsk Agreements, go here.

I put odds of him invading elsewhere in Ukraine, other than a few miles beyond the Donbas border, at 1-3 against. No, Ukraine is not Afghanistan, but even with his continued work to muzzle public dissent, Putin knows that coffins from Kyiv won't play well in Moscow, St. Petersburg or Volgograd. A subvariant, invading strongly Russian areas within "left-bank" Ukraine, but still staying well short of Kyiv, a possibility broached by the likes of Anatol Lieven in a great piece that fits in Eric Levitz' Category 7 below. Odds of that I'd currently put at 2-3 against, or maybe 50-50.

===

Update, Feb. 24: I appear to have been wrong, as it looks like Putin has set on a larger invasion. And, he's lost a fair amount of whatever semi-sympathy I had. But, not all of it. And, per Kevin Rorthrock, it's already drawing antiwar protests inside Russia.

And, with Putin opting for a more general war, the outcome may not be so good. Daily Beast reports that basically "green" draftees are being put in the front line. What's to stop them from deserting, like in World War I of the actual tsars?  Unlike the Red Tsar, Putin doesn't (yet, at least) have the equivalent of commissars at the front, shooting not only deserters but anybody who doesn't give 110 percent. Related to that, the story notes that Russian troops have "regrouped." "Marching to Georgia," either from the Sherman-era original, or Putin's previous intervention in the Caucausians, this is not, perhaps.

Katrina vanden Heuvel at The Nation reminds us that, when he ran for office, current Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky promised to pursue a peaceful path on these issues, but after elected, officially reneged on Minsk.

===

At the third time, because history is often overdetermined, though not deterministic, Russia does have a history of meddling in Ukraine. Remember the poisoning of Viktor Yushchenko? (And, how Putin likes poisoning in general?)

That said, in the big picture framing that I've presented throughout the week, Eric Levitz at NY Mag, as is his wont, notes the many different ways this can be perceived. I'm not "FAR" left, but I'm left enough that I fall in stance No. 3 overall, with the asterisk that I reject the Euromaidan being a coup. That probably precludes me from being far left. I think it reflected the real stance of a fair amount of everyday Ukrainians incited to mob pitch by the likes of Svoboda without any US help of any great degree, though there was a certain amount of US fiscal squeeze, per  Counterpunch's 2014 timeline. There's a pinch of No. 7 in me, a pragmatic left-liberal but not far leftist, as well. And, his No. 9 is internally contradictory, as Turkey is not in the EU and Russia of course is not in either the EU or NATO, and I don't think EU membership has ever been even lightly broached to Ukraine.

Finally, if Ukrainians really want to invoke nationalism? What happens if Polish rightists oust a generally pro-West government and want "Lviv" back, and of course, renamed to "Lvov"?

Many people are quoting Biden's CIA head, William Burns, a former ambassador to Russia in the BushCo era, for what he told his boss, Condi Rice. I'm linking to a particular Substack:

Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.

I link there for two reasons. One, Nonzero calls out the Munich bullshit, started in this case by Zelensky himself quite willfully speaking there. Two, he links to Peter Beinart, who has more insight, including noting that Burns wasn't alone in his thought. Bonus: A commenter at Nonzero notes that even Teapot Tommy Friedman says the US and NATO "aren't innocent bystanders."