Ukraine Crisis

Quoting ssu

So better to have the longest war in US history, tens of thousands of killed and a humiliating defeat? Of course! Having the FBI to do a police investigation would have been so "weak dick" response.

Supposedly the best way to invite more of the same was to look weak.

Quoting Olivier5

Of course the US doesn't have pure intentions, but this discussion was about are the intentions of Russia, not the US. And evidently those intentions are about land and people grabbing.

No, they were about power - like virtually ever other geopolitical decision that was ever made, western or otherwise.

Quoting frank

Supposedly the best way to invite more of the same was to look weak.

That's the myth that those promoted War-on-Terror told us.

Deterring terrorist attack hasn't happened by fighting the Taleban in Afghanistan. It's been by tightening the laughable pre-9/11 security and basic police & intelligence work. Not fighting an insurgency in one of the poorest countries in the World.

Terrorist groups have been destroyed by police through the legal system in various countries. But who cares about how terrorist group are really dealt.

Quoting ssu

That's the myth that those promoted War-on-Terror told us.

It's purported to have been from an analysis of the middle eastern society, and it's also a little wisdom garnered from the American Revolution. Societies vary in the lessons they learn. :grin:

Quoting ssu

Deterring terrorist attack hasn't happened by fighting the Taleban in Afghanistan.

How do you know? Do you have a crystal ball to see what would have happened if the US military would have just stayed home?

Quoting ssu

Terrorist groups have been destroyed by police through the legal system in various countries. But who cares about how terrorist group are really dealt.

You're sounding a little bitter about the whole thing. What would you say Al Qaeda wanted most of all?

Reply to frank
Before 911, Al Qaeda was split on whether to force the 'far war' to be brought into the 'near war.' The die was cast and the response surely wiped-out AQ. The result has advanced some of their aims, however. The triumphant bugles of the neocons have fallen silent.

It was not a matter of doing nothing or projecting maximum force. The Bush National Security Doctrine specifically discounted international instruments that would have treated AQ as a criminal gang. Whatever one thinks about that choice, it was an expensive one.

Reply to ssu I believe that the Taliban wanted the US to come after them, that it was part of the plan, which would be why they did not surrender Osama Ben Laden.

You may be right that a police operation would have been appropriate and might have worked better in the end. But IMO, you cannot compare 9/11 with prior terrorist attacks. Close to 3000 people burnt alive in downtown Manhattan.

In any case, the war in Afghanistan was sanctioned by the UN Security Council, including China and Russia. It did not make a mockery of our collective security system, and did not create a precedent for Crimea or other land grabs. The war in Iraq did that.

Quoting Tzeentch

they were about power

Power over land and people. So we agree that this is just a land grab.

Quoting Olivier5

So we agree that this is just a land grab.

No, clearly we don't agree.

Quoting Paine

It was not a matter of doing nothing or projecting maximum force. The Bush National Security Doctrine specifically discounted international instruments that would have treated AQ as a criminal gang. Whatever one thinks about that choice, it was an expensive one.

The US participates in undermining terrorist plans around the world. I think the use of the military wrt Afghanistan was to get to terrorists who were being protected. Iraq was about locking down sources of radioactive material and democratizing the Middle East. That's the conclusions I came to, anyway.

"KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Russia’s military leadership has withdrawn its officers in the Russian-annexed city of Kherson across the Dnieper River in anticipation of an advance of Ukrainian troops, the Institute for the Study of War think tank said Sunday.

"To delay the Ukrainian counteroffensive as the Russians complete their retreat, Moscow has left newly mobilized, inexperienced forces on the other side of the wide river, it added."

wtf?

Quoting frank

How do you know? Do you have a crystal ball to see what would have happened if the US military would have just stayed home?

The question is, do you use the DOJ/FBI/CIA or do you invade and occupy a country? In fact, even the Reagan/Clinton answer of punitive strikes into the country...and then leave the country alone seemed to have out of the question.

@frank, the truth is that the Domino Theory, the reason for the US to fight in Vietnam, was far more logical and clear headed (and in the end wrong) than the scaremongering reasons we got for the War on Terror. Which goes on even this day.

You think it's a great idea to invade a large country because of the actions of few individuals that weren't from that country, had no links to the officials of that country and that the majority (if anyone) hadn't even visited, but then had the financier of the attacks living in? Yes, the Afghan government dared to ask proof just why would they give OBL to the US. Such thing was non-negotiable.

The only reason was that the first Twin Towers bombing failed and hence it could be dealt as a police matter (as terrorist attacks usually dealt with). But the second one was a great success and hence the US politicians had to bomb somewhere. The American people craved for revenge and a police investigation would have seemed as if the politicians would not care. Hence war was the best solution for politicians.

Think about it for a while.

If you look at both the terrorist attacks that have happened or have been prevented, NO have had a link to Afghanistan. The Islamic State was what Al Qaeda in Iraq morphed into, and Al Qaeda in Iraq was not in control of the tiny cabal that Osama bin Laden had. It was a franchised movement. And the terrorists were usually estranged people likely with mental problems that could pick up from the net all the IS regalia needed to make them part of the IS.

But this is a topic for a different thread...

Quoting Olivier5

I believe that the Taliban wanted the US to come after them, that it was part of the plan, which would be why they did not surrender Osama Ben Laden.

I don't think that the Taliban wanted the US to come after them. I think Al Qaeda wanted for the US to come after them.

Quoting Olivier5

You may be right that a police operation would have been appropriate and might have worked better in the end. But IMO, you cannot compare 9/11 with prior terrorist attacks. Close to 3000 people burnt alive in downtown Manhattan.

And you hit the nail here. 3 000 killed and images of people leaping into their death isn't something that a politician can respond with an police investigation, especially if you have the armed forces of a Superpower. It's a slam dunk response to stay in power in a democracy. Only a Houdini of a politician could have gone this way and be successful.

Yet as we know (from Iraq and the War on Terror), the neocons wanted to use and did use this opportunity in their delirious idea that the US ought to try to gain hold of the Middle East before China grows too much (or something).

And then there is the question just how this war was managed and fought.

Again interesting topic, but for a different thread... like the late War on Terror thread.

Here's an surprisingly good take on the tactical nuclear weapons -question:



Discusses also their potential use in Ukraine war.

Quoting Olivier5

The last thing I would want is to be taken seriously by people who take seriously a criminal's excuses for his crimes.

Quoting Olivier5

, was the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan necessary?
— ssu

It was legit I think,

:chin:

Quoting ssu

But this is a topic for a different thread...

I don't think either of us cares to discuss it further, though

Quoting jorndoe

It was argued earlier in the thread that the US and the UK should stay out of such efforts. (You?)

That was suggested by Olivier, and I stated that it may very well be correct.

Quoting jorndoe

Maybe talks could be held under the auspices of the EU?

Whatever works. Negotiations should be supported as strongly as we’re supporting Ukraine with weapons and training.

Quoting Tzeentch

No, clearly we don't agree.

So what exactly do you disagree with?

Quoting ssu

And then there is the question just how this war was managed and fought.

Yes, very poorly.

Yet a fundamental difference with Iraq in my view, and respective to the argument I was making on precedent-setting, is that the war in Afghanistan was sanctioned by the Security Council.

Quoting Olivier5

So what exactly do you disagree with?

Your classification of a decades old, complex geopolitical situation as "a simple landgrab", obviously.

Reply to Olivier5 That is a good observation.

Reply to Tzeentch You're right. It was to denazify a country run by a Jew. That makes much more sense.

Reply to ssu It looks like Russia is preparing information conditions for a nuclear attack in Ukraine - either with a dirty bomb (as they frame it) or a tactical nuke. At least that is what they want the world to think. They are climbing that escalation ladder.

This in addition to a likely destruction of the Kakhovka dam that would dump water from one of the largest reservoirs in Europe onto Kherson and other nearby settlements (presumably, after they vacate them).

In both cases this would be a false flag operation designed to fool no one who doesn't want to be fooled. This has become their signature move.

Reply to Tzeentch Personally, I'm talking of the invasion of Ukraine. What are you talking about?

Quoting Mikie

No. I never said the US or NATO should be blamed for the war. Putin is to blame for the war. Why? Because it was his decision to invade Ukraine. I think it’s on par with the US invasion of Iraq.

Quoting Mikie

* I’m not blaming the US or NATO.

I didn’t mean that you were blaming this war only on US/NATO. But as your line of reasoning goes (“do you think Putin would have annexed Crimea and/or invaded Ukraine had the US not (1) pushed for NATO membership, (2) supplied weapons, and (3) conducted military training?”), US/NATO expansion and meddling in Ukraine provoked Putin’s “special operation”, and therefore “US/NATO is to be blamed for the beginning of the war” where “beginning of the war” is Putin launching his “special operation”.
Indeed, that’s the kind of premise that Mearsheimer holds (along with his type of geopolitical realism) to support his controversial claim : “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault”.
And if you are not claiming that what is your point in asking me that question?


Quoting Mikie

the Russian concerns for NATO enlargement precede Putin and have been taken seriously — neomac

This is an assertion. Where’s the evidence? Pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc., all why Russia was repeatedly calling it a red line (acknowledged by allies, experts, and our CIA as threatening and provocative) — is all that taking it seriously?

“Taking seriously” means different things for different geopolitical actors depending on their strategy: for Russia it meant that the West should provide security assurance and of course “pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc.,” are the opposite of security assurance for Putin. For Germany it meant boycott any attempt to have Ukraine joining NATO (which is in line with Putin’s security assurance). For East-European countries (including Ukraine) it meant “pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc.,” because they needed security assurance from the US against the Russian revanchist threat!
Yet one can argue that Russian’s threats have been addressed the way Russia preferred to some extent by the West, proof of that is not only prominent Western allies' reluctance to welcome Ukraine candidature for NATO membership but also the many ways in which the US administrations avoided sending “lethal weapons” to Ukraine (https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/obama-trump-biden-ukraine-military-aid-1.6371378). The irony in this is that, as far as I’ve understood, the first aid package including lethal weapons that was actually released for Ukraine came from Putin’s old sport Donald Trump after the Trump–Ukraine scandal came out (where the Trump–Ukraine scandal consisted roughly in Trump pressuring Ukraine to compromise Biden in exchange for lethal weapons!).
What I find particularly misleading in your claim is your “acknowledged by allies, experts, and our CIA as threatening and provocative” because the understatement is that since allies and some experts were against threatening and provoking Russia by “pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc.,” then those moves were illegitimate. But that’s a biased view, indeed one could as easily claim that other allies, other experts and other pentagon representatives were “pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc.,” with the intent not to provoke but to deter Russia!
In other words, we are facing here a security dilemma: while we can argue that NATO had no malign intentions against Russia (just legitimate security concerns) as plausibly as we can argue that Russia had no malign intentions against the West (just legitimate security concerns), it may certainly be the case the case that each side reads hostile intentions into the other’s actions, probably due to deep-rooted/historical mistrust! That’s why it’s a hopeless exercise to take any side to admit having been the first one to start the escalation.


Quoting Mikie

How would that scenario play out? Would we therefore EXCUSE the US for invading Canada? Of course not. But it shouldn’t come as a shock. Nor should we invent stories about how the US President’s “real” motive is to conquer all of the Western Hemisphere.

Again this example seems inspired by Mearsheimer’s article “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault” [2]. The problem is that there Mearsheimer was just talking about threat perception and intolerance signaling between state powers, and this was meant to prove the concept of “legitimate security concerns” (as opposed to imperialistic ambitions) in the case of Russia. No great power tolerates threats at their doorstep, fine hence my concession earlier (when I said I don’t deny “the fact that Putin’s concerns bear some strategic plausibility (having US/NATO so close to the Russian borders was too risky, even if NATO is a self-proclaimed defensive alliance)”). However there are 2 problems in the way you rendered Mearsheimer’s example: 1. I find your rhetorical question (“Would we therefore EXCUSE the US for invading Canada? Of course not”) controversial. If state A threatens state B in its proximity or state A invades state B, I could react differently depending on which state is democratic or authoritarian, because I prefer democracy over authoritarian regimes. 2. I find the reference to “President’s ‘real’ motive” highly misleading in the case of Putin for the following reasons: A) Putin’s ambition to challenge the Western world order is declared and perfectly in line with Russian revanchism (so Putin is not simply talking of having a buffer state, and the so far annexed territories aren’t a buffer state anyways!), B) Putin’s military-economically-ideologically projection outside Russian borders in Asia, Middle East, Africa, Europe, Mediterranean, Baltic and Artic proves his ambition to expand the Russian sphere of influence on a global scale C) Putin’s real motives pre-existed him (revanchist nationalist ambitions aren’t an invention of Putin) and might last after him (even if Putin is deposed, whoever will replace him can end up being like him, strive to achieve what Putin couldn’t), and be inspiration for others (challenging the West is a study case for other potential Western challengers like China and Iran). So the geopolitical relevance of his actions and claims go beyond his personal motivations.

Quoting Mikie

I wouldn’t have predicted an exact date, of course, but things had escalated in 2021 after Biden took over. The Biden administration made it quite clear what its intentions were. So from the statements by NATO in June of 2021, to the joint statement by the White House on September 1st, to statements made by Blinken in December ‘21 and January ‘22 — yes, there was a shift. It wasn’t out of the blu

Even in this case, I'm still looking after a bigger picture:

• That’s why I keep an eye on what is done, not only on what is said (BTW Putin said he would increase “support” to the military occupied area of Dunbas in late 2020): on one side we have Putin that maintains his military control over occupied Eastern Ukrainian territories, signals escalating intentions early after Biden started his presidency in January 2021 [3] on the other we have Biden freezing by the end of 2021 his own procurement of lethal weapons (despite having declared his willingness to send lethal weapons to Ukraine) and making de-escalating claims (“Biden says the US won't put troops on the ground even if Russia invades Ukraine”), under the pressure of many who wanted him to de-escalate with Putin. So, Biden administration’s real intentions do not necessarily match with their declared intentions. And Biden’s hesitation vs Putin’s determination must be acknowledged.
• Additionally what I care most it's not the beginning of the war as a function of its military deployment per se, but its broader geopolitical significance: in 2021 Putin was already de facto military-occupying and Russifying people in Donetsk and Luhansk regions for 7 years (under Obama’s and Trump’s watch). Given Obama’s soft approach, Trump’s complicity, Biden administration’s hesitation, the success in annexing Crimea, no real deterring counterpart to his military buildup strategy in Donbas, the Russian intel assuring him about the likely success of a blitzkrieg (leaving de facto no time even for the procurement of lethal weapons), the prospect of doing all this without mobilising the Russian population, plus all kinds of pretexts that even the Western public opinion was so passionately ready to acknowledge, one can’t possibly fail to see why Putin must very likely have felt that the times were propitious and US/NATO couldn’t really do anything about it. So finally the US/NATO king was naked, powerless!

[1] [i]My own realist theory of international relations says that the structure of the international system forces countries concerned about their security to compete with each other for power. The ultimate goal of every major state is to maximize its share of world power and eventually dominate the system. In practical terms, this means that the most powerful states seek to establish hegemony in their region of the world, while making sure that no rival great power dominates another region.
To be more specific, the international system has three defining characteristics. First, the main actors are states that operate in anarchy, which simply means that there is no higher authority above them. Second, all great powers have some offensive military capability, which means they have the wherewithal to hurt each other. Third, no state can know the intentions of other states with certainty, especially their future intentions. It is simply impossible, for example, to know what Germany’s or Japan’s intentions will be toward their neighbors in 2025.
In a world where other states might have malign intentions as well as significant offensive capabilities, states tend to fear each other. That fear is compounded by the fact that in an anarchic system there is no night watchman for states to call if trouble comes knocking at their door. Therefore, states recognize that the best way to survive in such a system is to be as powerful as possible relative to potential rivals. The mightier a state is, the less likely it is that another state will attack it. No Americans, for example, worry that Canada or Mexico will attack the United States, because neither of those countries is strong enough to contemplate a fight with Uncle Sam[/i].

https://nationalinterest.org/article/say-goodbye-taiwan-9931


[2]
[i]After all, the United States does not tolerate distant great powers deploying military forces anywhere in the Western Hemisphere, much less on its borders. Imagine the outrage in Washington i! China built an impressive military alliance and tried to include Canada and Mexico in it. Logic aside, Russian leaders have told their Western counterparts on many occasions that they consider
the expansion into Georgia and Ukraine unacceptable, along with any effort to turn those countries against Russia—a message that the 2008 Russian-Georgian war also made crystal clear.[/i]

https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf


[3]
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/15/world/europe/russia-open-skies-treaty-biden.html
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/kremlin-tv-chief-russia-must-annex-east-ukraine/
https://www.swp-berlin.org/en/publication/the-russian-military-escalation-around-ukraines-donbas

Quoting neomac

I didn’t mean that you were blaming this war only on US/NATO.

“Only”? I blame Putin for the war. NATO was a reason given for invasion — one that was given for years, clearly and consistently. The conclusion? That he’s an imperialist bent on expanding Russia. That’s wrong. It’s wrong because there’s no evidence supporting it, no matter how often it’s repeated in the media or on this thread. If you think there is evidence, happy to discuss that.

Quoting neomac

the Russian concerns for NATO enlargement precede Putin and have been taken seriously — neomac

This is an assertion. Where’s the evidence? Pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc., all why Russia was repeatedly calling it a red line (acknowledged by allies, experts, and our CIA as threatening and provocative) — is all that taking it seriously?
— Mikie

“Taking seriously” implies different things for different geopolitical actors depending on their strategy

Russian concerns about NATO enlargement have been taken seriously. That was your assertion, as seen above.

Therefore, this statement:

Quoting neomac

for Russia it meant that the West should provide security assurance and of course “pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc.,” are the opposite of security assurance for Putin.

Is meaningless. Russia was taking Russian concerns seriously, yes — that’s obvious.

Quoting neomac

For East-European countries (including Ukraine) it meant “pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc.,” because they needed security assurance from the US against the Russian revanchist threat!

So pushing for NATO membership by East European countries is an example of taking Russian concerns about NATO enlargement seriously?

“We take your concerns seriously by doing exactly what you’re concerned about.”

I’m not sure you’ve thought this through. You’re meandering into incoherence.

The point stands: the US and NATO did not take Russian concerns seriously — as was demonstrated above.

Quoting neomac

What I find particularly misleading in your claim is your “acknowledged by allies, experts, and our CIA as threatening and provocative” because the understatement is that since allies and some experts were against threatening and provoking Russia by “pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc.,” then those moves were illegitimate. But that’s a biased view precisely because one could still claim that other allies, other experts and other pentagon representatives were “pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc.,” with the intent not to provoke but to deter Russia!

What was acknowledged was that Russia considered this a threat. I said nothing about legitimacy — we can argue that. Many of these experts may even argue it themselves — for example, that NATO membership and providing weapons is indeed a threat to Russia, but that it’s worth doing anyway. That does in fact seem to be the case for many officials: "We don't care if you feel threatened, no one tells us what to do or who can join our alliance."

Either way, if pushing for NATO membership, supplying weapons and military training, etc., is “taking Russian concerns seriously,” as you asserted, then the assertion is indeed baseless and wrong. If their concerns were taken seriously, these actions wouldn’t have been taken.

"I take your concerns about poking this bear seriously, but I'm going to continue poking the bear." Is this an argument?

Quoting neomac

That’s why it’s a hopeless exercise to take any side to admit having been the first one to start the escalation.

What was the Russian threat in 2008, exactly?

Attempting to reduce all of this to “both sides have an opinion, so there’s really no way to tell” is a cop-out and is quite convenient, as it relieves you of having to learn about it.

Quoting neomac

If state A threatens state B in its proximity or state A invades state B, I could react differently depending on which state is democratic or authoritarian, because I prefer democracy over authoritarian regimes.

I prefer living in the US over living in Iraq. The US invasion of Iraq was still wrong.

Even if Russia were a democracy, the war is wrong. The US ignoring the Russian concerns and contributing to escalating the crisis is also wrong.

Quoting neomac

I find the reference to “President’s ‘real’ motive” highly misleading

So do I. I think to make claims about imperialism as the “real motive” without evidence, instead of looking at actions and statements, is very misleading indeed.

Quoting neomac

That’s why I keep an eye on what is done, not only on what is said

Sure — and escalating military training and weapons, turning Ukraine into a de facto NATO member, and doubling down on official NATO membership speaks volumes.

Quoting neomac

Therefore no, Biden administration’s real intentions do not necessarily match with their declared intentions.

"Real intentions"? Again, let's stop simply declaring the "real intentions" of the US or Putin, and look at the facts. From the summit communiqué in June 2021 to the Joint Statement in September 2021 to the statements by Blinken in December (after Russia made clear demands about NATO) -- the words were consistent. What about the actions? Well, not only weapons were provided, but extensive military training, including with NATO forces. Did Operation Sea Breeze not match the declared intentions?

We're all against Putin, but there's no sense in ignoring facts in favor of a contrived, unsupported media narrative.

Quoting neomac

Given Obama’s soft approach, Trump’s complicity, Biden administration’s hesitation

10 thousand trained troops a year (Obama), Trump supplying "defensive weapons," and Biden's long-held and continued hawkishness toward Russia (including what I've already gone over) -- hardly what you describe.

Quoting neomac

So finally the US/NATO king was naked, powerless!

Except that this is the exact opposite of the truth -- and Russia knew it. NATO's involvement was getting more and more serious, which is why they wrote letters to both NATO and the US demanding "1) Ukraine would not join NATO, 2) no offensive weapons would be stationed near Russia’s borders, and 3) NATO troops and equipment moved into eastern Europe since 1997 would be moved back to western Europe." This was in December of 2021. Blinken's response: "There is no change, there will be no change."

Also in December, Putin said: “what they are doing, or trying or planning to do in Ukraine, is not happening thousands of kilometers away from our national border. It is on the doorstep of our house. They must understand that we simply have nowhere further to retreat to. Do they really think we do not see these threats? Or do they think that we will just stand idly watching threats to Russia emerge?”

Based on the statements and actions by the US and NATO, it's quite clear they weren't "naked and powerless," nor did Russia see it that way.

So this is another baseless assertion.

Bondarev is a Russian diplomat that was assigned to the UN. He resigned the position May 23, 2022 due to the war. His resignation letter:

Quoting Boris Bondarev

Statement

My name is Boris Bondarev, in the MFA of Russia since 2002, since 2019 until now – Counsellor of the Russian Mission to the UN Office at Geneva.

For twenty years of my diplomatic career I have seen different turns of our foreign policy, but never have I been so ashamed of my country as on February 24 of this year. The aggressive war unleashed by Putin against Ukraine, and in fact against the entire Western world, is not only a crime against the Ukrainian people, but also, perhaps, the most serious crime against the people of Russia, with a bold letter Z crossing out all hopes and prospects for a prosperous free society in our country.

Those who conceived this war want only one thing – to remain in power forever, live in pompous tasteless palaces, sail on yachts comparable in tonnage and cost to the entire Russian Navy, enjoying unlimited power and complete impunity. To achieve that they are willing to sacrifice as many lives as it takes. Thousands of Russians and Ukrainians have already died just for this.

I regret to admit that over all these twenty years the level of lies and unprofessionalism in the work of the Foreign Ministry has been increasing all the time. However, in most recent years, this has become simply catastrophic. Instead of unbiased information, impartial analysis and sober forecasting, there are propaganda cliches in the spirit of Soviet newspapers of the 1930s. A system has been built that deceives itself.

Minister Lavrov is a good illustration of the degradation of this system. In 18 years, he went from a professional and educated intellectual, whom many colleagues held in such high esteem, to a person who constantly broadcasts conflicting statements and threatens the world (that is, Russia too) with nuclear weapons!

Today, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not about diplomacy. It is all about warmongering, lies and hatred. It serves interests of few, the very few people thus contributing to further isolation and degradation of my country. Russia no longer has allies, and there is no one to blame but its reckless and ill-conceived policy.

I studied to be a diplomat and have been a diplomat for twenty years. The Ministry has become my home and family. But I simply cannot any longer share in this bloody, witless and absolutely needless ignominy.

Quoting Boris Bondarev

You have to understand that, if he [Putin] loses the war, it will be the end for him, he will have to explain to his elites and his population why it is so and he may find some problems in explaining this.

• US division ready to enter Ukraine in case of attack on NATO — TV (TASS; Oct 22, 2022)

• 1st Time In 80 Years, US Army Deploys ‘Screaming Eagles’ 101st Airborne Division Just Miles Away From Ukraine (The EurAsian Times; Oct 23, 2022)

• False flag? Russia says Ukraine plans to detonate a ‘dirty bomb’ (Al Jazeera; Oct 23, 2022)

As Reply to ssu suggests, Putin isn't exactly approachable here. Peskov? Lavrov? Medvedev? How might the diplomats get on with it?

If Putin is actually going down the nuclear path, then Moscow will get all eyes-on, attention. I don't imagine they think that'd be a good move for Russia, or anyone at all. Anyone know specs of the Russian dirty / tactical nuclear bombs? (radius, time until area is safe, materials, yield, emp, delivery systems)

(my emphasis)

Quoting Mikie

what's ultimately a stupid proxy war

Right. The aid to the Ukrainians makes the providers proxied elements. Though, I don't think the instigator meant to (ultimately) attack them instead (in this war anyway). Or maybe someone disagrees with this? Seems Iran has joined in, too (drones, personnel). Regardless, evidence suggests Putin wants to ultimately convert (all or part of) Ukraine to Russian oblasts; that part at least isn't proxy.

Quoting Mikie

Picture if China was taking the same actions in Canada or Mexico, despite US warnings. Would we say they were taking those warnings seriously? After all, it could be argued, China didn’t annex Canada or incorporate it into a defensive alliance — it was only talking about it.

How would that scenario play out? Would we therefore EXCUSE the US for invading Canada? Of course not. But it shouldn’t come as a shock. Nor should we invent stories about how the US President’s “real” motive is to conquer all of the Western Hemisphere.

Note that in this scenario, the US would annex large parts of Canada, just as Putin is doing in Ukraine. Therefore, it would be a land grab, a manifestation of imperialism

Your endless NATO caca arguments fail to account for the annexion of Crimea, Dombass and Kherson. This is the proof of imperial ambitions, which you have conveniently decided to ignore because it undermines your narrative...

Quoting Olivier5

This is the proof of imperial ambitions, which you have conveniently decided to ignore because it undermines your narrative...

This is not "proof" of Imperial ambitions, as @Mikie describes above.

What you point to can also be explained by: NATO (an anti-Russian alliance) gets closer to Russia, who views an anti-Russian alliance as a threat, threat in a general sense and also specific threat to their naval base in Crimea, and when NATO starts to get too close, too threatening Russia preemptively acts to secure it's "national interest" (the same concept the US keeps going on about for decades to justify all of it's interventions around the world).

And this expanding towards Russia (that geopolitical experts that managed the end of the cold war, say will invariably lead to a war in Ukraine) is then mixed in with 8 years of Ukraine shelling ethnic-Russians in the Donbas.

So the idea that this war was somehow just completely unprovoked by US, NATO and Ukraine, is simply absurd.

Of course, provocation doesn't determine moral justification, but it is incompatible with the "pure imperialism" or "crazy" or whatever narrative imparted to Russia.

Why getting the narrative plausibly correct is important, is that some basic sense of reality is required to make good decisions; in this case reach a diplomatic resolution to the war.

For, either

1. NATO goes to war with Russia to implement by force the West's moral judgements, which maximises the risk of nuclear war, or
2. Ukraine imposes its will on Russia by force
3. Russia imposes its will on Ukraine by force
4. The war goes on forever

The justification for provoking Russia for 8 years by shelling the Donbas and doing nothing about Nazi's the West's own media would go and report on all the time, and the fanatical total war fighting including handing out small arms to civilians (which only get them killed) was number 1, that US / NATO would intervene with a no-fly zone. Zelensky and co. and a good part of the whole of social media seemed to genuinely believe that would happen. And now that Russia seems to be turning the tide, suddenly the 101'st US airborn is being talked up as doing exercises on Ukraine's border and may need to intervene (according to Patreus) ... why would there be this talk if option 2 was feasible?

And when it comes to option 2, in thousands of comments (over 7000 I believe) in this conversation, there has never been a single remotely plausible proposal of how Ukraine can "win" with pure military means.

Indeed, for months Ukrainian partisans were justifying the fighting because it would increase Ukraine's negotiating position ... and that was even Ukraine and Zelensky's justification from time to time, but where was the peace proposal to go along with that idea? Russia entirely withdraw from Ukraine, even Crimea!!

When it comes to 3, Russia does have the means to simply win. So if options 1 and 2 aren't happening, and 4 is unlikely, then the current Western strategy likely result is simply option 3.

However, how is Russia winning a good way to fight Russian Imperialism?

As for option 4. This might be "bad for Russia", for sure, but how is it good for Ukraine?

Although I have my doubts option 4 can be maintained forever, certainly war can be dragged on a maximum amount of time by bankrolling and arming Ukraine as much as possible, even if they are losing. But how's that good for Ukrainians anyways? Considering the lives and economic destruction it entails.

What's the alternative to these military resolutions?

Negotiated peace.

But if you want a negotiated peace, then Russia is going to get a lot of what it wants, easy to yell as a Westerner safe in their living room "Boohoohooo! Russia need to be punished for their Imperialism!" ... but how many Ukrainian lives are worth it to make that point? How many Ukrainian lives are worth it to make that point and Ukraine still lose the war?

Which is the core of my position: if NATO wants to punish Russia for its actions, it should spent NATO lives to do it. If we won't, then it's not our business and Ukraine can fight if it wants to with its own means, and if it can't win then it should sue for as good a peace as it can.

For, the idea there's some moral imperative to send arms is not only absurd, but also hypocritical.

If it's a moral imperative then we should be sending all the arms! Are we? No.

Even worse, NATO opens and lowers the arms and training and funding taps as it suits them, and won't hesitate to shut things down if it becomes politically expedient (just throw some shade on Ukraine, suddenly things aren't so clear, time to stop sending money into a money pit in Ukraine and spend it domestically, duty to own citizens and Ukraine state has duty to theirs and all that).

So, it's not a coherent moral position to begin with and hypocritical from start to finish.

Now, we could debate spending NATO lives to "show Russia" ... but we aren't because everyone knows no one in NATO gives a fuck about Ukraine beyond an expedient tool for US policy.

Additionally, the "Russian Imperialism" land grabbing left and right, makes zero coherent sense with the Russian military incompetence narrative, which is even less sensical than the "we support Ukraine by not actually supporting Ukraine but just sending weapons", with a nice insane "we can't negotiate as it's not our war, and Zelensky won't negotiate with Russia, as he shouldn't!, but will take every inch of territory back ... but also it's Putin that refuses to negotiate!"

Ok, the argument is the Ukrainians can take care of business themselves if we just send enough weapons.

But is that happening?

We've been told since September Russian lines are collapsing ... yet they're still there. We've been told since the start of the war that Russian economy and society will disintegrate and therefore no actual battle plan is required beyond sending more people to die.

Which is the heart of the matter. Whatever intentions you place on Putin, the question is what to do about it. Wars happen. Most wars are resolved by some diplomatic resolution.

Quoting ssu

So what did the West get wrong with Russia? I think our former prime minister describes it well:

This analysis by the former Finnish PM is just so amazingly shallow and dumb.

For example, he says he was right about Finland joining NATO and his "mistake" was not pushing for that hard enough while in office.

... But is Finland under attack? Would Finland joining NATO have stopped the Ukraine war somehow?

Did he advocate Ukraine joining NATO at the time ... or even now?

Moreover, he was literally physically there in Georgia negotiating with the Russians ... but fails to mention Russia invading only after NATO declared Georgia and Ukraine would be joining NATO, eventually.

He also says the "Doves were wrong" about economic integration, but fails to mention the 2022 war in Ukraine only happening after Nord Stream 2 was not licensed.

Maybe if that economic integration project went ahead, and Germany and the EU pretended it would for 10 years (why else would Russia and a bunch of Western contractors build it?), the war would have been avoided.

Maybe the doves were right, but the hawks under Biden, once in power, wanted this war and ended the doves peace-and-cooperation strategy to avoid war ... and what do we get? A war.

Hawks then run around, like this arrogant piece of Finnish shit, saying they were right?

But what were their Hawkish policies that would have avoided war? Nukes in Ukraine?

If you yell after the fact "haha I was right about the war happening" you need to actually point to what your alternative plan would have been that would have avoided the war. All the Finnish PM can point to is Finland could have joined NATO ... but would that have affected Russia attacking Ukraine.

Of course, if he made the logical link of Hawks were right and therefore NATO should have let Ukraine join, he'd have to square that with Ukraine wanting to join, requesting to join, begging to join, putting it in their constitution (whereas Finland was quite content not being in NATO and never made any request), but NATO not letting Ukraine in the club. Well, if it's obvious that NATO wouldn't have let Ukraine in any time before 2022 nor today ... nor ever, what's the hawk's great idea that would have avoided war?

Arm Ukraine? Even Blinken pointed out that arming Ukraine isn't a good plan as whatever capacity is built up in Ukraine, Russia will just double it, or quadruple it (and, the sub-text, feel threatened and therefore more likely to attack). Arming Ukraine and teasing "NATO partnership and NATO one day" is the primrose path to the destruction of Ukraine, as Mearsheimer puts it. Made them feel big and tough and therefore no need to negotiate in a level headed and compromising way with Russia.

What was the hawkish alternative plan to this exact scenario?

The Finnish PM does not even address any of the key facts or what hawks would have done differently to avoid war in Ukraine.

He's also just delusional about who's he's even criticising. The Dove's position he lambasts is not that Russia is not a military threat and therefore we had no fear of war all these years.

Rather, the Dove's position is precisely because Russia is a military threat and we should fear war, therefore we should be ever vigilant and diligent in diplomatic and economic cooperation arrangements that maintain the peace.

Knee jerk total sanctions was the hawks wet dream, but what did that accomplish? Did Russia collapse economically or was simply the costs of total war preemptively removed so that there is far less incentive to keep or return to peace?

Indeed, US policy hawks called central bank sanctions their "nuclear option" for decades, how they could effectively destroy Russia ... Russia then spends a decade preparing for this threat US policy hawks literally can't stop talking about.

Did the dove's plan really fail?

Or did the hawks finally get to do their insane plans and this is the result.

The international diplomatic "dove" position is not based on an underestimation of the horrors of war.

The attitude is more that of Hector in the movie Troy:

Hector: Tell me little brother, have you ever killed a man?

US policy hawks: No

Hector: Ever seen a man die in combat?

US policy hawks: No

Hector: I've killed men and I've heard them dying and I've watched them dying and there's nothing glorious about it.

Quoting Mikie

That he’s an imperialist bent on expanding Russia. That’s wrong. It’s wrong because there’s no evidence supporting it, no matter how often it’s repeated in the media or on this thread. If you think there is evidence, happy to discuss that.

I’m responding only for my arguments. If you want to talk about “imperialism”, you better clarify what you mean by it in a way that is clear what you would take as an evidence for the concept to apply, because otherwise we are just quibbling over a terminological issue. See here: “Imperialism is the state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas,[2][3] often through employing hard power (economic and military power), but also soft power (cultural and diplomatic power).” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism)
So America is called “imperialist” (https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/10/05/putin-speech-ukraine-annexation-western-imperialism/) even if they didn’t annex territories while Russia under Putin made 3 annexations (Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk) and subtracted territories to Georgia (Abkhazia and South Ossetia). Besides Putin’s mission to protect persecuted Russian minorities is a popular pretext common in those who have imperialistic ambitions (https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ethnic-russification-baltics-kazakhstan-soviet/25328281.html).

Quoting Mikie

So pushing for NATO membership by East European countries is an example of taking Russian concerns about NATO enlargement seriously?

“We take your concerns seriously by doing exactly what you’re concerned about.”

I’m not sure you’ve thought this through. You’re meandering into incoherence.

[b]The point stands: the US and NATO did not take Russian concerns seriously — as was demonstrated above[/].

That’s why you are blaming also US/NATO for this war, right?


Quoting Mikie

Either way, if pushing for NATO membership, supplying weapons and military training, etc., is “taking Russian concerns seriously,” as you asserted, then the assertion is indeed baseless and wrong. If their concerns were taken seriously, these actions wouldn’t have been taken.

Taking a threat seriously means that one should not ignore the threat, but it doesn’t imply a specific course of action in response to that threat. If a mafia mobster goes to some business reclaiming his "pizzo", and the business owner manages to call the police to rescue himself instead of paying the mobster that doesn’t mean that the business owner didn’t take the threat seriously, on the contrary he did, that’s why he called the police. The points I was making with my comment were: first, we shouldn’t cling on the conflation between threat and expected response when we talk about “Taking Russian threat seriously” which has no other use than serving Putin’s narrative and therefore it prevents us from seeing US/NATO response as a deterring strategy (indeed, deterrence makes perfect sense against perceived serious threats!). Besides if NATO/US didn’t take Putin seriously, then also Putin didn’t take seriously “NATO membership, supplying weapons and military training, etc.” because if he did, he would have felt deterred.
Secondly, the Western response is mired in unresolved tensions between hardliners and softliners (since Obama, Westerners could have sent lethal weapons to Ukraine in greater stock much earlier than they did), while Putin response doesn’t suffer from comparable obstacles. And this observation is pertinent and non-negligible in a geopolitical perspective.

Quoting Mikie

I prefer living in the US over living in Iraq. The US invasion of Iraq was still wrong.

Even if Russia were a democracy, the war is wrong. The US ignoring the Russian concerns and contributing to escalating the crisis is also wrong.

So what? I’m more interested in testing the rationality of our expectations not in what we find desirable or moral. If all you have to offer is a list of scores based on your moral compass or desiderata, you are not intellectually challenging to me.

Quoting Mikie

What was the Russian threat in 2008, exactly?

Attempting to reduce all of this to “both sides have an opinion, so there’s really no way to tell” is a cop-out and is quite convenient, as it relieves you of having to learn about it.

I answered that already. In geopolitics, there are not only imminent military threats but also long term strategic threats [1]: nationalist revanchism was the most serious threat that Europe could think of after 2 WWs, and the collapse of the Soviet Union. That’s why Russia and Putin were under NATO’s radar. By the end of 2008 Putin was already on the path of centralising power (e.g. by fighting oligarchs since hist first presidency term) while signalling his geopolitical ambitions in his war against Chechnya and Georgia. This was already enough to alarm the West and the ex-soviet union countries (including Ukrainians who have a long history of nationalist tensions with Russia). That’s why NATO enlargement was welcomed by ex-Soviet republics and not the result of military occupation and annexation by NATO, you know.
Additionally your myopic demands for evidence fails to take into account the initial assumption of my geopolitical reasoning: “You candidly admit that Putin’s perception of the threat was honestly felt (even if, ex hypothesis, it’s not justified) , but that’s pointless to the extent that all geopolitical agents (not only Russia) as geopolitical agent reason strategically. And strategic reasoning comprises threat perception, signalling and management , so if one must acknowledge that Putin/Russia felt threatened by US/NATO (even if, ex hypothesis, it’s unjustified), then one must acknowledge that also US/NATO/Ukraine can feel threatened by Putin/Russia (even if, ex hypothesis, it’s unjustified).”. So US/NATO felt Putin and the rising of Russian revanchism honestly threatening, even if, ex hypothesis, it wasn’t justified. Period.

Quoting Mikie

"Real intentions"? Again, let's stop simply declaring the "real intentions" of the US or Putin, and look at the facts. From the summit communiqué in June 2021 to the Joint Statement in September 2021 to the statements by Blinken in December (after Russia made clear demands about NATO) -- the words were consistent. What about the actions? Well, not only weapons were provided, but extensive military training, including with NATO forces.

You are missing the fact that Biden froze the procurement of lethal weapons by the end of 2021 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/appeals-ukraine-biden-admin-holds-back-additional-military-aid-kyiv-di-rcna8421) which were a more serious threat for Putin’s war machine than military training, defensive weapons and NATO promises. And again: NATO/US military support to Ukraine was meant as a deterrent (however weak), not as a buildup for a Russian invasion (here is another proof of concept: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/06/us/ukraine-war-missile.html).


Quoting Mikie

10 thousand trained troops a year (Obama), Trump supplying "defensive weapons," and Biden's long-held and continued hawkishness toward Russia (including what I've already gone over) -- hardly what you describe.

Again you are forgetting the issue of the lethal weapons. Not training, not NATO expansion, not defensive weapons, not the hawkish claims were the serious threat, otherwise Putin would have started his special operation much earlier. The serious military threat was the offensive weapon system provided to the Ukrainians against Putin’s expansionist ambitions.

Quoting Mikie

Also in December, Putin said: “what they are doing, or trying or planning to do in Ukraine, is not happening thousands of kilometers away from our national border. It is on the doorstep of our house. They must understand that we simply have nowhere further to retreat to. Do they really think we do not see these threats? Or do they think that we will just stand idly watching threats to Russia emerge?”

Retreat from what? Did Putin have evidence that Ukraine or NATO wanted to invade Russia? Or are we always talking about perceived strategic threats?
You keep presenting facts according to the Russian perspective but you didn’t explain yet why the West should act according to Putin’s way of framing the issue and related demands (NATO membership, no military training, no weapons for Ukraine) while letting Ukraine fall prey to Russia. How is that right? If Russia did something wrong in invading Ukraine according to your moral compass, what do you think it’s sensible to do about it? Besides you even claimed “So you don't believe Putin. Understood. I don't blame anyone for that. I don't blame anyone for not believing American presidents when they say things either. I think we should be very skeptical”, so what’s the point of objecting that the West didn’t take Putin’s demands the way he expected ?


Quoting Mikie

Based on the statements and actions by the US and NATO, it's quite clear they weren't "naked and powerless," nor did Russia see it that way.

So this is another baseless assertion.

If Putin must be treated as a rational agent, then Putin couldn’t possibly start a military confrontation with a non-aggressive competitor against which, ex-hypothesis, he believed having no chance or little chance of winning. If Putin is a rational agent, we must assume he acted according to some rational expectations appropriate for those circumstances: namely, he believed to have a serious chance to get what he wanted and NATO/US couldn’t really deter him, so that he could plausibly claim to have won a war against the West, because that’s how his propaganda keeps framing the war. And even now that the military performance of Russia proved to be so poor on the battle field, Russia keeps escalating, mobilising people, threatening to go nuclear and celebrating his trophies (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63052207). What matters here, it’s not if he “really” wins but if his victory claims based on his military achievements sound convincing enough to destabilise the cohesion of the Western alliance, draw on his side resources and commitments from his anti-Western valuable allies and therefore inflict a big geopolitical blow on Western hegemony.

So here we stand:

• You are blaming also US/NATO for this war in Ukraine
• You do not ground your judgement based on geopolitical strategic concerns, only on your cute moral compass (honesty, impartiality, peace&lovefulness)

[1]
And one wants to assess strategic threats, then one has to reason like Mearsheimer's here:
The only way to predict how a rising China is likely to behave toward its neighbors as well as the United States is with a theory of great-power politics. The main reason for relying on theory is that we have no facts about the future, because it has not happened yet. Thomas Hobbes put the point well: “The present only has a being in nature; things past have a being in the memory only; but things to come have no being at all.” Thus, we have no choice but to rely on theories to determine what is likely to transpire in world politics.
https://nationalinterest.org/article/say-goodbye-taiwan-9931

Quoting boethius

it is incompatible with the "pure imperialism" or "crazy" or whatever narrative imparted to Russia.

It is not incompatible with imperialism. In fact prehemmptively invading a neighbor because said neighbor is cozying up with rivals is precisely what a militaristic, imperialist regime would do.

Quoting Olivier5

It is not incompatible with imperialism.

Russian military incompetence is completely incompatible with the notion that Russian imperialism is something we should worry about. Ukraine will win on the battlefield, Russia for sure could successfully attack more countries and more certainly not NATO, and that's that.

Otherwise, what you're saying is that the mere imperialism requires only the mere intention to build empire and no actual means and that anyone who's the target of someone intention for empire building should be given tens of billions of Euro's of arms and economic support. For instance, if I personally have the intention to expand my empire to the adjacent homes in the area, they should all get tens billions of Euros of arms and assistance, because I do intend to expand my empire. Obviously, that argument makes no sense as I have no actual means to subjugate my neighbourhood into a system of vassal tribute.

You can't have it both ways:

1. Arms, intelligence and financial support to Ukraine is justified despite no discernible pathway to victory because Russian forces, despite being superior in strength in nearly every metric, is incompetent and they'll just randomly fall apart one day.

2. Arms, intelligence and financial support to Ukraine is justified as Russia is on a imperial expansion mission far beyond the borders of Ukraine and therefore we want to damage Russia's army regardless of the Ukrainian lives spent and even if Ukraine can't actually win because far from being incompetent, Russia is executing the war in a ruthless efficient way: nearly surround Kiev to shell to the ground Ukraine war producing industry and also fix forces while the south is occupied (nearly 20% of Ukraine and something the Russians can feasibly hold onto with limited force), then attrit the Ukrainians all summer in a giant cauldron in the South using only professional forces and the Donbas malitias and loads of artillery, bait the Ukrainians into disastrous offensives that exhaust their reserves, followed by a limited mobilisation and destruction of the Ukrainian power grid to "get the job done" once economic and political blow-back affects start hitting the West (like 3 UK PM's in 2 months, or whatever it is, move to the far right in Italy, massive protests in various EU countries). Look at these ruthless Imperialists!!! Quick, quick, throw some more Ukrainian bodies to slow down the Russian war machine.

More importantly, regardless of the argument, what would follow from a legitimate belief Russian Imperialism was a problem morally required to deal with, would be the conclusion that NATO soldiers go and standup to this Imperialism.

Saying something is a problem for me ... but not enough that I take any real personal risk to deal with it, is the same as saying it's not a problem for me, rather just an opportunity for others to suffer a cost for my benefit if they're gullible enough to believe my arguments but not look at my actions.

For example, nukes in Cuba was really believed by the US administration to be a problem morally required to deal with.

So, what did they do?

They put their own sailors in harms way and made the ultimatum to the Soviets that if they wanted to keep their nukes in Cuba, then it would be war.

Same could be done in Ukraine any day since 2008, or even before.

It's not done. Why? Because "Ukraine sovereignty" is not legitimately believed to be a goal with any real moral merit or commitment, rather a the Ukrainians belief and willingness to fight a losing battle, is a US opportunity.

Now, even if I believed Russia was some legitimate threat to Finland and the rest of the EU if Ukraine fell! I would still oppose bleeding the Russians with Ukrainian lives knowing there is no benefit to Ukraine for doing so over a negotiate settlement, requiring compromise, yes, but compromise is better than fighting for someone else's war game. Especially when there's no respawn ... and your enemy is in fact not a noob, despite the people wanting you to fight irrationally making that assurance.

Quoting boethius

They put their own sailors in harms way and made the ultimatum to the Soviets that if they wanted to keep their nukes in Cuba, then it would be war.

The US didn't annex parts of Cuba nor obtained Cuban neutrality/Cuban demilitarization/regime change. And US reaction was against an actual nuclear threat.

Quoting neomac

The US didn't annex parts of Cuba nor obtained Cuban neutrality/Cuban demilitarization/regime change. And US reaction was against an actual nuclear threat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion#U.S._Government_personnel

Reply to Tzeentch and?

101st Airborne Deployed to Ukraine’s Border ‘Ready To Fight Tonight’

https://news.antiwar.com/2022/10/23/101st-airborn-deployed-to-ukraines-border-ready-to-fight-tonight/

Reply to neomac They attempted all the things you named.

Reply to Tzeentch And precisely because the Americans failed they had to deal with the fact that Cuba was lost under the Russian sphere of influence. The red line was the actual nuclear threat, and the solution was focused on finding an agreement about the nuclear threat. Russia could have proposed the same to the US. But it didn't. And the other lesson here is that "the invasion's defeat solidified Castro's role as a national hero and widened the political division between the two formerly allied countries. It also pushed Cuba closer to the Soviet Union". So Russian attempts at invading Ukraine will likely push Ukraine into Western sphere of influence.

Quoting neomac

So Russian attempts at invading Ukraine will likely push Ukraine into Western sphere of influence.

It already inspired Finland and Sweden to join NATO.

I think Putin has created a deep abiding hatred of Russia among Ukrainians, so I doubt relations between the two will be normalized as long as Putin is in power.

Quoting neomac

The red line was the actual nuclear threat, and the solution was focused on finding an agreement about the nuclear threat. Russia could have proposed the same to the US. But it didn't.

How do you know this?

The Russians have spoken about this red line for decades - you believe no talks happened between the United States and Russia about this situation?

And what good are talks when the United States blatantly states it wishes to cross the mentioned red line, and supports regime change just to prove its intentions?

Quoting boethius

Russian military incompetence ...

Stop changing the subject.

The annexion of Crimea, Dombass and Kherson are evidence of imperialist ambitions. We are not talking of just beating Ukraine into Belarusian-type submission here, but of land and people grab.

They snatch children too. Thousands of Ukrainian children have been abducted, deported, and forcibly adopted to the Russian Federation. The United Nations has declared that allegations are "credible", and that Russian forces have sent Ukrainian children to Russia for adoption as part of a large scale program.

You see, Russia has a big demographic problem. Many young people of both sexes have left the country. And yet the new Czar needs children for his future conquests.

Quoting Tzeentch

The Russians have spoken about this red line for decades -

It's only been two decades since their economy was devastated, so that red line is fairly young. :razz:

Quoting neomac

The US didn't annex parts of Cuba nor obtained Cuban neutrality/Cuban demilitarization/regime change. And US reaction was against an actual nuclear threat.

Not only is your premise here false, you don't even bother to understand the argument.

The point is that "doing something about it" (risking your own troops) is a corollary to "caring about it".

Ukrainian partisans seem to take it for granted that of course NATO can talk about Ukraine joining NATO for over a decade but never actually let Ukraine join NATO.

If it was clear to everyone in the West that Ukraine would never join NATO ... then talking about it, giving some little NATO crumbs of equipment and training and so on, has no moral justification, it is purely a provocation to start a war.

Quoting Olivier5

Stop changing the subject.

This was literally the point you were responding to with:

Quoting Olivier5

It is not incompatible with imperialism.

A point (Russian incompetence) that Ukrainian partisans have been asserting since the start of the war, and we just had a long exchange about it with many participants here, going into quite a bit of battle field minutia.

It's also a absolutely central point, as the "Russian incompetence" theory justifies war without a plan, since it's only if your opponent will defeat themselves that you don't need an actual plan other than to wait for that to happen, which is quite explicitly Ukrainian war strategy most of the time.

Quoting Olivier5

The annexion of Crimea, Dombass and Kherson are evidence of imperialist ambitions. We are not talking of just beating Ukraine into Belarusian-type submission here, but of land and people grab.

I see we agree that Russia has executed effectively on some critical Imperial aims.

The question I have been addressing is what can be done about it.

As I mention above, the available military outcomes are:

Quoting boethius

1. NATO goes to war with Russia to implement by force the West's moral judgements, which maximises the risk of nuclear war, or
2. Ukraine imposes its will on Russia by force
3. Russia imposes its will on Ukraine by force
4. The war goes on forever

I argue that 1, 2, and 4 are unlikely compared to 3 as well as not necessarily being in the interest of Ukraine even it was feasible (forever war in particular), and diplomatic resolution is superior to testing which of the 4 military outcomes by further warfare.

A smaller state demonstrating a will to fight and a high cost of winning a war to a larger state is classic asymmetric strategy in war theory ... but not to then try to conquer the larger invading state but to resolve the conflict diplomatically on favourable terms.

Again, the cases people like to mention, in particular Finland, were not battlefield "victories" but fighting to a better diplomatic agreement (that involved "losing", giving up 20% of Finnish territory, and owing war reparations to the Soviet Union ... yet where are people's tears for this outcome in the real world or then arguing Finland should not have settled but kept fighting until they defeated the Soviet Union?).

Quoting jorndoe

Right. The aid to the Ukrainians makes the providers proxied elements. Though, I don't think the instigator meant to (ultimately) attack them instead (in this war anyway). Or maybe someone disagrees with this?

I really don't know what the second sentence means. Who is the "instigator," and who does "them" refer to?

Quoting Olivier5

Picture if China was taking the same actions in Canada or Mexico, despite US warnings. Would we say they were taking those warnings seriously? After all, it could be argued, China didn’t annex Canada or incorporate it into a defensive alliance — it was only talking about it.

How would that scenario play out? Would we therefore EXCUSE the US for invading Canada? Of course not. But it shouldn’t come as a shock. Nor should we invent stories about how the US President’s “real” motive is to conquer all of the Western Hemisphere.
— Mikie

Note that in this scenario, the US would annex large parts of Canada, just as Putin is doing in Ukraine. Therefore, it would be a land grab, a manifestation of imperialism

And I suppose this reaction to China's involvement -- as inexcusable as it would be -- would somehow prove that the US had "imperial ambitions" there all along, despite there being no evidence of it prior to China's actions? Nonsense.

There's no evidence of US "imperialist ambitions" in Canada today. I don't think that's controversial.

If, hypothetically, starting in 2025, China were on the doorstep, supplying weapons, training thousands of troops, and continually pushing for Canadian membership in a "defensive alliance," despite years of US warnings about this being a "red line," and then a reaction occurred in 2031 where the US annexed parts of Canada -- I suppose this would somehow make the claims true today? Of course not.

Likewise, there were no claims of Russian "imperial ambitions" prior to 2014. After that, it of course became the official reason. With no mention of the prior six years' warnings from Russia, which were recognized even within the US:

William Burns, who is now the head of the CIA, but was the US ambassador to Moscow at the time of the Bucharest summit, wrote a memo to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that succinctly describes Russian thinking about this matter. In his words: “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.” NATO, he said, “would be seen … as throwing down the strategic gauntlet. Today’s Russia will respond. Russian-Ukrainian relations will go into a deep freeze…It will create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.”

After the 2008 summit, Putin (reportedly enraged) had stated:

“if Ukraine joins NATO, it will do so without Crimea and the eastern regions. It will simply fall apart.”

So yes, we can engage in revisionism if we'd like, and make up a story about how Putin was planning all along to take over the former territory of the Soviet Union, but almost no one was claiming that prior to 2014, which was as unsurprising an event as the US annexing parts of Canada in the above scenario. The difference: the US wouldn't wait six years to do so.

Quoting Olivier5

Your endless NATO caca arguments fail to account for the annexion of Crimea, Dombass and Kherson. This is the proof of imperial ambitions, which you have conveniently decided to ignore because it undermines your narrative...

On the contrary, I've repeatedly addressed them. I've now done so again, above. What you are ignoring/dismissing, conveniently, is what led to the takeover of Crimea. It wasn't imperialist ambitions.

True, we can believe Putin -- out of sheer caprice -- suddenly developed an urge to take Crimea, and make other projections on what the "real motives" were by speculating about the inner workings of his soul; or we can look at the facts: the actions and statements leading up to the event.

David V Gioe, William Styles (Sep 16, 2022):
Vladimir Putin’s Russian World Turned Upside Down

I, for one, don't want to see a Russia "limp[ing] along". If anything, I'd reserve that for their autocrats. Prosperity felt by the regular Russian on the street (or out yonder) is preferable. :up:

The nuke rattling can also backfire. Russia's Western neighbors don't host nukes (as best we know), surely that would have included Ukraine, had they become a NATO member. On the other hand, Russia's nuke placements are on neighbors' doorsteps. And Russia bulging seems likely to carry such weaponry along, or threaten to, which might elicit a reaction; after all, not everyone airs nuclear threats.

The systematic re-culturation efforts could be added to the domestic measures put in place by the autocrats (mentioned by Gioe and Styles), as an indication of the uncertain future prospects if the Ukrainians were to surrender.

Quoting Gioe and Styles

In direct contrast to Russia’s frightful trajectory, the world is witnessing the full-throated and inspiring political birth of a Ukrainian nation-state, its founding myth strengthened by the shared trauma of conflict and common hardships

Ukraine is clearly now a nation with an inarguably separate identity to Russia

Putin’s latest invasion has hardened and consolidated Ukraine’s national resolve—arguably creating the very thing he sought to strangle at birth, a politically confident and culturally separate nation, through his own reckless actions

The struggle against a regress into autocratic regimes is real enough.

Elon Musk suggested a peace plan on Oct 3, 2022 and put it to the vote.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000[/tweet]

Quoting neomac

That he’s an imperialist bent on expanding Russia. That’s wrong. It’s wrong because there’s no evidence supporting it, no matter how often it’s repeated in the media or on this thread. If you think there is evidence, happy to discuss that.
— Mikie

I’m responding only for my arguments. If you want to talk about “imperialism”, you better clarify what you mean by it in a way that is clear what you would take as an evidence for the concept to apply, because otherwise we are just quibbling over a terminological issue. See here: “Imperialism is the state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas,[2][3] often through employing hard power (economic and military power), but also soft power (cultural and diplomatic power).”

It would help if you quoted the entirety of my response:

“Only”? I blame Putin for the war. NATO was a reason given for invasion — one that was given for years, clearly and consistently. The conclusion? That he’s an imperialist bent on expanding Russia. That’s wrong. It’s wrong because there’s no evidence supporting it, no matter how often it’s repeated in the media or on this thread. If you think there is evidence, happy to discuss that.

There is no evidence that the was an imperialist bent on expanding Russia. The answer given is about Crimea as evidence. This has been addressed before as well.

I will just quote Mearsheimer, an expert on these matters, who puts it more succinctly than I could:

The Conventional Wisdom

It is widely and firmly believed in the West that Putin is solely responsible for causing the Ukraine crisis and certainly the ongoing war. He is said to have imperial ambitions, which is to say he is bent on conquering Ukraine and other countries as well—all for the purpose of creating a greater Russia that bears some resemblance to the former Soviet Union. In other words, Ukraine is Putin’s first target, but not his last. As one scholar put it, he is “acting on a sinister, long-held goal: to erase Ukraine from the map of the world.” Given Putin’s purported goals, it makes perfect sense for Finland and Sweden to join NATO and for the alliance to increase its force levels in eastern Europe. Imperial Russia, after all, must be contained.

While this narrative is repeated over and over in the mainstream media and by virtually every Western leader, there is no evidence to support it. To the extent that purveyors of the conventional wisdom provide evidence, it has little if any bearing on Putin’s motives for invading Ukraine. For example, some emphasize that he said that Ukraine is an “artificial state“ or not a “real state.” Such opaque comments, however, say nothing about his reason for going to war. The same is true of Putin’s statement that he views Russians and Ukrainians as “one people“ with a common history. Others point out that he called the collapse of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” Of course, Putin also said, “Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain.” Still, others point to a speech in which he declared that “Modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia or, to be more precise, by Bolshevik, Communist Russia.” But as he went on to say in that very same speech, in reference to Ukraine’s independence today: “Of course, we cannot change past events, but we must at least admit them openly and honestly.”

To make the case that Putin was bent on conquering all of Ukraine and incorporating it into Russia, it is necessary to provide evidence that first, he thought it was a desirable goal, that second, he thought it was a feasible goal, and third, he intended to pursue that goal. There is no evidence in the public record that Putin was contemplating, much less intending to put an end to Ukraine as an independent state and make it part of greater Russia when he sent his troops into Ukraine on February 24th.

In fact, there is significant evidence that Putin recognized Ukraine as an independent country. In his July 12, 2021, article about Russian-Ukrainian relations, which proponents of the conventional wisdom often point to as evidence of his imperial ambitions, he tells the Ukrainian people, “You want to establish a state of your own: you are welcome!” Regarding how Russia should treat Ukraine, he writes, “There is only one answer: with respect.” He concludes that lengthy article with the following words: “And what Ukraine will be—it is up to its citizens to decide.” It is hard to reconcile these statements with the claim that he wants to incorporate Ukraine within a greater Russia.

In that same July 12, 2021, article and again in an important speech he gave on February 21st of this year, Putin emphasized that Russia accepts “the new geopolitical reality that took shape after the dissolution of the USSR.” He reiterated that same point for a third time on February 24th, when he announced that Russia would invade Ukraine. In particular, he declared that “It is not our plan to occupy Ukrainian territory” and made it clear that he respected Ukrainian sovereignty, but only up to a point: “Russia cannot feel safe, develop, and exist while facing a permanent threat from the territory of today’s Ukraine.” In essence, Putin was not interested in making Ukraine a part of Russia; he was interested in making sure it did not become a “springboard“ for Western aggression against Russia, a subject I will say more about shortly.

One might argue that Putin was lying about his motives, that he was attempting to disguise his imperial ambitions. As it turns out, I have written a book about lying in international politics—Why Leaders Lie: The Truth about Lying in International Politics—and it is clear to me that Putin was not lying. For starters, one of my principal findings is that leaders do not lie much to each other; they lie more often to their own publics. Regarding Putin, whatever one thinks of him, he does not have a history of lying to other leaders. Although some assert that he frequently lies and cannot be trusted, there is little evidence of him lying to foreign audiences. Moreover, he has publicly spelled out his thinking about Ukraine on numerous occasions over the past two years and he has consistently emphasized that his principal concern is Ukraine’s relations with the West, especially NATO. He has never once hinted that he wants to make Ukraine part of Russia. If this behavior is all part of a giant deception campaign, it would be without precedent in recorded history.

Perhaps the best indicator that Putin is not bent on conquering and absorbing Ukraine is the military strategy Moscow has employed from the start of the campaign. The Russian military did not attempt to conquer all of Ukraine. That would have required a classic blitzkrieg strategy that aimed at quickly overrunning all of Ukraine with armored forces supported by tactical airpower. That strategy was not feasible, however, because there were only 190,000 soldiers in Russia’s invading army, which is far too small a force to vanquish and occupy Ukraine, which is not only the largest country between the Atlantic Ocean and Russia, but also has a population over 40 million. Unsurprisingly, the Russians pursued a limited aims strategy, which focused on either capturing or threatening Kiev and conquering a large swath of territory in eastern and southern Ukraine. In short, Russia did not have the capability to subdue all of Ukraine, much less conquer other countries in eastern Europe.

As Ramzy Mardini observed, another telling indicator of Putin’s limited aims is that there is no evidence Russia was preparing a puppet government for Ukraine, cultivating pro-Russian leaders in Kyiv, or pursuing any political measures that would make it possible to occupy the entire country and eventually integrate it into Russia.

To take this argument a step further, Putin and other Russian leaders surely understand from the Cold War that occupying counties in the age of nationalism is invariably a prescription for never-ending trouble. The Soviet experience in Afghanistan is a glaring example of this phenomenon, but more relevant for the issue at hand is Moscow’s relations with its allies in eastern Europe. The Soviet Union maintained a huge military presence in that region and was involved in the politics of almost every country located there. Those allies, however, were a frequent thorn in Moscow’s side. The Soviet Union put down a major insurrection in East Germany in 1953, and then invaded Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 to keep them in line. There was serious trouble in Poland in 1956, 1970, and again in 1980-1981. Although Polish authorities dealt with these events, they served as a reminder that intervention might be necessary. Albania, Romania, and Yugoslavia routinely caused Moscow trouble, but Soviet leaders tended to tolerate their misbehavior, because their location made them less important for deterring NATO.

Quoting jorndoe

The nuke rattling can also backfire. Russia's Western neighbors don't host nukes (as best we know), surely that would have included Ukraine, had they become a NATO member. On the other hand, Russia's nuke placements are on neighbors' doorsteps. And Russia bulging seems likely to carry such weaponry along, or threaten to, which might elicit a reaction; after all, not everyone airs nuclear threats.

NATO in Ukraine presents 2 entirely real security problems to Russia.

First, is forward operating bases and missile bases in Ukraine, which we've seen happen in the Baltics despite the theory being they would be part of NATO but not host forward operating bases ... apparently Iran was such a big threat from that exact direction that missile bases needed to be there regardless.

So, even if NATO stated it would not forward deploy to Ukraine, you can't assume that would hold in the future.

Second, more importantly, long borders with NATO simply create a more volatile situation. Once Ukraine is in NATO it could stage a false flag, if no the Azov or Right Sector today then some more extreme organisation tomorrow. It may not be clear "who started it" etc. It's simply a security headache that any random altercation along a thousand kilometre border could immediately escalate to nuclear war. Not only can you legitimately fear a Ukrainian false flag, you can also fear either a mistake or then false flag of your own troops starting a nuclear war on purpose or by mistake. If fighting suddenly erupts, it may not even be clear to the leaders of any state involved of why, who, what is happening. Each side may interpret events as the other side making some pre-emptive move as the prelude to some military plan sparking a series of escalations.

It's essentially common sense for both Russia and NATO to want to minimise common borders to a manageable amount (the current borders are very small and not really any strategic threat either way: you can't invade Russia through North Norway and the baltic states don't have large enough militaries to be worried about ... and hundreds of thousands of NATO troops would be noticed).

It's also entirely reasonable position for Russia to invade Ukraine preemptively to avoid the far more volatile situation of NATO bordering Russia along hundreds of kilometres and (more importantly) a large country with a large population.

Why people with any sort of strategic military education at all (such as @ssu) argue that sure NATO was talking about allowing Ukraine to join but that everyone knew that wouldn't happen, that the threat was empty, and therefor Russia should not have reacted to an empty threat.

The problem with that argument is that if people are talking about doing something, even if it seems an empty threat tomorrow, if the situation changes and there's a moment of weakness they will likely seize the opportunity, so it is logical to react when you have the capacity to do so.

Now, NATO could have, instead of talking trash, just gone and done it: fly to Ukraine in 2008 or 2014 or anytime since, have everything pre-approved, and sign the documents overnight and "poof" NATOed.

Of course, that is and was never a remote possibility because NATO, including the US, simply doesn't care enough about Ukraine to expend any real political capital in Ukraine's interest. And no, supplying arms is not spending political capital but building up your political capital by doing the arms industry bidding.

NATO in Ukraine also presents a domestic political problem that people feel the unsafe with their arch nemesis that continuously calls them their enemy on their door step.

Western analysis seems to start from the premise that all Russians think like Westerners and actually want the West to conquer their territory or then just fuck them up generally speaking. We'll be welcomed as liberators!

Quoting boethius

NATO in Ukraine presents 2 entirely real security problems to Russia.

According to Putin, NATO was planning to destroy Russia. He saw NATO as an existential threat.

Let's go with that.

Quoting frank

According to Putin, NATO was planning to destroy Russia. He saw NATO as an existential threat.

Sure, US neo-cons went on for more than a decade about their "nuclear option" of shutting Russia out of the SWIFT system along with significant sanctions.

They called it the "nuclear option" because it would have (in their minds) the same affect as nuclear weapons and total destruction of Russia, just without the nuclear weapons and not (sufficient) reason for Russia to retaliate.

So, you have guys at the top of the US policy making circles constantly talking about their desire to "nuke you" (just with means of comparable destructive power without actually being nuclear weapons), along with installing forward operating missile bases and wanting to expand the "defensive" alliance forward to the border of Russia.

It legitimately seems threatening words and actions.

Likewise for a decade, Russia is blamed for getting Trump elected and orchestrating some high treasonous plot ... with 200 000 USD of facebook adds from some random add farm? Which was delusional scapegoatism.

History teaches that people who engage in delusional scapegoatism on a large scale often eventually act out violently against the object of their delusions.

One can argue that the threat from NATO was not sufficient justification to start a large war, but the idea NATO, in particular the US, wasn't constantly threatening Russia in action and rhetoric is just absurd.

Reply to boethius

• Putin's Russia is a present existential threat to Ukraine, to which the Ukrainians are responding

• until Putin's Russia has taken over all of Ukraine, the (supposed (or, say, future-hypothetical)) threat of NATO membership remains

• if Putin’s Russia was to take over all of Ukraine, then Russia becomes an increased substantial threat to others (like Putinian autocracy, nuclear rattling doesn't help)

See where this is going?

Quoting Elon Musk (Oct 3, 2022)

- Ukraine remains neutral.

Quoting neomac

The point stands: the US and NATO did not take Russian concerns seriously — as was demonstrated above[/].
— Mikie

That’s why you are blaming also US/NATO for this war, right?

The US and NATO are primarily responsible for escalating this war, yes. Ultimately the decision was Putin's, and so I blame him for the war. Person A provoking someone doesn't mean person B has no choice but to slap A in the face. Still, we should be honest about the whole story, and not simply make up stories about why person B reacted.

Quoting neomac

Either way, if pushing for NATO membership, supplying weapons and military training, etc., is “taking Russian concerns seriously,” as you asserted, then the assertion is indeed baseless and wrong. If their concerns were taken seriously, these actions wouldn’t have been taken.
— Mikie

Taking a threat seriously means that one should not ignore the threat

Excuse me, but you're changing the words. You didn't say "threat," and neither did I. You said "Russian concerns." Your assertion is that "Russian concerns were taken seriously." They were not.

What were the Russian concerns? Again, they were made very clear after 2008. We can go over the long record again if you'd like, but I think it's fairly obvious. It was obvious to US diplomats, CIA directors, and allies that Russia believed Ukrainian (and Georgian) membership into NATO was an existential threat. Ditto weapons and military training, which were later concerns and likewise voiced consistently and strongly -- not just by Putin.

So, again, your claim is baseless. Russian concerns were not taken seriously.

Quoting neomac

I prefer living in the US over living in Iraq. The US invasion of Iraq was still wrong.

Even if Russia were a democracy, the war is wrong. The US ignoring the Russian concerns and contributing to escalating the crisis is also wrong.
— Mikie

So what? I’m more interested in testing the rationality of our expectations not in what we find desirable or moral. If all you have to offer is a list of scores based on your moral compass or desiderata, you are not intellectually challenging to me.

What isn't intellectually challenging is playing games like this. You know very well that I didn't say "threats" above -- and neither did you. You also know very well that the above quotation is in response to the following:

Quoting neomac

If state A threatens state B in its proximity or state A invades state B, I could react differently depending on which state is democratic or authoritarian, because I prefer democracy over authoritarian regimes.

[Emphasis mine]

So it's very strange that suddenly you say you're not interested in what we find "desirable or moral." I'm not interested in it either, which was the point. It doesn't matter if we prefer democracy or authoritarianism -- as you stated. What matters are the actions. We should react the same, not according to what we "prefer" (again, your words).

Quoting Mikie

What was the Russian threat in 2008, exactly?

Quoting neomac

By the end of 2008 Putin was already on the path of centralising power (e.g. by fighting oligarchs since hist first presidency term) while signalling his geopolitical ambitions in his war against Chechnya and Georgia. This was already enough to alarm the West and the ex-soviet union countries (including Ukrainians who have a long history of nationalist tensions with Russia). That’s why NATO enlargement was welcomed by ex-Soviet republics and not the result of military occupation and annexation by NATO, you know.

Your history is very confused.

That's simply not the case. That wasn't the US's or NATO's position in 2008. I asked what was the Russian threat in 2008 -- because it was in April of 2008 that the Bucharest summit declared that Ukraine and Georgia would be admitted to NATO. Claiming the war in Georgia was a threat, and thus a reason for membership of NATO, is anachronistic. The war in Georgia did not break out until August of 2008. So that claim is nonsense.

The actions in Chechnya was the threat? Problems there had been occurring for years, internal to Russia. There was also no mention of that at the 2008 summit. It was not considered a threat, and it was not a reason for NATO admitting Ukraine or Georgia in April of 2008. It's worth remembering that Putin was invited (and attended) that summit. Strange to invite someone who was considered such a threat.

There was no Russian threat in 2008, which is when this all began, in April of that year in Bucharest. You've provided two examples of why. One was never mentioned by NATO -- or anyone else. The other is absurd, having happened after the summit.

So I ask again: What was the Russian threat in 2008 that began all of this?

Quoting neomac

Additionally your myopic demands for evidence fails to take into account the initial assumption of my geopolitical reasoning: “You candidly admit that Putin’s perception of the threat was honestly felt (even if, ex hypothesis, it’s not justified) , but that’s pointless to the extent that all geopolitical agents (not only Russia) as geopolitical agent reason strategically. And strategic reasoning comprises threat perception, signalling and management , so if one must acknowledge that Putin/Russia felt threatened by US/NATO (even if, ex hypothesis, it’s unjustified), then one must acknowledge that also US/NATO/Ukraine can feel threatened by Putin/Russia (even if, ex hypothesis, it’s unjustified).”. So US/NATO felt Putin and the rising of Russian revanchism honestly threatening, even if, ex hypothesis, it wasn’t justified. Period.

Your "reasoning" is, and has now repeatedly been shown to be, very faulty indeed.

It's quite true that if the US/NATO felt that Russian revanchism was threatening, that this should be taken seriously as well -- even if we believe it unjustified. But that was not the case. Neither the US, nor NATO, believed this was true in 2008. That's why it was never stated. It's why Putin was invited to the summit. It's also why you can provide no evidence of it, despite being asked multiple times. So yes, my demands for evidence are quite singular -- because I'm interested in facts, not your rather confused reasoning.

If you have evidence that the US and NATO felt Russia was threatening in April of 2008, when they pushed for Ukrainian and Georgian membership, then provide it.

Or you could actually read the reasons given in the summit. It's online for free. In case you're unwilling to do so, I'll quote a part for you:

NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia.

-- From the NATO website.

Quoting Mikie

"Real intentions"? Again, let's stop simply declaring the "real intentions" of the US or Putin, and look at the facts. From the summit communiqué in June 2021 to the Joint Statement in September 2021 to the statements by Blinken in December (after Russia made clear demands about NATO) -- the words were consistent. What about the actions? Well, not only weapons were provided, but extensive military training, including with NATO forces.

Quoting neomac

You are missing the fact that Biden froze the procurement of lethal weapons by the end of 2021 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/appeals-ukraine-biden-admin-holds-back-additional-military-aid-kyiv-di-rcna8421) which were a more serious threat for Putin’s war machine than military training, defensive weapons and NATO promises.

Sorry, but you simply declaring that one thing is more threatening than another is not interesting. Ask the Russians if they felt it was threatening. It is their opinion that matters, not yours. And they've been quite clear, for over decade.

This distinction between "lethal weapons" and "defensive weapons" is kind of ridiculous. Everything the US has ever done, accordion to them, is "defensive." When we invade Iraq, we're "defending" Iraq. So that's already a sign of repeating propaganda. But think about it for a minute: what do you think "defensive" weapons are? They're all completely non-lethal? So machine guns are for "defense," therefore they can't kill? Are the FGM-148 Javelins simply "defensive"? Because those have been supplied as well. They certainly seem lethal to me. They're called "anti-tank missiles."

Furthermore, "lethal weapons" had already been deployed in Ukraine prior to December. Russia troops had already begun mobilizing at this point as well.

Quoting neomac

And again: NATO/US military support to Ukraine was meant as a deterrent (however weak)

Again, more propaganda. Everything that NATO/US does is "defensive" and meant merely as "deterrents." Right. Unfortunately, the Russians see it quite differently. They view anti-tank missiles and military drills with NATO -- including Operation Sea Breeze -- as a threat.

Quoting neomac

10 thousand trained troops a year (Obama), Trump supplying "defensive weapons," and Biden's long-held and continued hawkishness toward Russia (including what I've already gone over) -- hardly what you describe.
— Mikie

Again you are forgetting the issue of the lethal weapons. Not training, not NATO expansion, not defensive weapons, not the hawkish claims were the serious threat, otherwise Putin would have started his special operation much earlier. The serious military threat was the offensive weapon system provided to the Ukrainians against Putin’s expansionist ambitions.

See above. This "lethal weapons" and "defensive weapons" distinction is really absurd. It's also not your decision to decide what was and wasn't a "serious military threat." I suppose Sea Breeze wasn't a "serious military threat" to Russia, in your view? Nonsense.

But even if we take your premises seriously, what exactly are you referring to by the "offensive weapon system"? You understand that Russia had mobilized before Biden delayed the $200 million supply, right?

Quoting neomac

Also in December, Putin said: “what they are doing, or trying or planning to do in Ukraine, is not happening thousands of kilometers away from our national border. It is on the doorstep of our house. They must understand that we simply have nowhere further to retreat to. Do they really think we do not see these threats? Or do they think that we will just stand idly watching threats to Russia emerge?”
— Mikie

Retreat from what?

From NATO expansion.

Quoting neomac

Did Putin have evidence that Ukraine or NATO wanted to invade Russia? Or are we always talking about perceived strategic threats?

Suddenly evidence is important, and not "myopic"? Interesting.

Putin didn't have evidence, because that's not what Putin was claiming. Putin never claimed NATO wanted to "invade" Russia. Your failure to even minimally understand Russia's position here is telling.

Quoting neomac

You keep presenting facts according to the Russian perspective but you didn’t explain yet why the West should act according to Putin’s way of framing the issue and related demands (NATO membership, no military training, no weapons for Ukraine) while letting Ukraine fall prey to Russia. How is that right?

I've not once suggested that we let Ukraine "fall prey to Russia." I support US helping Ukrainians defend their country.

Quoting neomac

If Russia did something wrong in invading Ukraine according to your moral compass, what do you think it’s sensible to do about it?

Encourage and facilitate peace negotiations. The most immediate action would be a ceasefire.

Quoting neomac

So here we stand:
You are blaming also US/NATO for this war in Ukraine
You do not ground your judgement based on geopolitical strategic concerns, only on your cute moral compass (honesty, impartiality, peace&lovefulness)

Maybe you're just incapable of having a rational discussion. But I'll repeat, yet again:

No, I'm not blaming the US and NATO for the war. The US and NATO were primarily responsible for escalating the war. That's a crucial difference. The blame for invasion is Putin's.

The second accusation is just pure irrationality, given that it was YOU who mentioned "preference," not me. As demonstrated above.

I never once mentioned "honesty, impartiality", or "lovefulness."

I have indeed mentioned peace. For good reason.

Quoting jorndoe

• Putin's Russia is a present existential threat to Ukraine, to which the Ukrainians are responding

• until Putin's Russia has taken over all of Ukraine, the (supposed (or, say, future-hypothetical)) threat of NATO membership remains

• if Putin’s Russia was to take over all of Ukraine, then Russia becomes an increased substantial threat to others (like Putinian autocracy, nuclear rattling doesn't help)

See where this is going?

- Ukraine remains neutral.
— Elon Musk (Oct 3, 2022)

You do realise Elon cribbed his proposal from me.

Quoting boethius

For certain the EU has enormous leverage in the situation and can easily use it to broker a peace deal.

A recipe for a resolution could go something like this:

- Ukraine enters the EU on some fast track process.
- Russia gets sanctions dropped and Nord Stream 2.
- Russia pays for rebuilding of Ukraine (which is obviously just recycling some of the massive profits of dropping sanctions).
- The territorial question is of course the tricky part, but that could be resolved by agreeing to have another vote after peace is restored, people return to these regions; something that the world community would accept as legitimate, outside observers etc. If holding onto the territories is an obstacle to a peace deal that Russia actually wants, "giving the territory back" is problematic after annexation, however, the various regions having another vote in x time could be a reasonable compromise for everyone. "Will of the people" At least in principle Ukraine is "fighting" for the right of self determination, and Russia is claiming these regions can leave Ukraine and join Russia based on a vote, and presumably the EU is democratic and maybe even the US, so there's at least no issue in principle. Of course, you'd want to come to this deal before these regions are officially annexed, as Russia wouldn't want the precedent of one of its territories being able to vote to leave.

(September 24th - Boethius)

Only thing I got wrong (compared to Elon's proposal) was that it was Elon, not the EU, that has enormous leverage to broker a peace deal.

Quoting Mikie

And I suppose this reaction to China's involvement -- as inexcusable as it would be -- would somehow prove that the US had "imperial ambitions" there all along, despite there being no evidence of it prior to China's actions? Nonsense.

There's no evidence of US "imperialist ambitions" in Canada today. I don't think that's controversial.

Which is precisely why Canada has nothing to fear from the US, and is not seeking protection elsewhere....

Quoting boethius

It legitimately seems threatening words and actions.

Seems? It actually was threatening. The US wanted to destroy Russia, like wipe it off the map. Putin had no choice.

Quoting frank

Seems? It actually was threatening. The US wanted to destroy Russia, like wipe it off the map. Putin had no choice.

Insane hyperbole is a not good analytical tool.

We can acknowledge that NATO threatens "Russia" in various ways, some big and some small, without believing NATO has some actual plan they are actually intent on actually doing to "wipe Russia off the map".

We can attribute plenty other intentions to the US / NATO to explain their various threats, such as scapegoatism (of losing to Trump), need of an "other" to justify war expenditures (when the writing's on the wall in the middle east), wanting a conflict to sell natural gas to Europe (and make money), politicians laundering a bit of said money through corrupt AF Ukraine, and so on, resulting in stoking tensions without much care of the potential consequences. Aka. business as usual.

Everything isn't a nefarious plot all the time.

Quoting boethius

Everything isn't a nefarious plot all the time.

That's pretty naive.

Quoting Olivier5

Which is precisely why Canada has nothing to fear from the US, and is not seeking protection elsewhere....

Exactly. Likewise for US/NATO-Ukraine/Georgia in 2008. The reasons for membership were not some imperialist threat from Russia. No one made that claim.

Quoting Mikie

If, hypothetically, starting in 2025, China were on the doorstep, supplying weapons, training thousands of troops, and continually pushing for Canadian membership in a "defensive alliance," despite years of US warnings about this being a "red line," and then a reaction occurred in 2031 where the US annexed parts of Canada -- I suppose this would somehow make the claims true today? Of course not.

Likewise, there were no claims of Russian "imperial ambitions" prior to 2014. After that, it of course became the official reason. With no mention of the prior six years' warnings from Russia, which were recognized even within the US

Quoting frank

That's pretty naive.

I'm just more optimistic than you it seems.

Quoting boethius

I'm just more optimistic than you it seems.

:victory:

Quoting Mikie

The reasons for membership were not some imperialist threat from Russia. No one made that claim.

Oh really? What were the reasons for Ukraine and Georgia and all the others to seek NATO membership, oh wise one?They wanted to visit Brussels?

Quoting Olivier5

Oh really? What were the reasons for Ukraine and Georgia and all the others to seek NATO membership, oh wise one?They wanted to visit Brussels?

There are all kinds of reasons for joining NATO. An imperialist threat from Russia was not one of them in 2008. Which is why you cannot provide one reference supporting such a claim.

There was no Russian imperialist threat before the 2008 summit. No one claimed that. That claim was made after 2014.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm

Quoting Mikie

An imperialist threat from Russia was not one of them in 2008

While he was invading Georgia? What kind of evidence were you looking for?

Reply to frank

Yes, I'm sure the war in Georgia, which occurred in August, was a big reason at the NATO summit.

Quoting Mikie

Yes, I'm sure the war in Georgia, which occurred in August, was a big reason at the NATO summit.

Oh yeah. I guess that came later the same year.

Reply to boethius, Åslund's proposal is better than Musk's. But, from the looks of it, that ship has sailed, train has left the station, the genie is out of the bottle; [s]Putin's Empire[/s] The Russian Federation has rolled their submission-machine out. Shams won't do, though, even if in-the-works for 8 years. NATO is, first and foremost, a threat to free Kremlin movements/actions.

Quoting jorndoe

• Putin's Russia is a present existential threat to Ukraine, to which the Ukrainians are responding
• until Putin's Russia has taken over all of Ukraine, the (supposed (or, say, future-hypothetical)) threat of NATO membership remains
• if Putin’s Russia was to take over all of Ukraine, then Russia becomes an increased substantial threat to others (like Putinian autocracy, nuclear rattling doesn't help)
See where this is going?

Quoting jorndoe

If Putin is actually going down the nuclear path, then Moscow will get all eyes-on, attention. I don't imagine they think that'd be a good move for Russia, or anyone at all. Anyone know specs of the Russian dirty / tactical nuclear bombs? (radius, time until area is safe, materials, yield, emp, delivery systems)

This is alarming. It really is like preparing the narrative groundwork for using nukes.

After all, you could argue that making the Ukrainian territories Russian "made it possible" officially to use conscripts in Ukraine. Yet this also makes it possible to use nukes as the doctrine goes.

Quoting Mikie

There are all kinds of reasons for joining NATO.

Please give ONE.Quoting Mikie

There was no Russian imperialist threat before the 2008 summit. No one claimed that.

I quite precisely claimed that, otherwise you would not be arguing against it. Logic, anyone?

There was Hungary, Tchekcoslovakia, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia...

Quoting Mikie

There was no Russian imperialist threat before the 2008 summit. No one claimed that.

Quoting Olivier5

I quite precisely claimed that, otherwise you would not be arguing against it.

Then you'll have to prove it.

Quoting Tzeentch

Then you'll have to prove it.

I did already, but you failed to understand it.

Reply to Olivier5 :rofl:

Reply to Tzeentch :yawn:

A Russian [s]journalist[/s] propagandist went a bit too far, even for Russia Today, and was sacked as a result:


RT Host Suspended for Calls to ‘Drown, Burn’ Ukrainian Children
The Moscow Times

Anton Krasovsky, a host at Russia’s state-funded broadcaster RT, was suspended Sunday after he made calls on the air to “drown or burn” Ukrainian children who viewed Russia as an occupier.

Anton Krasovsky’s remarks on his RT show broadcast Thursday sparked widespread outrage over the weekend. Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba accused the Kremlin-controlled channel of “aggressive genocide incitement” and advocated for a global ban of RT.

Krasovsky, a pro-war presenter under EU sanctions, said Ukrainian children should be “thrown straight into a river with a strong current” or “burned in a hut” for calling Russians occupiers.

His comments came in response to an account by his guest, Russian science fiction author Sergei Lukyanenko, of his encounter with anti-Russian children during his visit to Ukraine in the 1980s.

The segment containing Krasovsky’s remarks has since been deleted from RT’s social media accounts.

RT’s editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan distanced the broadcaster from Krasovsky’s “disgusting” comments and said she was “stopping our collaboration for the moment.”

“Perhaps Anton will explain what temporary insanity caused” the controversial statement, Simonyan wrote on the Telegram messaging app.

Krasovsky later issued an apology, saying early Monday that he “got carried away on the air.”

“I apologize to everyone who was freaked out, I apologize to Margarita, to everyone who thought [the comments] wild, unthinkable and insurmountable,” he wrote on Russia’s VKontakte social network.

Simonyan’s rare punishment of an on-air personality for remarks on Ukraine stands in contrast to regular anti-Ukrainian rhetoric on Russian state television.

Kremlin-controlled broadcasters including RT actively support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and echo the Kremlin’s denials of war crime allegations.

Russia’s top investigative body, the Investigative Committee, said Monday that its chairman Alexander Bastrykin has ordered a report into Krasovsky’s statements after receiving a complaint from an online user.

In a since-deleted post, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova denounced what she called a “targeted information attack” against Krasovsky, calling the RT host a “fantastically talented” commentator of “obvious and truthful” information.

Reply to Tzeentch
I'm talking about a very specific military threat (i.e. nuclear bombs), not about demilitarization, NATO membership, Ukrainian annexations (Crimea or Donbas). But as far as I know Putin requests didn't focus specifically and primarily on weapon systems, nor clarified what the existential threats those requests were supposed to address.

Quoting boethius

Not only is your premise here false

What premise is false?

Quoting boethius

If it was clear to everyone in the West that Ukraine would never join NATO ... then talking about it, giving some little NATO crumbs of equipment and training and so on, has no moral justification, it is purely a provocation to start a war.

Why would it be clear that Ukraine would never join NATO? Neither NATO open policy nor the Ukrainian willingness to gain its membership, nor the NATO/US administration was against it, but geopolitical concerns were interfering and Ukrainians were well aware of it. One might find this predicament regrettable for the Ukrainians and certain Western reluctance blameful. However your blunt moral accusations suggest a take on world affairs devoid of any realistic geopolitical expectations.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/1584519199933665281[/tweet]

Russian propaganda is lazily reusing old material in its latest campaign. "Russian propagandists can't even be bothered to put any effort into their propaganda anymore, they're just phoning it in." Well, why bother when they aren't trying to convince anyone? What they actually want to broadcast is: "We are going to use nukes in Ukraine! Yes we are! We really are that crazy, so you better back off!"

This is not the first such accusations in this war. Earlier they were announcing imminent chemical and biological attacks.

Quoting Mikie

It would help if you quoted the entirety of my response:

“Only”? I blame Putin for the war. NATO was a reason given for invasion — one that was given for years, clearly and consistently. The conclusion? That he’s an imperialist bent on expanding Russia. That’s wrong. It’s wrong because there’s no evidence supporting it, no matter how often it’s repeated in the media or on this thread. If you think there is evidence, happy to discuss that.


There is no evidence that the was an imperialist bent on expanding Russia. The answer given is about Crimea as evidence. This has been addressed before as well.

No it doesn't help. What is an "imperialist bent"? What kind of evidence proves an "imperialist bent"?



Quoting Mikie

I will just quote Mearsheimer, an expert on these matters, who puts it more succinctly than I could:

Mearsheimer hinges on his own version of realism and on what he takes to be evidence for geopolitical theory to be assessed. I find his position problematic for reasons I'm lazy to summarise. I already mentioned a few of them in my earliest posts in this thread. I might add some more later on.

Quoting Mikie

Excuse me, but you're changing the words. You didn't say "threat," and neither did I. You said "Russian concerns." Your assertion is that "Russian concerns were taken seriously." They were not.

Right, I changed the word without realising it and your objection as well as our equivocation are understandable. I can grant you that much. But my claims preserve their value once we deal with the terminological quibble I failed to remove: when concerns are expressed in resentful and intimidatory terms (like NATO expanded despite their promise! Ukraine inside NATO is our red line! An existential threat! Don’t do it otherwise you will regret the consequences! etc.) by a nuclear power claimed to have the second strongest army in the world at the expense of Ukrainians who, coincidentally, were historically oppressed by the Russians. So the expression “Russian concerns” looks to me just as an euphemism for “Russian threats” good for the narrative that presents Russia as a victim.
Besides one should account for the Western (European allies included) caution in providing military support to Ukraine that certainly benefited Russia more than Ukraine.

Quoting Mikie

So it's very strange that suddenly you say you're not interested in what we find "desirable or moral." I'm not interested in it either, which was the point. It doesn't matter if we prefer democracy or authoritarianism -- as you stated. What matters are the actions. We should react the same, not according to what we "prefer" (again, your words).

You are conflating objections meant to address different issues. The first one was designed to address your China-Canada alliance thought experiment (where you concluded “How would that scenario play out? Would we therefore EXCUSE the US for invading Canada? Of course not”), and it can be rendered like this: take a chess game between D and A. If I know the game enough I can understand how the game is plaid on both sides. Yet I might prefer D to win because D is my beloved brother. So understanding the geopolitical game from both players perspectives, doesn’t commit anybody to impartiality as your China-Canada alliance thought experiment seemed to suggest (if US invaded a China-allied Canada, we wouldn’t excuse it as much as we do not excuse Russia for invading a Western-allied Ukraine, I would - using your terminology not mine - “excuse” the US, I would be biased toward the US, so not impartial, and fine with that).
The second one can be rendered like this: I’m interested in talking about the geopolitical game and moves, not in listening to scores based on how morally attractive you find players' behaviour, even more understandably so after having made clear I have a different moral compass from yours.


Quoting Mikie

That's simply not the case. That wasn't the US's or NATO's position in 2008. I asked what was the Russian threat in 2008 -- because it was in April of 2008 that the Bucharest summit declared that Ukraine and Georgia would be admitted to NATO. Claiming the war in Georgia was a threat, and thus a reason for membership of NATO, is anachronistic. The war in Georgia did not break out until August of 2008. So that claim is nonsense.

I wasn’t after a chronological recollection of events, so for me a Russian war in August of 2008 is a Russian threat in 2008. But if you are looking for a chronological recollection of events then wikipedia may help:
[i] Vladimir Putin became president of the Russian Federation in 2000, which had a profound impact on Russo-Georgian relations. The conflict between Russia and Georgia began to escalate in December 2000, when Georgia became the first and sole member of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) on which the Russian visa regime was enforced. Eduard Kokoity, an alleged member of the mob, became the de facto president of South Ossetia in December 2001; he was endorsed by Russia since he would subvert the peaceful reunification of South Ossetia with Georgia. The Russian government began massive allocation of Russian passports to the residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2002 without Georgia's permission; this "passportization" policy laid the foundation for Russia's future claim to these territories. In 2003, President Putin began to consider the possibility of a military solution to the conflict with Georgia.
After Georgia deported four suspected Russian spies in 2006, Russia began a full-scale diplomatic and economic war against Georgia, followed by the persecution of ethnic Georgians living in Russia.
By 2008, most residents of South Ossetia had obtained Russian passports. According to Reuters, Russia supplied two-thirds of South Ossetia's yearly budget before the war.[74] South Ossetia's de facto government predominantly employed Russian citizens, who had occupied similar government posts in Russia, and Russian officers dominated South Ossetia's security organisations.[75]
[…]
In early March 2008, Abkhazia and South Ossetia submitted formal requests for their recognition to Russia's parliament shortly after the West's recognition of Kosovo which Russia had been resisting. Dmitry Rogozin, Russian ambassador to NATO, hinted that Georgia's aspiration to become a NATO member would cause Russia to support the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The Russian State Duma adopted a resolution on 21 March, in which it called on the President of Russia and the government to consider the recognition.[/I]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War#Russian_interests_and_involvement

Quoting Mikie

The actions in Chechnya was the threat? Problems there had been occurring for years, internal to Russia.

Precisely, the unresolved ethnic tensions within ex-soviet republics were perceivable as a source of political instability and revanchist urges. And the way Russia under Putin handled it in Chechnya provided a precedent for other ex-Soviet Republics’ strategic minds to digest.
There is where the link between NATO and ex-Soviet Republics could have more likely been perceived as beneficial for both sides: “Ethnic conflict in Russia: Implications for the United States” (Jan 2008)
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10576109308435930?journalCode=uter20

Quoting Mikie

It's quite true that if the US/NATO felt that Russian revanchism was threatening, that this should be taken seriously as well -- even if we believe it unjustified. But that was not the case. Neither the US, nor NATO, believed this was true in 2008.

Have you considered the prospect that you are not looking in the right place? Read more Brezinski, if you want to get deeper insight into US/NATO’s strategy.

Quoting Mikie

Sorry, but you simply declaring that one thing is more threatening than another is not interesting. Ask the Russians if they felt it was threatening. It is their opinion that matters, not yours. And they've been quite clear, for over decade.

This distinction between "lethal weapons" and "defensive weapons" is kind of ridiculous. Everything the US has ever done, accordion to them, is "defensive." When we invade Iraq, we're "defending" Iraq. So that's already a sign of repeating propaganda. But think about it for a minute: what do you think "defensive" weapons are? They're all completely non-lethal? So machine guns are for "defense," therefore they can't kill? Are the FGM-148 Javelins simply "defensive"? Because those have been supplied as well. They certainly seem lethal to me. They're called "anti-tank missiles."

Furthermore, "lethal weapons" had already been deployed in Ukraine prior to December. Russia troops had already begun mobilizing at this point as well.

You may find ridiculous whatever you want, but there are unquestionable evidences that the history of the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations wrt Russian aggression is marked by their reluctance to send lethal weapons to Ukraine (“How successive U.S. administrations resisted arming Ukraine” https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/obama-trump-biden-ukraine-military-aid-1.6371378) because - as it is evident now - the American offensive weaponry would have made the difference on the battlefield. The first package of lethal weapons actually released by the US in Sep 2021, didn't come from Biden’s administration, but from Trump’s administration, and its release was ironically the side effect of the Trump Ukraine scandal, as I said. Knowing from his intel that might have strengthened Putin's resolve to wage war, Biden held the second package of lethal weapons in late December likely as a diplomatic leverage. But it turned out to be too late, it just gave more time to Putin to finalize the military build-up before the war declaration.

Quoting Mikie

Everything that NATO/US does is "defensive" and meant merely as "deterrents." Right. Unfortunately, the Russians see it quite differently. They view anti-tank missiles and military drills with NATO -- including Operation Sea Breeze -- as a threat.

As I said, we are in a strategic dilemma whereby every player reads aggressive intentions in others’ deterring moves, so it’s an ineffective argumentative retortion to remind me what I already expressly and repeatedly acknowledged before you ever did. Both rival geopolitical agents can plausibly denounce threats from their opponents and plausibly deny their own threats, especially when there is historical mistrust on top of conflicting strategic interests. But I’m not the one who is clinging that much on “who started first” issue as you seem to do. Nor am I clinging on picturing the US/NATO/Ukraine as a victim of Putin as much you seem to cling on picturing Putin as a victim of US/NATO/Ukraine to show off your moral impartiality.
In any case, acknowledging the strategic dilemma is not enough good reason to refuse the distinction between lethal and defensive weaponry: indeed, even if technically vague or inappropriate, that distinction is understandably related to the type of weaponry that is capable of making a difference in undermining the Russian aggression (here you can find some reactions from Russian officials: https://medium.com/dfrlab/much-ado-about-javelins-525055175d75). In other words, the distinction between lethal/defensive is less related to the nature of geopolitical strategic dilemmas and more to the designed function and operational performance of the weapon systems in strictly military terms.

Quoting Mikie

Retreat from what? — neomac
From NATO expansion.

And what does it mean to retreat from NATO expansion (in Sovereign States other then Russia and acknowledged as independent by Russia), if we exclude NATO invasion of Russian territories (from Sovereign States other then Russia and acknowledged as independent by Russia)?

Quoting Mikie

Did Putin have evidence that Ukraine or NATO wanted to invade Russia? Or are we always talking about perceived strategic threats? — neomac
Suddenly evidence is important, and not "myopic"? Interesting.
Putin didn't have evidence, because that's not what Putin was claiming. Putin never claimed NATO wanted to "invade" Russia. Your failure to even minimally understand Russia's position here is telling.

Evidence is important for rational assessment of course, “myopic” can be one’s way of assessing it. Now, asking for evidence that triggered support of Ukraine and Georgia NATO membership (as you did) was as legitimate as asking for evidence that triggered Putin anti-NATO reaction. And, as far as I’m concerned, the lesson here is twofold: threat perception is neither always grounded on actual direct threats but also on perceived strategic threats, nor is always voiced in clear/reiterated terms in public speeches (coz even vagueness - like the Russian nuclear threats - or offline diplomacy - like private negotiations e.g. “not one inch” eastward alleged promise - play their role). So e.g. Putin never specified what NATO existential threat is, nor what Russia was supposed to retreat from once Ukraine entered NATO. One can however guess what he might have meant in many ways based on geopolitical and historical considerations, along with experts’ feedback and public news/reports of course: e.g. in the case of Russia concerns about Ukraine threats might be persecution of Russian minorities, the Black sea fleet in Crimea, nuclear or long-range missile systems at the border, weaponry that could frustrate Russian land grab attempts, etc.

Quoting Mikie

I've not once suggested that we let Ukraine "fall prey to Russia." I support US helping Ukrainians defend their country.

Quoting Mikie

Encourage and facilitate peace negotiations. The most immediate action would be a ceasefire.

Right, where did I hear that already? You are claiming that facilitating peace negotiations and ceasefire can be more effective strategy in helping Ukrainians defend their country and its territorial integrity than by providing NATO membership, military training, or weapons to Ukraine? How so? Where are the evidence to support your claim from within your perspective? The conditions of peace negotiations by the Russians are unacceptable to Ukrainians, that’s why negotiations have failed. And if facilitating peace negotiations means to refuse the military support necessary to possibly conquer back their territorial integrity or preserve what is left, then that fails the strategic objective of helping Ukrainians defend their country. It sounds like saying: surrendering to terrorists' demands is the most effective way to fight terrorism, because if you do what they want they don't fight you back and you live in peace.
Besides once again, you are missing the big picture: the Ukrainian war is of global geopolitical significance, even more understandably so given how Putin framed the war in explicit defiance of the pro-Western global order (you didn’t miss his declarations right?). The US/NATO front while supporting Ukrainians is pursuing its strategic geopolitical goals as any great power is expected to do, because that’s the game I and Mearsheimer are talking about (despite the divergences which remain).



Quoting Mikie

No, I'm not blaming the US and NATO for the war. The US and NATO were primarily responsible for escalating the war. That's a crucial difference. The blame for invasion is Putin's.

Then I can’t follow your reasoning. If Putin is claimed to have started a war in response to the US/NATO/Biden administration attitude which didn't take Russian concerns seriously as Putin expected, and you believe this narrative to be enough supported by facts (given your line of reasoning “do you think Putin would have annexed Crimea and/or invaded Ukraine had the US not (1) pushed for NATO membership, (2) supplied weapons, and (3) conducted military training?”) then the US/NATO/Biden administration conduct is a one major causal factor (along with Putin) in the genesis of the Ukrainian crisis that dragged until beginning 2022 and led to this war. So unless you deny agency to US/NATO/Biden administration you logically have to attribute them some responsibility for the genesis of the war without denying Russian agency in directly starting the war, and if you disapprove of US/NATO/Biden administration conduct then you must consider US/NATO/Biden administration to some extent blameful. Indeed that’s in line with Mearsheimer’s argument in “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault”.

Quoting Mikie

I have indeed mentioned peace. For good reason.

Geopolitical reason or moral compass reason? Again I’m interested in listening the first kind of reasons.

Reply to neomac That doesn't answer any of my questions.

You claimed Russia made no attempts at negotiating about their red line, despite the fact that Ukraine has been a hot topic for decades.

How do you know there have been no negotiations? Countries contact each other through unofficial, non-public channels all the time. The fact that you claim this implies you have some insight into these.

Second, you blame the Russians for a lack of negotiations (if such a lack there is). Do you not see a clear role for the United States, in the fact that they have made statements and carried out actions that imply they have no desire to negotiate?

Putin speaks of missiles on the other side of their borders.

Quoting Putin (Dec 23, 2021)

In this connection, we have made it clear that any further movement of NATO to the East is unacceptable. [...] Are we deploying missiles near the US border? No, we are not. It is the United States that has come to our home with its missiles and is already standing at our doorstep. Is it going too far to demand that no strike systems be placed near our home?

I think he meant nuclear implicitly. (Something substantial at any rate.) Surely he knows there aren't any though (that we know of), at least not on Russia's western side, which is also where Ukraine is. Doesn't seem like he's referring to Germany Italy Turkey (or China India for that matter). It's possible he's including (defensive) missile intercept systems, those intended to take down missiles, but now it's getting further off from his statements.

My reading: No missiles / nuclear weapons installed close to Russia's border, which might happen if Ukraine was to become a NATO member.

Other readings?

Reply to jorndoe
Was he talking about measures that were taken to prepare for Iranian aggression?

Quoting Tzeentch

How do you know there have been no negotiations? Countries contact each other through unofficial, non-public channels all the time. The fact that you claim this implies you have some insight into these.

No it implies that I couldn't find anything to support otherwise from the available resources.

Quoting Tzeentch

Second, you blame the Russians for a lack of negotiations (if such a lack there is). Do you not see a clear role for the United States, in the fact that they have made statements and carried out actions that imply they have no desire to negotiate?

The point I was making is simply that as long as the existential threats are generically formulated, the only thing that remains to address is what Russia demands to restore its sense of security. While if the threat was more specific one could propose solutions (other than the ones proposed by Russia) favorable to Russia.

Kremlin: No hope for positive shift in ties with Britain under Sunak (Reuters; Oct 25, 2022)

Quoting Dmitry Peskov

At the moment we see no grounds for hope that there will be any positive changes in the foreseeable future. Russia remains open and ready to discuss the most difficult issues at the negotiating table. But not to the detriment of our own interests.

No talks here, at least nothing initiated by the Kremlin.

As ssu suggests, Putin isn't exactly approachable here. Peskov? Lavrov? Medvedev? How might the diplomats get on with it?

Reply to frank, I'm guessing he's just reiterating a justification (perhaps preparation) for taking over Ukraine. Some of this stuff is about telling propagating selling a story in public. Going by (fallible) memory, his concerns over Iran go further back (years), and might also have included China. Maybe such concerns have been shelved for the time being? (politico, latimes, rferl, ft)

Quoting neomac

The point I was making is simply that as long as the existential threats are generically formulated, the only thing that remains to address is what Russian demands to restore its sense of security. While if the threat was more specific one could propose solutions (other than the ones proposed by Russia) favorable to Russia.

Ok, fair enough I suppose.

What is non-specific about no NATO membership for Ukraine?

Reply to jorndoe
Could be. When experts on Russia are a little confused by his statements and actions, I'm not going to put much weight on my own speculations. :grin:

Quoting neomac

What kind of evidence prove an "imperialist bent"?

Let me answer this one on behalf of the Putinistas. It's quite simple: an American imperialist bent is true by definition, without the need for any particular evidence. But a Russian imperialist bent cannot be true because anything Russian is holy.

Quoting frank

When experts on Russia are a little confused by his statements and actions

Over time, you can probably find a few conflicting statements from Putin + team. (And a lot of bullshit.) Not generally reliable as such. Expect more if Putin is sticking around for another 14 years (aljazeera, usatoday).

Quoting jorndoe

Over time, you can probably find a few conflicting statements from Putin + team. (And a lot of bullshit.) Not generally reliable as such. Expect more if Putin is sticking around for another 14 years

Yep.

According to Reuters, the US and Spain are looking into sending HAWK defense systems to Ukraine — reuters direct (Oct 25, 2022), via msn. Can save lives. :up: Resources/infrastructure, too.

Quoting Olivier5

Please give ONE.

"The benefits of NATO membership include more than just security benefits and collective defense but also disaster relief, humanitarian aid, and scientific collaboration through the NATO Science for Peace and Security Program."

But we don't have to guess. All we have to do is look at what Ukraine and NATO were saying in 2008. There were all kinds of claims -- about "stability," etc. There was no one claiming Russian imperialism as a reason. Neither the US, nor NATO, nor Ukraine. Putin was invited to the Bucharest summit, in fact -- an odd move for an imperialist threat.

Quoting Olivier5

There was no Russian imperialist threat before the 2008 summit. No one claimed that.
— Mikie

I quite precisely claimed that, otherwise you would not be arguing against it. Logic, anyone?

Yes, you are claiming that now. Notice the past tense in the statement above. I'm referring to the 2008 summit. Note also that by "no one" I don't mean "no person on planet earth," but none of the relevant players: the US, NATO, and Ukraine. I will also be generous and include any expert on the subject or even credible journalists at that time -- feel free to cite any.

So yes, you've made the claim that Russia was an imperialist threat before 2008. That claim is incorrect.

Funny that no one -- not the US, not NATO, not Ukraine -- was giving that reason at the time. I'm interested in their opinions, not yours. But feel free to supply evidence. You haven't yet. To be fair, I imagine it'll be difficult to -- since there is none.

But if I'm wrong and there is evidence, I have yet to see it -- and you certainly haven't provided it.

Quoting neomac

There is no evidence that the was an imperialist bent on expanding Russia. The answer given is about Crimea as evidence. This has been addressed before as well.
— Mikie

No it doesn't help. What is an "imperialist bent"? What kind of evidence proves an "imperialist bent"?

What doesn't help?

"imperialist bent" is meaningless. I said "an imperialist bent on expanding...". So do you mean, "What is an imperialist?" I think you know very well what that means.

If Putin was an imperialist, or had imperialist ambitions, as is now claimed -- why was that not stated as a reason for NATO membership in 2008? Where is the evidence of that prior to that summit? Can you cite any source whatsoever -- even a weak one -- where this was being claimed?

Reply to Mikie

This must mean that you like Putin.

Quoting Mikie

"imperialist bent" is meaningless. I said "an imperialist bent on expanding". So do you mean, "What is an imperialist?" I think you know very well what that means.

Sure "expanding", also because "an imperialist bent on contracting" doesn't sound right, does it?
I'm asking you what constitutes evidence for "an imperialist bent on expanding". What would prove that concept?

Quoting Mikie

why was that not stated as a reason for NATO membership in 2008?

NATO (very well aware of Russian elites’ anti-NATO dispositions) never planned to take a confrontational attitude toward Russia. Some NATO advisers were prospecting the European Union as way to draw Russia toward a pro-Western attitude.

Quoting neomac

I'm asking you what constitutes evidence for "an imperialist bent on expanding". What would prove that concept?

If there were both statements and actions that demonstrate it. There were neither before the 2008 summit -- which is why "imperialist ambitions" weren't once mentioned.

That NATO needed to expand to ward off Putin's "imperialist ambitions" is nonsense. It's always been nonsense.

Relatedly, it is important to note that NATO expansion before February 2014 was not aimed at containing Russia. Given the sad state of Russian military power, Moscow was in no position to pursue revanchist policies in eastern Europe. Tellingly, former U.S. ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul notes that Putin’s seizure of the Crimea was not planned before the crisis broke out in 2014; it was an impulsive move in response to the coup that overthrew Ukraine’s pro-Russian leader. In short NATO enlargement was not intended to contain a Russian threat but was instead part of a broader policy to spread the liberal international order into eastern Europe and make the entire continent look like western Europe.

It was only when the Ukraine crisis broke out in February 2014 that the United States and its allies suddenly began describing Putin as a dangerous leader with imperial ambitions and Russia as a serious military threat that had to be contained. What caused this shift? This new rhetoric was designed to serve one essential purpose: to enable the West to blame Putin for the outbreak of trouble in Ukraine. And now that the crisis has turned into a full-scale war, it is imperative to make sure he alone is blamed for this disastrous turn of events. This blame game explains why Putin is now widely portrayed as an imperialist here in the West, even though there is hardly any evidence to support that perspective.

That's exactly right.

Quoting neomac

why was that not stated as a reason for NATO membership in 2008?
— Mikie

NATO (very well aware of Russian elites’ anti-NATO dispositions) never planned to take a confrontational attitude toward Russia.

Ah, so that's what everyone was secretly thinking, but it was never stated explicitly. And the evidence that would lend them to secretly believe this was what, exactly?

Anyway -- you admit it was never stated as a reason. That's a good start, I suppose. Feel free to cite any sources at or before the 2008 summit that support your other claim.

Reply to Mikie

This is a Brookings Inst. essay about the history of Russo-American relations.

Republicans claimed that Putin was a bad actor, but didn't depict him as imperialistic. The only reason to suspect that he might become imperialistic would be that Russia has a long history of it.

But also note that the essay doesn't say Putin felt overly threatened by NATO, in fact he defended the placement of a transit hub on Russian soil.

So the tension we see now is a sign of the failure of Obama's "restart" of the relationship.

The arguments over who caused what is interesting but which part of the truth of that relates to a future of possible agreements?

Whatever was possible at the beginning of the invasion is not available now. If the Russians had any kind of discipline in their rules of engagement, they could have established a language of limited goals that could lead to negotiations. Threatening to kill people is all they have talked about so far. Which agreement or disagreement from the past can serve as a template for progress in the situation? That is not a rhetorical question. On the other hand, nothing discussed here has yet to approach it.

The response by the Ukrainians to the invasion was not expected by many. Their continued existence makes future negotiations not as simple as some kind of Partition of Poland, as advocated for by some. Nobody involved will be allowed to return to some glorious past.

Side-effects of the war ...

2 intensifying border wars show Putin is losing sway in his neighborhood while Russia struggles in Ukraine (businessinsider; Oct 24, 2022) ... via yahoo, msn

More bombing isn't really the best. Forget Ukraine, it's markedly more costly than keeping those various borders from erupting. :)

Quoting Michael Peck

Russian leaders, including Vladimir Putin, inherited this colonialist mindset, seeing Central Asia (and Ukraine) as part of the Russia sphere. The former Soviet states of Central Asia were also accustomed to Moscow being the big stick in the region.

Ups and downs in support for Ukraine ...

Quoting Mark Gollom · CBC News · Mar 5, 2022

since the 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia, the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations have all, to some degree, delayed or balked at sending lethal aid to Ukraine

The 2022 invasion changed things.

Great, Russia kicks off a nuclear exercise Oct 26 ("Grom"), and NATO is currently running one, Oct 17-30 ("Steadfast Noon").

Russia has notified the U.S. its annual nuclear exercise has begun, U.S. officials say (CBS News; Oct 25, 2022)

A bit of coinciding war + ? games + ? rattling.

Quoting Mikie

The benefits of NATO membership include more than just security benefits and collective defense but also disaster relief, humanitarian aid, and scientific collaboration through the NATO Science for Peace and Security Program.

Are you really saying that Poland, the Baltic states, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, the Czech republic all joined NATO in order to benefit from humanitarian assistance?

01.22 EDT
Oleksandra Matviichuk has a point she wants to make. The Ukrainian lawyer heads the Centre for Civil Liberties, a human rights organisation that this month jointly won the Nobel peace prize. And she wants to use her platform to call for international action against Russian human rights violations now.

The body she heads has patiently documented more than 21,000 examples of war crimes committed by occupying Russian forces since 2014, including many from after the invasion in February. But, speaking quietly and with controlled emotion, she complains: “I haven’t any legal instrument to stop the Russian atrocities” – no immediate way of bringing perpetrators to court.

The criminality appears vast when listed. “After the large-scale invasion, we every day documented different kinds of war crimes, like intentional shelling of residential buildings, churches, hospitals, schools, the shelling of evacuation corridors,” Matviichuk says. “We received requests for help from people in the occupied territories because they were abducted, tortured; we recorded sexual violence, extrajudicial killings.”

Staff from the Centre for Civil Liberties were among those who travelled through Irpin, Bucha and towns and villages north-west of Kyiv after Russia abandoned its attempt to seize the city in March. “I will remind you,” she says, that bodies were found lying uncollected in the streets, or dumped in mass graves. “And what was Putin’s response? He provided medals to the army unit that was staying in Bucha.”

Russia, as governed now, shows a “genocidal character,” she argues.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/oct/26/russia-ukraine-war-live-news-russian-forces-battle-kherson-kyiv

Quoting Mikie

If there were both statements and actions that demonstrate it. There were neither before the 2008 summit

Again, for the third time, what kind of statements and actions would demonstrate to you an “imperialistic bent”? Statements should be like "Me, Mr. Emperor Putin feel imperialistic bent" and actions should be like


???

Quoting Mikie

Ah, so that's what everyone was secretly thinking, but it was never stated explicitly. And the evidence that would lend them to secretly believe this was what, exactly?

Quoting Mikie

Anyway -- you admit it was never stated as a reason. That's a good start, I suppose.

Geopolitical strategizing requires anticipating events in medium-long term based on a deep understanding about history, society (people and their leading elites) and geography, not on arbitrarily recent chronology of news and public speeches accessible to any avg dude, like you and me. And it's done behind doors for obvious reasons and without consulting any avg dude, like you and me. They didn’t even consult Mearsheimer, go figure!
The debate over NATO expansion behind doors was complex and nuanced, with a blend of more hawkish and more dovish attitudes toward Russia. But nobody underestimated the “imperialistic bent” of Russia, nor conflated real geopolitical strategizing (affecting the deep state) with current presidents’ preferred posture and official propaganda.

Quoting Mikie

Relatedly, it is important to note that NATO expansion before February 2014 was not aimed at containing Russia. Given the sad state of Russian military power, Moscow was in no position to pursue revanchist policies in eastern Europe. Tellingly, former U.S. ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul notes that Putin’s seizure of the Crimea was not planned before the crisis broke out in 2014; it was an impulsive move in response to the coup that overthrew Ukraine’s pro-Russian leader. In short NATO enlargement was not intended to contain a Russian threat but was instead part of a broader policy to spread the liberal international order into eastern Europe and make the entire continent look like western Europe.

It was only when the Ukraine crisis broke out in February 2014 that the United States and its allies suddenly began describing Putin as a dangerous leader with imperial ambitions and Russia as a serious military threat that had to be contained. What caused this shift? This new rhetoric was designed to serve one essential purpose: to enable the West to blame Putin for the outbreak of trouble in Ukraine. And now that the crisis has turned into a full-scale war, it is imperative to make sure he alone is blamed for this disastrous turn of events. This blame game explains why Putin is now widely portrayed as an imperialist here in the West, even though there is hardly any evidence to support that perspective.


That's exactly right.

That’s why you should put aside Mearsheimer for a while, take a deep breath, and start reading Brzezi?ski.


Quoting Mikie

Feel free to cite any sources at or before the 2008 summit that support your other claim.

From:
[i]
THE DEBATE ON NATO ENLARGEMENT
======================================================================= HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
[b] COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS [/b]?FIRST SESSION?__________?OCTOBER 7, 9, 22, 28, 30 AND NOVEMBER 5, 1997
__________?Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[/i]

Comments about the Russian “imperialist bent” were of the following kind:
[i]
Russia has also been an imperialist country that, for 400 years of its history, acquired territories, expanding from the region around Moscow to the shores of the Pacific, into the Middle East, to the gates of India, and into the center of Europe. It did not get there by plebiscite. It got there by armies. To the Russian leaderships over the centuries, these old borders have become identified with the nature of the state.
So I believe that one of the major challenges we face with Russia is whether it can accept the borders in which it now finds itself. On the one hand, St. Petersburg is closer to New York than it is to Vladivostok, and Vladivostok is closer to Seattle than it is to Moscow, so they should not feel claustrophobic. But they do. This idea of organizing again the old commonwealth of independent states is one of the driving forces of their diplomacy. If Russia stays within its borders and recognizes that Austria, Singapore, Japan and Israel all developed huge economies with no resources and in small territories, they, with a vast territory and vast resources, could do enormous things for their people. Then there is no security problem.

[…]

According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, ``We should not be shy in saying that NATO expansion will help a democratic Russia and hurt an imperialistic Russia.''

[…]

Dr. Kissinger. One slightly heretical point on the Russian situation. We have a tendency to present the issue entirely in terms of Russian domestic politics. I could see Russia making progress toward democracy and becoming extremely nationalistic, because that could become a way of rallying the people. We also have to keep an eye on their propensity toward a kind of imperialist nationalism, which, if you look at the debates in the Russian parliament, is certainly present.

[…]

Advocates of NATO transformation make a better case for the Alliance to disband than expand. NATO's job is not to replace the U.N. as the world's peacekeeper, nor is it to build democracy and pan- European harmony or promote better relations with Russia. NATO has proven the most successful military alliance in history precisely because it has rejected utopian temptations to remake the world.
Rather, NATO's mission today must be the same clear-cut and limited mission it undertook at its inception: to protect the territorial integrity of its members, defend them from external aggression, and prevent the hegemony of any one state in Europe.
The state that sought hegemony during the latter half of this century was Russia. The state most likely to seek hegemony in the beginning of the next century is also Russia . A central strategic rationale for expanding NATO must be to hedge against the possible return of a nationalist or imperialist Russia, with 20,000 nuclear missiles and ambitions of restoring its lost empire. NATO enlargement, as Henry Kissinger argues, must be undertaken to ``encourage Russian leaders to interrupt the fateful rhythm of Russian history . . . and discourage Russia's historical policy of creating a security belt of important and, if possible, politically dependent states around its borders.''
Unfortunately, the Clinton administration [/b] does not see this as a legitimate strategic rationale for expansion. ``Fear of a new wave of Russian imperialism . . . should not be seen as the driving force behind NATO enlargement,'' says Mr. Talbott.
Not surprisingly, those states seeking NATO membership seem to understand NATO's purpose better than the Alliance leader. Lithuania's former president, Vytautas Landsbergis, put it bluntly: ``We are an endangered country. We seek protection.'' Poland, which spent much of its history under one form or another of Russian occupation, makes clear it seeks NATO membership as a guarantee of its territorial integrity. And when Czech President Vaclav Havel warned of ``another Munich,'' he was calling on us not to leave Central Europe once again at the mercy of any great power, as Neville Chamberlain did in 1938.
Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and other potential candidate states don't need NATO to establish democracy. They need NATO to protect the democracies they have already established from external aggression.
Sadly, Mr. Havel's admonishments not to appease ``chauvinistic, Great Russian, crypto-Communist and crypto-totalitarian forces'' have been largely ignored by the Clinton administration. Quite the opposite, the administration has turned NATO expansion into an exercise in the appeasement of Russia.

[…]


Regarding Mr. Simes' comments, I would simply clarify my own position. My position is not that we should accommodate Russia. Far from it. It does seem to me that whatever residual imperialistic tendencies, which, indeed, can be a problem, can best be contained by methods other than adding members to NATO. I can think of no lever more effective, no political lever, than the threat that if Russian behavior does not meet certain standards, NATO will be enlarged, and enlarged very rapidly, and even further, and considerably further, than the current proposal envisages.

[…]

The Russian people do not see NATO as an enemy or a threat. They are mainly interested in the improvement of their desperately bad living conditions.
Unfortunately, the Russian political ruling class has not reconciled itself to the loss of its empire. The economic and political system has been changed, but the mentality of the people who are pursuing global designs for the Soviet super power all their lives cannot be changed overnight. Eduard Shevardnadze warned the American people that the Russian empire disintegrated but the imperialistic way of thinking still remains. Andrei Kozyrev also warned against the old guard which has a vested interest in presenting NATO as a threat and an enemy. ``Yielding to them,'' wrote Kozyrev in Newsweek, ``would play into the hands of the enemies of democracy.''
Both statesmen have inside knowledge of the Russian ruling elite. They certainly speak with authority. [b]Moscow is opposed not to the enlargement of NATO but to the very existence of NATO because it rightly sees a defensive military alliance as a threat to its long-term ambitions to regain in the future a controlling influence over the former nation of the Soviet orbit.
As in the time of the Soviet Union, we have to expect that the continued enlargement of NATO will meet with threats and fierce opposition from Moscow. Once, however, the process is complete, any imperialistic dreams will become unrealistic and Russia may accept the present boundaries of its influence as final[/b]. Such a reconciliation with reality would prompt Moscow to concentrate its full attention and resources on internal recovery. A change of the present mind set would open a new chapter of friendly relations between Russia and her neighbors, who would no longer see Moscow as a threat. This new sense of security would be an historic turning point.
This is exactly what happened between Germany and Poland.
[/i]

Comments about Ukraine were of the following kind :
[i]
If, for example, we are saying that this is not the end. The Baltic countries are welcome. Ukraine is welcome. What then would be the consequences within Russia?
I guess all of this leads me to one question, and maybe this is my way, as somebody who is trying to sort through these issues, of getting closer to what I think would be the right position for me to take as a Senator.
You said that if countries meet this democratic criteria, they are welcome. Would Russia be welcome? Maybe that is the question I should ask. If Russia meets the criteria, after all, all of us hope that they will build a democracy. I mean, it will be a very dreary world if they are not able to. This country is still critically important to the quality of our lives and our children's lives and our grandchildren's lives. If Russia meets this criteria, would they be welcome in NATO?
Secretary Albright. Senator, the simple answer to that is yes. We have said that if they meet the criteria, they are welcome. They have said that they do not wish to be a part of it.
[…]

My estimate here rests on the fact that including the Madrid 3, there are now 12 candidates for NATO membership. This total of 12 candidates can easily increase to 15 if Austria, Sweden, and Finland decide to apply. In fact, I see a 16th country, Ukraine, on the horizon.

[…]
The most important issue this prospect raises, however, is NATO's relationship to the countries to its east. Specifically, expansion to the borders of the former Soviet Union unavoidably raises the question of NATO's approach to that vanished empire's two most important successor states: Russia and Ukraine. The suspicions and multiple sources of conflict between them make the relationship between these two new and unstable countries, both with nuclear weapons on their territory, the most dangerous and potentially the most explosive on the planet today.
An expanded NATO must contribute what it can to promoting peaceful relations between them, while avoiding the appearance either of constructing an anti-Russian coalition or washing its hands of any concern for Ukrainian security.
There is no more difficult task for the United States and its European allies and none more urgent. To the extent that their accession to NATO provides an occasion for addressing that task seriously, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic will have performed yet another service for the West.

[…]
Some may ask, if the aim is to promote stability, then why not admit Ukraine or the Balkan countries first, since they need stability even more than Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. The answer is that prospective new members need to have achieved a certain degree of political, economic and military maturity before they can become members. They need to be ``contributors to security'' not just ``consumers'' of it. Otherwise, NATO and the EU would simply become a collection of economic and political basket cases and both organizations would be unable to function effectively.
[…]
I am not by this question suggesting that you do not feel and believe we have a commitment to the Baltics, but I think there is a factual historical difference between Ukraine and the Baltics. For example, I think the immediate effect on the Russian psyche of admitting either the Baltics or Ukraine would be very similar. But in fact we never recognized that the Baltics, which were annexed by the Soviet Union, were legitimately part of the Soviet Union. We have never recognized that, and it seems to me that any further actions will take some time and may need some massaging. I am not smart enough to know exactly how to do it, but it seems to me as a matter of principle that it is very important to make a distinction between the Baltics, for example, and Ukraine.
[…]
That understanding will be advantageous even to the nations not invited, at least in the near future, to join the Alliance just as the presence of NATO members on the borders of Austria, Sweden, and Finland provided an essential security umbrella during the Cold War. Ukraine and the Baltic States will benefit in a similar manner from the inclusion of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in the Alliance. Although Ukraine is not at this point seeking membership in the Alliance as Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are, all four states are united in the belief that NATO enlargement--even if limited to its current parameters--is advantageous to their security. As a matter of fact, as expansion of the Alliance has become increasingly likely, Russian treatment of Ukraine and the Baltic States has become more moderate and more flexible. Russian policymakers clearly appreciate that rocking the boat too much could accelerate NATO's expansion to Russia's frontier--something they are eager to avoid.?[/i]

Russian National TV:
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1584054018145685504
[tweet]https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1584054018145685504[/tweet]



(Why doesn't the tweet link work?)

Quoting Paine

Which agreement or disagreement from the past can serve as a template for progress in the situation? That is not a rhetorical question. On the other hand, nothing discussed here has yet to approach it.

My 2 cents:

• As long as one must address the solution offered by Putin (his non-negotiable demands) to end this war without knowing what the existential threats for the Russians more specifically are, one is left with no other option than to accept or refuse it. If the existential threats for the Russians were stated in more specific terms (like the weapon system available to the Ukrainian army, the Black Sea fleet in Crimea, Russian minorities in Donbas and Crimea, etc.), one could try to propose other solutions which would take into account Russian concerns.
• In international politics, the most super-partes way one could and could have addressed this issue was by means of the UN: like UN supervised referendums (for stronger autonomy if not annexation) in Crimea and Donbas.

Quoting jorndoe

Side-effects of the war ...

2 intensifying border wars show Putin is losing sway in his neighborhood while Russia struggles in Ukraine (businessinsider; Oct 24, 2022) ... via yahoo, msn

This just shows what this war can be seen as a war that didn't happen then, but has happened now due to the breakup of the Soviet Empire. This is on the one hand extremely puzzling as this happens decades after the breakup of the Soviet Union. But as Putin has seen the breakup as this freak accident and has had these ambitions to make Russia great again, it was unavoidable I guess. But as Russia needs to pull out it's forces to be sent to the war in Ukraine, it's grasp is collapsing in the Caucasus and Central Asia.

So basically what Putin is doing is truly destroying not only his army in Ukraine, but also destroying Russia's regional power status it has enjoyed in the former Soviet republics (that have not joined NATO). Now the hollowness of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) can be seen as two member states are having border skirmishes with each other and one member, Armenia, is facing hostilities with Azerbaijan and Russia is not doing anything (or cannot do anything) about it. When members of a defensive alliance have hostilities between each other, then the organization is only a shell without any meaning.

(And this actually is forgotten about NATO: one of it's objectives is to keep it's members out of war between each other. In the case of Greece and Turkey, it has been rather successful.)

Quoting Paine

Which agreement or disagreement from the past can serve as a template for progress in the situation? That is not a rhetorical question. On the other hand, nothing discussed here has yet to approach it.

Many wars show how this war could end...badly for Russia.

A failure to make peace:

- The Korea war. Only an armstice exists. DMZ drawn where the fighting brought it to be.

- The Minsk memorandums, the present war prior to February 24th 2022.

Minsk I:

Ukraine and the Russian-backed separatists agreed a 12-point ceasefire deal in the Belarusian capital in September 2014.

Minsk II:

This agreement consisted of a package of measures, including a ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons from the front line, release of prisoners of war, constitutional reform in Ukraine granting self-government to certain areas of Donbas and restoring control of the state border to the Ukrainian government. While fighting subsided following the agreement's signing, it never ended completely, and the agreement's provisions were never fully implemented.[7] The Normandy Format parties agreed that the Minsk II remains the basis for any future resolution to the conflict.

And now of course, these are totally meaningless as the puppet-states have been, as anticipated, annexed into Russia just like Crimea.


A peace after a humiliating loss for Russia:

- The Crimean war with the peace treaty signed in Paris.

Peace negotiations at the Congress of Paris resulted in the signing of the Treaty of Paris on 30 March 1856. In compliance with Article III, Russia restored to the Ottoman Empire the city and the citadel of Kars and "all other parts of the Ottoman territory of which the Russian troop were in possession". Russia returned the Southern Bessarabia to Moldavia. By Article IV, Britain, France, Sardinia and Ottoman Empire restored to Russia "the towns and ports of Sevastopol, Balaklava, Kamish, Eupatoria, Kerch, Jenikale, Kinburn as well as all other territories occupied by the allied troops". In conformity with Articles XI and XIII, the Tsar and the Sultan agreed not to establish any naval or military arsenal on the Black Sea coast. The Black Sea clauses weakened Russia, which no longer posed a naval threat to the Ottomans. The Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia were nominally returned to the Ottoman Empire, and the Austrian Empire was forced to abandon its annexation and to end its occupation of them, but they in practice became independent. The Treaty of Paris admitted the Ottoman Empire to the Concert of Europe, and the great powers pledged to respect its independence and territorial integrity.

A peace after a humiliating loss for Russia number 2:

- The Russo-Japanese war and the Portsmouth peace treaty.

An immediate ceasefire, recognition of Japan's claims to Korea, and the evacuation of Russian forces from Manchuria. Russia also ceded its leases in southern Manchuria (containing Port Arthur and Talien) to Japan and turned over the South Manchuria Railway and its mining concessions to Japan. Russia was allowed to retain the Chinese Eastern Railway in northern Manchuria.

Plus Japan got the southern part of the Sakhalin Island, but Russia didn't have to pay reparations for Japan.

Reply to neomac Reply to ssu

Okay, it looks like Russia has gone too far to jump start a Minsk III. The annexations also make an armistice line an unlikely option because Ukraine would view that as a de facto relinquishing of territory. Russia's destruction of civilian infrastructure deepens the motivation to keep the structure of sanctions after any kind of cease fire.

The idea of a U.N. referendum is interesting. It seems like that would require restoration of occupancy by refugees who headed west and the return of those deported east.

It's not looking good for Humpty Dumpty.

Reply to neomac, the tweet shows fine in my browser.

I think Krasovsky took a bit of heat for that one, and Zakharova was a bit too trigger-happy with a "template" response. :)

Quoting RT Host Suspended for Calls to ‘Drown, Burn’ Ukrainian Children (Oct 24, 2022)

In a since-deleted post, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova denounced what she called a “targeted information attack” against Krasovsky, calling the RT host a “fantastically talented” commentator of “obvious and truthful” information.

"Close call m'am, ya' could'a gone down with'im." Makes you wonder how frequent bullshit responses are (from government officials at that).

Russian TV presenter says sorry but faces probe for call to drown Ukrainian children (Oct 24, 2022)

Reply to Olivier5, fyi, direct link:

‘Accountability gap’: Nobel peace prize winner warns Russian war crimes going unpunished (Oct 26, 2022)

It looks more shit is coming:

https://news.usni.org/2022/10/18/accelerated-chinese-timeline-to-seize-taiwan-raises-questions-on-pentagon-priorities

https://www.npr.org/2022/10/19/1129652322/ukraine-us-midterm-elections

@jorndoe it depends on the browser: the twitter link still doesn't seem to work on my firefox.

Reply to neomac, weird, I was just using Firefox as well, version 106.0.2 (64-bit), tweet is fine on my end.

Reply to jorndoe weird indeed, I just upgraded my firefox version, and still the link doesn't work. :chin:

Quoting Paine

Russia's destruction of civilian infrastructure deepens the motivation to keep the structure of sanctions after any kind of cease fire.

Even if we see peace or cease-fire at some point, most of the west will probably not do business with Russia. The lesson has been learned: "never trust them, they will use a deal as hostile leverage".

Russia will be blocked until it has changed into a proper democratic state with low corruption. So basically, since that won't happen overnight, Russia will probably collapse in the long run and fracture into smaller nations that want to get out of the national bullshit while healing their relations with the west.

Most of modern society in developed nations as well as third world nations soon to be considered developed has been built around a globalized infrastructure of goods and tech. Cut off from that it's basically setting a nation back 50 years. So the choice for any nation is to either work peacefully with each other or risk ruining themselves and their people's ability to be on par with the rest of the world. That might work to some degree and in some nations better than others, but at a certain point, people won't accept it. Generally speaking, most people want to reach some basic liberal and human rights and if a nation blocks the people from that too much it will break the back of that government, either over time of political degradation or by the hands of the people.

Just look at Iran, if the people keep on pushing against that totalitarian bullshit, it will, at some point break into a takeover of power and could change Iran into a nation completely different from today (closer to how it was before the 1979 revolution). All it takes is a single event that makes people organize opposition.

What that would be like in Russia is unknown, maybe the police shoot someone who flees drafting, who knows, but I would not be surprised if there are oppositional groups in Russia figuring out how to stand up against Putin's regime and waiting for the perfect time to do so. It might be that they're waiting for Putin to be removed from power and in the following political turmoil they will push for change and take over. And what would happen if draftees were to organize not just to lay down arms but to turn around their weapons towards their own leaders? We've already seen things like soldiers killing their officers or groups of draftees organizing a laydown of arms as a massive group. If all the elite fighting forces are in Ukraine, then how many forces can be used to defend Putin and Kremlin if the people take up arms?

When I spoke about this in the earlier days of the war, I was heavily criticized for being naive, "to think that Russia would fall" was a preposterous idea. At this time I don't think anyone would argue against it being a possibility. People who didn't have insight into how bad the state of the military was in Russia before the war thought that Russia was an unstoppable freight train if they dared to wage war against someone, but they weren't, they were rather pathetic. And with the decline in almost everything that makes up modern Russian society, I don't see how the trajectory for Russia right now is anything but utter state collapse. I mean, Putin is also getting older, if he dies of anything in five years, that's not enough to rebuild the economy and what's been domestically destroyed by this war. So eventually, Putin will disappear and if Russia is in the same bad shape as it is now, that would definitely collapse the region, especially if someone takes over trying to "be Putin", people might just snap and initiate a revolution to remove the corruption at the top.

All of this is of course speculation, but not so much as it was a couple of months ago.

Russia conducts first nuclear weapons drill since Ukraine invasion

https://www.ft.com/content/e28b0aa8-0260-4249-9954-4e346ebda68a

The article is paywalled, but I'm sure folks know how to read this - or find the same info elsewhere. Not good.

Reply to Manuel

Then use reuters: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/russia-has-notified-us-about-planned-nuclear-drills-pentagon-2022-10-25/

Reply to neomac

Yes. Do be careful with the copyright issue, unless you took this for another site saying similar things.

Edit: Yep, much better.

Quoting Paine

The annexations also make an armistice line an unlikely option because Ukraine would view that as a de facto relinquishing of territory. Russia's destruction of civilian infrastructure deepens the motivation to keep the structure of sanctions after any kind of cease fire.

If you don't have an armstice, you can have a frozen conflict then. Basically that both sides lick their wounds and refurbish their materiel for an possible offensive, which then doesn't happen. Even if in this scenario people don't die and missiles don't fly (or fly very rarely), it will be extremely costly for both sides.

Here becomes the nuke option, even if unlikely, an option. The sinister option "Escalate to De-escalate".

Let's say that the Russians retreat from Kherson and make the Dniepr basically the front line and destroy all bridges. This means a river crossing has to be made, which pose a singular point of entry. There are just so many amphibious vehicles and the supply has to go over a bridge or ferry, so such entry points are needed. Now these points of entry could be destroyed and made extremely difficult to pass by using tactical nuclear weapons.

Of course this is unlikely and the obvious escalation would be to simply make an underground nuclear test. As those tests have been done nearly all the time during the Cold War, NATO wouldn't have to respond.

Or even on a lower level, have annual excersizes, were you launch some missiles capable of carrying nukes (as seems to be intended now).

Five Signs That Russia Is Preparing for All-Out War (Newsweek; Oct 26, 2022)

[sup]1. Economy on 'War Footing'
2. Bomb Shelters
3. Signage
4. Moscow Police
5. Emergency Evacuation Drills[/sup]

Part of this, I'm sure, is rather to instill a sense of urgency in the population. No one is marching on Moscow, or has suggested so; it's the Ukrainians that are bomb targets here. Putin is trained as a spy (military, assassin, all that), which, I guess, is reflected in some of his moves.

The US has always maintained that there would be no American boots on the ground fighting in Ukraine, and to the best of our knowledge, that's still true. But what's the next best thing? US-trained elite foreign troops fighting in Ukraine! Only... they might be fighting for the other side this time.

Quoting Foreign Policy

Members of Afghanistan’s elite National Army Commando Corps, who were abandoned by the United States and Western allies when the country fell to the Taliban last year, say they are being contacted with offers to join the Russian military to fight in Ukraine. Multiple Afghan military and security sources say the U.S.-trained light infantry force, which fought alongside U.S. and other allied special forces for almost 20 years, could make the difference Russia needs on the Ukrainian battlefield.

Afghanistan’s 20,000 to 30,000 volunteer commandos were left behind when the United States ceded Afghanistan to the Taliban in August 2021 . Only a few hundred senior officers were evacuated when the republic collapsed. Thousands of soldiers escaped to regional neighbors as the Taliban hunted down and killed loyalists to the collapsed government. Many of the commandos who remain in Afghanistan are in hiding to avoid capture and execution.

The United States spent almost $90 billion building the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces. Although the force as a whole was incompetent and handed the country over to the Taliban in a matter of weeks, the commandos were always held in high regard, having been schooled by U.S. Navy SEALs and the British Special Air Service...

Now, they are jobless and hopeless, many commandos still waiting for resettlement in the United States or Britain, making them easy targets for recruiters who understand the “band of brothers” mentality of highly skilled fighting men. This potentially makes them easy pickings for Russian recruiters, said Afghan security sources. A former senior Afghan security official, who requested anonymity, said their integration into the Russian military “would be a game-changer” on the Ukrainian battlefield, as Russian President Vladimir Putin struggles to recruit for his faltering war and is reportedly using the notorious mercenary Wagner Group to sign up prisoners.

The foresight and follow-through of US and British foreign military engagements never fails to disappoint...

Battlefield reports from whatever sources that scrolled by ...

Putin's Su-30 'Flanker' jet detects & shoots down Ukraine military aircraft | Max payload: 8,000 KG
[sup]— Hindustan Times; Oct 24, 2022[/sup]
Ukraine Situation Report: Russia’s Ka-52 Attack Helicopter Fleet Has Been Massacred
[sup]— The Drive; Oct 25, 2022[/sup]
Russian Assault Repelled as Repeated Attacks in Donetsk Fail: ISW
[sup]— Newsweek; Oct 26, 2022[/sup]
Russia dealt setbacks in Ukraine's Kherson, Bakhmut, and Luhansk, Kyiv and pro-Kremlin bloggers say
[sup]— The Week; Oct 26, 2022[/sup]
Russian Losses In Ukraine Soared To 480 In Just One Day, According To Kyiv
[sup]— HuffPost; Oct 26, 2022[/sup]

Difficult to verify, but seems coherent across.


[sup]? Source: Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, October 25 (Critical Threats; Oct 25, 2022)[/sup]

Lines aren't moving much at the moment despite the destruction.
The Ukrainians are expected to make a further move on Kherson.
The Russians are expected to...well, bomb away.

Exactly what threat is NATO to Russia?
(And, what threat is Putin's Russia to Ukraine?)
To warrant the destruction?

This article has a bit of details:

Quoting Russia steps up Ukraine ‘dirty bomb’ claim in letter delivered to UN · The Guardian · Oct 25, 2022

The flimsiness of the claims led some diplomats and experts to suspect it was not intended to convince anyone but to send a message, but it is unclear what that message may be.
[...]
The Kyiv government has asked the IAEA to verify that no radioactive materials in Ukraine have gone missing, and the UN nuclear watchdog said it was preparing to send inspectors to two unidentified Ukrainian sites, both already subject to frequent inspections.
[...]
Perhaps significantly, the Russian allegation has prompted rare communication with the west, with Moscow’s armed forces chief of staff, Valery Gerasimov, speaking on Monday to his US counterpart, Mark Milley, for the first time since May.

Nuclear materials are identifiable.

Russia Calling for ‘Desatanization’ of Ukraine (Truth or Fiction? Oct 25, 2022)

Apparently so, however weird. By government officials, first deNazification, then deMilitarization, now deSatanization. :D What's up in Moscow anyway?

Quoting Anton Gerashchenko (Oct 26, 2022)

At this rate we can soon hear from Russian screens that it was USA and NATO that attacked Ukraine, not Russia.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1585303861467938817[/tweet]

Meanwhile, real life on the ground, translations via Katya Soldak, Polina Raskazova, google:

Quoting Telegram (Oct 26, 2022)

Ivan Fedorov / Melitopol / Mayor
The occupiers continue to hold the population of Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Luhansk and Donetsk regions hostage.
Yesterday, the Russians released a total of 94 people from the occupied parts of 4 regions of Ukraine to Zaporizhzhia. 33 of them are residents of Melitopol and the district.
At the same time, the weather conditions are getting worse every day.
The dirt road in the "gray" zone near the village of Kamianske, which is the next settlement after the enemy checkpoint in Vasylivka, is being washed away by the rains.
If people are not released now, it will be much more difficult for them to leave later. Rashisti understand this, but continue to release dozens instead of thousands.
#EvacuationfromOccupation

They'd have to flee a good way though, can't just get on West Jet to Lviv.

Quoting Christoffer

Russia will probably collapse in the long run and fracture into smaller nations that want to get out of the national bullshit while healing their relations with the west.

In this case the next foreseeable concern for US/NATO would be - as it was for Ukraine after the collapse of the Soviet Union - the Russian nuclear arsenal (and even nuclear plants) remaining in the hands of ex-Russian sub-states (with all their unresolved border issues) and the Chinese hegemonic ambitions in est/central Asia. Likely even Turkish and Iranian, at least in central Asia.

Quoting neomac

In this case the next foreseeable concern for US/NATO would be - as it was for Ukraine after the collapse of the Soviet Union - the Russian nuclear arsenal (and even nuclear plants) remaining in the hands of ex-Russian sub-states (with all their unresolved border issues) and the Chinese hegemonic ambitions in est/central Asia. Likely even Turkish and Iranian, at least in central Asia.

Yes, it would be a mess. But it can also be leveraged. The west could initiate trade agreements and transactions with such states as long as they give up their nukes. It might sound like a loss for them, but since their nation will likely be much smaller, their existence is much more fragile and the west would probably block them even more if they keep holding onto their nukes. So for them, their quality of life gets a massive bump if they give up nukes and that might be preferable. (Using "the west" as a broad term for nations opposing Russia in this conflict).

Of course, with tensions around their borders, they might lock into a Russian-based cold war for decades, slowly suffocating themselves with their finger on the button to eradicate their neighboring nation. It all depends on how stuck up their own ass they are.

The problem isn't really that there will be new nations with nukes, that can be resolved with diplomacy. The biggest problems are broken arrow scenarios in which nukes go missing in the turmoil after Russia collapses. Terrorist organizations could end up with tactical nukes or with knowledge make suitcase bombs out of old bombs. This could become one of the most dangerous terrorist situations in history.

It's actually viable for the UN to go into the new fractured Russia and seize control of the nukes before that gets out of hand. Nato and the UN would need to hastily initiate a plan to acquire all nukes, maybe even by force, in order to have the situation under control.

Quoting Christoffer

The problem isn't really that there will be new nations with nukes, that can be resolved with diplomacy. The biggest problems are broken arrow scenarios in which nukes go missing in the turmoil after Russia collapses. Terrorist organizations could end up with tactical nukes or with knowledge make suitcase bombs out of old bombs. This could become one of the most dangerous terrorist situations in history.

Sure, that too. About this I read a study of 2005 (https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/irrc_859_5.pdf) reporting:
[i]There is great concern that terrorists could obtain nuclear or radiological weapons and
detonate them in a large city. [b]The authors analyse the technical requirements for and obstacles to obtaining such weapons. What difficulties would have to be surmounted?
Could these problems be solved by a terrorist organization without direct support from a State possessing nuclear weapons? The authors conclude that nuclear weapons are most likely out of reach for terrorists[/b]. However, radiological weapons may well be used by terrorists in the future. The possible consequences of such an attack are discussed. [/i]

Quoting neomac

The authors conclude that nuclear weapons are most likely out of reach for terrorists.

The thing to remember is that if a state fails and collapses, most of the people with technical knowledge of nuclear weapons would also be subjects for terrorists to recruit into their organizations. If successful, they won't need state support.

Quoting Christoffer

The thing to remember is that if a state fails and collapses, most of the people with technical knowledge of nuclear weapons would also be subjects for terrorists to recruit into their organizations. If successful, they won't need state support.

:ok:

Quoting Christoffer

The thing to remember is that if a state fails and collapses, most of the people with technical knowledge of nuclear weapons would also be subjects for terrorists to recruit into their organizations. If successful, they won't need state support.

Yeah, not actually.

We already saw this didn't happen in the case of the Soviet Union collapsing. Or with the sad case of the Iraqi scientists building Saddam's bomb.

Those people will be on the kill list of many intelligence services.

And that's why knowledge of nuclear technology, which is now basically ancient tech, hasn't proliferated: if anyone is so stupid to try to sell services to terrorists, that's a guarantee you will get on the CIA/Mossad hit list. And actually, those people (with the tech knowledge) know this.

Quoting ssu

Yeah, not actually.

We already saw this didn't happen in the case of the Soviet Union collapsing. Or with the sad case of the Iraqi scientists building Saddam's bomb.

Those people will be on the kill list of many intelligence services.

And that's why knowledge of nuclear technology, which is now basically ancient tech, hasn't proliferated: if anyone is so stupid to try to sell services to terrorists, that's a guarantee you will get on the CIA/Mossad hit list. And actually, those people (with the tech knowledge) know this.

The key difference is that the number of nukes and people behind them is much higher by the collapse of Russia than anyone else. It's by a large magnitude different. And a collapse of modern Russia would be different from the Soviet collapse seen as Russia would be fractured into more states than before and each state would set its own agendas rather than deal with a larger main state as was the case after the Soviet collapse.

My point is that it only takes one scientist and one nuke to get into the hands of terrorists and seeing as how much of the Russian army is infected by right-wing extremists and downright nazis, what would happen if neo nazi terrorists get hold of a nuke? Most people think of Islamic terrorism when mentioning terrorists, but that's probably not what the outcome would be with nukes from Russia. Neo nazis and right-wing extremists are a much more probable group to weaponize themselves with nukes. And seen how the governments of the world slowly move towards such extremism, like in Italy, it's a major threat to the world if that would happen.

Reply to Christoffer, if Russia was to explode like that, then a good deal of conflict would ensue, at least in the current environment. :/
Don't know if China or NATO would do something, but I imagine so.
Preferably, Putin's Russia would simmer down on the warring, and focus on building instead, in my opinion anyway.

Quoting Christoffer

The key difference is that the number of nukes and people behind them is much higher by the collapse of Russia than anyone else. It's by a large magnitude different. And a collapse of modern Russia would be different from the Soviet collapse seen as Russia would be fractured into more states than before and each state would set its own agendas rather than deal with a larger main state as was the case after the Soviet collapse.

Actually, the Soviet collapse was far more dangerous as:

a) there were A LOT MORE NUCLEAR WEAPONS then than now in Russian arsenal

b) several countries, from Ukraine to Kazakhstan got nukes. Their capability, not Russia's, was the serious question during that time.

c) Unlike in the situation of Soviet Union, the Russia autonomies wouldn't become immediately independent. The last thing Moscow would do would be leaving it's nukes unattended in a secessionist part of the country.

d) as there is already a history of this, people can anticipate these issues far more better.

And lastly, Russia actually is in far better shape than the Soviet Union was when it collapsed. There aren't any bread lines in Moscow. Then there were, even in Moscow and Leningrad. I've seen them myself and how horrified Muscovites were when even bread was in shortage. (I visited the place when in the last year before it dissolved.)

Reply to neomac

Aww, that's lovely. Shame not every refugee is equally as 'Ukrainian' as this pretty young Arian TV bait you've dredged up for the virtue-hungry masses.



Still, I'm sure all that will change on Ukraine's path to Western enlightenment...

20 Years of Immigrant Abuses

...oh.

https://jacobin.com/2022/10/ukraine-war-letter-diplomacy-progressive-congress-caucus-foreign-policy/

Latest step in our descent into absolute fucking lunacy. Well done everyone.

Quoting Isaac

Latest step in our descent into absolute fucking lunacy. Well done everyone.

We're not content with merely heading towards annihilation, we are racing to it, with enthusiasm!

https://news.antiwar.com/2022/10/26/us-accelerates-plan-to-deploy-upgraded-nukes-to-europe/

IEA's World Energy Outlook 2022 is out. A large part of it is about the outlook for clean energy and CO2 reduction. In that context the report notes that the energy crisis precipitated by the war in Ukraine will in the longer term hasten the transition to clean energy (although in the short term there has been some backsliding in Europe as it tries to compensate for energy shortages).

Russia's fossil fuel exports will decline, both in absolute and in relative terms. Russia used to export 75% of its gas and 55% of its oil to Europe. Asia will not make up for the loss of the highly lucrative European market. Russia's share in oil and gas exports will fall by half by 2030, and it will lose 1 trillion dollars in revenue.

Reply to SophistiCat

Good to know the 10,000 dead didn't die for nothing. Take that Russia! Perhaps we throw some Lithuanians at them next, see if we can't put a dent in their precious metals exports too. Fingers crossed we don't annihilate civilisation in nuclear holocaust first, but hey, can't make an omelette without breaking eggs...

Quoting Isaac

Shame not every refugee is equally as 'Ukrainian'

You mean that Ukrainians preferring to save their lives over the Africans' are morally on the same level than Russians bombing their "brother" Ukrainians and Africans?


Quoting Isaac

20 Years of Immigrant Abuses

That's the West. And also that's the West: Human Rights Watch (HRW) is an international non-governmental organization, [b]headquartered in New York City (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch).

Quoting neomac

That's the West. And also that's the West: Human Rights Watch (HRW) is an international non-governmental organization, headquartered in New York City (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch).

https://humanrightshouse.org/human-rights-houses/moscow/

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2022/press-release/

I'm struggling to think of anything more dumbfoundingly bigoted than thinking the fight for human rights is a 'Western thing'.

Quoting jorndoe

if Russia was to explode like that, then a good deal of conflict would ensue, at least in the current environment. :/
Don't know if China or NATO would do something, but I imagine so.

If Russia explodes, I would think China could try and take a good chunk if Siberia.

Reply to Isaac, the US ain't the center of the world; this, on the other hand, is in need of being addressed by Kyiv (assuming they'll be alive to do so); Ukraine would be subject to transparency and standards to join the EU, for example.

Anyway, I'm wondering how many (varying) avenues for diplomacy are possible.
The UN, US, EU, China, London, ..., try to initiate/establish something?
Something more direct between Moscow/Putin and Kyiv/Zelenskyy?
A different way to go about it?

Earlier in the thread, some folks argued against the US and London being involved; there are still other possibilities, though.
(Maybe one of us should call up Moscow/Kyiv? :smile:)
Talks/negotiations are kind of needed, at the very least desirable, yes?

Anders Åslund's suggestion came up earlier, others have been aired, it just seems like that ship has sailed long ago; the Kremlin (and Putin) appears to be on a wretched warpath.

Quoting Isaac

Still, I'm sure all that will change on Ukraine's path to Western enlightenment...

20 Years of Immigrant Abuses

'The East' doesn't treat refugees any better than 'the West'.

Quoting Olivier5

Are you really saying that Poland, the Baltic states, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, the Czech republic all joined NATO in order to benefit from humanitarian assistance?

No.

Quoting neomac

Again, for the third time, what kind of statements and actions would demonstrate to you an “imperialistic bent”?

Whatever it is that’s convinced you of it prior to the NATO summit. I’m not interested in surmise and gut feelings.

Quoting neomac

But nobody underestimated the “imperialistic bent” of Russia,

Prior to 2008? Who?

Quoting neomac

If Russia stays within its borders and recognizes that Austria, Singapore, Japan and Israel all developed huge economies with no resources and in small territories, they, with a vast territory and vast resources, could do enormous things for their people. Then there is no security problem.

Which they did…

Quoting neomac

According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, ``We should not be shy in saying that NATO expansion will help a democratic Russia and hurt an imperialistic Russia.''

That’s nice. That’s not Russia’s attitude.

Quoting neomac

`Fear of a new wave of Russian imperialism . . . should not be seen as the driving force behind NATO enlargement,'' says Mr. Talbott.

Right…

Quoting neomac

It does seem to me that whatever residual imperialistic tendencies, which, indeed, can be a problem, can best be contained by methods other than adding members to NATO.

Right…

Still not seeing anything that demonstrates imperialist ambitions, beyond speculation about the possibility of it in the 1997, before Putin came to power. The article seems pretty slanted— with no evidence whatsoever given to justify it beyond “it’s happened in the past”.

Regardless, I asked about the threat of imperialism prior to the NATO summit because the claim was that NATO expansion was due to the threat of Putin’s imperialist ambitions. No one was claiming that prior to the summit, as you’ve now demonstrated by failing to produce anything that shows it.

There was no imperialist threat. As Mearsheimer notes — who isn’t an “average dude” but who, unlike you and I, has studied this for decades and is considered a foremost expert on it— this claim is an invention, started especially after 2014. It’s useful as a deflection of what actually transpired. A nice story to tell now— but ultimately untrue.

Reply to Mikie
Arguments based upon authority are the weakest kind.

Since you have no independent view of the matter, what would Mearsheimer accept as evidence of intent?

Reply to SophistiCat
That is a very interesting development. While being pissed off by the U.S. could be a powerful motive, I wonder how much the rise of the Salafist parties played a part in these troops resisting the Taliban. That struggle played a major part in the Chechen wars.

If this group went full Merc, that sort of thing won't matter. Pretty nihilistic, after all that has happened.

Quoting jorndoe

Ukraine would be subject to transparency and standards to join the EU, for example.

How's that going...?

Greece: Pushbacks and violence against refugees and migrants are de facto border policy

Croatia: Damning new report slams systematic police abuses at country’s borders

Slovakia: Hate crime against refugees and migrants widespread but unreported

Refugees crossing Channel tell of beatings by French police

... You know, had I not just been so thoroughly educated here on this thread about the true enlightenment values of the West, I might have been confused into thinking these countries were encouraged to join so that they could provide the richer states with a source of cheap labour, rather than to help them improve their benighted Eastern attitudes... but that would be crazy, right?

Quoting jorndoe

it just seems like that ship has sailed long ago; the Kremlin (and Putin) appears to be on a wretched warpath.

Did you read about the recent shitshow in the US? The ship didn't 'sail'. It was burnt down, smashed and then sunk - without any assistance from the Kremlin.

It's exactly the kind of warmongering rhetoric we see repeated here that's preventing progressive politicians from even talking about peace-talks. All we can hope for is something through one of the back-channels, something away from the baying blood-lust of the social medal frenzy. Maybe there are a few diplomats still working on both sides who aren't either kleptocrats or more concerned about their Twitter profile than avoiding war. I think we have to hope that there's someone in the Russian cabinet and someone in either Ukraine, or one of the NATO governments, who are prepared to risk their necks speaking to each other against the wills of their respective leaders.

Quoting Paine

Arguments based upon authority are the weakest kind.

You're right, of course, but to back up @Mikie I did also have 'a bit of think about it' from my armchair and reached the same conclusion.

Quoting Isaac

I'm struggling to think of anything more dumbfoundingly bigoted than thinking the fight for human rights is a 'Western thing'.

A 'Western thing' more than in authoritarian regimes like Russian, Chinese, Iranian which are antagonizing the West (indeed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorial_(society)#Persecution). Keep struggling and playing dumb.

Quoting jorndoe

Anyway, I'm wondering how many (varying) avenues for diplomacy are possible.

If "diplomacy" means a cease fire on the lines now, that would be most beneficial to Russia's war aims. Putin could justifiably say his war has been victorious and once he has refurbished his war material in a few years, he could start the war again and finish the nazis once and for all.

If "diplomacy" means Russia withdrawing from the territories that it has occupied, that isn't going to happen as they are now part of Holy Mother Russia.

Either one side has to be defeated on the battlefield or the war isn't going nowhere (for a long time) and then "diplomacy" can take hold.

Quoting neomac

A 'Western thing' more than in authoritarian regimes like Russian, Chinese, Iranian which are antagonizing the West.

But for some people here the only issue is to criticize the West and about the situation in Russia, China or Iran, they don't simply care.

Quoting Mikie

Are you really saying that Poland, the Baltic states, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, the Czech republic all joined NATO in order to benefit from humanitarian assistance?
— Olivier5

No.

Do you have the slightest idea why Poland, the Baltic states, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and the Czech republic all joined NATO, then?

Quoting Olivier5

Do you have the slightest idea why Poland, the Baltic states, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and the Czech republic all joined NATO, then?

Do you have the slightest idea why Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan joined the Collective Security Treaty Organization?

Quoting Isaac

Do you have the slightest idea why Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan joined the Collective Security Treaty Organization?

Because they sought some amount of protection against possible aggressions, I suppose. It's not clear that Russia is in a position to deliver any security in this space though, as seen now by the currents wars between Azerbadian and Armenia and between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

Quoting Mikie

Whatever it is that’s convinced you of it prior to the NATO summit. I’m not interested in surmise and gut feelings.

To that I already answered: “That’s why Russia and Putin were under NATO’s radar. By the end of 2008 Putin was already on the path of centralising power (e.g. by fighting oligarchs since hist first presidency term) while signalling his geopolitical ambitions in his war against Chechnya and Georgia”.
Then you asked me for evidences about Georgia prior to the Summit and I gave you the link to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War#Russian_interests_and_involvement (which case BTW presents -similarities to what Putin is doing now in Ukraine)
Overall, Putin showed a much more assertive politics and foreign politics compared to Yeltsin, as nobody could fail to notice [1]

Quoting Mikie

Regardless, I asked about the threat of imperialism prior to the NATO summit because the claim was that NATO expansion was due to the threat of Putin’s imperialist ambitions.

I feel compelled to prove my claims and my objections not whatever you feel the need to be convinced about. And if you lack a deeper understanding of geopolitics (including Mearsheimer’s views) than what you are showing with such objections, that’s all your problem not mine.
For example the claim that “NATO expansion was due to the threat of Putin’s imperialist ambitions” is conceptually myopic: however it was presented by American administrations in public, the big concern about Russian (not Putin’s!) imperialist bent was present since the collapse of Soviet Union (so prior to Putin’s presidency). This threat perception was felt by everybody in that debate, and especially by Eastern European countries. The attitude toward this threat was not to deny it but to decide how to address it either by expansion of NATO (as a defensive alliance) primarily and/or by using the EU market and institutional integrations.
If your argument was geopolitically compelling, it would be even more easy for you to question the evidence of Yeltsin’s “imperialist bent” compared to Putin’s given that NATO expanded over 3 ex-Warsaw Pact states during the Yeltsin’s presidency, and there were discussions to integrate ex-Soviet Union republics. Russia was at its weakest point after the Soviet Union collapse, what was the threat then?
Besides your arguments can be retorted against you. What were the evidence to support the perceived threat from NATO expansion by Putin prior 2014? And now that “the West is trying to destroy Russia”? Also Putin and Putin’s administration sent ambiguous messages about Nato expansion, after all [2]
Your reasoning is conceptually flawed for the following reasons:

• Geopolitical strategising is of course speculative (BTW also for reasons explained even by Mearsheimer’s) so "speculative" is not an objection to my arguments
• It concerns threat perceptions by countries from other countries, not by specific administrations independently from geopolitical context (if not even a geopolitical theory) and historical trends. And neither you nor Mearsheimer are the ones to assess such threats but political decision makers and their advisors.
• The more mistrust there is between countries the greater is the sensitivity toward threats (so response can be over-proportionate), and the need to anticipate them (that’s the case for ex-Soviet Republics)

Quoting Mikie

As Mearsheimer notes — who isn’t an “average dude” but who, unlike you and I, has studied this for decades and is considered a foremost expert on it— this claim is an invention, started especially after 2014.

If you have your argument from authority, I have mine: for the third time, read Brzezinski who wasn’t just an academic (from Harvard) but also an actual United States National Security Advisor. Not to mention that I find Mearsheimer's views inconsistent wrt his own assumptions.

[1]
Russian President Vladimir Putin has just said that his country is working on the development of new nuclear weapons, claiming that they'll be so advanced, no other nuclear power will be able to match them. Besides sparking speculation by saying that Russia needs the weapons to deal with future security threats - President Putin was particularly vague about what these threats might be - the news has also raised fears that we could be about to see a renaissance of the old nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union. https://www.nci.org/06nci/10/RNW%20Putin%20nuclear%20posturing.htm (18-11-2004)

“Join Nato and we'll target missiles at Kiev, Putin warns Ukraine” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/12/russia.ukraine

“Defying the United States, Russia agreed in July to sell $1 billion in combat aircraft to Venezuela. The deal marks the latest in a series of Russian arms sales to a state that has increasingly clashed with Washington over different ideological approaches to Latin America and the developing world.”
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_09/VenRussia

NATO members say they share the goal of bringing the adapted accord into effect as soon as possible, but had maintained collectively that they would not ratify the agreement until Russia fulfilled commitments to withdraw military forces from Georgia and Moldova. Russia made those pledges in conjunction with the adapted treaty’s completion, and many NATO governments saw them as prerequisites for concluding the adapted treaty. (See ACT, November 1999. ) Notwithstanding the lingering presence of Russian forces in Moldova and Georgia, NATO recently suggested that some of its members might soon begin their ratification processes on the adapted treaty. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008-01/russia-suspends-cfe-treaty-implementation

At Munich security conference in 2007: President Putin continued in a similar vein for some time. "The United States has overstepped its borders in all spheres - economic, political and humanitarian, and has imposed itself on other states," he said. It was a formula that, he said, had led to disaster: "Local and regional wars did not get fewer, the number of people who died did not get less but increased. We see no kind of restraint - a hyper-inflated use of force.” The US has gone "from one conflict to another without achieving a fully-fledged solution to any of them", Mr Putin said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6350847.stm (10 February 2007)

the Kremlin has neither forged an EU entente against America nor widened its “partnership for peace” with Washington. Instead, it has demanded concessions for the accession of former Soviet bloc nations into the European Union, sniped at the West for NATO expansion, conducted a mammoth nuclear exercise, announced the successful development of a new ICBM to defeat America’s National Missile Defense, and vigorously sought to carve out “imperial” spheres of influence in Moldova, Georgia, and the CIS.5 All these give solid reasons to think that an “integrationist” interpretation of Putin’s international strategy is one-sided and does not grasp the continuity of Russian strategic thinking. While unveiling Putin’s strong desire for inclusion in the international community and selective engagement with the West, this approach fails to capture the aspects of great power thinking which guided his strategy from the very beginning. In his “manifesto”, Putin mentioned about derzhavnosti as one of Russian traditional values on which has to be based Russia’s revival in the 21st century. Therefore, for Putin, Russia can revive and successfully develop only as a great power recognized and respected in the world. In this regard Putin warned the possible opponents to this idea in international community that it is too early to bury Russia as a great power.
https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/767/76701018.pdf (January 2006)


[2]
02.01.2005 Interview with Sergej Lavrov (Foreign minister of Russia) by the German business newspaper Handelsblatt:

[i]Question: Does the right to sovereignty also mean for Georgia and Ukraine, for example, that Russia would have nothing against their accession to the EU and NATO?

Lavrov: That is their choice. We respect the right of every state - including our neighbors - to choose its own partners, to decide for itself which organization to join. We assume that they will consider for themselves how they develop their politics and economy and which partners and allies they rely on.[/i]

https://amp2.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/handelsblatt-interview-mit-aussenminister-lawrow-russland-oeffnet-ukraine-den-weg-in-die-nato/2460820.html


[i]
During his November 2001 visit to the United States, Putin struck a realistic but cooperative tone:[/i]

• We differ in the ways and means we perceive that are suitable for reaching the same objective . . . [But] one can rest assured that whatever final solution is found, it will not threaten . . . the interests of both our countries and of the world.

In an interview that month, Putin declared,

• Russia acknowledges the role of NATO in the world of today, Russia is prepared to expand its cooperation with this organization. And if we change the quality of the relationship, if we change the format of the relationship between Russia and NATO, then I think NATO enlargement will cease to be an issue—will no longer be a relevant issue.

Putin even maintained the same attitude when it was a question of Ukraine someday entering the Atlantic Alliance. In May 2002, when asked for his views on the future of Ukraine’s relations with NATO, Putin dispassionately replied,

• I am absolutely convinced that Ukraine will not shy away from the processes of expanding interaction with NATO and the Western allies as a whole. Ukraine has its own relations with NATO; there is the Ukraine-NATO Council. At the end of the day, the decision is to be taken by NATO and Ukraine. It is a matter for those two partners.

A decade later, under President Medvedev, Russia and NATO were cooperating once again. At the 2010 NATO summit in Lisbon, Medvedev declared,

• The period of distance in our relations and claims against each other is over now. We view the future with optimism and will work on developing relations between Russia and NATO in all areas . . . [as they progress toward] a full-fledged partnership.

From the end of the Cold War until Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014, NATO in Europe was drawing down resources and forces, not building them up. Even while expanding membership, NATO’s military capacity in Europe was much greater in the 1990s than in the 2000s. During this same period, Putin was spending significant resources to modernize and expand Russia’s conventional forces deployed in Europe. The balance of power between NATO and Russia was shifting in favor of Moscow.
https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/what-putin-fears-most/

Quoting Olivier5

Because they sought some amount of protection against possible aggressions, I suppose.

From whom?

Quoting neomac

What were the evidence to support the perceived threat from NATO expansion by Putin prior 2014?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/04/nato.russia

Reply to Tzeentch
[i]The pair have already outlined a potential deal to avert a crisis over Washington's planned missile defence system in Europe, involving a string of safeguards to ensure it could not be used against Russia.
Bush has insisted the system is a shield against a potential Iranian missile attack on Europe or the US, but Moscow sees it as an attempt to blunt Russia's nuclear deterrent.[/i]

In other words
- No evidence stronger than Russian development of new nuclear weapons in 2004 and Russia suspension of CFE Treaty in 2007
- Putin's speculations about threat perception from the US despite Bush administration assurances

Quoting neomac

Then you asked me for evidences about Georgia ... which case BTW presents -similarities to what Putin is doing now in Ukraine

You mean the war in which;

1) European and US envoys were dispatched to negotiate peace within just three days of fighting.
2) The President of France negotiated a ceasefire
3) Russia and a number of other countries recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia as separate republics

...which tentatively ended the war.

The exact solutions currently being vociferously rejected with regards to Ukraine.

Oh, and do you even reslise how absurd it is to include Chechnya in your list of evidences of imperialist expansion?

Quoting Isaac

Because they sought some amount of protection against possible aggressions, I suppose.
— Olivier5

From whom?

Various folks. To Tajikistan for instance, the greatest threat (since the civil war) is seen as a possible Islamist contagion from Afghanistan. Armenia fears Turkey and Azerbadian. Etc They are not overly concerned that the EU or US will invade them, if that's what you're asking.

Quoting Isaac

You mean the war in which;

I mean: The Russian government began massive allocation of Russian passports to the residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2002 without Georgia's permission; this 'passportization' policy laid the foundation for Russia's future claim to these territories (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War#Russian_interests_and_involvement )
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/how-soft-power-works-russian-passportization-and-compatriot-policies-paved-way-for-crimean-annexation-and-war-in-donbas/

Quoting Isaac

Oh, and do you even reslise how absurd it is to include Chechnya in your list of evidences of imperialist expansion?

I talked about geopolitical ambitions (obvious in the Caucasian region) and arguably a case also for "Russian imperialism" since the Chechen war was a war for independence against "Russian imperialism" and perceived as such not only by the West (About 15,000 Caucasians and their supporters demonstrated in Ankara Sunday. Addressing the rally, Nationalist Movement Party leader Alparslan Turkes said, ``We support the independence of our Chechen brothers. We want the world to stop Russian imperialism.'' https://www.csmonitor.com/1994/1227/27071.html). Interestingly here is the view of Ukrainians about it:
The Chechnya crisis was condemned by the entire cross-section of Ukrainian political parties immediately after the launch of the covert war to topple President Dudayev in summer 1994. To centre right national democrats (Rukh, Union of Ukrainian Officers, Ukrainian Cossacks and the Congress of National Democratic Forces), writers and intelligentsia as well as the radical right nationalists (Ukrainian National Assembly and the Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists) it is a question of 'we told you so' about Russia's long-standing imperialist intentions which will sooner or later turn against Ukraine. 'In this situation the signing by Ukraine of a Treaty on Friendship with Russia will be regarded by the world community as moral support for Moscow's imperial policies', the Democratic Coalition 'Ukraine' believed. 'Russia demonstrated to the world its inability to renounce forceful dictatorship and armed intervention in deciding political problems', Rukh's leader, Viacheslav Chornovil, said. The Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists applauded the Estonian example of wishing to recognize Chechnya's independence. The Communist Party of Ukraine also condemned 'any forcible resolution of any kind of conflict' , The communist head of the parliamentary committee on foreign affairs, Borys Oliynyk, described Russia's military intervention in Chechnya as 'aggression' and its tactics as 'genocide'. The socialist chairman of parliament, Oleksandr Moroz, also came out against the use of force in Chechnya. Moroz's Socialist Party believed that, 'The Russian democrats are reaping the fruits of their own anti-national policy on the Soviet Union's collapse’.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02634939508400925?journalCode=ccas20

@Isaac try harder, you have all my humanitarian support!

Reply to Isaac, but I thought the thread established that everyone's bad long ago? Everyone has a rap sheet.
This isn't particularly about East West North South, at least my comment wasn't.
Kyiv wouldn't be checked much to join the international drug trade, yet it remains that

Ukraine would be subject to transparency and standards to join the EU, for example

And joining Putin's Russia has come up as well. :D (They're in the process of being joined.)
The Ukrainians chose.

[sup]The President took part in the final plenary session of the 19th meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club (Oct 27, 2022) • Full text of Putin speech and answers at Valdai Discussion Club (Oct 28, 2022) • Hear Putin warn the world faces 'most dangerous' decade since WWII (Oct 28, 2022)[/sup]

Good grief.

So, anyway, what avenues remain possible?

The Turkish Daily Sabah wrote:
‘Ukraine, Russia have moved away from diplomacy, peace process’ (Oct 11, 2022)
The Turkish government has made some attempts.

Quoting Isaac

Oh, and do you even reslise how absurd it is to include Chechnya in your list of evidences of imperialist expansion?

It would be more accurate to call it a case of imperial retention as the independence movement came from the slow recovery from when "The Stalinist regime fallaciously accused the Chechens (and the Ingush) of massive collaboration with the German invaders, and then deported them en masse on February 23, 1944."

This might be why some people get nervous when Putin starts calling them Nazis.

Quoting Olivier5

Various folks.

So why would you need any more specific an answer in the case of Poland, the Baltic states, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, the Czech republic? Might the answer not likewise be "various folks"?

Quoting neomac

arguably a case also for "Russian imperialism" since the Chechen war was a war for independence against "Russian imperialism"

Brilliant. Russia was 'imperialistically' retaining territory already within its borders. Some of the stuff you come up with is priceless. But Ukraine, I take it are not 'imperialistically' retaining Donbas? Their right to their borders being different, of course, because they're the good guys.

Quoting Paine

It would be more accurate to call it a case of imperial retention

Why 'imperial' retention. Are the UK 'imperialistically' retaining Northern Ireland?
Are Spain 'imperialistically' retaining Catalonia?

Is Russia entitled to any land at all? Or are we just going to say anything more than a shed outside Moscow is just rampant empire building?

It's frightening how easily narratives get shored up against all odds, even to the point of redefining the language to make it fit.

Quoting jorndoe

So, anyway, what avenues remain possible?

Fewer and fewer, thanks mainly to the war cheerleading we're seeing such shining examples of here.

As I said before, I think unsanctioned back channels are our main hope now.

Quoting Isaac

Why 'imperial' retention. Are the UK 'imperialistically' retaining Northern Ireland?
Are Spain 'imperialistically' retaining Catalonia?

It would not be a redefinition of language to note an important difference between your examples and a "retention" involving the Massacre of Civilians in order to preserve this "entitlement."

Should the Ukrainians be consulted over whether Russia is entitled to their lands?

Quoting Isaac

Russia was 'imperialistically' retaining territory already within its borders.

After the collapse of Soviet Union one could question that Chechnya was within Russian borders.
The First Chechen War took place from 1994 to 1996, when Russian forces attempted to regain control over Chechnya, which had declared independence in November 1991. Despite overwhelming numerical superiority in men, weaponry, and air support, the Russian forces were unable to establish effective permanent control over the mountainous area due to numerous successful full-scale battles and insurgency raids. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya

Putin has more or less consistently spoken in terms of larger conflict (almost like implicitly wanting international escalation), while his Russia is the victim, and, meanwhile, generously flattening :fire: Ukraine.
As noted, when Ukrainian territorial integrity is brought up (victims), the Kremlin turns the headset off (and continues the bombing), which makes negotiations harder. :/
Turkey has tried with little success, though they seem in a fair position to do so; maybe they could do another round, inviting China to apply pressure against the destruction. :up:

Quoting Paine

It would not be a redefinition of language to note an important difference between your examples and a "retention" involving the Massacre of Civilians in order to preserve this "entitlement."

Of course it would. Entitlement to the integrity of a country's borders is not predicated on the means by which they execute such entitlement.

Quoting Paine

Should the Ukrainians be consulted over whether Russia is entitled to their lands?

Which Ukrainians? The ones living in Lvov 600 miles away from Donetsk? Why the hell ought they have any say? Why not the people of Rostov, a mere 50 odd miles away? Nationalism is bullshit. There's no such entity as 'the Ukrainians' to even ask.

Quoting neomac

After the collapse of Soviet Union one could question that Chechnya was within Russian borders.

One could question that Crimea was in Ukrainian borders.

Are we really going to rehash the whole 19th jingoism? I suppose that would go well with our rush to world war three, rampant nationalism did a good job of warmongering back then, its got a good track record.

Using what exactly would one go about 'questioning' the properness of a border?

Ought we test the genetic stock of the population either side?

If the Ukrainians don't exist, you need to get out there and tell them. They have not received your testimony.

If Nationalism is bullshit, what is the principle supporting this claim:

Quoting Isaac

Is Russia entitled to any land at all? Or are we just going to say anything more than a shed outside Moscow is just rampant empire building?

Quoting Isaac

One could question that Crimea was in Ukrainian borders.

Sure one can! Borders are matter of international recognition. And indeed: At first Crimean authorities attempted to claim that it was a sovereign Republic albeit with a relationship with Ukraine. On 5 May 1992, the Crimean legislature declared conditional independence, but a referendum to confirm the decision was never held amid opposition from Kyiv. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Crimea_(1992%E2%80%931995) )
So in the end the control was restored without war.

Quoting Isaac

Are we really going to rehash the whole 19th jingoism? I suppose that would go well with our rush to world war three, rampant nationalism did a good job of warmongering back then, its got a good track record.

Using what exactly would one go about 'questioning' the properness of a border?

Ought we test the genetic stock of the population either side?

Your pointless blabla doesn't take into consideration that I was talking about perceived threats, and Russia was perceived as a threat by the West and not only. I'm not committed to any specific way in which different actors understood the Russian imperialistic threat, nor ground my reasoning based on the specific case of Chechnia. But if playing dumb makes you happy, keep enjoying, by all means.

Quoting Paine

If the Ukrainians don't exist, you need to get out there and tell them.

And how would I tell 'them'. There's 40 million. Do you really imagine 'them' to be one homogeneous mass with a single opinion?

It's patently absurd to think that some lines on a map drawn by a few men in a gilt-laden hotel room decades ago somehow captures a gestalt that emerged from nature.

How exactly do you propose we identify a 'Ukrainian' in a way that isn't racist? Living there? That would strip citizenship of all refugees. Family there? That would strip immigrants of their citizenship in their new home. Passports? Accents? Feelings?

What criteria would you like to use to distinguish a 'Ukrainian' who has a right to be asked about the future of Dombas (even if they live 600 miles away and have never been there) from a Russian who has no right to be asked even if they live a stone's throw away on the border?

Reply to Isaac
They are loudly telling themselves. The question of those who don't see it that way is a reasonable one. But that issue is different from you stating without qualification:

Quoting Isaac

There's no such entity as 'the Ukrainians' to even ask.

Quoting Paine

They are loudly telling themselves.

'They' are not. Some people are, others aren't. It's you who are reifying such a situation into a 'they'.

Otherwise, answer the question. By what criteria are you identifying the Ukrainian from the Russian by such a means as confers on the Ukrainian a right to a say over the future of a piece of land they've never seen but denies it of the Russian living and working within spitting distance.

Quoting Isaac

So why would you need any more specific an answer in the case of Poland, the Baltic states, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, the Czech republic? Might the answer not likewise be "various folks"?

I answered your question with specific threats for Tajikistan and Armenia. But you and Mikey Mouse here cannot answer my question.

Honestly, the answer is obvious and you know it. Central European states have been oppressed by the USSR and its servants for so long. They joined NATO, an anti-USSR alliance, as soon as they had a chance, and they did so to seek protection from Russia. You know that it is true.

Quoting Isaac

Nationalism is bullshit.

Yeah. :/
That's the language of both attacker and defender though, and most others.
Maybe some day...

Quoting jorndoe

That's the language of both attacker and defender though, and most others.

Indeed. But less commonly the language of unrelated bystanders, which is what's different here. We might expect those living in Ukraine to be nationalistic (it's a common enough narrative). We might similarly expect the attackers to be nationalistic in their desire to see the territorial lines re-arranged. What's weird (and more than a little distasteful) is the degree to which people who've never had even the slightest connection to either Ukraine or Russia are affecting this sudden passion for the integrity of either party's borders. On what possible grounds would we care?

Reply to Isaac
I use "they" in the hope they are reporting what they think in polls such as these.

I imagine you will dismiss it as fake news. But it is by means of gathering reports in some way that we will learn the answer.

Quoting Paine

I use "they" in the hope they are reporting what they think in polls such as these.

I imagine you will dismiss it as fake news. But it is by means of gathering reports in some way that we will learn the answer.

They just beg the question because the polls already have decided who to ask and who not to ask.

Why did they not ask the Russians who live on the border of Donbas? Why did they ask the population of Lvov 600 miles away? What does it mean that a pre-stratified sample shows exactly the results you'd expect from the very act of stratification?

The point is not "If we pick an arbitrary grouping, what would they, on average, think?" the point is "why are we asking that arbitrary grouping and not this other?"

By what means does the view of the average citizen of Lvov gain any legitimacy whatsoever on the question of the future of Donbas, but the view of the average citizen of Rostov not?

Reply to neomac The head of state stating any attempt at NATO expansion to Russian borders is seen as a direct threat is crystal clear language. You asked for evidence for Russia's perception of NATO as a threat, and I've provided it.

Your entire argument is based on taking snippets and tying them together into a construed narrative, while you're ignoring or denying what is blatantly obvious.

Reply to Isaac
You don't know what methods were used. There was an attempt to canvass the eastern oblasts. I figure that has to be very difficult to do in the state of war with so many refugees and deported people. I am interested in how many supporters of the 2014 invasion still support the Russian state after they have gotten a taste of their love.

But I didn't bring up the poll to argue for a proper resolution of the conflict but to point out that there are enough self-identified Ukrainians around to undermine your claim:

Quoting Isaac

There's no such entity as 'the Ukrainians' to even ask.

Quoting Paine

I didn't bring up the poll to argue for a proper resolution of the conflict but to point out that there are enough self-identified Ukrainians around to undermine your claim:

There's no such entity as 'the Ukrainians' to even ask.

That's exactly the claim I was addressing. The poll didn't rely only on self-identified Ukrainians it pre-stratified the sample. It didn't ask a random selection from the population of the world and then proceeded to identify jenks breaks or something. It determined in advance a group of people to ask on the grounds of their being 'Ukrainian'. It begged the question of whether such a natural grouping exists by asking only what they already thought that group was.

Notwithstanding the methodological problem. You've not addressed the issue of the ground on which any such self-identified group has a right to whatever territory it believes it possesses.

Quoting Tzeentch

?neomac
The head of state stating any attempt at NATO expansion to Russian borders is seen as a direct threat is crystal clear language. You asked for evidence for Russia's perception of NATO as a threat, and I've provided it.

You are confused. And probably you didn't follow the reasoning which you tried to address.

One has to distinguish the evidence about threat perception from the evidence that support threat perception. The evidence about threat perception is e.g. statements by the head of state that "any attempt at NATO expansion to Russian borders is seen as a direct threat" the evidence that support the idea NATO expansion to Russian borders is a direct threat is e.g. placing nuclear strategic missiles in Ukraine. I asked the latter (What were the evidence to support the perceived threat from NATO expansion by Putin prior 2014? And now that “the West is trying to destroy Russia”? ) you now offered me the former.
The reason I asked for evidence that support threat perception is not because I believe there is none, but because whatever evidence is going to be offered, is still questionable as to its geopolitical implications, especially within a security dilemma where players read aggressive intentions in other player's deterring moves. That's why it's a hopeless endeavor to question threat perception when it's grounded in historical mistrust.

Reply to Isaac, why "more than a little distasteful"? Happens all the time, just check periodical condemnation of Israel. I can see why you might think so if you reject nations altogether; we're not quite there, though.

Admittedly, I haven't seen much here on the Uyghur situation. Maybe most just agree more on that, don't know. (I've only come across one person arguing in favor of the Chinese government, and that's a good while back.)

Say, the old Canadian Indian residential school system has received fair attention, albeit not so much here on the forums. That's historical, though.

These two ? came to mind because of the uncanny parallels with the annexations.

The requisite quote spam ...

[sup]"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
— paraphrasing Plato (-429 — -347) *
"A peace may be so wretched as not to be ill exchanged for war."
— Tacitus (56 — 120)
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
— paraphrasing Edmund Burke (1729 — 1797) *
"Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing."
— John Stuart Mill (1806 — 1873)
"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."
— Martin Niemöller (1892 — 1984), 1946
"People cannot be free unless they are willing to sacrifice some of their interests to guarantee the freedom of others."
— Saul Alinsky (1909 — 1972), 1971 via archive, openculture, influencewatch, also check Article IV here (1789)
"Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."
— Elie Wiesel (1928 — 2016)[/sup]

Hindustan Times' summary of Putin's Valdai ra...speech:



[sup]Putin rules out use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine amid war; ‘Dangerous’ (Oct 28, 2022)[/sup]

Turkey has tried with little success, though they seem in a fair position to do so; maybe they could do another round, inviting China to apply pressure against the destruction. :up:

Chances aren't looking great. :/

Reply to Tzeentch, Reply to neomac, anyone, I'd like to know what existential threat NATO was/is to Russia.
A fair assessment can (ought to) take place without going by any one particular person's story (Putin, Biden, Mearsheimer, Stoltenberg, Zelenskyy, and Winnie-the-Pooh came to mind while typing).
Whatever that may be (if any) would be put in context with the observed bombing killing destroying shamming threats re-culturation efforts.
Or, maybe, if sufficiently unclear, this could be a topic to clarify?

Reply to jorndoe Vagueness is key here. The term "existential threat" is not analytical but evocative and it echoes Putin's mantra that the West wants to destroy Russia. In that expression Putin can project all his own fears (to lose his power, his reputation, his life) that he hopes to share with his base. Anyways I found his speech at the Valdai Discussion Club dubbed in English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi24CBaqI5w let's see if there is something else to find out.

Reply to neomac, I don't think it's that unclear. Say, it could be the end of any of these, at least in any way that matters: Russia (country, nation); Russians (people); Russian (identity, culture, language); Russians doing Russian in Russia. Something along those lines.

Reply to jorndoe
I just wanna say: this is the outcome of playing hardball. Any sign of a lack of resolve on the part of NATO would have encouraged whistle britches over there to use tactical nukes.

Quoting jorndoe

Say, it could be the end of any of these, at least in any way that matters: Russia (country, nation); Russians (people); Russian (identity, culture, language); Russians doing Russian in Russia. Something along those lines.

Sure. Add also the fear of losing the "alleged" status of great power. My point wasn't to deny we can figure out ways to disambiguate it, the point is that vague expressions like this have a rhetorical force both for mass propaganda and at the negotiation table, and can blend well with Putin's own personal fears.

Quoting jorndoe

I'd like to know what existential threat NATO was/is to Russia.

The term "existential threat" in geopolitics means that a country feels one of their core strategic interests is being threatened. In the case of Russia, what is being threatened are Crimea and Sevastopol and the central position of power they grant in the Black Sea.

The importance of this position cannot be stressed enough, since it is the only western port that isn't at the mercy of NATO to grant access. The Baltic Sea is completely encapsulated by NATO, and the White Sea is bottle-necked at the GIUK gap.

With Turkey as a more or less neutral player, through the Black Sea Russia gains access to the Mediterranean, the Suez Canal, the Gulf, etc - places that connect Russia to its strategic allies.


This is almost certainly the reason the United States made a bid for Ukraine, since countries like Iran and Syria are adversaries to the United States and have probably played a large role in its failure to control the Middle-East.


In 2008 NATO blatantly stated they wished to incorporate Ukraine, which would have included Crimea, which once again would have put Russia at the mercy of NATO. In 2013 the U.S. overtly supported, likely covertly orchestrated, regime-change in Ukraine. The 2014 invasion of Crimea was a direct reaction to that.

The 2014 invasion was only a temporary solution for Russia however, since Crimea was in a precarious strategic position, being pretty much undefendable in a future conflict.

My view is that the main strategic objective of Russia's invasion of Ukraine was the establishment of land access to Crimea, which seems a very logical conclusion based on the areas Russia now occupies.

Quoting jorndoe

Whatever that may be (if any) would be put in context with the observed bombing killing destroying shamming threats re-culturation efforts.

That's war, unfortunately. When countries wage war, and especially when vital interests are at stake, all semblance of humanity goes out of the window. Threatening, intimidation, destruction, nothing new under the sun - for the record, the United States never shied away from any of these practices either.

Re-culturation (or "westernization", if you want the American equivalent) is essentially the modern "solution" to insurgency threats, which are always on the mind of any nation seeking to occupy others.

It also serves as a method to make the Russian annexation of parts of Ukraine a foregone conclusion. When the primary culture of the people living there is Ukrainian, a future war over it could be framed as a liberation. When the primary culture is Russian, it can only be framed as a reconquest.

Quoting Isaac

How exactly do you propose we identify a 'Ukrainian' in a way that isn't racist?

Simple. One could use nationality, or self-identification. Eg anyone with the legal papers, or anyone self identifying as Ukrainian, gets to be seen as Ukrainian.

The nation called Ukraine does exist. It's not a bizarre idea or a fancy or something impossible to delimit.

Quoting jorndoe

why "more than a little distasteful"? Happens all the time, just check periodical condemnation of Israel.

I don't know of much condemnation of Israel that isn't about methods, not borders. But sure, it happens all the time. So does racism. Doesn't make either any less distasteful.

The point I'm making here is that the location of the line dividing Russia from Ukraine is utterly irrelevant, an administrative matter. It has zero moral weight. Yet maintaining it is adopted as a moral crusade by those for whom its location is meaningless, those who probably don't even know where it is right now.

Such affectation would be nothing more than pretentious were it not for the fact that these people are vociferously advocating the continuance of a bloody and devastating war to keep this arbitrary line where is currently is.

The idea that there's two immutable 'nations' and that it matters whose flag is over which bit of land is the cause of this war, not the solution to it.

Russia's problems aren't solved by reducing their territory at enormous human cost. They're solved by changing the government. Same goes for Ukraine, same goes for the US. How much land each one has is largely irrelevant. The quality of their governance over that land is what matters. It's insane to think that the best strategy for improving the lives of any given population of people is to engage them in a bloody war so that a slightly less awful government might govern the land they happen to be on, it's crazily inefficient, not to mention barbarous.

Quoting Olivier5

Simple. One could use nationality, or self-identification. Eg anyone with the legal papers, or anyone self identifying as Ukrainian, gets to be seen as Ukrainian.

One could use headwear too. Anyone with a green trilby is a 'Ukrainian'.

Or we could use length of index finger, over 9cm and you're in.

Reply to Isaac Was that an attempt at humouring me?

Quoting Isaac

I don't know of much condemnation of Israel that isn't about methods, not borders.

Much of the Isreal-Palestinian conflict for the past half century has been about borders, those of 67 vs those orior 67. I.e. the status of the "occupied territories".

Quoting Olivier5

Was that an attempt at humouring me?

It was an attempt to show the stupidity of your response. We could identity Ukrainians by any means we like. The point was to justify that choice.

Why does having the right piece of paper, or worse still, the right 'feelings' confer on a citizen of Lvov the right to have a say in the future of some land 600 miles away that they've never even seen, but denies that right to someone living and working within a stone's throw of its border?

If I declared I now 'self-identified' as a Ukrainian, do I get a say?

Quoting Olivier5

Much of the Isreal-Palestinian conflict for the past half century has been about borders, those of 67 vs those orior 67. I.e. the status of the "occupied territories".

I didn't question what the war was about though did I. Try reading first and responding second. It's in the fucking quote you took the time to highlight...

Quoting Isaac

I don't know of much condemnation of Israel that isn't about methods, not borders.

...do you see it now?

Quoting Isaac

Why does having the right piece of paper, or worse still, the right 'feelings' confer on a citizen of Lvov the right to have a say in the future of some land 600 miles away that they've never even seen, but denies that right to someone living and working within a stone's throw of its border?

The poll in question asked for their opinion and the sampled folks gave it, nothing more. I don;t see the problem.

Quoting Olivier5

I don;t see the problem.

Then you should be able to answer the question. It's not a complex one.

Quoting Isaac

Why does having the right piece of paper, or worse still, the right 'feelings' confer on a citizen of Lvov the right to have a say in the future of some land 600 miles away that they've never even seen, but denies that right to someone living and working within a stone's throw of its border?

Here's how this little subsection of the conversation started.

Quoting Paine

Should the Ukrainians be consulted over whether Russia is entitled to their lands?

So if your answer is, yes, anyone with the right piece of paper should be consulted, anyone without the right peice of paper doesn't get a say, then I'm asking why.

Why does having that piece of paper confer a say in global affairs denied to others?

My answer is that it's an administrative matter. We have (or struggle to have) representative democracies and to administer those we need, as a matter of pure pragmatism, to subdivide the population into administrative units.

But my answer fails to give any moral weight to the hierarchical arrangement of those units. So I'm asking, whence the moral weight being applied here?

The right of 'the Ukrainians' to be in charge of what goes on in Donbas seems to be being given moral weight, not just administrative pragmatism. I'm asking for the source of that moral weight.

Not "why do they have a say?"
"Why ought they?"

Quoting Isaac

But my answer fails to give any moral weight to the hierarchical arrangement of those units

How do you assign moral weight?

Quoting neomac

How do you assign moral weight?

Do I have to explain morality, is the notion unfamiliar to you?

Some classes of human activities are 'moral', they concern a loose affiliation of behavioral types we've grouped under that umbrella term for various reasons (although some consider there to be only one reason, but that argument's irrelevant here)

When someone asks "what is the moral weight behind that?" they are asking for reasons why the behaviour in question belongs in that group and not some other.

If someone claims that choosing which hat to wear has moral weight, I'd expect an explanation by way of pointing to how the choice of hat is similar in either consequence or virtue to other classes of behaviour we call 'moral'.

Reply to Isaac Define: "have a say".

Quoting Olivier5

Define: "have a say".

It wasn't my quote. I was paraphrasing @Paine's "...be consulted", so the question is better directed there lest this whole discussion be based on a mistranslation.

That said, the notion of 'Ukrainians' being the morally appropriate group to decide what course of action ought be followed with regards to the progress of this war is a common enough one. I take it to mean, fairly simply, that in a case of disagreement, 'having a say' means that your view takes precedent in some way over someone else who voices a contrary opinion. That might be by way of voting for authorisation, or it might be simply the moral weight given to an opinion. I don't think the practical method by which the 'say' is implemented matters here.

Reply to Isaac Why should they NOT be consulted?

Quoting Olivier5

Why should they NOT be consulted?

I didn't say they ought not be consulted (a moral proscription is very different to the mere opposite of a moral prescription), so I'm not sure why you're asking this question but...

We can only, pragmatically, consult a limited number of people (when using methods such as voting or polling, for example), so some people will have to be not consulted in that sense.

There are numerous reasonable candidates for what we might use as a threshold of elimination, but pieces of paper are pretty low down that list. I'd say geographic proximity, and economic and social connectivity might be near the top.

The question, however, was about the moral weight, not pragmatics. I don't see any moral argument for why anyone ought not be consulted. I suppose mental incapacity, possibly...

Quoting Isaac

I don't see any moral argument for why anyone ought not be consulted.

So you ought to agree that there is no moral issue in consulting them. In fact, that would be expected in a democracy.

Quoting Olivier5

So you ought to agree that there is no moral issue in consulting them. In fact, that would be expected in a democracy.

Yep, that's right.

Reply to Isaac Okay so there lies the answer to your question: in a democracy., citizens are expected to have a say.

Quoting Olivier5

Okay so there lies the answer to your question: in a democracy., citizens are expected to have a say.

What question do you think that's an answer to?

I asked what moral weight there was to consulting the citizen of Lvov and not the citizen of Rostov.

You've given me a reason why I might expect the citizen of Lvov to be consulted.

I didn't ask why I might expect them to be.

I asked why they ought to be - what gives their view greater moral weight than mine, or yours, or the nearby Russian's

Quoting Isaac

I asked what moral weight there was to consulting the citizen of Lvov and not the citizen of Rostov. [...]

I asked why they ought to be - what gives their view greater moral weight than mine, or yours, or the nearby Russian's

A priori, nothing. A poll is just not a moral statement.

I suppose one should also consult the opinion of the nearby Russians, the pro-Russian folks in occupied territories, etc. But there's a technicality there: this 15 years jail sentence for criticizing the war in Russia.

Quoting Olivier5

A priori, nothing. A poll is just not a moral statement.

I suppose one should also consult the opinion of the nearby Russians, the pro-Russian folks in occupied territories, etc.

Right. Then we're in agreement. There's no moral weight whatsoever to the opinion of the 'Ukrainians' over the opinion of anyone else with a stake.

So we can finally ditch all this bullshit about how it ought to be "up to the Ukrainians" whenever someone brings up some view as to what course of action is best.

The discussion here was originally, though, about territory. About who has a legitimate say over which government governs which territory. My point being that if one were to consult anyone other than the people directly living there, then those neighbouring the territory (on both sides of the border) would be the next most important people to consult - not people 600 miles away who just happen to share the same passport.

All of this is directed at the argument that there's no moral weight behind the location of any given border. The struggle to keep it in its current location is not a moral struggle, it's nationalistic, not noble.

Quoting Isaac

So we can finally ditch all this bullshit about how it ought to be "up to the Ukrainians" whenever someone brings up some view as to what course of action is best.

I don't think it's that simple. It is definitely up to the Ukrainians what course of action Ukraine follows.

Quoting Olivier5

I don't think it's that simple. It is definitely up to the Ukrainians what course of action Ukraine follows.

In what way?

Quoting Isaac

Some classes of human activities are 'moral', they concern a loose affiliation of behavioral types we've grouped under that umbrella term for various reasons (although some consider there to be only one reason, but that argument's irrelevant here)

When someone asks "what is the moral weight behind that?" they are asking for reasons why the behaviour in question belongs in that group and not some other.

I didn't ask "How does one assign moral weight? " I asked "How do you assign moral weight?".
And the reason why I'm asking is because you claimed:
Quoting Isaac

The point I'm making here is that the location of the line dividing Russia from Ukraine is utterly irrelevant, an administrative matter. It has zero moral weight.

How do you decide that the location of the line dividing Russia from Ukraine is irrelevant, merely an administrative matter? On factual terms, there are people who see borders and national identity not as irrelevant nor as merely an administrative point.
So your claim "the location of the line dividing Russia from Ukraine is utterly irrelevant, an administrative matter" is a moral claim, right? something like : "the location of the line dividing Russia from Ukraine ought to be considered irrelevant, and bearing zero moral weight", right?
And since you claim "When someone asks "what is the moral weight behind that?" they are asking for reasons why the behaviour in question belongs in that group and not some other".
Then I'm asking you, what reasons you have to hold such a moral prescription: "the location of the line dividing Russia from Ukraine ought to be considered irrelevant, and bearing zero moral weight".

Reply to Isaac Because Ukraine is supposed to be a democracy.

Reply to Olivier5

Directly, it's up to the actual soldiers, diplomats and support staff doing the fighting/negotiating (they could refuse).

Less directly, the government of Ukraine will instruct those soldiers, diplomats and support staff and so strongly influence their actions.

Less directly still, the government's funders, supporters, lobbyists and pollsters will influence the government's decisions.

Absent a referendum or election I don't see how the Ukrainians en masse are going to get a say, certainly not above that third group of government influencers which, without doubt, includes the US and most major EU countries.

Quoting neomac

I'm asking you, what reasons you have to hold such a moral prescription: "the location of the line dividing Russia from Ukraine ought to be considered irrelevant, and bearing zero moral weight".

Matters that have moral weight tend to relate to issues of humanitarian needs or virtues. Either the behaviour in question can be shown to lead to some material harm to human welfare, or it is non-virtuous in some way. Moving a border (in general) is neither.

I don't have a unique personal opinion on the matter. 'Moral' is a word in the English language, I don't have a private definition of it.

You might as well ask why the action of propelling oneself through water is 'swimming'. That's just what the word means it refers to a particular type of behaviour. If we were to disagree over whether treading water constituted swimming, we might have a profitable discussion. If you suggested that doing the tango constituted 'swimming' you'd just be wrong.

Quoting Olivier5

Because Ukraine is supposed to be a democracy.

In addition to my response above, Ukraine is not currently a democracy. Opposition parties have been banned, severe restrictions on free press are in place, and no timetable for elections exists.


I would definitely argue that the average citizen of the US has more of a say (via lobbying their politicians, who lobby the US government, who lobby/fund the Ukrainian government), than the average citizen of, say, Lvov. The Ukrainian government aren't currently listening to lobbying from citizens and have suspended normal democratic processes.

But maybe you have some other mechanism in mind. By what mechanism do you propose the average citizen of Lvov is going to take part in the decision as to what course Ukraine now follows?

Quoting Isaac

In addition to my response above, Ukraine is not currently a democracy.

These are exceptional circumstances calling for extreme measures. Ukraine is still supposed to be a democracy and hence is supposed to lift those measures in peace time.

If you want to argue that their democracy is suboptimal, I agree.

Quoting Isaac

I would definitely argue that the average citizen of the US has more of a say (via lobbying their politicians, who lobby the US government, who lobby/fund the Ukrainian government), than the average citizen of, say, Lvov.

I would argue otherwise, on the ground that US citizens have currently limited say on anything their federal government does, least of all in foreign policy. I guess you might say their democracy is suboptimal.

How is the UK fairing there, BTW? Would you qualify your current governance system as 'optimal'?

Quoting Isaac

Directly, it's up to the actual soldiers, diplomats and support staff doing the fighting/negotiating (they could refuse).

That is true, and leads to the issue of troop morale.

Quoting Isaac

Less directly, the government of Ukraine

Yes, they have a very big role right now.

Quoting Isaac

Less directly still, the government's funders, supporters, lobbyists and pollsters

Yes yes yes. But pollsters poll people. Supporters are people and so are funders. You are saying that the government needs the support of the people,and all that is true.

Quoting Isaac

Absent a referendum or election I don't see how the Ukrainians en masse are going to get a say,

Via polls, via their financial support, their discipline or lack thereof, and their physical engagement as soldiers.

Quoting Olivier5

These are exceptional circumstances calling for extreme measures. Ukraine is still supposed to be a democracy and hence is supposed to lift those measures in peace time.

I didn't say they weren't a democracy without reason, but the fact that they currently aren't simply renders you statement untrue. Ukrainians are not currently determining the course Ukraine takes. The government of Ukraine are, unilaterally.

Quoting Olivier5

US citizens have currently limited say on anything their federal government does, least of all in foreign policy.

And yet you say of Ukraine...

Quoting Olivier5

pollsters poll people. Supporters are people and so are funders. You are saying that the government needs the support of the people,and all that is true.

...and when I ask how the Ukrainians are going to get a say absent any democratic process, you answered...

Quoting Olivier5

Via polls, via their financial support, their discipline or lack thereof, and their physical engagement as soldiers.

Minus the physical engagement as soldiers, how are any of those factors any different in the US?

Quoting Olivier5

How is the UK fairing there, BTW? Would you qualify your current governance system as 'optimal'?

Far from it. Our government, as most others, is dictated to by lobbyists and takes shockingly little notice of any other advice. The point is, that compared to Ukraine, I'd wager it cares slightly more about the opinion of the people (if only in a self-serving re-election bid) than the Ukrainian government does, divested, as they currently are, of either the need for re-election, nor the need to counter opposition groups and media.

You've given no mechanisms for citizen involvement present in Ukraine, yet absent in the US/UK. But the US/UK have at least a veneer of democracy (needing re-election), so in any comparison their citizens would have (if measurable at all) a marginally higher chance of influencing events than the citizens of Ukraine do.

Add to this the fact that, if a citizen of the US/UK did manage to influence their government even to the tiniest degree, that government then has the power to multiply that influence on world affairs because they are a very powerful government. Ukraine is not.

I think the only exceptions here are the actual army which, by virtue of being the tools used for the jobs currently, have an enormous influence on the course of events, particularly the generals etc.

But the Ukrainian army might just about reach 300,000, maybe 1,200,000 including reservists. Their population is 40 million. A good sample size, but hardly representative.

I don't see any justification here for the claim that Ukrainians are dictating the course of events in Ukraine. The main actors are clearly the Ukrainian Government, The Russian Government, the armies of both nations, and the funders like the US, UK and EU. Next down would be the major influencers like the big media organisations and the main lobbying groups. I really don't see actual Ukrainians getting into the top ten even.

Quoting Isaac

Matters that have moral weight tend to relate to issues of "humanitarian" needs or virtues. Either the behaviour in question can be shown to lead to some material harm to human welfare, or it is non-virtuous in some way. Moving a border (in general) is neither.

How do you know that “in general” is neither? One could argue that humanitarian needs are best handled within established administrative units. Indeed, in the specific case of Ukrainian and Russian border, your generalisation doesn’t seem to hold, Russians could argue that moving the border is meant to protect Russian minorities in Ukraine from persecutions. Ukrainians could argue that preserving the border is meant to preserve all the material resources in that Ukrainian region which are relevant for the wellbeing of Ukrainians.


Quoting Isaac

'Moral' is a word in the English language, I don't have a private definition of it.

The weird thing is that prominent dictionaries like marriam-webster, oxford and cambridge do not mention the word humanitarian in their definition of moral nor vice versa.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humanitarian
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/moral_1?q=moral
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/humanitarian_1?q=humanitarian
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/moral
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/humanitarian

Quoting neomac

in the specific case of Ukrainian and Russian border, your generalisation doesn’t seem to hold, Russians could argue that moving the border is meant to protect Russian minorities in Ukraine from persecutions. Ukrainians could argue that preserving the border is meant to preserve all the material resources in that Ukrainian region which are relevant for the wellbeing of Ukrainians.

Yes. Hence the need for such arguments, as opposed to the unsupported generality that there's some moral weight to national identity alone. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

In the cases you describe, the moral weight is given to the objective (protecting minorities, or welfare needs). The actual method has no moral weight beyond an assessment of whether it actually works.

Moving a border at tremendous cost of human life is not an efficient, or conscionable method of either protecting minorities or securing resources. War has catastrophically failed to do either, in virtually all cases.

Quoting neomac

The weird thing this is that prominent dictionaries like marriam-webster, oxford and cambridge do not mention the word humanitarian in their definition of moral nor vice versa.

Yes, they all take the much more parsimonious route of simply referring to 'right and wrong'. I thought that would be an unnecessarily cumbersome intermediate step.

If you prefer, consider my use of broadly humanitarian or virtuous actions as being those that are considered 'right' and their opposites 'wrong'.

Quoting Isaac

the unsupported generality that there's some moral weight to national identity alone. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

Not sure if your distinction between ends and means wrt national identity is morally relevant.
For example I see no mention of such distinction here:
[i]Article 15
Everyone has the right to a nationality.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
[/i]
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

Quoting Isaac

Moving a border at tremendous cost of human life is not an efficient, or conscionable method of either protecting minorities or securing resources. War has catastrophically failed to do either, in virtually all cases.

I find your generalisation objectionable again: if Russians mange to annex and see acknowledged the Donbas regions, it's likely that the Russians living there are not going to suffer from alleged genocide and persecutions for generations to come.
Besides I still fail to understand how you calculate efficiency: what's the formula you are using?

Quoting Isaac

Yes, they all take the much more parsimonious route of simply referring to 'right and wrong'. I thought that would be an unnecessarily cumbersome intermediate step.

Parsimonious? Maybe but "humanitarian" is not mentioned even once either here:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
https://iep.utm.edu/modern-morality-ancient-ethics/

Quoting Isaac

If you prefer, consider my use of broadly humanitarian or virtuous actions as being those that are considered 'right' and their opposites 'wrong'.

OK what do you mean by "broadly humanitarian"? do you mean human rights as in universal-declaration-of-human-rights ? Or do you mean human rights as in universal-declaration-of-human-rights and pacifism (or rejection of war)? Or yet something else?

Quoting Isaac

The government of Ukraine are, unilaterally

Well, you argued otherwise upthread, saying that the soldiers were the primary actors, the governments only second to them, because soldiers can disobey, run away or surrender. And then we agreed that a government at war needs the support of its people in the rear, otherwise it will crumble sooner or later. Note that the people does the fighting too.

Reply to neomac Reply to jorndoe Most of Putin's Valdai speech was devoted to airing his grievances against the West. None of it was new.

• The West wants to rule the world unchecked. They want to impose their rules, their culture, their values upon everyone.
• They have no respect for cultural sovereignty.
• Cancel culture.
• Globalism.
• Liberal world order.
• How come the West can do whatever they like on the world stage, but not anyone else? There should be a "democracy" in international relations.
• Every civilization has the right to choose its own path. No one can tell us how we should live.
• Traditional values.
• Multipolarity.
• Two Wests: traditional, conservative West (good) and liberal, cosmopolitan, neocolonialist West (bad).
• The West was trying to undermine Russia (e.g., by supporting Chechen separatists), but we came out on top.
• We extended the hand of friendship to the West but were rebuffed and slapped with sanctions instead.
• The West is constantly creating sources of tension on our borders with the aim of making Russia more vulnerable and turning it into the instrument of its geopolitical ambitions. (This vague passage is as far as Putin went in articulating his threat perception - aside from all the culture wars stuff.)

In the end he aspirationally talked up autonomy, the end of Western hegemony and reorientation to the East (Belt and Road, etc.)

Ukraine was barely mentioned in the main speech, but it came up in the subsequent Q&A. This is what he said about Ukraine:

• A "coup" in 2014 ultimately led to the "special military operation." (Putin still eschews the W-word, although other high-ranking officials and propagandists have broken the taboo on multiple occasions.) He claimed that a "bloody coup" was staged already after President Yanukovich effectively ceded power by agreeing to early elections, which, Putin candidly admitted, he had no chance of winning. (In actual fact, Yanukovich, together with his siloviks, secretly fled to Russia the day after he signed an accord with Euromaidan representatives, leaving the state legislature to fill the power vacuum.)
• The primary aim of the invasion was to secure Donbass. Also: NATO. But mainly, it's about Donbass.
• We had to attack when we did because Ukraine, with NATO help, was fortifying its defenses, and it would only get more difficult for us if we waited longer.
• Ukraine was originally that part of Russia which fell under foreign domination. People there wanted to reunite with Russia, which eventually happened when Ukraine was absorbed into the Russian Empire. In the 19th century Western powers encouraged Ukrainian nationalism as a divide and conquer strategy against Russia. This led to all sorts of bad things, such as Nazi collaboration. (That Ukrainian nation and Ukrainian language were originally a malicious Western project is a popular thesis among Russian nationalists, to Putin has appealed before.)
• Russians and Ukrainians are one people. And yes, the present war is basically a civil war.
• Modern Ukraine is an artificial state that was created by Soviet Russia.
• Only Russia can guarantee true sovereignty for Ukraine (as part of Russia?)

Reply to SophistiCat

Thanks for the concise write up of the speech as well as Q&A.

To add some philosophical context, here is an interesting interview with Michael Millerman, a sort of Western expert on Dugan (the philosophy Putin allegedly represents, directly or indirectly).



I find it interesting that Dugan derives the culture wars ultimately from the universals debate in the middle ages.

I profoundly disagree with the argument, however.

It seems clear, however, as Michael Millerman notes, that Putin's speech is fully embracing this Dugan world vision.

Quoting neomac

Not sure if your distinction between ends and means wrt national identity is morally relevant.
For example I see no mention of such distinction here:
Article 15
Everyone has the right to a nationality.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

There's lots in the UDHR that is not about morality.

If you think nationalism is a moral cause then I can't stop you, but I don't think you'll find many people using the word that way.

Quoting neomac

if Russians mange to annex and see acknowledged the Donbas regions, it's likely that the Russians living there are not going to suffer from alleged genocide and persecutions for generations to come.

I don't see how. My knowledge of history is not exhaustive, but the longest actually genocidal regime I can think of might be something like the Khmer Rouge or maybe Stalin's regime. Neither lasted for "generations". I'd be broadly supportive of the idea that mis-governance is responsible for more death overall than war, but I can't see any evidence that the difference in treatment between any two governments is, in general, even in the same ball park.

Quoting neomac

I still fail to understand how you calculate efficiency: what's the formula you are using?

It's not that complicated. Mostly deaths, but a pretty standard notion of basic welfare - water, housing, security, freedom from abuse - basic stuff. I can't see how this is remotely complicated. Human welfare isn't an undiscovered planet, or some misunderstood facet of quantum physics. We've been around for millions of years, we know what we need.

Quoting neomac

what do you mean by "broadly humanitarian"? do you mean human rights as in universal-declaration-of-human-rights ? Or do you mean human rights as in universal-declaration-of-human-rights and pacifism (or rejection of war)? Or yet something else?

As I said, human rights are meant as a basis for law, they're not the same thing as humanitarian goals (though there's much overlap). I mean, just as above, the basic aspects of human welfare.

Quoting Olivier5

Well, you argued otherwise upthread, saying that the soldiers were the primary actors

The primary actors and the primary decision makers are not the same thing. The soldiers could refuse to carry out orders, but they have no mechanism to devise and disseminate contrary orders. Decisions are made unilaterally by the Ukrainian government.

Quoting Olivier5

we agreed that a government at war needs the support of its people in the rear

We agreed no such thing. You argued that the US populace had no influence on government policy, then argued the exact opposite for the Ukrainian populace. I just pointed out the incoherence.

Quoting Olivier5

Note that the people does the fighting too.

What all 40 million of them? That's excellent news, Russia will be swamped within days.

Reply to boethius
Putin's speech does reflect Dugan's vision. As a challenge to world order, it is difficult to imagine how the clash of civilizations is supposed to work when Putin and his gang of oligarchs gain and maintain their wealth through participation in the despised 'unipolar' system. The Russian economy will collapse if separated from globalized markets and resources.

Efforts that recognize the difficulty of preserving traditional forms of life in the face of 'unipolar' economy call for the opposite of imperial schemes. They wish to establish 'communities of communities' to increase the agency of people to shape the world around them. The relative independence of communities is not something one will find in the Cheka playbook that Putin absorbed in his youth.

As for the argument that the 'loss of universals' is what is destroying the idea of human nature, it is funny to have Heidegger be the champion for that cause. As Strauss pointed out in Natural Rights and History, deconstruction through historicism is what undermined the view of humans as having their own nature. And whatever else Heidegger may have been, he was an historicist of philosophy itself.

Quoting Isaac

If you think nationalism is a moral cause then I can't stop you, but I don't think you'll find many people using the word that way.

Well maybe I wouldn’t call it “nationalism” for its political implication (often associated with a negative undertone), but how about “patriotism”?
Patriotism is the feeling of love, devotion, and sense of attachment to one's country. This attachment can be a combination of many different feelings, language relating to one's own homeland, including ethnic, cultural, political or historical aspects. It encompasses a set of concepts closely related to nationalism, mostly civic nationalism and sometimes cultural nationalism. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism)
Besides those in the West who believe that morality is beyond nationalism/patriotism, are more likely now the minority, given the revival of nationalism, not only in the West (e.g. the patriots in America), but especially in the rest of the World at large including Russia, China, India, Brazil.
Not to mention that the moral universalism (e.g. women’s rights) has been associated with colonialism, and contrasted with moral relativism.

Quoting Isaac

I don't see how. My knowledge of history is not exhaustive, but the longest actually genocidal regime I can think of might be something like the Khmer Rouge or maybe Stalin's regime. Neither lasted for "generations".

Others do. Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars and Chechens lament centuries of oppression and/or persecution from Russia.

Quoting Isaac

I'd be broadly supportive of the idea that mis-governance is responsible for more death overall than war

If that’s true, go figure how worse mis-governance plus ethnic persecution/oppression must be.


Quoting Isaac

I can't see how this is remotely complicated. Human welfare isn't an undiscovered planet, or some misunderstood facet of quantum physics. We've been around for millions of years, we know what we need.

The complication doesn't come from expressing needs, it comes from satisfying them as freely as possible without others perceiving this abusive/exploitative. Millions of years ago we couldn't satisfy even basic needs (food and health) as consciously as we can do now, go figure needs socially-induced that we couldn't possibly have millions of years ago (e.g. electricity or wearing a hijab).

Reply to Tzeentch, so that's what Putin meant by ...

Quoting Putin · Feb 24, 2022

And for our country, this is ultimately a matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a people. And this is not an exaggeration: it is true. This is a real threat not just to our interests, but to the very existence of our state, its sovereignty.

Quoting Putin · Oct 27, 2022

And in the end, if nothing at all can be done, the aim is the same: to destroy them, to wipe them off the political map.
[...]
Russia is simply upholding its right to exist and to develop freely.

? a couple of dire statements from this year not using «The term "existential threat"» verbatim, instilling that sense of urgency ("hyperbolic" or perhaps "fear-mongering" better than "dire"?)

Novorossiysk (Black Sea) and Rostov-on-Don (Sea of Azov) are more or less on a stretch of Russian coastal real estate from Veselo-Voznesenka to Adler (close to the Sochi Olympic Park). Rumors will have it that Putin spent a bit to develop Taman (just east of Kerch) since 2008, also on that stretch.

Maybe Putin should have used resources to further develop Novorossiysk and Taman for example, instead of spending them on (starting) a costly war ... bombing killing destroying shamming re-culturating. :up: But when you're the top dog Russian autocrat that's not enough apparently, and so an old-fashioned land grab it is. :down: There'd instead be less destructive jobs, perhaps praise instead of people fleeing, lost tanks, bodies, a Ukraine with increasing Russo-haters, heavy international sanctions, real threats.

As long as Turkey is a NATO member (has been since 1952, supports Ukrainian territorial integrity), Russia's further southbound sea access remains «at the mercy of NATO», if that means much here, it's any supposed NATO threat that's to be assessed here in the first place. NATO would instead limit Kremlin's free military actions; maybe that's what he meant by "develop freely".

Quoting Isaac

we agreed that a government at war needs the support of its people in the rear
— Olivier5

We agreed no such thing. You argued that the US populace had no influence on government policy, then argued the exact opposite for the Ukrainian populace. I just pointed out the incoherence.

This is going nowhere, as usual with you.

A country at war cannot go on long without popular support for the war. That is true of democracies such as Ukraine, and valid for dictatorships too. If the Russian populace turns anti-war in its majority, Putin will jave to vie for peace.

Quoting boethius

It seems clear, however, as Michael Millerman notes, that Putin's speech is fully embracing this Dugan world vision.

[s]Dugan[/s] Dugin's imperialist world vision:
“Through rebirth as an empire, as an Orthodox empire, Russia will set an example for other empires?—?the Chinese, Turkish, Persian, Arab, Indian, as well as the Latin American, African… and the European. Instead of the dominance of one single globalist “empire” of the Great Reset, the Russian awakening should be the beginning of an era of many empires, reflecting and embodying the richness of human cultures, traditions, religions, and value systems.”
Great Awakening Vs the Great Reset
Dugin, Alexander

Quoting boethius

It seems clear, however, as Michael Millerman notes, that Putin's speech is fully embracing this Dugan world vision.

Alexandr Dugin is really a "Putin whisperer" in the way he has promoted this semi-fictional historical view of Russia and it's role in the World. That Putin's speeches are many times long historical presentations just reek of Dugin's attitude. It might be confusing for a Westerner to follow some Putin's speech that start's from talking about the Rus and the Middle Ages, then goes on to the Russian Revolution and the Great Patriotic War. We in the West might skip that as just "nonsensical jargon", but it truly reveals the imperialist heart of Russia that both Putin and Dugin admire. This is an ideology of an Empire and thus genuine imperialism. Talk about a man on a mission. The references to culture wars, to Russia being very Christian and so on are just to try to lure the far right in the West.

Come to Russia...

Winter is indeed coming. But perhaps it's not going to be as bad as they say (and Putin desperately hopes):

Reply to ssu One more reason to go back to the nuclear threat. Putin has nothing else left to threat the West with.

Quoting neomac

On more reason to go back to the nuclear threat. Putin has nothing else left to threat the West with.

Which then begs the question: how credible is the West in it's promise to attack conventionally Russia? Is that believable enough to Russia and Putin?

Reply to ssu Putin's expectations aside, I think the West has at least a couple of incentives to avoid to go nuclear in response to Putin's nuclear escalation anyways: containing nuclear escalation and proving that Russia can be beaten with conventional weapons.

Quoting jorndoe

Novorossiysk (Black Sea) and Rostov-on-Don (Sea of Azov) are more or less on a stretch of Russian coastal real estate from Veselo-Voznesenka to Adler (close to the Sochi Olympic Park). Rumors will have it that Putin spent a bit to develop Taman (just east of Kerch) since 2008, also on that stretch.

Maybe Putin should have used resources to further develop Novorossiysk and Taman for example, instead of spending them on (starting) a costly war ... bombing killing destroying shamming re-culturating. :up: But when you're the top dog Russian autocrat that's not enough apparently, and so an old-fashioned land grab it is. :down: There'd instead be less destructive jobs, perhaps praise instead of people fleeing, lost tanks, bodies, a Ukraine with increasing Russo-haters, heavy international sanctions, real threats.

It isn't only about access, but also about control of the Black Sea (just like access isn't an issue when it comes to the Baltic or the White Seas - at least not during peace time). There is no real alternative to Crimea for any nation seeking that control. Consider for example also how weapon installations in Sevastopol can reach the Bosporus due to their central position in the Black Sea.

However, Russia wasn't just going to lose control over the Black Sea, but also to see it fall into NATO (read: 'enemy') hands.

You'd be a fool to think they were going to let that happen, yet that's exactly what the United States did, and Ukraine is paying the price.

It seems you are stuck in a feedback loop containing all the things Russia "should have done", how bad Russia and Putin are, etc. while all of those things should have made it exceedingly clear what the consequences would be of trying to change Ukraine's neutral status.

You and many others are stuck yelling 'Boooo!' on the sideline, without really understanding why things are happening and why they are unfolding the way they are.

Reply to Tzeentch, that's a bit ironic, because the question here was ...

Quoting jorndoe

I'd like to know what existential threat NATO was/is to Russia.
A fair assessment can (ought to) take place without going by any one particular person's story (Putin, Biden, Mearsheimer, Stoltenberg, Zelenskyy, and Winnie-the-Pooh came to mind while typing).

But you just keep repeating your story instead. :brow:

By the way, I already mentioned the Uyghur situation and the old Canadian Indian residential school system because of the uncanny parallels with the annexations — re-culturation. You might notice some of Putin's statements about "The West", NATO, whatever, bear resemblance to extremist manifestos (going as far as rambling against democracy). We've seen the type of rhetoric before. But that's not an argument, just an observation.

Quoting jorndoe

the question here was ...

Quoting jorndoe

I'd like to know what existential threat NATO was/is to Russia.

And I took the time to explain it to you in detail. If you're not interested in what I have to say, don't ask me to explain things to you next time.

You're not interested in hearing anything that doesn't confirm whatever media propaganda you've been binging on, and that's a problem I cannot help you with.

I agree with your account that Dugin is providing the back story for Putin's oft repeated theme of historical destiny. I would like to qualify this observation, however:

Quoting ssu

The references to culture wars, to Russia being very Christian and so on are just to try to lure the far right in the West.

It is true that Russia is not undergoing the culture wars in which ultranationalists of other nations participate. Putin has been adept at telling them what they want to hear. But getting the thumbs up from the Russian Orthodox Church that his is a just war is important. Things would be different if they even declined to comment. But they continue to bring balloons and pom-poms to the funeral.

But you didn't, Reply to Tzeentch. It's a broader assessment. Take another look, here (quotes, here).

Similarly ...

Quoting Putin · Dec 23, 2021

Are we deploying missiles near the US border? No, we are not. It is the United States that has come to our home with its missiles and is already standing at our doorstep. Is it going too far to demand that no strike systems be placed near our home?

By the way, it seems clear enough that various parties were naïve or not paying attention. Putin's gunmen waltzed right in and grabbed Crimea. :smile: Something, according to your story, Putin apparently would do with or without Ukrainian NATO membership, for control. Back to the threat assessment.

Drones are all over the place these days.

Russian navy ‘repels’ drone attack on Crimea’s Sevastopol (Oct 29, 2022)

Ukraine war: 'Massive' Crimea drone attack, Russia suspends grain export deal, clocks controversy (Oct 29, 2022)

(Made me think of Star Wars for a moment.)

Quoting neomac

the revival of nationalism, not only in the West (e.g. the patriots in America), but especially in the rest of the World at large including Russia, China, India, Brazil.

Yep. Very popular. So's football. What's that got to do with morality?

Quoting neomac

Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars and Chechens lament centuries of oppression and/or persecution from Russia.

There have been considerable tensions in these regions for centuries, yes. Largely because of the same racist shit that you and others here are peddling - that it's 'The Russians' who have been oppressing 'The Chechens' or 'The Tartars' or 'The Ukrainians'' all this time, as if there existed one contiguous entity which all born there become that must be expelled or blamed for all it's past expulsions. It's all bullshit. There's just people. Some of them are monstrous cruel, others saints. Most somewhere in between. 'The Chechens' haven't suffered centuries of persecution by 'The Russians' because there's no such thing as 'The Chechens' or 'The Russians' there's just people.

And in what way does changing a border solve any of this? Confining the genetically evil 'Russians' to a smaller unit? Better just to erect a massive fence to keep the bloodthirsty [s]Orcs[/s] Russians in their place.

The deaths you're referring to here - Ukraine, Chechnya, Crimea - are all the result of disputes over fucking borders and of the kind of racism about so-called ethnic groups that you are so vehemently flag-waiving for.

Quoting Isaac

Better just to erect a massive fence to keep the bloodthirsty Orcs Russians in their place.

Humble them, scare them into a more respectful attitude. Impress on them the idea that others matter and can fight back when attacked. If they fail to understand the message, kill some more Russian until the message is understood. Like done with Germany and Japan.

Quoting Isaac

Yep. Very popular. So's football. What's that got to do with morality?

You could ask as ironically what the fact that Mahsa Amini was killed by the morality police for wearing hijab improperly has to do with morality. Your irony has however no analytical value: if you stipulate that morality has to do only with humanitarian goals the way you define them and through the means you find more appropriate, that's an ad hoc move. Humanitarianism wasn't even a big deal among founding fathers of the Western/Christian morality: Aquinas and Sant Agustine didn't see any moral issue with slavery. There was a bloody civil war in the US ideologically around the subject of "slavery" and its morality. So I believe that for many Westerners and avg people nationalism/patriotism can not be qualified as moral now, especially after 2 WWs, yet I wouldn't relate morality to humanitarian goals as you believe it to be.
As I said, nationalism/patriotism is growing everywhere and in many authoritarian regimes is perceived as a moral-imperative.

Quoting Isaac

And in what way does changing a border solve any of this?

Fixing border issues is a solution to all problems that could realistically and actually be solved by fixing border issues everywhere in the entire known human history.

Quoting Isaac

The deaths you're referring to here - Ukraine, Chechnya, Crimea - are all the result of disputes over fucking borders and of the kind of racism about so-called ethnic groups that you are so vehemently flag-waiving for.

Well I'm fine with the universal declaration of human rights. See Article 15:

• Everyone has the right to a nationality.
• No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

And I find unrealistic to expect people to give up on whatever they value whenever it doesn't seem compatible with the humanitarian goals the way you intend them.

From an analytical and explanatory point of view, you have really nothing challenging to offer.

Reply to Olivier5

I knew you were a dick, but...

"Quoting Olivier5

kill some more Russian

Fuck off.

You thought we were talking of a garden party, perhaps?

Quoting ssu

Alexandr Dugin is really a "Putin whisperer" in the way he has promoted this semi-fictional historical view of Russia and it's role in the World.

Dugin's influence is often overstated. His reputation as "Putin whisperer," "Putin's Rasputin" is largely self-created. He is a shrewd self-promoter, but he is probably better known in the West than at home. In Russia he is a fixture in the imperialist nationalist circles, and he has some influence among the siloviks, but Putin doesn't talk to him; they probably never even met. Nor is it likely that Putin reads Dugin: the latter once lamented that Putin doesn't read the right books.

Ironically, Dugin's star went into decline in 2014, during Maidan revolution in Ukraine. He was fired from his position as head of a department in Moscow State University and banned from TV after he called for killing of Ukrainians. Hard to imagine now, when exactly that is being put into practice, although there is an echo in the recent firing of the chief of RT's Russian language division after he called for drowning and burning of Ukrainian children. There have been various speculations as to exactly why Dugin fell from grace, but nothing is known for certain other than that he never quite recovered from that fall.

Putin's regime is not an ideological one, and Putin doesn't need some bearded philosopher to set the agenda for him. He needs flexible, undistinguished and, above all, loyal underlings. That today Dugin's ideology resonates with Putin's is probably more a coincidence than a causal link.

Quoting SophistiCat

Putin's regime is not an ideological one

Not sure what you mean by "ideological regime", but I might disagree on that one. Putin's speeches are replete of myth-building claims, philosophical references, and civilization clash rhetoric

e.g. Ivan Ilyin is among the philosophers who directly influenced Putin, Solzhenitsyn (often cited by Putin) and Dugin.

[i]Piotr Dutkiewicz: Mr President, I would like to return to the words you have just said, that Russia should rely on Russian values. By the way, we were talking about this at a Valdai Club meeting the day before yesterday.
I would like to ask you which Russian thinkers, scholars, anthropologists and writers do you regard as your closest soul-mates, helping you to define for yourself the values that will later become those of all Russians?
Vladimir Putin: You know, I would prefer not to say that this is Ivan Ilyin alone. I read Ilyin, I read him to this day. I have his book lying on my shelf, and I pick it up and read it from time to time. I have mentioned Berdiayev, there are other Russian thinkers. All of them are people who were thinking about Russia and its future. I am fascinated by the train of their thought, but, of course, I make allowances for the time when they were working, writing and formulating their ideas. The well-known idea about the passionarity of nations is a very interesting idea. It could be challenged – arguments around it continue to this day. But if there are debates over the ideas they formulated, these are obviously not idle ideas to say the least.
Let me remind you about nations’ passionarity. According to the author of this idea, peoples, nations, ethnic groups are like a living organism: they are born, reach the peak of their development, and then quietly grow old. Many countries, including those on the American continent, say today’s Western Europe is ageing. This is the term they use. It is hard to say whether this is right or not. But, to my mind, the idea that a nation should have an inner driving mechanism for development, a will for development and self-assertion has a leg to stand on.
We are observing that certain countries are on the rise even though they have a lot of unsolved problems. They resemble erupting volcanoes, like the one on the Spanish island, which is disgorging its lava. But there are also extinguished volcanoes, where fires are long dead and one can only hear birds singing.[/i]
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66975



And I want to close with the words of a true patriot Ivan Ilyin: “If I consider Russia my Motherland, that means that I love as a Russian, contemplate and think, sing and speak as a Russian; that I believe in the spiritual strength of the Russian people. Its spirit is my spirit; its destiny is my destiny; its suffering is my grief; and its prosperity is my joy.”
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/69465

Finland Will Allow NATO to Place Nuclear Weapons on Border With Russia (Oct 26, 2022)

Finland and Poland could potentially end up hosting nuclear weapons.
Seems sort of unlikely that it will happen (to me at least); Finland would then become a Russian neighbor (border-sharing) with nuclear arms, of which there aren't a whole lot contrary to what Putin suggested.
But, unless Russia simmers down perhaps, it could become reality, more or less following Putin's moves.
I can't help but wonder, though, if a more conflict-prone or tense world is what Putin wants.
(Chaos levels the playing field, in chaos all are equal, until someone can use order to take control — a strategy alongside divide and conquer.)
Has non-proliferation taken a backseat? :meh:

Quoting Paine

It is true that Russia is not undergoing the culture wars in which ultranationalists of other nations participate. Putin has been adept at telling them what they want to hear. But getting the thumbs up from the Russian Orthodox Church that his is a just war is important. Things would be different if they even declined to comment. But they continue to bring balloons and pom-poms to the funeral.

Just how Orthodox Russia is quite questionable as the atheism of the Soviet Union did have an effect. I am for conservative values, but when those conservative actors align with a dictatorship, I am against it. In fact nothing can be detrimental in the long run as the Russian church openly supporting a dictator, that now seems to have made quite horrific blunders.

Quoting SophistiCat

Ironically, Dugin's star went into decline in 2014, during Maidan revolution in Ukraine. He was fired from his position as head of a department in Moscow State University and banned from TV after he called for killing of Ukrainians.

Is he banned from Russian television?

I'm not so sure how much Dugin's star has faded as his speeches is quite well taken now as there is a war between Russia and Ukraine. And let's not forget that his daughter (presumable killed by the Ukrainian intelligence services trying to kill him) is now a martyr for the Russian side in this war. Obviously not the smartest moves that Ukrainians have done as Dugin is a civilian. But I guess an easier target than lawful targets as military commanders.

Quoting jorndoe

Finland and Poland could potentially end up hosting nuclear weapons.
Seems sort of unlikely that it will happen (to me at least); Finland would then become a Russian neighbor (border-sharing) with nuclear arms, of which there aren't a whole lot contrary to what Putin suggested.

I haven't seen this article, but I guess it's more of the journalists (Lauri Nurmi) imagination than anything else: if nobody hasn't talked about them and hence no official entity has forbid them, guess that means that Finland could "potentially" have them. Finland isn't even considering having permanent NATO bases. Just where they are isn't so important... as long as they are on the continent.

In my view this is a way to start working on the unity of the Finnish people for NATO: make the case into a hot potatoe and divide the people. Enjoying an 80% support is too much for some. Let's remember just what these nukes are about: the very old free fall tactical nukes that usually go with F-16. Not only would Finnish aircraft have to be upgraded for this mission (as you cannot just put B61 nuke on to a rack of any aircraft).

Quoting neomac

Not sure what you mean by "ideological regime", but I might disagree on that one. Putin's speeches are replete of myth-building claims, philosophical references, and civilization clash rhetoric

I meant that Putin's regime doesn't have a founding ideology - the kind of ideology that animates the masses, at least in its early years. Such was the case with Communist, Fascist and Islamist regimes, but "Putinism" doesn't have this pedigree. The regime's control over mass media, for example, was always a sloppy, cynical affair, in which carefully curated news and propaganda shows went hand-in-hand with Western or Western-styled TV series and commercials for Western products. (To a large degree, that remains true even today.) Alternative media was marginalized but not entirely banned. Whatever ideology there is, it is ad hoc, tactical, often inconsistent. It is pandering, rather than revolutionary, mining old tropes for ready appeal.

The ultimate proof text of Putinist ideology is Putin himself - and yes, of course, Putin has his influences. He does like citing Ilyin - a Russian monarchist political thinker, who was sympathetic to Nazism and Fascism (like I said, there is a lot of cynicism, inconsistency and fakery in this ideology, if it can even be called such).

https://nypost.com/2022/10/26/russian-anti-war-vigilantes-bomb-key-rail-route-to-belarus/

Some great work by the people @Olivier5 encourages us to

Quoting Olivier5

kill some more

of.

https://www.nobelpeaceprize.org/articles/nobel-peace-prize-for-2022

Sure hope these guys get what's coming to them too. Bloody Russians.

Came across some earlier nuclear rattling ...

Putin used a graphic of Florida getting nuked to show off new Russian weapons (Orlando Weekly; Mar 1, 2018)


[sup]Putin shows video of nuclear attack on US (Newsy; Mar 1, 2018; 42s youtube)[/sup]

Quoting Clip Of Russian President Vladimir Putin State of the Nation Address (C-SPAN · Mar 2, 2018)

With the new system, there is no range limitation. As you can see from this video, it can attack any target through the North Pole or the South Pole. No missile-defense system will be able to withstand it. But even this is not the end. We have developed a new strategic weapon that does not use ballistic trajectory at all, which means that missile defense will be useless against it. This is what I am going to tell you about now, this new kind of weapon, a promising weapon that Russia has developed using new, unique technology designed by our engineers. One of those systems is a small, super-powerful, nuclear energy system that can be deployed in a cruise missile-like. Its range will be 10 times higher, which means there is basically no limit.

What to make of it?

Reply to Isaac Just as I seven months ago said on this thread here:

The fact that calling the war a war is forbidden tells this totally clear. There are more political prisoners in Russia than there were in the Soviet Union in the 1970's according to some observers. The exact number is obviously unknown.

Just a year ago:

[quote]The number of political prisoners in Russia today is nearly five times higher than it was five years ago, according to the latest report from the Memorial Human Rights Center. Activists began maintaining a list of Russian political prisoners in the late 2000s, and for a long time it was made up of a few dozen names. But this tally has increased sharply since 2015. Today, the country has 420 political prisoners and is poised to catch up to the numbers seen during the twilight years of the USSR.

And now, btw, the Memorial Human Rights Center, the oldest human rights group in Russia, which now is being foreclosed. It's primary function was to record the crimes against humanity during Stalin and the Soviet Union.

Those Russians got what was coming for them in the dictatorship of Vladimir Putin. Great that the World hasn't forgotten.

Reply to ssu

I don't understand how any of that is a response to the point I was making.

I'm merely calling out @Olivier5's disgusting use of calls to nationalist violence. More disturbing still, now it seems everyone is basically fine with someone on this forum calling on people to "kill some more Russians"

I've flagged the post but clearly calling for the killing of people based on nationality is something the forum's moderators are fine with.

I somehow think a call to "kill more Americans" would not have met with such moral decrepitude.

Yes. It's horrific that such a phenomenal group have been persecuted by Putin. They were dissolved in late 2021. No one gave a fuck...

...until now, when its conveniently trotted out to justify a proxy war. No. Back then we were still happy to buy the bastard's oil and gold, still happy to have his cronies prop up the London property market...

Quoting Isaac

hope these guys get what's coming to them too

They did. At least in Belarus and Russia.

Belarus:
Government authorities have repeatedly sought to silence Ales Bialiatski. He was imprisoned from 2011 to 2014. Following large-scale demonstrations against the regime in 2020, he was again arrested. He is still detained without trial. Despite tremendous personal hardship, Mr Bialiatski has not yielded an inch in his fight for human rights and democracy in Belarus.

Russia:
Civil society actors in Russia have been subjected to threats, imprisonment, disappearance and murder for many years. As part of the government’s harassment of Memorial, the organisation was stamped early on as a “foreign agent”. In December 2021, the authorities decided that Memorial was to be forcibly liquidated and the documentation centre was to be closed permanently. The closures became effective in the following months, but the people behind Memorial refuse to be shut down. In a comment on the forced dissolution, chairman Yan Rachinsky stated, “Nobody plans to give up.”

Ukraine:
[i]The Center for Civil Liberties was founded in Kyiv in 2007 for the purpose of advancing human rights and democracy in Ukraine. The center has taken a stand to strengthen Ukrainian civil society and pressure the authorities to make Ukraine a full-fledged democracy. To develop Ukraine into a state governed by rule of law, Center for Civil Liberties has actively advocated that Ukraine become affiliated with the International Criminal Court.
After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Center for Civil Liberties has engaged in efforts to identify and document Russian war crimes against the Ukrainian civilian population. In collaboration with international partners, the center is playing a pioneering role with a view to holding the guilty parties accountable for their crimes[/i]... and they didn't even report war crimes from Ukrainians?!

Reply to neomac

It's like discussing with three year olds...

Reply to Isaac then when you'll be three, you'll understand it too, don't worry.

Quoting Isaac

calling on people to "kill some more Russians"

To kill a mass murderer who is on a murdering spree is morally justified.

If they keep on murdering Ukrainians, Russian troops ought to die. If they don't want to die, they are welcome to lay down arms and surrender at any time.

Quoting Olivier5

Russian troops ought to die.

And Chechen troops? Syrian troops? The mixed nationalities of Wagner and Rusich? The Ukrainians fighting on Russia's side?

You can't slither out of it that way. You said "Russians", you meant "Russians". If you meant 'invading armies' there's already a term for that.

It's just racism. Lazy racism isn't an improvement on properly planned racism.

Quoting Isaac

And Chechen troops? Syrian troops?

They too are welcome to surrender, if they don't want to die.

Quoting Olivier5

They too are welcome to surrender, if they don't want to die.

Not what I asked.

I asked why you didn't mention those nationalities if your target was the invading forces, not the Russian people.

Here's the discussion we were having - the context

Quoting neomac

if Russians mange to annex and see acknowledged the Donbas regions, it's likely that the Russians living there are not going to suffer from alleged genocide and persecutions for generations to come.

Quoting neomac

Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars and Chechens lament centuries of oppression and/or persecution from Russia.

Quoting Isaac

'The Chechens' haven't suffered centuries of persecution by 'The Russians' because there's no such thing as 'The Chechens' or 'The Russians' there's just people.

And in what way does changing a border solve any of this? Confining the genetically evil 'Russians' to a smaller unit? Better just to erect a massive fence to keep the bloodthirsty Orcs Russians in their place.

Quoting Olivier5

Impress on them the idea that others matter and can fight back when attacked. If they fail to understand the message, kill some more Russian until the message is understood. Like done with Germany and Japan.

We were talking directly about @neomac's false claim that there was some contiguous entity called 'The Russians' which deservedly had the hatred of the another such entity called 'The Chechens', and you responded that 'The Russians' ought be killed until they got the message.

No mention of armies, nor invading forces. Just racist bullshit.

Quoting Isaac

neomac's flase claim that there was some contiguous entity called 'The Russians' which deservedly had the hatred

Never made such claim. You need to creatively rephrase my claims to make a point, otherwise you would quote me. I'm responsible for what I write not for what you understand.
Besides my or Olivier's position would still be plausible, even if it were false or racist as you claim.
So for what reason are you insulting me or Olivier? Besides you support humanitarianism, insults are a form a psychological violence, which doesn't sound as supportive of human wellbeing.

Quoting ssu

And let's not forget that his daughter (presumable killed by the Ukrainian intelligence services trying to kill him)

But we can't exclude that either:
Russian political analyst Dmitry Babich shed doubt on Dugin being the target, saying that Darya was “more popular than her father” at the time of the incident. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/8/23/will-darya-duginas-killing-influence-the-russia-ukraine-war

Quoting neomac

You need to creatively rephrase my claims to make a point, otherwise you would quote me.

I did quote you. That's what the quote function does. People can read the full posts, they're linked to the quote in question for that reason. I'm not re-pasting the entire discussion.

We were clearly talking about national identities. Anyone can read as much from simply looking back over the posts that have been linked to by the quote function.

Quoting neomac

Besides my or Olivier's position would still be plausible, even if it were false

So? I don't give a shit about plausible. I'm talking about racism. I'm talking about the perpetuation of the notion that there are distinct 'ethnic groups' of humans who have characteristics which are inherited, who can be held responsible for the crimes of their previous generations, who can be seen as more likely to repeat those crimes, who can be 'taught a lesson' as if en masse.

In short, the kind of racism you're peddling here with your stories about how 'Chechens' or 'Ukrainians' have been oppressed for generations by 'Russians'.

All the people involved in the Holodomor are dead. All the people involved in the Caucasian War are dead. Virtually all the people involved in Operation Lentil are dead. The current crop of people living in Russia, Ukraine, Chechnya have nothing whatsoever to do with those crimes - they're not responsible for them, they're not 'ethnically' more likely to commit them again, they're not genetically predisposed to that sort of thing. They are utterly irrelevant. Bringing them up perpetuates exactly the kind of ethnic animosity that drives these wars. It's disgusting.

Quoting SophistiCat

Such was the case with Communist, Fascist and Islamist regimes, but "Putinism" doesn't have this pedigree.

There might be differences, yet I’m not sure if they are enough to support your claim. The expression “Putinism” would be more insightful if it referred to distinctive/identifiable Putin’s ideological beliefs that he promotes and make a difference with his socio-cultural environment’s, but your claim that Putinism consists in “mining old tropes for ready appeal” doesn’t seem to support that, it simply suggests that Putin’s not an original ideologue. And even if, as you suggest, Putin’s motivations were cynical and not genuine by exploiting the nationalist/imperialist tropes, I wouldn’t qualify a regime “ideological” based on the honesty of its leader (and assumed it's clear what "ideological regime" is as opposed to "non-ideological regime").

Quoting Isaac

I did quote you. That's what the quote function does. People can read the full posts, they're linked to the quote in question for that reason. I'm not re-pasting the entire discussion.

Quote the original claim of mine where I stated "there was some contiguous entity called 'The Russians' which deservedly had the hatred of...", you liar.

Quoting Isaac

Not what I asked.

You ask disingenuous questions. You know perfectly well that I meant Russians forces in Ukraine and their allies, not the population of Vladivostok, Moscow or St Petersburg.

Quoting Isaac

So? I don't give a shit about plausible. I'm talking about racism

So is racism plausible or not?

Quoting Isaac

They are utterly irrelevant

Is this a factual claim or a prescription?

Quoting Isaac

It's disgusting.

I find seafood disgusting others don't. But I don't insult people for that nor object against that. Even if I managed to prove that they indeed like seafood.

Quoting Isaac

I don't understand how any of that is a response to the point I was making.

So you don't understand what you quote in your own messages?

Quoting Isaac

https://www.nobelpeaceprize.org/articles/nobel-peace-prize-for-2022

Putin started his career extremely likely with a false flag operation killing ordinary Russians, perpetrated what could be said to be a genocidal war in Chechnya, has been against any grass roots organizations like the Memorial. And then has started this mindless war that surely will kill a lot of people more.

And for Russia to lose the unfortunate fact is that Russian soldiers are going to die. But it's not Russian civilians. Ukraine isn't making retaliatory strikes against civilian targets in Russia as Russia is doing in Ukraine.

Quoting neomac

Quote the claim of mine where I stated "there was some contiguous entity called 'The Russians' which deservedly had the hatred of..."

There's no such claim, it was a long discussion. I'm not citing the entirety of it again. As I said, people can read it from the links in the quotes provided.

Quoting Olivier5

You know perfectly well that I meant Russians forces in Ukraine and their allies, not the population of Vladivostok, Moscow or St Petersburg.

Then what you said was completely irrelevant, as shown by the context I provided. The discussion started with a comment about how 'Ukrainians' deserved a say in the control of Donbas. I disputed that such a group existed with that right. If you just want to spout off more virtue signalling about how much you dislike what the Russian forces are doing, do it in someone else's discussion, don't respond to me to do it.

Quoting neomac

So is racism plausible or no?

You have to ask?

Quoting neomac

It's disgusting. — Isaac


I find seafood disgusting others don't. But I don't insult people for that nor object against that.

Seriously? You think a dislike of racism is akin to a dislike of seafood?

Quoting ssu

Putin started his career extremely likely with a false flag operation killing ordinary Russians, perpetrated what could be said to be a genocidal war in Chechnya, has been against any grass roots organizations like the Memorial. And then has started this mindless war that surely will kill a lot of people.

And for Russia to lose the unfortunate fact is that Russian soldiers are going to die. But it's not Russian civilians. Ukraine isn't making retaliatory strikes against civilian targets in Russia as Russia is doing in Ukraine.

So?

What has any of that got to do with the discussion about the realism of ethnic groups?

Quoting ssu

Is he banned from Russian television?

I'm not so sure how much Dugin's star has faded as his speeches is quite well taken now as there is a war between Russia and Ukraine.

Yeah, I think Dugin is still in the doghouse for whatever reason. He used to have his own program, appeared on panel discussions and such. Not any more. Doesn't hold any prominent academic positions either.

Quoting ssu

And let's not forget that his daughter (presumable killed by the Ukrainian intelligence services trying to kill him) is now a martyr for the Russian side in this war. Obviously not the smartest moves that Ukrainians have done as Dugin is a civilian. But I guess an easier target than lawful targets as military commanders.

That was a very strange affair.

Quoting Isaac

What has any of that got to do with the discussion about the realism of ethnic groups?

Mr Strawman inventing his own topics of the discussion, it seems.

Quoting Isaac

There's no such claim

Then this claim of yours is a lie: neomac's false claim that there was some contiguous entity called 'The Russians' which deservedly had the hatred of because I never made such a claim, and you knew that.

Quoting Isaac

You have to ask?

Should I ask again? I want you to state what you claim to be plausible or implausible, so I can quote you, and not creatively rephrase claims as you do.

Quoting Isaac

You think a dislike of racism is akin to a dislike of seafood?

I think that you do not have the conceptual tools to make such distinction rationally compelling for the discussion at hand.

Quoting ssu

Mr Strawman inventing his own topics of the discussion, it seems.

You can read the discussion from here if you're confused

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/752250

Quoting neomac

Then this claim of yours is a lie: neomac's false claim that there was some contiguous entity called 'The Russians' which deservedly had the hatred of because I never made such a claim, and you knew that.

I said...

Quoting Isaac

There's no such claim, it was a long discussion. I'm not citing the entirety of it again. As I said, people can read it from the links in the quotes provided.

If you dislike people selecting partial quotes to make a point you might want to set a better example.

Quoting neomac

I think that you do not have the conceptual tools to make such distinction rationally compelling for the discussion at hand.

What?

Quoting Isaac

The discussion started with a comment about how 'Ukrainians' deserved a say in the control of Donbas. I disputed that such a group existed with that right. If you just want to spout off more virtue signalling about how much you dislike what the Russian forces are doing, do it in someone else's discussion, don't respond to me to do it.

"Virtue signaling" is just another name for ethics.

If there is no such group as "the Russians", then how is it even possible to speak of anti-Russian racism?

Quoting Isaac

If you dislike people selecting partial quotes to make a point you might want to set a better example.

You didn't quote me. Neither selectively nor entirely. Besides what is the partial quote I made of you that you find so problematic wrt what I claim against you? And why?

Quoting Isaac

What?

You play dumb and argue in an intellectually uncooperative way. Your position is embarrassingly self-defeating at any level one wants to see it.

Quoting Olivier5

"Virtue signaling" is just another name for ethics.

No it isn't. Look it up.

Quoting Olivier5

If there is no such group as "the Russians"

I never claimed there's no such group. My claims are of the form "there's no such group as "the Russians", which...". It's about the properties of any such group. The group 'the Russians' shares the property of having Russian passports. No other.

Quoting neomac

You didn't quote me. Neither selectively nor entirely.

That's right. One cannot 'quote' the entirety of a discussion. I cannot 'quote' your entire position. I paraphrase it supported by selected quotes. It completely normal procedure, exegeses are not composed entirely of quotes.

Reply to Isaac no you wrote "neomac's false claim that there was some contiguous entity called 'The Russians' which deservedly had the hatred of...". I never made such a claim.
A discussion is not my claim, and your exegesis of what I claimed in a discussion is not my claim. Period. And that's important to expressly acknowledge precisely because your exegesis might be pretty shitty. And that's not the first time I (and others) noticed it. You are prone to strawman your interlocutors.

Quoting neomac

A discussion is not my claim, and your exegesis of what I claimed in a discussion is not my claim. Period. And that's important to expressly acknowledge precisely because your exegesis might be pretty shitty.

Of course. The solution is to correct that shitty exegesis, not demand proof of it. Thus isn't an exam, it's a discussion. If my exegesis is incorrect, just correct it.

Quoting neomac

And that's not the first time I (and others) noticed it. You are prone to strawman your interlocutors.

People's propensity to use accusations of this sort to avoid uncomfortable arguments is neither here nor there. I doubt there's a single person on this forum who hasn't been accused of strawmanning or similar rhetorical devices. Certainly everyone that has accused me of it has also been accused of it themselves in turn. It's quite a common trick. A rhetorical device, ironically, that, despite being extremely common, people seem to think is very clever and conclusive.

Quoting Isaac

The solution is to correct that shitty exegesis, not demand proof of it. Thus isn't an exam, it's a discussion. If my exegesis is incorrect, just correct it.

Yes that's how you shift the burden of proof on your interlocutor. It's always your opponent that must catch up to whatever bullshit you claim about them. This is your rhetoric trick. An intellectually miserable one.


Quoting Isaac

A rhetorical device, ironically, that, despite being extremely common, people seem to think is very clever and conclusive.

I have enough evidence of that. And don't expect the liar to admit his own lies.

Keep insulting people, dude, that's the best argument you can offer to support your humanitarian goals.

Quoting Isaac

I never claimed there's no such group. My claims are of the form "there's no such group as "the Russians", which...". It's about the properties of any such group. The group 'the Russians' shares the property of having Russian passports. No other.

So do Russians exist or not?

Quoting Isaac

I never claimed there's no such group. My claims are of the form "there's no such group as "the Russians", which..."

So your claims are like "there's no such group as "the Russians", which..." share the property of having Russian passports.

But then you claim also:
Quoting Isaac

The group 'the Russians' shares the property of having Russian passports.

Reply to Isaac I could ask for a minimum level of truthfulness and conceptual clarity, but that'd be asking too much.

If a group exists, called the Russians, and defined by their nationality, is that a bad thing because hey, nationalism is caca?

Quoting Isaac

I'm not hand-holding you both through this, you have to meet a minimum standard of comprehension.

What is there to comprehend? You have no clue what you are talking about.

If Russian warships are attacked in the present war, then Ukrainian food bound for various places will be blocked or worse, with food shortages to follow.

U.S. accuses Russia of "weaponizing food" after halting Ukraine grain exports (Axios; Oct 30, 2022)

The logic seems clear enough, yes? Putin values the warships being intact (untouchable) more than he values those people getting food. To me, that doesn't seem approachable as such, though he should be (regularly). What's next? Hold food hostage for Kyiv (London, Tampa Bay)?

https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1686181/moscow-politician-says-russia-should-denazify-baltics-and-poland

Quoting Olivier5

If a group exists, called the Russians, and defined by their nationality, is that a bad thing because hey, nationalism is caca?

Do I seriously have to explain racism to you.

"Black people have dark skin" - fine.
"Black people are all criminals" - not fine.

"Russians have Russian passports" - fine.
"Russians oppress Chechens" - not fine.

"Roma mostly come from Europe and Anatolia" - fine.
"Roma are all drug addicts" - not fine.

"Russians mostly speak Russian" - fine.
"Russians are responsible for the atrocities of 50 years ago because they live in the same place" - not fine.

This really isn't the place for this, there are courses you can go on if you need help.

Reply to Isaac

Your logical acumen is very poor.

"Russians oppress Chechens" doesn't have the logical form of "Black people are all criminals" or "Roma are all drug addicts" (notice the use of the quantifier "all").
"Russians oppress Chechens" (like “tigers are striped”, “ducks lay eggs”, and “ticks carry Lyme disease”) is a generic proposition which does not carry information about how many members of a given group have the alleged property, therefore it can not be reduced to a quantified (e.g. universal) proposition.

Reply to neomac

Fucksake, it's not about the fucking numbers. Even if some black people are criminals it's not OK to say "blacks are criminals"

A coincidentally topical piece by David Bromwich in The Nation

Ukraine is a country we are just getting to know. What is more important is to hate Russia: an emotion in which Americans have been well trained. Media workers and the experts they interview, one notices, can’t help stumbling occasionally: “the Soviet Union – I mean, Russia.” A history of contempt takes us back to an entity at once exotic and primitive, suspended in time and space.

Eight years later, in his column on October 7, Will averred that “the behavior of the Russian army in Ukraine demonstrates…a centuries-old continuity: a culture of cruelty.” The reports of atrocities in Bucha are now proof of “Russia’s endemic cruelty” – in short, to be Russian is to be cruel. The diagnosis is medical: “Putin’s Russia has a metabolic urge to export its pathologies.” But consider now the implications of the “metabolic urge.” It resembles what used to be said about the desire by men of the darker races for white women – that, too, was an ingrained and irresistible reflex. Combine the biological tinge of this amateur analysis with the word “endemic” and you are inhabiting a well-known frame of mind: nation-as-race, race-as-virus. There were people in the 1930s who called the Jews a “bacillus.” Hatred is an extraordinary passion.

Quoting Isaac

Even if some black people are criminals it's not OK to say "blacks are criminals"

Generics can be used to convey or suggest racial stereotypes and incentivize forms of social discrimination, but the claims I (and others) made here about "Russians" (like "Russians oppressed Ukrainians" or "Russians are oppressing Ukrainians") are not meant to convey nor suggest such racial stereotypes, and related forms of social discrimination. Those generics must be understood in the historical, military, cultural and political context I (and others) have specified. If you are intellectually blind to such uses, that's your problem: "you have to meet a minimum standard of comprehension" to sound rationally compelling.

https://www.spisok-putina.org/en/about-the-project/

The project aims to gather information related to persons of the following categories:

• The “POWER-HOLDERS” of Russia, who seized and unlawfully hold power in the country;
• The “EXECUTORS”, who, as public servants and MPs, directly implement the Kremlin’s policy of felonious retention of power in the country;
• The “TRANSGRESSORS”, from among the judges, prosecutors, investigators, lawyers, law enforcement officers and their agents responsible for the direct implementation of the repression and prosecution of the opposition;
• The “AGGRESSORS”, who are responsible for carrying out the policies of war, occupation and chaos against other countries, in violation of international law, in the political interests of the leadership of the country;
• The “BENEFICIARIES”, foreign partners of the Russian government who contribute to the implementation of its felonious plans to undermine international law and global peace, justice and democracy.
• The “OLIGARCHS AND CORRUPT OFFICIALS”, who are responsible for plundering Russia on a state-wide scale, by direct membership in the Russian government or proximity to it through relatives and other proxies;
• The “PROPAGANDISTS”, who are responsible for creating and disseminating state information, deliberately deceiving people in the interests of the political leadership and creating an atmosphere of widespread hatred and intolerance;
• The “ACCOMPLICES”, who reap personal profit from cooperation with government authorities, to the detriment of the interests of the country and its citizens;

https://www.spisok-putina.org/en/personas/

Quoting Isaac

"Russians have Russian passports" - fine.

But then it follows that there is a set as "all the Russians". Like, a nation of Russians.

But if such a nation exists, and legitimately so, what's wrong with nations, exactly?

Reply to Isaac

:up:

Reply to Isaac

Very accurate and quite scary quotes, even some comparisons of Russia to Nazi Germany and the like.

Again, very reminiscent of how mass propaganda was discovered in WWI, turning an isolationist nation to a war crazy society in a short amount of time.

And we still have to say, that what Russia is doing to Ukraine is criminal. Because that's not obvious. If we survive this, be ready for the demonization of China, which has been developing a good deal since Trump and not slowing down with Biden.

Quoting jorndoe

The logic seems clear enough, yes? Putin values the warships being intact (untouchable) more than he values those people getting food. To me, that doesn't seem approachable as such, though he should be (regularly). What's next? Hold food hostage for Kyiv (London, Tampa Bay)?

One of the way how navies fight is to create a blockade against the enemy country. And naturally that is against all shipping to and from the country. Russian navy can perform this from out of the reach of Ukrainian missiles and drones. Yet the Sevastapol naval base is in reach of Ukrainian weapons.

Quoting neomac

the claims I (and others) made here about "Russians" (like "Russians oppressed Ukrainians" or "Russians are oppressing Ukrainians") are not meant to convey nor suggest such racial stereotypes, and related forms of social discrimination.

As I said. Lazy racism is not an improvement on carefully thought out racism. Absolutely nothing that happens today is justified by the actions of people from generations past, or those who happen to share a passport. No wars, no animosity, no ethnic violence...nothing.

There's no "historical, military, cultural and political context" in which becomes OK to extend the crimes of some people to all who happen to share a passport, just as there's no "historical, military, cultural and political context" in which it would ever become OK to say "Blacks are criminals, or "Jews are greedy".

There's no "historical, military, cultural and political context" in which the oppression of some people who happened at the time to be Ukrainian by some people who happened at the time to be Russian has any justificatory weight whatsoever on decisions made today about the current group of people who happen to be Ukrainian and the current groups of people who happen to be Russian. They are completely different groups of people.

Quoting Isaac

Lazy racism

Define "lazy racism", lazy boy.

Quoting Isaac

There's no "historical, military, cultural and political context" in which becomes OK to extend the crimes of some people to all who happen to share a passport,

Quote me where I claimed that. What is "extend the crimes" supposed to mean?

Quoting Isaac

There's no "historical, military, cultural and political context" in which the oppression of some people who happened at the time to be Ukrainian by some people who happened at the time to be Russian has any justificatory weight whatsoever on decisions made today about the current group of people who happen to be Ukrainian and the current groups of people who happen to be Russian. They are completely different groups of people.

People may be different. But culture and national identity may still be the same. You are just repeating your moral claims, not making them more rationally compelling.

Quoting Olivier5

what's wrong with nations, exactly?

Nothing. Who said there was anything wrong with nations? They're a very efficient means of administering (hopefully) enfranchised populations. Same for electoral districts of any size. A very pragmatic solution to the problem of representation.

Nationalism is not the mere acknowledgement that nations exist. Do I have to explain nationalism too?

Quoting Isaac

Nationalism is not the mere acknowledgement that nations exist. Do I have to explain nationalism too?

Why not? Do you have interesting lies to share about it?

To my mind, it's hard to have nations without borders, and hence without getting occasional wars over these borders.

Quoting Manuel

Again, very reminiscent of how mass propaganda was discovered in WWI, turning an isolationist nation to a war crazy society in a short amount of time.

And we still have to say, that what Russia is doing to Ukraine is criminal. Because that's not obvious. If we survive this, be ready for the demonization of China, which has been developing a good deal since Trump and not slowing down with Biden.

Yes, it's truly terrifying. What I think is most frightening about it is that there's so much less human involvement in social narratives these days. Algorithms polarise viewpoints then the political classes respond to the newly polarised viewpoints to push their agendas and under pressure, those same companies who run the algorithms then censor content according to the whims of the very veiwpoints their own algorithms created. As Katie Paul at Reuters put it recently "driven as much by business considerations and news cycles as by principle". Meta algorithms make the news cycles, then Meta censoring staff respond to them as if they were naturally occurring features of society.

Quoting Olivier5

To my mind, it's hard to have nations without borders, and hence without getting occasional wars over these borders.

If you have anything to say about nationalism then why not join the conversation? Otherwise I'm not sure what your rambling on about the practicality and consequences of having borders has to do with anything being discussed.

Reply to IsaacSo when Russian army has done atrocities, then accuse of those being racists who point these out?

Talking about "Russian endemic cruelty" is wrong as if it was some genetic issue for Russians, however there is no overcoming the fact that Russia hasn't had a democracy as we have in the West and it's a police state, not a justice state. There are plenty of Russians that have moved to the West to show that Russians are quite the same to us. Yet what is typical for the West is that atrocities like My Lai or Abu Ghraib do create an outrage, whereas in Russia those Russians pointing these things out, they are killed and organizations banned, as was with the Memorial -organization (which for some unknown reason @Isaac quoted).



The fact is that the Russian armed forces is a direct descendant of the Soviet Army and hardly has had much actual reform. And Putin's dictatorship has shown it really doesn't care about issues like the laws of war. The only thing that actually will decrease this is the nature of the war being a conventional one with front lines as the whole country isn't the battlefield for the ground forces.

(From the Chechen War)


The fact is that many Russians are totally similar to us and would want Russia to be a democracy and a justice state, however once you have this kind of system, that system and it's violence prevails. People are one thing, the system and how the government operates is another. Hence it was quite easy to anticipate that similar actions that happened Chechnya or Syria would also happen in Ukraine.

Hence Isaac's pathetic racism card is one of these attempts to draw the focus away from this war and what Putin is doing in Ukraine and to get to what he is really enthusiastic about: to blame the West.

Reply to Isaac My point is that, in spite of all your facile rambling about flags and borders, you can come up with no actual alternative on how to govern human affairs.

Reply to Olivier5 he doesn't care about human affairs, it's human affairs that ought to care about him !

Quoting ssu

So when Russian army has done atrocities, then accuse of those being racists who point these out?

Yes.

The claim I disputed was...

Quoting neomac

Others do. Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars and Chechens lament centuries of oppression and/or persecution from Russia.

In support of the claim that...

Quoting neomac

if Russians mange to annex and see acknowledged the Donbas regions, it's likely that the Russians living there are not going to suffer from alleged genocide and persecutions for generations to come.

It's absolutely racist to suggest there's any link whatsoever between past war crimes ("generations" ago) and a current or future propensity to commit war crimes on the basis of shared nationality.

That's exactly the claim that was being made. It's a racist claim. It's nothing whatsoever to do with merely "pointing out" war crimes. It's pointing out past war crimes and additionally saying that because they were committed by Russians they have some bearing on the likelihood of future Russians committing similar crimes.

What followed was a load of nationalistic horse shit designed to double-down on a position which should have just been dropped.

Quoting ssu

The fact is that many Russians are totally similar to us and would want Russia to be a democracy and a justice state, however once you have this kind of system, that system and it's violence prevails. People are one thing, the system and how the government operates is another. Hence it was quite easy to anticipate that similar actions that happened Chechnya or Syria would also happen in Ukraine.

So now explain how simply moving the geographic location of this monstrously awful system in any way makes the world a better place.

Quoting Olivier5

you can come up with no actual alternative on how to govern human affairs.

Why would I need to come up with an alternative? I think dividing the world into lines of nations and electoral districts is an excellent way of administering representative democracy.

I think sending thousands of men, women, and children to their bloody deaths over where those lines are is absolute fucking insanity, and cheerleading such reckless inhumanity from the sidelines is morally decrepit.

Quoting Isaac

I think sending thousands of men, women, and children to their bloody deaths over where those lines are is absolute fucking insanity

And yet you can understand the UK resistance to Nazi Germany. So what gives?

Quoting ssu

The fact is that the Russian armed forces is a direct descendant of the Soviet Army and hardly has had much actual reform.

Quoting ssu

once you have this kind of system, that system and it's violence prevails.

You do realise both Ukraine and Chechnya were part of that same system, right?

So is it impossible to change, or isn't it? Ought we be suspicious of ex-soviet systems or oughtn't we?

It's all just convenient narrative building. When you want to justify anti-Russian racism you'll claim that systemic institutionalised attitudes are unlikely to change...

So what about Azov?

Oh no, Azov only used to be brutal neo-nazis, they've all changed now. New narrative, new rules. Now it's super easy for a brutal institution to change its ways overnight... Because it's convenient for your preferred narrative.

Quoting Olivier5

And yet you can understand the UK resistance to Nazi Germany. So what gives?

We've already talked about that. You embarrassed yourself by claiming that the difference between Nazi Germany and 1930s England was about the same as that between Donbas and Russia. I don't see the point in putting you through that again.

Even with Nazi Germany we attempted a peaceful rearrangement of borders first. As was entirely right. Hindsight bias is a curse.

Quoting Isaac

We've already talked about that.

We have, but you haven't. Why was the UK resistance to Nazi Germany not an "absolute fucking insanity"?

Quoting Olivier5

Why was the UK resistance to Nazi Germany not an "absolute fucking insanity"?

1. Parts of it were. The bombing of Dresden was a disgrace.
2. We'd tried a peaceful resolution to the border disagreements, it hadn't worked.
3. We'd previously promised to defend Poland (again, in an attempt to avoid war), we then did.
4 England at the time was a fully fledged democracy and had been for decades. Germany was an open dictatorship with openly racist agendas.
5 Hitler's invasion of Poland wasn't a stage in a protracted civil war with Pro-Nazi insurgents in Poland.
6 We now know that some of Hitler's intent (and practice) with regards to concentration camps was known to the allies. Concentration camps (and the like) are industrialised killing. One of the few methods of genocide which have a faster kill rate than war. Going to war to prevent genocide, on that scale, may be appropriate simply by necessity.

The details are not important. I might be wrong about 1938. I'm not an historian. The relevant issue is that whether there was an alternative means to achieve the same humanitarian goal determines whether a war is just. The borders are still irrelevant, it's about preventing the people within them suffering harms. If the only way to do that is war, then war is just.

Reply to Isaac Quoting Isaac

2. We'd tried a peaceful resolution to the border disagreements, it hadn't worked.

So have we with the 2 Minsk agreements

Quoting Isaac

3. We'd previously promised to defend Poland (again, in an attempt to avoid war), we then did.

We are helping Ukraine protect itself, and ourselves by the same occasion.

Quoting Isaac

4 England at the time was a fully fledged democracy and had been for decades. Germany was an open dictatorship with openly racist agendas.

Funny that you'd call it "England", an ethnic term, rather than the UK. In any case, at the time what was at war with Germany was not a democracy by any measure, but an empire, the British Empire, which had its fair share of concentration camps and racially-based apartheid.

Moreover, Russia today is a dictatorship with an obviously racist agenda.

Quoting Isaac

5 Hitler's invasion of Poland wasn't a stage in a protracted civil war with Pro-Nazi insurgents in Poland.

So Hitler was less prone than Putin to entice civil wars in neighbouring countries. So what?

Quoting Isaac

6 We now know that some of Hitler's intent (and practice) with regards to concentration camps was known to the allies. Concentration camps (and the like)

The death camps became known only much after and were never a motive for the war.

It seems that according to you, some nations (the English, the Russians) exist and have a right to self-defense, while some others (the Ukrainians) do not.

Quoting Isaac

You do realise both Ukraine and Chechnya were part of that same system, right?

Yes, and both are targets of Russian imperialism. With the case of Chechnya it was trying to free itself from the Russian federation. Yet Chechnya was colonized only in the 19th Century to Russia.

Quoting Isaac

So is it impossible to change, or isn't it? Ought we be suspicious of ex-soviet systems or oughtn't we?

As surely as peaceful the Germans are today, Russia and Russia can surely be a democracy that doesn't have imperial ambitions. But Putin's dictatorship has those, which you cannot deny or just brush aside as you try to do.

The Baltic States are also ex-Soviet, and have managed pretty well to create democracies. They aren't ruled by dictators.

Quoting Isaac

It's all just convenient narrative building.

No it's not. Your are just making hapless attempts to portray others as racists in a quite futile way.

Quoting Isaac

So what about Azov?

Oh no, Azov only used to be brutal neo-nazis, they've all changed now. New narrative, new rules.

Again nonsense. There was a fear just where would Ukraine be going when you had the Right-sector winning in elections prior to the Revolution 2014 and the far right's participation in the Maidan revolution raised concerns (which obviously Russia used for propaganda purposes). Yet the extreme-right suffered a defeat in the elections in 2014 (which the Russian propagandists forget) and afterwards there have been other administrations.

Quoting Olivier5

So have we with the 2 Minsk agreements

They're not the same, and they don't relate to the 2022 invasion.

Quoting Olivier5

We are helping Ukraine protect itself, and ourselves by the same occasion.

But we didn't declare that we would in advance as a means of preventing the war.

Quoting Olivier5

at the time what was at war with Germany was not a democracy by any measure, but an empire, the British Empire, which had its fair share of concentration camps and racially-based apartheid.

Nonsense. England was a full democracy by any standard that somewhere like Ukraine might be measured, certainly nothing like Germany was at the time - the two were miles apart. As to the British Empire, I agree, but that didn't affect the people living in Europe. The point is purely about how to bring about the best humanitarian ends. Germany was invading Europe, so the question was whether war with Germany was going to bring about better humanitarian ends to the people of Europe than simply agreeing to the change of border. The former would bring way more mass death and destruction than they currently were experiencing, but so would the latter. In the case of Ukraine, it's not so clear. War to move the de facto border back again will bring way more mass death and destruction than they were experiencing, but it's nowhere near so clear that simply moving the border would.

Quoting Olivier5

Russia today is a dictatorship with an obviously racist agenda.

No it isn't. It's an authoritarian democracy where the leader is able to manipulate election results. It has no specified racist agenda.

Quoting Olivier5

So Hitler was less prone than Putin to entice civil wars in neighbouring countries. So what?

So it makes our intervention much more justified. Virtually 100% of Poland did not want to be ruled by Hitler. This is not so in cases of civil war. We should not intervene on one side or the other of civil war (other than for humanitarian reasons) because by it's very nature the people there are divided.

Quoting Olivier5

The death camps became known only much after and were never a motive for the war.

You don't know what the motives are and no, the death camps were not know about much after. Hitler was actually being arranged for war crimes by 1944.

Quoting ssu

Yes, and both are targets of Russian imperialism. With the case of Chechnya it was trying to free itself from the Russian federation. Yet Chechnya was colonized only in the 19th Century to Russia.

So? Both were soviet systems. You said the system couldn't change. It did.

Quoting ssu

Russia and Russia can surely be a democracy that doesn't have imperial ambitions. But Putin's dictatorship has those, which you cannot deny or just brush aside as you try to do.

Right, so there's absolutely no justification behind @neomac's claim about "generations" of abuse in future. Russian are perfectly capable and likely to change regime-type and approach to war. Other ex-soviet regimes have done so. There's therefore no reason whatsoever to assume that Donbas in Russian hands would yield "generations" of abuse.

Quoting ssu

he extreme-right suffered a defeat in the elections in 2014 (which the Russian propagandists forget) and afterwards there have been other administrations.

Exactly. You're claiming with Azov that it can (and did) change it's attitudes within the space of a few years, yet you're claiming with the Russian army that the attitudes are systemic and unlikely to change. That's just hypocrisy.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-azov-battalion-mariupol-neo-nazis-b2043022.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30414955

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/09/ukraine-must-stop-ongoing-abuses-and-war-crimes-pro-ukrainian-volunteer-forces/

Quoting Isaac

It's absolutely racist to suggest there's any link whatsoever between past war crimes ("generations" ago) and a current or future propensity to commit war crimes on the basis of shared nationality.

That's exactly the claim that was being made. It's a racist claim. It's nothing whatsoever to do with merely "pointing out" war crimes. It's pointing out past war crimes and additionally saying that because they were committed by Russians they have some bearing on the likelihood of future Russians committing similar crimes.

“Racism”, as I understand it, refers to beliefs (typically unproven) about biological traits (the “race”) which encourage a social discrimination (typically morally questionable). Since I never made claims about Russian “race” or presuppose beliefs about Russian “race”, my claims can not be considered racist. My point is that besides biological traits there are also socio-cultural traits/products/patterns that are shared across individuals and generations (e.g. language, habits, ideologies, historical tropes, administrative organizations, military doctrine, economic infrastructures, nuclear arsenals). Acknowledging their existence, studying them (as social scientists, historians and anthropologists do) and form expectations based on them doesn’t equate to, nor implies, nor suggests the belief that cultural traits/products/patterns are pre-determined by or strictly associated with biology or genetics or phenotypic traits, and therefore it has nothing to do with racism. Even acknowledging that not all socio-cultural traits are perceived as compatible (e.g. Russian authoritarianism as I understand it, is not compatible with Western democracy as I understand it) is racist. And even expressing a deep preference for the latter and rejection of the former can be considered “racist”.
So either you are making a preposterous usage of the word “racism” or you are being intellectually dishonest. Tertium non datur.

Quoting Isaac

Right, so there's absolutely no justification behind neomac's claim about "generations" of abuse in future. Russian are perfectly capable and likely to change regime-type and approach to war. Other ex-soviet regimes have done so. There's therefore no reason whatsoever to assume that Donbas in Russian hands would yield "generations" of abuse.

Capability depends on material and cultural factors that can be geopolitically at stake: ex-soviet regimes have done so, by joining NATO or EU (in around 15 years), not by remaining within the Russian sphere of influence (Russia itself after 30 years has grown more authoritarian and imperialistic).

Quoting neomac

“Racism”, as I understand it, refers to beliefs (typically unproven) about biological traits (the “race”) which encourage a social discrimination (typically morally questionable).

Then I suggest you educate yourself on the matter.

Quoting https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/race-discrimination

In the Equality Act, race can mean your colour, or your nationality (including your citizenship). It can also mean your ethnic or national origins, which may not be the same as your current nationality. For example, you may have Chinese national origins and be living in Britain with a British passport.

Race also covers ethnic and racial groups. This means a group of people who all share the same protected characteristic of ethnicity or race.

A racial group can be made up of two or more distinct racial groups, for example black Britons, British Asians, British Sikhs, British Jews, Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers.

You may be discriminated against because of one or more aspects of your race, for example people born in Britain to Jamaican parents could be discriminated against because they are British citizens, or because of their Jamaican national origins.

Quoting neomac

ex-soviet regimes have done so, by joining NATO or EU (in around 15 years)

Distinguishing correlation and causation is pretty basic stuff. What proof do you have that joining NATO/EU was the cause of the changes and not a consequence of them?

Reply to Isaac I provided this already.

Reply to Isaac
Again if you do not clarify the way you use words (as I did), despite you have been asked to, that's matter of your personal intellectual honesty. And you proved you have none.
Picking a definition from official source provides evidence of a certain usage, sure, but not a universal usage, and certainly I'm not committed to such usage which I find preposterous. For me racism has to do with race, a biological concept, (hence the word "racism") and has to do with discrimination which is morally if not legally questionable. Period.
If you want to extend it to nationality or ethnicity (as non-biological factors) fine but you have to clarify it, since nationality doesn't necessarily imply a correlation with a specific "race" (American is one nationality but not one race) and can be better rendered with the word "xenophobia".
But that's not all. The other key concept is discrimination. Your own source specifies how this is to be intended [1]. Where did I claim we should discriminate Russians in the sense specified by your own source exactly?
Besides your own source doesn't support the claim that nationality or ethnicity is nothing else than having the passport of a given nationality.


[1]

[i]Different types of race discrimination

There are four main types of race discrimination.
Direct discrimination

This happens when someone treats you worse than another person in a similar situation because of your race. For example:

if a letting agency would not let a flat to you because of your race, this would be direct race discrimination

Indirect discrimination

This happens when an organisation has a particular policy or way of working that puts people of your racial group at a disadvantage. For example:

a hairdresser refuses to employ stylists that cover their own hair, this would put any Muslim women or Sikh men who cover their hair at a disadvantage when applying for a position as a stylist

Sometimes indirect race discrimination can be permitted if the organisation or employer is able to show to show that there is a good reason for the discrimination. This is known as objective justification. For example:

a Somalian asylum seeker tries to open a bank account but the bank states that in order to be eligible you need to have been resident in the UK for 12 months and have a permanent address. The Somalian man is not able to open a bank account. The bank would need to prove that its policy was necessary for business reasons (such as to prevent fraud) and that there was no practical alternative

Harassment

Harassment occurs when someone makes you feel humiliated, offended or degraded. For example:

a young British Asian man at work keeps being called a racist name by colleagues. His colleagues say it is just banter, but the employee is insulted and offended by it

Harassment can never be justified. However, if an organisation or employer can show it did everything it could to prevent people who work for it from behaving like that, you will not be able to make a claim for harassment against it, although you could make a claim against the harasser.
Victimisation

This is when you are treated badly because you have made a complaint of race related discrimination under the Equality Act. It can also occur if you are supporting someone who has made a complaint of race related discrimination. For example:

the young man in the example above wants to make a formal complaint about his treatment. His manager threatens to sack him unless he drops the complaint[/i]

Reply to neomac

When you're making up your own definition of racism to avoid the charge you should probably stop digging.

Quoting Isaac

They're not the same, and they don't relate to the 2022 invasion.

So did any diplomacy preceding WW2.

The rest of your post is similar. Just saying no no no without any argument.

If one war was just, then other wars can be just too. Including this one.

Quoting Olivier5

The rest of your post is similar. Just saying no no no without any argument.

What arguments did you provide?

Quoting Olivier5

we with the 2 Minsk agreements

...is not an argument.

Quoting Olivier5

We are helping Ukraine protect itself, and ourselves by the same occasion.

...is not an argument.

Quoting Olivier5

Russia today is a dictatorship with an obviously racist agenda.

...is not an argument.

Quoting Olivier5

The death camps became known only much after and were never a motive for the war.

...is not an argument.

Happy to treat like with like.

Reply to Isaac

Very much so. Heck, we even went so far as to ban Russia Today on YouTube and other platforms. Of course, these can still be reached online. But the idea here being that it is insane to consider how the Russian government (Putin and his allies, essentially) views this issue. Obviously a big mistake, for so called defenders of "free speech". That arises in Europe when it comes to Muslims. Not here.

The Minsk agreements are proof that diplomacy was tried. The rest is similarly obvious.

If one war was just, others can be. Including this one. That's an argument.

Quoting Isaac

When you're making up your own definition of racism to avoid the charge you should probably stop digging.

No I'm not making up my own definition [1]. But the meaning of the word can be stretched depending on context and needs. So if you do not provide your definition (even if I asked), I'll use mine of course. That's why it's matter of intellectual honesty to clarify the terms used when needed.
Besides it doesn't really matter. You didn't prove that I'm racist according to your own definition. You didn't provide any evidence that I support the discrimination of Russians based on their nationality or the possession of the Russian passport.

Congratulations for your epic fail.

[1]
[i]Racism

Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to inherited attributes and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity. Modern variants of racism are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. These views can take the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems in which different races are ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities.[2][4] There have been attempts to legitimize racist beliefs through scientific means, such as scientific racism, which have been overwhelmingly shown to be unfounded. In terms of political systems (e.g. apartheid) that support the expression of prejudice or aversion in discriminatory practices or laws, racist ideology may include associated social aspects such as nativism, xenophobia, otherness, segregation, hierarchical ranking, and supremacism.

While the concepts of race and ethnicity are considered to be separate in contemporary social science, the two terms have a long history of equivalence in popular usage and older social science literature. "Ethnicity" is often used in a sense close to one traditionally attributed to "race", the division of human groups based on qualities assumed to be essential or innate to the group (e.g. shared ancestry or shared behavior). Racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial. According to the United Nations's Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, there is no distinction between the terms "racial" and "ethnic" discrimination. It further concludes that superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust, and dangerous. The convention also declared that there is no justification for racial discrimination, anywhere, in theory or in practice.[/i]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

Quoting Olivier5

The Minsk agreements are proof that diplomacy was tried.

Excellent argument. I should save that one up for anybody arguing that diplomacy hadn't been tried, they'll be absolutely trounced.

Any opinion on my actual argument that restructuring borders hadn't been tried?

Quoting Olivier5

If one war was just, others can be. Including this one. That's an argument.

Another corker. Anyone arguing that this war cannot be just will be absolutely quaking in their boots.

Any thoughts at all on my actual argument that supporting only a military solution is an inefficient and unnecessarily harmful solution to the border dispute?

Quoting Isaac

Distinguishing correlation and causation is pretty basic stuff.

I didn't talk about causation. But since we are at it, tell me what would be the difference between causation and correlation in history and what would count as evidence of causality in history.

Quoting neomac

I didn't talk about causation.

Your claim was...

Quoting neomac

ex-soviet regimes have done so, by joining NATO or EU

X achieves Y by Z.

So how does Z bring Y about if Z doesn't cause Y?

Quoting neomac

what would be the difference between causation and correlation in history

Really? A cause is when some action leads to another, a correlation would be when two actions are related, but one may have resulted in the other or vice versa (the matter being unclear), or the two events are co-caused by a third.

In your example, the Baltic States may have developed more open democracies because they joined NATO/EU, or they may have done because of their own internal political movements and joined NATO/EU as a consequence.

Quoting neomac

what would count as evidence of causality in history.

One event preceding another would help. There being some plausible mechanism by which the former event brings about the latter would be good too. Some documents, speeches, photographs... The usual.

Reply to Manuel

Yeah, It's a question of 'how scared do you want to be' that determines how deep you look.

The recent court filings from the Eric Schmitt lawsuit, reported in The Intercept make a particularly good horror story...

“Platforms have got to get comfortable with gov’t. It’s really interesting how hesitant they remain,” Microsoft executive Matt Masterson, a former DHS official, texted Jen Easterly, a DHS director, in February.

There is ... a formalized process for government officials to directly flag content on Facebook or Instagram and request that it be throttled or suppressed through a special Facebook portal that requires a government or law enforcement email to use.

Used to great effect with the Hunter Biden Laptop story suppression...

According to records filed in federal court, two previously unnamed FBI agents — Elvis Chan, an FBI special agent in the San Francisco field office, and Dehmlow, the section chief of the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force — were involved in high-level communications that allegedly “led to Facebook’s suppression” of the Post’s reporting.

But sure...nothing like that would happen with any of the important issues like war and global health...

DHS’s capstone report outlining the department’s strategy and priorities in the coming years, the department plans to target “inaccurate information” on a wide range of topics, including “the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, racial justice, U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the nature of U.S. support to Ukraine.”

Note here there's no concern whatsoever about disinformation relating to actual US cover-ups Guantanamo, Asange, NSA spying... Just the familiar stories we all know from the last few years...

But it's alright because it's the government intervening, and the government aren't going to lie are they...?

in a bid to influence voters prior to the election, according to former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge. U.S. officials have routinely lied about an array of issues, from the causes of its wars in Vietnam and Iraq to their more recent obfuscation around the role of the National Institutes of Health in funding the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s coronavirus research.

Oh fuck.

Reply to Isaac

It's, in a way a natural evolution of traditional propaganda as developed in the early 20th century. We just so happened to develop the internet, and why wouldn't those power not use this to their advantage?

One of the saving graces for the internet is that, if you know how to use it, you can find very good information, which would otherwise be extremely difficult to obtain.

One must assume "they" (CIA, FB - all these government and corporations) have everything on you in terms of information, and will use that info according to how they see fit.

Wars such as this one provides just more example of such a system on controlled information works.

Quoting neomac

There might be differences, yet I’m not sure if they are enough to support your claim. The expression “Putinism” would be more insightful if it referred to distinctive/identifiable Putin’s ideological beliefs that he promotes and make a difference with his socio-cultural environment’s, but your claim that Putinism consists in “mining old tropes for ready appeal” doesn’t seem to support that, it simply suggests that Putin’s not an original ideologue. And even if, as you suggest, Putin’s motivations were cynical and not genuine by exploiting the nationalist/imperialist tropes, I wouldn’t qualify a regime “ideological” based on the honesty of its leader (and assumed it's clear what "ideological regime" is as opposed to "non-ideological regime").

By "Putinism" I meant, for lack of a better term, the regime that has formed in Russia during Putin's rule. We don't really know what's in Putin's head, and ultimately, that's not what matters most (excepting Putin's biographers). What matters is the character of the regime, and that we can see without the benefit of mindreading.

.

I am genuinely curious to hear what people have to say about the following questions:

• What would be (or have been) the consequences to the Ukrainian people if the Ukrainian state ceded (or had ceded) territory to the Russian state?
• What would be (or have been) the consequences to the Russian people if the Russian state withdrew from occupied Ukrainian territory (or never invaded in the first place)?
• What would be (or have been) the long-term geopolitical consequences if the Ukrainian state ceded (or had ceded) territory to the Russian state?
• What would be (or have been) the long-term geopolitical consequences if the Russian state had withdrew from occupied Ukrainian territory (or never invaded in the first place)?

In another thread, I said:

Quoting _db

A person might prefer to live under a Ukrainian rather than a Russian government, but might also think that they would prefer to live in general; that both governments are bad and that the Ukrainian one is just the lesser evil; that whatever evils come with Russian dominion, that the real potential for torture and death out in the battlefield are worse, etc.

This quote should give some context into why I am asking these questions. I'm not trying to troll here. Tons of people are getting injured and killed and I want to know why this needs to happen.

Reply to _db
Your bullet points of questions refer to a Ukrainian state. A generous portion of the 11,300 comments on this thread concern whether it exists or not. It is lost or found between the interests of Russian and other nations.

When you speak of choosing between lesser or greater evils, the experience of actual war has superseded the calculation of peace bought at the cost of oppression.

How would an accurate response to your set of speculative questions provide a possible way to end the conflict?

Quoting Manuel

It's, in a way a natural evolution of traditional propaganda as developed in the early 20th century. We just so happened to develop the internet, and why wouldn't those power not use this to their advantage?

It is, yes, but there's this element of a polarising effect with social media too that I think classic propaganda had begun to lose. Opinions can get so rapidly built up into 'movements', with so many people relying on only one news source and lay readers being so involved in building stories without checking fact like a journalist might.

I think up to the late 50s newspapers might well have been able to play the role social media plays now, of presenting a relatively polarised narrative (complete with only one side being the 'sensible' one and the other the 'mob'), but in the 60s to 90s I think that position became untenable. We saw a growth of counter-culture movements with intellectual support that presented quite a wide field of options.

That was, in my view, progress against the strength of propaganda, which the rise of social media has reversed. We're now back to the pre-50s era of two opposing narratives on everything (again where one is the 'sensible' one and the other the 'mob'). That should worry us from an analytical perspective, but even without analysis, it should worry us simply on its face that we're back to the situation governments found favourable in the 50s, the height of McCarthyism and cold war nuclear brinkmanship.

Reply to Isaac Are you now saying that this war is just and must be fought, but it'd be nice if someone ALSO tried a little diplomacy?

Well then, we agree.

Quoting Paine

Your bullet points of questions refer to a Ukrainian state. A generous portion of the 11,300 comments on this thread concern whether it exists or not. It is lost or found between the interests of Russian and other nations.

In all four cases @_db refers to 'the state' as the decision-making body. No one is denying the existence of a decision-making body in Russia and Ukraine which has the power to make the unilateral decisions that are mentioned in the questions, nor is the existence of such bodies under any genuine threat on either side. The Ukrainian government definitely exists, no one is denying it and there's no credible threat to their continued existence as a legislative body (despite the individuals therein being under personal threat) that would prevent them from making the decisions in question. Likewise with Russia. So I don't see any difficulty the contention about Ukrainian national integrity would present in answering the questions.

Reply to _db

I think my answers have been given already, but since you asked openly and no one else has replied...

Quoting _db

What would be (or have been) the consequences to the Ukrainian people if the Ukrainian state ceded (or had ceded) territory to the Russian state?

I think this is best answered by the various indices of human development, backed up by reports from the likes of Amnesty and Human Rights Watch. Political freedom would be substantially reduced, and most likely free elections would be curtailed. Relations with the EU obviously stopped (but it's unclear what meaningful effect this would have on the population). Belarus is close as example of a Russian puppet state. Other aspects of human rights - security, health, welfare - would have stayed much the same as the two countries are barely any different in those aspects (both pretty bad), and recent new EU members have seen their social welfare programs crushed by EU/ECB rules.

Additionally now, of course, you have to factor in reconstruction. Ceding territory, that's in the hands of the Russian states, not ceding, it's in the hands of the IMF and the US. The IMF hasn't a very good track record on social welfare in its vassal states, worse that Russia's (which is already bad). But Russia is now in a much worse economic situation, so less capable of splashing out on the kind of infrastructure improvements it put in place when, for example, annexing Crimea.

There's been talk of a Chechnya-like series of ethnic cleansings, but I think the likelihood of such atrocities would depend on the means by which the territory is ceded. If Russia win outright, it's possible (though I still think unlikely). If the territory were ceded as part of a negotiation with global parties involved (UN, US), then I think it's far less likely.

This uncertainty is measured against 1000 casualties every day the war continues and no realistic chance of that ending for at least a year or so, if it ever ends (there'll always be a border and Russia will always be the other side of it). Plus every additional day of war makes the decision about reconstruction costs even harder as Ukraine get into even more debt.

Quoting _db

What would be (or have been) the consequences to the Russian people if the Russian state withdrew from occupied Ukrainian territory (or never invaded in the first place)?

Very little in the latter case (never invaded), but in the former, I'm guessing there'll be fallout in political terms - possibly a loss in Putin's power, which might be a good thing (but we don't know who's waiting in the wings).

Quoting _db

What would be (or have been) the long-term geopolitical consequences if the Ukrainian state ceded (or had ceded) territory to the Russian state?

I think this depends entirely on the method by which the territory is ceded. Had there been a referendum in Donbas, a declaration of independence (even if later leveraged by Russia to gain some degree of political control) and Crimea officially handed over then geopolitically I think the effect would have been negligible. There's been virtually no noticeable effect of Belarus's submission to Russian influence. No effect of the Ossetia, Moldova, Chechnya border disputes. Even the various regime changes in Iraq and Afghanistan have made barely more than a dint in the general trend of global affairs.

If the territory were actually ceded directly to the Russian state I think there'd be more slightly more impact, especially if it were as a result of Ukrainian defeat (a more buoyant Russia might be a more dangerous one).

Quoting _db

What would be (or have been) the long-term geopolitical consequences if the Russian state had withdrew from occupied Ukrainian territory (or never invaded in the first place)?

Virtually nothing - status quo. Perhaps the defeat would topple Putin, but a leader toppled by humiliating defeat is unlikely to yield a more liberal, compromising one. If the only reason Putin goes is because he wasn't strong enough to carry off an invasion we don't even want to think about who's going to replace him.

---

By and large I think the answers all depend heavily on the manner by which the territory is ceded. Planned, negotiated settlement with preferably the involvement on the UN would be best, getting less promising the more we veer toward Russia simply winning it.

One issue of geopolitical impact is the result of either a win or a lose for Russia on destabilising a volatile region now flooded with weapons. Anyone concerned about things like Nuclear weapons in the hands of a dictator like Putin ought be tens times more concerned about the region breaking up Yugoslavia-style into a dozen, nuclear-armed warring regions.

The other thing I'd say that's probably more important, but is treated as a non-issue by the Hawks is the question of what happens next. War is not the only way to bring about regime change.

Quoting Olivier5

Are you now saying that this war is just and must be fought, but it'd be nice if someone ALSO tried a little diplomacy?

No. If you can't understand what I write, there's little point in explaining again.

Quoting Isaac

One event preceding another would help. There being some plausible mechanism by which the former event brings about the latter would be good too. Some documents, speeches, photographs...

Here is the problem: temporal correlation doesn't equate to causality (that's your initial objection, correlation is not causality), the concept of "mechanism" presupposes the notion of "causality" (so back to square one), some (how many?) documents, speeches, photographs can be considered causal factors only if one can prove that there is more than correlation between those factors and what ensued. So I'm asking you again: what would be the difference between causation and correlation in history and what would count as evidence of causality in history? Here is an example: NATO enlargement caused the war in Ukraine (you can choose any alternative example of historical causal explanation that you believe correct). Show me the evidence you have that there is causation and not just correlation. Until then for me you have no clue what you are talking about.


Quoting Isaac

In your example, the Baltic States may have developed more open democracies because they joined NATO/EU, or they may have done because of their own internal political movements and joined NATO/EU as a consequence.

In both cases they achieved that outside the sphere of Russian influence. Even in this scenario, it doesn't matter to me which is cause and which is consequence, the end status is still the same: those states estimated to benefit from joining the West more than from remaining under Russian influence.

Reply to Isaac If you cannot state your own opinion clearly, maybe it's because you have none.

Quoting Isaac

So? Both were soviet systems. You said the system couldn't change. It did.

Yes, if the leaders actually democratize, reform the system and not have the country lead by a dictator. The Baltic states did this. Russia didn't. Belarus didn't. And so on.

Quoting Isaac

Right, so there's absolutely no justification behind neomac's claim about "generations" of abuse in future. Russian are perfectly capable and likely to change regime-type and approach to war. Other ex-soviet regimes have done so. There's therefore no reason whatsoever to assume that Donbas in Russian hands would yield "generations" of abuse.

That regime change has to first happen. And that isn't easy. Otherwise, it doesn't look good. Do you know how long the insurgency lasted after WW2 in the Baltic States. And how long did the abuse afterwards of the Baltic people?

In a similar fashion there's no reason whatsoever to assume the North Koreans couldn't have a democracy and functioning society, just like the South Koreans as they all are Koreans. But for that to happen the regime in the north has to change. And so is in Russia. You simply cannot just treat Russia as totally similar to your own country. Putin Russia will not go down easily, but it surely is trying hard to go off a cliff.

Quoting Isaac

Exactly. You're claiming with Azov that it can (and did) change it's attitudes within the space of a few years, yet you're claiming with the Russian army that the attitudes are systemic and unlikely to change. That's just hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy?

A small battalion of volunteers that then were rearranged to a bigger unit with other units, which then was overrun and surrendered to Russians? And then this poster children of the media (thanks to Russia's nazi arguments) you compare to a whole armed forces organization?

That's simply ludicrous.

You have to understand that basically Russia is an imperialist nation trying to cling on to it's old colonies and conquered countries. Some countries, like Switzerland, can make it quite well as having ethnic minorities, but Russia is basically a country that has conquered these lands and people. And is desperately trying to do that now.

For this reason there has to be a huge regime change in Russia. What basically could do that is a disastrous war. That can lead in the best option for Russia to change. But then a lot should change.

Quoting ssu

You have to understand that basically Russia is an imperialist nation trying to cling on to it's old colonies and conquered countries. Some countries, like Switzerland, can make it quite well as having ethnic minorities, but Russia is basically a country that has conquered these lands and people. And is desperately trying to do that now.

I don't "have to understand" your preferred interpretation at all. You may desperately need me to, but that's your problem, not mine.

The way things seem to you to be is not the same as the way things actually are. That's why discussion platforms like this exist.

I'm pointing out the flaws in your position (the one opposing mine). If you don't want to hear them, or refine your arguments in response to them, then don't post your opinion on a public discussion forum expressly designed for that purpose. Write a blog.

Very interesting article in the NYT, linking Putin's support to Trump's fraudulous election ('Russiagate') to his goals in Ukraine.

... Putin’s assault on Ukraine and his attack on American democracy have until now been treated largely as two distinct story lines. Across the intervening years, Russia’s election meddling has been viewed essentially as a closed chapter in America’s political history — a perilous moment in which a foreign leader sought to set the United States against itself by exploiting and exacerbating its political divides.

Yet those two narratives came together that summer night at the Grand Havana Room. And the lesson of that meeting is that Putin’s American adventure might be best understood as advance payment for a geopolitical grail closer to home: a vassal Ukrainian state. ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/02/magazine/russiagate-paul-manafort-ukraine-war.html

So Trump was just another tool, another Putinista.

Reply to Olivier5 Add to that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_scandal

Reply to Isaac I'm just trying to show how ludicrous your ideas are. Of course that doesn't go through to you, but others might benefit.

Quoting ssu

I'm just trying to show how ludicrous your ideas are. Of course that doesn't go through to you, but others might benefit.

So you're trying to show how ludicrous my ideas are by insisting I "understand" yours? How's that work exactly?

Let me give it a try...

You have to understand that basically Russia isn't really an imperialist nation trying to cling on to it's old colonies and conquered countries. Some countries, like Switzerland, can make it quite well as having ethnic minorities, and although Russia is basically a country that has conquered these lands and people, it's not particularly desperate to do that now.

Hope that's helped everyone.

Oh, I nearly forgot. Here's a random image


So that's that settled.

Reply to Olivier5 When thinking about the Trump administration, one has to remember that:

a) There was Trump
b) There were the "Trump"-people,
c) There were others, that had nothing to do with Trumpism, but Trump picked them...and they stayed for a while, far longer than the pro-Russians like

(Not all in the Trump administration favoured Russia:)


Hence the influence of Paul Manafort (and others) was very brief.

Reply to Isaac Your just a troll, Isaac.

Reply to ssu Trump didn't get away with everything he wanted, let's put it this way. He was still a Putin lapdog.

Quoting Isaac

The Ukrainian government definitely exists, no one is denying it and there's no credible threat to their continued existence as a legislative body (despite the individuals therein being under personal threat) that would prevent them from making the decisions in question.

Perhaps I should have underlined the word "Ukranian." You do not regard that government to be legitimate agents of those people or that they even exist. You say:

Quoting Isaac

There's no such entity as 'the Ukrainians' to even ask.

Whatever agreements made by that government would have to be accompanied by an acceptance by Russia that such a state exists. That is going to take far more than the grudging acceptance of Minsk II because invading the entire country put an end on Ukraine having sovereignty. It is absurd to think one could recognize a government but "fix" their leadership with "denazification."

Quoting Isaac

You have to understand that basically Russia isn't really an imperialist nation trying to cling on to it's old colonies and conquered countries.

Claiming this is the case is a form of denying the existence of the Ukranian state. When discussing Chechnya, you said this about their attempt at independence:

Quoting Isaac

Is Russia entitled to any land at all? Or are we just going to say anything more than a shed outside Moscow is just rampant empire building?

After adding up this subtraction of Ukranian identity to the views put forward by many here that the Ukranian state is merely a proxy for NATO powers, I resubmit the proposal that the thousands of comments on this thread mostly concern whether Ukraine is a nation represented by its present government.

Quoting Olivier5

Trump didn't get away with everything he wanted, let's put it this way. He was still a Putin lapdog.

This is one of those very peculiar and strange things in international politics and really interesting to find out what history will say about this.

At first Trump genuinely seemed like some kind of a sycophant to Putin. That obviously poised the question what the Russians had on Trump. But then again, this is Trump, the most bizarre US President there ever has been, who genuinely was a fanboy of leaders with dictatorial aspirations. Yet the ineptitude of Trump meant that this didn't have any kind of effect on the policies the Trump administration actually did. This ineptitude is forgotten: Trump's lack of genuine leadership skills meant that he was unable to create a cabal that would have gone through for example with an autocoup.

So for example, in the Helsinki-meeting between Trump and Putin Trump suggested a joint-venture to tackle cyberattacks (!), a proposal that was dead immediately. Not to forget the humiliation of Trump say he believed Putin more than his own intelligence services.

Yet Michael Flynn, the ex-national security advisor who urged Trump to use the military to seize ballot machines, was as the advisor for Trump only for 24 days. And this is the norm: the openly pro-Russia people in the Trump sphere were kicked off quite quickly.

Hence Trump basically gave only a scare to NATO, just as the Capitol attack and Trump's actions then did for Democrats.

Yet Trump still does matter. Even today in the war:

(Politico, Oct 11th 2022) The person who can end the war in Ukraine is Donald Trump, according to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

Speaking at a panel event in Berlin, Orbán said that peace talks should not be conducted between Ukraine and Russia, but between the U.S. and Russia, with Trump leading the negotiations on the American side.

Orbán said “the Ukrainians have endless resources because they get all that from the Americans,” arguing that only U.S. military support will allow Ukraine to continue to fight.

Quoting Paine

You do not regard that government to be legitimate agents of those people

Where have I said anything of that nature?

Quoting Paine

You say:

There's no such entity as 'the Ukrainians' to even ask.

That's right. There's no entity which one could justifiably ask about the 'right' apportionment of territory. One might as well ask hat-wearers, or Arsenal fans, or redheads... All perfectly identifiable groupings of people, none of whom (like 'Ukrainians') have any naturally occurring claim to some particular territory.

Quoting Paine

Whatever agreements made by that government would have to be accompanied by an acceptance by Russia that such a state exists. That is going to take far more than the grudging acceptance of Minsk II

Yes, considerably more.

Quoting Paine

invading the entire country put an end on Ukraine having sovereignty.

So invading Afghanistan, invading Iraq, invading Kosovo...these actions all put an end to the sovereignty of those places?

Quoting Paine

It is absurd to think one could recognize a government but "fix" their leadership with "denazification."

Why?

Quoting Paine

Claiming this is the case is a form of denying the existence of the Ukranian state.

What? Claiming Russia isn't imperialist is denying the existence of Ukraine? What the fuck are you on about?

Quoting Paine

After adding up this subtraction of Ukranian identity to the views put forward by many here that the Ukranian state is merely a proxy for NATO powers, I resubmit the proposal that the thousands of comments on this thread mostly concern whether Ukraine is a nation represented by its present government.

You can resubmit it all you like, it isn't a substitute for an actual argument. A Ukrainian government exists which is capable of making unilateral decisions about Ukrainian military action and diplomatic agreements. If you want to deny that, or claim others deny that, you're going to have to do a lot more than vague hand-waiving at some "adding up".

Quoting ssu

Isaac Your just a troll, Isaac.

That is a very insensitive thing to say you fucking biggot... the proper term is internet provocateur (provocateuse for females)

Ahhh shit... this whole Russai-Ukraine thing is getting old fast. I say let Europe burn.

Quoting Isaac

A Ukrainian government exists which is capable of making unilateral decisions about Ukrainian military action and diplomatic agreements

Yes, and the point I was making is that you and Russia don't consider it representative of the people who live there.

Putin's Russia went regressive, downhill.
Not really the best; all those nukes and Kinzhal don't help either, and at the fingertips of a creepy autocrat?
Having gone down that trajectory matters — we take it into consideration when making assessments, important people use it when making decisions.
All the bombing killing destroying shamming re-culturating really doesn't help.
I guess some don't want to get dragged along downhill, and some don't want to implicitly or explicitly assent to (reinforce/encourage/support) the regress.
Why would anyone jump onto a degenerative path/trend (toward an unknown future)?

Quoting Paine

the point I was making is that you and Russia don't consider it representative of the people who live there.

Firstly, it's not a matter of opinion, the Ukrainian government have banned opposition parties, censored opposition press, and have conducted neither referenda, nor elections. They are, by all common standards not currently a democratically representative government.

They are, however, the current incumbents and were voted in by a largely free and fair election, so are the best representatives the Ukrainians currently have.

Where have I said that they don't represent the Ukrainian people?

Notwithstanding that misrepresentation, it doesn't matter one jot for the question that @_db was asking. All that matters for that question is that a body exists which is capable of giving military or diplomatic instruction.

It wouldn't matter if they were a dictatorship, one could still ask if they ought cede territory, or how they ought instruct their military for the good of the population they have legislative power over.

Quoting ssu

interesting to find out what history will say about this.

History will say that he was a Putin lapdog. Because he was.

Quoting jorndoe

I guess some don't want to get dragged along downhill, and some don't want to implicitly or explicitly assent to (reinforce/encourage/support) the regress.
Why would anyone jump onto a degenerative path/trend (toward an unknown future)?

So Russians, in your view, are powerless to prevent this inexorable slide?

The global economy is a highly evolved and finely tuned system with an immeasurable level of complexity necessary to provide a population of close to 8 billion the abundance and cheap essentials: from energy, commodities, to luxury items - we have come to expect.

With over 20% of the world's land mass. It is patently clear that the consequences of removing Russia from this highly tuned global economy - for any length of time - must inevitably cause the existing global economic systems to become unworkable.

This is not the 19th or 20th century. Countries all over the world have, now for several decades, restructured their economies to become specialists in select industries where they possess comparative advantages.

Russia may not be an advanced country but until we can 3D print commodities, the exclusion of Russia from the global economy means a significant reduction in living standards across the world.

What are the odds that pampered westerners will stoically endure this looming impoverishment?

Quoting jorndoe

Putin's Russia went regressive, downhill.
Not really the best; all those nukes and Kinzhal don't help either, and at the fingertips of a creepy autocrat?
Having gone down that trajectory matters — we take it into consideration when making assessments, important people use it when making decisions.
All the bombing killing destroying shamming re-culturating really doesn't help.
I guess some don't want to get dragged along downhill, and some don't want to implicitly or explicitly assent to (reinforce/encourage/support) the regress.
Why would anyone jump onto a degenerative path/trend (toward an unknown future)?

The short answer is that Russia is a police state. There are more political prisoners now in Russia than in the later years of the Soviet Union. A ruinous path can be followed easily.

Putin punched a long time way above his weight limit: made huge gambles and they paid off. Yet those successes made him unable to stop and still keep on gambling. In hindsight it might seem that if Russia would have stopped at just annexing Crimea and not instilling an insurgency in the Donbas, he might have won easily. So why couldn't he stop?

The reason has some similarities to the hypothetical historical scenario if Hitler would have kept his promise to Neville Chamberlain and Chamberlain's declaration of "peace in our time" wouldn't be what it is now, but viewed as one of the greatest achievements of successful diplomacy in history. (Which of course in reality it wasn't, but quite the opposite.)



The simple fact was that the Third Reich and it's armament program was all bent for war. The deficit spending in pre-war Nazi Germany was simply reckless in the long run. Actually it had it's first cracks in 1938 as Schacht had to finance the Mefo-bills by dubious methods forcing banks to buy them. Such an armament program would simply be ruinous for the economy if it would just be in existence in peacetime. All the rhetoric wasn't made for peaceful coexistence. It all had been so easy until it came for Poland. So why stop there the grand project?

Even if Russia's monetary and financial policy is different, In Putin's case the kleptocratic system around him simply cannot create the economic growth that would hurl Russians to a level of prosperity as in the West. GDP per capita is a higher in the Baltic States than in Russia, which were earlier lower. And seeing that the East European countries that have joined the West are far more well off than those who have not is the reason why Ukrainians demonstrated against their government by waving EU flags.



The bad economy would simply be a reason to change the leadership in any democratic nation. And since Putin cannot give economic prosperity, Putin chose the other objective: to make Russia great again and rebuild the lost Empire. That empire building is done by Russia in a defensive manner: all what Russia is doing is defending itself by enlarging itself. As Catherine the Great said: "I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them.”As we have seen from even this thread, some in the West even believe this line from Catherine the Great. That obviously Putin was somehow pushed to invade Ukraine, hence the culprit is the West. That we are critical towards our governments, as people in a democracy should and can be, has lead some to amazing self-flagellation and believe the Russian propaganda.

Hence once on this road, it seems there is no other option for Putin to fight the war to the end or hope the West will get tired of supporting Ukraine. Likely outcome is that this will be ruinous for Russia (as it is for Ukraine). But perhaps Putin might hang in their like Syria's Assad.

Quoting yebiga

What are the odds that pampered westerners will stoically endure this looming impoverishment?

Who cares? The Russian economy is rather small. You think the world economy will tank if we boycott Portugal?

Anyway, on the long term, chances are that the pampered westerners will cry just as loud as the pampered easterners when they suffer and die from climate change-induced famine.

Quoting Olivier5

Who cares? The Russian economy is rather small. You think the world economy will tank if we boycott Portugal?

Portugal btw. was the last Western country to hold on to it's African posessions by fighting colonial wars (in the 1970's) thanks to having a fascist regime. The regime was finally overthrown in the Carnation Revolution and finally Portugal ended it's wars in Africa. Before the revolution the colonial wars both in Angola and Mozambique were draining like 40% of the Portuguese governments budget. (The hasty and immediate retreat of the Portuguese from both countries created unfortunately a void that lead to civil wars in both countries)

Hopefully Russia would have a similar coup?

Reply to Isaac, don't know, except, in principle, no. And "inexorable"? Hope not.

In principle at least, if everyone would just oust the autocrat circle, then new paths would open up. Not likely, could turn wickedly chaotic too.

Better if the Russian justice system was to weigh in for real — here's more conjecture on my part — and charge them with fraud, abuse of power, corruption, (attempted) murder, threats (cause fear of harm), obstruction, shamming, covering things up, illegal money/other acquirements/handling, whatever, for all to see, giving leeway to moderate voices and a process of real and transparent democracy, then things would look up. Could that happen? Well, in principle, yes. How likely...?

But this is speculation, the earlier comment was more like observation.