Ukraine Crisis
The situation in Ukraine is becoming more dire by the minute. NATO is implying Russia is planning to invade Ukraine, whereas Russia denies this. Russia claims it will not allow Ukraine to enter NATO, as this would effectively put a hostile military alliance - NATO - right at the borders of Russia.
There's also political maneuvering going around, with the US never wanting a lack of enemies - soon after the disaster in Afghanistan. And Putin is wanting to shift attention away from pretty bad conditions in Russia do to the COVID pandemic and rising prices.
The situation is quite dire and could escalate into something very, very dangerous.
Here are a few links for those interested:
NATO sends reinforcements to Eastern Europe amid Russia tensions
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/24/nato-sends-reinforcements-to-eastern-europe-amid-russian-anger
Russian naval exercises off Ireland's coast 'not welcome,' says Foreign Minister
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/24/europe/russia-naval-exercise-ireland-intl/index.html
Pentagon reveals number of US troops on higher alert over Ukraine
https://www.rt.com/russia/547231-pentagon-troops-europe-ukraine/
Rising costs of Ukraine gamble could force Russia’s hand
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/24/rising-costs-of-ukraine-gamble-could-force-russias-hand
Let's hope things don't escalate too much more. Welcome 2022...
There's also political maneuvering going around, with the US never wanting a lack of enemies - soon after the disaster in Afghanistan. And Putin is wanting to shift attention away from pretty bad conditions in Russia do to the COVID pandemic and rising prices.
The situation is quite dire and could escalate into something very, very dangerous.
Here are a few links for those interested:
NATO sends reinforcements to Eastern Europe amid Russia tensions
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/24/nato-sends-reinforcements-to-eastern-europe-amid-russian-anger
Russian naval exercises off Ireland's coast 'not welcome,' says Foreign Minister
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/24/europe/russia-naval-exercise-ireland-intl/index.html
Pentagon reveals number of US troops on higher alert over Ukraine
https://www.rt.com/russia/547231-pentagon-troops-europe-ukraine/
Rising costs of Ukraine gamble could force Russia’s hand
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/24/rising-costs-of-ukraine-gamble-could-force-russias-hand
Let's hope things don't escalate too much more. Welcome 2022...
Comments (18084)
That's sounds pretty difficult. Remember that Putin was a KGB member so he knows all the cheats and tricks inside a State. He is surrounded by closer oligarchy friends who would help him anyways, because they got all the wealth thanks to him.
The only way to end with Putin era is on Russian people's shoulders. I know it sounds impossible but the only way of getting rid of a ruler is in a real revolution with the citizens as protagonists
Are his security personnel these oligarchs? Are they rich in the same way? Does he not have security people around him?
As expected, that completely fails to address my point.
1. If Crimea has never been Ukrainian, it is incorrect to say that it belongs to Ukraine.
2. If Crimea was a Russian concern before Putin, then it is incorrect to say that it is Putin's invention.
3. Russia's Black Sea Fleet has always been based in Crimea. If the Black Sea is turned into a NATO lake with NATO members Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, and, potentially, Ukraine and Georgia, controlling the coastline all round, this would represent a threat not only to Russia's Navy, but to its access to the Mediterranean.
Basically, what you are saying is that Russia has no right to be in the Black Sea but NATO countries like Turkey and, through them, America, do! :grin:
Most of the people are surrounded towards him because of fear. It is not as easy as we are debating both you and here in The Philosophy Forum. Probably, Putin was always clever enough to build up a fear atmosphere where nobody has the courage to go against him
Vladimir Putin sits atop a crumbling pyramid of power
by Vladimir Sorokin
Putin’s end goal isn’t Ukraine but western civilization – the hatred for which he lapped up in the black milk he drank from the KGB’s teat
Some excerpts:
Quoting Guardian article
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/27/vladimir-putin-russia-ukraine-power
Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan
That hotbed of radical extremism The Guardian at the time...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict
Quoting SophistiCat
Except, of course that we can completely rule out a coup, apparently.
Quoting SophistiCat
Seriously? "I know this because I read about it". So no-one else has read about it?
Do you think the author here hadn't "read about it"?
https://jacobinmag.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea
...nor here...
https://theconversation.com/far-right-party-jeopardises-ukraines-path-to-democracy-23999
...or here...
https://www.channel4.com/news/kiev-svoboda-far-right-protests-right-sector-riot-police
..none of these journalists have "read about it" like you have. One wonders how they keep their jobs.
Quoting SophistiCat
So to what were they refering when Pyatt said
... the something they need to "do" would be what? More watching and innocent sideline commentary?
And what might Klitschko understand by...
...they're meeting for...?
And what would, on January 30, The State Department’s website announced Nuland’s upcoming travel plans that ”In Kyiv, Assistant Secretary Nuland will meet with government officials, opposition leaders, civil society and business leaders to encourage agreement on a new government and plan of action.” - a month before there was even official calls for one in Ukraine.
Not to mention the aid packages clearly tied to regime change as incentives, like the Billion dollars offered by the US after the coup, but not on the table before.
Or is suspicion not enough? What evidence would be good enough for you? Them just admitting it? A direct bank transfer with "to Ukraine, for ousting pro-Russian Government" written on it? At what level of apparent collusion are you wiling to entertain the theory, what would you need? Because all your naysaying is going to do is render any holding of the government to account toothless. Unless we can hold up the bloodied dagger, they're innocent as the driven snow?
It reaches a point. You can scare people into obedience until they become more scared of the actions of that man than the man himself. When that happens, that man will be dealt with.
From your description, the reasons seem to be to defend America’s global interests, not to “defend” Germany or Europe.
The Warsaw Pact was founded in 1955. NATO was founded in 1949. So the Warsaw Pact couldn’t have been the reason for NATO.
Moreover, the formation of NATO was suggested by assistant state secretary Nelson Rockefeller back in 1945 and one of its stated objectives was “to keep the Germans down”.
In fact, NATO was based on the North Atlantic Treaty and the Atlantic Charter of 1941, and was a product of Anglo-American Atlanticism:
Atlanticism – Wikipedia
The US Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which from 1939 became part of the US administration, was the sister organization of Britain’s Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA).
So, essentially, Atlanticism was an Anglo-American project directed against Germany and Russia from the start, one of its main objectives being to contain Germany and Russia.
As regards the spurious claim that US troops are “defending” Germany and Europe, Europe has a population of 450+ million and an active military personnel of 1+ million.
Russia has a population of only 145 million and an active military personnel of 800,000.
The idea that Europe needs 60,000 US troops to defend itself against Russia is obviously preposterous.
The truth of the matter is that Europe does NOT need America to defend itself against Russia (or anyone else). You have admitted this yourself:
And there are many other questions that remain unanswered, e.g.:
Why doesn’t Germany have nuclear weapons?
Why doesn’t Poland have nuclear weapons?
Why doesn’t Italy have nuclear weapons?
Why doesn’t Spain have nuclear weapons?
Why doesn’t Greece have nuclear weapons?
Why are Britain and France the only European countries with nuclear weapons?
Upon a little reading, it’s not so ludicrous and insane to say far-right Ideological forces are a motivating factor in the war and in Ukrainian politics. It’s good that politics has largely kept the far-right movements out of power, but it is only through capitulation with the Ukrainian state that they haven’t seized it through brute force. These groups are given near impunity from the law.
Their unpopularity in politics means little when looking at their their activities outside of politics. One former Azov commander now serving in their political wing, the National Corps, said “Politics are in the background”. According to him, the war is more important to them than politics, for now. At any rate, it’s not like they have disappeared in the last 8 years. Their strength and sacrifice will gain them political favor in the future.
This is to say nothing of their activity in Ukraine’s military. One recent report described Azov-linked factions have high-ranking military officials in their ranks. Their aim is to build the Armed Forces on a foundation with a “reliable ideological backbone”.
Putin is wrong and his propaganda obvious, and we should reject it. But in doing so we should not legitimize these groups and dismiss their power and influence.
Here's the scary thought.
Three days ago I referred here to the possibility of Russia "escalating to de-escalate". There are already hints of this possibility (or at least it being on the table).
Putin made a quite open threat in his speech earlier and now has raised the level of his nuclear forces. The reason wasn't anything specific. Now the call from Ukraine to negotiate is positive, but it can be also more threats, bullying and demands for territory. We'll see what happens there.
It seems that Putin understands that this is very costly war for him. The best option for him is to have a rapid short war where he can declare he has gained his objectives. If the figures that Ukraine is giving about Russian casualties are even remotely truthful, this war is costing Putin much. Similar losses cannot be taken for months. And it's only been a few days. With now nearly 1000 Ukrainian military targets hit comes the slow slog of urban warfare.
And he'll need now that Russian military later. Germany, the sleeping European giant, has been awaken and it will double it's defense budget immediately. Now over 100 billion euros to defense is much (which obviously many will later point to conveniently forgetting the actual reason for this). And of course we are going to start to see an influx of weapons assistance to Ukraine. This means that a) either Putin has to make peace, b) he has to take the Western border of Ukraine and close the supply routes to the Ukrainian forces or c) scare the Europeans shitless.
And do note that Russia has held military exercises where in the end nuclear weapons have been used to de-escalate the situation and get at least an armstice. It's still unprobable, but for example Medvedev saying that Russian doesn't need relations with the West is alarming.
* * *
Also what should be mentioned is how totally different the attitude of Poland and Hungary are to the Ukrainian refugees. I think it was a great political move from the Ukrainian government to call every man of 18 to 60 years to defend their country. Basically they cannot use everybody, but it's the idea that really counts. This obviously did a lot to warm the hearts of neighboring countries when the refugees coming are women & children and not military aged men. The out pouring of help especially in Poland is notable compared to the hybrid operation that Belarus staged just few months ago.
(Again, under different circumstances, European borders are again open by countries that were reprimanded by closing them earlier)
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2022/feb/25/anti-war-protests-across-russia-in-pictures
Putin's not my head of government, he's not within my sphere of influence. I don't have a plan to deal with him, why on earth would I?
The main thing I've been trying to get across is that analysing the motives and strategies of entire populations from armchairs thousands of miles away is rife with pitfalls, the last thing we should be doing is escalating the situation with half-baked Hollywood storylines.
Christ!
We're supposed to hold our governments to account, not treat them like well intentioned children.
Our governments should be terrified of us, every foot they put wrong should come back to haunt them.
We're not supposed to give them a friendly tut and say "I'm sure you're all doing your best, we'll just wait for the evidence to be a bit stronger before we so much as complain". When exactly do you think that evidence is going to come forward, what mechanism do you think is in place to ensure the full facts about government collusion come to light?
Or is it that you think it unlikely in its face. You can't think of any similar situations in which governments have colluded to install regimes sympathetic to their interests.
Rest assured that none of what is said here will have any influence on the battlefield.
Isn't that precisely what Putin is trying to do, install in Ukraine a government sympathetic to his interests? And you find it disgusting like the rest of us, right?
You said this:
"For any that don't know, that's Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the anti-Semitic Svoboda party, later installed into power by the US."
— Isaac
It's not true and the articles you posted confirm that it's not true. What is the problem with admitting that you misspoke?
Because I don't believe it's not true and I don't believe the articles I posted confirm it's not true. I don't require a bloodied dagger to hold my government and it's allies to account, it's quite sufficient for me that there's a suspicion of collusion and a long history of doing exactly that. I'm not going to tread on eggshells around the most powerful nation on earth lest I accidentally falsley accuse them.
I suggest if the US government are so concerned about being falsely accused of collusion by random internet posters, they should perhaps stop acting like sufficient shitheads to make such an accusation a likely conclusion to leap to.
Why on earth are you so concerned about their honour all of a sudden?
Great, nice to hear that someone agrees that free elections and democracy can work even in Ukraine!
Quoting NOS4A2
I think that Ukrainian officials have tried to contain them. And especially not make them to gang up with Putin's neo-nazis. Likely they wouldn't naturally be pro-Putin, but just be against the Ukrainian government. FSB supports any group that is advantageous to them. Yes, it's confusing. But Russia has been a fervent supporter of far-right movements, which becomes hilarious when you think of nazism and Russia.
Just ask yourself, if it would be the US government that would be in disarray (as Ukraine was in 2014), what kind of people would go as volunteers do defend the country at the border?
No wait...
Look at what kind of people in the US voluntarily have gone to patrol the southern border. It isn't even a hypothetical question. And how are they depicted by the media?
Do all of those volunteers helping the border guard share similar thoughts? Unlikely, but likely the reporter has looked at some individuals who genuinely are QAnon people.
The real question for you is to think just how much has this to do with the current situation where a huge quantity of people, men and women, are standing in line to join the territorial units of the Ukrainian armed forces and the National Guard. Where the ruling party holds a majority of seats in the Parliament is a centrist party that is against all kinds of extremists. Somehow, who is actually in power in Ukraine doesn't matter, because of events that happened eight years ago.
As @SophistiCat and others including me have tried to explain, the idea that neonazis are in power, can take power, are some kind of power brokers or something because eight years ago they had seats in an interim government or whatever is simply silly talk.
And even if they try to deny this, some (not you) are using the neo-nazi card in the most disgusting way. So you have on this thread exchanges like this...
Quoting Amity
Quoting Isaac
And then references are given to 2014 and the times of the Maidan-revolution and the interim government. What never is answered is what the link of all this is to today when there obviously is huge popular support for the Ukrainian government among it's citizens. Who simply aren't neo-nazis.
Things ought to be put into the correct context and perspective.
What is true is that Victoria Nuland and the US state department helped organize the government. In regards to Tahnybok, she said this:
“ I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's the... what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in... he's going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it's just not going to work.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
After influencing a deal “Yats” did indeed become leader, and a few Svoboda members ended up occupying positions such as deputy prime minister and prosecutor general.
It’s no surprise that Biden installed Victoria Nuland as Under Secretary for Political Affairs last year, all before the current hubbub kicked off again.
Or weapons in general.
Can you explain what deal was reached?
And Yat's interim government ruled for some months, and then Petro Poroshenko was elected as President (who doesn't appear in the Nuland tapes) and Yat's second government (now elected) continued without Svoboda.
That Yanukovich fled to Russia and even the break-away Republics loathed him so much that they didn't want him (even if he came from the Donbass and obviously would have given them credence) tells a lot that it actually was a popular revolution and Yanukovich didn't have support anywhere. The revolution wasn't an astro-turf event. For some the "Revolution of Dignity" is still something orchestrated by the US, not a popular uprising that the US got involved (as usual). Which, the first option, is also the Putin line.
Well, it took less time than usual for the "anyone who disagrees with me must be insane" card. Conversation over then I guess.
Playing dumb just makes you look dumb. In 1945 the Red Army was sitting on half of Europe and made it clear it wouldn't be leaving. That was the impetus for NATO.
Sure, some people had wanted something like it long before, but isolation was popular in the US and it wasn't feasible before the realities of WWII.
More nations with nuclear weapons = more chances for misuse or theft. The US extends nuclear security as a means of reducing this risk. It's been quite effective. Obviously Japan, Germany, and Korea have the technological capacity for them. Nuclear anti-proliferation efforts have held up quite well all things considered (just Pakistan, India, North Korea, and Israel since the first wave of nuclear states).
Notably, the Soviets acted similarly, not sharing nuclear technology widely.
Of course, the whole Ukraine thing is a bit of a blow to those efforts. Ukraine had a nuclear arsenal at the end of the Cold War and gave it up based on security assurances.
Looks more like Russia is going the way of North Korea so this isn't gonna be the US vs. the USSR part 2. Hell at this point a lot of former Soviet states probably want nothing to do with Russia (Ukraine obviously included).
Not that I don't think a new Cold War is happening since it is with China, but that's already been going on for a while now.
Notice that now Russia is de facto quite attached to China. If Russia can't sell the gas and oil to Western Europe, where can Putin sell it? Yet China isn't a pariah state, it hasn't invaded Taiwan, so it has room to move. All this is an advantage to China.
Just like after the clamp down of the Belarus protests Lukashenko is in a vassal position to Putin now, a sidekick. Before Lukashenko did snap at Russia with sometimes taking the side with Ukraine in the conflict, but now there isn't any other room than to be the satellite of Russia. Which is perfect for Putin.
The Jacobin article said it wasnt orchestrated by the US.
So will they kill Zelensky and his family?
Let me ask you, what's your aim here?
Mine's simple. I want to hold my government and its allies to account for their role in this, I want to make sure they don't get to play the white knight, saviours of the innocent.
The aim (of the attitude, not necessarily the actual post) is to make sure governments and the powerful know they can't just get away with their behaviour by getting everyone to look the other way, look at the big monster over there.
But I just can't fathom your aim.
To excuse government? To make sure only the strongest of evidence is sufficient to accuse them? Why would you do that?
Is it Truth™? Do you think you're warriors of truth, making sure that rightness prevails?
Is it just conservatism, not wanting to rock the boat? I've some sympathy with that, but the boat's well and truly capsising, surely?
Must they queue up, perhaps? Can we not condemn our governments until those with more crass records of oppression are roundly castigated? Is Putin really escaping castigation here though?
So what? What motivates this drive for such passionate defense of the already powerful?
Yep, Russia is gonna become completely reliant on China now if it doesn't want to collapse, just like North Korea. That's really the best possible outcome for them in all of this and it's not even that great since China would have all the leverage in such a relationship. I mean sure oil and gas prices are at an all time high right now, but if you can only sell it to one customer then China can probably dictate whatever price they want.
In an odd twist of fate, this could end up pushing China away from coal just as much as it could push Europe away from natural gas and into renewables, which would be a welcome development.
If reports of Russia calling in Belorussian forces are true it shows that Russia is likely in more of a crisis than is apparent. The military there was just recently the main thing keeping an anti-Russian revolution from sweeping away the political order. Sending its mostly conscripted army into Ukraine in aging Soviet equipment that is proving to be incredibly vulnerable to NATO anti-tank arms is absolutely desperate.
But I also wouldn't have thought they'd send in the Chechen forces either. Given how Putin sells himself to ethnonationalist elements abroad, sending a Muslim army into Europe, an army known for war crimes, with the explicit mission of killing civilian leaders, seems like a bad optics move that will enrage the one group that tends to support him.
Conflicting reports on Belarus though. It does seem like a logistical nightmare for the Russians already, and they aren't far outside their border. Commanding officers getting captured shows an inability to control the battle space to any solid degree. Having airborne elements get cut off, outrunning their supplies and support also seems to have happened on multiple occasions.
Ok, fair enough, Isaac.
Let me put it this way: If governments usually lie, there sometimes can be the rare occasion when the truth serves them and they will say the truth. In that case one should note that accepting this truth doesn't make you a supporter of their usual lies.
As has been many times said, no one is saying that US is a white knight, a savior of the innocent. But sometimes it's obvious that the other (here Russia) is doing something that is totally wrong. That even many Russians are against. That it is stupid and likely extremely counterproductive and a tragedy.
Quoting Isaac
How about that sovereign independent states should be left alone. Military force shouldn't be used. That countries ought not to first underwrite that they accept the borders and the territories of others and then brake on that promise. That there should be peace.
Listen, we can talk about the wrongs that the US and the West has done. Yes, Putin has referred to them too. But this thread is about the Ukraine crisis. Or now the Russo-Ukrainian war.
Hopefully this clears my views to you.
Putin won the war in Checnya. Putin has already used Chechen mercenaries in Donbass in 2014. And he has used them also in Syria.
(From 2014)
Putin isn't a leader that withdraws from wars. Up until now he has either won his wars or continues them (as in Syria).
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
That would be bad. A real escalation of that war.
I hope they didn't call the Ukrainians to agree to their terms or then face also the Belorussian armed forces too.
Your statement was:
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I think the US forces were there before the Cold War, there was no Warsaw Pact in 1945, and there was a US-European military alliance already during WW1.
Moreover, Anglo-American plans to contain Germany and Russia already existed in the early 1900's. NATO is just the latest manifestation of that.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
In other words, (1) the US is acting like the Soviets, (2) the US decides which European states have nuclear weapons, and (3) most European countries have to depend on the US for protection!
But you told us that Europe does not need the US for its defense:
And why can't Europe extend its own nuclear security to America?
So, you still haven't provided any credible reason as to why US forces are still in Europe (except to enforce America's own self-interests).
Putin may be a dictator by Western standards, but I think one important point to remember is that Russia has a different political system with a much stronger presidency and weaker parliament and prime minister than European countries. And Putin has enjoyed the backing of the majority of the Russian people – at least up to now.
Additionally, I think some here tend to display a curious ignorance (or amnesia) of historical facts.
From the 9th century, Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine (which really means “borderland”) were one country which was known as “Rus-land” or “Land of the Rus(sians)” (????????? ?????, rus?ska? zeml?), and which became the core of the Russian Empire.
The “Ukraine issue” only emerged with the collapse of the Russian Empire in the wake of the 1917 revolution, when there was a conflict between the western and eastern parts of Ukraine, with one part forming the breakaway Ukrainian People’s Republic in Kiev in the west, and the other forming the Moscow-controlled Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in Kharkiv in the east.
However, Ukraine remained an inalienable part of the Russian State until 1991.
When Putin said "Ukraine is not just a neighboring country for us. It is an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space,” he was stating a fact.
Back in 1991, US ambassador to Moscow Robert Strauss admitted that Ukraine’s declaration of independence was a disaster for Russia. He said:
Putin himself, when he gave his first-ever interview as deputy mayor of Saint Petersburg in 1992, stated that Ukraine was an artificial country created by the Bolsheviks.
If Putin has been saying the same thing for thirty years and his views were universally shared by other Russians from inception, the claim that Putin has suddenly gone “mad” can only be the product of Western propaganda and disinformation (or imagination). Whether right or wrong, his views regarding Ukraine only seem “mad” to those who are ignorant of Russian history.
As for Crimea, it had been colonized by the Greeks since antiquity and later it became part of the Roman and Byzantine empires. It was invaded and occupied by the Mongols (Tatars) in the 1400’s who converted it into a large slave market until its liberation by Russia. In recognition of its Greek heritage, its main port was given the Greek name of Sevastopol in 1783. (Crimean cities with Greek names also include Simferopol, Yalta (Yalita), Feodosia (Theodosia), Alupka (Alopex), Alushta (Alouston), etc.) Sevastopol itself has been a major base for Russia’s Black Sea Fleet ever since.
In any case, I for one fail to see how pointing this (and other facts) out makes one a “Putin apologist” or “troll”.
But would he become a martyr?
I can’t, only that it came out exactly like Nuland wanted. In the end, it all hinged on Biden’s final word. So it’s not odd to me that all this reached a fever’s pitch as soon as he and Nuland are back in power.
Oh
Sure, listen I'm not going to dispute that. I don't know the history in anywhere near the level of detail as you (and others) do.
What I can say, is that the situation now is so tense and difficult, that, for the rest of the world, these facts don't matter. For some Russians, sure, though not all - as seen by the protestors in Moscow.
We are at the brink of something akin to the Cuban Missile Crisis, and while I maintain that this could have easily been avoided if NATO had not been expanding since the collapse of the Soviet Union, from this point on, it's about trying to see if there's any way out of this conflict that could serve in a way to save face for most involved.
Tomorrow Russia's economy will scream. I did not expect such a strong reaction from the West, and probably nor did other Russian elites, Putin included.
The way it looks to someone from the outside is, this one country is willing to bring the whole world down for some piece of land few people care about? And you just won't get enough people caring about the history, even if it helps elucidate why this is happening.
Why should someone in, say, Latin America or India care about this history?
So, I see your angle, but, by at this stage, too much is at stake.
We're probably privvy to about 2% of the truth of what is actually happening and the reasons behind it
[tweet]https://twitter.com/travisakers/status/1497754605865684992[/tweet]
But...beer?
“Truth never damages a cause that is just.”
? Mahatma Gandhi
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/11414-truth-never-damages-a-cause-that-is-just
So what is the 2% truth we know and is it a moot point to discuss this with in 98% darkness?
Lets see what we know: (CNN)
Quoting CNN
Again, CNN: (Fareed Zakaria )
Truth?
There is no history that justifies this. It is a reckless destabilizing act of a maniac, and should be recognized as such, putting aside all the supposed political subtleties, which are no doubt so buried in propaganda from both sides as to be irrelevant.
At this point in the situation yes, the stakes are too high.
When we are facing a situation as horrifying as this, we should try to think for a way out of this mess.
Obviously this means diplomacy. IF that works, then we can argue about history and who is or is not a maniac or who is evil or whatever.
I know it's totally beyond my control - 100%. I don't think I ever been as scared for the world as now.
Maybe I'm being paranoid. But, this is really, really bad.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/fpleitgenCNN/status/1497519335350452231[/tweet]
The appropriate political response is diplomacy, to be sure. But we are not politicians. In the context of the world stage, what we say on here is of little consequence. And, I would argue, our understanding, even that of the most politically and historically savvy of us, of the factors in play is peanuts. Probably only Putin, if anyone, knows what really motivates Putin.
What I meant to say is that Putin's actions and threats deserve universal condemnation and economic sanctions right now (which is pretty much what he has been getting) but, to be sure, if universal condemnation and economic sanctions seem likely to push him over the edge to deploy nuclear weapons, then another strategy, if one can be worked out, should be implemented. Escalation into nuclear war is too horrific to contemplate. It could mean the end of human civilization as we know it. Better for it to end with a whimper than with a bang!
https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-87-are-we-on-the-brink?utm_source=url
Interesting speculation that Putin may cut off gas and oil unilaterally, long before the West even tries. Not something I thought of.
He is always playing the same strategic card!
Yep. I agree with both those sentiments.
Quoting ssu
No your aim. In writing here the way you are. In so strongly rebutting anything I say which lays any blame at the US and Europe, so strongly denying any far-right issues in Ukraine.
All the above does is lay out why you think what Russia has done is bad, were all agreed on that. I'm asking why you're so opposed to laying any of the blame at the feet of the US and Europe.
Take the most contentious issue between us, the role of the far-right in Ukraine and America's part in supporting them. What is it you're aiming for in spending so much time insisting that the evidence for US involvement is sketchy, that the far-right have little influence now, that the Neo-Nazis are only a few in a large armed force...
Why underplay it? Why is it important to you everyone here is clear - there's only a few Neo-Nazis in the armed forces, they were only in government for a short time, and America's involvement is not proven?
I haven't denied any of those facts, I just haven't tempered my attack by highlighting them. I haven't done so because it means the attack loses some of its force. Its rhetoric.
But you, and others, have. Why? Why would you actively want an attack on US complicity to lose its force?
Go do it, then.
Giving hell to other participants in discussion forums, I somehow think, won't accomplish your aim and goal.
It should be also noted that Putin actually rebuilt the city after the war.
If the fighting goes into slow house to house clearing, then Kharkiv or Kyiv might look like Grozny above. And Kharkiv has historically seen a lot of fighting in WW2, being a Hero City of the Great Patriotic War.
I do not think Putin is stupid enough to start a nuclear war, however making threats is the rational thing to do. After all, the United States has publicly stated it will not get involved, and Western threats are exclusively economic.
What's going on here? Why wasn't this prevented by admitting Ukraine into NATO? Could it have been worse than this? Are we witnessing a game of political football with Ukraine as the football? My biggest fear is that this is not the last time.
War is a result of the failure of nations to settle disputes amicably.
Quoting CNN
Here we go again.
We hope so... It would the total destruction then
I'd venture, independent of any aspect of this war between Russian and Ukraine, that the motivation for the drive is to "give dues where dues are due." Or something to that effect.
In my opinion people are brainwashed, and the brain-washing has got to such a point, that it is now on automatic, it feeds itself, its internal energy keeps it alive and keeps it getting larger. The Powerful need not worry about the anger of the people that the Powerful have harnessed; it won't decrease; because the anger feeds the logic/rationalization that feeds the anger that feeds the rationalization/logic, and so on. It's like the reaction of igniting people's anger and giving them a thought to mutually feed the anger has reached a critical point, where the system is self-sustaining, and needs no input or feeding from outside the system to keep the system not only in equilibrium, but to make it encroach others, and to make it larger and larger.
thanks, @Changeling.
The idea I voiced was not even mine.
But it is curious to see that certain opinions are labelled "conspiracy theories" and are deleted when posted. After all, with two percent knowledge, any theory IS and truly is, a conspiracy theory. In the sense, that one theory that sounds plausible is just as likely to be true, as another plausible theory which states the opposite.
I used to belong to another philosophy website where I mentioned that a lot of meteorological data was not available to the common man.
They jumped on me. They all jumped on me, and cussed me and condemned me for not believing the climate change.
I had said NOTHING of the climate change. All I said, was stating an indisputable fact. I drew no consequences; while at the same time I asked, what could have possessed the powers that be to block the data from the common man.
The moderators kicked me out of the site due to this mentioning of a fact and for challenging the decision of the authorities. They did not kick me out due to any resistence by me to the theory of the climate change, for I voiced NO SUCH RESISTENCE. They simply hated me, for saying inconveniencing things, and they accused me of something I never did.
@Baden, do you think the moderators on that site did the right thing, the fair thing, the just thing?
Here, I mentioned an opinion -- not even mine, it was not MY conspiracy theory -- and I was asked not to say that. AND never again air the opinions of this friend of mine.
I promised compliance, and I am sticking to my promise. I will never again mention an opinion by this friend of mine.
But it makes me wonder: if nobody has any amount of reliable data to support any solid argument or opinion, then what is the rationale to ban certain content? If the theories are equally not worth a farthing then why is a worthless theory allowed, while another worthless theory is not?
So: I am voluntarily not posting for a while, to protest the fact that I had been silenced in a way and by the means for a cause that I feel is unfair.
Again: I won't go against my word. I will never again post opinions from this friend of mine. That I promise. I am protesting the fact, however, that some unworthy theories are allowed, and some equally unworthy theories are not allowed to be posted.
As our governments consider what to do to help the people of Ukraine is exactly the time to remind them that we're watching and won't stand for the sort of shit they pulled last time they "helped" Ukraine against Russia.
As I said to @ssu. @frank and the other detractors, I just can't understand this notion that because there's a war on we have to forget all about the wrongdoing of governments and the powerful, forget all about racism and anti-Semitism within the country being attacked and instead render the entire event in comic book form, with a single evil villain and a superhero to save the world.
The US and Europe are in the process of choosing how to help. I can't think of a better time to loudly shout about what has happened all the previous times they've "helped" and what we'd rather they did differently this time.
The worst thing I think we could do is further escalate the already powerful narrative that Putin is so evil he must be stopped at all costs because we know from bitter experience what some of the 'costs' the US and Europe are considering in that list.
I haven't said the involvement isn't proven.
I've consistently said that yes, the US meddled in revolution, but that the revolution basically happened because of internal developments in Ukraine. Did the US support the Maidan-revolution? Yes. Were there many different groups and political parties in the opposition? Yes. How much did the US focus on the extreme-right, how much the extreme-right had then influence, you be the judge. I guess in a riot, neonazis, just like anarchists on the left, might be useful. But serious question: how much does this have to do with the events now?
To explain what I mean, let's take another case where the US openly and proudly admitted that it really had assisted and helped an opposition to overthrow a government, assisted the opposition on how to organize the political movement and gave support even in the form of spray cans to write anti-government slogans. And that's the case of the ouster of Slobodan Milosevic in ex-Yugoslavia / Serbia. Then the actor was basically the State Department, not actually the CIA.
Yet is now Serbia part of NATO? No, on the contrary, it has close ties with Russia. You see, the opposition gladly took the assistance, but I think the fact that the US and NATO had bombed earlier Serbia made it so that they didn't welcome the Americans with open arms.
Hence you cannot say that the US installed a new Pro-US government because it didn't. You can say that they did have a major role, however it should be noticed that the Serbians themselves had a say what happened next and no puppet-regime or even pro-US administration was installed. And once Milosevic was out, the US lost interest in Serbia. Russia didn't. So in a way, it wasn't similar to let's say "Operation Ajax" in Iran, where an democratically elected government was overthrown in the interest of Western oil companies.
And from the examples where the US did invade, did install a puppet-regime, the huge trouble these regimes have had with the US and with their people has been obvious. Just look at Afghanistan or how cool or lukewarm the relations are between the US and the Iraqi governments.
And on the role of neo-nazis in Ukraine, well, we could surely have that debate in the same way about neo-nazis and Trump and Charlottesville and Jan 6th, but I think the majority of the people don't think that neo-nazi ideology isn't the most important factor in US politics, even if extreme-right domestic terrorism is an issue. Not all Trump supporters are neo-nazis, even if some are.
So I think you should make the case just why the neo-nazis are so important in the case of present Ukraine. I'm open to listen and learn new stuff, really.
I'd say, rip the band-aid already. The world needs to move towards sustainable energy and this could be a good way to speed that up. Even if it would create enormous economic problems in the short term, it can be done. And when it stabilizes, we've essentially cut Russia off from any gains from it, even if Putin wants to turn everything back on he wouldn't get anyone to want it anymore. I mean, it's still mostly Putin and his oligarch friends who benefit from that industry.
Sure, he could trade with China, but I see a lot of skepticism from them since they risk a lot of trade diplomacy problems with the rest of the world the further this drags out. The more unpopular Russia becomes on the world stage, the less China will want to be its friends. Even if China acts like they don't care about the west, the truth is that their entire economy hangs on an extremely built-out trading network. It's their entire circulatory system and they don't want to mess with that.
It does seem unlikely. Likely only to be a coercive threat. But there is no guarantee of that, obviously.
And vice versa. China has been very good at specifically making friends with those the West doesn't like. I'd much more sceptical than you about China's need to hang with the popular kids. Belt and Road was designed precisely to cater to those whom the West makes 'unpopular'.
I have fireplaces at my home, and wood. So fine with me too!
That's true. We do not have a guarantee that nuclear weapons will not be used. But, really, I do not see a worthy world which has been destroyed due to a nuke world.
If Putin wants to "re-establish" Soviet republics, they have to literally exist in the first place
I would say they're covering all bets. They have trade with everyone, but they won't like being shut off from a big portion of the world if they cuddle too much with Russia. But the main positive thing I think is that they now see how extremely bad the invasion is going and how extremely powerful the strike down is from the rest of the world is that it might lead them to rethink any invasion of Taiwan. China has a lot more trade with the world than Russia had. If they get struck with similar sanctions, now that the world has shown it is possible to do this, then it's gonna be far more dire for them than it is for Russia.
Yes, I know. I'm asking you about the 'but...'. Why's it there?
I'll try to make it clear. There are some facts about which it seems we agree...
1. Legitimate grievances lead to a number of Ukrainians overthrowing the government
2. Some of these were Neo-Nazis and far-right activists unhappy with the governments recent favouring of Russian over US aid.
3. Most of the work was done by Ukrainians and would probably have happened anyway.
4. The US supported the far right factions. There's a suspicion, grounded on some evidence, that they lent more than just 'support'.
5. The Neo-Nazis and far right elements didn't last long in the Ukrainian government and now remain only in a few mayoral roles and one battalion of the armed forces.
Every time I mention (hype up, even) facts 2 and 4, you counter by pointing out facts 1, 3 and 5. This has been the pattern of discussion for the last few pages.
I'm emphasising facts 2 and 4, giving them as much rhetorical force as I can muster, because they relate to the role of my government (or its allies in this case), and they relate directly to the sort of 'aid' they might right now be considering giving Ukraine.
You keep pouring cold water on that rhetoric by emphasising facts 1, 3 and 5 because...?
I suspect he doesn't want to be complicit with Putin, which he would be if he spread irrelevant disculpatory blah in the midst of a war.
Again, and vice versa. The world relies on China just as much as China relies on the world. And in a much bigger way than Russia. It would take either extreme stupidity or extreme courage to try and 'cut China off from trade' - which amounts to cutting the West itself off from its own manufacturing base. And the West is nothing if not filled with cowards. The West does not hold all the agency in the world, contrary to what people would like to believe.
No leader, regardless of how evil, purposely destroyed his own country. It follows then, there there must be something that president Putin thinks he can achieve for Russia. Maybe it is survival.
Look at history: it was a cold 'war': The U.S. in direct conflict with Russian made equipment and maybe personnel in the Korean war and the Vietnam War, against 'communist ideology'. The cold war was won and lost, which implies hostile action, no matter how peaceful, which resulted in the break up of the Soviet Union and incidentally sending North Korea into a spiral. Why celebrate victory in a cold war if you had nothing to do with the result? NATO expanding eastward (why?) making sure they have an unbelievable strategic advantage of making Russia's armed forces straitjacketed when it comes to any military actions, Russia can attack very few nations now.
Syria - Russia's only naval base in that region, perhaps the world, under threat. They almost lost it - and you can see why they are opposing NATO forces in Syria, which has foreign funded rebels just like the Ukraine.
What would you do if your country was broken into pieces and those pieces become allied with the enemy one by one, and with continued provocation, and demonization in the media ?
Russia has been attacked, coldly, calculatingly, and the best we can hope for is a Gandhi -style non - violent resistance from President Putin, though this does stagger the imagination.
I don't think it can be done. Energy-transition is a process that would take decades even if there was a consensus on the way to go... you can only speed it up so much, before you run into physical, engineering or even economical limits.
Without fossil fuels you basically have renewables and nuclear energy. Renewables will not get it done any time soon, and probably never, because they just are not that efficient, reliable, easy to use, and not even that green to begin with. Nuclear could've done it if they committed to it decades ago, but as it stands they are still in the process of phasing out nuclear in a lot of the EU-countries because of anti-nuclear ideological sentiments of the past.
Energy prices were already shy-high in Europe before the war, it just came out a pandemic that caused massive debt for governments that tried to prop up the economy, inflation was already higher than in a very long time... chances are you completely tank the economy by raising energy-prices even further in a precarious moment. And completely tanking the economy seems like the worst thing one could do to speed up energy-transition, because of the enormous amounts of investments and resources needed for such transition.
Anyway, I'm not saying Europe shouldn't consider it, just that we need to realize what is a stake here.... energy is life.
Absolutely, but at the same time, people didn't think "the west" would be so unified against Russia as is the case right now. What I meant was that China is very volatile when it comes to trade, far more than Russia and China has a lot of investments in foreign companies. When Sweden excluded Huwaiwei from building out 5G it was a major hit against the Chinese government. Even if most trade routes stay the same, the will to let Chinese companies invest outside of China, as well as place production in China, will be lower and China isn't just relying on trade now, they need to expand and influence through investment abroad. After 2014, the exposure towards Russian trade has been lowered between European nations and Russia, which means the blowback of the current sanctions isn't that extreme, except for those with high reliance on gas. So if China buddies too much with Russia, it could create a fallout against China where nations get scared to have too much exposure towards a superpower that could very well do exactly the same with Taiwan as Russia did with Ukraine.
I don't particularly think Sri Lanka or Ethiopia particularly gives a shit about Taiwan. In any case apart from nutjobs like Apollo I don't think there are very many people who argue that 'the West' shouldn't be 'unified' against Russia, whatever that means. But there are plenty who rightly note that the West is up to its eyeballs in it's own, totally malign, interests while also noting its extreme hypocrisy. Frankly, anyone hyperventilating about Ukraine but not having a word to say about Israeli apartheid or Yemeni genocide - i.e. most people here and in the West - simply does not deserve to speak, ever.
I think you should check that again. There are a number of renewable options that have reached improvements over the past few years which have increased their viability compared to how it was before. And it doesn't matter, it has to be done anyway, whatever people think about it or however hard it hits the economy, it has to be done in order to decrease the rate of climate change. On top of that, since the investment in improvements of renewables has skyrocketed in a very short period of time, all while we just recently had a major step forward for fusion energy, which changed the projected timeframe for when we might solve that problem. If nothing else we also have Thorium nuclear power with power plant designs that can utilize nuclear waste almost until they're half-lifed to irrelevant levels before storage.
My point is that we NEED to have a push towards other solutions than gas and oil and we just got this with moving away from Russia's export of it. So while people can take the pain that creates as a sign of support towards Ukraine, that kind of pain could never be endured just on the basis of "we need to do this for the environment". People don't care about the environment, they care about people suffering. We can argue this is because they're stupid and don't connect the dots of how the environment create suffering, but the fact is that we hit a lot of flies in one hit at the moment. We can weaken Russia's hold on the west, remove their trading diplomacy cards so we don't have to be puppets of the oligarchs and Putin's ego, all while pushing the necessary push towards better solutions than oil and gas. Even if we don't go renewable soon, just build Thorium power plants. I feel like people don't know how safe these designs really are, it's way better than any other solution at the moment until renewable match up with it.
Sure, but Taiwan's shutdown of their semiconductor plant created a worldwide shortage, so an invasion before the west has been able to build up new factories will be a shutdown on the entire world of tech. And even if we get other factories up and running, we still need that factory to be able to fight the shortage. The fallout of that factory being hit, shut down again or anything like that would be extreme for the entire world, far more than any oil and gas from Russia. It takes years to build new factories and the one in Taiwan is one, if not the most advanced in the world. Russia has nothing even remotely close to that level of importance globally.
Quoting StreetlightX
I have plenty to say about that. I never understood that kind of argument though... that because we talk about one conflict or problem of the world, we "ignore" others. At the moment, the crisis is in Ukraine and with Russia's, or rather, Putin's threat of nuclear launches. When this crisis has been resolved or turned to more stability, there's plenty of time to continue working to fix everything else that's broken on this planet.
I did check it, a lot... renewables just will not work on the scale needed. And even if they would, you'd need huge swats of land for it which would be an ecological disaster on it's own. Nevermind the waste afterwards, and the sheer amounts of resources needed to keep building them in large enough quantity...
Quoting Christoffer
We need to do whatever is the least worst, which is not as clear-cut as one might think ;-)
Quoting Christoffer
From what I've gleaned, renewables can only be part of mix at best, fusion is still 50 years into the future even with recent improvements, and the new type of nuclear reactors are not entirely ready to be used either. Anyway I agree that nuclear is the way to go, but this is not something that can get done in the the time-frame needed to stop climate change.
Quoting Christoffer
My point is that tanking the economy is probably never a push towards other solutions, because as you scramble to stay afloat, the last thing you want to do is make big investments in future-oriented transitions.
I agree on nuclear, if they are ready, but you need large coordinated investment for that. They are the future, but if you're too busy trying to put out fires left and right, you typically don't think about the far future.
China has years. Look, I'm just saying, this isn't some internet RPG where people get to takes sides in some kind of black and white manner. The assumption that making Russia (more) of a pariah state will automatically translate into more support for the West is very wrong. And it is good that it is wrong.
Quoting Christoffer
At the moment, the crisis is also in Yemen and Israel. It just so happens that Ukraine aligns with Western interests to make this the cause du jour. And the idea that when or if this crisis 'ends', the West will give a shit about Yemen or Israel is laughable.
--
Anyway, back to the original point - one interesting thing about cutting off Russian oil and gas - whoever does it first, if it happens at all - is that it is likely to stir up further reactionary movements in Europe, which is already having a nice little fascist/populist revival. Living conditions falling as they are - thanks to the Euro - a price hike will hit the working class first and foremost as the price of living will shoot up considerably (more). As it stands the people who stand to benefit from this are nationalist identitarians everywhere, and it's not clear that the neoliberal elites of Europe will be willing to pay that price. And this to say nothing about the new wave of refugees that is about to hit Europe, already having a 'migrant crisis'. Or ordinary Russians who will also pay the price of Western sanctions. Again, it's more complicated than 'punish Russia because Putin is bad-man'.
So explain to me the advantage in exculpating the role of the US and Europe in catalysing this crisis? Russia is the main instigator, right. I think we agree. But that's not enough for you. All talk of the US and Europe's involvement must be exorcised. All blame must be placed on Putin, the madman who must be stopped at all costs. What gain does this polarisation serve?
Quoting Christoffer
Really? "Plenty of time". Have you noticed any kind of trend in crises over the last few years? Was there "plenty of time" between Covid and Ukraine to discuss toxic American foreign policy? Was there "plenty of time" between the Islamic terror threat and Covid? Was there "Plenty of time" between Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and the rise of Islamic terrorism? When was the last crisis-free moment in which we all took a dispassionate look at American foreign policy without the threat of a world-shattering crisis to ensure naysayers can be painted as reckless fools willing to risk global annihilation?
Today it's Russia, yesterday it was Islamic terrorism, before that Saddam Hussein, Colonel Gaddafi... The existential threats painted as justifications for economic imperialism are an unbroken line in which Russia is just the latest.
The sanctions stuff is really complex. The original sanctions were typically toothless but the Putin-as-Bond-movie-villian narrative is dominant across social media and Western politicians are being tempted to weigh social brownie points over bigger picture considerations. That may or may not turn out OK, but it is dangerous, I agree.
We've had the technology for many decades. The only reason it's not fleshed out is because there wasn't any weapon capability as a byproduct. You know, if you have a normal nuclear power plant, you could use some of the nuclear matter used for nuclear weapons as a side gig. Thorium is too good for bad nations.
But I know Finland has been looking at it. There's a growing interest in it as the need for nuclear power still needs to meet the risks they have.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Not really, the recent improvements are recent, as in... like two-three weeks ago. Timeline hasn't been updated since they're still evaluating the data. But the timeline is always based on predicted development. Predicted development never takes into account fluke accident major breakthroughs. But I agree that fusion is nothing we can rely on as a solution yet, I'm just saying it's closer than people realize. And the will to solve it is huge, throwing money on solving it is a priority, especially if one nation solves it and starts exporting power, that nation will be filthy rich.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
It's a push in that it demands another solution. And "scramble" to stay afloat is not really true. An economic crisis may look like the one in 2008, but did that "scramble to stay afloat"? There's still plenty of capital to invest in new solutions, it's just that the financial world always need to balance the entire economy so as to not break regular folks. However, since regular folks seem to not care about climate change and politicians are not willing to do what it takes, a crisis that pushes everyone out of their comfort zone will lead to hard times in the short terms, but better times after a few years. Also remember the jobs that gets created by investing in new technologies.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
And this is what I think gets pushed when we can't rely on oil and gas. People feel the ground shake under them and they will start investing much quicker.
Just think of the semi-conductor shortage. Because everyone was just in their comfort zone ordering chips from Taiwan, no one cared for what a shutdown would look like or mean to the world. Only after the crisis did both EU and Intel start expanding into new factories to be able to cover future needs.
Crisis always leads to some type of opportunity.
I'm not saying it isn't complicated. Since everything is speculation, it ends up being very broad strokes.
Quoting StreetlightX
No, it just happens to be that this is a large invasion by a superpower that could lead to extreme consequences for the entire world. Especially when Putin threatens with nuclear strikes. As I've mentioned, I don't think people realize what is really going on here. For example, I've been debating against Israel's actions against Palestinians for years now, but that conflict is a decades-long crisis that while it needs to have the focus of the world, it doesn't change the fact of the immediate crisis of what is going on at the moment and the severity of it.
I really don't understand when arguments boil down to "yeah, but what about everything else that's going on?" In my opinion, that's not really a valuable way of dealing with all of this. We could very well be discussing the Israel/Palestinian conflict and the argument "but what about Ukraine" would pop up.
That the west doesn't give a shit about any of it is just a blanket statement. "The west" is a lot of nations. Sweden for instance, has a lot of support for Palestinians. So, if one nation of "the west" doesn't give a shit, that doesn't mean another nation does the same.
Quoting StreetlightX
Depends, many of the fascist parties have also been taken into the normality of parliament, which means many of them are now showing how incompetent they actually are with normal day-to-day politics. In Sweden, we have former neo-nazi fascists as the third-largest party in parliament playing innocent politicians and since they've grown so large, people demand them to solve normal problems, which they can't because they are fundamentally incompetent. And the migrant crisis isn't the same this time around since more nations are willing to take on more migrants so it spreads more than before where Sweden, for example, took in a much larger portion than most others.
So the complexity doesn't end just with risks with increased fascism, there are also movements against it. A lot of movements also relied on Russian propaganda machines helping them to rise up, that's not gonna happen in the same way after this.
You have continued to push this argument while people have answered you many times. Here's the thing, there are nations who are independent nations that were previously part of the "Russian empire" and Soviet. Putin want these nations back, because he is a delusional fucker who wants to be a Tsar in the glorious Russian empire. Since most others realize that Russia keeps getting these morons in power, most nations that were part of the Soviet Union, but are now independent nations, just want to be left alone, to be their own nation. Putin doesn't own these people or nations, even if he thinks he does. So these nations ask to be part of NATO in order to have a good defense against the risk of being invaded and claimed by a delusional despot. Some nations have much less balls, like Belarus, who bend down for Putin instead. So the choices for these nations are either to join NATO, bend down for Putin or get invaded and killed. Ukraine thought too long about joining NATO and they won't bend down for Putin, so they get invaded. Also, NATO isn't US. US is a part of NATO, but NATO is an alliance, there are many nations within NATO. But in your mind that just means they are "brainwashed" by US. The thing is that the US might very well have economical imperial interests through NATO, but that is not the collective mindset of NATO.
So, yeah, this is all Putin. This is part of the Russian tradition of being assholes to whomever they think is their possession. To argue that "the west" pushed Putin to this is a fucking delusional point of view.
Quoting Isaac
You still don't know what is going on right now. What's the economic gain for Russia by invading Ukraine? Explain please
Because the opposite response - "let's just talk about Putin and nothing else" - is far, far stupider. Especially when that is, in fact, the dominant response. Doubly especially when your response to the threat of a rising fascism is "oh don't worry they'll implode on their own account". Which is of course, literal insanity. Much like fantasizing about Putin in the Hague.
Quoting Baden
Earlier this month the UK - land of populist Brexit - was already looking to provide government loans to cover energy bills in an out of control energy market. That was before any of this started, proper. Can European governments afford to drive up those prices further? Not even asking rhetorically, but as a genuine open question.
Oh yes, this is another collateral effect we will suffer in the coming months. Russia (cleverly) always plays the same card. It is unbelievable. You cannot make a "great" economic impact against them if they still have the key of modern natural resources. What do you do without Gas and Oil in your State? Nothing...
But this is not true. Right now we're in a thread about this conflict and of course, such events, especially in Europe create such media coverage because it's of huge consequence to Europe. It's also a huge economical consequence to the entire world.
It's like it becomes a competition or a kind of "equality of conflicts".
Quoting StreetlightX
I didn't say it will implode on their own I said that it's not that black and white that fascism will surely rise more. You handle these things with the same level of simplicity as you try to criticize me for. If your only deduction of my response was that "don't worry about fascists they will just fizzle out on their own" you clearly just interpret what I write with the least amount of effort possible. Basically strawmanning.
Survival? I mean everyone here seems to want a weak, diminished Russia without any say on the worldwide stage, maybe like Great Britain after it lost its colonies. Well at least it did not try to take them back. I am for the status quo (pre -2014) but no-one likes that.
Which apparently you are totally OK with exacerbating because Putin bad and fascism we can deal with later and China will be on the West's side and everything is peachy so long as we punish Russia. If there was even a modicum of 'equality of conflicts' that would in fact be nice.
Quoting Christoffer
Oh? Tell me how to interpret this:
Quoting Christoffer
Survival? By taking Ukraine? In what way is that survival? Please explain what the actual threat is? All those nations, including Ukraine, want is to be their own nation. Putin and Russia is huge, no one has any interest in obliterating Russia, even many Russians themselves don't want any of this. So if it's not survival, what is it then? I really want some strong argument for the survival angle, like, actual threats to Russia's existence. And how they cannot exist in the normal nuclear superpower as it is right now.
I mean, if Putin wasn't a big bag of shit and if the nation wasn't built on propaganda, Russia would be a tremendous alliance partner and prospering nation in all sectors. How is this not just the fault of purely Putin and Russias corruption problems? Survival? In what way?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/reports-of-russias-decline-are-greatly-exaggerated/ar-AAS9uCn?pfr=1
He invaded a country, killing civilians right now as we speak, and threatens others with nuclear weapons. Case closed.
Are you saying that we should keep debating, keep just not doing anything, just let them suffer and die by Putin's hand until we've solved the fascism thing first. Seriously, sometimes I think people are unable to tackle a critical crisis where every minute counts.
What's your solution to all of this? How would you help Ukraine? How would you deal with something like nuclear weapon threats?
Quoting StreetlightX
As a balance to what you said? Not everything is a downright conclusion of factual end-point events.
Of course, because the corruption didn't disappear, because the despots didn't disappear, because the propaganda didn't disappear. If almost every parameter of the Soviet Union is still there, just with new clothes, how else would we view Russia? They've made no efforts to battle any of it, it's just a more open country to be able to play on the modern geopolitical and economical arena. Without that, it's going back to its roots once again, which is what some are speculating will happen now, Putin isolating Russia further from the world.
Oh yes, case closed, Putin invaded a country so no critical thinking so what if power prices surge through the roof and fascism is given an accelerant and ordinary people everywhere are hurt; your bloodlust must be satisfied now.
Generally I imagine one deals with nuclear weapon threats by not poking a fucking nuclear weapon bear in the eye. That's just me though, real god damn radical I know.
Who gives a shit about power prices increasing when people are getting killed in Ukraine? Increasing fascist movements is always a concern that is always being battled.
Nothing of that is any solution to the situation. How do we deal with what is going on in Ukraine? How do we help stop it? Or are you just ok with letting them be killed? Are you ok with the Wagner Group reportedly being in Ukraine for a month before the invasion preparing to kill the Ukraine president? Should just not give a shit about any of that? What's your fucking solution?
Quoting StreetlightX
So bend down and get fucked. You're an inspiration to the world.
Yeah gee, who gives a damn about continental crisis, how passe right? And who knows what the 'solution' is? Maybe part of the problem is wild bloodlusty agitators happy to crank up tensions with a nuclear power because they need to feel like they are 'doing something'. I know that it may come as a shock that the world is more complex than 'bad guy bad' and 'is good when good guy hurt bad guy' but that's kinda how things are.
Quoting Christoffer
One hopes there is a world left when tunnel-visioned hysterics like you are quite done with it.
This is also true when the bad guy is the USA.
You cannot at once assign Putin responsibility for starting the war and also being prevented from starting it. Stopping him has to be done by someone else.
How does that refusal to let Ukraine join NATO just so as not to 'upset Putin' now feel? You surely cannot place the responsibility on Putin for that.
Wars will be less frequent when citizens demand that nations conduct themselves in a manner that seeks peace. I am not sure if citizens are powerful enough right now, anywhere.
You mean that the actions "the west" is taking here are just "bloodlusty" agitations? Yeah, helping Ukraine defend themselves against murderers trying to claim their nation for themselves is "bloodlusty". And let's look at the Russian army of kids, not even sure why they're there. Cannon fodder for the grinder, yeah, don't do anything, don't try anything, don't make any effort to try and pressure Putin to back off.
This passive "solution" is really great, it really helps everyone! And after they've murdered the president, after they've killed all opposers, after all of it we can just lean back and switch on our Netflix binge and relax. I mean it was nothing, some civilians got killed, a nation was taken, the Russians are now stronger. Also, let Belarus get some nukes while we're at it, let him play with that as well. Who cares? As long as we don't risk fascism rising, we can never stop pushing that back, because we are unable to do many things at once. Yeah, no, let's just put up our feet, take a deep breath and just, smell that nice clean air of our own farts.
Give me a fucking break.
And there it is - the Marvel comic book picture of international politics.
If you widen your time frame to a century, you'll find this really isn't true.
Wouldn't that have let to war with every NATO member?
Then you need to read a history of the USSR.
I asked for your solution and it was just a bunch of nothing. This is then your response.
They have some cover now and I expect they'll print/borrow more money for more subsidies, spreading the additional inflationary effects out to the broader economy. Most likely, governments, especially the UK, will consider this an opportunity to accrue 'moral' capital to offset their unpopularity on the economic front.
I can understand Putin more than the Bush back then.
Understand why you feel strongly about this, but a solution will come from a sober analysis. If you don't try to understand your opposition's perspective, you won't be able to deal with them effectively. It's like being in a poker game and thinking throwing your cards in your opponent's face is going to help you beat him.
I feel strongly about passive attitudes where the only thing going on is circular arguments that boils down to "all of your solutions are wrong because others are also bad in the world" or "all your solutions are wrong because we cannot do anything - all hail Putin!"
I've asked for additional solutions when someone thinks mine is "simplistic" or "stupid" or whatever label I get, but so far I get no solutions.
In a time when theoretical philosophy becomes totally irrelevant and practical philosophy is everything. What's the practical thing do to here? Because so far all I've heard seems to be Putin apologists trying to justify what's going on in Ukraine, and it is downright disgusting to hear.
I would like to hear some practical solutions to Ukraine, how to deal with the nuclear threat, how to deal with Belarus getting nukes, how to deal with the fallout of economic sanctions, how to deal with China's relation to Russia, how to deal with Putin himself.
It might be that my proximity to these events makes me more passionate for a solution, but I'm so sick and tired of passive attitudes and nonchalant dismissal of the current suffering. Can people just stop making their arguments with the prefix of "I know people are suffering and getting killed but...."
A position literally no informed commentator holds.
There's debate around just how much culpability the US and Europe have. There's disagreement as to whether the risk was worth it.
But literally no one takes the view that the situation arose entirely because of Putin and the US an Europe played no part.
...
And you've not answered my question. What is the advantage? Let's say you're right, its all Putin's fault and were all delusional for pointing to any role the US and Europe played. Why would you need to fight back against that delusion with such passion? What does it achieve?
I'm quite happy blaming the US, even if I'm wrong this time. It's a good side to err on because it makes the governments I have influence over more careful, less reckless about any possible future complicity.
But, you want to make absolutely sure they are absolved of all blame here. You're passionate about ensuring any attempt to apportion blame to the US and Europe is quashed in the strongest possible terms.
Why?
...maybe let's not engender more people suffering and getting killed?
[U]If Ukraine survives this attack[/u] as an independent state, next thing it does will be to join NATO. Russia will then come in direct geographic proximity with NATO, and it will be all thanks to Putin.
[U]If Ukraine does not survive[/u] as an independent state and is absorbed (formally or not) into Russia, then Russia will de facto come into geographic contact with NATO (since Poland, Ukraine's western neighbour, is part of NATO). And it will be all thanks to Putin.
So Russia is now going to be neighboured by NATO, no matter the result of this war. Stances stiffen, neutral states like Finland are chosing their camp. Next time the Americans or the Russians fuck up, it'll be WW3.
Welcome to Cold War 2.
As for apportioning blame, I don't see the point of whining about Obama's actions or inactions while folks are getting killed by Russian bullets and missiles. Only Trump and @Isaac do that kind of obscenity. I trust the rest of us have some decency left.
:yikes:
If Russia's policy is to use nukes to defend the homeland, and Putin claims Ukraine as Russian, then any military assistance provided to the Ukrainian resistance by a NATO country, will justify a nuclear response. Of course that would constitute a declaration of war against NATO, under the claim that NATO attacked Russia.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
This is doubtful. As they say, necessity is the mother of invention (not talking Zappa here, who was extremely creative himself). Take The Manhattan Project for example. When you get hundreds, or even thousands of scientists working together, in a network, there is a lot more efficiency than a handful of scientists here, and a handful there, with intellectual property guarded by secrecy. Fusion, or other new ideas, might not be as far away as you think.
So, you basically mean that whenever you hear someone actually saying it, you can brush them off as being just uninformed, convenient.
Quoting Isaac
I guess Ukrainians won't have time sitting at the table discussing this at the moment? So, while we're at it here's an analogy...
Who's to be blamed when a rampage killer shoots up a mall? Let's say that the upbringing was both tough; with borders and discipline, but also loving, inviting, leaving room for the killer to have options in his life. But he chose to kill, shoot up the mall, kill children and adults, security guards, and the police. Then he says that if anyone interferes he will blow up a bomb somewhere in the city. Who's to blame here?
If the upbringing was harsh, really extreme, getting beat down and tortured, it would be easy to see the deterministic causality towards the events. However, if the upbringing was perfectly loving, everything as perfect as possible, then many would argue there isn't a strong causality between that and the act, which would mean the killer was broken, some chemical imbalance or something. But if not that, if the upbringing was balanced, strict, but also loving, would that mean there was a choice? Choice or chemical imbalance?
Do you mean that Russia has been treated unfairly? The Soviet Union collapse wasn't really "the west" fault, it happened from the inside. So what then? Did we treat them badly in that we fucked their economy? No, that was a natural consequence of a state that fell. The economy started to recover over the years. Was it "the west" fault that when Putin came into power he consolidated the wealth and power into him and the oligarchs?
Now let's say that this killer had friends. These friends don't really like him that much, but they're still his friend and he, their friend. They have some chats sometimes, but even more, their relatives and other friends love each other. Everyone is like a big family, brothers. But then the killer really just wants these friends to be with him all the time. They, however, have grown into adult independent people who want to have their own life, but the killer doesn't want that, he wants them to live at his place, like the good old days. All their surrounding friends and relatives get confused, they just want things to cool down, but the killer gets angry and he beats them all up. No one likes it and they don't want to be with him anymore. They feel so threatened by him that they file for police protection. This is something the killer really doesn't like, so he threatens everyone, he threatens his friends, he threatens the police, he threatens any bystander, any civilian including children, and people he doesn't know at all. So he starts the killing, he kills them all.
Who's to blame?
The future is looking grim my friend... The question many, if not most, are asking is if nukes will be used. WW3 almost seems a self-fulfilling prophecy. Maybe we should have stuck to living in small groups.
If they nuke the fridge you can always hide in it though...
And how do we do that? By staying silent and letting Putin do whatever he wants?
The scientists who invented the weaponry.
Yes, although if the Russians lose this war, a ray of hope will briefly shine on us all.
Sure, they can be blamed for opening the door to the severity of the situation. But even if he didn't have a bomb, he still had the gun. If he didn't have a gun he could have used a kitchen knife. If not any of that, he might use his own hands or picked up a rock. Is the rock to be blamed?
No, off course not. But rocks and knifes don't have the potential that invented weaponry has. If you construct such a bomb, you know what it can do. Finding out the secrets of the universe can be nice, but at which cost? Wasn't it Oppenheimer thinking he had become death, the destroyer of worlds? After the fact... You can ask, but what if they invent one before us? Of course...
You could secretely roll a stone ball up a mountain. And release it. But if you are seen doing it, people will stop you. How to stop Putin from waging his war? Trying to stop him literally, by taking him captive, or killing him? What will happen?
So, the person taking the scientist's knowledge and making their own bomb. Is he to blame? Or still the scientist? If the knowledge is out in the world and someone chooses to construct and use that bomb. Is he innocent?
Quoting EugeneW
So the person pushing the stone is innocent because he isn't seen?
We see the killer, do we stop him? Or let him do whatever he wants? If he shoots up the mall, killing innocents, children, maybe even blowing up the bomb, should we be proud in waiting it out, not doing anything? I mean, if it was his parents' fault, his upbringing, maybe that is enough? If we blame them and ignore the killers actions, that might be enough to make us feel that we did our best?
But who was to blame? Is Oppenheimer to blame for Putin's action? Or who's to blame for what Putin is doing?
I don't think the saying really applies here because there's no invention that can deal with that necessity short term. It's not like there is a lot of unexplored territory in energy-physics where one might expect radical new technologies just around the corner. Every new development costs exponentially more resources now, in fundamental research, in time and R&D, precisely because so much has already been put in over the years. All the 'low hanging fruit' is long gone. If some new technology could provide us with more energy, I'd fully expect it to take 50 to 100 years to develop. By then we'll be living in a totally different world I'd expect.
But sure, long term maybe it will spur the EU to reconsider it's energy-strategy. I'd argue that this is already happening, as climate change is putting pressure on fossil fuels and people are starting to realize that renewables can't really replace them. This is one more argument for nuclear, which seems to be the only technology (maybe with fusion in the future) that can provide us the energy we need. In short I'd argue that the necessity is already there, but we need time and resources to do it. A severe economical crisis with no doubt nasty political consequences, would probably not help, is my guess.
I mean that he can be stopped easily, contrary to atomic bombs being used.
The scientists who have constructed and concocted bombs have ultimate responsibility.
Yes. With the great result we have atomic bombs.
The main reason I'd say is that the government isn't embarking on big societal projects like it used to, the socio-political climate has changed ;-). I doubt that technology is ready to start building actual functioning plants, but I'm not an expert so I could be wrong on that.
Quoting Christoffer
This is all assuming the crisis won't be much worse and debilitating for years.
Quoting Christoffer
Gasprices rose something like 400% last year without the war or sanctions, one would think that would be incentive enough to try something else.
When experts are required for a project then adding less skilled workers will get the job done faster but it will increase waste and decrease overall efficiency. For example, how many old scientists does it take to replace a light bulb?
Likely, there are just three reasonable scenarios regarding the ongoing crisis in Ukraine.
First, the compromise will be reached, and things will come to normal as it was before Russia invaded. Second, Putin will be ousted from power. Third, Putin will stay, and there will be a profound transformation of his regime and the world’s geopolitical order. If the first two scenarios are inseparable, what is at stake now is Putin’s defeat and surrender.
Likely, we will know what the talks led to at any minute now. But it will not return to normal, the west has lost trust in Putin and even if the worst sanctions get lifted, the trading sphere might be damaged for a long time.
Quoting Number2018
If sanctions do their job and the war is a bloody stalemate for Putin, the people of Russia will not let Putin off the hook. This is what I hope for, not the bloodshed in Ukraine, just one person's blood, by the people of Russia who had enough of this shit.
Quoting Number2018
This is the most likely outcome. Putin is too stubborn and Kreml has spent years creating an image of him as a tough guy. So he will try and spin the narrative so that a loss is still a win in Ukraine and then because of the broken trade and probably some sanctions left as a punishment for his actions, he will isolate Russia more, going in the direction of North Korea's relation to the world.
Fourth: He will never surrender, never ever, ever. He will not go out without a bang and he orders nukes on big capitals in the west. Either people just accept his order and do it, or they refuse, as has happened during the cold war. He will then spin the narrative in some way, or shoot some of his staff to blow off steam.
I don't know, I haven't yet had the opportunity since you've offered zero citations to support the notion. Cite one of these experts and we'll see if I'm inclined to 'brush them off'.
Quoting Christoffer
As you allude to - the killer, poverty, social exclusion, gun control, parenting, schools, video games, erosion of social value, government deafness, corporate dehumanising...
And what would we discuss in such cases? Not the killer themselves, there's nothing we can do about that, some people just go wrong. We'd discuss everything else... The bits we can actually do something about.
If you want to create some fabrication where none of those factors apply then you're simply asking "if the only person to blame is the killer, then who's to blame?" That's just definitional, the question is whether this is such a case.
But we're out of sync. I've answered your question but you've not answered mine. What is the advantage of exculpating the US and Europe? Even if they're completely innocent (which has yet to be shown), what is gained by so passionately ensuring their innocence is made clear to all? They're all big boys, they can handle a bit of misapportioned culpability, so why the fervour?
I don't know. You want easy answers, and then get mad when the world doesn't offer them to you. It is not so crazy to not want the advent of nuclear war. I'm quite willing to admit that 'what needs to be done' is the kind of thing more suited to others better versed in the situation. Some principles of action include minimizing harm, stopping war, and deescalating as much as possible - how they can be, and are translated, I'm not so sure. But what I know for sure is that it is not suited to fantasists like yourself who dream of putting Putin in the Hague, or paint him like a cartoon villain who 'shoots staff to blow off steam'. Your need for some kind of 'punishment' or 'payback' and 'blame' - which seem to be the principles animating what you say - is literally genocidal. No one who treats the world like a fucking Disney movie ought to be offering any opinions whatsoever.
Agreed.
I hope cool heads prevail.
This week might prove crucial, depending on how much more resistance Ukraine has left.
They're getting aid from several countries, so it will be a while.
I suspect that Russia is sustaining much heavier losses than might be assumed or reported. But heavy losses in personnel has not deterred the Russians in the past. It has been more convenient to push divisions of lower status ethnicity troops to the front line as cannon fodder to solve two problems at once.
The issue is if the weapons arrive in time before Ukraine is destroyed completely. Arming civilians sounds nice and brave but it sets them up to be massacred.
I've heard about this too and it's highly probable. And troops lost is part of the story, the other part are the sanctions, which are brutal.
They have to measure severity of sanctions vs. putting Russia in a position in which it sees it has no escape other than a massive escalation of this war.
What citation? I'm not writing to publish an essay here. Since the first sign of tension at the border towards Ukraine, I've been refreshing my own knowledge of everything related to all of this and through this conflict, I have two-three news outlets going simultaneously while deep diving and researching any development that happens. It's around the clock. And through all of this, I use rational induction of the facts and speculations that exist at the moment. Like how things changed drastically when nuclear weapons came into talks. I'm doing my own analysis and if I were to publish a paper of course there would be citations on a whole other level.
I could ask of you the same, where are your sources for the conclusions you make?
Quoting Isaac
But you're the one who keeps talking about who's to blame for all of this, so who is it? I'm the one who speculates about solutions. But I've also speculated that Putin might as well be fucked in the head, delusional, living in a fantasy of power, much like terrorists like Breivik, but with much more power under their thumb. But you keep returning to blaming the west and the US and NATO. What is it? Who's to blame?
Quoting Isaac
My scenario was an analogy in order to find out who's to blame. Putin came from KGB, with great power during the Soviet era, then it collapsed. Then Boris Jeltsin started reforming and getting drunk, dancing around Bill Clinton. Even if the economy started recovering, when Putin came into power, the seed of his will were already planted. He must have felt embarrassed to see Russia in the way it was in the 90's. His ambition to build the empire back has nothing to do with the US or NATO. US imperial crimes and all the shit they've done is another discussion, there's no disagreement there that the US has blood on their hands and is guilty of a lot of shit, but none of that has anything to do with Putin's ambitions other than challenging his ambition. He might have seen the US expansion, trade, influence as a threat to his inflated idea of a new empire, and since USA is part of NATO, of course he felt that its expansion was a threat. But NATO is an alliance of defense, the "police" in my analogy (it's just an analogy for security). Russias "friends", the former other nations of the Soviet Union, had no ambition to be part of Putin's delusional ideas, but they knew that they can't just say no. They knew that they would either conform and surrender as a puppet (like Belarus), be invaded and assimilated, or have the option to join NATO in order to feel secure from Putin's aggression.
As long as your media outlets are independent trustworthy sources, you can listen to a lot of eastern political scientists confirm exactly what I'm talking about here.
I have yet to hear exactly what the form of "the west's" fault fit the narrative of Putin? Did "the west" push influence and western ideas into Russia after the wall fell? Probably, and probably because that was a natural reaction to the corrupt propaganda machine that fell with the wall (and was later built up again) opening up new channels of info and communication to the rest of the world for the people of Russia. There's no wonder that Putin has the strongest supporters among the oldest generation people in Russia while most young people are against everything that Putin is doing, wanting a more open society, more communication and collaboration with other people in Europe.
So I ask again, who's to blame? If not Putin and his embarrassment and will to rebuild the Russian empire? If not Putin and his delusional skewed image of the rest of "the west". Every time I hear people talk about why Hitler did what he did, it's like the biggest question of the 20th century, the "nature of evil" etc. Why would Putin be any different? Can he not be exactly as delusional in his own ambition and goal just as Hitler was in his? How is that not a perfectly plausible conclusion to Putin's action? Why would "the west's fault" be any more rational as a conclusion? Because my conclusion (as well as many researchers as I mentioned) is too similar to "an American off-brand Marvel movie"? Maybe just take out that Occam's razor and look at the facts.
They already have weapons with more on the way from Germany.
More good shit from Tooze on the economic front.
On the one hand, you claim to be looking for solutions, on the other you focus on attributing blame. Let's suppose, for arguments sake, this is 100% Putin's fault. Now we are precisely zero steps closer to finding a way to deescalate the situation.
There is no need for that. While negotiating on the Belarus border, Russia is intensifying attacks elsewhere. They can send in wave after wave of troops to destroy Ukraine without any massive escalation.
No, the "answers" or rather speculations I conduct are not easy answers. They're just in a compressed form. Why do you think papers are hundreds of pages? I'm not gonna write an essay form length answer just to convince people who cry "everything is the west and US's imperialistic's fault" as an answer to "how do we solve this?"
But no one seems interested in actually discussing this. So it's hard to deep dive when people just want to talk about "the west's fault".
Quoting StreetlightX
Good, this is what I'm talking about. Practical philosophy. So how do we deescalate and minimize harm when dealing with someone like Putin?
Quoting StreetlightX
Hague is a real possibility. They're investigating the invasion as it unfolds. That's not my "fantasy". And "shoot staff", well maybe not shoot, but he poisons people on a regular basis. People have been killed. What if he actually is as delusional as some speculate, as some have speculated on analyzing his behavior the past weeks. I don't grab these scenarios out of my ass. I think it's more likely that you picture all of this in a cartoon way and downplay the seriousness of a delusional madman with the power he has.
Quoting StreetlightX
I don't care about punishment or payback. Whatever makes you reach that conclusion is totally up to you. Why I'm talking about Putin getting killed or removed or end up in a Hague court, that is not "punishment" but the removal of an unstable power from office in order to not have some trigger happy madman holding parts or the world hostage with nuclear threats and murdering people in the name of the empire. It's YOU who interpret what I say in this way because you cannot seem to grasp the fact that violence in this in this situation of war is a solution. Of course, the following events can be chaotic, but the immediate threat is happening right now.
Quoting StreetlightX
That's your interpretation of what I say and you also just pointed out that I should be silent, I should shut my hole because you don't agree with your own wildly inaccurate interpretation of what I'm talking about. It's not a good sign when you ask for better quality and give that as a response.
Exactly. That is the essence of NATO's deterrent. Don't tell me it does not work because NATO would have been then a total waste of time.
That was in response to Isaac, since he countered all my speculations on solutions with "the west and US is to blame".
But since we are on a philosophy forum, we can try practical philosophy. What could we do? Seriously, what could we do in the situation the world is in with Ukraine and Russia?
Remember Biden already promised to fuck up Putin over interference in American elections. This would be the time to do it.
It's making me wonder why Putin didn't do this while Trump was president. Trump would have just cheered him on.
Quoting Christoffer
I agree that it is the most likely outcome. Putin can appeal to
ancient Russian archetypes of 'saving the motherland’ from getting defeated. Further, the iron curtain would again isolate Russia from the rest of the world, with an unprecedented nuclear, military, and ideological confrontation level. Are western leaders, decision-makers , and strategists taking this scenario into account?
"What if [wild speculation]? [ I totally don't make shit up]."
Quoting Christoffer
The 'immediate threat' has been underway for years, but because you seem intent on plugging your ears at any mention of the US or NATO, you're structurally incapable of framing any solution in any terms other than immediate blame, and, it seems, sheer escalation.
You think Putin wouldn't have done it if the Ukraine was a NATO member?
Just explained how I work on my speculations, but you ignore that and just blah blah blah
Quoting StreetlightX
Chill down please. I've explained in length exactly how US, NATO and Russia/Putin ended up where we ended up. All that threat and danger was all there, I'm just pointing out that US exceptionalism ideals and imperialistic goals or economic proxy wars has little to do with the ambitions driving Putin to the actions we see now. They've provoked him through it, but not as aggressors, but as a hindrance to his empire dreams. But you can read all of that if actually read what I write instead of talking about how "structurally incapable" I am. If you want to act childish it's up to you.
My understanding of President Putin is that although he may make a foolish decision, he is not stupid. As you know, any attack on a NATO member - let me quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty
The entire article is worth reading, as well as the map showing the virtual encirclement of Russia on the western front by NATO countries, the number growing from 12 to 30 countries.
Anyone knows that NATO will have to respond militarily, even a token gesture otherwise NATO's credibility, the entire NATO concept would lose its credibility. Some things are more or less mechanical given the environment : for example you try to grab the weapon of an armed soldier and there is a guaranteed response.
Anyway that is what I think.
For some reason NATO is unwilling to admit Ukraine into NATO. The final agreement may include this condition. Ukraine is a large, resource - filled country of 40 million - look at the map. It will not be neutral.
If Ukraine does not survive as an independent state, well then Russia will get what it wants - a large buffer state between itself and NATO, and in any case is bordering one NATO country. Given the demographics this will be a very tough situation to manage and Putin knows this. Maybe he is desperate.
The move from 12 NATO members to 30 NATO members leaves me a little confused: the all expected to be attacked by Russia - wouldn't this make attack more likely?
Putin can stop it. He could spin the news however he wants, make it look like he "won and withdrew all the brave saviors of Ukraine" and then push to remove the sanctions. But he won't, because he doesn't care about his own people, his economy, or anything other than the creation of his glorious empire.
Even in his talk with Macron he mentioned the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine as his reason. If that were just bullshit propaganda, it's odd that he uses the same rhetoric in a private call with Macron. It hints at him actually believing his own lies. If you lie long enough you start believing the lie.
So he will probably sacrifice his people's economy, sacrifice Russia before admitting any kind of defeat.
I don't think he wants that though. I thought Russia's debt would keep this from happening.
He helped give us 4 years of Donald Trump. Now half the global economy is going to crash his economy. :razz:
With the rate this is going, he won't be able to access anything soon. I just have hope that his and his Oligarchs money gets transferred into help-aid in Ukraine. I would have a celebration if Anonymous hacked that into reality leaving some embarrassing message on the servers.
Yep. Remember, Russia already has logistical challenges to a prolonged military campaign in Ukraine. Their industrial capacity is already maxed out, and now they're going to dive into a recession.
He's going to have to pull back.
He won't, it's too embarrassing.
...if he doesn't cook up a really good story for his state media to spin so his people won't unity in hanging him outside Kreml.
Russia almost has a tradition of revolution as intense as the French so I wouldn't be surprised if Putin gets fucked by his people at some point.
Then he should attack Ukraine as hard as possible now. Obliterate Kiev. The problem there is that he'd have to then occupy Ukraine (with American troops taking up residence).
Nah, he's going to have to retreat.
Quoting Christoffer
I don't think so. He's been really good for Russia (up until last week :rofl:)
This is another hint at his mental problems. There's no contingency plan for retreat, it almost seems to be "do or die".
Quoting frank
No no, he is still the best for Russia, he says so himself and all the media also says so. If someone says otherwise in his close proximity, they will just be corrected by him so they can arrive at the truth that he is still best for Russia, he is the best. Russia can never have another best leader than Putin. If the world says otherwise he will show them his nuke and then everyone will love him and his big nuke.
The citations you should have provided to back up claims like
Quoting Christoffer
...especially if you're then going to go on to repeat over and over things like...
Quoting Christoffer
Quoting Christoffer
Right. So it shouldn't be the least trouble to provide one of these sources concluding that
Quoting Christoffer
Quoting Christoffer
I cite them as I go. You can look back over my posts, here's the main sources I was using for analysis of the US and European involvement
https://jacobinmag.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict
https://jacobinmag.com/2022/02/the-left-vladimir-putin-russia-war-ukraine
https://www.dsausa.org/statements/on-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/
https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf
My sources for claims about far-right activism and US support for it back in 2014 are here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/659557 and here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/659771
Quoting Christoffer
A number of complex interrelated factors, one of which is US foreign policy, one of which is EU central banking, one of which is arms industry lobbying, one of which is the influence of multinational financial instruments...
Quoting Christoffer
No I can't because you haven't cited any. A search for "a lot of eastern political scientists" on Google remained frustratingly unspecific I'm afraid.
Quoting Christoffer
Why must it be " ...not Putin"? Can you really not even conceive of more than one factor?
...
And you've still not answered my very simple question.
Quoting Isaac
Why do you think that?
Quoting Christoffer
He really has been though. Russia had to reinvent itself in the 1990s. There was no recipe for how to do it. Putin did a great job.
Cristoffer, we all understand your concerns. No-one wants people to get killed. In our school textbooks we are taught about war, it is glorified, not condemned, and until people come around to think war is an unacceptable option, criminal even, things will not change too much. Maybe if children are taught about Alexander the Killer of Men rather than Alexander the Great, when they become adults they may have a more circumspect view of war.
What if nations resorted to other means other than lethal force? Cyber attacks, media manipulation, paying off politicians, blackmail, threats, secret deals, guarantees of immunity, and covert operations. Would that be any more morally acceptable? Surprisingly, NATO has the right approach:
Very noble.
Solutions? What about a ceasefire and UN Peacekeepers? It has been proposed before:
Quoting Crisisgroup
The question is, though, is he popular (approval rating) and has he broken any laws internationally?
He can't lose an election. They're rigged.
Quoting FreeEmotion
A political realist would say there aren't any international laws. I lean in that direction.
The rat cornered in the Kremlin with an economy collapsing will crater Kviv soon (and maybe damage one or more of Ukraine's active nuclear power plants until there's a meltdown) and then pullback his forces into a semi-permanent cordon at Ukraine's borders with Russia (& Belarus) in order to create an ungovernable wasteland buffer zone and overwelming refugee catastrophe for Europe. Russia (with or without Putin) will then become China's gas station and, thereby, its high-tech nuclear armed client-state. (And Taiwan will remain sovereign for at least another decade or two.) Just my 2 rubles. :mask:
It was the Mongols last time. China this go around? Could be. :up:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/defencewithac/status/1498204309405806592[/tweet]
Full thread is worth a gander.
What American president would pass up the opportunity to destroy the country they've been hyping themselves up to hate for 80 years (and more, actually).
This will guarantee Biden a reelection, the Democrats will gain more pover, and the American economy will get a boost, not to mention the American self-image.
Boris Johnson, too, stands to profit from this, with his covid indiscretions firmly forgotten, he's guaranteed a reelection.
The same thing the West planned to do anyway.
It's strange how so many people think that this is somehow a "one-man show", as if a president is somehow so powerful that he can command everything and everyone under him.
What could we as observers do?
It's not like we can actually reach the decision makers and share our ideas with them. So our efforts are doomed from the onset.
The Ukraine could have a nice life as a neutral state and enjoy the benefits from being on good terms with both sides. Like Switzerland. But no. They don't want to profit from their strategic geopolitical position. They don't want to care who one of their neighbors is. They want to do their own thing. They want to be free to threaten their neighbor.
And the Americans don't want to pass up this opportunity either.
And after two years of covid, people are stressed out and need to relieve themselves somehow.
So it's not clear how realistic it is to even consider that the situation could be deescalated.
Well, this really only shows that people aren't interested in the facts, not just in history. NATO control of the Black Sea, for example, would be an existing threat to Russian security, not some forgotten event in the past.
Moreover, we are being constantly reminded of history, with never-ending lectures on WW2, the Holocaust, Black History, slavery, etc., etc. The reality is that people are simply listening to what they're being told by the mass media and react exactly as they've been conditioned to do.
As for "one country being willing to bring the whole world down", I think the situation is being blown out of proportion by the West who has the better propaganda machine and the international financial institutions to pull the economic strings in any direction it pleases. In other words, money rules the world.
But I agree that this could have been avoided if NATO (and the EU) had not been constantly expanding. Unfortunately, they have to expand because world domination is their ultimate objective. So, IMO Latin Americans and Indians should care, after all ... :smile:
Cheers, this guy has some good info.
Thanks for your answer, you have made your point clear. OK, It's an interesting topic, I agree, but I think one main question to you is the following: What is the link to the present situation in Ukraine?
But anyway, let's go to your main points:
Quoting Isaac
Quoting Isaac
First thing to notice: when there is a revolution or political turmoil, the radicals and normally the so-called "fringe" are active and play a very major part in the events. Yet the fact is that the majority of people actually aren't radicals and extremists, hence in ordinary elections they don't do so well. Hence only in severe crisis can extremists take power, which can happen in revolutions (like the Russian Revolution).
To take examples:
What was the opposition in East Germany when the Berlin Wall came down? Hippies and various artists called the "Neues Forum". Who did the East Germans vote for in the first elections of unified Germany? West German parties, not the Neues Forum.
The Svoboda-party had enjoyed the largest support during the Yanukovich era prior to 2014:
And why is this? Yuriyv Shveda writes the following:
So note here that this happened in 2012. Now, the real question (I don't know) is just how active in this period the US was with Svoboda. Let's first think why Svoboda (and the Right Sector) were so important here.
The Maidan revolution can be put into three parts: 1) The Student Euromaidan, 2) The Maidan Camp and finally 3) The Maidan Sich (Struggle). At the shortest,the Student Euromaidan was dispersed in November 31 and then protest became more of ousting Yanukovich government. And in the "Maidan Sich" phase, the Svoboda and the Right Sector took prominance, because it was a huge violent riot. And skinheads and riots mix together quite well.
The role of Svoboda is explained by Volodymyr Ishchenko in the following way:
So obviously the extreme-right had played a major role in the riots. And it had gotten a major victory in the 2012 elections. Now when the regime collapsed, the question likely was what to do with the extreme right that just had played such a role in the events. One idea would be to give them something and hope they loose in the next elections. That just is something that would politically be one option. This could come from considerations of Ukrainian internal politics, not from the US wanting it to happen.
So now to the real question: Was the US be OK with Svoboda because a) they liked the party and had helped it to be what it was, or b) they didn't care about it's roots and ideology, but went with it because it was such an important part of the Maidan and in the Ukrainian opposition? If you say option a), then I guess you have to explain why and when this collaboration started, because I don't know that. Especially when the Interim government was formed after Yanukovich had fled the country. Let's just remember that John McCain (R) and Chris Murphy (D) went to Ukraine (alongside Victoria Nuland) in December 2013, when already the Maidan was well underway.
I think a real question, which is very conspirational, are the shootings at the Maidan. So, where the right-wing extremists also taking shots at their fellow protestors? Was the US behind that? The last thing is a bit of a stretch, as the people in charge (Nuland, Pyatt, etc) were already so well tracked by the Russian intelligence that their phonecalls were bugged (and likely they didn't care so much before the tapes surfaced).
But even if this is an interesting historical discussion, does this really have something to do with the present war?
>Instructions for use: Attach said meaningless cliche to enemy of choice, so serious people can ignore you.
I'm not so confident this nuclear threat is a bluff. It better be, but, things look complex no matter what source you look at.
Historical context can help people understand the why, but that in itself is not a justification.
I think an essential step toward a real and lasting solution would be to understand that the root cause of the problem is not Russian aggression but Western imperialism.
Russia was fighting the Mongols (Tatars) and the Turks who had invaded the region from Central Asia (see Russo-Turkish a.k.a. Russo-Ottoman Wars 1568-1918).
Russia was winning and wanted to rebuild the Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire centered on Constantinople to keep the Turks out of the region (see the Greek Plan).
Unfortunately, Britain and France wanted to contain Russia and they sided with the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire in the Crimean War (1853-1856).
Russia lost the war and Britain has aimed to contain Russia ever since.
It’s a well-known fact that Britain had a “balance-of-power” policy that aimed to prevent any rival power from dominating the European continent, as well as suppress all colonial rivals outside Europe.
This is why Britain sided with Japan in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904 and together with America it backed the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and February 1917.
In addition to Russia, Britain also aimed to contain Germany which it saw as a colonial rival in Africa and the Pacific.
In 1898 Britain entered into a naval arms race with Germany and started a propaganda campaign claiming that a German invasion of Britain was imminent.
Britain also formed an alliance with Japan (Anglo-Japanese Alliance 1902) that enabled it to move its fleet from the Pacific to European waters, and with France and Russia (Triple Entente 1905-1907).
Russia, which had Europe’s largest army, was expected to crush Germany from the east, with France attacking from the west, while Britain would go in with a small expeditionary force.
In 1914 after Russian-German hostilities had started, Britain declared war on Germany for allegedly “violating Belgian neutrality”, and America was persuaded to join Britain in 1917. In November 1917 Lenin and Trotsky staged their Bolshevik Revolution and later signed a peace treaty with Germany.
As explained already, Britain and America backed the earlier Russian Revolution of February 1917 that led to Ukraine declaring “independence” from Russia and is the root cause of the current Ukraine conflict.
It goes without saying that foreign powers were involved from the start. As Ukraine was under German occupation, Germany naturally backed Ukrainian independence from Russia. In fact, Russia was forced to cede Ukraine to Germany in the Brest-Litovsk Treaty (along with Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) and the Ukrainian State of 1918 was a client state of the German Empire with a government installed by the German military authorities.
Once America had intervened and Germany had been defeated, Britain and France planned to establish protectorates in South Russia from Ukraine to the Caucasus. The Franco-British Agreement stated:
France briefly intervened in Ukraine in 1918-1919. However, as Churchill explains, though the French seized Kiev, the project was terminated when French troops mutinied and Russia took back control. The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic became part of the USSR which it remained until 1991.
W. Churchill, The World Crisis: The Aftermath, p. 166
Moreover, the USSR was formally recognized by Britain, France, and America. Any Western interest in Ukraine had been purely part of the West’s wider agenda in Russia which revolved on control of natural resources like coal, iron, gold, petroleum, etc. And after more than a century of oblivion, they now suddenly remember Ukraine! :grin:
In any case, it is clear what the truth about “Ukrainian independence” is and whose interests it served, but some people just prefer pro-Western propaganda to facts ….
Yeah, we know that. But I think the question remains of where unlimited expansion logically leads to ....
Sure. Justification is a separate issue. And as Iraq shows, the West is not immune to acting on dodgy "justifications". So, I think a measure of objectivity wouldn't be entirely bad.
There is no doubt that a state's actions can be deliberately blown out of proportion by its enemies. Are we seriously expected to believe that Russia is about to take over Europe and America just because it has annexed bits of Ukraine that used to be Russian anyway?
Of course not. The problem is not giving room for diplomacy as these sanctions begin to cripple Russia.
It's now an issue of how quickly things play out.
I think mass hysteria has become something of a growing trend since the pandemic. People should just relax and not make things worse than they already are.
But to see that international finance has more power than a country with a huge nuclear arsenal, does raise some interesting questions ... :smile:
Things can happen, but listening to Johnson speak in the Parliament and then listening to the reply of the Labor opposition leader Keir Starmer to him, being in unison and giving solid support was very telling of the present attitudes. It seemed to surprise and truly impress Boris and shows indeed that can be possible. The British are united. At least now.
And I think that others here will agree, those who stand to profit is also the Western defense industry (as will the Russian arms industry). Thanks all to Putin! Rarely if ever a country like Germany doubles it's defence budget and EU will send arms to Ukraine. Germany is sending 500 Stingers and 1000 anti-tank weapons. Poland is sending anti-aircraft guns and mortars. Estonia is finally permitted to send the field howitzers it wanted to send to Ukraine along with US the Javelins.
The Netherlands is sending arms:
Even Sweden will send arms:
Of course Sweden has sold weapons to countries, but in just sending them to another country Andersson speaks the historical truth.
And few hours ago, so has my country too:
Such arms support from so many countries has hardly happened for a long time if ever. Putin surely is unifying the West.
Our thread troll, informing us of the official Russian view :smile:
Exactly what the West is doing.
I agree. But it seems the West will rather destroy Russia than admit to this.
The West has indeed shown a remarkable commitment to never looking at itself.
So you set up hardcore weapons along the border with your neighbor, the weapons directed at your neighbor, but you insist that your neighbor is irrational for thinking that you have the intention of using those weapons?
You have some really interesting ideas about good neighborly relations.
The real problem is that Russia has always had this border issue: there aren't any obvious geographical borders, but flatland from Europe to Asia. And hence they've always been insisting on having more territory for defense and see springboards everywhere where they are threatened. And of course, the threat of the enemy serve authoritarian regimes well.
I agree. Ukraine could have had it all, but they have been open to overt and covert foreign interference, which has upset the internal balance. I am not also sure about the Ukranian government, both Russian and the NATO powers claim that there is widespread corruption, maybe the one thing they agree on.
Russia is going to come out of this worse for wear, Ukraine has a window of opportunity as a neutral state, but it needs the correct leadership, not sure their young president Zelensky can handle it. He was naive enough to expect NATO to help prevent the invasion.
Is Ukraine being 'used'? Anyone can say anything, but I personally feel the statement by Medvedev his highly plausible.
Quoting Sputnik - Jan 22, 2022
Financial measures work for sure, and are relatively benign and reversible, unlike a nuclear option.
For those like myself who want to respect all nations and all leaders of those nations, including Vladimir Putin, any such regard will crumble to nothing if a nuclear first strike is launched. We all know what Putin's enemies think, but for those who broadly support Russia, China know that it will be impossible to have any connections - trade, tourism, and so on - for me at least - with peoples of a country that launched a nuclear first strike. This is why China has a no first strike policy. I think people underestimate the moral revulsion among friends and enemies alike if such a thing happens. We all know what happened with Covid 19.
Putin can always call it off, after weighing the concessions he can gain versus the cost of continuing.
What troubles me is that is simply not between two nations, there are substantial undercurrents it seems that upset the ability of Russia and Ukraine to come to terms with each other: you don't negotiate with a 'toy' but with its owner, an exaggeration to be sure, but there it is.
Talking about yourself again ... :rofl:
Quoting ssu
Yeah, right. England has very obvious geographical borders and still they've always been insisting on having more and more colonies: India, America, Australia, Africa, and still not enough... :lol:
What would you do if you were put in (pun intended) as President of Russia? Would you be any different? Since the rise of Nazi Germany's illegal arms build up to the point where they had military superiority the name of the game is to prevent your adversary from gaining a military advantage even before any war starts. That's deterrent. Military inequality is the goal.
The constant rhetoric from the United States in particularly is aimed at diminishing Russia. Lets see a search for Russia on CNN, for example. Russia is still the enemy. Those nuclear missiles are not aimed at sunny Spain, for example.
Couldn't Putin have just, simply, not invaded Ukraine and just have tried to make his country better? Or was someone going to invade Russia, which, after Iraq and Afghanistan...
At the very least I disagree there's an innocent side in this scenario. I mean, Putin is KGB for cripes sakes.
Well, America did it in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it did it no harm. So, judging from history, that shouldn't be a big deterrent.
The only lesson to draw from it is that in addition to your nuclear arsenal you also need international finance and the global media on your side.
I don't know about Russia, but China sure is watching and learning a few lessons to put into practice when the time is right ....
Great point, but we understand that that attack was carried out during a world war, in which all countries were involved and were attacked and occupied by Japanese forces. Come to think of it, conventional warheads would have the same effect, or even cruise missiles. Many of us were on the winning side, we were fighting the war.
In this case one country, is being attacked while the rest of the world is at peace, relatively, and the United States has publicly stated it will not get into direct conflict with Russian forces.
The consensus, I think, among the nations of the world is that the only justification for a nuclear attack is a first strike against that country, and this is not the case here.
Should have said, thanks for sharing. Very interesting hearing non-Western perspectives, gives a more accurate picture of the situation.
Yes yes but what for? What is the end game here? What are the goals of the great nations of the world right now, isn't it more power and domination over the others, in some sort of an international squid game? Is that what the human race was meant for?
What happened to peace and the common good?
Quoting The Independent
In a call with Macron, Putin has said:
Putin tells Macron he will stop targeting civilians as Ukraine invasion continues – RFI
Russia doesn't really need Ukraine. But it does need Crimea for its security in the Black Sea. I think Putin is using Ukraine as a bargaining chip, not to keep it for good.
So, it looks like there is still a chance to come to some agreement and stop the unnecessary fighting before it’s too late. But if the EU and NATO insist on unlimited expansion, then there is no chance of reconciliation. Someone will be the winner and someone the loser. Either way, the main winner will be China as it will have one rival less in the race for global hegemony.
Of course it is. The only difference is that the West is run by lawyers, political scientists, and economists, who are better at using diplomatic language to conceal their true intentions than people like Putin or Xi.
You view the matter as a game of Risk. I look at it more as what justifies killing populations. A lot of states justify violence on the basis of playing a game. East, West, North, and South, whatever.
Electing to go to war can be a decision to fight an enemy who is about to kick your ass or a phantasy like Hitler dreamed.
I don't see how the world is "at peace" when there are wars of various degrees of intensity in Syria, Ethiopia, Yemen, etc. and when people are suppressed, persecuted, and killed in many countries around the world.
The US doesn't need to get into direct conflict with Russian forces when it's got European allies and puppets ....
Are we really this ingenuous? Or is this just our forum's personality?
Why use nuclear weapons when you could inflict greater damage with economic and chemical/toxin terrorism using less resources? The covid pandemic had exemplified it could be done -- although I am not saying that it was a conspiracy. But we now know, this is one hell of a bitch!
The nuclear war would wipe out the whole civilization -- read the nuclear winter, as the aftermath is much more deadlier than the actual weapons themselves. So, the nukes come with attached diplomacy and networking to make sure everyone does not become trigger happy. Putin included.
All countries with nukes are licensed to kill. But being licensed to kill does not mean your nuclear ambition and decision are your decision only.
I think every war is a gamble as no one can predict the outcome. Look at Iraq where the West thought it was going to enforce order. It left chaos, death, and destruction behind, with Islamist dictatorships like Iran stronger than before and no end in sight. Or Afghanistan. Too many "unknown unknowns" as Rumsfeld said.
And let's face it, every major power wants more power. The only difference is the tools you employ to acquire power, financial, economic, political, military, or any combination of these, and the narrative you use for justification, "world peace", "economic progress", "democracy", "human rights", etc.
I give up. How many? I will note though, that changing the incandescent for the LED has provided us with a much more efficient source of light. And the LED still has significant energy loss as heat.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
That's a defeatist attitude. Quantum mechanics presents us with a huge mystery. Mass is, for the most part, a mystery.
Two. One to mix the martinis and one to call the super.
Quoting Apollodorus
You keep saying this but I don't get it. As long as their naval base is secure what else would they want with a practically closed sea?
—the underdog Ukrainians,
—the hear-throb president,
—the plucky citizens.
No.... This is a tragedy, an attack on human rights, a war crime of fascism & attempted genocide.
Solemnity, please.
All very unfortunate. He who dies with the most toys wins? Is that it?
Well then you can count me out of that, it's not in the spirit of 'one family' that world religions or humanists for that matter talk about.
[quote="The Beatles "Revolution";https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/beatles/revolution.html"]You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out[/quote]
Ukraine needs to get some things right, putting the minority Russian speaking populace in a corner is not really a good thing. One example is the restriction on Russian books, while the Ukranian President appeals to Russians by speaking Russian in his speech.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quoting Wikipedia
Here are two short documentaries on the neo nazi problem of Ukraine from western media before the invasion
Just for a few members of a neo-nazi command you do not have to bomb all Ukrainian cities... I think we are mixing up some issues here.
Those "nazis" fight in the invaded area by Russians. They are like militias. Nothing related to an average citizen.
In the other hand, we have a population dying in their houses because Putin does not recognize the Ukranian sovereignity. I think this is the worst part
None of that makes the denazification claim valid, because those neo-Nazis are not representative of the people, of the elected government, or even of the military, and yet it is the people, the government, and the country as a whole that is being attacked. The claim is a pretext for aggressive domination, with a view to extending Russia's hegemony in the region, in competition with the EU and NATO. The idea (perhaps not held by you but nonetheless widespread among defenders of the Russian state's line) that the invasion is humanitarian or moral is naive. Those are never the motivations for Russian military action. What the Russian rulers care about is power in the region and on the world stage, and they use force to establish it. They're old-fashioned that way.
What is it about my question that no-one wants to answer it? It seemed quite simple. What is the advantage in exculpating the US and Europe? You've answered a question about your objectives with a history lesson.
I don't deny anything you've said is possibly true. It's also possibly true that the US had a even greater role then you suggest. That theory isn't overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary, so it remains possible. They've done it loads of times before, so it remains plausible also.
So why do seek to pour cold water on the theory every time it's mentioned? I've been quite clear on my objective. I've been quite clear why, in the face of sketchy evidence, I'm erring on the side of assuming ill intent on the part of those governments. I've asked you four times now why you're so keen on excusing them of that intent, but you keep dodging the question.
As to...
Quoting ssu
... I've already explained that too. Twice. There's not a single solution being proposed which doesn't involve America. If, in 2014, America were so keen to oust Yanukovich they were willing to get into bed with Neo-Nazis and far-right extremists, then it shows that their motives were just anti-Russian, not pro-humanity (as if we needed any further evidence that American intentions are not pro-humanity!). And the same people are still in positions of power today. Showing that the main strategy motivating one of the potential peace brokers is simply the opposition to one of the parties to that process is highly significant.
Whatever we think of Putin's methods for addressing it (we roundly condemn them I assume), the conflict remains. War or no war, there is a conflict between Russian interests and European/US interests in the region. If that conflict is not resolved, then resolving the current war will be nothing more than a temporary ceasefire. As you so rightly pointed out (to completely deaf ears it seems) Russia was already at war with Ukraine, to the cost of over 14,000 lives. A fact that the Western media seem only too willing to paint over in favour of the Disney version (bad man suddenly invades united, peace-loving nation of brave heroes).
The solution here requires solving the conflict, not just the war, and the extent to which either of the parties to that conflict is dishonest about their intent is exactly the extent to which any resolution will fail and the bloodshed will continue.
The US clearly has a strategic interest in Ukraine. It clearly has an anti-Russia agenda. Negotiating with Putin from a platform asserting that he's a madman with no legitimate strategic interests at all, and America are as pure as the driven snow with only the poor Ukrainian civilians in their minds is doomed to fail, and the result of a failed negotiation is more people dying.
The tragedy is that people (exemplified by@Christoffer here, but rife in the Western media) see playing out their Top Gun fantasies as more important than achieving a settlement which actually prevents conflict.
I don't know, but I know that the only advantage of blaming the West for this war, is to exculpate Putin.
This is a stupid thing to say, said only by stupid people.
---
Anyway.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine
[tweet]https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1498491107902062592[/tweet]
You are stupid alright. The truth is just stubborn. There's a difference.
The primary motive for the Ukrainian invasion from the perspective of Putin is obviously out of a security concern and the threat of further NATO expansion. Since Putin isn't stupid or an irrational lunatic ( contrary to western propaganda), the benefit of an invasion outweighs the cost here (economic sanctions, isolation etc). I don't side with Russia or NATO in this matter as each side is considering its own interests. However, we have a lot of evidence to suggest the existence of state sanctioned racism against Russians in Ukraine and the Azov battalion being a part of the National guard isn't a trivial fact. If Putin succeeds in his venture, the denazification of Ukrainian government would be a secondary effect.
I hope people stop seeing this conflict as good vs bad. If anything, both sides are at fault for not reaching a compromise through dialogue/diplomacy
Thank you.
Quoting Isaac
Then hopefully history will later tell that! But do notice that what is lacking is the smoking gun showing that indeed there was a far greater role than we know now. For example, if you could show that the US assisted the Svoboda-party in the 2012 elections, then things like that would make your argument more credible.
And then there is the obvious case that we know, thanks to the Russian intelligence services, that Victoria Nuland and the US embassador wanted to keep Tyahnybok out of the government. So how can the US have this affection to neo-nazis, when they don't want them in the government?
As I've seen this, it was the Ukrainians that likely wanted to contain Svoboda, yet taking them into the interim government and not wanting it to be hostile against the new government. And after elections, they were out. Not thinking of this from the Ukrainian political dimension (which was earlier explained just why the extreme right came to be so popular in 2012 electons), but just what the US wants and does, is too narrow.
Quoting Isaac
You remember what the first phase of the Revolution of Dignity, the student protest were called? The EuroMaidan. The time when Ukrainians were waving flags of the EU. And this still has an obvious link to the present, where President Zelensky wants that Ukraine would be accepted part of the EU. This urge to be part of the West is obvious in Ukraine. In 2014 it was basically only a quite normal trade agreement, the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement, that caused Russia to pressure Ukraine and Yanukovich to back down from the agreement.
That was the spark, it should be noted.
And thus to see all this merely a way for the US to get at Russia isn't correct. It doesn't explain the events and the motives of the various actors, starting from the Ukrainian people. They (the Ukrainians) had seen how countries that had joined the West had prospered where they were left poor. Now if some American politician just sees this a way to get at Russia and nothing else, well, that's not what the Ukrainians and the Russians saw in this.
For Russia it was important that Ukraine wouldn't fall closer to the EU, hence this wasn't just about NATO or the US. And then come the territorial objectives that Russia had towards Ukraine. The Russian minority that was favorable towards Russia. And everything that Putin has talked about history, the "special relationship" between Russia and Ukraine, which is an artificial entity without link to Russia, according to Putin.
How about then reading what for example John Mearsheimer so well said far earlier:
Mearsheimer in 1993:
Yes, as John Mearsheimer said, giving up it's nukes lead to a disaster for Ukraine. That indeed was the failure that West did. It really was too naive to think that a peace of paper, assurances that Russia accepts its borders and sovereingty etc, would do it for Ukraine.
Sometimes, American political advisers do know what they are talking about:
Again and again, you misrepresent. You choose an opponent, like @Christoffer as an example of 'people playing out Top Gun fantasies...' calling this a 'tragedy'.
Previously, you generalised Ukrainian citizens as neo-Nazis, for which you 'apologised'', albeit only after an intervention by TPF admin @jamalrob.
I think you have used the phrase 'innocent as the driven snow' before but nobody here, as far as I can tell, has painted the US or Ukraine in such black and white terms.
And of course, we are not the 'negotiators' in the situation. Just as well...
Again and again, you talk of a generalised 'Western media'. It seems to be an obsession.
A wish to counter the rosy picture presented. That's fine but not all Western media do this.
Quoting Isaac
Your rhetoric and misrepresentation are not persuasive.
Posters affected have dealt with this continual distraction with patience.
***
Quoting javi2541997
Well said. This is what is important to highlight.
Quoting jamalrob
Clear and succinct summary, thanks.
You see, the smartest thinkers not only saw that NATO expansion would get the Russian Bear angry. They also saw the obvious imperialism aspirations that Russia has too. Especially when it came to Ukraine.
But perhaps when you are situated on a flat land going from Europe to China, one wants to keep the borders as far as possible. If that means aggressive expansion and hostility towards your neighbors, well, being on the offense is the best defense, I guess.
Okay?
Again. Just more presentation of the alternate possibility that the US were barely involved and opposed to the far-right elements.
Can we just save ourselves loads of time here.
I'm aware of that possibility and accept that it is entirely plausible. There's no need to keep spending your (no doubt precious) time explaining exactly how it is plausible. I already agree that it is.
What I'm asking you (fifth time now) is why, given the two plausible scenarios, you seem to think it vitally important that the one in which the US are innocent is given such representation and the one in which America is culpable is swiftly countered at every mention. That's the key point here.
Quoting ssu
John Mearsheimer in 2014
So which is it? Is Mearsheimer an expert whose greater knowledge we should defer to, or not?
Surely even you can see that trying to claim him as an expert when he agrees with you and delusional when he doesn't is utterly absurd.
You're very welcome. It should also be understood that the conditions for the possibility of such naked military aggression were to an important degree the responsibility of the West. Ensuring peaceful relations and partnerships with Russia in its recovery after 1991 was the most important task for the big powers at the time. It was possible, but they failed, and continued to fail in the same way as the decades went by, despite the many voices warning them they were taking the world in a dangerous direction. See Street's post above.
And if you really are implying that @Christoffer is not "playing out Top Gun fantasies", I think you need to look again at his posts.
That was interesting. A fair amount of that criticism was from the 1990s when American politicians were still thinking in terms of the cold war. I think the cold war permanently shaped those people.
The cartoon effect obscures understanding on both sides.
??
Kissinger - 2014
Mearsheimer - 2015
Chomsky - 2015
Cohen - 2014
Pozner - 2018
Burns - 2008
Frazer - 2014
Gates - 2015
I stopped scrolling beyond that for this.
My point was that expansion of NATO started in the 1990s with a cold war mentality. Inertia carried it forward into the 21st Century.
The fantasy that the US is responsible for everything on earth stems from overestimating US power. It's a form of fetish, an illusion of omnipotence that anglo-saxons are often subject to these days; well, those who still live in the fifties.
Not so long ago Putin managed to install his own extreme-right nationalist puppet not in Kiev but in Washington, DC... It lasted for four long years, and the puppet may come back. That is the extent of US power today: they don't even get to chose their president, sometimes; some Russian autocrat will chose for them.
Keep flogging your backs. It's entertaining.
I don't think Europe or the US has ever seen central Europe as some great prize. I think at least one element of encroachment in Russia's sphere was fear of Russia on the one hand and belief that free markets and democracy would help them on the other.
When Putin became a dictator, anti-feminist and homophobic, it deepened the mistrust.
It's one element of what happened anyway.
Quoting StreetlightX
Sorry. I was actually thinking that Kissinger and Chomsky remember the Cuban missile crisis. My thoughts came out muddled.
Someone said that if you read comments from the Chinese Pinks you'd think the US just invaded Ukraine.
Ha. Brilliant.
Quoting Olivier5
Quoting Olivier5
I'll just leave that there, further comment being unnecessary I think.
What?
And you can thank Obama for that! ;-)
This.
I think that those criticizing American exceptionalism by blaming the US for everything are unintentionally being the ones believing in American exceptionalism the most themselves.
Yep.
Mm, a great prize or no, the aim of market creation and neoliberalization (i.e. privatization, austerity, destruction of workers rights and security) - which is not just an 'aim' but something actively happening and continuing to happen in Central Europe - is high up on the agenda. Very few people have been talking about Ukraine's opening up of it's agriculture to foreign capital, and how, in Michael Roberts' words, institutions like the World Bank were "positively drooling at this opening up of Ukraine’s key industry to capitalist enterprise: [quoting the WB]: 'This is without exaggeration a historic event, made possible by the leadership of the President of Ukraine, the will of the parliament and the hard work of the government'."
And this to say nothing about 'structural adjustment' in Central European countries like Romania, Estonia and Latvia, praised to high heaven by neoliberals in the EU; or the glee that the US must now feel about European energy dependence about to swing evermore to the West; or the weapons manufacturers who will can only be overjoyed at Germany's $100b rearmament, moving from 7th to 3rd in the world ranking of armed states.
And speaking of 'free markets and democracy', let's not forget how anglo neolib 'shock therapy' was directly responsible for Russia being shitty country it is today:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/DanielaGabor/status/1498236360322396161[/tweet]
But the fucking clowns above me would rather just talk about how Putin Bad herp drep, more war pls, leave the poor, poor, US alone. Didn't realize these people like the taste of Empire's boots so much that they'd deepthroat them every chance they got.
Axiom number 1: It's ALWAYS Obama's fault.
Axiom number 2: When it's not Obama's fault, refer to axiom number 1.
Axiom number 3: No matter what happens, it is NEVER the fault of someone located east of the Don.
Axiom number 4: It's not even worth discussing because those disagreeing are FUCKING CLOWNS.
This is what I hear. The same old same old anthem from the US right.
It's either that or the US left equivalent: "It's all on Reagan".
Either way, it is a form of hubris.
Sure, if one looks for causes, they are dozens of them. In my mind, the single most impactful error made by the US that capacitated Putin to do this, was to illegally invade Iraq in 2003. If the US can invade Iraq without a UN blessing, Russia can invade Ukraine. Or try to...
But that stuff comes from neoliberal think tanks. The average American senator voting for mitary aid to Ukraine or Poland doesn't understand any of that. At least I don't think they do.
I'm just saying the cold war made its mark.
Quoting StreetlightX
Yes. And I think once that happens to Ukraine, Russia is next target. I wasn't denying that. I just meant that there are prejudices that facilitate neoliberal exploitation.
Quoting StreetlightX
I think Putin overcame the 1990s pretty well. Free markets did help them recover from the Soviet collapse.
I think their energy relationships with Europe will be normalized quietly when this is over.
Mm, and who do you think the think tanks think for exactly? American Senators are not paid to understand. They are paid to implement policy.
Quoting frank
To become the crony capitalist state it is today? Not convinced by that.
https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2022/02/27/russia-from-sanctions-to-slump/
Yes, there are a few posts where Christoffer answered questions as to solutions to end this war.
A dream of sorts that flies as gung-ho in the face of his more usual attitude and presentation.
However, my main point was @Isaac generalising to 'people' and the 'Western media':
Quoting Amity
This kind of war of words is not helpful. The tragedy is not here...
This story is as old as the hills it seems. American forces fought in the Russian Revolution. Maybe they lost.
https://www.rferl.org/a/when-american-soldiers-fought-a-war-in-russia/30410353.html
Interesting opinion of yours. Mine is that the real tragedy is in bombing people, and that western media are not doing that -- they just talk. That some people talk is not a tragedy in my book. But what do I know?
It's one little US government and a whole world to exploit. It's all much more dynamic and rough than you're making it out to be.
And this brings me back to my central rant core:
If we're going to nod and say we understand why Putin just created half a million refugees and warn that villainizing him obscures the truth, you can't in the same breath villainize the US.
If you're committed to understanding, then fucking try to understand.
There isn't a Neoliberal Mastermind somewhere telling the US government what to do. There are specific reasons the US's embedded liberalism gave way to neoliberalism and one of the factors was that American leftists tripped over themselves into failure. They handed victory to their opponents with their arrogant stupidity. So we could just as easily blame them for the refugees as anyone else.
end rant.
Mutual provocation perhaps. Ain't that the way...
But @Isaac has repeatedly posted misrepresentations.
Even if he has made relevant points, this is what stands out...
OK, really going this time and won't reply further.
Thanks for all perspectives and information shared.
A useful discussion.
I think we established all nations run after these things.
You don't need a neoliberal mastermind when a generalized and entirely impersonal profit imperative - we call it capitalism - will do. That's the difference between idiot psychologizers who think politics functions like Harry Potter, and an understanding of state power in service of a dominant class structure with a century of entrenchment. You can equivocate between a literal single person and globally spanning empire with mutiple, recorded genocides on its hands if you like, but let's be clear that the equivocation is yours and yours alone.
They think they are. The words "World's Policeman" mean something, especially the brutality.
Fragmentational dilution of my writing like this becomes a childish way of discussing a topic. I won't fall for cheap tricks like this, ugh...
Quoting Isaac
Wait, are you using opinion pieces as sources? Not factual sources for your own inductional reasoning? If you're gonna use sources to argue a point, it becomes extremely skewed if the sources are merly opinion pieces or far-leaning political voices.
Quoting Isaac
Has nothing to do with the events today or the acts of Putin. The far-right neo nazis are an insignificant speck on the political spectrum in Ukraine today, but you use this event as some justification for Putin's denazification propaganda reasoning for invading Ukraine?
What is your point? What is your actual argument? Because all I see is you blasting biased sources without any connective lines through any kind of argument with any kind of conclusion that actually focuses on my core argument.
Quoting Isaac
Neither connected to Putin's reasoning for invading Ukraine, other than you falling for his propaganda machine.
Quoting Isaac
Quoting Isaac
Either you are just not mentally capable of doing internet research, or you don't know how Google works, or just try to rub my argument in the mud with an ill attempt at a childish response. Either way you only do research to fit your narrative, you don't bias-check.
The independent media outlets broadcasting live news with experts from the IRES Institute for Russian and Eurasian Studies, have a bit more validity to them than your biased opinion pieces that you linked to. If you then seek sources for what I write about Putin's true ambitions then what you should do in order not to have a biased and irrelevant point of view is to search for research papers published. Like this: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-review/article/abs/vladimir-putins-aspiration-to-restore-the-lost-russian-empire/C0099C205BCDBA970CB699AFD534CBE5
Then, if going with articles that are less opinion pieces: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26769481
Here's a quote from it that I firmly agree with since people don't listen in here:
All of that from 2014. Which means that the events since then up until now have further pushed his impatience with building his empire. All of this is perfectly in line with what I've written about Putin's ambitions and his journey from the fall of the Soviet Union, his KGB roots up until now.
That NATO has expanded towards the east is also a false narrative based in the very fact of how NATO expands. Answer me this... how does NATO expand? Are they forcing themselves onto nations, invading them and establishing NATO bases? Or are they rather existing as an allience with open doors to nations wanting to join?
Since we all know that it is the latter, then why do people say that NATO "expand east and put pressure on Russia"? Isn't the true nature of such an expansion, an extension of each nation's will? So the question of expansion as an influence of US imperial influence makes no sense based on a simple fact of A) NATO is not US alone and B) Nations joining NATO do so by their own will, not NATO's. Why do Ukraine want to join NATO? To be a puppet state under the US? No, since NATO doesn't work like that. Do they then want to be part of NATO in order to be safe from Russia? Of course that is the reason. The same reason why Finland and Sweden has this option on their table as well: since Russia, or rather Putin, keeps acting aggressively towards us.
So any narrative of NATO being an aggressor or responsible for Putin's actions are just plain wrong. Putin acts to build his empire, NATO acts as a defense alliance. When nations close to Russia feel threatened by Putin, they lean towards or join NATO to be safe from Russian aggression. In Putin's mind, this is an obstacle to building his empire, which means he views NATO as a threat and spins his propaganda to talk about NATO as an offensive force rather than defensive.
Quoting Isaac
What is the advantage of blaming them for everything like you do? You aren't interested in any balanced view or multi-reason answer. You are only interested in concluding the West and US imperial ambitions to be the reasons for every bad thing.
The major thing that you never ever seem to understand is that I've never said anything of Europe or US being "innocent". I'm just saying that your invented guilt of "the west", with lose connections, biased opinion pieces etc. does not connect actions of the west with Putin's action in this conflict or his build-up of modern Russia.
You simply inflate the guilt of the west as being more influential and dismiss any notion of Putin's guilt. When every respectable historian of modern Russia keep concluding that Putin has built up a Russia that is entirely under his rule and authority, then how is it "movie villain" to pinpoint this conflict to be by the hands of one man: Putin?
There's something called logic, reasoning, deduction, induction. If the facts point in one direction, then I am fully capable of making my own conclusions based on the facts that I am gathering as long as I'm careful and minimizing biased sources. Those facts must also be directly connected to the things I'm talking about. The problem I have with people pushing opinions as you do, is that you demand that I find a source that writes out "the truth" in big large letters so it is impossible to dismiss them. Any kind of interpretation or any kind of analysis or inductional reasoning on my part is met by direct dismissal because you don't have those large big letters by a man called "truth teller". So, you don't engage with what I actually write, you don't read it carefully, you don't think about what I write before answering, which leads to a simple dismissal on your part and a parrot circular reasoning where you just re-iterate the same thing over and over. That is failed reasoning on your part.
So once again, answer me this:
What are Putin's intentions based on the history of his rule and rise to power? Why does he actually feel threatened by NATO? In practice, how does NATO expand itself? Does Ukraine not have rights to its own independence? Is Russia ruled by many or just one man (Putin), and if not one man, who shares the power and how?
I've answered all of that, many times. But I want you to answer those questions as well, because those are the key points in my argument that you need to counter in order to counter-argue my conclusions. Everything else you do is just noise with no relation to what I have actually argued.
If you're saying capitalism=neoliberalism, then we aren't talking about the same thing. I'm talking about Hayek.
Quoting StreetlightX
If you don't employ psychology, then you aren't going to understand the world around you.
I suspect that applying a little psychology might humanize Americans for you to the point that you can shovel your abyss of rage toward them. They need to be a Sauron-like It to serve your purposes.
Quoting StreetlightX
What are calling genocide? Lenin and Stalin killed 20 million Russians, and that was not a genocide. What are you calling genocide?
I want to have simple answers from you:
How does NATO expand? In practice, how does it expand? Are they forcing themselves into nations or are nations joining them?
And why are they joining NATO or want to join NATO?
Neoliberalism is what you get when capitalism roams free. If you don't understand that the former is the ideological complement and product of the latter, then you understand neither.
Quoting frank
Except the entire point is that they don't. Literally the whole point.
Quoting frank
Just about any US foreign intervention will do. In any case, off topic.
Nope. So Isaac has owned up to conscious intellectual dishonesty. All you lack is the admission.
Another question I want a simple answer to from you:
Can you pinpoint which foreign interventions that US has done that complies with the definition of genocide?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
I think you mean Soviet citizens, many of whom died in the famine in Ukraine. I don’t think there’s a consensus on whether that was genocide.
An estimate from a British historian who spent two years in Russia looking at records is that there were about 37 million unnatural deaths from 1917 to the 1950s. I subtracted the 15 million who died during WW2.
The famine following the revolution was engineered by the government.
I would not call it genocide or attempted genocide. It was an attempt to crush opposition to communism.
You're probably right. I'm calling all Soviets Russians. Thanks for the heads up.
1. If Russia’s fleet is based in Crimea, where it has been for centuries, then giving Crimea to Ukraine (and NATO) would be a problem. This in addition to the fact that Crimea has never been Ukrainian.
2. The Black Sea is not a “closed sea”. Russia, Ukraine, and others use it for access to the Mediterranean via the Bosphorus and Dardanelles Straits.
3. The security threat to Russia is illustrated by Turkey, a NATO member, closing the straits to war ships.
Turkey Closes Bosphorus, Dardanelles Straits to Warships – US Naval Institute
Currently, Turkey has lukewarm relations with Russia. A more hostile Turkey ganging up with other NATO states against Russia would be a major security threat to Russia.
4. Russia does not threaten the West in the same way the West threatens Russia. It hasn't got military bases next door to England, France, or America.
I think it's probably best referred to as "democide":
democide - Wikipedia
Still an awful lot of dead people, though ....
Of course the world should be 'one family'. The question is who should be the 'head' of that family. Not everyone wants to see America (or Wall Street) in that role.
This is why I'm saying that the best solution would be for each continent to be free and independent. But perhaps I'm being too idealistic.
Yes yes, but isn't what is in their free and independent minds important? Suppose what they had in their heads was the brotherhood of man. That would be nice. It follows that anything else would not be nice.
By this logic, all of Norway should just call themselves Swedes. Borders in the modern world are respected in another way than pre-world war eras and post-Soviet eras. When the Soviet Union fell, the borders began to be drawn. Crimea became part of Ukraine and any idea that Crimea belongs to Russia is just in line with the delusional imperial reasoning of Putin.
Borders in the modern world are redrawn based on democratic movements. If people want to break away or join another nation, that is a process of democracy where the people initiate a vote to redraw borders. This is what the Catalonia Parliament has been voting for, to be set apart from Spain. But that didn't happen.
To invade and claim a part of modern Ukraine on the idea that "it was ours to begin with" is a crime against modern international laws. It doesn't matter what delusional idea that formed such a decision, but the process should have been a democratic one. A functioning Russia would have asked the Crimean people if they want to be part of Russia or part of Ukraine, if the opinion was strong that they wanted that, they should have had a vote in order to pass something that was supported by the people. The problem is that Russia annexed Crimea, then offered voting choices that didn't reflect this kind of process, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum
It was a sham, a theatre, a spectacle as usual from the Russian side, forcing them into an outcome that was not democratic in any sense of the word.
Quoting Apollodorus
That is due to the current conflict, NATO has never threatened Russia. Defensive actions aren't threats and Turkey can act on their own accord without it being an action made by NATO. It doesn't seem like you understand how NATO works. It's similar to Russia being part of the UN and your reasoning would be that the invasion of Ukraine is an act by UN because Russia is a member state.
Quoting Apollodorus
Turkey's actions are their own. If they act with NATO, that is a decision among all members of NATO. Turkey can't act by itself under the flag of NATO without consent from NATO and NATO is still not an offensive alliance, so NATO would never approve of any offensive acts. You never seem to understand this, and all your reasoning is based on this imaginary NATO threat.
Quoting Apollodorus
Are you actually delusional? What the fuck do you think Putin has been doing during this conflict? Every day he's threatening, with nuclear options, threatening anyone who aids Ukraine, threatening Sweden and Finland for even thinking of joining NATO. On top of that you say that "the west" threatens Russia, but all you have as a foundation for that is a grave misunderstanding of how NATO works.
Uhm... like Eu? Like UN? You do know there are forms of unions that are based on a mutual plural rule as a parliament. In which a mandate period is being held by a leader from different nations each time.
Quoting Apollodorus
You mean free like Ukraine? And what do you mean by continent? All of Africa is one giant union? That hasn't happened yet. And what about freedom to join a union of defense? Like Sweden and Finland joining NATO? Is that a free and independent choice by each of them? Or doesn't that count because of how you think NATO works, which is how exactly?
While Streetlightx is responding, may I add something here, since I have addressed this before?
How does NATO expand? Consider yourself facing a football team of 12 players. Upon invitation 18 more join the opposing team. Do you feel threatened? And this is after the game (cold war ) has ended.
If nations are joining them freely, then why did not Ukraine join them and put a stop to Putin's ambitions?
That was the purpose of NATO after all, to check Russian ambitions.
Do you deny that America and Russia are adversaries with one attempting to get the better of the other?
Why do they want to join NATO after the cold war ended? Same reason people join gangs, collective power for coercion on the international scene I would think.
Those fools only vote for their own selfishness. Trust me, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine are far away from Spain-Catalonia context. My country has always been so soft towards Catalonia
The world isn't a football game and there is no conflict with Russia like your analogy here describes. Most nations have had trade deals and good relations with Russia, up until Putin's aggressions started in 2014. If you view the world as a "we against them", which Putin seems to do, of course you are threatened. But that doesn't mean that you actually are threatened, it means you are delusional in thinking- and acting accordingly.
It is more rational to actually say it how it is. After someone threatens you with imperial ambitions, breaking national air and water borders, pushing you with military unknown intentions through this behavior (which is something Sweden has been dealing with for a long time), while annexing other places illegally, talking about imperial borders that would include nations that are considered free and independent to be part of that empire and so on. -Do you feel threatened by that behavior? Would you then consider joining a defensive alliance that would help defend your borders if this aggressor would ever make reality of those threats, those actions, those ideas and behavior... just as Russia has now done with Ukraine?
Quoting FreeEmotion
We can also turn this around. If as many in here are arguing, NATO is interesting in just pushing east and threatening Russia, why didn't they just welcome Ukraine with open arms? It doesn't really fit with the "aggressive NATO" narrative many write about in here.
The thing is that Ukraine wanted to join NATO, but NATO doesn't allow unstable states.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17767225/ukraine-nato-explained/
Since NATO is a defensive alliance, they need to keep things within the realm of stability. An unstable region could automatically lead to conflict with NATO if that nation joins. On top of that, Ukraine has just begun to become a stable nation, actively working with anti-corruption efforts and stabilizing the nation. In a few years it could have become a member. This is also the reason why Russia never became part of NATO, which Putin wanted early on under his rule. He just wanted to join without adhering to the rules of the engagement, typical authoritarian standard for him. This doesn't fly with NATO.
But Sweden and Finland, we are within the parameters of joining and that has nothing to do with any bullshit US imperial ambition reasons. It's because our airspace and sea borders are being harrassed all the time by Russia while they keep indirectly threatening us. Are we not free as nations to seek defense alliances against that?
Also, NATO isn't specifically focused on Russia, it's just that Russia is a military superpower with an aggressive authoritarian leader who acts accordingly, which is a security threat and of course gets alot of attention. But let's say North Korea started bombing NATO members, that would mean all NATO members collaborate in dealing with that threat.
Quoting FreeEmotion
I don't think the US (America includes Canada) have any interest in "trying to be better". USA has an American exceptionalist problem, they think they're a world police, they think they have the role of fixing problems in the world, but that is not the same as trying to actively fight someone to show themselves better. They also have economical interests by heavy investment and influence in other nations, while conducting proxy wars in others to claim resources. This is still not to show how much greater they are, but instead an interest of a superpower to be an economic superpower. This is done by the US, Russia and China while smaller nations with power also tries to gain power through it. Everyone does it. The difference is that Russia has an authoritarian leader who openly speaks of the "empire", who by force tries to claim land and increase that empire's borders.
I think people are unable to see the difference of intentions, so they mix together everything as "the west against the east" with simplifications that are more in-line with the "off brand "Marvel-movie" reasoning that I've been blamed for. It's a pattern I see, people saying that me calling Putin an authoritarian leader in the same shape and form as Stalin or Hitler, being simplistic, while they themselves talk about "the West" with the same anti-capitalist simplifications in arguments as stoned homeopathic hippies.
Quoting FreeEmotion
Really? So if you have a gang leader (Putin) who keeps harassing your house and family, saying that he owns your house and you should give it up to him. You don't want to have a security force guarding your safety? Especially when you know that you have nothing against his thugs if they started firing at you. Which is basically what this is. NATO is not acting as a gang, Putin acts as a "gang". It's why people even call Russia a mafia state. Have you ever seen the US threaten Sweden and Finland in the same way?
You don't see the context I brought that up? It doesn't matter what the details are, the context was that if borders were to be redrawn under modern international laws, it has to be a democratic process supported by the people, made in an uncorrupt democratic way. Who cares what those fools want, that was not the point.
YOUR logic, not mine. :smile:
Quoting Christoffer
Have a vote? You mean like China did before annexing Tibet? :grin:
Quoting Christoffer
NATO works by constantly expanding and not giving a dime about anyone else. Plus, it was created by America, and it is run by America in America's interests. But maybe things look differently when seen from the Finnish outback .... :lol:
:100:^3% (=1M%, for all you humanities majors)
This is as true as true can be, and it does not only occur in Europe but also in the U.S. among the descendants of European immigrants. Tribalism among American whites has diminished, but when I was growing up, was yet a part of the mindset of those who descended from European immigrants in the mid 1800's through early 1900's. Of course, Germans, Irish and Italians were the largest of those groups, and slavic peoples less so. You can take it from me, that a young Polish boy growing up in anything but a Polish neighborhood "caught hell" on a daily basis, being continually assaulted with "dumb polack" and "ugly polack" jokes (it doesn't help that Polish surnames tend to be long, consonant-heavy, and sometimes incomprehensible). It had its cumulative effect on me, I can tell you. Of course, the English (the "WASPs") were untouchable. There weren't even any pejorative terms for them. There is definitely an ingrained belief among European peoples that slavs are "lesser". I feel certain that western Europeans hate the idea of a strong slavic country, as Russia potentially represents, since it challenges their ingrained bias.
Thank you, @baker. This post almost made me cry.
[i]"Ever since I can remember, Slavic people have been put down by the West. In every international setting I have been, there was a palpable contempt for us. Online, as soon as people hear where I'm from, if they are Westerners, then 9 out of 10 times, they automatically adopt a negative, patronizing, bad-faithed attitude toward me. Like I'm automatically a second-class person because I'm from a Slavic nation.
This Western contempt and bad faith toward the Slavic people is so consistent and so grave that there is even a trend for Slavic people to despise themselves because of their national roots, to deny them, to reinvent the past (like some who say that we're not really Slavic, but an offshoot from the Italian group), and many adopt a Western identity.
The way many Western people have been talking about Putin is actually "just business as usual". There is an anti-Slavic nationalism that has become so deeply ingrained in Western culture, so normalized that most people don't even see it."[/i]
This applies not only within the European context, but among the descendants of Europeans within the U.S., where it is passed from father to son like a cultural legacy. Take it from me, growing up Polish in a largely Italian neighborhood (among tribalistic "white" Americans, you are what your surname is) was difficult in many ways, and the incessant "stupid Polack" and "ugly Polack" jokes (told in jest, but destructive nonetheless) took a cumulative toll on my self concept which I have yet to fully repair. Make no mistake, Western Europeans, as a cultural trait, hold Slavic people in no small amount of contempt (remember all the trash talk about "Polish plumbers" during the Brexit debates?), a contempt of which I have personally been a victim. I feel certain that the enduring spectacle of a strong Slavic nation like Russia continues as an affront to that sensibility, and that this contributes to continued anti-Russian sentiment.
Thank you, @baker, for giving voice to a suppressed truth. Your post which I quoted above effected me greatly.
So it's bad vs bad, they'll kill each other, therefore the conflict is good? The problem of course, is that the bad supports itself trough abuse of the good. So the conflict may be eternal, as the good suffer while the bad are forever in conflict. Whether the bad can kill each other without first annihilating the good, or if the good must resist the bad, is beyond comprehension, because we do not know how to distinguish "the good" from the bad. Maybe we're all bad.
I see your point,Christoffer. I am somehow agree with you. But what I tried to explain with you is that there are some countries which use the "democracy" just for economicall interests. They cheat. While Ukraine wants to protect their history and sovereignty, Catalonia just wants to be a tax heaven being apart from Spain. I see a huge difference in terms of "democracy" or "reestructure" the maps.
Like a proper democratic vote. That is what they should have had, not what they got, as precisely what I wrote.
Did you actually read what I wrote? Your answer seems like you didn't even read anything.
Quoting Apollodorus
Can you source ANY of these claims? And you still don't understand HOW NATO expands. Are you illiterate? Seriously, if Sweden want to join NATO, how does that equal NATO expands as a choice by NATO? Your logic's in the toilet.
So Jens Stoltenberg is acting to further the US interests? How do you support such a claim?
What? I just asked you for sources to back up the claim that "this is all Putin". If you were adding a little rhetorical hyperbole, that's absolutely fine, I've no problem with that, but then your response doesn't make any sense because I asked you about your treatment of the portion of blame the US and Europe must shoulder. If your phrase "this is all Putin" was merely rhetorical hyperbole, then the question remains unanswered. Why shoot down all the attempts to talk about the extent to which the US and Europe are culpable?
The only reason I could make sense of is that you thought they shouldered no blame at all (hence my taking your "this is all Putin" at face value). If you don't think that, and you agree they share some of the blame, then why the constant shooting down of any discussion about it?
Quoting Christoffer
Yes. I'm not an historian, nor a military strategist, so I don't consider myself to have the necessary skills to interpret raw historical documents and military pronouncements in context. I defer to experts to do that.
Quoting Christoffer
Seriously? Are you actually going to try and pull off an 'all your sources are biased, but mine a perfectly objective' argument? How naive are you? All sources are biased, the trick is to learn what the bias is. I'm biased in favour of finding fault with my government and its allies. I've explained why I'm biased in that direction - they're the governments I have some little influence over and even if I'm wrong, it's still useful to keep them on their toes. So yes, all my sources are biased in that direction. Bias doesn't equate to lies, it's just a filter through which facts are viewed.
Quoting Christoffer
That argument has been made elsewhere. You simply asked me for my sources so I supplied them.
Quoting Christoffer
Fuck's sake. I've repeated the argument a dozen times at least. Any solution involves the US so the US's prior behaviour in these kinds of events is relevant to a weighing up of how to use them and it's important that they are made as aware as possible that we're watching them, that they can't get away with the sort of shit they tried last time.
Quoting Christoffer
See now you being obtuse. Are you now saying that there are no other reasons than Putin for the invasion? If so, then my request for sources is completely reasonable. You've provided no experts at all claiming that there's no other cause of this invasion than Putin himself.
Quoting Christoffer
How so?
Quoting Christoffer
That's an article from 2017 and all it shows is Putin's objectives, which no-one here has argued against. Your point is that "this is all Putin". again, without the 'all' claim, you're just saying that some of the cause is Putin's ideology, a claim absolutely no-one is disputing. I'm asking why you're pouring cold water on attempts to examine the role of the US and Europe. If you're not arguing that they have no part to play, then I can't see why you'd want to oppose discussion of that role.
Quoting Christoffer
How is that less of an opinion piece? It's literally presenting an (informed) opinion.
Quoting Christoffer
We don't 'all know' that at all. Are you seriously presenting the theory that NATO does absolutely nothing but sit back and wait for counties to join. That no diplomacy, deal-making, financial incentives, political alliances or cross-border events play any part at all in the process?
Quoting Christoffer
Either quote me blaming them for everything, or refrain from ascribing me views I've never espoused.
Quoting Christoffer
To remind you...
Quoting Christoffer
Explain in what way that's a "balanced view or multi-reason answer". Or for that matter, when you say...
Quoting Christoffer
If none of those factors come into play, then what exactly are the 'multi-reasons' to which you refer?
Quoting Christoffer
How can the guilt of the west be invented if they are not innocent?
Quoting Christoffer
Again, please don't just assign views to me without sources. Where have I dismissed any notion of Putin's guilt?
Quoting Christoffer
I largely agree with you about Putin's intentions. I don't see the point in spelling that out any further.
Quoting Christoffer
I gather it's a combination of a distaste for democracy and an unwillingness to cede strategic advantage which could be leveraged to obstruct economic expansion.
Quoting Christoffer
A combination of the extant global threats, diplomacy, political deals and direct advocacy.
Quoting Christoffer
Yes
Quoting Christoffer
No. I can't see how that could even be possible, let alone plausible. I suspect, like most tyrants he's surrounded by a cabal of associates who benefit from mutual objectives.
The French have always idealized the 'Slavic soul'. The Greeks tend to be pro-slav, the Italians too. Don't confuse the West with America and the UK.
Totally correct. Racism in Europe (and America) is very much alive and well, only that it has acquired different forms. It certainly occurs in England where there is prejudice not only toward "darkies" but also toward the Irish, the Russians, and above all, the Germans. Obviously, this is a reflection of England's past (and present) imperial ambitions. State propaganda can inculcate 'ingrained' bias in public perception of other nations.
I definitely think the Germans and the Slavs need to play a greater role in Europe in order to counteract the prevalent Anglo-Saxon feeling of cultural and racial "superiority".
Germany's decision to massively increase its military expenditure and ship arms to Ukraine may be a welcome sign of it finally beginning to reassert itself and no longer play second fiddle to England and France.
Just for the record, if you grew up in America, you know good and well that this is about Pollocks, not slavs in general. I have no idea how the dumb pollack thing got started.
I interact daily with Czechs, Poles, Russians, and what have you. There's no racism. They're just white people with funny accents.
But he isn't delusional!!! I'm not sure where you see the illogicality here.
He clearly states how Russia thinks. What is so hard to understand that Russia see's the West as a threat AND has territorial aspirations on the territory of it's neighbors?
Cannot those happen at the same time? Mearsheimer understands this and that is why he wanted Ukraine to retain a nuclear deterrence. Putin has shown quite well these both sides in his words and actions. Haven't you ever heard about Novorossiya? No?
Besides, don't sideline all those third nations starting from Ukraine. Yes, I understand, you want to talk about the US. However, they aren't the only actor important in the story. And if I say that this war is Putin's fault, it doesn't mean that the US or NATO has done everything right.
What is false to think that all this is happening because of the US wants to enlarge NATO and nothing else. Either you genuinely think that Russia would have left Ukraine alone if NATO wouldn't have made any moves to the East or then don't care an iota on what Russia does with its neighbors. Well, if the second is true, why post on this thread? If the first is true, then that is absolute horseshit! You can just look at the meddling of Russia in other ex-Soviet states that nobody is talking about joining NATO and just what Putin has said for years about "the artificial" Ukraine.
The former Soviet countries have had the urge to join NATO because of Russia's imperial aspirations. What is so wrong to opt for EU / NATO / The West than to be under the control of an authoritarian imperialist like Putin?
Both and write correctly what it looks like when people are obsessed about the actions of the US and see everything happening in the World because of it. Although the US is important, not everything revolves around it's decisions and actions.
Yep. That's why you are campaigning so hard for China to give Tibet back to the Tibetans, or for Turkey to return North Cyprus ....
And of course NATO is run by America. Everyone knows that. It isn't my fault that the news hasn't made it to the Finnish outback yet .... :wink:
And certainly against the French as well, and the Italians, the Belgium, etc. The Brits and Americans tend to think highly of themselves, they treat everybody else with contempt, not just the Slavs.
I have an Italian friend here (Rome, Italy) who keeps ranting on and on about how Italians are treated with contempt, and how American tourists ask her questions in English, in a soddin' Roman street. Try and ask a question in Italian in any US city, and watch the face people make (except in Rhode Island where it'd be fine).
There is even a song in French about the contempt displayed by anglo types...
Extremely well:
[quote]Putin’s Motives and Russian Grand Strategy
Vladimir Putin’s Ukraine strategy is driven by three goals: survival, empire and legacy.
First and foremost, Putin sees the fate of Ukraine as an existential issue both for himself and for the authoritarian regime that he and his inner circle have gradually rebuilt over the past fifteen years. The Orange Revolution of 2004 was a deep shock to Putin because of the echoes it created in Russia and because Ukraine seemed to be on the brink of becoming a major source of longer-term “democratic diffusion” right on Russia’s long southwestern border. Fortunately for Putin, however, the luster of this revolution quickly wore off once its leaders gained office and failed to live up to their reformist promises. From the start there was infighting between Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko; reforms were postponed; the Ukrainian economy spiraled downward and corruption remained rampant.
By the time Yushchenko’s presidency ended in 2010, many voters had come to see Viktor Yanukovych as a preferable alternative. Yanukovich also reportedly benefited from substantial financial and “political technology” support from Moscow. For Putin, Yanukovych was a promising alternative to the western-oriented “Orange” leaders, since he seemed likely to maintain strong trade and financial ties with Russia, show proper deference towards Moscow and, above all, keep Ukraine out of NATO. But it turned out that too many Ukrainians were unwilling to follow the Putin/Yanukovich script.
When Yanukovich fled Kiev on February 21, it must have seemed to the Kremlin that a second wave of the Orange Revolution had taken control of Ukraine. Putin no doubt trembled with fury – but also with fear.
Putin’s second driving motive for going all out to reassert as much dominance as possible in Ukraine combines his goals of restoring a Russian empire and of burnishing his personal legacy. It is abundantly clear that Putin seeks to restore Russia to its former imperial glory, and in so doing to secure for himself a place in history as one of the greatest Russian leaders of all time. In a 2005 speech, Putin famously stated that “the breakup of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century.”
Now we are seeing the next act in this tragedy playing out...
:up: My fault. I forgot to mention the "frogs" and the rest .... :smile:
There is definitely an air of superiority in the "Anglo-Saxons", no doubt about it. In a way, it's understandable, when you have been ruling the world for centuries it can get to your head, however unconsciously. But to many others it smacks of arrogance and even racism.
According to some analysts this has been a contributing factor to the failure of US-UK adventures in places like Iraq and Afghanistan ....
Generally it is bad news when your people are changing "glory to Ukraine," as you send your mostly conscripted army to fight there.
This also means the more reliable armed forces are out of town. Putin is also pushing to place nuclear weapons in Belarus, which will make breaking away far harder. I would be surprised if these protests don't pick up speed. It's now or never for would be revolutionaries. Expats can pick up arms in Ukraine and slip across the border.
227 civilians and 19 security forces (at least) died in riots in Kazakhstan less than two months ago. The unrest was only stopped when Russia deployed 2,500 troops to back their client government. Protests had already started back up in Kazakhstan and begun spreading before the invasion of Ukraine.
The protests in January were sparked by high food and gas prices, which the war is spiking again.
Perhaps Putin felt he had to act, to show strength, after one client broke away, and two others revolted within the span of a year, but the military ineptitude Russia is showing seems to make it increasingly likely that these kick back up.
Belorussians and Ukrainians look to EU aligned neighbors and see the much better growth and freedom there. Central Asian nations look to China's meteoric growth and Belt and Road investments on their behalf and see a better system. Russia seems to have nothing to offer its clients but total economic stagnation (per capita, Russians have fallen behind China, in absolute terms, the economy of Russia is now smaller than Canada). This might be the move that ends the Russian satellite system, maybe even Putin.
Why yes. I know something about that, re. Afghanistan.
At some point, circa 2013 on a flight to Kabul, i got seated next to some UK general who introduced himself as the UK top commander in Afghanistan. Forgot his name. We started a discussion about how it was all going. I remember he said Afghanistan was a lost cause since the US moved their attention to Iraq, and he was right about that. What stroke me though, was how little he knew about Afghans and their motivations. And the same applied in all the Western embassies I went through during that trip: nobody gave much of a shit for afghan culture. The only ones I left with an impression of having met a true professional and not an inexperienced joker, were the Indian and the Russian embassies.
Introduction
Hello defenders of the nation, my address to you. I am Lietenant Colonel of the Reserve, Valery Stepanovych.
I'm introducing myself because I quit some time ago, so it's possible newer recruits don't know me; though I think you've all heard of the Black Eagles. <
A lot of our valor comes from there. You've also heard that the 38th Guard Brigade used to run 10k every morning in full gear and then swim in the lake.
Well, I was the guy who every day for four years ran at the front, and dived first into the lake. I'm black eagle one.
All the most important things in life generally happen quickly, and without warning.
It's impossible to prepare to become a hero. It's just that in a person's life there arise circumstances where he must act, here and now.
To act, and become a part of history. Or to wait for a more opportune moment. Though fate tends to offer a chance to do something truly meaningful but once.
I served in the airborne for a long time. Over ten years in the "Rezko <
Those who have met me can't help but be honest, I was one of the officers most fanatically loyal to the army. A patriot. Duty was all.
Mercantilism was always foreign to me. I bring this up so that no one begins building theories that someone hired me to make these remarks.
There's nothing in my biography suggesting I might be for sale, and at my age, people don't change.
The Airborne was my everything, and in all the years after I left the service I continued to help and support my Brigade.
In front of my house, for 18 years, had stood a flagpole with the banner of the VDV (paratroopers).
Today, I decided to record my first ever video address because my comrades, guys in light blue striped shirts like the one I wore, are sitting in the forest on the borders of Ukraine and it looks likely that shortly they'll be participating in something very bad.
Something that could have catastrophic consequences for our country, and comprehensively tarnish the honor and traditions of the army, which were established by many generations of paratroopers and it's likely not all will make it home alive.
The Russian army, which has tremendous combat experience, has spent 3 days in hell. The number of dead count in the thousands. The number of prisoners is in the hundreds. Military and civilian hospitals at the border are overflowing with wounded.
None of the objectives of the 'operation' have been achieved.
As of this moment they have not managed to seize Kyiv, or any regional center.
The Russian army is already sufficiently wearied, and the Ukrainians having survived the critical first 72 hours have successfully mobilized, organized, sorted out their logistics, received support (moral and in war materiel) from the whole world, but most importantly, saw that they have been attacked by ordinary mortals, stopped fearing them, and tasted victory. This army is not going to retreat and won't surrender.
The Russians simply became victims of their own propagandists, who promised that the people of Ukraine would great the invaders with bread and salt like liberators.
But you know all this.
You may be forbidden smartphones, but you're still in Belarus, in contact with friends and family. You've had time to understand and process everything.
Does anyone actually think that your deployment into Ukraine will go better than the New Year's storming of Grozny in 1995 (first Chechen war, a disaster for Russian soldiers)?
Information warfare is a terrifying thing. Propogandists have become so skilled and definitional games, at presenting black as white and vice versa. I don't want to get into the politics. Politics has always been foreign to me.
However, any clear thinking person must understand three things:
First, Ukraine has never been a threat to Belarus and is not threatening Belarus now.
Second, there are no drug addicts or nationalists in the Ukrainian government, and even if there were they’d have been appointed in free democratic elections.
Third, there is no legal basis for the invasion of Belarus armed forces onto the territory of Ukraine, and moreover such an incursion is specifically banned by our Constitution.
This isn’t our war. You won’t be defending your country, your home or your family. You won’t earn any honor in this conflict, only shame and indignity, blood and death, and pariah status for Belarus for decades.
Brothers, find a way not to participate in this dirty business.
Officers, will you be able to live with yourselves knowing you let the boys under your command die for nothing?
How are you going to look the mothers who gave you their sons in the eye?
Separately, I’d like to address the people on whom much depends. The military commanders with many stars on the epaulets.
For many of you I was a commander and a mentor. In my memory, you remain as decent and responsible military leaders, with initiative and capable of quickly orientating themselves in a complex situation, competently and deeply analysing it, and calculating the consequences of various options.
Lads, at the end of the day this is your primary functional duty. It is precisely for this that the nation spent so many years preparing you. No matter how much they pressure you, do what a real man must, make the right decision, muster your civic bravery, and do not send your soldiers into the slaughter.
Sometimes the greatest act of valor is simply saying “no,” and entering history as a person who saved hundreds, perhaps thousands of lives, and relations with a fraternal people (brotherly nation).
Even if they fire you, believe me, you’ll be heroes.
It’s been an honor.
----
If that's the conservative professional military take, this won't end well for Putin. He will be "liberating" Minsk in no time.
I responded to the way you fragment out points out of context of a whole argument. This is a way to effectively strawman through formatting. I don't fall for that.
Quoting Isaac
I answered that after your re-iteration of that question.
Quoting Isaac
Opinion-writers are not experts. Especially not at the political extreme bias, which you can find by searching for evaluations of those sources.
You don't have to be working as a historian to read history and form arguments based on it. The difference between a historian and someone who puts a lot of time into reading history is that the historian gets paid for the time. The problem is not what job someone has, the problem is an inability to research properly and unbiased or lack logic in reasoning, or fail to address holes in logic pointed out.
Quoting Isaac
You aren't making the argument that they share blame, you make the argument "it's the west's fault". You haven't shown in what way Putin's actions are the west's fault and I've shown that the west's actions may have triggered Putin, but it's still Putin's actions. He doesn't own the nations he wants to claim, if they join NATO for instance, it is THEIR choice, it's never done by NATO, and Putin gets triggered by them joining NATO and acts aggressively because of it.
Your reasoning is like saying the person who seeks security from someone threatening them with violence, is the one responsible for the aggressors' violence. That the act of "hiring security" and that triggering this violent person makes you and the security firm partly to blame for the violent person's actions. This is fundamentally stupid reasoning. The same kind of reasoning that abusers of women have, gaslighting them into thinking it's the woman's fault they hit them.
Quoting Isaac
No, all sources are not biased. You can research which are and which aren't by their rating and you can use published papers as a source that has much greater unbias than anything else since they go through a process that's basically there to make them unbiased and fact-based. That you don't know this shows just why you fail in your arguments.
Quoting Isaac
This is a fundamental error in reasoning. It makes you unable to form any logic and pushes you to opinion rather than valid, informed and rational conclusions.
Quoting Isaac
No, you blast sources that don't include the context of the argument. It means nothing to show a source that isn't part of any counterargument to what I wrote. I asked for sources that support your actual counterargument, you have not shown the connection or how it supports against anything I said.
Quoting Isaac
Show me an instance where Jens Stoltenberg has done this towards Sweden and Finland. And that it's not Sweden and Finland's independent choice to ask for membership. I don't care for your emotional speculation when it's about facts on how NATO operates, that should be quite clear.
Quoting Isaac
That is not an argument. Learn what the fuck a proper argument is. Premises, logic, deduction, induction. I asked for an argument in order to make your logic clear because you are all over the place. With a clearer argument, it becomes easier to understand your ramblings.
Quoting Isaac
If you read the sources you provided, the ones support my run-through of the reasoning Putin has for the "re-building" of the Russian empire. You will understand the "reason" that you ask for. If a published paper and a historian comment are no unbiased expert source, what is?
You still don't haven't provided a clear "other reason" or "cause" for Putin's invasion. Your sources are about the risk of influence of neonazis in Ukraine around 2014. How does that in any shape or form relate to Putin's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 or his reasons for aggressions over the course of his rule of authoritarian power?
Quoting Isaac
Because it's a fucking research institute on the subject of Russia and Putin.
Quoting Isaac
So far, the only "cause" that can be confirmed is that Putin is triggered by NATO expanding. To make this a clear "fault" and "cause" of the west or the US or to apply equal blame requires it to be proven that NATO's purpose is to support the US while being run by the US as well as NATO able to expand through pressuring nations into joining. NEITHER of this has been proven by you in any shape or form.
Therefore, the existence of NATO as something that blocks Putin's empire expansion dreams, is not a cause, but a trigger for Putin. Correlation Doesn’t Equal Causation
Putin's actions, regardless of whatever he feels are the reasons, are not the same as the reasons or causes you point out to be from the west. There is no proven link in the manner you describe them. If there are, show them, with absolute logic, otherwise you are wrong.
Quoting Isaac
It was a reversal of your argument to show you your own rhetoric.
Quoting Isaac
Because it balances the facts. You are just biased in order to keep governments on their toes. You have no interest in balanced views. You said so yourself:
Quoting Isaac
That doesn't sound like someone who seeks any answer based on facts, that sounds like someone who can't agree with "this is all Putin" when that could very well be a sound conclusion for this topic. You, not wanting that to be a conclusion because you think that is too simple, is irrelevant.
Quoting Isaac
I ask again, how are they related to Putin's reasoning for invading Ukraine or threatening NATO and other European nations? You aren't connecting anything, you just say A is true therefore B is true. It's a logical fallacy. Connect the dots, connect the premises to form an argument instead of just... saying stuff and thinking there's a correlation or causality.
Quoting Isaac
Because you connect the guilt of something else to Putin's actions. You talk about bad things the west have done... therefore Putin. Again, Correlation Doesn’t Equal Causation. You invent a guilt that is connected to Putin.
Quoting Isaac
Where have you connected Putin's guilt to be partly the west's?
Quoting Isaac
So in your reasoning, how is that the west's fault? Are others not free to make their own decisions for their own nations, to form their own alliances and so on, as long as they don't act as aggressors against Russia? And if Russia fails to play the investment game internationally, that's still not the west's "fault". Blaming others for their own failure does not equal the other's caused the failure.
Quoting Isaac
Can you give an example where Jens Stoltenberg has done this and forced another nation to join them? Are you saying that Sweden and Finland are being forced by NATO to join?
Quoting Isaac
So, that means they can join the EU and NATO if they get accepted by them?
Quoting Isaac
Of course, like Hitler, he has friends, but did he allow the associates to rule equally with him? No? So why do you think Putin has given equal power between him and his associates? Did it look like his associates had any power in that live video that went viral?
This is in line with what I've been reading. I thought maybe taking Ukraine was part of a plan to revitalize the economy?
More control of gas pipelines seems to only mean more money for oligarchs. Unfortunately, it seems like they also plundered the defense budget too.
On another note, I guess I was behind. Belorussians are already sabotaging railways and transport for the Russians, with some groups forming.
More mass arrests Sunday, unclear about Monday. They are clamping down on information.
You don't know what I campaign or support outside of this discussion. What the fuck kind of argument is that other than being incompetent in making actual arguments?
Quoting Apollodorus
Provide support for that claim. I don't give a flying fuck what you think is the truth. Show me where Jens Stoltenberg acts as a puppet for US affairs.
After Trump praised Putin Saturday night at the Conservative Political Action Conference, in Orlando, the Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, reluctantly shared a video of the disturbing moment with the Russian President.
“As Putin watched Trump call him smart, all the blood drained from his face,” a source said. “He was clearly shaken.”
After watching the video of Trump, Putin spent a sleepless night in consultation with Russian military and intelligence officials to determine where and how he had gone wrong.
"He’s rethinking everything now, and he’s in a very fragile state of mind,” the source said. “If it comes out that Don, Jr., or Eric thinks he’s smart, that could break him.”
Meanwhile, Donald J. Trump doubled down on his support for the Russian President, offering Putin advice on declaring Russia bankrupt.
Ok well if I were put in as president of Russia (!) I would feel threatened and humiliated with the constant media attacks ("Russia influenced the election" never mind that this is a colossal security failure on the US ), Olympic doping scandal, banning of RT (whom Hilary Clinton testified were 'Very Good') and so on. So count me delusional on this one. I think anyone in his right mind would feel it, with years and years of sanctions and highlighting the persecution of Russian opposition leaders. This would be like Russia complaining about Bernie Sanders being sidelined or 2020 election fraud. Of course we all know exactly what happened because the Media Tells us So.
Quoting Christoffer
In reality the acceptance into NATO has to be unanimous , there are some dissenters out there.
Quoting Christoffer
I agree, everyone does it.
Quoting Christoffer
So preventing them from joining NATO and allowing this catastrophe was the better choice? Is it really?
How could anyone argue against preventing an invasion without anyone getting killed? By the way this would have stopped my presumed hero, Putin.
Quoting Christoffer
The same way the British invaded 80% (invaded or otherwise acquired) of the world? Just want to clarify that the King or Kings of England whoever they were was, " an authoritarian leader who openly speaks of the "empire", who by force tries to claim land and increase that empire's borders". That would be consistent. The same way the Spanish, Portuguese, Germans and others created empires? Maybe Putin is living in the past.
The United States has not threatened Sweden or Finland, but I think they may be the rare exceptions.
Putin is authoritarian, yes. He is also entitled to an opinion. If you say he should have found a better way to achieve his goals without invading a country and causing mayhem then that is valid. Maybe he is not smart enough to do that. Or maybe that was impossible. So what does he do? Give up on his goals?
Might as well ask the Ukranians to stop fighting after 14 years and save lives. The fighting is going to stop sometime, so totaling up a high body count to make a point is one option, but I do not support it.
Is this reflected in this statement?
Quoting Foreign Affairs
That's all well and good, judging from the demographics of the language, it won't be easy to govern by Russia.
Quoting Olivier5
They reveal what he wants them to reveal, after all, that is how the KGB worked isn't it?
There is no way any leader could have run any country so long if they were shaken by what other people say even President Trump. Is this for real?
CNN: (Selected) CNN anchor slams Lavrov speech
UNHCR: This may be 'Europe's largest refugee crisis this century'
BBC is even better: (front page)
[b]Fresh blasts in Kyiv after Russia warns capital
Dread in Kyiv as huge Russian convoy advances
Russian oligarch warns sanctions will not stop war[/b]
and...
10 TV shows to watch this March
We can switch between Kiev and our other entertainment I guess.
I may be misinterpreting what you are saying, but from what I read from your post but it seems you are in some part agreeing with Putin's actions. If that is what your position is, I will agree with the idea that Putin for the most part seems rational and may have his reasons to invade Ukraine as he has beyond just trying to return Russia in some way back to it's former USSR glory days, but Putin must have known that the US, Europe, and the rest of our allies can not allow just sit on our hands as his forces invade Ukraine and act in may ways the same way they did before the end of the Cold War.
Putin's/Russia's action was bound to cause a reaction from the West, and this reaction (sanctions, sending military aid to Ukraine. etc.) was of course going to be interpreted as more "hostile" actions from the West, even though Russia themselves have done the same thing in wars that the US was fighting in. I guess what I'm trying to get at is what do you think Putin (and those that support him) end game is? To become as powerful as they were before the breakup of the USSR or even more powerful? We already have China trying to become the largest superpower in Asia, and if they achieve that will they stop at that? It is a given that not everyone is 'happy' about the US and her allies trying to be the only superpower in the world (along with US military bases on almost every corner of it) , but would the world be any better with one or more autocrats changing that dynamic and for them to either rule the world or part of it with an iron fist much like every autocrat before them has?
I'll tell you how it doesn't expand - it doesn't expand by countries asking "hey can you let me in?" and NATO going "mmmm, OK since you asked so nicely, yeah totally". It's not a fucking gentlemen's club. It's a strategic decision, and ideally, one not made by morons who, knowing full well that Russia has literally been to war over this very issue before, think, ah fuck it, lets keep arming Ukraine and making moves to expand the European sphere of influence Eastward. Oops, turns out, these decisions *are* made by morons [PDF - this paper has the answer you're looking for, incidentally], morons who you would like to exculpate in order to flag-wave your Voldermort Theory of international politics. This notion of an innocent, doe-eyed NATO (and EU) just waving people in willy-nilly because they asked nicely is just as stupid as your Harry Potter theory of Mad King Putin.
But, there were acts of influence through social media to influence the election, therefore they got criticized. There have been numerous doping scandals, therefore they got criticized. There has been a lot of disinformation to help Russian (Putin) interests through channels like RT, therefore they got criticized.
I don't think anyone disagrees with him feeling threatened. The question, however, is if it's someone else's fault that he acts out with aggression based on that feeling. No one can be blamed for Putin's actions, because the reasons for him feeling threatened are not aggressions against him or Russia, but against bad acts on his and Russia's part to begin with. It's no one else's fault that RT spreads disinformation.
Quoting FreeEmotion
Sanctions are there because of his actions, to begin with. What sanctions have been placed on Russia that wasn't a reaction to acts like the annexation of Crimea?
Quoting FreeEmotion
Yes, but if the narrative that's presented by many in here, is for the US to push against Russia, and this is the primary goal for NATO. Then why don't the US just demand NATO to accept Ukraine?
This is my point. The false claim that NATO is controlled by the US and that NATO is there to push against Russia is just plain wrong. NATO is a defensive alliance that accepts anyone who wants to join who both are accepted by all members of NATO and also shows itself to be a stable nation. There's no "cold war battle between NATO and Russia", it's Putin who fears NATO's expansion because the nation's who are bordering to Russia want to join them in order to be safe from Russia, which would block Putin's plans to claim these independent nations.
None of that is NATO's or these nations' fault, it's Putin being an aggressor, forcing his neighboring nations to seek protection within an alliance that can balance against the military force of Russia whenever Russia attacks them. NATO has and will never attack any other nation if that nation didn't attack them first. It's stated over and over and over ad infinitum by Jens Stoltenberg when people ask why they don't help Ukraine.
Quoting FreeEmotion
By saying "allowing this catastrophe" you are blaming NATO for the invasion of Ukraine. The problem here is that no one knows if Putin would have attacked anyway, risking conflict with NATO. NATO must evaluate the situation in that if Ukraine joined and Putin still invaded, that would lead to WWIII. If you had that choice on your table as a leader of NATO. What would you do? You can't ask Putin if he will attack or not if you let them join, you don't know. So they had the door open. At the same time, Ukraine wasn't the most stable nation in around 2014-2016, it's just the past few years that Ukraine has shown improvements in the areas that made them unstable. This might be a reason why Putin invaded now, before Ukraine became a valid nation for NATO.
But again, NATO didn't "allow" for this disaster. This is Putin's actions alone.
Quoting FreeEmotion
And we don't live in these times anymore. The first world war collapsed most of the empires, it's by some called the "end of the age of empires". Then the second world war was pretty much an attempt for some (obviously most notably Nazi Germany) to create new empires, which of course failed when trying to exist in this new world that doesn't really have empires anymore. The rest of 20th century has been a long deflation of any empire thinking and international laws, UN, EU, NATO and other alliances were invented as measures to keep world wars from happening again.
Only despot dictators and delusional authoritarian leaders who still dream of the "age of empires" would conduct geographical invasions to "expand the empire". North Korea and Russia are the most notable for having this attitude and politics while China have started to move away from it, still not able to fully leave it behind. While all else, all those previous empires like UK, and "modern empires" like the US don't really act in this way anymore. They don't claim lands for their own, they instigate proxy wars and conflicts to gain influence and resources and all of these acts are really bad, but they don't act in terms of an expansion of empire taking over nations and planting a flag. They have realized that collaborating and investing in other nations is better than planting a flag. Might today is better unseen within a capitalistic machine... because if you act like the old days, it's gonna create dramatic consequences like what we see now.
Quoting FreeEmotion
Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.
This is what every single expert on Russia and Putin is saying. At least every single one I've heard and found through my own research.
Quoting FreeEmotion
Which other nations have they threatened into NATO? And if new members must be a unanimous decision, how could the US both threaten a nation into "submission" as well as have everyone on board with the decision to let that nation join? This is why the narrative that US controls NATO is wrong.
I really would like to hear anyone give examples of NATO members who were forced into joining and how it happened.
Quoting FreeEmotion
He can say whatever he wants, unless it's an aggressive threat like the one about nuclear readiness, since that is... you know, not an opinion but a threat, just like threats in a free speech society isn't considered protected under free speech.
If he was a leader who want to expand his borders back to the roots of the Russian empire, without bloodshed, invasions or wars like back in those days. Then he would have lobbied for the neighboring nations to vote to be part of Russia. If they decline, vote no or whatever, he could still continue lobby for it, but nothing happens until the free and independent nation he wants to join, accepts that offer. This is how things are done peacefully today. And here's my take on all of this: he's old, he doesn't have time to try and convince these nations that they should join him and most of them don't want to, so he want to bypass that time and instead invade and just claim these nations. He's been trying to do this for so long, but NATO has made it into a stalemate, it hasn't been easy for him because of NATO, that's why he's desperate. And that, of course isn't NATO's fault, they kept the balance and peace otherwise Putin would have invaded every single one of these nations whenever they had a time of crisis, in order to maximize success. That he invaded Ukraine now is probably because he's seen how well prepared they've become and didn't want it to go any further and make it impossible to invade and claim (which might be the case now)
Quoting FreeEmotion
Yes, but I don't think he cares. Most Russian soldiers seem to be young men who don't even know why they're there. Putin is an authoritarian leader of the old style, those who throw cannon fodder into the frontline in order to starve the enemy through attrition.
Any defense of Putin and his reasons or his thinking or actions have so clearly been shown to be stupid now. He is, by every definition of the word, a bad man. And, as I've said earlier, the best way to stop the war is for him to die. How, that's another question, most likely by the hands of his own people, security personnel or whatnot who are fed up with his actions towards Ukraine, but especially his own people and Russia.
I even got confirmation that I'm not alone in this thinking. Gustav Gressel of the European Council on Foreign Relations said this in today's news:
Yeah, and I bet they also hand out free rainbows and unicorns to those who write nice letters to them too. Poor poor NATO, clearly had no idea what they were doing this whole time. Just a cute little defensive alliance, clearly not chock full of people whose entire existence is devoted to thinking carefully about the moves they make, armed to the fucking teeth, continually doing what Russia told it to stop doing and which they had no need to do, and Ooops, war! Silly NATO! He he he.
Strategic by the nation asking or NATO, there's a difference there.
Quoting StreetlightX
So, nations who are worried Russia would invade them are morons because they seek security as a member of NATO?
Quoting StreetlightX
I didn't say that. Anyone can seek membership in NATO. They accept so long as it's a unanimous decision to accept as well as the nation being a stable nation that is also dedicated to helping other members of NATO, primarily, have shown good diplomacy with these nations in the past. NATO is also wary of the border to Russia, that's why it hasn't been easy to get Ukraine into NATO, because first, they have not been internally as stable as a nation for very long (and still has a long way to go), as well as some members of NATO being wary about them joining, primarily because of the threats from Russia (which isn't really any of Putin's business, since he doesn't own Ukraine, whatever he believes).
This is how NATO operates with getting new members. I'd like to hear a better rundown on how you think it actually works, beyond your childish rhetoric for which, there's not much substance.
Quoting StreetlightX
Yet, you don't really explain how it "actually is" beyond your bullshit. Can you actually do that or are you just full of shit? Because I won't engage with someone who just writes like an angry child.
Oh yes, I forgot that this thing called communication exists. Clearly, once a nation asks, NATO just has to let them right the fuck in if they fit the bureaucratic criteria. That's clearly, totally how things work, and not a fucking cartoon picture.
Quoting Christoffer
Jesus Christ. Listen. I've come into alot of money recently because my uncle is an Australian prince from the Irwin dynasty, and he left me all this money in his will, and I need someone to store it for me while I sort out some accounting stuff. If you give me USD $50,000, I promise I will give you like, USD $2 million in return. It's just for a bit. If you can DM me your account details, that'd be great.
I just figure if you actually believe this utter naive bullshit that you wrote, I may as well give this a go.
Are you unable to write in a normal way or do I have to use your rhetoric since you don't seem to understand when I write how it actually works?
Quoting StreetlightX
Does this fit the criteria for low-quality posts? Because I see nothing of value here. You don't answer in the slightest to the question I asked, which I did in a methodical way in order to arrive at some kind of conclusion from your side since you're all over the place. But I see now that you're just trolling.
I wish I had more time to engage on these forums but it's surprising how little people actually look at the strategic interests of the various players. This pretty much sums up my view: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine
Which is precisely why I argued to "sacrifice" Ukraine at an earlier stage, e.g. repeal earlier promises and overtures for it to join the EU and NATO. I also wondered why trustworthiness was so low on the list of priorities for NATO and particularly the US. I can only think of two answers, incompetence or another goal. If it's another goal, then finding grounds for more extreme sanctions seems the only reliable one. In which case the US provoked a war for entirely economic reasons.
That, or we are to accept that the Ukraine has a strategic military purpose but then I question why it's not actually defended. So I ain't buy that, particularly because Turkey, a NATO member, can close access to the Mediterranean.
In the (post-Crimea annexation) context of the latest Russian invasion of Ukraine, and thereby imminent threat to former Eastern Bloc nations, Isaac, your question is a trivial non sequitur at best.
Quoting Olivier5
:100: :clap:
Quoting StreetlightX
Don't be so hard on yourself, comrade. :smirk:
But only in the same dismal way as whistling in the dark.
Correct. Which is not surprising given that India and Russia are neighbors. Unfortunately, US-UK and their Pakistani collaborators created the Taliban to keep the Russians and the Indians out of Afghanistan.
In any case, US-UK have ZERO understanding of the local culture. They despise the Afghans and the Afghans despise them. Now they are laughing at Putin's problems in Ukraine. IMO they should look at their own disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not to mention Vietnam ... :smile:
So, you are not campaigning for China to give Tibet back to the Tibetans? Then why campaign for Russia to give Crimea to Ukraine?
Quoting Christoffer
Everyone in Norway – at least among the educated classes - knows who the Stoltenbergs are. They are Germans from Schleswig-Holstein with close links to the Norwegian defense, finance, and foreign ministries and to US interests. Jen’s father Thorvald was a member of US outfits like the Trilateral Commission and FRIDE.
When Turkey invaded Kurdish territory in Syria in 2019, Jens said:
So, according to you, and to NATO, it’s OK for Turkey to invade and occupy Kurdish lands, but not for Russia to invade Ukraine! And you still expect to be taken seriously?
Moreover, I didn’t say “Stoltenberg acts as a puppet for US affairs”, though now that you say it, it probably is correct.
However, what I actually said was that NATO was created and is controlled by America for American interests. If Finns find this difficult to grasp, I can only stress that it is regrettable ….
There's a saying in Dutch : where two people are fighting, two are to blame.
We just didn't know those were real countries. We'll be right over.
https://thefrontierpost.com/the-new-world-order/
Maybe someone could verify this to be the translation but, yeah... my estimates of insanity on Putin's part is pretty much verified with this one. That they even speak of "The New World Order" and how they will unite Ukraine with their true nature RUSSIA shows just how delusional the ideas are.
If people thought my ideas sounded like some Hollywood fiction, then read this crap.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Their eyes were open alright, because they cared, and they were markedly more humble than the westerners I met. The mood among the latter was nervous, bossy, angry, naïve, and condescending to the highest degree, even when they didn't know they were.
This US election expert had been posted in Kabul for 3 years. A true veteran! At some point, hearing me speak Farsi to an Afghan colleague, she asked, appreciative: "Oh, you can speak Arabic?"
This is just an example. I regret to say, the Americans were not the worse. The UK diplomats, oh they were in another league.
Why, there's no nation made of angels. The French bombed indiscriminately entire villages off the map in Syria, Algeria, Vietnam etc. The Germans, well... Need I go on? The important thing is to learn from such things, internalize the guilt, accept one's national destiny as, well, not so manifest or exceptional after all... Digest history. That's a big part of the European project in my view.
Do I need explain it? In the article I cited, Mearsheimer clearly advocates exactly the positions you've been vehemently denying the validity of. Either he's an expert who we should listen to or he isn't. You can't have both. Did you even read the quotes?
Quoting ssu
Nothing. What makes you think I find that hard to understand?
Quoting ssu
Well, it quite literally does. In what sense could the US and NATO possibly have done anything 'wrong' if there's no fault attached to their doing so?
Quoting ssu
Yep. Which is why I have never said anything like that.
Quoting Christoffer
I've literally no idea what you're talking about. You said it's all Putin's fault, you said loads of experts agreed. I just want the citations from those experts. It's that simple.
Quoting Christoffer
I see. So does Harvard Professor of International Relations Stephen Walt writing in the Journal of Foreign Relations count? He says...
Which are exactly the points I and others have been making. Not that the Mearsheimer article wasn't also a published journal paper already, which you conveniently ignored.
Quoting Christoffer
Where. Quote me making such an argument. I've asked politely for you to stop attributing positions to me without citation which I do not hold. Please desist. It's more than a little disingenuous for you to accuse me of strawmanning when you refuse to even quote me on positions you claim I hold.
Quoting Christoffer
You seem to be the expert on what my argument is. Why don't you tell me how they relate? In fact I could take a break for a couple of days and you could continue arguing both sides by yourself.
Quoting Christoffer
Stephen Walt again...
As Mary Elise Sarotte writes in the Journal of Foreign Affairs
And
And German Chancellor Helmut Kohl said: ““We consider that NATO should not enlarge its sphere of activity.”
In Georgia, the State news reported that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called on Georgia to use every opportunity to move closer to the Alliance and speed up preparations for membership
And none of this is even to mention the undeclared deals which we'd be unbelievably naive to think didn't take place knowing what we do about similar dealings in other spheres.
Clearly NATO does not simply wait for requests and allow stable nations in regardless of strategic advantage.
Quoting Christoffer
@StreetlightX has already provided dozens of expert views on how these issues relate to Putin's invasion, I see no sense in simply repeating them, but since you're specifically asking about post 2014 NATO, I'll add that German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier after NATO manoeuvres in Poland said of them
Quoting Christoffer
So? You think that's the only source? Plenty of other equally reputable and well-informed sources have been used countering your position.
Quoting Christoffer
I don't care if was a ...whatever the hell that means.. If you want to assign a position to me, quote me saying it. It's simple courtesy.
Quoting Christoffer
'Multi-reason'. You gave one.
Quoting Christoffer
What's that got to do with anything. You ascribed a position to me, I simply asked for the courtesy of being quoted. You cannot seriously say I hold a position because of a failure to state the opposite of it.
Interesting historical fact: Stalin asked the US to bomb Finland during WW2. The United States rejected this as the two countries were not at war. In fact, the US never declared war to Finland during WW2. Only on June 30th 1944 the US broke off diplomatic relations with Finland when President Ryti, in order to get more assistance from Germany, signed personally an alliance with Germany and issued promises that Finland wouldn't seek a separate peace with Russia. Which naturally it did immediately and which it got after a month in September 1944. Then Finns started fighting their old brothers-in-arms. A Dolchstoss and proud of it!
Quoting Benkei
And how much do you blame the Dutch of the fighting that they took part from May 10th to May 14th 1940?
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
That Belarus would join the war I find hard to believe (as you do also).
This would be the craziest thing ever. So a country, that has had no hostile intentions against Ukraine, no animosity, has had not long ago major popular demonstrations against the ruling regime, would then go an participate in a war that their President has until now said that they aren't part of. Wouldn't make sense. I'd wait for real confirmation on this.
But if it is so, Belarus is crumbling.
Read the publication of the paper that were supposed to be released when Russia won the war in Ukraine. It's clear what Putin promised Lukashenko. If Ukraine and Belarus would be part of the new Russia in the new world order, then Lukashenko would be very powerful as part of this union, at least, in his eyes. It's pretty clear what's going on here, Lukashenko became a puppet, Putin managed to install someone he could control and who could be part of the new Russia. But he didn't manage to do the same with Ukraine, so he's forced to invade Ukraine to achieve his new world order goal.
https://mil.in.ua/en/news/brave-new-world-of-putin-an-article-by-the-propaganda-publication-ria-novosti-which-was-to-be-published-after-the-occupation-of-ukraine/
I think the recent invasion of Ukraine was caused mostly by Putin's autocratic desire for a Russian empire.
I think that's also the least interesting and least important cause.
It's the least interesting because no one should be surprised by it, he's been saying as much for years.
It's the least important because none of us have any influence at all in Russia. The Russians themselves are doing a sterling job of opposing the war from their end.
Our concern is the extent to which our actions, mistakes, and systematic policies have lead to this. How, faced with a despotic leader intent on empire building, we did absolutely fuck all about it, but rather just made the situation worse by warmongering and sabre-rattling.
Our concern is the institutions which benefit from war, regime change, post-war reconstruction and a broken economy on its knees seeking loans to which we can attach punitive terms.
Or it's just the delusional empire ideas by Putin as is present in the paper that got leaked.
It's easy to dismiss a simple solution to the reasons Putin have, because we all focus on complex questions and gravitate to complex answers, i.e complex geopolitical multi-actor answers. But even if the paper mentions all the actors we've all mentioned, it's very clear, if the paper is a truly leaked paper, that all of this is Putin's delusional dreams of a new Russian empire.
I really would like to know if that paper is real. Hard to verify things during propaganda machines on both sides during a conflict.
The paper is signed by a certain Petr Akopov, in both the Web Archive version provided by Tim and in your version, relayed by the Frontier Post. The text is the same as well in both links when you do an automatic (google) translation of the Russian into English.
In other words, the Frontier Post posted on 27 Feb a Google Translate version of the original Russian article, published on RIA Novosti the day before.
According to Wikipedia, RIA Novosti is a Russian state-owned domestic news agency, founded in June 1941 (as Sovinformburo).
The Frontier Post is a newspaper from Peshawar, Pakistan. It started to republish Petr Akopov's articles two months ago, as can be seen here:
Search Results For - Petr Akopov
https://thefrontierpost.com/?s=Petr+Akopov
As of date, the Frontier Post hasn't put down the "brave new world" article.
These articles are not written by Putin. They are not leaked either. However, they are coming from an official source and describe a non-too-atypical world view from that source.
I think the likelihood of nuclear deployment is small. But if Putin didn't think it would be considered even remotely as a serious threat, then why would he bother issuing it?
In any case, when it comes to these kinds of highly volatile situataions there are never any guarantees; since humans are by no means rational to the core.
Because of the inexorable logic of Mutually Assured Destruction, bringing it up is equivalent to signaling a willingness to destroy oneself if it will attain a certain end.
That is what the Ukraine ambassador to the U.N. was referring to by suggesting Putin cut to the chase and shoot himself like "that guy in Berlin, you know, in 45."
Perhaps his ego is so great that he would not be willing to go down alone, but willing to go down if he takes the world with him. Who knows what he's really thinking? Maybe, hopefully, he's not that crazy, but is betting on the possibility that NATO may think he just might be. Hopefully, even if he were that crazy, there are sufficient Russian checks and balances to prevent him following through on it.
We do not have access to his decision tree. But the only reason other powers have been staying out of Ukraine so far is because of the presence of MAD. For Putin to wave it around like a stick is odd. It does not change the calculations of his oppositions.
Not unless they took it seriously.
Thank you for that, Isaac.
For you, the least interesting thing is what Putin's motives and objectives are and what he does. What you focus is what the West does, because likely you live in a country that either is an ally of the US or is the US. I get it.
Well, For me and @Christoffer, what Putin does is the most interesting thing. Our countries are in a severe diplomatic crisis. Not at war like Ukraine, but still in a crisis. We haven't been part of that West you refer to. My country is the only country on Russia's Western border that a) isn't a NATO member and b) doesn't have Russian troops in it. And @Christoffer's country has a small patch of water between Russia. Both aren't in NATO, so both know how hostile Russia can be even when we don't pose a threat, that "springboard" to it. Just being a "potential" one creates the same tension. Also I can see the consequences of this crisis in my puny life too.
Just to give one example, I just spent my children's school holidays last week next to the Russian border as our summerplace is only 10km from the border. We went up to the border to a small shopping center that was intended to serve Russian tourists. There naturally weren't any tourists, as the ruble has collapsed. Nor are there the vast amounts of Russian trucks that few years ago crossed the border coming and going and made huge lines on the border (because Russian border control is, let's say, bureaucratic). Now it was all as silent as it was when there was the Soviet Union. Even then there was the odd Soviet truck crossing the border. Now nothing. You literally can see what the term "sanctions" really mean in reality. Now the government is advising people to avoid any kind of travelling to Russia.
Now in our countries likely the discussion of joining NATO will start at earnest. Especially Finns have tried to push it away and thought that all is well with the eastern neighbor relations. But we've been just fooling ourselves. So this crisis isn't over and hopefully you understand that just what Vlad decides to do or how he react does matter here.
I guess I'd follow what is said in the Finnish constitution.
(But really, I think that is unlikely. At least now. Yet if Sweden and Finland would ask NATO membership, I guess Americans would have a heated debate.)
I think it has been taken seriously for many years.
Let me put it another way. After decades of brinkmanship and the political formations made as a consequence, what is left to do when Putin threatens us with the reality of it? Prepare more ICBMs?
If the message is that he is willing to use a strategic weapon for tactical goals, it does not change the standoff. Once you have a little bit of nuclear war, there is no limit to the response.
I'd be a bit sceptical about a hypothetical "victory article" published by one side. Things that are reported by several different sources that don't rely on the same source usually can be trusted and the real details surface only later. Things that are true usually leave a large trail behind them.
Of course. But then the question would be whether he ought to be allowed to have his way in Ukraine to avoid nuclear war, which would be the end for everyone. I'm not saying he ought to be allowed to have his way, but this seems to be the dilemma.
If all that would be required is a guarantee that Ukraine will never be allowed to join NATO, would that be too great a price to pay to avoid nuclear war?
And who could stand as the arbiters of such a deal? There is no tribunal set up to accept promises on this basis. I would rather count on the desire to live as a countervailing force.
Yeah, and everytime I hear anything about NATO "forcing" people to join I just cringe. But when I mention that Sweden and Finland are considering it and that there's no force involved, only considerations of our safety towards the threats from Putin and Russia, it's like... "well, not Sweden and Finland, but everyone else is forced by US imperialism". Ugh... Understanding that geopolitics is complex does not equal forcing a point of view onto every topic available. The US might have secondary agendas with NATO, but NATO doesn't operate by the US alone and it's not even close to a priority for NATO to do any of that. It is a defensive alliance, it's about security for members not able to stand up against unstable nations or leaders who have superior military power. It also doesn't matter what NATO did decades ago compared to how it operates today. It's almost like saying that Sweden might have a different agenda with joining NATO because we had a vast empire a few hundred years ago. What I'm interested in is the current operation and agendas of nations, leaders and people today. Because agendas and people can change, for the better or for the worse over the course of history. Not taking into account the historical aspect when making arguments creates a situation where people can just make whatever argument possible or dismiss arguments however they want with just picking something random from history to "support" their argument. Like dismissing everything I said because Sweden was questionably "neutral" during WWII by sending iron to nazi Germany's war machine. It becomes a maelstrom of bullshit.
The only thing that matters is where we are today and the only historical aspect that matters is how we got here, but that's not what we are today. Ukraine is for example not the same nation today as it was just five years ago, but people create arguments like this, jumping back and forth between how they are today and how they were in 2014, based on what fits their argument for the moment. It's a frustratingly stupid angle to discuss from.
Quoting ssu
Yes, the relations with Russia were "good" in terms of its people and the cities etc. I've been thinking of vacation going to Russia and it has felt like things are pretty good, even if I've always thought Putin was unstable. But now things are in the toilet. There have been worries about how jets, submarines and ships have broken our sea borders many times and the political relations have been worsening for many years, but I'd never believed Putin to be this fucking stupid, with this increase in tensions. I was never in favor of NATO, but Putin has pushed me to be pretty much pro NATO. There's no United States influencing me or convincing me of forcing me to rethink joining NATO, it is all Putin's stupidity and dreams of empire informing me that his mental health is in the toilet and you cannot defend rationally against a delusional narcissistic despot who threatens with nuclear weapons. You need a good defense alliance and you need a plan to take that fucker out, just like it was with any other dictator in the 20th century who people today think about like: "why didn't people see what was coming? Why didn't anyone kill them early on?" Well, this is it and if something serious happens, if his "New World Order" doesn't come to pass and he snaps and want to take the world with him, that could very well be the moment people ask that question again. At least I thought that thought and can be proud that I didn't bend over to his propaganda or treated him as a rational person.
Of course, I hope neither of that happens. But he has stepped over a line where the contingency plan is clear. And the crimes he commits in Ukraine at the moment and the severity of his threats should be enough foundation for the removal of his existential right. If he literally could take the world with him as a fuck you for his own failures, that is enough to warrant an extreme solution to Putin.
Until then, I gladly joining NATO as well as @ssu. If war hits our borders, this time, you will not be alone, this time we will fight side by side against the fucker. But hopefully some random, unknown security guard close to Putin realize what is happening to the world and just ends him.
Yes, this is why I'm careful about it. But if it's state media, by order of Putin as the declaration of victory over Ukraine as it reads, then the reasoning might very well be in line with Putin's reasoning. It reads very much like parts reasonable thinking against the west and partially totally bonkers delusional empire dreaming. And this kind of weird back and forth seems exactly what to expect from a seasoned political figure who's become a narcissistic delusional authoritarian despot.
But I think that since no one has accurately been able to confirm its validity as being a kind of manifesto from Putin's perspective, we haven't seen it being used in news reports yet. And I don't know how if it's possible to conclude how accurate it is without more sources.
But if it is... it's pretty telling.
I find him very troubling. His annexation of Crimea seemed to me at the time like thumbing his nose at the liberal world order, calling their bluff. "Suppose," he seemed to say, "Suppose I don't play nice. Suppose I just take what I want. What are you really prepared to do about it? Public statements denouncing me? I'm quaking in my boots." It's disturbing to see in modern times such a brazen commitment to violence, such a brazen disregard for norms and institutions.
And then my country elected Trump president.
I'm not blind to the problems of modern liberal capitalism, but at least it leaves some room to maneuver, to try and make something better. In the United States, for instance, there has always been some hypocrisy in our talk of freedom and equal rights; we all know that. But some of our talk, and our publicly stated beliefs, amounted to "fake it until you make it". How people behave can, over time, change how they feel and how they think.
The Trump era might have shown this doesn't really work, that American racism, narrow-mindedness, anti-intellectualism, nativism -- the whole basket -- were there all along, hiding from public view. (Imperfectly, of course, because there has always been open racism too. But ordinary people just behind the times had learned to watch their tongues.)
But it might have shown only that such a scheme is fragile, and vulnerable to loss of confidence. If people don't agree even to play along, you can lose a lot of ground quickly. (We're not exactly starting over from scratch. The United States is a better place than it was a hundred years ago.)
That's what bothers me about Putin. He behaves as a non-believer, and like Trump can encourage others to give in to their doubts about the whole game. Why shouldn't I just outlaw the opposition party? Fuck 'em. Why shouldn't I skip even that much legal nicety and just take what I want by force? You hear this sort of embrace of the primitive, of a sort of hyper-masculine approach to politics from Trumpists all the time. (Trump practically bragged about cheating at everything. So much for the social contract.)
I have two worries: (1) that they're right, that it's all been a sham (in the strange way that Trumpists and the left share a lot of talking points); (2) that our progress has been real, but it requires our belief and it turns out this is easily undermined, creating a sort of run on the liberal bank.
So Putin bothers me as another sign that the wheels are coming off.
If such an agreement was made on the basis that Russia otherwise would have destroyed the world, it negates the purpose of what NATO could secure as a threat to Russia. NATO is meaningless in a nuclear war. It is meaningful as a barrier to territorial expansion. It is a security agreement. To promise Russia that a certain nation could not apply for membership has no bearing on whether nations support them or not when they are attacked. Membership in NATO was meant to make the response automatic, if you will.
Russia is holding a people hostage and daring anybody to do something about it.
At the moment, something is being done about it; mostly imposing sanctions on Russia and supplying 'humanitarian' aid and weapons to Ukraine. Anyway it doesn't matter what we think; we'll see how it plays out.
Well, I think a certain degree of national pride or, at least, appreciation for one’s cultural heritage, isn’t a bad thing. In fact, I am inclined to believe that culture is the basis of civilization and that to be truly cultured is to be truly civilized.
History is certainly essential in understanding not only culture but also international relations. This is why I think the best diplomats often are not newbies appointed by ignorant politicians but people whose families have pursued a diplomatic career for generations.
Incidentally, though Boris the Turk has denied that NATO will get involved in Ukraine, Gen. Sir Richard Shirreff has said:
So, the UK’s borders are now in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, i.e., on Russia’s borders! Apparently, “public opinion” (informed by the mass media) may force the UK to intervene in Ukraine, after all.
Some, it seems, never learn ….
Yes, we don't know what will happen.
I do think that how we think about it is important.
I would go further and say that a certain degree of national pride (cultural heritage appreciation) is positive, desirable, even necessary. BUT, I would then undercut that by saying national pride (and sometimes cultural heritage) is a necessary delusion. What do I mean?
I love my country--not all of it uniformly, but I'm proud of America and am not embarrassed to be an American.
Yes, I know we were established as an imperial beachhead by the English Spanish, and French. Yes, I know we deliberately and inadvertently wiped out most of the native peoples who lived here prior to our arrival. Yes, I know we created a lot of wealth on the backs of slaves. Yes, I know we have been ruled by oligarchs, some more enlightened than others. Yes, I know we burnt a lot of coal, oil, wood, and gas and contributed more than our share to global warming.
But I still love my country, and I relish its cultural output--not all of it uniformly. Much of American culture was imported from elsewhere--like coffee which has never been grown here. Coffee is a very good thing.
Love of and pride in my country may be based on certain delusions, though, like: "In God We Trust", "E Pluribus Unum", "one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all", and so on. No, I don't actually think that God prefers the United States over Australia or Mongolia. I doubt God exists at all, and as for liberty and justice for all... I rest my case.
But still being American has worked out pretty well for millions of people over the last 3 centuries. Of course, it worked out spectacularly badly for millions too--all the losers in the game. But I still love my country, and I wish it well.
The same can be said for a lot of Soviet citizens, Russians, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Chinese, Japanese, Arabian, Israeli, et al citizens. People tend to like where they live, and they all maintain a mix of realistic and delusional ideas about their homeland.
Were any of us absolutely honest, realistic, and totally non-delusional, we'd have to consider blowing our brains out forthwith.
Belarus is already crumbling. At the same time as the invasion, Putin is getting sweeping reforms to the Belarusian constitution. Lukashenko will now be allowed to serve in office until 2035, when he will be 81. His prior terms will no longer count towards term limits, and since the elections are rigged, he will serve as long as he wants. The changes to the constitution closely mimic many of the changes Putin recently pushed through in Russia, and vastly enhance Lukashenko's power. It will also allow Russian military forces to permanently occupy Belarus. 30,000 Russian soldiers may be there to stay, extra insurance against future revolts. He also forced through a change to allow Russian nuclear weapons to be staged in Belarus, an added security threat to dissuade any support for dissidents.
Russia is invading Ukraine from Belarus. The Belarusian military is supplying the Russian military, and has moved its own forces to, and in some cases over the border to help with Russian logistics. What is unclear, is if some of its more professional forces have also been used in actual combat roles.
Lukashenko said he would not involve his military in combat roles, but notably did so on the same day that he somehow allowed photos to be taken at a national security council meeting, which showed an invasion of Ukraine on a board (almost comically incompetent). It's a risky move, but perhaps less risky than moving out more of the Russian soldiers currently in Belarus, who might be more reliable for keeping order, so I could definitely see it happening.
Using their most competent units in Russian uniforms would be unexceptional given past behavior by both leaders, although you have to wonder how competent those units would even be. It certainly seems like years of graft and corruption have gutted Russia's military efficacy. Unsupported air drops leading to major casualties and downed aircraft, a mysteriously mostly MIA Russian air force, stalled vehicles left abandoned and towed off by tractors, using unencrypted radio frequencies, a supply convoy stalling out because it has run out of supplies, rations marked expired in 2015- it sounds like an absolute disaster for them.
https://newleftreview.org/sidecar/posts/fog-of-war
i.e. imagine trusting the US, the most incompetently stupid, murderous, and cowardly nation on the face of the planet, to deal with this.
I don't know, it seems like the author of this article never heard about nuclear weapons.
Maybe it was a typo.
For you, how you and others think about it is important, if it is important for you, obviously. How the decision-makers think about it is obviously important. Anyway I was just highlighting the fact that how we think about it is not important to the outcome, because it will not contribute to that, unless you get out on the street and try to start a movement in whatever direction you might think would be the way to go.
Not seeing many Russians proudly wearing ribbon of St. George, which I remember many Russians proudly wearing when Crimea was annexed to Russia in 2014.
Quoting dclements
In short, I really feel it is survival, maybe legacy, and there is no hope of any sort of empire. In the face of media attacks, economic sanctions and military operations - for example Syria. It may not be so bad for him now, but the idea is, like any good strategist, to nip this in the bud before he has nowhere to go.
It is only a rejoinder if it was pointing to a primary condition influencing what was possible.
Otherwise, carry on as you like.
I hear that. Fair enough.
Well, if it's just Gotland and not Åland, I hope we do the same for you and come to help!
The unfortunate fact is that after few months, assuming the war takes so long, war in Ukraine will be "the new normal". After all, we just experienced a world wide pandemic. How scary would that have sounded before? Now it's not so scary anymore.
Basically the Finnish Parliament has now to discuss the subject of NATO membership, the cat is out of the bag. What the Prime minister has acknowledged is that the parties are seriously debating the question. Until now basically both Sweden and Finland have trained as they would be in NATO, have had these agreements with NATO, are "enhanced partners" and Sweden has a long history of covert cooperation with the US, yet the neutrality fig-leaf has been OK for Russia.
Now both of our countries are sending arms to Ukraine, Russia's new enemy. Historical first for us, historical second (after sending weapons to us) for you. Yet not something that a "non-aligned/neutral" country would do. And because EU is also arming Ukraine, this actually isn't illogical as we are part of the EU. Even the Swiss have taken measures against Russia. Things are changing.
Above all, the decision actually ought to be done together, at the same time.
Of course, there is what Russia has said now and Putin basically in 2016:
I watch CGTN and RT as well, critically. Newspapers - which ones do you read, and maybe we need a separate thread on that.
Quoting Christoffer
They are all "bad" when they authorize the support of armed rebels in countries they are not at war with, launch missile attacks on countries and accidentally kill civilians with drone strikes and so on. I do not think these actions are defensible. Of course if a country is threatened then they have the right to take action, but is this the case? Iraq? Afghanistan?
Putin is not irrational, it may be ill-advised to carry out the military operations, but just as the UN recognizes the leaders of each country, and the international community does, so do I. What is more it seems best to respect the office as they say, respect will not be lost. I don't demonize anybody.
Putin is acting in the present, not in the past imperial mindset. Have you seen a map of the USSR? There were 20 odd states that gained independence from the Russia. Is Putin going to have 20+ wars going? I think the case for empire is overstated, these are strategic moves seen as securing states critical to the security of Russia, however it will be a difficult task to carry out.
To put it bluntly I am not sure if Putins actions are right or wrong because I do not know all the facts regarding the conflict. I would not go to war, but that is because I am anti-war and I think there are a hundred different options, but I would rather have a problem go unsolved than go to war. The Russian presidents actions have to be judged based on how well it serves his countries interests, both in the long term and short term, and yes it may involve war.
Hinting at the possibility of assassination is one of the oldest threats in the book, and it is really not worthy of that office.
This is a harrowing read: George Packer's piece on the evacuation of Kabul for The Atlantic.
Herein lies the dilemma. Some sanctions seem to justified, but having FIFA kick out Russia out of the football team is extremely ugly. There has to be a modicum of reason, you shouldn't punish everything Russia related, it will only add fuel to the fire.
Of course, if the West lets Putin take Ukraine, then it sets a nasty precedent. On the other hand, the end of the world is very, very much a worse option.
It's a delicate balance, but, I'd take it easier with the sanctions by now. If everybody plays the "strong man" politician card, we're fucked.
Borderline Post-Soviet Disorder
Incidentally @ssu, in previous episodes Aimen Dean dismisses the inside job conspiracy theory about the Russian apartment bombings, and he's a person who knows a lot about the North Caucasian jihad.
Please keep the informative comments up. :up:
Sure hope Ukraine won't become another Chechnya.
At least Grozny seems reasonably stable (at the moment), as far as I know anyway.
I guess the Russian empire took over now-Chechnya in the 1800s after having kicked other invaders out, like the then-Persians.
Quoting Chechnya: the empire strikes back (2000)
[tweet]https://twitter.com/afp/status/992972501041930240[/tweet]
Since the war, Russia has put a lot of money into Chechnya to re-develop it (Grozny, at least) and to enrich the local elite, thus buying the support of the Sufis (and their brutal leader Kadyrov, who earlier fought against Russia) and neutralizing the Salafist-led jihad, all to ensure Russian hegemony and stability in the North Caucasus.
Now, Grozny is a gleaming city with gigantic new mosques, and Chechen warriors are fighting for Russia in Ukraine and Syria.
:up:
DITTO. :100:
Likewise, I'm also not ashamed to acknowledge that "I love my country" ... enough to live as much as I'm able to in critical opposition to its statist corporatism, keynesian militarism and white nationalist populism. As a Black American I'm stuck with America – just as America is stuck with me – struggling in solidarity with many others against both foreign and domestic oppressions to make the best, or at least better, of this unseverable bond. So ... Fuck Putin! Fuck our Grand Old Putin-Party! Viva Ukrainian & Russian peoples!
That's all interesting stuff, and you've been kind enough to answer the first half of my question. So I wonder if you'd perhaps consider the second.
For you (and@Christoffer if you like) with the unique interests and distance from US//NATO you so eloquently explained, why is it so important that the US/NATO be exculpated?
I can see why you'd be super keen on making sure everyone knew what a capricious madman Putin was. Right on your doorstep and with no massive military alliance to protect you, it must be scary, so you want the world to know what a threat he presents so they don't let him get away with it. I get that.
But I'm still not seeing any link to this passionate dismantling of any and all attempts to talk about the role the US, Europe and NATO have played in bringing this crisis about. After all, that narrative requires that Putin is an empire building madman. The whole crux of the 'US/NATO to blame' narrative is "If you knew all along that Putin was an empire-building madman, they why the fuck did you keep poking him with a big stick", so our two narratives would seem, on the face of it, to serve the same purpose. We should not be at odds at all. You're saying Putin's a threat, I'm saying yes, and if we knew this all along why the hell did we treat him as if he wasn't.
Hence I'm confused as to why you'd want to remove US and Europe's culpability every time that narrative is put forward. I mean, looking back over the thread, you've expended more words on excusing the US than you have on warning us about Putin. I just want to know how excusing the US fits into your objective from that unique perspective you outlined.
The purpose of the NATO expansion was surely always about the Russian threat, no?
It's not an 'at least', it's a feature of the system. You see it as counterbalance to the rampant consumerism, but I see it as a counterpart. This is obviously not the place to go into a long discussion about capitalism, so I'll try to keep it relevant, but, as I see it, capitalism is involved in solving one problem and one problem only - how do we keep people buying stuff when it's clearly not in their best interests to do so. Labour saving devices, cool stuff like washing machines and cars, simply don't need replacing as fast as it's possible to have them replaced. New cool things simply aren't needed as frequently as it's possible to generate an artificial need for. Since everyone working as cogs in the machine only have their own job, their own promotion and their own wage packet to consider, they all simply do their jobs to the best of their ability, which means we're working to the 'possible', not the 'need'.
Anyway - to the relevance. Someone like Putin is just a part of that system. If everyone is just doing their job to the best of their ability, then Putin is doing 'mad dictator' to the best of his ability. So the question is why was there a 'mad dictator' job opening in the first place. Need there have been? I'm not talking about conscious conspiracy (though I've no concerns at all about invoking it, government intelligence services can and do interfere with foreign elections, there's no doubt about that). I'm just saying that rather than seeing Putin's tyranny as being opposed to liberal capitalism, we'd better understand it as one of the consequences
Matt Taibbi in his latest Substack post writes
Given a country which is going to provide massive opportunities for corruption-ridden investments, a supply of oil which can be controlled by influencing a single person, and an almost permanent bogeyman to fuel the enormous arms industry (not how many tanks to we need, how many tanks is it possible for us to need) - what sensible capitalist government, doing its job, turning its cogs, is going to remove such a component?
As long as you can appreciate your neighbours' cultural heritage as commensurate to yours, I see no problem with that. And as long as you don't turn a blind eye to less glorious role your nation may have played.
It's the xenophobia involved in nationalism that I object to, as well as the many fake nationalistic histories in currency right now. The many lies underlying the nation state, everywhere.
Yep. The West has been happy to hand out golden passports to Russian oil and gas tycoons while using their money to prop up housing markets in order to sustain an global economy in terminal failure. People keep lamenting the fact that the Russians can't be fully sanctioned because of Europe's utter dependence on their gas and oil - i.e. Europe's dependence on these corrupt pieces of shit, including Putin, who may well be one of the richest people in the world thanks to European money dumped straight into his bank accounts, and now, now when it's inconvenient to them, Putin is suddenly a bad guy despite them literally paying him to be one for decades. "Liberal democracy" literally sustains itself off the back of corrupt thugs like Putin, which is why it finds it so hard to actually do anything about him when push comes to shove - because such pushing would push those self-same liberal democracies off a cliff as well. You're exactly right - it's not a matter of 'counter-point' - it is exactly as you said - counter-part.
Liberal capitalists have 'room to maneuver' because people in Russia - not to mention entire swathes of the planet - do not.
Well, depends whose analysis you read.
No less a hawk than Tom Friedman wrote
and the architect of Russian containment George Kennan
And Mary Elise Sarotte reminds us that
All my own underlinings.
Russia were simply not a threat at the time of NATO expansion. They were crippled and crumbling further. NATO expansion was (according to these commentators, anyway) more a lazy ..."if you want..." attitude, with reckless little thought given to the provocation it would result in.
Why? I trust we can be non-delusional about history without committing suicide. We can live without all these lies. We don't really need them. They are made up to make us feel good about our tribe, that's all.
Yeah, what people keep getting wrong about anti-capitalist thought is that it entails some kind of conspiracy, that aim is always taken at the puppet-master consciously planning to fuck the world over. But it's exactly the opposite. This is what a capitalist economy is, this is what happens when you just wind up the key and set it going.
I think this is right. I just saw a tension between that and the following:
Quoting Isaac
Yeah, I see that. I think the idea is that the response should always be appropriate and defensive, and many feel that it has been unhelpful and provocative. If there's a person whose empire-building narrative is based on opposing the "military advance of the west", then 'the west' advancing its military might not be the best strategic response - out of all the other options we had. It's like they'd read the script for Putin's screenplay.
I think Åland and Gotland would be attacked first with ground troops under a heavy barrage of air strikes along the coast. I would really like to see Putin try and cross the eastern part of Finland, if he has logistical problems just driving on a normal road to Kiev, imagine going through the same parts of Finland that decimated the Soviet Union's attempts.
Also, our prime minister had a speech to the nation yesterday. We've already been increasing our military since 2015, but now we're pumping even more into it. I'm hoping to build out a, especially on Åland and Gotland, a modern high-tech anti-air system with AI. Technology is there and if we handle it smart we'll have an anti-air system that automatically recognizes foreign threats including missiles. With such a defense, it's next to impossible for Putin to invade since most of his effective strikes are long-range missiles and airstrikes. If he can't do that, he needs to send in troops, which are already proven to have low morale and being treated like shit, imagine them moving over eastern Finland and trying to manage a sea assault while we have our sub-marines (who single-handedly beat both NATO and the US in joint military exercises at sea)
If we get a defense up to high-tech standards, I'd like to see the fucker try.
First, separate NATO and US. The US is part of NATO, but NATO is its own entity. Otherwise you need to prove that NATO is being run by the US and not as an alliance, like UN, EU etc.
Second, I'm still waiting to hear what NATO's fault in all of this is. What is the actual threat to Russia? Through pages and pages of posts, I've yet to hear any concrete example of NATO actually threatening Russia. Free independent nations joining NATO who are close to Russia is not a threat. Is hiring security for your house a threat to criminals who want to break in and therefore you are also guilty if they actually attack? And if not that as a "threat", then what? Have you any examples of when NATO threatened Russia and Putin? Because his feelings of being threatened can be valid for explaining his actions, but that doesn't mean there's valid guilt on NATO's part in any of Putin's actions.
What threats has NATO done to Russia? As in my answer to Isaac above, how would you argue for NATO's guilt in all of this, like if we were in court, how would you, in defense of Russia, argue for NATO's guilt? What did they do? Be specific
:clap:
We can't see the image
Try to upload the image at imgur, then share it with us through the BBC forum link provided to you.
I think the issue here is the model of NATO. Sometimes it seems to be only related towards USA. This is why some countries as Finland was sceptical about joining. We, the Western, do not have anything against the NATO but it is true they tend to use, hmm... propaganda about empowering the Western block.
As the European Commissioner Josep Borell said: "it is time to build an European army. But this principle is not necessary against NATO alliance,"
Thank you for this. I had to google up the expression. It's a good one, and I guess we all whistle in the dark on this thread, as loud as we can...
"It seems", but is it? I'm specifically asking for examples of operational practices that prove that NATO can be blamed for Putin's aggressive acts and killings. Even if the US sits in the background smiling an evil smile like a villain in shadows, what has NATO actually done to warrant being blamed for Putin's actions?
Almost every discussion in this thread boils down to NATO having guilt and the US having control over NATO. But I can't recall any direct link or evidence for any of that. If that can't be established first, then NATO can't be blamed in the way they're blamed. If Putin feels threatened, that does not warrant true guilt.
So the argument so far seems to be that we need to blame NATO because we all know that the US is bad and push evil capitalism so therefore NATO is bad and has guilt for Putin's actions. Essentially, we need to criticize NATO because we can't trust capitalism, we can't trust the US, and since the US is part of NATO, then we can't trust NATO, we can't trust anything they do, governments are corrupt, bad, everything is bad in the west... it all sounds like conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo. Stoned hippie circle jerk... "it's all caaaaapitalisms fault maaaaan".
How and when did NATO threaten Putin and Russia? A clear-cut question for all to answer. We need to establish that first.
I personally think he felt threatened by NATO when a country close to him wants to be part of the alliance. This exactly happens with Georgia in 2008. It is true that expressly there is not a clear threat against Russia. But they feel like that because NATO is the western and for Russia these are always the enemies so they will never let satellite countries be part of it. It is sad but for Russia, countries like Ukraine or Georgia are just puppets to play with. They do not see it as sovereign states.
As we shared previously, Soviet nostalgia
Your demand for explicit threats is inane. Why did NATO expand towards Russia, as opposed to say, Iran or China? There's your answer and the implicit threat it included. For anyone with a modicum of knowledge about international relations this is obvious, which is why every expansion by NATO has been critised every step of the way in every Western country with independent policy institutes. During my studies I wrote an essay on how to create an economic interdependence between Russia and Europe ensuring lasting peace and true independence from US, creating a much safer European space than we have now. The US and NATO decided precisely otherwise even though there were plenty of political scientists arguing for what I did. So we should ask, what benefit is there to the US having an insecure Europe? An excuse for military bases? A continued use for NATO?
This is not about law, it's about strategy spanning decades.
And this is my point exactly. His feelings of a threat do not equal NATO actually threatening. Expanding security for nations, them joining to seek security for their nation, is not an active act of threatening Russia. Just as my house invasion analogy.
You should take a more holistic approach. What circumstances gave rise to someone like Hitler getting into power? Let's stop with the single cause fallacies.
For instance, incompetent people often feel threatened by competent people, but I don't think we should protect the incompetent from the competent.
Why is it inane? Because you say so? Because it doesn't matter? Who decided that it doesn't matter if NATO threatened directly or not? If someone attacks you and the police ask you if you threatened the person and you just say... "that question for explicit threats is inane", do you think this is rational?
Quoting Benkei
Is an expansion of a defensive alliance, through the will of each nation joining, an act of threat against Russia? "Perceived threat" in Russia does not mean anything, as per my house analogy.
Quoting Benkei
Isn't this just a misunderstanding of all of it? Isn't it that the critique is about how fast expansion could trigger a response from Russia? Which is obvious both back with the Soviet Union and today's Russia. But that still isn't a threat to Russia. You can't blame NATO for "threatening" Russia because there have been no threats. The expansion itself is not a threat, you are just speaking of the perceived threat that Russia feels about the expansion. It's not the same thing.
Quoting Benkei
You mean like Germany tried and now failed through their Nordstream project? How does this comply with Putin's ideals? Can you ensure stability when Putin's ambitions come into conflict with Europe's?
Quoting Benkei
The US is part of NATO. How do you conclude that NATO, today, is being run by the US? Do you have a clear example of how NATO is being run with the US as the leader? This would mean that Jens Stoltenberg is just a puppet, that all other nations have no real say in the actions of NATO. All of this you have to provide some evidence for.
Otherwise, it just becomes your opinion. I understand the underlining geopolitical speculation, but if you can't connect that speculation to actual practices by these entities, it's just speculation.
And it's still impossible to blame NATO for Putin's actions. You can't just dismiss this as "inane" because it doesn't comply with your speculation. I take Sweden and Finland as an example again. We are both starting to gravitate towards joining NATO, not because of some vague US imperial and economic interest that we've been hypnotized by the evil villain of capitalism, but because of Putin's threats and the risk of Russia invading. Just yesterday Sweden announced a large increase in military spending and both nations are now putting the NATO option on the table.
So if we join NATO because we seek that security against Russia - Does that mean that NATO is actively threatening Russia?
The question is about blame and guilt. Is NATO to blame for Putin's actions? You say that asking for any clear threats or actions that are direct threats to Russia is inane, because that makes it easier to fit it in your narrative. I'm saying that it's not inane, because acts of increasing security against a perceived and now active threat do not equal guilt of threat to be on the part of those seeking security, regardless of speculations of intentions on the US part.
If you were in court, how would you prove NATO has guilt for Putin's actions? Why can't anyone answer this question? If Russia "feels" threatened by something that is not, in itself, an active threat, then there is no guilt or blame on NATO's part.
Russia's "feelings" do not matter in this.
Once again my house invasion analogy:
Quoting Christoffer
No of course not. You can be guilty of attacking and you can be also guilty of not preventing an attack, for example leaving your door wide open. Or if you provoke them in some way.
My personal view is that provoking an attack only gives NATO more ammunition to continue 'containing' Russia.
I agree mostly with the article by John J. Mearsheimer. But he is out there in the cuckoo land of international politics when he suggests:
The United States will do no such thing, they like being the Superpower and won't let go. That is the problem. The nation that put men on the moon could bring peace on earth if they wanted to, but is that what they want?
It is a simple question, really, and no-one has answered it: who was responsible to prevent Russia invading Ukraine? The United Nations? Was Putin unstoppable? It has to be one or the other, if you have a third alternative I would like to hear it.
I need do nothing of the sort. If there is suspicion that NATO is unduly influenced by the US (as has already been presented) that is sufficient. Suspicion needs to be aired, widely disseminated, and untempered by pointless conservatism. Why? Because it's our job as citizens to hold our authorities to account. It's neither our job to excuse them, nor is it our job to judge them as a court of law might. They excuse themselves and we actually have courts of law to judge them as a court of law might, so there's no need for us to do so. Our job is to hold them to account.
Quoting Christoffer
Nor will you. NATO are not stupid. They're hardly going to issue a concrete threat to a sovereign nation are they? Yet the threats are legitimate nonetheless. As Steven Pifer, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, said...
So what's your point? We're not allowed to hold NATO to account without the bloodied dagger in our hand? Why are you insisting on that level of evidence, what does it gain?
I've answered your questions over and over (though you may not like the answers), yet you've still not done me the courtesy of answering my very simple one. What is the objective in absolving the US, NATO and Europe with such passion?
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I and all the experts I've cited are wrong. NATO, the US and Europe are completely blameless in all this. What harm comes from discussing the perceived blame? They're all big boys, I'm sure they can handle being blamed for something they didn't do. So what exactly drives you with such passion to ensure that all discussion of their role in this is stamped on?
Quoting UN Charter
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/06/the-american-war-machine/305025/
Quoting The Atlantic
Did NATO provoke Putin? When and how? The expansion itself can be provoking, but not in any sense that warrants guilt and blame on NATO. You also bring up a good point of guilt by not doing anything. If Sweden and Finland could prevent a Russian attack on our nations, would we be guilty of letting that happen if we don't join NATO?
Quoting FreeEmotion
I also think it's arrogant to speak about the US "westernizing" whenever a nation, themselves, try to replicate standards seen in western nations. It argues that nations cannot act independently, by themselves, to adopt any style of living that they choose. It's like, if they choose a more western standard, then it automatically becomes US enforcing this onto them. This criticism against the US gives them more credit than they deserve. "The west" is more than the US.
The only Finnish forces there are the local police and the border guard. And Russia has an consulate there, which is described as more of a forward intelligence gathering post. At the height of the Cold War it had 140 personnel. That's a huge consulate workforce for Islands with a population of 30 000. And Russian helicopters do have the ability fly directly from Russia to the Islands. The military history is interesting, and a great example of two countries accepting a third party international solution. The decision on the Åland Islands is one of the few things the League of Nations succeeded in solving.
It literally doesn't matter. Not one bit. Not one iota. Russia told NATO to fuck right off, and NATO did the exact opposite of that, in full cognizance of multiple people in the West telling them that this is a terrible, awful, war-engendering move and lo and behold, and now there's a war. This isn't an issue of morality or law or principle, it's a simple calculation - do you do the thing that the weaponized, nuclear aggressor literally just told you to not do, on pain of war, yes or no? NATO - and again, not just NATO but the EU in general - answered the question with a 'yes'. When you make a decision knowing the consequences of that decision, that's what people call responsibility. Putin is an aggressor and if he dropped dead tomorrow, the world would be a better place. But this white knighting for an institution which looked at war in the face and said 'yep, we'd like a bit of that thanks' - and now gets a war - is totally, absolutely culpable for dead Ukrainians. When you fly straight into the fucking sun and die, you don't get to excuse yourself because the sun was hot.
Putin's war is unjutified and unjustifiable. But acting in full cognizance of the deadly results of an unjustified demand does not let you off the hook. Again, world politics does not work like Harry Potter. Actors don't need their stories to line up, for the sake of your narrative ease-of-mind.
Literally every single one of your questions are irrelevant.
Why only Putin? Who else? I suggest that there a a multitude of people who are aggressors and the world would be a better place without them.
Santa Klaus doesn't exist! :rofl:
The problem becomes when suspicion is used as facts. When NATO gets "equal blame" for what is happening in Ukraine and any further action by Putin. Or are you just using this conflict as an excuse to further criticize US and NATO through suspicion?
Quoting Isaac
[/quote]
This still doesn't excuse blaming NATO for Putin's actions. It's just more speculation. I'm not saying we shouldn't investigate what is going on both in US and within NATO, but that doesn't mean there are actual threats that have been done against Russia. NATO has only warned Russia from attacking NATO members, they've condemned the actions Putin takes, but nothing of that is a threat to Russia, not if you accept Putin's ideology of the new world empire. It is pretty simple, you need to accept Putin's imaginary empire borders as truth, ignore that these neighboring nations are independent and then see NATO's troops within those nations as a threat. But all of that is just Putin's imagination and feelings, they do not exist in the real world.
Quoting Isaac
Hold NATO account... for what? You still haven't answered what to actually blame them for other than saying:
Quoting Isaac
So we should blame them... because we have a suspicion that there might be malpractice and threats under the table. This is not a foundation for any conclusions. You blame them first, before having any premises to support that conclusion.
Suspicion should lead to an investigation, to finding evidence, to build a case so that we can blame them. But I see no such thing, not even in rational philosophical practices and proper arguments on this forum. It's all just speculation, a feeling, suspicion. In essence, conspiracy theories.
If you want me to take any of your conclusions seriously, you need more than conspiracy. I'm interested in rational arguments, not opinions, suspicions and speculations.
Quoting Isaac
Because it floods the discussion with distractions from the actual conflict, it muddies the waters with irrelevant nonsense that makes it harder to actually dissect what is happening and what could be happening. Why bother using this conflict, this war, as an excuse to ventilate emotional suspicions about the US and NATO just because that's your preference?
In my opinion, it becomes a disgusting way of turning this war into a discussion of your preferred subject, rather than truth.
Well hang on. For this analogy to hold Poland would have to have been threatened with invasion by Russia to motivate it to join NATO back in 1997. A real concrete threat by your standards. So, prior to 1997, what was the real concrete threat of Russia invading Poland? I'm no Poland history expert, but I don't recall any near misses around that time. For that matter I can't recall anything prior to Latvia and Estonia joining either - not something which meets your actual and concrete threat threshold.
I may well be misremembering, so help me out here. In your analogy - who's the criminal and what concrete evidence did the countries joining NATO have that he wanted to 'break into their houses'
Putin doesn't care. Does it look like he cares for any kind of diplomacy, peace or collaboration with the world?
If Russia invades our nations, Åland would probably be a joint effort defense with both Swedish and Finnish forces working together. The Russian consulate would be a target for us, leverage of sorts.
Works with people who can conduct diplomacy. Reading the manifesto of the new world order however, makes you question the ability of Putin to be a rational part of a cold war 2. This is the true danger of Putin. No one knows if he's crazy enough to take the world with him if he falls.
Interview with Mearsheimer - putting aside his fantasies about the US even attempting to spread democracy and his insanity about China - gets the point across nicely:
Go on... This is a problem because...
Quoting Christoffer
On the contrary, you've been presented with the rational arguments of no fewer than five experts in their relevant fields which you've summarily dismissed on the grounds of a lack of concrete evidence as you would use 'in a court of law'. You don't seem interested in rational arguments at all. You want a smoking gun or nothing.
Quoting Christoffer
And...? I'm still not seeing the harm. Again, assuming you're absolutely right and the US/NATO/Europe are entirely blameless. You could just ignore discussion speculating on their blame. You could swamp it in turn with discussion of...what exactly I don't know.... Since we all agree that Putin's actions are reprehensible and cannot be excused I don't really know what else you want to discuss.
The point is you don't. You expend virtually all of your efforts here on stamping out discussion of the extent to which the US/NATO might be to blame.
Perhaps you could explain the link you made above in "...makes it harder to actually dissect what is happening". How does expert speculation make it harder to dissect what is happening? It seems to enact your policy you'd need to decide in advance what's happening so that you can rule out alternative theories from muddying the water. But then what would the discussion be for?
Or perhaps you want to limit discussion to only that which has concrete evidence? No speculation.
Have you concrete evidence that NATO weren't to blame in any way? Have you concrete evidence that, of all the things Putin has said about his motives, the ones you've picked out are his 'true' motives? Not just informed speculation, concrete evidence.
Yeah, you have to wonder about the politics of some of the detractors here when one considers the political positions of some of the people that have actually sounded a note of temperance to their vitriol.
Next we'll be citing Ghengis Khan in his famous "Woah, hang on a minute, let's just think about this first..." speech
What right have Russia to tell them to fuck off if they expand in collaboration with independent nations in Europe. Russia doesn't own Europe's independent nations or have the right to make their decisions affecting the security of their own nations.
How the hell is Russia's feelings, in any shape or form, NATO's fault? What the hell kind of logic is this?
Quoting StreetlightX
Increasing the risk of a reaction from Russia does not make Europe or NATO responsible for those actions. You can argue that it's dangerous because Russia could act aggressively, but it is still Russia's fault if they invade and wage war. The only situation where the actions of Russia would be warranted was if NATO actively attacked Russia, pushing over their borders. Has this happend? No.
Quoting StreetlightX
So we are to blame for Russia's actions because we don't allow them to control our independent choices as nations? Are you serious?
Quoting StreetlightX
So, basically, victim blaming? Because someone doesn't comply to the demands of an aggressive person, who demands something they have no right to demand, therefore the victim is to blame if they get attacked by that aggressive person? Back off and look at your logic for one reason.
You have two arguments that you confused together. You have one that talks about how rapid expansion of NATO is dangerous because Russia could act aggressively. And then one that talks of NATO's guilt for Russia's war and murders. Those aren't connected, one is about the dangers of an irrational state, about balancing actions against the risk of that irrational state to attack. The other one is wether there's an actual guilt on NATO for the actions Russia takes.
But you've confused them together thinking unintentional provocation is the same as having actual guilt.
So if it's the harsh terms Treaty of Versailles, the internal problems of Weimar Germany, and other historical reason for fascism and national socialism to emerge, just what all of that has it to do with your country, which had been neutral during WW1? What have the Dutch to do with the rise of Hitler?
Yes, we naturally ought to be critical of what we do, that is a fundamental part of what democracies are, yet this doesn't mean that we take the viewpoint of "bothsideism" in every case. We really have to look at whose fault things are.
Hence I find it hard to see justifications of the invasion of the Netherlands by Germany in 1940 in the prior actions of the Dutch government. Of course there were reasons for Hitler to invade your country: just like Norway and Denmark, because his opponents might invade them. That isn't a justification and especially it doesn't make it "also" the fault of Norway, Denmark or the Netherlands. The invader is the invader, it's absurd to talk about pre-emptive invasions of sovereign countries.
And this is what I perhaps disagree with you. We have to put things at a scale and to a real perspective.
So earlier before the war had escalated (25 days ago), you wrote:
Quoting Benkei
This is wrong. Russia's internal politics do matter.
Putin had made quite clear for a long time that when it came to Ukraine, he had a lot of other objectives than just to keep NATO out. Yes, he obviously had that as one of the reasons too. But NATO enlargement was just one reason among the many: Starting from the obvious annexation of Crimea which showed the total disregard to agreements Russia had made about the sovereignty of his neighbors (and international law). Also the Ukrainian revolutions were an obvious threat for his authoritarian regime. This is obvious from the assistance that Russia has given now to two countries in it's sphere of influence were popular demonstrations have been put down by force. All the utter bullshit of Ukraine being an artificial country, of Novorossiya, does also matter.
All these other reasons simply cannot be taken out of the picture in order to argue that NATO is at fault here, that if it wouldn't be for NATO, Putin would have been peaceful and respected the sovereignty of the former Soviet countries. He simply wouldn't have acted so, even if it's now a hypothetical. And as I discussed with @Isaac, yes, NATO made errors. Starting from thinking that Russia wouldn't return and that the times had changed since the Cold War and that if they in NATO saw themselves as being different from the Cold War version of the organization, leaders in the Kremlin wouldn't view them like that, but as the old NATO. Yet that's just one side of the issue.
For an authoritarian imperialist like Putin, what better way to regain the collapsed empire than with the justification that NATO made him do it. And with people in the West agreeing with him that yes, they are really the ones to be blamed here. That's not self criticism, that would make our democracies behave better.
Oh yeah poor poor NATO, total victims in this situation, maybe organize a cookie bake for them out of solidarity.
Look, literally none of your moralizing matters. Not one bit. What matters are consequences. And the consequences of NATOs actions, justified by whatever bit of feel-good post-hoc rationalizations, have led, concretely, to a war. No one cares if Russia has 'rights' to do what it does, or if Ukraine happens to fit NATOs bureaucratic criteria, of if NATO is normatively justified in doing what they did. Completely, utterly irrelevant. Russia's feelings are not NATOs fault. NATO acting in full cognizance of those feelings are.
Quoting Christoffer
I don't know who the fuck 'we' are in this situation because I don't happen to be a bootlicking cheerleader who thinks this is a spectator sport to take a side in and wave flags for. I am not your fucking 'we', thanks.
Ugh... seriously how is this confusing? If someone feels threatened by Russia and they go into an alliance with others who also feel threatened by Russia, in order to have better security against any potential Russian attack. THIS IS NOT AN ACT OF AGGRESSION AGAINST RUSSIA. This is an act of protection, affecting only the ones in that alliance. They have done NOTHING against Russia.
Quoting Isaac
Are you serious? This is kind of the least complex analogy possible. Ok I'll try and make it clearer:
[i]1. You own a house. It's your house, you own it, no one else.
2. You realize that your house is very close to criminal activity, maybe even organized crime. Maybe even hearing about attacks and home invasions that have been done close to you.
3. You realize that many other homes in your surroundings and close neighbors have started a security firm that together helps each other if there was an invasion in one of the homes.
4. The criminals don't like this, because it makes it harder for them to invade and claim people's homes for their activities. So they say to everyone that this security thing needs to "fuck off" or else.
5. You realize that "fucking off" will just make you open to invasion once more, but there are still people with homes that really want to join this collectively owned security firm. So you and the other try to balance what the right thing is to do. Should we just abandon them to their fate, as requested by the criminals? Or should we include them as well, which would also make the security stronger?
6. At no time have you taken the security firm into the territory of the criminals. You have respected their place, to do whatever they want over there.
7. But the criminals then attack one home that wasn't part of the security firm, they murder half the family and say that if anyone tries to help them, they're gonna do the same to them, or they'll just attack everyone, regardless of the consequences to the entire place.
8. You and the others know that you can't help them without drawing everyone into a conflict so you hold your ground, saying that you can't do anything, but you will collectively defend the ones present in the security firm.
9. You debate online with someone saying that this security firm thing is guilty of the criminals' actions against you. You ask how that is logical and he answers that you should have just listened to them and not protected yourself with defense.[/i]
Explain the logic in point 9.
Yep. So I'm asking you what reason Poland had to feel threatened by Russia in 1997. Otherwise none of that is legitimate and we'd have to look for other reasons they joined NATO which might be more provocative.
Quoting Christoffer
What criminal activity? What is the criminal activity in your analogy for Poland in 1997. What had Russia done that puts them in the 'criminal activity' role in your analogy?
Quoting Christoffer
Whose homes? When NATO started expanding in the late 1990s, whose 'homes' had Russia tried to invade?
Quoting Christoffer
What do you mean 'once more'. Once more after which previous occurrence?
Your analogy seems flawed.
Here Putin showed both his ruthlessness and his intelligence in Chechnya.
First he fought a really genocidal campaign against the Chechens. Even the Russian official statistics on Chechen deaths are horrifying. Then he put a son of a former rebel leader in charge, something similar that Russian had done in the 19th Century. It would be like the US would have installed a Taleban leader as President of Afghanistan and then started (as Putin did in Chechnya) building large beautiful Mosques all around Afghanistan. Actually something from the British playbook with the second Boer War. Let's remember that all of the first prime ministers of South Africa were Boer rebel commanders and Churchill's close friend, prime minister Jan Smuts, had been his interrogator when Churchill was a prisoner of war of the Boers. That's the way you really win insurgencies: put the insurgent leaders themselves to run the state after showing that your other option will be genocidal.
Now what plans Putin had or has now for Ukraine, I don't know. But sure is sloppy. Hope he won't use nuclear weapons.
I've been presented with suspicions and speculations about NATO's guilt but nothing to explain how that guilt is logical. You have yet to connect the act of building defense in your country, in collaboration with others, to be an act of threat against a nation that you build defenses against for if they would invade.
How is building a defense within your borders and act that creates guilt on your part if someone invades you? Explain already.
Quoting Isaac
Good question, I probably should ignore your suspicion-based conspiracy arguments. But you ask so nicely.
Quoting Isaac
No, I'm trying to move on in the discussion. In order to move on to more valid geopolitical talk, we have to establish if NATO is to blame or not. People say they are, I ask in what way... and people cannot provide a logical and rational argument for why that is, other than suspicions and speculations and a general anti-US anti-NATO opinion rant.
So I ask again for any clear sign of guilt so that we can establish that as truth.
Quoting Isaac
Because if we can establish that NATO is guilty, have equal blame for the actions Russia takes, be it the invasion of Ukraine, invasion of Sweden/Finland, or a nuclear strike, then that changes the discussion entirely compared to if Putin acts alone and "feels threatened" by the west. Those are two extremely different baselines for this conflict.
Quoting Isaac
Can you prove that God doesn't exist, is the same kind of argument and that kind of fallacy-driven argument belongs in the theist section.
You make the claim of NATO's guilt, I ask for evidence to that. Burden of proof applies. You can't counter that by asking for proof of its non-existence. You can't prove there isn't a teapot floating between mercury and the sun, therefore there is a teapot floating there, that is your logic.
This is kindergarten philosophy.
Quoting Isaac
Has nothing to do with establishing the guilt of NATO. The evidence for his aggressions can be seen in the actions right now, bombing and invading Ukraine, killing civilians. What his motives are in regard to NATO's guilt, is relevant. It's another discussion.
If you want that discussion, I'm more than happy trying to speculate on that, as long as speculation is the goal. I've already shared the most likely source for establishing his motives. Beyond expert comments, this is the closest we've gotten so far to see his motives: Brave new world of Putin
Who cares what they feel is aggression as long as no one attacks them? If I mount a defense in Sweden in order to feel safer against a possible Russian invasion, based on previous acts and speeches by Putin that can be deciphered as possible threats (as we've seen during this conflict), then how the fuck does that make me guilty of his invasion of Sweden?
Your logic is like me attacking you and when you try to accuse me of the attack I can just say that I felt threatened by you so you're as much to blame for my actions as I. It's a delusional logic to propose.
Anyone who doesn't think world politics is a video game.
In real life, people need to act and react based on what others do and think and say, justified or not. Because typically people are not utter morons who can afford to entirely ignore their strategic environment out of some high-minded sense of principle, although NATO and the EU seem not to have got the memo.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/1990s-shock-therapy-set-stage-for-russian-authoritarianism-by-katharina-pistor-2022-02
Incidentally this is effectively the same shit that the EU does to countries today, who come under its ambit.
It doesn't matter if they were actually threatened, it doesn't matter the reasons. Maybe they wanted to be part of a defensive alliance just to be secure for any possible future conflict. There are a large number of reasons for them joining, neither warrants blame on them for any actions by others (Russia).
Quoting Isaac
You are the one making the Poland argument. Their reason could be general security. I'm making the analogy based on the guilt blaming of NATO in today's conflict with Russia. Get in the game and stop steering this into some other argument that is irrelevant.
Quoting Isaac
The reasons can be the general security that each nation wanted to have. Maybe the general security was because the collapse of the Soviet Union was a bit of an unknown factor. Who knows? The fact is that the decision of an independent nation to increase security and defense is not another nation's fucking business as long as that action doesn't act as a direct and concrete threat.
Quoting Isaac
You intentionally stupify yourself in order to defend yourself against me asking for logic to you blaming NATO for Putin's actions.
Show me concrete threats to Russia, I've asked many times, just answer for once.
But this is about blaming NATO for what Putin is doing. Stop fucking around and answer me what threats they've actually done. What Russia "feels" is a threat can only warrant them to build up their own defense, but acting out aggression and invading others or conducting actual military threats based on their "feeling" does not warrant NATO to be blamed for Russia's offensive acts.
You all don't seem to understand the difference between defence and offense, or that "building defense" is not the same as "invading another country" or "making actual military threats towards another nation"
Show some logic on a philosophy forum. Your reasoning fits more on Reddit than here. If I ask for logic in your reasoning, then provide it, and don't spin off in other directions distracting from the fact that there's no logic to your conclusions.
Deduce why NATO is to blame for Putin's actions. Simple fucking request here. I've given you enough of my time to do it and yet there's nothing by noise.
No, this is about blaming NATO for what NATO has done. Again, if you feel the need to choose a team, that's your problem.
Quoting Christoffer
You don't seem to understand that these words are meaningless in the real world where these words are abstractions that only apply to the latest Nintendo release.
What has NATO done? What are you blaming NATO for? Answer already
Quoting StreetlightX
So building a defense within your own nation is considered an offensive act warranting getting offensive acts of invasion or threats of violence against you? That's your logic, right? Because that's what Sweden is experiencing right now. If we join NATO, we will be blamed for Putin invading us or some other nation.
EXPLAIN YOUR LOGIC PLEASE
I wonder why them countries keep applying to EU membership all the time, as if it was a good thing to trade with Europe. Little do they know that Brussels is the tower of Mordor.
No I literally rejected the very terms in which you framed the problem, so maybe before we get to 'logic' we can ask if you are capable of literacy first. Baby steps.
Greece's collective ass was saved by Europe. They know it. The Greeks are not leaving the EU.
Where are you from?
Because they knew from the beginning how utterly stupid and economically insane the idea of monetary union was to begin with.
Quoting Olivier5
Loooooooool. Make another joke.
You want more reverence? Let me see what I can do.
May I ask, your appropriately condescending highness, which nation has had the privilege of welcoming your splendid presence in its midst?
Human feelings are extremely complex and difficult to decipher, from observation of a person's actions. That's why psychology is borderline science. And, in psychology the patient is supposed to try and make one's feeling known to the psychologist. When an individual intentionally hides one's feelings, the acts are twisted around multiple motives, so psychological problems are often referred to as a "complex". Jealousy for example manifests itself in very strange ways.
Quoting Christoffer
"Feelings" are attributable to individual human beings, very unique and particular to the individual, as they are tied up within the highly structured and organized chemical system within the human being. It makes absolutely no sense to say that an entity like "Russia" has feelings.
Quoting StreetlightX
This is a piss poor argument. If I stand up to the bully, (or the extortionist for that matter) and do the opposite of what he requests, and he goes off to torture my friends and family, obviously, you can say that I might have handled the situation better (incapacitate the bully?) but you cannot blame me for the ensuing actions of the bully. The bully is fundamentally unpredictable, making his actions irrational.
Double benefit here, the west gets freedom to exploit the resources, and whatever money is paid for the resources is pocketed by a few individuals, instead of a properly organized governance. Win, win, until you consider everyone else affected.
I don't know if you'd noticed, but defense and attack use the same military. Whether it's one or the other is about intent, nothing concrete can prove which it is.
Quoting Christoffer
Why?
Quoting Christoffer
Why?
Quoting Christoffer
Yes, I see how the discussion is changed, but you didn't say changed, you said "harder".
Quoting Christoffer
In ontology maybe. We're talking politics here, we don't conduct political philosophy as if we were establishing the existence of God. God help us if we did.
Quoting Christoffer
No, but it has everything to do with your "we can't discuss anything without concrete evidence" rule. If you demand concrete evidence before we can discuss 'The West's' role, then why doesn't the same criteria apply to you discussing Putin's motives?
Quoting Christoffer
Of course it matters. Your argument is that it wasn't a threat to Russia, so their 'reasons' had to be something other than 'to threaten Russia'. If you can't say what their reasons were, then how can you say they weren't 'to threaten Russia'?
Quoting Christoffer
Yes. An analogy which relies on them have solely defensive reasons to join NATO (and NATO solely defensive reasons to allow them). So your analogy fails unless you can demonstrate that this was the case.
Quoting Christoffer
You can't say "Who Knows?" in one breath and then in the other say that threatening Russia definitely wasn't one of them. If no-one knows the reasons, then why is Russia acting irrationally in assuming that threatening it wasn't one of them?
Quoting Christoffer
We've been through this. There doesn't need to be 'concrete' threats for strategic decisions to be monumentally reckless. Concrete threats are not the only type of threat. In fact they're probably the least common since 1945.
Those who have built empires have not been madmen. Some perhaps have been, but not all.
What counts is that one is against the idea of imperialism, that the larger and stronger has the right to force the weaker and to annex territory, to subjugate and perhaps to assimilate them. And not have a fixation on just one actor that has imperialist tendencies.
If you want to talk about US agenda and how it has extended it's network of alliances, including NATO, then fine. But then that talk isn't about the war in Ukraine in general.
It would be like explaining WW2 by talking only about the war crimes that the Western allies did. The terror bombing of Germany like Dresden, the fire bombing of Japanese cities like Tokyo, the use of nuclear weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the actions of Moroccan goumiers in Italy, all the incidents were POWs were shot by various Western allied units.
And then not only leaving it with that, but accusing anyone daring to even refer that "Wait a minute, this discussion is about WW2. The Axis side did warcrimes too, like starting with the Holocaust." that they portray the Western allies as knights in shining armor. Because nobody is denying those actions above.
Scroll back through the thread. In what way have those blaming the US/NATO/Europe attempted to make the conversation only about that? I'll bet you can't find a single quote to that effect.
I can find plenty of quote dismissing their role, things like "it's all Putin", and several claims that including them is delusional and so forth.
At no point (in my reading) has anyone suggested that we only look at the role the US, Nato and Europe played in this. If I'm mistaken, you'll have to point to the quotes to that effect (and I mean from serious posters)
How is that in any shape or form not in line with the problem?
Here's baby steps for your baby brain:
[i]1. NATO is a defensive alliance that is made up of a union of nations that help each other if one nation gets attacked.
Regarded as true. If false, please provide a logical argument for why this isn't the case.
2. NATO's expansion is based on a US agenda.
Regarded as false. If true, please provide evidence to how this works and how all other nations doesn't have the same power as US within NATO.
3. NATO's expansion has never been through any attack on anyone's border.
Regarded as true. If false, please provide example.
4. NATO has never directly attacked Russia or threatened Russia.
Regarded as true. If false provide evidence that they have threatened or attacked Russia.
5. NATO expansion is based primarily on a nation's will to join NATO. NATO doesn't force anyone to join.
Regarded as true. If false, provide an example of an event where NATO forced someone.
6. A nation joining NATO is an active and direct threat against Russia.
Regarded as false. If true, provide a logical argument for how joining NATO is the same as threatening Russia.
7. NATO has equal blame for Putin's actions.
Regarded as false. If true, please provide a logical and rational argument for how that is true.[/i]
Each answer can be started with true or false, then provide further elaboration. But I predict that you will ignore this and just tell me how stupid I am, because that is the level at which you operate. Like a baby.
Once again. Putin and Russia feeling a perceived threat from NATO does not make an act of aggression, invasion, war or direct military threats by Putin and Russia something to blame NATO for. As long as NATO hasn't threatened to invade Russia, there is no actual threat made by NATO, therefore there is no act by Russia that NATO can be blamed for. A defensive build-up of military defensive forces in nations Russia has no control over (independent free nations) is not the same as threatening Russia. The only viable threat through this would be if there was an example of NATO actively attacking another nation without being attacked first, essentially breaking the defense protocol.
Russia, Putin, is acting by his own hand. His actions, invasion, war, threats etc. is something he and Russia alone are responsible for, not NATO. If you want to blame NATO, then you need to establish a clear threat towards Russia, not what the manchild Putin feels is the case.
No. You are just obsessed of classify everything in economics and GDP. Did you know the French GDP is more indebted that Spain's one?
You don't know anything about my country and do not speak please.
But, as @jamalrob said, it is better to stay in the topic.
Sorry.
And just when have I denied that NATO expansion isn't one reason for Putin to attack?
All I've tried to say, that it wasn't the only reason for this war. You cannot explain it just by that. If you get that, fine, let's move on.
Putin would have tried to control, subjugate and annex Ukraine even without any NATO enlargement. It would have been just far more easier then. And without any NATO, any EU, Russia would talk to many countries on a bilateral basis like they did to us during the Cold War.
Neither warrants blame on NATO. The argument is not about whether Putin feels the need to act, but who's to blame for his acts. Is blaming NATO for his actions logical? Do they have guilt in what is happening or are the actions Putin's? If NATO is to blame, how is that so? What warrants them equal blame? No one seem to answer me this.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I'm sorry, Putin.
It's better when it suits him, I guess.
For info, my point questioning @StreetlightX was to try and show that he is grossly misinformed about Europe. On the topic of the EU, he comes across as a FAUX News consumer.
Sounds like you've done some serious research on the goodness of coffee. :smile:
Tobacco, on the other hand, seems to be less health-promoting ....
But I agree that compared to some other countries, American culture isn't entirely bad. If Americans somehow managed to be more independent of Wall Street and refrained from replacing European culture with that of America's lower social strata, it might be even better.
Quoting Olivier5
I agree. Unfortunately, the nation state seems to be a necessity in organizing the world, unless we want an amorphous mass of humanity ruled from Washington or New York.
And as the state is a political construct, this involves a narrative or "foundation myth" that, almost inevitably (like all things in politics), will contain counterfactual elements. Even in their personal life, people tend to tell myths, or lies, to themselves and to others.
Incidentally, even Ukrainians don't seem to be entirely blameless:
Ukraine Acknowledges Racist Treatment Of Africans Fleeing Russian Invasion - HuffPost
During a discussion on BLM last year I asked a group of students from the region about the public attitude to blacks in their country. I won't say which country, but the answer wasn't particularly positive.
Quoting jamalrob
Even in logical terms, Kirill Pankratov and others have argued (1) that the government did not need any additional justification to wage war on Chechnya, given the kidnappings and the invasion of Dagestan, and (2) that the operation involved too many people for the government to have been able to keep it secret.
In any case, there is no evidence and IMO speculation is just waste of time. Unfortunately, some are trying to blame everything on Russia and Putin. After all, there is an information and media war going on as we speak and some of the stuff we’re being told is simply fake news.
Okay, that's interesting. Do all polities need a foundational lie? I'm not against the nation state as a concept, but it's almost impossible to implement. So yes, there might be a need to hide the truth to shore up legitimacy. Gona chew on this.
As I said, in dark moments I wonder if liberal democracy (without scare quotes) is a sham, there is no social contract, and the whole enterprise is propped up by the threat of violence. I think this is essentially the worldview of Trumpists. It's a world in which everyone is out to exploit everyone else and you can't even trust your immediate family, friends and co-workers.* Even if they're wrong to believe this is just "the way it is", they can make it so by behaving as if it is true.
There are tens of millions of Americans who will tell you that gun rights are the most important rights because they are the guarantor of the others. That sounds like failure to me.
These people believe that all social control is ultimately backed by the threat of violence. But even if that's true (and I doubt it), so long as the masters rely on other means of control, there's a chance of finding a way of opposing them. People strike, protest, organize, withhold rent, and so on -- but you can't do any of that with a bullet in your head. Putin has made it clear that he has no reservations about just having you killed if you're in his way. Not manipulating you into buying a new car; not cutting your hours if you make a stink with HR; not raising the interest rate on your credit card debt a few percent; just having you killed.
History is what it is, so the history of liberal capitalism is entangled with something else that might have played out much the same even under very different sorts of political economy: oil. It is surely no coincidence that a number of repressive regimes sit on top of oil fields. It's not only American and European oil barons who put up with these thugs: it's all of modern civilization, powered by fossil fuels, and we might very well have made the same deal with the devil even if no one were making obscene profits by doing so.
* [hide="I'm a footnote."]Thinking of this sort of thing, from Tim Alberta's piece about Ed McBroom, the Michigan Republican who wrote the report concluding there was no fraud in Michigan's 2020 elections:
[/hide]
Same shit different outcomes?
And notice how those ex-Soviet countries in the EU (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) have performed against their former Soviet counterparts:
Note the position of Ukraine.
The blame game is not really applicable to international politics, nor is it good to apply it. We can blame individual human beings, but we cannot blame an entity like NATO. So there is no comparison to be made between blaming NATO and blaming Putin. Nor is it likely that we can blame a democratic government, blame being properly directed toward the actions of individuals.
One of the intents behind a democratic organization is to minimize the relevance of any particular human being's actions, thus minimizing the consequences of an individual's personal weakness. On the other hand this leaves the democratic organization impossible to read in terms of strategy. In fact, since strategy is a personal trait, inherently practiced by an individual in secrecy, it is doubtful that we could even say that a democratic organization has a strategy.
Do you watch PBS? At some point Frontline will have a show where they explain more deeply what Biden was thinking through all of this.
I don't have a TV. I read the NY Times, the Washington Post, and the Guardian. I listen to NPR.
Otherwise, I form ideas about what's going on by trying to fit the facts into a scenario that makes sense to me. Sometimes it takes a while because the facts just aren't available.
That's the difference between right-populism (to give a name to what you're describing) and socialism: it's not that everyone's out to exploit everyone else; it's that there's a specific class - we call them capitalists - who is out to exploit - and is in fact stupendously successful at it - another specific class - we call us workers. Liberal democracy is a sham to the extent that these class relations are not - in fact cannot be - substantively addressed within that framework.
I mean, there's a reason why gas flows from Russia to Germany via Ukraine at now at record rates (google translate the first paragraph). Or why Biden needs to give a free pass to Credit Suisse thanks to their $100k in bribes to him, despite their being pals with the very Russian 'oligarchs' that everyone has lost their collective mind over.
That's why it's really not everyone out to exploit everyone else - because anyone with eyes can see that there is no stronger bond of solidarity and unity than among capitalists themselves. There is plenty of unity and brothery love. Dead Ukrainians be damned.
The point of my post was not to apply a saying as the end of truth in the matter. It's supposed to give pause and think before choosing sides. I'm still in favour of NATO and Ukraine at this point but not because I agree with what NATO, and particularly the US, has done but because the alternative is even worse. But that the US and NATO have acted callous with no respect for the dignity or sovereignty of Ukraine is for me entirely clear.
Quoting ssu
So we're not actually in disagreement then.
Good one! :100: :up:
Question: One of the Dutch posters on the forum was saying NATO should have "abandoned" Ukraine earlier to avoid war. Surely he wouldn't say that about Italy, for instance. Is that a kind of prejudice regarding countries near Russia?
Exactly. And if they are paranoid, everything is an act of aggression. I am sure they at NATO know what gets them worried. They have to. And they keep doing it.
Funny (ridiculous) propaganda from Sky News
Yeah so paranoid that they signposted and labeled exactly what to not do at every point, joined in by a chorus of Western notaries who similarly warned against very specific actions. Strange definition of paranoid.
There are some people who have made an indication that a reduction in the human population is desirable (for them obviously) and are also building bunkers. Do your own research.
From the article:
Quoting The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/06/the-american-war-machine/305025/
Nothing concrete can prove which it is? So invading Ukraine is the same as Sweden increasing its military spending and maybe joining NATO. Because it's the same military, one is bombing civilians and forcing themselves into another nation, one is building an army guarding the people of Sweden... it's just a mess, how could I ever see the difference here between defense and offense...? It's impossible!! :chin:
Quoting Isaac
Quoting Isaac
Quoting Christoffer
Quoting Isaac
It makes it harder to discuss the topic overall if a foundational piece is still up for debate.
Quoting Isaac
Burden of proof still applies. You're not free of logical fallacies just because we talk political philosophy.
Quoting Isaac
Because how can we establish a clear motive if the reasons for that motive need to be established first? If NATO were to be blamed, then his motives would have some form of just cause. But if NATO is not to be blamed, then he acts alone or he acts through false or through invented reasons. It generally informs the "bad man" argument. If he is a bad man acting out selfish delusions or does he have just reasons for his acts (outside of bombing civilians and all that shit). The consequence of answering this question is that it informs a large part of how to properly analyze the events, intentions/motives.
Quoting Isaac
Well, the reasons don't matter since joining NATO is basically done to increase security through an alliance of defense. If Australia joins NATO, don't you think that this is because of the tensions in the pacific and has little to no connection with Russia? They would join in order to have security against China, that's their reason. How does that fit with "threatening Russia"?
So the reasons can be whatever. But you frame it exactly in the way that you don't have evidence for:
Quoting Isaac
You are here basically saying that nations actively join NATO "to threaten Russia" and if I cannot say the actual reason, it means the reason is "to threaten Russia". Really?
Quoting Isaac
This is one part that I asked over and over you to answer. And it follows burden of proof. If the official and mission statement for NATO is to form an alliance of defense so that if any nation gets attacked, all nations will aid in defense of that member nation. You have to prove that there's another agenda. For example, I want you to explain the reasons why Sweden and Finland want to join NATO. Because that explanation would inform whether Sweden and Finland have any other agendas with joining NATO.
Quoting Isaac
Again,burden of proof. You aren't correct in your conclusion because I can't name one nation's reason to join NATO for defence. You aren't automatically correct because we don't know Polands reason back then. Are you unable to see how all of this lacks any kind of logic? How can you be right like that? It's you who needs to provide support for the conclusion that joining NATO is an act of threat against Russia. So for, I see jack shit from everyone having this conclusion.
Quoting Isaac
RECKLESSNESS DOES NOT MEAN IT'S NATO'S FAULT PUTIN INVADES UKRAINE!
You are fundamentally confused if you believe that being reckless = threat. Being reckless can be PERCEIVED as a threat by Russia/Putin. But that doesn't mean NATO IS TO BE BLAMED, it doesn't mean NATO has any logical GUILT for Putin's actions.
Putin perceiving threat [does not equal] Actual threat by NATO
Putin's actions based on his perceived threat [does not equal] NATO being responsible for those actions.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Imagine if Putin really is delusional, imagine that he truly is a fucking crazy man who belongs in a mental institution. Now, his mental condition makes him perceive everyone as a threat. People start taking actions to be able to have a defense against any kind of action he would take, irrational as he is. He doesn't see it that way, he sees conspiracy, he sees all of them threatening him, so he acts out violently. Fortunately, people had the defense, so they could defend against it, but your argument is that joining together for defense is partly to blame for Putin's violent outburst, so we should blame everyone who wanted to defend themselves.
Well, that's where this part of the debate started. By the usual suspects in here on this topic dismissing any notion that Putin acts on his own and has little to no real viable reasons to do what he does. If there are no viable reasons, then his actions become purely criminal. If there isn't a threat against Russia, if he would just let go of his empire dreams and cared for the Russia as it is, nothing would happen to him or Russia. But this is not the case, his actions stem from claiming something he has no right to, and in doing so murdering civilians, destroying another nation and decimating his own people's economy and freedom.
To even say that NATO is to blame for this, creates a situation where we give credit to Putin for having valid reasons to act out aggressions. But since no such blame can be established, since no actual threats have been made towards Russia and Putin, we can interpret his actions with far more judgment than in the opposite scenario.
OK, Hope that is clear. That is my view.
There is such a thing as the psychology of international relations. If there is any doubt, see how Israel will react to massing of troops on its border.
I think you just let the US off the hook for every atrocious thing it's ever done.
"You guys shouldn't have threatened us. You should have backed down before we squashed you flat!". - - Uncle Sam.
Well yes, the ex-Soviet counterparts get the pleasure of being fucked over by the rentier capitalism of the Putin state, which is definitely a far shittier situation to be in. And to take just one of your named countries:
Via Michael Hudson's Killing The Host. Estonia and Lithuania have similar stories of course, once you go past skin-deep comparisons of GDP. But you're welcome to do your own research.
The American War Machine
James Carroll
Did I? Because those who can follow a basic train of implication might note that none of this lets Putin off the hook. No judgement about those who can't, just saying. I understand that not everyone has an IQ above 12.
Oh good. So join me in condemning Putin for doing the same thing the US has been doing to South and Central America for years.
:up:
I use Walmart.com these days. Best way to get my cheap Chinese goods.
Still not the fault of NATO if Putin starts a war. What NATO and other nations are doing is up to them. Russia has no claim in demanding anything abour other independent nations' right to choose their defense strategy.
Quoting Christoffer
Which can be a natural progression of an alliance overall. I mean, EU has also expanded, so that doesn't mean anything specific for just NATO. Over time most alliances grow.
Quoting Christoffer
Exactly, but some position that the US controls NATO, and therefore they have an anti-Russia agenda and all the expansion efforts are only there to beat back Russia. If they only have one vote, how can that be?
Quoting Christoffer
Taking actions that Russia doesn't like, in this case, building defense in member nations close to Russia, still doesn't warrant Russia to do anything. What nations do in their nations is their business. That Russia doesn't like, why should that be cared for? Is Putin a child whose feelings shouldn't be hurt? Since we established that NATO does not act with invasion or offensive actions over any borders without first being attacked, then him not liking people establishing a defense just boils down to him totally misunderstanding NATO, or... as I've described, he knows that if his precious nations he wants to claim become members, he cannot establish the old Russian empire he wants. Nothing of that is nothing more than Putin's ideas of NATO threatening, they did never and have not actually threatened him.
And... the police officer? Is Russia the police officer? Should Europe bend down to Russia and Putins will? No, he's not a police officer in that analogy, he's a guy pretending to be a police officer and when we say that he doesn't have the right to ask us to do anything he shoots us.
Quoting FreeEmotion
Quoting Christoffer
Quoting Christoffer
How is a defensive collaboration a threat? Putin can say whatever he wants, he can believe whatever he wants, but it's still not a threat. If Sweden joins NATO in order to feel more secure on the global geopolitical stage, that is not a threat to Putin, regardless of his fantasies that such an action is.
If Sweden, however, said that we will take back Kalinigrad because we think that this part should belong to us (since it once did long ago), then that is a threat.
Us setting up a better anti-air defense on Gotland in collaboration with NATO, even if it's to secure against a Russian attack... is still not a threatening act to Russia or Putin, regardless of his delusions.
All of this is about establishing actual guilt. What he believes is irrelevant. Because "guilt" of others for Putin's actions gives him partial justification for his actions. I'm saying that he doesn't have justification for his actions.
That is the importance of this argument.
Quoting Christoffer
Exactly like how things like this are done in modern times. If you want a nation back, ask them, do you want this? Do we all want to vote in this? If it leads to a vote and it fails, tough luck better luck next time. There's nothing wrong in wanting to expand a nation, or create a union, what is bad is if you try to claim it by force. This is considered a crime by international law.
The world is not the same today and can't be judged by the same measuring tape as before.
Quoting FreeEmotion
Still can't do anything. A nation can do whatever the fuck they want as long as they don't break borders and actively threaten another nation. Putin knew this, that's why he played the innocence card with gathering troops around Ukraine before the invasion. And no one can blame him for any of that. We could question his motives, speculate, we could criticize him for doing it and pressure him to answer why, but since he didn't threaten Ukraine, it's all in line with what a nation can do on their side of the border. But when he invaded, that's when he broke everything and why the world now acts.
There's nothing in international law or any kind of post-world war agreement in the world that a nation can't put forces at their borders. And the same goes with NATO building defense in NATO member nations. People, like Putin, can complain and question, but he has no right to demand anything and he has no right to feel threatened by it, regardless of what fantasy he cooks up to be the case.
If we just have the patience to read thoroughly each others comments and genuinely try to understand the others points, we usually do that.
Quoting Benkei
I think this is quite universal and only a few would disagree with this. And this is also my point of putting things into perspective.
I disagree here, amassing troops on a border is a threat, in my opinion, and that is how I see it. I don't think I need to push the point further. Actually I want to look at the media coverage on this.
This logic works both ways of course. Putin can be blamed for not having gotten the memo either, because he too has the intellectual capacity to recognize that the Western world acts out of a sense of high minded sense of principle, even if he thinks those principles are hypocritical and naive bullshit. That is to say, just as you can criticize NATO for having acted in a way that provoked certain action, it should have been fairly obvious to Putin it would have done exactly as it did. If you're going to require that NATO and the EU be Grandmaster chess players in this environment and expect them to respond precisely to the strategic environment, then let's impose that same standard on Putin.
The matter is just unfolding, so we don't know the final result, but it is worthy to note that Russia is getting backed into a corner where their only option is nuclear, meaning on all conventional levels, they will likely come up short in the conquest to to rebuild their former empire. With the money being pumped into war effort by the West, it should go on for decades and the economic sanctions will do their fair share of damage, and Russia will also be cast off the world stage in every other regard.
It would seem that if I were Putin, I would have calculated a high minded moralistic response from the West, where the fight was not going to be over empires, land, or resources, but over righteousness itself.
Why would I want to provoke a group of crazies that believe that God is on their side? Sounds like someone just provoked a proverbial battle of Good versus Evil that the West can't help but throwing every last of its soldiers at.
But it isn't a threat, it's not a threat that warrants extreme actions as counters to it, which is what Putin is doing. You cannot use it as any evidence of threat in order to then justify attacking that nation, just because you "feel" it's a threat. If that were the case, then if Sweden joins NATO and Russia breaks airspace or sea with submarines, then that is an act of war, so let's invade Russia. That won't happen. And if Russia had troops close to Finland and Finland was a member in NATO, would that warrant them to attack Russia? With the combined outcome being "they threatened us with having troops on their side of the border so Russia is to blame for what we did"
We can talk of escalating conflict of the psychology of it all. Actions and who's to blame have clear parameters based on all of this. Blaming others for your actions without any logical reasoning as to why others are to blame doesn't make them any more guilty.
Since they have no right to Ukraine or any nation other than the borders of their own, Putin could just retreat the troops, deal to get the sanctions lifted, and promise to care for what he already has (current Russia). That is also an option, but that isn't an option for Putin.
This is why I'm fearing that he might take the world down with him. It's either to establish the new world order and rebuild the empire, or fuck the world and the west and NATO and every single fucker (hit the button).
At which point of grandmaster gamesmanship, blame is inappropriate all round. You lose the world championship - it's not a sin to be the second best player in the world.
He already signalled his demands at the negotiating table: he wants Ukraine to be recognized as neutral. He wants it demilitarized, and he's probably going to choose its next leader, who'll be a puppet.
He'll basically put a squash on Ukraine's economy by diminishing its ties with Europe.
The west will then back off the sanctions and go back to normal with no further overtures to Ukraine and less trust for Russia than it had.
Putin reacted predictably, that's all to it.
Putin is the one attacking, and he sees a benefit to continuing the attack, to get maximum concessions.
Lots of options for Putin including agreeing to a ceasefire: a ceasefire will never revert back to a status quo. What Russia can bring to the table is the offer to stop attacking, what Ukraine can bring are concessions, since Ukraine's resistance was accounted for in the initial strategy.
Maybe NATO is telling Zelensky not to give concessions. At least the press is making him out to be a hero: helping him to press on.
Meet the Press:
Zelensky's rise: See how Ukrainian leader met this moment - CNN
OPINION: Ukraine vs. Russia: Here's how Zelenskyy and his country win - Fox News
Children 'in grave danger' as Russian forces close in on Ukrainian capital - ABC
Wow
Except that apportioning blame is part of the game. There is a battle for public opinion in Russia, Europe and elsewhere. For the Russian leadership, blaming the West for the war in Ukraine is a matter of survival. If Putin fails to convincingly pin this war on NATO and "Ukrainian drug addicts", if the average folks realize that their president has bombed their Ukrainian brothers and sisters for no reason other than a power trip, then Putin is politically dead. And possibly, biologically dead too. So blaming the West is key to his survival.
Quoting frank
This is certainly an optimistic outcome, unless, of course, you're Ukraine.
My guess is that Ukraine says no to the idea that it be de facto annexed into Russia. The proposal you've suggested is for Ukraine to surrender and hand over the keys to Russia. Surrender avoids war for sure.
Or maybe not for sure. It's hard to know. Reminds me of the Munich Agreement just a bit.
I wouldn't exactly call it Grandmaster chess insofar as people were shouting that this would happen from all corners, but I don't think Putin is under any illusions that he's being the noble one here, unless one actually takes seriously the propaganda he puts out - something I hope no one is actually doing. On the other hand, the idea that the West is acting out of any high-mindedness is laughable too - I'm not convinced Putin is stupid enough to believe that. The high-mindedness I was referring to is @Christoffer's, not the West, which is clearly acting with its own interests in mind. Any genuine imputation of high-mindedness to the West is at least as stupid as any propaganda that Putin secretes.
But sure, it absolutely is the case that Putin should take into account any response to his action; but no one is arguing - at least I hope no one is arguing - that he hasn't. That he innocently waltzed into war like a woopsie. By most accounts the speed and depth of the response have been a surprise, but I'd be happy to wager he didn't think he'd get a slap on the wrist either. Additionally, I'm not convinced that he's been backed into a corner, at least militarily. The accounts of the action of the ground that I'm following don't paint good prospects for Ukraine, but I'm willing to be happily surprised.
He has Chinese popular opinion on his side. They see it as an act of defiance against American influence, and they identify with Russia. As America declines, this is a symbol of forcing America to face reality.
It's a very emotional issue for some Chinese young people because they see America as trying to thwart their rise to power.
They won't have a choice if the West reaches an agreement with Putin. One wild card is that I think this is personal for Biden. I think he wants to take a chunk out of Putin.
The overall number of confirmed deaths in the war in Donbas, which started on 6 April 2014, has been put at 13,100–13,300, by 31 January 2021.[9] According to the Ukrainian government, 14,000 were killed by 13 May 2021.[10] - Wikipedia
Escalating the war in order to bring it to an end will have support, if divided within Russia I am sure, just like any other country. As for brothers and sisters, I think the minority Russian speaking population is what the Russian population would side with, if they are typical human beings.
If the agreement is reached without Ukraine's approval, you really have recreated the Munich Pact.
In any event, if the plan was to surrender, the West has certainly not set the stage for that about-face. Getting everyone lathered up about the immorality of the attack and how the Russians have to be stopped does look like a step towards an appeasement policy.
If the manifesto of "The new world order" is correct, you have to add that as well to speculations on Putin's ambitions. What Putin says officially during the ongoing conflict means very little. He also said he wants to denazify Ukraine and that Ukraine is filled with drug addict nazis. So by his word we have millions of people flooding into other European countries now and they're all nazis and drug addicts and drugged nazis. He's basically full of shit. The manifesto was supposedly what was going to be released after a fast takeover of Ukraine, it's a declaration of the new empire that points more clearly to the goal he's aiming for. At least, as long as he's not just a fucking nutcase, he would have the intellect to realize by now that this manifest would be toast.
The brotherhood between Ukrainians and Russians is deep, and has been harped upon since what? Peter the Great? It's like if the US invaded the UK. It makes no sense to the average Petrov.
It's coming. It will be better in some ways and worse in others. There are some aspects of Chinese culture that just rub me the wrong way, sort of like I gather American ways irritate the fuck out of non-Americans.
And this is EXACTLY why the argument I've been pushing in this thread is important. The "blame" needs to be proven to be either towards the west or towards Putin. If the west can't be proven guilty of what happened, then it's impossible for Putin himself to blame the west with any form of credibility. This is why speculations and suspicions about "the west" are totally irrelevant next to actual evidence of guilt
It's a public debate criminal court basically. To establish if Putin had a just cause or can be absolutely blamed for delusional empire aspirations.
Yes indeed, and propaganda is part of encouraging the troops, etc. But we are not playing the game here, we are discussing the game being played.
Some? Are you talking about culture or politics? If people think a Chinese superpower rule is good for the world, they must be totally unaware of how things are in China. Culture is one thing, that's the day-to-day interaction of regular people. But the politics of China is not ready for global export, it's broken to its core.
Quoting frank
You can't force people to be your friend, that will end up you being alone. And if you force someone to be part of your family, that's just mafia methods. Which might be why many think of Putin and Russia as a mafia state, not only in terms of operation, but "the family".
I could talk for a while about why Americans assume their political structure should be exported to raise up all the suffering people of the world, IOW, why the American system is kind of like a religion, but that might be too far afield of the thread's topic.
I don't know if China also thinks their system (which is still evolving) should be exported.
Is this not the whole justification of the legitimacy of every government - that it enacts the will of the people, or at least acts in their best interests? We anarchists know it's all tosh, but then we don't try and govern.
If we are to actually find out what nation should "lead the world" with "exporting political and cultural forms", the only thing we can practically use to figure that out would be to look at the indexes of life quality and other similar lists.
Then figure out which nation gets generally the highest between all statistics and use that to "fix" other nations.
It's either that or each nation needs to figure it out for themselves. There is an argument to be made for previously suffering nations who are now building their society into better life quality to be left alone to suffer through it instead of them just "taking" another nation's political and cultural form to speed up the process. While it makes the process go faster, it might not build up a genuine cultural core within the people. So by them suffering into their own functioning society, they also grow internally with that change if left alone to do it by themselves.
But at the same time, many nations have in history seen a system they liked better and adopted it into society, for better or worse.
But I think the core thing is that culture and politics should never be exported, it should only be open to being imported, through knowledge and interactions between nations. If a nation wants to adopt Chinese politics, they should be able to, if someone else wants to adopt western culture, they should be able to. Of course... I'm kinda speaking of Ukraine here. They started to import the western form in politics and culture and they have every right to do that to themselves.
Dead Ukrainians, dead Russians, dead Belarusians perhaps.
How do all these dead serve Capital?
Did Putin invade Ukraine to enrich himself? Someone else?
Maybe the world's arms merchants are buying additional vacation homes this year, but no other sector has much use for war. Businesses like predictability, stability. And Capital, at heart, wants a borderless world. (Since the world still has borders, you might as well use that, but at bottom politics is a nuisance.)
Quoting Olivier5
"myth" as in "mythos"
"myth" may be used as a fancy Greek term for a lie, but that isn't its only (or main) meaning.
Lies, on the other hand, are deliberate and contrived for contemporary purposes
So a myth is not ipso facto a lie.
"The Pilgrims", a small band of separatists, play an outsized role in the American mythos--the Mayflower, Thanksgiving, etc. The Puritans did the heavy lifting of founding New England (and 'yankee culture'). It isn't a "lie" that the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock, it is myth.
Myths, of course, are made over time. The desires of imperialists and colonists and later Americans to possess as much of North America as they could get, became the myth of Manifest Destiny, once that seemed attainable, and ever after. Thanks to Manifest Destiny, the map of the United States looks mostly complete (except for that empty space north of our border--joke).
Converting foundational myths to foundational lies is risky, because an important function of foundational myths is collective unity. A people can develop new myths, over time, to reflect new bases of collective unity.
Sophisticated urbanites, like those who populate The Philosophy Forum, never confuse myths with Real Politic. When the chips are down, the bombers will fly, the tanks will roll, the soldiers will march in the name of this or that Peace Loving People.
Putin certainly appears to be engaging in an embarrassingly crude property snatch. Urban sophisticates usually try some more polite, subtle, or underhanded method of stealing wealth. I guess that means Putin is not an urban sophisticate.
There may be a mythos that ties the Ukrainian and Russian people together, but the current war of is based on lies.
I'm afraid Internet platforms are part of the game now, not outside of it anymore. TPF may be too small to attract attention yet, but you can bet that this "blame NATO" game is being played all over the interwebs and in traditional media as well.
Right. I was having trouble parsing the comments such as...
Quoting ssu
Quoting ssu
...which seemed fairly unambiguous. No talk about US and European complicity here, thankyou!
But I'm glad we've cleared that up.
Putin was surprised by the high level of Ukrainian resistance, resolution, as well as an extent of Western repelling reaction.
Thus, for the first few days, the Russian air force aimed primarily at military infrastructure objects. Putin even appealed to the Ukrainian troops to desert and topple its government. But recently, the rules of military engagement have dramatically changed. So far, the unprecedented avalanche of sanctions against Putin himself, his close aids, oligarchs, banks, and industries could not change the general course of Russian military actions. There are signs that in the greatest Russian cities population disapprove Putin and protest against the invasion. Inexplicably, despite the deterioration of living standards, there is also some evidence that Putin’s popularity and the war’s approval are augmenting in provinces and rural areas. Likely, to avoid being ousted, Putin won’t stop. He has not yet appealed to ancient Russian archetypes of patriotism. It could become an ultimate sign of a radical transformation of his regime into an openly totalitarian dictatorship.
Quoting StreetlightX
Indeed, it is incredible. But this capacity to unite so quickly is different from the 'classic' fascist power potentials. Though we also deal here with an affective unconscious identification, this process does not include a few crustal pre - fascist instances.
Good for him. We should all shed our urban sophistication at this point and understand that it is indeed about tanks. And the right response to a tank is an anti-tank weapon, or another tank. Hence Germany is doubling its military budget, which may indeed rub some German and non-German sophisticates the wrong way.
The mythos part is interesting. Still chewing on it.
In the case of Poland. Or Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania etc.
Quoting Christoffer
That's a ridiculous threshold to insist on. "If we can't prove one of the theories outright, we can't move on to discuss anything else". That's just ludicrous.
Quoting Christoffer
Prove it.
Quoting Christoffer
Personally, I don't give a shit who's to blame. I want to find out what went wrong so it doesn't happen again. If you're more interested in assigning blame than in preventing another such catastrophe, that's your lookout, but you can't expect others to be so spiteful.
Quoting Christoffer
'To increase security' is a reason is it not? So now you're saying you do know their reasons. Or are you suggesting it's somehow impossible for a country to join NATO for reasons other than national defence?
Quoting Christoffer
No. I'm saying that if you cannot say the reason then it might be to threaten Russia. I'm not the one ruling out options here. I'm perfectly happy to consider your 'mad man Putin suddenly decides to blow up the world' theory as possible. It's you who are trying to actually rule out a theory as out of bounds.
Quoting Christoffer
AND I DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT WHO'S FAULT IT IS! WHY ARE WE WRITING IN ALL CAPS ALL OF A SUDDEN?
Quoting Christoffer
Yes, that is exactly my argument. If you are a defensive alliance and your neighbour is a mad man prone to conspiracy theories, armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons you avoid at all costs any action which might provoke him to use them whilst you attempt to lower the threat level by non-provocative means. You do not provoke paranoia further by conducting joint military exercises on his fucking doorstep. These are people's lives at risk here, it's not a fucking scout club where we can kick out anyone who doesn't behave. I can't fathom how anyone could see that as anything short of criminal recklessness.
Business in general does like stability and predictability. But some also make billions from price fluctuations, buying and selling assets, or stock-exchange speculation.
If BP and Shell, for example, are selling their shares in Russian companies they will be bought up by Russian oligarchs who will get richer than they already are. Western energy companies will certainly make a nice profit by replacing Russia as oil and gas suppliers to Europe, etc.
The biggest gain to the West though, would be if the Russian economy collapses and becomes dependent on Western investments like in the 1990's. So, the West may still see its old dream of controlling Russia's resources come true. And the EU and NATO will be free to expand ad infinitum.
But in the short term, Russia will turn to the West's rivals like China and Pakistan who will benefit from some massive energy deals with Russia - while Europe loses out.
Imran Khan strikes huge trade deal with Russia despite international outcry over war – The Independent
But i think we do need to remember that on this thread, unlike on others, we are not talking about some mental experiment à la Schrodinger cat, where we can freely unwind our most wild suppositions without fear of any consequence. Rather, here we are talking of people who being killed right now, in a war that involves propaganda being spread on traditional media and on Internet platforms such as TPF. So perhaps a little gravitas is in order, and attention to the real risk of inadvertently spreading propaganda. And this cuts both ways. Clearly, CNN and the WSJ and some other media from our good friends over the Atlantic are on a mission too.
I'm not playing it. I'm urging others here not to play it, and you are playing a feeble point scoring game against me. Don't bother.
Edit: ... : that we should forget the blame game and focus on what can be done to improve... Err... what exactly could be a goal to this conversation? Improve the 'situation'? Further our own national interest, to each his own? Or rather, aren't we talking here about our collective survival as a world in (relative) peace?
Nukes have been put on the table.
To me, this would be a good time to think not as individuals, not as partisans, not as patriots, but as a species. Are we tired of living yet?
[quote=Beckett,The Unnamable] – “ … you must go on. I can’t go on. I’ll go on”[/quote]
[quote=Beckett, Worstward Ho] “Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”[/quote]
What well over 100 dollar oil price does is that it stops the economy like a handbrake.
Some would argue this is needed: a pause and reflection. I'm looking for silver linings...
Ah yes!
Economic depression: time when wealth inequality decreases! When poor get poorer, but the rich also lose a lot.
Same thing happens during wars.
Silver linings, you know...
Stagflation here we come. Thanks a lot, whoever's fault this is.
Imagine that we look at all the plants in the world and decide which one is the best. Maybe we decide it's corn after looking at Iowa.
So we decide everybody should grow as much corn as possible. Iowa will continue to thrive because Iowa is the perfect mother to the corn plant.
But Gotland will do poorly. Gotland is a terrible mother for corn. It's a good mother for radishes.
So we should let each mother grow what she grows best. We find that out by observing.
I think it is to an extent. However, the fact that putina has now escalated everything to all-out war means that his 'hybrid warfare' is no longer covert and it's now out in the open how much of a prick he is. This should lead to more unity in the liberal West after years of fragmentation.
More silver linings...
Why is that even important? Are you considering elevating me to the judiciary? What does my moral judgement of Putin have to do with anything at all?
I just can't get my head around this. A series of events led to the absolute carnage we're seeing in Ukraine and all you lot seem to care about is who we should most blame, and some kind of perverse competition for who can condemn them most vehemently.
Honestly, who gives a fuck. Let's try and make sure it doesn't happen ever again. Let's every single actor in this tragedy work out what they could have done to prevent this so that we have snowball's chance in hell of not living the next 50 years with the same shit going on.
That's sarcastic.
To do that, we need to know who screwed up, so we don't repeat their mistakes. What percent of this mess do you think is Putin's fault?
Hey, my comments were intelligent.
But yes, 180 Proof's was more intelligent.
US postpones ballistic missile test to avoid escalation: Pentagon
“In an effort to demonstrate that we have no intention in engaging in any actions that can be misunderstood or misconstrued, the decretary of defense has directed that our Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile test launch scheduled for this week to be postponed,” Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby told reporters.
“We did not take this decision lightly, but instead to demonstrate that we are a responsible nuclear power.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsure if this is a PR move or not, but it's smart. It shows some glimmer of non-aggression. Not clear if these sanctions are going to end up helping or not.
It's going to be interesting to see what China ends up doing, or if stays as is.
Sounds like a reasonable guess to me. I think Russians in general tend to be a bit less sophisticated than West Europeans because they have a relatively large rural population and because their upper and middle classes were wiped out by the communists.
But I think foundational mythology starts with one’s own personal myth about who one is, how one has come into existence and has developed over time, what qualities, abilities, and skills one has, in what ways one is different and better than others, etc.
This is then expanded to encompass one’s family, village, and tribe, and culminates in ideas like that “Anglo-Saxons” are a superior race, with other nations occupying various degrees of inferiority and some, like the Germans (or “Huns”) having only the vaguest resemblance to human beings.
So, it looks like the modern myth is really just a means to glorify oneself and put everyone else down. Perhaps ancient myths weren’t very different, the main difference being that nowadays the mythology is largely the product of political interests in collaboration with the news, social, and entertainment media.
I think the Ukraine war is a good opportunity to study the mechanism through which modern myth is created, reinforced, and propagated.
Having created the narrative of Putin’s desire to “recreate the Soviet Union” (which is absolute nonsense as Putin’s party United Russia is more Conservative than Marxist-Leninist), there is a clear attempt to exaggerate the invasion beyond all proportion. Putin, Biden has claimed, “sought to shake the foundations of the free world … He thought he could roll into Ukraine and the world would roll over…”. Zelensky’s aide has warned that the war 'could be a prologue to a global massacre”!
Next, it has been claimed that Putin is “mentally ill” or suffers from “neuro/physiological health issues” or, alternatively, is taking steroids high doses of which can result in “having strange or frightening thoughts”.
Apparently, Putin also suffers from a “weakened immune system” which is why he sits at a distance from foreign visitors. This, of course, ignores the fact that he routinely shakes hands or stands next to, other leaders like the president of Belarus, the president of Brazil, the prime minister of Pakistan, or China’s Xi …. But, hey, why spoil a good story when it serves propaganda purposes? :grin:
Then there is the myth of the “Ghost of Kiev”, an invisible Ukrainian jet pilot who apparently flies high in the sky and shoots down one Russian warplane after another, which, unfortunately, has been debunked as Ukrainian government propaganda based on footage from a combat flight simulator.
The story of three Russian members of parliament protesting against the invasion which is sold as proof of anti-Putin dissent but ignores the fact that the Russian parliament has 450 seats of which 325 are United Russia and seemingly, so far, behind Putin. And so it goes on and on.
The information and media war has turned into a game of "Spot the Myth" :grin:
Meantime, people of color fleeing Ukraine are attacked by Polish nationalists.
Welcome to NATO’s brave new world ….
I've given some thoughts to this excellent post. Thanks for it and others on the subject.
I agree that nations are based on myths, rather than 'lies'.
However, i see a non sequitur between your conclusion and the body of your post, where you acknowledge a great deal of American 'unpleasantness' yet conclude again and again (and rightly so, I feel exactly the same): "I still love my country". Your post proves that it is possible to love one's country and yet face its history without blinking, so to speak. It doesn't support the conclusion that one must turn a blind eye to past misdeeds and injustice to survive as a citizen of any country. On the contrary.
Second, you know the well worn argument that if you love your country you should try and better it, and help repair it if you can. Part of that involves sorting out a messy historical heritage the best we can, and try and find some peace with the past.
Because ultimately, these foundational myths are aspirations. Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité. These are things my people believe in, i.e. aspire to, not real things existing now in France in the absolute or having existed at any point in history. Understood as such, as a national quest of certain common values, nationalism makes more sense to me than as the sacred defense of the lares (and lies) of our tribal ancestors. The future can be better than the past all the while remaining faithful to it, if we try to work on our past and learn from it in a (semi) objective, scientific manner.
And we don't need to topple all the statues either. I agree some heroisation / mythification can be useful here or there to build this common core of political values.
Last argument: some of this nationalist historiography written by past generations, with its all its well-meaning nation-building mythos, also carries gross prejudice against neighbouring nations, grudges from way back, and long-held hatred too. They help perpetuate xenophobia.
Why white evangelical Christians are Putin's biggest American fan base (Mar 2, 2022)
[tweet]https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/1496937857839153168[/tweet]
Actually the game is two-fold; there's Russian blame NATO and there's Western blame NATO critics. So, when you give reasons for the conflict that involve NATO actions, Western propagandists will spin you as giving justifications for the Russian invasion. And when you condemn the invasion, Russian propagandists will spin you as denying NATO involvement. Seeing as both justifying the invasion and denying NATO involvement are bonkers, you get to be strawmanned into oblivion by both sides. This thread is riddled with that kind of thing. Those of us with any sense ignore it and the posters who propagate it here.
I think that when Putin raised the readiness level of his nuclear forces, the Biden administration did the right thing: It didn't do anything with it's nuclear forces.
I took that to mean the guns have already been cocked and aimed long ago.
Having an opponent remind everybody of that is odd. 'Oh crap, I forgot I could wipe Russia off the map if I punched in the correct code.'
As far as I've read, they matched Russia's nuclear threat level. But cancelling drills is definitely smart, something Trump or a Republican would likely not do, given how insane the Republicans are.
What I am questioning is the extent of the sanctions. I understand there needs to be a response to aggression, but kicking Russia off all sports and getting most of the banking system of SWIFT - minus energy - is a gamble, I think.
Quoting Manuel
Quoting Paine
Sadly, President Biden didn't personally inform me of his atomic intentions. But we certainly would not necessarily know that nuclear policy had changed even one iota. The missile silos are always manned, so one wouldn't notice the daily shift change. A key portion of our nuclear weapons are on board submarines, about which we know little (in terms of where they are, will be next, and who their launched missiles will obliterate. B52s? Some of them are still in service, but I don't think they have a role to play in nuclear warfare, any more. I could be mistaken about that. But I wouldn't expect to see the B52 fleet taking off and circling somewhere over northern Canada, waiting for final instructions.
That's a great film.
If something good can come out of this disaster, it's that people are once again aware of the threat of nuclear war and how we could all perish with the push of a few buttons.
But - and this is important - if Russia is not given a way out, in terms of diplomatic "saving face" gesture of sorts, we could be in real trouble.
Many people (not necessarily here) often take talk of this kind to be silly or extravagant or fantasy, but it isn't, the MAD nuclear policy is still here and very dangerous.
All it takes in one mistake.
Yes. I asked that some time ago on a forum. Before this situation. There are about 10 000 of these damned nuclear warheads active. A small thing or mad mind can make it happen. I was told not to worry. Complementarity, MAD, balanced power, etc. Nothing can go wrong. I wonder what they tell now...
Yes. The usual argument is well X person (or country) wouldn't want their families killed.
Sure. But then why even have nukes at all? Surely X wouldn't want some accident to happen that would kill their family.
It's irrelevant. Reading one move wrongly or confusing a bluff with something else suffices.
Exactly.
Personally, I blame the Australians.
The alternative to your view is that the stand-off is beyond any possible bluff by any of the parties with this capacity for destruction.
It does not permit the articulation of new circumstances. it is a standing wave of the same old shit.
Well, given human psychology, it's simply not possible to always call or even interpret a bluff. You may get it right, say, 10 times in a row, but not always - it's not sustainable.
My view would be to get rid of all of them, we already have plenty of ways of destroying each other with good old fashion bombs.
But that's not the reality of this situation. Heck, if this war weren't being done by a nuclear power, I'm almost certain that it would not be making huge news all over. But it is, so, it's what we've got to deal with when talking about this issue.
Quoting Politifact
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/28/candace-owens/fact-checking-claims-nato-us-broke-agreement-again/
Mostly false guys...
Sounds like a plan.
I'm not so worried about V. Putin saving face as I am his being (or feeling) cornered or trapped by NATO, the EU and Ukraine. Russia is by no means cornered at this point, but it's conceivable that... say, if economic warfare intensified, NATO sent forces into Ukraine and Belorussia, the EU -- to the extent the it isn't coextensive with NATO -- sent more forces to join NATO, and maybe Turkey (part of NATO) mined the Bosporus and Dardanelles, Putin and his military might feel they were cornered, at least as far as conventional warfare was concerned. This is the danger point where a limited tactical use of even one nuclear weapon against NATO or against Russia could trigger a tit-for-tat exchange, and pretty quickly (say, in less than an hour) result in many atomic weapons being launched.
That could be the end of our species for a long time, or forever, and the end of many other species as well.
The American Defense Department's estimations of nuclear destruction (at least as far back as Ellsberg's revelations are concerned) were way too "sanitary". The calculated destruction on the basis of blast damage and fallout. What they left out of their estimation was fire (conflagration, really) caused by the blasts. The fire storms in target areas would likely significantly raise the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere (CO2 being the least of it). The vast amount of dust and soot might counteract global warming for a period of decades, but then global warming would suddenly rebound.
For the most part, people in the Industrialized North (Europe, North America, Japan, northern Asia) would not have to worry about all this because we would either be dead or wishing we were dead already. The Developing South would find its development brought to a screeching halt, and then be slammed into reverse. The most the Developing South could hope for is a less sudden demise.
Yes, the fallout of the nuclear weapon use would be what would assure most of us would die.
Anything can happen in this war though the brunt of the sanctions will be felt in a few weeks. Either the Ukraine "mission" is finished or they're going to be extremely squeezed. NATO is not going to apply a no fly zone, they know what this would entail. But if they send more troops to the Ukraine border, or close to it, it's very risky.
Save for China mostly, and perhaps India, Russia is very isolated. It's going to have to be a kind of "Cuban Missile Crisis" solution - each side can claim "victory" of some sort. If that's denied to Russia, or they can't find a way to turn the situation into a "success", then it will be very dangerous. Heck, it's already dangerous now.
Let's cross our fingers we can avoid catastrophe.
My prediction: there will be a resurgence of covid lockdowns and mask mandates that will sideline aggressions on both sides
The Dutch!
So no nuclear weapons. Putin's self- appointed demonizers will be happy to know that Putin seems to have been painted into a corner, one where there is no easy way out. As a cold blooded strategic move, it is very clever, and will go down in the history books as another victory of the West over Russia.
We will see who the author of this is when Russia comes out of this worse than before, who will take credit for the success of containing Russia. Of course they didn't do it. Putin did it. Pride will burst through and someone will try to claim that they, together with Putin, undid Russia.
Meanwhile the government propaganda continues - in the West.
The Dutch may have played a minor role, but I know better than trusting the Australians with anything. They certainly didn't do much to stop the escalation, which should give us a clue! And when you think about it, who has an interest in nuking the entire northern hemisphere, if not the Australians?...
[clue in the violins from the Psycho soundtrack]
US invasion of Iraq was a farce. It was either a strategy to "fool" the world that an invasion was needed, or just the worst intel operators ever.
But even if the US invasion should be considered a violation, Putin's war is on another level. The key differences are that US didn't invade to make Iraq into a new state of the US. If anything, they just wanted the oil. The second, and most important thing, is that the US actively tried to avoid collateral damage. When it happened, there were major internal criticism, major criticism from the public and it was never handled like it didn't happen. Putin just aims his missiles straight into populated areas with civilians and just doesn't care. The only reason civilians aren't killed more is because there are some Russian soldiers actually thinking that driving over civilians with tanks is a bad thing. Putin and his minions just don't care if civilians die. If the only way to conquer Ukraine was to just level a city filled with civilians, he would do it. The only reason he isn't doing it is that he needs to convince the Ukrainians to be little Russians to big Russia (as in the manifesto). He's the old-style dictator who shoots civilians and hopes they'll still love him when this is over.
So I wouldn't say that those two invasions were the same, it's not black and white and if Iraq was dark grey, this war is pitch black.
See the former MI6 head speak. Of course we don't know whom he is working for, but worth listening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5lzKVn3sc
When this is all over, if it is all over, lets see if we agree lives could have been saved by surrendering early. At the moment Ukraine has the worlds support like it never had before the invasion, so a ceasefire will ensure situation hugely in their favor. I hope Zelenski makes the right choices.
https://www.mediamatters.org/russias-invasion-ukraine/fox-news-guest-let-putin-take-ukraine-without-any-sanctions-or-aid
France did surrender to Germany, they lost the battle of France but won the war. Ceasefire + peacekeepers+ sanctions + extreme pressure on Putin will be worth trying, if that is what they want.
Ukraine doesn't want to be part of a totalitarian regime. They're not just fighting for their lives, they are fighting for their freedom. For many of them I think that if Russia takes over Ukraine, they would try and leave the country, seek freedom somewhere else.
Everything I can find that hints at Putin's mindset seem to boil down to a total miscalculation of what Ukrainians want. I think he had become so delusional about his own importance, maybe even lied so much he started believing his own lies, that he genuinely thought Ukrainians would want him as their leader. It might be that he has now realized this wasn't the case and, therefore, he doesn't care anymore about civilian lives. So now he's only aiming to claim the land.
At the moment, Mariupol is completely surrounded. People talk of a Leningradsituation. If this happens, Putin might have close to a million civilian casualties.
Putin stated quite clearly his concerns (valid or not doesn’t matter really). The possible reaction against what he was concerned about was not taken seriously. Putin has remained fairly consistent with his view and the west just didn’t expect him to go this far.
So I do kind of agree that it is pointless to blame one side or another. There were groups in Ukraine that burnt pro Russian protesters to death and there has been an ongoing war for 8 years in Eastern Ukraine (with very low coverage from western media).
To play Devil’s advocate this could be framed as a way of ending the war in Ukraine (that has been ongoing for nearly a decade) as no one else appeared to have been having much success and it is right on their border.
Point being there is nuance to what has led to this conflict that seems to have been purposefully ignored in certain areas by both sides for propagandist reasons. We can just try to read between the lines and look for a way to resolve this diplomatically rather than with conflict. I would like to UN forces embedded deep into Ukraine to observe, aid and protect civilians - even though the UN is not by any means always successful it does make some difference sometimes.
My personal opinion knowing what little I do is that I hope Putin will step back and someone with better diplomatic skills steps into his place and improves the current position of Russia. I think it was a mistake for Ukraine to push to get into NATO even though they had every right to apply NOT that that is any excuse for the actions and rhetoric used by Putin at all.
My biggest concern is that in the western world there appears to me to be an underlying frustration in the populace regarding equality and rights (across the group spectra of sex, gender and political stance) that makes people feel like they need to find a quick and easy reaction and to draw lines of good and evil so as to take sides. If this psychological analysis is correct then it will make it far easier for nations to mobilise enough of the populace into military action via a ‘good versus evil’ narrative.
Generally I strongly believe a great many people are desperate to do something ‘good’ and fight with their all on the side of ‘good’. The problem lying in this is knowing what is the ‘better’/‘good’ side and the need/bias to reinforce what one sees as ‘better’/‘good’. If the political powers can play on this issue let’s just hope they don’t and/or enough people in the general populace refuse it and make others think twice.
The road to hell … the more easily one can frame a side as wholly good or evil the closer we get to hell on Earth. Metaphorically speaking.
I feel like a lot of this is more or less a message to who comes after Putin as I cannot see him continuing for much longer (as in he will have to step back in his role as leader within the next decade).
Really? What is your source for this? I think it would be frontline news.
And contrary to what New York Times reported:
Quoting Bitter Crank
I think that raising the DEFCON level wouldn't and couldn't be done secretly. It simply would have such effects that in our time (and in the US) could hardly be kept secret. Besides, with nukes everything is public posturing. Although I'm very well aware of the scare that Able Archer '83 caused the Soviets.
With Russia, the levels are the following:
1. CONSTANT
2. ELEVATED
3. MILITARY DANGER
4. FULL
Now Putin is at 2. Or something like that.
The US Defcon system:
Meanwhile, Russians hold their line...
Yes, things have been on a higher alert level since this. Fortunately, we have pretty fast response times for this. If they had any intention other than "making a statement", they would have been shot down before they were even close to Gotland.
It's ironic that this happens at the same time as I was writing in here about reasons to join NATO for Sweden and Finland as an act of defense against Russian aggression. Maybe people could understand why nations want to join NATO now instead of pushing the bullshit narrative of the US forcing such things upon us. If these fighter jets had breeched our airspace while we were part of NATO, that would have been a serious matter for Russia that they can't just talk themselves out of.
This is a good demonstration of the role of intention in interpretation. You see what you want to see. They wanted to invade Iraq, they saw weapons of mass destruction there.
Quoting Christoffer
I don't think this distinction is valid. They wanted to exercise control over what they perceived as an unruly state, through disposal of its leader. Seems like a very similar situation to me. The tactics differ widely.
Putin will not back down like that. This is not how Putin's regime works. They're closer to how any other authoritarian regime worked during the 20th century than any modern democratic one. Putin is closer to Hitler in this regard, having his trusted inner circle, an extreme protective machine around him, total control over the news (and now even more when they've shut down any independent news stations), and killing or imprisoning people who oppose him. Do you really think that Putin would "step down"?
And Russia has no right to demand a free nation not to join NATO. They can ask them not to in a diplomatic fashion, but they can't demand anything. Just like Russia can't demand Sweden or Finland not to join NATO. Because of the latest fighter jet incident here in Sweden, I'm thinking that joining NATO isn't just good for security, it would also be a big fuck you to Putin and his minions.
They picked one hell of an opponent to fight for freedom against. A world power with a powerful military and nuclear weapons. If this ever ends we just have to count backwards to find out where and how the lives could have been saved by an early ceasefire. I think NATO is pushing the Ukrainian president on, as a pawn in their hands - his pleas for help were not answered in time.
Ask any military strategist (not politician) what the best thing to do in the situation. I am sure it will be to agree to a ceasefire. If not, then I will just accept that.
Yes, but we don't know if that was an intentional play or if they just had bad intel by bad intel operators. If the intel had been correct, it might actually have been warranted, otherwise, the nation might have become another North Korea, but in a far more dangerous place so close to Europe. Even if it's questionable if an invasion would have been necessary anyway, it would at least have had an intention that far outweighs anything of what actually happened.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Those are not the same. Putin wants to redraw borders, Ukraine should be "his". This was never the long-term intention with Iraq, regardless of initial intentions for the invasion. And the focus was on the leader and change in the political system. Of course everything of that failed in the long term, as it usually does when the US tries it. But it's easy to also forget all the people who were actually killed and terrorized by Saddam in Iraq and who welcomed the invasion and removal of him. What I mean is that the invasion of Iraq is in no way comparable to either the intentions or methods in Ukraine. The war in Ukraine is a massive attack on a free nation with the intent of claiming it and reforming it into the Russian empire with Putin as their leader.
Quoting FreeEmotion
How did THEY pick the opponent? Does the country being invaded get to pick who's invading them?
Quoting FreeEmotion
NATO cannot fight in Ukraine because NATO is a defensive alliance only for its member states. They don't attack or go into a non-member nation to help out. I don't understand why people find this hard to understand? NATO only initiate combat if one of their member-nations are attacked and they can't do anything in Ukraine since they're not members. Doesn't matter if they plea for help.
Quoting FreeEmotion
So they should just roll over and be fucked by Putin then? You don't understand people fighting for their lives and freedom? This is Putin's crime, he has no right whatsoever, he breaks international law, almost the entire UN condemns the invasion and any I find it horrifying that people even consider letting Putin just take Ukraine in order to ceasefire.
Haven't we learned what happens when we give a narcissistic authoritarian dictator what he wants? Haven't the 20th century shown us just what happens if we just give him free reign? If this goes on, then Putin will be on a hit list. The entire world will hunt him and his minions down. Russia will probably become a closed nation with extreme totalitarian standards. When I propose attacking Putin and his minions himself, it's not just to help Ukraine, it's also to free Russia. People in Russia need to be free of Putin. Just look at how many oppose the war, oppose Putin, even risking their own life and freedom doing it.
Why are people still making the mistake of appeasement against people who rise to dangerous levels of power? And only when that power and terror has reached too far do people do anything. Enough is enough, there's only one way to fix this situation, even if it's extremely hard and complex.
Our President Niinistö going to Washington tomorrow to meet Biden.
For the first time (like there in Sweden), polls say that more Finns are for NATO membership than against. Still many that haven't decided. Russia invading Ukraine finally changed the mood here dramatically.
Did you notice what the US ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield spoke in the UN yesterday?
:brow:
I haven't heard that from the Russians. That I would put in the "hyping fear" category. At least now, for the time being. The only thing the Russians have consistently said is that there will definately be strong repercussions and they don't rule out a military response. Now, an invasion on the scale of military responses is quite heavy. And basically their focus in on Ukraine.
It's the same in Sweden, polls have shifted. It's just that our politicians are very afraid of that choice because of Sweden's long tradition of "neutrality" (questionable during WWII, but whatever). So I can understand how our prime minister has an extremely hard choice to make. If WWIII breaks out, without us in NATO, we could do the same as before, just chilling out and then have one of the best economies in the world when everyone else is in rubble. But if we join NATO, we would be forced to fight in any conflict NATO ends up in.
But I think it's worth it. Russia, or rather Putin, is such a manchild that it's too unpredictable to stay out. And if WWIII involves nukes, it doesn't matter if everyone else around us gets hit, the fallout will still kill us and everyone else. So for regular warfare, it would be rational to be part of NATO. But another thing is that if Finland joins, we might be well off anyway. I'm not sure it's very strategic for Russia to invade Sweden when it's pretty much encircled with NATO members. It's a very unstrategic place to invade and the only fallback is the Baltic sea.
So I don't know what's the best course of action for Sweden. I generally think NATO is the best choice, it creates a large border towards Russia that Russia will never be able to attack other than with nukes, but that's endgame anyway so it doesn't matter who you are.
Quoting ssu
I think it was a misinterpretation of when Russia threatened us. Russia never said "invade", they just threatened. It could mean firing missiles or something, who knows, some retaliation because we sent weapons to Ukraine.
At this time, it has become pretty clear that Russia is just threatening, with nukes, with forces or whatever. They're desperate. If they were to ever attack, they would have two fronts, one in Ukraine and one in the north, diluting their military. With the economy crashing and war chest being in trouble, it's close to impossible for them to do something like that. And if they attack any NATO member, it's gonna be like having a swarm of bees attacking Russia. It's gonna flatten the entire nation. Putin would be hunted down, probably into the same fate as Hitler, offing himself in a bunker. The only viable option for them would then be nukes, but that would end everything, which, because I feel like Putin is just a crazy mentally challenged manchild, whatever credit other people like to give him, is a real risk. If he's cornered into his bunker and everyone wants him dead, then he might as well fire off everything. And this is why he is in my opinion the biggest risk of total annihilation we have. It's why I have no moral problem with offing him.
Bad intel doesn't explain seeing what isn't there. Blurry vision, seeing vague and undistinguishable things, does not account for making those things into something identified and intelligible. This is why we have to include the role of intention, even if it's some sort of subconsciously affected intention, causing paranoia, or some irrational fear. A bump in the night is heard as a ghost. I know the ghost is here, I have proof, I heard it.
Quoting Christoffer
I generally ignore people who claim to know the intentions of others, especially when the other is a proven strategist, and strategy is a skill based on keeping one's intentions secret.
Publicly. We have no clue really.
Bad intel could be the same as people misinterpreting surveillence information. On top of that, this info going up the chain from the analysts at CIA to Bush and him only getting the info that there are weapons of mass destruction there. That can absolutely happen and give reason to invade, however stupid or lack of judgment that is. We still don't know if it was bad intel or intentional play of words to justify it.
If intelligence agencies were to only act on 100% proven intel, we would have had a lot of shit happening in the world because almost nothing was prevented. We can criticize and blame these agencies all over the world for many things, but... and I have actual sources for this... there are things happening all the time that gets prevented by them. If they only act on 100% verified information, it could slip through a lot of bad things happening.
But the intel about weapons of mass destruction was, as said, either intentional play with words, or just one of the worst fuckups of intel gathering and processing we've seen.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
So the leaked documents, the sources and intel from within Kreml so on and so forth do not point towards such a conclusion? I guess it's easy to dismiss anything by arguing like that, but what is most likely? What everything points towards (not only what he says, but everything else as well), or someone speculating about Putin as if he was a cardboard cutout standard world leader figure with predictable methods? That he is a strategist does not mean that everything people have dug up on him and his mindset is wrong. You can't exist as a world leader for over 20 years without information slipping away.
Whether you want the world to abandon Ukraine to be a Russian satellite or to choose to act in a way that leads Ukraine into conflict with Russia, there's no thornless path.
Do you trust Biden or Putin more with nuclear weapons? Do you trust the chain of command in the US more than Putin's? Everyone can argue that the US also has nukes and they're the only nation who actually used them, but all of that just smells over-simplification from the regular "the US is to blame for everything"-people. It can also be that because they are the only ones who used nukes, they know the consequences, the national guilt, the terror that it implies. There are reasons for the miles-long red tape before even touching the keys of the "football", it's because it should be extremely problematic to fire a nuke.
The question is really: do you trust Putin more than the US when it comes to who would initiate total annihilation?
I don't always agree with George Monbiot but I think he's right here. Pilger really is just a tankie these days, soft on anything that positions itself against the US.
I think people who fall too far into their ideological bias tend to just agree with anything that follows the same rhetoric as themselves. So if Putin start having similar rhetoric, even if he lies in order to reach some strategic end goal, people who would usually be strongly opposed to him start to embrace his words.
This is why the act of trying to prevent as much of your own biases and fallacies as possible when arguing is the only way to speak as truthfully as possible for a human being.
Both the US and Russia seek to expand an empire. But personally, I prefer the US clinical approach as a lesser bad (even if it still ends up killing people), than the Putin-led bombardment of civilians and nations to force them to be ruled over. There's a reason that one type prevailed over the other through the 20th century. At least we in the west can shout and talk about the US imperialism, even right to the leader's faces without being killed or imprisoned. There is a clear less bad and overwhelmingly bad in all of this, even if the usual suspects of anti-imperialists think everything is equally bad in a black and white way.
So I guess if we're to look for a reason why your own posts are such garbage, we have to look at something aside from bias?
Yes, it was fake news on my part, can't find a source. Very sorry about posting that.
Thanks for pointing it out.
If you brand everything I write as garbage, then I guess you have no bias at all, right? I would like to add logic and rational deduction to that as well, since there seems to be a rather lacking area in here.
I also wonder why you, as a moderator, write such a post as the one you just did? Just blatantly dismissing everything I write is garbage. Are you seriously saying this, or just because you don't agree with me? I guess this forum changed its rules. I've at least tried to form rational reasoning arguments, requested for it, requested a logical deduction from others, but yeah... doesn't matter it seems.
Again, what's up with the fucking childish questions? I question the US narrative and your reply is, who do you trust more? Seriously?I don't trust either, especially considering the US is the only country that ever used nukes. Twice.
The only relevant difference here is, it is unlikely that the US will attack the Netherlands.
You can question both, but who do you trust more in handling nukes? Why is that a childish question? And I also explained how the act of having used a nuke could have created much more care in how to handle the question of using nukes. A nation without that experience doesn't have the national guilt of it.
Do you mean to say that the US would attack nations as long as they're far away from western borders? Do you really think that would happen? How so? With everyone knowing they are the only nation who previously used them and with the knowledge of the extreme political fallout that would create? Do you mean that this is just as likely as a nation with an authoritarian dictator who silences his people, speaks of his empire, and actually threatens others with nuclear weapons? Are you seriously saying that you trust the US and Russia (Putin) on an equal level? I trust fucking China and even North Korea more than Russia, since Russia is the only nation actually showing aggressive behavior with their nukes.
Let go of your childish outbursts and either engage in the discussion or ignore what I write. Getting really fed up with everyone, even the mods, acting like this forum is fucking reddit.
My reply was directed at a particular point about a particular conversation.
I was careful with my words and the overall point was to look into the nuance of the situation and steer away over simplifying and casting good against evil. I was in agreed about looking for a resolution rather what I would frame as finger pointing and division for the sake of division.
Either write better posts or stick to reddit. Bye.
I couldn't answer this question. I tried finding the one I trust less and then picking the other one but I couldn't do it that way round either. Maybe Biden. America is a civilised country. America would never be the first to use nuclear weapons. On the other hand, Russians are easily contented with a ready supply of vodka, animal fur, football teams and mansions in Knightsbridge. Making war would be the last thing on their minds. I give up.
Well, sorry if my post seems over-simplified, but I'm not sure there is a possible resolution to this conflict that is peaceful or de-escalating. Putin just said to Macron that he will not stop fighting.
I'm not promoting division for the sake of it. I just think that people analyze this situation with a normal measuring tape when Putin's actions are nowhere close to normal. Even people who research eastern politics and Putin say that something's happened to him the last two years, that he acts in a way that isn't the cold calculating KGB man he was before.
And what I see there is a threat of someone with a lot of power starting to act irrationally. This is very dangerous, especially since I cannot see any way out of it when he ignores everyone, including the UNs requests. He won't even open a humanitarian tunnel from the cities he's bombing, which means he doesn't care that civilians are trapped in there while he's bombing them.
There's very little nuance to be made in this and I'm not sure that is an over-simplification?
Your posts are mostly garbage as well, Benkei.
That's entirely ahistorical. And it was also on the table in 1962 during the Cuba crisis. So no. There's really no reason to "trust" either country to handle nukes responsibly.
Look at Cuthbert here, he actually engages with the question in a way I find more civil. You know, it is possible to do that.
Quoting Cuthbert
Yes, it is a very hard question actually. I think the only ones who would use nukes are the ones who just don't care if this world ends. I don't think the US want that and I don't think Russia want that. I can only hope that there are people under Putin who just say no to his order if he orders it, because I'm not so sure he cares about the world if it doesn't exist as he wants it to. But people around him don't want Russia to be a radioactive parking lot, so I don't think they would let him fire them off. But I have a hard time trusting a shorter chain of command.
There is, by every info available, probably less red tape involved in firing off a nuke in Russia than there is in the US. So maybe we don't have to value who to trust, we can just mathematically answer it. The longer the red tape is, the more likely that someone in the line of command personnel says no. And maybe that's the answer?
I have neither the time nor inclination to take your apparent fragile ego into consideration when clarifying the kindergarten level of your thinking.
Your posts are fairly childish and uninformed, Benkei.
People speaking like this are probably the ones with an actual fragile ego. I'm surprised you are a mod in here. Show don't tell
Quoting Cuthbert
?!?
Ummm...
www.history.com/news/hiroshima-nagasaki-atomic-bomb-photos-before-after
The examination of premises is essential to making good arguments.
Today... that's the argument.
Would they act in that way today? I argued that because they are the only ones who've used nukes in history, that could also be a thing that makes them more careful with choosing that solution in any future conflict. There is a national guilt because of this in the US, it's not an act they're proud of and they know the political and humanitarian ramifications of such an act.
With Putin not even letting civilians out of cities that they're now bombing (while surrounding), I am not so sure he cares about the humanitarian aspect. And since he doesn't seem to care about the political ramifications of this invasion, why would he care about that if using a nuke?
Makes sense or not?
Nice to know there were no women and children killed in these explosions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxEjSr6rYXU
Al Jazeera - As Russia invades Ukraine, Iraqis remember painful war memories
He surely has way with words.
True, but there is always the possibility of a nuclear winter lasting years. Like what happened in 1815-1816 following the volcanic eruption of mount Tambora on the island of Sumbawa in present-day Indonesia, then part of the Dutch East Indies.
Valid point.
I'm just telling you: you don't need to be ragging on other people's posts. Yours are mostly StreetlightX-want-to-be trash.
Aaaah, I see. The U.S. was once a nation which conceived of its (manifest) "destiny" by looking at maps, by the apparent dictates of geography, but today it is not. The U.S. once was a nation which committed cultural and actual genocide against not simply an ethnic group, but an entire family of ethnic groups (the "American Indians") in order to advance its objectives, but today it is not. The U.S. was once a nation willing to manufacture premises for going to war with other nations (the Spanish-American War, the recent Iraq War), but today it is not. The U.S. was once a nation which used its "defense" system (is this not what "NATO" is?) in the prosecution of wars in distant countries (Korea, Vietnam) which were not threatening it in any conceivable way, but today it is not. The U.S. was once a nation which continually interfered in and manipulated a host of governments of sovereign countries within its own percieved "sphere of influence" (Latin America) to the point of assassinating heads of state (Allende in Chile), but today it is not.
Thanks for explaining.
Why does Russia get to tell a sovereign nation what alliances to be a part of? I am sorry, I didn't understand that part... All I see is anti-West gaslighting about this issue here instead of actually answering the question at hand.
Streetlight: Characterize the boogie-man "West' as bad/evil...thus...Putin is at least just as bad as the West, and there are no good actors..
But that is not the real question. The real question is about sovereignty.. Ukraine being able to make its own decisions without foreign interference.. Sovereignty is only illegitimate if it comes with things like taking away people's rights to speech and voting, or ethnic cleansing, and things such as this.. All things that Putin himself actually does. So your odd defense of Putin here doesn't make any sense.
Christoffer likes to pretend he's a grown up. I'm sure he doesn't need another idiot defending him.
The problem here is the infantile "Putin bad" "NATO good" narrative or worse, the idea we can somehow "trust" the US to do better than the Russians, when the whole point of my comments on this thread has been that NATO and the US are not trustworthy at all and knowingly escalated tensions right up to war. But you, and others, apparently think it's fine to play chicken with human lives at stake, because, hey, they're just Ukrainians! To then shed fucking crocodile tears for Ukrainians without looking our own complicity straight in the eye is a fine example of self-delusion. The inability by posters like Christoffer to even slightly start to display some understanding of this after over 50 pages, deserves scorn for either the wilful idiocy it reflects or malice otherwise.
Fucking children think this is a Idols contest where we are to choose who we trust more. As if trust has any fucking relevance in an arena with real politik players. It's irrelevant as much as it is stupid but entirely in accordance with his predisposition that obviously makes him entirely incapable of being critical.
I can have perfectly civil disagreements but not with ideologues.
So yes, Frank, ragging is entirely appropriate when posts are simply that shit.
If you construed that as a defense of Putin then please know that I don't reply substantively to illiterates.
Cue him stacking the premises in such a way until you agree that the only correct answer can be the US. Never mind history and facts!
I'm talking about a probability factor for the world as it is today. If you mix history in a blender you can get whatever result you want, or that supports your thesis.
And no, that's not NATO today.
Quoting Benkei
@ssu
I just want to highlight that this is the third time I correctly predicted the future.
Quoting StreetlightX
You can't get angry at Ukraine for making decisions of a sovereign nation. The culpability is purely on Russia itself for attacking another country because it didn't do what it wanted.
Marvelous, human evolution has accelerated most favorably! We must call in the paleoanthropologists so that we can demand an explanation.
Again, please learn to read past a 2nd grade level thanks.
I have, and I see the ridiculous argument you are trying to thread.. A second grader can see that.
I sympathize with your points about treating the Eastern European nations as literally "second world (class)" citizens. However, I don't understand how this sentiment thus justifies Putin's actions here.
Way to strawman my arguments. And also totally miss the points I've been making. But it's ok, I have realized that you don't care so there's no point in trying to explain my points.
Quoting Benkei
Are we playing chicken with people's lives when they not only want survival but also freedom? You ok with them living under the boot? Maybe listen to what the Ukrainians say themselves instead of speaking for them like if you were appointed speaker to their needs.
Maybe you are just frustrated that there's another perspective in all of this that doesn't comply with your own. Maybe this is because I live in a totally other security situation where Russian planes are actually breaking our airspace as we speak. So maybe you don't know as much as you believe.
Quoting Benkei
More strawmanning. And more cursing. And more attitude problems.
Who made you a mod? Seriously, who signed off on that?
Quoting Benkei
And I can't have civil disagreements with people who are neither civil nor care for anyone else perspective other than their own.
The problem is that I've asked so many times for clarifications on subjects and counter-arguments and whatever, but I never get them, I never get a logical deduction when I ask for it, I never get anything that sticks together rationally. All I get from you and others are ill-conceived loosely put together opinions (just as ideological as you blame others for) and when I continue to explain myself in detail after detail while asking for more from others, I just have to stand getting called childish, ideologue and whatever other bullshit you can come up with.
And since you are a mod, there's no point in flagging your posts. It's almost a kind of exercise in authoritarian politics trying to.
Do things change over time? Can you prove that something has stayed exactly the same over time?
Look at a map of NATO in 1949. The US has lots of influence. Look at a map of NATO in 2022. The US has less influence. All countries have a vote, the less nations, the more your vote is worth. So, yes, NATO is not the same today and NATO is not the US, whatever people think about it.
The point is that neither the U.S. nor NATO, which takes dictation from the U.S., can be trusted by Russia (which has always been cited as an "adversary" by the U.S.) to be "bona fide" actors. History has shown us how the U.S. deals with its "adversaries" all over the world. Do you forget that Russia has been twice rebuffed upon expressing a desire to join NATO? (Molotov's proposal that the USSR join NATO in 1954, and Putin's expression of interest in the early years of this millenium). The U.S. did never want another "superpower" within NATO precisely because NATO is an expression and an appendage of U.S. hegemonic policy, and was determined to have no rivals within the "alliance". Calling NATO a "defensive" military alliance verges on the facetious. It is a military alliance headed by a nation which has always called Russia its "adversary". We all know that a military, a "defense system", can be used in offensive ways with the purportion of "defense". With this in mind, can Russia allow itself to be "surrounded" or "invested" by NATO nations?
In support of my view of this, read here:
https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/why-nato-is-at-the-center-of-the-russia-ukraine-conflict/e02c8cbc-5357-40c2-a252-ba4d306b0ef1
Quoting Benkei
I'd say it's unlikely.
Think about it. Let's assume Biden would have gone to lower (meaning higher) defcon level. If Putin would notice that, you think he wouldn't say it? Nuclear weapons are basically used for communication.
Quoting Joseph Zbigniewski
So, how in practice does this work? If all nations who have joined NATO have a vote, equal say, how does the US control NATO? Many in here talk about this, but I've yet to hear anyone actually explaining this other than "we all know it", which, I'm sorry, doesn't work for me. And since many of my arguments depend on the notion that NATO is in fact an alliance and not controlled by a single nation, i.e the US, I am asking for clarification on this point. Since there's much talk of Sweden and Finland joining NATO, will we then be controlled by the US? Which would be the result of NATO being controlled by the US.
Can someone clarify this in some actual logic and evidence? I am genuinely asking here.
And we need to have lower defcons to push buttons to launch nukes? I don't think so. I think they're prepared for any and all contingencies including nuking Russia in retaliation.
The point being, of course, that as usual the official communication isn't the actual communication. Russia threatened and the US shrugged. It's a diplomatic "fuck you" to the Russians.
Seconded. The role of moderators doesn't involve insulting other posters. @jamalrob should know better than that.
What you are requesting cannot be provided because it is hidden in "backrooms" and over secure telephone lines. We are not dealing with rank amateurs here, but rather with professional corrupt politicians. It is, however, obvious from the alignment of NATO policy with U.S. interests. Do we not all know how corrupt American politicians, and indeed politicians in general, are? Why, Joe Biden's drug-addicted son Hunter was given high-level executive positions in Ukrainian companies as a result of his influence peddling! (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/27/hunter-biden-joe-biden-president-business-dealings) I am sure that because of this, Biden takes Russia's invasion more personally than he would otherwise. It hits his family in the wallet. It is very possible that the only reason the U.S. has not acted against Russia militarily is because of Putin's cogent reminder regarding what type of weapons Russia is in possession of.
Actually, that has totally passed. Sometime long periods can come finally to a halt even in the history of Sweden. For both of our countries, being non-aligned or neutral isn't an option. Because our countries simply aren't neutral anymore, starting from being EU members, which as an union has clearly taken the side of one and not the other.
Think of it, your country and mine are totally are both arming the country that Russia is fighting. We already have had NATO exercises. It's a done deal. Now just think of that from the Cold War perspective. You think Sweden would be neutral during the Cold War if it had held exercises with NATO back then, with B-52's simulating in helping to mine Swedish coastal waters? Or when Soviet Union attacked Afghanistan (yes, it was an attack), that Thorbjörn Fälldin (then the current Prime Minister) would have responded by sending weaponry starting with anti-tank weapons to the mujaheddin?
It's over.
For us know, our countries security policy, which didn't even change so much when the Soviet Union collapsed, is changing now at a breathtaking speed.
What I'm anticipating is that the Finnish leaders are basically trying to get a bilateral defence agreement with the US.
Tomorrow.
You see, the topic of the meeting is "the effects of the war on the European security order, and bilateral cooperation between Finland and the United States." Now what do you think that bilateral cooperation would be now with Finland and the US? To fund environmentally friendly co-ops projects? Bilateral cooperation in Climate Change? I don't see how. So what bilateral there is for the US to do with an EU member like Finland. But let's see how it goes.
This is the time when little, total expendable countries like ours, have to be extremely quick in their reactions or they end up like Ukraine is now in the worst case. We truly are (again) living historical times, my friend.
* * *
Just to make my point, here is a discussion of the situation with an ex-Prime Minister of Finland. Interesting interview, he predicts (correctly) the change in NATO membership polls, but notice when at (2:02) the interviewer asks about Finnish being militarily neutral his response. That is telling:
There's three options for both of us:
1) join NATO / have a modified defence treaty (bilateral/trilateral...)
2) Finlandize and try to wiggle then under Putin's sphere of influence
3) war.
As Putin has his troops in Ukraine, it's a good time to move. Of course I might be wrong, but what is sure the drama won't stop now.
New York and London oligarchs and kleptocrats have been happy enough to have Russian oligarchs and kleptocrats buy the high up high end real estate they have built. The upper reaches of these properties are beyond the means of the normally rich, let alone the merely prosperous and barely getting by. I wouldn't object to the seizure of these assets and then used for some public purpose.
Quoting Christoffer
No one flagged this (or any of your other outbursts) and I didn't mod you for bad language because it's politics.
Quoting Christoffer
So, stop being a hypocrite please. If you can dish it out, you're going to have to take it.
For which we have no real evidence I presume? No witnesses? No leaked documents? No whistleblowers? If nothing of that, how is this a valid premise?
Quoting Joseph Zbigniewski
You have two slopes or valleys with two big rocks at the bottom. How do you prove that both rocks rolled down the same mountain and not from two mountains opposite to each other?
What I mean by that is that just because you see a correlation between NATO and the US, doesn't mean it is controlled by the US. It can also mean that after WWII, much of the interest of each nation in Europe, west of the wall primarily, had similar interests due to the consequences of the war and following cold war. The collaboration between the initial nations fell in line with each other, i.e they fell from different mountains into the same valley. The following expanse of NATO also naturally follows different nations that are closer to the majority of those nation's political and cultural forms.
So, each nation is a different mountain in the same mountain region, but the valley is the same. Most nations who want to join NATO wouldn't do it if the majority of the nations in NATO had vastly different political aspirations. The stability comes from all member nations having similar political philosophies.
Just because NATO and the US seem to correlate with each other, doesn't mean that US controls NATO. It more or less means that the US and the member states of NATO, A) had it easier to find agreements with each other due to similar political philosophies and B) New members had it easier to join because they had similar political philosophies.
If 30 nations are members and most of them share similar political philosophies, i.e they are similar to the US, does that mean that the US controls NATO, or that NATO as a whole consists of nations with similar concerns as the US?
Just seeing a correlation isn't evidence without looking at the details of such a correlation.
Quoting Joseph Zbigniewski
Since the previous premies above aren't conclusive in logic, then pinpointing corrupt politicians in the US does not follow. Yes, there's corruption, no, the US hasn't been proven to control NATO, it is 1 of 30 members.
Quoting Joseph Zbigniewski
NATO does not act in defense of a nation that isn't a member state is a more possible explanation, since the US has not been proven to control NATO.
Again, I ask for actual support, evidence, deduction that the US is in direct control of NATO. That 29 nations in NATO have no say and just do as the US tells them to do.
I have yet to hear any such things. I only hear the same thing as numerous times before "we all know..." or "All of the evidence is behind closed doors..."
That doesn't sound like evidence to me, that sounds like conspiracy theories.
Give me some actual logic and evidence here.
Ok, BOTH sides were not really committed to having Russia be in NATO. Russia would have to conform to a bunch of standards it has never really had to try to live up to, as far as democratically and militarily. This would hamper their ability to have a strongman-led government and to militarily control territories in their sphere of influence. So, no this isn't just a West rebuffing thing..
Also, look at what you are implying here. Your implication that a defense can be used as an offense is all based on the notion of a zero sum game. That is to say, NATO's win is Russia's loss. Why? Well, Russia wants to go back to being its own hegemon with various territories under its influence. But this flies in the face of the fact that nations are sovereign and can make their own decisions. Thus, even if Russia wants to be an influence on Ukraine, if Ukraine rather align more with other countries on various trade agreements etc. that is their right. Russia doesn't have a say in this.
I flagged all his posts that didn't follow the rules of this forum. I guess my example of authoritarianism paid off if those flags were removed by him. And I'm fine with cursing, I do it all the time. But only cursing out insults as the entirety of a post without anything else is what I'm turning against. A spam of posts without any substance other than a fuck you to me.
Quoting Baden
Oh, how you put that out of context. A wonderful way to spin the narrative. You could expand those to show the entire sentence instead, especially the one about "bending down", here's the actual text:
I guess the lack of question mark was an error on my part. I guess that it meant no one could understand that I was referring to "not poking the fucking nuclear weapon bear in the eye" as "So bend down and get fucked?"
If you look closely you can see what I mean there.
Anyway, whatever, what's the point in explaining myself.
Actually yes.
Well, if there would be a surprise attack that somehow would exceed so absurdly well to wipe out all the bombers and missile silos (or mobile launhers when it come to Russia), I guess then the ICBM submarines would launch their retaliatory attack when they would notice that their home country isn't anymore.
If the deterrence is failing, then you do need lower defcons. History shows that. The US has gone to Defcon two a few times. Last time it was during 9/11. Nobody of course was threatening them with nukes, but what else could they do to show that "they defend".
You see nobody just out of the blue launches some nukes. Above all, they are far more for the show. Because nobody, I mean nobody, is intending to use them as just very powerful explosives.
Even that "escalate to de-escalate" is also for political purposes. Then likely low-yield weapons or nuclear tests are used.
I admit I stopped reading your posts in detail and saw that as being as it was written without the question mark. I understand what you meant now but that I didn't delete it stands to illustrate that we tend to allow that type of thing in these types of threads. I stopped reading your posts in detail btw because they appeared to lack substance. I think some of the insults here are saying the same thing, but in less diplomatic language. It would be nice if we could all be nice, I agree.
Thank you. But I recommend actually reading them, or rather that the ones I discuss with do it since it sometimes seems like people read one sentence and then don't care before answering. My answer to Joseph Zbigniewski above is an example of what I'm criticizing, I've been saying the same things many times before, but that's a better run through.
I'm asking for substance, just as you seek in mine. And all the frustrating posts from me may be from the frustration of never getting that substance when I ask for it. So I just post my argument again and again trying to explain what I mean in the context of someone's ill-explained argument. I just think that asking for a logical and evidence-based argument about NATO is crucial before posting some opinions about NATO and Russia. Most things I read in here read as conspiracy theories... but I get the blame for lacking substance?
?
Sadly, that is to be expected. Not everybody cares as much as you do.
Some of your interlocutors just put out vague faint generalities that they are unable to support with facts? They don't read what you write? They argue from a position of ignorance and adopt a cavalier attitude? You can safely conclude that they don't care in the least about the issue being discussed. It's as simple as that. Because if they truly cared they would care about facts and logic, they would pay attention.
As a rule of thumb, people care very much or very little for some event or crisis depending upon their potential personal exposure and proximity or distance to the crisis. So for instance, the exposure of someone living in Australia to the Ukraine war is minimal and implies from Australians a certain detachement. They won't inform themselves about it very much, why should they? But naturally, they might care and know more things about koalas and kangaroos. While someone positioned in or near Ukraine would naturally care more and might be a bit better informed about what's happening in Kiev (but perhaps less so about kangaroos).
Chomsky's take on the issue:
https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/
Russia isn't a superpower, not with Ukraine at least, and then this idea about US never wanting Russia in NATO simply is against the historical facts how things went. NATO membership was a possibility, but nobody had interest in it.
As I replied to @Manuel of the same issue, here it is again:
And that's actually how close it was. Or how far it was, as you would have needed larger than life politicians to sell that membership both to Russians and Americans. But you see, Americans thought they won the Cold War and didn't need Russia. And Russia can go always back into remembering Napoleon and Hitler.
I'm really not making it up when I say people were truly thinking of Russian partnership in NATO. Russia was in the partnership-for-peace program. It was the time of "new threats" for NATO when people laughed about thinking of article 5. Now Putin has molded NATO back to it's original form. If pre-2008 NATO didn't care anything about issues like defending the Baltic states from a hypothetical attack from Russia, now they sure do and also train for it.
Yeah, I might rage off, but that may be because I care a lot about stopping a tyrant, some seem to care more about winning an argument.
To stop something, the actual truth is more important than holding an ideological ground. I was against NATO before all of this, I didn't think Sweden should join. But Putin changed the game 180.
Quoting Olivier5
Well, according to nuclear war predictions, the least fallout would be in Australia, or New Zealand with an average of -35 degrees celsius. So a cozy atomic winter future for anyone who would even survive the worst outcome. So no wonder you could be detached down under. :sweat:
Now you start having grumblings from the corporations too:
Enlarging the war in Ukraine to an all-out war was the beginning of the end of Putin. The Russian military wasn't so efficient as he thought, likely because the operation to annex Crimea in 2014 went so well. How long it will take, nobody knows...
I suspect, and this is not a criticism, that you also have skin in the game, literally. Your life could be affected.
Quoting Christoffer
NATO is better than the alternative. It's a mess right now though, with rather weak US leadership since a very looooong time. If NATO is a US puppet, it's one that the spoiled child has misplace under her bed.
As for NATO developing to represent an "appendage of U.S. hegemony", this was something that Charles de Gaulle expressed concern about before the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949. I am sure that @Olivier5 can verify this with a bit of research. That the U.S. currently enjoys de facto suzerainty within NATO is evidenced by the fact that neither France nor Germany wanted to allow either Georgia or Ukraine to become NATO members for fear of provoking Russia, but George W. Bush (so filled with the American "mythos" that he stank like poopie) wanted it, wanted NATO to grow eastward, and so both countries were promised eventual membership (France and Germany be damned), and the path to membership was initiated. What happened? Georgia was invaded, and now Ukraine is invaded. What else did Bush think was going to happen? Is this not essentially the point that @Isaac was trying to make in his lengthy interlocution with @Christoffer?
There is also an aspect of this situation about which I have not made mention: the cultural aspect to which @schopenhauer1 alluded above:
Quoting schopenhauer1
This is a complicated and difficult aspect of the current situation. I am not of a mind to delve too deeply into it, but basically, both NATO and the EU are emanations of "Western Culture" (a "cultural block" of the world), meaning that they are the products of "Enlightenment" thinking. They have as a tacit, unstated purpose to spread the values of the Enlightenment to the entire world. To "make the world safe for democracy", as it were. In my opinion (as I analyze the world), there are other "cultural blocks" which reject the thinking of the Enlightenment to varying degrees, which cultural blocks include: the Fundamentalist Islamic Block, the Liberal Islamic Block, the Hispanic Cultural Block, and that of which Russia is a part, the Oligarchic/Aristocratic Cultural Block. Russia would be willing to join NATO only so long as it didn't have to adopt Enlightenment values (which after all, are not appropriate for all peoples and all cultures around the world, just ask the Taliban) lock, stock, and barrel. As I say, I don't want to get too deeply into this complicated and nuanced aspect of this thing, but there you have a brief statement of it.
As I have said, I did not intend to become a "member" of your online community, but rather to comment on a couple of topics that have been raised here. Accepting things generally as they appear, I am in no way a philosopher, and probably would not have much of value to add in general (probably not smart enough). Therefore, after I sign off now, I will probably not be participating any further, having said what I wanted to say.
My complements on an interesting website and an interesting discussion.
:point: "It’s easy to understand why those suffering from the crime may regard it as an unacceptable indulgence to inquire into why it happened and whether it could have been avoided. Understandable, but mistaken. If we want to respond to the tragedy in ways that will help the victims, and avert still worse catastrophes that loom ahead, it is wise, and necessary, to learn as much as we can about what went wrong and how the course could have been corrected. Heroic gestures may be satisfying. They are not helpful." :up:
Of course, it is true that the U.S. and its allies violate international law without a blink of an eye, but that provides no extenuation for Putin’s crimes."
Everyone should just read the interview. Summarizes a lot of what some of us have been trying to get across here.
:up:
He's very sharp.
I really don't think we should get involved in this one directly. :chin:
Now paint the best air defense we have, paint it NATO blue and end it before it goes nuclear. :fire:
Of course. But why should Russia be a ninny?
This is a very, very important point! Because Russia didn't have parity. It's economy is small.
Here you would have needed "larger than life" politicians on both side for this to work. On the US side there should have been someone that understood that there were no Americans tanks on the Red Square when Soviet Union collapse: the US didn't win the Cold War. The Soviet experiment just utterly failed and collapsed by itself. The Cold War was only part of it. Hence US should have understood that Russia can bounce back, as Russia usually does, and has to be dealt with silk gloves, special treatment. The Americans just saw a failing state, nothing else.
Hence in Russia, there wasn't such truly wholesome soul searching as had happened in (West) Germany and Japan after WW2. How everything before had absolutely and horribly failed. Nothing like that happened in Russia. The Soviet Union collapsed because the biggest member, the Russian Federation under Boris Yeltsin, was against the whole union after the Putsch.
(For our country's leadership this was a total "WTF-happened?" -moment. The Finns sent their foreign minister to Moscow to end the Cold War era agreements with the Soviet Union, only to return when there was nobody in Moscow on the Soviet side. So they had to sign new agreements with Russia and unilaterally terminate some parts of the peace treaty like the article that no weapons could be bought from Germany and other stuff like that.)
Also Russian politicians would have had to understand that the Empire was truly over. That once countries opt for Independence, they are away. It's really a divorce. The end. A hard, bitter issue for Russia to swallow and then find try a new place in the World afterwards. The only way to climb to parity would have been for Russia to create an economy comparable to German or Japan, which actually could have been possible. At least theoretically. But in order to do that in Russia, people like Sergei Brin ought to have stayed in Russia and not moving to the US to establish Google. Not to give the economy to the looting oligarchs. As from the Chinese example we should understand: It's the economy, stupid!
Quoting Joseph Zbigniewski
Well, those were the words of one President, words that perhaps a Republican President like Trump could have forgotten. Just look at how long Turkey has had EU membership talks....for many decades now! Is Turkey going to be an EU member? No.
The basic fact is that Putin doesn't understand NATO. The "No Action Talk Only" club is actually similar to EU in that actually the European members want it like that. The European countries want to keep the US in Europe. This is what many don't understand. US liked the idea of European integration, but so did also the Europeans! Hence NATO worked were CENTO and SEATO failed. Yet NATO members can either join or abstain from any mission the US wants them to join. Let's just remember how utterly dissappointed the Dubya Bush administration was at "old" Europe. Or how first Obama tried to get the Europeans to spend more in defense and then Trump wanted the same. Nope, didn't happen.
It only happened now thanks to Putin! How Vladimir Putin could finally transform Germany is one of the huge dramatic events that are happening just now.
What else?
Human existence is a mixed bag, and living on a planet where resources are scarce and relatively hard to obtain, this mixed bag is all it can be.
What is amazing is how philosophically unprepared most people seem to be for this. They are operating on the conviction that life on earth not only should be heaven, but that it _can_ be heaven. And that the only reason why it isn't is because some people are just evil.
They keep having those WW II memorials, saying "so that things like that would never happen again", but they never actually analyze why those things happened in the first place. And more, they fail to understand that merely remembering them is _not_ going to prevent them from happening again.
Of course, bringing up heavy existential topics in the abstract at a time like this will by many be judged as nothing other than perverse ... but it's the same in peace times, when nobody wants to think about such things because they're enjoying themselves too much.
So it's never the right time to think about heavy existential topics, while time marches on.
"The sanctions “are severe enough to dismantle Russia’s economy and financial system, something we have never seen in history,” Carl B. Weinberg, chief economist at High Frequency Economics, wrote this week.
*sigh*
Why is the notion of "protecing your own country" so hard to understand when it is applied to Russia?
And the NY Times etc. think that the Russian government hasn't taken this into consideration?
Does nobody play chess? In chess, in order to win, one has to be willing to sacrifice all figures except one.
Simple answer: Because it's constantly changing it's borders! It has problems to know just where it's country ends. Just look at Ukraine now and what Putin is saying about the country.
Russia's defense of it's country has been for others Russia's invasions and imperialism. Is that hard to understand?
CIA-trained Ukrainian paramilitaries may take central role if Russia invades – YahooNews
The Biden administration weighs backing Ukraine insurgents if Russia invades – WashingtonPost
According to former CIA Russia analyst Michael van Landingham, “Russia is going to lie anyway, and try and shape a narrative”, which may well be the case. But the West seems to be making every effort to catch up, if not surpass, the Russians.
For example, while some stories of Ukrainian resistance seem genuine, many of the most popular ones have been exposed as fake.
Ukraine: The fake images 'showing Ukrainian resistance to the Russian army' – The Observers
Ukraine conflict: Further false images shared online – BBC
7 FAKE NEWS Stories Coming Out of Ukraine – Truth Unmuted
Ukrainian border guards massacred for telling Russian warship to “fu.. off”? – FAKE
Russian planes flying over Kiev? – FAKE
Laughing Russian troops parashooting over Ukrainian farms? - FAKE
Luhansk power station explosion? – FAKE
Zelenskiy visiting troops on the frontline? – FAKE
First Lady of Ukraine takes up arms against the Russian army? – FAKE
Ukrainian woman explaining how to drive abandoned or stolen tanks from the Russian army? – FAKE
Ukrainian girl fighting a Russian soldier? – FAKE
Ukrainian jet pilot shooting down Russian planes? – FAKE
Ukrainian ground forces downing Russian aircraft? – FAKE
Ukrainian drones destroying advancing Russian columns? – FAKE
These and many other stories belong to myths spread on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and TikTok and are viewed millions of times (one of them 24+m times) across the globe.
So it does look like mankind cannot live without myth. Ancient mythologies are being swapped for new and people seem to be only too happy to live in a make-believe world shaped by narratives churned out by the global mass media ….
A Russian military expert commenting on Putin's statement said that he couldn't parse it: the term that he used, though it sounded official, wouldn't actually mean anything to the military. So either Putin was bluffing, or he did issue some kind of an order, but we have no idea what it really was.
Quoting ssu
I think this was in reference to this:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1497217148267253760[/tweet]
Democarcy comes with a cost. Everyone is responsible. Nobody is innocent.
I listened to that podcast earlier, and I don't know what to think of it. Not that I was fully on board with the "conspiracy theory," but the way they presented the story was just bizarre. They were talking about a bombing in Moscow as if it was the only one. In fact, there were a total of four apartment bombings in ten days, two of them in Moscow. But the incidents that are thought to provide the strongest evidence for the conspiracy theory were the bombings that didn't happen. You can read more about them in the Wiki article and elsewhere. Yet somehow Thomas and Aimen appear to be completely unaware of any of this context.
I did listen to the latest Russia episode. It's interesting, but again, there are these superficial glosses on the US role in supposedly instigating "color revolutions" in the former Soviet sphere. Seeing this complex and varied dynamics as a game between Russia and the big Western powers is the exact reflection of Russian establishment's thinking, and I think it's delusional. Supporting NGO's and such may have had some influence on events, but it wouldn't have been decisive.
And Valery Gergiev has been kicked out of everywhere. Two of the greatest musicians of our time. Sad. (Although, truth be told, they sold their souls to the devil a long time ago, and I've been avoiding them ever since - not that it mattered to anyone but myself.)
*sigh*
That's what I'm talking about. So many people simply refuse to look at the matter from Russia's perspective. In fact, they refuse to acknowledge that there are perspectives at all. To them, there is just their own perspective, which is The Truth, and all else is wrong.
If one is going to think in such ways, then why bother with philosophy?
The way I see it, there are two fundamentally opposed views in international relations: (1) continentalism which believes in a free and independent European continent, and (2) Atlanticism a.k.a. Transatlanticism which aims to tie Europe to America.
Continentalism represents the interests of individual continents, in the present context, Europe. Atlanticism represents the interests of America (and its client states like Britain) and has had various manifestations from general cooperation with America to political union of America, Britain, and other countries (see Atlantic Union).
NATO is a manifestation of Atlanticism. It was proposed by America and it was created by America. NATO is a creation and instrument of US interests.
In his speech to Congress, Eisenhower, the first Supreme Allied Commander Europe, made it very clear that the principal objective of the NATO project was US self-interest:
As stated by state secretary Dean Acheson, NATO was also connected with America’s desire for "closer European political unification", hence the US Marshall Plan that stipulated European economic cooperation.
Similarly, in a statement to Europe’s OEEC Council (Organization for European Economic Cooperation that administered Marshall Plan funds), Marshall Plan administrator Paul Hoffman said that the US Congress could not finance the Marshall Plan without European economic and financial integration.
Statement by Paul Hoffman at the 75th OEEC Council meeting (31 October 1949).
It can be seen that from the very start, NATO went hand-in-hand with European unification under US hegemony, the idea being that Europe was a source of natural resources and a market for US goods hence it could not be allowed to fall into someone else’s (i.e., Germany’s or Russia’s) hands.
This was reiterated by NATO general secretary Stoltenberg on Sep 15 2000, whom the NATO website describes as “a strong supporter of greater global and transatlantic cooperation”. So, ATLANCICISM and GLOBALISM.
Incidentally, the post of NATO Secretary General is held by a European, allegedly to balance the influence of America who controls NATO’s military command. However, if we look at the profiles of secretaries general we immediately see that they are people with close links to America and, in general, are strongly pro-American.
The very first NATO sec gen (1952–1957) was the Briton Hastings Ismay who was a close US ally and who infamously announced that NATO’s aim was to “keep the Americans in Europe, the Russian out, and the Germans down”. Ismay was succeeded by the Belgian Paul-Henri Spaak (1957-1961) who had lived in New York in the 1940’s when he served as chairman of the first session of the UN General Assembly. In particular, he had also served as president of the US-funded European Movement which aimed to achieve the political, economic and monetary Union of Europe. The Dutch Dirk Stikker (1961-1964) had been involved in the creation of NATO and other US outfits. The Italian Manlio Brosio (1964-1971) had been ambassador to Washington …. Anders Rasmussen (2009–2014) was a strong supporter of America’s Iraq War. Stoltenberg has been discussed already.
From inception NATO’s secretaries general have been staunch supporters of Atlanticism, i.e., of the propensity to act in harmony with US interests. It follows that the post is a European civilian front for an essentially US military organization representing the interests of the US. Indeed, in addition to their Atlanticist credentials, NATO secs gen act as advised by the NATO Military Committee, whose current deputy chair is the American Lt Gen Lance Landrum, USAF, and in collaboration with the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), currently the American Gen Tod Wolters, USAF, who is nominated by the POTUS (in this case, Donald Trump).
I for one don’t believe in globalism and world government but in continentalism in the sense of continents being independent and treated democratically and equitably, which is why I reject America’s imperialist New World Order.
In any case, America’s global dominance is indisputable as is the fact that America is the dominant element in a number of (US-created) international organizations like NATO:
The USA's international influence – BBC
In light of these facts and of US actions against Russia, it is clear that the focus of international attention should be not on Russia but on America who has demonstrated once again that it has complete dominance over most of the world, and especially over Europe, financially, economically, politically, and militarily. The events also show that America controls the international media which it uses for its own propaganda, all of which signals a trend for mankind to get closer and closer to world government controlled by Washington and Wall Street, a situation that in my view is not only inconsistent with genuine democracy and freedom, but extremely dangerous.
Especially in view of the growing polarization and radicalization of US politics, it is not difficult to think what might happen if we had a world government run by certain US presidents …. :smile:
Protesters in Greece set flame to NATO flag during anti-war rally - Newsflare
And in the first world as well.
The only difference between dying slowly from overwork exhaustion and poverty (as is the fate of more and more people in first world countries) and dying in a bomb explosion in a war is how quickly it happens.
Quoting baker
Like, uh, many here refuse to look at matters in Central America and the Caribbean from the US perspective??? :roll:
I think many do refuse to look at that perspective and call imperialism imperialism. When the perpetrator is the US.
Suddenly with Russia they "understand". Or they don't care. It's not their problem, or something.
Quoting baker
Well, some people are against war and killing innocent people. Are they wrong?
You can understand the perspective, but you don't have to agree with it.
Incidentally, I've always been amazed at the number of people in developing countries who studied in Kiev and Moscow. The soviets must have trained thousands of medical doctors, chemists, geographers, agronomists, veterinarians, entomologists, journalists and political scientists, etc etc in places like Indian sub continent, latin America, Africa.... That's a massive contribution to these nations' development when you think of it.
But this independence starts in one's mind. Meaning, cease giving so much of one's precious time to foreign sources for mental engagement. Such as, if you're not American, stop watching US films, US sitcoms, US reality shows etc. And if one watches the US programmes because those in one's native language aren't interesting enough, then it would be prudent to stop watching tv for the purpose of entertainment altogether.
(US films, sitcoms, reality shows, and other tv programmes are de facto examples of US imperialism: they are watched all over the world.)
Meaning, ordinary people could do a lot for the wellbeing of their own culture and country, and it is primarily by saying no to foreign influences.
They're not against it as long as they are the ones doing the killing.
There are all sorts of fake news being spread including by the victims of course. I was reading earlier about a village north of Odessa (Datchne) where there was some bombing. Most villagers attributed the bombing to Russian forces given the current bombing of Odessa, but some of the victims blamed the Ukrainian forces for it... So the 'blame game' happens even under the bombs!
These conditions are extreme and a people besieged and without official information will find hope where they can. So yes, people need to lionize their nation with all sorts of myths, ok ok, but they do need it under the bombs a lot more than when living in peace.
It only takes one freeloader, one person who doesn't want this brotherhood of men, and the whole project collapses.
No. There are pacifists in this World. I'm not one of them, but anyway.
Simply to put it, one doesn't have to choose sides. When one actor does something wrong, it should be condemned. If it does something right, that should be acknowledged.
For many that is far too hard to do. If they condemn one side, they have to condemn everything it does. As if their prior condemnation is meaningless if they acknowledge that something has been done right.
I think this also has to do with what I call "modern city people". I live in a rural area that is rapidly undergoing suburbanization and gentrification. People from the city are moving here, building their homes (destroying first-grade arable land and forests!). The older culture of mostly farmers is rapidly disappearing, along with its dialect. The new people show a remarkable lack of consideration for others. Earlier on, everyone would greet everyone when meeting in the street. Now it's like in the city, it's normal to walk around with a grim face, silently. Even neighbors don't greet.
An example from traffic: There are many hills here, the roads are old and narrow, with many sharp curves, steep slopes. In many places the road is too narrow for two cars to meet, but there are occasional niches built where one car can move to the side for the other to pass. To the "old settlers", it's normal to take this into consideration and to drive in such a way as the narrow roads permit, so that everyone is safe. But not the new ones. They just drive, like they own the road. They have no qualms about endangering others.
These modern people apparently have a very limited understanding of what it means to live together with others, as neighbors. I see this reflected also in the way Russia's intentions have been interpreted by so many. This modern idea of "I'm going to live as I please, others be damned, and if they don't like it, that's their problem".
That's just not the way to live with other people, with neighbors. But these modern people just don't understand this.
But then there is the actual war that is bloody. And too much video materiel which isn't fake. If this war continues on with similar intensity as now, this will be a very bloody war. If so much destruction in one week, how much then in two. Or three. Or in a month or two. Or a year.
Photos from the battle of Kharkiv:
start looking eerily similar to photos from the battles of Kharkov:
The case of a million refugees might also be correct. That's a large portion of 44 million.
I'm assuming the hard sanctions are meant to get Russia to a negotiating table, but if that doesn't happen, will those sanctions potentially cause a global depression?
In my view a global recession has been on the works for a long time. But now, if you want to have one reason for such complex phenomenon as a global depression in such a complex multipolar World, I guess this is it.
Btw as I said to @Christoffer, it may be that tomorrow Friday Finland might have some bilateral defense agreement with the US or apply for NATO. Or not. But at least it's a possibility that can happen. Many are speculating about it here. When I look at my country's actions when in crisis, that would be similar to our turns when facing the possibility of boxed into a corner.
Then we'll see how angry Vladimir is at us. Perhaps I ought go and fill fuel family's cars tonight as a fuel shortage might hit soon.
No, not a global depression. It will give everyone dependent on gas and oil, and in some ways wheat a huge problem, but at the same time, it will boost the need for renewables to be developed. But even that will take years if the decision is that they need to do it now. But an example is Germany who's now beginning to change course, thinking of steering away from Nordstream altogether. If we're gonna weigh global warming as a factor of a future massive global problem, to this, then the sanctions might sting the world hard in the short run, but may also push for a faster change that the world would have to do anyway.
Actually, this is a bigger problem for Russia overall. They rely so heavily on exporting oil and gas that whenever the world has turned away from that they have nothing but wheat, and we don't know how climate change will affect Russian farms for that either so they might lose that as well.
They have to become a nation that relies on trade and has other global functions than resources. They would have to focus on things like tech development. But that requires a much more open society that works as a global hub of such knowledge. To reach that kind of society in the future, they have to let go of corruption, propaganda, and old empire dreams. It's impossible to function with the current standards.
So if the sanctions hit hard now, the future will hit harder on Russia.
Quoting ssu
Today our government had closed talks about the military strategy going forward. Many mentioned how we need to speed up to reach the 2% of GDP which I'm not sure is needed but at least recommended by NATO in order to become a member. I think however that in the current situation, NATO need to drop that number in order to let Finland and Sweden in fast, so what I think is going on right now is that there might be an agreement already "signed", but not official with the promise that Sweden will eventually reach 2% in 2024 or 2025. This way Sweden can show the numbers to NATO as a planned expansion in order to be let in earlier than a proper 2% reach.
But that's just speculation, no one knows what they're talking about and I think that's the deal. I think Finland and Sweden need to join at the same time and fast so that Russia won't have any time to react to such news. Like, "oh, and now Sweden and Finland are part of NATO."
Quoting ssu
He can be angry, but at least we're no sitting ducks anymore. He brought this on himself by invading Ukraine. He turned me into a pro-NATO person. That's a failure in itself on his part.
Yes. I think it has to go like that.
It will be more of a multilateral declaration. I think even the US and NATO have learned that by now.
Notice that when the Finnish President is meeting with Biden, the both of our foreign ministers have a meeting with NATO.
NATO press release:
But it really puts those Russian fighters near Gotland into context. As at the same time at the western side of Gotland both Finland and Sweden were having military exercises, 4 military aircraft just happened to get a bit lost?
All coincidence? We'll see... but that is basically how it would have to happen.
MUST (Swedish Military Intelligence and Security Service) also came out and said that the behavior of those fighter jets was not normal. They flew directly in line with our borders and at the time of passing Gotland, they did a deliberate steer into our borders close to Gotland before turning away after our response fighters caught up and took pictures of them.
It was deemed by MUST to be a clear deliberate act of aggression, as a message to Sweden. Probably because we might join NATO and also for helping Ukraine.
If they had done this with us as NATO members, the response towards Russia would have been extremely severe. If they don't want us to join NATO, they shouldn't be this stupid, now they're probably just sealing the deal for us.
Or may make it function well, just not at the elite level at which Western countries aspire to be.
In the long run, this may actually be better, and ecologically more sustainable.
Quoting FreeEmotion
The Ukraine.
Why is it so hard to consider the possibility that it might actually be good for a country to ask Russia to take it under its wing? Or at least to see it as a matter of their own interest to be on friendly terms with Russia?
And not in the least in the sense of merely appeasing a bully. Just like a person may at some point realize that they don't have the means to sustain their lavish lifestyle anymore and that they need to lower their consumption of luxuries, so a country may realize that for its own survival, it may need a simpler economy, focused on self-sufficiency.
Maybe they just don't want to be ruled by an authoritarian leader? Maybe they've been fighting their own corruption for a while now and don't want to flip that on its head? Maybe they felt like they wanted something else? I mean, maybe they wanted to form a society based on western standards more? Maybe the principles of staying independent and forming their own future were so strong that it's worth it to defend against Russia?
Quoting baker
But is this the case though? A nation that is finding its own path and hasn't been doing it for more than 30 years might need more time to solidify its modern core culture and values?
It's like if Norway, after the breakup with Sweden, were invaded by us 30 years later with the argument: "look at them, they can't make it, they're barely a functioning nation, we shall fix them with stability". But Norway grew to surpass us in their economy, mainly through their oil, but still, we don't view them as "us", we view them as brothers, just like many do between Russia and Ukraine. And this might be why I have such a hard time seeing the need for Putin's actions here. Sweden and Norway have an extremely good relationship, with a trade that's almost better than within the EU, even though they're not part of the EU. Ukraine and Russia could have the same if Russia had just let Ukraine be to form their own nation with their own standards and values. They can arrange trading deals that make it so it's just as good as if they were part of Russia, without demanding them to be part of "the new world order empire".
To which they have never been truly accepted to begin with.
But the Ukrainians want a first-world lifestyle. This is not realistic, it's not environmentally sustainable, not even for the so-called first-world countries.
Russia wants the Ukraine to be neutral, not part of Russia.
The bigger picture of all this is that the world cannot go on living in the exploitative ways it has so far.
The idea of infinite economic growth is not realistic. Infinite growth is not sustainable.
This insistence on living way beyond sustainable means is what gives rise to extreme actions, such as wars.
Then they need to focus on other aspects, like forming a tech industry with engineering educations and similar. Maybe even semiconductor facilities etc.
It is possible to build first-world standards even without a geographical area high in natural resources. But you need more time than 30 years of instability. It's like, they've just gone into a form of stability, or working to stabilize the nation, and then Putin bombs the shit out of them.
Quoting baker
Why is Ukraine being neutral important to them if they don't want to control Ukraine? Russia can say whatever they want about what they want with Ukraine, but in the end, they want control over them. Either by them being part of Russia or as a puppet state.
Quoting baker
Yes, agreed. But that point also counters your point about Ukraine not having anything to warrant higher living standards. Why would Russia force itself into a nation that doesn't really have anything of value? Other than an obsession with redrawing borders?
Quoting baker
But this point hasn't really come to pass yet. There are enough resources still in this world to sustain it a while longer, for many nations.
But it WILL be the conflict of the future. When climate change has created unsustainable living conditions in some places of the world, we will have a refugee crisis that is unprecedented in history. At that time, we will have a shortage of resources... and that will be the source of an extreme world conflict, possibly the true world war 3.
If the winds go east, then Putin might fuck Russia up in more ways than he had imagined.
Seriously, this is the most stupid thing I’ve seen. :shade:
Quoting 180 Proof
https://m.dw.com/en/ukraine-fire-breaks-out-at-europes-largest-nuclear-power-plant-live-updates/a-61007081 :death:
Quoting Apollodorus
I don't much care whether planes were flying over Kiev or not. Look, wars are not won by a scorecard of facts, fictions, lies, truths, myths, or the like. Wars are won on the ground (with or without air support). Who controls the territory when the war is over?
It would be better if everyone fact checked before they hit 'send', thought first and spoke later, didn't gush BS, observed more carefully, and so on. But hey, humans aren't like that.
Maybe the Ukrainians will fight fiercely enough to end with a draw. Maybe NATO and EU will supply weapons that tip the balance into a Ukrainian win. Maybe a meteorite will smash Moscow, causing Putin to lose focus.
My unhappy guess is that Russia will win on the basis of the preponderance of resources it can bring to bear. I don't like it, mind you.
Win what? Their prize will be a set of problems they never encountered before. So be it.
I do not care who wins if there is peace. So I am truly objective here. I like peace.
Specifically here is my opinion.
1. The United States and to some extent NATO are extremely hostile to Russia, for historical, ideological reasons and because they are stumbling block to US power. The media rhetoric is crudely drummed up to support that end. If you have been watching western media over the last few years, you will know.
2. NATO has been doing what Russia does not want in order establish its power. Russia rightly sees this as a threat:
Ryan Knutson: Why does Putin care so much if NATO is right at the Russian border?
Quoting Wall Street Journal article quoted above
3. Sovereign nation: Russia is not the only nation that manufactures glove puppets. According to John J. Mearsheimer, the current situation is the result in coup in Ukraine. Given the coups that have taken place around the world, the only question in my mind is why this could not happen in Ukraine? Those talking about 'covert' operations seem to strangely rule this out.
4.Putin is mad in the American sense, he is angry. I give him the benefit of the doubt that this was a last ditch attempt (at great cost to Russia and his popularity) to preserve Russian sovereignty - was there a better way at ending an 8 year war on its borders and exhaustive negotiations than invasion?
I do not know. I assume that there was no better way to do this.
5. Ukraine will be difficult to govern by Russia. Putin knows this, I am guessing he will let the current leadership stay if they come to an agreement but unlikely since they cannot be trusted (Minsk agreement)
6. I am against all invasions against all countries throughout all history, so I am against the invasions of Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine, unless there was no better way.
I will respond once and move on.
Here is such an opinion, is this NATO's view?
Quoting Al Jaseera
Please show your hand, racists, I the world can and will take you on.
High culture has just demonstrated that it has its own version of more plebeian jingoistic pursuits like "liberty cabbage," "freedom fries" or, today, dumping Russian vodka in the streets. This is not only a crime against art -- though it certainly is that -- but a demonstration of fundamental unseriousness in approaching the actual issues at stake. Russians of all kinds, whether sinful (Valery Gergiev), blameless (the Bolshoi, where the director actually came out against the war), or somewhere in between (Anna Netrebko), are probably well advised to steer clear of Western countries at the moment anyway. In the US, our racism has evolved to the point that Russians are probably not in danger the way Sikhs and Muslims were after 9/11, or Japanese after Pearl Harbor -- but that could well change if things get worse. If I were a praying man, I'd be praying they won't.
Unsurprisingly, most of the types who whine about so called "cancel culture" will say nothing about this, or even approve of it. They will also continue to hold the so-called "liberal democracies" (including Poland? ha!) blameless if the crisis escalates, and all of Europe -- and potentially the world -- once again splits into armed camps.
I promise all of you that this never ends well. Some of us know it, others don't, but all of us will pay the price.
https://www.npr.org/sections/deceptivecadence/2022/03/03/1084177539/anna-netrebko-metropolitan-opera-russia-putin-ukraine
181/193 participants
141: yes [sub](Turkey, ...)[/sub]
5: no [sub](Russia, Belarus, Eritrea, North Korea, Syria)[/sub]
35: abstain [sub](China, India, South Africa, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, ...)[/sub]
"Putin, go home. Have some Vodka. No, Russia ain't about to be invaded by foreign nations."
What does Belarus have against Ukraine anyway?
At least I'm not aware of any threats or some such (except maybe Putin has threatened Lukashenko).
Reuters: U.N. General Assembly in historic vote denounces Russia over Ukraine invasion
Al Jazeera: UN resolution against Ukraine invasion: Full text
All or some?
Watch movies and shows critically, and you can see the things they are concerned about. After a while, it gets tiring. It is not just about foreign influences but subtle mind control. But I was manipulated to say that by conspiracy theories. See how it works?
Movies are about superheroes and conflict, conflict violence, use of force to solve problems, wealth, fame or love. The last one is not so bad.
Anyone seen a good anti-war movie recently?
Top 5 movies
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls093928963/
1.Dune:
Feature adaptation of Frank Herbert's science fiction novel about the son of a noble family entrusted with the protection of the most valuable asset and most vital element in the galaxy.
Theme: Wealth
2. Drive My Car (2021)
Theme: Love
3. The French Dispatch (2021)
Theme: Love. Also American/French culture
4. The Dig (2021)
[i]Sutton - Hoo
Sutton Hoo is the site of two early medieval cemeteries dating from the 6th to 7th centuries near the English town of Woodbridge. Archaeologists have been excavating the area since 1938, when a previously undisturbed ship burial containing a wealth of Anglo-Saxon artefacts was discovered.[/i]
5. Little Fish (2020)
A couple fights to hold their relationship together as a memory loss virus spreads and threatens to erase the history of their love and courtship.
Theme: Love, memory, virus.
Yeah, I noticed that. Maybe they'd forgotten.
Otherwise, it's just an hour about geopolitics so it's inevitable it'll be somewhat superficial and make things look like "a game between Russia and the big Western powers". This is how some of the participants see it anyway, and that's significant.
I agree, it will look like our worst nightmares. Like Syria, with a nuclear spin. Yesterday the Csar called Macron to tell him he will go all the way to the Polish border. This morning the Russian were bombing the largest nuclear plant in Europe, Zaporizhzhya. These guys are not just criminals, they are also bubbling cretins. Anyway, apparently they took it without damaging the core...
Well, uh, NATO reactions to air space violations...
A news article from last January in Estonia:
Of course, there's a wide range in the seriousness of air space violations. A cargo (recon) plane violating the airspace for a moment or strategic nuclear bombers making fake attack runs... and everything between.
(I quote from memory).Khrushchev and Kennedy are both gone now.
Yes, but that was before a full-scale war. I mean at the moment, while Russia has shown actual aggressive warfare, the act of breaking borders into NATO airspace would be much more severe than the normal tensions earlier. We had lots of Russian fighter jets breaking our borders before, but this time it's different.
Quoting Noam Chomsky
Strong words indeed.
Western media takes it as a foregone conclusion that this was a "miscalculation" by Putin ... because it's played so poorly in the Western press and Western nations have flocked to offer moral support and a bit of hardware and economic sanctions.
However, the Kremlin has been preparing itself for this exact threat by the West since 2014, building redundancies for all critical systems and scaling up economic ties with China.
Of course, Oligarchs are punished via their Western assets ... but the Kremlin may not actually care about that, indeed, presumably most oligarchs are also competitors in some way and reducing elite power is never "so bad" from the top's perspective (the Roman Emperor was a stable position as it controlled something like half the Empires GDP ... in the stratosphere of wealth compared to other elites, likewise emperor of China and other stable authoritarian systems have a big gap between the two top rungs of the ladder).
Oligarchs were necessary insofar as there was economic ties with the West, just as China required fostering their own oligarchs to interface with the West to expand economically based on Western intellectual property (an oligarch is a friendly and understandable face for Western investors and CEO's). However, structurally speaking, oligarchs are not necessary if you want independence from Western capitalism.
Another way to put it is that there's no reason to believe Putin cares about Abramovich tears over the Chelsea football club. This is "terrible" only from the perspective of Western financial talking heads where taking a billionaires wealth (even for breaking obviously laws) is the worst thing that can ever happen in the history of the planet; but Russian oligarch wealth outside of Russia there's no reason to assume matters much to the Kremlin. Indeed, the whole premise of "punishing" oligarchs to somehow pressure Putin maybe doing Putin a favour (creates easy leverage for Putin over the oligarchs ... no reason to assume it's vice-versa in anyway).
Obviously Russia's invasion plays poorly in Western media ... which then Western media points to as a "backfiring" the fact Western media really doesn't like Putin (a bit of self projection as being lambasted by the Western media is the worst thing for a talking head to experience).
In terms of geo-politics, Russia can source all essential components and capital equipment from China, and is obviously self sufficient in food and energy and minerals.
Furthermore, if democracy is the big threat to Russian authoritarianism (which I would definitely agree with), then severing all ties to the West seems like a good strategy to deal with that threat (from the authoritarian perspective) ... and, there's a big authoritarian world out there that doesn't give a shit about Western values; if the US is in decline, the impetus to even pay lip service maybe removed.
So, considering all this, I am wondering to what extent the economic war is either an acceptable risk (certainly the West and Russia have been exchanging words about since 2014), or even a desired outcome to impose "made in Russia" and Russian controlled information systems etc.?
For example, once China no longer needed to grovel for Western IPR, it then built it's own parallel information systems. So, if you actually want Russia to become a copy of China's authoritarian system ... this war with Ukraine accomplishes that.
I am totally against authoritarianism and I view China as a 1984 styled hellscape, but I am wondering at this point how far the "pivot" to China was predetermined to go and the Ukraine war basically total commitment to the "China way" of doing things. Or, do people more familiar with Kremlin history and logic, support the idea of the Western press that the war is backfiring and Western responses are a surprise "act of courage" (of course, by taking almost zero actual risk, naturally)?
(There's of course many military, intelligence agents and bureaucrats that remember the authoritarian Soviet days, including Putin, and may regret the fall of that system, including Putin, and may look to China as having "ironed out the kinks" in that system, indeed, even gone to China, including Putin; such an outcome, in my opinion, is more to fear than the war in Ukraine itself; it would represent consolidating pure totalitarianism and laying the foundation to absorb more and more countries into such a system ... for the West, in recent times, seems only to ever offers words about freedom, and no one can eat them.
I can essentially guarantee you, that to a lot of the world, in particular elite classes, the abandonment of Afghanistan and now this war in Ukraine paints a very clear picture: The West cannot or will not defend it's "friends", don't trust its words, they are worth nothing. Token symbolic support is of little use when you're being shelled.)
True. On the other hand, for example during the Korean War, Soviet fighters were engaging in air combat with USAF fighters routinely. Few Soviet pilots even become fighters aces against the Americans. Both sides just kept silent about it during the Cold War. And Russia had already then nuclear weapons two. And also during the Cuban crisis, Soviet air defense troops shot down an U-2 plane in Cuba (and of course the incident of Gary Powers and KAL 007). So these incidents happen, but they don't automatically escalate things, but do increase the tensions.
It seems that Aftonbladet is reporting that polls are showing (or at least one) that now also majority of Swedes are for NATO. And now our defense minister is going to Washington next monday for several days to meet Lloy Austin. Same topics to be discussed as the President now with Biden.
Lukashenko is holding on to Putin for dear life. Until recently he was eking out a living by skillfully maneuvering between Russia and Europe, keeping both at arm's length while feeding off handouts intended to buy his loyalty. But due to the events of the past two years, that racket is history. Putin owns him now.
Indeed, we are seeing the consolidation of authoritarianism and the retreat and retrenchment of "Western values" ... not some sort of pyrrhic victory for those values.
For example, what did the West do for the rest of the world, in particularly economically, during the pandemic? Basically nada, and it's a fools errand to expect loyalty and honour in return for none.
Indeed. Why should Eritrea support a world that threw millions of vaccines away that instead could have saved a lot of lives? Economy and capital ruling again.
He probably knew that there would be sanctions, but the sanctions have really been harder than anything seen in history. I don't think he anticipated the level they're at. Remember, Putin's power relies on him looking strong. Everything from threats to the recent breaking of Sweden's borders with fighter jets is his jabs to show strength. It's also, in my opinion, a sign of desperation. He doesn't have control over the situation, especially when it starts to affect his war chest.
Quoting boethius
But China isn't as clear-cut as it seems. They try to play both sides and if Russia's economy tanks the trade agreements might mean little to them. Even China works hard for renewable changes and gas and oil might not be needed in the long run. We don't really know how long the sanctions will be in play, it could end tomorrow if Putin withdraw his troops, or more likely, it will drag on for long. China's actions in the UN shows that they're not fully on board with Russia, regardless of how they've communicated towards them.
There's also intel showing that a lot of the higher-ups in China are critical of Xi Jinping's anti-corporation attitudes, that most others want more open relations to western companies, not closing those doors. And Xi Jinping is up for his vote for lifetime mandate this fall, where many believe that he might be voted out because of his unpopularity among the others in power. If that happens, then the deal with Russia could be broken in an instance. This is a huge risk for Putin that I'm not sure he's really aware of, since he has miscalculated so many other things during this invasion.
Quoting boethius
But the oligarchs have close ties to Putin. Most likely it's how he can influence in the west without direct connections. It's part of his power. Many also speculate that most of Putin's wealth is hidden within the oligarch's wealth. Hidden from the Russian people. From the outside, it looks like Putin has as much income as our prime minister in Sweden, which isn't at all a luxury sum compared to many leaders in the world. But underneath he most likely has a large wealth hidden from the public and many speculate the oligarchs to be the holders of that.
Quoting boethius
Yeah, this is a problem, we really don't know Russia's operation is going. There are many many sources that point to it going bad, but Putin is a brutal strategist. He might just have thrown young conscripts into Ukraine as cannon fodder to make believe that Ukraine is winning while mounting a whole other attack as the main one. We really don't know until the backlash in Russia becomes real.
Quoting boethius
To a point. If the war chest is locked down or the entire economy collapses it matters little if they have savings they could use towards China when the end result would be military material without any money left for the citizens of Russia.
My take is that much of the Rubel's floating around in Russia have been converted to crypto, since we've seen a surge in crypto right when the sanctions kicked in hard. But that's unverified.
Quoting boethius
This is probably what's gonna happen with Russia long-term. Even if sanctions ease up, no one wants to deal with Russia anymore. But the problem is that modern nations can barely make it without good global trade. This is why China is one of the largest trade nations in the world, they realized that is where modern superpower is. Russia has oil, gas, and wheat. With climate change pushing the world further from these natural resources, the less Russia will be able to export it, even to China. Wheat will be the only thing they could export while they don't have any high industry of tech or other functions that low natural resource nations have as trade. Look at North Korea. All reports from within point to massive poverty and only surface level imagery of wealth among the top people. Compare that to China who's the largest trading nation in the world.
If he thinks cutting the west off from trade is good, he is truly delusional. And cutting off trade is the only way to ensure being separated from the west.
Quoting boethius
I think it's a door opening for the west to get rid of Russia. They weren't a big trading partner compared to others to begin with, and there are too many risks dealing with them for anyone smart enough to see through Putin's big leader attitudes. Germany was the only one really opening their arms to them and look how they got fucked by the instability he created. No one will dare making deals with them anymore. Even oil that is still being exported from Russia is being turned down because people don't want to deal with Russia anymore.
I think it's an acceptable risk because Russia doesn't really influence the west as much as people think. There will be hits to the global economy, yes, but no way near what would happen if a nation like the US or China got disrupted. Russia, as a global economic partner, is not really that important compared to other superpowers.
So I think the west is ripping the band-aid right now, aiming for other solutions to things like climate change or global trade. Russia could very well become a third world country because of Putin, but he doesn't care since he's too occupied with his "New World Order" empire fantasies. When all of this is over, he might have his new borders drawn, but the cost will be so high that it could force upon him a new Russian revolution, destroying everything he thought he had.
Quoting boethius
China relies too much on international trade, so it will grow out of its hardcore authoritarian system just through political evolutionary movements. For them, growing their economy through trade and through having deep investments in other nations will demand them to loosen themselves more and become more like the US. Because they do business just like the US, buying themselves into other nations in the world, making heavy trade deals, and increasing global power through all of it. Russia might be something they view as rational in the short term, but if Russian economy is in the gutter and there's not much viable trade with them, they will just shrug it off and move on.
Russia has much more to lose than China if their agreement breaks... and I think China knows it. I think they are much better at world chess than Putin and the rest of Russia.
Quoting boethius
That's what I think. I think Kremlin didn't expect sanctions to be this severe and I don't view Putin as aspiring to anything else than his own empire fantasies. He has big ideas for the future of Russia, but he thinks in old terms, he believes the world moves as it did 30 years ago, he thinks the old way of invading and controlling through propaganda works, but it's much harder to do that today.
Information flows much easier and more independent while geopolitics rely more heavily on vital global trade and corporate investments than actual authoritarian leadership. We can criticize that in itself, but that's the zeitgeist we live in. If he thinks he could "Hitler" himself into power as in the 20th century he will be deadly mistaken.
Yeah, makes sense. But we're not in an actual cold war again, even if it looks like that's gonna be our future now.
Quoting ssu
Well, the Cuban crisis was one of the worst during the Cold War. It could very well end up being something similar happening in the future.
The big problem though, is that information about such events could be hidden easier back then. Current stream of information makes it harder to keep things under wraps.
Quoting ssu
Yeah, and our third-largest party (the extreme right-wing fuckheads Sverige Demokraterna) might swing around in this matter from against to positive for NATO and that would mean a majority in our parliament. UK also announced through NATO that they would assist Sweden if we were ever to be attacked by Russia. Of course, that doesn't mean much, could only be empty promises, but sure is a bit of a relief. I wouldn't mind having some SAS forces on Gotland. With the "quality" of Russian troops in Ukraine, they wouldn't stand a chance against SAS forces.
No, but Russian troops shooting at a power plant risking a 5x Chernobyl as they did last night could be a reason to break everything said about not helping Ukraine with military forces and go in and help Ukraine get rid of the stupid ones firing at fucking power plants.
That action is so stupid that it could warrant a force to stop things like that from happening. I mean, if they blow a power plant and the winds go east, then Putin would totally fuck up Russia in a way I don't think he thought about.
Thanks for the detailed reply; as I state in my post, I myself am wondering about the thinking of the Kremlin, but I think it's fruitful I present the counter arguments to your rebuttal.
Quoting Christoffer
Preparing in advance for "total sanctions" is not necessarily a sign they are unexpected. They are also not yet total; only some banks are shutoff from SWIFT and Western corporation "abandoning" Russia ... only matters if there's no replacement in Russia or China.
Quoting Christoffer
The Russian army is shelling cities to the ground and already achieved a key strategic goal of linking Crimera to Russian territory. Russia may pay a price for these land grabs, but all military analyst agree whatever Russia takes it will keep. There was no insurgency in Crimea, citizens were in the least ambivalent about Russian control; hence, Russia simply keeping such territory and leaving insurgent territory and so having conventional fronts is a perfectly acceptable endgame. The parallels with Iraq and Afghanistan don't really make any sense as Russia isn't trying to "nation build" in an entirely different and hostile culture.
Quoting Christoffer
China will not stop buying Russian minerals and energy, and won't stop selling to Russia whatever it has to sell. Transitioning to renewables in any credible way is a half century project ... to just get started. This war in Ukraine will be a long forgotten episode in the densest fog of the 24 news cycle, and Russia will be still selling gas and oil and minerals. True, EU pays a "higher price" but if global instability increases price generally, it's still a higher price to sell at a 20% discount something that is now twice as costly.
Again, words are cheap and what China says matters little; if they aren't going to put sanctions on Russia (which they won't) then what they say or vote or virtue signal in the media or the UN, is of no meaning whatsover.
Quoting Christoffer
If you project energy needs out a few decades (which certainly Russia pays close attention to), there is declining conventional oil reserves that are difficult to replace (they exist, but are dirty, expensive and cannot necessarily be scaled to replace depletion elsewhere). The famous "peak oil" is very real and is happening in terms of what are called conventional fossil fuels.
It maybe Russia's analysis (which is not at all fringe) that their resources are not replaceable in any practical sense, renewable capacity cannot be scaled at a rate to effectively displace depleting fossil reserves. Unlike the 80s and precursor to the fall of the Soviet Union, low oil prices are history and, by extension, any fundamental risk to the Russian economy. In short, there will always be buyers for what Russia is selling.
Quoting Christoffer
The West has transferred basically all it's IPR to totalitarian China in exchange for slave labour.
The one critical thing China doesn't have, advanced semi conductor industry, it is still all based in South-East Asia that China has significant clout in; no semi conductor producing South East Asian country, including Taiwan, is going to burn political capital to try to stop China reselling chips to Russia.
Western sanctions are only effective if A. you have nothing of critical value to sell to a third party that doesn't care much about the sanction and ... well basically that's it. North Korea doesn't have anything of critical value to sell the Chinese and the Chinese don't care to subsidize them, so the economy completely collapses (trade is definitely necessary; but if Sanctions don't de facto cut trade with the global integrated economy, they are of no long term significance; certainly disruptive in the short term, but Russians have always highly prized the long term advantages of territory).
Also, in terms of economy, there is also today a structural difference, in that the rapid expansion phase of capitalism is approaching limits. This would be a topic for another day, but without real growth the "dynamism" of capitalism does not necessarily out perform command economies. Capitalism is the process of new institutions out performing old ones based on fundamentally new innovations of some sort; if room for innovation slows then there is little need to displace old institutions through chaotic "market forces" and you can just keep the same one's as nominal or de facto government bureaucracies. Feudalism was incredibly stable because there was little room for innovation, and, make a long story short, the energy cost of displacing existing institutions had no upshot: so they just all stuck around (church, guilds, aristocracy, family farms etc.).
Quoting Christoffer
It's possible, but if cutting ties with the West is an "acceptable outcome", the severe sanctions is actually doing Putin a favour: banishing Western companies and Western influence from Russia in a weekend.
Russia's economy is based on resources: energy, food and minerals. There is no non-Western country that would refuse the buy cheaper from Russia, much less go without the resource, for the sake of some happy sounding Western words ... which many of the authoritarian leaning / transitioning states (Brasil, India, Turkey) don't like to hear anyways (at least their governments).
Indeed ... EU is still buying gas from Russia as it "supplies words and arms" to Ukraine.
Quoting Christoffer
Putin is no Hitler with ambitions to take over all of Europe. Ironically, Putin's justification (why the Russian people aren't "rebelling" in any meaningful sense) is fighting neo-Nazi's in Ukraine, which are definitely there and have been coddled and apologized for by Western powers for some reason and largely ignored by the Western press. However, the Russian press doesn't ignore Ukrainian's waving Swastika's and parallel symbols and praising Nazi "war heroes".
Indeed, depending on how strong you believe these neo-Nazi elements are, it can be argued the Russian invasion is entirely justifiable if fighting the Nazi's the first time ever was.
And again, Russia has already achieved key strategic objectives and can declare a magnanimous new peace now at anytime and declare victory.
I would guess the plan is that there is not much fighting in the East, as that's where they plan to Annex, so they will cut through Ukrainian speaking territories North to South, and call it a day. As they do not need to fight in any urban combat, except a few key way points and ports, once they create a North-South front they can simply annex everything to the East of that.
(They've sent a 40 km armor column to simply surround Kiev, creating the required pressure on leadership to sign the deal they want, who will say they Ukrainians fought with honour, blah blah blah, but the bloodshed must end and the page must be turned ... sad, sad, sad ... end of speech)
Yes, Westerners often forget that no one much else sees any "prosperity" and, therefore, do not feel they owe anything to the Western system.
... indeed, a lot of Westerners themselves don't see much of that freedom prosperity (inside where they actually live). Western media will put up a handful of "middle class" having fun in some caricature mall in a sea of poverty and call it capitalism "winning".
Is there a popular nazi-esque leader that could plausibly become dictator? And do the neo-nazi's in Ukraine have significant political power? For example, how many parliament seats do Ukranian neo-nazi's have?
I think that what we have anticipated might happen soon. Rarely are visits of leaders done in a timetable of less than 24 hours.
I think that is the official Russian narrative, right?
The idea is that he was faced with a real ethical dilemma where there's no way to avoid doing something immoral.
Notice that not only Crimea was different, but that the whole situation was now different than in 2014. Let's remember that Kharkiv was a mainly Russian speaking city. Ukraine didn't collapse as Putin had estimated.
Quoting boethius
The nation building part has gone splendidly! Ukrainians have never been so united in defending their country against an hostile invader.
Quoting boethius
:roll:
Really, not "rebelling" in any meaningful sense? Oh, only thousands have been detained and tough sanctions have been set against demonstrations, but that isn't meaningful? It has been so meaningful that tough new laws proposals are made and rumors go around of martial laws.
Quoting boethius
Fighting neo-nazis...
Starting with the Jewish President who is a native Russian speaker and his party that has majority of the seats in the Rada, which has an ideology "denying political extremes and radicalism, but being for creative centrism".
Quoting boethius
?
That's why I say it depends on how much influence you believe they have ... obviously, Russians are going to be skeptical of the argument that "a popular Nazi leader hasn't risen ... yet".
Of course, the propaganda goes in all sorts of directions, so "how many seats" they have in parliament or other positions of power etc. is difficult say; however, what I think is credible is that it's not a fringe movement, used merely as pretext; they are definitely there and have real power (just how much can be debated).
What is also I think difficult to contest, is that the neo-Nazi element is far greater in Ukraine than it ever was supporting Trump (where, I would say neo-Nazi's are truly a fringe movement in the US) ... yet, the mere association of neo-Nazi (fringe, but real) in the US with Trump was the justification to say Trump was a new potential Hitler.
Now, I didn't and don't like Trump, and (if he could) I'm sure he would have and would now declared himself Emperor of the Universe, but I think it was simply far fetched to say his movement was literally neo-Nazi based.
What I can say for myself, is I don't like people having it both ways: if you argued neo-Nazi supporting Trump is a reason to fear Trump (or the Trump movement) would rise as a new Hitler (an argument people certainly made) then ... it does seem to me to logically follow that Putin's rational for invading Ukraine (with neo-Nazi in far greater relative power compared to the Trump administration) entirely justifiable. "Not invading Ukraine" would be the Nazi appeasement from this point of view.
Of course, Ukraine is not 1930's Germany with a potential to invade all of Europe, but, in terms of how things play at home for the Kremlin if they A. achieve strategic aims and B. perceived to defeat Nazi's, then it's likely to sit well with a lot of Russians and the short term economic disruptions livable.
The Wests coddling those neo-Nazi's like some sort of freedom fighters, definitely doesn't help the West's cause of inflicting any real annoyance to the Kremlin.
The sanctions, the bad press, the UN declarations, the "courageous speeches" would be, in a real and/or perceived victory by Russia and reorientation of their economy, but empty words echoing to no where.
It is of course early days ... but strategic goals being met (such as land bridge from Crimea to Russia) don't actually embarrass Russia in any meaningful way. Nitpicking about a few extra losses may not matter.
Of course, the whole thing is a massive risk. If the Russian people did "rise up" due the hardships of war and sanctions then it would be a true disaster for the Kremlin. My describing the neo-Nazi situation is to explain why that has not and may not happen. Basic point being, Western talking heads wagging their finger at Putin is hardly a "strategic loss", and that's all I can see at the moment.
Oh, I definitely agree it's totally different.
Why my first comment was in the form of a question of people who know more about Russian sentiment. Definitely military moral could collapse and Russian people "take to the streets"--it's certainly a possibility--but the Western media seems, at least, exaggerating the odds.
Quoting ssu
Yes, for Ukrainian speakers, definitely, but I doubt it was ever Russia's plan to occupy the entire Ukraine, but just A. punish Ukraine for unfriending them (an important message to other client states of Russia) and B. take all pro-Russia territories that won't have an insurgency and C. increase energy prices and D. cause lot's of real problems for the EU.
Quoting ssu
I mean on the scale of a true rebellion to topple the government. There are definitely protests, which I would definitely agree could spark a meaningful rebellion (hence the arrests).
If you want say these protesters are meaningful rebels I would agree, but, at the moment at least, I do not see the Kremlin at risk of a large enough rebellion to stop their war plans or threaten their grip on power.
Quoting ssu
As I say, the argument entirely depends on how much credibility you lend these neo-Nazi's. That it's the basis of a sound argument goes a long way to explain Russian's more-or-less accepting the war, for now. It's certainly relevant in the propaganda and, I would say, based on uncomfortable amount of real evidence.
Does it "actually" justify the invasion because there's "enough neo-Nazi's" and, even if there was, Ukraine would be a significant enough threat like the original Nazi's, would be a different question and I would definitely agree it's a stretch, but a "stretch" is a far better propaganda tool than something totally fabricated (like WMD's in Iraq for example or Afghanistan had something to do directly with 911).
It logically follows only if you ignore Putin's ties to the European far-right (neo-Nazis included).
I already responded above, but if you believe there's enough neo-Nazi's, definitely that justifies invading Ukraine if fighting the first Nazi's was justifiable. I don't see any problem with that logic.
Of course, people against the invasion will argue the neo-Nazi element is fringe and irrelevant, and the pro-invasion (i.e. Kremlin and supporters) will argue it's above whatever threshold is needed to justify the invasion.
And, I'm not being facetious here; this is literally the argument Putin makes, and, regardless of "fact", the perception that it's true (which I honestly don't know what the average Russian thinks) has an impact on events.
I'm not defending Putin here. As I say in my original post, seems to me this war in Ukraine (whether the original intention or not) will consolidate a Russia-China totalitarianism axis (if you want to call it an "axis of evil", no complaints here), and Russia has and will continue to import China's totalitarian technology and, together, they will export that to other nations.
I always, however, focus my criticism on people who, at least nominally, have the same objective as me (real freedom for people, whatever our differences in vaguely imagining it), as that criticism is constructive. The 1984 totalitarian hellscape of the PRC needs only be noted ... there's no real point in arguing with the PRC about it and ... as far as I can tell, they don't participate in our little conversations here.
It could be that Russia had decided it would invade all of Ukraine already in 2014 and all diplomacy was genuinely meaningless. Nevertheless, doing nothing meaningful (even symbolically) about neo-Nazi's in Ukraine is a powerful weapon in Putin's hand. Likewise, diplomacy during and since 2014 seems as bad-faith on the Western side as for Russia.
Russia's demands were also not really unreasonable: agree to not join Nato or we invade. Ukraine: Fuck you, we'll join Nato if we want! Nato: awesome bros, we're such good friends, hugs!!
Then Russia invades as they said they would ... I don't see Ukraine with any meaningful friends.
Now, you can say if Ukraine signed such a deal, Russia would invade anyways ... but the result is the same. Strategically, taking the deal is a no brainer if you are a Ukrainian and want the best chances for peace (US doesn't actually want peace between Russia and EU; it's a fundamental strategic objective, US "policy makers" are happy to talk about).
I don't disagree with any of this. I also didn't think you were defending Putin. I was merely pointing out that it wouldn't follow logically because Putin himself has such ties. If you had written "it does seem to me that it could be mistakenly perceived to logically follow that Putin's rational for invading Ukraine (with neo-Nazi in far greater relative power compared to the Trump administration) entirely justifiable", I wouldn't have made this point.
It doesn't make the argument in itself unsound, would just make Putin a hypocrite.
Also, all these arguments I've presented are "for the sake of argument", presenting the counter-arguments to the Western media (at least in the first week of the war, almost declaring "victory" ... seems starting to balancing out now somewhat).
This is definitely a risky move by the Kremlin, so could indeed fail; but with at least some strategic gains in Ukraine (that Russia has already solidified) I wouldn't say there's actual chance now for military failure (Kremlin can stop anytime and just consolidate the land grabs they've made so far, say "enough war" we have achieved our security objectives and to demonstrate our "peaceful intentions" are ending the war here, and declare victory).
The large size of Ukraine makes total occupation difficult / impossible, but, the large size of Ukraine makes a lot of land grabbing easy. For the same reason Russia can't easily occupy all of Ukraine, Ukraine cannot easily defend all of Ukraine.
Definitely full scale rebellion in Russia would be a failure or then failing to re-orient their economy towards China integration. I'm definitely not saying these aren't risky things, just presenting the arguments and, indeed, potential facts in which success is possible.
In particular, the Western media is basically just in a circle of saying Putin is failing because the Western media doesn't like Putin like "a lot" now ... but that was already the case from Putin's perspective.
Putin's not some youtube influencer living in fear of being cancelled by Western media corporations.
However, it's not clear to me Putin has neo-Nazi far right ties. There are lot's of flavors of authoritarianism (which Putin definitely has lot's of ties) but neo-Nazi are definitely fringe on the world stage as a whole; indeed, seems to me Ukraine has the biggest such movement (precisely due to conflict with Russia, the old Nazi propaganda and "opposition to communism" can find sympathetic ears as well as "enemy of my enemy is my friend" tolerance from others).
https://spectatorworld.com/topic/ukraine-invasion-nothing-compared-iraq-afghanistan/
Quoting ssu
I think that this would be a gross mistake in the current climate, and highly irresponsible. Of course, it is the right of sovereign countries to take whatever action are viewed as being beneficial to their populations. At the same time, a wise nation, like a wise man, knows when it is best to assert its rights, and when it is best not to. Perhaps with the types of technical power and weaponry, and the proliferation of those, at mankind's disposal, military treaty organizations and military solutions to political problems are no longer advisable?
Though I can understand what I view as the Russian perspective which led to this invasion, I also recognize that the situation has become so hormonally and emotionally charged that Putin and other Russian leaders have probably entered into a state of irrationality or partial irrationality, as do all men when adrenaline mixed with testosterone takes over. remember that it seems that Russia feels like it is becoming surrounded by a hostile NATO. If Finland or Sweden were to apply for NATO membership at this moment in time, it might provoke an irrational Russia to attack with immediacy. Then, what are the U.S. and other NATO powers to do regarding the Nation with which it has a memorandum of understanding? If Russia is attacked by the U.S., France, or any other Western power, then there is no winning for mankind. The current situation is highly charged, and like a live high-power line, might easily spin out of control. The fact is that an inflamed Russia cannot be defeated in war because of the types and amounts of weapons at its disposal; such a war can but end in the most horrendous of ways, with universal defeat, and you know what I mean. I don't think that anybody wants to see their children and loved ones, along with many others around the world, dying of radiation sickness as a result of an irradiated atmosphere, do we? I certainly don't. As far as we know, this world and its various species of organic life represent the light of the universe, and I personally don't want to see it diminished.
Russia is going to take Ukraine, hopefully without outside interference. This will be the best result at this point, and an eventuality if we are lucky. If we are even luckier, there will be a quick Ukrainian surrender. The best course for everybody at present is to wait until the situation calms down following the capitulation of Ukraine, and then try to open diplomatic relations or dialogue with a becalmed Russia. Then, maybe we can all (an I mean all of us humans in the world) come to some type of agreement upon a way forward in this world which does not include the near extinction of our, and many other, species.
That's all that I have to say, so I don't expect I will be logging on to the site again.
Thank you for considering my thoughts.
The only reason it appears sound is because there is a hidden premise: "If Putin himself has no ties to such groups".
Quoting boethius
Here is the leader of the most successful contemporary neo-Nazi party entering the Russian embassy in Athens
Golden Dawn was also propagating openly in favour of Putin, it was close with Dugin and there is at least some evidence that they were funded by Russian capitalists close to Putin. Putin's relations with the European far-right are well-known. It's not even slightly controversial. It's his fundamental strategy in order to push his agenda both in the European parliament and in European societies at large. After all, don't forget that Putin himself is part of the European far right.
I have half agreed with Bacevich on many issues over the years but will gladly help him kick Friedman's kneecaps this time around. Condemnation of the invasion does not require ignoring:
I say say assuming the premises are true it's a sound argument, I then go into some discussion about the premises.
It's entirely possible the argument is sound; but, my point is more of perception of it's soundness in Russia.
However, you're counter criticism was that, even assuming the premises are true, that the argument doesn't hold because Putin has himself ties to neo-Nazi's.
Your argument assumed the premise, and I was nearly pointing out it's therefore a sound argument (you weren't, in that rebuttal, arguing against the premises or the logic just making a parallel argument)--so, argument is sound in itself according to your own rebuttal, but only hypocritical of Putin to use if he has neo-Nazi ties according to your argument.
Now, whether there's some "absolute neo-Nazi value" we can determine as well as some "neo-Nazi threshold that justifies invasion" would be one political and moral argument to have.
However, what I'm focusing on is more Russia's argument (this is literally the argument Putin uses, "de-nazification" he calls it) as well as, I think pretty clear, the West didn't do anything about neo-Nazi's in Ukraine nor chastise Ukraine in anyway for carrying out language suppression campaigns of the Russian language.
The war consolidates Putin's power, is amazing for China, and achieves US objectives of preventing a real "World Leader" competitor, which both China and Russia could never be, but Europe would have already displaced US as a global leader with A. peace with Russia and the enormous benefits of it's mineral riches and B. some fucking balls in positions of influence rather than "leaders" that both make sure they appear, as well as seem to feel in their heart of hears, that they must be USA bitches.
This Ukraine war is a disaster for Europe, easily prevented, and a few speeches doesn't rectify anything. Washington, Moscow and Beijing are all getting what they want. Indeed, China and USA far more than Russia, but at least Russia's getting something.
Europe gains nothing, loses a lot, and it's failure to do anything meaningful to have peace, is because European elites do not care much about European interest, neither Ukrainians nor their own populations; they care about US interests, for reason I honestly don't get (I talked years ago with bureaucrats in Brussels about there being no purpose or benefit to antagonizing Russia for no discernible reason; they honestly didn't get my point of view, would just repeat USA talking points about the issue).
When I pushed for some sort of justification, "like why? why though?" they would just get angry with me.
And the "appeasement" argument doesn't work as there's already NATO ... which, ok, sure let Ukraine in by surprise over a weekend ... and see how that goes, but if, by your own admission, no one's letting Ukraine into NATO, why a pointless war of words and sanctions that simply push Russia towards China rather than stick to the European policy of economic ties with democracies a good way to spread to democracies. There was zero logic nor even any understanding of the political situation with Europe's largest neighbor ... supplying 40% of it's natural gas.
As far as I could tell, Brussels bureaucrats just like sucking American dick. Offensive, maybe, but I find pointless bloodshed and cities leveled to the ground more offensive ... don't like that ... well either do diplomacy or go send troops there to defend against said shelling you say you don't like. Honestly, arguing with a mix-tape of stupid would have been a more interesting conversation.
Argument has basically been: if we appease Russia by doing diplomacy in some credible way, they may invade Ukraine ... but stop there because everyone else is in Nato. However, if we don't appease Russia they will for sure probably invade Ukraine as we're for sure as hell not letting Ukraine in our little Nato club, as that would be provoking Russia too much. Therefore, we are fucking morons.
Credible diplomacy not only may have worked, but also increases the costs significantly for Russia if there were credible offers turned down, credible denunciation of neo-Nazi's in Ukraine, EU stopping Ukraine's language suppression programs etc. common sense things, all increase the likelihood of peace directly but also decrease the cost-benefit of war as it's a harder sell to your own population.
Instead, USA is basically "Hey, Germany, go make sure neo-Nazi's are seen to be of credible importance in Ukraine with the implicit backing of the EU, and also make sure they can do whatever language and cultural suppression of Russian speakers there that said neo-Nazi's dream of: make sure Russia sees you do it Germany, I'm counting on you."
I find Bacevich's contention that the Ukraine invasion is much less damaging and disruptive than the US's invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan convincing.
I think it is too soon to tell.
Russia in Grozny and Syria has shown what they are capable of.
To talk about drug addict neo-nazi's ruling Ukraine is utter nonsense and just Stalinist propaganda rhetoric. It's the level Putin has fallen to.
It's for the ignorant clueless babushka in Russia who believes what is said in the State run television. It's the mantra that the officials use to show their dedication and trustworthiness to the regime. They don't believe really it, but that's not the point. It's a show of strength, you show where you stand, the official line! Russian discourse is rapidly collapsing to the Soviet era, to mantra's that don't mean anything, to lithurgy that you praise to show you are in favor of the rulers.
The dehumanization of the enemy is important. Especially when people have earlier felt that Ukrainians are their brothers. Just like Estonians are to us. So there has to be that evil, that they are "liberating" the Ukrainians from.
The style actually is closer than you think: it's the well-educated, professional Republican politician who then goes with the most outrageous Q-Anon conspiracy.
Indeed. If this thing goes nuclear, Russia will be to blame.
Drug addicts? Ruling Ukraine? I don't say these things.
And, if I was just hearing about this now, I'd be very skeptical and presume it is just fabricated propaganda. However, I've been hearing and reading about it since 2014. Also, the Russian language and suppression policies I also read about before (from non-Russian sources), doesn't seem invented now for the purposes of propaganda.
Now, obviously it's also propaganda. It's just way easier to make propaganda based on real elements that support a valid argument.
Now, whatever the "true" level of neo-Nazi's in Ukraine, there's obviously the perception of it as a relevant factor; for instance, explaining the lack of full scale rebellion, perhaps even majority support, in Russia.
And, since, whatever the reality, this perception of there being a credible neo-Nazi force in Ukraine since 2014 should, if we're doing credible diplomacy, be met with the credible response from the West and the EU of such neo-Nazi's. Obviously, just because the West ignores it doesn't mean Russia media ignores it, and, without a response to the perception (which could be proving there are only 10 of these neo-Nazi's doing drugs in an alleyway) it is again an excellent fuel for propaganda to point out the West has no response, tolerates them (which, Germany being the largest EU nation, isn't a good look), are hypocrites etc.
I do negotiation for a living. To run even a small corporation requires negotiating with people I disagree with, people I don't like, people wanting from me what I don't think is fair but they have the leverage to get it.
It's really difficult for me to imagine that the entire EU really couldn't have prevented this war with credible negotiation.
Dude, to whom are you replying?
Mostly we've been talking in the context of Putin's stated justification for the war; Putin literally calls it a "de-nazification" operation.
I certainly agree with @ssu that it's "mostly" propaganda; and, propaganda can be true; just because someone has a bias and purpose for spreading information, doesn't mean it's not true.
The best propaganda is usually based on true elements that form the basis of valid arguments and, with time, impossible to say really.
Unlike, for example, Iraq having WMD's which was proven to be false; obviously, that propaganda would have worked a lot better if they even found some WMD's, people would be pointing to a single vial of something with zero real strategic relevance to do this day ... if they had found it. And, for example, the deaths of the fire bombing of Dresden were certainly exaggerated by Goebbels, but the fire bombing did happen.
So, for the current propaganda game, it is pretty important for most wars for the enemy to be an ideological enemy. The US has no problems slaughtering Arabs in the middle East because they are ideological enemies. Without understanding the neo-Nazi justification, the war in Ukraine seems incomprehensible because, otherwise, Ukrainian's are not ideological enemies of Russia, they are fellow white people (hence the horror in Western media and "serious response" from Western nations and institutions; obviously if Russia went and slaughtered Muslims, even white Muslims, there wouldn't be "sanctions" about that).
However, there is also a longer strategic view. There is certainly a neo-Nazi movement in Ukraine which is certainly growing. How big it is now and how big it would grow to if left unchecked by both the EU and Russia is difficult to say.
However, it clearly represents a real risk. Russia certainly doesn't want a neo-Nazi state on it's doorstep for the indefinite future, could cause all sorts of problems. The time to invade was more-or-less becoming "now or never" with the modernization of Ukraine's military, so, to mitigate the risk of a neo-Nazi state in Ukraine (and, the current President being Jewish doesn't somehow mean every future administration will have a Jewish leader; things change), invading now may seem not only a good option due to the real perceived threat of neo-Nazi's festering on the board but also that it's an easy sell to the population by simply amplifying what's there already.
People should also keep in mind that the Kremlin is a pretty old institutions, and old institutions tend to have long memories and long foresight.
The geo-political framework is undergoing rapid change, who knows what the future holds, but what is clear is that, even at relatively high cost, Russia can take large parts of Ukraine now that are of long term strategic benefit: connecting Crimea and pushing the border right to the Dnieper river (or at least close enough that there's no room to make defensive infrastructure on the near side), the West insists on providing zero value to Russia (just grandstanding and sanctions and no meaningful collaboration), therefore, taking the East of Ukraine has only long term strategic benefits and no long term strategic costs (if the EU has given up on any meaningful collaboration, which it clearly has).
I literally quote the people I'm replying to.
However, as mentioned, I'm presenting the opposing view to that of the Western media. If Russia is exaggerating the neo-Nazi threat in Ukraine (which I would definitely agree, whatever the threat is, Russia is exaggerating it) the Western media has been doing their own exaggerations: military failure (not credible to say when strategic goals are already achieved), Russian opposition to the war (certainly some but there's no reports of large scale revolution at the moment), and Russian economy will free fall into some sort of failed state (... yes ... but only before, and not after, transferring all Western IP to China and South-East-Asia more generally; economic sanctions do not matter if you can just get vital equipment elsewhere easily ... which you obviously can from China ... that's what the West does too; the real economic value the West provides at this point is basically brands, but nobody stops doing business simply because they need to switch brands).
Oh, and the most ludicrous, that "declaring" renewables are now a priority is sticking it to the Russians somehow. "In 50 to 100 years will be independent on Russian natural resources. Haha! take that Russia!". I work in the renewable energy sector ... and this idea is so insanely idiotic, it severely discredits every politician that repeats it.
Definitely we should have started to transition to renewable 50 years ago, not only stop subsidizing but forcing the internalization of true costs of fossil, and, so, be largely independent of Russian fossil fuels by now. I could go on how hypocritical it is too: saving the planet means absolutely nothing in making renewable a real priority ... but "Putin bad, boohoohoo" and suddenly everyone's on the renewable bandwagon ... which, again, is just empty talk, policies will barely change once the blood we see today just dilutes into the 24hr news cycle of the usual carnage.
Sure. But I think the issue is a bit more complex than that.
Aside from the revealing fact that NATO and, in particular, Ukrainian propaganda isn’t any more truthful than the Russian one, what is really scary is that a growing number of Westerners seem to be thinking that the truth or falsehood of these stories doesn’t matter!
Fact and Mythmaking Blend in Ukraine's Information War – New York Times
So, what we are witnessing is a rapidly diminishing interest in actual facts, even independently of the Ukraine-Russia conflict. More specifically, what seems to be happening is that people hold preconceived ideas about issues of this type, which ideas are formed by the mass media in the first place, and which they seek to reinforce and disseminate by means of the same media and despite knowing that what they are disseminating is nothing but fake news.
In other words, the “info war” is a smokescreen for something much bigger and more dangerous, and my guess is that the real winner isn’t going to be Ukraine or Russia (regardless of who wins in military terms) but the international media and tech giants that get to decide what “news” the world is allowed to access, what to believe, and what action to take.
Yes, wars are won on the ground but the action on the ground is motivated and justified by the propaganda or myth. And the myth in this case starts with Europe’s false belief that NATO is not an instrument of US self-interest or imperialism. Interestingly, Americans, at least the better-informed ones, tend to be more honest about it than Europeans who clearly allow themselves to be hoodwinked by their ruling elites.
Quoting Olivier5
Yes, apparently, the Soviet education system used to be pretty good and the current system isn’t too bad either. Obviously, there would be differences from region to region, but that goes for other countries as well.
According to Britain’s National Literacy Trust, 16.4% of adults in England, or 7.1 million people, can be described as having “very poor literacy skills” or as being “functionally illiterate”.
Unfortunately, there is a tendency in the West, especially the US and UK, to look down on others and dismiss them as second or third-rate people. The truth of the matter is that Germany, for example, used to be a world leader in science, technology, literature, and music, and German used to be the main language of science until it was replaced with English following the world wars. Nowadays even Ukrainians speak English!
This exemplifies how the “Anglo-Saxon” (or Anglo-American) world systematically suppresses other cultures and is rooted in British imperialism - which explains why the world is currently going to the dogs as European culture, once the basis of Western civilization, is being replaced with the anticulture of America’s slums.
In short, America controls the World Bank, NATO, the global media …. But some still want us to believe that Russia is “taking over the world”.
Quoting baker
Correct. And the lesson to draw from it is that if one wants to make a difference, a pro-US philosophy forum may not be the ideal place to start …. :smile:
As usual, the United States is worse:
The state where I live, Minnesota, has a high rate of literacy, but even so, about 10% of adults are functionally illiterate. Illiteracy is certainly a handicap in several ways, not least in its effects on cognition. One's ability to access printed information is obviously limited. On the other hand, research doesn't show that individuals get a significant boost in quality of life by learning how to read.
The prospects of someone unable to read are not going to be vastly different once they learn how to read at an 8th grade level. With good material, a low ratio of teachers or tutors to students, and a reasonable amount of motivation, an illiterate person can acquire fairly good reading skills in less than a year.
The major benefit of reading is getting information, and it will take them many years to catch up on all the information that passed them by -- which is one reason learning to read doesn't make an immediate difference.
Besides the illiterate, there are many adults who don't read much even though they can read, and they often find it difficult to read and sort through complicated information--like an article on who is telling the truth, who is lying, who is faking it, and who is confused about what is going on in Ukraine.
I am not sure it is without fruits. Everybody knows it won't happen because of the whole WW3 thing.
On the other hand, In addition to pressing for as much assistance as possible short of that, it is saying the ground forces are toast without Russia air support. In that respect, the impending decision to bombard cities into submission is an admission that the mission, as purported, is a failure
You know already it because you posted this quote, but false fear and false hope do not make things better. Truth matters, even if it is an early casualty in warfare.
I'm not a 'news junkie' but I do try to stay well informed on what is going on. One can get reliable, stable information about Covid-19, for example, but one can just as easily hear wildly conflicting information which can't be easily harmonized. Dr. X says masks reduce transmission, Dr. Y says we can stop using masks now; Dr. Z there will be new and possibly dangerous variants in a couple of months. Dr. A says the Pfizer vaccine works on young children; Dr. B says everyone should get a booster; Dr. C. says the vaccine is uniformly ineffective.
The same thing is happening in Ukraine. "The Russian advance has stalled"; "the Russians will soon control Black Sea ports and shipping"; "Ukrainian regular troops and volunteers are fighting very effectively"; "the Ukrainians are likely to win"; "the Ukrainians are likely to lose"; and so on and so forth.
Conflicting views can be heard from one news agency, let alone ten news agencies.
When there is too much conflicting information, I tend to stop listening--not because I don't care, but because it's too difficult to parse out the facts. What really happened 3 days ago may be cleared up tomorrow. What happened 10 minutes ago will need time to clarify.
Battlefield managers can not wait several days to get clarity, of course. But we who are far distant from the battleground should not take every report we hear as settled truth.
A small percentage are fleeing to Russia, mostly from the Donbas region immediately adjacent to Russia. Those living in Kviv or Lviv, for example, A) don't want to go to Russia and B) would have to travel eastward toward and through a battle zone. Travel westward toward Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, or Moldova makes more sense at this point.
Putin says these things. Those are the reasons given to this war. That is the Stalinist narrative. What do you think the de-nazification of Ukraine is about?
The main point is that this is a ridiculous war. It genuinely doesn't have credible argumentation. The Putin that annexed Crimea was totally different: thought about actual Russians and Russian speaking minorities, gained total strategic surprise and used well all his information warfare abilities. This is the propaganda of Stalin.
Why would we discuss neo-nazis otherwise? As the accusation that Ukraine is doing 'genocide' is so ludicrous even Russian don't try to give lies about, seems that to be "critical" about the West, then the narrative "Ukraine is filled with neo-nazis" is the only issue that sticks. Because in 2014 extreme right did play a part and people were confused about that.
Quoting boethius
Look, he already annexed Crimea and used proxies to gain more territory. Only Ukrainian resistance and him not using forces as now prevented a land bridge to be gained too between Crimea and Russia in 2014-2015. The annexations tell extremely clear what his intensions and objectives have been. If we assume that what politicians write and say doesn't matter.
What is so difficult to understand, when you look at what Putin has said and done, for whom the collapse of the Soviet Union was the worst thing that happened last Century?
No EU "credible negotiation" would have done anything. If one thinks so, one is just fooling oneself and basically going and trusting a liar, who said that Russia wouldn't attack. I guess this and the idea that "all this wouldn't have happened if no NATO enlargement" are just those arguments for those who only see to criticize the West as something valid (as they don't care so much about Putin or Russia).
It's like the argument that WW2 would have been avoided, if only Germany would have been given the right to annex the parts of Poland that it wanted. Yeah sure, a guy that write "Mein Kampf" and gives all those speeches and built that shining war machine would have then been totally satisfied and peaceful for rest of his life.
Actually, let's not forget that Saddam DID have a WMD's and a nuclear weapons program prior to the invasion of Kuwait and the Gulf War. In fact, what then later was found out that Clinton's "Operation Desert Fox" had destroyed the last remnants of Saddams WMD's. So it was false, but not totally made up. Yet it has been multiple times from various separate people shown how Cheney pushed for war and took the WMD issue without base as a reason for war. One of the few things that happened during the Trump era was that the lie "The President just got bad intel" was buried. He didn't, they simply tried to get any reason to start the war.
Just like Putin with his neo-nazi and genocide talk.
And the Ukrainian neo-nazi argument is something similar. Ludicrous. It would be as to depict neo-nazis having great power in the US run by the Biden administration, because of Trump's attitudes towards them when the Charlottesville attack happened. And if neo-nazis support Trump and Republican support Trump, then each and every Republican is a neo-nazis, right?
Or at least, it hasn't been a spectacular achievement like the annexation of Crimea. Naturally the reporting is biased for the Ukrainians (and why wouldn't it be), but the Russians have made advances in the south. We have to remember that Ukraine is a huge country and it's only been little over a week.
The truth is that Ukrainians themselves have to fight the Russians to the negotiating table, perhaps managed by China. What they need are huge amounts of anti-tank and surface to air missiles. And then for peace, accept to lose territory. Or then face a genocidal war of losing civilians and soldiers during the Afghan-Soviet war.
If WMD's existed, and also don't forget the ability to 'hit London in 45 minutes' was a reality, I would have given the benefit of the doubt to NATO and the powers that invaded Iraq. I simply cannot second guess the world's intelligence bureaus.
In the same way, if Russia has the knowledge that the military arrangements being carried out in Ukraine posed a threat to its security, then I am not going to say that invasion was the wrong thing to do. From all the media and rhetoric that has spilled out, it appears that the NATO wants to diminish Russia if not destroy it, or reduce its international influence to that or Romania or Botswana (just two countries that come to mind)
It’s definitely a form of collective punishment. Some big video game producers are even removing Russian sports teams from their games, just to show how silly it’s getting, and dangerous indeed. Virtue-signalling into tyranny. Where I live Russian students are unable to access their funds because of state sanctions, and a Russian Orthodox Church was vandalized with red paint. What’s next?
Russia-Ukraine War: Who Will Get The Benefits From the Ongoing Crisis?
Rohit Upadhyay Rohit Upadhyay February 28, 2022
No, Mr. President, I confess I did not think of that. Looks like NATO and you have the strategy all figured out. And what about the people of Ukraine, pawns on the chessboard of battle? This thing is beginning to look like a proxy war.
• Visualizing Ukraine’s Top Trading Partners and Products (Mar 3, 2022)
• Map Explainer: Key Facts About Ukraine (Feb 23, 2022)
Meanwhile...
• BBC Suspends Journalism In Russia After Passing Of Draconian Censorship Law Attacking Independent Media As “Foreign Agents” (Mar 4, 2022)
• Russia Takes Censorship to New Extremes, Stifling War Coverage (Mar 4, 2022)
Looks like it.
It shows doesn't it, the sheer desperation and moral bankruptcy of the media enterprise, the shameless one sided approach. It is a good test of mental fortitude to watch all the news channels and see the masks come off one by one.
I only fear the day when occupation is performed behind the scenes, not through wars or fake journalism but in ways we cannot see.
Russia $7.2B 37% 63%
Great visuals. God be with the people of Ukraine and Russia.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/map-explainer-ukraine/
Always bear in mind that most of the media are for profit enterprises. They are not staffed by philosophers (like that would help) or public intellectuals. Reporters, commentators, hosts, producers, etc. possess varying levels of depth and insightfulness. If a big war had broken out between Myanmar and Thailand instead of between Ukraine and Russia, the same batch of people (more or less) would have descended on Bangkok and started to report back.
William Shirer, a CBS radio reporter, did such a great job reporting on WWII in Europe because he had been there for several years before it started. Eleanor Beardsley, NPR reporter, has reported from Paris for years. She was suddenly reporting from Kyiv / Kiev. I like Ms. Beardsley, but how much background can a reporter collect during the flight from Paris to Kyiv? Lyse Doucet, a BBC reporter (thick Irish accent, Canadian, apparently) bounces all over the world, disaster to disaster. Same show, different corpses.
:up:
:fire:
This is what people call either-or thinking. Media oulets/organizations seem to think that it's either entertainment OR information (the exclusive OR). Logicians, since ages, knew/know that it (news) can be made both entertaining and informative (the inclusive OR).
Of course, if it doesn't affect the viewer, disaster information is as entertaining as a sitcom. It is a pleasure (on one level) to view a horrible event than has no person consequences. 9/11 is a classic example: Fascinating event! I knew absolutely no one who would be or was affected. The forest fires in California were not entertaining, because I knew a couple of people who were directly affected, and we could both see and smell the smoke 1500 miles away.
First of all, NATO didn't attack Iraq, it wasn't an NATO operation. NATO countries belonged to the alliance, but so did Pakistan, Morocco, Egypt and even Hafez Assad's Syria.
Second, it's not if they existed. Iraqi missiles never had the range to hit London. Yet the nuclear weapons program did exist, he did use chemical weapons against Iranians and the Kurds. Hence there's no potentiality of them. Had the Gulf War not happened, it's likely that Saddam Hussein would have obtained a nuclear deterrence (even if the Israelis hit the Osirak reactor earlier). But the Gulf War, the later weapons inspections and Operation Desert Fox destroyed it. And thus the drumming for war, talks of the "Mushroom Cloud" after 2001 by Bush were propaganda concocted in the White House.
Similar false propaganda like the neo-nazi argument or that a genocide is (was) perpetrated by the Ukrainians in the Donbas.
Quoting FreeEmotion
Sorry, but I draw the line to justifiable defense to when a country is actually invaded. Not to attacking other countries because of vague hypotheticals. Pre-emption is still an attack, and then the war preparations ought to be evident to have any justifiable credibility (which is usually difficult). What kind of a threat Ukraine posed to the country with the largest nuclear weapons arsenal? Just answer that yourself.
If you accept that Russia has the right to attack Ukraine, then to be logical you should accept that then the US had the right to invade Iraq, because of the "potential", basically hypothetical threat that it posed. But that isn't even the real reason why Putin attacked Ukraine: he wants to control Ukraine and already has taken chunks of it. It's simply classic imperialism.
Or think about it this way: if Russia would promise to withdraw from Ukraine, promise to give back the Donbass and Crimea and stick to the Budapest memorandum and only thing Ukraine had to do is promise that it never, never joins NATO and remains neutral, you think Zelenskyi wouldn't take that offer? I'm sure he would. I think that even NATO would go with that sighing a relief. Do you genuinely think that Putin would give that kind of proposal? Of course not!
To think the Russian attack was a) only to halt NATO expansion or that b) Ukraine posed a threat to Russia is simply stupidity of believing the lies of Vladimir Putin. And that is foolish and basically dangerous.
A continued role for NATO benefitting the US' influence in it as the most powerful military country. It's ability to project that power across the world through local bases. An increase in countries wanting to join NATO.
The cost? Mostly a loss of soft power (weakened trust in Western countries), which weakens European countries more than it does the US. Again a relative gain for the US, although they never cared much about soft power to begin with.
Ok, I stand corrected.
Quoting ssu
If the Gulf War had not happened]
it is likely the Israelis would have destroyed any chance of that, and also, why has Iran not developed nuclear weapons yet? Israel and the US has found a way to prevent that without going to war, so that is a moot point.
Quoting ssu
This is where the fine distinction has to be made on two counts: firstly, I have no access to Russian intelligence. I am of the opinion that Putin has a valid point, if Ukraine joins NATO his hands are tied regarding Crimea. I do not know the extent of the threat. Ukraine poses a threat to Russia in many ways, because its alliance with the West will benefit them to the detriment of Russia. If you do not accept that I can do nothing about it. Ask any military strategist you know, anyone who knows about history what exactly Russia is concerned about.
What kind of threat does any country pose to the country with the second largest or third largest nuclear arsenal? That question does not make sense, you have to accept the corollary that only countries with nuclear weapons can pose a threat to countries with nuclear weapons.
Quoting ssu
I accept that Russia may have had the right to attack Ukraine and US to invade Iraq based on the facts which I will never have access to, I will never have access to CIA or KGB high level information.
So what are these reasons a country invades another?
1. To preserve national security
2. To fulfill imperialist desires of the nation as a whole
3. To fulfill the wishes of its general populace
OR
3a. The wishes of the powerful ruling elites or military industrial complex
4. To fulfill the wishes of the president of that country.
Only (3) is somewhat testable. I remain agnostic in each case, Ukraine and Iraq, about the other factors that led to the invasion. My point is that, anyone in that position of highest authority in each nation will know what the reasons are, even if they do no admit it themselves, and only they can say for sure what is in their minds, in which case we can make judgement.
If we were able to medically examine Putin and find out if he is mad or delusional, that is welcome, however if we find he is not, there is a problem, because it means his acts are rational. Does it mean he is evil? Again, if you admit every imperialist including the British Empire or Alexander the Killer of Men, or Cortez the killer is evil, then I will agree with you. That is classic imperialism. Oh and don't forget American imperialism.
Again we are discussing rationality. After fighting for so many years, despite peace agreements, Russia or Putin sees the only way to end the war as invading and controlling Ukraine in some way. If it stops the war in the east, then that is a rational goal. He was fighting a proxy war. Rationality and morality are, on the first analysis, separate.
What is stupid is to go so far and then withdraw from Ukraine, that is not a sensible option, if fact, that would establish the madness of Vladimir Putin for me more than anything else.
Never join NATO? My test is this, any rational person would realize that NATO has no intention of a never joining - that option must be open. If Zelenski promises never to join NATO what is to say that at a later date someone installs a puppet government in Ukraine and gets them to apply for NATO membership then what? Can Zelenski promise that he will never have nuclear weapons? Can he promise for future generations, especially now, the rational thing would be to start a clandestine nuclear program and make sure Russia knows about it. I am sure the NATO would be willing. I believe Zelenskyi is bound to doing the bidding of his NATO masters at the moment, I feel sorry for him.
Assuming I know my own mind, I know that thinking (a) and (b) is not a result of my stupidity and certainly I do not take my facts from Vladimir Putin, but from all other sources to make my own picture of reality. So I have to disagree with the charge of stupidity.
Halting NATO expansion is not limited to Ukraine, however keeping NATO out of Ukraine or keeping Ukraine nuclear free (why is that suddenly a bad thing?) is a stated goal, and this has to do with future threats. Russian and Ukraine have been at war, so it follows that one poses a threat to the other.
Is there anyone out there whom is accepted all round as giving an objective analysis of the situation? Or is there none, in which case it is just us.
How correct you are. And of course, the ugly parts in 9/11 like the people leaping to their death from the twin towers, or in war coverage of dead children or that insides of humans spilled out look quite like the stuff on display at your supermarket's meat counter is usually censored starting by the photographers themselves. If news or a media outlet shows truly shocking footage, they do have an agenda. Even if reporting atrocities is something good journalism ought to do.
The fact is that until now, the countries that had wars in recent history have had a language barrier between us and they haven't been so connected to the social media. With Ukraine, it's different. And when it comes to the information war, basically is focused on desperately hiding what is happening in Ukraine behind quite Soviet-style discourse. Likely it won't work, especially if the "special military operation" drags out to months or years.
After the Osirak raid in 1981 I think Israel was complacent and people didn't notice that Iraq continued the research. Another example is how far the Syrians got with their nuclear program and Israel only by chance got information about it and destroyed it (without talking much about it).
Iran has balanced a fine line with their nuclear weapons. They have smartly understood that it's all about posturing and deterrence with nuclear weapons, not use. Hence to have even the ability to make nukes gives them deterrence and still they could agree with Obama and the West. Going full "North Korea" will likely just make the Saudis get their own nuclear weapons. Now in this situation, Saudis aren't opting for it.
Of course everything here is about Israel's neighbors (and historical enemies) trying to have a counterbalance to Israel's nuclear deterrent. As you can see from history, Israel can make strikes anywhere because no other country in the area has nuclear weapons.
Quoting FreeEmotion
How? You see, Russia has the Kaliningrad enclave surrounded by NATO countries, that doesn't have a landbridge (the famous Suwalki corridor) to Belarus or mainland Russia.And Russia has already built a bridge to Crimea. And Russia would have had a multitude of ways to keep a) Ukraine out of NATO and b) the European NATO countries disarming themselves. Starting annexing territories made the totally different response, which you seem not to get!
Here's Putin driving a Kamaz truck on that Bridge into Crimea:
Quoting FreeEmotion
And where then do you yourself draw the line where countries "pose a threat" to Russia and are the ones where Russia is justified to use military force. I guess that means also that my country and @Christoffer's country pose a threat to Russia and for you, it's justifiable that Russia will attack us too, because of "the threat" we impose to Russia. Because that will be the next phase of this conflict. It's already well under way.
Or perhaps then Moldova? Oh, the huge threat Moldova possibly joining NATO makes to Russia. And why not include NATO members like the Baltic States? Would you agree to have WW3 if Russia goes for that landbridge to Kaliningrad through Lithuania? Above all, Russia has already demanded NATO forces to withdraw from all Eastern member countries and that the US and Western members cannot hold any exercises in Poland, Romania, the Baltic States etc. That is their demand. So that's were the appeasement policy and "understanding Russia's legitimate security needs" will go in the end.
Perhaps you just should demolish NATO, because Russia feels threatened about it.
Quoting FreeEmotion
Zelenskyi is trying to stay alive and lead his country against Russian invasion. Oh right, it's the "bidding of his NATO masters", when the country isn't in NATO...
Is that Finnish "logic", again? :smile:
If Ukraine isn't in NATO, it doesn't follow that Zelensky isn't doing the bidding of his NATO masters.
Leading NATO members are funding, arming, training his people, and providing them with intelligence and propaganda support. I doubt very much they would do that if Zelensky wasn't acting in their interests .....
Quoting FreeEmotion
Correct. I for one am pretty sure that America and its British Poodle are planning a war against Russia, first by arming Ukraine and neighbouring NATO countries and then manufacturing a pretext to intervene.
I think what is happening in Ukraine is very similar to WW1. Britain had sought to contain Germany for years while it was itself constantly expanding. When Germany invaded Belgium, Britain claimed that this violated Belgian neutrality, declared war on Germany, and fabricated stories of German atrocities in Belgium in order to turn America against Germany.
This time round the idea was to contain Russia whilst NATO and the EU were constantly expanding. Instead of giving Russia some form of guarantee that there would be no further expansion into its sphere of influence, the West decided to escalate by meddling in Russia’s neighboring countries and backing or instigating the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia (2003) and the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine (2004).
Incidentally, Zelensky was a TV comedian. How did he manage to get elected president? Was it through massive media coverage in his favor?
Some points raised by his critics include:
1. He has sought to centralize authority and strengthen his personal position
2. His chief aide and head of the Ukrainian Security Service Ivan Bakanov operated a network of offshore companies in the British Virgin Islands, Cyprus, and Belize.
3. He had his own expansionist plans. In January 2020 he said "Romania occupied Northern Bukovina", etc.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy - Wikipedia
Quoting Bitter Crank
Unfortunately, who needs reading when they can watch and listen to stuff in the media? And even the literate can be brainwashed by the media.
At any rate, I think Zelensky's case is a perfect illustration of media influence on the masses. This guy was a TV comedian, he became the star of the television series "Servant of the People" in which he played the role of president of Ukraine, then he created a political party of the same name with people from the same company that had created the series, ran for president with massive media backing, and was elected president .... :grin:
LMAO.
(I'm only posting this so you can repeat what you have already repeated ad nauseam)
Great argument, I'm impressed. Someone arguing their point on a philosophy forum, engaging with rebuttals and other points of view ... is somehow unusual.
The whole point of an open forum like this is that people can't be shut down for arguing their point of view in good faith.
If I was just repeating the same thing, not responding to new points (which, in philosophy, are sometimes subtle and nuanced), ask the mods to ban me.
Yes, exactly, seen as their the stated reasons for the war, it's relevant to discuss certainly in the context that that's what Putin says is the justification.
I totally agree that Putin and Russia will exaggerate whatever neo-Nazi presence is in Ukraine. We're not in disagreement that, whatever the truth, it's also propaganda.
However, it seems to me undeniable that there are neo-Nazi organizations in Ukraine / "ultra nationalists" that seems to, at least, sympathize with them.
It's also undeniable that the EU has put zero pressure on Ukraine, even symbolically, to curb this movement.
Quoting ssu
The long term strategic objectives: to secure Crimea with a land bridge, take land east of the Dnieper river (at least enough to easily attack any buildup on the near side), destroy the existing Ukraine military capability, secure a treaty guarantee of not joining Nato in a negotiated peace (and, anyways, after such a mess I don't think Nato will be considering that anyways), and, yeah, sure, why not take those gas deposits on the coast, are all perfectly rational strategic objectives that Russia is likely to achieve.
The downside of the war is cutting collaboration with the EU (Russia's largest trading partner), but since EU will continue to by Russia gas anyways ... the "big loss" of cutting economic ties has not and is unlikely to happen.
Quoting ssu
You misunderstand what a credible negotiation is. I do not mean that a credible negotiation would have for sure avoided the war nor is a credible negotiation just giving the counter party everything they want.
However, in a credible negotiation, if it fails, and you want to accuse the other side of bad faith and refusing all reasonable offers ... well you need to be able to produce a paper that represents your reasonable offer the counter party refused. If you can't, it's just speculation.
Likewise, in almost any negotiation (in particular between organizations) there are lot's of issues, and each side always has legitimate grievances. The "Azov" brigade that even Western governments admit is a neo-Nazi-ish and naming things after Nazi collaborator war heroes and carrying out suppression of the Russian language and, yes, Russia's own security concerns that ... if not assuaged ... they'll invade Ukraine and lots of blood will be spilled ... as they have just done, are all legitimate grievances.
Now, obviously there's also legitimate grievances on Ukraine side and EU side etc.
A credible negotiation tries to parse all those grievances as well as add positive reasons for a resolution.
EU has more-or-less just ignored the issue, repeats "Putin is bad", paid lip service to "Ukrainian sovereignty".
That's not a credible negotiation process.
Now, if there was some indication of making credible offers and responding to credible grievances (such, yes, indeed, these neo-Nazi elements we don't like either, and their having their own paramilitary organizations we don't see as a good thing either, and, because we're also against it, we'll put some pressure on Ukraine and at least denounce it; that we support Ukraine independence ... but not neo-Nazi, however many they be) ... and Russia still invaded.
Ok, yes, was the plan all along and diplomacy was bad faith on the Russian's part.
However, without a credible good faith process on the EU side, it's simply not possible to then just accuse the other party of bad faith.
It's also completely stupid if Russia just invades anyways and the EU does nothing meaningful about that (send troops for instance, which would not trigger article 5 insofar as the fighting is over Ukraine and not attacking a NATO nation per se--of course, no nation in Europe wants to).
True, Ukraine has a "right" to join NATO and sign the treatise it wants ... problem is NATO wasn't actually making an invitation with anything on the table to sign.
Ukraine also has a "right" to sign a treaty with Russia (committing to not join NATO for example), it can do so now, and it could have done so years ago too.
Now, if Ukraine signed and Russia still invaded; ok, same exact result, nothing was "lost" because Ukraine couldn't have joined NATO anyways (... otherwise it would be in NATO now), but then the sell to the Russian people and how non-Western Nations view it would be very different. Only the US can just go around ripping up treatise; other Nations would think twice before reneging on a treaty it just signed without any rational whatsoever. It makes it difficult to make agreements with anyone in the future.
But even this assumption is dangerous because stopping NATO expansion is not a justification for a military takeover of another country.
Also, the idea that NATO is an existential threat is itself telling. What precisely is it threatening? Is losing trade partners really a cause for a military action? That itself is a flawed premise, no?
Obviously countries want to join NATO, and NATO could have let Ukraine in if it wanted to.
However, for nations already in NATO (basically all of Europe) there's not necessarily any benefit to letting new countries in (it would have been great for Ukraine, no questions about that ... but could also trigger world war III and nuclear exchange, which isn't necessarily a good risk to take for the sake of Ukrainians ... and NATO has chosen not to; big surprise).
And, of course, NATO countries can say all they want that other nations have "a right" to join ... but if the offer's not actually on the table, that sort of talk doesn't actually get you any NATO protections.
It's like me telling you again and again you have "a right" to work at this company ... but, also, I'm not offering you a job ... but you definitely have a right to the job, if it was offered, but it isn't so ... basically NATO discourse on Ukraine.
Quoting Benkei
It's a huge relative gain for the US by reducing the relevance of soft power generally speaking.
It's Europe that has a legitimate moral basis, and the largest economy, to lead the world with soft power.
US doesn't want to see that happening, but wants leadership of the West to be hard power centered (aka. new cold war) ... which, seems, now it is.
In one media cycle the disasters of Iraq and abandoning allies in Afghanistan are totally forgotten, all Western nations must kiss the ring of the top "don" of NATO and build a new Iron curtain with the "evil" red army.
I'm pretty sure we're in agreement, but please point out any nuances or differences.
Same response as above..losing a potential trade partner is not a cause for military action (takeover of another country!). Misplaced blame.
I'm not saying it's a cause for military action, I'm saying the EU refusing good faith collaboration with Russia lowers the downsides of military action.
The basic logic is: Well, if EU isn't offering us anything, and forcing us to reorient our entire economy both inwards (to be immune to sanctions threats) and towards China (to be immune to sanctions threats) and offload our USD and build up gold reserves ... may as well take Ukraine.
Now, if it was "the plan all along", then the "sanction proofing" of Russia would have happened before, and not after, sanctions were first imposed.
If there were no sanctions, Russia would not have sanctioned proof (no way to justify it to their population they can't use Western brands) and therefore the cost of the Ukrainian war would have been significantly higher (cause real economic dislocations, instead of manageable nuisance ).
Of course, there's still an impact, and could tip the Russian population over the edge, just not as much as in 2014 when Russia had far greater economic dependencies ... maybe because it wasn't in some insane scheme to basically cut all ties with Europe and invade Ukraine before 2014 for zero justifiable reason.
The whole process just underlines the opinion of nearly every expert on the issue that sanctions do not work as a deterrent and decrease rather than increase chances for peace.
When that "securing" happens through annexations, you do understand that is really classical imperialism.
And you do understand that the whole motivation for countries neighboring Russia to join NATO is the threat of this? (Which some here on purpose forget in their illogical reasoning)
Quoting boethius
Yes, and people holding the view that the real culprit here is NATO hold dearly to what George Bush jr. proclaimed. Which was just one US President (that change every then and now) and which needs all the members to agree with the issue.
Quoting boethius
And that actually would have been totally possible, if Russia wouldn't have had the imperial aspirations towards Ukraine. Far before all of this, Putin used to be the most popular politician in Ukraine. Not anymore.
Logical fact is that Russia would be a dominant European player if 1) it wouldn't be hostile to it's neighbors and have imperialist aspirations and 2) had understood that it has to get it's economy competitive and better and that it's best resource is an well educated population.
Quoting boethius
And how much Putin thought of the Budapest memorandum or international law in 2014? I think you can put Russia in the same category.
Correct. And that's because the movement is anti-Russian.
As for its ultra-nationalist character, Wikipedia says:
Wikipedia calls it "right-wing extremist and neo-Nazi". Wikipedia is a mainstream Western source, NOT Russian propaganda. The propaganda is entirely of @ssu's making.
For sure. This is definitely classic imperialism.Quoting ssu
Totally understand it. The problem is if NATO doesn't let you in the club, maybe take that into consideration in dealing with your largest neighbor that can flatten your cities.
Quoting ssu
I'm not saying NATO is the real culprit, I explained at some length that I do not view criticism of authoritarianism as constructive. I'd much rather see Russia a vibrant democracy. However, criticism of Russia doesn't serve much of an analytical purpose.
Also, I actually appreciate Russia not nuking the planet ... so far. I honestly believe that's worth at least some good faith offers of economic collaboration in return and having a more nuanced public discourse than "Putin is basically the Satan" ... I think Satan would have nuked the planet.
At some point, political realism is required. If you're not going to let Ukraine into Nato, the actual credible diplomacy is a better course of action than just shit talking Putin.
Quoting ssu
It is possible that this was Russia's "plan all along", the problem is, without a credible negotiation process, you can't demonstrate that, as no reasonable offers and no reasonable response to legitimate grievances are ever made in which to prove the counter party's bad faith.
The offer: "Do not insist Ukraine doesn't join NATO ... which we are not going to let Ukraine join by the way, but we'll leave them hanging high and dry if you invade" is not credible diplomacy.
Quoting ssu
They obviously have arguments about that. Things change, if you can argue the other side broke the agreement (didn't deliver the product) then you can justify not following the agreement too (not paying for what wasn't delivered); of course, one's arguments need to be credible.
The "good faith / bad faith" game is one of proving one is more good faith than the other, as no one's perfect.
If there was some new agreement, clear commitment by Russia to not invade in exchange for Ukraine committing not to join Nato and remaining neutral, and then Russia invades anyways without any further changes in the status quo, that's then clear bad faith.
NATO promised not to move east, which Russia tolerated right up to it's border (on small areas), a good faith move to tolerate that and not just invade everyone; from Russia's point of view, that good faith must be answered with good faith (such as committing not to expand all the way to large borders ... and also be one shell away on thousands of KM of border, from nuclear escalation). That's how negotiation works.
But this is just reiterating my point. Losing a trade partner should not be a legitimate reason to then takeover that country.
Oh that doesn't matter...according to some here. As I've said the legitimate reasons to use military force is when you are attacked. That you attack some other country for hypothetical, possible attacks isn't legitimate. And when the neighbor has no intention to attack, no ability to pose a threat to you, then whose cause the war is should be obvious.
I've never said it was ... nor is anyone. Putin's stated reason is "de-Nazification".
What I'm pointing out is that, in a political realist point of view, the EU removing itself as a good faith trading partner of Russia and instead just parroting US talking points that "Putin be bad boy", removes the downside to attacking Ukraine.
Resulting in only upsides and no downsides.
Any rational strategist will do a move that has minimal downsides and plenty of upsides without hesitation.
Western media is saying this is miscalculation because they don't like Putin "even more" now ... but were they doing him any favours before?
Indeed, and did Europe benefit from directly and indirectly supporting violent anti-Russian extremists?
Now, possible, war would have happened anyways, but with some actual track record of opposing these neo-Nazi's, this entire conversation wouldn't be happening and the EU could credibly say there are other policies available to reduce neo-Nazi influence and full scale invasion is unwarranted.
Ok, we are on the same page.
Yes, stated reason...along with a rambling manifesto about how Ukraine was once part of the Soviet Union and isn't stupid how that was lost when the USSR disbanded.
Quoting boethius
I just don't get your position here.. I guess my question to you is do you agree with Putin's use of force to takeover a country?
I'm not asking for the perspective of Putin himself. Clearly he thinks he should.
Yes, obviously discussing the stated reason for something is relevant. You can argue is purely propaganda if you want, but it's obviously relevant to the situation.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I'm presenting the counter argument to the Western media narrative, understand the counter-party perspective, which is the basis of negotiation; which I think is preferable to more bloodshed.
As I said, war seems entirely justifiable if the neo-Nazi element is above some critical threshold. It is definitely, from my point of view, uncomfortable amount of neo-Nazi elements to easily argue against his justification. So, that doesn't make me happy, nor the EU doing absolutely nothing about it.
Considering the West had 8 years to do something about neo-Nazi's in Ukraine, I think the burden of proof is on those Western actors to demonstrate how they are fringe or marginal in Ukraine's de facto governing processes.
For example, the neo-Nazi association with Trump I would agree is totally fringe thing and not a justification to assassinate Trump, and the whole "Trump is a neo-nazi or supporting neo-Nazi's" I viewed as irresponsible and propaganda (although, I certainly didn't nor do support Trump; just, Republican's aren't significantly composed of neo-Nazis).
However, there does legitimately seem a lot more in Ukraine.
And, therefore, not invading can be argued to be the appeasement.
So, that wasn't my question. Do YOU agree with Putin's use of force to takeover another country?
Quoting boethius
This seems dangerous. So in this view, Canada should takeover the US because there are known neo-Nazi groups and white supremacists? Or the other way around if that was known? This is just slippery slope justification.
Quoting boethius
Just the presence of neo-Nazis.. that is your basis for invading a country? Also, if there were neo-Nazis found in Russia should Ukraine or anyone else invade Russia?
Seems to me that a justification to get rid of a hate group that is potentially violent doesn't give one the green light to kill 10,000s regular citizens or more people in getting "rid" of these groups...Especially when the average citizen certainly doesn't want them there at all, let alone destroying their homes and killing citizens.
Russia is taking over another country in a brutal military fashion and will occupy it, killing many people. How is that ever justified for anything less than an actual immanent or actual military action against your own country or there was some gross violation of human rights, if that.
Any rational being will draw the line when the advantages overweight the disadvantages. If they are wrong, that is, without full knowledge of the past or present, or are sticking to an outdated version of colonialism, then that is being irrational, but as the spokesperson for NATO said, we don't know what is in his head.
Quoting ssu
Russia has the right to make any demands they see fit. That's sovereignty. There is a difference between appeasement: NATO -1, Russia +1 and peaceful status quo: NATO 0, Russia 0. This game seems to me at getting NATO + 1 , Russia 0. I have no interest in who wins, except that they do not start wars and put the rest of the world into turmoil.
Do you want a diminished Russia? If then say so. I do not want any country to be diminished.
Was that democracy? I do not have the information to say one way or another. Was it a coup?
Can anyone explain his statements lately, attacking NATO (verbally, of course) for not doing more. Why was he having unrealistic explanations?
Curious how you view the nuclear first strike strategy. A possible attack, an ability to pose the threat, and intelligence reports that the other country is having an 'intention to attack' of course no one know intentions, just some missiles placed in Cuba pointing at the American heartland.
Correct. I think the most important thing is to debunk the idea that "Ukranian neo-Nazis" are "Russian propaganda" when this is a well-known fact accepted by mainstream sources like Wikipedia, and when even the US Congress called them "white supremacists".
Other false claims, like that Crimea belongs to Ukraine, or that NATO isn't controlled by America, have already been refuted here. Unfortunately, the pro-NATO camp keeps churning out false allegations in the hope that they can hoodwink people with their anti-Russian propaganda.
This is why it is essential to be alert and vigilant at all times and see through their not-so-clever maneuvers and machinations. :smile:
Quoting FreeEmotion
To be honest, I haven't had the time to look into all the details of his case, but something definitely isn't right there. When foreign money and the media are involved you know that something stinks ....
1. Zelensky started off as a TV comedian.
2. He became the star of the television series "Servant of the People" in which he played the role of president of Ukraine, thus getting the masses used to the idea of him as president.
3. Then he created a political party called "Servant of the People" with operatives from the same company that had created the series.
4. Then he ran for president with massive media backing, and - surprise, surprise - the masses who had been conditioned to see him as president, elected him president!
Additionally, people close to him especially the head of Ukrainian Security owned off-shore companies in dodgy places where people go to evade taxes and hide their activities. And we know that foreign interests were involved in Ukraine's anti-Russian "Orange Revolution" of 2004.
Moreover, Zelensky was a TV actor and it’s an established fact that actors and politicians can’t be trusted when it comes to telling the truth. But is Zelensky delusional or a compulsive liar?
Apparently, in a televised speech, Zelensky has announced that "the end of the world has arrived" and that “if we are no more, then, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia will be next”.
I for one have seen no indication whatsoever that Russia intends to invade any of the Baltic countries, have you?
Zelensky made other curious claims including that the Russian forces carry “mobile cremation chambers” for disposing of their own dead!
Allegedly, Zelensky also has “survived three assassination attempts” (!) against him by Kremlin-backed Russian (Wagner Group) and Chechen special forces, that were “thwarted by anti-war elements within Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB)” who tipped off the Ukrainians ....
Unfortunately, Zelensky has omitted to provide any evidence to back up his claims. I fully understand that he may be in a precarious situation, but why keep making evidence-free allegations?
Also, Ukraine is being funded, armed, and supplied with real-time intelligence on Russia's moves by the US. Why is America so keen on pushing Russia out of Ukraine? At the end of the day, Ukraine had been part of the USSR since 1922 and it wasn't a problem. Why is it a problem now? How is Russian presence in Ukraine threatening Washington or New York? Or London for that matter?
Belarus's handling of the pandemic was disastrous, but that had nothing to do with what the West did or didn't do. Lukashenko's "solution" for the problem was to deny it.
The events of the past two years to which I was referring were the violent crackdown on the opposition and the hijacking of a Ryanair plane, which led to an irreparable break with the West. The sanctions and ostracism that followed were like a rehearsal of what's happening now.
Quoting boethius
Ukrainian "neo-Nazi elements" are not much different from European far-right parties and movements, and they arguably have less power and influence there. Yes, they are nasty, but I don't know what you think the EU could and should have been doing about them.
Well, imagine Putin feeling insecure about other neighbors, and going for his "Crimean solution". :/
The reality on the ground is the predicament the Ukrainian people now find themselves in. Invasion, bombing, shooting, fires, destruction, disruptions of getting on with life (getting their kids to school), ... (while armchair commenters play blame-games). What does it mean for them? It's not like they've been launching military campaigns into Russia, or threatened with that intent.
I'm kind of thinking that, if some of Russia's neighbors look elsewhere, making Putin feel sort of claustrophobic, then there might be reasons for that. Them looking elsewhere doesn't justify Russia taking them over, doesn't justify Russian expansion by :fire:.
What nation (in their right mind) would invade Russia, would launch a war to take over Moscow? For one, that'd be rather costly. :fire:
With Putin's plan to enroll Ukraine in Russia, maybe, say, Slovakia and Hungary, become uncomfortable with the "new" nuclear neighbor. Would that then justify launching a counter-invasion into Russia?
It's all hot air, distracting from the predicament of the Ukrainian people.
Quoting FreeEmotion
Quoting Carlin (2008)
This one might not be as interesting/relevant, but, anyway, according to "Mapped: Corruption in Countries Around the World" (Feb 11, 2022), measuring a corruption perception index:
2012-2021:
Ukraine: +6 ? 32
Russia: +1 ? 29
I think that the rules when you can get in are NATO written in the articles of NATO and evident from the application process. If NATO doesn't want a small country inside, then what kind of a threat is that country to Russia? But this is not solely about "security". It's about being a "Great Power".
Just to quote again the obvious:
But I guess we are in agreement on this, or in somewhat of an agreement.
Quoting boethius
Nobody else broke the agreement. In fact, there is no credibility in that you first accept the territorial sovereignty of the states (meaning that you really don't have any issues where the border is drawn) and then you annex parts of it and basically start to talk abou Novorossiya and the Ukraine as a country being "artificial", if it's not part of Russia. With those kind of changes, you lose all credibility.
End result? Putin just have created self-fulfilling prophecies as his actions have resulted what he made earlier accusations about. Hence can be smug about it as they become true.
Yesterday Vladimir Putin said the following:
Hence the next likely "NATO agent-provocateurs", who by their (and their countries actions) will "aggravate and worsen" the relations and will escalate the situation on Russia's Western border after Zelenskyi are these two women:
(They both speak English, not Finnish or Swedish...as the message isn't just for their people)
The process has begun and the war in Ukraine will continue to a conclusion that we yet don't know.
Russia is a big country, so why would I want it to be diminished? So no. The Russians are genuinely nice, warm people and have a soul more of an artist than an engineer, those that I have been with. They are Europeans and I genuinely think (call me naive, I don't care) that the Russians could well have a democracy, but they haven't been given a real chance. That's the real tragedy, that people loyal to the former authoritarian regime of the Soviet Union captured and retained power in Russia.
Actually, I would really, really like to have a stable, prosperous Russia as a neighbor who feels safe and understands that it has an important position in the World. It can have it's huge military and it's nuclear weapons, if it only would be as peaceful as Switzerland: a small country that has never attacked anybody, but who has surrendered only when faced with Napoleon and who nobody dared ti attack either in WW1 or WW2. If only Russia's leaders would understand that power is the capability of their people, not in the size of the territory. And if you want to be rich, then have trade with other countries. Let those nukes be the Alps for Russia creating an impenetrable fortress if they want to feel secure. Nobody isn't after them and they can easily contain the foreign bankers and businessmen. Yet the idea that everybody is against them creates the perfect pretext for imperialism and a justification for the authoritarianism.
Nuclear weapons are for posturing, not for use. Just look at how scared people are of any kind of nuclear accident: the accident in Fukushima didn't kill anybody, but had huge implications everywhere. Now just think what using a small tactical nuclear warhead (50kt or less) would create. You think that people wouldn't care if in the social media feed or in the television they had headlines like "NUCLEAR WAR!".
That's why nuclear first strike strategy is dangerous. You can say about it at peacetime whatever you want, that is just posturing, but actual first use is different. As I've said, the most worrisome possibility is the idea of "Escalation to De-escalation": to use tactical nuclear weapons in order to get an armistice. To show that you really mean it this time and now it's time to call it quits. After all, if you bow down at the possibility of nuclear annihilation, is that so bad, really? That's were the danger lies. Because once that "shock-and-awe" goes away, what do you do when the other one responds with a similar strike?
I think that actually would tilt the world into a depression. Plus we'd get to see whose country deals best with a shortage of basic needs.
ROFL.
Your response to my original post had nothing to do with my post. Your second response was again just you soloing. Then I explained Putin's ties to the European neo-Nazis and far-right, since you said you were not aware of it. You ignored that in your response and went soloing again on issues I didn't touch on. I don't need you to teach me about Putin's perspective and West's hypocrisy/shortcomings, I'm well aware of them. Probably more than you are.
Why not? Zelensky is a bit busy right row, and doing extremely well in his communication, thank you. You might have to wait for the evidence, I guess.
Compare that to Russia's major trading partners, here from 2020. With the sanctions, it's evident that China will have a huge role in Russia. And that Russia is in trouble. Besides China, major trading partners (that are loyal allies) are only Belarus and Kazakhstan.
1. China: US$49.1 billion (14.6% of Russia’s total exports)
2. Netherlands: $24.8 billion (7.4%)
3. United Kingdom: $23.2 billion (6.9%)
4. Germany: $18.6 billion (5.5%)
5. Belarus: $16 billion (4.7%)
6. Turkey: $15.9 billion (4.7%)
7. Kazakhstan: $14.1 billion (4.2%)
8. South Korea: $12.5 billion (3.7%)
9. United States: $11 billion (3.3%)
10. Italy: $10.1 billion (3%)
11. Poland: $9.6 billion (2.8%)
12. Japan: $9.1 billion (2.7%)
13. Finland: $7.1 billion (2.1%)
14. Ukraine: $6.3 billion (1.9%)
15. India: $5.8 billion (1.7%)
16. Belgium: $5.7 billion (1.7%)
17. France: $4.8 billion (1.4%)
18. Uzbekistan: $4.7 billion (1.4%)
19. Egypt: $4 billion (1.2%)
20. Latvia: $3.2 billion (1%)
The fact is that this has been a catastrophy for Putin. He might get some kind of result in this war which he can declare a victory, but that will be a Pyrrhic victory. And truly, wtf he will do then with the Donbass? Because occupying Ukraine will drain the living daylights out of the Russian economy. Russia will be weak and will play the second fiddle towards China. You can see here that the Russians living here are in total shock of the events happening in their country. Nothing like that happened in 2014 or during the Russo-Georgian war. This is totally different.
So it seems. As I said from the start, Western oil and defense companies are going to make a huge fortune from this:
British arms makers tool up for Putin’s new Cold War – The Telegraph
Incidentally, note how they call it "Putin's Cold War". But, of course, to have a cold war, or any war, you need two sides, not one. And now we know which side is making the big profits .... :grin:
Yes. It's the only way to give Putin what they think he deserves. War against Russia, whether clandestine or overt, appears to be inevitable.
https://www.consultancy.eu/news/7433/research-ukraine-war-costs-russian-military-20-billion-per-day
€20 billion a day means that it has so far has cost Russia €220 billion.
Add to that all sanctions and the worthless Rubel and it's just a matter of time before Putin starts to take money from the oligarchs to try and finish this mess. There's no way Putin can win any of this. Imagine if this war goes on for another month, that's €840 billion, then imagine if it goes on far longer than that, like 6 months, that's €3940 billion.
Or cyber attacks. That would be a little less final, but still very destructive.
At least one person agrees with me. Invasion is an awful thing, I wonder if there Russia is ever invaded whether the outcry will be the same because although they look the same, these civilians will be Russian.
This invasion is different, because with Iraq the world could imagine that it was 'us vs them' i.e. Saddam Hussein, but in this case, it is them invading 'us' , which feels different does it not. The country I am from never invaded anyone in the last 500 years, in fact we were colonized and nearly had an invasion in the 1980s.
So what is cause for military action in your book?
We're just not used to it. Our ancestors had to deal with this shit all the time.
If the Pax Americana goes down (which it appears to be doing) this will be happening more often. So being passive isn't the way to peace that you think it is.
Russia would be a dominant player in Europe if Washington thinks it should be a dominant player in Europe. NATO countries also have economic priorities also.
Second issue is that unlike some third world country that has bought everything, Russia can produce it's tanks, artillery pieces and aircraft. There not as expensive as their Western counterparts and manpower is cheap. So when we can see those destroyed armored columns, they can be replaced. Many can criticize the modest performance of the Russian armed forces, but usually Russia has these slow starts and then simply learns by doing. If for instance observers are pondering why the large long column hasn't moved anywhere for days from north of Kiev, then you can also ask why Ukrainians haven't destroyed it or encircled them into smaller pieces (into mottis).
The real question is what Putin's objective is and in a stalemate, what Putin would accept for armistice and peace. Because that has to be basically the objective of Ukraine. Peace that is favorable to Ukraine is a possibility: it is getting huge aid from the West and it has the will to fight. Added up, the West sending 10 000 anti-tank weapons to Ukraine does start to matter, but those won't save cities and their population from Russian artillery.
Nah. Don't think everything evolves around the US. The US isn't at all this omnipotent actor on the World stage.
The simple fact is that if you are successful in international trade, you need to have goddamn good relations with your trading partners. And even if you don't, then either your lucrative markets or the competitive manufacturing, if you have it, will attract businessmen.
Just to give an example: the Chinese made their historical growth mainly by themselves. It really wasn't an American project. Neither was the industrialization of South Korea or Taiwan implemented and organized by foreigners. In the case of China, the US incorrectly assumed that with more prosperity and a bigger middle class, China would liberalize and become more Western. Yet communists cannot give up power: they would be finished.
Who's siding with Russia in this scenario? China? China has nothing to gain from bombing its investment and prime market. On the other hand, it doesn't really need Russia for much. Should nuclear conflict transpire, I don't think it will be a world war exactly. It will mainly be the US and Russia being bombed.
I disagree. China could sit it out. I guess if Russia and the US totally unloaded on one another, a nuclear winter might happen.
I don't think it would kill everybody, though.
Putin wanting to, by an means necessary, without regard for human life, takeover a country that democratically does not want to be ruled by Russia/ a Russian puppet government.
Oh sorry, I misread.. I thought you said what is the cause of this military action...I'll get ya in the next post.
One lacks a proper vocabulary in these instances...
Military action is a last resort and can at best be seen as legitimate if a country is imminently threatening your country by military force. Other reasons that are at the least moral, might be to stop a gross act of crimes against humanity (at the level of let's say large genocide). Even then, it would take getting support by others, and not unilateral (if it's a country trying to help the one with the genocide taking place).
Adding more here:
A people in their own country also have a right to overthrow the power in place if they do not permit basic human rights... I am not sure if that meets the level of military action from other countries though, unless with those restricted rights were things like large and obvious genocides.
They will, true. But when do oil companies not make money? Oil is in demand everywhere, and the oil companies are located around the world wherever there is oil. War or no war, oil is generally a great business to be in. Suck it up and sell it.
In a dangerous world (created partly through the good offices of arms companies), when do defense companies not make money? Big ships may not be the thing this year, but drones are. ICBMs may be in the doldrums, but Stinger missiles are hot. Fighter planes are very expensive, but one can make money on mines.
Oil and Arms will be making money into the foreseeable future, regardless.
War against Ukraine seemed inevitable for a long time, and yet Putin is blamed for that. So if anyone goes to war with Russia Putin is to blame for that also? It is a funny sense of logic that blames a country for going to war with another country, invading it, and then blaming that country when other countries go to war with it, invading it. If that is the argument, might as well state it.
Any country that uses nuclear arms first will lose its place in the world, and be isolated. I will not be dealing in any way with a country that carries out a first strike for any reason, and I have remained neutral so far: that is an indication of how the neutrals or so called Putin supporters will change their minds based on events.
The US and its allies, some of them, want a 'diminished' Russia. Are we agreed on this? Of course that is not saying that is a reason for invasion, I do not have the intelligence to decide that, but it is a powerful undercurrent that has to be recognized.
Quoting Manuel
Ah yes, modern day war does that, unless you can insulate yourself against that, paper is a good insulator and paper money will do just fine. To them, it will be worth it.
It all reminds me of a short but pithy sentence lyric from the Eagles, in "The Last Resort" : a song that seemed anti-God but is actually anti-man.
Also more appealing to the (exhausted and bored) masses (us). We don't want information/instruction, we want to have a good time. Therein lies the rub: here I (we) am (are) blaming the media for shirking their responsibility, but the fact of the matter is, I (we) make them like that.
As for your second paragraph: if it bleeds, it leads!
"'diminished' Russia" is a dubious expression b/c it has to do with the potential ambitions of Russia to reach a superpower status on the global geopolitical stage, but due to the emotional connotations attached to it, it could mean "humiliated Russia" for certain Russian propaganda while for those who fear Russia it could mean "harmless/unthreatening/cooperative/supportive/friendly Russia".
I don't really reason by taking an opinion first ... and then asking for more information. My initial comment was asking people who knew more about the subject.
As I say, I don't like neo-Nazi's. Now, if as @ssu says they're irrelevant, then for certain there's no justification for the war. However, it is a legitimate question how many neo-Nazi's a state can foster, integrate into institutions and have battalions, carry out language and cultural suppression (form of genocide) and not be morally responsible and invite entirely just war on itself.
I would very much like to see someone demonstrate the neo-Nazi's of Ukraine are as fringe as they are in the US (where, as I mention, I do not think Republican's generally speaking were and are "tainted" by fringe neo-Nazi's supporting Trump and that leftist propaganda was irresponsible; of course, doesn't mean there's not a lot of racism in the Republican base and neo-Nazi's are not also racists, nor plenty totally legitimate reasons to be against Trump and republicans).
That being said, I do not view the Kremlin as a "good" government.
For example, if some country randomly attacked China (totalitarian hellscape, as I call them), in the narrow "self defense" justification then China would be justified for fighting back. But in the larger context of China not being a just state then it's actions are not justified generally speaking. Of course, it gets complicated; for example, I think few would argue China detectives finding a serial killer is "unjust" just because China's state is unjust.
Now, it maybe said Ukraine hasn't attacked Russia ... but Russia would respond Ukraine has been attacking ethnic Russians in the East that have a right to separate after a coup of a democratically elected leader (which, true or false, neo-Nazi's take credit for staging a violent coup). Therefore, not only are there neo-Nazi's that the Ukrainian government are responsible for supporting and so invite invasion, but it is also self-defense of the ethnic Russian separatists.
Ukraine may respond to that the coup / revolution is non of Russia's business, and that Russia attacked first by taking Crimea and it is Ukraine that has a right to fight back in self defense.
These arguments can go on more or less forever.
However, my original comment was seeking insight into something else and far, far worse.
Which is Putin and the Kremlin actually want a total break with the West to recreate the Soviet style totalitarianism based on China's "perfecting" it using modern technology (IPR courtesy of the West of course).
In this case, of course, the moral arguments above are completely irrelevant.
Of course, the Western narrative would be immediate response "Yes! Yes! Putin's evil and wants to re-create Soviet totalitarianism". However, such a response contradicts the idea sanctions are "hurting" the Kremlin. You can't have it both ways of saying sanctions are disrupting Russia and undermining the Kremlin's grip on power and about to trigger an uprising in Russia as normal people get fed up who see zero reason for the war in Ukraine ... and, also, total break with the West is exactly what Putin and the Kremlin want in order to import the Chinese system of social control.
Of course, you can also have a situation where a state is pretty bad but attacked by something even worse, so, reluctantly, we are glad the first bad state succeeds. For example, we in the West are generally reluctantly grateful that Hitler didn't conquer the Soviet Union even if Stalin gave Hitler a run for his money in terms of evil dictatorship, the Nazi's seemed genuinely worse (hence alliance with the Soviet Union). Likewise, the pro-Assad argument (from a democracy is good point of view) rests on Islamic State being far worse than a run-of-the-mill dictatorship.
Certainly Putin and Kremlin would have preferred an easy victory and no sanctions (you don't "need" sanctions to transition away from Western integration, which Russia has been doing since 2014), but the narrative of "miscalculation" assumes Putin and Kremlin didn't have a plan B in place if massive sanctions were put in place and defeating Ukraine longer and more arduous.
Quoting schopenhauer1
As I've said several times, if neo-Nazi's are fringe (as I would agree they are in the US) the argument doesn't follow. One would need some threshold of neo-Nazi "de facto power" for the argument to work. Unfortunately, neo-Nazi's in Ukraine simply do not seem like a fringe group, I much rather they were. Now, are they "enough" to for this argument to work; that would be a political theory (what would be "enough") and factual question (are there enough) that with all the propaganda is difficult to just randomly guess about.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I've explained many times, as above, there needs to be enough, some threshold of too many neo-Nazi's with too much influence, that it can be credibly argued not-invading them is appeasement.
You don't seem to understand how argument works.
You assumed the argument as your premise--that neo-Nazi's would be a justification for war--and your rebuttal was that Putin also has ties to neo-Nazi's.
Putin's ties to neo-Nazi's would not make a sound argument about justification of fighting neo-Nazi's unsound, it would just make Putin a hypocrite. The argument would still be sound.
Arguing someone is a hypocrite is different than arguing any of their positions are unsound, invalid or false in themselves.
I can present only sound arguments, but be a hypocrite since I simply don't do what I argue; doesn't make my arguments unsound.
Putin's argument that neo-Nazi's are bad, and there's too many in Ukraine, could be sound, and his also supporting neo-Nazi's would then make him a hypocrite.
That's the state of that exchange between us. Now, if you want to backtrack and argue there aren't or then not enough neo-Nazi's in Ukraine, you may do so, but that's independent of Putin's ties to neo-Nazis. Or then, you can continue your own argument that assumed there was enough neo-Nazi's in Ukraine but just that Putin's a hypocrite for also supporting neo-Nazi's and so demonstrate that.
However, if you're backtracking, then Putin's ties to neo-Nazi's isn't really relevant, and if you aren't backtracking then feel free to demonstrate Putin's ties to neo-Nazi's and what relevance that has: for example, if we assume there's too many neo-Nazi's in Ukraine and therefore the Russian's invading is justified, it's this a larger harm to neo-Nazi's (doing more good than not) compared to whatever other links Putin has to neo-Nazi's (how does demolishing a neo-Nazi state help the neo-Nazi cause?).
I agree with your points here.
And, again, NATO and Ukraine were completely free to sign a treaty and have Ukraine join anytime since 2014 or even Ukraine becoming independent.
Quoting ssu
Yes, I don't think our positions are so far apart, and we certainly agree the war is terrible and would have been better to avoid.
I focus on criticizing "the West" because Western media make the anti-Putin arguments in abundance (I honestly don't feel there's any need to make new one's; of course, totally relevant to debate, which is why I present the counter arguments that may exist).
Likewise, as I say, it's not clear to me what exhaustive criticism of authoritarianism and totalitarianism accomplishes. Criticizing people who are subject to press and democratic scrutiny (what we in the West can learn and do better) seems to me more constructive. Who's "morally responsible exactly for what" in complex international political situations and processes is a different question to "what should we do", which, credible and concerted diplomacy is my thoughts on; diplomacy is insanely cheap compared to the costs the entire world is facing due to this crisis.
Of course, maybe it's true that diplomacy could not have worked and Putin was intent on the invasion since 2014 or even before, but what makes me uncomfortable is, arguably, the largest political institution (with some degree of sovereignty and diplomatic leverage) and trading block (massive diplomatic leverage), is unable to demonstrate any credible diplomatic process since 2014.
Quoting ssu
It maybe true. My argument on this point is not what's true and false, who broke what first etc. But just that there is a cost to refusing good faith diplomacy. Obviously, the West didn't care since 2014 of engaging with Russia diplomatically and would just write him off as a madman in the press.
However, the perspective I wanted to bring up is the other authoritarian or authoritarian leaning non-Western countries. Their governments are going to be, a priori, more sympathetic to Putin's Russia and security concerns (as, naturally, they are very focused on their own security concerns), so my point was that if Putin can sell his actions as good faith to this audience, they are easier to deal with.
Of course, the cost of the large states just ripping up treatise or interpreting them in a wildly insane way (a memo can make torture legal as long as you have a euphemism for example), is not very high. However, it is a consideration, and you're always in a better position in a negotiation if you can demonstrate the counter-party refusing reasonable offers.
The West's position since 2014 is not to make any offers at all but just do sanctions ... of which Russia responding to by carrying out sanctions proofing programs then makes war in Ukraine more doable ... which is what we have now.
Of course, what would reasonable offers be and whether Russia would have accepted them is a different question, but the EU not having any track record of working on them, just basically ignoring the whole situation in Ukraine since 2014 and letting the bad blood fester there (precisely because of the neo-Nazi's other EU countries wanted to be hands-off, from what I can tell) only to "pop out" and now pretend Ukraine was this bastion of liberal freedom all along.
And again, your arguments could be true and we could see large scale social uprising in Russia as this war was a huge incompetent mistake. My presenting the counter argument is basically the question of to what extent this narrative is a Western media / tic tok driven fantasy.
Revolutions and mass uprisings are often a surprise, and I would definitely agree the Kremlin is risking that, and, indeed, maybe everything has gone totally out of control and nothing has gone as planned.
However, I wouldn't view that as necessarily a good process (even if I don't like authoritarianism in Russia, or anywhere), and if it is actually true, again diplomacy would be, in my opinion, recommended to avoid nuclear escalation.
And, diplomacy begins with understanding the other party's point of view, so my comments are mostly motivated by that.
If Putin wants to get rid of neonazis, he should fire a bullet in his head.
Putin's not a neo-Nazi.
People can be a different flavour of authoritarianism. Indeed, there were authoritarians before Nazi's even existed.
For example, Trump and the republican's are also very authoritarian leaning, doesn't make them neo-Nazi's.
He is the gay nazi type. It's a flavour alright.
I don't feel that's a useful analytical framework, as then Trump is also a nazi type.
Indeed, even authoritarians in Israel supporting apartheid would be "Nazi types" in such a framework.
Likewise, Islamic State jihadists who hate Jews as much (maybe a lot more) than neo-Nazi's, would, in your framework, also be "Nazi types" that presumably also hate Arabs a lot too.
It's more useful and coherent and leads to better discourse to say Nazism is a form of a authoritarianism with it's own ideology distinct from other forms of authoritarianism.
Keep in mind that Russia is as nominally democratic as the Ukraine.
It would be very difficult to argue that Ukraine is a "better democracy" than Russia; indeed, the entire premise of the 2014 uprising was that the Ukrainian administration at that time was not legitimately democratic ... and nothing fundamental has changed in Ukrainian governance processes since then.
Also, authoritarian does not equate to "bad". There are good forms of authoritarianism nearly universally agreed, such as parents have an authority on children for some years of life (that the community or state can intervene in, again authoritarianism between society / state and parents, but with a large burden of proof that it's necessary, due to the fundamental justification of parent authority).
Good that I'm not arguing that, then. I'm just stating that Putin is not in any significant way different from the 'neonazis' he brandishes as an excuse for his mass murders.
It's certainly a relevant point to debate; in particular, if Putin actually wanted this schism with the West to create a new cold war, then that is certainly pretty bad.
However, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary, such as Russia only starting sanction-proofing programs after, and not before, sanctions were started, and only taking Crimea after, and not before, there was a legitimate threat to Russia's security.
And, in terms of the legitimate security threat Ukraine poses; it's argued that Russia has Nuclear weapons but Ukraine doesn't.
However, Ukraine has many nuclear reactors that can be used to source plutonium to make nuclear weapons. If you listen to Ukrainian neo-Nazi talks and interviews, they certainly seem the people that would try to make and to use nuclear weapons and truly want more chaos and destruction.
Once you have commercial nuclear reactors it is not all that hard to make nuclear weapons, especially with advances in computer simulation and CNC machining, 3D printing etc. North Korea did it, from a far worse starting point.
If things were reversed, and the West was dealing with a belligerent country with plenty Nuclear reactors, the invasion would be a foregone conclusion. For this very reason, the invasion of Iran has been constantly talked about. The big difference is that Iran doesn't have already plenty Nuclear reactors that makes sourcing plutonium far easier and would need the launch capabilities to reach the US ... hence, why Israel is far more concerned, but, also, Iran isn't Islamic State with an ideology that may actually want to use nuclear weapons against Israel regardless of the consequences.
(Ukraine being close enough to easily hit Moscow with a cheap ballistic missile once you had a Nuclear warhead)
Now, how influential these neo-Nazi's are is one question, but what's not really questionable is the EU did basically nothing about them since 2014, and, as an EU citizen, that's the aspect of policy I can rightly criticize of the governance structures I live in.
Of course, if they are only a fringe group (such as, in the US, such a concern would be pretty outlandish), doesn't matter, but the problem with neo-Nazi's in Ukraine is they really do seem more than fringe.
Or a justification to remove Putin or invade Russia?
Obviously, that Ukraine could develop nuclear weapons in the context of the already existing de facto war with Russia in East Ukraine, would and is simply ignored (I'm not sure if Russia makes this point at all, but it's I think worth pointing out).
Likewise, the potential consequences of actively trying to destabilize the economy and society of a large Nuclear power is simply ignored.
If the Russian state did simply fall apart, as seems to be the implicit goal of Western sanctions (whether realistic or not, talking heads in the media would be ecstatic of "victory"), the consequences of both nuclear escalation as well as losing nuclear weapons to the black market in a chaotic unraveling of the Russian state is a dangerous game to play.
I, personally, wouldn't play it and would try to deescalate the situation.
Accept that if the West didn't go defend Ukraine with troops before the war, it's a bit of a cry baby game to try to make up for it with sending weapons and volunteers after the war has started.
If people really cared so much about Ukraine, they would have been there already, not only after it's a big virtue-signal on social media.
They are not a fringe group in the Moscow, though.
Neo-nazi's in Moscow?
There's a difference between moral justification and justification as such.
It would indeed be morally justified to press a button that transforms Russia instantly into a thriving and prosperous Nordic style democracy and make Putin a bar tender somewhere on a beach in Jamaica.
If we talk of moral justification we're basically talking what situation would be good if we could wish it into existence.
However, justification as such (real decisions in the real world) are not wishes but have all sorts of consequences that need to be taken into account.
The West imposing Nordic style thriving democracy on Russia and forcing Putin into bar tending in Jamaica, through force would have all sorts of disastrous consequences for the world.
There is no realistic pathway to achieve the goal through force. The goal maybe justified, that does not justify reckless actions that makes the situation worse.
Just as, maybe it is justified to invade Ukraine and mitigate their neo-Nazi problem, but there was not actually a practical way to do it without making the situation worse for Russia.
The West certainly believes it's mass-media hating Putin even more than before is some sort of miscalculation, but my original post was basically questioning that basic premise. Likewise the sanctions. Russia has done a lot of work sanction proofing themselves, but to what extent it has been enough is certainly up for debate.
The war is early days, so it's difficult to tell if there's some purely material and strategic objectives Russia is able to achieve at greater benefit than cost in the long term.
I honestly don't find it credible to say Putin is a neo-Nazi or helping the neo-Nazi cause.
You are free to expound on it though.
I thought it was Putin's justification to invade Ukraine?
Yes, that's his stated justification. So, it's obviously relevant to discuss in terms of it being the stated justification for the war, in particular in terms of perception in Russia (to what extent a majority of Russian's agree or not and therefore put up with the hardships of war).
Whether it's true or not is a second issue.
What's clear is that it's not an argument invented a couple of weeks ago; there's been plenty of press about neo-Nazi's in Ukraine since 2014 as well as their own speeches and interviews.
For example, it was rumored that Trump had Mein Kampf (at least I hear this rumour) ... but is it even possible to confirm? And, as a student of history, I could easily have this book in my library (though, difficult to argue the same for Trump, but still, the motivation is still not clear from simply having the book).
And indeed, it maybe precisely due to this leftist smearing that then neo-Nazi's in Ukraine was dismissed as a concern, under the assumption it must be a fringe group (which is certainly the automatic assumption in the Western press if the issue is even recognized).
Had the left not smeared Trump with neo-Nazi association, their appearance in greater and more organized numbers in Ukraine may have been taken more credibly and at least something done about it (maybe the war still happens, but I'd rather be able to say the EU is not de facto neo-Nazi supporters, and there some strong evidence to point to about the EU actually opposing neo-Nazi in Ukraine in some meaningful sense).
Propaganda is not simply a right wing thing, and liberal and left wing propaganda is equally dangerous and counter productive to our own cause (there are of course people on the left who pointed that out throughout "Russia gate" and neo-Nazi smearing; and, what's crazier, is there's plenty of totally credible things to criticize Trump for--the idea more must be invented is honestly bizarre, and, the only rational reason you need more is if you want to deflect from the fact the Democratic party has the same kind of corruption ... just "less so", and "can't we have a bit of the corruption" isn't so great an argument).
I honestly don't find it credible to say Putin is in any significant manner different from a neo-Nazi, or helping defeat the neo-Nazi 'cause' (your wording).
Trump praised neonazi groups and vice versa, for heavens sake. Your priorities are screwed. The preoccupying modern fascist leaders are Putin, Trump and co. They are the fascists who matter right now.
We can get into it if you want, but the idea neo-Nazi power in the US is comparable to neo-Nazi's in Ukraine I don't think is in anyway credible.
Trump is incoherent, he says a lot things. In saying "there's good people" I would imagine he thought was some banal "good people in every country" kind of statement.
What I think is certainly true is that Trump liked and likes thugs spilling blood in the streets for Trump, and certainly would have liked to see some sort of brown shirt uprising that would keep him in power.
I would certainly agree Trump doesn't care much whether thugs supporting him are neo-Nazi's or just run-of-the-mill republicans, but it's a big stretch to say Trump is therefore a neo-Nazi or then neo-Nazi's had considerable influence in American governance.
As I mentioned, we can certainly criticize Trump for not distancing and opposing neo-Nazi's enough, just as I'm criticizing the EU for the same: doesn't make Trump administration nor the EU neo-Nazi's themselves.
There's some neo-Nazi's, sure, and there's an association; but one must demonstrate this is more than a fringe movement and the association closer than just that, but there's real collaboration and integration. Of which, literally making neo-Nazi battalion groups and literal brown shirt gangs that can patrol cities, as has happened in Ukraine, is more than fringe and more than association.
You use this word a lot to brush aside arguments but are you aware of your own lack of credibility, not to mention your apparent lack of logic and coherence? How can you say "the left tared Trump with neonazi links" when those links where an objective, documented fact? Since when are we confusing facts and propaganda?
You have a big log in your own eye but fortunately, it doesn't prevent you from seeing the speck in an Ukrainian's.
A MAGA-capped intellectual whining about neonazis in Ukraine. Now that's rich!
I think this is true. President Trump was a little careless about who supported him, they turned out to be an embarrassment, in the end.
I'm saying I don't find it a credible premise (that the Trump administration and USA government as a whole was / is has more than fringe neo-Nazi elements). You are then free to argue it is credible. But if you're not motivated to, then that's the end of the argument on that point: I don't find Trump a credible neo-Nazi and you do.
However, in terms of coherence (more suitable topic for a philosophy forum than journalistic questions plenty of journalists have investigated) you are basically arguing that Trump is definitely a neo-Nazi (and so justified in invading? I guess) and also Ukraine more so and so more so justified in invading to deal with, but, only because you also claim Putin is likewise a neo-Nazi (or neo-Nazi like) then he personally is not justified in invading other literal neo-Nazi's even if the cause, as such against Trump and the Ukrainian neo-Nazi's such as Azov brigade, is justified in itself.
Or then explain how Trump's neo-Nazi connection is in anyway relevant to the topic at hand. I'll take more interest in it then, but if it's not really relevant (just suppressive whataboutism fire) then you're free to make another thread on Trump being a neo-Nazi (or supporter, or defender, or whatever connection you want to argue).
Quoting WSU political scientist Anthony Lopez
Nazi is more or less distinguished by the idea of a superior race.
The term ‘Neo Nazi’ is often used are a pejorative term to smear fervent patriots and more right leaning policies.
As for Trump … he is out of the picture for now. Sadly those in opposition to Trump were more than a little too liberal in how they decided to label hi as a Nazi. Such labelling has reached out into the public sphere as well for the general populace and it has done little more than dilute the horror of what happened with Hitler.
Putin clearly favours the opposite extreme rather than holding a far right nazi view. It is no secret that the Russian’s HATE Nazis due to the conflict in WW2 with Germany. He is a Stalinist 1 million billion steps before he is a Nazi. The reason he is Ukrainian government is being duped by neo nazis is because most Russian people have just as much a pronounced dislike for nazism as any other country in WW2 (is not more so due to the heavy price they paid in blood).
It is a bit like calling radical Islamic fundamentalists Nazis … no. They want Jews dead and gone but that alone doesn’t qualify the, as Nazis because the reasoning behind that view is based on religion.
One issue is clear: the Western media is and would be very alarmist about the extreme-right having large influence in any European country. Just to give an example, our Russia troll Apollodorus, refers to 2014 BBC articles and so on. For example VICE NEWS had a lot of covering about this and for example interviewed the Azov battalion fighters. (Then the young news channel did great reporting of the conflict in a long series called Russian Roulette, which can be found in YouTube)
Why did the extreme-right got traction in Ukraine prior to 2014? The best explanation I found was this, which I posted 6 days ago. But because as this thread goes on with a rapid pace, I'll repost it here:
The Svoboda-party had enjoyed the largest support during the Yanukovich era prior to 2014:
And why is this? Yuriyv Shveda writes the following:
So the discredition of the "normal" right posed people to vote for neo-nazis. But after the Maidan revolution they had enough of them. The Svoboda-party made a huge election loss in 2014 and now is a tiny minority in the Ukrainian Parliament.
But just like the US, where you can make a documentary of a militia, but portraying the country to be run by militias isn't an accurate picture. The vast majority of Americans don't believe in their ideologies. And of course the events now happening in Ukraine, how active people are against the Putin's invasion and dare even to demonstrate against the occupier in Kherson and are actively taking part in the defense of their country tells something far different.
Quoting George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'
Quoting CNN
Quoting ABC news
Quoting I like sushi
This is true, as far as it goes. Soviet victory in The Great Patriotic War (WWII) was of great importance to Soviet ideology, and in Putin's Russia it has been amplified into a veritable cult. So of course, anything "Nazi" is taboo in Russia. This is why Russian propaganda loves to smear their opponents as Nazis. And this is why they came up with this ridiculous lie that Ukraine is being run by Neo-Nazis.
However, don't confuse an attitude towards words and symbols with a genuine, deep-seated ideological stance. (Russians also HATE war... so the government forbids calling the war in Ukraine a "war," and instead refers to it as a "special operation." Problem solved!) As @ssu has pointed out, Putin's government and pro-Kremlin elites have enjoyed a very warm relationship with European far right. As long as they don't literally call themselves "Nazis" and don't wear swastikas on their sleeves, they are kosher, as it were. As you acknowledge, under their uniforms, Stalinists and Neo-Nazis aren't that different.
The exceptions to this ideological camaraderie are Ukrainian and Polish far right. Not because they explicitly associate themselves with Nazism or employ Nazi symbols, but for historical reasons.
But I did argue that there were obvious links between Trump and actual neonazis. Remember Jan 6? Now you are just stonewalling, not addressing the point made.
Define 'credible'. Quoting boethius
Because by your own logic, Europe should have done something against Trump -- since you expect us to "do something" about neonazi fringe elements in the Ukraine...
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) is a United Nations convention. A third-generation human rights instrument, the Convention commits its members to the elimination of racial discrimination and the promotion of understanding among all races.[6] The Convention also requires its parties to criminalize hate speech and criminalize membership in racist organizations.[7] (wiki)
If you criticize on side and when the other sides does it, you stay silent or just see "no reason" to mention it, many would interpret that as having a bias. I think one should judge sides with equal standards. Unfortunately many people have this urge to "defend" one side. I remember on the old site when in 2003 the US invaded Iraq. Many came here to defend the action and balk at us who were critical about the whole WMD-argument for the invasion. Later came those who defended Bush that he "had only gotten bad intel". And now we got Apollodorus.
When one basically reurgitates the lines of an authoritarian regime that has now made it a law that saying anything wrong about the army or the "special military operation" will get you at most 15 years imprisonment, is a bit hypocrite.
Would you get in your country a 15 year prison term if you say something against your country's handling of a crisis? Russians didn't either before this week.
I think it is notable that Russia has (finally) descended into a Stalinist narrative, because it does have major implications here.
Quoting boethius
Thanks for the "maybe".
But anyway, let's look at where NATO and the US did mess things up:
First about this promise of NATO never moving eastward. First to notice, this wasn't a written agreement. It wasn't done are said by NATO. It was said only by the US secretary of state in 1990 when talking about the unification of Germany. Note the year, as the timeline is important here.
Do notice to whom is this promise made: to Gorbachev, to the Soviet Union.
Hence you have an American politician, who basically cannot speak for all of NATO, saying something to a leader of a country that collapsed and isn't anymore. And then afterwards former parts of that now non-existent country, after become independent sovereign states, want to join NATO. Just how much things change there? You have totally different actors now.
But for Putin, head of Russia, a sovereign state that didn't exist then, but has somehow taken to represent ALL of Soviet Union, accuses of NATO breaking agreements. Well, why don't Vladimir have sellers remorse and claim that the Alaska deal the Russian Empire made with the US was wrong and now if you just give him Alaska back and he'll give you back the money, thank you! It would be similar.
And what some participants utterly fail to mention is the way HOW NATO enlarged to the east. The applicants didn't trust at all that Russia would not behave as it now has behaved (hence they were totally correct about it) and wanted article 5. guarantees. Their motivations were consistent and their fears have been showed to be true. The US and the West had different ideas.
And now we come to the real errors that the West made: The US thought that Russia was past, wouldn't be a problem, wouldn't bounce back up. Wouldn't have those territorial aspirations that it has now had and is having. And looking at the void the Soviet Union had left, their focus was more on NATO Article 1. That by integration to the Western defense system these countries wouldn't have border disputes and start fighting each other. And the Cold War was over! NATO had to reinvent itself! New threats! Terrorism, international operations! Things that, uh, Trump said decades later! Armies had to change from defending their territory to small, nimble organizations capable of performing out-of-the-theater operations. Article 5. was some old relic from the Cold War, which wasn't important. And lastly, Clinton hoped to get some votes from American voters of East-European descent. Aaah, those votes, how important they are. And if Russia wanted to join, sure, just take your place in the line back there!
And then came first Bosnia and then the NATO war in Kosovo, which was the WTF moment for Russia. The ties to Russia broke then.
And the last failure was George Bush promising something that simply couldn't be kept: that Ukraine and Georgia would become NATO members in some time. Like later. As Ukraine had, uh, a lot of problems. Vladimirs response we have seen, and as I have said, this all gave the wonderful pretext for Vlad to go for those imperial aspirations that he has. But some still believe after all of the annexations, that if only Baker's promise was kept. :roll:
And now Vladimir overplayed his had and started a disastrous war. And now NATO transformed to what was during the Cold War and Germany has done a historical 180 degree turn as a new Cold War started. This was such a bad move from Vlad, that it may be the beginning of his end.
Questionable though, since the fall of Soviet and the following recession still had open doors towards the west with trade and business, which were a part in restoring the economy. The sanctions right now have basically blocked Russia from being part of the technology- and business practices that are essential to modern economic vitality.
Quoting ssu
But they can't if they are blocked from trading technology, semiconductors etc. That's the point of the technology sanctions. At the same time, manpower is cheap, but with a plunged Rubel people won't get far on what they earn, so it'll turn to slave labor and a vastly underperforming technological advantage.
Quoting ssu
But they have performed attacks on it. The biggest reason they haven't mounted a full attack is A) their airforce have been seriously taken out and a flyby would risk the few planes they have left, while B) their anti-tank/anti-vehicle capability has been draining dry. It's only just now that the Swedish anti-tank weapons have arrived in Ukraine so we might see a mounted attack soon.
Quoting ssu
Problem is that Putin has little left to spin the truth. The only way for him to win is to kill Zelenskyy, kill everyone who opposes Putin, and by force take over Ukraine and install more Russian citizens so the general public is fewer Ukrainians and more Russians. That's the only way he can "win" this and that scenario is so far-fetched that I don't think even he thinks it's a possibility.
I believe that his goal now is to destroy as much as possible, use that footage to spin the narrative that "the "neo-nazi drug addicts" destroyed beautiful Ukraine and such barbarism couldn't save the nation, it is a wasteland that I and proud Russians tried to save from the west, now lost to the brutal enemies. As we mourn the fallen, we will build a better Russia for those that survived" etc. blah blah blah new world order blah.
I think his strategy right now is to attack in a way so that he could build a propaganda narrative on it and then turn focus somewhere else, probably building relations with China who really don't want this mess on their hands. They want Russia to stop and be a partner in a way that doesn't taint their own nation, so they can only start doing that when Russia ends the war. And the west will probably be gullible and stupid once again after this war: opening trade, removing sanctions and believing Putin and Russia will be peaceful now.
I think sanctions should be kept even after the war ends. Otherwise, what's with all the talk of Putin not getting away from the crimes he's done? Sanctions should be kept until the people of Russia goes into revolution mode. We're already seeing a lot of such movements now and it might just be a matter of time before the police switch sides. When that happens there's no real stopping them flushing Putin out of power without a civil war happening, which will not help Putin further.
It's not the argument. I don't think a country is a type of thing which can be blamed. A country is not a being with intention. Individual people are blamed, and ought to be held accountable, but to direct blame at a country is to attribute responsibility where none can be attributed, resulting in no one being held accountable. You seem to understand this in your reference to G. W. Bush, above. Good historians describe the actions of individuals, not the actions of a phantasm entity (a country).
Quoting FreeEmotion
But here you are making the same mistake, and doubling it up, to go even further with that mistake. First you mention what the US wants, as if a country is a type of thing which could have intentions, instead of pointing to what individuals want, as if everyone within the country wants the same thing, and this constitutes what the country wants. Then, you extend this to a group of countries, "its allies", as if a whole group of countries have one intention, when it doesn't even make sense to say that one country has intention.
https://youtu.be/ppD_bhWODDc
Your rebuttal is certainly legitimate and worth discussing.
Bringing real facts to the table is always appreciated. And I think we do see more or less the same facts, just debating what to make of them. So, in that spirit:
Quoting ssu
I'm not completely convinced. For example, Syria opposition was painted as "freedom fighters" for a long time ... despite obviously being mostly jihadists and, if not, just some lighter version of Islamic authoritarianism.
But the West wanted Assad gone so mostly ignored this issue. Even when the opposition consolidated into mostly Islamic State extremists, the West still cheered the fall of the Assad regime ... more or less ignoring what would replace them.
Quoting ssu
I have no problem accepting your argument voting for Svoboda was "tactical".
My point here is basically that there's a downside to that tactic in that it gives extremely good pretext to invade ... according to CNN, Putin's popularity has risen from 60% to 70% in Russia since the war started. If true, certainly these sorts of factoids about a lot of people voting for Svoboda and Azov brigade, and proud neo-Nazi's claiming credit for the coup in 2014 using violence and on a mission of war with Russia that they want the fight and want the violence etc. regardless of their real world relevance, certainly plays into Putin's hands if he wants to attack Ukraine
Now, "how many neo-Nazi's with how much power is too many neo-Nazi's with too much power" honestly is a difficult question to answer.
Obviously, we don't like neo-Nazi's, and we agree they are in Ukraine and agree Putin is using that as the justification for the war.
Is there some absolute moral answer to this question; honestly, I do find the argument of some threshold of Nazi's justifying invading a valid one, but what that threshold is and what the "truth is" is difficult to answer.
It's also, in my point of view, not such a practical question when the war is on going. First priority in terms of intellectual energy I would argue is finding some way out of the war.
After that, we can debate who's most to blame for exactly what for decades to come.
What seems more fruitful in terms of discussion is that clearly the EU had no real response to a legitimate concern of their being any neo-Nazi brigades whatsoever and, whether Putin would have acted differently or not, is clearly something the EU could have made more clear (that it doesn't actually like neo-Nazi's either and has policy responses to that) and would, at the least, make me personally happier to have seen.
Quoting ssu
Totally agree Russia is accelerating towards totalitarianism, which, for me, is potentially a worse outcome for the world than the war in Ukraine itself. It could be "Putin's plan" all along, or it could be a failure of EU diplomacy to find other solutions than push Russia in this direction as hard as possible since 2014.
And, if the EU does some introspection on it's only diplomatic failure while "having Ukraine's back" ... which it obviously doesn't have or EU soldiers would have been in Ukraine before the war, then maybe such learning would make diplomacy more effective starting now.
EU and NATO have taken direct force off the table (for I think good reason), so the constructive thing left to do is diplomacy. Putin bashing I don't think will save any lives.
Which is a conversation I had with Brussels bureaucrats literally years ago, that I didn't see the purpose in just calling Putin names. Indeed, I don't even think the name calling is even credible, if Putin was so evil ... why are we still even alive to point out his evilness and not already dead in Nuclear Armageddon? They didn't really have an answer to this argument, but would just keep calling Putin names anyways and bring out entirely unrealistic political arguments like Russia has to be punished for taking Crimea even if they accepted that was a foregone and rational action after Ukraine turned anti-Russian.
I just don't see how this attitude of "Putin is literally Hitler" is constructive. Indeed, if Hitler had as many nuclear weapons it's arguable that the argument "Hitler is literally Hitler" would be, unfortunately, not so constructive and some concessions for peace are necessary.
Quoting ssu
Yes, obviously the first goal of diplomacy is to find acceptable diplomatic solutions.
If those solutions fail, and things are resolved the hard way, the advantages of having done diplomacy well and clear treaties being violated and so on is not too significant, but is still a consideration.
Certainly treatise get violated all the time, but my basic point is that the narrative around them (in this case not to the West, but other potential partners of Russia) does matter.
I was recently described as a violent conspiracy theorist, rapist, white supremacist, fringe minority. I attended the Coutts Border protest with my wife and a sign that said healthcare workers support freedom and advocate for choice. Hardly the values I associate with the labels applied to me.
So you know Putin is a neo-nazi how?
You know these things because you said them? I get that you have your opinion, and are welcome to it, as are we all, however, Can you support your claims with facts? or perhaps we simply leave them as an opinion piece?
I say Trudeau is a Facist Prick. His actions certainly suggest this: He enacts the Emergency Measures act which allows him to use force against peaceful, legally gathered protesters; by using this act none of the police officers involved can be held liable for their actions, however violent, inappropriate, or otherwise illegal those actions may be. The organizers of the peaceful protest are arrested under this act, requiring no proof of guilt and held for an indeterminate amount of time (yep, still in jail) on "mischief" and "conspiring to commit Mischief" charges. No bail. Charges that would normally involve a minor fine (under $500.00) if anything. This is akin with charging someone with "intention to commit self-defence". Under this act the government froze citizens personal bank accounts "for contributing to domestic terrorism" Apparently bouncy Castles constitute "domestic terrorism" in Canada. All done BEFORE the Emergency Measures Act was actually approved by the Government. Which, incidently, it never was. The senate was very likely to refuse to support the action, so our Pansy leader, having already done what he wanted, decided to cancel the enactment. However, everything he did was still protected by the Act, despite not having official government approval. End result, Political prisoners in Canada, imprisoned for daring to protest legally, beaten (literally) protesters, for protesting legally and peacefully. The violence at the Ottawa protest was brought entirely by the police, on behalf of Justin Trudeau. This is my basis for the claim I make regarding Justin Trudeau.
I always considered Trudeau as one of the most important Western leaders. What you are saying it is shocking me. I never considered Canada or their PM as "fascists"
ROFL. Dude, get off the stuff you're on.
When you lock up your legally protesting citizenry, remove their charter rights, have your police use mounted horsemen on peaceful protesters, beat said protesters with batons and rifle butts, threaten to kill protesters pets and have their children taken away from them...You are way into totalitarianism and Facism. And forget the rule of law, every case brought against the government for charter rights violations was thrown out. The judges refused to hear any at all. Might as well burn the Canadian Charter of Rights for all it's worth.
Superb argument skills.
Uh, do notice that similar sanctions were there also with the Soviet Union. And if they need artillery pieces and tanks, then they just use older ones and manufacture more ammunition.
Quoting Christoffer
It's an authoritarian regime, which can become even more authoritarian. Many Russians fear that marshal law will be implemented, which Putin has denied. Just like he denied that he had any intention to attack.
Quoting Christoffer
The quick dash to capture Kiev and for the Ukrainian government to fall didn't happen. And obviously the Russians didn't have the logistics capable of sustaining with easy such an operation. This points to the possibility of Putin truly living in a cocoon surrounded by yes-men: any opposition based on reality wouldn't even get to his ears. The first reports of hungry Russian soldier roaming around for food came from Belarus even before the start of the war, which was telling. Basically it's now for the slow slog. As Ukrainians logically prefer to fight in urban terrain (not on wide fields where armour and firepower triumph), the Russians seem to try to surround the cities. The next phase is the Stalingrad or Berlin type of fighting, which would be absolutely devastating.
Of course Ukraine dominates the Western media scene and we seldom see destroyed Ukrainian armor or units (but some references there are). So I would be cautious in judging just on how bad the situation for Russian armed forces is. Of course there is the possibility that's it even worse, but that we will see.
The problem of Ukraine being “neo-Nazi” when President Zelensky and many Ukrainian oligarchs (Pinchuk, Kolomoyskyi, Bogolyubov, Khan, Surkis, Rabinovich, Tymoshenko, etc.) are Jewish, seems a bit puzzling.
However, the fact is that though genuine neo-Nazis are a minority, there are large numbers of Ukrainian nationalists of all shades from moderates to ultras, and they tend to be anti-Russian, especially in the current climate.
Leading Jews like the oligarchs themselves are neither neo-Nazis nor anti-Russian (though some may be anti-Putin). But for various reasons (e.g., links to Western business) they prefer a West-oriented, liberal capitalist Ukraine to a less liberal Ukraine dominated by Russia. Hence, they tend to back pro-Western political parties even when they are nationalist and anti-Russian.
Now, consider that most of Ukraine’s parties, including the ruling Servant of the People, are center to center-right and thus NOT far-right by any definition. However, they are pro-European (or pro-EU) and therefore, “anti-Russian”.
So, when Putin says “neo-Nazis”, he doesn’t mean neo-Nazis in the West European or US sense – except perhaps as a general hate term - but in the Russian sense of “anti-Russian nationalists”, i.e., an umbrella term for anyone deemed to hold an anti-Russian position, including those who are pro-EU without necessarily being anti-Russian in a narrow sense, i.e., people who have no anti-Russian intentions or sentiments, but are “anti-Russian” as a consequence of their being pro-EU.
This does not mean that violent neo-Nazi groups have not been used by mainstream parties in anti-Russian activities, possibly with the knowledge of Western powers. But is this enough to justify war? If the Russian minority is being persecuted, suppressed, or physically attacked, it may well be. But I think a greater danger for Russia would be if Ukraine joined NATO in which case Ukraine (and NATO) may decide to take Crimea back from Russia. This would be a direct threat to Russia’s security in the Black Sea area and, therefore, unacceptable.
The way I see it, the West could have avoided the conflict by renouncing eastward expansion, and Russia should have formed a broader diplomatic alliance with China, India, and other non-Western players, in order to pressure the West into staying out of the region by non-military means.
But to return to Zelensky. As stated before, he started his career as a TV comedian. In 2003, Zelensky and his close friends Ivan Bakanov and Serhiy Shefir set up the production company Kvartal 95.
Kvartal 95 started producing TV shows for Ukrainian TV channels including Inter, one of Ukraine’s most-watched television channels. A few years later Zelensky became a member of the board and general producer of Inter.
In 2015, Kvartal 95 started producing the TV series “Servant of the People” in which Zelensky played the role of president of Ukraine.
In 2018 Zelensky, Bakanov, Shefir, and other Kvartal 95 operatives founded the political party “Servant of the People”, named after the series, and headed by Bakanov. Zelensky ran for president in a virtual election campaign, using social media channels and YouTube clips. He was elected in 2019.
Zelensky’s party included media magnates like Oleksandr Tkachenko who became minister of culture and information policy. Tkachenko had been a correspondent for the British news agency Reuters, had a business degree from Harvard and completed a business course at INSEAD, after which he entered the TV and film production business, becoming a leading figure in Ukraine’s largest media group, 1+1 Media, which is owned by oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi, Ukraine’s second-richest man.
Together with oligarchs Hennadiy Boholyubov (a British citizen) and Oleksiy Martynov, Kolomoyskyi became super-rich during the privatization of state assets after the collapse of the Soviet Union and currently controls the global business conglomerate Privat Group which controls thousands of companies worldwide and maintains close links to political circles. (Other key associates from media, business, and banking include Boris Lozhkin and Serhiy Tihipko.)
Kolomoyskyi was a member of the pro-Western Fatherland Party and according to sources, Privat Group provided significant financial support to the Orange Revolution of 2004. Following the Maidan Revolution of 2014, Kolomoyskyi was appointed governor of Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine’s most important industrial region, by acting president and former SBU boss Turchynov, a Fatherland leader.
Incidentally, Zelensky, Shefir, and Bakanov (who was appointed head of Ukraine’s Security Service SBU) themselves were operating a network of offshore companies in the British Virgin Islands, Cyprus, and Belize.
In 2019 Zelensky handed his shares in one of the companies over to Shefir, but the two men appear to have made an arrangement for Zelensky's family to continue receiving the money from these companies. Bakanov also controlled the Spanish construction and real estate company Nueva Tierra Verde SL.
Putting their money into offshore companies was not necessarily illegal, but it exposes a pattern of behavior typical of the oligarchs of whom Zelensky and his crew had been highly critical and whose rule they had promised to bring to an end.
In fact, there seems to be more to the story, but I think it is pretty clear that powerful Ukrainian business and media groups with links to the West are behind Zelensky’s government.
Anyway, here is an interesting take on the Ukraine situation from Henry Kissinger (written in 2014):
How the Ukraine Crisis Ends – Washington Post
You're the guy who says Putin is entirely justifiable starting a denazifying war against Ukraine, despite the fact that he has ties to neo-Nazis. You're saying he's entirely justifiable despite being a hypocrite regarding his stated cause. Can't argue with that shit, one can only laugh.
I think that Western journalists have little knowledge on Syria (as they had on Libya) as these have been quite closed authoritarian countries from the start. But considering what a genuine fiasco the whole US operation was... yeah. (Of course in Syria you have the situation where a minority is repressing the majority, and Assad has angered the Sunni majority so much, that the minorities have to simply fight alongside. The conflict was made a religious fight on purpose)
Yet think about it how for example Hungary's Victor Orban has been depicted. Or think about the scares about Austrian leaders starting from Kurt Waldheim. And Germany has it's neo-nazi scares as it has it's "Hitler-Welles". The fact is, that if the Zelensky administration would have links to the extreme-right, which they are against, it would have been earlier reported.
Quoting boethius
Putin is grasping for all kinds of pretexts. Starting from an non-existent genocide. The US, NATO and neo-nazis are the mix for today. And even when there obviously is support for him, I would be critical of just how objective those polls are in a country where being against the country and the war can get you into jail. In 2014-2015 you could see Russians here in Finland carrying the St. Georges ribbon. Now a lot of them are simply shocked. It is very different.
Quoting boethius
The Ukrainians have to defend their country, halt the Russian attacks and inflict losses enough to get Putin to honestly talk about an armistice or peace. And then likely they have to make concessions, like accepting that Crimea is part of Russia. Or then they can surrender...which they surely won't.
That is the way to peace. Now it's time for war.
(A Russian tank crew getting into the right war mood in Southern Ukraine...)
Not really puzzling.
Nor more puzzling as the US arming jihadists and supporting jihadists to fight Assad or Qaddafi, as I've already mentioned. If there's only one kind of person who's going to fight your battle, then you either support that kind of person or your battle isn't fought.
Quoting Apollodorus
Definitely agree.
Quoting Apollodorus
Yes, as I mentioned in my exchanges with @ssu, the neo-Nazi claims, regardless of the "real truth", is certainly also exaggerated propaganda.
I'm more interested in whether this argument is really working in Russia as a whole, than whether we can really measure "Naziness" and also construct some threshold of "too much Naziness" etc. which I think is still an interesting moral-political theory to get into, but not too relevant at this stage (more academic than helping deescalate the situation and end the war).
Quoting Apollodorus
Yes, I totally agree, and in terms of "rights", certainly Ukraine had a right to join the EU and NATO ... using that as a basis to criticize Russian policy against that, seems to make little sense.
If EU and NATO want Ukraine in the club, by all means let them in the club a year ago and prevent all this bloodshed at the risk of nuclear war being a shell away.
Western media has been obsessing over the idea of "Putin's miscalculation" but certainly these Zelensky and his supporters miscalculated in calling Putin's bluff.
If I call your bluff and go all in at the poker table, and you win because you're not bluffing ... I've never been praised as a hero for such a decision.
Vice versa rather, I said them because I know them. Are you not aware of these facts?
I think we're totally in agreement that a failure to understand (or even take interest) in regions before, during and after involvement in military conflict isn't a good basis of decision making.
Quoting ssu
Completely agree there's as much (sure, perhaps even more, who knows) propaganda coming from Russia as from Ukraine or Western media.
Why I'm very slow in my analysis; it's extremely difficult to evaluate things with so much propaganda in all directions.
What I can be more certain of is that the West only has diplomacy to try to reduce the bloodshed, and getting into the Putin / Kremlin / Russian perspective (regardless of what is absolutely true of all these questions) is necessary for any successful diplomatic process.
Quoting ssu
This is a difficult question. Certainly it's what's happening. What is the "best thing" to do for a negotiated settlement is unclear to me.
Maybe if Zelensky signed a paper committing not to join Nato (who did not and is not letting him in the club nor establishing a no-fly zone for him) before the war, there would be no war and all this madness and suffering, not just in Ukraine but globally as these events cause never-before-seen commodity price increases in never-before-seen number of commodities.
Zelensky wouldn't be a hero ... but literally the entire planet wouldn't suffer, and he'd be considered by historians a selfless wise man.
Now, if he signed, didn't get into NATO which wasn't on offer anyways, and Russia still invaded then he'd be both wise and a hero.
Certainly there must be some basis for introspection of Ukrainian leadership of how they got their country, and the entire world, into this mess as well.
As with Russia and as with the EU / NATO.
For example, flooding Ukraine with Javelin and Manpads and other Western military donations (from people not willing to actually fight in Ukraine) may not have any chance of changing the outcome and can backfire in many ways.
Or, maybe, it will force Putin to the negotiation table and a resolution is found sooner rather than later.
We'll certainly find out.
I see that you make honest question and do think about it. Your not a preacher here, but open at thinking.
The fact is that raising a topic like right-wing extremism in Ukraine now can send many the wrong message when there is this Russian leader that has invaded Ukraine and talking about de-nazification of the country lead by neo-nazis. I think you understand this too.
But people hear dog-whistles everywhere.
Clearly, I make the counter argument here as Western media I think makes the former in abundance.
As I say, could be true that Putin "planned all this" since 2014 and is the one that wants the new cold war and just import Chinese totalitarian technology.
It could also be a more messy process with plenty of opportunities, in particular the EU, to have avoided this truly disastrous war.
Obviously, Putin did start the war and it's a disaster for the world.
Strategically, could easily benefit Russia in medium / long term (such as super increase in commodity prices which Russia's economy is based on, seizing the bread basket of Ukraine), and from Putin's perspective West isn't doing him any favours so he's not doing them favours.
True, insane amounts of risk in this move and can be a total disaster for Russia ... but that is also not necessarily a good outcome for the world with so many nuclear weapons (both escalating Putin to use of nuclear weapons as well as an unraveling of the Russian state and losing nuclear weapons to the black market ... which, presumably, is the whole point of extreme sanctions is to collapse the adversaries economy and cause a failed sate situation, which Western leaders literally say is their goal).
That we surely will know.
What the timetable for that is, nobody knows.
Another week, a month, six months, a year or more, who knows...
What history tells us that a war fought with this kind of intensity will likely last something like few weeks, but less than a year:
Six day war: as the name says
Russo-Georgian war: 12 days
Yom Kippur war: 2 weeks and 5 days
2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war: 1 month 2 weeks
1982 Lebanon war: main phase 4 months, in all three years (with low-intensity part)
Yes, hopefully sooner rather than later.
Also, though we need to try to understand the Putin / Kremlin / Russian perspective for the best chance of peace, I honestly don't know what it is.
Could be Putin blundered into this ... or maybe the Kremlins looking at these sky high commodity prices and high fiving each other, as, if the war lasts weeks as you say it might and costs some tens of billions seems the estimate, the legacy of commodity prices may last years or decades and net Russia trillions.
The problem with the "boohoo commodity price increase global economic disaster; the war is such a terrible disaster" is that if you provide no incentive for Russia to participate in the global economy ... but are going to buy their commodities anyways, and China isn't going to leave a fellow tyrant hanging, then this isn't a "bad result" for the Kremlin. Certainly immoral to cause such a disaster, but if the world plays hardball with Putin ... what's the argument that Putin should play softball back.
And indeed, once the war is over and Western leaders are dealing with even worse inflation, people may not accept the argument "their suffering is necessary for Ukrainians to have prolonged a war for a true apex of virtue signaling on social media; literal victory through defeat" for long.
Of course, everything could unravel over night for the Kremlin, but that doesn't seem a good result either.
Certainly, you have in mind Finland's defense against the Soviet Union.
... However, Finland did "lose" the war and cede land for the sake of a resolution, and the Soviet Union was more worried about the Nazi's.
The Finn's fought courageously and successfully defended most of the country ... but also had an element of political realism, adapted to the wider political context (Soviet Union did have a reachable tolerance for losses) and also carried out successful diplomacy to ultimately resolve the conflict.
Finland also did not make "virtue signalling" but dangerously irrational political moves such as invade Russia itself, even when Finland had the opportunity during the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union.
Finland's survival was not based only on sending people to fight and die, but also political realism, non-escalation even at the apex of the war, and of course diplomacy.
Also of note, the debate of whether Finland could have avoided the war entirely by making some relatively small concessions to Stalin (compared to the land and lives ultimately lost) continues to this day.
Where has this approach ever worked? It seems the latest fashion in information management but I don't see any precedent for it actually working. All it does it make you sound like you've got something to hide and as such pour petrol on the flames of conspiracy theories.
If there's a neo-nazi problem in Ukraine, and it's being used to justify war, we can oppose it being used that way without having to deny it exists, or suppress all talk of of it. We don't need to sink to his level and pretend that all Ukrainians are now Martin Luther King.
The leader of one of the largest countries in the world has just used the neo-nazi problem in Ukraine as a justification for war. If the best we can come up with by way of response is "shhh..." then we've lost all credibility as rational commentators.
This reminds me of the Orwell essay “Through a Glass, Rosily”.
Don't believe a rumor until it has been officially denied.
Joking aside, I fear that Putin, cornered and desperate, will turn to the tried and true solution - perhaps the only one that he has left: terror, the likes of which we haven't seen since Stalin.
I doubt that he is suicidal enough to go nuclear, as some suggest, but then after so many unthinkable things have come to pass recently, nothing is out of the question.
But we're not all that distant from the battleground. If they throw the a-bomb, I am close enough to be affected. I can forget about growing fruits and vegetables for the rest of my life. If I survive.
There are still big airplanes flying overhead, several per hour. Hungary said it won't allow transit of weaponry and soldiers over its territory. But what are those airplanes carrying? They won't say on the news.
(source)
(source)
Rest assured that these allegations by a country waging war on its neighbour have been addressed here by rational commentators. Neonazis are not a significant factor in today's Ukraine. They are a more significant problem in the US or Russia in fact.
Firstly, we're talking in the first instance about the allegations (the speech act and it's function in global diplomacy) not the facts of the case. If you drop the tribalistic cheerleader act for 30 seconds and actually read you might have recognised as much.
Secondly, the very question of how significant is 'significant' is the one @boethius asked. So all your comment does is beg the question.
Yep. The lives and livelihoods of millions are at stake if Putin launches anything nuclear.
But hey... Let's keep provoking him, see if we can't get him to do something really stupid. I think we should insult his mother next, maybe that'll do it.
Could Ukraine be his Afghanistan? :grimace:
I actually don't know whether to prepare for planting season or not.
No, those are orthodox and blonde! :eyes:
You tell me... :-) Once you're done, I have other questions for ya: how heavy is 'heavy'? How beautiful is 'beautiful'?
Is there? I don't think there is. I think there are neo-nazis in many countries.
I think in Ukraine there is a "Your neighbor wants to de-nazify you" problem.
I think that problem is far more severe than anything else, which ought to be the topic...
But of course we can talk about Ukraine and for example Climate Change. Or Ukraine and Covid. Or wokeness in Ukraine... Or neonazis...
I call it: Trollin for Putin.
Do you know how genocidal the war in Checnya was? The Second Chechen War was Putin's war. First among many.
You can look up the widely varying casualty estimates, but they have to be understood in the light that there are only 2 million Chechens. The Second War, Putin's Presidential election campaign basically, shows directly what kind of war Putin is capable of. And how a war can deteriorate into slaughter and brutality. At first (at the First Chechen war) the Chechens applied similar things that Ukrainians are doing now in Kherson etc, go openly to talk to or demonstrate at the soldiers and present their outrage. Chechen Women stopped some armored columns by creating human walls on the road. Yet once the casualties grew, such actions disappeared.
The longer the war goes, the more the hatred increases and the truly ugly side of war is shown. Now it's been just a week and a few days, so it's just the start of this.
I don't think that is relevant, is it?
Sorry, I was joking but I committed a mistake.
So there are Neo-Nazis in many countries but not in Ukraine? Or there are Neo-Nazis in Ukraine but it's fine, we're happy to have a few Neo-Nazis here and there, life's rich pageant and all?
Which is it?
Quoting ssu
Right. And? What has the severity of the problem got to do with anything? We're talking about diplomatic solutions to try and stop the war, it's not a competition.
The point is that Putin has used the Neo-Nazi issue as a pretext for war. Constantly saying there's no Neo-Nazi problem just plays into that rhetoric, it makes it sound like a cover-up, like there's just two equal sides playing the same propaganda game.
Quoting ssu
All of which would be pointless because the person with whom we have to negotiate if we're to have a hope in hell of avoiding more bloodshed hasn't mentioned any of those issues. Seriously, this isn't LARPing, this is grown up international relations. If the best you can come up with is to keep whining "...but...but...he lied"... well welcome to the fucking adult political world. They all lie, all the fucking time. So.
The question, the only question is what the diplomatic response should be.
...
A little news from the border of the country where far-right nationalism is apparently not a significant problem.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-refugees-racism-russia-invasion-b2024175.html
So I guess Rosa Parks was just blowing it all out of proposition, yes?
Read properly. Neo-nazi problem.
There's more likely a problem with the foreigners running around with de-nazification on mind.
Quoting Isaac
So there's a war going on in Ukraine.
Isaac: And? What has the severity of the problem got to do with anything?
Just remembering the first comment you made on this thread, just 18 days ago:
Quoting Isaac
Yep. So is it not a problem that there's Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, or is there no problem because there's no Neo-Nazis? It's not clear which is your claim.
Are you claiming that denying African people a place on the bus is 'not a problem'?
Quoting ssu
Yes. You're dodging the issue. How do we stop wars? Is it by measuring how severe they are and hand-wringing about how bad it all is? Or is it by successful peace negotiations?
Quoting ssu
Not sure the point you're trying to make here?
Poor Shell. I hate to think of how 'difficult' a time those poor board members must have had.
What is the world coming to? One minute thousands of innocent people dying painful deaths, the next, corpulent profiteers having to make 'difficult' decisions. Isn't one tragedy enough!
Indeed, we maybe forced to consider the possibility that the invasion of Ukraine was likewise a difficult choice and there was "no alternative".
Peace negotiations happen either when a) one side has had enough and is facing at least the possibility of unconditional surrender / total defeat or when b) both sides have had enough of it.
This isn't a border clash or some remote island, when the other side is trying to take the capital of one side. So I'm not seeing either a) or b) happening yet.
Who cares at this moment? There are neo-nazis everywhere, especially in nations that have free speech, there will always exist a number of outliers and yes, all of these bad groups should be dealt with. But nothing of this has anything to do with the war. The neo-nazi liberation narrative is Putin propaganda, nothing else. To even consider that perspective as valid is falling for that propaganda as valid reasoning when discussing the war. People should be more rational than doing so. Putin lies all the time but people seem to use that as valid perspectives or counterpoints. :shade:
Quoting Isaac
Not by debating whether the west is to blame through ill-conceived arguments about Nato, that's for sure. Stopping a war requires action on the part of people in power. As far as I can see I think the west is actually doing good in this regard. Sanctions are hard, help gets to Ukraine, pressure on Putin is everywhere. We see hints in Russia of support for the war dropping.
How else do you stop a war without starting a bigger one? There are only two options really. Either fight or help without fighting.
It looks that right now, there are just two possible scenarios:
1)Putin swiftly changes the narrative, declares Martial Law, and transforms his regime into a Stalinist dictatorship.
2) The conflict will keep its primary military, ideological, and organizational parameters for a few more weeks. In this case, there will be more and more protests in Russia itself,
Russian resources will be depleted, and Putin will be defeated.
We had to destroy the village in order to save it.
Hmmm... that might take a bit of time. Just to give an example: let's think of the T-72 tank. It's 50 years old. About 18 000 tanks were produced in all. About 2 000 are in use. So how much are in reserve?
And then there are the T-80, T-90 and the tiny batch of Armata tanks about in all 5 000 added to the T-72. For comparison, the US has 2,000 Abrams tanks in use and 3,000 in reserve. Now the tank production has been low, that is true. But then again, Russia is in a new situation: it's engaged in a large conventional war. It just might simply start to produce tanks by putting people into "military" service and change the production into war-time economy. Decreases a lot of your costs when you can pay a cleaners salary to your mechanics and engineers. The production won't be on the level of WW2, but I think they can in few years replenish what they are losing now.
1993 Cambodia, 1996 Guatemala, 1998 Northern Ireland, 1999 Columbia...
Peace talks work. They work better when adolescent-level idealists aren't bleating about the fact that one of the parties lied.
Forget it. It's like talking to children. Can you seriously not get your heads round the idea of diplomatically taking account of the stated grievances of one party without agreeing with them?
Can you seriously not tell the difference between working out what we could do (or could have done) to fix this and deciding who's to blame?
How did that in any shape or form relate to what I wrote? Putin pushes a propaganda narrative to justify his actions, there's no reality to that narrative. Why can't people understand this?
And which of the conflicts would reject my hypothesis?
With Cambodia you mean 1991? The Cambodian-Vietnamese War went on for 10 years. Decisive victory for Vietnam and collapse of the Khmer rouge and it's Democratic Kampuchea. An obvious example of a).
Guatemalan Civil War went on for 36 years. You somehow object it to be the case of b)?
1998 Northern Ireland: The Troubles went on from the late 1960's to 1998. That's also 30 years. I think it was also a case of b).
1999 Columbia is surely different. No peace agreement was achieved! Yes, FARC has signed a peace accord in 2016 and laid down their arms in 2017, but then in 2019 still a few continue the struggle against the evil capitalists...
Peace talks have their role as I said: in of either case a) or b).
Are we really just going to stand by and watch this exploitation happen?
We only import 4% of our gas from Russia. A third comes from Norway. Nearly half is from our own North Sea supply.
Why then are we being stuck with obscene price rises?
Yes, the message about neo-Nazis is not a reference to antisemitism. Putin's version of national identity is more along the lines of the Falangists in Spain than a celebration of Stalin's atheistic republic. Putin has much support within the Russian Orthodox Church. It is more of a civil war in the fashion of Franco than a model of an imperium.
In that sense, maybe it is more like the American Civil War than the conflicts which have consumed that area of the globe for time out of mind.
The biggest reason is the money printing. If you create so much money, then prices finally rise.
It's the systematic flaw in our financial system based on having ever more debt.
By sheer force of numbers, Russia can certainly eventually occupy Ukraine, but it appears it will take a significant amount of time, potentially months now that the war is beginning to settle into more solid fronts, and most of Russia combat power has been deployed without a collapse of the Ukranian military. The Ukranian AA is still up, as evidence by videos from today of more Russian aircraft being shot down. The Ukranian forces have developed defensive positions and rapid collapse no longer seems like a threat.
Despite high casualties, Ukraine's combined forces still number in the hundreds of thousands. While significantly out gunned in terms of hardware, their 465,000 strong active and reserve components can overcome this disadvantage to some degree in urban areas, particularly so long as Russia continues to lose aircraft in attacks and supply lines to the cities aren't cut.
With the conflict heading towards the end of its second week, Russia has taken just one significant city, and not only failed to take Kharkiv, right along its border, but sustained heavy losses in a major counter offensive there.
While the Russian military has significantly fewer logistics personnel per each soldier in a combat role than the US, it is still a ratio of less than 1:1. Casualties for Russia appear to be somewhere in the range of 5-10,000 already (granted, some deserters may return). They appear to be rapidly burning through their initial deployment.
Leaks indicate this, as does Russian consideration of using unreliable forces from their ostensible vassals that have just recently undergone revolts against their Russian-backed autocratic leadership. Now they are starting to recruit in Syria, another sign of desperation.
The heavy shelling of residential areas in the mostly ethnic Russian city of Kharkiv is indicative of commanders who do not feel they have enough combat forces to press into the city with infantry, likely fearing that heavy losses may collapse the front. There is other evidence to support this, such as the suicidal raid into the city by special forces that resulted in the units' destruction, and the successful Ukranian counter offensive in the area which video evidence shows taking out 38 vehicles, including many large troop carriers, supporting their claims of having inflicted 1,600-2,000 casualties in that single operation (this might be an exaggeration because many may have simply dismounted and fled in a route, and be useable in the near future; the videos don't show many KIA, unlike the videos of the special forces sent into Kharkiv, who seem to be largely KIA, and there were no videos of a large scale surrender of that size).
Here is the main point: to date, the Ukrainians have given every indication that they will reject a Russian puppet government and that resistance will continue even if Russia secures an eventual victory over Ukraine's conventional military forces. The government in Kyiv is supporting this notion by arming civilians, preparing IEDs, etc. To be sure, these are in part, simply propaganda efforts, a way to signal to Russia the high costs of occupation. However, the resistance to date makes insurgency seem increasingly likely.
Russia cannot afford an insurgency in a nation the size of Ukraine. Even if their goal is limited to the eastern parts of the country, and newly discovered gas fields, it is hard to imagine how they secure it. Their force already seems inadequate for the initial defeat of the Ukranian military. It is far too small for proper COIN operations.
For comparison, Vietnam had a 16% smaller population in 1965 than Ukraine's current population. In order to counter the VC, the US had to deploy 550,000 soldiers, supported by an additional 50,000 allied forces (mostly Korean). Backing them up were 820,000 South Vietnamese soldiers, so 1.42 million men at arms. They were only policing half the country. The technological gap between the VC and the US armed forces was significantly larger than that between the Ukrainians and Russians.
While US leadership paid a hefty political price for involvement in Vietnam, the Russian public is likely to have far graver doubts about this war. First, the invasion has a poor justification, and it came as a shock to the public. It is framed as a liberation and peacekeeping operation, which does not jive with images coming out of Ukraine: civilians taking up arms and shelled apartment complexes. The countries are neighbors with a shared culture; family ties stretch across the border. Resentment will build up far quicker.
Additionally, while the US was involved in horrific events in Vietnam, and air campaigns that killed countless civilians, the large bulk of the major atrocities of the war were committed by the South Vietnamese army or the VC itself. US citizens could rationalize that the bloodshed would continue, and perhaps intensify if the US withdrew (e.g., when the VC was able to take Hu?, the result was widespread massacre and rape of civilians by the communists). In an insurgency in Ukraine, any attempt to "take the gloves of" will reflect directly on the Russian invaders.
The internet, and the ease with which video can be shared, even within states with significant censorship, will also make controlling public opinion harder. The fifteen-year prison sentences announced for sharing "fake news about the security operation," (e.g., sharing videos of Russian combat loses, or interviews with demoralized soldiers), seem like an act of desperation. Russia can shutter its last independent TV networks (it has), but it is too modernized to shut down the internet without major economic repercussions. At the same time, the Russian economy is far worse off than the America's in the 1960, and public anger can't be discharged in elections by voting in a new party.
Point being, it is unclear to me how Putin can hope to occupy Ukraine long term if there is continued resistance. The force required would necessitate calling up essentially all of their reserve forces and a wave of conscription. Russia has 3.45 million men aged 20-24. During the Vietnam War, the US had more than twice as many men in that age bracket (7.5 million). A draft will hit more families, more substantially if similar troop levels are required by the Russians.
Morale and combat readiness is likely to grow even worse as Russia is forced to call up reserves with more distance from military service, or rely on freshly trained conscripts. Historically, older men called out of the reserves are significantly more likely to mutiny. Their deaths also leave families without a breadwinner.
This will also put pressure on Russia to attempt to use the militaries of its ostensible vassals, Belarus and Kazakhstan. However, that move comes with huge political risks. Belarus and Kazakhstan have both seen recent, large-scale revolts against their leadership. Putin may not have the leverage to call on Kazakh forces at all. He could almost certainly force Lukashanko to commit troops (he already has his military working logistics for the invasion, and crossing over the border), but mutiny seems highly likely if they are forced into the current meat grinder.
Already Belarus has seen protests, clashes with riot police, and partisans hacking, and fire-bombing railways so that Russian forces can't use them. Belarusian expats are serving as volunteers in Ukraine right now. As the war drags on longer and Russia looks more bogged down, the risk of revolts spreading become more likely.
But how can Putin get out of this?
Perhaps he will take a more logical approach. He will focus on securing the gas fields in the east and a smaller area around his new "republics," declare victory, and end the war. This seems increasingly politically difficult though, as KIA counts mount. He has to justify a foolhardy, surprise war, and all those killed, for what will then look more explicitly like a resource grab (Ukraine will not have been "liberated."). As the Russians double down on more outlandish propaganda, we now hear of CIA plutonium shipments to Kyiv, bioweapons being engineered, etc., it becomes harder for them to back into a face-saving peace that leaves an independent Ukraine. Partition is an option, but a new Western Ukraine would become a haven for insurgents. Pushing to the border with NATO has its own major risks too though, and the population further west will be even more hostile to Russia.
Backing down would critically damage Putin's reputation at a time when he might already be being second guessed due to his illness, and his irrational decision to go to war. This might lead him to keep doubling down on the war even as the costs pile up; particularly if unrest spreads and he has to "liberate" Belarus down the road.
Barring a crafty propaganda move, declaring "victory" with limited aims, or a rapid shift in the tide of the war and a collapse in Ukranian morale and confidence, both of which look increasingly unlikely, it appears Putin will face a very severe crisis. This could become a huge security threat if instability spreads to Russia, but it seems like an inevitability at this point barring some drastic shift in the current trajectory of the conflict. And while a quick shift in leadership could offer Russian elites a way out of the Ukranian debacle, Putin has organized the state to make it almost impossible to remove him without force, making a coup and potential internal struggle more likely if he eventually gets to a place where his position is no longer tenable.
On a related note, Tuesday marks the 105th anniversary of the February Revolution (which might mark renewed protests in Russia and Belarus). The anniversary of a revolt led by mutinous soldiers who were angry at having their lives squandered in a pointless war, and citizens facing a massive economic crisis. I wonder if Putin thinks of Tsar Nicholas at all from his glimmering mansion?
Depends on what happens when he takes out Zelensky. A resistance will need a leader.
Maybe Putin thought Zelensky would flee the country and Ukraine would surrender sooner than this.
I think this is a real possibility. What surprises me is that the "Putin is mad" camp cannot talk about strategy. If Putin has made a strategic error, and is rational, then we have to talk about strategy. As an aside, if the Russian population supports Putin then it is indeed a Russian military operation.
Maybe form a buffer region to prevent shelling of the east? How did George W. Bush liberate Iraq, and more importantly, liberate the US from the Iraqi threat? By destroying the country. That's is a criminal option, but an option nevertheless.
Nazism may be alive and well, and I do not see anyone talking the effort to criminalize it, UN agreements notwithstanding. There may be wisdom in letting them show identify themselves instead of forcing them underground, I do not know.
He almost certainly thought that. He was high on his own propaganda. The Russian forces did not come in ready for heavy resistance. They came in with downright suicidal VDV raids deep into enemy territory with no SEAD and no ground support follow up. The logistics were also not in place for a long war, as evidenced by all the stalled vehicles and the fact that the bulk of the siege forces meant for Kyiv have still yet to cover their two-hour drive after a week.
Zelensky's death could be a game changer if it leads to infighting. If there is other competent leadership, making him a martyr might just make things worse for Putin, as he was not without his detractors before, and a new wartime leader could have less baggage. I also don't think he would take too much of a blow to popularity if he stayed in the city until encirclement seemed inevitable and then retreated to Liviv with the explicit purpose of continuing the war even if Kyiv falls.
The shift in tactics, "taking the gloves off" also seems more likely to keep a resistance going regardless of what happens to Zelensky. Relying heavily on indirect fire in an urban area that is supposed to be filled with "your" civilians also shows a total loss of control of the battle space, as does having your general officers killed by sniper fire or having battalion commanders captured and paraded out.
If his strategic goal was just those areas, he would have simply recognized Donetsk and Luhansk and done a smaller operation to secure those regions. Instead, he launched most of his forces at Kyiv. He chose an operation with a footprint large enough that it would commit him to a much larger war.
He obviously thought the resistance would collapse, hence the idiotic attack plan. They now have 8 separate lines of attack, which is resulting in their supply lines being extremely vulnerable and subject to attack. The offensive is already stalled, with strong salients developing. The air force is MIA for some unknown reason, and when aircraft are used, it they are being shot down. Rather than focus on a consolidated strategic goal, they decided to show off with multiple different advances they lack the logistics to support and the comms to coordinate (hell, even within one column they lack effective comms, hence two generals and two colonels being killed after they had to go to the front to get directions to their troops).
[i]Sputnik Exclusive: DPR Leader Says Situation in Donbass Comparable to NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia
LIVE UPDATES: Over 163,000 People Evacuated From Areas of Russia's Spec Op in Ukraine[/i]
and RT (Official Russian Propaganda Channel)
US drafts plan for government-in-exile, guerrilla war in Ukraine – reports
How is this good news for Russians? They know the 'military operation' is ongoing, know that it has been going on for several days, and of course they now people are getting killed and injured on all sides.
Once you start restricting news, you lose credibility, no matter what country you are in. Maybe not in the West.
I could stop criticizing the Russian Military for a few days, no problem. I don't think I have done it here. The question is why the West has banned Russian channels, is it not prohibiting criticism of the military of the West? Or to be specific, Joe Biden, and Boris Johnson?
Should he have just focused on Kiev instead of surrounding the whole country?
He should have not started a war. But if he was going to, sure, it would have made sense to try the "swiftly topple the government with a huge show of force," idea they used. However, once it clearly wasn't going to work, a two-pronged offensive from around Kharkiv, and up from Crimea seems to make more sense. Then you can push towards Dnipro, with smaller forces supporting from the "republics" and attempt to encircle defenders in the south. You could bipass the cities to try to encircle the army, instead of getting bogged down in urban street fighting, where your hardware advantage counts for less, and where collateral damage will result in a greater risk of future insurgency.
This area is also more ethnically Russian and your best bet for winning hearts and minds (provided you aren't shelling apartments).
Save the "invade from Belarus" trick until after you've dealt the Ukranian military a decent defeat and made them burn through AA resources. It isn't fooling anyone, Western intelligence can see your movements on satellites. Just keep a small presence of low combat effectiveness reserves parked on the border, forcing Ukraine to waste forces guarding against a potential attack.
Only after that initial success do you push on Kiev. If they still are holding out well, begin further moves up north of Kharkiv looking for smaller encirclements (Russian doctrine is heavily focused on encirclements so this should be what your troops know).
Tell your troops they are going into a war. Yeah, you need opsec, but telling them they are going out on drills and then shoving them into combat is how you get the droves of abandoned vehicles we're seeing right now. Don't trick conscripts into "signing up" to become volunteers and then shove them into combat roles. Don't shell civilian corridors, let people leave so you can deal with urban areas without (as much) collateral damage. If your whole plan relies on a quick war, not prolonged sieges, what possible benefit is it to trap civilians in the cities you are besieging? Yeah, they will eat through supplies quicker with the civilians there, but the whole point is that you're not trying for a long siege.
And stop throwing the VDV into unsupported raids. You'd almost think a leader there must be suspected of planning a coup with how they are throwing them away.
That's my armchair general take anyhow.
It might accelerate the reclamation of the Russian Far East though. Booted out of SWIFT, Russian financial institutions are turning to a Chinese alternative. Russia is buying tons of Yuan. Russia will likely become more amenable to payments for oil in Yuan as sanctions make using USD harder. With sanctions likely to stay, Russia's non-petrol exports will have their main market in Russia.
The Russian Far East is down below 7 million Russian citizens. The number of Chinese living there in 2000? 28,000. In 2014? 800,000. Today? We don't know because it is a sore spot for Russia, but it is probably on the way to 1/6th the population. Of that Russian population, about a million are indigenous to the area or Mongolian, with closer historical ties to China.
China still maintains in official documents that the treaties through which Russia acquired that land in the mid-1800s are illegal. Much of the Russian Far East was a part of various Chinese dynasties, off and on from 500 AD to 1850 AD, a fact they like to bring up. I doubt there will be any moves towards making the area part of China, at least not any time soon (unless Russia really collapses from this), but they wield a lot of soft power there, which will only grow now. Long term, if a decent majority of the population becomes ethnic Han, perhaps we will see a move towards "independence."
China is also making moves in Central Asia, pulling those states into its orbit (and out of Russia's). This will certainly accelerate that process. Russia is too big and too culturally different to become a true Chinese satellite, but it could be accelerating on that trajectory with long term isolation and economic decline.
Long term, around 2100, I wouldn't be totally shocked by these borders. Mandate of heaven indeed.
Bear in mind this is a Mercator projection.
Good point.
The use of information in war. Or mis-information. What is the actual size of Russia, Ukraine, China and the United States? This never makes it to any of the news channels and expert heads?
Let's see. Take a moment to confirm these sizes: the Mercator projection served well in brainwashing the public (washing is supposed to make things cleaner by the way):
Ukraine is bigger than what is shown on the standard map of the world (Mercator projection)
USA is more than half the size of Russia
China is one and a half times the size of the USA.
Check for yourself: https://thetruesize.com
Here is the definition:
Quoting Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Are we talking about 1 (a) or (b) ? Acceptable in terms of, for example, the UN Charter?
Russia Releases Bizarre Video of Space Station Breaking Apart (Mar 5, 2022)
That is funny stuff. The three greatest producers of mediocrity always comparing their dick sizes. I must admit, watching China, Russia and US terrorize the world is really getting tiresome.
I heard that was the original plan, but there is a nice sandwich shop in Odesa that he really wanted.
? Prominent Russians join protests against Ukraine war amid 1,800 arrests (Feb 25, 2022)
? A few members of the Russian Parliament speak out against the war. (Feb 28, 2022)
? Ukraine: Russian opposition to the invasion is giving Putin cause for alarm (Mar 4, 2022)
? More than 4,300 people arrested at anti-war protests across Russia (Mar 6, 2022)
Individuals crossed off the list:
? Alexander Litvinenko (Nov 23, 2006), and then more testing was implemented at airports
? Here’s a list of Putin critics who've ended up dead (Mar 11, 2016)
Some crossed off the list a while back:
? Putin pulls plug on last critical TV channel (Jun 23, 2003)
? Russia's Last Independent TV Station Broadcasts 'Swan Lake' in Nod to History Before Going Dark (Mar 4, 2022)
I guess Ukraine is in progress. :fire:
Because it's categorically not true. There is a Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine. There's an even bigger far-right problem, and a bigger still nationalist/racist problem.
The fact that Putin's lying about it being the reason for his invasion does not make it cease to exist.
The fact that Putin's lying about it being the reason for his invasion does not make it best we never mention it and actively suppress all such talk.
What it does mean is that it might represent a good diplomatic lever in any peace negotiations. Being his stated aim (diplomatically), we have to be seen to be addressing it (diplomatically), for him to be able to back down.
That's the entire point of all this discussion.
In your blind polemicism you're triggered by every mention of the word 'Neo-Nazi' to assume the person is agreeing with Putin. We're talking about the process of a diplomatic route to peace. I know for warmongers like you that's an anathema, but others prefer to advocate stopping the death and destruction as quickly as possible by whatever means.
Your hypothesis begs its own question. You simply assume that the exhaustion precedes the peace talks and not that the progress of peace talks precedes the exhaustion.
Peace talk, involves everything from sit down discussions to back-channel whispers and progress from virtually day one of war.
If you seriously think wars are fought only with soldiers and then negotiators brought in at the end when everyone's tired you're more naïve than I thought.
Likewise if you think peace talks have to create a lasting state of harmony to work. A day's ceasefire is a huge humanitarian win.
But it's not about your hypothesis (which is nothing but a tautology "peace talks work when either side prefer peace to war" - well duh!). It's about your rejection of them as a tool. Almost every peace talk ever has started from a position of taking both side's grievances seriously, its a diplomatic exercise, not a court of law. Those that haven't have failed.
> What it does mean is that it might represent a good diplomatic lever in any peace negotiations.
It depends on how relevant is the lever. And the claim "There is a Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine" needs to be proven.
I found a study from July 2016 ("The Far Right in the Conflict between Russia and Ukraine" by Vyacheslav LIKHACHEV), claiming:
From the very beginning, the armed conflict that broke out in the Donbass in the spring of 2014 drew in right-wing radicals, on the Ukrainian as well as on the Russian side. Organised ultra-nationalist groups and individual activists established their own units of volunteers or joined existing ones. The ideology, political traditions and general track record of these right- wing extremists meant that it was both natural and inevitable that they would take an active part in the conflict. Yet the role of right-wing radicals on both sides has on the whole been exaggerated in the media and in public discussion. This article demonstrates that Russia’s use of right-wing radicals on the side of the “separatists” in Donetsk and Lugansk provinces had greater military and political repercussions than the involvement of Ukrainian far-right groups in the “anti-terrorist operation”. The general course of the conflict, meanwhile, caused the importance of far right- groups on both sides to decline.
Not to mention how the Ukrainian Jewish community reacted to the "denazification claims about Ukraine by Putin.
From your article...
Quoting neomac
Quoting neomac
How can a problem which doesn't exist be exaggerated? How can the Russians cause more military and political repercussions than something which doesn't exist?
I didn't talk about existence, but about relevance on a negotiation table as you seemed interested to discuss.
Oh. You said
Quoting neomac
That claim begins "There is..." It's a claim directly regarding the existence of something. It's very confusing for you to then deny you're talking about existence.
Perhaps you could clarify. How does "the claim "There is a Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine" needs to be proven." have any bearing on "relevance on a negotiation table". I'm not seeing the link.
Protests are good. That means democracy (or whatever they have over there in Russia) is alive if not unwell. I fully support protests. Anti-war protests, anti "Justified War" protests. I also oppose violence which will again bring up the question of justification. Not sure why people are arrested - does it mean that protests are effective? This is also good. They arrest protesters in the U.S.A. as well, unless of course the protesters pose no threat and are wasting their time. Maybe Putin will stop the war.
Alexander Litvinenko.
Who was he?
So he was a consultant for the British intelligence services. Whom did this episode benefit?
The first act listed was gross insubordination (unless pro-Western actions have a special exclusion) and the second action - switching sides - you tell me what that means in terms of morality.
As for the list
[quote="Business Insider;http://
.
Making a deal with the FBI indeed. Did that deal go wrong? Who knows?
Former Russian Press Minister and founder of RT. When RT is banned as Russia's propaganda arm, or Putin's propaganda channel, the founder of RT is somehow an enemy of Putin. How did it come about? Did he change sides like Litvinenko? Or was someone upset with RT? I know they are now.
I am not impressed with any arguments justifying murder. Killing people is a crime. That said, giving a list of dead people who were once or forever part of the Russian power apparatus as 'people suspected of' how does the URL put it "list-of-people-putin-is-suspected-of-assassinating-2016-3" smacks of propaganda.
So a list of people shot dead, killed by contract killers, is listed as Putin's work. It really practices the 'innocent until proved guilty' concept. If solving crimes is so easy, for journalists to find the killers of innocent people: politicians, activists, former Russian officials, then maybe they should head the KGB.
Obviously, this is not the case, there must be other suspects. How about over-zealous Putin supporters? How about people in the government who considered them traitors? That has never occurred to these people. Have some imagination.
In my opinion, as an uninformed man on the street, the death of these enemies of Putin causes much more doubt about Putin's character than whatever they would have said and done if they were alive. Which leads me to suspect, since suspicion is free from reason, that these people were matryed to embarrass Putin and attempt to destroy him. Good strategy, except that it is murder.
I am all for propaganda, especially unsophisticated propaganda which reveals which side they are on. I know RT and Sputnik always have a pro-Putin stance, except for those things which can be fact checked. With other news channels, mixing the truth with propaganda makes for muddy waters: there are no two sides to the story because stories are simply swept under the carpet.
Thanks for all the info and great insight. I could not understand this bit. What did you mean by "unsupported raids", and "throwing away"?
I've a question (might ask @frank too given his reading on Putin) - two in fact.
1. What harm will it do to Putin if he loses the war in Ukraine as a consequence of NATO/US/ Europe assistance? How will such a situation harm his grip on power, rather than simply cement the 'bulwark against the west' narrative which keeps him there?
2. Why do you think Putin bothered with all the 'denazifying' and 'resist NATO expansion' pretexts? If he's the mad tyrant you say he is, why not just declare war on Ukraine for the glory of Russia and shoot anyone who disagrees?
Bigger than what? The US? What about all other nations with far-right problems, especially in Europe? This is Putin's narrative getting to your head, making Ukraine worse than any other nation with a far-right problem. Not to mention all connections Putin and Russia have to far-right movements in other nations. Since everyone knows he's a strategist, it's kind of logical that he helps push far-right movements in other nations in order to then say there's a neo-nazi problem he's fighting.
Quoting Isaac
There's no reason to talk about a problem in a country where the entire infrastructure and living conditions are war. "The problem" that Putin help you bloat up does not exist right now since it's a problem to fix in a country that does not have war. When there's civilians lying in the streets after a bombing leveled several blocks, it doesn't really matter that one of those houses had a gathering of neo-nazis before the war.
It's like sitting in a house after it burned down saying: "Just because it is like it is doesn't mean we can ignore the plumbing problem we had before the fire."
Quoting Isaac
There's no diplomacy around his propaganda reasons. You cannot sit down in peace talks and use made-up reasons for a ceasefire since that's not the reason he's in Ukraine. You cannot bargain with reasons that even he himself knows are untrue.
It's like your mouth speaks of his reasons not being true, but your mind seems to have bought the propaganda anyway. How do you use made-up ideas when everyone around the table of peace talks knows it's all bullshit? It's not the general public that's in those meetings, they all know it's bullshit. Putin uses these reasons as a way to never answer to his real reasons, it's a mantra whenever he gets criticized.
But even if it's met, it's a problem that is impossible to meet. How do you establish that the "neo-nazis" are gone? Do you show him the dismantled bodies of children in a block bombed to rubble and say: "your neo-nazi problem is gone now, you bombed them to bits"?
Quoting Isaac
Putin doesn't give a shit. While you're writing here, there's been agreed upon humanitarian corridors that were supposed to help civilians flee cities currently being under siege. But Russian troops keep firing at the civilians. They agree on a ceasefire until the civilians are gone, then instantly starts shooting at them.
It's like you don't see what's going on here, like you are blind to the brutality of Putin and the unreliability of dealing with him diplomatically. He doesn't fucking care, and it's proven by what is directly happening between the diplomacy and events in Ukraine.
He's conducting war in the same way as dictators did before the age of internet. Making sham diplomacy meetings and peace talk while bombing civilians to pieces. This worked in the past since it kept the international public in the dark while trying to achieve the real objectives in the war. Only after a war had ended did human rights violations and war crimes become known and then the objective of the war was either failed or gained while proving the aggressor guilty became harder since most evidence was gone. Right now, when it's so easy for information to get out of Ukraine, it becomes much harder to conduct these sham diplomacy strategies and I think this is the failure for Putin.
He didn't calculate how information spreads today and this is why he's now so dedicated to shutting down everything in Russia in order to control the flow of information at least in a place he has control over. Otherwise, we would have seen him shutting down Facebook and information outlets in Russia right at the start of the invasion in order to control the flow. He didn't do that and only did it after protests and criticism appeared, something he might have thought would be something to deal with later.
Quoting Isaac
Putin doesn't care about any of that. If you think you can sit down in a peace talk with his delegation and use his propaganda reasons as "leverage" he would just laugh behind your back. It's gullible and naive to think you can meet his bullshit as foundations for a ceasefire like that. Just look at how he fell back to his "standard" propaganda whenever people like Macron called him and tried to talk sense into him. He doesn't care, he just states the reasons and never discusses it as any valid point.
Because he knows he could keep using that reason as it's an extremely vague point that can never be proven "solved". He could keep using the neo-nazi angle at every corner of this war because there will never be a point when anyone can say "now that the house of nazis has been leveled, the neo-nazis are gone and the denazification is complete".
If you want to get people to act according to your propaganda, basically act by your will. Use a truth (there are neo-nazi groups in Ukraine, just like in most nations of the west) and bloat it up to a propaganda reason for war (denazification of Ukraine). Because of this choice, you have a reason for the war that can never be "finished". So you can use it throughout the war as a stated reason for the war in a way that can never be proven a success or a failure until you choose what outcome fits your need. All while the truth you built the propaganda on muddies the waters of diplomacy and the general public view on the war since some gullible and naive people will look at the truth-part, connect it to the stated reasons and not be able to deconstruct what is truth and what is propaganda.
You can see this everywhere. People who are unable to see past the propaganda, who are unable to see how that propaganda works, are used and who even think they understand that Putin uses propaganda, but still fall for it, just as it seems in your case.
You can't use bullshit reasons as a foundation for peace talks, and you can't meet unquantifiable demands as leverage for a ceasefire, and you can't enter a ceasefire if the aggressor keeps breaking it killing civilians.
Where have I said anything about Ukraine being a bigger problem than anywhere else?
Quoting Christoffer
What's that got to do with whether there's a neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine?
Quoting Christoffer
I've literally been outlining exactly the reason for talking about it. If you don't agree, then your reasons for disagreeing are what we should discuss. Just saying "No" isn't much of a discussion.
Quoting Christoffer
Of course you can. Diplomats do it all the time. All politicians lie, it's the narratives that get them into power and keep them there. It's the basic stuff of politics.
Quoting Christoffer
It isn't bullshit. There is a Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine. This is the distinction you keep failing to see. Putin using it as a justification for war is bullshit. It being worse in Ukraine than most other places is bullshit. It existing at all is not bullshit, so it can be used as a negotiation lever.
Quoting Christoffer
Not at all. Offer to share intelligence on them, ask Russia to identity the perpetrators, involve Russia security in joint surveillance... There's lots of ways to call his bluff.
Quoting Christoffer
Relates to my questions above...
So what are you comparing it to? There's no need for warlike denazification if the problem isn't worse than any other nation with neo-nazi groups.
Quoting Isaac
There isn't a neo-nazi problem in Ukraine that is greater than in other nations. So why do you even talk about this in the way you do? Nothing of this has to do with the war other than you buying into Putin's propaganda. It becomes even less of an issue when you weigh in the fact that Putin's connection to such groups makes him more dangerous in terms of neo-nazi movements than anything in Ukraine.
Quoting Isaac
"All politicians lie" is not the same as how Putin uses propaganda, which goes beyond lies. It's a construct of lies to form a false narrative in which you cannot decipher anything without first dismissing the entirety of it. So you can't use a part of the false narrative and try to navigate it when the entire construct is formed to control it. That's what gullible diplomats do and then gets puppet strings pulled by Putin himself.
Quoting Isaac
I'm just gonna quote my own breakdown of how this works, since you clearly are naive when it comes to how this propaganda works.
Quoting Christoffer
Quoting Isaac
What intelligence? You have already bought into the narrative that Putin provided, but you have nothing to give them, you have no leverage in the peace talks because of the fact that it is an impossible demand to be met, especially at a time when the entire nation is war-torn.
Quoting Isaac
Quoting Isaac
Because it's a perfect propaganda machine reason. It fools the gullible idiots of the world to validate his reasons while making it a "never-ending battle" to denazify so that even if he levels the entire nation of Ukraine he can still spin it as "the only option we had to destroy the nazis".
I cannot believe how naive you are on this subject. You buy into it in the exact way I described:
Quoting Christoffer
Let's focus on the nazis of Ukraine. Putin will retreat their troops, they will put down the guns and hug the Ukrainians in a big warm celebration that the war is over, as long as the peace talks give up the nazis. :shade:
Where did I say there was?
Quoting Christoffer
If you want to know why, I suggest reading my post, in which I explain why. It's not rocket science.
Quoting Christoffer
...is one opinion. "you can decipher something without first dismissing the entirety of it." is another. In order to discuss these opinions you have to provide reasons for them.
Quoting Christoffer
The intelligence Ukraine (and others) hopefully have on far-right extremism in their country. We have intelligence on far-right extremism in our country, you'd hope Ukraine does too.
Quoting Christoffer
You don't have to meet demands in negotiation, you have to go some way towards them.
Quoting Christoffer
Why? Why does Putin need to validate his reasons? Why can't 'the glory of Russia' be a reason? Why does he need 'gullible idiots of the world' to be fooled? And why fool them into thinking he's denazifying Ukraine? Why not fool them into thinking Russia's great and would be greater with Ukraine?
It's you pushing to escalate this war, not me.
One has to prove that neo-nazi problem exists, if it is relevant and to whom. Neo-nazi activists are present both in Russia and all western countries, not only in Ukraine. Is this a problem? Well it depends. If you claim that this is relevant for negotiation between Ukraine and Russia now, I doubt that for the reasons I pointed out (including the war crimes allegedly committed by Putin). The problem for Russia is not neo-nazi activities in Ukraine per se (if you also consider that the president and the prime minister of Ukraine are jews, there are the Ukrainian laws banning anti-semitism [1], and Ukranian Jewish community is voicing their disagreement with Putin's "denazification" claims ) but the far-right nationalists who are against Russian minorities. So focusing on neo-nazi movements has some cheap propaganda benefits for Russia which may play well with some part of the Russian population (mainly for historical reasons) but it doesn't necessarily play well on a negotiation table with Ukraine, or other involved third parties (like EU and NATO).
[1] https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-passes-antisemitism-law/31473362.html
And you are repeating your posts like a parrot not even understanding the answers you get. It's pointless trying to discuss something like this with someone who ignores anything said that challenges your point of view while just answering every minor point with the same argument over and over.
You simply don't understand how Putin's propaganda narrative works. It doesn't matter how any of us try to explain it, you keep ignoring and keep repeating.
Quoting Isaac
And you are a Putin apologist as far as I can see it. Or just so naive that you don't understand how you're a part of the propaganda machine. It's brilliant really, you are living proof of how Putin's propaganda can work even when someone acknowledges that it's propaganda.
Quoting neomac
Exactly this. Get it already.
You literally prove in the next clause of your sentence that neo-Nazi's in Ukraine are a problem ... because they're a problem everywhere.
Which, is a false equivalence. Neo-Nazi's are clearly not the same level of problem in every Western nation, there's going to be more or less with more or less power and influence.
The neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine is things like Azov brigade that has been admitted by Western governments themselves to be neo-Nazi based and inspired.
Western governments "responded" by simply not training and arming Azov brigade directly, which is not really a credible response and still accepts their legitimacy and that the Ukrainian governance is overall legitimate in integrating Azov brigade.
Now, you can argue Azov brigade is not "so neo-Nazi" just generally inspired by Nazism as they want to fight Russians and actively advocate for a war with Russia.
However, it's completely coherent argument to say one Azov brigade is too many Azov brigades and we'll invade your entire country if you tolerate them as part of your formal governance. (This is not a group playing cat and mouse with police, but are the de facto police where they operate)
Now, regardless of whether Azov brigade is "too much" and tolerating it further would be appeasement, what we can know for sure is that this is the major justification for the war by the Kremlin.
What we can also know for sure is that if the EU had credible policies since 2014 to try to dissuade Ukraine's formal government flirting with and also and using neo-Nazi's to fight separatists that A. maybe those policies would have actually worked and there wouldn't be things like Azov brigade and B. the EU could credibly say there are other ways to deal with neo-Nazi's other than a full scale invasion.
Instead, since the EU did nothing, they just deny the problem further (which admit is essentially "by definition" there) and Germany just declared itself the "experts on Nazi's" and that there is no neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine ... which doesn't necessarily sound convincing to a Russian.
It sets up a very poor diplomatic position.
Now, you may say "Ha! NATO doesn't need diplomacy with this madman Putin" ... but then why isn't NATO in Ukraine.
As for sending small arms and arming civilians.
Small arms without heavy equipment and a logistical network will not defeat Russia that has heavy equipment and a logistics network (certainly has had problems ... but it's still a lot better to have a logistics network with some problems than none at all).
Giving riffles to civilians in a modern conflict is essentially condemning them to die and makes all civilians legitimate military targets. The rules of war around civilians and soldiers requires soldiers to be in identifiable uniforms.
Obviously, the West doesn't care if Ukrainian civilians are used as cannon fodder (with zero ability to impact the outcome of the war, I guarantee you that), but, again, it's another bad faith thing Putin can point to at home: these cowards are arming civilians to protect their positions of power.
It takes real time and effort and training to be remotely effective in a modern battle space.
True, civilians can help in non-combat roles ... but then why would they need riffles?
Have it EVER occurred to you that he's pushing this denazification narrative in order to keep the loyalty to the cause back home in Russia intact? If he pushes this propaganda everywhere, then people will keep talking about it, even outside Russia and it validates the narrative to anyone who seeks further information from independent sources.
No one's saying otherwise, obviously it is also propaganda, will be exaggerated.
Doesn't mean there isn't a neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine that has solid evidence (crazy speeches and interviews by people essentially self-identifying themselves as neo-Nazi's ... and the argument "they're only fanatically anti-Russian and not so much anti-Semite and just like the Nazi's world view and approach to politics and get inspiration from the Nazi's struggle against the Soviets ... is not necessarily that important distinction for Russians).
Likewise, doesn't mean the EU shouldn't be able to agree with Russia, anytime since 2014, that neo-Nazi's aren't a good thing and there can be some good faith cooperation on that issue.
By ignoring a legitimate grievance you make the propaganda effect even greater as the counter party can now say "See, see! they just deny these people exist (which we know they exist because I can play an interview of their grand plan to destroy Russia right now); therefore, EU and US are using these people against Russia." Which is simply a true argument, these neo-Nazi's were tolerated because they were the only one's not only willing but totally enthusiastic about fighting separatists in the East; yes, Russians sent in their own "volunteers" but had these neo-Nazi types not insisted on attacking these break away regions there would not have been any fighting.
So, what's the ultimate truth of the situation and the moral and political principles of who's justified doing what, is one question.
However, the more relevant question is that considering NATO will not send anyone to actually fight in Ukraine (i.e. no NATO country actually cares all that much about Ukrainian lives or Ukrainian sovereignty) the only way EU (obviously US will cheerlead more bloodshed as it leads to more arms sales generally speaking in starting a new cold war by traumatizing everyone in Europe at the expense of Ukrainians) can avoid more unnecessary bloodshed is through diplomacy. If you want to solve things diplomatically it requires acknowledging legitimate grievances of the other party.
If you don't want to solve things diplomatically, then go hop on a plane and fight in the Ukrainian volunteer brigades, tell us later if you won or not.
Why? You've still not made clear your link between proof of the scale of Neo-Nazism (its mere existence is not even in question) and its role at the negotiating table.
Quoting neomac
Why not? You admit that the propaganda plays well in Russia, them claim that it's of no use in negotiations. If it plays well in Russia, then it's relevant to Putin's hold on power which makes it relevant negotiation position.
I was going to reply, but I need only quote who has put it perfectly well.
Quoting boethius
The 'denazify' rhetoric isn't used in isolation. If it were, then there'd be no 'need' to invade just help the Ukrainian authorities and European antiterrorism units. No. The propaganda is "there's Neo-Nazis in Ukraine and Europe/America are ignoring it, therefore we have to step in".
You're advocating that in response to this propaganda, we play exactly the role set out for us in it. And you seem to think that will help undermine it?
I also had an interesting talk with my six year old daughter who we watch the Dutch children's news with. She came home from school saying it was good the Netherlands gave weapons, so the Ukrainians could defend themselves. I asked here what would happen if two sides would be more or less equally strong. She realised they would keep fighting and more people would die. So now she wasn't sure what was better but she "felt" it was wrong to do nothing.
So I said that in the end this war only exists because grown men are too weak to accept they cannot have everything they want and resort to violence as a result to get it. We're left with making decisions we don't know whether they are right or wrong so all we can do is have the right intention. I told her to think about what she thinks is best and that maybe we could help in different ways.
So she woke up today and she doesn't want to send guns anymore but we decided together to make a room available in our home for fugitives instead. I asked her why? She said that she's not sure whether sending guns is better, even if it could be, but she knows for sure giving people a roof is always good. Can't believe she's only six at times!
My point is the West should have had some policy response anytime since 2014, so as to credibly say there are other ways to deal with neo-Nazi's than a full scale invasion; such as the policies you mention as well as just putting pressure on Ukrainian government to distance themselves from neo-Nazi's, to keep it a fringe thing (as that's a good objective in itself anyways).
That would have made a better negotiation position before the war started (who knows, maybe, in itself, prevented the war if Putin couldn't sell it at home without this justification).
Now that the war is here, ignoring the issue further plays to the Kremlins position about it, but not-ignoring it would undermine "NATO resolve" to ensure maximum civilian trauma and casualties of Ukrainians, while doing nothing that will change the outcome.
So, that's more lessons learned (to motivate starting credible diplomacy at some point).
Going forward, the main relevance of the issue is that it's Putin's stated justification, so obviously relevant to discuss as you point out.
The other way it's relevant is more just as a lesson learned of how ignoring legitimate grievances of the counter party for a decade certainly doesn't help.
Pointing out the coherent arguments that can be made based on there clearly being neo-Nazi's in Ukraine with formal integration into governance, is relevant in that it maybe explains why Russian's are convinced by it and maybe make us second guess the impact of sanctions on the Russian people.
If the propaganda is effective, as based on true elements the West cannot debunk (I'm sure you're aware how long it would take the two of us, not to mention anyone else, to actually agree on a "what's too many" threshold; we could easily still be debating meticulously all the political, moral and information-evaluation aspects in 3 decades; so, if it would take us that long to be "more sure" of our position, it's a pretty good basis for propaganda: facts are clear and basiclaly self-documented by the neo-Nazi's in Ukraine and the argument based on those facts is of a valid form, requiring significant philosophical energy to really demonstrate to be "a lie"), which will inform the probability of the Russian government, army and / or population giving up on the war, which is an important element for decision making.
Doing things (without even attempting to understand the Russian perspective) that increase violence and (from a purely self-referential Western media perspective) "sound like it will pressure the Russians" is not necessarily constructive if it won't actually pressure the Russians.
Quoting Christoffer
This has already been responded to, what's you're rebuttal?
Quoting NOS4A2
Furthermore, are you saying the West and also Ukraine hasn't been making any propaganda about the current situation?
Quoting Christoffer
But this is simply not the case; the neo-Nazi's in Ukraine are not suppressed by the Ukrainian government in any credible way since 2014, and it's been documented with plenty of journalists going and reporting on it since 2014.
You can't just make false equivalence because it suits your own propaganda. Well you can ... just doesn't make it true.
Ukraine has Azov brigade and other groups patrolling the streets since a few years (aka. brown shirts) with formal government powers, what's the equivalence in Sweden or Portugal or Canada?
No, it has not. It hasn't even been understood yet.
What harm could a lost, pointless war could do to the leadership that instigated it? A lot. After losing the Falklands War and not getting the "Malvinas" back, the junta in Argentina was deposed. After the disastrous war against the West after invading Kuwait, Saddam Hussein faced an insurrection both in the north and the south, that he succeeded only barely crushing. Losing at Ukraine could be disastrous for Putin, so likely he would simply call it quits before that would happen. The fact is that Ukraine is in no condition to militarily crush Russia like let's say Israel did in the Six Day War. Victory for Ukraine is to fight Russia into a standstill.
Quoting Isaac
He's not a mad tyrant. His weakness might be that he has only a small group of yes-men that surround him and nobody of them wants to say how stupid or disastrous an invasion of Ukraine would be. His actions have worked tremendously well up to this point, hence to overplay one's card is nearly unavoidable.
Because Ukrainians are so close to Russians, that they can see each other as brothers, just like Finns and Estonians can see each others brother people, Putin has to dehumanize the opponent: the leadership and the armed forces. They have to be neo-nazis. The enemy has to be the worst kind of people possible, who have somehow taken control of Ukrainians. The rhetoric comes from the invasion of Russia by Nazi Germany, the Great Patriotic War, which is I think far more important, far more closer and a far emotional issue than the "Battle of Britain" is for the British. Everybody uses there the rhetoric of fascist/nazi/neo-fascist/neo-nazi/fascist-imperialist to depict the worst enemy.
Are you saying that reports of Nazification on Ukraine have been greatly exaggerated? I agree with you there. There are some extreme right wing parties in Ukraine, I am sure, but their numbers and influence are not known. Nazi is the wrong word, I guess because it has nothing to do with anti-antisemitism. It may have to do with ethnic cleansing, which seems to be supported by limiting the number of Russian language books one can bring to Ukraine and the fact of a military conflict with the eastern, Russian speaking (correct me if I am wrong) 11% minority.
Quoting ssu
I agree he is not a mad tyrant. His weakness is that he has been left with a Russia that is broken up into little pieces a very hostile alliance of nations. It was a cold war, but it was a war, and it was won, maybe a Versailles- type humiliation is what the winners of the Cold War want.
If I was aware of the consequences of invading Ukraine, then at least he must have the same information and more. Is there any secret negotiation process going on? Like missiles in Turkey during the Cuban crisis.
I literally quoted the response.
And as just pointed out, there's a difference between saying it's exaggerated or "not exactly Nazi's ... but really close" and saying such groups don't exist at all or have no ties to Ukrainian formal government.
Quoting FreeEmotion
That's not really in the cards due to the Nuclear weapons.
I think what's more likely is the winners of the cold war want a second cold war (sell more weapons and have more "fun").
They're more or less like in most other nations of Europe that have a large problem with Neo-nazi groups. But nothing of that has any real relevance to Putin's reasons of denazification. As I've described, the most effective propaganda uses a small truth and bloats it up to a big problem so that any criticism of the propaganda can be met with "but... there are groups in Ukraine that are...". Any validation like that, even if recognizing the propaganda as propaganda, will just help that propaganda to get more validation.
It's pretty clear what the Russians believed going into Ukraine. It wasn't some neo-nazi groups, there weren't some "small groups of nazis somewhere", it was blatant propaganda of painting the entire nation as a Nazi regime, with the top leaders and Zelinskyy as being Nazis and them conducting genocide on the civilian population.