Ukraine Crisis

Quoting Wayfarer

But the images we've been seeing of entire regions completely gutted by long-range missiles, millions of people fleeing, bodies in the streets - this is not 'propoganda', it's actually happening.

Yes, and how do you square this with Russia being the big loser of this war. When I post this kind of stuff it's to demonstrate how badly Ukraine is losing and suffering in the process. Which is right on point.

Quoting Baden

For example, if you have no interest in looking at a map or military positioning or historical precedent, then while you are entitled to your opinion, it's entirely worthless.

My reasoning is that Putin's forces may succeed in finally subduing the Ukrainian army, although so far they have not done so. So in military terms, he might ultimately prevail, albeit at the cost of practically destroying the entire country, as he did in Chechnya 20 years ago.

But I say that the price of this supposed battlefield victory is going to be so enormous for both sides, that it can't be regarded as a victory, because of the economic impact on both Russia and the world, and the fact that it's going to make the Putin government an international pariah state. In other words, I'm of the view that Putin has embarked on a war which he cannot meaningfully win.

Quoting Baden

Yes, and how do you square this with Russia being the big loser of this war.

So if Russia kills or displaces most of the population and practically destroys the country, then do you call that 'success'? I'm saying that even if Putin prevails militarily, which is still far from certain, it's not going to result in the prosperous union of Ukraine and Russia. That there will be no winners.

Quoting Wayfarer

My reasoning is that Putin's forces may succeed in finally subduing the Ukrainian army

Regardless of your qualifications, that is absolutely not consistent with:

Quoting Wayfarer

The Russian campaign is arguably already a total failure

Quoting Wayfarer

So if Russia kills or displaces most of the population and practically destroys the country, then do you call that 'success'?

Success for Russia is achieving their objectives. If, hypothetically, their objective is to destroy the country then of course it's a success for them. What else would you call achieving your military objective?

Quoting Wayfarer

as far as I'm concerned it's factual. I will post stories that draw attention to this from time to time.

Why in hell's name would you do that? Do you think there's a soul in the Western world who doesn't know that already? It's the front page of every fucking newspaper, every news program and every blog. What are you trying to achieve by filling a discussion forum with it too. If I want news, I'll go to a news website. This one's for reasoned discussion. You voice an opinion, you give your reasons for it, its not show-and-tell.

Quoting Wayfarer

As for 'backing the wrong horse' that is a comment on your repeated suggestion that Putin might succeed or win, whatever that might mean, but I'm not going to argue the case further at this point as it's obviously inflammatory.

It's just a poorly chosen metaphor seeing as I'd much prefer if Putin lost. Ask me how soon. Yesterday. I'm not a fantasist though. I follow where the evidence leads.

@Wayfarer You seem to be conflating moral judgements with military analysis, which is just going to complete confuse you and everyone else who tries to interact with you. Morally. we agree the invasion was unjustified and Putin is a very bad guy, so there's no debate on that score and there's no need to keep inserting it.

Quoting Baden

we agree the invasion was unjustified and Putin is a very bad guy, so there's no debate on that score and there's no need to keep inserting it.

I haven't participated in this thread much. I've made a few comments, generally along the lines of expressing horror at what is happening, which were promptly deprecated as propaganda, including by yourself. It's not. I am simply expressing an opinion.

Reply to Wayfarer

No, I didn't accuse you of propganda for expressing horror at what's happening. I have several times expressed horror at what's happening. I said the unsubstantiated idea that the war was going disastrously for Putin was propaganda parroted from Western media. Which is supported by the fact that A) The idea is not based on your own analysis or serious analysis you've read. You apparently haven't done any or read any. B) Actual analysis that has been done suggests it's likely very misleading to say the least.

Could be a scene in Orwell's 1984, or from Brazil (the movie).



"They asked me, 'Why do you hate us?'
The director of the Kherson theater recounts his abduction
By Faustine Vincent, 25 March, le Monde (your daily source for French propaganda)

Oleksandr Kniga, local figure and member of the Kherson regional council, the first major Ukrainian city to fall under Russian control, was kidnapped Wednesday March 23. Released the same day, he spoke to Le Monde by telephone about a rather sureal interview.

... At 7 a.m. he saw a dozen armored jeeps arrive at his home in Olechky, near Kherson. ... There were so many Russians then that he asked them what they were afraid of. “They searched the whole house, talked to me for a bit in my library, checked our social networks, then told me to pack my things and took me outside. Almost the entire area was cordoned off."

His captors took him to a car with three Russian soldiers inside. “We drove to Kherson. Ukrainian radio was playing a song about the Bayraktar” drones. This song, released on March 1 , insults the Russian army and criticizes the invasion. It has become very popular in the country.

The convoy stopped at the regional administration of Kherson. Blindfolded, the captive was put in an empty cell. “They asked me who I was, took my fingerprints and photos." His captors were masked, but Oleksandr Kniga understood, during the interrogation, "that they wee not simple soldiers but officers, probably from the secret services".

Why did they kidnap him? “They were looking at me as a public figure." The director of the theater was probably all the more suspicious since many employees of his establishment take part in the demonstrations that take place every day against the occupation in the Kherson region. “People were tired of being scared, hearing explosions and sitting in basements. They are happy to see each other at rallies,” said Mr. Kniga.

During his captivity, a hooded man asked him: “Why are you organizing demonstrations?“ Oleksandr Kniga then tries to explain to him that these gatherings are spontaneous: “People come out by themselves, everyone can express their opinion freely." Opposite, the man shakes his head and insists: “Why are you organizing demonstrations?"

“I don't think they can understand,” sighs Mr. Kniga. The Russians were so convinced of being welcomed as “liberators” in the cities they occupied, that in their eyes the Ukrainian resistance could only be an artificial creation, orchestrated by “nationalists” who need to be flushed out. "They also asked me, 'Why do you hate us?' I answered that it was not hatred, but an immense anger made of helplessness when they bombard the maternities, the theaters and the residential districts.»

Oleksandr Kniga's interrogation then takes the form of a "long conversation about everything", including theater. “They asked me if people from Kherson often go there." The Ukrainian then explains that his theater is reputed far beyond the city, and that the actors sometimes play up to 40 plays a month on five different stages. ...

Unlike many other victims of kidnappings in the occupied regions, tortured by their executioners, Mr. Kniga reports to have been treated “correctly”. “They did not threaten me and remained polite." Is it because the occupants hope to encourage him to collaborate? He excludes this option. "It's out of the question," he says. "The members of the regional council held a meeting on this subject and reaffirmed that “Kherson is Ukraine” and that it cannot be otherwise.»

The day was coming to an end. It was dark outside when a man brough him back a briefcase they had confiscated, which contained his phone, his passport, a tablet and his wife's laptop. “He asked me if I had a place to sleep in Kherson, and I replied that I could go to the theater, because there are always people there." His captors blindfolded him and deposited him elsewhere, far from the theater, which the Russian troops had searched the day before, convinced of finding weapons there. Oleksandr Kniga did not have time to walk there before the start of the curfew, forty minutes later. Tense and exhausted, he remembered friends living nearby and found their home.

“Now I am home again, without fear, but I am worried about my loved ones. At the start of the war, my eldest son's family had five more people. They slept in the cellar for a week because the fighting was very close, then they left. I talk too much, I must be nervous."...


https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2022/03/25/ils-m-ont-demande-pourquoi-vous-nous-detestez-le-directeur-du-theatre-de-kherson-raconte-son-enlevement_6119199_3210.html

Quoting Baden

I said the unsubstantiated idea that the war was going disastrously for Putin

It's not unsubstantiated. Up to 15,000 casualties, five generals killed, hundreds of tanks destroyed; no major city taken, military advance bogged down outside Kiev, morale poor, supply-lines patchy; the Russian economy reeling from sanctions. This is reported in the Western media, and it's not propaganda.

Reply to Baden

Thanks for sharing that, very interesting. But it's been almost three weeks since that interview happened - based on the date. What he says makes sense.

The problem is that there's conflicting info on the state of the Russian military. It's somewhat low on morale, have lost many troops and allegedly have problems with supplies. On the other hand, they clearly haven't used the airplane arsenal they have, which could flatten any city in Ukraine.

I don't think Ukraine can win, despite these heroic narratives. The problem is going to be how long can Russia sustain this assault, while the sanctions bite.

They still have energy money coming in, but that could change. I don't think it helps that all the West has basically "cancelled" Russia. Not that they don't deserve some sanctions (oligarchs and the like) or condemnations, they sure do. But the way this is shaping out makes them extremely isolated and more dangerous too.

I don't know how they'll be given an opportunity to save face and declare a victory of sorts. Meanwhile, more civilians are just getting slaughtered....

Reply to Apollodorus

keep Germans down

Lol, maybe in the 1950s. The US has been trying to get Germany to build a larger military for years and was all smiles when they announced their huge defence surge in response to Russia. They would be the third highest military budget in the world by a wide margin if Japan wasn't also surging defense spending. None of this has to do with the US, which has tried to get them to spend more unsuccessfully for decades, and everything to do with Russia and China acting aggressive enough to scare them.


----

On an unrelated note, the new narrative is hilarious. All the stalling out and counter attacks are actually part of a grand strategy.



So now I guess Russia only attacked Kiev in suicidal air assaults while the AA network was up as a distraction. They sent over a hundred special forces members to get gunned down on video in Kharkiv to make the distraction believable. They are trying to avoid hitting humanitarian infrastructure, and the obvious way to do this is to shell residential neighborhoods for days on end.

It's cool though, they have an endless number of replacements for their losses. That huge paper inventory of hardware. They do it just like the USA, tons of tanks neatly parked in rows and inventoried, stored in the desert where it never rains, with inspections cycling through and weatherization.





Certainly they wouldn't throw them in a heap in an area known for snow and heavy rain, right?

Reply to Wayfarer

Have you asked yourself what's not reported in the Western media? Or considered the difference between a bunch of facts or half facts and how they are contextualized or interpreted? E.g. Western media says 'bogged down'. A military analyst says 'waiting'. How do you know which is true? Apparently, you just ignore the line of reasoning outlined here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/673465 because it hasn't been reported in the Western media. You are absolutely proving my point about propaganda. Again, if this was about Kant, and I told you Kant was crap because I read that in the media, you'd think I was a fool. And that's how you sound to anyone interested in analysing what's going on in this conflict. It's willful ignorance.

Reply to Manuel

Yeah, I know it's a few weeks old. He has one he did today actually, but it's much more finance orientated. He's still of the same view though that Russia is winning and that the narrative that it's a disaster for them is not not based on anything solid on the ground.

Reply to Baden

I'll sub to his channel, good stuff. :up:

So who the heck does have this info on the situation of the Russian military on the ground?

I've really been wanting to find it, but it's not easy in this media environment. All I can get are reports from "sources", almost always unnamed.

Reply to Count Timothy von Icarus

Of course they're going to lie about their casualties and the civilians they killed and just about everything else. That's what the military does. That doesn't mean you should underestimate them though.

Quoting Manuel

So who the heck does have this info on the situation of the Russian military on the ground?

Tough one. Fog of war and so on. Best you can do is get your information from a wide variety of sources and try to piece together something that makes sense. Actually, I original came across the guy as a guest on a finance channel. Sometimes finance news outlets are more likley to tell you the truth because there's money involved for their customers.

In case you didn't see this interesting prediction by Oleksiy Arestovych from 2019:

https://youtu.be/DwcwGSFPqIo

Also, I've been finding the comments by Vlad Vexler interesting. The titles are a little sensational. Don't let that put you off. Some of his analysis is really interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/c/VladVexler/videos

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCn7XHZiW6EUgSuxItybLLMg/videos

Quoting petrichor

In case you didn't see this interesting prediction by Oleksiy Arestovych from 2019:

Really interesting, thanks.

Update on the Russian mutiny propaganda story. The Guardian runs with it but half-heartedly as it seems to smell the bullshit all over it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/25/russian-troops-mutiny-commander-ukraine-report-western-officials

"However, while there was some evidence to corroborate the claim that the commander had been run over, it was less clear whether, as the western officials claimed, the colonel had died. On Friday night, they partially retracted the claim in the light of conflicting evidence on social media. They said they were seeking to clarify whether he was alive or dead – and said that the key point was that he was a victim of a mutiny, not whether he had been killed or not."

Those 'western officials' and their 'key points' eh? :rofl:

Also from the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/25/mariupol-diary-entries-besieged-ukraine

The destruction of Mariupol

Reply to Baden

Jeez man, this is the bs I was talking about. :meh:

With news like this, the risk of a fatal miscommunication really rises.

But I'll stop with my paranoid nuclear scenarios.

Reply to Baden
That story hasn't appeared in the sources I follow. That five Russian generals have been killed in combat since the beginning of the invasion has. It's being attributed to snipers.

Quoting frank

That five Russian generals have been killed in combat since the beginning of the invasion has. It's being attributed to snipers.

That's an insane amount of generals. One is already pretty bad, 5 is a disaster.

This is Shireen Al-Adeimi talking about the war in Yemen. Sums up what's happening here quite well.

the ask here is not, “Oh, look at us, come save us from this big bad person, the Saudi Arabians and the UAE.” The ask here is to stop US intervention, to stop piling on to the invasion, the bombing, the starvation, this incredibly devastating war, an onslaught that Yemenis have undergone over the past seven years.

And it’s just mind-boggling to me that that simple ask, really, to just pay attention to what our own government is doing in Yemen, and to call for an end to that, is somehow less worthy of attention then calls to, in fact, save us and give us money, right.

Quoting Manuel

paranoid nuclear scenarios

Thomas Schelling's Nobel Lecture is interesting viewing. As I recall, he doesn't talk about himself or his work at all, but goes incident-by-incident from 1945 to 2005, times when we almost had another nuclear war but didn't. I think he offers a tentative theory for why too, but it escapes me.

Quoting frank

That five Russian generals have been killed in combat since the beginning of the invasion has. It's being attributed to snipers.

That may very well be true. Russian organizational structure means Russian generals need to lead from the front, putting them right in the firing line, or so I've read.

Reply to Wayfarer Reply to Baden

I think the excessive focus on Ukraine should not be allowed to distract attention from the larger picture which is that this isn't just between Russia and Ukraine. The West - led by America and Britain - is actually at war with Russia. It may be "only" economic and financial war for now, but it's war all the same. And it's also an info and intelligence war with the West controlling the global media and supplying Ukraine with intelligence on Russia's moves, etc.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

None of this has to do with the US, which has tried to get them to spend more unsuccessfully for decades, and everything to do with Russia and China acting aggressive enough to scare them.

I don't think you quite understand the relationship between Germany and the US. Scholz was at first against cancelling Nord Stream 2 but changed his mind after Biden told him he was going to put an end to it.

During a press conference on Feb 7, when Scholz was asked about Germany’s plans about sanctions on Russia, Biden – NOT Scholz – announced that “we will bring an end to” Nord Stream 2.

Biden was then asked, given that the project is under German control, how exactly does he intend to “bring an end to it”? To which he replied, “I promise you we’ll be able to do it.”, later reiterating that “it just isn’t going to happen”.

President Biden, German Chancellor Scholz take questions during joint news conference – WPRI

Yes, Germany and Japan are increasing their defense expenditure, but they do so to America's advantage!

If Germany were to build a proper military for itself, complete with nuclear systems, and kick the Americans out of the country, or just declare itself neutral, it would be a different matter. But as things stand, it isn't.

Quoting Manuel

So who the heck does have this info on the situation of the Russian military on the ground?

Forgot about this guy: https://twitter.com/defencewithac Good follow for detailed info about what's going on on the ground.

Quoting Manuel

That's an insane amount of generals. One is already pretty bad, 5 is a disaster.

Supposedly they aren't used to this kind of warfare. It takes a while to get up to speed.

Reply to Srap Tasmaner

I exaggerate a little. I'm actually worried here, prospects don't seem to good from what I'm seeing. Not saying they will use nukes, but they might. I think we should be worried here, despite people saying nobody is crazy enough to use them. Nationalism combined with defeat, much less humiliation, do not bode well for crazy actions.

I've heard of several instances in which we were often a word away from total disaster - hard to believe. But thanks for sharing that lecture, will check it out.

Reply to Baden

Awesome. Will follow. :ok:

E.g.

Reply to frank

I think it's quite rare for general to be killed. This many dead generals is far from good news from a military perspective. But if I were Ukrainian, I'd be cautious in assuming this means that "we will win".

That's still a very tall order.

Quoting Manuel

think it's quite rare for general to be killed. This many dead generals is far from good news from a military perspective

True, but sometimes the best general is discovered in the middle of the war. That happened in the American Civil War. His name was Grant.

Quoting Manuel

But if I were Ukrainian, I'd be cautious in assuming this means that "we will win".

I think they would probably just like to get to a negotiation table. Putin will put that off as long as he can, I guess. He's a scumbag.

Reply to Wayfarer I wasn't talking about outright lies, I'm talking about framing.

Quoting Wayfarer

I posted a story about a 96 year old Buchenwald survivor killed by a Russian missile. This was labelled 'propoganda'. I expressed the view that Russia's invasion has already failed, in that no major city has been captured, and the Russian economy is going to contract to depression-era levels as a result of sanctions. This was also labelled propoganda. Any criticism of Russia's actions seems to be regarded as 'propoganda' by someone, but that seems to me to be apologetics for Russia's actions.

My opinion is that Russia's invasion is illegal, unjustified, unwarranted, totally destructive, a disaster and a humanitarian catastrophe. Some will label that 'propoganda' but as far as I'm concerned it's factual. I will post stories that draw attention to this from time to time.

Selected pieces in support of demonizing the enemy is propaganda. Your view that the invasion has failed, etc, is opinion. I welcome opinion, however. Criticism of Russia is also welcome. How can they improve otherwise?

Russia's invasion is illegal - according to the ICJ that ruled the invasion of Iraq was illegal. Unjustified - all military operations have their justification, and it is simply not reasonable to call it unwarranted. In fact then, every hostile act towards any country, including sanctions due to a difference of opinion or decisions made by that government, that is also unjustified.

I acknowledge that the Russian TV , RT also puts out propaganda. They are stating that 1351 soldiers have been killed. Maybe. However, Ukraine stated earlier that over 1300 soldiers had been killed. Is this a coincidence? Did they add 351 to the total to make it sound right?

To date, 1,351 servicemen have died and 3,825 have been injured,” the deputy head of the Russian General Staff, Colonel General Sergey Rudskoy told a media briefing.

Kiev, however, remains tight-lipped on its own casualties. The most recent figure was announced by President Volodymyr Zelensky in mid-March, when he said that around 1,300 Ukrainian soldiers had died in combat.

https://www.rt.com/russia/552708-ukraine-conflict-military-casualties/

I am not riding this roller coaster until its over, and official figures on both sides are tallied, it is not going to affect the stand I take that both sides must come to an agreement and stop the killing.

The Biolabs thing looks somewhat of a circus.

Hunter Biden did fund Ukraine biolabs, emails published by media suggest

-RT

On a related note, my daughter independently decided to sell some toys to raise money for Ukraine. I asked her if they talked about this on school but she said no. She's a better person already at six then the rest of the family or my friends. I actually got shit from people that we're offering to temporarily take in refugees. Too distracting for the kids, too long, too costly. The reactions have been interesting. I just smile and nod.


She also came up with buying a gift for her little brother with her own money and she insisted in the store in buying the gift herself. Walks up to the counter, explains to the woman what her brother likes and then asks what she can buy with 5 euro. Admittedly, she picked something they could play together with simultaneously. I'm melting.

Reply to ssu

If the question can't be answered it is o.k, but I am simply asking, would, in your mind, a 'limited response' 'even a conventional response' be any less effective deterrent than a 'total response?'

OK some answers here: https://nuclearnetwork.csis.org/limited-nuclear-war/

Reply to Wayfarer :100: :up:

Quoting Apollodorus

The West - led by America and Britain - is actually at war with Russia.

And I'm accused of spouting propaganda.

Quoting FreeEmotion

If the question can't be answered it is o.k, but I am simply asking, would, in your mind, a 'limited response' 'even a conventional response' be any less effective deterrent than a 'total response?'

The basic problem is that nobody of course does know how in reality any nuclear exchange would go. What could be said that neither side would be enthusiastic to continue the escalation. But a "tit-for-tat" could happen.

The time has passed when Curtis LeMay during the Cuban Missile crisis could think that having nuclear war could be the option: Russia had only a few ICBMs back then. LeMay and US generals could perhaps have the reasoning that "let's have it now" attitude, although there's no historical proof of this during the Cuban crisis. In the 1980's and afterwards it has been totally different.

What we can go with is historical events, where you obviously have had far smaller exchanges, but still:

Example 1:

President Trump kills Iranian general Qasem Soleimani in Iraq in January 3rd 2020 with a drone strike. Iran retaliates on January 8th with 12 ballistic missiles fired at US bases. 110 US Servicemen suffer from mainly concussions with few recieving later the Purple Heart.

No response from the US.

Example 2:

Turkey shoots down a Russian fighter bomber after it had veered into Turkish aerospace in 2015. The Russian pilot was killed, the navigator was rescued.

No military response from Russia. Russia-Turkish relations strained for a while, but got back to normal in 2016.

Of course these are totally minor events, but It should be noted that on both occasions neither Russia or the US escalated the situation afterwards with some punitive strikes (in the US case, Trump didn't counter the Iranian attack). The reality is that Iran isn't Saddam's Iraq and even the neocons didn't attack the country as it would be militarily a stupid move: it's a large country with reasonable armed forces.

So I guess that after a "limited strike" getting "limited response" back, what then? After two tactical nuclear weapons exchanged (likely on military targets), what would be the reason or the motivation to continue? Everybody would be panicking. It just isn't really smart in any way. The only way would be if you would be sure that the other side will chicken out.

Quoting ssu

The basic problem is that nobody of course does know how in reality any nuclear exchange would go.

No actually it's pretty clear, a nuclear exchange would be apocalyptic and anyone who thinks it is 'unclear' is a psychopath.

Reply to StreetlightXThat's one way to look at it, yes.

Quoting Manuel

I think it's quite rare for general to be killed. This many dead generals is far from good news from a military perspective.

When things don't work and junior leaders don't take initiative, then it's a general that has to go to the front and sort it out. Which is a dangerous place.

Quoting Wayfarer

And I'm accused of spouting propaganda.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. But analysts do call it "economic war":

The Toll of Economic War - Foreign Affairs

The West is trying to destroy Russia’s economy. And analysts think it could succeed - CNBC

French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire on Tuesday told a French radio station that the aim of the latest round of sanctions was to “cause the collapse of the Russian economy”

Don't you guys read papers in Aussieland?

Quoting Apollodorus

Analysts do call it "economic war"

Which was mounted purely and simply as the only possible response to Russia's flagrantly criminal invasion of a peaceful neighbouring country, short of triggering atomic war which could literally culminate in the end of civilisation.

Had Russia actually liberalised, opened up and become part of the liberal economic order after the fall of communism, then there would have been no inherent reason for conflict between Russia and the West. Maybe then Russia could have competed in 'the marketplace of ideas'. But Russia did not manage the transition to a democratic free-market political order. Much of the state-owned wealth was funnelled into the pockets of the so-called oligarchy whilst KGB-trained Putin cemented his rise to an absolute dictorship along the lines of Josef Stalin, extinguishing the free press and any real political opposition along the way. Ukraine wants to be part of a free political system, even if not a NATO member, certainly part of Europe - something which Putin could not tolerate, so he had it invaded it to snuff out their democratic longings. Those sanctions, that 'economic warfare', is the response to that. Putin alone is responsible for it.

Quoting Wayfarer

Had Russia actually liberalised, opened up and become part of the liberal economic order after the fall of communism, then there would have been no inherent reason for conflict between Russia and the West.

Mayhaps you are unfamiliar with the liberal economic 'shock therapy' that Russia was subjected to precisely by the West in the wake of the fall of the USSR, and which paved the way precisely for the monsters now in power. And you are no doubt familiar - but choose to ignore - the imperial designs of Western powers who have never not taken mass slaughter for an opportunity, which is exactly what they are doing at the moment.

Or, bluntly put: Dead Ukrainians are to the advantage of the West, and anyone who doesn't think so is not paying attention.

Reply to StreetlightX I know mate that nothing done by Russia will ever match the evils of the Great Satan.

Reply to Wayfarer As a basic fact of history, that would be correct, yes.

Reply to Wayfarer

1. I wasn't talking about the "causes" but about the fact that the West is currently waging economic warfare on Russia, as acknowledged by analysts.

2. What you are implying is that Russia must subordinate itself to a world economic system dictated by the West and, in particular, by America. In other words, the deal you're advocating is "open your economy to Western dominance or we wage economic jihad on you".

IMO that's the modern equivalent of Britain's gunboat diplomacy in the days of the empire: "buy our goods or we bomb you"! :smile:

Quoting Apollodorus

What you are implying is that Russia must subordinate itself to a world economic system dictated by the West and, in particular, by America.

There might have been other, alternative models they could have adopted, but a corrupt authoritarianism is not a valid alternative. I think the world badly needs alternatives to liberal democracy and the modern Western political order, but there's no way Russia can be looked to for them. As I said, if they could out-compete the West in the 'marketplace of ideas', then they can expect to lead, but not this way.

Quoting Apollodorus

gunboat diplomacy...

Who is doing the bombing here?

I've said all I'm going to say. I posted to this thread to register my outrage at what is being done to Ukraine, and I'm done with it.

Quoting Wayfarer

Who is doing the bombing, here?

Who is freezing Russia's foreign reserves, confiscating Russian assets, disconnecting Russia from SWIFT, denying Russia access to credit, etc., etc.?

Is that what they did when China invaded and annexed Tibet? Or when Turkey invaded and occupied Cyprus? Or when Turkey invaded and occupied Kurdish territories in Syria and Iraq???!!!

I see what you're trying to say, but why the duplicity, hypocrisy, and the double standards?

But I agree that this thread is a waste of time and probably best suited for old-age pensioners and the unemployed. Oh, and NATO jihadi trolls .... :wink:

Quoting Apollodorus

Is that what they did when China invaded and annexed Tibet? Or when Turkey invaded and occupied Cyprus? Or when Turkey invaded and occupied Kurdish territories in Syria and Iraq???!!!

whataboutism
/?w?t??ba?t?z(?)m/
nounBRITISH
the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue.

Anyway, enough already. Let's hope something can bring this insanity to an end.

Quoting Wayfarer

I posted to this thread to register my outrage at what is being done to Ukraine, and I'm done with it.

Except this outrage - entirely valid - comes packed in an apologia and ideological flag-waving for Western power.

Reply to ssu

It surely points to a serious lack of organization within, which raises questions pertaining to strategy.

Quoting ssu

The only way would be if you would be sure that the other side will chicken out.

This thread has been a great learning experience for some I would think, steep learning curve and all that.

How about a nuclear agreement outlining how far each side would go before chickening out? Mutually Assured Commitment to Chickening out? The problem I have is I know how I would deal favor this as an adversary (mirror fallacy) but I do not know how President Putin or President Biden thinks, nor the forces behind them.

If several times the world has narrowly escaped being caught up in nuclear war, then is too dangerous to continue this sort of arrangement. President Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev had at some point total disarmament in mind, I have read.

Is there anything "morally wrong" about total disarmament? I am missing something here.

The Geneva Summit, the first meeting between U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, was held on November 19 and 20, 1985. The two leaders met to discuss the Cold War-era arms race, primarily the possibility of reducing the number of nuclear weapons. Hosted in Geneva, Switzerland, the meeting was the first American-Soviet summit in more than six years.

At Geneva, the two men quickly developed a rapport, even as they debated—sometimes quite ferociously—international issues of such grave importance. Gorbachev left a good impression on Reagan, who described the Soviet Secretary General as having “warmth in his face and style, not the coldness bordering on hatred I’d seen in most other senior Soviet leaders I’d met until then” (Gaddis 229).

It could be of course propaganda, but as a fiction, it is somewhat inspiring.

I do miss the 1980s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxlFMSPdcR4

Quoting Wayfarer

I've said all I'm going to say. I posted to this thread to register my outrage at what is being done to Ukraine, and I'm done with it.

I welcome your outrage, but also be outraged at every innocent death caused in the name of wealth and national pride.

Also spare some outrage at those who are willing to vaporize thousands of children in their beds through a nuclear button.

Frankly I would like Biden to dump his nuclear suitcase in the Boston harbour and forget about it.
Something like it has happened before:

Quoting StreetlightX

this outrage - entirely valid - comes packed in an apologia and ideological flag-waving for Western power.

Which is entirely natural. Not everyone can be a political nihilist. So we often raise some flag or another, you included probably.

Quoting Olivier5

Not everyone can be a politically nihilist

Sorry that you lack the ability and imagination to engage with politics beyond sucking off state power.

Reply to StreetlightX What's your ideology?

Reply to Olivier5 Making people who obsess over labels functionally incapacitated.

Reply to StreetlightX You're quite confused, I would agree.

Reply to Wayfarer
Please see PM I've sent you.

Reply to Olivier5 Ah, yes, your utter inability to put me into your preconceived boxes makes me confused.

Reply to StreetlightX I didn't ask for a label but for your ideology. You are welcome to describe it with or without labels.

You see, we all have some ideology. It's like metaphysics, even the hatred of metaphysics is a metaphysics, and likewise even the hatred of all political ideology is ideological.

For instance, your dislike of the West is ideological.

Reply to Olivier5 If I must, not cheering on a bunch of proven murderers and psychopaths is a baseline ideological position of mine. You are of course welcome to do otherwise.

Reply to Olivier5
Reply to StreetlightX

I have been advised to take a break from all the acrimony in this thread.
But I'm sick of it all.
The worst offender (neither of you) jumps in without even taking a breath to attack those he perceives as an 'enemy'. Hostile doesn't even begin to cover it.
Even @jamalrob is keeping out of this thread, so toxic has it become.

I've asked for my account to be closed.
My 'resignation' refused for the time being.
Usually, I wouldn't make this public but I'm beyond caring.
Take care all.

Reply to Amity Fair enough. Take care too.

Reply to Amity PLEASE don't leave Amity. I love you. There are not too many folks I like here. If you go I might as well.

The toxicity is high here, on this particular thread, not everywhere. We all take a break from this specific thread once in a while to protect our sanity. That IS advisable. But please don't go.

Quoting StreetlightX

not cheering on a bunch of proven murderers is a baseline ideological position of mine.

You attribute a lot of importance to whom you cheer. It's an unusual way to look at politic, very youthful and teenage. People living in mature democracies are often more instrumentalist, they wouldn't cheer anyone but try and make choices, rather.

Reply to Olivier5 You're the one who equated not flag-waving with 'political nihilism'. You ought to be the target of your own advice.

Reply to StreetlightX What I call political nihilism is the incapacity to make any political choice. The incapacity to explain one's politics to another person would be a symptom.

Quoting Olivier5

incapacity to make any political choice.

Your stunted imagination about what counts as choice is not my problem.

Quoting Olivier5

Like, for instance, the incapacity to explain one's politics would be a symptom.

No I just don't think you're worth my time.

Reply to StreetlightX You are afraid to come forth transparently, as you should be.

Reply to Olivier5 If it makes you feel better.

Reply to StreetlightX Meh...

The big advantage of political nihilism is that one can criticize other ideologies but never ever present a positive belief or alternative onself, so as to avoid critique.

Reply to Olivier5 I owe you nothing and if you'd like to make this thread about me, maybe post me a letter.

Reply to StreetlightX If you critique someone's ideology without presenting any alternative, you're just making noise with your mouth.

Reply to Olivier5 If it makes you feel better.

Reply to StreetlightX Thank you.

Quoting Olivier5

People living in mature democracies are often more instrumentalist, they wouldn't cheer anyone but try and make choices, rather.

Of course we all do tribal politics and the whole us vs them is a simplistic and often counter-productive way to look at things. It's always us with them somehow, we share this planet.

But what I mean by making choices is simply things like voting, if we live in a democracy, or emigrating, ie voting with our feet. We have to make to choices between alternatives, between living here or there, between this party or that party to vote for.

It is never the case that we can live under no government or power system. There is always power, and it is always more or less organized, structured this or that way. So while we can chose between various forms of political organization, we cannot chose no political organization whatsoever. Unless we all go live on deserted islands.

For instance, in the case at hand, the choice for the Ukrainians is pretty clear: it's between independence as an imperfect democratic society, and subjugation in perfect Putinistan.

The choice for the Russians is also about that.

The choice for other people, such as Europeans, Americans, Aseans, Africans or Oceanians, as organized politically through states, is about which side to chose, if any. IOW should Peru or the Netherlands help Ukraine, or rather help Russia, or stay neutral? Or help both??? If they wish to help, how should they do so most effectively without compromising other interests? Etc.

The choice for a poster here is somewhat similar.

All this to say that it's not possible to have your cake and eat it too. You must make a choice, and even splendid neutrality is but one political choice amongst many, with no reason to believe it is necessarily a wise choice, whether you assess it morally or strategically.

Such neutrality only looks splendid. But it's not.

Lol.

From "why is everyone calling me a cheerleader", to "you must all be cheerleaders like me".

I support both sides. I accept the judgement that fate will give.

Reply to Olivier5
To be neutral is to withdraw from the world. If that state is peppered with resentment, it's Nietzsche's slave morality in a nutshell.

You can be apolitical without any resentment, though. Or you can be complex and dwell in an amoral, anthropological state some of the time, and engage the world at other times.

But engaging the world at the level of significant power is apt to put you in the "dirty hands" category.

I don't know if you have all seen the Oliver Stone documentary about President Putin. I found it very interesting and maybe useful in trying to gauge what President Putin is like. I have watched documentaries of President Reagan as well, and these world leaders fascinate me as decision making entities. In any case, we are looking at a commander in chief, like those of other powerful nations, with the legitimate power to declare war and cause death and destruction. In other words, a potential killer: they all are.

President Putin had not seen this movie before, they say, however he does look a little but uncomfortable, and remember he has a lot more intelligence (meaning information) than we do. Is the doomsday machine a reality?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvUP7KLI4bA

Interesting:

What few knew until recently is that in 1984, the Soviet Union actually did build a doomsday machine of sorts. They called it Perimeter. It's discussed in not one but two books released this month and in an article in the latest issue of Wired magazine.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113242681

Maybe that is why he looked a little embarrassed. "they were able to foresee some technical aspects"..
Oliver Stone must have known as well.

Taking sides:

NATO vs the Ukranian people: I'll go for the Ukranian people rather than the organization who helped get them attacked and is now standing on the sidelines trying to look like the good guys while they continue to suffer.
Putin vs the Ukranian people: I'll go for the Ukraninan people rather than the brutal dictator who's happy to kill them in any number to achieve his strategic objectives.
Zelensky vs the Ukranian people: Think I'll stick with the Ukranian people rather than the feckless clown who could have avoided this war and now spends his time running around the world's TV screens spouting empty propaganda while his people continue to die.

Taking sides isn't much in the way of analysis though, particularly seeing as, from my point of view, the moral side to take is pretty obvious. All I expect of anyone here is intelligent analysis. And that can come from any side.

Except...
Bonus side:

Propagandists and cheerleaders vs The Ukraninan people: Think I'll go for the Ukraninan people rather than the armchair fanboys who think helping means emptying their heads of all critical thought and pretending everything's going to be alright because the good guys always win despite a few broken bones.

Reply to Baden It's wild that this is so hard for people.

Had to literally waste an entire page responding to baboon-grade rubbish in leiu of something so basic.

Reply to Olivier5 Reply to frank

If I say to someone about to shoot a child "for God's sake don't shoot!" It's not a counter argument to ask "well what should I do instead?"

Reply to Baden
Thing about being as unfair as you can possibly be, you get stuck in your own little echo chamber

chamber

chamber

Quoting Baden

Taking sides isn't much in the way of analysis though, particularly seeing as,from my point of view, the moral side to take is pretty obvious.

Obvious or unexamined? Take for instance this not-so-obvious point of yours:

Zelensky vs the Ukranian people: Think I'll stick with the Ukranian people rather than the feckless clown who could have avoided this war and now spends his time running around the world's TV screens spouting empty propaganda while his people continue to die.

This is not a true choice. Unless you want Zelensky's job and think you can do better than him, or have an alternative Ukrainian government up your sleeve, the Ukrainian government is part of the Ukrainian people and it legally represents it. You don't get to chose who's their president, they do.

Quoting frank

You can be apolitical without any resentment, though. Or you can be complex and dwell in an amoral, anthropological state some of the time, and engage the world at other times.

Yes but even if one remains 'apolitical', one must live somewhere, and chose to stay there, under this regime, rather than emigrate over there under another. This is a choice one makes even if one is unconscious of it.

Quoting Isaac

If I say to someone about to shoot a child "for God's sake don't shoot!" It's not a counter argument to ask "well what should I do instead?"

Unclear, please rephrase.

Quoting Amity

I've asked for my account to be closed.
My 'resignation' refused for the time being.
Usually, I wouldn't make this public but I'm beyond caring.
Take care all.

Drastic measures. I sit on the edge of my chair, waiting, what could be next?

Quoting StreetlightX

From "why is everyone calling me a cheerleader", to "you must all be cheerleaders like me".

The problem is not with the "cheerleader" portrayal as such. I think the problem is with the portrayal as a cheerleading for the underdog. I don't think this is a matter of cheerleading the underdog, in fact I don't see how it could be. It's very clear that the cheerleaders apprehend the side being cheered for as "us". Now "us" is always the good guys, therefore to be cheered for, because in war if you do not agree that "us" is the good guys, you are excluded from "us".

One might cheer from a third party position, but at first take, that would appear to be utterly ridiculous because war gives nothing to cheer for, unless you're one of the parties. A classic World War really provides no third party position. But if the third party becomes an organized "us", we might have a new form of world war. The third party would be opposed to both sides engaged in battle, and would cheer only for loses, in the battleground, never for gains. That's a very ugly image. But it may be real.

Quoting Olivier5

The choice for other people, such as Europeans, Americans, Aseans, Africans or Oceanians, as organized politically through states, is about which side to chose, if any. IOW should Peru or the Netherlands help Ukraine, or rather help Russia, or stay neutral? Or help both??? If they wish to help, how should they do so most effectively without compromising other interests? Etc.

Your final sentence undermines your entire argument. People are making choices about strategy, not sides.

But five minutes of consideration would have worked that out, as if that were the objective here.

Quoting Olivier5

Unclear, please rephrase.

"Don't do X" is a perfectly sufficient political position. It doesn't required a "do Y instead". I don't need to say what America should do instead of warmongering. Just don't warmonger.

Quoting Isaac

Your final sentence undermines your entire argument. People are making choices about strategy, not sides.

More precisely, strategic choices may or may not involve chosing one side against another. But even supporting no side, or supporting both, are choices that are available.

Quoting Isaac

Don't do X" is a perfectly sufficient political position. It doesn't required a "do Y instead".

Logically, it does. It prescribes lines of action that do not involve X, as being better than lines of action that do involve X.

In other words, if Y=not X, then "Don't do X" means the same thing as "Do Y".

"If you don't choose between Himmler and Goring then you are a nihilist".

Also can we talk about how Putin and JK Rowling are allies now? More fun than the baboon.

Reply to Olivier5

Typical non-answer.

Quoting Olivier5

More precisely, strategic choices may or may not involve chosing one side against another.

It was perfectly precise as it was. People support strategies not sides, in contrast to you entire position here that anything short of wholehearted approval of Western strategy must therefore be 'siding with Putin'.

Quoting Olivier5

Logically, it does. You are prescribing lines of action that do not involve X, as being better than lines of action that do involve X.

Don't do X is not a line of action. It's a line of inaction. No one who isn't just trying to weasel out of being wrong would define 'not drinking my tea' as an action

Quoting Isaac

Don't do X is not a line of action.

To be fair, not supporting American imperial designs is indeed a line of action, much like not supporting Israeli businesses because Israel is committing genocide in Palestine is a line of action.

Quoting Isaac

It was perfectly precise as it was. People support strategies not side, in contrast to you entire position here that anything short of wholehearted approval of Western strategy must therefore be 'siding with Putin'.

This is not what I am saying.

I'm saying you can support whoever you want to. Or not. But don't assume that there is one good choice and only one, consisting in not chosing side. Your choice of supporting no one is in no way morally superior to another choice.

"Your choice of supporting neither Himmler nor Goring is in no way morally superior to another choice".

Quoting StreetlightX

To be fair, not supporting American imperial designs is indeed a line of action, much like not supporting Israeli businesses because Israel is committing genocide in Palestine is a line of action.

True...ish. I think that an important distinction might be drawn between simply not being involved (I'm currently not warmongering), and being opposed. The latter requires that I act, according to my capacity, to prevent it.

I'd probably prefer to reserve the 'line of action' epithet for active resistance to a policy to distinguish it from passive lack of involvement. But I take your point...

Quoting Olivier5

I'm saying you can support whoever you want to.

I didn't need your permission, but thanks.

Quoting Olivier5

don't assume that there is one good choice and only one

Is there some evidence of my having done so?

Quoting Olivier5

Your choice of supporting no one is in no way morally superior to another choice.

I'm not 'supporting no one', I'm supporting Ukrainians, and Yemenis, and Iraqis, and Russians... I'm supporting the people who I think would be harmed by the policy I'm opposing.

Reply to StreetlightX Who is Himmler and who is Goring in your comparison?

Reply to Olivier5 Western and Russian imperialism.

Reply to StreetlightX Wow... Now that's facile IMO.

Quoting Olivier5

MO

Doesn't count for much.

Quoting Olivier5

Yes but even if one remains 'apolitical', one must live somewhere, and chose to stay there, under this regime, rather than emigrate over there under another. This is a choice one makes even if one is unconscious of it.

Up to a point. A constructivist would say that power is made up of little interactions all over the place. American influence is Coke sales and such.

So the US is withdrawing its influence from Russia pretty vigorously right now. Ironic?

Just in case anyone is in any doubt as to the nature of US 'help'.

US envoy James Jeffrey:My job [in Syria] is to make it a quagmire for the Russians

You mean protect innocent Syrians surely?

"...sorry, who are the Syrians?"

Reply to StreetlightX At least it shows that this choice of equating, say, MM. Biden and Putin by comparing them or any other leader with Nazi figures is not, in the view of some, an obviously superior choice morally, politically or philosophically speaking.

There's nothing inherently noble in neutrality.

Karl Popper wrote a whole book defending open societies against their enemies. And the main point is that open societies aka democracies, however imperfect, are perfectible while closed societies, not so much. And that gives democracies an inherent strength as compared to dictatorships.

Reply to Olivier5 I'm a believer in democracy. Would be nice if we had one.

In any case even if I were to agree that Western imperialism is, in fact, some way better than Russian imperialism, it doesn't change the fact that neither I, nor anyone, is obligated to don the pom poms in favor of the former.

Also Popper sucks, like, the most. Maybe second most after Ayn Rand. Both cold war polemicists pretending to be philosophers.

No NATO membership for Ukraine ? (main demand met and has been for some time now)

Where's Putin?

Quoting War Crimes Watch: Russia's onslaught on Ukrainian hospitals (Mar 26, 2022)

LVIV, Ukraine (AP) — For a month now, Russian forces have repeatedly attacked Ukrainian medical facilities [...] with at least 34 assaults

[sup]AP News is usually taken to be reliable. Declaring the report fake or the like would require something material.[/sup]

Yeah...not really...looking good.

Meanwhile "We're open again!" :victory: :)

Quoting FreeEmotion

Mutually Assured Commitment to Chickening out?

That has happened many times. Which is the good thing here. And that's why it's largely hypothetical the idea of "escalate-to-de-escalate" and the whole debate about the use of nuclear weapons is hypothetical. The use of let's say conventional ballistic missiles isn't: there in use, actually with both side in the Ukraine conflict.

I remember a story of Leonid Brezhnev. He was participating in a military exercise in the Soviet Union as head of the state. So when the exercise came to moment where he would confirm the launching of the Soviet nuclear weapons (and Soviet doctrine was based on using nuclear weapons to counter Western air superiority), he started to panic and fearfully started to ask: "This is an exercise, right?".

Another telling anecdote I read came from the memoirs of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Reagan and Bush, admiral Crowe. Usually high level wargames that had nuclear weapons ended with both Cold War sides refraining to use them. So they wanted to see what would happen when they were used and tilted the wargame that nuclear exchanges would happen. The result was that the wargame itself became so tense and nerve wrecking for the participants that one had to be hospitalized.

It's obvious that nuclear weapons aren't thought of as just weapons with more firepower than ordinary weapons. Which is a good thing.

Quoting FreeEmotion

Is there anything "morally wrong" about total disarmament? I am missing something here.

It's not just a moral question and when all war is morally wrong, I guess total disarmament is morally correct.

However:

Switzerland is surrounded by EU countries that likely won't invade it or militarily pressure it. Why would it need it's army? Well, the argument is that we cannot know what the future brings us and once you have disbanded your deterrence, hard to get it back. Similar with nuclear weapons. If someone accepts to disarm totally the nuclear arsenal and then simply lies and others go through with it.

A side with nuclear weapons when others don't have it can quite freely make military excursions and use military force, as can be seen from the example of Israel or Russia (with Ukraine).

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

On an unrelated note, the new narrative is hilarious. All the stalling out and counter attacks are actually part of a grand strategy.

Some, uh, experts seem to go along with this narrative:




On a related note, I think that some of the commenters (and I don't entirely absolve myself) tend to hold official Russian rhetoric to a standard of truthfulness, rationality and consistency to which it does not hold itself. For example, some say that after repeatedly and forcefully stating their objectives in this war, the Russian side cannot afford to back down and leave with much less - something that they could have achieved sooner and easier, with far fewer losses. Most of all, because that would threaten its standing at home. This analysis does not appreciate just how little bearing facts and common sense have on what Russian officials and propagandists are saying, and how abruptly they can switch their talking points. (How much any of this matters to the Russian populace is a different and more complicated question.)

For people on the outside, the depth of denial, absurdity and cynicism in the official rhetoric may be difficult to fathom, but here is just one example. One of the principle justifications for the war (which cannot be called a war) was and remains the "genocide" of the Russian people in the separatist Donbass. Apparently, the public is more receptive to this narrative than to others, and so propagandists put it front and center (for example, when talking about the not-war to schoolchildren). But contrary to what one might expect, this narrative was almost entirely absent from the public sphere until about two weeks before the invasion, when suddenly it was being blasted out of every TV set. Neither actual numbers nor the record of news stories and official statements over the past several years bear it out. And yet it appears that this jarring switch went unnoticed by many. In true Orwellian fashion, a sizable number of people (according to some surveys) now believe that a genocide has been ongoing all these years.

I am not going to make any predictions, but my point in all this is that there are more live possibilities here than some prognosticators admit. It is entirely possible that at the end (if there is an end) the Russians will declare that their goal was always whatever it is that they will have decided to settle on, and that will be it. The record showing otherwise won't matter in the slightest.

Quoting SophistiCat

t is entirely possible that at the end (if there is an end) the Russians will declare that their goal was always whatever it is that they will have decided to settle on, and that will be it.

Not only entirely possible, but very likely. Putin's Russia has already moved a lot into the realm of Soviet style information policy and narrative.

The fact that calling the war a war is forbidden tells this totally clear. There are more political prisoners in Russia than there were in the Soviet Union in the 1970's according to some observers. The exact number is obviously unknown.

Just a year ago:

The number of political prisoners in Russia today is nearly five times higher than it was five years ago, according to the latest report from the Memorial Human Rights Center. Activists began maintaining a list of Russian political prisoners in the late 2000s, and for a long time it was made up of a few dozen names. But this tally has increased sharply since 2015. Today, the country has 420 political prisoners and is poised to catch up to the numbers seen during the twilight years of the USSR.

And now, btw, the Memorial Human Rights Center, the oldest human rights group in Russia, which now is being foreclosed. It's primary function was to record the crimes against humanity during Stalin and the Soviet Union.

Quoting Isaac

I'm not Russian, nor talking to any Russians. Why would I morally condemn them? This is a discussion forum, not a socialising site. You're not 'getting to know me better' by my writing a little puff piece about all the things I like and dislike.

To think strategically or morally about this war doesn’t require you to be Russian, nor to talk to Russians. So your question is grounded on a non-sequitur. Maybe what you are implying here is that your readiness to voice your moral condemnation of the Russian aggression is conditional on your capacity of affecting their choices. But that’s a very weak argument, indeed if you can not affect directly their choices (assumed you could just by being Russian or speaking to Russians), you could affect them indirectly by promoting western governments’ decision to support Ukrainian defense precisely because Russian aggression is morally wrong. Additionally it sounds contradictory wrt your further claim: this is a discussion forum, so we can discuss things just for the sake of discussing them.
Finally the purpose of my argument was not to socialise but to discuss in a philosophical forum about this war. And the point is precisely that your analysis about this war instead of proving to be more objective, it just proved your preferences.


Quoting Isaac

Morally - People have implied (outright said in some cases) that 'the West' bears no responsibility for what's happening. I think that's morally wrong, so I oppose it. No one has said that Putin's is blameless, so there's no cause for me to write anything morally condemnatory about him.

And what are the moral principles or the moral values which the West has infringed and therefore should bear responsibility for the Russian aggression of Ukraine? Besides if the West did something morally wrong, why isn’t the West being attacked by the Russians but Ukraine? Are you including Ukraine in the West?

Quoting Isaac

Strategically - Again, no one has commented to the effect that we should not take America's strategic interests seriously, so there's no cause to write anything to the effect that we should. People have, however, treated Putin as if he were a psychopath with no legitimate security interests, I think that's wrong so I oppose it.

That people are treating Putin as a psychopath should be welcome if it advances western strategic interests, unless of course you are against advancing Western strategic interests. Are you? Or do you believe that Western strategic interests are better served if people do not treat Putin as a psychopath?
And, even if you discuss for the sake of discussion, what do you mean by “legitimate security interests”? First of all if we reason in strategic terms, then no geopolitical agent has legitimacy beyond what its competitors are willing to accord, precisely because we have excluded morality as a primary source of legitimacy for strategic action. Besides any geopolitical agent can rationally decide to respect or infringe any agreements and sphere of influence if it proves effective in advancing as long as possible their strategic interests. In other words, even legal legitimacy based on international law is strategically irrelevant if it is not granted by a super-national overwhelming deterrence power.
Secondly, why are you so convinced that Putin acted primarily out of security concerns? Just because Putin claimed so? I think that there are enough strong evidences that is matter of geopolitical influence not of national security per se for the following reasons:
How can a non-nuclear power as Ukraine constitue a threat for a nuclear power like Russia in the first place? And if the threat Putin perceives is about letting Ukraine have nuclear missiles in some far future, then why didn’t he demand an agreement analogous to the one between US and Soviet Union during the cuban missile crisis in the first place, instead of invading Ukraine? Besides no other eastern European country has nuclear missiles even if they are NATO members, so why having Ukraine inside NATO is a security threat for Russia as a nuclear power?
BTW if he so afraid of Russian national security why is he so quick and vocal in menacing the West to escalate to a nuclear war when nobody in the West or Ukraine is planning to attack Russia?! Or why did he limit his demands to the denial of NATO membership to Ukraine, and the acknowledgement of the annexation of Crimea as well as the independence of a couple of Ukrainian regions instead of going for the annexation of the whole Ukraine or at least for a pro-Russian regime change to ensure that no other competing power could turn Ukraine against Russia?!
Finally the military presence of Russia in the Middle East and in Africa has nothing to do with national security concerns, but with a world power struggle. And Putin’s strategic choices wrt all other eastern European countries [1] and western European countries (given the Russian lobbying in American and European politics) seem more aiming at becoming more politically influent in Europe then supporting national security concerns per se. Indeed economic ties would have been sufficient to preserve peaceful relations between EU and Russia, and things could have gone even more awesomely if Putin boosted democratisation and the rise of a middle class in Russia to the point of making Russia eligible to join NATO as he wanted. So all he’s proven with his war against Ukraine is that he’s willing to take military action if lobbying doesn’t suffice to reach his ambitious strategic goals that certainly go beyond national security concerns.



[1]
“The demands, spelled out by Moscow in full for the first time, were handed over to the US this week. They include a demand that Nato remove any troops or weapons deployed to countries that entered the alliance after 1997, which would include much of eastern Europe, including Poland, the former Soviet countries of Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and the Balkan countries. Russia has also demanded that Nato rule out further expansion, including the accession of Ukraine into the alliance, and that it does not hold drills without previous agreement from Russia in Ukraine, eastern Europe, in Caucasus countries such as Georgia or in Central Asia.”. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato)

Reply to ssu Are they jailing people for protesting for democracy? Because that would be a good sign, in a way.

Quoting SophistiCat

For people on the outside, the depth of denial, absurdity and cynicism in the official rhetoric may be difficult to fathom, but here is just one example. One of the principle justifications for the war (which cannot be called a war) was and remains the "genocide" of the Russian people in the separatist Donbass. Apparently, the public is more receptive to this narrative than to others, and so propagandists put it front and center (for example, when talking about the not-war to schoolchildren). But contrary to what one might expect, this narrative was almost entirely absent from the public sphere until about two weeks before the invasion, when suddenly it was being blasted out of every TV set. Neither actual numbers nor the record of news stories and official statements over the past several years bear it out. And yet it appears that this jarring switch went unnoticed by many. In true Orwellian fashion, a sizable number of people (according to some surveys) now believe that a genocide has been ongoing all these years.

In other news - what 'people on the outside' just don't realise about the French is that they wear onions around their neck, berets and stripy jumpers, and they're all called Jaques

...

Who would the "people on the outside" be? You really can't think of anything, anything at all from the Western World which nobody had heard of one day but was global issue number one the next simply because of press or social media coverage?

I don't object to Russia being held to these standards, but this underhand insinuation in it all the the West stands above that kind of skulduggery is little short of propaganda itself.

When was the last time you saw a Yemeni flag above one of our public buildings?

Quoting https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/mar/17/aid-agencies-race-food-to-ukraine-cities-kyiv-kharkiv-dnipro

On Wednesday, a donor conference in Geneva aimed at raising funds for Yemen ended with world leaders pledging little more than a quarter of the target amount.

Jan Egeland, secretary general of the Norwegian Refugee Council, said he was “deeply disappointed”. “More people are in need this year in Yemen than in 2021. More lives will be lost. More children will starve … yet somehow, we will have less money to support them. World leaders must not allow this to happen.

“The people of Yemen need the same level of support and solidarity that we’ve seen for the people of Ukraine. Especially as the crisis in Europe will dramatically impact Yemenis’ access to food and fuel, making an already dire situation even worse. We need to step up now to avoid thousands more dying from hunger.”

Quoting Isaac

I'm supporting the people who I think would be harmed by the policy I'm opposing.

Quite a broad group of people. And what does it translates into, under the circumstances? What policy prescriptions do you make (or not make) as a result?

Quoting neomac

To think strategically or morally about this war doesn’t require you to be Russian, nor to talk to Russians. So your question is grounded on a non-sequitur.

I didn't say it was 'required' did I? I said I had no reason to. Not liking cricket gives me no reason to play cricket. Is that the same as saying I'm 'required' to like cricket in order to play cricket?

Quoting neomac

if you can not affect directly their choices (assumed you could just by being Russian or speaking to Russians), you could affect them indirectly by promoting western governments’ decision to support Ukrainian defense

Only if I thought it would help. If I though it would cause more harm, how would that be the moral option?

Quoting neomac

it sounds contradictory wrt your further claim: this is a discussion forum, so we can discuss things just for the sake of discussing them.

Again, me finding no reason to and me being unable or not allowed to are two different things.

Quoting neomac

And what are the moral principles or the moral values wrt which the West has infringed and therefore should bear responsibility for the Russian aggression of Ukraine?

These have been discussed at length, but recklessly endangering millions of people by knowingly provoking a ruthless tyrant without any meaningful protection for those he might attack is immoral.

Quoting neomac

if the West did something morally wrong, why isn’t the West being attacked by the Russians

Wtf? I assume it's because Putin is an immoral turd and would probably applaud them.

Quoting neomac

That people are treating Putin as a psychopath should be welcome if it advances western strategic interests, unless of course you are against advancing Western strategic interests. Are you?

Yes.

Quoting neomac

what do you mean by “legitimate security interests”?

An interest some party might have about their security which actually relates to their security (as opposed to a connection made only for political rhetoric).

Quoting neomac

why are you so convinced that Putin acted primarily out of security concerns?

I'm not.

Quoting neomac

How can a non-nuclear power as Ukraine constitue a threat for a nuclear power like Russia in the first place?

By serving as a base for much better equipped allies like the US.

Quoting neomac

BTW if he so afraid of Russian national security why is he so quick and vocal in menacing the West to escalate to a nuclear war when nobody in the West or Ukraine is planning to attack Russia?

Because his concern is not an attack on Russia. A land invasion of one's country is not the only thing that comes under the umbrella of a security concern, obviously. Do you think anyone is going to invade the US? Clearly not. Do you think the US has legitimate security concerns?

Quoting neomac

why did he limit his demands to the denial of NATO membership to Ukraine, and the acknowledgement of the annexation of Crimea as well as the independence of a couple of Ukrainian regions instead of going for the annexation of the whole Ukraine or at least for a pro-Russian regime change to ensure that no other competing power could turn Ukraine against Russia?

Because those demands were more likely to be met.

Quoting neomac

economic ties would have been sufficient to preserve peaceful relations between EU and Russia

Exactly. It was Yanukovych's attempts to create just such a relationship and the EU's refusal to countenance it that acted as one of the precipitators of this whole thing.

Quoting neomac

all he’s proven with his war against Ukraine is that he’s willing to take military action if lobbying doesn’t suffice to reach his ambitious strategic goals that certainly go beyond national security concerns.

Not sure what the 'all' is doing there.

Reply to StreetlightX Have you read Popper? Probably not, or you wouldn't compare him to Ayn Rand.

Quoting Olivier5

And what does it translates into, under the circumstances? What policy prescriptions do you make (or not make) as a result?

I'm not writing them all out again. I've already stated them, you opposed them with your knee-jerk tribalism, I pointed that out...now you want to avoid that whole discussion by pretending it never started. Fascinating though they are, there's a limit to the effort I'm willing to put in to play your games. It's entertaining to watch you dance, but if it takes too much to wind you back up again...

Reply to Amity

Take a week off. Take two. Not just not posting; don't even login to see what's going on.

In mil-speak: Do not allow the forum to dictate the tempo of your actions.

Quoting Isaac

I've already stated them

Just summarize them briefly, will you?

Reply to Srap Tasmaner
Thanks - please I don't want to detract further from this thread.
I regret making my decision public.
I will respond to you and any others by PM :sparkle:

Quoting ssu

Switzerland is surrounded by EU countries that likely won't invade it or militarily pressure it. Why would it need it's army? Well, the argument is that we cannot know what the future brings us and once you have disbanded your deterrence, hard to get it back. Similar with nuclear weapons. If someone accepts to disarm totally the nuclear arsenal and then simply lies and others go through with it.

This is a good point. From "Russia is not the enemy" to the present day stand, people and events change drastically, so plan to keep your army and nukes because one day someone might need them or justify their unnecessary use.

Quoting ssu

That has happened many times. Which is the good thing here. And that's why it's largely hypothetical the idea of "escalate-to-de-escalate".

Tell me, if you and your best friend were presidents of two opposing nuclear powers, how would you approach the subject? Total disarmament? "I found president X very disarming" or would you plan for the day one or both were replaced my madmen, 'neocons' or imperialists? Would you win any elections. I don't think there will be any peacenick presidents in our future.

[b]Definitions for Peacenik

(noun) a person who opposes war or warlike policies
(noun) someone who prefers negotiations to armed conflict in the conduct of foreign relations[/b]


They are counting on there being wars in the future. Very optimistic, of course they assume they can 'win'

U.S. adversaries—China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and terrorist groups—will likely remain constant, but U.S. allies are liable to change, and the location of where the United States is most likely to fight wars may not match the locations where conflicts could be most dangerous to U.S. interests.

Above all, barring any radical attempt to alter the trajectory, the United States in 2030 could progressively lose the initiative to dictate strategic outcomes and to shape when and why the wars of the future occur.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2849z1.html

All wars are about the future as well as the past.

Reply to ssu Yeah, looking back over the past year, it almost looks like the authorities knew all along that all that tosh about human rights and freedoms would soon become irrelevant. With everything else that's going on, there's no more need for even halfhearted pretenses.

As soon as Russia was kicked out of the Council of Europe ("you can't fire me - I quit!") Dmitry Medvedev (who many thought to be softer and more liberal than Putin) gleefully declared that now Russia was finally free to reinstitute capital punishment.


Reply to Isaac I don't know who you are jumping up and down for, but if it's on my account, then don't bother. Go back to bickering with whoever cares.

Reply to SophistiCat

Yes, they do propaganda and we do propaganda too. Theirs is often outlandish and laughable and I've pointed that out at the start of the thread. Ours is often more run-of-the-mill, like panic-denying any narrative that doesn't make the Russians look bad. E.g. When someone points out that the 'Russia's war is going disastrously' narrative might not be entirely accurate, these people open their skull, drop their brain on the floor, and start babbling about any other bad thing Russia has done as if you must support that because you're not agreeing with everything they're saying.

Quoting Wayfarer

whataboutism
/?w?t??ba?t?z(?)m/
nounBRITISH

Well, it's nice to see that you care about Ukrainians. I'm sure Ukrainians care a lot about their Australian brothers and sisters, too.

However, IMO emotions shouldn't be allowed to cloud judgement. It doesn't follow that if you label someone's counterargument "whataboutism" you render it invalid. You still have to explain why the West is waging economic jihad on Russia for invading Ukraine, but not on China for invading and annexing Tibet, or on Turkey for invading Cyprus and Syria, etc., etc.

In fact, NATO's Stoltenberg even tried to justify Turkey's actions by claiming that Turkey has "legitimate security concerns":

Minister Cavusoglu and I also discussed Turkey´s ongoing operation in Northern Syria … Turkey has legitimate security concerns … Turkey is a great power in this great region and with great power comes great responsibility… - NATO Joint press conference, 11 Oct. 2019

So, according to NATO, and to NATO jihadis in general, it’s OK for Turkey to invade and occupy Kurdish territories in Syria, but not for Russia to invade Ukraine!

Plus, whichever way you choose to answer this, the fact remains that the West's sanctions on Russia show that the world's economy and finances are dominated by America and its client states. And, this in turn shows (a) that there is no democracy and equality in the world, and (b) that nations who don't want to submit to US dominance have a right to resist.

Quoting SophistiCat

if it's on my account

It isn't.

Quoting Baden

When someone points out that the 'Russia's war is going disastrously' narrative might not be entirely accurate

A bit more analysis on whether the failure to advance further on Kyiv was a disaster or intentional or something in between.

https://twitter.com/defencewithac/status/1507498359812149261

"I think it was all about Donbas from the start. The stuff In rest of country was a feint. Fact Kyiv remains mostly untouched while Mariupol is flattened speaks volumes."

Defence With A 'C' @defencewithac: Seen a number of similar suggestions that Kyiv was a mere feint, which I think are equally as implausible as the idea that Kyiv was the Russian centre of gravity, which we shall examine... err, now. /1

One of the opening gambits for the Russians was a failed air assault on an airport on the city outskirts, which suggests an attempt to capture Kyiv via coup de main. More specifically, it suggests an attempt to capture the Ukrainian government via coup de main. /2
·
19h
The persistent advances on the city from both north and east, and the attempts to encircle it, would also imply that Kyiv was more than just a mere feint, and that a reasonable effort was being made to try and capture it. /3
·
19h
That said, operationally Kyiv is far more important to the Ukrainians than it is to the Russians, which would explain why Ukr has expended so much effort in its defence, stripping other areas of units and systems in order to protect the capital. /4
·
19h
Conversely, the Rus deployed most of their units in the south and east, which suggests that while certainly Kyiv was an important target, it wasn't the central axis upon which the operation hinged. Otherwise it would have made sense to deploy vastly more forces to it. /5
·
19h
As for why Kyiv has been less bombarded (relatively speaking...) than other cities, the simple answer is that the Russians haven't gotten as close and are having more difficulty bringing artillery to bear on the main city. /6
·
19h
The Rus approach to urban conflict has long been one of "find the enemy with probes, flatten that area with artillery, then send in troops to clear the rubble." This is what we've seen in Mariupol for example. /7
·
19h
But in Kyiv they haven't really gotten close enough to do that on the core city, though residents of the suburbs and surrounding towns/cities would beg to differ that their region has somehow gotten off lightly. /8
·
19h
This incidentally seems to be half the Russian's problems in places like Chernihiv and Sumy, where small probes by single/pairs of tanks with a few IFV in support are routinely getting ambushed and overwhelmed by local Ukrainian superiority. /9
·
19h
Thus, I don't think Kyiv is really one or the other. It doesn't seem to be the central goal that everyone is obsessing over, but to call it the object of a mere feint is to give the Russians too much credit for an otherwise mediocre advance. /end

----

Vastly prefereable and more enlightening than 'It's all a disaster' or 'It's all going exactly to plan'.

Quoting FreeEmotion

Tell me, if you and your best friend were presidents of two opposing nuclear powers, how would you approach the subject? Total disarmament? "I found president X very disarming" or would you plan for the day one or both were replaced my madmen, 'neocons' or imperialists? Would you win any elections. I don't think there will be any peacenick presidents in our future.

It's a long process for countries to change their views of others from "possible enemy" to friend. Now many politicians indeed can have "peacenick" ideas, but it takes a while before the militaries themselves have "peacenick" ideas.

Just think of the United States and the United Kingdom. After WWI they had been allies.

Even after the two countries fought WW1 together, the US had warplans called War Plan Red to fight the British alongside their plans for a possible war with Japan (War Plan Yellow).



Now how incredible does that sound? What's the reasoning behind it? Well, not much if anything. And just how easily tensions can rise is when you look at the relationship that China and the Soviet Union had. So from being on the same side in Korea, later they had a border war.

Nearly the last thing to disappear is the hypothetical possibility of a conflict, and a lot of integration and friendly ties and relationships happen before. And far more likely before total disarmament is that your generals and your best friends generals are cozily sharing planning joint actions towards a possible third country as a hypothetical threat.

Quoting Baden

I follow where the evidence leads.

So let's speak about evidence. One month in, and they have not even 'liberated' Donbas. They are losing men by the thousands, not counting the prisoners. They've been pushed back from the vicinity of Kyiv, in the first successful large Ukrainian counter-offensive. That's to be compared with the idea they had prior to attack, of a walk in the park among a joyful and grateful populace welcoming them.... Looks pretty disastrous to me.

The have more or less another month worth of cannon fodder to go, perhaps two. After that, that is to say, if they and the Ukrainians can both last that long, then either they launch general conscription, use chemical weapons, or sign a peace treaty under significant military pressure.

If true, interesting. And of course, the numbers can vary.

Yet what is likely that Ukraine hasn't used it's armored forces heavily as it tries to preserve it's strength, just as it tries to preserve it's meagre air force. A conventional counterattack might give a too good target to the Russian forces and cause severe attrition to the fewer Ukrainian armored units.

[quote](Forbes) Ukraine has lost at least 74 tanks—destroyed or captured—since Russia widened its war on the country starting the night of Feb. 23.

But Ukraine has captured at least 117 Russian tanks, according to open-source-intelligence analysts who scrutinize photos and videos on social media.

In other words, the Ukrainian army might actually have more tanks now than a month ago—all without building a single brand-new tank or pulling some older vehicle out of storage.

The Russians meanwhile have captured at least 37 Ukrainian tanks—a sum inadequate to compensate for the roughly 274 tanks it is believed to have lost to all causes.

The disparity in captured tanks speaks to Russia’s lack of preparation for a high-intensity war against a determined foe. But it also speaks to the advantages any defender possesses over any attacker.[/Quote]

Quoting Olivier5

They've been pushed back from the vicinity of Kyiv, in the first successful large Ukrainian counter-offensive.

I've read various reports on this but nothing solid yet. Its significance depends too on Russian plans. If they are as they say they are concentrating on the South and East now, that's where Ukranian victories would be most significant.

Quoting Olivier5

After that, that is to say, if they and the Ukrainians can both last that long, then either they launch general conscription, use chemical weapons, or sign a peace treaty under significant military pressure.

OK, but the first two of these scenarios are disastrous for Ukraine and the third only a win if the Russians make significant compromises. So, your outlook appears no more optimistic than mine.

Why is Russia attacking Lviv? It doesn't make sense. I thought they would go to Odessa next, based on captured territory, going to Lviv completely thins them out.

To be clear, No, I do not want more deaths. I want this assault to be over quickly - if it lengthens, more people die and everything gets worse for everybody.

I mean, it's pretty clear or looks clear, that Russian intelligence completely botched whatever analysis they made of an invasion of Ukraine. Pretty shocking given these countries share a border.

Reply to Baden Was that stalled convoy also part of the plan?

So we can't rely on Russian mission statements. It's hard to tell what they're trying to accomplish from observing them. I don't think it's supposed to be this complicated.

Reply to Baden Let's make some predictions, Baden. I predict in a month's time Russia will be just as stymied as they are now and will control no Ukrainian cities, as befitting the military disaster the Russians are experiencing. [s]If you think everything is going so swimmingly[/s], Where do you predict the Russians will be in a month's time?

Reply to frank

There is information out there if you dig but, yes, it's not easy to know their intentions; what they say means almost nothing because they're happy to lie to misdirect. My hope is that China is putting some pressure on them to gradually deescalate and they might accept some kind of autonomy deal on the Donbass that stops short of full independence. Europe might also put some background pressure on Zelensky to concede he's more or less lost that region to Russian puppet control.

Quoting Baden

the first two of these scenarios are disastrous for Ukraine and the third only a win if the Russians make significant compromises. So, your outlook appears no more optimistic than mine.

I'm not trying to be optimistic, i'm trying to keep my analysis fact-based. The Russians have evidently failed in their objectives so far, with the forces and weapons they have engaged. If they now start to lose ground, they might try other weapons. We'll see.

Conscription would only help after a while because you have to equip and train this new cannon fodder first.

Reply to Olivier5

How I see it playing out is as above: Russian puppet control of Donbass and Ukraine accepting neutral status. The question is how long it takes. As far as I'm concerned, the sooner the better but that is the difficult one to judge.

Quoting Baden

My hope is that China is putting some pressure on them to gradually deescalate

I think they're going in the opposite direction. They're reaching out to countries who might want to create an anti-NATO alliance. This is how it becomes a global conflict. If you want to see the citation on that I'll look for it.

Quoting Baden

Europe might also put some background pressure on Zelensky to concede he's more or less lost that region to Russian puppet control.

I think Biden is actually leading the team right now and he wants to bruise Putin.

I would also love to see this end quickly, but the stars are saying it's going to continue and it has the potential to spread. This is partly about prying American fingers off global control.

And I've thought it through: no, this is not happening because of previous American aggression. That's bullshit. It's happening because the US is obviously in decline.

Reply to frank

It's also plausible. Anyway, if you have a source on that, I'll read it, yes.

Reply to Baden Well, now I can't find it, so I guess consider it bullshit until I do.

FYI: Maps: Tracking the Russian Invasion of Ukraine

Rambling on from NATO membership, another of Putin's demands — Donetsk and Luhansk becoming two independent states — seems more contentious. In that respect, if that was to proceed, I'm thinking that all Ukrainians throughout be allowed to freely attain citizenship either way (and relocate when they can, without coercion obstruction reprisals threats or whatever, I mean). After all, they're the people on the ground here, not Londoners and Muscovites. Un/reasonable?

Quoting SophistiCat

On a related note, I think that some of the commenters (and I don't entirely absolve myself) tend to hold official Russian rhetoric to a standard of truthfulness, rationality and consistency to which it does not hold itself.

I'm admittedly guilty.

Reply to frank

I'm sure it'll show up. Meanwhile, it looks like Russia's response to Biden's fiery rhetoric in Poland has been to unleash some real fire and fury on Lviv.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60887974

"Lviv's mayor, Andriy Sadoviy, said that "with today's blows, the aggressor sends greetings to President Biden"

Reply to Baden Ukraine would want Crimea back, or at least part of it, IMO.

Another possible future, if Putin can't manage to extract himself and his men from this situation before a month or two, remains a partial collapse of the Russians forces on some theaters. Putin's position as generalissimo would then seem compromised.

Instructive:


"You may not humiliate a nation and think it will have no consequences."

Reply to Baden
Here it is.

Reply to frank

:up:

Behind enemy lines:

:fire: Russian warship destroyed in occupied port of Berdyansk, says Ukraine (Mar 24, 2022)

Tightening things up:

:zip: Putin Signs Law On Jail Terms For 'Fake' News On State Actions Abroad (Mar 25, 2022)

Quoting jorndoe

In that respect, if that was to proceed, I'm thinking that all Ukrainians throughout be allowed to freely attain citizenship either way (and relocate when they can, without coercion obstruction reprisals threats or whatever, I mean).

Over one and a half million people have fled the area, the majority to other parts in Ukraine, but also hundreds of thousands have fled into Russia. Before Russia's assault happened, many (usually women and children) were evacuated from Donetsk and Luhansk to Russia. Already in 2019 Putin declared that all citizens in Donetsk and Luhansk can get Russian citizenship. About 720 000 have now got Russian citizenship. Now it seems to be a higher number:

(DW) In 2019, Russia began to distribute Russian passports to the area's inhabitants. According to the latest reports, some 800,000 eastern Ukrainians are said to have Russian citizenship — an estimated 15 to 25% of the population, although exact figures are hard to obtain. This is the central argument behind the Kremlin's recognition of the independence of the separatist regions.

The idea of people freely choosing their citizenship either way in a warzone is unrealistic.

Reply to ssu
Have you noticed that the 20th Century started with a pandemic and a world war?

Reply to frank World war continued with a pandemic, yes, that's the history.

Reply to ssu It's possible it could happen again, but it in the same order.

Quoting Baden

A bit more analysis on whether the failure to advance further on Kyiv was a disaster or intentional or something in between.

Do notice that there obviously was a intelligence gaffe, which Putin likely hasn't been all too happy. The most likely reason is that Putin has had in his inner circle fellow minded people and anyone thinking that this "special military operation" wouldn't be a great idea was sidetracked. The three intelligence services (SVR, the FSB, which handles the near abroad, and the GRU) likely did give them intelligence that they wanted to hear. After all, the 2014 invasion had worked splendidly, hence the idea that it could continue similarly could be something that you could sell in the Kremlin. It's not hard to find such examples of this, when one remembers the way how the American intelligence services reacted to the wishes of the neocon White House before the invasion of Iraq.

Vladimir Putin has placed the head of the FSB's foreign service and his deputy under house arrest after blaming them for intelligence failings that saw his army handed a series of embarrassing defeats in Ukraine, it has been claimed.

Andrey Soldatov, a respected author on the Russian secret services, said sources inside the FSB told him that Sergey Beseda, 68, head of the agency's foreign service, has been placed under arrest on Putin's orders.

Also arrested is Anatoly Bolyukh, Beseda's deputy, according to Soldatov, who said Putin is 'truly unhappy' with the agency - which he ran before becoming president.

The fifth department of the FSB (Operational Information and International Relations), ran the "near abroad" and was responsible for missions in Ukraine, has been said to been raided by the both FSO, Federal Protective Service of the Russian Federation, Putin’s own security service.

But of course now this is old news and the reality now is that Putin might really be thinking of looking at just Donbas and the landbridge to Crimea. The question is what Ukrainians think about it and just how much Putin is willing to fight for. He hasn't lost a war yet, so it might be hard for him.

I personally fear that the war will just continue for far longer even if a conclusion could be made earlier.

Quoting Baden

"You may not humiliate a nation and think it will have no consequences."

I guess he was speaking on behalf of the Soviet Union. Wasn't also Ukraine a large part of it, or is just the Russian federation the only successor state of the Union? Just asking..

Quoting frank

It's possible it could happen again, but it in the same order.

Well, let's remember that before the Great War that started in 1914, the last huge European war were the Napoleonic wars. And that had been ages ago and there wasn't any historical memory of such total war as the World Wars we have now. And there were no nuclear weapons.

We have a totally different collective memory of World War 1 and it's continuation, WW2 and at least those that have been born during the Cold War remember quite well the scare of WW3 during the Cold War. Hence such sleepwalking into a bigger war isn't likely in my view as happened in the summer of 1914. It is already quite evident from the timid way that the US and NATO act in the support of Ukraine.

(In 1914, they were enthusiastic about the war, as can be seen in the pictures...)

Reply to ssu
There's more of a sense of dread now? I'm guessing Russians feel that way, but I think there are a lot of young Chinese who feel the opposite: they want nuclear war. They've turned the US into an image of what keeps them down (when the opposite is actually true).

Anyway, I hope you're right. I don't want war at all.

The Left vs Vlad Putin. How can Putin win. The last military battle to be fought by conservatism is being fought. He may win the battle but not the war. Putin is mortal after all whereas the 'X' Chromosome that the Left represents will be around as long as the last human.

Quoting frank

Have you noticed that the 20th Century started with a pandemic and a world war?

Have you noticed people have not killing in each other en masse, not making the commitment not to do so?

Militarism and Development in Underdeveloped Societies
Peter B. Mayer, in Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, & Conflict (Second Edition), 2008

Militarism is a word to which many different meanings are attached. The archetypal image of militarism is the equestrian figure of a ruler dressed in military costume, the Man on Horseback, the heroic, martial savior of the nation. Most commonly, militarism refers to predominance – political, economic, or social – of the military in government or society. Thus Prussia in the nineteenth century and Japan in the late nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century – both societies in which military ideas and ideology were predominant, the military class was extremely influential, and conscription was widespread – are often characterized by the term ‘militarism’.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/militarism

Reply to Gregory A

President George W. Bush got on with him, but so did President Clinton, I think. The mad swings of the pendulum from Democratic to Republican. From Left to Right.

Watching closely.

I am assuming he is a good Vlad.

https://www.crikey.com.au/2022/03/23/coaltion-donor-whitehaven-coal-governments-donation-ukraine/

I'll say it again: dead Ukranians are good for business (@Banno) -

In the past five years, Whitehaven has handed $98,000 to the federal Liberal Party. They only donate to the Liberals — none of this give-to-both-sides stuff used by so many companies to get in the door of fundraisers. And for that sum, less than $100,000, Whitehaven just got an almighty pay-off.

Scott Morrison is paying Whitehaven an estimated $31 million for Australia’s “donation” of 70,000 tonnes of coal to Ukraine. That will last one generator a few days tops, so won’t do much for the brave people battling the Russian army. But it will do an awful lot for Whitehaven: its $98,000 investment is paying off 316-fold.

Reply to StreetlightX Capitalism is a wonder to behold.

Quoting StreetlightX

dead Ukranians are good for business

So is Cynicism

Vladimir Putin has placed the head of the FSB's foreign service and his deputy under house arrest after blaming them for intelligence failings that saw his army handed a series of embarrassing defeats in Ukraine, it has been claimed.

Andrey Soldatov, a respected author on the Russian secret services, said sources inside the FSB told him that Sergey Beseda, 68, head of the agency's foreign service, has been placed under arrest on Putin's orders.

Also arrested is Anatoly Bolyukh, Beseda's deputy, according to Soldatov, who said Putin is 'truly unhappy' with the agency - which he ran before becoming president.

I think Vlad is right to be nervous. It may be more serious than the FSB having just erred in their assessment.

The US had access to tiptop intel prior to the war about what was planned (even though few believed their predictions of an all out aggression, even in Ukraine). Possibly they were tipped from the FSB (or another source). And two weeks ago the Ukrainian side said they fought back a Wagner force aiming to kill Zelensky, thank to tips coming directly from the FSB.

It's not just a case of passing info to the enemy for the money, I think. It looks more likely that someone in the FSB didn't like the idea of invading Ukraine at all, and decided that for the best interest of the nation, Mr Putin's war in Ukraine had to fail.

Perhaps so that Mr Putin would be replaced by somebody nicer.

The actions and inactions of Belarus could also be interpreted this way: does Lukachenko want Putin to succeed in Ukraine, or does he want him to fail? If he wants him to succeed, why hasn't Belarus entered the war yet?

Quoting FreeEmotion

President George W. Bush got on with him, but so did President Clinton, I think. The mad swings of the pendulum from Democratic to Republican. From Left to Right.

Watching closely.

I am assuming he is a good Vlad.

Putin is a response to Western society's shift to the left, in this instance its influence on European nations. The modern media a vector for emotion can't but help depicting patriarchs as bad guys. When Putin is gone the Left will be all conquering its ultimate victory and goal symbolized with the elimination of the last male on earth. The 'x' chromosomes attempt to eliminate the mutant 'Y' complete.

23 days ago:

Quoting boethius

As Putin himself said "all outcomes are acceptable"?

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,

Also 23 days ago:

Quoting boethius

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.

22 days ago:

Quoting boethius

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.

20 days ago:

Quoting boethius

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.

Literally yesterday:

Quoting Remarks by President Biden on the United Efforts of the Free World to Support the People of Ukraine

That’s why — (applause) — that’s why I came to Europe again this week with a clear and determined message for NATO, for the G7, for the European Union, for all freedom-loving nations: We must commit now to be in this fight for the long haul. We must remain unified today and tomorrow and the day after and for the years and decades to come. (Applause.)

It will not be easy. There will be costs. But it’s a price we have to pay. Because the darkness that drives autocracy is ultimately no match for the flame of liberty that lights the souls of free people everywhere.

We will fight to the last Ukrainian!! — (applause) — There will be costs — (applause) — mostly to Ukrainians and all poor people around the world affected by food and fuel price increases!!! — (applause) — But it's a price I'm willing to let Ukrainians and poor people pay!!! — (applause) — For the long haul!!! — (applause) —

Every Ukrainian soul literally lit on fire — (applause) — by Russian artillery and air strikes and hyperbaric munitions I literally masterbate over when the US drops them on brown people — (applause) — lights the way to freedom!!!!! — (applause) —

— (applause) — Just like those torch lit marches by neo-Nazi's — (applause) — lit the way to freedom!!! in 2014!!! — (applause) — (applause) — (applause)

19 days ago:

Quoting boethius

For the overall outcome on the war of all these measures, I personally don't see Russia losing.

Their strategy is pretty simple:

1. Keep pressure on all fronts.
2. Advance each day on weakest fronts
3. Avoid urban combat unless necessary
4. Cutoff all supply lines and wait things out
5. Build out their logistics methodically

The situation now is they've occupied key highways, and can degrade Ukrainian logistics on the remaining roots by air and missile strikes. As mentioned previously, the Dombas front is 1000 km away from the Polish border and may be effectively cutoff from supplies already.

In the meantime, Russia has consolidated its fronts (why they have transformed into straight lines on maps) and worked out its logistics in Ukraine (something that simply takes time, linking / building rail and even tactical pipelines), and absolutely recking Azov battalion in Mariupole ("de-nazification").

And Chechnya is literally part of Russia. Saying using your own citizens who are literally soldiers as soldiers is some form of weakness ... is just stupid. Russia is a culturally diverse place, so it's as unusual as seeing Latin-Americans and African-American's in the US army. OMG they're using their own citizens with arguably the most experience in urban combat to fight Azov in urban combat!

Luckily Ukrainians under siege know how to win on social media instead, and so dipped their bullets in lard and posted that to twitter, so I'm sure the Chechnians now have servere moral problems, as we've been hearing about in Russian forces for a month, and will lose any day now.

20 days ago:

Quoting boethius

"""
LONDON, March 7 (Reuters) - Russia has told Ukraine it is ready to halt military operations "in a moment" if Kyiv meets a list of conditions, the Kremlin spokesman said on Monday.

Dmitry Peskov said Moscow was demanding that Ukraine cease military action, change its constitution to enshrine neutrality, acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory, and recognise the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states.
— Reuters
"""

There's zero reason to assume this offer isn't genuine.

Unless Ukraine has some way to "win", then Russia will simply implement these conditions by force.

Biden: Tough talk.
The Whitehouse: No, no, we didn't mean it!

If anyone thinks this is going to scare the Russians...

https://inews.co.uk/news/world/white-house-us-president-biden-unscripted-speech-not-calling-for-russian-regime-change-1541866

Meanwhile...

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/eu-steps-back-impractical-russia-oil-embargo-2022-03-25/

Honestly, most of this 'support' for Ukraine appears to be for public consumption only. My guess is in the background Europe and many in the American administration just want this to stop and know Russia isn't going to back down.

But...

Quoting frank

I think Biden is actually leading the team right now and he wants to bruise Putin.

His latest speech and the fact he went unscripted suggests that he genuinely has a personal interest in trying to get the better of Putin. I don't think he's on the same page as most European leaders though who are more in control of their messaging.

Reply to Baden

No, no, no, Whitehouse is just taking a page out of the Kremlins playbook, and gonna beat Putin at his own game:

Quoting Firehose of falsehood

The firehose of falsehood, or firehosing, is a propaganda technique in which a large number of messages are broadcast rapidly, repetitively, and continuously over multiple channels (such as news and social media) without regard for truth or consistency. An outgrowth of Soviet propaganda techniques, the firehose of falsehood is a contemporary model for Russian propaganda under Russian President Vladimir Putin.

That's why you hear the Whitehouse contradicting itself, and Western media declaring victory everyday, they're just winning the information war, just as literally the director of the CIA unironically explained to us on live television that Ukraine is winning the information war ... and also everything Russia says is false.

And people have good reason to take what the director of the CIA says at face value, for the unofficial motto (i.e. something not admitted to but a covert action) of the CIA is "And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free," and people just want to be free after all, so obviously CIA only tells them the God honest truth in all circumstances.

Quoting ssu

I guess he was speaking on behalf of the Soviet Union. Wasn't also Ukraine a large part of it, or is just the Russian federation the only successor state of the Union? Just asking..

No, this was in 1997. So, he was specifically referring to the post Soviet era.

I agree there have been fuckups on the Russian side. I just don't think there's been anything that would result in them not achieving their major objectives as outlined by Boethius. And their significance will be ovestated by our propaganda and understated or denied by theirs.

Quoting ssu

I personally fear that the war will just continue for far longer even if a conclusion could be made earlier.

I'm on board with this. There is a solution there imo, i.e. acquiesce to basic Russian demands with maybe a bit of face-saving negotiation around them. The alternative is try to hurt Russia, but probably not enough to make it withdraw. And while that's happening its demands are effectively being met anyway and Ukraine is being hurt even more. The biggest danger though is that Zelensky hopes that the longer he draws out the war, the more there is a chance of some kind of accident or spark that gets NATO involved on his side. He may feel it's worth the gamble if he's painted himself into a corner of not accepting any loss of Ukraine sovreignty.

Quoting Baden

I don't think he's on the same page as most European leaders though who are more in control of their messaging

Maybe they aren't on the same paragraph, but they're standing together on the same sanctions page, which are geared toward squashing the Russian economy flat.

@StreetlightX addresses the USA:

Quoting Olivier5

I think Vlad is right to be nervous. It may be more serious than the FSB having just erred in their assessment.

The US had access to tiptop intel prior to the war about what was planned (even though few believed their predictions of an all out aggression, even in Ukraine). Possibly they were tipped from the FSB (or another source). And two weeks ago the Ukrainian side said they fought back a Wagner force aiming to kill Zelensky, thank to tips coming directly from the FSB.

A dictator can interpret the "yes"-men behaviour of giving rosy pictures that then backfires as intentionally done deception. Add here that it really does seem that the Western intelligence did get tips about the invasion will make nearly anyone paranoid about the mole.

Of course, the pre-war intel was crucial here.

The invasion would have made total sense assuming the Ukrainians wouldn't have put up a fight. If they would have been as paralyzed as they were in 2014 (when from 160 000 army could only muster up a fighting force of 6000 men and had a handful of combat capable fighter aircraft) or would have caved like the Afghan Army and the Ukrainian leadership would have flown to the West, then indeed it would have been the way to go. Otherwise the invasion plan simply went against even basic Russian military doctrine. You don't attack an enemy force of 200 000 with 190 000 men.

Yet now the question is what to do now in this situation. And it might be now one possibility is simply to organize those reserves (which can take several months) and during that time take a time out and defend your positions and hope that you inflict losses to Ukraine if it counterattacks and only try advancing in the most favorable areas.

Reply to frank addresses the USSR:

Quoting Gregory A

Putin is a response to Western society's shift to the left, in this instance its influence on European nations. The modern media a vector for emotion can't but help depicting patriarchs as bad guys. When Putin is gone the Left will be all conquering its ultimate victory and goal symbolized with the elimination of the last male on earth. The 'x' chromosomes attempt to eliminate the mutant 'Y' complete.

Who will save us from this fate? Democracy? War? Maybe there is a way to put us on the right side of history.

Quoting RT

“We have the president of Russia mentioned the N-word... the nuclear word,” Trump said.“The nuclear word is a very dangerous, dangerous word and it’s being thrown around very cavalierly.”

I have to agree. From the man who maybe invented cavalier.

To the more powerless nations watching this thing, any outcome is acceptable, it has to be.

Quoting Baden

No, this was in 1997. So, he was specifically referring to the post Soviet era.

Ok. Then I stand corrected.

Quoting Baden

I just don't think there's been anything that would result in them not achieving their major objectives as outlined by Boethius. And their significance will be ovestated by our propaganda and understated or denied by theirs.

I understand that one has to be sceptical about Western media, however one shouldn't forget that:
a) Ukraine is a huge country, b) It has large armed forces, c) it has shown the will to fight and d) it is supported by a huge alliance and finally e) Russia isn't Soviet Union and hasn't the former's resources.

All the above facts make it totally possible that the outcome is a standstill with neither side reaching it's rosiest objectives. To assume that Russia will inevitably win and reach it's objectives is a long shot.

Quoting Baden

I'm on board with this. There is a solution there imo, i.e. acquiesce to basic Russian demands with maybe a bit of face-saving negotiation around them.

Neither side is yet, after a month, is really willing to cease operations and declare that their objectives have been met. Of course both sides will declare victory...but when and at what cost. Thinking that either side will abruptly now collapse isn't realistic.

Quoting Baden

The biggest danger though is that Zelensky hopes that the longer he draws out the war, the more there is a chance of some kind of accident or spark that gets NATO involved on his side. He may feel it's worth the gamble if he's painted himself into a corner of not accepting any loss of Ukraine sovreignty.

I think that NATO and US are far more timid than they were in the proxy wars during the Cold War. The Polish MiG-29 debacle clearly shows that. In truth if the fighters would have been painted to Ukrainian colours and flown by Ukrainian pilots to Ukraine wouldn't have resulted in WW3.

And note that Zelensky would be all too happy about a "no-fly-zone" made up with Ukrainian manned Soviet legacy system (that would have been imported from NATO countries).

I think this war will go on far longer than anybody anticipated and be more bloody and ruinous for both sides than anybody thought. At least Ukraine has the nice prospect of refurbishing all that old infrastructure after the "urban renovation" from the Russian Army and Air Force with Western aid.

For Russia this might be an ordeal like the Russo-Japanese war, which didn't go so well afterwards in the domestic scene for the Czar.

Quoting Banno

Capitalism is a wonder to behold.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/1505946734345994241[/tweet]

Raytheon CEO:

"I think again recognizing we are there to defend democracy and the fact is eventually we will see some benefit in the business over time. Everything that’s being shipped into Ukraine today, of course, is coming out of stockpiles, either at DoD or from our NATO allies, and that’s all great news. Eventually we’ll have to replenish it and we will see a benefit to the business over the next coming years. We don’t make a huge margin on these products. This is all cost-based pricing. But again, the idea here is to make sure that you have the capabilities to deal with whatever threat might be out there, and that has been the mission of Raytheon Technologies since our inception."

https://hbr.org/2022/03/raytheon-ceo-gregory-hayes-how-ukraine-has-highlighted-gaps-in-us-defense-technologies

Once more for those in the back: Dead Ukrainians are Western opportunities.

Quoting FreeEmotion

So is Cynicism

Is it? What multi-billion dollar industry does cynicism prop up?

Quoting Baden

I don't think he's on the same page as most European leaders though who are more in control of their messaging.

Right on cue:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/mar/27/russia-ukraine-war-latest-zelenskiy-calls-on-west-for-planes-and-tanks-biden-says-butcher-putin-cannot-remain-in-power-live

"In a speech in Warsaw, Poland, last night, Biden said Putin is a “butcher” and said “this man cannot remain in power”. However, the White House later clarified that the US was not calling for regime change.

"Macron told broadcaster France 3: “I would not use those words.”

He added that “everything must be done to stop the situation from escalating” if there is to be any hope of stopping Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Macron also told France 3 he saw his task as “achieving first a ceasefire and then the total withdrawal of [Russian] troops by diplomatic means. If we want to do that, we can’t escalate either in words or actions.”

So much for the 'NATO has never been more unified' line.

Reply to StreetlightX Of course, on the other side military industry is part of culture, with much admired cultural icons like Mikhail Kalashnikov:

Kalashnikov's daughter, Yelena, unveiled the statue Tuesday at a square off Garden Ring Road, a busy thoroughfare in Russia's capital city. - Tuesday's ceremony included military music and a blessing by a Russian Orthodox priest, The Guardian reports. Russian Culture Minister Vladimir Medinsky said the gun had become a "cultural brand of Russia."

So the issue of war being a racket is a far more clear in the Russian case. Which I think people rarely care about:

Corruption in Russian defense is not limited to the military-industrial complex. It penetrates the political level as well, likely altering the incentive structure for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s top security officials. Recent investigations show that top officials in the Russian Defense Ministry own property that significantly outmatches their income, pointing to possible involvement in corrupt deals.

Maintaining a luxurious lifestyle disincentivizes top security officials from giving expert advice that might disappoint the autocrat and cost them access to corruption networks. In the case of Ukraine, this would have meant the risk of reporting to Putin that the country he wanted to invade would put up a fight, that civilians were not looking forward to joining the “Russian world” and would likely greet troops with Molotov cocktails rather than bread and salt, as per local tradition. In this way, the corrupt loyalty of Putin’s top officials might have backfired and contributed to intelligence failures and erroneous risk assessments in Ukraine.

Of course, corruption in the Russian security sector does not predetermine the outcome of the war. Russia still has extensive capabilities and numerous troops to be thrown into combat. But whatever gains the military might make, they will have done so while battling the challenges caused by rampant corruption, from erroneous risk assessment at the top to expired military rations on the ground.

Quoting ssu

I understand that one has to be sceptical about Western media, however one shouldn't forget that:
a) Ukraine is a huge country, b) It has large armed forces, c) it has shown the will to fight and d) it is supported by a huge alliance and finally e) Russia isn't Soviet Union and hasn't the former's resources.

Again, the effectiveness of asymmetric handheld systems against Russian armor (without which NATO pouring into Urkaine, would have been totally routed already) ... does not mean Ukraine can somehow rout the Russians without armor.

That Russia has plentiful armor and fuel and logistics isn't somehow a disadvantage, even if Ukrainians can inflict losses on Russian advances.

The core utility of tracked armor is mobility and just being able to get to the front in the first place.

Quoting ssu

All the above facts make it totally possible that the outcome is a standstill with neither side reaching it's rosiest objectives. To assume that Russia will inevitably win and reach it's objectives is a long shot.

Sure, Urkainian total capitulation would have been the most rosiest outcome, but there is no evidence Russia's core objectives aren't exactly what it's stated, and will be accomplished with the collapse of the Dombas front (which seems to me in the process of collapsing).

Quoting ssu

Neither side is yet, after a month, is really willing to cease operations and declare that their objectives have been met. Of course both sides will declare victory...but when and at what cost. Thinking that either side will abruptly now collapse isn't realistic.

How does Ukraine just declare victory if its territory is being occupied and it's set for itself the objective of zero territorial concessions?

True, Russia can just declare victory at each step, as the only goals its ever stated have already been achieved and so all further objectives are just bonus.

If Ukrainians cannot, regardless of the amount of ATGM's and Manpads poured into Ukraine, actually push the Russians back to their borders ... how does a war of attrition (in a "stalemate") work in Ukraines favour?

Quoting ssu

I think that NATO and US are far more timid than they were in the proxy wars during the Cold War. The Polish MiG-29 debacle clearly shows that. In truth if the fighters would have been painted to Ukrainian colours and flown by Ukrainian pilots to Ukraine wouldn't have resulted in WW3.

Proxy wars during the cold war were not on Russia's border, only Afghanistan was even on the USSR's border ... and, only hand held missiles were supplied, same as we see now.

Vietnam saw US pilots up against Russian pilots, but this was far from either of their borders.

Quoting ssu

And note that Zelensky would be all too happy about a "no-fly-zone" made up with Ukrainian manned Soviet legacy system (that would have been imported from NATO countries).

This is simply impossible to achieve from any practical perspective.

Quoting ssu

I think this war will go on far longer than anybody anticipated and be more bloody and ruinous for both sides than anybody thought.

There's really no reason to assume the Kremlin did not think of the current possibility more-or-less.

The initial "failed" invasion (that occupied some 15-20% of the country in a day) was achieved with less than half the amassed force (some estimate a third) ... of which the only logical interpretation was that the rest of the force was in reserve for plan B.

Even Western media just end their "Russia is bogged down" narrative with "grumble-grumble Russia has made gains in the South" ... well, maybe it was the South that had the strategic objectives and sophisticated planning went into that operation, other fronts the objective of just advancing until resistance and then tying up Ukrainian forces (as there is no long-term plan of occupying territory in the North, just pressure the capital).

Quoting ssu

At least Ukraine has the nice prospect of refurbishing all that old infrastructure after the "urban renovation" from the Russian Army and Air Force with Western aid.

I do not think any Ukrainian views this as a "win" ... and I fear Western generosity may run into all those "realists" after all, when it comes to pouring in tangible love rather than arms.

Quoting ssu

For Russia this might be an ordeal like the Russo-Japanese war, which didn't go so well afterwards in the domestic scene for the Czar.

It's possible ... but, again, if this is the likely "cost" to the Russians, how does that help any Ukrainian?

If this is the basic logic, NATO is just cutting off Ukrainian's nose to spite Ukrainians face.

Sure, fun times for NATO, they're definitely excited about it.

Quoting boethius

Sure, Urkainian total capitulation would have been the most rosiest outcome, but there is no evidence Russia's core objectives aren't exactly what it's stated,

That is illogical.

You simply wouldn't attack like that if you would have alternative objectives. If the objective would never have been Kyiv, why then attack there? Then those Combined Arms Armies in Belarus / Russian border opposing Ukraine from the north would have just by existence prevented Ukraine from sending those brigades in defense of the Capitol into the Donbas or the South. And they could be still then act as reserves.

There's no question about the primary objectives that Russia had. They failed to be met as intended at the start of the invasion. And now Putin surely can come up with smaller objectives.

Quoting boethius

will be accomplished with the collapse of the Dombas front (which seems to me in the process of collapsing).

OK, on what do you base this assumption on? That's the area where Russia isn't yet on the defensive an making some progress? Not yet an imminent collapse.

Quoting boethius

If Ukrainians cannot, regardless of the amount of ATGM's and Manpads poured into Ukraine, actually push the Russians back to their borders ... how does a war of attrition (in a "stalemate") work in Ukraines favour?

Well, just like it worked with Finland both in the Winter War and the Continuation War. War of attrition does work.

Quoting boethius

I do not think any Ukrainian views this as a "win" ... and I fear Western generosity may run into all those "realists" after all, when it comes to pouring in tangible love rather than arms.

I don't think anybody considers it a win. Not even the future contractors that will build (again) Ukrainian cities after this war.

Quoting boethius

It's possible ... but, again, if this is the likely "cost" to the Russians, how does that help any Ukrainian?

Jingoistic imperialism usually fades away after wars that have been failures. Don't forget that Putin views independent Ukraine as an "artificial construct". If those kind of delusional attitudes can be changed, that would be a good start.

Quoting ssu

So the issue of war being a racket is a far more clear in the Russian case.

Lol, no one who has looked at where the proportion of money - the only thing that counts - has flowed can say this without being a complete joke.

Quoting frank

Maybe they aren't on the same paragraph, but they're standing together on the same sanctions page, which are geared toward squashing the Russian economy flat.

Yes, but to your earlier point about other countries not being so enthusiastic:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/mar/27/russia-ukraine-war-latest-zelenskiy-calls-on-west-for-planes-and-tanks-biden-says-butcher-putin-cannot-remain-in-power-live

"India is likely to continue to import coking coal from Russia, Reuters reports.

On Sunday, the country’s steel minister appeared to shun the global trend of limiting Russian imports in response to its invasion of Ukraine.

Ramchandra Prasad Singh told a conference in New Delhi:

We are moving in the direction of importing coking coal from Russia."

This type of thing does undermine that effort.

Quoting ssu

That is illogical.

Why would it be "illogical" to assume someone's states objectives aren't their real objectives?

Now, of course everyone always rather things go even better than achieving their goals, the rosy outcome as you say, but there is a difference between objectives and what one would prefer to happen.

Quoting ssu

OK, on what do you base this assumption on?

There's a lot fog of war and certainly anything is "possible", but while everything else has being going on in Ukraine, Russia has been bombarding and bombing the Dombas front for a month now.

There's a material and man-power degradation of these lines that is reasonable to assume is pretty severe.

There's also a psychological affect on these front line Ukrainian soldiers.

And then there is the fact that the Dombas line is 17 hour continuous drive from resupply in Poland but only 1 and half hour drive from Russia.

Of the news that comes from this area, it seems Russia has broken through in key places already.

Quoting ssu

Well, just like it worked with Finland both in the Winter War and the Continuation War. War of attrition does work.

The Winter war ended because of the Nazi's invading the Soviet Union.

Finland accepted defeat to end the continuation war. Finland did not "win" against Russia.

War of attrition for the purposes of a negotiated resolution on better terms, accepting defeat and giving up 20% of territory, "works".

But Ukraine keeps taking off the table even the possibility of any negotiated settlement because of "the views" as far as I can tell.

What better outcome can Ukraine fight for, compared to accepting Crimea is now Russian (something everyone agrees won't change), that Ukraine will not join NATO (something NATO told Zelensky would never happen before the war ... yet Zelensky chose to fight to join NATO anyways), and accepting the Dombas as independent states (again, no one argues these regions aren't massively pro-Russian nor that there's any way to militarily take them back)?

Quoting ssu

I don't think anybody considers it a win. Not even the future contractors that will build (again) Ukrainian cities after this war.

Then we agree it's not a win, and also yet to be seen the Wests generosity when it comes to rebuilding rather than destroying things. I didn't see all that much actual building anything in Afghanistan these last 20 years ... definitely felt more like a destructive process than an act of love, as was advertised until literally a few months ago.

Of course, Afghani's aren't white, so that's certainly a big factor in comparing their current state and Ukraine's future state after the West "is done playing with their toys".

Quoting ssu

Jingoistic imperialism usually fades away after wars that have been failures. Don't forget that Putin views independent Ukraine as an "artificial construct". If those kind of delusional attitudes can be changed, that would be a good start.

One can disagree, but it's not delusional. The West's own scholars call borders imposed by the great powers "artificial" and just cause internal division and civil wars, without benefiting any of the internal ethnicities, all the time ... just as we've seen play out in Ukraine.

Kim Dotcom ...

Now there's a name I've not heard in a long, long time.

A long time.

Quoting ssu

So the issue of war being a racket is a far more clear in the Russian case.

Reply to boethius I was suprised too! But the charts are legit, I checked just in case lol.

Reply to Isaac But Putin bad so who needs reality when ssu can just make shit up.

Quoting StreetlightX

Lol, no one who has looked at where the proportion of money - the only thing that counts -

And in a smaller economy, which is one tenth of the size of the US GDP, those Russian arms manufacturers are far more important that in the US for the US economy.

Russia's defense industry employs 2.5 – 3 million people and accounts for 20% of all manufacturing jobs in Russia.

Add then in the corruption in the society. If you don't understand that the link to the "military-industrial complex" is bigger in Russia to the Russian economy and politics, well...

Quoting ssu

And in a smaller economy, which is one tenth of the size of the US GDP, those Russian arms manufacturers are far more important that in the US for the US economy.

Yeah, sure, and this has any bearing on the laughable claim that compared to the US, war as a racket is clearer in the Russian case. Have you lived in the 20th or 21st century? Do you think people were going, 'war is racket - just look at Russia'? Seriously, stop saying stupid things.

Quoting boethius

There's a lot fog of war and certainly anything is "possible", but while everything else has being going on in Ukraine, Russia has been bombarding and bombing the Dombas front for a month now.

There's a material and man-power degradation of these lines that is reasonable to assume is pretty severe.

There's also a psychological affect on these front line Ukrainian soldiers.

And then there is the fact that the Dombas line is 17 hour continuous drive from resupply in Poland but only 1 and half hour drive from Russia.

Of the news that comes from this area, it seems Russia has broken through in key places already.

I wouldn't say that would be reason to assume they are collapsing.

Quoting boethius

Finland accepted defeat to end the continuation war. Finland did not "win" against Russia.

Yet Finland existed, wasn't occupied. What else is there for Ukraine? Likely there won't be Ukrainian tanks on the Red Square either, so they can't "win" in the traditional sense.

Quoting boethius

didn't see all that much actual building anything in Afghanistan these last 20 years ... definitely felt more like a destructive process more than an act of love, the advertised.

Something was done, even if what the West did was to produce an extremely corrupt system which was totally unsustainable. One generation of women were educated, at least, now to face unemployment and being confided to the kitchen again. The simple fact was that Afghanistan couldn't in any way uphold such a government and a public sector (including the military) as it had without Western aid. It simply didn't add up. And hence when the Americans were constantly reminding everyone that they were going away ...and with Trump basically capitulated to the Taleban, then it was no wonder what happened.

Yes, when you pour money into a poor country, you will create corruption and theft. And such will happen in Ukraine, but Ukraine is still in a far better situation than Afghanistan was. Even after this war.

Russia exported Mig29s and such, but these were 'export versions' I think. I don't think they have a lot of allies to supply, and not a lot of bases, but I would be happy to be wrong.

I think everyone is sickened by the war so close to home, and also sickened by the profits made.

Curtis LeMay:If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting. Curtis LeMay

Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.

That was the era when we might have destroyed Russia completely and not even skinned our elbows doing it.

Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/curtis-lemay-quotes

He is reported to have said that "if in the end we have only two Americans and one Russian standing, we have won". At least his objectives were clear.

Quoting ssu

And in a smaller economy, which is one tenth of the size of the US GDP, those Russian arms manufacturers are far more important that in the US for the US economy.

In Ampthill, Bedfordshire, where they have a massive factory in my country, Lockheed Martin are far more important relative to the local economy than they are globally too.

So?

Apart from the obvious attempt at derailment, what was the point? We're talking about global influence, not doing a Geography project.

Quoting StreetlightX

Yeah, sure, and this has any bearing on the laughable claim that compared to the US, war as a racket is clearer in the Russian case.

The real racket would be I guess the war in Iraq and Dick Cheney and Halliburton. Halliburton already became the largest construction company in the US during the Vietnam war ...because of the Vietnam war.

But one should not forget that Russia has this phenomenon too. Just my point. If you find that laughable, then laugh as hard as you want...

Quoting ssu

I wouldn't say that would be reason to assume they are collapsing.

My original phrasing is simply that this is the last remaining objective on Russia's list of objectives, and it's certainly seems achievable.

Quoting ssu

Yet Finland existed, wasn't occupied. What else is there for Ukraine? Likely there won't be Ukrainian tanks on the Red Square either, so they can't "win" in the traditional sense.

Exactly why Finland accepted defeat and negotiated a peace with significant territorial concessions, including Finland losing its biggest fresh water body (Lake Ladoga, even if only counting by half!), and Finland's access to the Arctic Ocean ... and also a agricultural and cultural heartland from which comes a large part of Finland's nation defining epic book:

Quoting Kalevala, Wikipedia

The Kalevala (Finnish: Kalevala, IPA: [?k?le??l?]) is a 19th-century work of epic poetry compiled by Elias Lönnrot from Karelian and Finnish oral folklore and mythology

Quoting Karelia, Wikipedia

Finnish Karelia was a historical province of Finland

Key word "was".

I would not say the wars with the Soviet Union was winning anything, but a great loss.

These were major concessions for the sake of peace because:

A. The cost of war is very real.
B. There was no way to "win" against the Soviet Union.

Quoting ssu

Something was done, even if what the West did was to produce an extremely corrupt system which was totally unsustainable.

... Yes, indeed, I see what you're saying, and I do indeed think it's wise to predict the same process in Ukraine.

Quoting ssu

But one should not forget that Russia has this phenomenon too. Just my point.

No, you made a comparison and then gave weighting to that comparison. Nice backtrack though. More grist for the laughing mill.

Quoting StreetlightX

No, you made a comparison and then gave weighting to that comparison.

Well, that's what I tried to say.

Do note that the wars Putin has started, the weapons projects he has established, the role of the military in modern day Russia. It's just a similar example, perhaps even more stark.

But of course, the US military industry is far larger. And going to get larger, thanks to this war...

This was more than 50 years ago, and the warning about the Military Industrial Complex takes in a little more context when your read these quotes:

Dwight D. Eisenhower:I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.

Dwight D. Eisenhower:Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/dwight-d-eisenhower-quotes

Reply to boethius
No, this is me:

Quoting Baden

India is likely to continue to import coking coal from Russia, Reuters reports.

People have to burn those hydrocarbons even if it pisses off Joe Biden. Dammit.

Reply to frank

A picture's worth a thousand words.

... obviously I'll be also writing many thousands anyways, but for now I need to go do a little partying; forget about people actively trying to bring about World War III, if only a little while.

Reply to boethius
Drink up, the sun's going to explode one day.

Quoting frank

Drink up, the sun's going to explode one day.

We are in total agreement on this one.

Good to know there's more common ground than differences. I'll be toasting to that.

Reply to boethius :up:

Quoting Baden

Yes, they do propaganda and we do propaganda too.

Quoting Baden

start babbling about any other bad thing

Funny how that works, isn't it?

So, you keep asking, what about our propaganda ("our" being the collective West, I assume). Well, unlike a lot of other whataboutism in this thread, this is somewhat relevant to the topic. So, what about it?

I assume that people have some idea of what propaganda is like in Russia. Without getting into details, the most important thing about Russian propaganda is that it dominates public discourse inside the country (and is surprisingly influential outside, but let's put that to the side). It is univocal, institutionalized and pervasive. There is no public accountability for truth. Dissenting voices are suppressed.

When you say that "we do propaganda too," do you see something similar in the West? I would assume not. (And please, let's not debase ourselves with hysterical exaggerations and silly conspiracy theories when arguing the point.) So in what way is Western propaganda similar to Russian propaganda? What would you even qualify as propaganda?

There is government discourse: statements, speeches, press releases, etc. There is discourse originating from from various political, business, activist interests. There are influential media. But taken collectively, they are far from univocal, and individually, none of them have the power to dominate the public discourse.

Reply to SophistiCat

So in what way is Western propaganda similar to Russian propaganda? What would you even qualify as propaganda?

It has become exceedingly difficult to find what Russians are saying about any of this. Any view that could be construed as Russian or anti-Ukraine is met with censorship of the highest order. Anything that comes out of it is immediately deemed “Russian disinformation”, whether true or false.

Here in Canada, the Federal broadcast regulators have banned Russian media country-wide. All media is focused on the one-sided, pro-Ukraine narratives. It’s not even subtle.

Quoting jorndoe

If I were to have a vision for Russia, it might be a place where people wanted to go

My vision for every country is to be self-sufficient.
(Even if this means economy on the preindustrial level.)

Quoting Baden

I personally fear that the war will just continue for far longer even if a conclusion could be made earlier.
— ssu

I'm on board with this. There is a solution there imo, i.e. acquiesce to basic Russian demands with maybe a bit of face-saving negotiation around them.

Already 20 years ago, even further back, it was clear enough what would likely happen. At that point, the Ukrainians could have taken charge, acting proactively and in good faith and directly bring up the issue with both Russia and the West. I'm sure they would've gotten a good enough deal back then. If nothing else, such a direct confrontation would force all parties involved to clearly state where they stand.

The biggest danger though is that Zelensky hopes that the longer he draws out the war, the more there is a chance of some kind of accident or spark that gets NATO involved on his side.

It's already happening, as high politicians from some EU/Nato countries have, on their own accord, gone to meet Zelensky, and intend further visits. They also (intend to) send weapons.

It's as if their intention is to draw the fire to themselves, and then Nato will go to Russia.

https://english.sta.si/3014400/jansa-morawiecki-and-fiala-back-in-poland

Quoting RogueAI

To put the fire out. Do you really think there was some kind of moral equivalence between Nazi's using violence to round up and kill Jews and Americans using violence to stop the Nazi's?

This only seems just because the conflict roughly ended at that point. History is written by the winners, as is morality.

The Western colonialists won the wars against indigenous peoples, but we generally don't think of the colonialists as the good guys (even as we know that the indigenous peoples were doing horrible things to eachother).

Quoting NOS4A2

Any view that could be construed as Russian or anti-Ukraine is met with censorship of the highest order.

Not only that, but Western dependence on the media’s mass-produced fake news has reached the point where people believe that facts don’t matter. As one Twitter user infamously put it, “Why can’t we just let people believe some things?”

Fact and Mythmaking Blend in Ukraine's Information War – New York Times

Obviously, it isn't about "letting people believe things", it's about knowingly MAKING people believe things that aren't true!

Even the White House is using TikTok "influencers" (read NATO jihadis) to manipulate public opinion:

TikTok Influencers Get Spotlight in Information Battle Over the Russia-Ukraine War - WSJ

Quoting boethius

but for now I need to go do a little partying; forget about people actively trying to bring about World War III, if only a little while.

Great idea. I think the anti-Russia jihadis and trolls have grown fat enough to not need any further feeding for the next year or two. :smile:

Quoting baker

It's as if their intention is to draw the fire to themselves, and then Nato will go to Russia.

Apparently, this is technically called "conspiracy theory" in high philosophical circles, especially those frequented by men of great knowledge, learning, and judgement. Alternatively, it must be "Russian propaganda". So, you better be careful what you say ....

Quoting Apollodorus

Not only that, but Western dependence on the media’s mass-produced fake news has reached the point where people believe that facts don’t matter.

Hence adhering to principles of morality becomes of crucial importance in such settings where empirical evidence is not available or not available reliably.

Ideally, one's stance should be such that it is minimally vulnerable to changing empirical facts.

Quoting SophistiCat

Without getting into details, the most important thing about Russian propaganda is that it dominates public discourse inside the country (and is surprisingly influential outside, but let's put that to the side). It is univocal, institutionalized and pervasive. There is no public accountability for truth. Dissenting voices are suppressed.

Aside from the last claim (which needs only one example to verify it) you'd need to supply some sources for all this. It's no good saying "we all know..." as a counterargument to interlocutors with whom you disagree. The very fact you disagree undermines the assumption of common belief on the matter.

Does it 'dominate'? What would be a measure of that, and how would you carry out such a measurement?

Is it 'pervasive'? Again what would be a measure of that, and how would you carry out such a measurement?

Quoting SophistiCat

do you see something similar in the West?

How similar is 'similar'?

You can manufacture any argument by using scalar terminology and just setting your threshold wherever needed to result in the conclusion you want.

If all you want to say is that, put on a number line, Russian propaganda would be worse than the West's, then yeah, I don't think anyone could disagree.

But that's not the point raised in any of the arguments you quoted. The point they raise is simply that western propaganda is sufficient to justify doubt about the truth of the main narrative.

The 'similarity' is that they both fall on that side of the threshold, they are both sufficiently pervasive to cause justifiable doubt in what they're saying.

Reply to Isaac

According to Western propaganda, Russia is supposed to be a "totalitarian dictatorship". But, apparently, a unit of Russian riot police is suing its bosses for wrongful dismissal after being fired for refusing to invade Ukraine:

Russian riot police officers fired for refusing to invade Ukraine take bosses to court - Telegraph

Meantime, Biden has called for regime change in Russia by saying that "Putin cannot remain in power":

Biden’s comment on Putin’s future ‘could complicate matters,’ says former CIA director - Independent

And Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) said that Putin should be assassinated:

Lindsey Graham calls for Putin to be assassinated by someone close to him: ‘Is there a Brutus in Russia?’ - Independent

Imagine the international outcry if Putin had called for Biden to be toppled or killed ....

Quoting Apollodorus

facts don’t matter

Quoting Apollodorus

facts don’t matter

We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community#:~:text='We're%20an%20empire%20now,how%20things%20will%20sort%20out.

Quoting Apollodorus

Imagine the international outcry if Putin had called for Biden to be toppled or killed ....

When one has God and righteousness on one's side, who can be against one?!

Quoting Apollodorus

And Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) said that Putin should be assassinated:

Lindsey Graham calls for Putin to be assassinated by someone close to him: ‘Is there a Brutus in Russia?’ - Independent

So if an American citizen calls for the murder of another American citizen, that is wrong, but if an American citizen calls for the murder of a non-American citizen, that is okay?

Reply to StreetlightX Yes, yes, all true. Despite that, the shunning of Russia may be the only weapon to actually bite home. Is it possible that Russian involvement in global economic activities had become so vital that Russians find it impossible to get by without it, to the extent that they turn on those who have brought them disrepute? Will the small Russian business that produced the top quality Woden jigsaw puzzles distributed across my family a few months ago as Christmas presents turn on the leaders who gave them the opportunity to sell their wares directly to us, only to ensure it was taken away? Has Reply to baker the exactly wrong approach? If the Russian regime is crippled, or even removed, as a result of mere economic sanctions, that would be a grand lesson for Chinese plans for Taiwan and the South China Sea...

Might this century be the one in which the growth of global economic interdependence brings about a world in which the fear of being shunned means that nation states finally renounce their anacronistic boarder disputes?

Reply to SophistiCat

You should quote me or you risk going off on your own strawman tangent. I specifically pointed out their propaganda was more pervasive and extreme than ours; in fact, I'd say far more. I also already gave examples of our propaganda. So, which claim of mine exactly are you arguing against and what do you want that I haven't already dealt with? Do you object to the acknowledgement that we are also doing what they are doing and we make ourselves stupider by denying it, regardless of the relative level it's being practiced? As far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't read the news critically, especially in a time of war, is a fool. I'm not going to change my mind on that because you don't like anyone not exclusively saying bad things about Russia. As for the charge of whataboutism, utter nonsense, my first and strongest criticism on this thread was of Russian not Western propaganda.

Quoting Isaac

Does it 'dominate'? What would be a measure of that, and how would you carry out such a measurement?

Number of journalists in jail, assassinated, beaten up, could be a good indicator. More generally, indicators of state violence against the independent press such as the one developed by Reporters Without Borders.

https://rsf.org/en/news/rsf-paris-russian-state-tv-journalist-denounces-kremlin-propaganda

Quoting Isaac

Is it 'pervasive'? Again what would be a measure of that, and how would you carry out such a measurement?

Number of positive media pieces and public posters devoted to the Big Boss?

Quoting Banno

Despite that, the shunning of Russia may be the only weapon to actually bite home.

If it does, it means that there was no Russia anymore to protect to begin with.

Is it possible that Russian involvement in global economic activities had become so vital that Russians find it impossible to get by without it

In that case, they had already sold themselves.

Russia's biggest mistake was to allow itself to become Westernized.

Might this century be the one in which the growth of global economic interdependence brings about a world in which the fear of being shunned means that nation states finally renounce their anacronistic boarder disputes?

In global economic interdependence, nation states are an anachronism.
Globalization serves only the rich and consumerism.

Quoting SophistiCat

So in what way is Western propaganda similar to Russian propaganda? What would you even qualify as propaganda?

You questioning or denying of western propaganda only goes to show the propaganda made by the advocates of our beloved western way of freedom, democracy, and humanity works out just fine. The representatives in the centers of powers do a good job.

Quoting Benkei

We're not made for this, and I mean that in a very real biological and mental sense, to serve large abstracted entities called states with weapons that can flatten cities. We're supposed to throw a stone or two and maybe accidentally kill someone with a an unlucky strike. Everything more than that is just the horror of civilisation combined the failure of imagination to feel empathy for nations and its people because it's too far removed from ourselves and a system that enables sociopaths to rise to the top.

:100:

Tech-based quarrels between abstract entities called countries tend to loose sight of the individual.

Quoting baker

If it does, it means that there was no Russia anymore to protect to begin with.

yet,
Quoting baker

In global economic interdependence, nation states are an anachronism.

Is the dissolution of nation states something to be hoped for or admonished?

Quoting SophistiCat

So in what way is Western propaganda similar to Russian propaganda?

Western misinformation is about a profit making media, less about government efforts to control the narrative. That's clickbait, not propaganda per se.

Putin's misinformation is a fog of lies. This is propaganda partly designed to confuse.

Quoting Olivier5

Number of journalists in jail, assassinated, beaten up, could be a good indicator. More generally, indicators of state violence against the independent press such as the one developed by Reporters Without Borders.

What number? Is one too many? (Ask yourself where Julian Assange is). Two? Ten? At what threshold of journalists in jail, assassinated, beaten up does propaganda become 'dominant', a category difference, not a scalar one? Does economic suppression count? What about private buy outs of independent competitors? Do you have some good reason to relate 'dominance' to the use of violence as a tool?

Quoting Olivier5

Number of positive media pieces and public posters devoted to the Big Boss?

Why 'the big boss'? Can an ideology not be pervasive too? If so, then what numbers would you put to it? The number of media pieces supporting the war in Russia (opposing the dominant narrative there) vs the number supporting it in the west (opposing the dominant narrative here). Do you think you'd measure a tangible difference, one large enough to justify a difference in kind, not just scale?

The fact that journalists who speak out against the dominant narrative in Russia are likely to be killed or imprisoned is a moral outrage. It doesn't, of itself, make their propaganda more dominant or pervasive than ours. That would be a separate question.

Quoting baker

This only seems just because the conflict roughly ended at that point. History is written by the winners, as is morality.

The Western colonialists won the wars against indigenous peoples, but we generally don't think of the colonialists as the good guys (even as we know that the indigenous peoples were doing horrible things to eachother).

I think it's objectively true that in WW2, America was fighting for the good side and Germany was fighting for the bad side.

Quoting Isaac

What number?

For instance the RSF Press Freedom Index.

Does economic suppression count? What about private buy outs of independent competitors? Do you have some good reason to relate 'dominance' to the use of violence as a tool?

Yes, I do. Violence eliminates dissenting voices. Economics don't.

Quoting Olivier5

Violence eliminates dissenting voices. Economics don't.

I mistook you for someone to be taken seriously, my mistake.

The crudeness of the method has no bearing whatsoever on the pervasiveness of the outcome.

Some recognition of reality here (i.e. they are losing, not winning, the war):

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/mar/27/russia-ukraine-war-latest-zelenskiy-calls-on-west-for-planes-and-tanks-biden-says-butcher-putin-cannot-remain-in-power-live

"Ukraine willing to compromise over the status of Donbas in peace deal, Zelenskiy says

Speaking more than a month after Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, Zelenskiy said no peace deal would be possible without a ceasefire and troop withdrawals.

He ruled out trying to recapture all Russian-held territory by force, saying it would lead to a third world war, and said he wanted to reach a “compromise” over the eastern Donbass region, held by Russian-backed forces since 2014."

To those who still insist the war is going 'disastrously' for Russia because they read that on CNN, ask yourself how Ukraine having the upper hand can be squared with a public admission they cannot take back their own territory and will likely have to give some of it away.

Reply to frank

Maybe 'propaganda' is too emotive a term for some. But the basic definition is simply: "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view." That covers a wide scope. In some cases, it simply is giving people what they want to hear for profit. In other cases, it's feeding the government line for reasons of patriotism or whatever. And there's no reason it can't be both at the same time.

Quoting Baden

Maybe 'propaganda' is too emotive a term for some. But the basic definition is simply: "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view."

And clickbait is not an attempt to persuade or promote. It feeds off biases people already have. I put cable news sources in that category as well.

If a western government wanted to publish propaganda, they'd find their messaging diluted by floods of conflicting narratives, and this situation is amplified by widespread mistrust of the government (in the US anyway).

Since Putin's messaging can change on a dime, persuasion is obviously not his main concern.

For a lot of the misinformation in circulation right now, "propaganda" is not the right word.

In the US, some go all the way with this part ...

Quoting Baden

especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view

That is exploring the lower bounds of propaganda. For me, it is too much to use schoolchildren as pawns in an information war.

Quoting Baden

To those who still insist the war is going 'disastrously' for Russia because they read that on CNN, ask yourself how Ukraine having the upper hand can be squared with a public admission they cannot take back their own territory and will likely have to give some of it away.
4 hours ago

That the war is going disastrously for Russia, which it demonstrably is, doesn’t mean that Russia won’t succeed in imposing itself on some or all of the country, or dividing it up in some way. But again the cost on Russia is still to be fully realised. The whole campaign is an unmitigated disaster, regardless. If Russia didn’t have missiles - which it’s using to destroy civilian infrastructure - it would have had its ass handed to it on a plate.

Quoting Baden

Maybe 'propaganda' is too emotive a term for some.

it’s not that it’s emotive, but that can be used to discredit anything disagreeable. No doubt Russia will portray any realistic coverage of the situation on the ground as ‘propaganda’ while insisting that the ‘special military operation’ - not an invasion! - is going to plan. Now that is propaganda.

Meanwhile as the world was kvetching about Biden speaking his mind:

[quote=TheDailyBeast; https://www.thedailybeast.com/heres-what-russia-in-ukraine-did-while-you-were-all-squabbling-over-bidens-attack-on-putin] You may have heard about the six missiles Russia fired at the Ukrainian city of Lviv even as Biden was speaking just across the border.

But what about the reports of white phosphorus munitions being used by Russian troops on Saturday night—just as much of the Western world was in a tizzy over Biden’s assessment of Putin. Ukrainian forces in Avdiivka shared photos of the white phosphorus raining down, days after President Volodymyr Zelensky had warned the world that Russia was using “phosphorus bombs against peaceful people in Ukraine.”

Using a highly toxic chemical substance known for its ability to burn, as one chemical weapons expert put it, “very vigorously” through human flesh—that’s an escalation the whole world should be talking about.

Want another one?

The mayor of Slavutych on Saturday announced at least three civilian deaths as he said the northern city had been taken over by Russian troops. He said the decision to surrender was made to save civilian lives—and pleaded with relatives to come identify the bodies.

Imagine how many Ukrainians were agonizing over whether their missing loved ones were dead or alive while so many in the West focused on Biden’s speech, acting as if his comments might somehow drastically alter the trajectory of the war.

Their stories were pushed on the back burner as Western commentators speculated on how Russia might respond to Biden’s remark.[/quote]

The entire subject of propaganda is a fascinating one, and becomes only more interesting as I dig deeper. Propaganda is a dismissive term, its frequent use may indicate that it is effective for its purposes. I thought I was immune to propaganda, but if the aim of this form warfare is to confuse and to create self-doubt, it is working very well. This is impressionism at its finest when it comes to information.

It may be useful to ask what the aims of the propagandists or I would prefer to call them news shapers or news manufacturers , what their aims are, and it becomes somewhat clearer. Looking at some actual headlines:

CNN:Zelensky: Ukraine ready to accept neutral status

BBC: Zelensky: Ukraine ready to accept neutral status

Al- Jazeera: (Headline cannot be copied and pasted)

CGTN:Ukraine insists on security guarantees in peace talks with Russia

Interesting. All together now... What is the purpose of these headlines and their timing? Am I to believe people are spending vast sums of money to inform me or to make more money?

Much of the context for the information receiving us will never be known. What was the purpose of President Biden's remarks? To put pressure on President Putin? Was he really unscripted? Are we to believe that President Biden is out of control, which also means he is a dangerous adversary who does not follow reason?

We shall never know. The effects are known, however.

Quoting FreeEmotion

What is the purpose of these headlines and their timing? Am I to believe people are spending vast sums of money to inform me or to make more money?

So, do you believe that organisations like CNN, Al Jazeera, the BBC, etc., are doing something other than reporting the news? That they have a conscious strategy to report on this story in a particular way, for a particular editorial purpose, and that they’re concealing or distorting facts? That they are disseminating propaganda?

Let’s consider a case which I consider to illustrate that kind of approach: the Fox News support of Trump’s presidency (note that general comments on Trump should be posted in the Trump thread). At the very inception of Fox News, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes made a strategic decision to pander to the so-called ‘conservative’ side of the US audience. This may or may not have reflected Rupert Murdoch’s own political convictions, but whether it did or not, it was still a commercial decision, i.e. that this ‘right wing’ audience was large and easily motivated. And Fox made a fortune out of doing that, from a commercial perspective it was wildly successful.

I think, since the last election, Fox News’ bias and wilful disregard of the facts regarding the validity of the 2020 election has been egregious and completely dishonest; furthermore that this is largely driven by commercial considerations, that is, keeping ‘the base’ watching and so keeping the ratings up. (Note that many prominent journalists have left the organisation over this fact.)

So do you really think that CNN, El Jazeera, etc, are likewise adopting a disinformation strategy, compared to that shown by Fox News, with respect to coverage of the events in Ukraine? That they are conspiring, somehow, to bamboozle the whole Western world - none of what they broadcast can be shown in Russia - for some nefarious motive?

Quoting FreeEmotion

What was the purpose of President Biden's remarks?

I think he simply said what he thought. Apparently, a big diplomatic no-no, so the flacks are all ‘walking it back’. But he said it - he’s prone to gaffes. And I bet there are a lot of people who agree with it.

Reply to jorndoe What, Christian School indoctrinating its students? Who'd a thunk it.

Quoting Wayfarer

So, do you believe that organisations like CNN, Al Jazeera, the BBC, etc., are doing something other than reporting the news?

How is this even a question? Of course they are. It doesn't necessarily require 'disinformation' - as in, the misreporting of facts, or disseminating false information, but it absolutely includes issues of how an issue is framed - what actors are assumed to have agency, what the actual problem is considered to be, what kinds of questions are asked (and not asked), who is interviewed, who or what counts as a legitimate source, etc. This is basic media literacy. How on God's green Earth do you think otherwise? CNN is particularly shit, basically propaganda channel for corporate interests and repeating democratic party talking points verbatim.

Quoting Isaac

I mistook you for someone to be taken seriously, my mistake.

Personally, I always knew you were a wimp.

Quoting Baden

To those who still insist the war is going 'disastrously' for Russia because they read that on CNN, ask yourself how Ukraine having the upper hand can be squared with a public admission they cannot take back their own territory and will likely have to give some of it away.

Just because no one is winning doesn't mean "it is going well for Russia." It's not a zero sum game.

Quoting StreetlightX

How is this even a question?

How is that question even a question?

Reply to StreetlightX You make your feelings very clear. You don't need to keep explaining them.

Let's not loose sight of the fact that tens of millions of people are being displaced, thousands of people killed, entire cities laid to waste, and all for no good reason. Here in our little sheltered workshop everything is very comfy.

Ah such easy questions to answer.

Quoting Wayfarer

So, do you believe that organisations like CNN, Al Jazeera, the BBC, etc., are doing something other than reporting the news? That they have a conscious strategy to report on this story in a particular way, for a particular editorial purpose, and that they’re concealing or distorting facts? That they are disseminating propaganda?

Let me offer proof. Go to any news site now, and look at their headlines and stories. They are all different. That in itself should tell you they are filtering the news. Would you like your doctor to give you a diagnosis based on a few selected facts or be told everything? What about your mechanic when you take the thing in for repairs? If different mechanics highlight different faults in your vehicle, what would you think? They a painting a picture of the world for you, with large gaps.

Quoting Wayfarer

I think, since the last election, Fox News’ bias and wilful disregard of the facts regarding the validity of the 2020 election has been egregious and completely dishonest;

I have seen Fox News, and Tucker Carlson in particular, get into an argument with the one of President Trump's lawyers, asking for the evidence regarding election fraud. There was none forthcoming from that source. Later on, Mr. Carlson implied that censoring or burying certain news items concerning Mr. Biden influenced the election: that is his opinion. Fox news has sensibly dropped, as far as I know, any talk of election fraud. I have seen them being selective, but that is news reporting today.

Quoting Wayfarer

So do you really think that CNN, El Jazeera, etc, are likewise adopting a disinformation strategy, compared to that shown by Fox News, with respect to coverage of the events in Ukraine? That they are conspiring, somehow, to bamboozle the whole Western world - none of what they broadcast can be shown in Russia - for some nefarious motive?

Consider their audience, not just the man on the street, but the middle class, the business people, congressmen, the military, and other decision makers. Once an item is broadcast on the news, it makes it very difficult, in my opinion, for that not to be treated as fact, since these broadcasters have the tacit approval of the powers that be. Why ban RT and Sputnik? They are not claiming to represent anyone other than the Russian government. Was RT going to affect foreign policy, the economy and public support for the 'war effort' and is this not a double edged sword?

If they banned RT because it did not suit them, would not allowing the other TV channels mean that they do no harm at least to their aims?

Quoting Wayfarer

So, do you believe that organisations like CNN, Al Jazeera, the BBC, etc., are doing something other than reporting the news? That they have a conscious strategy to report on this story in a particular way, for a particular editorial purpose, and that they’re concealing or distorting facts? That they are disseminating propaganda?

You mean CNN, owned by AT&T the fourteenth-largest donor to United States federal political campaigns and committees from 1989 to 2019, also funded the far-right One America, and run by William Kennard former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)?

Or the BBC? Run by millionaire, businessman and ex Tory party candidate Tim Davie, and millionaire Richard Sharp, previously of JP Morgan and 23 years a partner at Goldman Sachs.

Or Al Jazeera, owned by an hereditary constitutional monarchy that controls massive wealth from their substantial oil and gas reserves?

Or was it some of the many other news channels you were thinking of, collectively owned over 90% by just six companies and 15 billionaires between them?

In any case I am a little tired of hearing of President Zelenskyy's 'scoldings'. No offence, but really it looks like theatre.

Quoting StreetlightX

basic media literacy.

Yeah, I taught this to Chinese students as part of media literacy when they were studying at a British University. They had no major problem getting it, despite the fact, or maybe because of the fact they were bombarded with it on a daily basis at home.

Quoting StreetlightX

It doesn't necessarily require 'disinformation' - as in, the misreporting of facts, or disseminating false information, but it absolutely includes issues of how an issue is framed - what actors are focused on, what the actual problem is consider to be, what kinds of questions are asked (and not asked), who is interviewed, who or what counts as a legitimate source, etc.

Yes, e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies#Coverage_on_international_incidents

"During the Persian Gulf War in 1990–1991, CNN was criticized for excessively pushing human interest stories and avoiding depictions of violent images, the result being an alleged "propagandistic" presentation of news. A report by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) quotes an unnamed CNN reporter as describing "the 'sweet beautiful sight' of bombers taking off from Saudi Arabia"."

Suppressing the real effects of war and romanticising the killing machines that facilitate its progress is propaganda. That doesn't require direct falsities.

Of course, sometimes, shit is just made up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocity_propaganda

"Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. On October 10, 1990, a young Kuwaiti girl known only as "Nayirah" appeared in front of a congressional committee and testified that she witnessed the mass murdering of infants, when Iraqi soldiers had snatched them out of hospital incubators and threw them on the floor to die. Her testimony became a lead item in newspapers, radio and TV all over the US. The story was eventually exposed as a fabrication in December 1992, in a CBC-TV program called To Sell a War. Nayirah was revealed to be the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador to the United States, and had not actually seen the "atrocities" she described take place"

Wouldn't waste your time with propaganda deniers on this thread though. That type of person simply cannot think beyond what their trusted media feeds them.

I am perfectly capable of recognising the biases in the media sources I read - CNN, SMH, ABC, and so on. It doesn’t alter the facts on the ground.

Quoting Wayfarer

That the war is going disastrously for Russia, which it demonstrably is, doesn’t mean that Russia won’t succeed in imposing itself on some or all of the country, or dividing it up in some way.

Yep.

The US can win every engagement and then lose the war. The Russians can fumble in nearly every engagement, sustain a lot of casualties and then win the war. A good historical example of that (which cannot be said to be propaganda as it's now history) is the Russo-Georgian war. Only that the Georgians were caught even more off guard helped the Russians win the war. And even if the Russians won the war, Putin started a large reformation of the army because of the dismal performance. Seldom a side that won a war is so critical about it's performance.

What should be noted that the dismal performance in the start of this invasion is mainly due to the poor assumptions that Ukrainians wouldn't fight, which was an intelligence failure. Russians seemed to mimick the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and the way US armoured columns pushed into Baghdad. (If the Iraqi defense would have been more concentrated and motivated, even then it could have been different.) But now we are over that stage.

Quoting Wayfarer

I am perfectly capable of recognising the biases in the media sources I read - CNN, SMH, ABC, and so on. It doesn’t alter the facts on the ground.

Just to say that Russians had a bad start is enough to be a "cheerleader" for Ukraine / the West for some. Or to note the civilian casualties.

Reply to Baden Well, that was unresponsive. Seems like all you got from my post was that I am a "propaganda denier." Fine, carry on.

Quoting Isaac

The fact that journalists who speak out against the dominant narrative in Russia are likely to be killed or imprisoned is a moral outrage. It doesn't, of itself, make their propaganda more dominant or pervasive than ours. That would be a separate question.

"Dominance" is a matter of force. In the end, power is about the capacity to wield brute force. The narrative of a dictatorship is enforced, that is to say that you must agree with it publicly, or suffer the physical consequences in your body. This makes a very big difference with anything else that does not involve physical violence, including of course in terms of effectiveness: the murderers do this for a reason, because it DOES intimidate other journalists very effectively.

Quoting Wayfarer

It doesn’t alter the facts on the ground.

Wow, you've actually been to Ukraine to look for yourself? That's admirable. What were your impressions?

Reply to ssu Reply to Wayfarer

I wish the war was an 'unmitigated disaster' for Russia, but the fact that they're winning, despite their problems, mitigates the disaster somewhat for me from any reasonably objective perspective. It still puzzles me how you'd refer to the war if Russia was losing or looked like any of its major goals (Ukranian neutrality, autonomy for Donbass) were under threat. But, whatever, we'll just have to agree to differ on that.

Reply to Isaac


> I didn't say it was 'required' did I? I said I had no reason to. Not liking cricket gives me no reason to play cricket. Is that the same as saying I'm 'required' to like cricket in order to play cricket?

No, my point is that there is a missing explanation! What is the logic link between being Russian or talk to Russians and having reasons to believe that the Russian aggression of Ukraine is immoral? You didn’t state it in that part I quoted and I didn’t see any. This answer of yours doesn’t compensate it either, actually it makes your position look even more pointless: you may have moral reasons to condemn Putin independently from your willingness, interest or liking to do it. And if we are not here to socialise but to discuss moral or strategic reasons about this war, who cares if you like cricket or dislike condemning Putin?!



> Only if I thought it would help. If I though it would cause more harm, how would that be the moral option?

After considering also your subsequent claims, I guess that your position would be less ambiguous if you stated not that you have no reason to morally condemn Putin but that you have moral reasons to not voice your moral condemnation of Putin’s actions even if they are immoral because this would hypocritically deflect attention from Western’s moral responsibilities in the genesis of this war, and would be taken to promote the immoral indirect interventionism of the West.



> recklessly endangering millions of people by knowingly provoking a ruthless tyrant without any meaningful protection for those he might attack is immoral.

Any demand that a ruthless tyrant of a nation can make against another nation (e.g. as Hitler made against Poland or Kim Jong-un makes against South Korea) that goes unsatisfied can be seen by him as a provocation, so should we meet his demands whatever they are to avoid a war and so endangering millions of people's life and wellbeing? And who is to decide that? What if his success would make him stronger in terms of resources and determination to oppress other independent nations with further demands? Is it immoral to fight for one’s own nation’s independence and/or for the freedom that one enjoys in such independent nation? Isn’t there any civic duty to fight for one’s own nation against the oppression of other nations’ tyrants? Don’t you really see any moral imperative in trying to contain the geopolitical ambitions of a ruthless tyrant even if at risk of total defeat? BTW do you consider the West immoral only when provoking a Russian ruthless tyrant or also when supporting his ruthless regime and ambitious geopolitical goals through economic ties?



> I assume it's because Putin is an immoral turd and would probably applaud them.

Well if Putin is such a moral turd then the moral responsibility of the West in the genesis or the continuation of this war doesn’t seem as morally questionable nor reckless as you claim. Not morally questionable, because an immoral turd doesn’t need any specific strategic provocation by the West to wreck Ukraine the way he’s doing in this war (the Ukrainian neo-nazi narrative could have worked just fine even in the absence of the NATO expansion narrative), except for playing it as a counter-propaganda against the West and its public opinion, to create division and so weaken Western governments’ resolve to counter Russian aggression against Ukraine. Nor reckless because the West may just have provided enough military support to Ukrainians to precisely withstand such eventuality, while reliably counting on its antibodies to neutralise Russian propaganda against the West. It’s worth noting that Ukrainians remember very well that Soviet Union under Stalin provoked a famine that killed millions of Ukrainians (and nobody was talking about Ukraine joining the NATO or the neo-nazi Ukrainian regime at that time), so the fact that Putin, ex-KGB, considers the collapse of Soviet Union “the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the century” and is deeply convinced that Ukrainians are not a distinct nation from Russians may sound quite threatening to them if they value their national identity. By consequence, Ukrainians may have a very good reason to fight by all means against the eventuality that such immoral turd has such a control over Ukraine that would enable him to repeat the Holodomor if he so pleases.
Therefore what you claim to be an immoral provocation by the West toward an immoral turd with strategically pertinent concerns about Russian national security, may be seen by Ukrainians with strategically pertinent concerns about Ukrainian national security and national identity preservation as a morally laudable support in preventing an otherwise unavoidable national capitulation to such an immoral turd.


[i]> unless of course you are against advancing Western strategic interests. Are you? — neomac
Yes.[/i]

If you are against advancing Western strategic interests and any logic of containment of its competitors that would risk a war, then you are indirectly supporting its competitors’ strategic interests, indeed of those competitors who are more aggressive in military terms, and therefore you may be rightly judged complicit in advancing them at the expenses of the West.


[i]> An interest some party might have about their security which actually relates to their security (as opposed to a connection made only for political rhetoric).
[…]
How can a non-nuclear power as Ukraine constitue a threat for a nuclear power like Russia in the first place? — neomac
By serving as a base for much better equipped allies like the US.[/i]

Then Putin’s aggression will result in a total failure if he will not at least put a pro-Russian regime, because the West is already military equipping Ukraine even if Ukraine is not yet a NATO member and still has a putative "neo-nazi" regime, and will likely do it even more so once Russia withdraws from Ukraine. Not to mention the fact that all other eastern countries that feel threatened by the Russians, including Sweden and Finland, will increase their military equipment to fight against any aggression from Russia.


[i]> why are you so convinced that Putin acted primarily out of security concerns? — neomac
I'm not.[/i]

Then you can not be sure of Western moral responsibility in knowingly provoking Putin either. Can you?


[i]> BTW if he so afraid of Russian national security why is he so quick and vocal in menacing the West to escalate to a nuclear war when nobody in the West or Ukraine is planning to attack Russia? — neomac
Because his concern is not an attack on Russia. A land invasion of one's country is not the only thing that comes under the umbrella of a security concern, obviously.[/i]

What?! I talked about attacking Russia, not about land invasion on Russia.


[i]> why did he limit his demands to the denial of NATO membership to Ukraine, and the acknowledgement of the annexation of Crimea as well as the independence of a couple of Ukrainian regions instead of going for the annexation of the whole Ukraine or at least for a pro-Russian regime change to ensure that no other competing power could turn Ukraine against Russia? — neomac
Because those demands were more likely to be met.[/i]

Yet those demands do not seem enough to guarantee the national security of Russia from a now more likely hostile country.


> It was Yanukovych's attempts to create just such a relationship and the EU's refusal to countenance it that acted as one of the precipitators of this whole thing.

Yet Yanukovych’s fall didn’t compromise the economic ties between West and Russia as badly and probably long-lastingly as the decision of Putin to start and protract his aggression against Ukraine.

[i]> all he’s proven with his war against Ukraine is that he’s willing to take military action if lobbying doesn’t suffice to reach his ambitious strategic goals that certainly go beyond national security concerns. — neomac
Not sure what the 'all' is doing there.[/i]

I meant that the lack of an actual immanent threat from a declared hostile country (as the US experienced during the Cuban missile crisis and dealt with without destroying Cuba or bring about a regime change), the aggressive geopolitical strategy beyond national security concerns (lobbying parties, trolling the mass media and hacking companies in the US and in the EU, and establishing a prominent military presence in the Middle East and in Africa), Putin’s official declarations against the current world order, and his being an immoral turd or ruthless tyrant make his national security concerns look less pertinent and more as a piece of propaganda to promote his ambitious geopolitical goals. Actually by acting as he did, he just compromised more and more rapidly Russian national security. Besides this war could seriously threaten his own regime too more than anything else has done so far.

Quoting Baden

the fact that they're winning,

Don't know why you keep saying that. Maybe we just have totally irreconcilable ideas of what that word means.

I have read recently that the Chernobyl disaster and the Afghanistan invasion were major factors in the collapse of the Soviet regime. I think there is good reason to believe that the invasion of Ukraine will lead to the collapse of the Putin regime. I don't expect that will be easy, quick, or painless, but I still believe that will be the outcome.

Quoting Isaac

Wow, you've actually been to Ukraine to look for yourself?

I read about it in the paper. It looks dreadful, what is happening. Millions of people displaced, thousands of casualties, cities laid waste by missiles.

Quoting Wayfarer

Don't know why you keep saying that. Maybe we just have totally irreconcilable ideas of what that word means.

OK, the fact that they are holding Ukrainian territory and Ukraine has admitted they can't take back that territory by force. Apparently that is an 'unmitigated disaster' for Russia in your book. If you don't think it mitigates the disaster for Russia that they have taken and continue to control a large chunk of Ukraine and are forcing them to the negotiating table as a result, we will just have to agree to differ.

Quoting Baden

OK, the fact that they are holding Ukrainian territory and Ukraine has admitted they can't take back that territory by force. Apparently that is an 'unmitigated disaster' for Russia in your book.

It's a disaster because they can't meaningfully hold that territory. The Russian version of 60 Minutes last week descended to a shouting match because their invited experts had to concede it might take 15 or 20 years to subdue Ukraine, instead of the one-week campaign that had been expected. The hosts were forced to acknowledge that rather than the easy victory that had been promised, what they had was a major international disaster.

The real consequences of the economic sanctions hasn't even really began to bite yet. Or maybe it has but we can't see it. But in a month, six months, a year, two years, the population of Russia will be queuing for essentials again, like the bad ol' days of Soviet Communism. They won't be able to travel, buy foreign goods, import anything from the West. How is that a victory? Who is 'winning' in this scenario? It's not a victory.

There is such a thing as a Pyrrhic victory after all.

You can win the battle, but lose the war. But there is no indication why Russian would spend 15-20 years to subdue the Ukraine. Russia's concern is to get those lands back... once it's ratified, they will have no more aggressive tendencies, since they reached their goal.

That's what Baden calls victory. I don't know how that could escalate into a twenty-year war. Nobody has more claims, nobody has an issue with the other, aside from vengeance and bitterness.

On the other hand, it is a major international disaster for Russia. They won the war against the Ukraine, but the reverberations of this drastically aggressive move will hurt Russia for some time to come.

Reply to Wayfarer

The bluster and distraction won't detract from the fact that I've never spoken in absolutist terms. It's not an unmitigated victory for Russia (I've emphasized this over and over) but nor is it an unmitigated disaster. An 'unmitigated disaster' in this context would be Ukraine retaking all their own territory and Russia having to retreat to Russia without getting any meaningful concessions, i.e. Ukraine convincingly winning the war. This is such an obvious point, it's embarrassing to have to say it.

If Russia remains in Ukraine for the next 10 years, murdering its citizens, destroying its infrastructure, and (further) killing it's economy, I wonder if Western observers will still proclaim that "Russia isn't winning" - because their metric of success is simply 'how good or bad is Russia doing' and not 'how much are the Ukrainians getting fucked', because these people have been so obsessed with Putin and Russia that Ukrainian lives are simply by-products of 'sticking it to Russia'.

Quoting StreetlightX

If Russia remains in Ukraine for the next 10 years, murdering its citizens, destroying its infrastructure, and (further) killing it's economy,

I highly doubt this will happen. Russia, if it gets the lands it claims, will withdraw, and the war will be over.

Of course, neither you or I can tell the future. But there are some indications... and reasonable conjectures.

I won't bet with you, because we are anonymous participants on this forum, but my take is that if the ukraine gives the lands up, the war will be over.

Reply to god must be atheist Oh, the thought experiment is a comment on the spectators, not a prediction about how things may turn out. By the by, I think I agree with you.

Reply to god must be atheist

Yes, agree also. Russia's not trying to occupy the whole of Ukraine for the next ten years. That's not feasible and I'm pretty sure they know that. That Wayfarer thinks that's the plan maybe helps explain how he managed to get so far detached from reality here.

Quoting StreetlightX

If Russia remains in Ukraine for the next 10 years, murdering its citizens, destroying its infrastructure, and (further) killing it's economy, I wonder if Western observers will still proclaim that "Russia isn't winning" - because their metric of success is simply 'how good or bad is Russia doing' and not 'how much are the Ukrainians getting fucked'

The question of how successful or not the invasion is from a Russian standpoint is not equivalent to the question of how many Ukrainian lives are lost. These are two different questions. Even if the Russians killed millions of people in Ukraine (god forbid), it will not translate into a 'win' for the executioners. In fact in 'special operations', a classic factor of success is how FEW casualties are incurred by both the attackers and the defenders.

As different from a war, a good 'special op' destroys as little as possible beyond its specific target. So paradoxically, killing so many civilians is a sign of significant strategic problem in this 'special operation'.

Quoting Olivier5

The question of how successful or not the invasion is from a Russian standpoint is not equivalent to the question of how many Ukrainian lives are lost. These are two different questions.

My point exactly. But of course, my other point of course is that I don't think people like you give a shit about the latter question.

Quoting Baden

I wish the war was an 'unmitigated disaster' for Russia, but the fact that they're winning, despite their problems, mitigates the disaster somewhat for me from any reasonably objective perspective. It still puzzles me how you'd refer to the war if Russia was losing or looked like any of its major goals (Ukranian neutrality, autonomy for Donbass) were under threat. But, whatever, we'll just have to agree to differ on that.

I think here it should be proper to consider a successful Russian military operation: that is the invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014. There was a) total strategic surprise, b) extremely successful information campaign, c) swift overtaking of objectives and d) successful joint operations with the intelligence services and the army, which was then solidified politically by a referendum for Crimea to join Russia. And Russians were very happy about it! Nothing like the scenes below happened then:



Sanctions against Russia weren't similar as now, and we didn't see changes in policy like has happened with Germany. Yes, the time of the West "resetting" the Russian ties was indeed over. But I guess Putin had to show a lot for it. Or think it other way. How many Russian generals were fired, killed, put into house arrest? None.

If now the objectives are basically issues that Russia had already: a) Ukraine wasn't joining NATO and b) it held portion of the Donbas, then that is quite little to show for a war. I think Putin needs far more than that.

Once Russia captures Mariupol, then it can start to consolidate it's position and get the initiative firmly in it's hands. It hasn't happened yet... can happen tomorrow or next week.

Quoting StreetlightX

My point exactly. But of course, my other point of course is that I don't think people like you give a shit about the latter question.

What makes you think something so outlandish? And also, why does this debate has to be about what I care for? I don't care what you care for or not, Street. It's none of my business and I don't let it bother me.

Reply to Olivier5 Because this war is a video game for you.

Reply to StreetlightX This is a lie, one of many that your side spread, all the while crying us a river about western propaganda. Stop your propaganda first.

This thread is not about me, remember? No need to make it personal.

Reply to Olivier5 Hey you asked the question. Am happy to ignore you entirely next time.

Reply to StreetlightX Please do so. I will spare you my presence as well.

Reply to ssu

Yes, Crimea was quite close to being an unmitigated victory for Putin, whereas this will be a problematic victory at best with quite a bit of downside in the short term.

Amazing how people can get dirty on a message board, make it all personal, lie through their teeth to score a point, and still expect to be taken seriously when they complain about 'Western propaganda' and 'flag waving'.

Quoting Baden

Yes, Crimea was quite close to being an unmitigated victory for Putin, whereas this will be a problematic victory at best with quite a bit of downside in the short term.

Victorious military operations that went perhaps even better than planned typically later breed hubris and overconfidence.

Reply to ssu

Agreed.

Quoting Baden

Wouldn't waste your time with propaganda deniers on this thread though. That type of person simply cannot think beyond what their trusted media feeds them.

Stop being an Isaac.

I agree that CNN circa gulf War was a vehicle for American propaganda. They even had the secretary of state giving briefings.

I was talking about the present scene. It's a little different.

Quoting Olivier5

Amazing how people can get dirty on a message board, make it all personal, lie through their teeth to score a point, and still expect to be taken seriously when they complain about 'Western propaganda' and 'flag wavin

Very true.

[img]
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/e9ea7c0154471b9169f57db6d6d70ac0fc8644f4/0_0_6001_4001/master/6001.jpg?width=480&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=bbe8149010c3010474194c0ce5cdf38f[/img]

Kyiv, Ukraine -- Municipal workers cover the statue of the Italian poet and philosopher Dante Alighieri with sandbags to protect it from shelling in Kyiv. The statue, by Luciano Massari, was inaugurated in 2015 to mark 750 years since Dante’s birth
Photograph: Vadim Ghird?/AP

Quoting frank

Stop being an Isaac.

:lol: . I wasn't really referring to you. I don't think there's much to argue `about between us except the terminology.

Reply to Baden
Oh. Okey doke. :up:

Some more on propaganda/misinformation/bias or whatever we choose to call it re Russia vs Ukraine's military successes/failures:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#Total_casualties

"With respect to Russian military losses, Ukrainian estimates tended to be high, while Russian estimates of their own losses tended to be low. Combat deaths can be inferred from a variety of sources, including satellite imagery and video image of military actions. According to a researcher at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University in Sweden, Ukraine’s government was engaged in a misinformation campaign aimed to boost morale and Western media was generally happy to accept its claims, while Russia was “probably” downplaying its own casualties. Ukraine also tended to be quieter about its own military fatalities. According to BBC News, Ukrainian claims of Russian fatalities were possibly including the injured as well. Analysts warned about accepting the Ukrainian claims as fact, as Western countries were emphasizing the Russian military's toll, while Russia wanted to downplay its losses."

This is not so much a criticism of Ukraine for making stuff up to boost morale. I can understand why they would do that and why the Western media would go along with it. It's only to say you can't take Ukrainian figures (either directly from them or through Western news sources) any more seriously as a basis for judging Russian military success or failure than the Russian ones parroted by the Russian media, and reliable figures will probably require some kind of academic study after the war is over.

Quoting Baden

I wish the war was an 'unmitigated disaster' for Russia, but the fact that they're winning, despite their problems, mitigates the disaster somewhat for me from any reasonably objective perspective. It still puzzles me how you'd refer to the war if Russia was losing or looked like any of its major goals (Ukranian neutrality, autonomy for Donbass) were under threat. But, whatever, we'll just have to agree to differ on that.

Such assessments are rather pointless without reference to an outcome in the dispute over Crimea. As far as I know, Ukraine has insisted on sovereignty over Crimea, and this steadfast position, with support from the west, has been an irritant to Russia. You mention Russia's goals without mention of Ukraine's goals. A war has two sides.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, Ukraine will have to give up claims of sovereignty over Crimea too.

Expect the war to end soon. This is Russia's way of getting Europe, particularly Germany, to put pressure on Zelensky to capitulate and I expect it will work.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/14/russian-gas-oil-boycott-mass-poverty-warns-germany
Energy minister... Robert Habeck... predicted “mass unemployment, poverty, people who can’t heat their homes, people who run out of petrol” if his country stopped using Russian oil and gas.
----
Putin: Thanks for the heads up, bro'.

Quoting Olivier5

In the end, power is about the capacity to wield brute force.

So Jeff Bezos? No power at all (bit of a wimp by all accounts). Rupert Murdoch? Completely powerless (I mean, I could definitely have him). Larry Fink? Couldn't influence a child, after all, he's a bit skinny isn't he? Koch brothers? Too old to use brute force, so completely powerless...

What kind of bullshit argument is that?

Quoting neomac

What is the logic link between being Russian or talk to Russians and having reasons to believe that the Russian aggression of Ukraine is immoral?

None at all. The link is to having reasons to post about it, not reasons to believe it. I know it's hard for the Twitter generation to understand but I don't feel compelled to post everything I think online.

Quoting neomac

you have moral reasons to not voice your moral condemnation of Putin’s actions even if they are immoral because this would hypocritically deflect attention from Western’s moral responsibilities in the genesis of this war, and would be taken to promote the immoral indirect interventionism of the West.

No. I just haven't any cause to. I don't see why you're having such trouble with this, I don't have to provide a reason why I haven't posted something I think. It's quite normal to not post things one thinks.

Quoting neomac

Any demand that a ruthless tyrant of a nation can make against another nation (e.g. as Hitler made against Poland or Kim Jong-un makes against South Korea) that goes unsatisfied can be seen by him as a provocation, so should we meet his demands whatever they are to avoid a war and so endangering millions of people's life and wellbeing?

No. We should assess each on its merits.

Quoting neomac

Is it immoral to fight for one’s own nation’s independence and/or for the freedom that one enjoys in such independent nation?

Yes. Fighting a war over a flag is without doubt immoral.

Quoting neomac

Isn’t there any civic duty to fight for one’s own nation against the oppression of other nations’ tyrants? Don’t you really see any moral imperative in trying to contain the geopolitical ambitions of a ruthless tyrant even if at risk of total defeat?

Yes. I'm arguing against certain strategies, not the objective.

Quoting neomac

BTW do you consider the West immoral only when provoking a Russian ruthless tyrant or also when supporting his ruthless regime and ambitious geopolitical goals through economic ties?

Both.

Quoting neomac

an immoral turd doesn’t need any specific strategic provocation by the West

No one argued he needed it. A vase doesn't need me to knock it over in order to smash, any number of things might cause that. This doesn't excuse me if I did, in fact, knock it over.

Quoting neomac

If you are against advancing Western strategic interests and any logic of containment of its competitors that would risk a war, then you are indirectly supporting its competitors’ strategic interests, indeed of those competitors who are more aggressive in military terms, and therefore you may be rightly judged complicit in advancing them at the expenses of the West.

Only if you're weak-minded enough to see only two options.

Quoting neomac

Then Putin’s aggression will result in a total failure if he will not at least put a pro-Russian regime, because the West is already military equipping Ukraine

America is taking great pains not to equp Ukraine with any weapons which have a range long enough to present a credible threat to Russia. For this exact reason.

Quoting neomac

Then you can not be sure of Western moral responsibility in knowingly provoking Putin either. Can you?

Why not?

Quoting neomac

talked about attacking Russia, not about land invasion on Russia.

Well then what forms of attack are you claiming Russia should have no fear of?

Quoting neomac

Yet those demands do not seem enough to guarantee the national security of Russia from a now more likely hostile country.

So? That doesn't influence their likelihood of being met.

Reply to Baden This gets more interesting with the SWIFT sanction. So the oil and gas business is not a spot market, most of it is locked in with forwards. So you have to pay in rubles, based on a price that looks ok today but which could absolutely suck in 3 or 6 months time due to changes in the exchange rate. So you want to hedge that exchange rate risk with a forward, in which you agree to pay X EUR on the forward date for Y rubles. Who holds rubles? Russian banks. How are you going to pay for it when they're no longer on SWIFT? Unless they exempted derivative contracts from the sanctions, this is going to be a problem too. And if it's then exempted as well (as it will have to be), we have a nice financial loophole for Russian banks to exploit.

Quoting Isaac

So Jeff Bezos? No power at all (bit of a wimp by all accounts). Rupert Murdoch? Completely powerless (I mean, I could definitely have him). Larry Fink? Couldn't influence a child, after all, he's a bit skinny isn't he? Koch brothers? Too old to use brute force, so completely powerless...

What kind of bullshit argument is that?

The argument is that they developed their influence not by killing people, but by creating new media. And people can do what they did, develop new media, and nobody will kill them or jail them for it.

Reply to Olivier5 That post wants me to go off on a tangent how the capitalist system commits violence against workers every day that Jeff and the Kochs can definitely be held accountable for. Paying a living wage? Hell no, we'll make you suffer with anxiety about debt, not reaching your target if you take a toilet break or drop you in poverty if you ever need healthcare. Worst thing to happen to the environment? Let's just throw away all these things that didn't sell or were returned at over a million items per year.

If we weren't all sold so much on the capitalist ideal (as idealised by Rupert "Goebbels" Murdoch) we'd be hanging Jeff, rupert and the Kochs from the trees for crimes against humanity.

Quoting Baden

Energy minister... Robert Habeck... predicted “mass unemployment, poverty, people who can’t heat their homes, people who run out of petrol” if his country stopped using Russian oil and gas.

Habeck says Germany will aim for being weaned off Russian oil and gas by year's end

Quoting Benkei

the capitalist system commits violence against workers every day

That is true but it's another topic.

God, just read Perry Anderson's 2015 NLR essay on Russia and it is the best 'take' of all the millions of post-invasion word spew out there. Some highlights:

On Western hypocrisy:

[A] Russian-supplied missile in the hands of the irregulars had shot down a civilian airliner flying over the conflict zone. Denouncing this ‘unspeakable outrage’, Obama called the West to joint action against Russia. Economic sanctions targeting its financial and defence sectors were intensified. That the United States had itself shot down a civilian airliner, with a virtually identical toll of deaths, without ever so much as apologizing for a virtually identical blunder, was naturally in a different sense unspeakable—the airline was Iranian, the captain of the Vincennes acted in good faith, so why should anyone in the ‘international community’ remember, let alone mention it? So too was the annexation of the Crimea unheard of: why should anyone have heard of the seizures of East Jerusalem, North Cyprus, Western Sahara, or East Timor, conducted without reproof by friendly governments fêted in Washington? What matter if in all these cases, annexation crushed the self-determination of the inhabitants in blood, rather than reflecting it without loss of life? Such considerations are beside the point, as if the power that administers international law could be subject to it.

—

On Russian-Western cooperation in the 2000s, something everyone seems to have forgotten:

A glance at Security Council resolutions of the period is enough to see that Russia fell in with the wishes of the West virtually across the board, with the solitary exception of the Annan Plan to dismantle the Republic of Cyprus for a deal with Turkey, which it vetoed on an appeal for help from the government in Nicosia. All told, Russia was more than a reliable and collegial force within the international community. It was the bearer of ‘a civilizing mission on the Eurasian continent’. Under Medvedev, Russian foreign policy bent even further to the West. In compliance with Washington, Moscow cancelled delivery of S-300 missile systems to Tehran that would have complicated Israeli or us air-strikes against the country; voted time and again in the un for sanctions against Iran required by the us; gave a green light to Western bombardment of Libya; and even supplied a transport hub on Russian soil at Ulyanovsk for nato operations in Afghanistan.

—

On the contraditions of the Putin's regime in general:

Putin’s belief that he could build a Russian capitalism structurally interconnected with that of the West, but operationally independent of it—a predator among predators, yet a predator capable of defying them—was always an ingenuous delusion. By throwing Russia open to Western capital markets, as his neo-liberal economic team wished, in the hope of benefiting from and ultimately competing with them, he could not escape making it a prisoner of a system vastly more powerful than his own, at whose mercy it would be if it ever came to a conflict. In 2008–09 the Wall Street crash had already shown Russian vulnerability to fluctuations of Western credit, and the political implications. Once deprived of its current account surplus, a local banker commented with satisfaction, ‘foreign investors will get a vote on how Russia is run. That is an encouraging sign’—putting pressure on Putin for privatization. Such was the objective logic of economic imbrication even before the Maidan.

...Putin’s regime has attempted to straddle the difference between the old order and the new: seeking at once to refurbish assets and orientations that have depreciated but not lost all currency and, heedless of the hegemon, to embrace the markets that have downgraded them—running with the hare of a military cameralism and hunting with the hounds of a financial capitalism. The pursuit is a contradiction. But it is also a reflection of the strange, incommensurate position of Russia in the present international order, in which the regime is trapped with no exit in sight.

—

On American arrogance:

Yeltsin’s Foreign Minister Kozyrev dumbfounded a visiting Nixon by telling him that Moscow had no interests that were not those of the West. With interlocutors like these, representing a government dependent for its continuation in power on economic and ideological support from the West, America could treat Russia with little more ceremony than if it were, after all, an occupied country. When even Kozyrev baulked on being told that it was Moscow’s duty to join Washington in threatening to attack Serbia, Victoria Nuland—currently Assistant Secretary of State for Europe—remarked: ‘That’s what happens when you try to get the Russians to eat their spinach. The more you tell them it’s good for them, the more they gag.’ Her superior at the time, Clinton’s friend and familiar Strobe Talbott, proudly records that ‘administering the spinach treatment’ to Russia was one of the principal activities of his time in office. In due course Obama would say, in public, that Putin reminded him of a ‘sulky teenager in the back of the classroom’. In the ongoing Ukrainian crisis, Nuland could be heard conferring with the us Ambassador in Kiev on the composition of the country’s government in a style compared by an American observer to a British resident issuing instructions to one of the princely states of colonial India. In condescension or contempt, the underlying American attitude speaks for itself: vae victis.

https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii94/articles/perry-anderson-incommensurate-russia

Europe won't be able to get enough supplies for its energy demands this year if Russia stops the flow. Next year, perhaps, very hard to imagine that happening beforehand.

If Russia continues to bomb Ukraine, it's somewhat safe to assume they still have more demands they want met, which aren't being given. Otherwise, it's pointless to continue this war.

Quoting Olivier5

The argument is that they developed their influence not by killing people, but by creating new media.

Quoting Benkei

the capitalist system commits violence against workers every day that Jeff and the Kochs can definitely be held accountable for.

Quoting Olivier5

That is true but it's another topic.

Eh? Seems directly relevant to me.

Regardless, your claim was that power was only the ability to wield brute force. Are you now admitting you were wrong?

You'd need to show, either that Jeff Bezos was not powerful, or that he wields brute force.

Quoting Isaac

your claim was that power was only the ability to wield brute force.

That's not what I said.

Quoting Baden

Yes, Ukraine will have to give up claims of sovereignty over Crimea too.

That would be required for your claim that Russia has fulfilled all its goals. As of yet, I see no indication that Ukraine is ready to give up Crimea, and reclaiming it would be one of Ukraine's goals. So I think your claim that Russia is "winning" is a bit premature.

Quoting Olivier5

your claim was that power was only the ability to wield brute force. — Isaac


That's not what I said.

Quoting Olivier5

power is about the capacity to wield brute force.

Reply to Isaac Lol.

Reply to StreetlightX

It's like shooting fish in a barrel, I know I shouldn't really...

Reply to Isaac You cut a piece out of my sentence, a classic disinformation trick.

Quoting Manuel

If Russia continues to bomb Ukraine, it's somewhat safe to assume they still have more demands they want met, which aren't being given. Otherwise, it's pointless to continue this war.

Putin said something before the invasion about using it to gain skills. IOW, he's using it to have his military learn how to do more of this.

This is in line with the goal of setting Russia as an equal to the US and China on the world stage.

Russia is probably going to end up dependant on China, though. Not its equal.

Reply to frank

I know and if they could do that significantly sooner, it might help, but they can't. I think this will be resolved far before year's end, thankfully.

Quoting Olivier5

You cut a piece out of my sentence, a classic disinformation trick.

You bleated 'disinformation' rather than actually point out anything of substance, a classic establishment apologist trick.

Why don't you explain how "In the end, ..." makes any material difference to the argument that Western media lack 'power'.

Reply to frank

Well it's gone pretty badly if he had this in mind - having so many soldiers killed must be embarrasing.

At this point, I don't know what he may have in mind, with lowering population levels, a mismanaged economy, Russia does not look good. Having nukes is what sets them apart now.

But I do agree that they will be much closer to China than ever before, not only in the economic domain, but also further military partnerships of one kind or another (down the line).

I haven't heard this mentioned too much, but I suspect that part of the reason why China is hesitant to call out Russia internationally, has to do with the issue of Taiwan.

If any issue sparked in that region of the world, Russia would back China as a thanks for this situation.

Quoting Baden

know and if they could do that significantly sooner, it might help, but they can't. I think this will be resolved far before year's end, thankfully

I don't think Russia will hold back oil from Germany because they need money. I think they'll make a deal.

Reply to Isaac Your problem is that you don't want to understand. The difference between living under Putin and under Biden in terms of freedom of access to accurate information is immense.

What power does Bezos have over you and me? None. But in Russia, the power of the government to enforce a certain narrative is very strong, in a real, physical sense.

Quoting Manuel

Well it's gone pretty badly if he had this in mind - having so many soldiers killed must be embarrasing.

At this point, I don't know what he may have in mind, with lowering population levels, a mismanaged economy, Russia does not look good. Having nukes is what sets them apart now.

I don't know. I'm clueless about what Putin really thinks. I mean, we could guess that he didn't mean to lose 5 generals, but remember Stalin executed all of his most experienced generals before WW2. Russians are weird.

Quoting Manuel

I haven't heard this mentioned too much, but I suspect that part of the reason why China is hesitant to call out Russia internationally, has to do with the issue of Taiwan.

If any issue sparked in that region of the world, Russia would back China as a thanks for this situation.

Right. They're definitely best buds right now.

Quoting Olivier5

The difference between living under Putin and under Biden in terms of freedom of access to accurate information is immense.

Did I say it wasn't?

Reply to Isaac Did you not?

Quoting Olivier5

Did you not?

I presume, unless you just accidentally tagged me into some unconnected comment you wanted to spew out to the world in general, that you were responding to something I said. In other words, asking now whether I did or didn't say the thing you're apparently responding to seems a little post factum.

Reply to Isaac You were talking of dominance, remember? You were saying that there was no way to assert or measure that the propaganda in Russia was more dominant than in the West. I said there was: the Reporters Sans Frontières index for press freedom, which is based on the degree to which journalists are free to do their job without being physically intimidated, beaten up, incarcerated or killed.

Then you started to argue against that as well. Were you disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing or what?

Per chance, do you now agree that one system of propaganda in Russia is immensely more dominant and forceful than the other in, say, America?

The wonderful thing about Western propagandists is that it's propagandists really believe the shit they say. And it's all the more pernicious - along a certain axis - precisely because of that sincerity.

I wish more than anything that our propaganda looked like this:

http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zgyw/202112/t20211204_10462468.htm

It would be, at least, clear to everyone what is going on.

I think it was Chomsky that had an anecdote somewhere where some bewildered newsroom monkey asked him if Chomsky really believed that he, the newscaster, was just peddling lines fed to him by a higher authority. And Chomsky responded, no of course not - it's much worse. You actually believe the things you're saying. But you wouldn't be in your position otherwise. That's how Western propaganda works. You don't get thrown into jail because you never even remotely get close to the position where any such measures would ever be necessary. The institutional power needed to be able to filter out such viewpoints so early on is more mind-boggling than any torture apparatus, which, frankly, signifies a weakness of the state power.

Quoting Olivier5

You were saying that there was no way to assert or measure that the propaganda in Russia was more dominant than in the West.

No. I said that @SophistiCat had failed to provide such a measure (as such we couldn't critique it), I didn't claim that there was no such measure.

Quoting Olivier5

I said there was: the Reporters Sans Frontières index for press freedom, which is based on the degree to which journalists are free to do their job without being physically intimidated, beaten up, incarcerated or killed.

Then you started to argue against that as well. Were you disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing or what?

No. I was disagreeing because measures of press freedom are not measures of press dominance.

Quoting Olivier5

Per chance, do you now agree that one system of propaganda in Russia is immensely more dominant and forceful than the other in, say, America?

No.

Hey look it's that one time from the NYT in 2015 when Obama decided that unlike in other situations he would not continue to be a war criminal!:



I knew that Putin-loving shmuck was up to no good when he decided that er, not provoking Russia was something a sane person would do.

https://nytimes.com/2015/06/12/world/europe/defying-obama-many-in-congress-press-to-arm-ukraine.html

Quoting StreetlightX

The wonderful thing about Western propagandists is that it's propagandists really believe the shit they say. And it's all the more pernicious - along a certain axis - precisely because of that sincerity.

Absolutely.

One thing I find disturbing about this whole discussion about propaganda is the inherent racism. The idea that there's all these dumb gullible Russians who'll believe whatever garbage Putin throws at them, but the discerning American will carefully sift through their wonderful diversity of narratives for the illusive truth, as opposed to the reality that most will just lap up whatever vomit comes out of the current talking head interrupting their passionate dissection of some celebrity's latest lapse of humanity.

Quoting Isaac

One thing I find disturbing about this whole discussion about propaganda is the inherent racism.

Disturbing but not surprising.

Quoting Isaac

No. I was disagreeing because measures of press freedom are not measures of press dominance.

But we were talking of propaganda dominance, not 'press dominance', whatever that means. Try to focus. If the state can forbid all independent media, it can totally dominate the narrative. Think about it. It's not that hard to understand.

Reply to Olivier5 I think they can get to outside news via VPNs, but still, can you imagine trying to sort out the truth in that situation? With outside news sources saying your leader is straight lying about genocide and nazis. :grimace:

Reply to frank It must be pretty schizophrenic. I travelled through Hungary in the 80's. It was rather sad how nobody would ever speak their mind in public but would unload in private.

I met an Albanian once, who had this story about the death of Enver Hoxha. She was at school when the news broke, a pupil in an average primary school in Albania. The teacher said that this was a terrible news and that they should all cry now. She found it hard to do, in fact she started to laugh irrepressibly. She quickly put her head down in her arms, crouched on her desk, and pretended to sob, all the while she was laughing and laughing. That's how she got through that.

Reply to Olivier5 Because they might be arrested for speaking out in public?

Meanwhile when mass child murderers like Madeleine Albright drop dead, people in the West really are sad about it.

Quoting Olivier5

But we were talking of propaganda dominance, not 'press dominance', whatever that means.

I assume you already understand the link between 'press' and 'propaganda', else why bring in Reporters Sans Frontières index for press freedom. You mentioned 'press' first here. Try to focus.

Quoting Olivier5

If the state can forbid all independent media, it can totally dominate the narrative. Think about it. It's not that hard to understand.

Indeed it can. So you've supplied a mechanism by which the state can dominate the narrative, well done.

Now explain why you providing such a mechanism in any way has any relevance whatsoever to the argument that threre is a similar dominance exerted over the narrative in the west by other mechanisms.

I know the concept of more than one mechanism to achieve the same ends might blow your neoliberal-constrained mind, but slowly, carefully, try to get your head round the concept.

Zizek's invocation of the 'post-modern father' comes to mind:

Instead of bringing freedom, the fall of the oppressive authority thus gives rise to new and more severe prohibitions. How are we to account for this paradox? Think of the situation known to most of us from our youth: the unfortunate child who, on Sunday afternoon, has to visit his grandmother instead of being allowed to play with friends. The old-fashioned authoritarian father’s message to the reluctant boy would have been: “I don’t care how you feel. Just do your duty, go to grandmother and behave there properly!” In this case, the child’s predicament is not bad at all: although forced to do something he clearly doesn’t want to, he will retain his inner freedom and the ability to (later) rebel against the paternal authority.

Much more tricky would have been the message of a “postmodern” non-authoritarian father: “You know how much your grandmother loves you! But, nonetheless, I do not want to force you to visit her – go there only if you really want to!” Every child who is not stupid (and as a rule they are definitely not stupid) will immediately recognize the trap of this permissive attitude: beneath the appearance of a free choice there is an even more oppressive demand than the one formulated by the traditional authoritarian father, namely an implicit injunction not only to visit the grandmother, but to do it voluntarily, out of the child’s own free will. Such a false free choice is the obscene superego injunction: it deprives the child even of his inner freedom, ordering him not only what to do, but what to want to do.

Western propaganda is of the latter type.

Reply to frank Yes, of course.

In the worse countries, you couldn't even trust the taxi drivers. Those queuing at the airport in particular could be bugged or the driver part of the local Stasi. But in Hungary in the 80's taxi drivers were all 'liberalised'. They were often profs and doctors having to work an extra job to make do. So they would speak relatively freely during their ride.

I remember that racism against non-magyars (Roms in particular) was already an issue, even under this communist paradise. Now of course they are lead by rather extreme nationalists.

The food was good, and plentiful. People were reasonably content but no one was happy. Nobody was ever smiling for instance, or joking or laughing their ass off, even when drunk. No public expression of joy.

(info on kremlin propaganda and authoritarianism gone haywire)

Reply to Olivier5
If you listen to a song called "Wonder" by Avoure and Hexlogic on Google music, it says "While you are listening to this track, my nation is dying under Russian attack"

:sad:

Quoting Olivier5

No public expression of joy.

Has that changed since the 1980s?

beneath the appearance of a free choice there is an even more oppressive demand than the one formulated by the traditional authoritarian father, namely an implicit injunction not only to visit the grandmother, but to do it voluntarily, out of the child’s own free will. Such a false free choice is the obscene superego injunction: it deprives the child even of his inner freedom, ordering him not only what to do, but what to want to do.

Perfect.

Not only must you think this way, but it is you who are fundamentally malformed if you don't. Not merely no longer playing for the same team, but actually malfunctioning. If your 'free will' doesn't lead you to this choice, there would be demonstrably something wrong with your will.

Quoting Isaac

Indeed it can. So you've supplied a mechanism by which the state can dominate the narrative, well done.

It's not rocket science. But you have managed to understand the point. Well done.

Now explain why you providing such a mechanism in any way has any relevance whatsoever to the argument that threre is a similar dominance exerted over the narrative in the west by other mechanisms.

It seems to me that you are trying to say something here. So instead of me explaining to you what you are trying to say, why don't you explain it yourself? Don't be shy.

Reply to frank Yes, i've been to Budapest since, and you can have good fun there. I recommend the art deco baths, where you can play chess in the water.

Quoting Olivier5

instead of me explaining to you what you are trying to say, why don't you explain it yourself?

As with the last time you tried this...

Quoting Isaac

I'm not writing [it] all out again. I've already stated [it], you opposed [it] with your knee-jerk tribalism, I pointed that out...now you want to avoid that whole discussion by pretending it never started. Fascinating though they are, there's a limit to the effort I'm willing to put in to play your games. It's entertaining to watch you dance, but if it takes too much to wind you back up again...

Reply to Olivier5 :grin:

Reply to Isaac What?

Reply to frank Yep, that's kinda cool. It's like a huge spa from before WW1, I think, all with naturally hot spring water that doesn't stink sulphur too much.

There's also a (smaller) classic Turkish bath in Budapest, dating back to when Soliman the Magnificent was battling Vienna. Budapest was Turkish at the time.



There are also castles and churches and museums and parks and a funicular. A whole lot of statues, generally nationalistic. Some neighborhood still look as or more run down than during communist times, but the city center is rutilant and open for business.

Quoting Olivier5

rutilant

Congratulations! You are the first person to use "rutilant" on The Philosophy Forum. New to me, it means "glowing or glittering with red or golden light". Does Budapest have a proper red-light district?

Reply to Olivier5 Neither chess nor naked men are my thing but to each his own!

Quoting Bitter Crank

Does Budapest have a proper red-light district?

There are some of these horrible places called "striptease joints." :halo:


With a number of interesting options inside. :naughty:

Reply to Benkei DISCLAIMER: Those men are not naked. They all wear a proper speedo, of a dark navy blue with a gold blazon if they are members. I thought this needed to be said before someone gets too excited... :-)

Reply to Olivier5
Budapest seems to be all turquoise and orange. Have you been to Ukraine?

Reply to frank No, never in Ukraine. I was in Kosovo, which had some similarities I think. For instance, every single village and town in Kosovo had two different names: one in Serb, and one in Albanian. And whether one used this or that name had (or could be seen as having) a nationalist undertone.

We used to write down the name of the Ukrainian capital as 'Kiev', but now the writing 'Kyiv' has come to be used instead in Western media. I suspect that Kyiv is a transcription of the Ukrainian writing while Kiev is the Russian one.

Reply to Olivier5 Interesting. There's a city in the US called New Orleans. It's always been pronounced new or-leenz' with emphasis on the last syllable. When a hurricane hit it, the media started calling it new or'-le-uns. Not sure why.

Reply to frank LOL. Been there too (before the hurricane) and liked it even better than Budapest. :grin: I hope they are back on their feet.

Reply to Olivier5 Can't keep New Orleans down, although Nature keeps trying.

Reply to frank

And Nature will win, she eventually always does. But we fight it for a bit.

Going back to the OP, it looks like Russia is now using mercenaries to fight. Unsure how significant this will end up being, or if it is more of a PR stunt, unfortunately, we'll find out based on how many people die...

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/28/uk-says-russian-mercenaries-to-be-deployed-eastern-ukraine-liveblog

Quoting StreetlightX

Western propaganda is of the latter type.

You prefer authoritarian propaganda?

Reply to Manuel If we could only manage to spend this much money on developing alternate energy sources.

Reply to frank We call it la Nouvelle Orléans.

Quoting Olivier5

We call it la Nouvelle Orléans.

Should it be Orleans Nouvelle?

Quoting Olivier5

This is not a thread about the West

No, apparently it's about Hungarian baths and the pronunciation of New Orleans.

Funny how you guys were so offended that we dare mention US imperialism in a thread about Ukraine lest we divert attention from the awful suffering there, but you're happy to fill the thread with tourist advice. What's the matter, bored of war already?

Reply to praxis Would prefer no propaganda.

Is anyone having a problem dealing with propaganda? I am.

2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause
also : a public action having such an effect

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda

I am having problems. So how do we get out of this? Maybe...

https://graniteandsunlight.wordpress.com/2022/03/06/propaganda-what-to-look-for-how-to-deal-with-it/

https://firstdraftnews.org/articles/a-guide-to-prebunking-a-promising-way-to-inoculate-against-misinformation/

The question is how do we get unfiltered news that we can then filter to fit our purposes?

https://www.makeuseof.com/top-unbiased-news-sources/

Reply to frank The Western European pronunciation of Kiev changed to Kyiv when a batch of media people showed up there and felt the ever-present media need to be cool, so they pronounced it the way they heard locals pronouncing it.

WWL, a high-tone New Or-le-ans 100 year old radio station pronounced it with 4 syllables. I suspect that there is a class variant: down one step, New Or-lee-ins, down two steps, Naw Lins; down three steps, the southern unintelligible mumble--nobody knows what they are saying.

Quoting Bitter Crank

the southern unintelligible mumble--nobody knows what they are saying.

:lol:

Quoting FreeEmotion

The question is how do we get unfiltered news

Take a jet to Ukraine and see the war with your own eyes. Any other source is, in some sense, filtered.

What's in a name? Some investigation into the name change from assumed - to - be trustworthy sources, including Wikipedia:

After Ukraine’s 1991 independence, regulations were introduced about the national guidance for transliterating place names from Cyrillic to Latin alphabets.

Nina Jankowicz, a fellow at the Wilson Center and former Ukrainian Foreign Ministry comms adviser, has spoken about the importance of correct pronunciation.

"How we describe Ukraine and Ukrainians and their cities is paramount to how the world perceives Ukraine," says Jankowicz, who wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post in 2019 and tweeted this video too.

"And part of that perception," she says, "is about youdescribing Ukraine as its own distinct entity, not as a part of this alleged sphere of influence that Vladimir Putin wants to resurrect, in which all Slavic countries are part of a giant brotherhood and he is the king of them."

https://www.scotsman.com/news/world/why-kiev-changed-to-kyiv-and-how-to-pronounce-the-ukraine-capital-name-3583903

I find all this faintly disgusting.

Wikipedia:

Kyiv
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Kiev)

In 2018, the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry launched #CorrectUA, an online campaign to promote the use of official Ukrainian spellings by countries and organizations, in place of "outdated, Soviet-era" place-names.[41][42]

The US media organization NPR adopted an on-air pronunciation of Kyiv closer to the Ukrainian, responding to the history and identity of the local population, in January 2022.[69][70]

Even more disturbing.

Thanks for pointing it out.

Propaganda anyone? Also, could anyone suggest a good drink?

Reply to ZzzoneiroCosm Once you get there, you may filter what you see through the lens of preconceptions and misinformation.

Quoting FreeEmotion

I find all this faintly disgusting.

No! I just won't do it. Ever. I REFUSE to eat chicken Kyiv.

It is a veritable information war. No need to go to the Ukraine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kyiv#So_what_is_the_neutrality_issue?

Quoting StreetlightX

So, do you believe that organisations like CNN, Al Jazeera, the BBC, etc., are doing something other than reporting the news?
— Wayfarer

How is this even a question? Of course they are. It doesn't necessarily require 'disinformation' - as in, the misreporting of facts, or disseminating false information, but it absolutely includes issues of how an issue is framed - what actors are assumed to have agency, what the actual problem is considered to be, what kinds of questions are asked (and not asked), who is interviewed, who or what counts as a legitimate source, etc. This is basic media literacy. How on God's green Earth do you think otherwise? CNN is particularly shit, basically propaganda channel for corporate interests and repeating democratic party talking points verbatim.

Quoting FreeEmotion

Putin is a response to Western society's shift to the left, in this instance its influence on European nations. The modern media a vector for emotion can't but help depicting patriarchs as bad guys. When Putin is gone the Left will be all conquering its ultimate victory and goal symbolized with the elimination of the last male on earth. The 'x' chromosomes attempt to eliminate the mutant 'Y' complete.
— Gregory A

Who will save us from this fate? Democracy? War? Maybe there is a way to put us on the right side of history.

“We have the president of Russia mentioned the N-word... the nuclear word,” Trump said.“The nuclear word is a very dangerous, dangerous word and it’s being thrown around very cavalierly.”
— RT

I have to agree. From the man who may be invented cavalier.

Who will save us? The answer would be the Patriarchs. But with their decline, the rise of matriarchality, the 'X' chromosomes socio-politically represented by the Left making our salvation most unlikely.

Democracy, a 'soft' form of government therefore a vector for the Left, inherently vulnerable, allowing emotionalism a vote, feminism a chance to rule (an inevitability).

War, well we can see who the patriarch is up against presently. The democratic world, its people, its companies even, are mostly against what most probably will be the last of the patriarch leaders, Vlad Putin.

Matriarchality?

Quoting Bitter Crank

Once you get there, you may filter what you see through the lens of preconceptions and misinformation.

Sure, lenses, filters, out there and in here.

We see our psychical filters through the lens of our psychical filters. Excision would require lifelong psychical surgery (let's call it).

Safe to say there's no such thing as a wholly filterless view. Plenty of room here for humility, circumspection, epoche, suspension of judgment, ataraxia.

Wayfarer:So, do you believe that organisations like CNN, Al Jazeera, the BBC, etc., are doing something other than reporting the news?

Quoting StreetlightX

How is this even a question? Of course they are. It doesn't necessarily require 'disinformation' - as in, the misreporting of facts, or disseminating false information, but it absolutely includes issues of how an issue is framed - what actors are assumed to have agency, what the actual problem is considered to be, what kinds of questions are asked (and not asked)...

Right. The subtlest form of propaganda is simple omission.

Quoting Gregory A

Matriarchality?

No, it’s spelled matriarchy.

[

Quoting praxis

No, it’s spelled matriarchy.

Matriarchality, a made up word, used to describe a present social direction.
And to compensate for my limited vocabulary and poor wordskills generally.

Maybe you mean Feminism?

Wikipedia: Since the 1960s, both of these traditions are also contrasted with radical feminism that arose from the radical wing of second-wave feminism and that calls for a radical reordering of society to eliminate male supremacy; together liberal, socialist and radical feminism are sometimes called the "Big Three" schools of feminist thought.[14]

Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm

So, do you believe that organisations like CNN, Al Jazeera, the BBC, etc., are doing something other than reporting the news?
— Wayfarer

How is this even a question? Of course they are. It doesn't necessarily require 'disinformation' - as in, the misreporting of facts, or disseminating false information, but it absolutely includes issues of how an issue is framed - what actors are assumed to have agency, what the actual problem is considered to be, what kinds of questions are asked (and not asked)...
— StreetlightX

Right. The subtlest form of propaganda is simple omission.

Society's movement to the left requires the media to follow what is a 'left-shift' process. Ironically, the Fox Network occupying a shrinking niche, now in effect one of the last pillars of free-speech.

Quoting Gregory A

Matriarchality, a made up word, used to describe a present social direction.

Is equality unappealing?

Quoting Gregory A

Ironically, the Fox Network occupying a shrinking niche, now in effect one of the last pillars of free-speech.

Gonna need to append some evidence to such a farfetched claim. If you want to be taken seriously.

Quoting Gregory A

Its misleading. A ploy. And is being replaced by 'empowerment', a strategy disguised as a compensatory mechanism.

Progressive liberals openly propose both empowerment and restitutions. Anyway, what is the ultimate goal of this supposedly clandestine strategy? Orwellian totalitarianism?

omg can we not engage the 15 year old internet fascist

Reply to ZzzoneiroCosm

This graphic of where each news channel stands seems roughly accurate to me, since I know what conservative news and liberal news channels look like. For the time being, it is out in the open.

https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444

Help is on the way.

By now you may have read about Knowledge-Based Trust, a Google research paper that describes a method of scoring web documents according to the accuracy of facts. Knowledge-Based Trust has been referred to as the Truth Algorithm, a way to assign a Trust Score to weed out sites that contain wrong information.

https://www.searchenginejournal.com/googles-truth-algo-5-facts-know/129103/#close

Quoting FreeEmotion

This graphic of where each news channel stands seems roughly accurate to me, since I know what conservative news and liberal news channels look like. For the time being, it is out in the open.

https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444

Impossible! I've actually got something right?

Quoting StreetlightX

omg can we not engage the 15 year old internet fascist

@frank isn’t that bad.

But what about Will Smith slapping Chris Rock?!

Or reporting on "maybe the negotiaters were poisoned". I thought the news was about reporting facts? Since when is, maybe something happened and maybe it didn't, news?

God I hate mainstream media.

Quoting Benkei

But what about Will Smith slapping Chris Rock?!

I was hoping no-one would bring that up, but since you did:

I suggest that the whole thing was staged to send the message that an unprovoked aggression by host Chris Rock (representing Putin) even verbally, of an innocent woman (representing Ukraine) will not be tolerated and will be met by a 'strike' by Will Smith (representing NATO).

Far- fetched? Well consider this: Chris Rocks initials "CR" match with the first two letters of "Crimea", and the military reference to "GI Jane"?

Now all we need is for the White House to come out and say Will did not mean to slap Chris.

Quoting Benkei

So you have to pay in rubles, based on a price that looks ok today but which could absolutely suck in 3 or 6 months time due to changes in the exchange rate.

The Urals price is something like 30 dollars cheaper to the Brent price. But of course Putin announcing that the payments have to be paid in rubles is a breach of contract. But anyway, a lot of breached contracts in a war.



Quoting Benkei

How are you going to pay for it when they're no longer on SWIFT?

Do note that this wasn't taken off from SWIFT.

All this will just quicken the change out of Russia oil and gas for Europe.

The really annoying thing is that this will likely increase coal production, because of course nuclear cannot be an option.

But Biden's policies are even more confusing:

Biden administration officials traveled to Venezuela over the weekend for talks on potentially allowing the country to sell its oil on the international market, helping to replace Russian fuel. Biden may travel to Saudi Arabia as the US works to convince the kingdom to increase its production. And a looming nuclear deal could bring significant volumes of Iranian oil back to the market.
Caracas, Riyadh and Tehran would have been unlikely sources of relief for a Biden-led Western alliance before the start of the war in Ukraine. But Russia's invasion has upended international relations, forcing the US and other nations to seek out solutions in places they'd previously shunned.

So in order to put sanctions on one country, other sanctions on other countries are lifted? Yet this point is absolutely crucial for Biden because the higher gas prices will be in the US, the lower his approval rating will be. Already there is inflation (thanks to the insane monetary policies), and this will make it worse.

Of course the logical question here is, why not rely on Canada? Well, here the reasons are obvious result from past decisions. A Canadian commentator sums it up why Canadian oil/gas isn't the logical solution (as it could be):

Experts seem to agree that our (Canadian) contribution will be marginal at best, because our energy industry has been starved of investment for years. All because governments have scared away investors by consistently blocking proposed pipelines and LNG export terminals, which could now be supplying our allies in the U.S., Asia and Europe with oil and gas from a democratic country that abides by the rule of law, has strong environmental standards and has no imperial or genocidal ambitions.

The tragedy is that if governments — including the Biden administration, which nixed the Keystone XL pipeline on Day 1 — had simply gotten out of the way and allowed decisions over pipelines and other infrastructure projects to be made by private businesses and landowners, including First Nations, Canada would have a much greater ability to produce and export its natural resources, at little to no cost to the treasury.

In Europe now those LNG export/import terminals and everything else have to be built on a crash course and likely with more cost now. But they will be built and perhaps in a year or some time the West won't need Russia's hydrocarbons.

(note the country that has anticipated that Russian gas might be a problem and not only planning but already constructing more LNG terminals: )

Reply to ssu I'm talking about the derivative contracts to hedge your exchange rate risk. Those aren't currently exempted from what I understood because that's a regular financial contract between financial institutions and not commodity energy trading.

I don't know how much Norway can up its production but the Netherlands has a large reserve of gas we stopped pumping because it caused earthquakes and damage to buildings in Northern Netherlands. If prices go up enough or Putin switches if the gas, at least gas for heating won't be an issue. Electricity though...

Reply to FreeEmotion

Quoting Benkei

If prices go up enough or Putin switches if the gas, at least gas for heating won't be an issue. Electricity though...

Depending on the price, Russia has gotten about half or one third of it's governments revenues from hydrocarbons. As stated even in this thread, the real sanctions that matter is the gas/oil trade with Russia.

Yet Russia is at war and however they claim the "tactical truth" of talking about special military operation, they now they are in a large war. Putin and his regime knows that. Hence that there is a severe economic depression doesn't actually matter. The it's estimated that the Russian GDP will fall 10% this year and Russia's economy will shrink to what it was a decade ago doesn't matter. For Putin it's nearly irrelevant: unlike in the case of Biden, there aren't any angry voters ready to vote for the opposition because the prices are so high.

In the European context basically the issue is about the existence of true political leadership of the lack of it. More closer you go towards Ukraine, the more likely it is that people would accept higher gas prices as costs of opposing Russia. The worst case is that politicians deny there's going to be any effect ...and then the country hits a crisis.

The worst possible option is for decision makers to put their heads into sand and pretend that alternative energy / renewable resources will save the day. They might do that, in a decade or two, but not now as we are going to face an immediate supply problem. And thus their actual decision (the one they don't publicly announce) will be to dig up more coal. And then in a year or so we notice that coal production has gone up and the promises of carbon neutrality (or coal phase out) aren't going to be met at all.

Quoting Benkei

I'm talking about the derivative contracts to hedge your exchange rate risk. Those aren't currently exempted from what I understood because that's a regular financial contract between financial institutions and not commodity energy trading.

Well, notice how this casino has worked: from negative prices to the present.

Quoting ssu

What should be noted that the dismal performance in the start of this invasion is mainly due to the poor assumptions that Ukrainians wouldn't fight, which was an intelligence failure.

Although this could be accurate, again I feel the need to debate it.

Agreed, total capitulation is what Putin, Kremlin and the Russia military would prefer (who wouldn't).

However, if you look at events on the ground, they go uncontested from Crimea, basically the first day to take Kherson and first couple days to link up with their forces in the East. These were insanely quick manoeuvres, and achieved 2 critical strategic objectives of taking a position South-West of the Dnieper, thus requiring Ukrainians to commit a large amount of troops to guarding a long defensive line to avoid Ukraine being cut North-South ... instead of a small amount of troops if they just blew-up all the bridges or defended Kherson with urban combat resulting in a prolonged siege.

From a military perspective, these are super critical strategic objectives and achieved incredibly quickly.

You have to compare this to the "risk" situation where Ukraine blows up the bridges out of Crimea and pin down Russian forces there and then Ukrainians Eastern front is far easier to hold, Mariupol (symbol of Azov battalion, of which the destruction is a stated justification for the war, and capturing Azov guys with swastika tattoo may not play get attention in the West, but maybe a different story in Russia).

Certainly, the "best case scenario" didn't happen for the Russians, and losses have been heavy (maybe far heavier than they anticipated), but they have largely achieved what they said they set out to achieve.

It is reasonable to assume that they focused on what was most critical in planning, and likely had setup before hand capitulation of border guards, cities and so on.

Not only military objectives, but the immediate cutoff and siege of Mariupol is a critical political objective, as traps Azov brigade which simply has plenty of members with Nazi tattoos ... so capturing a bunch and prosecuting them (non-regular forces, so not not really POW's and have zero POW rights) is an immense political win. Already, there's an American journalist that has reported a woman found with a Swastika painted in blood on her stomach ... and these guys are fucking nuts, it's completely in their MO and parading captured Nazi's (from the Russian perspective) makes people's blood boil.

Now, if the Russians know they can't occupy all of Ukraine ... maybe they planned to take first day what they actually do want and can hold long term (land bridge to Crimea) ... and so maybe the other front were just to tie up Ukrainian troops in the event of large scale resistance as Russia now claims.

As for reports of "house arrest" of the intelligence chief in Russia and disappearance of department of defence ... this could easily be to play for the home audience. Obviously there have been mistakes and high costs (I'm definitely no minimising the costs, just pointing out military objectives have been achieved with those costs).

Even if they they though heavy Ukrainian resistance likely - indeed, even if they actually wanted a soft invasion, a few "failures", and bait Ukraine into total war, so reasonable offers are rejected and they can completely decimate the Ukrainian military infrastructure and economy ("help" from the West will stop the moment news cycle switches ... and it's mostly debt anyways) - Putin maybe simply upset about embarrassing losses and equipment failures and corruption coming to light (all of which is very real), and also needing to send a "signal" to the population that people "answer for mistakes".

We don't know what's actually true in the fog of war and what are viewed by the Russian military as acceptable losses to achieve objectives, what is a tactical retreat or then a rout, or what are in fact ATGM decoys or even purposefully staging losses to bait enemy counter offensives to keep them far in the East or whatever (i.e. what), and what is just straight up embarrassing failure (which is going to happen in a large scale conventional war; plenty of allied commanders had embarrassing failures in WWII).

To take one example, there's a photo of a Russian tank with egg cartons spilling from the most recent reactive tank armor. Now, such a photo could be staged for propaganda footage ... or maybe just one of the failure modes of the armor and exactly what an engineer who worked on the system would expect to see, as there's a layer of cardboard like wrapping. We don't know. However, Russian military and Putin would know, and let's assume it is just straight-up corruption of filling reactive armor with egg cartons to pocket the cash or hit quotas. Even if the war is going well: soldiers, commanders and Putin are going to be pissed about that and want people to answer for it.

Point being, we don't even really know what the facts even are -- FSB director being under house arrest could be FSB directors idea as just a good propaganda technique to signal the Russian population that "something is being done" to hold people to account for "accidentally" starting a total war with Ukraine which was the FSB directors idea to do in the first place -- and, even if we did know the facts, we don't know what narrative they fit. "Discipline" for mistakes, even if everything is going to plan overall, is still completely normal in a huge institution (only the US promotes people for disastrously starting a war on made-up pretences), and mistakes of all kinds are to be expected in a massively chaotic total war situation.

To evaluate "if things are going well or badly" or costs have been "too high", we need to know what the statistics on the ground are, actually be able to compare Russian losses to Ukrainian losses, and we'd actually need to know what Russian leadership is trying to achieve exactly (which we don't).

Quoting ssu

Already there is inflation (thanks to the insane monetary policies), and this will make it worse.

... I seem to remember discussing inflation and it's impact on the global system a couple of years ago.

Literally 2 years ago, 17, 03, 2020:

Quoting boethius

Now that the important philosophical subject of how trades are executed on stock exchanges has been investigated, I propose we move onto the general topic of corona virus and the stock market.

My understanding of the situation is as follows:

1. Corona is causing massive disruptions to most sectors of the economy: collapse of air travel and tourism for an unknown time, closing of local restaurant and entertainment and every other "in person" businesses for an extended period, many old people dying which will put more homes on the market, disruptions to supply chains due to manufacturing shutdowns in China, and long term psychological based changes in behaviour, damage to health systems (mainly skills dying or being so traumatized that they quit during or afterwards), and all related supply industries.

2. The positions taken by central banks to paper-over the 2009 "great recession" have not been unwound.

3. There are no more tools available (nor the prospect of until now "unthought of" tools) that can encourage traders to believe the free market will be stabilized by collectivists schemes of one form or another.

4. Therefore, any market actions by regulators of central banks will simply encourage people in the know to use those actions to get out even faster (not anticipate those actions will actually work and therefore stay in).

5. Large businesses will be bailed out anyways, even if long term structural changes to the economy mean there are no viable paths back to profitability.

6. Large sectors of the US economy, such as the fracking industry, have essentially never turned a profit and are faced with an economic down turn and a Russia and Saudi price reduction to force them into bankruptcy. Bailing the fracking industry out cannot even be imagined to make sense; they may actually be left hanging due to problems elsewhere being simply too great for friends to look after each other. (but this is an analytic side-quest to maximize one's schadenfreude at the expense of fracking executives and investors, and yes, a little bit at the expense of fracking workers too; but of course, doesn't help the financial system to have a giant rotten lemon on their desks as no one drinks rotten lemonade, except the fed of course)

7. Therefore, the central banks and regulators, by monetizing one way or another, trillions in losses will cash-up the investor class and be left holding what is technically referred to as "a big bag of dog shit".

8. This cash reentering the market when things are stabilized will cause massive inflation of whatever good assets remain.

9. There are no policy tools left (I am of aware of anyways) that could counter-act this inflation (US is already in trillion dollar deficit, 1.5 trillion "plausible deniability bailout" is already started in first week of this crisis and there will be much more, interest rates are zero or negative, the deficit will go even higher, and the fed will stop reporting on their financial alchemy projects).

10. We can reasonably conclude that inflation therefore will not be controlled (i.e. controlled less than the current policy mechanisms as well as just changing the definition of "what people need" on the fly).

11. International trade will start to collapse back to "real assets" (do you have something tangible I want, do I have something tangible that you want), rather than the previous regime of debt based trade (well, debts haven't been a problem before, therefore I will continue to pretend they will never be a problem in the future).

12. Referring back to tangible assets will be a radical simplification of the current trade system (not clear if there will be markets for most of the crap currently produced).

13. Regulators will realize at this point that there is no way to reboot the system without even more inflation since they just gave most of the money to the wealthy ... and have been doing so for the last decade already (and trickle down theories obviously make no sense, so the money will sit there but ready to pounce on any assets that do start to go up in price if the governments do try to bailout the poor through small "throw them a bone" inadequate measures, as horrifying as that sounds they will be forced to face their deepest fears of needing to throw those bones).

14. Service economies will collapse as credit dries up. Manufacturing will radically simplify, but countries with modest manufacturing capacity will be forced to protect their manufacturing due to over-capacity of larger manufacturing centers trying to shift production to "anything and everything that is still being bought somewhere"; the interdependence of manufacturing economies will make such policy shifts acrimonious and volatile.

15. Bottom line: isolationism as we saw in the great depression is now unavoidable, with all tools in the policy shed hemmed in and blunted by inflation.

16. World War would be great to just nationalize whole manufacturing bases and get people jobs in the business of killing people and use the nationalist furor to crush socialist agitation that's trying to help the poor, but nuclear weapons render this no longer "the go to" easy solution for capitalism's woes. It will still be tried, of course, using conflicts to get people focused on something else, but with unknown efficacy / survival of the human species.

Policy makers in the West have gone off script a tad bit here and there, but more or less just followed my advice these past 2 years, and definitely had the end point clearly in focus (strategy is very much an eye on the prize kind of undertaking, as I've previously mentioned).

And they didn't even pay me for it!

That's just how generous of a person I am.

They did largely prop-up the fracking industry, but frackers downsized rig counts and imposed austerity on themselves. And we're all now happy they did prop up the frackers, to be able to sell far more expensive gas to Europe now that there's the predictable "brink of WWIII" and new cold war, to depress Europe's economy over the long term and remove them as a significant player on the world stage.

Already EU leaders are so weak with nearly all their previous influence removed, that Biden can just speak on their behalf; CIA doesn't even need to tell them what to say anymore.

Quoting boethius

we'd actually need to know what Russian leadership is trying to achieve exactly (which we don't).

That was already a failure to start with: no clear goals, so you have soldiers asked to sacrifice their lives for... well... everything and nothing.

Quoting Olivier5

That was already a failure to start with: no clear goals, so you have soldiers asked to sacrifice their lives for... well... everything and nothing.

We don't know what they think.

They may know what they think and have very clear goals.

To achieve their goals, using warfare, may include deception to keep us guessing about what they are trying to do (so that our actions are counter productive).

If the Kremlin actually wants a Schism in the West, and all Western actions have so far simply consolidated the Kremlin's power within Russia as well as the international system, then ... our policies are helping the Kremlin achieve its goals, not dissuading them nor punishing them.

Quoting boethius

We don't know what they think.

They are in damage control mode right now, saying they didn't really care for Kiev now that they have been repelled from there, and after having sacrificed thousands of lives to try and get there... :smirk:

My point was that soldiers in a high intensity war need motivation, and not everybody can be suitably motivated just by killing innocent people randomly. Only few peoples are psychopathic murderers. The others, the regular average soldier would want to know what he is asked to fight and die for. Otherwise he's just going to try and save his own skin. So not articulating clear war goals is part of this big failure we are seeing.

Quoting boethius

Policy makers in the West have gone off script a tad bit here and there, more or less just followed my advice

More importantly, Mr Putin himself followed your advice. Ain't you proud?

Or maybe it's the other way round: he advised you first.

Quoting Olivier5

They are in damage control mode right now, saying they didn't really cared for Kiev now that they have been repelled from there, and after having sacrificed thousands of lives to try and get there... :smirk:

Again, every single Western analyst, generals and academics alike, told us the Russians have not amassed a force large enough to occupy and passify all of Ukraine and that Urban combat will be a massive cost to the Russian military.

At the time, both I and @Isaac, pointed out that maybe Russia knows that and their strategy is therefore not to occupy all of Ukraine, but just blowup a significant part of their military and take a land bridge to Crimea.

Also, Russia knows about the fanatical neo-Nazis and that the CIA has been training and equipping fanatical forces just as in Syria, why would the playbook change (which, however many they are, for sure will fight an insurrection) ... so, again, maybe they therefore never intended to occupy the entire country.

If Russia simply never intended to engage in intense Urban combat to take Kiev, then just going right up to Kiev and stopping there is a good strategy: keeps focus and resources on the capital and also has immense psychological affect on leadership.

Now, would they have rather Ukraine just capitulate? Obviously. But considering they only committed less than half their forces in the initial invasion ... it's reasonable to conclude that they had a plan B of "warfare" if the less-than-half force didn't provoke complete capitulation after starting a full scale invasion.

Quoting Olivier5

More importantly, Mr Putin himself followed your advice. Ain't you proud?

Is it more important?

It takes two to tango my friend.

Reply to boethius Nothing looks reasonable here, on the Russian side. It's all about war crimes, power trips, incompetence, and keeping a zombified political system alive. You are looking way too hard for rationality where it may not exist.

The reason they can't articulate a war goal may simply be that they don't know what they are trying to do. Not clearly. Not as a team. For all we know they just tried to do what the US did in Iraq, and failed miserably.

Reply to boethius I think it's the opposite: you took his advice.

Quoting Olivier5

Nothing looks reasonable here, on the Russian side. It's all about war crimes, power trips, incompetence, and keeping a zombified political system alive. You are looking way too hard for rationality where it may not exist.

If you bother to go and understand anything about geopolitics before weighing in on a geo-political issue, then you may start to see there could be reasons for the actions of powerful institutions. Doesn't mean there aren't risks, but proving someone, much less an entire institution, is "irrational" is a large hurdle and can only be proven by disproving all rational models that could resolve apparent contradictions, not only in what someone or some institution says, but more importantly in their genuine belief (which they may not report accurately for our analytical convenience).

Only the West (basically US, EU, Australia and Canada) have imposed sanctions on Russia. Obviously China hasn't, but neither India.

The geopolitical outcome of this war is cleaving off the developing world from the western dominated system.

Only Westerners view this war as "the small, brave and intrepid Ukraine under their own steam, fighting off the haughty Russian Army".

Everyone else views this war as Russia against the West, against NATO.

A large part of the rest of the world perceives the West as the bully, and Russia is now making a stand against that bully.

It's a risk, but if Russia survives politically and economically, Putin remains in power and Russia reorients its economy and just sells its resources to China and India and other developing nations. What's going to happen?

Total collapse of the US as a super power.

US is not a military empire, it is a financial empire. US military roll in the American Empire is that it's strong enough to topple nearly any medium sized government at will. Libya talks of an African bank and gold backed African monetary policy: Libya is now a failed state.

However, this is a wack-a-mole endeavour. If Africans did just come together to shirk off neo-colonialism, then the US cannot actually go and conquer all of Africa.

So, what is Russia doing really?

It's demonstrating the US financial, covert and military threats can be beaten. It's proving to the non-Western world that there's a economic and political system that now exists that the US can't just topple over into a failed state at will.

For all governments of the world that do not perceive themselves as benefiting from the Western system, but paying tribute instead, Russia is currently demonstrating an alternative.

For example, what does China actually get with its trade with the US? It gets US treasury bills.

There is simply a logical limit to how many US treasury bills China could possibly want.

Maybe China has simply had its fill of T-bills and now wants something else, real wealth, in exchange for what it offers. Russia is making that world come true.

What people fail to take into consideration is that the ex-Soviet intelligence types may have learned something from the collapse of the Soviet Union, and see the US as having the same weaknesses: too much internal dissatisfaction, too much debt, too much propaganda, and old decrepit elites that can't adapt.

Can we really say Russia is more corrupt when it used it's wealth to build up hundreds of billions of Euro and USD and tons of gold in reserve (public wealth) ... while the West transfers trillions of USD and Euros to the investor class as no-strings-attached "payment" for crashing the financial system due to "regulatory capture". Reward for destroying the credibility and stability of financial system upon which the West's power rested ... and crony capitalism writ large, banking and mega-corporation bailouts, is the direct cause of the current inflation and Wests' weakness?

The US imposed "collectivist" lockdowns for the "common good" ... and then evicted people from their homes on an industrial scale. That's really less corrupt?

"[I]How about becoming a neutral henhouse?[/i]"

Quoting Olivier5

"How about becoming a neutral henhouse?"

The problem in your picture there, is that the bear can do and say what it wants in that scenario.

Quoting boethius

Doesn't mean there aren't risks, but proving someone, much less an entire institution, is "irrational" is a large hurdle

I'm not trying to prove anything. You are. You are peddling the message that they know what they are doing. I just think they don't.

Quoting Olivier5

I'm not trying to prove anything. You are. You are peddling the message that they know what they are doing. I just think they don't.

Sure, unsupported opinion noted

Reply to boethius Just as yours. Don't try and argue you know what's happening in Putin's head. You're not credible.

Quoting boethius

The problem in your picture there, is that the bear can do and say what it wants in that scenario.

Why is that a problem for you? I thought you liked bears more than hens.

Edit: I think I understand now what you meant: that as a piece of western propaganda, this cartoon was problematic, because it shows Russia (the bear) in a dominant position, or as you phrased it, able to do whatever it wants.

That may be because the cartoon is not a propaganda piece produced for your average Anglo-Saxon capitalist sheep media. It was instead produced as part of the Cartooning for Peace project, a non profit open to a wide array of professional and amateur cartoonists. Le Monde is publishing one a day.

https://www.cartooningforpeace.org/

From that site, cartooning for peace:


By Nardi from Italy


By Ares from Cuba


By Chapatte from Switzerland
[I](Biden: Putin should be brought to the International Court!
US General: which we don't recognize)[/i]

Quoting Olivier5

I'm not trying to prove anything. You are. You are peddling the message that they know what they are doing. I just think they don't.

So @boethius is 'peddling' a message, but you're just offering an opinion? Care to share with us what the difference is?

They may not sound like it in your head, but I assure you your posts are coming out sounding just as self-assured and dogmatic as anyone else's. You're not some 'voice of moderate disinterest' in a sea of rampant ideology, you've been absolute hard-line apologist for the mainstream Western narrative throughout, and no less fundamentalist about it than the rest of us.

Quoting Isaac

So boethius is 'peddling' a message, but you're just offering an opinion? Care to share with us what the difference is?

That would assume that you care enough to understand the difference, which I doubt.

Reply to Olivier5

Someone who is able to say:

Quoting boethius

14. Service economies will collapse as credit dries up. Manufacturing will radically simplify, but countries with modest manufacturing capacity will be forced to protect their manufacturing due to over-capacity of larger manufacturing centers trying to shift production to "anything and everything that is still being bought somewhere"; the interdependence of manufacturing economies will make such policy shifts acrimonious and volatile.

15. Bottom line: isolationism as we saw in the great depression is now unavoidable, with all tools in the policy shed hemmed in and blunted by inflation.

16. World War would be great to just nationalize whole manufacturing bases and get people jobs in the business of killing people and use the nationalist furor to crush socialist agitation that's trying to help the poor, but nuclear weapons render this no longer "the go to" easy solution for capitalism's woes. It will still be tried, of course, using conflicts to get people focused on something else, but with unknown efficacy / survival of the human species.

Connected to a wider body of analysis.

Two years ago—before massive bailouts, bone throwing, and the predicted inflation when bailout money "returns"—before any of that even happened.

Does not have "opinions".

Such a person literally sees into the future.

Quoting boethius

Such a person literally sees into the future.

Thanks for the laugh. You're a bit late to predicting this future. My wife has been warning us all of the same things for the past three decades.

Quoting Olivier5

You're a bit late to predicting this future. My wife has been warning us all of the same things for three decades.

Then why are you talking instead of your wife?

Quoting boethius

It's a risk, but if Russia survives politically and economically, Putin remains in power and Russia reorients its economy and just sells its resources to China and India and other developing nations. What's going to happen?

Total collapse of the US as a super power.

This looks like a plan, but it is very risk, and very aggressive. Risky for Russia and for the world.

Reply to Olivier5

Nice cartoons. At least they are discussing the possibilities.

Time to negotiate or fight to the last chicken.

Since we've started making predictions, let us hear what Jonathan Littell predicts... It's harsh.



My Dear Russian Friends, It’s Time For Your Maidan
Jonathan Littell

My dear Russian friends: some old friends, some more recent, some I only know from afar, friends in soul and spirit. Times are tough for you too. Like those of all Ukrainians, your lives, never simple, have been turned upside down. Many of you are fleeing Russia. And many of you share with me a feeling of guilt and shame about what your country is doing, in your name, to Ukraine.

Those of you who were activists had been on borrowed time for a long while and were preparing for the final attack. On March 4, I wrote to Alexander Cherkasov, a very old friend from the NGO Memorial. “I’ll tell you later, he replied laconically. After the search [that day by Russian police], we wander among the ruins. Gutted computers. Forced safes. » Others, cultural figures, artists, writers, are stunned by the sudden collapse of their fragile world. None of you like Putin and his regime of thieves and fascists; most of you hate them. But let’s be honest: with a few rare exceptions – the friends of Memorial, of the newspaper Novaya Gazeta, of the site Medusa, and a handful of others – how many of you have lifted a finger to resist this regime? Could it be that your feelings of shame and guilt are not entirely abstract? Are they also due to your long indifference to what was happening around you, to your apathy, to your passive complicity?

You didn’t want to know

It wasn’t always like this. There was a time in the 1990s when you had freedom and democracy, chaotic, even bloody, but very real. But 1991 ended the same way as 1917. Why, every time you finally make your revolution, you get so scared of the Time of Troubles that you go and hide under the petticoats of a tsar, a Stalin or Putin?

It’s true, mistakes were made. Instead of exposing the archives of the KGB, as the former East Germany did with those of the Stasi, the political police, you let yourself be distracted by the statue of Felix Dzerzhinsky and you let the KGB hunker down and then rebuild and take over the nation. When you were offered the choice between the plunder of the country or bringing back the Communists, you did not fight to impose a third choice and you accepted the plunder. In 1998 your economy collapsed: no more mass protests for social justice or against the war in Chechnya then. Survival became your primary concern.

Then you were introduced to Putin. Young, bold, aggressive, promising the destruction of terrorists and the recovery of the economy. Few of you believed it, but you voted for him anyway, or you didn't vote at all. And when he started razing Chechnya, most of you closed your eyes. I remember those years very well. I worked in the field, delivering humanitarian aid to the countless victims of his "anti-terrorist operation", criss-crossing the ruins of Grozny and so many other towns. Sometimes I would go to Moscow, party with you guys. We drank, we danced. And then, I was trying to tell you about the horrors over there. And you were like, "Jonathan, we're sick of your Chechnya." I remember those words precisely. And I was furious: “Guys, this is not my Chechnya, this is your Chechnya. This is your fucking country, not mine. I'm just a stupid stranger here. It is your government that bombs one of your cities, that kills your fellow citizens." But no, it was too complicated, too painful, you didn't want to know.

Assassinations of opponents

Then came the great Russian economic boom of the mid-2000s, fueled by soaring oil prices and some of the stolen money that Putin willed trickled down to the middle class. Many of you have made money, and even the poorest have been entitled to new apartments and better jobs. When an opponent was murdered – journalist Anna Politkovskaya [October 7, 2006], ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko [died November 23, 2006], and others – you expressed your horror and shock, but it didn't go any further. When Putin, after two terms, castled with his Prime Minister, Dmitry Medvedev, you hardly noticed. When Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, most of you ignored it, or remained silent. And in the years that followed, how many of you have I passed on the ski slopes of the Georgian resort of Gudauri, or strolling through old Tbilisi, while your army occupied part of the country? Not that we here in the West have done much either. A few complaints, a few penalties; but what are gross violations of international law in comparison to oil, gas and the Russian internal market?

At the end of 2011, however, you, my Russian friends, woke up. When Putin again took over from Medvedev, many of you decided that was one dirty trick too many, and took to the streets. For six months, you filled the streets, causing the regime to falter. Then they fought back, raining down arrests and long prison sentences. And those of you who survived went home. "What could we do? I've heard that so many times, and I still hear it today. “The state is so powerful, and we are so weak". Well, look at the Ukrainians. See what they did, two years after you. Once they had occupied Maidan, in their rage against a pro-Russian president who had broken his promise to move closer to Europe, they did not go back. They set up a tent village, organized and ready to defend themselves. When the police came to dislodge them, they fought back, iron bars and Molotov cocktails in their hands. In the end, the police opened fire; but instead of fleeing, the guys from Maidan charged. Many died, but they won. It was President Viktor Yanukovych who fled, and the Ukrainians regained their democracy, the right to choose their leaders and to fire them when they did their job badly.

Maidan really did not please Putin. It was a bad example. So, while everyone was still stunned, he took over Crimea. Some of you protested that too, in vain. And so many were enthusiastic! "Wonderful! Crimea is ours!" sang an overwhelming majority of your fellow citizens, suddenly drunk with imperial glory. I'm not just talking about the poor people in the ravaged depths of the country, where vodka and potatoes are the alpha and omega of politics, but about some of you, my friends. Writers. Publishers. Intellectuals. And for the Donbass, the same. "Novorossia", the New Russia. Suddenly there was this myth, and some who until then had despised Putin and his clique came to worship it. I don't know why, we quickly stopped talking to each other. As for the others, those who have remained my friends, you have mostly kept silent. "Politics don't interest me," you would say. And you returned to literature, cinema, and Ikea catalogs.

Putin has sought to show you what happens to a people who not only dare to claim their freedom, but attempt to take it back. If you do nothing, much will be lost anyway.

Syria, you hardly noticed. Anyway, they were all terrorists, right? Daesh, or whatever. Even my Moscow editor criticized me in an interview, saying that I did not understand what was going on there. At least I had been there, I had seen, in the streets of Homs, children the age of mine being shot down like rabbits. The only Russians to have been there are those in your army who, in 2015, began bombing Aleppo and training for their next big war.

Many of you, I'm sure, know the famous words of German pastor Martin Niemöller [1892-1984]: "When they came for the Communists, I said nothing because I was not a Communist. When they came for the trade unionists, I said nothing because I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I said nothing because I was not Jewish. And when they came for me, there was no one left to defend me. »

How many of you have stood up for the Chechens, the Syrians, the Ukrainians? There are some, of course, but far too many of you have remained silent. Some, it is true, are raising their voices today, most from abroad, a small number from Russia, taking the risk of being sent to join Alexei Navalny in the gulag. As for the others, you understand well in which country you live. And so you get this: when Putin is done with the Ukrainians – but even more so if he proves unable, as seems likely, to subdue them – he will come looking for you, my friends.

Who will defend you?

For those who bravely came out to protest. For the thousands of you who have signed petitions, or expressed your disagreement on social media, if only by posting a black square on Instagram. The days when ten years of deprivation of liberty, or even twenty-five, were handed over for a joke are not so far away, and they are coming back, it seems. And who will defend you then? Who will be left to do it?

The Ukrainians, even more than in 2014, pose a terrifying example for Putin's regime: they demonstrate that it is possible to fight him and that, if you are smart, motivated, and brave, you can even stop him, no matter how overwhelming his superiority. Nobody in Russia knows this, it seems. But you, my friends, know what is going on. You read the foreign press on the Internet, you all have friends and even family in Ukraine. And Putin knows that you know. So beware. No more good life in exchange for your silence. Your elections are a joke, your laws, apart from the repressive ones, are not worth a damn, your last free media don't exist anymore, your economy is collapsing faster than I can write, you don't even have a credit card to buy a plane ticket anymore, if there are any flights left. Now Putin doesn't just want your silence, he wants your assent, your complicity. And if you don't give it to him, you can either leave or be crushed.

I doubt that you see any alternative, but there is one: to bring down this regime. In the present situation, everything is possible. The spark will not come from you: with the economic crisis that is hitting Russia, it will probably start in the provinces; there, when prices soar and salaries are no longer paid, all those people who voted for Putin because they wanted bread and tranquility will take to the streets. Putin knows it, and he is much more afraid of them than of the middle classes in Moscow or St. Petersburg - you, my dear friends. But if each city protests on its own, as it has already happened, it will not be difficult for him to take over. Things must be coordinated, organized. The crowd has to be transformed into a mass. You have this magic tool, the Internet, a tool that can be used in almost all circumstances.

Be smart, be strategic

Navalny's organization has been liquidated, but others can be set up, more informal, more decentralized. There are many of you, millions of you. The Moscow police can handle 100,000 people in the streets; but with 300,000, they would be overwhelmed. So they will have to call in the army, but would this army fight for Putin? After what he made them do in Ukraine, after what he did to them?

There will be great dangers, for sure. Some of you will be afraid, it is natural, it is normal. I too, in your place, would be afraid. In Syria, and today in Ukraine, Putin has tried to show you, by example, what happens to a people who dare to defy their khoziain, their master and owner, who dare not only to claim their freedom, but even try to take it back. But if you do nothing, so many will be lost anyway. And you know it. One of your sons will make a joke on a video game chat and get arrested; one of your daughters will express her outrage on the Internet and get arrested; a dear friend of yours will make a mistake and die in a damp cell under the blows of a baton. It's been happening for years, and it will continue on an ever-increasing scale. So you have no choice: if you do nothing, you see how it will end. It is time for your own Maidan. Be smart, be strategic, and make it happen.

Reply to boethius Who told you she wasn't?

Quoting Olivier5

Since we've started making predictions, let us hear what Jonathan Littell predicts... It's harsh.

... Two years ago I wouldn't say is "starting" to do something now.

But I don't see what Jonathan Littell is actually predicting ... and you can't have it both ways, arguing that Russia has made an incompetent fool of themselves militarily and Ukraine is winning, and then the next moment argue Russia is an unstoppable juggernaught that's going to roll through all of NATO and Putin will rule us all and so we must act out of self preservation.

With a little 'if NATO made a no-fly zone, like Zalenskyy asks!, could easily dispatch with these low-moral, badly trained, terrible logistics, rubbish tank, Russians; no match for NATO!' sprinkled in here and there.

If Russian military is totally incompetent and the campaign is a disaster, I certainly have nothing to fear, personally, that Putin will "come looking for me", whether Putin eventually prevails against the Ukrainians or not.

Quoting Olivier5

My dear Russian friends: some old friends, some more recent, some I only know from afar, friends in soul and spirit. Times are tough for you too. Like those of all Ukrainians, your lives, never simple, have been turned upside down. Many of you are fleeing Russia. And many of you share with me a feeling of guilt and shame about what your country is doing, in your name, to Ukraine.

It's harsh, and in my opinion, very patronizing. If it is published somewhere it would make a good propaganda piece. I don't remember any letters to American friends from Iraqis.

Yup, good propaganda piece.

As long as somebody wins: looks like everyone is going to lose this time.

Quoting boethius

But I don't see what Jonathan Littell is actually predicting

He is predicting much sufferings for Russians if they don't get rid of Mr Putin now.

Reply to FreeEmotion I would say it is honest and blunt. Not the kind of boring, tasteless, manipulative or dissimulative PC op-ed one would read in your average US newspaper. So yes, you are entitled to be shocked and surprised. It's been published in Le Monde.

Quoting Olivier5

Municipal workers cover the statue of the Italian poet and philosopher Dante Alighieri with sandbags to protect it from shelling in Kyiv.

Looking at the picture, I imagined that there is someone under the flat stone that they REALLY did not want to get loose.

Reply to god must be atheist All the demons from Dante's Hell perhaps...

Reply to Olivier5

Fox news is predicting much suffering for the American people if they don't get rid of President Biden right now, however they will have to wait for elections since those are the rules, and always follow the rules, although other methods have been tried, like media manipulation and meddling.

Of course if President Biden is removed from power, guess who takes over the reigns, and who will have the entire nuclear arsenal at her disposal?

Empires come and go, I am not impressed by any of those killing machines. Maybe they meant well. Really boring me to death with their talk of greatness and then unleashing destruction on people who oppose them.

Noteworthy:

US Empire (1776-present)

Ancient Period (BC)

Egyptian Empire (3100BC to 30 BC)
Norte Chico Empire (3000-1800 BC)
Indus Valley: Empires: Harappa and Mohenjo-Darro (2550-1550 BC)
Akkadian Empire (2500-2000 BC)
Babylonian Empire (1792-1595 BC)
Ancient Chinese Empires: Shang (1751-1111 BC), Chou (1000-800 BC), etc.
Hittite Empire (1500-1200 BC)
Assyrian Empire (1244-612 BC)
Persian Empires (550 BC to 637 AD) including Achemenid Empire (550-330 BC), Sassanian Empire (224 BC-651 AD)
Carthaginian Empire (ca. 475-146 BC)
Athenian Empire (461-440 BC, 362-355 BC)
Macedonian Empire (359-323 BC)
Roman Empire (264 BC to 476 AD)
Parthian Empire (247 BC- 224 AD)

Pre-Modern Period (to 1500)

African Empires: Ethiopian Empire (ca. 50-1974), Mali Empire (ca. 1210-1490), Songhai Empire (1468-1590), Fulani Empire (ca. 1800-1903)
Mesoamerican Empires esp. Maya Empire (ca. 300-900) Teotihuacan Empire (ca. 500-750), Aztec Empire (1325-ca. 1500)
Byzantine Empire (330-1453)
Andean Empires: Huari Empire (600-800); Inca Empire (1438-1525)
Chinese Pre-Modern Empires: including T'ang Dynasty (618-906), Sung Dynasty (906-1278)
Islamic Empires esp. Umayyid/Abbasid (661-1258), Almohad (1140-1250), Almoravid (1050-1140)
Carolingian Empire (ca. 700-810)
Bulgarian Empire (802-827, 1197-1241)
Southeast Asian Empires: Khmer Empire (877-1431), Burmese Empire (1057-1287)
Novogorod Empire (882-1054)
Medieval German Empire (962-1250)
Danish Empire (1014-1035)
Indian Empires, including Chola Empire (11th cent), Empire of Mahmud of Ghazni (998-1039 AD), Mughal Empire (1526-1805)
Mongol Empire (1206-1405)
Mamluk Empire (1250-1517)
Holy Roman Empire (1254-1835)
Habsburg Empire (1452-1806)
Ottoman Empire (1453-1923)

Modern Period (after 1500)

Portuguese Empire (ca. 1450-1975)
Spanish Empire (1492-1898)
Russian Empire/USSR (1552-1991)
Swedish Empire (1560-1660)
Dutch Empire (1660-1962)
British Empire (1607-ca. 1980)
French Empire (ca. 1611- ca. 1980)
Modern Chinese Empire: esp. Ch'ing Dynasty (1644-1911)
Austrian/Austro-Hungarian Empire (ca. 1700-1918) [see also Habsburg Empire]
US Empire (1776-present)
Brazilian Empire (1822-1889)
German Empire (1871-1918, 1939-1945)
Japanese Empire (1871-1945)
Italian Empire (1889-1942)



https://archive.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/155-history/25992-empires-in-world-history.html

Quoting FreeEmotion

Of course if President Biden is removed from power, guess who takes over the reigns, and who will have the entire nuclear arsenal at her disposal?

Somebody controlled by the FSB, I would guess.

FAUX News is a lie machine BTW.

Meanwhile, I am at loss to understand the BBC news item here posted.

Ukraine has said it would adopt neutral status - one of Russia's key demands - in return for security guarantees, its negotiators have said.
Neutral status would mean Ukraine would not join any military alliances, such as Nato, or host military bases.

The proposals would also include a 15-year consultation period on the status of annexed Crimea and would come into force only in the event of a complete ceasefire, Ukraine said.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-60890199

Promises can be broken so I do not see the point except to bring a ceasfire.

Quoting Olivier5

He is predicting much sufferings for Russians if they don't get rid of Mr Putin now.

Ok, so let's go along with this new assumption that your main concern, or at least a big concern, is the welfare of the Russian people.

Well, what can we do about it?

Won't filling Ukraine with hand held missiles just anger Putin more, and he'll then takeout that anger on Russian's contribute to more Russian suffering, not to mention the Russians blown up by said missiles?

In particular, if those hand held missiles can't beat Russia ... what reason would there be to send those weapons systems into Ukraine if it only causes Russian suffering with zero benefits to Ukrainians?

Reply to boethius The letter is not mine. It was written by Franco-American writer-activist Jonathan Littell, who spent a lot of time in Russia when he was working for the NGO Action Against Hunger, and has friends there.

The letter is not about ammunition given by the west to the Ukrainians in their legitimate fight against their aggressor. It has nothing to do with it.

The letter is meant for Russians. It tells them that, if they can summon enough courage, there is in fact an alternative between fleeing and being crushed: that of fighting back. Like the Ukrainians have done.

Quoting Olivier5

My Dear Russian Friends, It’s Time For Your Maidan
Jonathan Littell

With a straight face - this entire thing was the worst piece of trash I have read since the invasion started. Imagine some Anglo piece of shit in his armchair somewhere telling you that you're not doing enough to resist a regime like Putin's. He has the temerity to wax poetic about 90s Russia when one of the most popular slogans among the Russians remains "the nineties: never again". And then he uses Maidan - a Western supported coup that took place in a basket-case nation with a barely-there state apparatus - to tut tut about ordinary Russians being unable to do the same. And throughout all this he says nothing, literally not a word, about Western support for Putin that not only helped put him into power, but has kept him there so long as the oil has flowed nicely and right up until the point he started getting too uppity on the borders. And what - does he think ordinary Russians don't know the things he writes about? The sham elections and corruption and so on? Like he's imparting some kind of news to them they they don't directly live, day to day? Oh he does end up acknowledging that they do know it, only to use that to further condescend to them from the high-horse he's strapped to. Not to mention the little nod to Navalny, a xenophobic piece of trash who is far more popular in the West than he ever has been among his homeland.

That's not a 'letter to Russian friends'. That's a letter to Westerners in order to make them feel morally superior under the guise of writing to 'Russian friends'. The patronising arrogance it exudes is noxious to high heaven. How anyone can read that without scrunching up one's face is beyond me. As the kids say, it's fucking cringe. That imperious, faux-humble tone throughout - it makes one want to throw up. This kind of 'letter' is what happens when you give a liberal with zero sense of class consciousness a pen and paper.

Can one imagine some Chinese or Iranian writer penning something similar about the West?: "oh my friends, yes, your leaders have committed mass genocide literally anywhere on Earth they have ever stepped foot, but why oh why won't you do something about it?". It's be written off as a laughable piece of wank meant only to impress some Chinese or Iranian leadership bigwigs. God, I've read so much utter, complete fuckwittery about this whole conflict since its started but this one takes the cake. Congratulations on finding the worst possible piece of English prose on Russia to have yet been vomited out into the world.

Modest reasons for optimism. Russian minister of offence has promised to decrease military activity as a gesture of good faith resulting from the discussions in Istanbul today. Let's hope they keep their word and peace talks are indeed constructive.

Quoting Olivier5

The letter is not mine.

I literally mention the author by name in my response.

However, if it's not views you agree with, then you should make that clear, that, for example, you disagree on Putin's ability to subjugate Russians all that much, as the Kremlin, military and intelligence organs of the Russian state are incompetent.

Quoting Olivier5

Somebody controlled by the FSB, I would guess.

Vice President Kamala Harris - FSB? I must say I never suspected. They are good.

Quoting Benkei

Modest reasons for optimism. Russian minister of offence has promised to decrease military activity as a gesture of good faith resulting from the discussions in Istanbul today. Let's hope they keep their word and peace talks are indeed constructive.

Agreed.

This may also be a sign of calling out the West and Zelenskyy on the referendum idea.

If there is a referendum on Russia's demands ... and wins ... that does indeed settle the issue for basically ever.

Likewise, how does that jive with the "Russia is anti-democratic" narrative if they call for and "respect" a referendum result?

If they pull back from Kiev, and fronts stabilise, then they are now in the position of making their offer and just publicly demanding Zelenskyy hold a referendum as he said he would. Cue fireworks.

The destruction of Azov in Mariupol may also embolden anti-Azov sections of Ukrainian society.

It should also be noted that although Zelenskyy down plays Azov, it's not the case that they're best friends. There's a bunch of stories / rumours of Zelenskyy trying to reason with the Azov guys to stop the 8 year war in the East. So, not actually liking Azov is maybe some common ground between Zelenskyy's personal beliefs and the Russians, and if a lot of the Azov guys are dead, that may bring some stability to the situation as well.

But, I hope for any resolution of the destruction, however it is achieved.

Conditions do seem being put in place for a resolution, but of course it's never possible to know who is being genuine or if events (accidental or not) set escalation off again.

Quoting boethius

if it's not views you agree with, then you should make that clear,

Just saying, if you want to talk about that letter, do talk about what is actually said in the letter, rather than other stuff that has nothing to see with it.

The letter is not about ammunition given by the west to the Ukrainians in their legitimate fight against their aggressor. It has nothing to do with it.

The letter is meant for Russians. It tells them that, if they can summon enough courage, there is in fact an alternative between fleeing and being crushed: that of fighting back. Like the Ukrainians have done.

Now if you agree or disagree with precisely that, we can talk about iit.But i am not interested in yet another convoluted, illogical effort of yours to prove that Biden is a devil or Putin an angel. Don't take me for a ride.

Quoting Olivier5

If you want to talk about that letter, do address what is actually said in the letter, rather than other stuff that has nothing to see with it.

I've made it pretty clear that I don't like authoritatianism ... but, precisely due to the nature of authoritarianism that I don't like, we have very little influence over the Kremlin and Putin.

Not only do we have far more influence in more democratic countries, but, on top of that practical fact, I, personally, feel morally responsible to contribute to the policies of my own country and my country's own political organisations like the EU, than personally morally responsible for what Russians and Putin does.

If I thought life in Russia was great, I'd move there.

The West could let Ukraine into the EU tonight.

NATO could let Ukraine into NATO tonight.

These options have been ruled out, and so the choice is between diplomacy and ... maybe just letting Russia win through force if nothing short of boots on the ground and planes in the sky actually makes a difference to the outcome.

If diplomacy is the better choice, then diplomacy starts with understanding the counter-parties point of view and not just ignoring their grievances and calling them names and exaggerating their power and threat to us, while simultaneously exaggerating their mistakes and short comings.

As I've mentioned repeatedly in my exchange with @ssu, maybe the Russian lines and state will collapse tomorrow, and, if the Western media and everyone on the forum was just predicting Russia's inevitable victory, then I'd be here arguing that (even though I can't see it based on my own military experience) that "maybe" Ukraine has some military surprise and maybe things just fall apart militarily and domestically for the Russians.

We don't know. Therefore, different points of view are more useful, from my point of view, than the point of view that other points of view should be excluded because they maybe correct and pointing that out makes that view point even more likely than it already is.

We do not know the facts on the grounds, but if we want some diplomatic process then we need a sober analysis of what information we do have and what it may represent and how other people may see the same information, in particular the people we wish to negotiate with.

A month ago we were essentially promised the collapse of the Russian military, due to morale problems, and revolution in the streets of Moscow. So why negotiate with a state that will be gone tomorrow? Unless, you know, that was bullshit to egg Ukraine on into total war.

Negotiation requires risk evaluation. The Western media simply bad mouthing Russia for a month and continuously lambasting Russia for failure as they take territory ... is not, in my view, a good risk-analysis framework, and likewise essentially excluding all other points of views but just parading yes-men retired generals (who have no more facts than us!) is not a basis for critical scrutiny to assess the likelihood of what they predict.

Additionally, negotiation requires some rational model of the counter-parties decision making, otherwise it's impossible to make offers and counter offers that are likely to arrive at an agreement.

Reply to boethius When you say 'we' you mean pro-Putin guys like you, or some other group?

Stick to what Russians themselves can do, as this is the subject of the letter. Americans, Chinese, French, Zimbabweans, Fins, can't do much... The question is: can the Russians follow the example of the Ukrainians and revolt? What do you think?

Quoting Olivier5

When you say 'we' you mean pro-Putin guys like you, or some other group?

We non-Russians.

Quoting Olivier5

Stick to what Russians themselves can do, as this is the subject of the letter.

I spend a lot more time thinking about what I can do, and I have spent very little time on what Russians should do.

However, history teaches us there is no straightforward path to peace and prosperity.

If radical revolutionaries were always correct in revolting ... I'm pretty sure history would teach us the revolution has already happened and everything is great now.

Hmm, indeed, maybe Russia's own history demonstrates the danger of that idea.

The reason I call myself an anarchist, and not a communist, is that I do not believe in the revolutionary moment tradition. Things seem to me far more complicated. Predictable, but complicated.

I also do not believe in capturing the state to "make people better". People are far too avid and corrupt for that.

How to make life better in Russia is not a simple question, I know little of the culture and what affect any given action may actually have, and what is actually productive and what is in fact counter productive and a mere quaint gesture for one's own emotional satisfaction (the cowards way out).

However, how to make life in Ukraine better is far easier question to answer: negotiate an end to the war.

And, negotiation is something I know far more about than how to provoke regime change in Russia via revolt in a way that results in more democracy and not something even worse.

Quoting boethius

I spend a lot more time thinking about what I can do,

Well then, you can't really comment on Littell's letter, because it's not about what non-Russians can do.

Why are you comfortable writing about what the Ukrainians should do, though, but afraid of writing about what the Russians should do? Are you Ukrainian?

Quoting Olivier5

Well then, you can't really comment on Littell's letter, because it's not about what non-Russians can do.

I can comment, I just can't say if what he suggests to do is actually the best course of action.

Or then, if by "revolt" against authoritarianism could mean just anything effective, ok, I agree, but what's actually effective is the key question, and the general advice is the mere tautology that "Russians should do good things" ... as we all.

What I can say with more certainty is that "we in the West" haven't figured it out.

We have "democracy" ... but not over the entire political and economic system as a whole that our states effectively "rule", in our name and with our "consent": We have democracy over here and get our products and resources from tyrannies over there.

Seems more like geographically segregated aristocracy.

Alarming? Not actually, but still...

(The Guardian) The Kremlin again raised the spectre of the use of nuclear weapons in the war with Ukraine as Russian forces struggled to hold a key city in the south of the country.

Dmitry Medvedev, a former Russian president who is deputy chairman of the country’s security council, said Moscow could strike against an enemy that only used conventional weapons while Vladimir Putin’s defence minister claimed nuclear “readiness” was a priority.

Russia would only use nuclear weapons in the context of the Ukraine conflict if it were facing an "existential threat," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told CNN International Tuesday.

* * *

One possible way the conflict could become larger is if the fighting would have Belarus involved. But yet notice that here the talk is only about a "company", which could mean basically anything between 30 to 300 men (as voluntary groups aren't standard military formations). Yet I assume some would see sinister links here just with whom the Belarussian volunteers train with. Still it should be noted, that Belarus hasn't joined the fight. At least yet.

Quoting boethius

Although this could be accurate, again I feel the need to debate it.

Agreed, total capitulation is what Putin, Kremlin and the Russia military would prefer (who wouldn't).

However, if you look at events on the ground, they go uncontested from Crimea, basically the first day to take Kherson and first couple days to link up with their forces in the East. These were insanely quick manoeuvres, and achieved 2 critical strategic objectives of taking a position South-West of the Dnieper, thus requiring Ukrainians to commit a large amount of troops to guarding a long defensive line to avoid Ukraine being cut North-South ... instead of a small amount of troops if they just blew-up all the bridges or defended Kherson with urban combat resulting in a prolonged siege.

I think that Ukrainian strategy hasn't been to stop the advances on the border, but defense in depth and to defend key cities. Defense in depth means to let the armoured spearheads to penetrate, wear the attacker down in depth and attack his supply lines and only defend key points like major crossings or cities. Do note the long advance that happen at the north to the eastern side of Kyiv also and also the various Ukrainian pockets. With the force levels and the size of the country, the front line can be quite sparse.

I remember also one commentator making the argument that the army responsible Crimean front came from the southern military district that has seen far more action than other armies (and hence it performance can be better).

Quoting boethius

what's actually effective is the key question

As argued in the letter, an emulation of Maidan is the answer to that. I.e. do what the Ukrainians did.

I still note that you treat Ukrainians very differently that Russians. You are not afraid of giving them advice, and also to the Americans or the French, but you are afraid of advising the Russians. Strange that... :-)

Quoting ssu

One possible way the conflict could become larger is if the fighting would have Belarus involved.

This seems unlikely for the simple fact that Belarus is not so stable internally and they add little firepower anyways compared to Russia (i.e. the risk of revolution within Belarus sparked by soldiers dying who aren't "volunteers" ... and then Russia needing to commit resources to deal with that, likely far exceeds the military benefits).

Ukraine can also far easier strike/invade Belarus than Russia, so there would be that purely military risk in an official declaration of war.

However, militaries are always searching for "experience" so likely these "volunteers" are a way to get best of both worlds for soldiers that are itching for the fight and their whole social circle concludes they got what was coming to them if they die, rather than the entire state needs to be over thrown.

There's also the fact of Belarus bordering Poland, so an official declaration of war could mean Ukraine invade Belarus on the Polish border, baiting NATO into the conflict and also severe escalation of tensions.

For the exact same list of reasons, but just the answer being the reverse, it makes more sense to bring Syria into it, which apparently has happened to some degree.

Quoting Olivier5

but you are afraid of advising the Russians. Strange that.

It's the old testament Father full of thunder and lightning. You can't reason with it. You just have to sacrifice your best stuff to calm it down.

For real.

Quoting boethius

This seems unlikely for the simple fact that Belarus is not so stable internally and they add little firepower anyways compared to Russia

Yes. I would emphasize more the tense political situation in Belarus. Remember the mass protests against Lukashenko? The last thing Belarus would need would be to participate in a war it has absolutely no appetite in participating in. That already quite openly Belarussians are volunteering to join the Ukrainian side tells something (and that the opposition leader is found outside the country).

It could be counterproductive for Putin to pressure Lukashenko to join the war even more.

Quoting Olivier5

You are not afraid of giving them advice, and also to the Americans or the French, but you are afraid of advising the Russians. Strange that... :-)

This has simply not been a topic of discussion.

You have been morally condemning the Russians and advising the Ukrainians to fight the Russians, and advising NATO and EU to keep sending more arms.

You just claimed a few comments ago Russia is irrational ... so what's the point of advising an irrational party?

You literally post a letter a few comments ago, literally some 3000 comments into this discussion, that, as far as I'm aware, is the first content advising the Russians to do anything ... which is not even your writing and it directly contradicts your "opinions" repeated, but not supported, over dozens of comments.

I have zero fear advising the Russians ... I just don't see any here or around me to advise.

Bring me "The Russians" and you will see a fearless viceroy at work.

Reply to frank I suspect the real reason is more prosaic. If it is not for him to give them advice, it might be that the opposite is the case: they give him 'advice'.

Quoting ssu

It could be counterproductive for Putin to pressure Lukashenko to join the war even more.

Yes, we're in agreement. If anything, I think it would be more Lukashenko wanting "to jump in" and demonstrate what he can do, and Putin calming him down, seeing the wider context ... and Belarus in the fight not changing much anyways.

Quoting Olivier5

suspect the real reason is more prosaic. If it is not for him to give them advice, it might be that the opposite is the case: they give him 'advice'.

Oh. Could be.

Quoting Olivier5

I suspect the real reason is more prosaic. If it is not for him to give them advice, it might be that the opposite is the case: they give him 'advice'.

You want a violent revolution in Russia with blood pouring in the streets?

If this then, in itself triggers WWIII and nuclear exchange, or then hundreds of nuclear warheads go missing on the black market in a chaotic unraveling of the Russian state, finding their way into the hands of every radical group and despot that can get their hands on one, are you really owning those consequences? Is it really what you want?

Or then transforms into a civil war within Russia and, guess what, the commander willing to not hesitate to use tactical nuclear weapons prevails ... and continues with that philosophy to solve whatever other regional conflict emerges ... or is concurrently happening in Ukraine and just daring NATO to launch a strategic nuclear strike in an irrational response to tactical nuclear weapons dropped on non-NATO countries? You rather that outcome? You ready to own that possibility?

Or does it just sound tough to say on the internet and you zero have affect on the situation anyways, zero choices that would actually demonstrate your moral toughness, and zero personal risk "advising" your Russian friends to "revolt"?

The only reason people are so cavalier, as one poster put it, with World War III is that either they simply don't consider that possible outcome at all and have no idea what the fuck they're talking about, or they know actual adults elsewhere will avoid things escalating to that point, based on the realist philosophies expounded here, and so there's no risk in saber rattling and demonstrating your war horny credentials on the internet meanwhile. To say later to internet friends that "you were there, ready to drop nukes on Russia to save Ukraine ... but the softies had their way."

Quoting boethius

zero personal risk "advising" your Russian friends to "revolt"

I'm not personally advising anyone to revolt. I know too little and as you said, I have no influence whatsoever. It was Mr Littell's advice based on his own analysis and knowledge. I tend to think he is right that the situation will worsen, and so now is the time, but what do I know? You are right that it seems next to impossible to succeed.

Quoting boethius

You want a violent revolution in Russia with blood pouring in the streets.

If this then, in itself triggers WWIII and nuclear exchange, or then hundreds of nuclear warheads go missing on the black market in a chaotic unraveling of the Russian state, are you really owning those consequences?

Now that IS interesting. The current leadership has been saying again and again recently, in various official statements, that a desintegration of Russia or a threat on its regime could trigger a nuclear holocaust. And now you seem to be arguing the exact same talking point.

If I understand correctly, the idea is NOT that they could use nukes in Ukraine if things go south there, as CNN wrongly (IMO) concluded. What I am hearing in all these recent pronouncements, including in yours, is a different message which says: If this particular regime goes down, e g. by a revolution, then the whole world might go down with it through a nuclear holocaust.

Do you confirm this is what you mean? Because it is a pretty extraordinary statement...

Reply to Olivier5
What's weird is that you're supposed to be wary of giving Russia or Ukraine bad advice. Like, they might take it and then you own the consequences.

That kind of communication is known as prayer.

Quoting Olivier5

Now that IS interesting. The current leadership has been saying again and again recently, in various official statements, that a desintegration of Russia or a threat on its regime could trigger a nuclear holocaust. And now you seem to be arguing the exact same talking point.

It's not "arguing" a "talking point".

It's an undisputed fact that people who can launch nuclear weapons ... can launch nuclear weapons.

That "it could trigger a nuclear holocaust" is not up for debate.

One can only argue they're bluffing and advocate calling their bluff.

However, even if they are bluffing, they may not be in charge anyways for long during the events you hope for, and the people that do become in charge of the the nukes turn out not to be bluffing, even if the previous custodians were.

... indeed, maybe they would be "the previous custodians" precisely because they were bluffing, and, therefore, that "mistake" shouldn't be repeated.

Quoting Olivier5

If I understand correctly, the idea is NOT that they could use nukes in Ukraine if things go south there, as CNN wrongly (IMO) concluded.

Obviously they could.

However, it's extremely unlikely for things to "go south" in the current situation.

This scenario was more in the event of direct NATO air power intervention, which most analysts agreed would be met with a nuclear escalation of some sort (from limited strike or then EMP reaching all the way to Norway). Escalate to deescalate as @ssu mentioned is Russian policy.

Quoting Olivier5

What I am hearing in all these recent pronouncements, including in yours, is a different message which says: If this particular regime goes down, e g. by a revolution, then the whole world might go down with it through a nuclear holocaust.

Yes, because it's obviously possible, and even the likely bet, because chaotic revolution and regimes collapsing rarely actually results in a smooth peaceful transition to democracy, but instead triggers a series of more and more violent coups shaking out the most extreme, most violent, most ruthless and most couiest commander to the top.

Putin, who did not gain power by a coup but rather working the Russian political system as it exists, is, in such a scenario, the devil you know and should trust to not himself cause nuclear holocaust, as if he wanted to he would have done so already.

In a violent revolution it will not be Putin in charge. The Kremlin maybe signalling not a threat, just the likely outcome of themselves no longer being in charge, which is what regime change means! For fuck sakes. Crikey.

It's not "what would you do in the event of regime change?" it's "what would the most violent and ruthless commander you know do in the event you guys are no longer in charge to stop him?"

These are obviously scenarios that should weigh on any responsible person's mind.

Quoting frank

What's weird is that you're supposed to be wary of giving Russia or Ukraine bad advice. Like, they might take it and then you own the consequences.

Who on earth has suggested such a ludicrous thing?

Reply to frank Yes, although one could argue a symmetrical point against not advising a friend when you should have.

Quoting boethius

the devil you know

We could still discover new sides of him, but yes, there might be some truth there. However, nobody is eternal, and no regime is eternal either.

Quoting boethius

You have been morally condemning the Russians and advising the Ukrainians to fight the Russians, and advising NATO and EU to keep sending more arms.

I have not given advice to anyone. NATO, the EU, none of the actors you mentioned is reading TPFand they have not asked for our advice. If by any malchance they are really lurking and reading these pages in search of a clue about what to do next, then 1) we are truly screwed; 2) let me tell them: I know strictly nothing about military matters; so please don't listen to me.

Quoting Olivier5

We could still discover new sides of him, but yes, there might be some truth there. However, nobody is eternal, and no regime is eternal either.

This is the usual route to democratisation. Someone concentrates all or a lot of power and, what goes along with that, is that no one in the second echelon has despotic ambitions.

And, Putin as a "dictator" is a caricature; Putin still needs to work within a political system with lots of actors and even democratic process. Certainly has concentrated power, but Putin's power within Russia is simply not comparable to Kim's power with North Korea or Xi's power within China.

Also of note, Putin only started really concentrating power, and doing things like changing the constitution, when the CIA took Medvedev (a moderate) as a sign of weakness and first, to Putin's surprise, declared Georgia and Ukraine would "join NATO one day" (still waiting on that), "interpreted" a "no fly zone" (which used to mean what it sounds like: you can't fly there, but can, like, walk as that's not flying) and then set their sights on Tartus.

Medvedev negotiated the new START treaty for example ... not an escalatory action.

Also of note, following the Georgian war and escalation of tensions with the US and West in general, Putin consolidated power and replaced the second echelon with non-moderates; nevertheless, he still appointed the moderates to important positions (at least nominally), such as Medvedev to the chairman of the security council ... which is more a re-balancing of policy priorities, that still includes moderate voices, than some sort of purge. Certainly not the typical actions of a "despot", such as Sadam Hussein who had his generals executed for retreating from a unwinnable suicidal battle.

I.e. concentrating and consolidating power was a response (whether we see it as a good decision or bad) to a real external threat, which the US isn't coy about calling Russia the enemy and the "near peer competitor" that they can't leave alone and so on.

Previous to the Libya, Syria, Crimea plays (in addition to all sorts of cloak and dagger spy shit we can only guess about) ... Russia, and Putin, was literally minding their own business. Ok, maybe things can be improved there but like ... seems the same everywhere and that there are a lot worse governments, that behead people in public and shit.

In any-case, democratisation usually happens after the death or retirement of a strong man, because he surrounded himself with competent or then incompetent bureaucratic types that don't have the ambition to replace him ... so don't bother when the opportunity arises, and so they then get together and decide elections is the way they all don't die in some sequence of violent coups. And, it was mostly about having sex with women, and being killed in a coup seems contrary to that purpose.

Of course, there are exceptions like North Korea, but this has been accomplished by essentially creating a functionally king ideology, idiosyncratic to Korean culture.

Quoting Olivier5

I have not given advice to anyone. NATO, the EU, none of the actors you mentioned is reading TPFand they have not asked for our advice.

Ok ... so if I understand correctly you are in favour of certain actions but are not advising those actions you're in favour of be carried out?

To be clear, I have zero problem saying I am in favour of diplomatic resolution and I do indeed advise all parties to try to reach a diplomatic resolution as soon as possible and the foundations of an enduring peace.

I advise this here, I also advised this (well, avoid war in Eastern Europe in the first place) to my government in a letter I wrote the prime minister 2 years ago. Some hapless bureaucrat wrote back.

They didn't take my advice ... but who knows, maybe they will next time. Luckily, since I live in a democratic society (at least the aristocratic population of a larger "democracy" Athenians would actually recognise) where I can affect policy, I'm able, indeed, to advise politicians and bureaucrats directly and perhaps affect their thinking for the better. What's relevant in such political action are the policies of my country, indeed sometimes with respect to the policies of other countries, but what's less relevant is internal matters of other countries that have no real external policy response to change ... except maybe nuking them.

Reply to boethius Advising people is a business. Amateurs don't advise professionals. We are all amateurs here, are we not?

You can of course write down the words: 'I advise Biden to do X'. That you can do. But chances are your 'advice' ain't going to get to him. Because he receives a lot of advice, from other people than you. He pays dear money and far more attention to their advice than to yours and mine. As good as it may be...

Now if you ask me as a hypothetical: what would you advise Biden to do, IF (humongous if) he happened to ask for your advice, then I can think of something along the lines of keeping it steady and non-provocative as you do, man. Just don't lose the script. It freaks people out.

Quoting Olivier5

Advising people is a business. Amateurs don't advise professionals. We are all amateurs here, are we not?

@Benkei is a lawyer, @Isaac is a shrink of some sort, and I'm a board director of corporations.

Quoting Olivier5

You can of course write down the words: 'I advise Biden to do X'. That you can do. But chances are your 'advice' ain't going to get to him. Because he receives a lot of advice, from other people than you. He pays dear money and far more attention to their advice than to yours and mine. As good as it may be...

You underestimate the infectiousness of ideas, the complexity of the world's social network, and humanity's response to new information.

Just because it's easier today ... doesn't somehow mean there's less impact of anonymous pamphleteers than there was in the enlightenment.

Look around you: everything you see, every tool used to build it, every plan to put it in motion and connect it with other things, every unfathomably long list of goals everything you see represents, and every political and ethical framework in which anything happens in society at all, was once an idea in one person's head.

Furthermore, if you trace all these ideas that you see to their real root, the "original" and not just a variation or implementation of some pre-existing vision, the real preconditions of human
thought and activity, what will you find? That all these truly foundational ideas originated in a handful of philosophers and mathematicians.

Why are we even talking about nuclear weapons? The damned mathematicians that brought us here, and not just the prerequisite theory for the Manhattan project: But all the way back to Babylon. A relatively short list of truly revolutionary mathematical minds.

If you dig below the surface, you'll find we live in the heads of a tiny group of people, their dreams and their madness.

Quoting boethius

The damned mathematicians that brought us here, and not just the prerequisite theory for the Manhattan project: but all the way back to Babylon. A relatively short list of truly revolutionary mathematical minds.

And you and I are part of that 'very short list', you think? Or are you rather saying that we are part of some universal idea exchange fair?

Quoting Olivier5

And you and I are part of that 'very short list', you think? Or are you rather saying that we are part of some universal idea exchange fair?

Who knows these things.

In any event, it's a handful of Chinese sages centuries from now who get to decide.

Quoting boethius

In any event, it's a handful of Chinese sages centuries from now who get to decide.

Sure thing, as long as they don't pin it on me.

Quoting Olivier5

All the demons from Dante's Hell perhaps...

No...no...something more sinister...more nefarious. Like Western journalist who cover the Ukrainian crisis.

Reply to god must be atheist :fire:

Quoting Olivier5

Sure thing, as long as they don't pin it on me.

Look, I'm just "a guy" who found at around 12—after reading all the popular physics books I could find, the complete history of WWII and Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy—Isaiah Berlin's "The Power of Ideas" .... and thought to myself, "I can play this game, nothing they can do I can't do better." Just as the motivational posters instructed me to do, you know "reach for the stars" and "follow your dreams" or whatever.

Quoting boethius

Look, I'm just "a guy" who found at around 12—after reading all the popular physics books I could find, the complete history of WWII and Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy—and read Isaiah Berlin's "Power of Ideas" .... and thought to myself, "I can play this game, nothing they can do I can't do better."

You mean, you were smart once?

What happened to you, after 12?

Quoting Olivier5

You mean, you were smart once?

The game is played now, the score is tallied in 300 to 1000 years.

It's not really so much about being smart, although that certainly helps, it's about the right ideas for the right moment.

And I didn't make the rules, it just so happens foundational concepts get reviewed and added to seldomly. Why? is a good foundational question to ask.

Reply to boethius I have no idea what you are talking about.

Quoting Olivier5

I have no idea what you are talking about.

You gotta read the book.

Which, to be honest, is often the case in discussing philosophy.

Reply to boethius I've read all the books.

Reply to Olivier5

Well that's convenient, and you certainly have the advantage over me in that regard.

Indeed, I'll have to keep on my guard in that respect.

Reply to boethius I mean, I read the good ones... :chin:

Reply to Isaac

[i]> The link is to having reasons to post about it, not reasons to believe it. I know it's hard for the Twitter generation to understand but I don't feel compelled to post everything I think online.
[…]
I don't see why you're having such trouble with this, I don't have to provide a reason why I haven't posted something I think. It's quite normal to not post things one thinks.[/i]

Normal? Well that depends on how we apply conversational maxims (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle) to the present discussion. Notice that if you are more vocal about one side of the story, and more reticent about the other side of story, that’s ambiguous. E.g. abstaining from saying that Putin is blameless while insisting that the West is blameworthy, is consistent with thinking that the West is entirely blameworthy, or more blameworthy, or equally blameworthy, or less blameworthy in comparison to Putin as far as the genesis and continuation of this war is concerned, so it’s unclear what the point made is and if it’s enough to justify a suggested course of action. Now, my initial claim concerning your dialectical approach (not only yours though) is that if we are discussing moral/strategic reasons behind this war, then one proves his/her effort to be more objective by articulating their views on both cases also to better assess them in comparison. This expectation has nothing to do with your personal preferences or a Twitter generation’s compulsion, but all to do with what a more objective strategic/moral analysis should look like.


[i]> Is it immoral to fight for one’s own nation’s independence and/or for the freedom that one enjoys in such independent nation? — neomac
Fighting a war over a flag is without doubt immoral.[/i]

Why? Is this a basic moral principle of yours or did you deduce it from more basic moral principles? Can you elaborate on this? Of course nobody is fighting over a flag, literally speaking. If they do, that’s because they value some national identity that the flag represents, and that is deeply rooted into their personal history and upbringing within a certain community. In that sense, Israel for example has fought and is fighting over a flag against hostile neighbors. The same do Palestinians against Israel. The same did the Indians against the British colonial oppression, and the Algerian against the French colonial oppression. Are they all without doubt immoral?! I don't think so.


[i]> Isn’t there any civic duty to fight for one’s own nation against the oppression of other nations’ tyrants? Don’t you really see any moral imperative in trying to contain the geopolitical ambitions of a ruthless tyrant even if at risk of total defeat? — neomac
Yes. I'm arguing against certain strategies, not the objective.[/i]

Do you mean that the only morally legitimate fight against a military aggressive ruthless tyrant is not through war but through economic sanctions and non-violent protests? Or what else do you see as morally legitimate strategy to fight against foreign oppression? BTW do you claim that strategy should be always constrained by morality also at the price of a more likely defeat?


> No one argued he needed it. A vase doesn't need me to knock it over in order to smash, any number of things might cause that. This doesn't excuse me if I did, in fact, knock it over.

I find this example more misleading than enlightening wrt what I claimed. Let's make one step back. My assumption here is that we are not dealing with some simple and mechanistic causal link between intentional action and consequences, but with intentional interactions involving geopolitical agents with strategic interests, means to serve them (including propaganda), expectations about reciprocal behavioral patterns (including proven ambitions and risk aversion dispositions) and limited rationality in processing the preferable outcome. And the other assumption is that one can assess responsibility wrt some pertinent and preeminent moral principle (where there might be potentially conflicting moral understanding of the situation) by agents capable of free and informed choices.
Now, from a strategic point of view, the idea that Putin was knowingly and recklessly provoked into a war by the West sounds plausible only if, on one side, we reason in terms of containment of the Russian military expansionism (not in terms of Russian national security concerns) but, on the other side, we overlook the nature of containment strategies to give more credit to fabricated national security concerns. Indeed the lack of a credible imminent threat from Ukraine to Russia (since Ukraine has neither nuclear weapons nor proved aggressive expansionist intentions) makes the West interference in Ukraine look as a provocation to Russia as much as putting rottweilers and cameras around a villa looks as a provocation to burglars. And since rottwailers and cameras usually function as a deterrent more effectively than their absence, we can reasonably predict that they should reduce not increase the likelihood of being burgled. So this alleged “provocation” is defensive and not offensive, preventive and not aggressive, and should reduce not increase the likelihood of an attack. On the other side, Putin proved to be a ruthless tyrant, very much inspired by the idea of making Russia great again, aggressive in foreign politics, admittedly averse to Ukraine national identity and independence from Russia. In fact he attempted at Ukrainian self-determination repeatedly at least since 2004, so a while before NATO membership became the new provocation, the simple manifestation of Ukrainian national self-determination was already an intolerable provocation. Therefore, if you add to that the disproportion of military capability between Russia and Ukraine, then you can understand that Putin constituted a real imminent threat to the Ukrainians and could have likely tried to impose his will against any Ukrainian resistance by military means even without Western interference, as he did in Chechnya. In other words, Putin was a threat to Ukrainian national security much much more seriously than Ukraine was to Russian national security. That’s why Ukrainians were and are looking for the western military support.
Moreover, actions and reactions between geopolitical agents are not a one to one correlation. Western interference in Ukraine at the expense of Russian expansionist ambitions was balanced by not admitting Ukraine into NATO (whose raison d’être was already in question in the West!) and preserving economic ties with Russia, which put together resulted in a sort of “carrot & stick” logic of containment. So, Putin wasn’t cornered into waging war against Ukraine in any strategically reasonable sense, even if the perceived threat from NATO was more serious than it actually was, as once again the Cuban missile crisis proves. Putin could have countered Western interference through sanctions or military agreements. Or through whatever “carrot & stick” strategy was compatible with his expansionist ambitions.
From a moral point of view, the moral principle of legitimate defense applies to Ukrainian case more seriously than it does to the Russian case. While the moral principle that one shouldn’t put in danger civilian’s life & well being nor increase such a danger applies under two reasonable conditions. The first condition is that it doesn’t conflict with the former principle, in other words, that the pursuit and civic duty of national self-defense against foreign actual or potential oppression doesn’t count as putting the population in danger or greater danger (otherwise self-defense against foreign oppressors wouldn’t even be possible). The second condition is that the likelihood of a certain dangerous event is known, but we can’t exclude some serious miscalculations on both sides: indeed the West was unprepared to the eventuality of a full war between Ukraine and Russia, also because the US and the EU had different perceptions of Putin’s threat. On the other hand, Putin too didn’t predict such an evolution of the war, especially the reaction of Ukrainians and the EU, yet if he expected to win so easily, it means that Putin couldn’t perceive any serious threat to Russian national security coming from the West or Ukraine (in fact the annexation of Crimea). Finally, while the West is a collective geopolitical agent whose aggregated response toward Russia is not fully orchestrated by a single tyrannic leader, so it’s hard to assess how its putative collective responsibility can be shared or distributed across individual western states, especially if there are different perceptions of the problem at hand and dispositions to deal with it, however we can not say the same for all the aggressive actions taken by Russia against Ukraine.
Conclusion, the claim that the West recklessly and knowingly provoked Putin into waging war against Ukraine at the expense of million of innocent civilians doesn’t seem to me supported by a more objective understanding of the historical and strategic interactions between Ukraine, Russia and the West with its related moral implications.

[i]> If you are against advancing Western strategic interests and any logic of containment of its competitors that would risk a war, then you are indirectly supporting its competitors’ strategic interests, indeed of those competitors who are more aggressive in military terms, and therefore you may be rightly judged complicit in advancing them at the expenses of the West. — neomac
Only if you're weak-minded enough to see only two options.[/i]

So what would be the other available options that the strong-minded enough would go for?

> America is taking great pains not to equp Ukraine with any weapons which have a range long enough to present a credible threat to Russia. For this exact reason.

Well then there are no national security concern for Russia after all. But Russia could yell "not yet". Couldn't they? So until Russia can ensure a pro-Russian regime in Ukraine the risk is still there, even grater than before if Ukrainian are looking for revenge. And if national security was Putin’s concern before, it should be even more so now.


[i]>Then you can not be sure of Western moral responsibility in knowingly provoking Putin either. Can you? — neomac
Why not?[/i]

Because you seemed to claim that Putin acted out of legitimate national security concerns triggered by the West. But if Putin didn’t act out of legitimate national security concerns, then there were no legitimate concerns that the West triggered in Putin leading him to start a war against Ukraine.


>Well then what forms of attack are you claiming Russia should have no fear of?

Any conventional or non-conventional attack that could seriously threaten Russian national security. The point is that there were no provable aggressive intentions from Ukraine against Russian national security, with the plausible exception of Crimea, but only after its forced annexation by Putin: so in this case it’s Putin who once again provoked the Ukrainians by attempting at their national security and integrity, not vice versa.

[i]Yet those demands do not seem enough to guarantee the national security of Russia from a now more likely hostile country. — neomac
So? That doesn't influence their likelihood of being met. [/i]

Again, I was questioning the claim that Putin acted out of national security concerns provoked by Western interference. Ukrainian Neo-nazism, Russian genocide by Ukrainians, Ukrainian biochemical or nuclear weapons, could make the national security concerns narrative look more plausible. His actual demands however betray once more that Putin acted out of his aggressive expansionist ambitions and not out of national security concerns.