BTW I still haven't seen you criticizing Turkey (a NATO member!) for invading Cyprus and Kurdish territories in Syria. — Apollodorus

One shouldn't feed a troll, but anyway.

Selective troll memory part III:

I'll ask you again.

Do you condemn the annexations that Russia has done concerning Georgia and Ukraine?

Do you view them equivalent to what Turkey did? Both countries (Turkey and Russia) "came to the help" of their ethnic minorities, just with Russia going past the puppet state phase and made direct annexations.

You have accused me of double standards, which is false. I don't accept Chinese annexation of Tibet or Turkish actions, but seems that for you the above is extremely hard to do when it's Russia doing similar actions. But of course I could be wrong, but I wish you would reply to this and not brush it aside again. — ssu

And that we already got your answer: you don't condemn the annexation of Crimea. In fact you think it's totally justified. And not only that:

IMO the best solution would be for Ukraine to be divided fairly between the two sister nations.

Russia should take everything east of the Dnieper, and maybe half of Kiev, and Zelensky (or Kolomoisky) can keep the rest. — Apollodorus

So enough. I won't bother with a Putin troll like you.

Which is funny because before Zelensky got elevated to Western liberal Saint, he wasn't seen - even by the West - as a squeaky clean guy either. — StreetlightX

I think that if Zelensky worked in Ukrainian media making films, there likely was an oligarch owning the media. Hence that part is the usual mudslinging as Ukrainians hate oligarchs: Just look at how our forum troll never forgets to repeat the name of the oligarch when mentioning Zelensky.

I think the real critique of Zelensky is how he went after the former president Poroshenko and also the closures of opposition parties. It's one of the oldest trick in the book: to go after your political opponents on corruption charges, hence it really has to be done really carefully. Closing opposition parties is even more problematic. Some can indeed be militant (as we now from the case of the Svoboda etc). Now some of those can get funding from Russia, but in a democracy you have to be really careful of authoritarianism. The fear of the "fifth column" is something that easily can lead to overreactions. Just to take for example, Mariupol has a very large ethnic Russian population, and they likely aren't so happy of their Russian "liberators" now.

Yep. That accurately describes your position on NATO. — Apollodorus

Selective troll memory, part II.

NATO went into finding "a new mission" for itself with "peace-enforcement" and if the intervention to Bosnia was somehow tolerated by Russia, what was the end point was the Kosovo war. That broke the camel's back and you had the first direct confrontation between Russia. I think that was the time it all went south, so don't assume Russia would even want to be an ally of the US. NATO enlargement was one thing, but an active NATO not only confined to defending itself and having it's members not to fight each other, but active somewhere else was the issue (do note for example that the Gulf War wasn't a NATO mission). — ssu

And the last failure was George Bush promising something that simply couldn't be kept: that Ukraine and Georgia would become NATO members in some time. Like later. As Ukraine had, uh, a lot of problems.[/qutote]
— ssu

And as I discussed with @Isaac, yes, NATO made errors. Starting from thinking that Russia wouldn't return and that the times had changed since the Cold War and that if they in NATO saw themselves as being different from the Cold War version of the organization, leaders in the Kremlin wouldn't view them like that, but as the old NATO. Yet that's just one side of the issue. — ssu

So you go with your lies...

I will say that the quips about Zelensky being an ex-comedian somehow a bad thing is dumb and classist. I want more comedians, baristas, garbage people, dance teachers and brick layers in positions of power, as a general rule. If anything Zelensky's sense for the dramatic has been an absolute boon to Ukraine in this war, even if people are really so thick as to take it at sheer face value. But that's not Zelensky's fault. — StreetlightX

Ukraine is winning at least in the West the information war. It was totally different in the confusion of 2014. And it has to be said that a lot of things were different then. And you can see how much better Zelensky is in his role compared to the mayor of Kiev or the former president Poroshenko, who also is frequently interviewed by Western media.

Comedians have to smart, they have to understand their crowd and quickly respond. So likely Charles Chaplin would have made a better wartime Prime Minister of UK than WInston Churchill. Totally possible, if pure hypothetical. Chaplin likely would have let the generals fight the war and likely would have given far more inspiring speeches against Hitler. At least he was against Hitler just like Churchill. No Lindberg. And likely would have been less of an old-school imperialist.

And Zelensky is also living proof that Ukrainians were totally and absolutely disgusted with their political class and it's corruption.

Clearly, you don't actually know his stance on Putin. — baker

Clearly I do.

I've discussed him issues far enough. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

Why don't you just look at what he says:

As regards Putin’s alleged intention to rebuild the borders of the Russian Empire, (a) I see no evidence to support that claim and (b) as already explained, Ukraine has always been part of Russia, both Ukraine and Russia having been part of the same territory called Russia or “Land of the Rus(sians)” (роусьскаѧ землѧ, rusĭskaę zemlę), a.k.a. “Kievan Rus”.

The fact is that Ukraine became separated from Russia only after being invaded and occupied by foreign powers (Mongols, Lithuanians, Poles). It follows that Putin has a point and his views need to be taken into consideration even if we disagree with his actions. — Apollodorus

When Putin said that Russia had no intention to invade, he was being truthful. — Apollodorus

Yes. IMO the best solution would be for Ukraine to be divided fairly between the two sister nations.

Russia should take everything east of the Dnieper, and maybe half of Kiev, and Zelensky (or Kolomoisky) can keep the rest. — Apollodorus

Russia has never had anything like a Western-style liberal democracy, which means that Putin cannot be described as “dictator” in a Russian context.

Plus, Russia does have a parliament, Putin’s approval ratings went up after the annexation of Crimea and he’s still got the backing of the majority of voters. There is some opposition, but there are many who are 100% behind him on Ukraine. — Apollodorus

When Putin said "Ukraine is not just a neighboring country for us. It is an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space,” he was stating a fact. — Apollodorus

So there you hear from the troll. Starting from that Putin cannot be a dictator. Putin has a point in many things, according to him. And he tells what Putin has told very accurately. Only saying that what Putin says are facts. And when you never, ever utter anything negative or critical about someone, it tells who you are.

:100:

Or just stop being a complete idiot. — Baden

Idiots cannot do that. :smile:

I don't know why it's in their constitution, maybe ssu knows? — frank

Don't know well the Ukrainian constitution...

Before his election, I gather he was doing this: — Olivier5

Yep. Talk about a postmodern twist. Or Karma. Announcing his candidacy and having to insist, it's not a joke.



...And then becoming this wartime leader of a country in the largest war in Europe since WW2.

I guess I'm accusing Gödel of committing the fallacy of false dichotomy.

A penny for your thoughts... — TheMadFool

Some make similar arguments like you. Haven't been successful.

You see, even if it comes close to be like the liar paradox, it isn't a paradox. It just clearly shows the limits of provability. And that's it.

That's the whole point of Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

Incidentally, America's Iraq War left 100,000 Iraqis dead. And no one complained .... — Apollodorus

The whimsically selective memory of the Putin troll.

Fifteen years ago, on Feb. 15, 2003, somewhere between 6 million to 11 million people turned out in at least 650 cities around the world to protest the United States’ push to invade Iraq. It was the largest anti-war protest and remains the largest one-day global protest the world has ever seen.

Leaders using that kind of rhetoric aren't immediately signing peace agreements. Documents of enemy surrender perhaps.

Yet the war isn't going as earlier predicted. I think that now Russia will simply need few days to a week to rearrange the supplies and resources for a next push. Perhaps a cease-fire would be convenient?

At least the Ukrainians are optimistic:

Russian forces have only three further days of fuel, food and ammunition left to conduct the war after a breakdown in their supply chains, Ukrainian military commanders have alleged.

The claims of major shortages were described as “plausible” by western officials although they said they were unable to corroborate the analysis.

The report from the Ukrainian armed forces general command was said to be consistent with evidence that the Russian advance had stalled, and that they had reverted to using “indiscriminate and attritional” artillery attacks on civilians.

Putin clearly stated before the invasion that he was only conducting a 'special operation' to de-nazify the independent regions. — Isaac

Putin clearly stated before the invasion that he had no intension of invading Ukraine. Denazification I think was the term when the invasion had been launched.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov emerged from the nearly eight hours of talks and declared, "There are no plans or intentions to attack Ukraine." He went on to say, "There is no reason to fear some kind of escalatory scenario."

And when the US intel got it (the invasion) few days wrong, an active person on this thread posted:



And then continued:

So it turns out American and Western hysteria about entirely made-up threats have done more damage to Ukraine than the dreamed about Russians to the tune of a double-digit billions

Made up threats indeed.

Seems unexpected to me. — jorndoe

Similarly goes the civilian casualty figures. That happens when you fire rocket & artillery barrages at urban areas. And when you're out of wooden caskets, that tells something.

West assumes that hurting the oligarchs hurts Putin .. — boethius

Yeah, this is a very stupid idea. Russia isn't the US. Putin doesn't need any backers for elections. He needs the support of the army and the intelligence services. When the head of the SVR is so frightened of Putin that he confusis his choreographed words, then some oligarch isn't a problem. As KGB guy I don't think there will be a palace coup to oust Putin. An assassination attempt to be successful is well, likely not as probable as Putin dying due to natural health causes.

So waiting for a 70-year old man to die might take a while...

I need to sign off for the day, but I agree with your points. — boethius

Smart move to do (signing off at least), good night.

However, whether gifts or not, as I've been discussing with ssu Ukrainians can fight to a better negotiating position. However, the cost in lives of fighting to a better negotiating position are not trivial. One should be pretty confident the additional lives and destruction and dead and traumatized children are "worth it" for the negotiating position. — boethius

This is how the conflict can drag on for a long time... and that will put the human cost easily well beyond hundred thousand killed. Ukrainian and Russian losses combined is likely well over 10 000 in less than a month. Even if the fiercest fighting would have been seen, how ugly the figures are in a year or two is worrying as this is not insurgency, but a large scale conventional war.

Yet perhaps the "positive" side here is that both sides can retreat to the low burner, low intensity war that they had before. Yet that is difficult. What contained Ukraine from leashing an all out push into Donbas earlier was the threat of Russia launching an all-out invasion on Ukraine. Well, now we have seen that.

Ukraine just banned opposition parties, if Ukrainians are simply united in the war effort ... why ban political parties? — boethius

Not all opposition parties were banned. From the 11 parties I think For-Life was in the Rada and had 39 seats.

Which, may explain, rather than Finland's millennial Prime Minister, who is completely clueless about geopolitics, it is Finland's older president with far longer experience dealing with the Russians and talking with Putin, all of a sudden represents Finland on the international stage (after not a single woke article being written about him and Finland's wonderful young and woman led government ... where are those young woman leaders now?) and ... is one EU leader not just fiercely condemning Putin and calling him a madman but saying things like "the situation is complex". — boethius

After Sauli I guess we'll get an older Sanna Marin as President. She's bound to be the next. If she doesn't really fuck up.

I just find it amusing that this young beautiful woman is picked and put up to be the Prime minister... and then A GLOBAL PANDEMIC breaks out. And after few years that pandemic is starting to be RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE and Finland and Sweden see their foreign and security policy collapse and start moving to NATO membership. With things going like this, I think after this there will come that Asteroid that is going to hit Earth. Then we'll listen to her, dressed in black as usual, explaining what preparations the government has made for the current crisis...



But back to issue at hand:

Biden promised an additional 800 Stinger-missiles and 2000 Javelin missiles to Ukraine. A few years ago Ukraine had 37 Javelin ATGM launchers and a bit over 200 Javelin missiles in all. It tells just how much is poured now into Ukraine. And likely they will stop declaring just what the numbers are. Of course what is needed is medium to high altitude surface-to-air missile systems and those aren't so easy to get and use as Stingers (which cannot shoot down anything flying over 4 km altitude). The talk is of Russia S-300 "Grumble" missile system which the Ukrainians know how to use to be sent there from current NATO users. The simple fact is that in order to train a new Western SAM system, those very much needed Ukrainian professional soldiers should go to the West and train for the system. And all that takes months or at least half a year. The same with combat aircraft. Now during the Cold War the Soviet Union and the US had no qualms about it: especially the Soviets sent their personnel to operate and train their allies (suprisingly always using civilian clothing). And it might be that not only in Korea (which is documented), but also in Vietnam Soviet pilots did fight with the Americans.

But now Biden has problems how to handle this issue. And hence the search for Soviet legacy-system is on in order to help Ukraine.

(After Polish MiG-29's, perhaps Bulgarian S-300's to make that no-fly zone?)

I'm sorry if that's the case but I'm quite frankly a bit surprised that the real politik interpretation is one so difficult to accept for you. As a war/history buff that's what's it's always been, no? — Benkei

As this is a philosophy forum, it think it is worth wile to ponder about morality or justifications. I think if you would understand that if the realpolitik argument would put above anything else in the case of Israeli-Palestinian conflict,

But anyway, the only real disagreement we have that I don't think this has been a really, really bad decision from Putin. Perhaps the ease with Putin could waltz into the middle of a Ukrainian revolution and snatch Crimea with a splendid military operation confused his judgement. The disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan and the political turmoil made him perhaps to think that the US is weak.

The military aid now pouring over to Ukraine is simply huge. And if the Ukrainians continue to fight, which they will, this can be a drawn out thing. I really don't see what is the success here in this for Putin. Perhaps that because he is now truly in a large war, he can get even more authoritarian?

As a Finn watching Ukraine fight now Russia, I understand how Swedes felt during the winter of 1939-1940.

(Swedish posters of the time)

But when NATO reaches out it's hand to come along as a friend ... maybe is a false sense of security if NATO doesn't show up to the party. — boethius

The small Baltic countries surely hope they aren't expendable.

And it's also a place to jerk, and be horny... For some. — Olivier5

When someone hasn't anything to counter your argumentation, then start the nasty ad hominems.

After all, for some, they have to win debate. Not to learn something new or think issues from another point of view.

Fortunately, as you well know, that's never happened, otherwise you'd be able to fucking quote someone doing it instead of pulling some made up fantasy version of the discussion out of your arse. — Isaac

From Ukraine:


From Syria:


In Afghanistan in a war far shorter than the US war about one to two million Afghans. In the longer US invasion the death toll is 50 000 to 200 000.

In the first Chechen war even the Russian Statistical office estimates 30 000 to 40 000 Chechen civilians died while Human rights groups estimate that 80 000 civilians is closer to the truth and about 10 000 Chechen fighter died or went missing. In the Second Chechen war, that was the war Putin instigated, Chechen military and civilian losses estimates range from 50 000 to 100 000.

Add them up and you have what, perhaps from hundred thousand to two hundred thousand killed from a far more smaller population of a few million.

That's something close to butchery of the Polish in WW2. And I've explained just why the Russian style of war results in this. Targeting hospitals, shelling of cities randomnly is a warcrime.

So you just shut the fuck up!

If you support the Ukrainian war effort ... but aren't in Ukraine fighting the war, nor even proposing troops from your own country go and fight with Ukrainians to at least vicariously live through your own soldiers' bravery ... then you are simply cheerleading other people fight a war that you're not willing to fight personally nor you're own government. — boethius

My government has for the first time in it's history sent weapons to another country.

So let's just understand Putin.

He needed that sphere-of-influence.

NATO is bad. It made him do it,what else could he have done, so shame on NATO!

Moi? I have been accused of war cheerleading here more often than I care to count. The words roll off the tongue of your buddies day and night. And when for the first time I return them the compliment, I'm the one to blame? — Olivier5

How dare you... how dare we have say anything supportive of Ukraine or focus on some minor issue like Russia invaded Ukraine. No, this thread is to bash NATO, bash the West and eagerly report anything bad they do, like "supporting bioweapon labs in Ukraine"!!! That's the only sensible thing to do in a thread about the war in Ukraine.

Putin has not made promises that can't be kept: like "democratize" Ukraine at the end of a rifle. — boethius

Oh. So you think the "denazification" of Ukraine will be so easy at the end of a rifle?

Putin has already achieved the land bridge to Crimea and if the Dombas front collapses and territory pushes out regions border, Putin can just sit on this territory and shell to oblivion anything that approaches while continuing to strike command and control and logistics infrastructure. — boethius

Whopee! That sounds like fun. All this for a land bridge!!! :roll:

What the Kremlin has learned from previous episodes, is that Western "Unity" is only ever short lived and only ever exists on social media and not in any tangible form. — boethius

Of course. Those tens of thousands of anti-tank weapons being pushed in Ukraine won't mean a thing. Perhaps those 20 000 or so volunteers will come back after they have had an exiting weekend too.

Winning the social media culture war ... doesn't win a real war, is the main lesson to be drawn from Syria. — boethius

Well, Syria actually didn't get much if any support. The US was fearful of giving arms to possibly Islamist extremists. Hence this outcome, which just reeks to extensive corruption and pocketing of taxpayers money:

The Syrian Train and Equip Program is a United States-led military operation launched in 2014 that identified and trained selected Syrian opposition forces inside Syria as well as in Turkey and other US-allied states who would then return to Syria to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The program reportedly cost the US $500 million. It is a covert program, run by U.S. special operations forces, separate from Timber Sycamore, the parallel covert program run by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). As of July 2015, only a group of 54 trained and equipped fighters (Division 30) had been reported to have been deployed, which was quickly routed by al-Nusra, and a further 75 were reported in September 2015.

All that for half a billion! Let's now compare this to what is the aid for Ukraine. Before the war started, the situation was the following:

Overall, the U.S. has provided $650 million in defense equipment and services to Ukraine in the past year — the most it has ever given that country, according to the State Department.

Then afterwards:

The White House also said Washington is “helping the Ukrainians acquire additional, longer-range” air-defence systems, but did not provide further details.

The most recent package brings the total US security aid to Ukraine announced since the Russian invasion began to $1bn. The Biden administration previously approved another $1bn in aid before the invasion began.

And the war has been on for less than a month.

As far as I can tell, the only reason Zelensky didn't accept Russia's terms in the first phase of the war, when it was easy to do:

1. Neo-Nazi's made it clear they would kill him if he did.

2. He genuinely believed in the power of acting to conjure up a NATO no-fly zone a la Churchillian Dumbledore.

3. He got so many views ... no one in show business can walk away from — boethius

:roll: :yikes:

Have you been drinking or what?

:100: :cheer:

I signed on for room and board for Ukrainians because my wife and daughter wanted to and am now left wondering why they never wanted to do that for Syrians. Meanwhile, Ukrainian refugees of colour are being discriminated against. What a surprise! — Benkei

I am happy that you did that. Or that your wife and your smart daughter insisted on that.

Never underestimate how precarious the acceptance of foreigners are. And that's why the Zelenskyi administration saying that all adult men of military age would have to stay in Ukraine was really important to the acceptance of Ukrainian refugees in Europe. Seeing that the refugees are mothers with small children and not young military aged men likely did make the Polish and the Hungarians open their arms for them. Just look at how the Polish government reacted to the hybrid operation of Lukashenko just some months ago.

I think it's very tough for the refugees from the Middle East to cope here in Europe. People aren't hospitable and are very open to negative stereotypes. What I'm worried is how Russians will be treated as the war goes on.

However, not taking that opportunity, now Zelensky and the West are faced with the problem that Ukraine won't be Russia's Afghanistan as their plan is to just completely demolish Ukraine's war infrastructure ... and most it's trained soldiers, and then just lay siege to cities until their demands are met. — boethius

Oh sure, how the war is going it surely won't be an Afghanistan for Russia. It will be much, much worse. In Afghanistan in 9 years of fighting Russians lost merely 14 000 men. Now in less than a month of fighting, the estimate is what? 7 000 dead? Even in the two Chechen wars Russia lost more that in Afghanistan. Now they aren't facing one of the poorest nations in the World. Just one of the poorest European countries that is getting massive support from the West.

I guess the issue with being critical of the West and the US, like you or @Benkei, @Isaac are, is the thing that Russia is fighting a brutal war without caring much about civilian lives. For example @Isaac has stated it quite clearly: he doesn't want to give any credit the the US here as being a "knight in white armour". Fine. Yet talking about the failures and the imperialism of the West doesn't change the war in Ukraine.

That use massive firepower has been the Russian military doctrine in the past and that is it still today. They have done that in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Syria and now in Ukraine. As I said to @jorndoe 21 days ago, Ukrainian cities will look like Grozny. And of course, this will mean a lot of civilian casualties. The Russia warfighting tactics will cause enormous civilian losses.

Yet if someone talks about the attrocities of the Russians, then it's a bit odd to attack those of "believing in Western propaganda" or being "warmongers" or the type. This is thread of war in Ukraine, so that this war is discussed here.

What I meant was, would people ever elect a president who promised never to attack another nation unless they attacked first? That would mean stopping existing wars. The converse of that would be that people would only elect a president who would leave the military option open, which means war is accepted as part of foreign policy.

What do you think? — FreeEmotion

I think the bellicose rhetoric of "fortress Russia" will only end when there is a humiliating defeat and too many soldiers are killed in a war that many don't understand why it's fought.

Take for example France and Algeria. Algeria was seen as part of France and not a colony, it had actually very many French living there. Well after seven years of war, 26 000 French soldiers and 50 000 French Harkis dead (plus the over two hundreds thousand Algerians killed), the French retreated.

That's the way thinking in Russia will change. If it changes. The division between "zapadniks" and the "slavophiles" is quite alive in Russia even today.

Agreed that some infrastructure adjustments would be needed if the EU stopped importing ... but I'm not sure by how much, as Russia has been investing massively in a fleet of nuclear icebreakers, which, I assume, is to be able to ship out oil and gas from the arctic; and that capacity may be already there, at least most of the year, if the tankers can just show up. — boethius

They have already oil & gas pipelines to China and likely will build more:

But yes, people genuinely believe this current New cycle won't go the way of terrorism, Covid, Syrira, Lybia, emails, grab em by the pussy, invasion of the world's superpower's capital buildings, Afghanistan, China pivot, migrants drowning all the time, opioids scandal, toxic male executives (guilty as charged though ... and this one will make a comeback, just like the Red Army!). — boethius

I think that Covid pandemic and it's restrictions did change your life a bit, and of course the current crisis will partly contribute to the run away inflation. Gas, petroleum, food will become more expensive. Something people will notice daily.

Yes, we will surely soon forget this thread and the media can focus on other issues, but as long as the war goes on, the effects of it will be there. And even if the war would tone down as it did after 2015 for seven years or there would be a cease-fire that held, the World has already changed.

If you're not actually stopping the flow of oil and gas ... you aren't really doing anything of significance against Russia's economy. — boethius

An oil embargo has been talked about by EU foreign ministers. For example Poland is openly demanding it and naturally many countries are opposing it. At least yet.

You have to make infrastructure investments and quite a dramatic realignment to stop Russian gas and oil trade. But it is totally possible. It simply cannot be done in weeks. But in few years, totally possible.

But yes, people genuinely believe this current New cycle won't go the way of terrorism, Covid, Syrira, Lybia, emails, grab em by the pussy, invasion of the world's superpower's capital buildings, Afghanistan, China pivot, migrants drowning all the time, opioids scandal, toxic male executives (guilty as charged though ... and this one will make a comeback, just like the Red Army!). — boethius

What if a Presidential candidate came forward stating that he would never engage in a war of conquest with any nation? — FreeEmotion

Well, I guess Putin would be the first person declaring that! He's just protecting ethnic Russians and welcomes them who want to join mother Russia. Just like Milosevic did for the Serbs. And uses his military on special military operations to stop a genocide perpetrated by neo-nazis.

The age when leaders truthfully admitted that they engaged in wars of conquest is ancient history.

Putin is fighting the infectious disease of Democracy, making this war inevitable as long as self rule is what the Ukrainians want. The only way for Ukraine to have avoided this war was to abandon democracy and submit to Putin. What backed Putin into a corner is that his country sucks and no one wants to be a part of it. — Hanover

It's his rule that sucks. Many Europeans would just love to have a calm, peaceful and prosperous Russia, where entrepreneurs like Sergei Brin would stay and innovate new things. We don't have that with Russia. And many are eager to point out that Russia never has had democracy. Or when it has, sort of, it has resulted in a dictatorship later.

The reality is that Russia needs leaders that simply will tell the Russians themselves that the old empire is over and lost for good. That Russia is just like the United Kingdom today, a country that has lost it's empire and nothing and nobody will get it back. That if Russians want prosperity, it comes through trade (for which you need good relations with the rest of the World), innovation and not through conquest. Having a World which consists of China, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba isn't so great for trade.

Putin basically started the civil war that people anticipated would happen when the Soviet Union collapsed. Then the Politburo members and the apparatchniks at the helm could (after a hapless putsch attempt) peacefully guide the Superpower to break up without the war (or sort of, as Armenia and Azerbaijan had already started their quarrel). It was Yugoslavia which didn't succeed in a peaceful breakup. There it was Milosevic, who as the leader of the largest republic, opted to "protect" Serbs and make Serbia great again. And now Putin has now taken the role of a Russian version Slobodan Milosevic, the Super-Serb who fought for Greater Serbia. Milosevic was the most ruinous Serb politician to ever be. What comes of Putin now, we will see.

Russia is on the path of a more authoritarianism, seclusion and more poverty with Putin. The territorial gains will not give Russians anything but problems. And only the Russians themselves can do anything about Putin ...or then just wait that he finally dies.

We will just look on. And assist the Ukrainians in this war and put up those sanctions.

I'll rephrase to “inappropriately and illegally affected the internal politics of a sovereign nation". You know the exact same shit those powers did across the world during the cold War? Also, to be complete it must be noted Russia was playing the same games at the time. — Benkei

That's a good start of us agreeing on the picture. You do understand the difference between "in 2014 the US overthrew the Ukrainian government" and "in 2014 the Ukrainian government was overthrown by a revolution eagerly supported by the US".

And this is actually very crucial to understand. Countries and especially Great Powers, not just Superpowers, do try to influence domestic politics of other countries. In my country we've seen a lot of this. Yet the type of Operation Ajax -style overthrow is different. Military interventions, launching off cruise missiles and the part are different from the ambassador using harsh rhetoric making veiled threats and supporting their favorite candidates in elections.

Point being, the war about Ukraine was being fought by Russia and the US since probably 2004. — Benkei

I would put it even earlier, even if you are correct that the fault lines appeared in the Orange revolution. In a more broader sense the NATO war in Kosovo, which was a province, not a Republic of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, was the final tipping point for Russia that broke the camel's back in NATO-Russia relations. That happened in 1999. And I think that is very crucial part as is the first and second Chechen wars, that started to get also former Soviet countries to be worried about Russia's behaviour.

Yet we should remember that Yanukovich did win the elections in 2010. When you look at the election map of the 2010 presidential elections, then you could see that the country was divided.



Do notice the ominous resemblance with the maps of Novorossiya with the election results table. This was the time when Vladimir Putin was hugely popular in Ukraine and Russia still looked to be a totally reasonable actor. And this is why I do say that Russia had many other paths than outright military intervention and annexation to truly take hold of it's "sphere of influence". Yet Putin chose a very extreme path of violence (as it had worked for him right from the start of his political career) and now we are in a really fucked up situation.

I guess what's promising is your membership in the EU. — Benkei

Yeah. Even if there's a clause to help fellow EU member states, I wouldn't count on it. Never underestimate the fear of WW3. So it's not so bleak as in the 1930's when people knew that war was coming, not if, but when. Yet there's many ways to pressure countries in our time of hybrid attacks. Like you could start a blockade and not call it a blockade and deny it's an act of war. Perhaps you call it just a "Naval Quarantine". Or something. But those are hypotheticals.

The war isn't a hypothetical Ukrainians and for Russians it's not either going to be easy, even if they aren't dying and their cities turned into rubble. I don't think that this crisis will be contained to Ukraine, but I'm an optimist that it will be contained from becoming WW3.

So "this is all Putin" would be a mistaken argument here. — Isaac

The only thing which is all Putin is that he surely made the choice to invade Ukraine.

What I've said, and many others (perhaps you too agree with it) is that NATO, or especially a former US President made a promise that it didn't keep. To say that NATO membership is for Ukraine open ...in the future, not now. That gave Putin a pretext to act. But a large scale invasion after already annexing territories from Ukraine? That's a decision similar to Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait.

the stated sphere of influence for decades doesn't include them. — Benkei

Actually it does. Finnish airspace is what worries Russia. The Soviet Union inquired as late as in the 1970's from Finland if they could take care of Finnish Air Defence and put some SAM-bases in Finland. Our leadership politely declined. And even Imperial Russia was worried back then about an invasion by sea of the Russian Capitol, and that's why the built the Peter the Great's Naval Fortress on both sides of the Gulf of Finland in the start of the 20th Century. It's totally the same line of "sphere-of-influence".

And Russia has I guess now twice after this invasion started made actually quite similar threats as it did to Ukraine that if Sweden or Finland join NATO, it will have military consequences:

“It is obvious that (if) Finland and Sweden join NATO, which is a military organisation to begin with, there will be serious military and political consequences,” Sergei Belyayev, head of the Russian foreign ministry’s European department, told the Russian news agency Interfax.

What is lacking is that Putin would be saying that we are an artificial country, so I guess that's promising.

Here's a summary. — Benkei

Benkei. That is exactly what I meant. Basically it's the Nuland Pyatt taped phone discussion and then saying that this is improper thing to do. And nothing else.

So where's the evidence that the US created the EuroMaidan protests, manufactured the students on to the streets? Or similar issues?

When you say that "the US overthrew the Ukrainian government", there really has to be that the US has been the major cause of the overthrow and without it, the coup wouldn't have happened. What in that article is said is in no way something like Operation Ajax which really was a US & British funded overthrow of a democratically elected government.

Finland and Sweden joining NATO aren't really an issue; former Warsaw Pact members sharing a border with Russia appear to be. — Benkei

Just check how close the Finnish border is from St Petersburg and Moscow.

So if Russia is serious about its "sphere of influence" any move by NATO to include these countries will likely result in another war. Putin has shown to be prepared to do what he said he'd do. — Benkei

And how many wars can he handle? And aren't we forgetting that his most trustworthy ally, Belarus, just had a year ago huge demonstrations against the Lukashenko government, so that country isn't as firm either... and really isn't at this time ready to go and assist in a war it has absolutely no desire to participate.

My point is that until this year, this invasion, Putin's gamble had paid off. And he had gambled even more and more. And now the gambling is backfiring.

As I've said again and again. Russia isn't the Soviet Union, it has the economy of the size of Italy and now has chosen a course that seems to be leading to an inevitable train wreck. Landbridges to Crimea or even the annexation of Crimea hardly matter when you have to resort to a Stalinist police state and throw your army into a quagmire of a war. Those eagerly quoting Mearsheimer perhaps don't notice that he said this to be the worst possible situation for Russia: throwing resources to fight a huge land war in Ukraine where the West can then bring on it's massive aid to Ukraine. That's the worst situation for Russia.

Hence my, Ok, judgemental, response that this really isn't "the only correct move", but a wrong disastrous move from Putin. It's a move like Saddam Hussein thinking that he could annex Kuwait, and that would take care of his economic problems.

It's a wrong move from the rat to go itself voluntarily into the corner where it cannot escape.

And what exactly are Russians to believe when the US overthrew the Ukrainian government in 2014 — Benkei

Why don't specifically tells us how the US overthrew the Ukrainian government.

Because if it's that John McCain and others visited Ukraine among others and reference to the famous phone call of Victoria Nuland to ambassador Pyatt, taped by Russian intelligence services, seems to be all that is enough to declare that the US was behind the events. As if the Ukrainian protesters, or their Revolution of Dignity, was this astroturf US operation.

Not to give any agency to Ukrainians in their domestic issues is actually shows simply hubris and the self-centeredness. Historical events aren't monocausal and simply to describe events of 2013-2014 in Ukraine as "US overthrew the Ukrainian government" is simply false.

You make all kinds of accusations and strawman arguments, which I really don't care about.

Are you defending your country? — Isaac

My country isn't at war. But I'm a reservist, yes, with a wartime position.

Yet Ukrainians are defending their country.

So warmongering for you too then. — Isaac

Of course, for the like of you people defending their country from an invasion is warmongering. Why don't the silly Ukrainians just surrender to Putin? (Just like @frank said)

Just to remind people what you said before the war:

Me personally, in England. Probably doesn't matter at all. Even if we committed to a ground war. I wasn't affected by Iraq, nor Afghanistan. Oil prices might go up in the short term, but they'll stabilise. This is kind of the point with these petty tribalisms, we've got no skin in the game, we can pick sides but we're in the crowd, not on the pitch.

The people who'll be affected are obviously the population of Ukraine. They'll be bombed, shot at, and evacuated, have been in the separatists regions for years already. That'll happen whether we leave Ukraine to its own defence or support it militarily. — Isaac

And this shows just your understanding of the matters. If the UK would be committed to a ground war, that would be WW3. But hey, you weren't affected by Iraq, nor Afghanistan. So it doesn't matter at all.

Maybe mobilise the reserves, maybe that'd be too provocative... — Isaac

If you know that the other side is going to attack, then by all means, why not go with mobilization. You won't lose anything. If you think that it really matters that the Kremlin says "Because of the Ukrainian mobilization, we have no other choice than to attack" and attacks in two days, well, nobody out of the blue attacks another in two days with 190 000 troops. But those 48 hours before the missiles start flying does matter.

You describe results without relating that to the Russian strategic objectives. — Benkei

And you should understand just how reaching any strategic objectives is compromised by the disastrous decision to make a large scale, or basically an all out invasion of Ukraine. It simply doesn't help the situation of Russia. It wasn't "the only correct move".

Will it help to tackle NATO enlargement? Sweden and Finland will now very likely join NATO. What do you get with that land corridor between Crimea? There's already a bridge connecting Crimea. But all this, being the new economic North Korea is really worth it?

No. It's like Hitler declaring war at the US after Pearl Harbour. What was the point to do that? How did it benefit Germany? If even 6 months or a year would have passed before the US would have joined the European theatre, how important would have been for Nazi Germany? (Just an example, let's not go to that).

Starting from the basics as:

- Russia isn't the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was the second largest economy in the World. Russia's economy is the size of Italy or Spain. Putin has punched well over his class with his reckless gambles that had paid off until this disaster.

- Countries that got independent from the Soviet Union did it for a reason. They aren't coming back. And now they have been independent for 30 years and now you try to get them back?

What's he going to do about that? — Isaac

The obvious. No conclusion is reached. The fighting goes on. Putin wants this war, so he can have and will have it.

I asked what anyone would do. It's irrelevant people just 'knowing' things unless you have some real world strategy that's going to be taken in a different direction because of that knowledge. Otherwise it's inconsequential. — Isaac

You think that understanding that Putin is going to attack even two days before is inconsequential? The Ukrainian government could have mobilized the reserves 48 hours prior to the attack. Not only afterwards the attack had happened. A thing that actually was a small mistake from the Zelensky government.

What is the Ukrainian negotiator going to do differently because Putin used religious language in his speech? — Isaac

He can trust even less what the Russian negotiator promises.