It would seem the Netherlands’ whole history would have had to be radically different in the 20th century for it to have a more powerful/independent position. — schopenhauer1

I think today's loss of independence started with end of the Cold War. That's when NATO and Europe's position with regards to the US fundamentally changed and Europe failed to notice (or noticed too late).

Before the end of the Cold War, the US couldn't afford to have weak, corrupt allies in Europe. After the Cold War that became the goal. Corrupt, porous democracies are easy to influence, and militarily weak nations are needy and pliant.

In my opinion, this loss of independence is primarily a result of US soft power, and therefore is largely a psychological phenomenon. Nonetheless, it is a psychological phenomenon that is difficult to reverse.

Keep in mind, it's perfectly possible to be a part of NATO, or even a great power's sphere of influence, and still maintain a high degree of independence, but that requires a robust, non-corrupt politicial system and skilled politicians. That's the main issue in the Netherlands currently.

"True independence" is doing what Russia wants, [...] — unenlightened

You are purposefully misconstruing my argument. If a weak country wants to be and remain independent, it must play its cards right. This is just the reality of geopolitics. And yes, sometimes that means placating the gorilla next door.

The suggestion that Ukraine was a slave to Russia prior to 2014 is just patently false. Its presidents manoeuvred between both sides, and did so fairly skillfully.

The problems arose when Ukraine's skillful diplomacy no longer suited Uncle Sam's agenda.

I live in Europe/a NATO country. We're literally a vassal of the US, with our politcians being literal stooges for the US. There's nothing independent about my country.

The term 'vassal' is often used to describe exactly that: a country that is allowed to govern its own domestic politics, but is expected to fall in line with the suzerian when it comes to foreign politics.

That describes the majority of NATO countries, including mine, accurately. (Ironically, it even describes the position of the American people inside the US - you're free to bicker over gender neutral bathrooms or which clown runs the White House, but in terms of foreign politics you have no say whatsoever).

What Ukraine did up until 2014 was true independence, and true independence relies on a proper understanding of geopolitics, and more often than not on the skillful use of diplomacy.

It was you that suggested that Ukraine was supposed to be neutral. If that is not the justification for the invasion, then it can only be that Ukraine is supposed to be part of Russia. — unenlightened

That the Russians desire a neutral Ukraine is something that they've told us consistently over the course of some 15 years, and it's something they reiterated even after the invasion started.

It was part of the agreement reached between Ukraine and Russia in Istanbul in March/April 2022.

So there is plenty of evidence that suggests that it indeed was the question of Ukrainian neutrality that formed Russia's principal justification to invade.

I would say that Ukraine was supposed to be independent. That is what we seem to disagree about. — unenlightened

I wouldn't disagree with that, actually.

The difference is that I don't see anything that is happening today as bringing Ukraine closer to that goal. NATO membership wouldn't constitute independence, even more so considering Ukraine is now so indebted to the West and corporations like BlackRock that it couldn't repay that debt in a hundred years.

What Ukraine had to do to remain independent is what it did up to 2014. It had to maintain good relations with both sides.

In 2014 it made the critical error of jumping in bed with the US.

And well, as I've said here before, jumping in bed with a crocodile to protect oneself from the crocodile across the border makes no sense at all.

Geopolitically they failed, and the US & Cronies ensured it would not be allowed to reverse it.

It's hard to tell whether you're being facetious or not, because these caricatures regularly present themselves as genuinely held beliefs among this forum's denizens.

The idea of invading a country to ensure its neutrality is something worthy of the British Empire. — unenlightened

The "imperialist expansion" narrative lost all its credibility literally one month into the war.

Russia spent over a decade trying to find a compromise with the West vis-á-vis Ukraine, and was continuously cold-shouldered by the West that perceived it as being weak enough to disregard. Even Minsk - an attempt at peace - was admitted by the West to have been agreed upon in bad faith and treated as an armistice to buy time for arming Ukraine.

Even after the invasion of 2022 started, the Russians were still looking to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table and showed little to no territorial ambitions.

But maybe your comment was a joke that flew over my shoulder. Such things tend to translate poorly via text.

In the long run, we are all dead. In the meantime, if one starts from the fundamental irrationality that the wasting asset of one's life is worth spending in a good cause, then one does not give up the hopeless cause, because that alternative is worse than failure and death. — unenlightened

Talks with the Russians / Ukrainian neutrality is a fate worse than death?

People who truly believe that are obviously brainwashed.

There were reasonable ways out of this conflict, and Ukrainian leadership, being so foolish as to take orders from the West and their double agenda, refused them all.

There's nothing heroic about that. It's folly. Though the deaths of so many men is tragic to be sure.

When the situation is sufficiently bleak, 'balanced' analysis just betrays an unwillingness to face reality.

Ukraine is strategically lost, and from such a position there are no tactical master strokes, unconventional military strategies or 'wunderwaffen' that can conceivably turn the tide. The worse one's situation becomes, the less options one has.

I think the problem is people watch too many movies.

You wonder why the Ukrainians ever bothered to resist at all. They must be crazy berserkers. — unenlightened

That's what propaganda and war do to people, unfortunately. They become radical, irrational and emotionally driven.

In fact, if I were to be particularly cynical I would assume such a state of mind is actively encouraged by those who would see a nation fight to the bitter end.

The Ukrainians were ready for peace in March/April 2022. The West made peace impossible. So when one wonders why the Ukrainians can be bothered to resist - well, what other options did the West give them?

Clearly this incursion is going to be crushed in time. The idea that it will keep the Russians busy when they're in need of rest is upside-down thinking; it's the Ukrainians who are overstretched, battered and in need of rest. Reportedly the Russians have several hundred thousand troops standing in reserve, so exhaustion is not a major factor.

If the previous years are anything to go by, the Russians were likely to continue their offensive actions throughout the winter anyway.

Ukraine's previous offensive was a failure from every military angle as well, but something that makes no military sense may still make political sense. The question is whether it will change anything for Ukraine and the answer is probably not.

Sad but true.

Seems to make some sense, what say ye? — unenlightened

Ukraine's actions in Kursk make no military sense. It's Ukraine that is strapped for manpower, ammunition, etc. They cannot hold ground, their cities are being surrounded and they are losing villages almost daily. Opening another front when already overstretched seems completely counter-productive at least from a military standpoint.

Mearsheimer had the following to say about it:

I don't understand what the military objective is. In fact, if anything, what this is gonna do is detract from their effort in the eastern part of Ukraine to stimey the Russian steamroller, which is consistently moving forward every day and attriting the fighting units the Ukrainians have arrayed on that eastern front.

What the Ukrainians should be doing with those forces that they sent into Russia in the Kursk area, is those forces should have been sent to the frontlines in the eastern part of Ukraine to buttress the forces that are buckling underneath the Russian steamroller.

It makes no sense to attack into Kursk. What are they gonna gain from doing this? Are they gonna, you know, help win the war? Not at all. So this is a foolish, last-minute gamble from my perspective, on the part of the Ukrainians, to try and turn things around. — John J. Mearsheimer

Personally, the most plausible explanation I have heard so far comes from Alexander Mercouris who reported the possible target of this incursion is a nuclear weapons facility located in Kursk. The goal would be to capture or otherwise threaten this facility in order to gain some kind of leverage over the Russians that could be used in diplomatic negotiations for an end to the war, of which the Ukrainians currently have none.

This would explain why this incursion is hardly covered in western media. This last tidbit is actually quite significant, because if we were looking at some form of Ukrainian success, we would expect the entire western media to fawn over it in an attempt to score some propaganda victory. The fact that we don't see that makes for an unclear picture of what this is/was meant to achieve. Perhaps the West wasn't onboard with attacks on nuclear facilities, which is what Mercouris also hints at.

Remember when the Israelis accused Hamas of brutality?

Israeli media airs footage showing alleged footage of Palestinian detainee

This is just an indication of what is currently going on in Israeli prisons. and this is what we, the West, are quietly approving with our 'ironclad support'.

I hope the Americans here understand this is what your Congress was applauding for only a little while ago. This is what your nation is stooging for.

So? The previous Ukrainian offensive was a costly failure, and that's probably what this offensive will turn out as well since it makes zero military sense.

The more apt question would be, how can Russia lose?

The Ukrainians don't need money. They need manpower, ammunition, tanks, etc.

Meanwhile, the horrible toll of the war has caused many in key demographics (military age men) to either be dead or flee the country, which compounds the crippling economic effects of the war.

At this point Ukraine is essentially a zombie that's kept alive solely by Western injections of funds.

It would be a mistake to believe foreign injections of capital can maintain a status quo. It's a short-term solution, but on the long run these injections damage the Ukrainian economy even further, which in turn will make it require more injections, etc. - a vicious cycle.

War is simply not the type of problem that one can throw money at in order to solve it.

My sense is that a total collapse is unlikely, unless the Russians dramatically shift their military operations to a more manoeuvre-style approach.

Probably they will stick to their slow & steady war of attrition, which leaves enough breathing room for the Ukrainians to stave off collapse.

Do you suppose that the Kremlin would have handed (what they (formally) consider³) a piece of Russia over to Kyiv at that time², after 8 years of efforts¹? Perhaps insist on a new Kharkiv Pact⁴? Didn't Mearsheimer (and Drennan⁵ by the way) argue that Crimea remains a critical geo-political-power-military asset to Russia?
Whatever the case, something here doesn't quite add up.

If Ukraine is neutral, and the West shows a sincere interest in peace, I think the Russians could have possibly been persuaded to agree to some sort of special status for Crimea.

But that was back then. Today it is unthinkable they would give back Crimea and the landbridge that leads to it.

Apologetics to make their (deNazification irredentist genocide⁶⁷ revanchist) stories fit your narrative? — jorndoe

You can find plenty of information about Ukrainian ultranationalism online. It has been a problem since the time of Bandera. Furthermore, ultranationalists are a favorite when it comes to staging coups and waging proxy wars. From a Russian perspective they're a risk factor for similar trouble in the future.



You may make of this what you will, but it's clearly present in Ukraine and likely the war has only strengthened these elements.

Do you suppose that the Kremlin would hand (what they now (formally) consider³) a piece of Russia over to Kyiv? — jorndoe

Now?

No, not anymore. At the onset of the invasion there was still a modicum of trust which formed the basis upon which Russia could agree to a neutral Ukraine holding strategically important territory as it had since the end of the Cold War.

After the West showed its unwillingness to negotiate and kept doubling down on "strategically defeating" Russia, etc. what little trust there was, was gone.

But the fact that even the status of Crimea was negotiable shows that the Russians weren't primarily interested in territory when they invaded, that was my point. Even now the Russians point towards the Istanbul Communiqué as a starting point for negotiations, though it is unlikely they will return Crimea and the oblasts they now occupy.

And what then of their deNazification irredentist genocide⁶⁷ revanchist rhetoric (again)? — jorndoe

Ukraine has had a long-standing problem with ultranationalism, and that problem has only increased since the start of the war. The Russians view that as a threat to their interests and to long-term peace and stability. This is why they talk about 'denazification'. They mean ultranationalist militias like the Azov Batallion.

The Kremlin hasn't really been revanchist in its attitude, though. If anything it's the West that has been looking to 'punish' Russia.

A peace treaty is a treaty that, if signed, ends the conflict. — Echarmion

A peace treaty ends the war, ergo the "armed" conflict - which is obviously what it was meant to do.

I'm pointing out false and misleading statements. — Echarmion

Why not start with your own? :lol:


But sure - you can pretend to yourself that the Istanbul Communiqué was a ceasefire or whatever - then you can pretend that you 'won the argument', which apparently isn't what you're trying to do. (lol)

On the list of clowns you go.

No, it wasn't. It was a draft peace treaty. But here you go again, bickering over minutiae because clearly you've got nothing better.

Look kiddo, this is a philosophy forum and people here make a sport out of trying to 'win arguments', and that's what you're doing, and it's worth no one's time. You're even wasting your own.

It's unsubstantiated insofar as it relies entirely on what you guess the russian intentions were. — Echarmion

In what world is a draft peace agreement "just guessing"? :lol:

Your compass about what constitutes evidence seems all over the place.

The insinuation that the document indicated a russian willingness to forego territorial gains completely is unsubstantiated. — Echarmion

The Istanbul Communiqué is a strong piece of evidence that points in that direction, so obviously it is not 'unsubstantiated'.

Whether you find it convincing or not is a whole other matter, and one that I frankly don't care about.

Your goal here seems to be to bicker over minutiae.

If you are even unwilling to give credit to people like Mearsheimer for accurately analysing this conflict over the course of a decade, you're obviously not interested in an honest discussion.

Well, no, they're trying to gobble Donbas up, switch flags entirely, call it their own, expand Russia, and have employed shamming (and :fire: more) to do so. — jorndoe

The terms of the Istanbul Communiqué did not include any territorial gains for Russia - not even Crimea.

Both the Ukrainian and the Russian negotiating teams signed this document.

The West blocked those agreements.


The "imperialist expansion" narrative lost all foundation literally a month into the war. Why are you still parroting it several years later? Repeating a lie in the hopes it may one day become the truth?

I didn't take offense, nor was my comment a jab at you. Rather, it was a general observation that interest groups get people to spread their propaganda willingly.

I myself just try to talk some sense into people. It is a thankless job that I wish I got paid for. :lol:

I hope you're not talking about me, schop.

But to respond seriously to your remark: Imagine paying people for that. Propaganda lesson #1 is to get people emotionally invested to such an extent that they will parrot bullshit willingly.

As you all bicker over which clown should get to play pretend in the White House, US Congress gave 50+ standing ovations to a war criminal, who subsequently assassinated the chief Palestinian negotiator while they were visiting Iran, bringing wider Middle-East conflict and a US-Iran war ever closer.

Don't you all realize how petty this shit is compared to actual things that are happening in the world as a result of your out-of-control government?

This thread is a living testament to how "they" win.

And before you ask who "they" are: have you ever wondered where all these wars keep coming from that no one ever asked for and were part of neither party's campaign?

"Criminal", "weird", "immoral" - what do these words even mean to people who live in a nation that's funding a literal genocide? :chin:

It seems Trump fits right in with the people who run the White House, but perhaps the reason he is so impopular is because he's not trying to hide it?

For someone who is not an American, you sure seem invested in threads pertaining to US domestic politics. :chin:

I think you're lying.

Why does Ukraine seek western integration? The US engineered it.

Why don't Europeans act according to their geopolitical interests? They're in thrall to the US.

Why did Russia invade Ukraine? The US forced them too. — Echarmion

That's right. There are plenty of western scholars who voice these ideas, and it fits neatly in the historic behavioral pattern we see from the United States.

Where I diverge from these scholars is that they believe this to be a result of US incompetence, whereas I believe there is no way the US would pursue and double down on these policies for as long as they did, if they weren't getting exactly what they wanted.

An American accusing me of Hollywood bias is quite rich, though. There's not a nation on earth that has wreaked as much destruction on the world as the United States. It doesn't deserve anyone's benefit of the doubt. The only proper way to view its actions is through a lens of utter cynicism, which comes natural to a realist anyway.

So how does this look? What's the war aim? Recapture Kaliningrad for Germany? — Echarmion

Who knows, whatever the US could lure the ignorant Europeans into accepting.

This theory is nothing short of amazing. — Echarmion

Thanks. :up:

I wouldn't expect someone who seems still to be stuck in "unprovoked invasion" territory to really get it, but still, thanks.

If the Americans had their way, sure.

They had hoped the Russians would more aggressively push Ukraine, which would have given NATO an opportunity to punish Russia via a guerilla war and which would have fueled Russophobia and the propaganda machines. (In a cruel twist of irony, it would be Israel that fell for such a trap in Gaza)

The Russians showed restraint though, giving NATO ample opportunity to back out of escalation and sit down for talks, which is why US warmongering is only finding limited success.

The situation is still dangerous, though. Economic decoupling, the spreading of war sentiment and a measure of militarization has been achieved, so there is fertile soil for another conflict down the line.

The US has proven it is willing to bomb its allies' infrastructure to further its agenda, so it's entirely thinkable the US may do something extreme to create the proverbial spark in the powder keg and thus we may be closer to the threshold for full-scale conflict between Europe and Russia than we think.

Like handing the US a war that according to you they desperately wanted? — Echarmion

The war in Ukraine is just the appetizer - not the actual goal. War between Europe and Russia is the American dream scenario here, and the conduct of Russia in this war so far clearly shows they are trying to avoid giving the suicidal Europeans enough reason to fall for Washington's warmongering.

Why would war be unavoidable? — Echarmion

Because NATO insisted on threatening what the Russians believed were their vital strategic interests.

Just wait until the US is gone, where is the problem? — Echarmion

Even when the US pivots, it doesn't mean the US 'is gone', and you're suggesting handing the US the biggest trump card it could hope for? Haha, what a 'sensible' strategy.

They spend 15 years trying to avoid it only to turn it into a virtual certainty by invading. — Echarmion

Because at that point they believed war to be unavoidable. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

NATO was clearly propping up Ukraine militarily with the intention of creating a fait accompli. Russia sought to stop them before that became a reality.

Why did Putin need Europe to be amenable to peace in the first place? — Echarmion

Because there's no way the US would have provoked this conflict unless the Europeans were willing participants. Putin probably banked on the Europeans pursuing a sensible strategy. They didn't.

Even if NATO "flipped" Ukraine, what does this matter to Russia if the US is going to pivot to Asia and this kills NATO? — Echarmion

As I said, the US is seeking to prepare its pivot to Asia by leaving long-lasting conflict as its parting gift to Europe.

Which just seems to strengthen my argument that Russia made a bad move by choosing to continually escalate in Ukraine. — Echarmion

Of course not. The Russians believe NATO membership for Ukraine to be a threat to their vital strategic interests. They simply couldn't ignore it. That's what a red line means. They spent 15 years trying to avert this outcome.

You're constantly accusing Europe of ignoring the obvious signs on the wall yet Russia plays exactly to the US playbook and you have nothing to say about that? — Echarmion

This ties into the fact that Ukraine represents Russian key strategic interests, and therefore NATO seeking to flip NATO couldn't be ignored. But it's widely accepted that Putin expected Europe to be more amendable to peace, and thus miscalculated in that regard.

On the topic of the Europeans - their ability for geopolitics has simply atrophied since the end of the Cold War, and they are now basically Uncle Sam's poodles.

It's just interesting to see how you're strenuously avoiding to answer uncomfortable questions. — Echarmion

So far your questions have been little more than disingenuous, cheap attempts at "gotchas", which have achieved little other than betray your less-than-surface-level understanding of this conflict.

You earlier stated you agree with the principle of deterrence. Why is this not covered by deterrence? — Echarmion

Because deterrence is supposed to make war less likely, instead of provoke it.

Because to me it reads like you saying that NATO was bent on war this entire time. — Echarmion

Yep. That's something I've repeatedly argued in this thread: NATO, the US in particular, was purposefully seeking conflict in Ukraine from 2008 onward.

Ah yes, the classic kindergarten trick. — Echarmion

Just being selective with what I spend my time on.

If you think you're entitled to me regurgitating topics that have been covered here dozens of times, you are sadly mistaken.

The agreements contain no clause to this effect, so you're asking NATO to unilaterally de-escalate. — Echarmion

I'm not asking NATO anything.

NATO leaders admitted to signing a peace agreement not with the intention of maintaing peace, but with the intention to arm for war.

Your suggestion that Russia could withdraw support for the Donbas separatists and in turn NATO would agree to a neutral Ukraine is therefore laughable.

Great, I agree. So why was it impossible for Russia and NATO to cooperate in February 2022, and why would it have then been possible in April 2022 or now?

Edit: Or, in case you reject my framing of the question, if it was possible to cooperate in February 2022, why didn't Russia choose this path given the many advantages of cooperation with Europe. — Echarmion

This question has been answered a million times already. I'm not going to answer it again.

Assuming this is true, how is this "bad faith"? — Echarmion

You're asking me how it is bad faith to enter a peace agreement in order to double down on what caused the war in the first place?

Doesn't Mearsheimer argue that nations will not sit back and wait but instead aggressively seek advantages? — Echarmion

There's nothing within the realist framework that says cooperation cannot happen when it is rational to cooperate.

But also de-escalation is not even a serious argument because NATO will by default make unacceptable demands. — Echarmion

Again, you're just pulling this out of your ass. I never argued this.

I get the impression you are deliberately trying to waste my time with this nonsense. Let me know when you have something substantial to add to the discussion.

[...] entertaining the possibility that the russian leadership made a stupid or incompetent decision is "not serious". Why not? — Echarmion

You're both mischaracterizing your own position (you're arguing there was "no reason" to invade Ukraine - obviously not a serious argument) and mine (I never argued the Russian leadership was unable to make mistakes).

Cheap rhetorical tricks won't help you with being taken seriously here.

What kind of fait accompli could NATO create? — Echarmion

I already explained.

Russia of course also had the option to offer to abandon the Donbas separatists in exchange for a commitment to a neutral Ukraine with some kind of economic deal thrown in. — Echarmion

First-hand accounts from Merkel and Hollande tell us that NATO entered the Minsk Accords in bad faith, and used it to buy time to arm Ukraine. NATO was fully committed to flipping Ukraine.

The idea that if only the Russians stopped backing the separatists NATO would agree to Ukrainian neutrality is probably one of the most far-fetched things I've heard so far. I hesitate to say: not a serious argument.

[...] nothing had dramatically changed for Russia's position in Ukraine. — Echarmion

This is another version of the "no reason" comment. The Russians clearly believed and told us otherwise, and the idea that a great power goes to war for "no reason" is just not a serious argument.

It's quite easy to see from the Russian point of view what was changing in Ukraine: Ukraine was in the process of being trained and armed by NATO to a point where Russia's standing army would no longer be able to intervene. During the initial invasion Ukrainian forces outnumbered the Russians (est. 200,000+ vs. 100,000 - 190,000 respectively).

Coupled with NATO rhetoric of incorporating Ukraine, it was clear from their point of view they were expecting NATO to create a fait accompli.

Insisting that there was "no reason" and that Putin is some mad man is not a serious argument.

namely that the invasion of Ukraine defies traditional "geopolitical reason" — Echarmion

It doesn't. Ukraine and especially Crimea are of great geopolitical and historical importance to Russia and always have been. They've fought several wars over them.

No realist should have been surprised that the Russians after over a decade of warnings chose to use force to secure what they believed to be their vital strategic interests.

In fact, Mearsheimer predicted it almost ten years in advance.