Can you propose an alternative, or are you pathetic too?

The question here - the only one that's really been relevant despite all the avoidance of it - is whether your (3) is the only choice, the least harmful choice, the most ethical choice etc. No one is remotely confused about why we're faced with such a choice. — Isaac

In my reasoning, 3) follows logically from 1) and 2). So it is a logical necessity, not something I want, but what the situation as described by @Benkei leads to. What's "in the cards" so to speak.

EDIT: It's also the context of the discussion, i.e. the scenario evoked by Macron:

For him, despite the delivery of heavy weapons to Kyiv, there is no question of allowing the conflict to drag on with the idea of weakening Russia. The priority remains, if possible, to re-establish Ukraine within its historical borders, or at least within those of before February 24, the date of the Russian invasion.

Mr. Macron considers that it is up to the Ukrainians to determine their war aims and the conditions for a possible resumption of negotiations with Moscow ... — Olivier5

IOW, Macron is not talking of an immediate ceasefire. He's taking a longer view, and assuming that Ukraine will turn this war around with the heavy artillery now supplied to them, he is talking of how far should Ukraine push its advantage: up to the pre-February borders, or beyond, up to the internationally recognized borders, i.e. inclusive of Crimea and Dombas?

I imagine this invasion has created hatred for Russia that will persist in Ukraine for the next 50 years at least. — frank

I agree, and there lies a danger, long term.

In his poem Salut à l’Empereur dedicated to emperor Nicholas II of Russia, French poet José Maria de Heredia sang about "... the distant era / When Russians and French in a contest without hate, / Foreseeing the future, already mixed their blood."

(... l'époque lointaine / Où Russes et Français en un tournoi sans haine, / Prévoyant l'avenir, mêlaient déjà leur sang.)

His mellifluous verses allude to the Napoleonic wars, depicting them as heroic but not hateful. And I guess it's true that the Russians and the French never hated one another in 1812 or in the decades after, in spite of the terrible destruction meted by this "contest without hate".

The same cannot be said about the Ukrainians, for sure, and understandably. There are already credible reports of summary execution and torture of Russian POW by Ukrainian forces. And vice versa too of course.

So what would a solution to that conundrum look like? That was my question. — Benkei

I gave you my answer already -- and then you veered into emotional language. Let's try again, slower.

1) The conundrum you described has no solution that you or I can see. That'd be why you call it a conundrum.

2) If no country is willing to give Ukraine security assurances, it goes without saying that Ukrainians will have to try and find their own indigenous solutions to their own security.

3) One way to do that is simply to repel the Russian army back into Russia. If Ukraine can achieve this, then it will have proven that it can ensure its own security. And Russia likely won't try to invade them again for a few decades.

4) The problem then becomes the security and stability of Russia itself. This is why Macron and others are reminding us all that we need to keep channels of communication open with Russia, and to make sure Ukraine doesn't push its advantage beyond the liberation of Ukraine. A victorious Ukraine, armed to the teeth, could also become a destabilizing factor in the future. Zelenskyy won't be here forever. Wars often stroke extreme nationalism.

Maybe try to keep your feelings out of it. — Benkei

If you ask what I like, I'll respond. So, I shall leave my feelings out of it when you leave my feelings out of it...

Try and think logically, when you post. Don't accuse others of something you started, for instance. Otherwise it looks like you are just playing games.

You do like your death tolls high. — Benkei

I just want an aggression punished.

A Russian naval support ship, the “Vsevolod Bobrov”, is being towed from the area of Snake Island after it caught fire, spokesperson for the Odessa regional military administration said on Thursday.

“As a result of the actions of our military sailors, the logistics ship Vsevolod Bobrov, one of the newest in the Russian fleet, [caught fire]. They say that it is [being towed] to Sevastopol,” the Ukrinform news agency quoted spokesperson Serhii Bratchuk as saying.

This is a piece on Crimea lifted from Roussky Reporter, an independent Russian magazine. I landed on it through Courrier International, a French weekly translating articles from the world press. Their sources are well chosen, and their wesite includes a description of each of the media sources they use, its ownership, political position, etc. Here is the entry for Roussky Reporter:

As its name suggests, this magazine emphasizes reporting. Created in 2007 by the Expert group to be a “newspaper to read and look at”, its ambition is to “recount the life of modern societies” using quality texts and the work of the best photographers. Despite a certain notoriety validated by numerous prizes, it ceased its weekly rhythm from 2015 and only appears twice a month in the best of cases. Their website has its own editorial staff.

All this prefacing to say this is a Russian source, but a fairly decent one. The article dates back to March 2019, before the war when some free reporting was still allowed.

The text was originally posted with a photograhy portfolio, that one can see here or here.



Crimea as an Island
Stanislava Novgorodtseva

“Alas, how small is an individual before the inexorable laws of history,” wrote Vasily Aksenov in the novel The Island of Crimea.

As a child, Crimea seemed to me a sacred, apolitical place. An island of original mythology with traces of ancient civilizations. Here I saw the sea for the first time. The annual vacation trips were something like visiting your beloved grandmother - time free from worries.

The Crimean peninsula has formed its own identity in the melting pot of peoples. At different times, Tauris, Cimmerians, Scythians, Romans, Goths, Huns, Greeks lived on its territory. In 1783, this place of intersection of different religions and cultures became part of the Russian Empire and was granted the glory of a royal residence.

With the advent of the USSR, Crimea was redesigned from a vacation spot for the elite into a resort accessible to the Soviet people. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the peninsula was part of Ukraine, and in March 2014 it was included in Russia. Since that moment, Crimea has been at the center of the main political conflicts of the last five years. New realities have made adjustments to my relationship with the place. A new political layer has wedged into the world of childhood and local mythology.

Politics took a tough toll on families: many quarreled, broke off relations with relatives on the other side of the Russian-Ukrainian border. Since 2014, according to official figures, 22,823 people have moved and registered in Ukraine as migrants - about 1 percent of the inhabitants of the peninsula, primarily Crimean Tatars and citizens whose fate was closely connected with Ukraine. Active migration in both directions is still observed, although crossing the border is increasingly difficult. Now there are relatively few “pro-Ukrainian citizens” in Crimea, but they exist, although they are afraid to openly express their position.

The division also affected the Crimean Tatar population - only a part of the elders accepted the new Russian government, appreciating the steps made towards them, including the recognition of property rights to the occupied land and buildings, and the assignment of state status to the Crimean Tatar language.

The zealous work of the security forces makes a depressing impression on the dissenting part of the people. Since 2014, 32 Crimeans have been convicted of participating in the activities of the Hizb ut-Tahrir organization, which is banned in Russia. In Ukraine, it was not banned, and some people suddenly found themselves outside the law. Since 2016, the Crimean Tatar Mejlis, which is boycotting the annexation of Crimea to Russia, has been classified among the extremist organizations.

Among the Russian population, pro-Russian sentiments and approval of the current government prevail: in the 2018 elections, Vladimir Putin was supported by 90% of the inhabitants of the peninsula. However, there is an artificial planting of military-patriotic themes in education, in the landscape, in the environment.

State institutions and private companies compete in loyalty to the new government: billboards, house facades and bus stops are decorated with paintings depicting the Russian president and the tricolor. Civil initiatives to hang the Russian flag outside the windows are also not uncommon. Souvenirs shops are dominated by the same symbols, complemented by aggressive anti-American rhetoric.

But even [Russian] patriots complain that the increase in wages and pensions after joining Russia does not compensate for the rise in prices. Until May 2018, many lived in hope: “They will build the Crimean bridge, and life will begin to improve, prices will even out.” Alas, this did not happen - this year the same interlocutors no longer make such optimistic forecasts.

Tourism is still important for Crimea, but another problem has been added to the lack of infrastructure and services - rising prices. Unregulated camping and tourism remain stably popular, but do not help replenish the budget. And in hotels and sanatoriums - either Russians who are not allowed to travel abroad, or nostalgic pensioners. Service is worse than in Sochi, and the cost is higher than in Turkey.

There is a sense of isolation – there is no Sberbank, VTB, MTS, or other large companies in Crimea; they fear sanctions. And even the Crimean football teams have to play matches exclusively with each other. Small businesses also suffered; few were able to quickly reorganize themselves, taking into account Russian legislation and a rigid taxation system.

Another serious problem is the drought in the steppe. The energy blockade by Ukraine has somehow been overcome, but there is still an acute shortage of water. And first of all, the Crimean Tatars, who are engaged in agriculture here, suffer. When I saw how in the summer plastic containers with water were placed every 10 meters in the fields, I assumed that this was an irrigation system, but the owners of the fields explained: these are water dispensers for birds and rodents. Animals also suffer from drought and, in desperation, gnaw through irrigation hoses.

According to official reports, significant funds are being allocated to help the steppe regions, but there are no visible improvements yet.

Sanctions and individual restrictions on the territory of Crimea have reinforced the feeling of its isolation. The country of my childhood has been transformed into an isolated island somewhere on the map of Russia.

https://expert.ru/russian_reporter/2019/04/kryim-kak-ostrov/

Agreed on both points.

When Zelenskyy proposes direct talks between Putin and him, he's probly trolling Putin, knowing that his proposal is likely to be found offensive by the Megalomaniac in Chief.

That your proposed solution isn't a solution — Benkei

I haven't proposed anything. You misread the exchange.

How do you provide security to Ukraine in a way that's also acceptable to Russia — Benkei

First thing first, Russia has to be defeated and repelled from Ukraine. Once that is done, and I have no doubt it will be, the situation will be different: Russia will need security guarantees against a victorious Ukraine; and Belarus may become independent.

I've already have ample firewood at the countryside place. And trees, if it comes to that. — ssu

:up:

Russia could cut off gas exports to Finland in weeks — ssu

Oh oh... Stocking up firewood yet?

Italian PM Draghi Now Supports Ruble Payment Scheme for Russian Gas
By Charles Kennedy - May 11, 2022, 5:30 PM CDT

As the European Union warns companies against paying for Russian gas in rubles, Italy’s prime minister has stated the opposite, saying that European companies are free to pay in Russian currency without finding themselves in breach of sanctions that lack clarity.

“There is no official pronouncement of what it means to breach sanctions,” Draghi said during a press conference on Wednesday, as reported by Bloomberg. “Nobody has ever said anything about whether ruble payment breach sanctions.”

The Italian prime minister also claimed that “most of the gas importers” had already opened ruble accounts with Russian Gazprom.

On Tuesday, VNG, one of Germany’s largest importers of natural gas, reportedly opened a ruble account with Russian Gazprombank, which will see its euro payment converted into rubles in line with Russia’s scheme to bypass sanctions.

VNG was the second German company to have done this. In pril, German Uniper also said it was preparing the necessary accounts for the ruble payments.

The scheme, devised by Russia, envisions national gas purchasers opening two separate accounts with Gazprombank–one in euros or dollars and a second in rubles. Payments are made to the first account and then converted to rubles and transferred to the second account.

"To pay in rubles — if this is not foreseen in the contract — is a breach of our sanctions," European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said two weeks ago. "Companies with such contracts should not accede to the Russian demands."

Several EU countries will have to renew supply contracts with Gazprom by the end of this month.

the risk for a Russian revanchist comeback — neomac

Yes. Don't redo the mistake of the Versaille treaty.

China is well poised to 'buy' Russia, I agree. Ultimately, their eyes are on Siberia.

What can be learnt from this thread: Countries are evil. Organizations are abominable (well, military ones at least). People are fassholes. Or just stupid. — jorndoe

In other words, much cynicism has been spilled and spent here, as if hope was an offense.

Why so aggressive all the time? Why can't you just agree to disagree in a cool headed manner? Keep some sense of humour; try and understand others.

Why so pissed?

What is it to you if the Swedes and Finns join NATO, for instance? Would it peel some skin off your nose? What do you care for their policies and alliances?

the setting is set to "common internet forum mode". — Christoffer

We can do better than that. Even @Isaac can, I suspect. This is an important topic, about war and peace, life and death, far more important than any 'philosophical zombie'. Hence this thread should be better curated than others, not abandoned by the mods as it is now.

Irrespective of any moderation, we as a group can decide that this topic deserves better than that. We can raise the bar, if we all agree.

@Isaac keeps misunderstanding others, all the time, that's what he does here. He's good at it. I guess it stems from 'the will to be dumb', the desire for obscurity and doubt, the fear of clarity. What he calls 'hubris' is exactly that: clarity of thought, and he's pissed when you clarify things.

Russia is too dangerous to wait for them to recover before trying to join any kind of security. — Christoffer

I agree. It's now or never.

Maria Alyokhina, the leader of the Pussy Riot band, escaped Russia by disguising herself as a food courier to avoid Moscow police, the New York Times reports.

Alyokhina was set to spend 21 days in a penal colony, but she left the country before Moscow police detained her.

The Pussy Riot's leader threw on the food courier disguise to avoid the Moscow police who were staked outside of her friend's apartment where she had been staying, the New York Times reports.

She left her cellphone behind to trick the police and avoid any tracking.

A friend then drove Alyokhina to Russia's border with Belarus and she traveled to Lithuania within a week.

The music band Pussy Riot, which was founded back in 2011 in Russia, is known for its protest songs and concerts that promote civil liberties.

So what would the military repercussions be then? — Isaac

We shall see, now that Finland has applied.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

The Europeans are saying to UK/US: "the goal is to repel the invasion, not to 'bleed Russia', so don't get too excited." What I would like to know now, is: have US/UK media reported that call, or not?

Apparently they have relayed neither Macron's nor Draghi's remarks of yesterday.

And that poses a problem to me: it looks like the US and UK are trapped into just as much of a controlled media as Russia right now... As during the war on Iraq, the US and UK press now behaves as subservient to political power and thus betrays its mission, which is to critique inform and educate independently from political power.

Seems Chomsky did get that right, irrespective of his obsession with the evils of the US making him unable to understand popular support to NATO in Europe.

Between some European states and Ukraine.

how such security guarantees would look like. — Benkei

I imagine a mutual protection treaty.

Draghi:
We agree that we need to continue to support Ukraine, put pressure on Russia but also that we need to ask how to build peace. The negotiating path is difficult."

"Russia is no longer Goliath — Olivier5

Now Macron is ringing a similar bell:

"While suggesting the creation of a "European political community" likely to create closer bonds between the European Union (EU) the countries that aspire to join it, starting with Ukraine, the French president continues to plead, in the long term, for a "negotiated peace" with Moscow. This would follow a ceasefire that is still unattainable at this stage, with fighting still raging in the Donbas. For him, despite the delivery of heavy weapons to Kyiv, there is no question of allowing the conflict to drag on with the idea of weakening Russia. The priority remains, if possible, to re-establish Ukraine within its historical borders, or at least within those of before February 24, the date of the Russian invasion.

Mr. Macron considers that it is up to the Ukrainians to determine their war aims and the conditions for a possible resumption of negotiations with Moscow, currently at an impasse. It is not up to their European or American allies. "It is solely up to Ukraine to define the conditions for negotiations with Russia," explained the head of state from Strasbourg. The idea, as seen from France, is to guarantee Ukrainian security, while restoring, in the longer term, that of the entire European continent. "Our responsibility is to achieve a ceasefire without the conflict spreading to the rest of Europe. (...) But tomorrow we will have to build peace. Let's never forget it," he said. "
(Le Monde)

More on the current French take from Le Monde in English (recently launched):

US gets caught up in the euphoria of a proxy war against Russia
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/05/09/us-caught-up-in-the-euphoria-of-a-proxy-war-against-russia_5982921_4.html

Vladimir Kazanevsky, Ukraine

The western media (by and large, with exceptions) are simultaneously claiming that Russia is a ferocious enemy that will not stop at Ukraine, and then also saying how embarrassing the Russian army is. Those are contradictory views. — Manuel

Since when are western media supposed to be coherent? And what does that have to see with the Finns and their security? Does CNN make policy prescriptions to Finns now?

Personally, I'm quite happy that the US fought in WW2, and in WW1. But that's just me. If you see the US as equally dangerous to your own security as Russia, then you might indeed find support for NATO somewhat puzzling. The answer to that puzzle is once again simple: not all Finns and not all Swedes share your assessment of the respective threats posed to them by Russia and the US. Some of them might see the US as a more benevolent security partner (at least toward them) than Russia.

Does being a brutal dictatorship apply to America too?

It's nothing to do with denying anything. I haven't (yet) denied that they have objective reasons to fear Russia. Its just that you haven't yet supplied any reason that wouldn't also apply to America, so there's clearly some factor you're still missing. — Isaac

Which factor, pray tell?

So, Mario Draghi, Italian prime minister, is in Washington. The US media has not (yet?) reported it but he is saying something relevant to the present discussion. Translated from Sky.it:


Draghi: "An imposed peace would be a disaster. US and Russia should sit at a table"
May 11, 2022 - 18:03

The premier, after meeting with Joe Biden at the White House, met with reporters at a press conference in Washington: "You have to ask how to build peace," he said.

"The right peace will be the one Ukraine wants, not the one imposed by allies or others." said Prime Minister Mario Draghi. "I thank the U.S. president and the entire administration for the welcome, the meeting went very well. He thanked Italy for being a strong partner and a credible ally. We agree that we need to continue to support Ukraine, put pressure on Russia but also that we need to ask how to build peace. The negotiating path is difficult."

"Russia is no longer Goliath, it is not invincible. The war has changed its face, initially it was a war in which it was thought there was a Goliath and a David, essentially a desperate defense that also seemed to fail, but today the landscape has completely turned upside down."

The Prime Minister addressed various issues [in the press conference], from the food and energy crises caused by the conflict to inflation eroding the purchasing power of the weaker sections of the population.

It happened 350 times in 2020 and 290 times in 2021 with respect to Russians testing air space alertness of NATO members, including the US but mostly the Baltic states. — Benkei

Very few intercepted flights entered allied airspace, though. The Swedes took the March 2 case very seriously. It was not just one plane and they entered over several kilometres.

Sweden and Finland have objective reasons to fear Russia. It'd be nice if posters wouldn't deny the glaringly obvious needs of fellow human beings.

That's just whataboutism. Nothing to see with Finland's and Sweden's reasons to fear Russian. Either you take the issue seriously, or you don't.

So the question is not whether Russia has invaded other countries, it's whether Finland are in their 'crosseye'. No one has, as yet, given the slightest evidence that they are. — Isaac

The Russians have flown four military jets in Swedish air space early March. Two of those were reportedly equipped with nuclear weapons, although this was not confirmed officially. A Russian army helicopter violated Finland's airspace today.

The US invaded a foreign nation hundreds of miles away in Iraq, so they can do it to others.

So do you need security against America? Or is it, just possibly, more than mere willingness to invade which determines which country is a security risk to whom? — Isaac

Yes you do need security against America when you are in their crosshair. And even more so if America becomes a ruthless, immoral dictatorship. Fascist for real, I mean, like when people like Chomsky are put in concentration camps. Every democracy on earth would then be in their crosshair so that would be an unmitigated disaster.

Your qualifications are? — Isaac

For one, I can understand the need of other human beings for a sense of security.

Yes, and I was pointing out that being a bad neighbour to Ukraine is not sufficient ground for such action. Invading Ukraine does not alone mean they'll invade everywhere. — Isaac

It means that the Russians could potentially try and invade (or try to otherwise damage militarily) some of their other neighbours. They've just unleashed some pretty extreme brutality onto Ukraine so they can do it to others. It's not beyond them.

No reason for it. My question was about the choice of rationality as a overarching criterion. Communism or Nazism are rational, far more rational than any humanism.

IOW, rationality alone is a recipe for disaster.

I did but you were not interested.

The Finns will do whatever they want or can do. I am just saying that their position is not so hard to understand and to relate to. It all started with Chomsky who said in that vid posted by @Manuel that he was 'puzzled' by Sweden's will to join. He was puzzled by something rather simple, in my view.

And this puzzles me now: why was Chomsky, supposedly a smart guy, puzzled by something so damn obvious? Is he losing steam, becoming less than bright? Maybe. Or was he simply not too bothered to think about it, i.e. a bit lazy?

This is a matter of life and death, probably not the best topic for some uninformed, lazy rambling by a non-specialist like Chomsky. He should know better than that.