Yeah...

Someone needs to step on the breaks.

Ha.

Maybe I am being paranoid or alarmist or whatever.

But I think this ought to be taken extremely seriously. I can understand why most people believe that these weapons just won't be used, it would be way too costly.

But I'm not as confident.

Now Putin's put nuclear forces on "high alert".

Wtf. This is madness, total lunacy.

Yes, something like that. Obviously many sectors of the Russian elites aren't happy now, but they might be getting some kind of benefits.

No combination of lesser things can create a greater thing without something greater than the greater thing added to the lesser things. — Joe Mello

I haven't read the thread, so if something here is repeated, apologies. Let me take a stab at it.

When speaking of things like "lesser", do you have in mind something like "less complex"? Otherwise I'm left with "inferior", and I don't think it's quite right for us to say that something in the world is superior to another inherently. We add that additional value ourselves, but not the world - the world doesn't care.

Essentially when we get a new phenomena in nature, say, experience or water or something that is quite rare, we must assume that in the stuff out of which experience and water is made of, there is the potential for these more sophisticated developments already found in the "lesser thing".

So it's not so much that something "greater" is added, its that a specific combination ignited, so to speak, what was already there unrealized, as it were.

Damn. Russia might get kicked out of the SWIFT system after all. And with these weapon sales, the stakes have gone up quite a bit.

This could get much uglier. It's the damn accidents that have me on edge and well, I can only image you being next door, being a bit nervous too.

I mean, for sure Ukraine has a right to defense, no doubt. But I don't know if Putin judged the West would go this far.

I suspect China could make some kind of play here. Unlikely, but, they could have a big impact, if they become more active in this domain.

I dunno, it's a little nerve-wracking.

China would be the only "enemy" had that happened, because who else would be left? So you're right about that.

Things were fine with Russia up until the Crimea incident, that's when all the Russia scare started again. I remember Obama mocking Romney back in 2012 about being "stuck in the cold war". In short time, we're back into one, of sorts. But China and Russia would need further integration to consider themselves an alliance, and that would give Russia the position of a junior partner.

I don't know enough about the internal dynamics in Russia to judge on the economy front, this action seems to indicate that they're willing to lose quite a bit. I imagine that a portion of the oligarchs do want the war for some profit motives, so perhaps there is a split in elite opinion.

But I'm speculating here.

There has to be a tension inside Russia between the oligarchs and the politicians behind this war, which can't be Putin alone, other top ranking officials very likely agreed to this in discussion.

We avoided the Cuban crisis by a razor this margins, I have in mind accidents, unforeseen events, more than deliberate choices.



Indeed. I'd guess that it's likely a side-effect of the parliamentary systems we have. Politicians rarely have to think beyond four years, often less.

If they had literal, legally binding obligations for long term goals and aspirations, many of the problems we now face quite severely, could've been mitigated substantially.

Also, if Russia joined NATO, they'd have to deal with a voice that would occasionally dissent from certain actions, so that could complicate certain military operations.



Yeah. I've had this in the back of my mind. I'm no fan of Biden, but if a Republican were in office, heaven forbid the situation now. Better not even consider what would be the case.

To the extent that that's even possible at all, it has its own logic. Now he's going to have to rely on China even more - we have to see how much longer he'll remain in power.

He did ask to join NATO to Clinton back in 2000, but was rejected. That likely didn't help either. Then again, these military alliances should be made on a state by state basis, and not as a monolith, it can be restrictive in certain situations. Europe pays little for NATO protection.

It's nice to have an army when it comes (relatively) cheap.

In any case France has a deterrent if it sees itself in a bleak situation.

On the other hand this Russia isn't the USSR. Russia is punching above its weight class, and this may well have severe consequences for the Russian people, not even mentioning Ukraine right now.

For me, the main issue here, lurking in the background, are the damn nukes. Obviously that would be a super last resort, but it's what complicates everything so much more.

Thanks for the clarification on the aims.

Well, if this is correct, which there seems little reason to doubt, if Kiev continues to resist as they have, we could sadly expect for Kiev to be heavily bombarded in short order.

Hopefully not.

Yes. Similar to Erdogan it seems and perhaps Duterte. Very much a "family values" type.

If they nuke Ukraine, they are killing (at least some of) the people they are saying they want to incorporate into Russia.

But if they do this, it's game over for Russia as a country. That's not happening.

Yeah, military often boils down to brute force.

Thanks.

The money for aid was to be expected.

Leftist take on the issue:

The Putin Regime Is Straining Under Its Own Contradictions

https://jacobinmag.com/2022/02/russia-navalny-billionaires-west-democracy-repression

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/25/unsc-to-vote-on-resolution-condemning-russia-invasion-liveblog

US official claims Russian forces frustrated by ‘viable’ Ukrainian resistance

Russian forces are becoming increasingly frustrated by what the United States believes is “viable” Ukrainian resistance, a US defence official has said.

“We know that they have not made the progress that they have wanted to make, particularly in the north. They have been frustrated by what they have seen is a very determined resistance,” the official claimed, without providing evidence. “It has slowed them down.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------

One wonders if this kind of issue could cause the Russian army to become more aggressive. There's still no clear goal set for this war, that I've heard. Some say that they want to overthrow Ukraine's president.

Maybe.

I've thought that the goal here would be to divide Ukraine up, somewhat akin to Yugoslavia, with less nationalities.

This is where fire could meet gasoline.

I understand the move, and makes some strategic sense. But still, scary.

But is this a kind of assault on a sovereign country in terms of diplomacy?



Nuclear war is the biggest factor hear, or the threat of it. Yes, it is quite horrible, many unnecessary suffering and death. Another one to the long lost of current atrocities, but in Europe - again.



Yes, I've heard this, but I'm unaware if when Tooze wrote this, he knew that Putin had been sanctioned too. Though I guess it won't hit him where it hurts too much. That energy need to keep coming in after all...

How relevant are these? Is this more serious than was previously expected (the sanctions), or is it more or less "normal"?

The US imposed sanctions on Putin.

Don't know how much it matters.

China’s Xi speaks to Putin; calls for ‘negotiation’ with Ukraine

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/25/chinas-xi-speaks-to-putin-calls-for-negotiation-with-ukraine

Xi said on the call with Putin that it is important to “abandon the Cold War mentality, attach importance to and respect the reasonable security concerns of all countries, and form a balanced, effective and sustainable European security mechanism through negotiations”.....

... While most nations in Asia rallied to support Ukraine, China has continued to denounce sanctions against Russia and blamed the United States and its allies for provoking Moscow.

Beijing, worried about US power in Asia, has increasingly aligned its foreign policy with Russia to challenge the West.

“China feels very strongly that the United States is trying to encircle and contain it. Russia feels the same way. The combined pressure on both of them has pushed them together,” Einar Tangen, an analyst at the Taihe Institute, told Al Jazeera.

It's not that straightforward in my eyes. In theory and principle yes, having powers keeping others in check will limit certain actions one state may have taken otherwise.

On the other hand, if this becomes a pissing contest, then the likelihood of a global disaster increases quite a lot.

On a tangent, I don't think Russia's actions here will change the situation in Taiwan for example. And that one is very fragile too.

We'll have to see how this plays out with Russia in the mid-to-long term, when it comes to sanction duration, other consequences, etc. It's not clear what will happen yet.

This is extremely important and brave, given the consequences involved.

Perhaps this may limit the scope and duration of this war. After all, massive sanctions only hurt the general population, not the oligarchs.

This decision seems to be backfiring.

I think there are limits to analyzing all wars in terms of profits alone. Undoubtedly it is a, huge, massive factor, but not always decisive. When it comes to state power and ideology, if certain lines are breached, not even profit will enter into war calculations.

Case in point Cuba and Iran. There are massive profits to be made in both places (particularly in Iran), but no matter how much business may want these countries open, they defied US orders, so they're still sanctioned to this day.

It's not too common, but it happens. Something like this may also arise with Russia in relation to Ukraine. But there's the border issue to take into account as well.

But again, profits will be made regardless of whether a country is invaded or not, it's just that different industries make the money.



This is true, though it is still a major crime, with very serious consequences.

And again, this was predicted to happen ever since the USSR fell, as you know.

That mentality is childish in the extreme.

As of now, there's no easy solution. Perhaps up to a month ago, it could have been done peacefully. But going all patriotic or painting black and white pictures is Disneyfication and dangerous.

It's a mess.

NATO cannot get involved here, they can't. This is not about them not being dependable, it's that if they did, I don't see how a nuclear war could be avoided.

This could have been prevented by listening to Russia previously and not expanding NATO, instead they betrayed what they said, and this happened, as predicted by Jack Matlock and others.

From this point on, though, it is Putin's war and it's in his hands to stop it quickly. Internal reaction in Russia could help, but expanding this is extremely risky, not to mention criminal.

There is no genocide, that's a fabrication.

He may want to split Ukraine into separate countries. This could have been avoided, but now Putin is going pretty nuts, and others must listen.

Not the way to go, it's a horror.

It's good to see people inside Russia oppose this - and makes sense too.

Nevertheless, what is the actual end-goal here? To fracture Ukraine or what?

This may go on for quite some time.

What a mess. This is lunacy...

Sure. If you keep an eye open, you can find some good articles at times though.

He said as much in the speech he gave yesterday. I think NATO didn't want him because they knew that having a country of the size could cause the organization to differ on strategic grounds.

That's the question.

In diplomacy, you always need to offer all sides a way to save face or declare a victory of sorts.

If it is true that Putin was assured that NATO membership was out of the negotiating table for them, then he had to act somehow, it seems to me.

The issue is, I don't know if this is the proper action to take: we don't know all the options he had available so far.



Yeah. That's what's being talked about, if you get a bunch of mercenaries and just give em' a bunch of weapons, then Ukraine could well be destroyed. If these weapons inflict serious causalities on the Russian side, then all bets are off, in terms of a massive invasion.

We may be removed from that for now, but not at all implausible I think. You're likely correct on the troops front.



I can't pretend neutrality. In fact, I think it's kind of a myth. One can ask for better sources based on what one deems to be reliable news.

I think that Democracynow.org is pretty good, they do an hourly show.

Matt Taibbi used to live in Russia, and knows people, so any stuff that comes from him will be excellent.

Jack Matlock, one of the last ambassadors to the USSR, know Russia quite well, his articles will be very informed.

I think that Al Jazeera here isn't prone to a strong "pro" or "anti" stance in this situation, that I'm aware of.

Beyond that, it's a bit of picking and choosing what sounds most reasonable.

If we don't know what physical reality is, it makes little sense to speak of non-physical reality.

Best to start with what can be elucidated than to go on to something which isn't clearly posed.

So we're going to stop Putin how? A strongly worded letter? — Isaac

:rofl:

Dear Sir,

Please stop. This is not helping.

Sincerely,

The West

Bah, Boris Johnson is an effing clown.

Not surprising to see such donations being given. But then this is all posturing from the UK.

Thanks for sharing that info.



If that happens, I can't imagine more countries not getting involved, maybe Poland.

We'll find out soon enough if an attack goes off.

Yeah, that's how it is now.

But it could expand. I'm aware Ukraine now has significantly better weaponry than they did back with the Crimea situation, but, I don't think Ukraine can do too much to Russia's military.

So they may ask for help. Who is willing to help them help beyond giving them weapons, as in offering troops, is not too clear. Maybe neighboring countries.

Ah, did not know that.

I suppose it doesn't hurt that he owns Chelsea.

Nevertheless, if they want to give severe sanctions, I'd imagine most oligarchs would be involved. Not that I think this should be done - I don't know what should be done now.

I don't have a good picture of how this could play out.

Hopefully it's mostly a political scare, than anything beyond that.

The Philosophical Writings of Descartes Volumes I-II

Russia-Ukraine live updates: Kyiv to declare state of emergency

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/23/not-peacekeepers-at-all-un-chief-condemns-russia-move-live

Well, things are shaking up. It's hard to say how it will play out.

It was interesting to hear Matt Taibbi speaking on this topic, he pointed out that the sanctions so far given to Russia have been extremely mild, like, Roman Abrhamovic, the owner of Chelsea, is completely fine.

Germany has put a stop to the pipeline as mentioned here.

But surely attacking Kiev would be wild.

Sure. That's why I linked to this article, not another one.

The FT is interesting. It has to present more or less tolerable view of the world to the people who own it, they can't be like CNN, almost never having dissident voices on.

If the people who run the world don't know anything about it, it's hard to make investments or know what to do when it comes to important business deals.

But if you look around, you'll find an article or two that is pretty decent. But as new info comes in, there will be better sources.

Ha.

I mean, I'd need to wait a bit so I can find some reliable info. At this moment, most info is going to be very politically charged.

I'm not sure doing this was in Russia's interest, because it plays directly to the hawks in Washington, who will be thrilled. Maybe they know something we don't. I'm assuming he knew that the negotiations with Ukraine on NATO were dead. But I need verification on this, from a reliable source.

Still, it's very risky and dangerous.

But as you know, the US and NATO are hardly trustworthy either, they've lied over and over again. Ideally Minsk II could have been accepted, but, that's likely dead now.

Look, I know you're joking with the comment, the way I see it is that Russia does need safety from NATO. Ukraine should have self defense, as any modern nation state should. And if force is used en masse in Ukraine, they have a right to fight back, no matter the history, what matters is now.

So it's complex.

What bothers me personally, is all these people using the very same sources who've NEVER seen a war they did not like, suddenly use these sources as reliable. It's Orwell in real life.

What I am almost certain of, is if the tables were turned, NATO would be destroying any country threatening its borders.

This doesn't justify anything, but it's what would happen.

We'll see how it goes.