If you back a rat into a corner and it bites, do you blame the rat for biting or you for being an idiot?

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. — Manuel

The neighboring countries and US and UK are giving them weapons. Lots of talk about Anti-tank guided missiles and manportable surface-to-air missiles (of which earlier the US vacuumed Ukraine out of because it feared the effective weapon systems might fall into hands of terrorists). Poland and the Baltic States have given them weapons also. But NOBODY, absolutely nobody is going to send troops. At least officially. That would mean WW3.

The only like troops, if it comes to that, would be mercenaries. Mercenaries, the Russian Wagner Group and it's US counterparts might be used. Just like in Syria, where the US had a firefight with Russian mercenaries and killed many of them (and Putin didn't raise even a finger). And then the intelligence services are likely there, but they are far and few.

The last time US and Soviet fought each other was during the Korean War above North Korea. Then Stalin rotated Soviet fighter regiments as "North Koreans" to fight the US air force and some Soviet pilots even became aces. Both sides stayed silent about it because they didn't want to escalate the war.

I'm not drawing from any speciific sources here, but if I find something good I'll send it your way. There are plenty of helpful links in this thread too. jamalrob and @StreetlightX are likely better versed than me anyway. — Baden

Thanks and yes, I've been reading and understanding a bit more about the context and perspectives.

Also, Ch4News has pretty comprehensive coverage. This evening:

https://www.channel4.com/news/ukraine-crisis-is-putins-russia-starting-a-global-confrontation

Will continue to watch with interest.

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 you back a rat into a corner and it bites, do you blame the rat for biting or you for being an idiot? — Baden

If you blow up the World Trade Center, do you blame the superpower for trying to reorganize the whole middle east? Or do you blame the middle east for being an idiot?

I don't believe that Putin is acting to protect Russia. He's acting to increase its influence.

I don't understand why you would cut them slack here. Why is Russia's interests more important to you than Ukraine's?

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. — Manuel

Interesting fact:

Vladimir Putin wanted Russia to join Nato but did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process and stand in line “with a lot of countries that don’t matter”, according to a former secretary general of the transatlantic alliance.

George Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary who led Nato between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of western Europe. “They wanted to be part of that secure, stable prosperous west that Russia was out of at the time,” he said.

The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”

And that's actually how close it was. Or how far it was, as you would have needed larger than life politicians to sell that membership both to Russians and Americans. But you see, Americans thought they won the Cold War and didn't need Russia. And Russia can go always back into remembering Napoleon and Hitler.

I'm really not making it up when I say people were truly thinking of Russian partnership in NATO. Russia was in the partnership-for-peace program. It was the time of "new threats" for NATO when people laughed about thinking of article 5. Now Putin has molded NATO back to it's original form. If pre-2008 NATO didn't care anything about issues like defending the Baltic states from a hypothetical attack from Russia, now they sure do and also train for it.

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.

I've characterized Putin as a rat, which gives you an indication of how I judge his moral standing, so I'm not cutting him any slack there. But both NATO and Russia are seeking to expand their influence. So, I'm observing that there's a power struggle going on that's unfolding predictably if you assume neither side is acting in Ukraine's interests. Russia telegraphed its intentions very clearly and NATO gave them no plausible way out. Hence, war. There are no good guys here. The fact that the victim identifies with one side isn't going to help it much when it finds itself abandoned (again).

I don't understand why you would cut them slack here. Why is Russia's interests more important to you than Ukraine's — frank

Baden has responded himself, but I thought I'd say something about this. Can you, just for a few seconds, imagine that his comment is not showing more concern for Russia's interests than for Ukraine's, and that it does not represent cutting Russia any slack? I mean, actually try and make that work in your mind. Then you might get the point. I'm not being snarky; I'm just trying to show that falling back merely on anti-Putin rhetoric and moralizing is a hindrance to clear thinking, as well as pointless and harmful.

It seems to me that Baden's comments are concerned with how to ensure peace, whereas your own approach, especially your talk of "appeasement", is--to put it as politely as I can--very much not.

Just to be clear, nobody here is cheering on Russia, I don't think, and nobody here believes there is genocide against the Russian population, as Putin claims, or that this is Putin's reason for sending in the tanks.

Being critical of the West and opposed to American interference around the world doesn't make one a tankie.

Russia telegraphed its intentions very clearly and NATO gave them no plausible way out. Hence, war — Baden

Honestly, I think Putin is taking this opportunity to invade because he knows NATO won't respond. I think it's the opposite of a response to NATO taunting. It's a response to NATO weakness and disunity.

So NATO has responsibility for the deaths of Ukrainians in the coming months because of historic pressure from the West, not anything that's happening now.

Or is that wrong?

Can you, just for a few seconds, imagine that his comment is not showing more concern for Russia's interests than for Ukraine's, and that it does not represent cutting Russia any slack? — jamalrob

Baden earlier said that where there's a moral issue here, it's with the intransigence of both Russia and NATO.

He's saying that Russia is partially justified, and NATO is partially responsible.

In order to say that Russia is justified even partially, requires that Russia is acting to defend itself existentially. If that is true, I'd like to understand how.

I'm just trying to show that falling back merely on anti-Putin rhetoric and moralizing is pointless and harmful. — jamalrob

I spend an inordinate amount of time trying to understand the world. I'm usually the one exhorting others to look at the world mechanically.

It can't stop there though. When bloodshed is on the horizon, you have to take a moral stand.

I throw myself fully into both: understanding and judging. Not at the same time, obviously.

It seems to me that Baden's comments are concerned with how to ensure peace, whereas your own approach, especially your talk of "appeasement", is--to put it as politely as I can--very much not. — jamalrob

If you'd like to discuss appeasement further, we can. I gather you're too busy for a deep dive into the topic.

Being critical of the West and opposed to American interference around the world doesn't make one a tankie. — jamalrob

I don't know who this is directed toward. I think you read one of my comments and created a persona for me.

No more from me tonight.

Dear Sir,

Please stop. This is not helping.

Sincerely,

The West — Manuel

I think the issue isn't quite over yet. America always thinks in terms of financial profit, even when it doesn't look like it. So, the first step is to milk the situation to the limit and make some billions from selling oil, gas, and military equipment to Europe. The second step will be to get proxies to fight Russia, perhaps after the British instigate civil war in Ukraine. The third step, direct military involvement, if it does come, will come last. Meantime, there will be mass propaganda and targeted support for political opposition within Russia.

Incidentally, speaking of financial profit, I was glancing through the FT earlier today and you get lots of articles like "Russian aggression tests Zelensky's restraint", "Putin eyes next move after separatist states decision", "The West must show greater resolve towards Russia", and "Finland urges Nato option for Kyiv" (say no more :wink: ).

In other words, I think it's clear whose side the FT is on ....

He's saying that Russia is partially justified, and NATO is partially responsible. — frank

No, I'm not. "Justified" suggests a positive moral element, which I've repeatedly negated. Both sides are morally culpable for the current situation. To put it another way, because your enemy is morally culpable doesn't necessarily grant your response moral justification. Also, because an action is predictable or inevitable doesn't make it justified. I don't support Russia's violation of Ukrainian sovereignty in any way. On the contrary, I condemn it. I can consistently do that while also condeming NATO's attempts to integrate Ukraine as provocative and destabilizing.

Maybe I'm not explaining myself very well because my perspective seems so natural to myself. I'll come back to it later.

I don't support Russia's violation of Ukraine sovereignty in any way. On the contrary, I condemn it. — Baden

Right on.

I can consistently do that while also condeming NATO's attempts to integrate Ukraine as provocative and destabilizing. — Baden

Ok. Although I imagine that wasn't one sided. Ukraine probably wanted protection from Russia.

Maybe I'm not explaining myself very well because my perspective seems so natural to myself. I'll come back to it later. — Baden

I just wanted to hear a clear condemnation of the coming bloodshed. That's all.

Absolutely. :up:

The point was that if all Russia is guilty of is not being a proper democracy then such a crime pales into insignificance when compared to massive death and immiseration that democracies like the US have engendered. — Isaac

You are still comparing crimes to crimes when we are essentially discussing a system that might lead to war. The systematic poisoning and imprisonment of opposing voices in a country that is then using that power to invade another country that has done nothing to warrant such an invasion, is what this is about. What you seem to never understand is that you are using the "crimes of the US" as a kind of argument for downplaying the acts of Putin, for which I do not understand why you do?

By that notion (rich elite gets richer off the backs of poor workers) then every government ever is basically the same, nothing to chose between them. But regardless, you want to include the holocaust in Europe's track record? The genocide of the Native Americans in the US's? — Isaac

Why are you continuing to argue based on that fact that others do bad things? If I point at Putin's acts and what is going on right now with the conclusion that his delusional Soviet ambition is a cause of concern for the security of nations, primarily in Europe, why are you focusing on historical criminal events in the way you do? In what way does that change the fact of the current events?

What is your point? When Ukrainians start dying, what will be your point?

I didn't say 'only', I said 'led'. — Isaac

So? What's your point based on the current events?

I asked you what the alternative was to inaction. What do we do about the fact that Putin is a bad man? How are you measuring the consequences of those proposals to ensure they're not worse then things are as they stand? — Isaac

Do you know how things are within Russia? Do you know what the situation is for the people under Putin? There isn't anyone educated in the inner workings of Russia and Putin's position who would position Putin as a "reasonable man". People usually talk about past dictators in a way of "just imagine if we killed Hitler before his reign of terror". Based on all the people in prison, all people poisoned, all people silenced. Based on all intelligence about Putin, I would say that his removal from power, the removal of his closest allies would be the best, not primarily internationally, but based on what many in Russia feel as well. People think Putin is popular but he is not, he just has the power of a dictator. The only viable way is that the people of Russia get so pressured that the consequences of fighting Putin become less severe than the international consequences of his war.

What WE do about him is mainly for my country to protect our borders, strengthen the waters around Gotland. For US to pressure on an international scale, for Europe to become independent from Russian natural resources, to isolate Russia until change happens from the inside. This is what is happening right now. However, if Putin invades and occupy Ukraine, that is an act of war not seen since WWII, an act of a leader to "claim" another nation as their own. You can speak of invading nations and interests, but since when has the US taken over another nation and claimed it as their own? That form of aggression is on another level. If Putin succeeds in that and if the sanctions aren't enough to stop it, what then? If Putin feels like it, he will continue to try and revert back to the borders of old Soviet. Further pushing the borders, further pushing the aggressions just as he is doing now, because he feels there aren't any real consequences. If that happens... that means war with Nato. If that happens, that could lead to WWIII. This is not some fucking imagination or fantasy. Anyone naive enough about this are either too young or really uneducated in this matter.

What is it about this site which seems to attract people who can't tell the difference between their own opinion and what is actually the case. You've told me what you think is the case, you haven't 'explained' anything. — Isaac

So what is the case in your perspective? What is Putin's ambition? His goals? I mean, sure, the sources I draw from are military connections and a documentary filmmaker who's been working with interviewing intelligence people for over ten years about specifically Putin's actions and ambitions. So yeah, I can't "prove" anything in the way you are asking for. So, let's say you are right instead, let's say that I'm full of shit and you know what is going on right now. If I say that Putin is a lunatic who wants to restore the glory of the Soviet empire, the only thing I can really use right now as an obvious signifier is the speech he gave which directly pointed towards that specific ambition. Which, based on reactions all over the world was pretty idiotic and idiotic outbursts rarely contain strategic lies. But please, explain to me what Putin's ambitions and goals are. If the inductive conclusion I make, based on all the info I have, is that Putin has extreme ambitions of rectifying the embarrassment he felt during the fall of the Soviet state, what is your explanation for Putin's actions right now? We are analyzing the behavior, the facts and acts of Putin, if I KNEW the truth, I would have called up Nato, EU and UN by now, but knowing the truth is not the same as having an assertion that is likely based on known information. Now, provide your assertion, please. Remember how much Putin actually risks losing by invading Ukraine, then figure out what the reasons are.

You mean like Amb. Jack Matlock (US ambassador to the USSR from 1987-1991) who said — Isaac

What's his modern connection to Putin's Russia? Putin wasn't even a figure head during that era.

I could not and cannot imagine that Putin would be so stupid as to invade Ukraine, bomb its cities, etc., — Isaac

I sincerely hope not, but people have already called him stupid for his speeches during this escalation, so what does a little more "stupid" mean when he doesn't care about being called that? If he actually invades Ukraine, goes all in, that quote would age very badly. All we have is hope that he's not that stupid, but the acts the past few weeks have shown a pretty stupid side of him, so who knows?

..or have I gone and chosen the wrong expert again? I'm always doing that. — Isaac

I dunno? I seem to hear lots of experts speaking of Putin as stupid, as extremely aggressive, as careless and totally out of mind. Seems to happen on a daily basis now. Maybe you aren't really following the current events or just "save" comments made by those who you agree with, but I've yet to see an expert on Russia and Putin not being very concerned about Putin's current actions. When people like that start acting nervous, that is not good.

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

We are already doing it. Unfortunately, the only real sanctions working might be the next phase. Total isolation of economic mobility. It will tank the global economy, but it might save lives. But if he invades Ukraine, well, we won't be able to do much, but Putin will show the world what lunatic he actually is. Lots of people in both Russia and Ukraine don't want a war, this is all Putin's actions. So if he does it, he can shrug off the sanctions and keep acting like it doesn't bother him, but the economy in Russia has been shit since 2014 and it will be worse going forward. If the world can heal away from the dependence of Russian natural resources, then it will leave the Russian economy in the gutter. Ukraine rebels will also most likely keep pushing the fight and the morale will get lower within the Russian troops. Right now there are reports of Russian troops at the Belarus border who constantly gets drunk and break discipline. Russia does not treat their troops in the same standard as other nations so the longer a conflict occupation of Ukraine goes on, the less capable the Russian forces will be upholding that occupation. What happens to Putin then? Who knows, I mean, everyone in their right mind and knowledge is laughing at his current cock measuring behavior so if the invasion, in short term or long, becomes an embarrassment, it will shake the foundation of his power. How long then will the people be "ok" with his rule? Why remove a leader of power when you can suffocate his leadership?

We cannot do much about this situation other than what we are already doing. However, if he invades and then continues forward, if he invades Gotland in the Baltic sea, if he tries to push onto borders of Nato, that will lead to armed counter-attacks against him. Just because we think he isn't that stupid, it doesn't mean he won't be. He's old, he might want to try and remedy his legacy in Russia as someone who brought back the Soviet glory days. Who rebuilt Russia, before he dies of old age. Do not underestimate a narcissistic and nihilistic dictator. We've done that before.

Sorry, have to been to Earth recently? Have you noticed anything about the US's ability to de-escalate? Any kind of trend? — Isaac

What does that prove? US "de-escalation" usually fails if there are interests for US within the area of de-escalation. However, Putin's actions are not some proxy war action as I've mentioned before. This is an act that calls back to WWII aggressions. It's not the same thing as proxy wars fought over oil or imperialistic reasons. De-escalation is nothing that the US alone is trying to do, everyone is doing it. What the hell do you think is going on right now in Europe? You think all of us are just waiting for what the US will do? Seriously, what are you talking about?

Funny how much I'm hearing that recently. "Yeah, the corporations are bad, big business is bad, big Pharma, the US military complex...all terrible..but not this time. This time they're doing it all out of the goodness of their hearts for the betterment of mankind. This time it's different." You're like victims of domestic abuse. "This time he really wants me back, he's changed". It's disturbing. — Isaac

Are you mentally challenged? If I tell you that we are seeing movements of aggressions around the Baltic sea, if we see aggressions from Russia that based on all military strategic analysts, points to a serious risk of actual large scale war in Europe, are you seriously saying that this is like the act of "domestic abuse" based on our alliance with US within this conflict trying to push back Putin's aggressions? What the fuck are you smoking? Seriously, are you fundamentally uneducated about this topic and just babble forward your foundational opinions about US world politics while not understanding the current conflict when it's staring you in the face?

The world is not black and white as you describe it. US geopolitical interests have long been destructive and will continue to be. But the current aggression from Putin is not some fantasy and Europe and the US working together to counter these aggressions are not some fucking delusional act of a victim of domestic abuse. Seriously, what the fuck?

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

Bluff called. Watch how sanctions are all that will happen and Putin having effectively made the point Russia won't back off where its sphere of influence is concerned with a "cheap" war.

Let's hope it doesn't further escalate because that will result in a lot of people dying for some shitty geopolitical wrangling as a result of the US trying to project power into areas it doesn't even have realistic interests, meanwhile fucking with energy stability in Europe.

As usual citizens either pay or die for politicians' egos.

Russian military vehicles enter Ukraine from Crimea

Can't belive we are in XXI century and we are living this. What we did so wrong? Another war? Seriously? Let's see how many innocent lives are taken away just for a few interests.

The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense said Thursday its forces are countering the Russian offensive “with dignity” and inflicting losses on Moscow’s troops

meanwhile the EU issued a stern condemnation. New sanctions coming up for Russia!

Putin's also demonstrating promises from NATO are meaningless. Fantastic.

Edit: that was sarcasm.

:death: ПИЗДЕЦ! :fire:

"I don't mind about the war. That's one of things I like to watch. If it's a war going on, 'cause then I know if our side's winnin', if our side's losin'..."
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/384797

Yes, it is crazy that Putin does not care about international sanctions. EU tried to asphyxiate them with economic strategies but it doesn't seem to have effect. Russia only wants destruction.
It looks like they have something related to "Soviet empire nostalgia"

Putin's also demonstrating promises from NATO are meaningless. Fantastic. — Benkei

Big issue here because if Ukraine is not part of NATO... How the "Western" should help them?

It looks like they have something related to "Soviet empire nostalgia" — javi2541997

More like Russian Empire nostalgia, I think.

Russia will be economically suffocated until someone becomes fed up with Putin's empire fantasies and assassinates him in order to free Russia's people from the tyrant. I don't mind it happening, after this invasion, Putin is fucked, no one will take him seriously, no one will want to trade or be friends with Russia. It's up to the Russian people to fix this, otherwise, they're gonna be treated like proxy-Putins and become unwanted in Europe and many other places in the world. Few people will feel comfortable interacting with Russians and companies there.

So essentially, Russia is fucked now. Maybe this will accelerate everyone's move over to renewable energy solutions, which in itself will fuck Russia's economy even more. Maybe that's why Putin acts now, he knows his energy politics will collapse in a decade or two. But he might be remembered for the one who fucked Russia into a collapse. People think that sanctions don't mean anything to him or Russia, but it will, in the long run, it definitely will.

The elite won't be affected so it won't change Russian policy. It will indirectly kill a lot of Russians though, pace every sanction before.