Many in Russia likely believed the lie, promoted here also, that all this war-talk was just all US hype — ssu

Not many now, I suspect. Putin supporters tend to be quietists who seek stability. I don't see how they could reconcile this invasion with a concern for stability.

I still do not trust the line we're sold as to the cause of this war. Russia is clearly the aggressor but I'm left wondering what was said and refused by the US and NATO.

I'm also, as usual, flabbergasted how little value NATO and the US see in being considered trustworthy and dependable. And they got owned by Russia twice in basically the same theater.

The end result is a definitive shift in power for the foreseeable future with any dealings with all countries in the Russian sphere of influence because you can't depend on NATO. So they'll avoid conflict sooner in favour of appeasing Russians.

If they'd "sacrificed" Ukraine by repealing earlier promises, even if Putin had invaded in that event (which I find unlikely), then at least the presumed effectivity and trustworthiness of NATO would still exist. In other words, much less damage to our collective interests than now.

Edit: putting money where your mouth is, is essential for a threat to work.

Nice picture in a satirist Dutch newspaper today of a tank and captioned: "Russian tank drives straight through a really heavy sanction".

Isaac, let's start from the facts, shall we.

For any that don't know, that's Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the anti-Semitic Svoboda party, later installed into power by the US. — Isaac

Oleh Tyahnybok wasn't ever installed to power. That simply is not correct.

After the Maidan revolution the interim government was lead by Arseniy Yatsenyuk and then later the president after elections was Petro Poroshenko. And the current leader, a former comedian, has a true grudge against Poroshenko. Zelenskyi's party has basically been against extremists in Ukrainian politics. I'd define it (the current political party in power in Ukraine) as centrist populist even if they have said they are liberal and libertarian, they have back away from being supporters of neoliberalism. (As obviously Ukrainians don't like neoliberalism)

Oleh Tyahnyboks party got seats in 2012 to the Ukrainian parliament. Now the faction he represents is down to one seat. It's not in the administration. Oleh Tyahnybok got 1,16% of the vote in the Presidential elections in 2014 after the Maidan Revolution. So it's really meaningless. But yes, there are these fringe movements in Ukraine. But they are not in power.

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.

Oleh Tyahnybok wasn't ever installed to power. That simply is not correct. — ssu

The quote...

leader of the anti-Semitic Svoboda party, later installed into power by the US. — Isaac

The nationalist Svoboda (Freedom) party has four posts in the government. Oleksandr Sych is deputy prime minister and Oleh Makhnitsky becomes acting chief prosecutor. It also runs the agriculture and ecology portfolios — https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26415508

So are you going to address the point, or just give a history lesson on matters we all already agree on?

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. — Manuel

Exactly. Just as the rise of Hitler might have been avoided by less punitive reparations. Dictators don't come to power in a vacuum.

To think that people are suggesting the best way to remove the dictator is to create an even greater sense of being crushed under the boot of Western imperialism.

The Svoboda party was in the interim government for some months and then didn't go anywhere in the elections. And it's been eight years since the interim government, but anyway.

And Trump was supported by neonazis. Now, what's the connection then with neonazis and the Biden administration?

I'll just repeat: In the confusion of the Maidan revolution, it was understandable to think "what the heck is going on" with extreme right-wing groups in Ukraine. And naturally Russian propaganda smeared back then all of the interim government to be neonazis. But elections showed there wasn't much support for them, to put it simply.

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.

To think that people are suggesting the best way to remove the dictator is to create an even greater sense of being crushed under the boot of Western imperialism. — Isaac

I think the main problem is that there are large numbers of people all over Europe who are sufficiently brainwashed and zombified to not realize that they live under the boot of American imperialism.

Britain's Turkish leader Boris Johnson is already preparing the Brits for war on Russia - as ordered by America:

The UK and our allies will respond decisively. Our mission is clear. Diplomatically, politically, economically, and eventually, militarily, this hideous and barbaric venture of Vladimir Putin must end in failure.

Key points from Boris Johnson announcement as PM threatens Putin with military action

So, it's beginning to look like Britain is deploying the same old tricks as in WW1 when it declared war on Germany for allegedly violating Belgian "neutrality" ....

Now, what's the connection then with neonazis and the Biden administration? — ssu

Because we don't just write a stiff letter to stop Putin. What all the propaganda and hype is about is justifying exactly the kind of regime change we've seen over and over again where Western powers don't give a shit what kind of Nazis, fascists or dictators they put in place so long as they're sympathetic to the current preferred economic strategy.

The choice is a pro-Russian proxy government, sanctioned and led by kleptocrats or a pro-US proxy government indebted to the hilt and led by stone cold profiteers.

Cheering one and booing the other is infantile.

Dictators don't come to power in a vacuum. — Isaac

You really don't know much about Russia, Isaac.

The key to understanding Russia's problem is the Black Sea, as admitted even by Ukrainians:

The Black Sea is Russia’s entrance to the world – including the Mediterranean and Atlantic spheres of influence,” Rustem Umerov, a Ukrainian member of parliament from Crimea, told The Independent in a phone interview. “That’s why [Putin] is focused on the Black Sea.”

In Ukraine invasion, Russia targets control of the Black Sea - The Independent

The importance of the Black Sea to Russia is also demonstrated by the fact that Ukraine has asked Turkey to close the Dardanelles and Bosphorus straits to the Black Sea:

Erdogan 'saddened' by Russian invasion, Ukraine urges Turkey to shut straits – Reuters

But the NATO propaganda machine keeps shtum about the Black Sea to prevent America's plans from being exposed.

Unfortunately, Americans have zero knowledge of European geography and history, so they are incapable of understanding even the most basic factors in this conflict. All they are worried about is how much oil and gas they can sell to Europe if they keep Russia out .... :smile:

The choice is a pro-Russian proxy government, sanctioned and led by kleptocrats or a pro-US proxy government indebted to the hilt and led by stone cold profiteers. — Isaac

Let me get this straight: for you it doesn't matter that already 14000 have been killed in a limited war that now has been changed to unlimited conventional war, where it's totally possible that even nuclear weapons could be used (and likely there's a bigger death toll). That doesn't mean anything?

Is it really EXACTLY the same thing that some George Soros finances some pro-Western group which later either succeeds or fails in elections? Really no difference?

For me when Bush invaded Iraq was wrong, because is was a faulty stupid decision that already (and incredibly) had been acknowledged to be utterly bad choice even by the perpetrators.

Putin invading now the whole of Ukraine is as bad and faulty and stupid decision as was the invasion of Iraq was. Just read what said about the reaction of Russians. Ordinary Russians aren't for this war, they are confused about it. There are no huge jingoist patriotic celebrations on the Red Square thanking Putin for his decision to go to war. It was different in 2014.

I think that people have this idea that because the US has made so stupid mistakes and has bombed so many places, now, for some reason, it has to be the culprit in this fiasco too. Because, how else could one explain this than because of the US?

I still do not trust the line we're sold as to the cause of this war. — Benkei

And which is that by your definition? Well, Putins accusations of a genocide in Donbass surely isn't true as is the line that Ukraine forms a threat to the World's largest nuclear power.

I'm also, as usual, flabbergasted how little value NATO and the US see in being considered trustworthy and dependable. And they got owned by Russia twice in basically the same theater. — Benkei

I'm not sure what you mean by this. What should they have done?

NOS4A2 shows up with the sole aim of spreading an utterly baseless "genocide" narrative. Show one iota of evidence for this or we can just presume you're up to your old tricks of spreading Russian propaganda again. — Baden

Isaac is here to back him up:

For any that don't know, that's Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the anti-Semitic Svoboda party, later installed into power by the US. — Isaac

That's a lie.

In the 2014 Ukrainian presidential election he received 1.16% of the vote. In the October 2014 parliamentary election Tyahnybok was again first on the election list of his party; since the party came 0,29% short to overcome the 5% threshold to win seats on the nationwide list he was not re-elected into parliament. — Wikipedia

And no one was "installed": here Isaac is parroting Putin.

Well, not to worry: soon Ukraine will be denazified and liberated from the clutches of Western imperialism.

Well, as I discussed with StreetlightX earlier, there indeed still is this neonazi party in the Ukrainian Parliament. With ONE SEAT. And it is NOT IN THE GOVERNMENT. Zelenskyi's party was formed in 2018 and he was elected President of Ukraine in 2019, beating incumbent president Petro Poroshenko with nearly 73% of the vote to Poroshenko's 25%. So I guess Ukrainians weren't so enthuastic about Poroshenko. — ssu

Poroshenko was many things, but "neo-Nazi" he was not. The fact is that no far-right presidential candidate or party got ahead in national elections since 2014. UKIP did better in its heyday than Svoboda did at any time in its history. Perhaps Putin should liberate UK next?

(Don't bother digging up links, Isaac. I've taken your measure. You know fuck-all about what's going on and care even less, but once you publicly commit to a position you will stick to your guns no matter what.)

It's a mess. — Manuel

Of course it's a mess. And we need to ask ourselves who is profiting from it.

According to the FT, oil prices are now above $100 a barrel, and gold and other precious metals have gone up as well, so someone is profiting from this. US energy and defense corporations, in particular, are going to make a huge fortune.

The United States is the world's largest producer of natural gas and last year for the first time it became the No. 1 exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG), surpassing Australia and Qatar.

'We are a gas superpower.' Ex-Trump regulator says US natural gas can help Europe - CNN

At the end of the day, wars cost not only lives but also money. America wouldn't be investing in this unless it knew that it is going to make trillions of dollars like it did in the other world wars. We mustn't forget that this is how America became a superpower and that international organizations like NATO were created for the express purpose of defending US hegemony across the globe and especially in the Euro-Atlantic sphere.

The Azov Battalion was incorporated into the national guard of Ukraine, though. The UN has accused them of atrocity and war crime in the past. I wouldn’t say the Ukrainian government are neo-Nazis, but such elements are present and currently fighting against the Russians. Even NBC recently filmed them training old ladies and other locals.

Seems to me that Russia has a much greater justification for invading Ukraine than the US did for invading Iraq.

Any particular reasons that make Russia's justification greater than Iraq?

In the interest of including/weighing different takes, here's Tony Kevin:
Ukraine shrinks again (Feb 23, 2022)

Yet,
• did Ukraine threaten with invading Russia?
• were there regular/significant (perhaps state-sanctioned) human rights violations in Ukraine (e.g. against Russians or others)?
• did Ukraine close borders (e.g. for Russians or Russian reporters or everyone), stomp free press to (presumably) hide something?
* did the Ukrainian people at large want Russia to invade (or rescue them)?
• did the Russian people at large push (Putin) to invade Ukraine?

After all, we're talking invasion here, war stuff, plain aggression.

I haven't heard much from Russian politicians opposing Putin here, but haven't looked much either.
Should any there may be live in fear?
(I'm fairly confident Tony Kevin doesn't.)

Bluff called. — Benkei

Nice picture in a satirist Dutch newspaper today of a tank and captioned: "Russian tank drives straight through a really heavy sanction". — Benkei

It's military show of force, or shut up...? :/

Heard rumors that other countries were thinking of sending military aid to countries bordering Russia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

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.

Poroshenko was many things, but "neo-Nazi" he was not. — SophistiCat

Yes. And not even somebody that Victoria Nuland was talking about (a favorite trope of those favoring the Russian narrative use about the interim government of Ukraine).

But for many that elections are held and people choose someone isn't the correct narrative. Everybody are just puppets installed by Great Powers. If the crisis would happen between my country and Russia, suddenly the Finnish politicians would be just the pawns of the CIA and Soros too, I guess.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. What should they have done? — ssu

It's in the next paragraph. They should've sacrificed Ukraine and at a much earlier stage. It's no use to hold a position you're not planning on defending.

@et al Were the United States to invade Canada, capturing Ottawa early on and decapitating the government, we would probably be successful. (Just thinking about how the trucker convoy tied up Ottawa for 3 weeks.) The rest of the world might be totally appalled, but who would want to take on nuclear America militarily? There might well be a long period of internal resistance, but nothing we couldn't deal with. The Canadians are not much like the Islamic State, after all.

Were Russia to invade Ukraine, capturing Kyiv early on and decapitating the government, they would probably be successful. (Just thinking about whether we have to call it "chicken kyiv" from now on, or can we go back to 'chicken Kiev'?). The rest of the world might be totally appalled, but who would want to take on nuclear Russia militarily?

The leading major powers can pretty much do what they want to do in their own backyards, or even in someone else's distant shit hole garden, should they so decide. Urbane sophisticates don't like this sort of thing, but up against a shark what can even a couple of dozen North Atlantic organized herring do? Not too much, without risking making things worse for themselves.

True, there are "sanctions" and maybe in the long run sanctions will have some effect; time will tell about that.

If Comrade Putin wishes to reconstruct the Soviet Union, there is some chance he might succeed. After all, are corrupt Russian oligarchs very different from soviet commissars and apparatchiks? After all, just how committed is the West to the freedom-loving peoples of Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, or Belorussia, to name a few of the former Soviet Republics? My guess is that we are not deeply committed. (The Baltic states are the exception, most likely.).

Stay tuned.

I think there are limits to analyzing all wars in terms of profits alone. — Manuel

Correct. However, it remains a fact that huge profits were made in the two world wars. Britain declared war on Germany in both wars, but the real profits were made by America. And in both cases America's decision to intervene was made on the basis of cost-and-profit calculations.

And we mustn't forget that America and Britain would control Russia's resources if Russia lost the war. In other words, it is clear that they would have most to gain.

Also, note that America and Britain, the world's foremost financial powers, are leading the anti-Russian campaign ....

The Azov Battalion was incorporated into the national guard of Ukraine, though. The UN has accused them of atrocity and war crime in the past. I wouldn’t say the Ukrainian government are neo-Nazis, but such elements are present and currently fighting against the Russians. Even NBC recently filmed them training old ladies and other locals. — NOS4A2

One battalion, that had a strength of 300 in 2014 isn't much in a 200 000 strong armed forces. (You know, company, battalion, regiment, brigade, division, corps)

And if you don't believe that anything hasn't been done after they were put into the National guard, be then sceptical about it.

But it's notable to understand why this Azov battalion, that hasn't been at the frontline (until now, I guess) since 2014, was then important. Ukraine was totally incapable of responding to the Russian attack in 2014. They could only move one paratroop brigade into the Donbass region that was all. It took six months for Ukraine to mobilize other army units with main battle tanks into the area and during that time the volunteer battalions held an important role. Do notice that then also Russia just "provided assistance" to the Rebel People's Republics. Old VICE NEWS reports portray vividly and truthfully in what total disarray the Ukrainian forces were: some even gave up their weapons to angry Donbass people. And ordinary people sent food and supplies to the soldiers at the front.

It would be like if the US government collapsed and the army really wasn't incapable of getting anything to a border, then I guess (and in their wet dreams) a ton of militia people in the US would run down to the border and defend it. Who likely would have a lot of politically incorrect ideas.

But if you think then Putin isn't talking horseshit when he says nazis are rampant in the Ukrainian government and the country has to be de-nazified, well uh...

Comrade Putin wishes to reconstruct the Soviet Union — Bitter Crank

That's what Biden says, but Biden doesn't have a clue. He just repeats what he's being told by his advisers.

Putin wants to rebuild Russia as a great power, NOT the Soviet Union. Ukraine was already part of Russia long before the Soviets came on the scene.

If Comrade Putin wishes to reconstruct the Soviet Union — Bitter Crank

He wants to reconstruct the pre-Soviet Russian Empire. He sees the Russian Revolution as an interruption of that project.

They should've sacrificed Ukraine and at a much earlier stage. It's no use to hold a position you're not planning on defending. — Benkei

Sacrificed Ukraine? You think sacrificing Ukraine and Putin would be fine. And what is so wrong to respect the borders of sovereign states that earlier Russia has accepted? I can assure you, the next thing would be to demand NATO to basically end the agreement with a huge number of it's current members because Putin has already demanded it!

And what is here the position? That one former US President went to comment that both Ukraine and Georgia will be NATO members? That's how far it got, but correct me if I'm wrong. Because NATO membership has to be accepted by all members, not by what the US president says, as article 10 refers.

Article 10

The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty.