Vlad's just another aged, tin-foil hatted, megalomaniac with more cash (yes-men & nukes on hand) than sense. :eyes: Nonetheless, he's much more "rational" than not, therefore exceedingly dangerous.

I'm not sure what the pre-existing war's got do with it — Isaac

Meaning that there already has been a war going on since 2014.

Pro-Western imperialist agendas cause more death and misery than this war will - ten times over. — Isaac

Yet that doesn't justify Russia's actions. And when Russia has gone to war, it has been far more indifferent to civilian casualties as it is with it's own casualties. This can easily be seen from the war in Syria, Chechen Republic, Afghanistan. But that doesn't make then US a white knight.

Russia are not a crazy one-off Marvel bad guy which sprung out of nowhere. The US are not white knights who are going to come in on their chargers and save the world — Isaac

Of course. But note that sometimes they are correct in what they say: Russia's critique of NATO's actions in Kosovo or Libya are fair and understandable as is now Biden's critique of Putin's attack.

It doesn't make it OK to beat up someone who didn't attack you because another guy has done also in different occasions. Of course there are no white knights and evil entities, but simply to put it: imperialism is wrong. If countries have become independent, they really have had the motivation to become independent. And they have the right for it, you simply cannot make the case that Ukrainian independence is an "astro-turf" idea. Nobody ought to say that a country of 44 million is "artificial", hence I can annex territories from it.

(Btw, it's telling that these People's Republics, once Putin acknowledged their independence, waved Russian flags, not their own flags.)

This is an inevitable conflict, caused as much by Western provocation and puppet-mastery as it is by Russian lunacy and stubbornness. — Isaac

It's only the "as much" which I reject to as basically already Ukraine wasn't going to become NATO and the simple fact IS THAT IF PUTIN WOULDN'T HAVE TERRITORIAL DESIRES IN UKRAINE, UKRAINE WOULDN'T WANT TO BE IN NATO. Remember that prior 2014 Ukrainians genuinely thought of Russians as their brothers. Vladimir Putin was very popular then in Ukraine.

Everything doesn't revolve around the US. The actual relations and realities between Ukraine and Russia matter here.

It's really a serious question, not just propaganda.

I think he has lost touch with his people. Doesn't care about what they think or where the economy goes. Just claiming genocide and Ukrainians being nazis doesn't sink in...especially when you have before said that all the talk of you invading Ukraine is American nonsense. He truly made a "great" effort in getting Russians to back the second Chechen war, which basically was his election campaign for the presidency. But then he was young.

Now at the second day of the war there ought to be some war enthusiasm. Talk about a messy idiotic war like Afghanistan.

The basic problem is that he cannot understand that a harmless opposition can be that: harmless. But for him any opposition is an existential threat. This is the weak spot of authoritarian regimes: if you don't have to show economic growth, people will not be happy and your response will make things worse.

Presumably it's still in our favour if our side "wins". Whatever the fuck that means in this conflict. — Benkei

I suppose it really does depend on "whatever the fuck that means in this conflict". Who is included in the category encompassed by your use of "our"?

Me personally, in England. Probably doesn't matter at all. Even if we committed to a ground war. I wasn't affected by Iraq, nor Afghanistan. Oil prices might go up in the short term, but they'll stabilise. This is kind of the point with these petty tribalisms, we've got no skin in the game, we can pick sides but we're in the crowd, not on the pitch.

The people who'll be affected are obviously the population of Ukraine. They'll be bombed, shot at, and evacuated, have been in the separatists regions for years already. That'll happen whether we leave Ukraine to its own defence or support it militarily. The West's body count on military assistance is there for all to see. It's not unreasonable to assume fewer people will actually die if we don't get involved than if we do.

As for afterwards, I guess it depends how keen the Ukrainians are on voting. If they enjoy the whole game, they might miss it under Russian control, if they're not so fussed, then a new flag over the Rada might just make nice change. It's not as if Western democracies give any real choice. We can pick the tie colour, but that's about it. It's a charade anyway, not worth dying for.

What's it going to mean in two year's time? The soldiers and civilians are going to still be dead. Tragic, yes, but that's happening anyway, nothing we can do can stop that, now. People die in wars whether we join in or not, and let's not kid ourselves that the world's largest arms manufacturers can scrub the spots of their hands by 'helping out' here.

So, long term...

Ukraine won't be able to join the EU, but Hungary did in 2004, and it's unemployment rate, GDP growth and Government debt stand almost exactly the same today as Ukraine's is now (10%, 3% and 70% respectively)

Russia annexed the Crimea in 2014 and even Brookings admits that the economic situation there six years on is "mixed", benefiting from a $10 billion subsidy and infrastructure investment program, and this in a report bemoaning the Russian land grab.

That the economic realities of the working class transcends who owns what bit of land shouldn't really need to be spelled out anymore.

That wars kill people even if we storm in on our white chargers, shouldn't really need to be spelled out anymore.

So the only issue I see relevant to us, is the assistance we're willing to offer the economically oppressed and at the moment that's loans with unrealistic interest rates and crippling austerity tie-ins. I don't see that as a 'win' for anyone except the bankers.

6,000 warheads. Delusional dictator with nuclear arsenal and historic grudges is no laughing matter.

It's really a serious question, not just propaganda. — ssu

Agree!

So, at least intellectually, all one can do is pick a (metanarrative) poison – Euro-American fentanyl or Russian novichok? — 180 Proof

Yep. Pretty much.

Except we're all (most?) consumers, campaigners and voters in countries on one side of this. We can join in a futile war cry at our enemies, who don't give a shit, or we can implore our side to do better. Not many more shits given, I'll grant, but a good deal more than the snowflake's chance in hell all this anti-Russian cheerleading has of making any actual difference to the lives of the poor.

6,000 warheads. Delusional dictator with nuclear arsenal and historic grudges is no laughing matter — Wayfarer

Who mades threats using them, has held military exercises where nukes are used to "escalete to de-escalate" the situation.

I hope starting this war will be the start of the downfall of Putin. — ssu

This is probably gonna be the start of the downfall of Russia overall if I'm being frank. No matter how you look at it, the long-term outlook of this adventure for the country does not look good. Makes it all the more surprising that Putin went and did it anyways, but I guess his dreams about reviving the Soviet Union outweighed all of that.

This is probably gonna be the start of the downfall of Russia overall if I'm being frank. — Mr Bee

If Ethiopia has made it so far, so will Russia.

It will persist. Frail, bitter, troubled... or perhaps something even improves! I sure hope so, as it would be nice to see Russian tourists back here again. They are nice people. It sad to see here the border region, where they have made a lot of investments for Russian tourists. Now as the ruble has crashed, there's none of them.

Here is an interesting article on China's view of Ukraine:

China on Thursday morning denied Russia invaded Ukraine as it urged restraint from all sides.
Beijing refused to characterise Russia’s actions as an ‘invasion’ when prompted by foreign journalists but stopped short of publicly taking a side.
The comments are likely to fuel fears that China's growing links with Russia could help cement a new bipolar world order.

China denies Russia has invaded Ukraine amid fears of a tipping point to new world order – The Telegraph

Why would anyone “fear a bipolar world order” unless they wanted America to be the sole power?

Wouldn't a multipolar world order be more equitable and democratic than a unipolar one? Or is American World Government NATO's real agenda?

I'm not sure what the pre-existing war's got do with it — Isaac

Meaning that there already has been a war going on since 2014. — ssu

I know, but that doesn't have any bearing on the point of whether American (EU) involvement is a good option. You're writing everything you know about Millgram again... Make points relevant to the discussion, not just stuff you know.

Yet that doesn't justify Russia's actions. — ssu

Why is anyone interested in justifying (or not justifying) Russia's actions? What has the justifiability got to do with anything? We have a choice - what to do next. The only thing that matters is that choice, the consequences of it. We can whinge about Russia if you like, but I don't see the gain.

It doesn't make it OK to beat up someone who didn't attack you because another guy has done also in different occasions. Of course there are no white knights and evil entities, but simply to put it: imperialism is wrong. If countries have become independent, they really have had the motivation to become independent. And they have the right for it, you simply cannot make the case that Ukrainian independence is an "astro-turf" idea. Nobody ought to say that a country of 44 million is "artificial", hence I can annex territories from it. — ssu

Again, it's not about whether it's OK, we're not standing in judgement. It's about what to do about it.

the simple fact IS THAT IF PUTIN WOULDN'T HAVE TERRITORIAL DESIRES IN UKRAINE, UKRAINE WOULDN'T WANT TO BE IN NATO. — ssu

Things don't become facts by virtue of being in All Caps. They become facts by virtue of overwhelming evidence ruling out all contrary theories. Do you have such evidence?

Again, it's not about whether it's OK, we're not standing in judgement. It's about what to do about it. — Isaac

Prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

We mere persons living a life can only guard against what each side says and remain respectfully suspicious of the various wants and needs from nation to nation and pray that the disintegration of the idea of ‘nation’ will not be too bloody this century.

Is Putin Mad? — Wayfarer

Is Saddam Hussein mad?
Is George Bush mad?
Is Donald Trump mad?
Is Boris Johnson mad?
...
Is The Guardian mad?

One way to guarantee you don't understand what's going on is to dismiss the protagonist as "mad". Good way to sell newspapers; bad way to analyse events. If you take the Russian nationalist perspective, Putin would have been mad to have risked his country being further surrounded by the most powerful military alliance in history. He would have been mad not to have made demands of NATO, and mad not to have enforced these demands, considering that the only penalty for doing so was most likely temporary and fairly toothless sanctions. Now that Zelensky, with tanks on his doorstep, is reportedly ready to back down, that NATO are doing zilch, and the EU and the US are trying to look tough while having no cards to play, who looks mad? And if it all could have been avoided by not trying to call the bluff of an apparent "madman", why call his bluff?

It's really a serious question, not just propaganda. — ssu

It can be answered seriously, but it's an intellectually lazy, boring, and counterproductive line to take, especially when there are obviously identifiable reasons for what's going on. If you look at the situation in terms of pure power politics, Putin may well come out on top. If you make the mistake of searching for some moral element, then you shouldn't be analyzing politics at all because it will all look mad.

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.

By the way, you would think that Zelensky being basically ready to surrender and give Russia what they want would be being more widely reported in the western media.

:up:

Except we're all (most?) consumers, campaigners and voters in countries on one side of this. We can join in a futile war cry at our enemies, who don't give a shit, or we can implore our side to do better. — Isaac

Agree with this too. "Our" side has fucked this up and just how badly is becoming more and more apparent.

Things don't become facts by virtue of being in All Caps. They become facts by virtue of overwhelming evidence ruling out all contrary theories. Do you have such evidence? — Isaac

Yeah, his "evidence" is the irrelevant pics he keeps posting and the pro-NATO propaganda he keeps parroting.

The reality is he's got anti-Russian issues that, by his own admission, he developed in his teens:

Even as a young teen I found it whimsical and totally attached from reality. Soviet propaganda, that is ….

Putin's Breakthrough in Political Ideology: the new Komintern

This explains the total lack of objectivity and the counterfactual narrative. I mean, even if someone hates Russia (or Putin), which I'm sure some do, they should still try to maintain a degree of impartiality, not lash out indiscriminately like some political extremist on steroids ....

:up:

"Our" side has fucked this up and just how badly is becoming more and more apparent. — Baden

It's not clear what will happen yet. — Manuel

I agree. It isn't impossible that the West will eventually declare war on Russia as it did with Germany in the other two world wars.

Some UK politicians are already calling for war on Russia and Boris Johnson himself has been implying that military action will be taken eventually:

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

But until we've seen how the situation develops on the ground, it's all just speculation and, frankly, a waste of time as there is nothing we can do about it.

Meantime, there are wars in Syria, Ethiopia, Yemen, and other places, but no one cares because they are of no interest to America .... :smile:

Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, said Britain will “work all day” to try to get the SWIFT international payment system “turned off for Russia”.
“Unfortunately the Swift system is not in our control - it’s not a unilateral decision,” he told BBC Radio 4.
Setting out how SWIFT is used “to move money around”, Mr Wallace said: “When you pay Russia for its gas, it probably goes through the Swift system, for example.
“It is based in Belgium. It has a number of partners that control it, or nation states. We want it switched off. Other countries do not. We only have so many options.”

Ukraine: Germany and Italy have ‘disgraced themselves’ over Russia sanctions, Donald Tusk says – The Independent

So maybe America’s Euro-Atlantic Empire is beginning to crumble, after all. But it’s interesting to see how America and Britain are trying to control the world’s finances ….

One way to guarantee you don't understand what's going on is to dismiss the protagonist as "mad". Good way to sell newspapers; bad way to analyse events. — Baden

:up:

Another way to guarantee you don't understand what's going on is to believe politicians on any side.

Try this heresy for size: the project in invading Ukraine is to force The West to undermine its own economy and any semblance of unity by imposing sanctions that will hurt it far more than Russia. Meanwhile, China will buy US and European assets at depression prices and provide such sanction busting as may be required, along with Pakistan, et al.

I hear much talk of sovereignty and democracy, but I smell oil and gas, and disaster profiteering. I fear governments are becoming irrelevant, and multi-nationals run the show.

Do you have such evidence? — Isaac

Yes. The obvious evidence is that Russia has annexed Crimea. Case closed.

If that evidence for you of Russia having territorial desires for Ukraine, I wouldn't know what is. Or the many Putin speeches and writings how Ukraine is an artificial country and how Ukraine and Russia belong together. The last European leader having similar rhetoric was Slobodan Milosevic towards other members of Yugoslavia. Thanks to him, the disintegration of Yugoslavia didn't happen as peacefully as the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

We have a choice - what to do next. The only thing that matters is that choice, the consequences of it. — Isaac

Yes. And luckily the Baltic States did make a choice. Both Sweden and Finland sighed a relief when the Baltic countries joined NATO. The two countries surely aren't in any position to give any security guarantees to Baltic States (which was informally asked first by UK).

Ukraine made the wrong choices. It gave up it's 1900 nuclear warheads to Russia. It gave them up for a bullshit piece of paper in 1994 where the United States, Russia, and Britain committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country.

It made the wrong choice of believing that international boundaries would be respected and specific guarantees made to it would protect it. It didn't.

Just for people to know what the Budapest memorandum was about. That the countries gave back the nuclear warheads in their possession, UK, US and Russia promised the following things.

1) Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.
2)Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
3)Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to influence their politics.
4)Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
5)Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
6)Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitment.

Once Putin rose to power, the maneuvers to obtain Crimea started in 2009.

Probably the real reason why Saddam Hussein had to be ousted was the flow of sanction busting black market oil.

Probably the real reason why Saddam Hussein had to be ousted was the flow of sanction busting black market oil. — Metaphysician Undercover

Hardly.

Likely it was simply that the neocons could hijack power in the US and used the "window of opportunity" given by 9/11. Besides, Saddam Hussein had tried to kill the father of the sitting President in Saudi Arabia, so George Bush younger might have had a grudge against him. And it looked like an easy picking I guess. Perfect example of American imperialism at it's worst.

Neocon madness:

Keep on trolling.

But I have to say I like what Baden posted earlier. Tells a lot about you @Apollodorus:

As Putin is obviously trying to reconstitute and reconquer the Russian (Soviet) Empire, he truly is the modern imperialist in the genuine sense.
— ssu

for some strange reason you keep blabbering on about "Russian empire"
— Apollodorus

You obviously don't understand the term "empire".
— Apollodorus

....

Putin ... clearly intends to restore some of the Russian Empire, which I believe he is perfectly entitled to do.
— Apollodorus

Presented without comment. — Baden

It can be answered seriously, but it's an intellectually lazy, boring, and counterproductive line to take, especially when there are obviously identifiable reasons for what's going on. If you look at the situation in terms of pure power politics, Putin may well come out on top. If you make the mistake of searching for some moral element, then you shouldn't be analyzing politics at all because it will all look mad. — Baden

I agree that just saying "he's mad" is intellectually lazy and boring.

Perhaps it should be described a bit better. That he is confined to a cabal that won't say anything against him. Now, if you don't have anybody challenging you, you really might go astray in your thinking. Especially when you start wars. I think the now noted exchange between Putin and his Intelligence Chief shows that people around him are terrified of him. Or at least, it seems like that.



The fact is that politicians start to believe their own lies. Believing ones own lies is then viewed as a sign of strength. Because "the truth" doesn't matter, everything is just usable rhetoric to advance your agenda and to obtain your objectives. I think this was also evident in the Trump administration.