But @Baden, that is precisely what I'm talking with Finladization. The thing I continued:

But what is obvious is he would want to control over the doings of Finland. — ssu

What you refer to is precisely what I referred to. It's already happening. Remember that Finland is the only Western neighbor of Russia that a) isn't a member of NATO and b) doesn't have Russian troops inside it's borders.

Of course, if I listen to actual Russian opposition leaders, they are painting a far more bleaker future for my country alongside Putin.

Aleksei Navalnyi tweeted (about Vladimir Putin's speech) few days ago:

Replace "Ukraine" in his speech with "Kazakhstan", "Belarus", "Baltic countries", "Azerbaijan", "Uzbekistan" and so on, even including "Finland". And think about where the train of geopolitical thought of this senile grandfather may take him next.

All this ended very badly for everyone in 1979. And it will end just as badly now. Afghanistan was destroyed, but the USSR also received a mortal wound.

See Aleksei Navalnyi's tweet.

BTW, as a Slavic speaker, how would you interpret the word "Ukraine"? To me, it sounds very much like this was not the name of a people but of a geographical area, inhabited by a plurality of nationalities and controlled by various countries at different points in history. If so, Putin may have a point regarding the legitimacy of the "Ukrainian" state. — Apollodorus

The name "Ukraine" has the meanings 'land, province, region' at its core (I actually can't think of an exact English equivalent; there is, for example, a part of Slovenia that is called "Bela krajina" and it refers to a geographical region).

It's not uncommon for the names of nations and lands to have a common name as an etymological reference (many names of nations and lands can be etymologically "translated"), so this per se is not grounds for arguing for or against the legitimacy of a state.

But if we look at the history of states worldwide, it's clear that the legitimacy of a state is a very complex phenomenon. Germany, for example, became a nation state only a 150 years ago, Italy 160 years ago. One would expect a legitimate nation state to have a history spanning back much longer than that. Other states came into existence and disappeared, changed their shape. So where exactly is the legitimacy of a nation state? Note how the UK isn't exactly a nation state, while the US requires an entirely different concept of "nation" to consider it a nation state.

The situation in the Balkan and Eastern European states is very complex further because of the long history of the various foreign rulers and empires of which these lands were part. Moreover, what is now one country or parts thereof, often used to be part of several other countries.

At least when I was going to school, we were taught these things in history class. We learned about how the boundaries between the states were often a matter of negotiation or an administrative matter (we had to know all the foreign rulers, all the dates of treaties and wars, and the geographical situation at each time).

The corollary I draw from this is that state borders are largely artificial and national identities a matter of ideological construction.

War is entertainment. There's a reason it sells newspapers (or whatever the modern digital version of that expression ought to be). — Isaac

What a twisted irony.

War is also business. Nothing gives the economy as much boost as a war. Even if it seems counterintutitive at first. During the war, there is massive war profiteering, and then again massive post-war profiteering, when rebuilding the countries.

War is also dying. (As obviously people can understand)

If well over 137 Ukrainians died in two days of fighting, then that is about the number of 50 000 deaths in a year. From reports of military losses, the rate something equivalent of daily losses that the US suffered in a month during the heaviest fighting in Iraq of Afghanistan. Just remembering that to combat deaths there usually are many more wounded. So this is a very large and bloody war.

And Putin hasn't wimped out of any war he has started: either he finishes the job (Chechnia, Georgia) or continues the job (Syria).

One way to guarantee you don't understand what's going on is to dismiss the protagonist as "mad". — Baden

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

Then again, a common mistake is to regard Putin as an (evil) mastermind who has it all perfectly planned, calculated and under control. That is hardly ever the case if we look at other rulers at other times and places, and Putin is no exception. He is just a man. He makes mistakes, he can be deluded, angry, impatient, scared - and yes, even mad. In democratic countries with strong institutions that may not make much difference in the long run, especially since rulers relinquish power on a regular basis. But in a country like Russia with largely decorative democratic institutions, ruled by the same strongman for 22 years, the mental state of the man at the top can matter a great deal.

And indeed some veteran Putin watchers have noted a change in his behavior over the past few years:

During the pandemic, analysts had noticed a change in Mr. Putin — a man who isolated himself in a bubble of social distancing without parallel among Western leaders. In isolation, he appeared to become more aggrieved and more emotional, and increasingly spoke about his mission in stark historical terms. His public remarks descended ever deeper into distorted historiography as he spoke of the need to right perceived historical wrongs suffered by Russia over the centuries at the hands of the West.

Well said.

But if we look at the history of states worldwide, it's clear that the legitimacy of a state is a very complex phenomenon. Germany, for example, became a nation state only a 150 years ago, Italy 160 years ago. One would expect a legitimate nation state to have a history spanning back much longer than that. Other states came into existence and disappeared, changed their shape. So where exactly is the legitimacy of a nation state? Note how the UK isn't exactly a nation state, while the US requires an entirely different concept of "nation" to consider it a nation state. — baker

Well, if Italy is not a legitimate nation state after 160 years, then Ukraine is even less legitimate after only 30 years.

Incidentally, Germany may not have been "officially" one state before the unification of 1871, but they were very much one German nation with one ethnic (Germanic), cultural, and linguistic identity - much more so than France or Italy, for example.

Anyway, thanks for confirming that "Ukraine" means "land, province, region". This is consistent with the fact that Ukraine was part of the Kievan Rus a.k.a. “Rus-land” or “Land of the Rus(sians)” (роусьскаѧ землѧ, rusĭskaę zemlę).

What? How is that evidence that Ukraine wouldn't have wanted to join anyway? — Isaac

How about polls about NATO membership in Ukraine. Is that enough for you?



Due note please the friendly attitudes that obviously Ukrainians had before Putin started bombing and annexing their country.

The simple fact that there was no huge popularity to join NATO before, when Putin hadn't been so aggressive. And Crimea and Donbass were in Ukraine. All those Russian speaking and ethnic Russians living in Ukraine. Viktor Janukovytš by the way came from the Donbass region and even they, the People's Republics, didn't want him anymore. But before in 2010 he had won in elections Julija Tymoshenko.

Does Putin think that capturing Kiev and installing a puppet regime and things will be fine? Those troops have to stay and occupy a huge country of 44 million people. — ssu

Apparently he does. How does this work with Belarus? Can that translate to a more belligerent population on the old Soviet model?

One way to guarantee you don't understand what's going on is to dismiss the protagonist as "mad". — Baden

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

I seriously think he's delusional and I'm not alone in that. His speeches and conduct do not indicate the measured reasoning of a rational statesman.

Putin may well come out on top — Baden

I wouldn't want to underwrite any form of credibility that Putin has. Russia clearly will prevail militarily but I believe that it's a political disaster on all fronts and that in the end he and Russia will loose through having done it.

People talking about big issues and people in high places as if those were topics suitable for pub conversations, in that lowly manner. — baker

Apologies your grace for failing your standards. This is an internet forum not a post-grad seminar on international relations, and my comments served as links to articles discussing the (strong) possibility that Vladimir Putin has become delusional. BUT, that is the very last thing I'm going to say about this dreadful catastrophe online.

I wouldn't want to underwrite any form of credibility that Putin has. — Wayfarer

Sounds like you don't want to give a fully objective analysis because Putin is a bad guy.

Russia clearly will prevail militarily but I believe that it's a political disaster on all fronts and that in the end he and Russia will loose through having done it. — Wayfarer

What are your criteria for him 'winning' and for him 'losing'. He's set out his goals clearly enough, chief among them a guarantee Ukraine doesn't join NATO. So, if he achieves that goal and sanctions are eventually dropped, how does he lose?

The US imposed sanctions on Putin.

Don't know how much it matters.

Sounds like you don't want to give a fully objective analysis because Putin is a bad guy. — Baden

As I said, I'm not making any further comments on Ukraine, other than to point out that real people are being killed in large numbers. Henceforth I am going to stick to discussing philosophical questions.

His speeches and conduct do not indicate the measured reasoning of a rational statesman. — Wayfarer

Yes, well,... we have had Donald Trump, you know. And others. Not hard to find, actually.

But your argumentation is totally reasonable. I think here what is notable is the change to his earlier speeches and texts. Yet a lot is quite the same, actually. Perhaps Vlad doesn't try to be nice to people, but shows what he feels.

The US imposed sanctions on Putin.

Don't know how much it matters. — Manuel

Eu imposed similar sanctions. Also foreign minister Sergei Lavrov's assets were frozen.

I guess Germany and Italy were against the Swift-sanctions, so no Swift embargo.

(Do notice that there is a Nordstream 1 -gasline operational and something like 55% of Germany's gas comes from Russia)

I think here what is notable is the change to his earlier speeches and texts. Yet a lot is quite the same, actually. Perhaps Vlad doesn't try to be nice to people, but shows what he feels. — ssu

I suppose (though I have no way of knowing) the way he presents himself is calculated; and appearing angry or unhinged in conjunction with the invasion is a further attempt to intimidate and appear unpredictable. The guy has a nuclear button at his disposal, so the effect of all this is likely to be his adversaries do everything they can to get out of this without risking escalation (while trying to appear tough). Hence, he probably gets what he wants. And that seems to be the way it's playing out so far.

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

Many of you seem pretty well-informed about what is going on in Europe. What do you think of the future of Slovakia? Any opinions? Is it safe? Is it likely to come under Russia's umbrella soon? Might internal politics cause it to leave NATO and swing toward Russia? I have a loved one there and have been planning to move there from the USA. Thoughts?

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

The sanctions won't be as tough as the US would like because Europe can't live with that. There will just be elevated tension and the US will supply arms to Ukrainian rebels, which is kind of heart breaking. More death.

No nuclear war, tho. That's good, right?

Yes, well,... we have had Donald Trump, you know. — ssu

Not surprising that Trump is Putin's ass-kisser in chief. Putin is just the kind of man that Trump dreams of being but unlike Trump he has a at least a modicum of executive ability.

Putin is just the kind of man that Trump dreams of being but unlike Trump he has a at least a modicum of executive ability. — Wayfarer

You know, I've come to this conclusion myself too. Trump as the self centered narcissist genuinely admires the strong man Putin and Trumps actions have to be viewed from this perspective. But for Trump reality is a reality show, while Putin genuinely seems to view things that he is doing from a historical perspective. Hence his actions now are responses to things that happened decades ago.

Just look at Putin's war speech. What takes a long time is for him to cover the end of USSR and the Cold War, NATO enlargement, Kosovo, Libya, WMD's of Iraq, reference to Germany invading Soviet Union in 1941. The speech port of the artificial Ukraine, which now peacekeepers go now to de-nazify, surprisingly short.

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

Things promised earlier. I think the basic problem is that you cannot make really hard sanctions as they will start to hurt you a lot. Now that would really show resolve, but I don't think that people care so much of the plight of the Ukrainians to have problems themselves. I think Germany doesn't have any interest to have rolling blackouts and an energy crisis especially when it's still winter.

And the simple reason is this:

Russia is the main EU supplier of crude oil, natural gas and solid fossil fuels

The stability of the EU’s energy supply may be threatened if a high proportion of imports are concentrated among relatively few external partners. In 2019, almost two thirds of the extra-EU's crude oil imports came from Russia (27 %), Iraq (9 %), Nigeria and Saudi Arabia (both 8 %) and Kazakhstan and Norway (both 7 %). A similar analysis shows that almost three quarters of the EU's imports of natural gas came from Russia (41 %), Norway (16 %), Algeria (8 %) and Qatar (5 %), while over three quarters of solid fuel (mostly coal) imports originated from Russia (47 %), the United States (18 %) and Australia (14 %).

https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-86-about-those-sanctions?utm_source=url

President Biden announced a sanctions package against Russia that is specifically designed to allow energy payments to continue! ... So long as your energy-related transactions are channelled through non-sanctioned non-US financial institutions, for instance a European bank, you are in the clear. Biden meant what he said. These are a sanctions designed not to sanction. America has introduced sweeping sanctions against all the major banks of Russia that do everything but block the most important transactions that might actually impose severe costs both on Russia and America’s major European allies. Nor are the carve-outs limited to energy, they apply to Russia’s agricultural commodity exports too. So long as the transactions run through non-US non-sanctioned banks, the US Treasury raises no objections.

If Putin is "mad", his calculations sure do seem to be paying off.

It's also a clear sign of his "madness" that he's been warning the world for years that if NATO keeps expanding, he will respond aggressively - as he in fact already did in Georgia - and then when he does exactly what he warned he will do - and has done in the past - people are like OMG he's mad so impulsive creature of pure id and narcissism!

"We are now deploying the NATO response force for the first time in the context of collective defense," Stoltenberg told a news conference on February 25 following a virtual NATO summit.

https://www.rferl.org/amp/nato-combat-ready-force-eastern-states-russia/31723732.html

Wild

It's also a clear sign of his "madness" that he's been warning the world for years that if NATO keeps expanding, he will respond aggressively — StreetlightX

He has? I thought it just started in December (as he was moving troops to the border.)

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...

This is where fire could meet gasoline.

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

:up: Yep, what astounds me in all this outpouring of (probably mostly poorly informed) opinion about moral culpability on one side or the other in this issue, is that the most salient point; namely that nearly all proactive military aggression ought to be unconditionally condemned, gets lost in the empty billows of hot air.

Putin seems to kick others around sort of effortlessly.

Old playbook, like in 1938, when Hitler kicked the UK and France around, and thus forced then-Czechoslovakia to surrender the Sudetenland.
Something like 3 million Germans lived there, that apparently were happy about being assimilated by Germany.
Well, until 1945 when they were kicked out, then they got rather unhappy the story goes.
Before the Germans moved in, the Nazi regime had spread horror stories about the ever so horrible treatment of the Sudeten Germans by the government in Prague.
Propaganda circulated, attitudes installed, population "prepared" and roused, or perhaps "kicked" about if you will, though kicked differently than the "weaklings" in London and Paris.

Not identical situations of course, but similar enough playbook-wise.
Sure hope the fallouts won't be.

Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it. — Santayana

(once again)

Due note please the friendly attitudes that obviously Ukrainians had before Putin started bombing and annexing their country. — ssu

Uh huh.

So when in 1997 Ukraine signed the Charter on a Distinctive Partnership, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25457.htm that was what? A joke? A cunning double bluff?

Or the 2002 NATO-Ukraine Action Plan https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_19547.htm . These Ukrainians and their cunning use of Deals with NATO to signify their unwillingness to join NATO. I can't believe Putin fell for that!

Or the 2008 Charter on Strategic Partnership https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2008/dec/113367.htm . Another bit of pro NATO theatre? Not their really real intentions?

Oh, and when exactly did Russia start "bombing and annexing their country"? Was is before or after the government was overthrown by a US backed coup?