So do notice that both Russia and Ukraine were in the Partnership for Peace program with NATO. — ssu

We're into history lessons again. What's your point here? That because Russia also had relations with NATO they had no cause to think Ukraine might join/ally with them? You realise that doesn't follow?

I don't know why you've set yourself such a hard task, but the burden of proof you've laid on yourself is to show that Russia could not rationally have considered Ukraine's joining NATO a credible threat. 'Could not'. Not just 'could have thought otherwise'.

It was President Leonid Kuchma who first started talking about Ukraine joining NATO in 2002. Yet far before that, Russia had already started to operate for the annexation of Crimea — ssu

"Bombing" was the word you used.

And why do you think Russia wanted to annex Crimea, with its warm port access, only year-round naval base and mainly pro-Russian population? Another of mad Putin's crazy acts of wild capriciousness? He's such a lunatic!

Hence as early as 1994, Russia was supporting an agenda of reuniting Crimea with Russia. Since it didn't pan out earlier, and many other things were done to get Crimea, just like giving Russian passports of Crimeans etc, — ssu

"Bombing"

The idea that the annexation of Ukrainian territory was in some way a response to US actions is simply and utterly false. — ssu

See. This is why we can't have nice things. It's not enough for you that people have just reached different conclusions from the extremely complex and propaganda-ridden facts. No. You have to paint the alternative as "utterly false". No doubt you'll be seeking Facebook to ban discussion of it like they did with the" utterly false" lab leak hypothesis the WHO are now investigating as a credible cause.

We've got to stop just throwing "utterly false" at anything we don't like. It completely loses its power against things which really are utterly false.

In order to keep Ukraine out of NATO there would have been a multitude different was to achieve this. — ssu

Again, focus. I'm not defending Russia. I'm not interested in the slightest bit in passing judgement on them, so whether they had alternatives is irrelevant. I'd like to think there's always an alternative to invading another country. The point is to hold our countries to account. The ones we have a say in, can vote in, campaign in, take to the streets in... I don't give a shit about whether Russia was right or wrong to invade Ukraine because I have no political stake in Russia. I care about whether the UK (and by extension its allies) were right or wrong in what they did and in what they're planning to do now.

We've seen this with crisis after crisis recently. The chattering classes looking for the most obviously egregious party to poke fingers at from the safety of their armchairs, all heartily patting each other on the back at how well they've identified the bad guy. Meanwhile the actual work of being a political actor in the areas one can most influence is considered too unsavory, too rife with the pitfalls of social faux pas to dirty one's hands with.

Are all "Buddhists" this negative and defeatist?

Not all Europeans want to live under America's boot.

Where there is a will, there is a way. And where there is no will, it can be awakened.

So, it's a matter of educating, organizing, and mobilizing the public.

Obviously. if you think that reading Pali suttas is going to solve all the world's problems, then it's a different story .... :smile:

Britain has already admitted arming Ukraine: — Apollodorus

Not the claim.

that was a cover for special operations. — Apollodorus

...was the claim.



Better. But...

Hackers are coming to Ukraine’s aid in an effort to target Russian government websites and officials with disruptive counterattacks, according to six people involved in the activity.

Is quite a long way from...

The Brits (and some Americans) ... have also completely penetrated Russia where they are organizing “peace-demos”, cyber-attacks on government institutions (together with Anonymous), and planning a coup to topple Putin in collaboration with America and then grab Russia's resources. — Apollodorus

In your opinion, what does "training" mean in practical terms? IMO, it means (1) training in the use of the weaponry supplied and (2) training in organizing resistance.

There is no shortage of Ukrainians living in the US or UK who can be recruited for the purpose, in addition to regular US and UK special-operations teams.

And of course there are US and UK intelligence operatives in Russia, as well as anti-government groups that can be supported with financial and technical assistance, etc.

Sweden was a signatory of the financial-aid-coordinating agency, the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (later renamed Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development or OECD). — Apollodorus

So what does this have to do with our critique of Putin and Russia today?

Sweden is one of the most highly ranked nations in the world on the individual freedom index, it's been in our mentality for a long time. Soviet and Russia has always been in opposition to this ideal while the US has always been more in line with our thinking (but obviously questionable due to high corruption, which is something else we are extremely low on compared to the rest of the world). So when we ally ourselves in a certain direction, we choose what more reflects our own ideals. Russia has never aligned with our ideals, so naturally, we would never support them. But we are not only in alignment with the US, but any other nation closer to our ideals.

So when you and baker speak like this:

Europeans have become too entitled, too greedy, too thankless, too short-sighted. They've become like a bunch of spoiled teenagers. — baker

I question the ability to be rational on your part.

While Sweden pays A LOT in aid money, supporting nations around the world, stand up for freedom and uncorrupted democracy, in a far more "teach as we live" kind of way than almost any other in the world, how does that align with "selling our souls"? What "souls" have we sold? What have we given up and what corruption and crimes are WE conducting?

The problem with this kind of thinking is that it's just a big pile of a "guilt by association" fallacy. It's childish, stupid and only serves to weaken the foundation for any argument trying to critique "the west". "The west" isn't the US, US is PART OF "the west". We in Sweden don't agree with the US on a number of things, we don't support them or slave under them or anything like that. We trade towards those that are closer to our ideals and we act as a voice of reason against acts by these nations when they do crimes, show corruption or act in questionable ways.

But when a crazy despot invades another country and threatens us with war, we naturally oppose that. And therefore we naturally ally with any other who oppose the aggressor. And since Russia is one of the most powerful war machines in the world, we are outnumbered and will be crushed if the dictator wants us defeated. Naturally, as a free nation, we don't want this, so we ally ourselves with those who CAN oppose Russia.

This is Putin's actions, and his alone. He's the aggressor. If defending against this is considered "being a puppet of the US" or "sold our souls to the US", then I would say that this kind of idea is the most stupid thing I've ever heard.

@Apollodorus

Hackers are coming to Ukraine’s aid in an effort to target Russian government websites and officials with disruptive counterattacks, according to six people involved in the activity.

The CIA does that. They blew up a Russian pipeline once by hacking the pipeline software and turning off the cooling system.

It was in retaliation for something the Russians had done.

See you don't have to make stuff up as you've been doing. The US and Russia are both giant assholes. There are plenty of facts to back that up.

So what does this have to do with our critique of Putin and Russia today? — Christoffer

It was an example of actions by European countries that may be interpreted as "selling themselves" to the US, as referred to by @baker. Marshall Plan was a deal, a business transaction: you accept US financial, material, and technical assistance, and in return, you do as you are told by the US.

But we are not only in alignment with the US, but any other nation closer to our ideals. — Christoffer

Sure. However, (1) where did you get your "ideals" from? and (2) do your ideals entail submission to US domination?

you accept US financial, material, and technical assistance, and in return, you do as you are told by the US. — Apollodorus

We don't do as we are told by the US. We act by our own accord. We trade with the US and they trade with us. We collaborate when we have mutual benefits, that's all. This kind of idea that Sweden is in any shape or form a "puppet" of the US is downright stupid. It's geopolitical nonsense and while being true for many other nations in the world, you use it as a blanket statement about us.

However, (1) where did you get your "ideals" from? and (2) do your ideals entail submission to US domination? — Apollodorus

1: By developing our own ideas based on primarily western philosophy, as most western nations have done, INDIVIDUALLY. The US has not shaped our ideas or ideals, hell we are social democrats, they hate that in the US, especially when we beat them in life quality indexes and generally have a much better working democracy.

2: What submission? What domination? I don't see the domination you are talking about? Economical interests, investments and influences I can see the US is conducting. I can see them going too far plenty of times. But this "world domination" seems to be mistaken for their American exceptionalism self-image, which isn't the same. What Putin is doing, however, there's your example of "world domination".

It seems that when a nation share ideals, ideas, interests or conduct actions that align with the US, people who spend all their time viewing the US as villains just automatically conclude that the smaller nation is a "puppet" of the US. I guess it's easy to view the world and geopolitics in such simplistic ways, but it makes actual discussion about Putin and his war impossible.

Such blanket statements make me lose respect for the one I'm discussing with and I can't take them seriously for one second.

This kind of idea that Sweden is in any shape or form a "puppet" of the US is downright stupid. — Christoffer

I think you are getting carried away now. Are you Finnish by any chance? :wink:

I never said "Sweden is a puppet of the US", did I? I said "American domination". If you think Europe is not dominated by America, then do some research and see which banks dominate global investment in Europe, for example.

Europe's financial center is London, not Stockholm. And the largest investment banks in London are American: JPMorgan, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Citi Group, etc.

And the domination isn't just financial. You must have noticed how the US has been putting pressure on Germany and other European countries to take measures against Russia like imposing sanctions, etc.

How is it in Germany's interests to cancel the German-Russian pipeline and buy oil and gas from America instead of Russia (at much higher prices), or to have 30,000 US troops on its soil???

Would you like 30,000 German troops camped outside Stockholm, with nuclear warheads and all, over which you have no control?

and see which banks dominate global investment in Europe, for example. — Apollodorus

Economic investment is part of trading, part of collaboration. A high number is not "domination" in any context of how that word was used before, which were directed more towards "domination of other nations."

You must have noticed how the US has been putting pressure on Germany and other European countries to take measures against Russia like imposing sanctions, etc. — Apollodorus

Of course, but is that the US "controlling us"? We're pressuring them as well, it's part of being in an alliance or working with allies. Germany has been foolish enough to let them become extremely dependent on Russian gas and that reliance has been extremely problematic for pressuring Russia with sanctions. You think the US is doing this alone? This is the kind of delusional perspective that the US is acting alone and pressures other nations to do as they're told, but the truth is we are all working together in this.

How is it in Germany's interests to cancel the German-Russian pipeline and buy oil and gas from America instead of Russia (at much higher prices), or to have 30,000 US troops on its soil??? — Apollodorus

It's in Germany's interest to keep Europe secure and help fight the killing of Ukrainians. You talk like people don't actually act to support other people in trouble. Here in Sweden, there are a lot of people who are fine with getting higher electrical bills and possible rationing if it helps the people of Ukraine by pressuring Russia. And I'd imagine there are plenty in other nations of Europe who do the same, otherwise we wouldn't have seen this unity that we have right now. On top of that, Russia is a security risk for nations in Europe as well. You think Germany isn't interested in keeping Germany whole and not divided into west and east? You think Europe isn't interested in pushing back against Russia in order to keep the nations of Europe safe?

And the troops on their soil is because of NATO, it's to have security against Russia.

You speak like you don't understand what alliances are about? If we had 30 000 German soldiers outside of Stockholm under the flag of an alliance like NATO I would be extremely happy since we're then much better prepared for a despot dictator who wants to measure his dick by invading.

You talk like we're not nations able to think and act for ourselves, it's rather disrespectful and actually pretty stupid. Maybe you should actually visit other nations and speak to the people who live there and maybe study other nations' actual conditions before making simplistic blanket statements with no real insight into the politics that's actually going on in Europe.

And the troops on their soil is because of NATO, it's to have security against Russia. — Christoffer

Sorry, but I think you don't know what you are talking about. If America wants "security against Russia", then let it station its forces in Poland. Or Sweden, if you want them. Wouldn't you just love to have 30,000 US troops in Stockholm to protect you from Russia?

Why Germany? Is America going to fight Russia in Ukraine on German soil???!!! :grin:

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.

Sorry, but I think you don't know what you are talking about. If America wants "security against Russia", then let it station its forces in Poland. Or Sweden, if you want them. Wouldn't you just love to have 30,000 US troops in Stockholm to protect you from Russia?

Why Germany? Is America going to fight Russia in Ukraine on German soil???!!! — Apollodorus

What are you talking about? It's part of the NATO defense force. NATO defends its NATO member nations or they can be positioned on non-NATO member nations soil if that nation want them there, but the act of fighting against another nation is US choice. However, if a NATO member is attacked, the deal with the alliance is that all of NATO then helps that nation.

Stop talking about just the US, NATO is an alliance of many nations, not just the US.

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

What Russia could do is take the territory east of the Dnieper River.

But Britain and America are arming Ukraine, so it isn't just Ukraine vs Russia any more:

Biden signs memo to give Ukraine £448m in immediate military assistance – PA

Thanks.

The money for aid was to be expected.

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. — Manuel

The one thing to fear is that Putin's frustrations boil over and he fires off nukes in order to not be embarrassed by defeat.

Another thing is that I don't think they become more agressive. Russian troops have been reported to be beaten by their own if they don't comply and there are some reports that show that the first to attack was a front of just conscription service (not sure if that's the correct term, but essentially young new blood soldiers with little experience), so essentially young people as cannon fodder. That's the mentality of Putin right there. Kill som young Russians, beat the rest of the army into submission, push towards the front. No wonder most of them are drunks and have low morale.

So going against a nation that has high morale, a fight to survive mentality and 56% of its people willing to fight against the Russians means that Russia can push with as much brute force that they can muster, but that's all they have... brute force, and when that fails, Russia will fail. Russia needs to win this fast. The longer it takes, the less the Russian army will be able to keep up with morale.

so it isn't just Ukraine vs Russia — Apollodorus

It's still just Ukraine vs Russia, just with better arms. You think the planes and tanks and other technology is purely Russian on the Russian side? The sanctions on technology is directly linked to them not being able to repair much of their war machine.

Certainly not going as Russia had hoped. They seem to have been aiming for a quick war to force a change in leadership. Probably figured they could disrupt communications and take out the AA network fairly easily, tank morale, and push into Kiev and force a surrender.

Now it seems taking Kiev may require door to door fighting. The whole argument of being liberators from Western oppression goes to shit when you are facing a strong insurgency as you try to move in, and it is unclear at this point if taking Kiev would even get them the capitulation they want.

The AA network and NATO coms equipment seems to be holding up. The footage of downed Russian aircraft and multiple whole columns of Russian marked heavy equipment burning seem to suggest a very high toll in a short period. Unclear if Ukrainian claims of downing two Il-76s will bear out, but if confirmed, it would mean heavy fatalities on the Russian side. I mean, at that rate they could lose more soldiers than the US did in 20 years of Iraq and Afghanistan in about a week.

Russia really can't afford to fight an insurgency in a country of 45 million, it would bleed them white and potentially endanger Putin's hold on power. Seems like a massive overreach. I wonder if the Parkinson's is getting to Putin's decision making ability.

What are you talking about? It's part of the NATO defense force. NATO defends its NATO member nations or they can be positioned on non-NATO member nations soil if that nation want them there, but the act of fighting against another nation is US choice. However, if a NATO member is attacked, the deal with the alliance is that all of NATO then helps that nation. — Christoffer

:rofl: So ... if you were NATO central command and wanted to fight Russia in Ukraine, you would station the bulk of your forces in Germany???

Have you ever looked at a map of Europe at all???

Stationing US troops in West Germany might have made sense in the 40's and 50's when East Germany was under Russian occupation. But after EU and NATO expansion the whole eastern front has moved much further east and the country now closest to Russia's western flank is Poland - and the Baltic countries. So US troops should be in Poland or the Baltic, NOT Germany!

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.

Russia really can't afford to fight an insurgency in a country of 45 million, it would bleed them white and potentially endanger Putin's hold on power. — Count Timothy von Icarus

And if it ever gets to the point where 56% of the population actually taking up arms against the Russian forces (as per their poll), then that's around 22 500 000 people firing at them. I don't think that will happen, but even if just a fraction of that happens, what are they gonna do when 10 million people start shooting at them at every advance?

Ukraine does have a far-right problem, and has for some time. That’s why the argument that because Zelensky is Jewish there is no such problem is silly. It’s true that Zelensky isn’t a neo-Nazi, but not true that the government has rid itself of such elements. The Azov battalion, a far-right militia, had Jewish members. Their role in the government during the previous election was enough to draw the concern of the G7. Their current role is enough to inspire far-right mercenaries to join the battle against Russia. My point is, it isn’t only Russian propaganda saying this.

Right, it's unwinnable. The US military couldn't do it and that's with the insurgency mostly being different factions within Iraq trying to kill each other, not necissarily attack the Americans.

Russia doesn't have anywhere near the economic staying power for such operations, and being brutal doesn't necissarily end insurgencies (see the Taliban being unable to take the Panjshir, USSR in Afghanistan, etc.) They would probably retreat to pro-Russian areas and declare victory, having wrecked their economy and lost a ton of military hardware and soldiers. Or Putin gambles on a victory pushing further into Ukraine to revive his political fortunes, but this risks NATO involvement.

The footage of downed Russian aircraft and multiple whole columns of Russian marked heavy equipment burning seem to suggest a very high toll in a short period. Unclear if Ukrainian claims of downing two Il-76, if confirmed, would mean heavy fatalities on the Russian side. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's exactly what US-UK want to see and why they've been arming and training the Ukrainians. So, logically, this will lead to (1) Russian withdrawal, (2) civil war, or (3) regional/world war.

So ... if you were NATO central command and wanted to fight Russia in Ukraine, you would station the bulk of your forces in Germany???

Have you ever looked at a map of Europe at all??? — Apollodorus

Again, what the fuck are you talking about? Troops in Germany are there for defense. Every NATO member has a defensive NATO force on their soil, especially with war in close proximity. NATO will not fight in Ukraine because they're not NATO members and that would mean actively getting into conflict with Russia. They are DEFENDING the borders and member nations of NATO.

Why don't you understand what a DEFENSIVE alliance means? Don't you understand how NATO works in this conflict and security situation of Europe?

But after EU and NATO expansion the whole eastern front has moved much further east and the country now closest to Russia's western flank is Poland - and the Baltic countries. So US troops should be in Poland or the Baltic, NOT Germany! — Apollodorus

THEY ARE! They are in the Baltics, they ARE in Poland! And Germany is the central place in Europe, you don't think stationing the majority in a place that has fast routes towards each corner of Europe and the member states of NATO is a good strategy? And having NATO troops in each country helps defend against any conflict that can happen. NATO isn't just here for this conflict or just Russia.

I mean, what's your actual argument here? That because NATO doesn't have most troops right at the border it's... just wierd? And that the US has some other intentions with their 30 000 troops in Germany? Seriously, you make no sense at all right now and you don't seem to have any knowledge of what NATO even is.

The US military couldn't do it and that's with the insurgency mostly being different factions within Iraq trying to kill each other, not necissarily attack the Americans. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, that was a country with a pretty weak force against the US. Ukraine is, especially since 2014, a pretty strong military and especially strong in morale.

Russia doesn't have anywhere near the economic staying power for such operations — Count Timothy von Icarus

And with the added sanctions on both economy and electronics (used to repair vehicles and gear), it's gonna cost even more. I mean, Putin could pay for much himself, but it's gonna drain him dry if it drags out and with further sanctions that may lock his money in, it becomes even worse.

Why don't you understand what a DEFENSIVE alliance means? Don't you understand how NATO works in this conflict and security situation of Europe? — Christoffer

Excuse me, min herre, but I fail to understand why your defensive alliance is headquartered in Germany and not in Poland?

Moreover, why is Germany incapable of defending itself? Why can't it have its own nuclear defense systems against those bad Russians, like Britain and France do? :grin:

Hello NOS, thank you so much for clarifying me all my wonderings and take part of your time to answer me. I understand it more clearly now.
I always heard since 2014 that Ukraine has been surrounded by "neonazis" militias but I never thought it would be so deeply.

On the upside for Russia, their air losses at the hands of their own systems do show that modern Russian AA is good for for more than shooting down civilian airliners and being target practice for Israeli aircraft.

↪ssu Look at the level of your discourse. — baker

That is the discourse or the level of reasoning for this war from Vladimir Putin. Words he has used to describe the enemy Russia going after. The

And trolls like @Apollodorus are insisting for Western Europe to "have peace" with Putin, when there isn't a war between the countries. Which @Baden accurately referred to be "copypasta from an intern working in a Russian propaganda agency".

The reality isn't hard to find here. Ukrainian people are united and putting up a brave defence against an aggressor. The Hungarian Uprising comes to my mind.



Of course, this time there are protests in Russia too, not just in other countries.