That was a fascinating article, especially about their crisis of legitimacy. So Putin is basically a right wing populist.

Yes. Similar to Erdogan it seems and perhaps Duterte. Very much a "family values" type.

Covid has come, and it seems, mostly gone, and people haven't learned anything from it.
This Ukraine crisis has come, and it will go, and it seems people won't learn anything from it.

The world will go on in a process of destruction and rebirth, and nobody will be the wiser for it.
Just one giant mass of suffering begetting another mass of suffering.

And trolls like @Apollodorus are insisting for Western Europe to "have peace" with Putin, when there isn't a war between the countries. — ssu

No one said there is "a war between the countries". What I'm saying, and I've said many times before, is that peace could be achieved if European countries came to an agreement to not incorporate Ukraine into the EU and NATO. Very simple.

[MOD EDITED]

Yes. Similar to Erdogan it seems and perhaps Duterte. Very much a "family values" type. — Manuel

Yep. Anti-feminist, anti-LGBT, anti-social reform of any kind.

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. — Manuel

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday called on the Ukrainian army to overthrow the government whose leaders he described as "terrorists" and "a gang of drug addicts and neo-Nazis." — The Moscow Times

One wonders if this kind of issue could cause the Russian army to become more aggressive. — Manuel

So far they have been acting with relative restraint, i.e. they have not employed the kind of heavy bombardment that characterized their tactics in Chechnya and Syria. They have used cluster munitions in urban areas though (as they did in engagements elsewhere), which is widely considered to be a war crime.

Residents of a village in northern Ukraine (sorry, US-backed neo-Nazis) trying to stop Russian tanks with their bare hands:

Residents of a village in northern Ukraine (sorry, US-backed neo-Nazis) trying to stop Russian tanks with their bare hands: — SophistiCat

Jesus.

Thanks for sharing that.

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. — Count Timothy von Icarus

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. — ssu

Russian propaganda is referring to all Ukrainian fighters (including, apparently, the regular army) as "nationalists." Even official statements invariably use this term. So they have their explanation for the resistance: "the virus of nationalism," as Putin put it in his war speech. Whether the Russian people will buy it, and for how long is another matter...

(Also, they are not calling it a "war," but a "special operation" - that makes all the difference, you see. The authorities actually forbid Russian media to use the words "war" and "invasion" or to mention civilian casualties.)

Thanks for the clarification on the aims.

Well, if this is correct, which there seems little reason to doubt, if Kiev continues to resist as they have, we could sadly expect for Kiev to be heavily bombarded in short order.

Hopefully not.

Check out The Putin Paradox by Richard Sakwa. It has a different take on the history of NATO and Russia.

In the 1990s, NATO members didn't want Russia as a member because it was believed that this would dilute US dominance of NATO. Likewise, the EU didn't want Russia, which was in the post-USSR depression. There was distrust due to violence in Chechnya.

Yeltsin and Putin were at a fork in the road. Down one path, they could try to transform into something the west would accept, or they could set out on their own path.

In 2012, Putin set out a foreign policy that respected the UN, but was committed to challenging the US led liberal order. Likewise, he rejected Chinese hegemony, but sought alliance with China.

At the heart of this approach is Russian nationalism. Like Czars before him, Putin is a faction manager. He plays oligarchs against one another and keeps any of them from gaining significant power.

So yes, mainly by way of Hillary Clinton, the west has attempted interference in Russian affairs, but it hasn't been some relentless seige. Putin's anti western stance is just part of his over arching nationalistic agenda.

Putin is not the champion of anti-Americans. He's a champion of an independent Russia.

Residents of a village in northern Ukraine (sorry, US-backed neo-Nazis) trying to stop Russian tanks with their bare hands: — SophistiCat

Why do you think US is interested in back a few Neo-Nazis of Ukraine?

To the extent that that's even possible at all, it has its own logic. Now he's going to have to rely on China even more - we have to see how much longer he'll remain in power.

He did ask to join NATO to Clinton back in 2000, but was rejected. That likely didn't help either. Then again, these military alliances should be made on a state by state basis, and not as a monolith, it can be restrictive in certain situations. Europe pays little for NATO protection.

It's nice to have an army when it comes (relatively) cheap.

In any case France has a deterrent if it sees itself in a bleak situation.

On the other hand this Russia isn't the USSR. Russia is punching above its weight class, and this may well have severe consequences for the Russian people, not even mentioning Ukraine right now.

For me, the main issue here, lurking in the background, are the damn nukes. Obviously that would be a super last resort, but it's what complicates everything so much more.

If you're not scared enough already, imagine if Trump was president right now.

:death:

He did ask to join NATO to Clinton back in 2000, but was rejected. That likely didn't help either — Manuel

Right. NATO encroachment isn't really a significant thing, and I don't think he's morphing into the next Hitler. I think he's just stabilizing his border.

If Ukraine represents a way that Russia is being pulled toward the west, it's not because of western aggression, it's just western markets.

No need to worry about nukes. The US and Russia have navigated through much more treacherous waters than this without falling into war.

I remember watching Oliver Stone’s “Ukraine on Fire” a few years back. It tries to explain the start of the war, I think, from a pro-Russian perspective, or at least an anti-American one. It’s all Kremlin propaganda—Stone has been in Putin’s sphere for years—but I think it is insight into the Russian point of view, complete with interviews with Yanukovich and Putin himself.

In Russia they are totally silent about is that the fighting is all around Ukraine and in Kiev. More that this really would be a "peacekeeping operation" and the operations would be limited to the Donbass area.

It's been estimated that only about 1/3 of the forces have been active. And it seems to be a quite traditional attack. Ukrainian communications seem to be working quite well still.

In the 1990s, NATO members didn't want Russia as a member because it was believed that this would dilute US dominance of NATO. — frank

He did ask to join NATO to Clinton back in 2000, but was rejected. That likely didn't help either. — Manuel

I think the reason was that the response to Russia was basically: "NATO membership? Take a number and stand in line along with the other former satellite states of yours".

No special treatment was promised to Russia. Above all, as Russia was viewed no more as a threat, there was absolutely no incentive to truly connect new Russia to the existing European security system. At least with Germany there had been this idea that it's crucial to bind the country to a common European system, that you cannot leave Germany to it's own way. Yet with Russia...it was past. And NATO wasn't anymore about a common defense pact, but "new threats". Russia viewed this attitude as offensive. But the fact is that "Europeans" tend to be arrogant and self-centered.

And Putin only understood NATO as an equivalent of the Warsaw Pact. Not as a common European security arrangement, the "No Action, Talk Only" club that European organizations usually seem to be. And then there are the slavophiles, who despise everything from the West and the Russian "Westernizers".

This is the real tragedy. But you would have to have larger than life politicians to understand this and make the huge effort to integrate Russia to the West.

Why do you think US is interested in back a few Neo-Nazis of Ukraine? — javi2541997

I don't know, ask @Isaac. He is saying that 2014 Revolution of Dignity was a US-backed coup that put Neo-Nazis in power in Ukraine. (Coincidentally, that is what Putin and Russian propaganda say as well.)

No matter how big the lie; repeat it often enough and the masses will regard it as the truth.

There has to be a tension inside Russia between the oligarchs and the politicians behind this war, which can't be Putin alone, other top ranking officials very likely agreed to this in discussion.

We avoided the Cuban crisis by a razor this margins, I have in mind accidents, unforeseen events, more than deliberate choices.



Indeed. I'd guess that it's likely a side-effect of the parliamentary systems we have. Politicians rarely have to think beyond four years, often less.

If they had literal, legally binding obligations for long term goals and aspirations, many of the problems we now face quite severely, could've been mitigated substantially.

Also, if Russia joined NATO, they'd have to deal with a voice that would occasionally dissent from certain actions, so that could complicate certain military operations.



Yeah. I've had this in the back of my mind. I'm no fan of Biden, but if a Republican were in office, heaven forbid the situation now. Better not even consider what would be the case.

. It’s all Kremlin propaganda—Stone has been in Putin’s sphere for years—but I think it is insight into the Russian point of view, complete with interviews with Yanukovich and Putin himself. — NOS4A2

Do note how far more emphasis Putin made then to the message and the information campaign. The confusion of the Maidan Revolution, or the Revolution of Dignity as Ukrainians call it, created an environment where the neo-nazi argument did have impact. Yes, there was the Azov battalion. But now? What genocide? Zelensky, who is Jewish, a neo-nazi?

Now Putin has fallen to similar propaganda that Stalin used when attacking my country.

Also, if Russia joined NATO, they'd have to deal with a voice that would occasionally dissent from certain actions, so that could complicate certain military operations. — Manuel

US and Russia as allies would have been that would have made a true global hegemony and made it even uglier. Many people here would absolutely loath the alliance. And China naturally would be scared shitless. (We and the Swedes would be happy, though)

Think about it, just how convenient would have Russia been to fight the "War on Terror"? They already fear their Muslim minority. Russia doesn't care about casualties, it has global reach and huge market for US weapons. How lucrative would it have been for the military-industrial complex to build weapon factories in Russia and use cheap Russian engineers? How lucrative would have it been for the US to upgrade the Russian navy?

Why this is only hypothetical comes to the basic fact: Russia has never accepted that it isn't an Empire, one of the Great Powers. Both the UK and France accepted their position after the Suez Incident. Russia hasn't been there. Especially with Putin, who sees Russia as the Great Power and doesn't give a fuck about the economy.

China would be the only "enemy" had that happened, because who else would be left? So you're right about that.

Things were fine with Russia up until the Crimea incident, that's when all the Russia scare started again. I remember Obama mocking Romney back in 2012 about being "stuck in the cold war". In short time, we're back into one, of sorts. But China and Russia would need further integration to consider themselves an alliance, and that would give Russia the position of a junior partner.

I don't know enough about the internal dynamics in Russia to judge on the economy front, this action seems to indicate that they're willing to lose quite a bit. I imagine that a portion of the oligarchs do want the war for some profit motives, so perhaps there is a split in elite opinion.

But I'm speculating here.

I don't know, ask Isaac. He is saying that 2014 Revolution of Dignity was a US-backed coup that put Neo-Nazis in power in Ukraine. — SophistiCat

US-backed...

the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, debated strategy for their cause, laying bare a deep degree of U.S. involvement in affairs that Washington officially says are Ukraine’s to resolve. — https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-purported-recording-of-us-diplomat-blunt-talk-on-ukraine/2014/02/06/518240a4-8f4b-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html

we are here to support your just cause — John McCain 2014

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-victoria-nuland-wades-into-ukraine-turmoil-over-yanukovich

180 million dollars on “development programs” for “judges, members of parliament [and] political parties”. — https://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/business-meeting-and-implications-of-the-crisis-in-ukraine-hearing

...put Neo-Nazis...



https://theconversation.com/far-right-party-jeopardises-ukraines-path-to-democracy-23999

https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Kiev-regional-police-head-accused-of-neo-Nazi-ties-381559

...in power in Ukraine

In the new Ukrainian government politicians linked to the far-right have taken posts from deputy prime minister to head of defence. — https://www.channel4.com/news/svoboda-ministers-ukraine-new-government-far-right

Germany will supply Ukraine with 1,000 anti-tank weapons and 500 Stinger surface-to-air missiles from Bundeswehr stocks so it can defend itself against Russia, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said on Saturday.

1000 anti-tank weapons and 500 Stingers is a huge weapons delivery. Basically it will empty the stocks of the Bundeswehr (not all, but a big portion) and hence new weaponry will be bought.

hings were fine with Russia up until the Crimea incident, that's when all the Russia scare started again. — Manuel

In the West, this is true. The Russo-Georgian war was sidelined as it's not Europe and resets buttons were pushed.

But for the Russian side the huge issue was Kosovo. In Kosovo, NATO was suddenly making demands on one sovereign country and started a war against it. And Russians saw this and thought "Holy Shit! That could be us!"

So in fact when the mistake was done was when the "Old-NATO" was transformed to the "New-NATO" of peace-enforcement and outside the theater operations. If my country would have joined NATO back then, I presume (looking at Estonia) that we would have been berated for having a conscript (reservist) army designed to defend a large scale attack from the East as being totally outdated. Small professional army capable of international deployment was then the idea.

Now for obvious reasons, "Old-NATO" is back.

Damn. Russia might get kicked out of the SWIFT system after all. And with these weapon sales, the stakes have gone up quite a bit.

This could get much uglier. It's the damn accidents that have me on edge and well, I can only image you being next door, being a bit nervous too.

I mean, for sure Ukraine has a right to defense, no doubt. But I don't know if Putin judged the West would go this far.

I suspect China could make some kind of play here. Unlikely, but, they could have a big impact, if they become more active in this domain.

I dunno, it's a little nerve-wracking.

It astounds you that posters here are trying to analyze the situation from an objective perspective? Daring to look at both sides of what has been a complex ongoing issue for years? — Baden

I don't think the issue is all that complex; it's just the usual territorial wrangling. Of course there are two sides to look at. So what, I'm not partisan in this; both sides are wrong, but more so the initiator of actual war as opposed to merely the war of words and propaganda.

Sure there may be somewhat complex economic, cultural and historical factors underlying what's going on, but basically I see it as being just the same old stew, reheated, with a few different spices thrown in. And there is so much propaganda on both sides that opinions as to what is "really" going on regarding the detailed political subtleties, as opposed to the obvious actual events, are inevitably underdetermined in my view. Mostly it has to do merely with greed and ego on all sides, and big-headed politicians dragging their people into wars they don't want.

That underdetermination of reliable information is precisely why there are so many conflicting opinions about it. "They did this first". "No, they did". That's what it amounts to. But if you enjoy it, and it makes you feel good to think your opinion is of any consequence, have at it. I've expressed my opinion that it deserves little more attention than mere condemnation of both sides, which probably doesn't matter to you, but who cares, eh? Certainly not I. What the protesters around the world are doing is infinitely more important than what our little group of "know it all opinionisters" and their suites of competing "just so" stories about it are doing here in regard to this.

Again waving frantically the Hitler-card and going with Putin's favorite "Ukraine is run by neo-nazis"-argument, Isaac? Or that US backed a coup...which then has stayed in power for the last eight years?

Just to refresh, again and again...

President Zelensky's 'Servant of the People' party claims to be centrist, and it has 254 seats in the Parliament. The Verkhovna Rada has 450 seats. The party was established in 2018, so well after 2014. So basically Zelensky's government enjoys a majority in Parliament. Yes, it's a party that says it promotes "Ukrainian centrism" with an ideology that "denies political extremes and radicalism", but is for "creative centrism" and has roots in libertarianism and is said to be "centrist, big-tent, anti-corruption, pro-Europeanism". Those kind of "neonazis". (Before the current war they weren't anymore so enthusiastic about libertarianism. As obviously they understood that they don't want to promote neo-liberalism, which the Ukrainians don't like.)

Those are the "drug addict neo-nazis" that are ruling "the artificial" Ukraine that Putin's is going around to "de-nazify".

And then the neo-nazis from eight years ago:

Oleh Tyahnybok (and his Svoboda-party) were the "neo-nazis", if you could say the ultra-right party was like that in 2014. They had gotten seats in the Parliament during the prior Pro-Russian government. That interim government (that caused this nazi-panic) was for a few months and in the elections eight years agoin 2014, the neo-nazis lost and were not anymore in the elected government. Right now, I guess they have now one seat in the Parliament.

But for some reason, for something that happened eight years ago, Ukraine is still run by neo-nazis.

Which is totally and absolutely ludicrous, insane argument.

Either quote me or shut the fuck up.

I have never said, implied, or alluded to the idea that Putin's attack is justified because Ukraine is currently dominated by neo-nazis.

I made the point that the US should not be treated as saviours because they are willing to support no less unscrupulous a party if it serves their economic interests.

This constant association of the point I made about American lack of scruples and Putin's justification for his current invasion is entirely a fabrication by you and @SophistiCat.

If you both can't make your arguments without smearing your interlocutors then it only reflects badly on your arguments.

.

I made the point that the US should not be treated as saviours because they are willing to support no less unscrupulous a party if it serves their economic interests. — Isaac

Ok. Nobody is treating the US as a savior. And you did say the US installed a nazi, which was wrong.