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 — Manuel

Putin's policies are a little erratic per Sakwa which reflects his wrangling with Russian elite entities, but they're usually focused on reinforcing the status quo in a systemic way.

I think that means he needed the buy-in of at least some of the elite to invade Ukraine.

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

There are some interesting tactics or "discussion techniques" being deployed here. Do you think the forum should be renamed “the Talk Shop for the Woke” or “the NATO PR Office”?

It is a well-known fact that Anonymous sometimes operates in tandem with the US and UK governments, as in the Syrian civil war:

Anonymous Hackers Swat At Syrian Government Websites – Forbes

The loose hacker collective went on a spree of attacks against various Syrian government targets hosted outside of the disconnected country, including embassy websites in China, Australia, Saudi Arabia and other government sites including that of the Baath political party and the Syrian railway system. Most of those sites were flooded with junk traffic designed to take them offline, but some Anonymous factions hacked and defaced target sites, instead, including the Syrian embassy in Belgium and the Syrian Industrial Bank.

At the same time, the US government was training Syrian opposition groups with links to London:

CIA activities in Syria – Wikipedia

The US government had been covertly funding Syrian opposition groups since 2006, mainly the London-based Movement for Justice and Development in Syria and an associated satellite TV channel Barada TV. Special Activities Division teams were said to have been deployed to Syria during the uprising to ascertain rebel groups, leadership and potential supply routes.

IMO there is nothing surprising for this to happen in Russia as well. However, what makes things more interesting is that the Russian cyber group Conti has now announced that it will retaliate against anyone that wages cyberwarfare against Russia:

Russia-based ransomware group Conti issues warning to Kremlin foes – Reuters

If anybody will decide to organize a cyberattack or any war activities against Russia, we are going to use our all possible resources to strike back at the critical infrastructures of an enemy

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

Germany is central, it's the most connected nation, geographically in Europe. It makes sense. But you don't seem to understand when I point that out. And in what way is that even relevant? What is your point about troop placement? Every one of them are NATO nations, and they protect every nation, not just the border towards Russia or conflict zones. Do you understand that? Why don't you understand this? Or are you just trolling because you don't have anything else to say?

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

What are you babbling about? They can defend themselves, but because they're in NATO they are augmented in their defense. That's the point of NATO. And yeah, Putin is bad, not Russia, no one is condemning Russia. Russia is filled with people who want Putin gone, but they get silenced, murdered and imprisoned. Putin is the bad one, Putin and his fuckbuddies are the "baddies" that need to be put down like dogs. Are you defending those dogs?

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. — Manuel

I'm not talking about nuking Ukraine, I'm talking about Putin being embarrassed with defeat, wanting to show strength and just send off nukes towards the west to go out with a fuck you. It's a possibility when you are dealing with a lunatic.

There are some interesting tactics or "discussion techniques" being deployed here. Do you think the forum should be renamed “the Talk Shop for the Woke” or “the NATO PR Office”? — Apollodorus

Or "an open space for Putin apologists" like yourself.

What are you babbling about? They can defend themselves, — Christoffer

Obviously, they can't defend themselves if, as you claim, US troops are in Germany to defend the Germans and in Europe to defend the Europeans:

Troops in Germany are there for defense. — Christoffer

And you aren't answering my question: why does Germany not have nuclear weapons whereas Britain and France do? Are Germans second-class people? Or maybe second-race?

Moreover, why can't Europe defend itself against Russia? Europe has a population of about 450 million. Russia has a population of only 145 million. Why does Europe need America, which is 6000 kilometers away, to defend it against Russia??? Don't you find this strange???

because they're in NATO they are augmented in their defense. — Christoffer

Again, why does Europe need its defense to be augmented by America when Europe has a much larger population and economy than Russia?

Or "an open space for Putin apologists" like yourself. — Christoffer

So, it's OK for you to campaign for US imperialism, but not for others to disagree with you?

Besides, I wasn't talking about Putin at all. The issue is the relation (a) between Germany and the rest of Europe and (b) between Europe and America!

What's so difficult to understand?

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

Good to hear that. Sorry if people get confused when you talk about neo-nazis being in power and Putin saying that neo-nazis are in power in Ukraine. Now if I understand you correctly, you refer to 2014 and to the US involvement in the events in Ukraine.

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

That's the quote from you.

I think that others have said this to you, but I'll also say it. Nobody is treating the US as saviours. They come in and try to influence things and usually just make a huge mess. (And then the US administration changes and everything turns upside down.) But back to Ukraine, do also note that after the interim government there were elections, and then the extreme right wasn't anymore in power (in the administration). You have to acknowledge that. I think this was the confusing part.

And lastly, that part of history really hasn't anything to do with the current government of Ukraine, so what is the connection to this thread? Or is it just a side mention?

Yes, something like that. Obviously many sectors of the Russian elites aren't happy now, but they might be getting some kind of benefits.

you did say the US installed a nazi, which was wrong. — frank

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/659771 Which part do you disagree with?

You have to acknowledge that. I think this was the confusing part. — ssu

I have to confirm that I'm supporting the narratives you assume I'm supporting? What kind of twisted rhetorical obligation is that? Why don't you simply read what I've written and respond to that? Why insert additional beliefs and then require me to disabuse you of them on pain of being assumed to then hold them?

I don't hold with this modern fetish for wearing one's heart on one's sleeve. If I have to preface every paragraph with "bombing innocent people is bad", or else be thought a monster then we're not going have a very productive conversation.

Likewise if all my comments are going to be skim read just to see which of the two available camps I fall into and then responded to with a series of stock phrases assigned to that group, then there's little point in me being here, the exercise becomes a piece of theatre, not a discussion.

Nobody is treating the US as saviours. — ssu

Nobody is treating the US as a savior. — frank

Yet we have...

I think NATO's response so far has been pathetic. Ukraine is not a member, but surely an ally, and a request from them for 100,000 NATO troops on Poland's border to help could not have been refused. Putin only understands one language - force. — Tim3003

we actually want US with us in Europe to handle this conflict. — Christoffer

But in the main I have been responding to...

time however, it's not fucking imperialism in the way you describe it, it's not US "fault", it's a lunatic called Putin and his delusional Soviet dreams. — Christoffer

... by showing that it is (in part) the US's fault, Europe's fault. Had we left well alone Putin would have been robbed of both strategic gain and narrative excuse, but our meddling to further our own economic interests has, in fact, provided both.

If Putin is indeed the mad man everyone paints him, then why the fuck have the US and Europe spent the last decade poking him with a fucking stick?

And as for the US as saviours... A I said, unless you want to engage in nothing but hearty round of back-slapping as we all congratulate ourselves on having chosen the correct bad guy, then the discussion is about what we do. If we think Putin should be stopped, then by what means?

Which strategies for stopping Putin don't involve America?

I have to confirm that I'm supporting the narratives you assume I'm supporting? What kind of twisted rhetorical obligation is that? Why don't you simply read what I've written and respond to that? Why insert additional beliefs and then require me to disabuse you of them on pain of being assumed to then hold them?

I don't hold with this modern fetish for wearing one's heart on one's sleeve. If I have to preface every paragraph with "bombing innocent people is bad", or else be thought a monster then we're not going have a very productive conversation.

Likewise if all my comments are going to be skim read just to see which of the two available camps I fall into and then responded to with a series of stock phrases assigned to that group, then there's little point in me being here, the exercise becomes a piece of theatre, not a discussion. — Isaac

:100:

Just joining in... sorry if I repeat things already said.

I paraphrase a few things from a personal friend of mine, who is an interested, interesting person:
1. Russian troops are not engaged. They wait with attack, to avoid bloodshed of civilian Ukes(*).
2. Ukes are using the weapons distributed for defense, to settle old scores among themselves.
3. There is general mayhem inside Ukraine.
4. My friend thinks there is a general script the major players follow. Trump was on a reality show; Putin is an ex actor (?) and Trudeaui is an ex drama teacher. Reality is fast becoming a multimedia show, which my friend insists is scripted.

Is there any way to verify this? It's all very plausible, but could be totally false.

"Ukes": no disrespect meant, only shorter form of typing.

I'll tell you what's 'scripted'...

Any time there's opposition to government policy or corporate overreach, some nutcase comes along claiming it's all a plot by the lizard people, and subsumes all legitimate dissent and protest, handing the government the very tools they were looking for to silence the whole thing and carry on unopposed.

Your 'friend' is not helping.

... by showing that it is (in part) the US's fault, Europe's fault. Had we left well alone Putin would have been robbed of both strategic gain and narrative excuse, but our meddling to further our own economic interests has, in fact, provided both. — Isaac

And this is the main issue here.

You don't read what Putin actually says. He does explain his actions. He didn't need even the excuse of NATO having a springboard to attack Russia through Ukraine. Of course he mentions that, but note what else he talks. Just listen to him.

Putin did have territorial aspirations that came true: he did annex Crimea. This objective was clear even in the 1990's before the time of Putin. Russia has wanted to have Crimea and has wanted to control Ukraine. This would happen even if NATO would never have taken new members (as it's articles say it can do). Just look at actions of Russia in Belarus and Kazakhstan.

You see, in Kazakhstan your scenario did happen: the US had strong military influence there. And how did Russia respond? Did it bully Kazakhstan? Not openly, but the US is gone from there. The Russians prevailed. Kazakhstan is very much in the sphere of influence of Russia. This shows how Russia really can handle US enlargement. That the US had military bases all over in Central Asia and now has nothing, no military base. Nothing is mentioned about it, which shows how you really defy US enlargement. Because the US would desperately want one base now, if it could have one. Russia simply said no. Russia did control Ukraine through Yanukovich, whose error was that he didn't crush the Maidan revolt as have been done now in Belarus or Kazakhstan.

Yet a Russian leader calling Ukraine an "artificial country" is so crucial here. A leader of another country, here Russia, calling it's neighbor artificial and that it should be together with Russia, is such an obvious take a way of the true intentions.

And furthermore, Putin does not have any excuse, any narrative, for invading Ukraine even now.

There wasn't any genocide against the Russia speaking minority. There aren't any neonazis in control of Ukraine today. Ukraine wasn't going to be a NATO member, not with a limited war going on in the Donbass. This is just Stalinist rhetoric.

Yet with the actions that Putin has done, he has created a self fulfilling prophecy: he has created again the "Old-NATO". Western countries are now responding to him.

Now, after a large scale invasion of a neighbor, the West does see Putin as an hostile threat and will respond to it with arming themselves.

Olaf Scholz has made a true 180-degree turn.

Germany is giving arms to Ukraine. Scholz has promised that defence expenditure will be above 2% in Germany. That means that basically Germany will double it's defence expenditure.

Things are changing in the new Cold War.

If @Isaac hadn't given such an appropriate response, I would have deleted that. Please do not speak of your friend here again.

.. by showing that it is (in part) the US's fault, Europe's fault. Had we left well alone Putin would have been robbed of both strategic gain and narrative excuse, but our meddling to further our own economic interests has, in fact, provided both. — Isaac

You're saying that providing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military equipment to Ukraine was stupid, and it invited Russian aggression.

But that was in response to previous Russian aggression toward Ukraine.

I think you're missing a bigger picture. Putin is pushing back against Europe and breaking Ukraine's ties to Europe because of his own vision of Russia's future. It's not the response of a cornered rat.

You don't read what Putin actually says. He does explain his actions. — ssu

I see. So when Putin talks about...

the expansion of the NATO to the east, moving its military infrastructure closer to Russian borders.

...we should ignore what he says, all propaganda?

When he says...

First, without any approval from the UN Security Council, they carried out a bloody military operation against Belgrade, using aircraft and missiles right in the very centre of Europe. [They carried out] several weeks of continuous bombing of cities and critical infrastructure. We have to remind of these facts, as some Western colleagues do not like to remember those events, and when we talk about it, they prefer to point not to the norms of international law, but to the circumstances that they interpret as they see fit.

...nor even relevant to his motives, just political shenanigans...

When he goes on...

Then came the turn of Iraq, Libya, Syria. The illegitimate use of military force against Libya, the twisting of all decisions taken by the UN Security Council on the Libyan issue led to the complete destruction of the state, to the emergence of a major hotbed of international terrorism, to a humanitarian catastrophe and a civil war that has not ended to this day. The tragedy, to which they doomed hundreds of thousands, millions of people not only in Libya, but throughout this region, gave rise to a massive migration wave from North Africa and the Middle East to Europe.

...nothing to do with the political situation at all, just ignore it.

When he says...

They ensured a similar fate for Syria. The Western coalition’s military activities on the territory of this country without the consent of the Syrian government or the approval of the UN Security Council are nothing but aggression, intervention.

...irrelevant to understanding the situation.

Just like...

However, there is a special place for the invasion of Iraq, which was carried out also without any legal grounds. As a pretext, they put forward supposedly reliable information from the United States about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. As proof of this, publicly, in front of the eyes of the whole world, the US secretary of state shook some kind of a test tube with white powder, assuring everyone that this is a chemical weapon being developed in Iraq. And then it turned out that all this was a hoax, a bluff: there were no chemical weapons in Iraq.”

...has absolutely no bearing on the matter.

Likewise....

there were promises to our country not to expand NATO even one inch to the east. I repeat – they deceived us, in other words, they simply conned us. Yes, you can often hear that politics is a dirty business. Perhaps [that is so], but not to this extent. After all, such cheating behaviour contradicts not only the principles of international relations, but above all the generally recognised norms of morality. Where is justice and truth here? Just total lies and hypocrisy.

...and...

in December 2021 we once again made an attempt to agree with the United States and its allies on the principles of ensuring security in Europe and on the non-expansion of NATO. Everything was in vain. The US position did not change. They did not consider it necessary to negotiate with Russia on this important issue for us,

...and...

Further expansion of the NATO infrastructure and the beginning of military development in Ukraine’s territories are unacceptable for us. The problem, of course, is not NATO itself – it is only an instrument of US foreign policy.

...and...

We see that the forces that carried out a coup in Ukraine in 2014, seized power and are holding it through sham electoral procedures, have given up on the peaceful settlement of the conflict. For eight years, for eight long years, we have done everything possible to resolve the situation by peaceful, political means. All was in vain.

...and just as irrelevant...

the leading NATO countries, in order to achieve their own goals, support extreme nationalists and Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, who, in turn, will never forgive the Crimeans and Sevastopol residents for choosing reunification with Russia.

...all of absolutely no use to us in understanding how this was allowed to happen, he could have just cut all that without effect, yes?

...

But it's vitally important that we listen to what Putin's actually saying if we're to understand how this situation came about, yes?

Everything except the bits that don't support your preferred narrative, of course.


If you've already decided which parts of Putin's speech represent his real motives and which parts are just propaganda, then we're not using Putin's speech to inform our understanding at all are we? We already decided what Putin's motives are and we're rifling through his speeches looking for the bits that support that narrative and ignoring the rest.

The simple fact of the matter is that Putin's speech justifying his actions spent more than 90% talking about NATO expansion, American imperialism and interference, and a tiny percentage hinting at a former Russian empire. You've ignored the bulk of the speech completely and you're the one saying that I'm not listening to what he's saying? Seriously?

I don't hold with this modern fetish for wearing one's heart on one's sleeve. If I have to preface every paragraph with "bombing innocent people is bad", or else be thought a monster then we're not going have a very productive conversation.
— Isaac

:100: — jamalrob

@Isaac
What exactly do you mean by 'wearing one's heart on one's sleeve' in this context?

Where has anyone suggested that you need preface every paragraph in such a way, or else you are a monster?

that was in response to previous Russian aggression toward Ukraine. — frank

...which was in response to previous NATO expansion...

...and so on back to the cold war.

Putin is pushing back against Europe and breaking Ukraine's ties to Europe because of his own vision of Russia's future. — frank

That's certainly one theory, yes. Your supporting evidence is...?

that was in response to previous Russian aggression toward Ukraine.
— frank

...which was in response to previous NATO expansion...

...and so on back to the cold war. — Isaac

Right. And before that Britain's Great Game. But your points about American foreign policy disasters are well taken, so calm down, dammit.

Putin is pushing back against Europe and breaking Ukraine's ties to Europe because of his own vision of Russia's future.
— frank

That's certainly one theory, yes. Your supporting evidence is...? — Isaac

It's from a book by a guy named Sakwa. This is his third book on Putin, called the Putin Paradox.

https://www.opindia.com/2022/02/africans-say-they-are-facing-racial-discrimination-in-ukraine/

https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/world/article/2001438803/racism-claims-emerge-as-ukrainian-refugees-throng-poland-border

Looking forward to the denazification of Europe? War brings out the best and the worst in us. Not thrilled with the UK response to the refugees either, which amounts to 'don't even try to come here unless you are wealthy.'

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ukraine-refugees-priti-patel_uk_621b1c77e4b06e1cc5907767

This objective was clear even in the 1990's before the time of Putin. Russia has wanted to have Crimea — ssu

Well, well. Quelle surprise! So, you are finally admitting that annexing Crimea wasn't Putin's idea but had been a strategic objective of Russia before the time of Putin.

All you have to do now is ask yourself why. Could it be (a) because Crimea had been Russian for centuries and (b) because Crimea was where Russia's Black Sea Fleet was based?

If the Black Sea is turned into a NATO lake with NATO members Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, and, potentially, Ukraine and Georgia, controlling the coastline all around, would this not represent a threat not only to Russia's Navy, but to its access to the Mediterranean?

Please do not speak of your friend here again. — Baden

okay, I promise. It's not very important for me to tout her musings.

BTW, thanks for putting your post; I did not understand a word of what Isaac said. His style involves too many ideas and too deep thoughts crammed into short, terse expressions. I am unable to follow Isaac's posts most of the time. So I am happy that you clarified the fact that my friend's opinions are not welcome, because while you praise Isaac's post to this effect, to me Isaac's post was completely incomprehensible.

Long story short: I'll never quote that friend of mine again.

I often face it with Russian stuff. I have to show I'm passionately anti-Putin before people pay attention to anything I'm saying. It's so stupid. They can't get past it. Not everyone, but certainly several, and I don't get it. Who am I that I need to show how I feel about things? I'm nobody. My opinion is not going to change the world and nothing hinges on what position I take. I don't have a responsibility to fly a flag for anyone, only (on this forum) to try and work out what is happening and why it happened.

Can someone enlighten me? Why the demand for condemnation? Are we here to discuss or just to show we're on the right side?

I'm much closer to the people affected than most members of the forum. I personally know Ukrainian people here in Russia who are worried about their children in Ukraine. My wife has many Ukrainian friends in Kiev who are sending her messages and videos, frightened people who are leaving the city to get away from the conflict.

I don't usually mention these things here, because they have nothing to do with why the invasion happened, don't shed any light on the position of the Russian government, don't reveal what divisions there might be among people in power in Russia and thus how the regime might change, and so on.

Do people need me to tell them that war is bad, that invading other countries is bad?

That's where I'm coming from.

Anyway here's a recent Russian meme:



Tolstoy, Special Operation and Peace.

Tolstoy, Special Operation and Peace. — jamalrob

Fantastic.

Do people need me to tell them that war is bad? — jamalrob

Maybe some do. But, apparently, only if started by Russia.

The reality is that most wars have complex causes. If we decide in advance that the West can do no wrong and that Russia can never be right, then discussion - or dialogue - becomes impossible ....

Thanks. :up: