You asked me for a source. I gave it. — frank

No, I asked you for evidence. I respect you sufficiently to assume you have a source, as opposed to just making it up off the top of your head, I was asking for the documents/policies/events etc which rendered the conclusion, not the conclusion itself.

Putin's vision for Russia is as an independent regional power. He wants Russia to be a peer of America and China, under the umbrella of the UN. That's what he's steering his country toward.

He arrived at that vision after being rejected by both NATO and the EU. Under his rule, Russia has prospered by privatizing industry. A white collar middle class has emerged. But they're now heading into stagnation because they haven't been investing in future growth. — frank

Here you've just repeated the assertion. Seriously, must I wring blood from the stone just to get a few key facts?

Putin wants to rebuild the Russian empire (as opposed to just fight back against Western expansion) because...

So far all I've heard to finish that proposition is "...because said so" (ignoring the fact that he also said he was pushing back against Western expansion), or "...because some expert said so" (ignoring the fact that other experts have said otherwise).

What is you're seeing or reading that's got you convinced? What was the "coup de grâce" for you? What renders the alternatives so untenable? Surely not just that you read a book in which the author said so? There must be more meat to it than that, so what is it?

Most likely a covert op by the US initially. Then an alliance of US troops with troops from European nations (not through NATO, but each nation's regular army) to seize the nuclear weapons and keep civil war from escalating. — Christoffer

And yet...

Nobody is treating the US as a savior. — frank

And yet... — Isaac

And yet...

US has the most competent army for this kind of operation. Who else would be able to do it? And what is the alternative? Can you provide anything of substance in analysis at all? How would you deal with Putin holding his hand over the button of nuclear attacks? What's your solution?

If Putin really makes a reality of using tactical nukes against the west, then a lot of people in this thread will go silent with their naive ideas. — Christoffer

Things aren't going all that well for Putin and he may fear that his agreeing to talks look like weakness. The nuclear rhetoric is just a way to counterbalance this imo.

The nuclear rhetoric is just a way to counterbalance this imo. — Baden

He will either act upon it, or he will be hunted as a war criminal after this. This is how people talk about this at the moment. Some officials have said that the Hague Tribunal is waiting for him after this.

I don't fear Putin winning, I fear him losing. If he loses he might act to take down everyone with him in that fall. As I said before:

No one in their right mind would use nuclear weapons today... Putin is not in his right mind. — Christoffer

Putin wants to rebuild the Russian empire (as opposed to just fight back against Western expansion) because — Isaac

Putin entertained the possibility of joining NATO and the EU. He might have driven Russia in that direction, but Russia was rejected by both.

I said "regional power.". That's in line with what Satwa described, although he didn't use that phrase. The way he put it was in terms of vertical and horizontal. Putin wants a vertical relationship with the UN (although I think he'd probably feel better about that if the US didn't treat the UN as if it's meaningless). He wants a horizontal relationship with China and the US.

The reason it would be apt to talk about the old Russian Empire is that Putin is incredibly conservative. It reminds me of the Southeastern part of the US after the American Civil War. There is an elite that has an absolute lockdown on society. No change is allowed. I think it's a reaction to an identity crisis. If you know anything about Russia, you'll know that identity has long been a confusing issue for Russia.

What is you're seeing or reading that's got you convinced? — Isaac

I'm in the process of trying to understand the situation. I'm not trying to shove a scenario down your throat. But it's an interesting question. What I do is collect information and construct a hypothesis that makes sense to me. Then I keep collecting info, testing whether the hypothesis needs to change. My only interest in talking to you is that that you might be able to steer me in the right direction. So far, I think you're over estimating the importance of the US in Putin's plans.

He will either act upon it, or he will be hunted as a war criminal after this — Christoffer

I don't expect either of these scenarios. But if you're right in the former case, we'll be too dead to argue about it anyway.

I don't expect either of these scenarios. — Baden

Hope for the best, expect the worst.

I'd say that the best way to remove Putin is to speak to everyone in his security personnel. Instead of a black op, message everyone surrounding Putin that if they kill him and order a stand-down on all nuke orders and army in Ukraine, they will receive $50 billion (can be taken from the oligarchs), diplomatic immunity, and whatever "medal of honor" possible. Adhere to the idea of heroism, that they'll be hailed as heroes who saved the world from a tyrant.

If you rule by fear, you risk having to fear everyone yourself.

This could lead to an underpaid staff of security personnel, being close to Putin, having a seed planted in their mind that there is a solution to the situation and a big gain in their own life, as well as a positive reputation globally if they act.

:lol:

That's sounds pretty difficult. Remember that Putin was a KGB member so he knows all the cheats and tricks inside a State. He is surrounded by closer oligarchy friends who would help him anyways, because they got all the wealth thanks to him.
The only way to end with Putin era is on Russian people's shoulders. I know it sounds impossible but the only way of getting rid of a ruler is in a real revolution with the citizens as protagonists

That's sounds pretty difficult. Remember that Putin was a KGB member so he knows all the cheats and tricks inside a State. He is surrounded by closer oligarchy friends who would help him anyways, because they got all the wealth thanks to him. — javi2541997

Are his security personnel these oligarchs? Are they rich in the same way? Does he not have security people around him?

But others likely wouldn't have gone to do it with war and military force. That is the point here. — ssu

As expected, that completely fails to address my point.

1. If Crimea has never been Ukrainian, it is incorrect to say that it belongs to Ukraine.

2. If Crimea was a Russian concern before Putin, then it is incorrect to say that it is Putin's invention.

3. Russia's Black Sea Fleet has always been based in Crimea. 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 round, this would represent a threat not only to Russia's Navy, but to its access to the Mediterranean.

Basically, what you are saying is that Russia has no right to be in the Black Sea but NATO countries like Turkey and, through them, America, do! :grin:

Most of the people are surrounded towards him because of fear. It is not as easy as we are debating both you and here in The Philosophy Forum. Probably, Putin was always clever enough to build up a fear atmosphere where nobody has the courage to go against him

I haven't fully digested this article but thought it might interest a few:

Vladimir Putin sits atop a crumbling pyramid of power
by Vladimir Sorokin

Putin’s end goal isn’t Ukraine but western civilization – the hatred for which he lapped up in the black milk he drank from the KGB’s teat

Some excerpts:

Putin’s favorite philosopher is Ivan Ilyin – a monarchist, Russian nationalist, anti-Semite, and ideologist of the White movement, who was expelled by Lenin from Soviet Russia in 1922 and ended his life in exile.
[ ... ]
In his articles, Ilyin hoped that, after the fall of Bolshevism, Russia would have its own great führer, who would bring the country up from its knees. Indeed, “Russia rising from its knees” is the preferred slogan of Putin and of his Putinists. It was also taking his cue from Ilyin that he spoke contemptuously of a Ukrainian state “created by Lenin”. In fact, the independent Ukraine was not created by Lenin, but by the Central Rada in January 1918, immediately after the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly by Lenin.
[ ... ]
Putin’s inner monster wasn’t just brought up by our Pyramid of Power and the corrupt Russian elite, to whom Putin, like the tsar to the satraps, throws fat, juicy bits of corruption from his table.

It was also cultivated by the approval of irresponsible western politicians, cynical businessmen, and corrupt journalists and political scientists.
[ ... ]
This war was unleashed by a man corrupted by absolute power, who, in his madness, has decided to redraw the map of our world. 
[ ... ]

Who’s to blame? Us. Russians. And we’ll now have to bear this guilt until Putin’s regime collapses. For it surely will collapse and the attack on a free Ukraine is the beginning of the end.
— Guardian article

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/27/vladimir-putin-russia-ukraine-power

What happened in 2013-2014 was confusing and messy, but calling it a "coup" is tendentious and misleading. — SophistiCat

The protests led to the 2014 Ukrainian Coup, known in the West as the Revolution of Dignity, that overthrew the former government. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan

That hotbed of radical extremism The Guardian at the time...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict

the Ukrainian president was replaced by a US-selected administration, in an entirely unconstitutional takeover

In the end, right after signing an accord with opposition representatives, for reasons that to this day are not entirely clear — SophistiCat

Except, of course that we can completely rule out a coup, apparently.

the West had little to do with how mass protests started, spread and escalated. I know this, because I was following those events — SophistiCat

Seriously? "I know this because I read about it". So no-one else has read about it?

Do you think the author here hadn't "read about it"?

https://jacobinmag.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea

...nor here...

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

...or here...

https://www.channel4.com/news/kiev-svoboda-far-right-protests-right-sector-riot-police

..none of these journalists have "read about it" like you have. One wonders how they keep their jobs.

they followed the events, they fretted over who would take power after Yanukovych, they jockeyed for influence - because of course they would. — SophistiCat

So to what were they refering when Pyatt said

I think we’ve got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure the Russians will be working behind the scenes. ….Let me work on Klitchko

... the something they need to "do" would be what? More watching and innocent sideline commentary?

And what might Klitschko understand by...

“Our American friends promise to pay a visit in the coming days, we may even see Nuland or someone from the Congress.” — email to Klitschko from Lithuanian minister prior to the uprising

...they're meeting for...?

And what would, on January 30, The State Department’s website announced Nuland’s upcoming travel plans that ”In Kyiv, Assistant Secretary Nuland will meet with government officials, opposition leaders, civil society and business leaders to encourage agreement on a new government and plan of action.” - a month before there was even official calls for one in Ukraine.

Not to mention the aid packages clearly tied to regime change as incentives, like the Billion dollars offered by the US after the coup, but not on the table before.

Or is suspicion not enough? What evidence would be good enough for you? Them just admitting it? A direct bank transfer with "to Ukraine, for ousting pro-Russian Government" written on it? At what level of apparent collusion are you wiling to entertain the theory, what would you need? Because all your naysaying is going to do is render any holding of the government to account toothless. Unless we can hold up the bloodied dagger, they're innocent as the driven snow?

Most of the people are surrounded towards him because of fear. It is not as easy as we are debating both you and here in The Philosophy Forum. Probably, Putin was always clever enough to build up a fear atmosphere where nobody has the courage to go against him — javi2541997

It reaches a point. You can scare people into obedience until they become more scared of the actions of that man than the man himself. When that happens, that man will be dealt with.

The US backed democracy adcocate groups and McCain stood beside somebody. That's your basis for saying the US put a nazi in power in Ukraine?

There is plenty of reasons the bases still exist … the US forces in Europe needed a staging area. US forces also acted as Peace Keepers in Somalia … Moving equipment from Germany to Saudi Arabia is a hell of a lot easier and faster than moving it from Chicago … — Count Timothy von Icarus

From your description, the reasons seem to be to defend America’s global interests, not to “defend” Germany or Europe.

The Warsaw Pact was founded in 1955. NATO was founded in 1949. So the Warsaw Pact couldn’t have been the reason for NATO.

Moreover, the formation of NATO was suggested by assistant state secretary Nelson Rockefeller back in 1945 and one of its stated objectives was “to keep the Germans down”.

In fact, NATO was based on the North Atlantic Treaty and the Atlantic Charter of 1941, and was a product of Anglo-American Atlanticism:

Atlanticism – Wikipedia

Supranational integration of the North Atlantic area had emerged as a focus of thinking among intellectuals on both sides of the Atlantic already in the late 19th century … Following World War I, New York lawyer Paul D. Cravath was a noted leader in establishing Atlanticism in the United States. Cravath had become devoted to international affairs during the war, and was later a co-founder and director of the Council on Foreign Relations … Atlanticism manifested itself most strongly during the Second World War and in its aftermath, the Cold War, through the establishment of various Euro-Atlantic institutions, most importantly NATO and the Marshall Plan.

The US Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which from 1939 became part of the US administration, was the sister organization of Britain’s Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA).

So, essentially, Atlanticism was an Anglo-American project directed against Germany and Russia from the start, one of its main objectives being to contain Germany and Russia.

As regards the spurious claim that US troops are “defending” Germany and Europe, Europe has a population of 450+ million and an active military personnel of 1+ million.

Russia has a population of only 145 million and an active military personnel of 800,000.

The idea that Europe needs 60,000 US troops to defend itself against Russia is obviously preposterous.

The truth of the matter is that Europe does NOT need America to defend itself against Russia (or anyone else). You have admitted this yourself:

yes, it is fair to say NATO doesn't need the US to stop Russia.

And there are many other questions that remain unanswered, e.g.:

Why doesn’t Germany have nuclear weapons?

Why doesn’t Poland have nuclear weapons?
Why doesn’t Italy have nuclear weapons?
Why doesn’t Spain have nuclear weapons?
Why doesn’t Greece have nuclear weapons?

Why are Britain and France the only European countries with nuclear weapons?

Upon a little reading, it’s not so ludicrous and insane to say far-right Ideological forces are a motivating factor in the war and in Ukrainian politics. It’s good that politics has largely kept the far-right movements out of power, but it is only through capitulation with the Ukrainian state that they haven’t seized it through brute force. These groups are given near impunity from the law.

Their unpopularity in politics means little when looking at their their activities outside of politics. One former Azov commander now serving in their political wing, the National Corps, said “Politics are in the background”. According to him, the war is more important to them than politics, for now. At any rate, it’s not like they have disappeared in the last 8 years. Their strength and sacrifice will gain them political favor in the future.

This is to say nothing of their activity in Ukraine’s military. One recent report described Azov-linked factions have high-ranking military officials in their ranks. Their aim is to build the Armed Forces on a foundation with a “reliable ideological backbone”.

Putin is wrong and his propaganda obvious, and we should reject it. But in doing so we should not legitimize these groups and dismiss their power and influence.

:100:

Here's the scary thought.

Three days ago I referred here to the possibility of Russia "escalating to de-escalate". There are already hints of this possibility (or at least it being on the table).

Putin made a quite open threat in his speech earlier and now has raised the level of his nuclear forces. The reason wasn't anything specific. Now the call from Ukraine to negotiate is positive, but it can be also more threats, bullying and demands for territory. We'll see what happens there.

It seems that Putin understands that this is very costly war for him. The best option for him is to have a rapid short war where he can declare he has gained his objectives. If the figures that Ukraine is giving about Russian casualties are even remotely truthful, this war is costing Putin much. Similar losses cannot be taken for months. And it's only been a few days. With now nearly 1000 Ukrainian military targets hit comes the slow slog of urban warfare.

And he'll need now that Russian military later. Germany, the sleeping European giant, has been awaken and it will double it's defense budget immediately. Now over 100 billion euros to defense is much (which obviously many will later point to conveniently forgetting the actual reason for this). And of course we are going to start to see an influx of weapons assistance to Ukraine. This means that a) either Putin has to make peace, b) he has to take the Western border of Ukraine and close the supply routes to the Ukrainian forces or c) scare the Europeans shitless.

And do note that Russia has held military exercises where in the end nuclear weapons have been used to de-escalate the situation and get at least an armstice. It's still unprobable, but for example Medvedev saying that Russian doesn't need relations with the West is alarming.

Russia doesn't really need diplomatic ties with the West anymore, ex-president and top security official Dmitry Medvedev said on Saturday

* * *

Also what should be mentioned is how totally different the attitude of Poland and Hungary are to the Ukrainian refugees. I think it was a great political move from the Ukrainian government to call every man of 18 to 60 years to defend their country. Basically they cannot use everybody, but it's the idea that really counts. This obviously did a lot to warm the hearts of neighboring countries when the refugees coming are women & children and not military aged men. The out pouring of help especially in Poland is notable compared to the hybrid operation that Belarus staged just few months ago.

(Again, under different circumstances, European borders are again open by countries that were reprimanded by closing them earlier)

How would you deal with Putin holding his hand over the button of nuclear attacks? What's your solution? — Christoffer

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2022/feb/25/anti-war-protests-across-russia-in-pictures

Putin's not my head of government, he's not within my sphere of influence. I don't have a plan to deal with him, why on earth would I?

The main thing I've been trying to get across is that analysing the motives and strategies of entire populations from armchairs thousands of miles away is rife with pitfalls, the last thing we should be doing is escalating the situation with half-baked Hollywood storylines.

The US backed democracy adcocate groups and McCain stood beside somebody. That's your basis for saying the US put a nazi in power in Ukraine? — frank

Christ!

We're supposed to hold our governments to account, not treat them like well intentioned children.

Our governments should be terrified of us, every foot they put wrong should come back to haunt them.

We're not supposed to give them a friendly tut and say "I'm sure you're all doing your best, we'll just wait for the evidence to be a bit stronger before we so much as complain". When exactly do you think that evidence is going to come forward, what mechanism do you think is in place to ensure the full facts about government collusion come to light?

Or is it that you think it unlikely in its face. You can't think of any similar situations in which governments have colluded to install regimes sympathetic to their interests.

the last thing we should be doing is escalating the situation with half-baked Hollywood storylines. — Isaac

Rest assured that none of what is said here will have any influence on the battlefield.

You can't think of any similar situations in which governments have colluded to install regimes sympathetic to their interests. — Isaac

Isn't that precisely what Putin is trying to do, install in Ukraine a government sympathetic to his interests? And you find it disgusting like the rest of us, right?

You said this:

"For any that don't know, that's Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the anti-Semitic Svoboda party, later installed into power by the US."
— Isaac

It's not true and the articles you posted confirm that it's not true. What is the problem with admitting that you misspoke?

You said this:

"For any that don't know, that's Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the anti-Semitic Svoboda party, later installed into power by the US."
— Isaac

It's not true and the articles you posted confirm that it's not true. What is the problem with admitting that you misspoke? — frank

Because I don't believe it's not true and I don't believe the articles I posted confirm it's not true. I don't require a bloodied dagger to hold my government and it's allies to account, it's quite sufficient for me that there's a suspicion of collusion and a long history of doing exactly that. I'm not going to tread on eggshells around the most powerful nation on earth lest I accidentally falsley accuse them.

I suggest if the US government are so concerned about being falsely accused of collusion by random internet posters, they should perhaps stop acting like sufficient shitheads to make such an accusation a likely conclusion to leap to.

Why on earth are you so concerned about their honour all of a sudden?

You're sounding a little unhinged, to be honest. There's ample horrific activity coming from the US. You don't need to make stuff up.

It’s good that politics has largely kept the far-right movements out of power, — NOS4A2

Great, nice to hear that someone agrees that free elections and democracy can work even in Ukraine!

These groups are given near impunity from the law. — NOS4A2

I think that Ukrainian officials have tried to contain them. And especially not make them to gang up with Putin's neo-nazis. Likely they wouldn't naturally be pro-Putin, but just be against the Ukrainian government. FSB supports any group that is advantageous to them. Yes, it's confusing. But Russia has been a fervent supporter of far-right movements, which becomes hilarious when you think of nazism and Russia.

Just ask yourself, if it would be the US government that would be in disarray (as Ukraine was in 2014), what kind of people would go as volunteers do defend the country at the border?

No wait...

Look at what kind of people in the US voluntarily have gone to patrol the southern border. It isn't even a hypothetical question. And how are they depicted by the media?

VOP and AZ Desert Guardians have embraced QAnon and far-right conspiracy theories about “child sex camps,” “rape trees” and “jihadists” supposedly being found in the Arizona desert. The two leaders frequently credit these conspiracies with inspiring them to engage in border operations that initially began with searches for cartel camps and slowly evolved into detaining migrants.

Do all of those volunteers helping the border guard share similar thoughts? Unlikely, but likely the reporter has looked at some individuals who genuinely are QAnon people.



The real question for you is to think just how much has this to do with the current situation where a huge quantity of people, men and women, are standing in line to join the territorial units of the Ukrainian armed forces and the National Guard. Where the ruling party holds a majority of seats in the Parliament is a centrist party that is against all kinds of extremists. Somehow, who is actually in power in Ukraine doesn't matter, because of events that happened eight years ago.

As @SophistiCat and others including me have tried to explain, the idea that neonazis are in power, can take power, are some kind of power brokers or something because eight years ago they had seats in an interim government or whatever is simply silly talk.

And even if they try to deny this, some (not you) are using the neo-nazi card in the most disgusting way. So you have on this thread exchanges like this...

Brave citizens fighting for their lives. — Amity

Yes. Brave, brave neo-nazis... — Isaac

And then references are given to 2014 and the times of the Maidan-revolution and the interim government. What never is answered is what the link of all this is to today when there obviously is huge popular support for the Ukrainian government among it's citizens. Who simply aren't neo-nazis.

Things ought to be put into the correct context and perspective.

And yes... Putin has activated deterrence troops. Are nuclear arms for deterrence only? If they got nukes, we gotta have them too? A nuclear balance? What BS!