I would feel threatened and humiliated with the constant media attacks ("Russia influenced the election" never mind that this is a colossal security failure on the US ), Olympic doping scandal, banning of RT (whom Hilary Clinton testified were 'Very Good') and so on. So count me delusional on this one. — FreeEmotion

But, there were acts of influence through social media to influence the election, therefore they got criticized. There have been numerous doping scandals, therefore they got criticized. There has been a lot of disinformation to help Russian (Putin) interests through channels like RT, therefore they got criticized.

I don't think anyone disagrees with him feeling threatened. The question, however, is if it's someone else's fault that he acts out with aggression based on that feeling. No one can be blamed for Putin's actions, because the reasons for him feeling threatened are not aggressions against him or Russia, but against bad acts on his and Russia's part to begin with. It's no one else's fault that RT spreads disinformation.

I think anyone in his right mind would feel it, with years and years of sanctions and highlighting the persecution of Russian opposition leaders. — FreeEmotion

Sanctions are there because of his actions, to begin with. What sanctions have been placed on Russia that wasn't a reaction to acts like the annexation of Crimea?

In reality the acceptance into NATO has to be unanimous , there are some dissenters out there. — FreeEmotion

Yes, but if the narrative that's presented by many in here, is for the US to push against Russia, and this is the primary goal for NATO. Then why don't the US just demand NATO to accept Ukraine?

This is my point. The false claim that NATO is controlled by the US and that NATO is there to push against Russia is just plain wrong. NATO is a defensive alliance that accepts anyone who wants to join who both are accepted by all members of NATO and also shows itself to be a stable nation. There's no "cold war battle between NATO and Russia", it's Putin who fears NATO's expansion because the nation's who are bordering to Russia want to join them in order to be safe from Russia, which would block Putin's plans to claim these independent nations.

None of that is NATO's or these nations' fault, it's Putin being an aggressor, forcing his neighboring nations to seek protection within an alliance that can balance against the military force of Russia whenever Russia attacks them. NATO has and will never attack any other nation if that nation didn't attack them first. It's stated over and over and over ad infinitum by Jens Stoltenberg when people ask why they don't help Ukraine.

So preventing them from joining NATO and allowing this catastrophe was the better choice? Is it really?
How could anyone argue against preventing an invasion without anyone getting killed? By the way this would have stopped my presumed hero, Putin. — FreeEmotion

By saying "allowing this catastrophe" you are blaming NATO for the invasion of Ukraine. The problem here is that no one knows if Putin would have attacked anyway, risking conflict with NATO. NATO must evaluate the situation in that if Ukraine joined and Putin still invaded, that would lead to WWIII. If you had that choice on your table as a leader of NATO. What would you do? You can't ask Putin if he will attack or not if you let them join, you don't know. So they had the door open. At the same time, Ukraine wasn't the most stable nation in around 2014-2016, it's just the past few years that Ukraine has shown improvements in the areas that made them unstable. This might be a reason why Putin invaded now, before Ukraine became a valid nation for NATO.

But again, NATO didn't "allow" for this disaster. This is Putin's actions alone.

The same way the British invaded 80% (invaded or otherwise acquired) of the world? Just want to clarify that the King or Kings of England whoever they were was, " an authoritarian leader who openly speaks of the "empire", who by force tries to claim land and increase that empire's borders". That would be consistent. The same way the Spanish, Portuguese, Germans and others created empires? — FreeEmotion

And we don't live in these times anymore. The first world war collapsed most of the empires, it's by some called the "end of the age of empires". Then the second world war was pretty much an attempt for some (obviously most notably Nazi Germany) to create new empires, which of course failed when trying to exist in this new world that doesn't really have empires anymore. The rest of 20th century has been a long deflation of any empire thinking and international laws, UN, EU, NATO and other alliances were invented as measures to keep world wars from happening again.

Only despot dictators and delusional authoritarian leaders who still dream of the "age of empires" would conduct geographical invasions to "expand the empire". North Korea and Russia are the most notable for having this attitude and politics while China have started to move away from it, still not able to fully leave it behind. While all else, all those previous empires like UK, and "modern empires" like the US don't really act in this way anymore. They don't claim lands for their own, they instigate proxy wars and conflicts to gain influence and resources and all of these acts are really bad, but they don't act in terms of an expansion of empire taking over nations and planting a flag. They have realized that collaborating and investing in other nations is better than planting a flag. Might today is better unseen within a capitalistic machine... because if you act like the old days, it's gonna create dramatic consequences like what we see now.

Maybe Putin is living in the past. — FreeEmotion

Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.

This is what every single expert on Russia and Putin is saying. At least every single one I've heard and found through my own research.

The United States has not threatened Sweden or Finland, but I think they may be the rare exceptions. — FreeEmotion

Which other nations have they threatened into NATO? And if new members must be a unanimous decision, how could the US both threaten a nation into "submission" as well as have everyone on board with the decision to let that nation join? This is why the narrative that US controls NATO is wrong.

I really would like to hear anyone give examples of NATO members who were forced into joining and how it happened.

Putin is authoritarian, yes. He is also entitled to an opinion. If you say he should have found a better way to achieve his goals without invading a country and causing mayhem then that is valid. Maybe he is not smart enough to do that. Or maybe that was impossible. So what does he do? Give up on his goals? — FreeEmotion

He can say whatever he wants, unless it's an aggressive threat like the one about nuclear readiness, since that is... you know, not an opinion but a threat, just like threats in a free speech society isn't considered protected under free speech.

If he was a leader who want to expand his borders back to the roots of the Russian empire, without bloodshed, invasions or wars like back in those days. Then he would have lobbied for the neighboring nations to vote to be part of Russia. If they decline, vote no or whatever, he could still continue lobby for it, but nothing happens until the free and independent nation he wants to join, accepts that offer. This is how things are done peacefully today. And here's my take on all of this: he's old, he doesn't have time to try and convince these nations that they should join him and most of them don't want to, so he want to bypass that time and instead invade and just claim these nations. He's been trying to do this for so long, but NATO has made it into a stalemate, it hasn't been easy for him because of NATO, that's why he's desperate. And that, of course isn't NATO's fault, they kept the balance and peace otherwise Putin would have invaded every single one of these nations whenever they had a time of crisis, in order to maximize success. That he invaded Ukraine now is probably because he's seen how well prepared they've become and didn't want it to go any further and make it impossible to invade and claim (which might be the case now)

Might as well ask the Ukranians to stop fighting after 14 years and save lives. The fighting is going to stop sometime, so totaling up a high body count to make a point is one option, but I do not support it. — FreeEmotion

Yes, but I don't think he cares. Most Russian soldiers seem to be young men who don't even know why they're there. Putin is an authoritarian leader of the old style, those who throw cannon fodder into the frontline in order to starve the enemy through attrition.

Any defense of Putin and his reasons or his thinking or actions have so clearly been shown to be stupid now. He is, by every definition of the word, a bad man. And, as I've said earlier, the best way to stop the war is for him to die. How, that's another question, most likely by the hands of his own people, security personnel or whatnot who are fed up with his actions towards Ukraine, but especially his own people and Russia.

I even got confirmation that I'm not alone in this thinking. Gustav Gressel of the European Council on Foreign Relations said this in today's news:

I wouldn't rule out an internal attack. Putin is extremely protected, but it's realistic that, for example, someone in his "lifeguard" (security personnel) put a bullet in him, maybe because that person saw his son burn up in a tank in Ukraine.

NATO is a defensive alliance that accepts anyone who wants to join who both are accepted by all members of NATO and also shows itself to be a stable nation. — Christoffer

Yeah, and I bet they also hand out free rainbows and unicorns to those who write nice letters to them too. Poor poor NATO, clearly had no idea what they were doing this whole time. Just a cute little defensive alliance, clearly not chock full of people whose entire existence is devoted to thinking carefully about the moves they make, armed to the fucking teeth, continually doing what Russia told it to stop doing and which they had no need to do, and Ooops, war! Silly NATO! He he he.

I'll tell you how it doesn't expand - it doesn't expand by countries asking "hey can you let me in?" and NATO going "mmmm, OK since you asked so nicely, yeah totally". It's not a fucking gentlemen's club. It's a strategic decision — StreetlightX

Strategic by the nation asking or NATO, there's a difference there.

and ideally, one not made by morons who, knowing full well that Russia has literally been to war over this very issue before, think, ah fuck it, lets keep arming Ukraine and making moves to expand the European sphere of influence Eastward. — StreetlightX

So, nations who are worried Russia would invade them are morons because they seek security as a member of NATO?

This notion of an innocent, doe-eyed NATO (and EU) just waving people in willy nilly because they asked nicely is just as stupid as your Harry Potter theory of Mad King Putin. — StreetlightX

I didn't say that. Anyone can seek membership in NATO. They accept so long as it's a unanimous decision to accept as well as the nation being a stable nation that is also dedicated to helping other members of NATO, primarily, have shown good diplomacy with these nations in the past. NATO is also wary of the border to Russia, that's why it hasn't been easy to get Ukraine into NATO, because first, they have not been internally as stable as a nation for very long (and still has a long way to go), as well as some members of NATO being wary about them joining, primarily because of the threats from Russia (which isn't really any of Putin's business, since he doesn't own Ukraine, whatever he believes).

This is how NATO operates with getting new members. I'd like to hear a better rundown on how you think it actually works, beyond your childish rhetoric for which, there's not much substance.

Yeah, and I bet they also hand out free rainbows and unicorns to those who write nice letters to them too. — StreetlightX

Yet, you don't really explain how it "actually is" beyond your bullshit. Can you actually do that or are you just full of shit? Because I won't engage with someone who just writes like an angry child.

Strategic by the nation asking or NATO — Christoffer

Oh yes, I forgot that this thing called communication exists. Clearly, once a nation asks, NATO just has to let them right the fuck in if they fit the bureaucratic criteria. That's clearly, totally how things work, and not a fucking cartoon picture.

They accept so long as it's a unanimous decision to accept as well as the nation being a stable nation that is also dedicated to helping other members of NATO, primarily, have shown good diplomacy with these nations in the past — Christoffer

Jesus Christ. Listen. I've come into alot of money recently because my uncle is an Australian prince from the Irwin dynasty, and he left me all this money in his will, and I need someone to store it for me while I sort out some accounting stuff. If you give me USD $50,000, I promise I will give you like, USD $2 million in return. It's just for a bit. If you can DM me your account details, that'd be great.

I just figure if you actually believe this utter naive bullshit that you wrote, I may as well give this a go.

Oh yes, I forgot that this thing called communication exists. Clearly, once a nation asks, NATO just has to let them right the fuck in if they fit the bureaucratic criteria. That's clearly, totally how things work, and not a fucking cartoon picture. — StreetlightX

Are you unable to write in a normal way or do I have to use your rhetoric since you don't seem to understand when I write how it actually works?

Jesus Christ. Listen. I've come into alot of money recently because my uncle is an Australian prince from the Irwin dynasty, and he left me all this money in his will, and I need someone to store it for me while I sort out some accounting stuff. If you give me USD $50,000, I promise I will give you like, USD $2 million in return. It's just for a bit. If you can DM me your account details, that'd be great.

I just figure if you actually believe this utter naive bullshit that you wrote, I may as well give this a go. — StreetlightX

Does this fit the criteria for low-quality posts? Because I see nothing of value here. You don't answer in the slightest to the question I asked, which I did in a methodical way in order to arrive at some kind of conclusion from your side since you're all over the place. But I see now that you're just trolling.

Here's a tip : just read what jamalrob, Isaac, Baden, StreetlightX and Baker and for the historic perspective ssu (although I vehemently disagree with the conclusions he thinks he can draw from that) have to say on the thread and you're done.

I wish I had more time to engage on these forums but it's surprising how little people actually look at the strategic interests of the various players. This pretty much sums up my view: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine

Which is precisely why I argued to "sacrifice" Ukraine at an earlier stage, e.g. repeal earlier promises and overtures for it to join the EU and NATO. I also wondered why trustworthiness was so low on the list of priorities for NATO and particularly the US. I can only think of two answers, incompetence or another goal. If it's another goal, then finding grounds for more extreme sanctions seems the only reliable one. In which case the US provoked a war for entirely economic reasons.

That, or we are to accept that the Ukraine has a strategic military purpose but then I question why it's not actually defended. So I ain't buy that, particularly because Turkey, a NATO member, can close access to the Mediterranean.

What is it about my question that no-one wants to answer it? It seemed quite simple. What is the advantage in exculpating the US and Europe? — Isaac

In the (post-Crimea annexation) context of the latest Russian invasion of Ukraine, and thereby imminent threat to former Eastern Bloc nations, Isaac, your question is a trivial non sequitur at best.

I don't know, but I know that the only advantage of blaming the West for this war, is to exculpate Putin. — Olivier5

:100: :clap:

This is a stupid thing to say, said only by stupid people. — StreetlightX

Don't be so hard on yourself, comrade. :smirk:

Courtesy of Beau of the Fifth Column

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWIYfKWSAxw

The article he refers to here:

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/brave-new-world-of-putin-an-article-by-the-propaganda-publication-ria-novosti-which-was-to-be-published-after-the-occupation-of-ukraine/

It's entertaining. — Olivier5

But only in the same dismal way as whistling in the dark.

The only ones I left with an impression of having met a true professional and not an inexperienced joker, were the Indian and the Russian embassies. — Olivier5

Correct. Which is not surprising given that India and Russia are neighbors. Unfortunately, US-UK and their Pakistani collaborators created the Taliban to keep the Russians and the Indians out of Afghanistan.

In any case, US-UK have ZERO understanding of the local culture. They despise the Afghans and the Afghans despise them. Now they are laughing at Putin's problems in Ukraine. IMO they should look at their own disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not to mention Vietnam ... :smile:

You don't know what I campaign or support outside of this discussion. — Christoffer

So, you are not campaigning for China to give Tibet back to the Tibetans? Then why campaign for Russia to give Crimea to Ukraine?

Show me where Jens Stoltenberg acts as a puppet for US affairs. — Christoffer

Everyone in Norway – at least among the educated classes - knows who the Stoltenbergs are. They are Germans from Schleswig-Holstein with close links to the Norwegian defense, finance, and foreign ministries and to US interests. Jen’s father Thorvald was a member of US outfits like the Trilateral Commission and FRIDE.

When Turkey invaded Kurdish territory in Syria in 2019, Jens said:

Minister Cavusoglu and I also discussed Turkey´s ongoing operation in Northern Syria … Turkey has legitimate security concerns … Turkey is a great power in this great region and with great power comes great responsibility… - NATO Joint press conference, 11 Oct. 2019

So, according to you, and to NATO, it’s OK for Turkey to invade and occupy Kurdish lands, but not for Russia to invade Ukraine! And you still expect to be taken seriously?

Moreover, I didn’t say “Stoltenberg acts as a puppet for US affairs”, though now that you say it, it probably is correct.

However, what I actually said was that NATO was created and is controlled by America for American interests. If Finns find this difficult to grasp, I can only stress that it is regrettable ….

Attributing the blame that lies with the US and NATO does nothing to exculpate Putin.

There's a saying in Dutch : where two people are fighting, two are to blame.

The United States has not threatened Sweden or Finland, but I think they may be the rare exceptions. — FreeEmotion

We just didn't know those were real countries. We'll be right over.

The article he refers to here:

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/brave-new-world-of-putin-an-article-by-the-propaganda-publication-ria-novosti-which-was-to-be-published-after-the-occupation-of-ukraine/ — tim wood

https://thefrontierpost.com/the-new-world-order/

Maybe someone could verify this to be the translation but, yeah... my estimates of insanity on Putin's part is pretty much verified with this one. That they even speak of "The New World Order" and how they will unite Ukraine with their true nature RUSSIA shows just how delusional the ideas are.

If people thought my ideas sounded like some Hollywood fiction, then read this crap.

Which is not surprising given that India and Russia are neighbors. — Apollodorus

Yes. Yes. Yes. Their eyes were open alright, because they cared, and they were markedly more humble than the westerners I met. The mood among the latter was nervous, bossy, angry, naïve, and condescending to the highest degree, even when they didn't know they were.

This US election expert had been posted in Kabul for 3 years. A true veteran! At some point, hearing me speak Farsi to an Afghan colleague, she asked, appreciative: "Oh, you can speak Arabic?"

This is just an example. I regret to say, the Americans were not the worse. The UK diplomats, oh they were in another league.

Now they are laughing at Putin's problems in Ukraine. IMO they should look at their own disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not to mention Vietnam ... :smile:

Why, there's no nation made of angels. The French bombed indiscriminately entire villages off the map in Syria, Algeria, Vietnam etc. The Germans, well... Need I go on? The important thing is to learn from such things, internalize the guilt, accept one's national destiny as, well, not so manifest or exceptional after all... Digest history. That's a big part of the European project in my view.

But he isn't delusional!!! I'm not sure where you see the illogicality here. — ssu

Do I need explain it? In the article I cited, Mearsheimer clearly advocates exactly the positions you've been vehemently denying the validity of. Either he's an expert who we should listen to or he isn't. You can't have both. Did you even read the quotes?

What is so hard to understand that Russia see's the West as a threat AND has territorial aspirations on the territory of it's neighbors? — ssu

Nothing. What makes you think I find that hard to understand?

if I say that this war is Putin's fault, it doesn't mean that the US or NATO has done everything right. — ssu

Well, it quite literally does. In what sense could the US and NATO possibly have done anything 'wrong' if there's no fault attached to their doing so?

What is false to think that all this is happening because of the US wants to enlarge NATO and nothing else. — ssu

Yep. Which is why I have never said anything like that.

I responded to the way you fragment out points out of context of a whole argument. This is a way to effectively strawman through formatting. I don't fall for that. — Christoffer

I've literally no idea what you're talking about. You said it's all Putin's fault, you said loads of experts agreed. I just want the citations from those experts. It's that simple.

published papers as a source that has much greater unbias than anything else — Christoffer

I see. So does Harvard Professor of International Relations Stephen Walt writing in the Journal of Foreign Relations count? He says...

The great tragedy is this entire affair was avoidable. Had the United States and its European allies not succumbed to hubris, wishful thinking and liberal idealism, and relied instead on realism’s core insights, the present crisis would not have occurred. Indeed, Russia would probably never have seized Crimea, and Ukraine would be safer today. The world is paying a high price for relying on a flawed theory of world politics.

Since the dissolution of the USSR, Ukraine has had pro-Russia prime ministers until Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych was ousted after 10 years in office in what was widely seen as a ‘color revolution,’ engineered by the US.

If Americans could worry that much about a tiny country like Nicaragua, why was it so hard to understand why Russia might have some serious misgivings about the steady movement of the world’s mightiest alliance toward its borders?

Which are exactly the points I and others have been making. Not that the Mearsheimer article wasn't also a published journal paper already, which you conveniently ignored.

You aren't making the argument that they share blame, you make the argument "it's the west's fault". — Christoffer

Where. Quote me making such an argument. I've asked politely for you to stop attributing positions to me without citation which I do not hold. Please desist. It's more than a little disingenuous for you to accuse me of strawmanning when you refuse to even quote me on positions you claim I hold.

I asked for sources that support your actual counterargument, you have not shown the connection — Christoffer

You seem to be the expert on what my argument is. Why don't you tell me how they relate? In fact I could take a break for a couple of days and you could continue arguing both sides by yourself.

Show me an instance where Jens Stoltenberg has done this towards Sweden and Finland. — Christoffer

Stephen Walt again...

The US seemed on a steady course to encircle Russia with its own version of ‘satellite’ states when the Bush administration nominated for NATO membership at the 2008 Bucharest Summit Georgia and Ukraine — states closest to Russia in ethnicity and even culture. (Stalin was from Georgia while Ukraine, whose official language is Russian, was part of the USSR from 1922 until the end of the Cold War, and the site of its nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles.)

As Mary Elise Sarotte writes in the Journal of Foreign Affairs

The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels. … The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of ‘pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.’ …

And

At a summit in Helsinki, Clinton promised to give Yeltsin four billion dollars in investment in 1997, as much as the U.S. had provided in the five years prior, while also dangling W.T.O. membership and other economic inducements. In return, Russia would effectively allow unencumbered NATO enlargement. Yeltsin worried that these measures could be perceived as ‘sort of a bribe,’ but, given Russia’s empty coffers and his uphill prospects for reëlection, he relented.

And German Chancellor Helmut Kohl said: ““We consider that NATO should not enlarge its sphere of activity.”

In Georgia, the State news reported that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called on Georgia to use every opportunity to move closer to the Alliance and speed up preparations for membership

And none of this is even to mention the undeclared deals which we'd be unbelievably naive to think didn't take place knowing what we do about similar dealings in other spheres.

Clearly NATO does not simply wait for requests and allow stable nations in regardless of strategic advantage.

You still don't haven't provided a clear "other reason" or "cause" for Putin's invasion. Your sources are about the risk of influence of neonazis in Ukraine around 2014. How does that in any shape or form relate to Putin's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 or his reasons for aggressions over the course of his rule of authoritarian power? — Christoffer

@StreetlightX has already provided dozens of expert views on how these issues relate to Putin's invasion, I see no sense in simply repeating them, but since you're specifically asking about post 2014 NATO, I'll add that German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier after NATO manoeuvres in Poland said of them

What we shouldn’t do now is inflame the situation further through saber-rattling and warmongering. Whoever believes that a symbolic tank parade on the alliance’s eastern border will bring security is mistaken. We are well-advised to not create pretexts to renew an old confrontation

How so? — Isaac


Because it's a fucking research institute on the subject of Russia and Putin. — Christoffer

So? You think that's the only source? Plenty of other equally reputable and well-informed sources have been used countering your position.

Either quote me blaming them for everything, or refrain from ascribing me views I've never espoused. — Isaac


It was a reversal of your argument to show you your own rhetoric. — Christoffer

I don't care if was a ...whatever the hell that means.. If you want to assign a position to me, quote me saying it. It's simple courtesy.

Because it balances the facts. — Christoffer

'Multi-reason'. You gave one.

Again, please don't just assign views to me without sources. Where have I dismissed any notion of Putin's guilt? — Isaac


Where have you connected Putin's guilt to be partly the west's? — Christoffer

What's that got to do with anything. You ascribed a position to me, I simply asked for the courtesy of being quoted. You cannot seriously say I hold a position because of a failure to state the opposite of it.

The United States has not threatened Sweden or Finland, but I think they may be the rare exceptions. — FreeEmotion

Interesting historical fact: Stalin asked the US to bomb Finland during WW2. The United States rejected this as the two countries were not at war. In fact, the US never declared war to Finland during WW2. Only on June 30th 1944 the US broke off diplomatic relations with Finland when President Ryti, in order to get more assistance from Germany, signed personally an alliance with Germany and issued promises that Finland wouldn't seek a separate peace with Russia. Which naturally it did immediately and which it got after a month in September 1944. Then Finns started fighting their old brothers-in-arms. A Dolchstoss and proud of it!

There's a saying in Dutch : where two people are fighting, two are to blame. — Benkei

And how much do you blame the Dutch of the fighting that they took part from May 10th to May 14th 1940?

Belarus appears to have entered the war yesterday based on imint. This is pure desperation. Belarus just had a year of mass uprisings against the Russian backed regime. - On another note, I guess I was behind. Belorussians are already sabotaging railways and transport for the Russians, with some groups forming.

More mass arrests Sunday, unclear about Monday. They are clamping down on information. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That Belarus would join the war I find hard to believe (as you do also).

This would be the craziest thing ever. So a country, that has had no hostile intentions against Ukraine, no animosity, has had not long ago major popular demonstrations against the ruling regime, would then go an participate in a war that their President has until now said that they aren't part of. Wouldn't make sense. I'd wait for real confirmation on this.

But if it is so, Belarus is crumbling.

This would be the craziest thing ever. So a country, that has had no hostile intentions against Ukraine, no animosity, has had not long ago major popular demonstrations against the ruling regime, would then go an participate in a war that their President has until now said that they aren't part of. Wouldn't make sense. I'd wait for real confirmation on this. — ssu

Read the publication of the paper that were supposed to be released when Russia won the war in Ukraine. It's clear what Putin promised Lukashenko. If Ukraine and Belarus would be part of the new Russia in the new world order, then Lukashenko would be very powerful as part of this union, at least, in his eyes. It's pretty clear what's going on here, Lukashenko became a puppet, Putin managed to install someone he could control and who could be part of the new Russia. But he didn't manage to do the same with Ukraine, so he's forced to invade Ukraine to achieve his new world order goal.

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/brave-new-world-of-putin-an-article-by-the-propaganda-publication-ria-novosti-which-was-to-be-published-after-the-occupation-of-ukraine/

Since @ssu and @Christoffer seem so keen on ascribing to me positions I don't hold, I thought I'd make a post here to easily refer to.

I think the recent invasion of Ukraine was caused mostly by Putin's autocratic desire for a Russian empire.

I think that's also the least interesting and least important cause.

It's the least interesting because no one should be surprised by it, he's been saying as much for years.

It's the least important because none of us have any influence at all in Russia. The Russians themselves are doing a sterling job of opposing the war from their end.

Our concern is the extent to which our actions, mistakes, and systematic policies have lead to this. How, faced with a despotic leader intent on empire building, we did absolutely fuck all about it, but rather just made the situation worse by warmongering and sabre-rattling.

Our concern is the institutions which benefit from war, regime change, post-war reconstruction and a broken economy on its knees seeking loans to which we can attach punitive terms.

Which is precisely why I argued to "sacrifice" Ukraine at an earlier stage, e.g. repeal earlier promises and overtures for it to join the EU and NATO. I also wondered why trustworthiness was so low on the list of priorities for NATO and particularly the US. I can only think of two answers, incompetence or another goal. If it's another goal, then finding grounds for more extreme sanctions seems the only reliable one. In which case the US provoked a war for entirely economic reasons.

That, or we are to accept that the Ukraine has a strategic military purpose but then I question why it's not actually defended. So I ain't buy that, particularly because Turkey, a NATO member, can close access to the Mediterranean. — Benkei

Or it's just the delusional empire ideas by Putin as is present in the paper that got leaked.

It's easy to dismiss a simple solution to the reasons Putin have, because we all focus on complex questions and gravitate to complex answers, i.e complex geopolitical multi-actor answers. But even if the paper mentions all the actors we've all mentioned, it's very clear, if the paper is a truly leaked paper, that all of this is Putin's delusional dreams of a new Russian empire.

I really would like to know if that paper is real. Hard to verify things during propaganda machines on both sides during a conflict.

But even if the paper mentions all the actors we've all mentioned, it's very clear, if the paper is a truly leaked paper, that all of this is Putin's delusional dreams of a new Russian empire.

I really would like to know if that paper is real. Hard to verify things during propaganda machines on both sides during a conflict. — Christoffer

The paper is signed by a certain Petr Akopov, in both the Web Archive version provided by Tim and in your version, relayed by the Frontier Post. The text is the same as well in both links when you do an automatic (google) translation of the Russian into English.

In other words, the Frontier Post posted on 27 Feb a Google Translate version of the original Russian article, published on RIA Novosti the day before.

According to Wikipedia, RIA Novosti is a Russian state-owned domestic news agency, founded in June 1941 (as Sovinformburo).

The Frontier Post is a newspaper from Peshawar, Pakistan. It started to republish Petr Akopov's articles two months ago, as can be seen here:

Search Results For - Petr Akopov
https://thefrontierpost.com/?s=Petr+Akopov

As of date, the Frontier Post hasn't put down the "brave new world" article.

These articles are not written by Putin. They are not leaked either. However, they are coming from an official source and describe a non-too-atypical world view from that source.

So, the nukes come with attached diplomacy and networking to make sure everyone does not become trigger happy. Putin included.

All countries with nukes are licensed to kill. But being licensed to kill does not mean your nuclear ambition and decision are your decision only. — L'éléphant

I think the likelihood of nuclear deployment is small. But if Putin didn't think it would be considered even remotely as a serious threat, then why would he bother issuing it?

In any case, when it comes to these kinds of highly volatile situataions there are never any guarantees; since humans are by no means rational to the core.

I think the likelihood of nuclear deployment is small. But if Putin didn't think it would be considered even remotely as a serious threat, then why would he bother issuing it? — Janus

Because of the inexorable logic of Mutually Assured Destruction, bringing it up is equivalent to signaling a willingness to destroy oneself if it will attain a certain end.
That is what the Ukraine ambassador to the U.N. was referring to by suggesting Putin cut to the chase and shoot himself like "that guy in Berlin, you know, in 45."

That is what the Ukraine ambassador to the U.N. was referring to by suggesting Putin cut to the chase and shoot himself like "that guy in Berlin, you know, in 45." — Paine

Perhaps his ego is so great that he would not be willing to go down alone, but willing to go down if he takes the world with him. Who knows what he's really thinking? Maybe, hopefully, he's not that crazy, but is betting on the possibility that NATO may think he just might be. Hopefully, even if he were that crazy, there are sufficient Russian checks and balances to prevent him following through on it.

We do not have access to his decision tree. But the only reason other powers have been staying out of Ukraine so far is because of the presence of MAD. For Putin to wave it around like a stick is odd. It does not change the calculations of his oppositions.

For Putin to wave it around like a stick is odd. It does not change the calculations of his oppositions. — Paine

Not unless they took it seriously.

Since ssu and @Christoffer seem so keen on ascribing to me positions I don't hold, I thought I'd make a post here to easily refer to.

I think the recent invasion of Ukraine was caused mostly by Putin's autocratic desire for a Russian empire.

I think that's also the least interesting and least important cause.

It's the least interesting because no one should be surprised by it, he's been saying as much for years.

It's the least important because none of us have any influence at all in Russia. The Russians themselves are doing a sterling job of opposing the war from their end.

Our concern is the extent to which our actions, mistakes, and systematic policies have lead to this. How, faced with a despotic leader intent on empire building, we did absolutely fuck all about it, but rather just made the situation worse by warmongering and sabre-rattling.

Our concern is the institutions which benefit from war, regime change, post-war reconstruction and a broken economy on its knees seeking loans to which we can attach punitive terms. — Isaac

Thank you for that, Isaac.

For you, the least interesting thing is what Putin's motives and objectives are and what he does. What you focus is what the West does, because likely you live in a country that either is an ally of the US or is the US. I get it.

Well, For me and @Christoffer, what Putin does is the most interesting thing. Our countries are in a severe diplomatic crisis. Not at war like Ukraine, but still in a crisis. We haven't been part of that West you refer to. My country is the only country on Russia's Western border that a) isn't a NATO member and b) doesn't have Russian troops in it. And @Christoffer's country has a small patch of water between Russia. Both aren't in NATO, so both know how hostile Russia can be even when we don't pose a threat, that "springboard" to it. Just being a "potential" one creates the same tension. Also I can see the consequences of this crisis in my puny life too.

Just to give one example, I just spent my children's school holidays last week next to the Russian border as our summerplace is only 10km from the border. We went up to the border to a small shopping center that was intended to serve Russian tourists. There naturally weren't any tourists, as the ruble has collapsed. Nor are there the vast amounts of Russian trucks that few years ago crossed the border coming and going and made huge lines on the border (because Russian border control is, let's say, bureaucratic). Now it was all as silent as it was when there was the Soviet Union. Even then there was the odd Soviet truck crossing the border. Now nothing. You literally can see what the term "sanctions" really mean in reality. Now the government is advising people to avoid any kind of travelling to Russia.

Now in our countries likely the discussion of joining NATO will start at earnest. Especially Finns have tried to push it away and thought that all is well with the eastern neighbor relations. But we've been just fooling ourselves. So this crisis isn't over and hopefully you understand that just what Vlad decides to do or how he react does matter here.

If Russia did invade would you come to the US? Or what?

No. Why?

I guess I'd follow what is said in the Finnish constitution.

(But really, I think that is unlikely. At least now. Yet if Sweden and Finland would ask NATO membership, I guess Americans would have a heated debate.)

:up: