He already signalled his demands at the negotiating table: he wants Ukraine to be recognized as neutral. He wants it demilitarized, and he's probably going to choose its next leader, who'll be a puppet. — frank

This is certainly an optimistic outcome, unless, of course, you're Ukraine.

My guess is that Ukraine says no to the idea that it be de facto annexed into Russia. The proposal you've suggested is for Ukraine to surrender and hand over the keys to Russia. Surrender avoids war for sure.

Or maybe not for sure. It's hard to know. Reminds me of the Munich Agreement just a bit.

If you're going to require that NATO and the EU be Grandmaster chess players in this environment and expect them to respond precisely to the strategic environment, then let's impose that same standard on Putin. — Hanover

I wouldn't exactly call it Grandmaster chess insofar as people were shouting that this would happen from all corners, but I don't think Putin is under any illusions that he's being the noble one here, unless one actually takes seriously the propaganda he puts out - something I hope no one is actually doing. On the other hand, the idea that the West is acting out of any high-mindedness is laughable too - I'm not convinced Putin is stupid enough to believe that. The high-mindedness I was referring to is @Christoffer's, not the West, which is clearly acting with its own interests in mind. Any genuine imputation of high-mindedness to the West is at least as stupid as any propaganda that Putin secretes.

But sure, it absolutely is the case that Putin should take into account any response to his action; but no one is arguing - at least I hope no one is arguing - that he hasn't. That he innocently waltzed into war like a woopsie. By most accounts the speed and depth of the response have been a surprise, but I'd be happy to wager he didn't think he'd get a slap on the wrist either. Additionally, I'm not convinced that he's been backed into a corner, at least militarily. The accounts of the action of the ground that I'm following don't paint good prospects for Ukraine, but I'm willing to be happily surprised.

So blaming the West is key to his survival. — Olivier5

He has Chinese popular opinion on his side. They see it as an act of defiance against American influence, and they identify with Russia. As America declines, this is a symbol of forcing America to face reality.

It's a very emotional issue for some Chinese young people because they see America as trying to thwart their rise to power.

The proposal you've suggested is for Ukraine to surrender and hand over the keys to Russia. Surrender avoids war for sure. — Hanover

They won't have a choice if the West reaches an agreement with Putin. One wild card is that I think this is personal for Biden. I think he wants to take a chunk out of Putin.

if the average folks realize that their president has bombed their Ukrainian brothers and sisters for no reason other than a power trip — Olivier5

The overall number of confirmed deaths in the war in Donbas, which started on 6 April 2014, has been put at 13,100–13,300, by 31 January 2021.[9] According to the Ukrainian government, 14,000 were killed by 13 May 2021.[10] - Wikipedia

Escalating the war in order to bring it to an end will have support, if divided within Russia I am sure, just like any other country. As for brothers and sisters, I think the minority Russian speaking population is what the Russian population would side with, if they are typical human beings.

They won't have a choice if the West reaches an agreement with Putin. One wild card is that I think this is personal for Biden. I think he wants to take a chunk out of Putin. — frank

If the agreement is reached without Ukraine's approval, you really have recreated the Munich Pact.

In any event, if the plan was to surrender, the West has certainly not set the stage for that about-face. Getting everyone lathered up about the immorality of the attack and how the Russians have to be stopped does look like a step towards an appeasement policy.

The same sentiment is creeping all over the (non-western) world. People are tired of Europe and the US being top dogs. They want geopolitical change as a form of revenge against western arrogance, but also just for the sake of change. Many Africans for instance are curious to see what a world dominated by China will look like. They are not naïve about it, or day-dreaming. They are just tired of us.

He already signalled his demands at the negotiating table: he wants Ukraine to be recognized as neutral. He wants it demilitarized, and he's probably going to choose its next leader, who'll be a puppet.

He'll basically put a squash on Ukraine's economy by diminishing its ties with Europe.

The west will then back off the sanctions and go back to normal with no further overtures to Ukraine and less trust for Russia than it had. — frank

If the manifesto of "The new world order" is correct, you have to add that as well to speculations on Putin's ambitions. What Putin says officially during the ongoing conflict means very little. He also said he wants to denazify Ukraine and that Ukraine is filled with drug addict nazis. So by his word we have millions of people flooding into other European countries now and they're all nazis and drug addicts and drugged nazis. He's basically full of shit. The manifesto was supposedly what was going to be released after a fast takeover of Ukraine, it's a declaration of the new empire that points more clearly to the goal he's aiming for. At least, as long as he's not just a fucking nutcase, he would have the intellect to realize by now that this manifest would be toast.

As for brothers and sisters, I think the minority Russian speaking population is what the Russian population would side with, if they are typical human beings. — FreeEmotion

The brotherhood between Ukrainians and Russians is deep, and has been harped upon since what? Peter the Great? It's like if the US invaded the UK. It makes no sense to the average Petrov.

The same sentiment is creeping all over the (non-western) world. People are tired of Europe and the US being top dogs. They want geopolitical change as a form of revenge against western arrogance, but also just for the sake of change. Many Africans for instance are curious to see what a world dominated by China will look like. They are not naïve about it, or day-dreaming. They are just tired of us. — Olivier5

It's coming. It will be better in some ways and worse in others. There are some aspects of Chinese culture that just rub me the wrong way, sort of like I gather American ways irritate the fuck out of non-Americans.

For the Russian leadership, blaming the West for the war in Ukraine is a matter of survival. If Putin fails to convincingly pin this war on NATO and "Ukrainian drug addicts", if the average folks realize that their president has bombed their Ukrainian brothers and sisters for no reason other than a power trip, then Putin is politically dead. And possibly, biologically dead too. So blaming the West is key to his survival. — Olivier5

And this is EXACTLY why the argument I've been pushing in this thread is important. The "blame" needs to be proven to be either towards the west or towards Putin. If the west can't be proven guilty of what happened, then it's impossible for Putin himself to blame the west with any form of credibility. This is why speculations and suspicions about "the west" are totally irrelevant next to actual evidence of guilt

It's a public debate criminal court basically. To establish if Putin had a just cause or can be absolutely blamed for delusional empire aspirations.

At which point of grandmaster gamesmanship, blame is inappropriate all round. You lose the world championship - it's not a sin to be the second best player in the world.
— unenlightened

Except that apportioning blame is part of the game. — Olivier5

Yes indeed, and propaganda is part of encouraging the troops, etc. But we are not playing the game here, we are discussing the game being played.

I think he wants Russia to be an equal among core nations. He needs to do something about his economy and his legitimacy though.

Incredible how quickly cultural chauvinism immediately gets translated from geopolitical action: as if the actions of the American or European states have anything to do with any any sense of cultural identification. I guess this is how fascism takes root: when people look at state actions and think: that's 'us'. How sad.

There are some aspects of Chinese culture that just rub me the wrong way, sort of like I gather American ways irritate the fuck out of non-Americans. — frank

Some? Are you talking about culture or politics? If people think a Chinese superpower rule is good for the world, they must be totally unaware of how things are in China. Culture is one thing, that's the day-to-day interaction of regular people. But the politics of China is not ready for global export, it's broken to its core.

I think he wants Russia to be among equals among core nations. He needs to do something about his economy and his legitimacy though. — frank

You can't force people to be your friend, that will end up you being alone. And if you force someone to be part of your family, that's just mafia methods. Which might be why many think of Putin and Russia as a mafia state, not only in terms of operation, but "the family".

frank

Some? Are you talking about culture or politics? If people think a Chinese superpower rule is good for the world, they must be totally unaware of how things are in China. Culture is one thing, that's the day-to-day interaction of regular people. But the politics of China is not ready for global export, it's broken to its core. — Christoffer

I could talk for a while about why Americans assume their political structure should be exported to raise up all the suffering people of the world, IOW, why the American system is kind of like a religion, but that might be too far afield of the thread's topic.

I don't know if China also thinks their system (which is still evolving) should be exported.

as if the actions of the American or European states have anything to do with any any sense of cultural identification. I guess this is how fascism takes root: when people look at state actions and think: that's 'us'. — StreetlightX

Is this not the whole justification of the legitimacy of every government - that it enacts the will of the people, or at least acts in their best interests? We anarchists know it's all tosh, but then we don't try and govern.

I could talk for a while about why Americans assume their political structure should be exported to raise up all the suffering people of the world, IOW, why the American system is kind of like a religion, but that might be too far afield of the thread's topic.

I don't know if China also thinks their system (which is still evolving) should be exported. — frank

If we are to actually find out what nation should "lead the world" with "exporting political and cultural forms", the only thing we can practically use to figure that out would be to look at the indexes of life quality and other similar lists.

Then figure out which nation gets generally the highest between all statistics and use that to "fix" other nations.

It's either that or each nation needs to figure it out for themselves. There is an argument to be made for previously suffering nations who are now building their society into better life quality to be left alone to suffer through it instead of them just "taking" another nation's political and cultural form to speed up the process. While it makes the process go faster, it might not build up a genuine cultural core within the people. So by them suffering into their own functioning society, they also grow internally with that change if left alone to do it by themselves.

But at the same time, many nations have in history seen a system they liked better and adopted it into society, for better or worse.

But I think the core thing is that culture and politics should never be exported, it should only be open to being imported, through knowledge and interactions between nations. If a nation wants to adopt Chinese politics, they should be able to, if someone else wants to adopt western culture, they should be able to. Of course... I'm kinda speaking of Ukraine here. They started to import the western form in politics and culture and they have every right to do that to themselves.

anyone with eyes can see that there is no stronger bond of solidarity and unity than among capitalists themselves. There is plenty of unity and brothery love. Dead Ukrainians be damned. — StreetlightX

Dead Ukrainians, dead Russians, dead Belarusians perhaps.

How do all these dead serve Capital?

Did Putin invade Ukraine to enrich himself? Someone else?

Maybe the world's arms merchants are buying additional vacation homes this year, but no other sector has much use for war. Businesses like predictability, stability. And Capital, at heart, wants a borderless world. (Since the world still has borders, you might as well use that, but at bottom politics is a nuisance.)

foundation myth — Apollodorus

foundational lie — Olivier5

"myth" as in "mythos"

"myth" may be used as a fancy Greek term for a lie, but that isn't its only (or main) meaning.

a myth or mythology.
"the Arthurian mythos"
(in literature) a traditional or recurrent narrative theme or plot structure.
a set of beliefs or assumptions about something.
"the rhetoric and mythos of science create the comforting image of linear progression toward truth"

Lies, on the other hand, are deliberate and contrived for contemporary purposes

So a myth is not ipso facto a lie.

"The Pilgrims", a small band of separatists, play an outsized role in the American mythos--the Mayflower, Thanksgiving, etc. The Puritans did the heavy lifting of founding New England (and 'yankee culture'). It isn't a "lie" that the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock, it is myth.

Myths, of course, are made over time. The desires of imperialists and colonists and later Americans to possess as much of North America as they could get, became the myth of Manifest Destiny, once that seemed attainable, and ever after. Thanks to Manifest Destiny, the map of the United States looks mostly complete (except for that empty space north of our border--joke).

Converting foundational myths to foundational lies is risky, because an important function of foundational myths is collective unity. A people can develop new myths, over time, to reflect new bases of collective unity.

Sophisticated urbanites, like those who populate The Philosophy Forum, never confuse myths with Real Politic. When the chips are down, the bombers will fly, the tanks will roll, the soldiers will march in the name of this or that Peace Loving People.

Putin certainly appears to be engaging in an embarrassingly crude property snatch. Urban sophisticates usually try some more polite, subtle, or underhanded method of stealing wealth. I guess that means Putin is not an urban sophisticate.

There may be a mythos that ties the Ukrainian and Russian people together, but the current war of is based on lies.

indeed, and propaganda is part of encouraging the troops, etc. But we are not playing the game here, we are discussing the game being played. — unenlightened

I'm afraid Internet platforms are part of the game now, not outside of it anymore. TPF may be too small to attract attention yet, but you can bet that this "blame NATO" game is being played all over the interwebs and in traditional media as well.

All I've tried to say, that it wasn't the only reason for this war. — ssu

Right. I was having trouble parsing the comments such as...

Listen, we can talk about the wrongs that the US and the West has done. Yes, Putin has referred to them too. But this thread is about the Ukraine crisis. Or now the Russo-Ukrainian war. — ssu

If you want to talk about US agenda and how it has extended it's network of alliances, including NATO, then fine. But then that talk isn't about the war in Ukraine in general. — ssu

...which seemed fairly unambiguous. No talk about US and European complicity here, thankyou!

But I'm glad we've cleared that up.

But sure, it absolutely is the case that Putin should take into account any response to his action; but no one is arguing - at least I hope no one is arguing - that he hasn't. That he innocently waltzed into war like a woopsie. By most accounts the speed and depth of the response have been a surprise, but I'd be happy to wager he didn't think he'd get a slap on the wrist either. — StreetlightX

Putin was surprised by the high level of Ukrainian resistance, resolution, as well as an extent of Western repelling reaction.
Thus, for the first few days, the Russian air force aimed primarily at military infrastructure objects. Putin even appealed to the Ukrainian troops to desert and topple its government. But recently, the rules of military engagement have dramatically changed. So far, the unprecedented avalanche of sanctions against Putin himself, his close aids, oligarchs, banks, and industries could not change the general course of Russian military actions. There are signs that in the greatest Russian cities population disapprove Putin and protest against the invasion. Inexplicably, despite the deterioration of living standards, there is also some evidence that Putin’s popularity and the war’s approval are augmenting in provinces and rural areas. Likely, to avoid being ousted, Putin won’t stop. He has not yet appealed to ancient Russian archetypes of patriotism. It could become an ultimate sign of a radical transformation of his regime into an openly totalitarian dictatorship.

Incredible how quickly cultural chauvinism immediately gets translated from geopolitical action: as if the actions of the American or European states have anything to do with any any sense of cultural identification. I guess this is how fascism takes root: when people look at state actions and think: that's 'us' — StreetlightX

Indeed, it is incredible. But this capacity to unite so quickly is different from the 'classic' fascist power potentials. Though we also deal here with an affective unconscious identification, this process does not include a few crustal pre - fascist instances.

Putin certainly appears to be engaging in an embarrassingly crude property snatch. Urban sophisticates usually try some more polite, subtle, or underhanded method of stealing wealth. I guess that means Putin is not an urban sophisticate. — Bitter Crank

Good for him. We should all shed our urban sophistication at this point and understand that it is indeed about tanks. And the right response to a tank is an anti-tank weapon, or another tank. Hence Germany is doubling its military budget, which may indeed rub some German and non-German sophisticates the wrong way.

The mythos part is interesting. Still chewing on it.

Nothing concrete can prove which it is? So invading Ukraine is the same as Sweden increasing its military spending and maybe joining NATO. — Christoffer

In the case of Poland. Or Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania etc.

It makes it harder to discuss the topic overall if a foundational piece is still up for debate. — Christoffer

That's a ridiculous threshold to insist on. "If we can't prove one of the theories outright, we can't move on to discuss anything else". That's just ludicrous.

Burden of proof still applies. — Christoffer

Prove it.

If NATO were to be blamed, then his motives would have some form of just cause. But if NATO is not to be blamed, then he acts alone or he acts through false or through invented reasons. — Christoffer

Personally, I don't give a shit who's to blame. I want to find out what went wrong so it doesn't happen again. If you're more interested in assigning blame than in preventing another such catastrophe, that's your lookout, but you can't expect others to be so spiteful.

Well, the reasons don't matter since joining NATO is basically done to increase security through an alliance of defense. — Christoffer

'To increase security' is a reason is it not? So now you're saying you do know their reasons. Or are you suggesting it's somehow impossible for a country to join NATO for reasons other than national defence?

You are here basically saying that nations actively join NATO "to threaten Russia" and if I cannot say the actual reason, it means the reason is "to threaten Russia". Really? — Christoffer

No. I'm saying that if you cannot say the reason then it might be to threaten Russia. I'm not the one ruling out options here. I'm perfectly happy to consider your 'mad man Putin suddenly decides to blow up the world' theory as possible. It's you who are trying to actually rule out a theory as out of bounds.

RECKLESSNESS DOES NOT MEAN IT'S NATO'S FAULT PUTIN INVADES UKRAINE! — Christoffer

AND I DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT WHO'S FAULT IT IS! WHY ARE WE WRITING IN ALL CAPS ALL OF A SUDDEN?

Imagine if Putin really is delusional, imagine that he truly is a fucking crazy man who belongs in a mental institution. Now, his mental condition makes him perceive everyone as a threat. People start taking actions to be able to have a defense against any kind of action he would take, irrational as he is. He doesn't see it that way, he sees conspiracy, he sees all of them threatening him, so he acts out violently. Fortunately, people had the defense, so they could defend against it, but your argument is that joining together for defense is partly to blame for Putin's violent outburst, so we should blame everyone who wanted to defend themselves. — Christoffer

Yes, that is exactly my argument. If you are a defensive alliance and your neighbour is a mad man prone to conspiracy theories, armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons you avoid at all costs any action which might provoke him to use them whilst you attempt to lower the threat level by non-provocative means. You do not provoke paranoia further by conducting joint military exercises on his fucking doorstep. These are people's lives at risk here, it's not a fucking scout club where we can kick out anyone who doesn't behave. I can't fathom how anyone could see that as anything short of criminal recklessness.

Businesses like predictability, stability. And Capital, at heart, wants a borderless world. (Since the world still has borders, you might as well use that, but at bottom politics is a nuisance.) — Srap Tasmaner

Business in general does like stability and predictability. But some also make billions from price fluctuations, buying and selling assets, or stock-exchange speculation.

If BP and Shell, for example, are selling their shares in Russian companies they will be bought up by Russian oligarchs who will get richer than they already are. Western energy companies will certainly make a nice profit by replacing Russia as oil and gas suppliers to Europe, etc.

The biggest gain to the West though, would be if the Russian economy collapses and becomes dependent on Western investments like in the 1990's. So, the West may still see its old dream of controlling Russia's resources come true. And the EU and NATO will be free to expand ad infinitum.

But in the short term, Russia will turn to the West's rivals like China and Pakistan who will benefit from some massive energy deals with Russia - while Europe loses out.

Imran Khan strikes huge trade deal with Russia despite international outcry over war – The Independent

I wouldn't go so far, to me we're not judges.TPF posters don't have a responsibility or obligation to lean in and reach a verdict. We won't in any case.

But i think we do need to remember that on this thread, unlike on others, we are not talking about some mental experiment à la Schrodinger cat, where we can freely unwind our most wild suppositions without fear of any consequence. Rather, here we are talking of people who being killed right now, in a war that involves propaganda being spread on traditional media and on Internet platforms such as TPF. So perhaps a little gravitas is in order, and attention to the real risk of inadvertently spreading propaganda. And this cuts both ways. Clearly, CNN and the WSJ and some other media from our good friends over the Atlantic are on a mission too.

I'm afraid Internet platforms are part of the game now, not outside of it anymore. TPF may be too small to attract attention yet, but you can bet that this "blame NATO" game is being played all over the interwebs and in traditional media as well. — Olivier5

I'm not playing it. I'm urging others here not to play it, and you are playing a feeble point scoring game against me. Don't bother.

I was not talking about you, but to you, about something we seem to agree about.

Edit: ... : that we should forget the blame game and focus on what can be done to improve... Err... what exactly could be a goal to this conversation? Improve the 'situation'? Further our own national interest, to each his own? Or rather, aren't we talking here about our collective survival as a world in (relative) peace?

Nukes have been put on the table.

To me, this would be a good time to think not as individuals, not as partisans, not as patriots, but as a species. Are we tired of living yet?

To me, this would be a good time to think not as individuals, not as partisans, not as patriots, but as a species. Are we tired of living yet? — Olivier5

– “ … you must go on. I can’t go on. I’ll go on” — Beckett,The Unnamable

“Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.” — Beckett, Worstward Ho