Meaning, ordinary people could do a lot for the wellbeing of their own culture and country, and it is primarily by saying no to foreign influences. — baker

Watch movies and shows critically, and you can see the things they are concerned about. After a while, it gets tiring. It is not just about foreign influences but subtle mind control. But I was manipulated to say that by conspiracy theories. See how it works?

Movies are about superheroes and conflict, conflict violence, use of force to solve problems, wealth, fame or love. The last one is not so bad.

Anyone seen a good anti-war movie recently?

Top 5 movies

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls093928963/

1.Dune:

Feature adaptation of Frank Herbert's science fiction novel about the son of a noble family entrusted with the protection of the most valuable asset and most vital element in the galaxy.

Theme: Wealth

2. Drive My Car (2021)

Theme: Love

3. The French Dispatch (2021)

Theme: Love. Also American/French culture


4. The Dig (2021)

Sutton - Hoo

Sutton Hoo is the site of two early medieval cemeteries dating from the 6th to 7th centuries near the English town of Woodbridge. Archaeologists have been excavating the area since 1938, when a previously undisturbed ship burial containing a wealth of Anglo-Saxon artefacts was discovered.

5. Little Fish (2020)

A couple fights to hold their relationship together as a memory loss virus spreads and threatens to erase the history of their love and courtship.

Theme: Love, memory, virus.

One is often misled by a word. In the case of all crises that have taken place, including the one in Ukraine, that word is "democracy". Everyone these days seem to be under the magic spell of so-called democracy. Remember North Korea is also known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, DPRK for short.

They were talking about a bombing in Moscow as if it was the only one. In fact, there were a total of four apartment bombings in ten days, two of them in Moscow. But the incidents that are thought to provide the strongest evidence for the conspiracy theory were the bombings that didn't happen. You can read more about them in the Wiki article and elsewhere. Yet somehow Thomas and Aimen appear to be completely unaware of any of this context. — SophistiCat

Yeah, I noticed that. Maybe they'd forgotten.

Otherwise, it's just an hour about geopolitics so it's inevitable it'll be somewhat superficial and make things look like "a game between Russia and the big Western powers". This is how some of the participants see it anyway, and that's significant.

But then there is the actual war that is bloody. And too much video materiel which isn't fake. If this war continues on with similar intensity as now, this will be a very bloody war. If so much destruction in one week, how much then in two. Or three. Or in a month or two. Or a year. — ssu

I agree, it will look like our worst nightmares. Like Syria, with a nuclear spin. Yesterday the Csar called Macron to tell him he will go all the way to the Polish border. This morning the Russian were bombing the largest nuclear plant in Europe, Zaporizhzhya. These guys are not just criminals, they are also bubbling cretins. Anyway, apparently they took it without damaging the core...

If they had done this with us as NATO members, the response towards Russia would have been extremely severe. — Christoffer

Well, uh, NATO reactions to air space violations...

A news article from last January in Estonia:

(News ERR.ee, 31st Jan 2022) A Russian Air Force plane Sukhoi Su-27 entered Estonian airspace without permission on Saturday. The incursion lasted less than one minute.

The violation occurred over island of Vaindloo in the Gulf of Finland. A flight plan had not been filed and the plane's transponder was turned off. Additionally, the aircraft did not have two-way radio communication with the Estonian air traffic service.

On Monday, the Russian ambassador to Estonia was summoned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and handed a note.This was the first violation of Estonia's airspace this year. Last year, Russia carried out five incursions of Estonia's air space.

Of course, there's a wide range in the seriousness of air space violations. A cargo (recon) plane violating the airspace for a moment or strategic nuclear bombers making fake attack runs... and everything between.

I remember that song "hope the Russians love their children too". There was never any doubt. Remember the words of John F. Kennedy: "We all breathe the same air. We all love our children" .
(I quote from memory).Khrushchev and Kennedy are both gone now.

It is a wonderful song I think. It also has nice philosophical implications. We are similar in difference and as such similarity in difference is the state of mankind. the song recognizes that. As long as we do not see the other as completely other, alien, destruction might be averted.

Well, uh, NATO reactions to air space violations... — ssu

Yes, but that was before a full-scale war. I mean at the moment, while Russia has shown actual aggressive warfare, the act of breaking borders into NATO airspace would be much more severe than the normal tensions earlier. We had lots of Russian fighter jets breaking our borders before, but this time it's different.

Noam Chomsky weighs in: they are all war crimes. Iraq, Ukraine...

Noam Chomsky: Before turning to the question, we should settle a few facts that are uncontestable. The most crucial one is that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a major war crime, ranking alongside the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the Hitler-Stalin invasion of Poland in September 1939, to take only two salient examples. It always makes sense to seek explanations, but there is no justification, no extenuation. — Noam Chomsky

The Iraq invasion was a textbook example of the crimes for which Nazis were hanged at Nuremberg, pure unprovoked aggression. And a punch in Russia’s face. — Noam Chomsky

Strong words indeed.

Since there are people on the forum who know more about and, I believe, even live in Russia, I am curious what people think of the extent all the economic sanctions by the West were an acceptable consequence to the Kremlin? As Putin himself said "all outcomes are acceptable"?

Western media takes it as a foregone conclusion that this was a "miscalculation" by Putin ... because it's played so poorly in the Western press and Western nations have flocked to offer moral support and a bit of hardware and economic sanctions.

However, the Kremlin has been preparing itself for this exact threat by the West since 2014, building redundancies for all critical systems and scaling up economic ties with China.

Of course, Oligarchs are punished via their Western assets ... but the Kremlin may not actually care about that, indeed, presumably most oligarchs are also competitors in some way and reducing elite power is never "so bad" from the top's perspective (the Roman Emperor was a stable position as it controlled something like half the Empires GDP ... in the stratosphere of wealth compared to other elites, likewise emperor of China and other stable authoritarian systems have a big gap between the two top rungs of the ladder).

Oligarchs were necessary insofar as there was economic ties with the West, just as China required fostering their own oligarchs to interface with the West to expand economically based on Western intellectual property (an oligarch is a friendly and understandable face for Western investors and CEO's). However, structurally speaking, oligarchs are not necessary if you want independence from Western capitalism.

Another way to put it is that there's no reason to believe Putin cares about Abramovich tears over the Chelsea football club. This is "terrible" only from the perspective of Western financial talking heads where taking a billionaires wealth (even for breaking obviously laws) is the worst thing that can ever happen in the history of the planet; but Russian oligarch wealth outside of Russia there's no reason to assume matters much to the Kremlin. Indeed, the whole premise of "punishing" oligarchs to somehow pressure Putin maybe doing Putin a favour (creates easy leverage for Putin over the oligarchs ... no reason to assume it's vice-versa in anyway).

Obviously Russia's invasion plays poorly in Western media ... which then Western media points to as a "backfiring" the fact Western media really doesn't like Putin (a bit of self projection as being lambasted by the Western media is the worst thing for a talking head to experience).

In terms of geo-politics, Russia can source all essential components and capital equipment from China, and is obviously self sufficient in food and energy and minerals.

Furthermore, if democracy is the big threat to Russian authoritarianism (which I would definitely agree with), then severing all ties to the West seems like a good strategy to deal with that threat (from the authoritarian perspective) ... and, there's a big authoritarian world out there that doesn't give a shit about Western values; if the US is in decline, the impetus to even pay lip service maybe removed.

So, considering all this, I am wondering to what extent the economic war is either an acceptable risk (certainly the West and Russia have been exchanging words about since 2014), or even a desired outcome to impose "made in Russia" and Russian controlled information systems etc.?

For example, once China no longer needed to grovel for Western IPR, it then built it's own parallel information systems. So, if you actually want Russia to become a copy of China's authoritarian system ... this war with Ukraine accomplishes that.

I am totally against authoritarianism and I view China as a 1984 styled hellscape, but I am wondering at this point how far the "pivot" to China was predetermined to go and the Ukraine war basically total commitment to the "China way" of doing things. Or, do people more familiar with Kremlin history and logic, support the idea of the Western press that the war is backfiring and Western responses are a surprise "act of courage" (of course, by taking almost zero actual risk, naturally)?

(There's of course many military, intelligence agents and bureaucrats that remember the authoritarian Soviet days, including Putin, and may regret the fall of that system, including Putin, and may look to China as having "ironed out the kinks" in that system, indeed, even gone to China, including Putin; such an outcome, in my opinion, is more to fear than the war in Ukraine itself; it would represent consolidating pure totalitarianism and laying the foundation to absorb more and more countries into such a system ... for the West, in recent times, seems only to ever offers words about freedom, and no one can eat them.

I can essentially guarantee you, that to a lot of the world, in particular elite classes, the abandonment of Afghanistan and now this war in Ukraine paints a very clear picture: The West cannot or will not defend it's "friends", don't trust its words, they are worth nothing. Token symbolic support is of little use when you're being shelled.)

We had lots of Russian fighter jets breaking our borders before, but this time it's different. — Christoffer

True. On the other hand, for example during the Korean War, Soviet fighters were engaging in air combat with USAF fighters routinely. Few Soviet pilots even become fighters aces against the Americans. Both sides just kept silent about it during the Cold War. And Russia had already then nuclear weapons two. And also during the Cuban crisis, Soviet air defense troops shot down an U-2 plane in Cuba (and of course the incident of Gary Powers and KAL 007). So these incidents happen, but they don't automatically escalate things, but do increase the tensions.



It seems that Aftonbladet is reporting that polls are showing (or at least one) that now also majority of Swedes are for NATO. And now our defense minister is going to Washington next monday for several days to meet Lloy Austin. Same topics to be discussed as the President now with Biden.

For Zelensky to demand a no-fly zone isn't fruitful. It really won't happen and everybody ought to know it.

What does Belarus have against Ukraine anyway?
At least I'm not aware of any threats or some such (except maybe Putin has threatened Lukashenko). — jorndoe

Lukashenko is holding on to Putin for dear life. Until recently he was eking out a living by skillfully maneuvering between Russia and Europe, keeping both at arm's length while feeding off handouts intended to buy his loyalty. But due to the events of the past two years, that racket is history. Putin owns him now.

Putin owns him now. — SophistiCat

Indeed, we are seeing the consolidation of authoritarianism and the retreat and retrenchment of "Western values" ... not some sort of pyrrhic victory for those values.

For example, what did the West do for the rest of the world, in particularly economically, during the pandemic? Basically nada, and it's a fools errand to expect loyalty and honour in return for none.

For example, what did the West do for the rest of the world, in particularly economically, during the pandemic? Basically nada, — boethius

Indeed. Why should Eritrea support a world that threw millions of vaccines away that instead could have saved a lot of lives? Economy and capital ruling again.

I am curious what people think of the extent all the economic sanctions by the West were an acceptable consequence to the Kremlin? As Putin himself said "all outcomes are acceptable"? — boethius

He probably knew that there would be sanctions, but the sanctions have really been harder than anything seen in history. I don't think he anticipated the level they're at. Remember, Putin's power relies on him looking strong. Everything from threats to the recent breaking of Sweden's borders with fighter jets is his jabs to show strength. It's also, in my opinion, a sign of desperation. He doesn't have control over the situation, especially when it starts to affect his war chest.

However, the Kremlin has been preparing itself for this exact threat by the West, building redundancies for all critical systems and scaling up economic ties with China. — boethius

But China isn't as clear-cut as it seems. They try to play both sides and if Russia's economy tanks the trade agreements might mean little to them. Even China works hard for renewable changes and gas and oil might not be needed in the long run. We don't really know how long the sanctions will be in play, it could end tomorrow if Putin withdraw his troops, or more likely, it will drag on for long. China's actions in the UN shows that they're not fully on board with Russia, regardless of how they've communicated towards them.

There's also intel showing that a lot of the higher-ups in China are critical of Xi Jinping's anti-corporation attitudes, that most others want more open relations to western companies, not closing those doors. And Xi Jinping is up for his vote for lifetime mandate this fall, where many believe that he might be voted out because of his unpopularity among the others in power. If that happens, then the deal with Russia could be broken in an instance. This is a huge risk for Putin that I'm not sure he's really aware of, since he has miscalculated so many other things during this invasion.

Of course, Oligarchs are punished with via their Western assets ... but the Kremlin may not actually care about that, indeed, presumably most oligarchs are also competitors in some way and reducing elite power is never "so bad" from the top's perspective. Oligarchs were necessary insofar as there was economic ties with the West, just as China required fostering their own oligarchs to interface with the West to expand economically based on Western intellectual property (an oligarch is a friendly and understandable face for Western investors and CEO's). However, structurally speaking, oligarchs are not necessary if you want independence from Western capitalism. — boethius

But the oligarchs have close ties to Putin. Most likely it's how he can influence in the west without direct connections. It's part of his power. Many also speculate that most of Putin's wealth is hidden within the oligarch's wealth. Hidden from the Russian people. From the outside, it looks like Putin has as much income as our prime minister in Sweden, which isn't at all a luxury sum compared to many leaders in the world. But underneath he most likely has a large wealth hidden from the public and many speculate the oligarchs to be the holders of that.

Obviously Russia's invasion plays poorly in Western media ... which then Western media points to as a "backfiring" the fact Western media really doesn't like Putin (a bit of self projection as being lambasted by the Western media is the worst thing for a talking head to experience). — boethius

Yeah, this is a problem, we really don't know Russia's operation is going. There are many many sources that point to it going bad, but Putin is a brutal strategist. He might just have thrown young conscripts into Ukraine as cannon fodder to make believe that Ukraine is winning while mounting a whole other attack as the main one. We really don't know until the backlash in Russia becomes real.

In terms of geo-politics, Russia can source all essential components and capital equipment from China, and is obviously self sufficient in food and energy and minerals. — boethius

To a point. If the war chest is locked down or the entire economy collapses it matters little if they have savings they could use towards China when the end result would be military material without any money left for the citizens of Russia.

My take is that much of the Rubel's floating around in Russia have been converted to crypto, since we've seen a surge in crypto right when the sanctions kicked in hard. But that's unverified.

Furthermore, if democracy is the big threat to Russian authoritarianism (which I would definitely agree with), then severing all ties to the West seems like a good strategy to deal with that threat (from the authoritarian perspective) ... and, there's a big authoritarian world out there that doesn't give a shit about Western values; if the US is in decline, the impetus to even pay lip service maybe removed. — boethius

This is probably what's gonna happen with Russia long-term. Even if sanctions ease up, no one wants to deal with Russia anymore. But the problem is that modern nations can barely make it without good global trade. This is why China is one of the largest trade nations in the world, they realized that is where modern superpower is. Russia has oil, gas, and wheat. With climate change pushing the world further from these natural resources, the less Russia will be able to export it, even to China. Wheat will be the only thing they could export while they don't have any high industry of tech or other functions that low natural resource nations have as trade. Look at North Korea. All reports from within point to massive poverty and only surface level imagery of wealth among the top people. Compare that to China who's the largest trading nation in the world.

If he thinks cutting the west off from trade is good, he is truly delusional. And cutting off trade is the only way to ensure being separated from the west.

So, considering all this, I am wondering to what extent the economic war is either an acceptable risk (certainly the West and Russia have been exchanging words about since 2014), or even a desired outcome to impose "made in Russia" and Russian controlled information systems etc.? — boethius

I think it's a door opening for the west to get rid of Russia. They weren't a big trading partner compared to others to begin with, and there are too many risks dealing with them for anyone smart enough to see through Putin's big leader attitudes. Germany was the only one really opening their arms to them and look how they got fucked by the instability he created. No one will dare making deals with them anymore. Even oil that is still being exported from Russia is being turned down because people don't want to deal with Russia anymore.

I think it's an acceptable risk because Russia doesn't really influence the west as much as people think. There will be hits to the global economy, yes, but no way near what would happen if a nation like the US or China got disrupted. Russia, as a global economic partner, is not really that important compared to other superpowers.

So I think the west is ripping the band-aid right now, aiming for other solutions to things like climate change or global trade. Russia could very well become a third world country because of Putin, but he doesn't care since he's too occupied with his "New World Order" empire fantasies. When all of this is over, he might have his new borders drawn, but the cost will be so high that it could force upon him a new Russian revolution, destroying everything he thought he had.

For example, once China no longer needed to grovel for Western IPR, it then built it's own parallel information systems. So, if you actually want Russia to become a copy of China's authoritarian system ... this war with Ukraine accomplishes that. — boethius

China relies too much on international trade, so it will grow out of its hardcore authoritarian system just through political evolutionary movements. For them, growing their economy through trade and through having deep investments in other nations will demand them to loosen themselves more and become more like the US. Because they do business just like the US, buying themselves into other nations in the world, making heavy trade deals, and increasing global power through all of it. Russia might be something they view as rational in the short term, but if Russian economy is in the gutter and there's not much viable trade with them, they will just shrug it off and move on.

Russia has much more to lose than China if their agreement breaks... and I think China knows it. I think they are much better at world chess than Putin and the rest of Russia.

I am totally against authoritarianism and I view China as a 1984 styled hellscape, but I am wondering at this point how far the "pivot" to China was predetermined to go and the Ukraine war basically total commitment to the "China way" of doing things. Or, do people more familiar with Kremlin history and logic, support the idea the war is backfiring and Western responses are a surprise? — boethius

That's what I think. I think Kremlin didn't expect sanctions to be this severe and I don't view Putin as aspiring to anything else than his own empire fantasies. He has big ideas for the future of Russia, but he thinks in old terms, he believes the world moves as it did 30 years ago, he thinks the old way of invading and controlling through propaganda works, but it's much harder to do that today.

Information flows much easier and more independent while geopolitics rely more heavily on vital global trade and corporate investments than actual authoritarian leadership. We can criticize that in itself, but that's the zeitgeist we live in. If he thinks he could "Hitler" himself into power as in the 20th century he will be deadly mistaken.

Both sides just kept silent about it during the Cold War. — ssu

Yeah, makes sense. But we're not in an actual cold war again, even if it looks like that's gonna be our future now.

And also during the Cuban crisis, Soviet air defense troops shot down an U-2 plane in Cuba (and of course the incident of Gary Powers and KAL 007). So these incidents happen, but they don't automatically escalate things, but do increase the tensions. — ssu

Well, the Cuban crisis was one of the worst during the Cold War. It could very well end up being something similar happening in the future.

The big problem though, is that information about such events could be hidden easier back then. Current stream of information makes it harder to keep things under wraps.

It seems that Aftonbladet is reporting that polls are showing (or at least one) that now also majority of Swedes are for NATO. And now our defense minister is going to Washington next monday for several days to meet Lloy Austin. Same topics to be discussed as the President now with Biden. — ssu

Yeah, and our third-largest party (the extreme right-wing fuckheads Sverige Demokraterna) might swing around in this matter from against to positive for NATO and that would mean a majority in our parliament. UK also announced through NATO that they would assist Sweden if we were ever to be attacked by Russia. Of course, that doesn't mean much, could only be empty promises, but sure is a bit of a relief. I wouldn't mind having some SAS forces on Gotland. With the "quality" of Russian troops in Ukraine, they wouldn't stand a chance against SAS forces.

For Zelensky to demand a no-fly zone isn't fruitful. It really won't happen and everybody ought to know it. — ssu

No, but Russian troops shooting at a power plant risking a 5x Chernobyl as they did last night could be a reason to break everything said about not helping Ukraine with military forces and go in and help Ukraine get rid of the stupid ones firing at fucking power plants.

That action is so stupid that it could warrant a force to stop things like that from happening. I mean, if they blow a power plant and the winds go east, then Putin would totally fuck up Russia in a way I don't think he thought about.

Thanks for the detailed reply; as I state in my post, I myself am wondering about the thinking of the Kremlin, but I think it's fruitful I present the counter arguments to your rebuttal.

He probably knew that there would be sanctions, but the sanctions have really been harder than anything seen in history. I don't think he anticipated the level they're at. — Christoffer

Preparing in advance for "total sanctions" is not necessarily a sign they are unexpected. They are also not yet total; only some banks are shutoff from SWIFT and Western corporation "abandoning" Russia ... only matters if there's no replacement in Russia or China.

Putin's power relies on him looking strong. Everything from threats to the recent breaking of Sweden's borders with fighter jets is his jabs to show strength. It's also, in my opinion, a sign of desperation. He doesn't have control over the situation, especially when it starts to affect his war chest. — Christoffer

The Russian army is shelling cities to the ground and already achieved a key strategic goal of linking Crimera to Russian territory. Russia may pay a price for these land grabs, but all military analyst agree whatever Russia takes it will keep. There was no insurgency in Crimea, citizens were in the least ambivalent about Russian control; hence, Russia simply keeping such territory and leaving insurgent territory and so having conventional fronts is a perfectly acceptable endgame. The parallels with Iraq and Afghanistan don't really make any sense as Russia isn't trying to "nation build" in an entirely different and hostile culture.

But China isn't as clear-cut as it seems. They try to play both sides and if Russia's economy tanks the trade agreements might mean little to them. Even China works hard for renewable changes and gas and oil might not be needed in the long run. We don't really know how long the sanctions will be in play, it could end tomorrow if Putin withdraw his troops, or more likely, it will drag on for long. China's actions in the UN shows that they're not fully on board with Russia, regardless of how they've communicated towards them. — Christoffer

China will not stop buying Russian minerals and energy, and won't stop selling to Russia whatever it has to sell. Transitioning to renewables in any credible way is a half century project ... to just get started. This war in Ukraine will be a long forgotten episode in the densest fog of the 24 news cycle, and Russia will be still selling gas and oil and minerals. True, EU pays a "higher price" but if global instability increases price generally, it's still a higher price to sell at a 20% discount something that is now twice as costly.

Again, words are cheap and what China says matters little; if they aren't going to put sanctions on Russia (which they won't) then what they say or vote or virtue signal in the media or the UN, is of no meaning whatsover.

So I think the west is ripping the band-aid right now, aiming for other solutions to things like climate change or global trade. Russia could very well become a third world country because of Putin, but he doesn't care since he's too occupied with his "New World Order" empire fantasies. When all of this is over, he might have his new borders drawn, but the cost will be so high that it could force upon him a new Russian revolution, destroying everything he thought he had. — Christoffer

If you project energy needs out a few decades (which certainly Russia pays close attention to), there is declining conventional oil reserves that are difficult to replace (they exist, but are dirty, expensive and cannot necessarily be scaled to replace depletion elsewhere). The famous "peak oil" is very real and is happening in terms of what are called conventional fossil fuels.

It maybe Russia's analysis (which is not at all fringe) that their resources are not replaceable in any practical sense, renewable capacity cannot be scaled at a rate to effectively displace depleting fossil reserves. Unlike the 80s and precursor to the fall of the Soviet Union, low oil prices are history and, by extension, any fundamental risk to the Russian economy. In short, there will always be buyers for what Russia is selling.

If he thinks cutting the west off from trade is good, he is truly delusional. And cutting off trade is the only way to ensure being separated from the west. — Christoffer

The West has transferred basically all it's IPR to totalitarian China in exchange for slave labour.

The one critical thing China doesn't have, advanced semi conductor industry, it is still all based in South-East Asia that China has significant clout in; no semi conductor producing South East Asian country, including Taiwan, is going to burn political capital to try to stop China reselling chips to Russia.

Western sanctions are only effective if A. you have nothing of critical value to sell to a third party that doesn't care much about the sanction and ... well basically that's it. North Korea doesn't have anything of critical value to sell the Chinese and the Chinese don't care to subsidize them, so the economy completely collapses (trade is definitely necessary; but if Sanctions don't de facto cut trade with the global integrated economy, they are of no long term significance; certainly disruptive in the short term, but Russians have always highly prized the long term advantages of territory).

Also, in terms of economy, there is also today a structural difference, in that the rapid expansion phase of capitalism is approaching limits. This would be a topic for another day, but without real growth the "dynamism" of capitalism does not necessarily out perform command economies. Capitalism is the process of new institutions out performing old ones based on fundamentally new innovations of some sort; if room for innovation slows then there is little need to displace old institutions through chaotic "market forces" and you can just keep the same one's as nominal or de facto government bureaucracies. Feudalism was incredibly stable because there was little room for innovation, and, make a long story short, the energy cost of displacing existing institutions had no upshot: so they just all stuck around (church, guilds, aristocracy, family farms etc.).

That's what I think. I think Kremlin didn't expect sanctions to be this severe and I don't view Putin as aspiring to anything else than his own empire fantasies. He has big ideas for the future of Russia, but he thinks in old terms, he believes the world moves as it did 30 years ago, he thinks the old way of invading and controlling through propaganda works, but it's much harder to do that today. — Christoffer

It's possible, but if cutting ties with the West is an "acceptable outcome", the severe sanctions is actually doing Putin a favour: banishing Western companies and Western influence from Russia in a weekend.

Russia's economy is based on resources: energy, food and minerals. There is no non-Western country that would refuse the buy cheaper from Russia, much less go without the resource, for the sake of some happy sounding Western words ... which many of the authoritarian leaning / transitioning states (Brasil, India, Turkey) don't like to hear anyways (at least their governments).

Indeed ... EU is still buying gas from Russia as it "supplies words and arms" to Ukraine.

Information flows much easier and more independent while geopolitics rely more heavily on vital global trade and corporate investments than actual authoritarian leadership. We can criticize that in itself, but that's the zeitgeist we live in. If he thinks he could "Hitler" himself into power as in the 20th century he will be deadly mistaken. — Christoffer

Putin is no Hitler with ambitions to take over all of Europe. Ironically, Putin's justification (why the Russian people aren't "rebelling" in any meaningful sense) is fighting neo-Nazi's in Ukraine, which are definitely there and have been coddled and apologized for by Western powers for some reason and largely ignored by the Western press. However, the Russian press doesn't ignore Ukrainian's waving Swastika's and parallel symbols and praising Nazi "war heroes".

Indeed, depending on how strong you believe these neo-Nazi elements are, it can be argued the Russian invasion is entirely justifiable if fighting the Nazi's the first time ever was.

And again, Russia has already achieved key strategic objectives and can declare a magnanimous new peace now at anytime and declare victory.

I would guess the plan is that there is not much fighting in the East, as that's where they plan to Annex, so they will cut through Ukrainian speaking territories North to South, and call it a day. As they do not need to fight in any urban combat, except a few key way points and ports, once they create a North-South front they can simply annex everything to the East of that.

(They've sent a 40 km armor column to simply surround Kiev, creating the required pressure on leadership to sign the deal they want, who will say they Ukrainians fought with honour, blah blah blah, but the bloodshed must end and the page must be turned ... sad, sad, sad ... end of speech)

Indeed. Why should Eritrea support a world that threw millions of vaccines away that instead could have saved a lot of lives? Economy and capital ruling again. — EugeneW

Yes, Westerners often forget that no one much else sees any "prosperity" and, therefore, do not feel they owe anything to the Western system.

... indeed, a lot of Westerners themselves don't see much of that freedom prosperity (inside where they actually live). Western media will put up a handful of "middle class" having fun in some caricature mall in a sea of poverty and call it capitalism "winning".

Indeed, depending on how strong you believe these neo-Nazi elements are, it can be argued the Russian invasion is entirely justifiable if fighting the Nazi's the first time ever was. — boethius

Is there a popular nazi-esque leader that could plausibly become dictator? And do the neo-nazi's in Ukraine have significant political power? For example, how many parliament seats do Ukranian neo-nazi's have?

Tomorrow both the Swedish Prime Minister and the Swedish Defense minister are coming here to Finland. Lot's of diplomatic activity.

Prime Minister Andersson and Minister for Defence Hultqvist will meet President of the Republic of Finland Sauli Niinistö, Prime Minister Sanna Marin and Minister of Defence Antti Kaikkonen. The topics of their joint discussion will include Russia’s warfare in Ukraine, the changed security situation in Europe and cooperation between Finland and Sweden.

I think that what we have anticipated might happen soon. Rarely are visits of leaders done in a timetable of less than 24 hours.

So to apply Walzer's concept of "dirty hands" we would need Putin to recognize the immorality of invading, but say that he had to do it for the well-being of his society.

I think that is the official Russian narrative, right?


The idea is that he was faced with a real ethical dilemma where there's no way to avoid doing something immoral.

here was no insurgency in Crimea, citizens were in the least ambivalent about Russian control — boethius

Notice that not only Crimea was different, but that the whole situation was now different than in 2014. Let's remember that Kharkiv was a mainly Russian speaking city. Ukraine didn't collapse as Putin had estimated.

The parallels with Iraq and Afghanistan don't really make any sense as Russia isn't trying to "nation build" in an entirely different and hostile culture. — boethius

The nation building part has gone splendidly! Ukrainians have never been so united in defending their country against an hostile invader.

Putin's justification (why the Russian people aren't "rebelling" in any meaningful sense) — boethius

:roll:

Really, not "rebelling" in any meaningful sense? Oh, only thousands have been detained and tough sanctions have been set against demonstrations, but that isn't meaningful? It has been so meaningful that tough new laws proposals are made and rumors go around of martial laws.

is fighting neo-Nazi's in Ukraine, which are definitely there and have been coddled and apologized for by Western powers for some reason and largely ignored by the Western press. — boethius

Fighting neo-nazis...

Starting with the Jewish President who is a native Russian speaker and his party that has majority of the seats in the Rada, which has an ideology "denying political extremes and radicalism, but being for creative centrism".

Indeed, depending on how strong you believe these neo-Nazi elements are, it can be argued the Russian invasion is entirely justifiable if fighting the Nazi's the first time ever was. — boethius

?

Is there a popular nazi-esque leader that could plausibly become dictator? And do the neo-nazi's in Ukraine have significant political power? For example, how many parliament seats do Ukranian neo-nazi's have? — RogueAI

That's why I say it depends on how much influence you believe they have ... obviously, Russians are going to be skeptical of the argument that "a popular Nazi leader hasn't risen ... yet".

Of course, the propaganda goes in all sorts of directions, so "how many seats" they have in parliament or other positions of power etc. is difficult say; however, what I think is credible is that it's not a fringe movement, used merely as pretext; they are definitely there and have real power (just how much can be debated).

What is also I think difficult to contest, is that the neo-Nazi element is far greater in Ukraine than it ever was supporting Trump (where, I would say neo-Nazi's are truly a fringe movement in the US) ... yet, the mere association of neo-Nazi (fringe, but real) in the US with Trump was the justification to say Trump was a new potential Hitler.

Now, I didn't and don't like Trump, and (if he could) I'm sure he would have and would now declared himself Emperor of the Universe, but I think it was simply far fetched to say his movement was literally neo-Nazi based.

What I can say for myself, is I don't like people having it both ways: if you argued neo-Nazi supporting Trump is a reason to fear Trump (or the Trump movement) would rise as a new Hitler (an argument people certainly made) then ... it does seem to me to logically follow that Putin's rational for invading Ukraine (with neo-Nazi in far greater relative power compared to the Trump administration) entirely justifiable. "Not invading Ukraine" would be the Nazi appeasement from this point of view.

Of course, Ukraine is not 1930's Germany with a potential to invade all of Europe, but, in terms of how things play at home for the Kremlin if they A. achieve strategic aims and B. perceived to defeat Nazi's, then it's likely to sit well with a lot of Russians and the short term economic disruptions livable.

The Wests coddling those neo-Nazi's like some sort of freedom fighters, definitely doesn't help the West's cause of inflicting any real annoyance to the Kremlin.

The sanctions, the bad press, the UN declarations, the "courageous speeches" would be, in a real and/or perceived victory by Russia and reorientation of their economy, but empty words echoing to no where.

It is of course early days ... but strategic goals being met (such as land bridge from Crimea to Russia) don't actually embarrass Russia in any meaningful way. Nitpicking about a few extra losses may not matter.

Of course, the whole thing is a massive risk. If the Russian people did "rise up" due the hardships of war and sanctions then it would be a true disaster for the Kremlin. My describing the neo-Nazi situation is to explain why that has not and may not happen. Basic point being, Western talking heads wagging their finger at Putin is hardly a "strategic loss", and that's all I can see at the moment.

Notice that not only Crimea was different, but that the whole situation was now different than in 2014. Let's remember that Kharkiv was a mainly Russian speaking city. Ukraine didn't collapse as Putin had estimated. — ssu

Oh, I definitely agree it's totally different.

Why my first comment was in the form of a question of people who know more about Russian sentiment. Definitely military moral could collapse and Russian people "take to the streets"--it's certainly a possibility--but the Western media seems, at least, exaggerating the odds.

The nation building part has gone splendidly! Ukrainians have never been so united in defending their country against an hostile invader. — ssu

Yes, for Ukrainian speakers, definitely, but I doubt it was ever Russia's plan to occupy the entire Ukraine, but just A. punish Ukraine for unfriending them (an important message to other client states of Russia) and B. take all pro-Russia territories that won't have an insurgency and C. increase energy prices and D. cause lot's of real problems for the EU.

Really, not "rebelling" in any meaningful sense? Oh, only thousands have been detained and tough sanctions have been set against demonstrations, but that isn't meaningful? It has been so meaningful that tough new laws proposals are made and rumors go around of martial laws. — ssu

I mean on the scale of a true rebellion to topple the government. There are definitely protests, which I would definitely agree could spark a meaningful rebellion (hence the arrests).

If you want say these protesters are meaningful rebels I would agree, but, at the moment at least, I do not see the Kremlin at risk of a large enough rebellion to stop their war plans or threaten their grip on power.

Fighting neo-nazis...

Starting with the Jewish President who is a native Russian speaker and his party that has majority of the seats in the Rada, which has an ideology "denying political extremes and radicalism, but being for creative centrism". — ssu

As I say, the argument entirely depends on how much credibility you lend these neo-Nazi's. That it's the basis of a sound argument goes a long way to explain Russian's more-or-less accepting the war, for now. It's certainly relevant in the propaganda and, I would say, based on uncomfortable amount of real evidence.

Does it "actually" justify the invasion because there's "enough neo-Nazi's" and, even if there was, Ukraine would be a significant enough threat like the original Nazi's, would be a different question and I would definitely agree it's a stretch, but a "stretch" is a far better propaganda tool than something totally fabricated (like WMD's in Iraq for example or Afghanistan had something to do directly with 911).

if you argued neo-Nazi supporting Trump is a reason to fear Trump (or the Trump movement) would rise as a new Hitler (an argument people certainly made) then ... it does seem to me to logically follow that Putin's rational for invading Ukraine (with neo-Nazi in far greater relative power compared to the Trump administration) entirely justifiable. — boethius

It logically follows only if you ignore Putin's ties to the European far-right (neo-Nazis included).

? — ssu

I already responded above, but if you believe there's enough neo-Nazi's, definitely that justifies invading Ukraine if fighting the first Nazi's was justifiable. I don't see any problem with that logic.

Of course, people against the invasion will argue the neo-Nazi element is fringe and irrelevant, and the pro-invasion (i.e. Kremlin and supporters) will argue it's above whatever threshold is needed to justify the invasion.

And, I'm not being facetious here; this is literally the argument Putin makes, and, regardless of "fact", the perception that it's true (which I honestly don't know what the average Russian thinks) has an impact on events.

It logically follows only if you ignore Putin's ties to the European far-right (neo-Nazis included). — hairy belly

I'm not defending Putin here. As I say in my original post, seems to me this war in Ukraine (whether the original intention or not) will consolidate a Russia-China totalitarianism axis (if you want to call it an "axis of evil", no complaints here), and Russia has and will continue to import China's totalitarian technology and, together, they will export that to other nations.

I always, however, focus my criticism on people who, at least nominally, have the same objective as me (real freedom for people, whatever our differences in vaguely imagining it), as that criticism is constructive. The 1984 totalitarian hellscape of the PRC needs only be noted ... there's no real point in arguing with the PRC about it and ... as far as I can tell, they don't participate in our little conversations here.

It could be that Russia had decided it would invade all of Ukraine already in 2014 and all diplomacy was genuinely meaningless. Nevertheless, doing nothing meaningful (even symbolically) about neo-Nazi's in Ukraine is a powerful weapon in Putin's hand. Likewise, diplomacy during and since 2014 seems as bad-faith on the Western side as for Russia.

Russia's demands were also not really unreasonable: agree to not join Nato or we invade. Ukraine: Fuck you, we'll join Nato if we want! Nato: awesome bros, we're such good friends, hugs!!

Then Russia invades as they said they would ... I don't see Ukraine with any meaningful friends.

Now, you can say if Ukraine signed such a deal, Russia would invade anyways ... but the result is the same. Strategically, taking the deal is a no brainer if you are a Ukrainian and want the best chances for peace (US doesn't actually want peace between Russia and EU; it's a fundamental strategic objective, US "policy makers" are happy to talk about).