Does anyone live under the illusion that Russia was not going to eventually invade Ukraine regardless of NATO expansion into other nations? Are we to believe that Russia really thought a NATO protected Ukraine might one day invade Russia despite the Russian nuclear arsenal and so this defensive move became necessary now? — Hanover

For this to work, you have to show it's reasonably possible for Russia to effectively occupy Ukraine. I don't think this is the case. Maybe Eastern Ukraine but then if Mearsheimer and Kissinger are to be believed only true neutrality would've seen them survive as independent countries.

And what exactly are Russians to believe when the US overthrew the Ukrainian government in 2014 and has an outsized influence on NATO and a proxy war between Russia and NATO/USA may have been going on since then?

It's very easy to think trust in your own country is the most natural thing in the world and those who don't are just delusional but to make sense of this, you do need to look at it from a different perspective.

Putin is fighting the infectious disease of Democracy, making this war inevitable as long as self rule is what the Ukrainians want. The only way for Ukraine to have avoided this war was to abandon democracy and submit to Putin. What backed Putin into a corner is that his country sucks and no one wants to be a part of it. — Hanover

Piffle. This isn't some democracy vs. autocracy battle. But nice example of US propaganda I suppose, let's pretend it's about ideals when we all know another game is being played. There's a reason NATO chose the expansion in certain countries and that reason isn't benign.

You make all kinds of accusations and strawman arguments, which I really don't care about.

You make all kinds of accusations and strawman arguments, which I really don't care about. — ssu

Wow. I dread to think the effort you'd put in to responding to arguments you do care about.

And what exactly are Russians to believe when the US overthrew the Ukrainian government in 2014 — Benkei

Why don't specifically tells us how the US overthrew the Ukrainian government.

Because if it's that John McCain and others visited Ukraine among others and reference to the famous phone call of Victoria Nuland to ambassador Pyatt, taped by Russian intelligence services, seems to be all that is enough to declare that the US was behind the events. As if the Ukrainian protesters, or their Revolution of Dignity, was this astroturf US operation.

Not to give any agency to Ukrainians in their domestic issues is actually shows simply hubris and the self-centeredness. Historical events aren't monocausal and simply to describe events of 2013-2014 in Ukraine as "US overthrew the Ukrainian government" is simply false.

Both are speech acts. So evidently they can be equated. If they're dissimilar in some way significant to your argument then you'll have to state it. God knows why you feel the need to resort to arguing by Delphic aphorism.. Just state your case for Christ's sake. — Isaac

They are dissimilar in that one is public and the other private. I thought this would be obvious.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/americas-ukraine-hypocrisy

Here's a summary.

They are dissimilar in that one is public and the other private. I thought this would be obvious. — Olivier5

I expect one was in Russian and the other in Ukrainian too. One had more words in it. One was at a slightly higher pitch. One was delivered at a lower latitude than the other.

So what?

Finland and Sweden joining NATO aren't really an issue; former Warsaw Pact members sharing a border with Russia appear to be. — Benkei

Just check how close the Finnish border is from St Petersburg and Moscow.

So if Russia is serious about its "sphere of influence" any move by NATO to include these countries will likely result in another war. Putin has shown to be prepared to do what he said he'd do. — Benkei

And how many wars can he handle? And aren't we forgetting that his most trustworthy ally, Belarus, just had a year ago huge demonstrations against the Lukashenko government, so that country isn't as firm either... and really isn't at this time ready to go and assist in a war it has absolutely no desire to participate.

My point is that until this year, this invasion, Putin's gamble had paid off. And he had gambled even more and more. And now the gambling is backfiring.

As I've said again and again. Russia isn't the Soviet Union, it has the economy of the size of Italy and now has chosen a course that seems to be leading to an inevitable train wreck. Landbridges to Crimea or even the annexation of Crimea hardly matter when you have to resort to a Stalinist police state and throw your army into a quagmire of a war. Those eagerly quoting Mearsheimer perhaps don't notice that he said this to be the worst possible situation for Russia: throwing resources to fight a huge land war in Ukraine where the West can then bring on it's massive aid to Ukraine. That's the worst situation for Russia.

Hence my, Ok, judgemental, response that this really isn't "the only correct move", but a wrong disastrous move from Putin. It's a move like Saddam Hussein thinking that he could annex Kuwait, and that would take care of his economic problems.

It's a wrong move from the rat to go itself voluntarily into the corner where it cannot escape.

This isn't some democracy vs. autocracy battle. — Benkei

It likely is. Putin came to power by waging war. He needs a pretext for cementing his rule while his economy is stagnating. How about another useless war?

:up:

Here's a summary. — Benkei

Benkei. That is exactly what I meant. Basically it's the Nuland Pyatt taped phone discussion and then saying that this is improper thing to do. And nothing else.

So where's the evidence that the US created the EuroMaidan protests, manufactured the students on to the streets? Or similar issues?

When you say that "the US overthrew the Ukrainian government", there really has to be that the US has been the major cause of the overthrow and without it, the coup wouldn't have happened. What in that article is said is in no way something like Operation Ajax which really was a US & British funded overthrow of a democratically elected government.

Historical events aren't monocausal — ssu

So "this is all Putin" would be a mistaken argument here. Ignoring the role of the US, Europe, Ukraine... That would be a mistake, yes? And yet when such arguments are made, I don't see you step in to correct them. It seems your desire to remind us all of the multi-causality of historical events is limited to exculpating America.

Just check how close the Finnish border is from St Petersburg and Moscow. — ssu

I live in Europe man, I know my geography. Finland and Sweden were never part of the former Warsaw pact, the stated sphere of influence for decades doesn't include them.

So what? — Isaac

You are really unable to put two and two together, aren't you?

A private conversation does not make it more difficult to sign a peace deal, not the same way as a public speech may do. What is private does not feature in peace negotiations, and cannot play any role there.

So "this is all Putin" would be a mistaken argument here. — Isaac

The only thing which is all Putin is that he surely made the choice to invade Ukraine.

What I've said, and many others (perhaps you too agree with it) is that NATO, or especially a former US President made a promise that it didn't keep. To say that NATO membership is for Ukraine open ...in the future, not now. That gave Putin a pretext to act. But a large scale invasion after already annexing territories from Ukraine? That's a decision similar to Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait.

the stated sphere of influence for decades doesn't include them. — Benkei

Actually it does. Finnish airspace is what worries Russia. The Soviet Union inquired as late as in the 1970's from Finland if they could take care of Finnish Air Defence and put some SAM-bases in Finland. Our leadership politely declined. And even Imperial Russia was worried back then about an invasion by sea of the Russian Capitol, and that's why the built the Peter the Great's Naval Fortress on both sides of the Gulf of Finland in the start of the 20th Century. It's totally the same line of "sphere-of-influence".

And Russia has I guess now twice after this invasion started made actually quite similar threats as it did to Ukraine that if Sweden or Finland join NATO, it will have military consequences:

“It is obvious that (if) Finland and Sweden join NATO, which is a military organisation to begin with, there will be serious military and political consequences,” Sergei Belyayev, head of the Russian foreign ministry’s European department, told the Russian news agency Interfax.

What is lacking is that Putin would be saying that we are an artificial country, so I guess that's promising.

Benkei. That is exactly what I meant. Basically it's the Nuland Pyatt taped phone discussion and then saying that this is improper thing to do. And nothing else.

So where's the evidence that the US created the EuroMaidan protests, manufactured the students on to the streets? Or similar issues?

When you say that "the US overthrew the Ukrainian government", there really has to be that the US has been the major cause of the overthrow and without it, the coup wouldn't have happened. What in that article is said is in no way something like Operation Ajax which really was a US & British funded overthrow of a democratically elected government. — ssu

That's a matter of definitions I guess. I'll rephrase to “inappropriately and illegally affected the internal politics of a sovereign nation". You know the exact same shit those powers did across the world during the cold War? Also, to be complete it must be noted Russia was playing the same games at the time. Point being, the war about Ukraine was being fought by Russia and the US since probably 2004.

Because a private conversation does not make it more difficult to sign a peace deal, not the same way as a public speech may do. What is private does not feature in peace negotiations, and cannot play any role there. — Olivier5

The topic was Putin's likelihood of truly wanting peace - ie his intention. Intent can be no less judged by a public speech as a private one. In fact slightly more so by a private conversation if anything.

Besides which, Putin has already publicly laid out his demands perfectly clearly - no Nato membership, independent Dombass, Russian Crimea. Do you notice any religious fervour for the removal of Evil there? Your argument fails because Putin's already played his hand, further speculation is about intent, not public pronouncement.

Furthermore, none of this gets around the very public statements of religious fervour by America. Should we not negotiate with America either?

The only thing which is all Putin is that he surely made the choice to invade Ukraine. — ssu

I know. My point was your blatant hypocrisy in pouncing on every suggestion of US complicity, yet letting the many comments to the effect that "this is all Putin" slide by unopposed.

Your aim here is clearly not to simply inform us all that history is multi-causal. It's to pour cold water on any discussion of the west's culpability.

What is lacking is that Putin would be saying that we are an artificial country, so I guess that's promising. — ssu

I guess what's promising is your membership in the EU.

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation. — Article 42(7) TFEU

Should we not negotiate with America either? — Isaac

You can negotiate with whoever but know who you negotiate with.

I'll rephrase to “inappropriately and illegally affected the internal politics of a sovereign nation". You know the exact same shit those powers did across the world during the cold War? Also, to be complete it must be noted Russia was playing the same games at the time. — Benkei

That's a good start of us agreeing on the picture. You do understand the difference between "in 2014 the US overthrew the Ukrainian government" and "in 2014 the Ukrainian government was overthrown by a revolution eagerly supported by the US".

And this is actually very crucial to understand. Countries and especially Great Powers, not just Superpowers, do try to influence domestic politics of other countries. In my country we've seen a lot of this. Yet the type of Operation Ajax -style overthrow is different. Military interventions, launching off cruise missiles and the part are different from the ambassador using harsh rhetoric making veiled threats and supporting their favorite candidates in elections.

Point being, the war about Ukraine was being fought by Russia and the US since probably 2004. — Benkei

I would put it even earlier, even if you are correct that the fault lines appeared in the Orange revolution. In a more broader sense the NATO war in Kosovo, which was a province, not a Republic of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, was the final tipping point for Russia that broke the camel's back in NATO-Russia relations. That happened in 1999. And I think that is very crucial part as is the first and second Chechen wars, that started to get also former Soviet countries to be worried about Russia's behaviour.

Yet we should remember that Yanukovich did win the elections in 2010. When you look at the election map of the 2010 presidential elections, then you could see that the country was divided.



Do notice the ominous resemblance with the maps of Novorossiya with the election results table. This was the time when Vladimir Putin was hugely popular in Ukraine and Russia still looked to be a totally reasonable actor. And this is why I do say that Russia had many other paths than outright military intervention and annexation to truly take hold of it's "sphere of influence". Yet Putin chose a very extreme path of violence (as it had worked for him right from the start of his political career) and now we are in a really fucked up situation.

I guess what's promising is your membership in the EU. — Benkei

Yeah. Even if there's a clause to help fellow EU member states, I wouldn't count on it. Never underestimate the fear of WW3. So it's not so bleak as in the 1930's when people knew that war was coming, not if, but when. Yet there's many ways to pressure countries in our time of hybrid attacks. Like you could start a blockade and not call it a blockade and deny it's an act of war. Perhaps you call it just a "Naval Quarantine". Or something. But those are hypotheticals.

The war isn't a hypothetical Ukrainians and for Russians it's not either going to be easy, even if they aren't dying and their cities turned into rubble. I don't think that this crisis will be contained to Ukraine, but I'm an optimist that it will be contained from becoming WW3.

I don't think that this crisis will be contained to Ukraine, but I'm an optimist that it will be contained from becoming WW3. — ssu

How?

Does anyone live under the illusion that Russia was not going to eventually invade Ukraine regardless of NATO expansion into other nations? Are we to believe that Russia really thought a NATO protected Ukraine might one day invade Russia despite the Russian nuclear arsenal and so this defensive move became necessary now?

If the driver for the war is the reestablishment of a Russian empire of the likes of the former USSR (which i think it is), then the war had to be fought not just prior to Ukraine entering NATO, but prior to Ukraine breaking all ideological ties to Russia.

The window to seize Ukraine was closing through a potential NATO alliance, an EU entry, or just through continued liberalized democratization of Ukraine. If Russia wished to reestablish its past glory, it had to act before it lost all its potential prey to the protection of the West.

The problem is that Putin is learning is that the window was more shut that he thought it was. The fierce Ukraine resistance is based upon its belief that it is truly autonomous and not, as Putin would suggest, a group a Russians stranded in a Westernized state. Ukrainians stand with the full belief Russia is an invader and the West is a protector, indicating Russia is in a weaker position than maybe Putin appreciated.

This is just to say that whether NATO signaled it was expanding, or even if it signaled it was contacting (as Trump would have had it in his America first protectionism), Putin had to act now or forever lose Ukraine to the West.

Putin is fighting the infectious disease of Democracy, making this war inevitable as long as self rule is what the Ukrainians want. The only way for Ukraine to have avoided this war was to abandon democracy and submit to Putin. What backed Putin into a corner is that his country sucks and no one wants to be a part of it. — Hanover

Agree with all this. It's what I've been saying many times in here. Everything we know from the inside of Russia, past its propaganda machine (like ex-KGB, ex-Kremlin people, leaked documents and so on), points to Putin's ambitions of restoring the old Russian empire as being the great motivator. The fear of Nato invading Russia has never been viewed as anything but false flag tactics because the idea of Nato invading Russia is just plain stupid. If Putin and his people think that is a genuine threat, then they are the most stupid people in power on the planet, which I doubt they are. The absolute most logical interpretation of all of this is that Russia doesn't fear Nato invading because they know that won't happen, but they also know that THEY won't invade a Nato nation as well. So when Nato is expanding, it starts to take large literal bites out of the dream of restoring the Russian empire. Bites that will never be recovered once they've been assimilated into Nato. But Putin can't have that as an official thing to say to the world. It would be utter stupidity to sit on state TV and say that "we don't want these nations to join Nato because we plan to assimilate them into our coming empire, and if they join Nato our plans of taking them by force will fail". But all behaviors point to this. Why would Putin invade Ukraine this recklessly? Why risk this much for Ukraine? Because, as you said, the clock is ticking. It's either now or risk losing the most important part of the old Russian empire to be lost to the West forever.

If we were to play devil's advocate with Russia: it doesn't make much sense to believe the propaganda narrative that they keep pushing. It also doesn't make sense to think they are stupid enough to believe Nato would invade them. It's easier to see why they talk like they do about Nato, about Ukraine, about everything if we have the context of actual logical motivations. Puzzle pieces fit more logically with this than any of the false flag tactical bs that comes out of Kremlin.

And this is why Russia risks becoming a failed state, because the rich want more, they can't be content with the current Russian border, they can't accept the status quo of modern Russia. They want to be big boys again, or the biggest boys. While I think they are smart enough not to have stupid tactics on the global diplomatic stage, they are just basically boys with toys. Toxic masculinity on a geopolitical scale, and that has already gone out of fashion. Russia just didn't get the memo.

For this to work, you have to show it's reasonably possible for Russia to effectively occupy Ukraine. I don't think this is the case. Maybe Eastern Ukraine but then if Mearsheimer and Kissinger are to be believed only true neutrality would've seen them survive as independent countries. — Benkei

I don't know why occupation or displacement is necessary for full control. The USSR controlled its member states.

And what exactly are Russians to believe when the US overthrew the Ukrainian government in 2014 and has an outsized influence on NATO and a proxy war between Russia and NATO/USA may have been going on since then? — Benkei

This is a very one sided view. Can I say the US played no role in the overthrow, no, but I can't say the overthrow didn't represent the will of the Ukraine people either.. Ukraine was a pawn for both sides in 2014. They seemed to be moving toward the EU but then their President swung back to siding with Russia, in opposition to the will of the people, thus resulting in the uprising. Do you suspect Russian meddling caused the change of heart away from the EU? Seems the best explanation.

At any rate, do you think an uninfluenced Ukranian vote would side with Russia or the West? You can argue either will result in some form of subjugation, but the economic subjugation of the West is infinitely more palatable than the totalitarian subjugation of Russia.

This isn't some democracy vs. autocracy battle. But nice example of US propaganda I suppose, let's pretend it's about ideals when we all know another game is being played. There's a reason NATO chose the expansion in certain countries and that reason isn't benign. — Benkei

NATO doesn't expand. Nations voluntarily join or they don't, and there are requirements for joining that must be met. I'd consider the Crimea event or the current invasion an expansion.

It's a distinction without much of a difference. Yemeni civilians are being killed with US weapons and the US is profiting from them being killed. Whether the support is direct finance or sweetheart weapons deals doesn't mitigate the ethics of the situation a whole lot, does it? — Baden

Financing shows a vested interest in the outcome. Selling arms show opportunism. It's a distinction with a difference, ethically speaking.

As I said before, I think Russia is fighting for its interests, under pressure from other nations, at least if the anti-Russian rhetoric is to be interpreted. Of course I would suggest not fighting, and trying diplomatic measures or some secret alliance or another, as I suggested Ukraine to surrender. I do not advocate war. In younger days of course, we all thought being in the armed forces was a fine thing, but no more.

It is not clear that we are all agreed on Russia's strategic interests and their economic and security concerns. I think some of us feel Putin's actions are a result of imperialism, paranoia, or wanting to re-build the USSR in some way. He is not acting in Russia's interests at all they say. So what are Russia's legitimate interests?

This is Chomsky's view, quoted before, and I agree. I believe the crisis could have been avoided, and some people want the war, even fueling with arms and propaganda in a reality TV like show. Without taking sides, I believe pushing country A to the brink, knowingly, is some sort of a plan, like attacking a bear. Of course the bear should not maul you but if you knew that in the first place.

Turning now to the question, there are plenty of supremely confident outpourings about Putin’s mind. The usual story is that he is caught up in paranoid fantasies, acting alone, surrounded by groveling courtiers of the kind familiar here in what’s left of the Republican Party traipsing to Mar-a-Lago for the Leader’s blessing.

The flood of invective might be accurate, but perhaps other possibilities might be considered. Perhaps Putin meant what he and his associates have been saying loud and clear for years. It might be, for example, that, “Since Putin’s major demand is an assurance that NATO will take no further members, and specifically not Ukraine or Georgia, obviously there would have been no basis for the present crisis if there had been no expansion of the alliance following the end of the Cold War, or if the expansion had occurred in harmony with building a security structure in Europe that included Russia.” The author of these words is former U.S. ambassador to Russia, Jack Matlock, one of the few serious Russia specialists in the U.S. diplomatic corps, writing shortly before the invasion. He goes on to conclude that the crisis “can be easily resolved by the application of common sense…. By any common-sense standard it is in the interest of the United States to promote peace, not conflict. To try to detach Ukraine from Russian influence — the avowed aim of those who agitated for the ‘color revolutions’ — was a fool’s errand, and a dangerous one. Have we so soon forgotten the lesson of the Cuban Missile Crisis?” — Chomsky

it is in the interest of the United States to promote peace, not conflict

No

Isn't this all part of the natural cycle of the rise and fall of empires? That cuts both ways. The Soviet Union collapsed, who is next?

Financing shows a vested interest in the outcome. Selling arms show opportunism. It's a distinction with a difference, ethically speaking. — Janus

One day someone will explain to me how handing someone a gun while they are in the middle of a child murdering spree - and profiting from it - is somehow less contemptable than giving someone money so they can buy their own gun to murder children.

Presumably this someone will be a shameless apologist for murdering children.

In view of this, a problem with Chomsky’s tough opposition to NATO’s eastward enlargement of the 1990s—apparently a serious foreign policy question—is that the enlargement entirely matched public opinion. In the late 1990s, Americans and Western Europeans as well as Czech, Polish and Hungarian citizens were supportive of NATO’s expansion that eventually happened in 1999.

https://www.e-ir.info/2020/04/30/noam-chomskys-views-on-russian-foreign-policy-a-critical-analysis/

Putin is fighting the infectious disease of Democracy, making this war inevitable as long as self rule is what the Ukrainians want. The only way for Ukraine to have avoided this war was to abandon democracy and submit to Putin. What backed Putin into a corner is that his country sucks and no one wants to be a part of it. — Hanover

It's his rule that sucks. Many Europeans would just love to have a calm, peaceful and prosperous Russia, where entrepreneurs like Sergei Brin would stay and innovate new things. We don't have that with Russia. And many are eager to point out that Russia never has had democracy. Or when it has, sort of, it has resulted in a dictatorship later.

The reality is that Russia needs leaders that simply will tell the Russians themselves that the old empire is over and lost for good. That Russia is just like the United Kingdom today, a country that has lost it's empire and nothing and nobody will get it back. That if Russians want prosperity, it comes through trade (for which you need good relations with the rest of the World), innovation and not through conquest. Having a World which consists of China, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba isn't so great for trade.

Putin basically started the civil war that people anticipated would happen when the Soviet Union collapsed. Then the Politburo members and the apparatchniks at the helm could (after a hapless putsch attempt) peacefully guide the Superpower to break up without the war (or sort of, as Armenia and Azerbaijan had already started their quarrel). It was Yugoslavia which didn't succeed in a peaceful breakup. There it was Milosevic, who as the leader of the largest republic, opted to "protect" Serbs and make Serbia great again. And now Putin has now taken the role of a Russian version Slobodan Milosevic, the Super-Serb who fought for Greater Serbia. Milosevic was the most ruinous Serb politician to ever be. What comes of Putin now, we will see.

Russia is on the path of a more authoritarianism, seclusion and more poverty with Putin. The territorial gains will not give Russians anything but problems. And only the Russians themselves can do anything about Putin ...or then just wait that he finally dies.

We will just look on. And assist the Ukrainians in this war and put up those sanctions.

NATO, EU, US, Russia, China, ..., what about the Ukrainians? They're the ones getting bombed, not NATO, EU, US, China, or Russia; rather, the bombing + invasion is on Russia's hands.
Putin demanded they don't become a NATO member, which they've come to terms with (big sigh on their behalf goes here :smile:).
If they want closer trade with, say, Hungary, Germany, Austria, then what of it? Why not? It's a way to prosper.
Seems less likely that the Ukrainians are inclined to look to Russia now.
Putin vetoed Donbas UN peacekeepers out like it was just up to him. He's also brought up appeal to morals (even if bullshitting), not quite unheard of.

More "propaganda":