In fact it's very weak, akin to believing a criminal's excuses for his crimes. — Olivier5

"I robbed the bank because I needed money for drugs."

Does this excuse him from robbing the bank? No. But that doesn't mean it isn't true. Nor does it mean we have to come up with theories about the internal workings of his soul, and the "true" motives for robbing the bank.

Lots of people (and governments) cover up their crimes with lies they tell themselves and others. But sometimes an atrocity (like 9/11) is done simply for the reasons stated. That doesn't mean they're good reasons. It doesn't mean it justifies the actions.

So what are the "real" motives? Why isn't the stated motive stupid and depraved enough? Why postulate things (with less support) unnecessarily?

But it went on expanding, despite Russia warning about red lines, not unlike what China has said about Taiwan, and when the line was crossed, what, we forget the history? — Manuel

This is exactly it. The US government (not the people, the government and their foreign policy) and its hegemony just will not learn its lesson: not every country will bow to its will. You cannot simply go into a country, smash it up, say "Mission Accomplished," and then be shocked when you have to stay there for 20 years, and ISIS rises from the ashes. You cannot simply invade Vietnam and not expect a fierce reaction. You cannot interfere with China's claims on Taiwan and expect them to lie down. You cannot expect the Palestinians not to be resentful of continued support of Israeli occupation.

Somehow, when it comes to making Ukraine a de facto member of NATO -- which they did, and were clear about doing -- when there's a reaction we have to attribute that reaction to something other than our involvement. It's because of evil, or because they want to take over the world, or because they hate us for our freedom, etc.

So I keep getting in your face, closer and closer -- until finally react by punching me. You weren't justified to punch me -- there were alternatives; but it shouldn't have been a shock to me that you did, given my behavior.

First, the United States is principally responsible for causing the Ukraine crisis. This is not to deny that Putin started the war and that he is responsible for Russia’s conduct of the war. Nor is it to deny that America’s allies bear some responsibility, but they largely follow Washington’s lead on Ukraine. My central claim is that the United States has pushed forward policies toward Ukraine that Putin and other Russian leaders see as an existential threat, a point they have made repeatedly for many years. Specifically, I am talking about America’s obsession with bringing Ukraine into NATO and making it a Western bulwark on Russia’s border. The Biden administration was unwilling to eliminate that threat through diplomacy and indeed in 2021 recommitted the United States to bringing Ukraine into NATO. Putin responded by invading Ukraine on Feb. 24 of this year.

Second, the Biden administration has reacted to the outbreak of war by doubling down against Russia. Washington and its Western allies are committed to decisively defeating Russia in Ukraine and employing comprehensive sanctions to greatly weaken Russian power. The United States is not seriously interested in finding a diplomatic solution to the war, which means the war is likely to drag on for months if not years. In the process, Ukraine, which has already suffered grievously, is going to experience even greater harm. In essence, the United States is helping lead Ukraine down the primrose path. Furthermore, there is a danger that the war will escalate, as NATO might get dragged into the fighting and nuclear weapons might be used. We are living in perilous times.

--

I think this sums it up concisely.

Yeah, that's pretty much how it looks like to me too. And we don't know how successful the Ukranians will be in pushing Russia out, they appear to be close to getting Kharkov. And if they do get it back, obviously it would be a tremendously brave accomplishment.

But to think this won't get an even stronger Russian reply, is what confuses me. I think it's evident that it will, just look at the missiles raining down on Ukraine now.

Is this war worth thousands of lives and a European super recession and even more escalations by Russia and NATO? I don't think so. I understand the other view, but the world doesn't play out as we would like.

And we don't know how successful the Ukranians will be in pushing Russia out, they appear to be close to getting Kharkov. And if they do get it back, obviously it would be a tremendously brave accomplishment. — Manuel

I hope they get it all back. But that's easy for me to say. Putin will not simply slink away quietly, and since it doesn't appear that the US has any interest in encouraging negotiations -- nor does Putin -- that more Ukrainians will have to die, over what's ultimately a stupid proxy war.

But to think this won't get an even stronger Russian reply, is what confuses me. I think it's evident that it will, just look at the missiles raining down on Ukraine now. — Manuel

It really is sickening. There's no reason to believe he'll simply accept defeat, of course. That'd be like assuming Trump would concede an election.

The Ukrainians don't think it is a proxy war. That is what is missing in all this fine analysis of who is threatening who.

The Ukrainians don't think it is a proxy war. — Paine

True. The Vietnamese villagers didn't think it was a proxy war either. They just knew that their houses and crops were being burned and children were being killed.

I guess we should ignore geopolitical facts, then?

Beg your pardon, but that's a fatuous remark.

I did not say that one should ignore geopolitical facts. I merely note that one of the important ones has not been properly included in the analysis.

It is interesting that you use the model of a villager in Vietnam to make your point when the Ukrainians are an organized political state successfully engaging Russian forces.

His priorities are not the same as yours
— Agent Smith

His relationship to Madame Truth is conflictual. It seems to be about beating her into submission. — Olivier5

In war, truth is the first casualty. — Aeschylus

Dezinformatsiya

@Manuel, you're right of course (I'm surely guilty).

That said, things go awry when someone points (or keeps pointing) elsewhere at a supposed "real antagonist", "the actual offender".

As usual, we might find whatever number of questionable activities or related offenses all over, all of who may carry a measure of fault, yet when that turns to shifting the blame, then it becomes misdirection, fallacy, diversion, which is another fault.

It so happens that Mearsheimer has become a popular springboard for promoting whatever, say like "Washington installed a puppet Nazi regime in Kyiv". (I've seen this put forth in small groups among acquaintances more than once.) That's not to say that Mearsheimer's lectures/writings don't carry any merit at all, in fact the freedom to air them is important. Yet that remains but a fraction of the story, one that also tends to lose sight of the victims on the ground and their assailants, and instead play right into the assailant's game.

Anyway, when first shifting the blame, then perhaps going off on wicked storytelling, people sometimes lose patience.

I'll just note that NATO can't force anyone to join, they can admit/deny requestors and cancel memberships. Ukraine can request/cancel membership. Putin can't decide for either nor simply make a fifth of Ukraine part of Russia, but can decide to invade bomb kill destroy sham.

Do you think that there was anything that could've been done diplomatically during the immediate moments leading up to the war to prevent it or do you think that Putin had already made up his mind at that point?

. I wonder at what point do we get past it to the point where it's no longer a "possibility"? The argument or evidence I give for the NATO factor, for example, may be completely wrong -- but it's strange to get accused of supporting a tyrant for putting it forward. — Mikie

It is not just completely wrong, simplistic to the extreme, logically absurd and paranoid, it is also a tone deaf argument, akin to finding excuses to a criminal while he is still committing his crime. So the more you bring up that ridiculous NATO caca argument, the more suspicion you generate.

"I robbed the bank because I needed money for drugs." — Mikie

A closer metaphor would be: "I robbed the bank because they were considering getting better protection against robbery, so I had to rob it before they could get that in place".

Can you see now how absurd the NATO caca argument is? Or at least, can you understand that it looks absurd to me, from my perspective?

Notice I don't condemn the US for helping Ukraine defend itself from invasion -- or Germany, or Britain. If I pick a side, I pick the side of the Ukrainian people being murdered and displaced. No question. I’m against war, nuclear weapons, NATO, the Warsaw Pact (when it existed), etc. — Mikie

There is a deep-rooted assumption here that we have to clarify beforehand. You seem to take your claim in bold as a justification of your other claims. If so, your political view seems matter of establishing what you want (e.g. rights) and are against (e.g. war), and then keep condemning left and right to get as much as possible in compliance to your preferences. For me, this is not the most rational political attitude, because it sounds like me wanting pizza and being against calories, and then condemning the government until they oblige the pizza chefs give me the pizza I like with zero calories without ever wondering if my request makes even sense. So the political attitude I find more rational is trying to understand better what can be done by the government, and then push for my demands.

However, the issue here isn't one of slavery. It's one of geopolitics. — Mikie

I disagree. Here is a definition of geopolitics: “Geopolitics is the study of the effects of Earth's geography (human and physical) on politics and international relations. While geopolitics usually refers to countries and relations between them, it may also focus on two other kinds of states: de facto independent states with limited international recognition and relations between sub-national geopolitical entities, such as the federated states that make up a federation, confederation or a quasi-federal system.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geopolitics)
So the struggle between federal government and confederate states wanting to secede, is matter of geopolitics and abolition of slavery is what avg people with progressive views could see cashing out from this bloody war.

But let me ask you: do you think Putin would have annexed Crimea and/or invaded Ukraine had the US not (1) pushed for NATO membership, (2) supplied weapons, and (3) conducted military training? I'm pretty sure you do think he would have. Fine. — Mikie

No I don’t claim that Putin would have annexed Crimea and/or invaded Ukraine had the US not (1) pushed for NATO membership, (2) supplied weapons, and (3) conducted military training. I just claim that if Putin wanted to annex Crimea and/or invaded Ukraine, he would have done this with whatever pretext. More about this below…

So what would be the rationale for doing so? To win back the territory of the Soviet Union? Putin himself said he thought it was a stupid idea. But what evidence convinces you of it? — Mikie

But why expand NATO, if Russia was so different then? It was NATO's goal to be the balance against the Soviet Union, so when it fell, why keep it around? What's the threat? — Manuel

You guys are missing 3 key points in the history of NATO expansion:

• The role of countries in western and eastern Europe: it’s not like the US just wanted to expand and puff it expanded, against everybody else’s will and for free. Western and eastern European countries welcomed the preservation and expansion of the US security umbrella as well as the market integration that would have allowed for their national security concerns and economy benefits. Western Europeans’ security concern was more focused on Germany, Central Europeans’ security concern could be focused on either Germany or Russia while Eastern Europeans’ was more focused on Russia (if not other neighbouring countries). So the implicit win-win bargain for European countries to the US was roughly something like: you give me security and I’ll give you an integrated/peaceful market for your products and technology.
• The threats ensuing from the collapse of Soviet Union: there is a load of literature since the early 90’s talking about the resurgence of revanchist nationalism movements in ex-Soviet republics, with Russia on top of all of them, and notice that the incentives for the rising of local revanchist nationalist movements were present prior to the collapse of soviet union given how the central Soviet Russian government treated its republics (like Ukraine). Yugoslavia was the clearest evidence of such threats before this war.
• The geopolitical gamble the US took with the globalisation: the implicit bargain the US offered to the Rest of the world was roughly something like the European countries proposed to the US, namely “let’s form a global market for everybody’s prosperity in exchange for global security assurance”. After ~30 years of trying to make this work the US concluded that some ambitious regional powers (e.g. China, Russia, Iran) instead of improving standard of life and regime of rights for their people with the resources available thanks to the globalisation (peaceful and convergent with western progressive views), they were growing more authoritarian, more sympathetic toward anti-western propaganda (if they weren't already, and exporting it also into western countries), more assertive (in economic-military terms) outside their borders and naturally converging into a front hostile to the West. And that's the opposite of security assurance. So Ukraine turned out to be willingly or unwillingly the plausible key test for the US to revise their security strategy both in Europe and on a global scale and address the threats coming from powerful authoritarian anti-Western regimes before it was too late.

ridiculous NATO caca argument — Olivier5

:lol: It was either x or ... ?

I see your point, and think you are wrong. — Manuel

That's usually how it goes. But the conclusion you put forward usually only have cherry picked details from all over the place in history. I'm drawing sources from experts on Putin and Russia here, https://sceeus.se/en/
While many in this thread just reference their own non-scientific conclusions on the matter. There's a common thread among the Nato blamers to always refer back to their homeboy Chomsky, but it's beginning to become an circlejerk of appeal to authority arguments and little to no actual proper research. I'm drawing conclusions from gathered knowledge from many experts, who's day job is to actually study these things and who's been doing it for decades. Chomsky on the other hand, is a philosopher of technology, psychology, linguistics, but isn't an expert in this field of political research, he's been doing opinion pieces but is painfully simple-minded in his approach. But he's the main "expert" source for everyone who argue for the Nato angle in this matter. The argument that Nato is a threat to Russia has no ground whatsoever, for anyone with an insight into Nato and Russian affairs. Nato is a piece on the chessboard, but not a player. Russia uses the Nato chess piece as a way to legitimize their actions, but it has no real foundation as truth.

Post-Soviet nations are all extremely scared to be snuffed out by Russias delusional dreams of being a grand empire again and they seek security against that, which Russia, especially under Putin's rule, views as a ticking clock against realizing that dream. Therefor Russia has built up the narrative that Nato is threatening Russias very existence in order to keep post-Soviet nations from joining and blocking Russias expansion back into its old form.

That's not based on my own research, it's based on the collective research of the institute above and shared among many researching Russian foreign affairs. But in here, the counter argument just boils down to people "thinking this is wrong" because Chomsky, or some cherry picked quotes from a wide range of people in modern history kind of hints at something that might be a Nato angle. This is why this thread has a trash status on this forum.

You talk with them, because they are the one you are dealing with. Iraq had to talk to the US after the invasion did it not? That war was pretty ugly but nobody in the West ever said it was a bad idea for Iraq to talk with the US, as they should and did.

That's the world we live in. You don't like it, I don't like it, but we deal with what we have not what we want. That's politics. — Manuel

Most nations involved in wars and conflicts have psychologically balanced leaders who, regardless of the horrors of war, conduct diplomacy for the good of everyone. However, some leaders aren't balanced and psychologically stable and then diplomacy doesn't work anymore because one of the leaders are fundamentally untrustworthy. I'd say the same for someone like Trump. There are no deals, no peace treaties or agreements to be made with someone who breaks the entire rulebook. Putin is a type of dictator who doesn't play along except under military threat. That's his whole play.

To think that diplomacy will always work is a naive point of view that's grown out of our modern period of history where people grew up believing everyone to be rational and wanting peace. The people living today haven't been forced to deal with someone like Hitler on the world stage but here we are and anyone who would suggest diplomacy with Hitler would be laughed at.

This is the world we live in, not the always diplomatically rational bad world you describe. Sometimes threats of war or actual war becomes the only way forward when someone like Putin threatens the very existence of Ukraine or further. And this chess play also has the effect that there's a possibility of Putin being removed from power by the Russians themselves. People in this thread laughed at that when I mentioned it in the early days of the war, but they're not laughing as much today as this might actually be an outcome of the pressures put on him and Russia.

And when confronting the argument about stopping the war, regardless of cost, I'm just reminded of the tears of joy on the faces of the civillian people who're at the moment being liberated from Russian occupation by Ukrainian offensive movements. Would you tell them to their face that they're expendable for the sake of just ending the war?

The world is complex and any ideal of "no war" is a naive and potentially dangerous absolutist position that disregards the consequences of not standing up against tyranny.

What makes you think he will move again? — Manuel

What makes you think he won't? Your foundation for him being trustworthy is by blaming Nato and make him look desperate in defense of Russia, but that's the false narrative his regime has been spreading for years. If it's rather the opposite, supported by actual research on the matter, that he wants to join post-Soviet nations back into Russia, then what do you think he will do when failure in Ukraine is a fact? He'll most likely invade another post-Soviet nation while waiting for a new opening to invade Ukraine, or rather, he will play it differently by target assassinations and puppet mastering people into the Ukrainian government trying to initiate a sham election on a higher level. Or he will take time to build up a massive army to just win by force on a whole other scale than we've seen so far. If Russia becomes a North Korea-type state, then he would just force people into the military, brain wash them to the point of submission.

But you go ahead and negotiate, what was it you said before? Some Disney empire stuff? Simplified movie version of how tings would go? I can see other movies where heroes through diplomacy save the world from war. It's even more of a Hollywood naive outcome than what I've described. You can't talk Putin out of this, if you think that you're buying into his whole strategy. Do you think his KGB methods are just in his past?

And will continue dying, unless this war stops short. — Manuel

Your absolutist ideal of stopping death disregards what many Ukrainians deem a life worth living. They don't want to live under a tyrant, period.

I believe sensible people should understand that giving up pieces of illegally, criminally obtained land (and this is what the borders of ALL nation states are, regardless of the state) would prefer to give a bit of land, for thousands of lives. — Manuel

Would you give up a large part of the land you live in and then live under an authoritarian regime? Are you seriously proposing crushing the dreams and lives of the people living there just to reduce deaths when Russia is already conducting genocide? What the hell do you think will happen to people living there if they all of a sudden are forced to live under Russias authoritarian leadership?

And you still haven't understood the consequences of such an act. What it communicates to the worlds authoritarian leaders. It shows them that it is possible to gain land by force. It's naive absolutism. There are no lives to be saved by giving in to authoritarian leaders. You think your idea would have saved people's lives if the same was done with Hitler? This is the whole foundation for police forces not giving into the demands of hostage takers, because if they did, how do you think others would act? If you witness someone getting away with taking a hostage and gain both money, freedom or whatever you want, then there will be an epidemic of hostage takers. It's because of not giving into demands that there's been a decline of such acts, it's not worth it for the hostage takers. But you suggest we do just that, so what would happen in other nations around the world? Those leaders are looking very closely to the outcome of this war.

Will this be good news for those in the annexed territories? Of course not. How can you satisfy all the people in a country that large? It's impossible. So you try to find the least worst option, and make a case for it. — Manuel

Your measurement of "least worst" is only based on a life/death dichotomy, disregarding a life worth living, which is the reason Ukrainians are fighting for survival in the first place. And what about Taiwan? What happens if China sees Russia succeeding gaining land in Ukraine? Would you "save" Taiwan in the same way when the floodgates are open for authoritarian leaders of the world to invade other nations?

When does your "solution" end?

You are seriously misinformed and confuse the symptom with the cause. And stop with the hypocritical holier than thou attitude. — Manuel

Would you mind sending the Center for Eastern European studies the same message please? I'd love to hear them respond to you when you call them misinformed.

Plenty of criminals in the US and Europe, many of them far worse than Putin (Bush, Blair, Sarkozy, etc.). But if you can't see that because of some strange notion that we are better because we have more freedoms, then yes, we do well to stop here. — Manuel

Earlier, you wrote:

It is indeed strange that we must pick sides, because otherwise we support Putin, as such views appear to exclude each other. — Manuel

So, you speak to me about not being able to see the bad people in western society because you essentially position me to have "picked a side" against Putin and therefore I must support the bad people in western society. Talk about being hypocritical.

And if you think they are worse, let me remind you that Putin is very much involved with orders directly down to the military on the ground in Ukraine, the same military who put hundreds and thousands of people and children in mass graves. I've yet to see such a directly ordered systemic genocide by the people you mention, but yet you think Putin is less worse than them? Are you for real? Are you so blinded by your own reasoning that you become morally corrupt to who Putin really is? While so hypocritical that you criticize that we're "forced to pick a side" while putting interlocutors into a specific side anyway. Once again I'm reminded of the low quality in this thread which made me leave it in the first place. Philosophical garbage.

The argument that Nato is a threat to Russia has no ground whatsoever, for anyone with an insight into Nato and Russian affairs. Nato is a piece on the chessboard, but not a player. Russia uses the Nato chess piece as a way to legitimize their actions, but it has no real foundation as truth.

Post-Soviet nations are all extremely scared to be snuffed out by Russias delusional dreams of being a grand empire again and they seek security against that, which Russia, especially under Putin's rule, views as a ticking clock against realizing that dream. Therefor Russia has built up the narrative that Nato is threatening Russias very existence in order to keep post-Soviet nations from joining and blocking Russias expansion back into its old form. — Christoffer

Very well put. :cheer: :100:

But it's meaningless for some trolls who don't see even a trace of imperialism in Russia's action. But enough of those.

What has Putin done and what are the consequences of his action taken on February 24th?

1) NATO has gone back to it's roots

Likely Trump is the last US President that argued for NATO to "reinvent" itself and face "new threats" and not focus on the defence treaty aspects of the Cold War era. This started to change in 2014, but now the large conventional war in Europe has shown that large armed forces do matter and no amount of "Revolution in Military Affairs" will change this, even if drones and pinpoint accuracy of artillery and missiles do matter. Germany's rearmament is a huge change.

2) Countries that wouldn't have applied for NATO membership have done this

Had not Russia attacked Ukraine the way it did in February, neither Sweden or Finland would be joining NATO. Sweden would be happy with it's centuries old non-alignment and Finland would be just talking domestically about an option to join NATO. And Putin's bluff was shown to be a bluff. That he belittled the fact that these two countries joined NATO just shows how hollow the argument of NATO enlargement is compared to the argument that Russia wanted Ukraine and Ukrainian territory.

3) Ukraine has strengthened it's national identity

An outside aggressor can unify a country. What is interesting is how similar Ukraine has it now as Finland had during the Winter War. Prior to the Soviet attack in 1939, Finland as a new independent country had a huge row about the role of the Swedish and Finnish languages in Finland and there was distrust after the Civil war which just had happened 21 years ago. After the war (or wars) the nation was unified the Swedish speaking Finns were considered Finns and there had been no fifth column from those that previously had fought on the Red side.

Prior to this war the role of the Ukrainian language and Russian were a hot potato in Ukraine, but now that has gone away. Naturally the result of the war is still unknown, but likely this war will be the unifying moment for Ukraine.

4) If Putin loses, Russia's imperial aspirations will be in doubt

There's a time when a failing Great Power notices collectively that it isn't anymore a Great Power. For the UK (and also partly for France) this moment was the Suez crisis. The United States showed to the UK it's place and UK understood it couldn't do anything like this anymore. If Putin loses this war, there will be huge effects not only for Putin, but for Russia and how it sees itself. The classical imperialism and jingoism that Putin has so dearly advocated might likely suffer a huge collapse. The pinnacle of Putin's jingoism was the annexation of Crimea, the bloodless, quick and dashing military operation where the propaganda worked miracles: the sham elections went through and even today some in the West believe Ukraine is ruled by neonazis. Now you have a mobilization which has gotten more men to have fled the country than been taken into service. The first criticisms of how the war is going have already happened and the blame on everybody else than Putin has been made already quite public. Next is to question just why the military performs so poorly because of other reasons. And in the end the whole imperialism and jingoism can be questioned as Russia isn't living in the 19th Century. Something like it is a really tough sell if you don't deliver.

Prior to this war the role of the Ukrainian language and Russian were a hot potato in Ukraine, but now that has gone away. — ssu

Hate is one of the "winners" here. :/

Was just looking over some of the cultural moves...

^{On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians (Vladimir Putin; Jul 12, 2021) ■ Putin lashes out at Russians with Western mentality (CNN; Mar 17, 2022) ■ Putin Lashes Out at 'National Traitors' with Pro-Western Views (The Moscow Times; Mar 18, 2022) ■ We should all be concerned that Putin is trying to destroy Ukrainian culture (Jeffrey Stepnisky; The Conversation; Mar 22, 2022) ■ Putin lashes out at West ‘cancelling’ Russian culture, says it reeks of Hitler’s Germany (TASS; Mar 25, 2022) ■ A Kremlin paper justifies erasing the Ukrainian identity, as Russia is accused of war crimes (Chris Brown; CBC; Apr 5, 2022) ■ Moscow's ethno-cultural war (Vladimir Rozanskij; AsiaNews; Apr 12, 2022) ■ Draft Document Gives New Clues To Russian Plans For Occupied Ukrainian Regions (Heorhiy Shabayev; RFE/RL; Apr 30, 2022) ■ Why is Ukraine trying to cancel Russian culture? (Mansur Mirovalev; Al Jazeera; May 6, 2022) ■ Russia moves to eradicate Ukraine from schools in occupied Mariupol, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia (Halya Coynash; Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group; Jul 4, 2022) ■ Putin Aims to Triumph in Battle for ‘Cultural Supremacy’ (Bloomberg; Sep 6, 2022) ■ Putin Is Trying to Turn Ukraine Into a Culture War (Lionel Beehner, Thomas Sherlock; Foreign Policy; Sep 9, 2022) ■ Previously, a Russian collaborator shared a video on social media showing people at a wedding in Crimea dancing to the Ukrainian patriotic song Chervona Kalyna, which caused a massive backlash from the occupation authorities of Crimea. (Euromaidan Press; Sep 13, 2022) ■ Ukrainian TV host shows textbook to Russify school students in occupied Mariupol (Andriy Bednyakov; The New Voice of Ukraine; Sep 14, 2022) ■ Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, September 30 (Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, September 30; Institute for the Study of War; Sep 30, 2022) ■ Miss Crimea fined for singing patriotic Ukrainian song (The Guardian; Oct 4, 2022) ■ Damaged cultural sites in Ukraine verified by UNESCO (Thomas Mallard; UNESCO; Oct 17, 2022)}

There's a (large) playbook for this sort of thing.

^{(elevate/magnify negative (historical) aspects/examples; cast culture in a negative light; incite/induce division/instability among representatives; seek allies among non-representatives; convert representatives; question or deny its (unique) identity; destroy/attack symbols thereof; suppress expressions thereof; catch them young (indoctrination/enculturation); "re-school" (or incarcerate) representatives thereof; take control of related narratives; ...)}

No doubt there were and are such efforts.

But what does all this...crap tell us anyway? To me it suggests a regular take-over attempt on the one side (this isn't just about NATO), and growing Russo-hate (perhaps resolve) on the other, both of which are bad.

:fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire:

Plan A from Princeton (notice who actually wins this conflict)

In regard to ssu's observation about language use issues, I wonder how many Ukrainians who felt marginalized about that before the occupation feel about it now they have experienced Russian forms of governance. I tried to look for research about that but failed. Probably difficult to get clarity on something like that with so many displaced people during wartime.

I made this comment a reply to you because I am not sure how the nationalism presented in your links relates to language use within Ukraine before and after the invasion.

It wasn't until Russian men began being drafted to fight an apparently losing violent invasion that these major protests fired up. Very few Russians, likely humane progressives, protested when it was just Ukrainian lives being threatened or obliterated.

The Only If It’s In My Own Back Yard mindset basically follows: ‘Why should I care about other people’s troubles and turmoil — my family and I are alright.’

While some people will justify it as a normal thus moral human evolutionary function, the self-serving OIIIMOBY mentality can and does debilitate progress, even when it is most needed. And it seems this distinct form of societal penny wisdom but pound foolishness is a very unfortunate human characteristic that’s likely with us to stay.

That was excellent. People don't want to hear it, but she's exactly right!

The argument that Nato is a threat to Russia has no ground whatsoever, for anyone with an insight into Nato and Russian affairs. — Christoffer

Except when someone with insight into NATO and Russian affairs argues that Russia does perceive NATO expansion as a threat.

But I suppose when expert opinions don't say what we like to hear they are better left ignored.

Ukraine war: Belarus is not yet committed to a closer military partnership with Russia – here’s why (Jennifer Mathers; The Conversation; Oct 19, 2022)

The Ukrainians are busy elsewhere at the moment. Seems odd that they'd attack Belarus unless directly related to the Russian invasion.
Though, an overwhelming surprise attack from Belarus (plus Russia) could take out Kyiv, maybe?
Either way, Belarus not joining in would be preferable.

, I'm not quite sure how it was before with respect to the languages. (Don't think Ukraine received all that much attention before the invasion.)

3) Ukraine has strengthened it's national identity — ssu

I admittedly expanded @ssu's comment to a broader cultural thing.

Mariupol elementary schools must reportedly now call their home "Russia", and have introduced books in Russian. In Crimea, someone singing Oi u luzi chervona kalyna at a wedding were targeted.
The machine has been rolled out, apparently part of the agenda.

Yet that remains but a fraction of the story, one that also tends to lose sight of the victims on the ground and their assailants, and instead play right into the assailant's game. — jorndoe

This seems to be echoed by others. It's not unreasonable. But I don't see Manuel, or Isaak, or Tzeentch, or anyone else arguing in favor of Putin -- and besides, I think we're quite safe here talking about it. Putin's not listening to me.

Do you think that there was anything that could've been done diplomatically during the immediate moments leading up to the war to prevent it or do you think that Putin had already made up his mind at that point? — Mr Bee

A good question. I don't know, of course. If there were guarantees that Ukraine would not become a member of NATO, that the US (and others) would stop supplying them weapons and training, etc., I don't think there'd be any point whatsoever with invading. But of course that wasn't the situation. The US had made it clear that nothing was going to change regarding its stance on Ukraine. Blinken had said exactly that a few weeks before February 24th.

The argument or evidence I give for the NATO factor, for example, may be completely wrong -- but it's strange to get accused of supporting a tyrant for putting it forward.
— Mikie

It is not just completely wrong, simplistic to the extreme, logically absurd and paranoid — Olivier5

What are you referring to, exactly? Is the 2008 summit "logically absurd"? Did that not happen? Did Blinken not say "nothing would change"? Did NATO not reiterate its 2008 stance in 2021? Did the White House not explicitly double down in its joint statement on September 1st? Had Putin not consistently stated that he viewed NATO expansion in Ukraine -- not to mention weapons and training -- to be a threat to Russia? (For 14 years, in fact.)

None of that is logically absurd, or paranoid, or wrong. It's just the facts. I can go through it again if you'd like.

Your feelings about Putin's "true motives" have been addressed as well. The weakness of evidence and, frankly, paranoia, lies in claims of Putin as imperialist. I've yet been shown evidence of this. I've been given a Time article and some statements made about Ukrainian history by Putin. The rest is completely unsupported speculation, repeated over and over again to the point of "common sense" by the media. But it's extremely weak. I'm open to hearing more, however.

It was only when the Ukraine crisis broke out in February 2014 that the United States and its allies suddenly began describing Putin as a dangerous leader with imperial ambitions and Russia as a serious military threat that had to be contained. What caused this shift? This new rhetoric was designed to serve one essential purpose: to enable the West to blame Putin for the outbreak of trouble in Ukraine. And now that the crisis has turned into a full-scale war, it is imperative to make sure he alone is blamed for this disastrous turn of events. This blame game explains why Putin is now widely portrayed as an imperialist here in the West, even though there is hardly any evidence to support that perspective. — Mearsheimer

akin to finding excuses to a criminal while he is still committing his crime. — Olivier5

This is simply your projection. It has nothing to do with me. I have not once excused or defended Putin. I never once excused or defended Bin Laden either, incidentally. What I try to do is understand why these actions are taking place. The hope is that it has some relevance for bringing the conflict to an end, particularly in one's own country -- in my case, the US.

Sometimes the reasons stated by leaders are obvious lies, sometimes they aren't. When they aren't, as in the case with Bin Laden, it still does not justify the actions.

Was China's show of force in Taiwan after Pelosi's visit excusable? I don't think so. But I don't see any reason to make up a story that it somehow wasn't her visit that triggered it simply because it would possibly give the appearance of blaming the United States (god forbid).

A closer metaphor would be: "I robbed the bank because they were considering getting better protection against robbery, so I had to rob it before they could get that in place". — Olivier5

Better protection from what? What was the threat of "robbery" in 2008?

"I poked the bear because the bear is vicious."
"How do you know the bear was vicious?"
"Because it attacked me after I poked it."

So much for "logically absurd."

Can you see now how absurd the NATO caca argument is? Or at least, can you understand that it looks absurd to me, from my perspective? — Olivier5

Yes, it is absurd if we've gotten it into our heads that Putin had (and has) "imperial ambitions." But there's no evidence -- or very flimsy evidence -- to support this. This is the point.

I applaud the effort that went into this post.

I'm afraid we won't proceed to any kind of agreement, so continued discussion will not be profitable for either of us. We are too far apart.

Yes, it is absurd if we've gotten it into our heads that Putin had (and has) "imperial ambitions." But there's no evidence -- or very flimsy evidence -- to support this. This is the point. — Mikie

I am curious what standard of evidence you deem legitimate in the matter. When one state invades another to obtain territory and control, what value is there in aligning that act with a set of ambitions?

If someone breaks into your house and destroys all the furniture and shoots anybody who resists, what is the point of wondering if they meant to wreak complete destruction or were only hoping to get a snack?

So the political attitude I find more rational is trying to understand better what can be done by the government, and then push for my demands. — neomac

That's my interest as well.

No I don’t claim that Putin would have annexed Crimea and/or invaded Ukraine had the US not (1) pushed for NATO membership, (2) supplied weapons, and (3) conducted military training. I just claim that if Putin wanted to annex Crimea and/or invaded Ukraine, he would have done this with whatever pretext. — neomac

OK, fine. So you don't believe Putin. Understood. I don't blame anyone for that. I don't blame anyone for not believing American presidents when they say things either. I think we should be very skeptical.

The issue is whether or not it's true, and to weigh alternative explanations against the evidence. I've done so, and I'm of the opinion that Putin wasn't lying about Russia believing NATO involvement in Ukraine was a threat. Please note -- and this is very important -- that this doesn't mean it actually WAS a threat -- simply that he actually believed it. After saying so consistently for 14 years -- reiterated by others in the Russian government, by experts, by foreign leaders (including Angela Merkel), we should at least consider the possibility that he really believed it.

I believe Bin Laden truly believed what he was saying too, for that matter, about the US's support for Israel. Quite apart from (1) whether or not I agree with it, and (2) whether it justifies the actions.

I think this is the major difference between you and I. I see no evidence to support the assertions that Putin is trying to "make Russia great again," as someone had put it before, by conquering Ukraine and thus re-claiming what was lost after 1990. That's not the craziest explanation in the world, but in terms of evidence it's close to being on par with "They attacked us because they hate our freedom," and similar stories which could very well be true until you look at all the facts.

Better to go with Occam's razor here. And frankly, the US has been meddling in world affairs for eons. It should come as no surprise to anyone paying attention that it had a hand in this. There's also the strong possibility that our biases blind us. We all see this a lot in politics -- when I criticize Biden, I'm accused of supporting Trump. Or else that I'm giving cover to Trump supporters, etc. That is just as silly as saying I'm giving cover to Putin.

So the implicit win-win bargain for European countries to the US was roughly something like: you give me security and I’ll give you an integrated/peaceful market for your products and technology. — neomac

Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, etc. Sure. I don't doubt that they had their own reasons for joining. I'm in favor of people of any country making their own choices. But do you see how that's missing the point?