Acting as if something is safe, when it isn't, just because it ought to be, is reckless. It's not complicated.

Acting as if something is safe, when it isn't, just because it ought to be, is reckless. It's not complicated. — Isaac

It's not complicated. As this one: acting as if Russia is not a threat to the West, when it is, just because the West ought to be peaceful, is reckless too.

As ever, this is all based on anonymous insider information, so use your sound judgement. — SophistiCat

"These lunatic conspiracy theorists, with their anonymous sources... Can't wait to see the pro-US goons jump on this... What a joke!"

There.

Just adding that "sound judgment" you're so fond of when dealing with reports based on anonymous sources...

As this one: acting as if Russia is not a threat to the West, when it is, just because the West ought to be peaceful, is reckless too. — neomac

Yes, it would be. The difference is that Russia's threat to 'the West' is entirely hypothetical, as is the efficacy of war as a tool to deal with it. Russia's threat to Ukraine can hardly be denied.

One year into a war instigated and prolonged by the United States. — Mikie

Sounds pretty certain.

I think it shows how reading a lot of philosophy books is probably a complete waste of time for most people. — Mikie

Is very contemptuous.

I think she's just saying that people who haven't read many philosophy books are likely to be more certain about various things.

Sounds pretty certain. — Paine

Seems to be accurate when looking at the evidence. But by no means certain.

One of the topics constantly haggled over in the Groundhog Day cycle of arguments that has been this OP for a year concerns the credibility of evidence. You clearly favor one side of the arguments.

Characterizing all challenges to that view as coming from unquestioning slaves to a narrative is a well-honed rhetorical device. Pardon me if I lapse into a coma when it is used yet again.

challenges to that view — Paine

That’s the point. There’s very few “challenges” to alternative views, beyond what you yourself have demonstrated nicely.

, it's not so much refusal, as it is that no one is blaming the Dutch! (imdb)

Anyway, didn't the thread already establish that "Everyone is bad"? If we're to spread blame, then maybe figure out where to place the blame first and foremost, or by rank, weight, score, whatever?
I have some impression of where the victims would primarily place blame. And the (other) main actor ...

It’s not Ukraine that is fighting Russia, but rather it is a collective West. All decorum is set aside, and the goal is to inflict strategic defeat on my country. The US thinks the planet is their turf. — Vasily Nebenzya (Feb 22, 2023)

The West aspires to strategically defeat Russia, dismember and destroy it [...] the West has been and is turning a blind eye to the revival of neo-Nazism and the glorification of Nazi criminals in Ukraine — Vasily Nebenzya (Feb 23, 2023)

... (i.e. an old repeat of the others on Putin's team, and incidentally also some in this thread in part).

As an aside, anti-US / pro-Putin type sentiments aren't as rare as some suggest. At least, in my adventures, they've been common enough.

Leaked document shows how Russia plans to take over Belarus
^{— Michael Weiss, Holger Roonemaa · Yahoo · Feb 20, 2023}
Will sich der Kreml Belarus einverleiben? (en)
^{— Florian Flade, Lea Frey, Manuel Bewarder · ARD/tagesschau · Feb 21, 2023}
Leaked Russian document shows how Putin plans to annex ally Belarus by 2030
^{— Sinéad Baker · Business Insider · Feb 21, 2023}

Make of it what you will, it does fit a pattern (posted in some detail in the thread prior). I thought Belarus was already more or less under Putin, though...?

Russia’s Medvedev floats idea of pushing back Poland’s borders
^{— Al Jazeera · Feb 24, 2023}

:D Medvedev is known to make ridiculous statements, though a Russian official, chairman of their Security Council.

FYI, foreign/independent journalists reporting on the ground:

What the Russians left behind when they fled Kherson
^{— CBC News: The National · Feb 23, 2023 · 9m:58s}

The original report ↑ has been locked down on youtube, a shorter version can be found here:

What the Russians left behind when they fled Kherson
^{— CBC News · Feb 23, 2023 · 8m:55s}

How Russia's invasion turned Ukrainian residents into resistance members
^{— Richard Engel, Gabe Joselow, Michael Fiorentino · NBC News · Feb 24, 2023}

I wouldn't mind similar reports with the invaders.

(continuing a line of evidence ...)

Dozens detained by Russian police on Ukraine war anniversary - rights centre
^{— Caleb Davis, Mark Trevelyan · Reuters · Feb 24, 2023}

This provides nothing to the discussion. Only contempt.
I bet you are capable of more than that.

Arguably, Iran is technically in a proxy war against Ukraine, yet saying so is kind of misleading (incidentally, analogous to some comments hereabouts). — Feb 13, 2023

Putin's Russia, Khamenei's Iran, potentially China ...

Moscow is not alone: Much has changed since invasion of Ukraine
^{— Jonathan Spyer · The Jerusalem Post · Jan 24, 2023}

Will China start a "proxy war" against Ukraine?

On another note, I'm seeing some wariness out there that Kim Jong-un is taking notes.
"Whatever happens in Ukraine ain't staying in Ukraine."

Russia's threat to 'the West' is entirely hypothetical — Isaac

There is absolutely nothing hypothetical about Russia's threat to 'the West'.

• Russia has actual non-hypothetical motives to be hostile against the West. The loss of their “empire” after the collapse of Soviet Union principally due to NATO expansion and the need to recover their hegemonic status overshadowed by the Americans.
• Russia has actual non-hypothetical offensive means to threat Western security (3rd country by military capability, largest stockpile of nuclear warheads in the world, cyberwar capabilities through hackers and disinformation agencies), and ways to heavily interfere in Western political life, through lobby and a network of far-right movements.
• Russia has plenty of actual non-hypothetical pretexts and leverage to conduct anti-Western activities in the West: Russian minorities in neighbouring countries, rebellious countries like Serbia and Hungary , political ties and support from within the West (Trump being the most clear example encouraging Russian adventurism), and economic bonds that up until now induced complacency toward Russian hegemonic ambitions.
• Russia has actually non-hypothetically made plenty of hostile declarations against the West since 2008 and has promoted/pursued an anti-West alliance with other authoritarian states (like China and Iran) with hegemonic ambitions.
• Russia’s military activity beyond its borders up until now shows an actual non-hypothetical pattern of “Western containment”: by encircling Europe with its military activity in the mediterranean, North Africa, Middle East and the Baltics. And now by meddling in Western backyard with a genocidal war: Ukraine wants to join the West and is also plenty of natural resources the West may integrate in its economy (wheat and gas among others). And during this war Russia also dared to threaten the West with a nuclear escalation.

So no, there is absolutely nothing hypothetical about Russia's threat to 'the West'.

The loss of their “empire” after the collapse of Soviet Union principally due to NATO expansion and the need to recover their hegemonic status overshadowed by the Americans. — neomac

...is hypothetical.

offensive means to threat Western security — neomac

...the actual use of which is hypothetical.

Russian hegemonic ambitions. — neomac

...which are hypothetical.

promoted/pursued an anti-West alliance with other authoritarian states (like China and Iran) with hegemonic ambitions. — neomac

...hypothetical ambitions.

Russia’s military activity beyond its borders up until now shows an actual non-hypothetical pattern of “Western containment” — neomac

...not even going to dignify this bullshit with a response.


Yes. All of Russia's actions could be interpreted as a threat to the west. Or, they could not.

There's active and informed debate on that subject among experts.

There's no debate at all about the threat Russia poses to Ukraine. That's the difference.

NATO's Biggest European Members Float Defense Pact with Ukraine

Possibly some important developments here.

With the UK, France and Germany seeking to encourage peace talks, more elaborate NATO intervention in Ukraine seems unlikely for the near future.

A lot hinges on the commitment of the European nations if things were to escalate in Ukraine. Prior to this, the war rhetoric suggested the Europeans would follow the American line without much question, but with happenings such as these it remains to be seen.

In my opinion, this should have come a lot sooner. The war could have likely been avoided altogether had the Europeans made clear to Washington that they would not back the US in a protracted conflict in Ukraine.

The question is whether they can keep their backs straight.


As for the proposals themselves, there are some odd implications:
- Apparently Kiev is the party that needs to be encouraged.

- The way the European leaders seek to encourage Ukraine is apparently by way of "stronger ties between Ukraine and NATO". Note, NATO membership is not mentioned - I wonder if that's intentional. You'd think some form of close security cooperation between NATO and Ukraine after the war would have been on the table since the very start, but apparently not?

- Stronger ties between NATO and Ukraine was what sparked this conflict in the first place, so it's counterintuitive that this would become part of a negotiated peace. However, perhaps with the territories Russia holds (and Crimea strategically more secure), NATO membership for Ukraine is less of an issue.

The loss of their “empire” after the collapse of Soviet Union principally due to NATO expansion and the need to recover their hegemonic status overshadowed by the Americans. — neomac


...is hypothetical.

offensive means to threat Western security — neomac


...the actual use of which is hypothetical.

Russian hegemonic ambitions. — neomac


...which are hypothetical.

promoted/pursued an anti-West alliance with other authoritarian states (like China and Iran) with hegemonic ambitions. — neomac


...hypothetical ambitions. — Isaac

So you practically ignored all other facts to focus on “hegemonic ambitions” which in the case of Russia, China, and Iran you claim to be “hypothetical”. Let’s first clarify terminology. How do you understand the notion of “hegemonic”? And what constitute evidence of “hegemonic ambitions” to you?

Russia’s military activity beyond its borders up until now shows an actual non-hypothetical pattern of “Western containment” — neomac

...not even going to dignify this bullshit with a response. — Isaac

Unless this kind of answers is the best you can afford.

There's no debate at all about the threat Russia poses to Ukraine. That's the difference. — Isaac

There is debate also about the threat Russia poses to Ukraine. You can hear it when discussing about peace. Different peace scenarios and conditions are also influenced by a different understanding of the threat Russia poses to Ukraine.

Let’s first clarify terminology. How do you understand the notion of “hegemonic”? And what constitute evidence of “hegemonic ambitions” to you? — neomac

Isaac has serious difficulties in understanding definitions of English. He doesn't accept the definition of "imperialism" in Merriam-Webster dictionary.

And how does he blame this war on the Ukrainians?

Pretending the world is something it's not.

I ought not have to worry about bad drivers, but if I send my kids out to play in the road, are you seriously suggesting I share none of the blame if an accident happens?

Ukraine ought to be able to enjoy its sovereignty without being threatened by powerful neighbours. Pretending that's how the world is when it blatantly isn't is reckless.

But then everyone knew that, back before we had to pretend we live in Disneyland. — Isaac

This is quite illogical, which doesn't actually surprise me.

So I guess that Isaac's answer to there being reckless drivers is to keep people inside and away from roads, because reckless/bad drivers just exist. Not people having to take driving lessons to have a driver's license that can be revoked, even face legal punishment for their actions alongside teaching children to be careful in traffic? Such actions have actually decreased the amounts of accidents compared to the traffic.

So with Isaac's words Ukraine's fault was that it "pretended the world to be something that it's not"? Too naive to trust what Russia agrees on a written formal agreement? Curious way how to blame Ukraine for this war.

If you have any counter-argument beyond huffing your incredulity, feel free to post it.

Peace parties:

• the landlord says they want peace but without the land-grabbery
• the invaders (and destroyers) say they want peace but with the land-grabbery

And:

• the UN said no land-grabbery (explicitly)
• the attackers said it goes beyond that land (well, among a few other things)
• the attacks/destruction continue to create hate + distrust among the defenders
• (Kim Jong-un, are you taking notes?)

How can some productive progress be made?
A wretched situation; heck, for that matter, southeastern Ukraine could be administered independently by the UN for the time being if peace was what everyone wanted.

Different peace scenarios and conditions are also influenced by a different understanding of the threat Russia poses to Ukraine. — neomac

How can some productive progress be made? — jorndoe

Supporting Ukraine would be productive:

Russia has made many times true progress after having disastrous defeats in wars that it has itself started.

- After the failure of the Crimean war, Russia later abolished serfdom. Had Russia been victorious, it perhaps might not have happened when it did.

- After the failure of the Russo-Japanese war, Russia experienced a revolution and took first steps towards democracy were made with the creation of the Duma, yet then came WW1.

- After the failure of the Polish-Russian war, the export of the Communist Revolution to Europe was set aside and only decades later after the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement Stalin continued the expansion of the Soviet realm.

- The defeat in Afghanistan is one reason for the Soviet Union to collapse, even if there are many others.

Best thing to happen to Russia would be a disastrous, humiliating defeat which would make to rethink just how sustainable is the present imperialism of Putin. Russia has already suffered more casualties than in all the wars it has fought post-WW2 combined. It has had to rely on drafting reservists to the war, hence this isn't something that the people will be ignorant about (as the American population can be when the military is an all-volunteer force).

Otherwise it will simply continue to be a potential threat to it's neighbors. Anyway, I think authoritarian dictatorships are bad and they should go. Modern day Russia has more political prisoners than Soviet Union had in it's later post-Stalinist era. The propaganda in Russia towards it's own people is surprisingly similar as it was during the last times Russian Empire.

Hence the solution would be to give Ukraine the ample resources to make this one of those defeats that Russia has suffered before... and has had to change course afterwards.

Best thing to happen to Russia would be a disastrous, humiliating defeat ... — ssu

Anyway, I think authoritarian dictatorships are bad and they should go. — ssu

Hence the solution would be to give Ukraine the ample resources to make this one of those defeats that Russia has suffered before... — ssu

Sounds like you're on a warpath. Who should be next? China?

No, but really. You're sounding a little detached. Any idea how many lives your lovely plans would cost?

Any idea how many lives your lovely plans would cost? — Tzeentch

The idea is just unhinged...

• 8 million externally displaced
• 6 million internally displaced
• several million in need of humanitarian assistance
• at least 100,000 to 150,000 killed
• USD 600 billion infrastructure destroyed
• 9.3 million food insecure in Venezuela
• 7 million at crisis level in Somalia
• 7.2 million at crisis levels of food supply in South Sudan
• 22.8 million at crisis level of food insecurity in Afghanistan
• 5 million on the brink of famine and 16 million insecure in Yemen
• escalating fuel crisis

...
Oh and the risk of nuclear war

... and we haven't even got into the fact that most military experts think outright defeat is impossible anyway.

So what price @ssu? What level of human cost do you want to pay for this brilliant goal of creating a post-Afghanistan Russia?

And let's not forget (before you spin out the usual bullshit about it being up to the Ukrainians)

A lot of the human suffering caused [by] the war has been outside of Ukraine,... Humanitarian needs globally are much higher this year because of the Ukraine war than they would have been without it, and a lot of that relates to the dislocation of the world’s food markets and the contribution of that to increasing starvation and potential famine. — Mark Lowcock, the former United Nations under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs

The idea is just unhinged... — Isaac

War is always unhinged. But talking of price, one sees a high price being paid for peace, or at least a ceasefire, being paid by the citizens of N. Korea for example. It seems that there are fates worse than death - Orwell's "a boot stamping on a human face forever". What price are you willing (for others, obviously) to pay for peace? And on what hinge do you hang it.

Sounds like you're on a warpath. Who should be next? China? — Tzeentch

A totally crazy idea.

China hasn't attacked anyone since 1979, and then it was it's former ally Vietnam. Before that China fought with the Soviet Union (hence the relationship hasn't been so great in hindsight, actuallly). It has a border dispute with India that has lead to border skirmishes, yes, but India isn't an ally of the US.

With Taiwan basically the civil war hasn't ended between the two sides: there is no armstice or no peace agreement. The state of war continued until 1979 between the two warring parties. There was a thawing period, but things have deteriorated after 2016. Yet unlike with North and South Korea, the two sides haven't come to shooting each other. Hence China has shown restraint.

The US hawks have for long craved to focus on China and to leave Europe. Unfortunately in Europe we do have a country, Russia, that doesn't accept the sovereignty of European countries and has attacked it's neighbors, unlike China. The posturing with China is the powerplay US has been committed, whereas in Europe you are dealing with actual present wars and hostile annexations of territories that have happened. The difference should be obvious to everybody.

Any idea how many lives your lovely plans would cost? — Tzeentch

Likely more when you drag a war to continue. For the war to stop Putin should achieve his objectives. And if Ukraine does fall and Putin can claim success, this will huge consequences. Above all, might makes right and Russia's imperialism works. The next step is then Moldova, Georgia and perhaps an "anshcluss" with Belarus. See here. And the totalitarian system in Russia will continue.

Wars can come to an end militarily. For example the civil war in Ethiopia ended, did you notice that? Yet Putin can still believe that the West will back down and he will be victorious. There are enough confused people in the West who think wars just go on eternally and look at the example of Afghanistan, which was a totally different war (an insurgency). Giving too little too late can make Putin to believe that this war can be successful. Ukraine cannot win the war with one modern tank battalion or with just 20 HIMARS systems. Political micromanaging will just lengthen the war.

It seems that there are fates worse than death - Orwell's "a boot stamping on a human face forever". What price are you willing (for others, obviously) to pay for peace? And on what hinge do you hang it. — unenlightened

As I've brought up before (with no attempt at refutation beyond the usual huffing), the notion that Ukraine sans Russia will be some kind of peaceful, democratic paradise as opposed to the Orwellian nightmare of Russian puppetry is completely without merit.

Ukraine was a right-wing-infused, arms-dealing, rights-abusing, poverty-stricken, dump before the Russian invasion. Russia's 'management' of Crimea has produced a string of human rights abuses no greater, nor worse than the exact same string of abuses the Ukrainian side inflicted on Donbas.

One of the most remarkable feats of propaganda in this war so far (of which there have been many) is the re-branding of a Ukraine from the world's foremost right-wing thug training venue to the saintly beacon of democracy. Read literally any article written about Ukraine before the invasion for a flavour of just how bad things were there.

Expelling Russia will make a barely noticeable difference to the population's human rights. Possibly one of the reasons why the people of Donbas and Crimea were so pro-Russian before the invasion.

A timely article in the Jacobin tells us little has changed. https://jacobin.com/2023/02/ukraine-censorship-authoritarianism-illiberalism-crackdown-police-zelensky

In July 2022, officers with the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), the country’s chief law enforcement and domestic spy agency, entered Chemerys’s home, broke one of his ribs, and seized his electronics. (Chemerys provided Jacobin with medical documents from July 2022 documenting a fractured tenth rib). His crimes, according to the “official warning” he received after the visit, included “his openly pro-Russian position,” “criticism of the activities of the Ukrainian authorities”

On March 10, 2022, poet, satirist, and television host Jan Taksyur disappeared after armed men claiming to be from the SBU searched his apartment, turning it upside down and seizing his savings, according to accounts provided to local news outlets and to Jacobin by his family. It took two days for his wife and children to find out where he was: in a pretrial detention center, where he was kept for more than five months on charges of treason, and unable to get medical help despite a cancer diagnosis — not an uncommon situation, according to the doctor who eventually treated him.

The pacifist Ruslan Kotsaba, proclaimed a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International in 2015, went through a similar ordeal. Kotsaba’s prosecution for “high treason” predated the Russian invasion, after a 2015 video post labeling the war over the Donbas a “fratricidal civil war” and urging resistance to military conscription got him labeled a traitor, prosecuted, and imprisoned for sixteen months.

But Kotsaba says things took another turn immediately after Moscow invaded last February, when the judges presiding over his case took on a “more aggressive and uncompromising attitude.” Sensing the court would now more likely take their side, he says, prosecutors recalled the dozens of witnesses whose absence had previously gummed up the trial’s progress and proceeded without them.

the SBU announced it had “neutralized” the Workers’ Front of Ukraine in Odessa, a Marxist organization founded in late 2019, charging the group was “coordinated and funded by the occupiers.” Though providing no evidence for that charge, the SBU cited as among the group’s subversive activities the printing of “anti-Ukrainian materials,” trying “to spread the forbidden communist symbolism with calls for the resuscitation of the Soviet Union,” and planning “mass rallies.”

The outlets reprinting the SBU’s charges added that the group had also written “anti-capitalist posts.”

Drawing particular international attention has been the arrest and prosecution of communists Mikhail Kononovich, leader of the KPU’s youth wing, and his twin brother Aleksander. Ethnic Belarussians with Ukrainian citizenship, the brothers were accused by the SBU of working for both Russian and Belarussian intelligence and of holding “pro-Russian and pro-Belarusian views.” The Kononoviches say that the accusations are fabricated and politically motivated and, in a recent statement, charged that they had been beaten and tortured while detained for seven months, stating that “now in Ukraine, ‘communist’ means death.” Before the war, they had campaigned against Zelensky’s push to allow private sell-offs of Ukrainian farmland and sparked controversy for a variety of views, including advocacy for the rights of Russian speakers and against fascist movements in the country.

left-wing activist Oleksandr Matyushenko. In the past, Matyushenko has charged that “after Euromaidan, the right[-wing] consensus fully dominates Ukraine,” and that government and right-wing opposition “compete with each other in anti-communism and xenophobia.” He has also criticized far-right militias like the Azov Regiment and the oligarch bankrolling them. One of the photos of his arrest shows a man’s hand hovering over a bloodied Matyushenko, holding the Nazi-inspired Azov emblem.

Matyushenko’s wife later told the German left-wing newspaper Junge Welt that SBU members had entered and searched their apartment, confiscating computers and other property, while another man in military uniform — the one brandishing Azov’s emblem — spit in her face, cut her hair with a knife, and beat her husband for hours. The two were later taken to SBU headquarters, she said, where officers interrogated them, threatening to slice off their ears.

Chesno (“Honestly”), a prominent NGO originally focused on fair elections and good government that had played a leading role in the Euromaidan revolution. On March 17, it announced it was launching a “Register of Perpetrators of Treason” focusing on politicians, judges, media figures, and law enforcement officers.

At the time of writing, it listed 1,118 names, many of them sporting rap sheets as dubious as some of those targeted by the SBU. Chemerys (a “propagandist of leftist views”)...

... in 2021, Chesno (the liberal NGO now running its own blacklist of alleged traitors) received 42 percent of its funding from the US government-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), which contributed the lion’s share of that money. The NDI is one of the private NGOs aligned with one of the United States’ two parties, and is itself funded by the NED, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the US State Department, among others.

So what price ssu? What level of human cost do you want to pay for this brilliant goal of creating a post-Afghanistan Russia? — Isaac

It's quite futile to argue with a person that totally declines to see the objectives of Russia in this war. (The actual ones declared by Putin himself)

If the war would stop on the lines that we have now, Putin can claim to have been victorious. Yet Putin can still hope that he gets more.

It's quite futile to argue with a person that totally declines to see the objectives of Russia in this war. — ssu

It's quite futile to argue with someone who's ego is so inflated that they think their own personal opinion constitutes a fact that others merely 'decline' to see. Far smarter people than you disagree with your analysis of Russia's objectives. Experts in Russian affairs with decades of experience disagree with you. Does that fact seriously not even dent your messianic sense of righteousness?

We're not having an argument. It's more like a clinical assessment.

You blame Ukraine for this war. You justify the annexation by force of the Crimean peninsula (last example ). You oppose definitions of words in the dictionary.

That's enough of a clinical assessment of you.

I think it's worth pointing out that while the US narrative is alive and well within NATO, NATO is standing more and more isolated internationally.

Recently the European Council on Foreign Affairs published this paper:

United West, Divided From the Rest: Global Public Opinion One Year Into Russia's War on Ukraine


The global shift towards multilaterality is well underway, and the Ukraine war really shows how estranged NATO has become from the rest of the world, with basically every major international player outside of NATO refusing to pick sides in the conflict.


My expectation is that NATO will see a brief surge in unity as a result of the the Ukraine war, however as the reality of this conflict becomes apparent - the US role in causing it and its lack of commitment to solving it - it might in fact flip the other way and be the last nail on the coffin for NATO.