(↑ not new in the thread) — jorndoe

Many things aren't new in the thread. Some want repeat over and over their version of events prior to the war. That we discussed hundreds of pages ago.

Because there's not much else for them to say. Other than Russia is strong and the West should capitulate and let Ukraine take care of itself. (Which means Russians taking care of it)

↪boethius

You keep repeating that:

“such as nazi groups doing their best in the Donbas to trigger the current larger war, and explicitly explaining to Western journalists that's what they want: a grand purifying war and destruction of Russia ... and then Berlin!”

“Many of the factions supporting these provocative policies vis-a-vis Russia had no qualms of explicitly stating their main goal (to Western journalists on camera) is starting a war with Russia that will destroy said Russia.”

“The Nazi's are definitely there in Ukraine (I am happy to re-post all those Western journalist documenting it) and are definitely a problem (mainly for Ukraine). They are also a genuine security concern for Russia (as they have no hesitation to explicitly say their goal is a war with Russia and to destroy Russia”

Can you link your source? — neomac

I've posted the same Western reporting on the Nazis in Ukraine I think 4-5 times now. It's the same cycle, someone mentions the Nazis in Ukraine as mere Russian propaganda, I post the evidence based on Western reporting, and then no one wants to talk about it anymore.

Got through these videos and you will see what the concern is.

Once faced with the evidence, the denialists will then say "well there's not enough Nazis!", but then refuse to answer the question of how many Nazis would be enough. It's a simple question, if I say "this isn't enough water to live on" presumably I have some standard in my head of what is enough water and could inform you that a thimble is not enough water but about 2 litres a day is a normal healthy amount (but may vary quite a bit depending on the conditions).

Now, maybe there isn't and has never been enough Nazis in Ukraine that not-invading and destroying said Nazis would be the appeasement.

But, they're clearly there with quite a bit, even if "not enough" power, and it is foolish to dismiss their presence, goals and how they impact events, in both direct and indirect ways.

It's also important part of the conflict as it's simply giving Putin and the Kremlin immense propaganda wins. Russians don't squint their eyes and debate exactly what kind of runes we're looking at when they see obvious Nazis talking obvious Nazi shit.

Of course, simply because something is true doesn't mean it won't be used and exaggerated for propaganda purposes, and in this case it is a simple motivator that goes some way to explain why Russian troops didn't just run away from the battle field as they low morale and "didn't know why they're fighting" and other lines repeated by Western media.

The discourse then transitioned to focus more on Ukraine being already apart of Russia in order to build up and then justify the annexations of the territory. Russia also captured a lot of Azov leaders in Mariupol and of course that was a symbolic victory over the Nazis in Ukraine so you also just want to mix things up a bit in public relations in any case.

Another reason for the discourse to change to focus more on historical relations and Russian speakers and so on, is because Putin and the Kremlin are aware that the only end to the war is a negotiated settlement, as most of Ukraine is simply not desired by the Kremlin (the Ukrainian speaking parts). Therefore, if you keep emphasizing the Nazis and exaggerate too much and call all Ukrainians Nazis and so on, then it makes it harder to sell the peace agreement. It's much better to have some symbolic victories under the belt, such as Mariupol, and then just declare whatever standard of denazification was being used, it was a success.

However, the Nazis as they really are in Ukraine and what they are up to and how the effect and influence events is distinct from how the Nazis appear, or disappear, in Russian discourse, what effect and influence that has, and what are the reasons for all that.

Likewise, if Putin builds up too much NATO as a threat then it becomes harder to sell an eventual peace with NATO later, or can even cause further undesired escalation with NATO; war of words can often translate to actual war, or more actual war in this case. A change in emphasis may does not mean a change in facts nor the perception of those facts.

I point this out because the Western media analytical methodology is to take anything Putin says or doesn't say, or emphasizes or de-emphasizes, as some sort. of "proof" of reality when they're able to spin it their way, and if not they just call him a liar.

Any genuine analysis must keep separate reality to perception of that reality by different people as well as what people say about said perception.

The actual Nazis are one thing, the perception of those Nazis by Russians and Putin and so on is another thing, and their discourse about said Nazis is still yet a third thing. Of course, how we know anything about reality is through our and other perception and discourse on those perceptions, in this case we can be confident of some degree of objectively confident view of the Nazis due to the reporting of credibly unbiased reporters that have no stake in the outcome of whether the Nazis are there or aren't there or what they are doing or not doing (a credibility that would be based on yet still more perceptions and discourse on those perceptions).

I hope all these explanations help your understanding of things, and if you are interested in the sources they are reposted below:

The backlash is people getting into severe cognitive dissonance which disrupts the war horny trance like state they were in previously, when they encounter the fact the "neo-Nazi" problem isn't some fringe skinheads in some seedy bar, but a whole institution.

Which, please pay attention to the "black sun" which doesn't even have any apologist "it's just a rune" or "ancient Sanskrit symbol" whatever explanation, but literally created by the SS for the SS. — boethius

And also discover, at least the US and Canada (... maybe not other NATO members like Germany, who are the experts on neo-Nazi's after all and arbitrate whether they exist or not in today's media landscape) exposed to be breaking their own laws, which was military aid was contingent on irregular forces not doing any fighting or getting any weapons or ammunition ... which journalists could just go debunk in like, a single day's investigation? — boethius

And discover ... that when people talk about this problem going back to 2014 ... there's times and BBC reportings on this very thing: — boethius

January First, is one of the most important days in their callender. It marks the birth of Stepan Bandera, the leader of the Ukrainian partisan forces during the second world war.

The rally was organized by the far right Svoboda Party. Protests marched amidst a river of torches, with signs saying "Ukraine above all else".

But for many in Ukraine and abroad, Bandera's legacy is controversial. His group, the organization of Ukrainian Nationalists sided with Nazi German forces [but fortunately we have modern Germany to tell us there's no connection!] before breaking with them later in the war. Western Historians also say that his followers carried out massacres of Polish and Jewish civilians.

[... interview with a guy explaining the importance of Stepan Bandera's birthday party ]

Ukraine is a deeply divided country, however, and many in its East and South consider the party to be extremist. Many observers say rallies like today's torch light march only add to this division [really?!?! you don't say...]. — BBC

Or discover this one which interviews the FBI talking about these terrorists training with Azov ... but ... wait, "the war on terror" doesn't extend to white terrorists training "oversees".

And has the quote (recorded on video) from one of the recruiters: — boethius

We're Aryans, and we will rise again — totally not a neo-Nazi, according to the German government

But ... the president is Jewish and is allied with these forces, who don't even hate Jews all that much! So obviously you can have Nazi's if their friendly Nazi's (to your side). — boethius

This one's just adorable. — boethius

That has come obvious to others, yes. — ssu

Why would other people's responsibility be a greater focus than my own?

It seems my position here is almost at the level of a tautology: that one should mind one's own responsibilities first is the direct corollary of what the definition of responsibility.

LOL! :grin:

Soo... how many other countries does he call "artificial" and being an integral part of Russia. How many other countries Russian spread far before maps of parts of it belonging to Russia? Like this from year 2015. — ssu

The tensions started in 2008 when NATO declared Ukraine and Georgia were on the path to NATO membership. Russia's first response was to invade Georgia.

The theory that Putin's been "planning it all along" requires believing he started increasing the tensions by somehow causing NATO to increase tensions.

The facts are NATO expands towards Russia all while referring to Russia as their "competitor" and "enemy" and so on, and Russia has been reacting to that expansion.

Of course, now that Russia has annexed the territory, it makes sense to justify that historically.

However, there is zero evidence that before or since 2008 events have been driven primarily by Putin's desire to retake parts of Ukraine.

As I say, perhaps Putin has been relying on the West's escalation in tensions to eventually provide the casus beli to invade Ukraine, but, if so, he then gets the benefit that the facts are the West pursued that escalatory policy.

Putin has been very consistent. Yes, he has also mentioned that NATO enlargement is what he doesn't like, but the annexation of Crimea and further the other oblasts that he has now annexed into Russia (even they all aren't in Russian held territories) simply just show he wasn't kidding with all his references of the historic connection of Russia and Ukraine. And then you say there's wasn't no evidence. Hilarious! Perhaps later we can look at this thread and see how ingrained Putinism and Pro-Putinists were. — ssu

The critical pivot point was 2014 when there was a coup in Kiev and Russia annexed Crimea.

Again, Russia was reacting to what the US was doing, "fuck the EU" Nuland was literally handing out cookies during the protests.

There just zero evidence for your theory that all the events leading to war was some long term Putin plot. Furthermore, if it was the West played into it and provided the pretext and propaganda material required to prosecute the war successfully.

Now, if your argument is that Putin wanted Russian speaking regions back or then taken for the first time, that's certainly true. Everyone in Europe wants their historical lands back. I'm pretty sure most Finns want Karelia back.

What's at issue here is whether Putin put in place some sort of a plan (many allege he did, going all the way back to the 90s) to conquer Crimea and Donbas. It's of course a possible hypothesis, there's just no evidence for it. What there is evidence for is the West continuously expanding NATO and continuously provoking further tensions and continuously threatening Russian core security interests (which the West has zero problem illegally bombing or killing whoever is threatening their own security interests) until there was a literal crisis funded and orchestrated by the CIA and US state department in Ukraine which provided the legitimate security requirement or then casus beli, depending on your disposition, to annex Crimea.

Sure, maybe Putin all the way back in 99 was thinking to himself ... hmm, well let NATO expand to our borders and then we'll take what's ours!

It's possible, it's not a falsifiable theory what Putin was thinking. However, the facts are that the West escalates and Russia attempts diplomacy to resolve issues (that Russia can credibly say is done in good faith), the West rejects diplomatic solutions, tensions continue to escalate until a crisis.

Now, if so, well by letting the West be continuously escalating tensions and continuously either rejecting diplomacy, or then conducting it in bad faith, Putin gets the benefit that there are no facts available that would support a theory that this was some sort of long term Russian plan.

Just like in the case of my country, the real question is if Russia cannot take over the country it attacked. What then? Well, then Russia simply admits defeat, like it did against the Japanese. Or the Poles. Or in a way, with us Finns making this kind of Peace deal without annexation or creating the country to be a satellite state. Likely Ukrainians have no dreams of the war ending with an Ukrainian military parade on the Red Square. But please, do promote the vast power of Russia here, if you want. — ssu

Russian power is far greater than Ukraine. "Vast" is perhaps an exaggeration though.

We Finns did the exact opposite of Zelensky: we had a diplomatic plan and used military force as leverage to get the best deal feasible in the circumstances; a deal that was both a surrender and admitting culpability for the war and repaying massive reparations to the Soviet Union (i.e. a deal that would be potentially preferable to the Soviet Union compared to continued fighting).

This is the most frustrating "making up history" in this whole conflict. Yes, we Finns are a model of what to do when invaded by a superior, but Ukraine is not following that model. So saying the Finns had a success in admitting defeat (in a peace deal that involved compromise on both sides compared to maximalist objectives) is not an argument in support of Ukraine fighting without any diplomatic strategy whatsoever and what diplomacy they do, if it can even be called that, is just declaring they aren't willing to compromise on their objective one bit and Russia should just do exactly what they want.

The lesson to learn from the Finnish-Russo Winter War is that it's a difficult position to be in and you need to be clever and spend lives judiciously in a fundamentally diplomatic plan that makes overall sense and is achievable. The Finns continuously negotiated with the Soviet Union during the conflict and military action was in support of that diplomacy. The Soviet Union was fearful of an invasion by Nazi Germany (as well as a potential Finnish-Nazi alliance) which was de facto additional leverage in the negotiation. Therefore, once the Finns demonstrated they could inflict unacceptable costs on the Soviet Union, there was motivation to settle. Because the Soviet Union settled the (first) conflict, Finland was motivated not to attack Leningrad (aka. Saint Petersburg) from the North, compared to a situation where the Soviets didn't settle, the Finns held on and then simply fused with Nazi forces during operation Barbarossa (which of course the Soviets didn't know about in advance, but an attack by Nazi Germany was their main concern).

So there was a lot going on that informed the Finnish negotiation and war fighting strategy.

Ukraine could have easily had a similar plan, but didn't and doesn't now.

And that naturally should happen from an advantage point. Hence military support of Ukraine should continue as long as the Ukrainians want and are willing to fight. — ssu

There is no negotiation strategy. What the West should do if it was moral and, in particular Europe also self-interested a bit, would be to condition support on a feasible negotiation strategy. Otherwise, sending hundreds of billions to Ukraine structured in the form of a slush fund and just wanting them to fight as long as possible really puts into question who exactly we're talking about in expressions such and "Ukrainians want and are willing to fight". You just completely ignore the fact men can't leave the country, how is that "willing"?

The fact is still that it doesn't have the air superiority that it should have taken in a few days. — ssu

It's honestly incredible to me how the propaganda of "Russia should have conquered Ukraine in 3 days!" or in this case gain air superiority in a few days, is successful.

Ukraine has ground based air defence, both at the start of the war and supplied by the West since, and although Russia took out a lot of air defence assets in the first days of the war it's not really a reasonable expectation that Russia would destroy them all. Furthermore, Russia destroying them all would be extreme incompetence on Ukrainians part, and the idea that failing to achieve total destruction of all air defence assets is the real incompetence is just zany.

Now, as long as a military has functioning ground based air defence systems it's simply not feasible to gain air uncontested air supremacy over the regions the systems cover. Maybe (and it's a big maybe) stealth works wonders and would allow uncontested operations over regions covered by ground air defence, but Russia doesn't have a sizeable stealth fleet.

Therefore, the Russian strategy has been to attrit Ukraines air defence missiles by waves of missile and drone attacks of various kinds as well as develop the cheaper standoff munitions of the glide bombs, in order to drop ordinance at a safe distance.

It should be noted that if an air defence missile has a range of 100km, then a plane can still penetrate this air space as long as it still has time to outrun a missile fired at it. Air defence missiles Ukraine has travel between mach 3-5, so a plane that can accelerate to mach 2 can still penetrate some distance the envelope and be able to outrun a missile. For the sake of simple numbers, a plane travelling at mach 2 can penetrate just under 50km into a 100km air defence envelope and still outrun a missile travelling at mach 4. So can compress the effective range quite a bit. Of course in practice the plane would need to turn around and accelerate which takes precious time, but the point is "being able to run away" decreases defence missile ranges quite a bit.

Which makes the glide problem only solvable by moving missile batteries closer to the front where they are far more vulnerable, and it seems have taken heavy losses doing precisely this.

Point is, the idea that Russia was "supposed" to destroy all of Ukraines air assets in a few days is preposterous and the West simply supplied more anyways, and to attrit away everything the West can throw at Ukraine in this regard is obviously going to take time and a lot of various attritting activities, intelligence and also pitched battles with air defence systems.

I've posted the same Western reporting on the Nazis in Ukraine I think 4-5 times now. It's the same cycle, someone mentions the Nazis in Ukraine as mere Russian propaganda, I post the evidence based on Western reporting, and then no one wants to talk about it anymore.

Got through these videos and you will see what the concern is. — boethius

I watched your 4 out 5 videos (one is not available) and I couldn’t find what I expressly asked: your evidence to support the claims “they have no hesitation to explicitly say their goal is a war with Russia and to destroy Russia”, “their main goal (to Western journalists on camera) is starting a war with Russia that will destroy said Russia.”, “explicitly explaining to Western journalists that's what they want: a grand purifying war and destruction of Russia”.
So I’m still waiting for your source to support such claims.

Once faced with the evidence, the denialists will then say "well there's not enough Nazis!", but then refuse to answer the question of how many Nazis would be enough. It's a simple question, if I say "this isn't enough water to live on" presumably I have some standard in my head of what is enough water and could inform you that a thimble is not enough water but about 2 litres a day is a normal healthy amount (but may vary quite a bit depending on the conditions). — boethius

I doubt that you watched the videos you linked since one can find there many pertinent answers to what you have been asking to the denialists.
Take video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUgKTfe-IqA
At minute 9:39 the guy says “if you look at the electoral results of the far-right political parties in Ukraine, they actually only add up add up to 1.65% IN TOTAL, which is less than some INDIVIDUAL far-right parties in other European countries have achieved” and that doesn’t even reach the bar for obtaining any seats.
At minute 15:54, the guy answers to question about the scale of the Azov phenomenon as follows: “In absolute numbers, it’s a TINY TINY TINY of the Ukrainian population. None knows for sure, but I think the last reliable figures were about 2000 active fighters at any one time”, while the wider Azov movement is max 20k people.
At minute 12:32, the guy goes even so far to concede: “If there wasn’t a neo-nazi problem before this war, there might be afterwards”. So Putin’s war would be the reason why there is a neo-nazi problem for Ukraine that wasn’t there before the war.

The Ukrainian neo-nazi problem was such a non-problem that in Ukraine there is a Jewish president, there are Jews fighting in Azov Battalion and fighting against Russia for Ukraine:
https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-762000
https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/israeli-government-welcomes-azov-battalion-leader-as-honored-guest/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/senior-zelensky-adviser-40-jewish-heroes-fighting-in-mariupol-steel-plant/
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/ukraine-conflict/1651655303-russia-claims-israelis-fighting-alongside-azov-militants
https://genevasolutions.news/ukraine-stories/in-ukraine-jews-embrace-their-double-identity

Now, maybe there isn't and has never been enough Nazis in Ukraine that not-invading and destroying said Nazis would be the appeasement.

But, they're clearly there with quite a bit, even if "not enough" power, and it is foolish to dismiss their presence, goals and how they impact events, in both direct and indirect ways. — boethius

If you watched those videos you linked, the neo-nazi problem in Ukraine is never taken to be a problem primarily for Russia! But for the US and Europe given the international far-right network and far right terrorist attacks in the West. And more so for Ukraine itself after the war with Russia, because there is a chance that neo-nazi may fight against any peace agreements with Russia made by the Ukrainian government (as shown when they protested against Zelensky in 2021 https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-right-protesters-zelenskiy/31410694.html).
Notice also that even Prigozhin the leader of the Wagner Group questioned the nazi narrative of Putin: https://www.euronews.com/2023/03/24/wagner-boss-openly-defies-kremlin-ukraine-nazi-narrative

It's also important part of the conflict as it's simply giving Putin and the Kremlin immense propaganda wins. Russians don't squint their eyes and debate exactly what kind of runes we're looking at when they see obvious Nazis talking obvious Nazi shit.

Of course, simply because something is true doesn't mean it won't be used and exaggerated for propaganda purposes, and in this case it is a simple motivator that goes some way to explain why Russian troops didn't just run away from the battle field as they low morale and "didn't know why they're fighting" and other lines repeated by Western media. — boethius

The nazi problem which Russians lament is not a NAZI problem AT ALL. It has nothing to do with Nazi symbolism, antisemitism or white suprematism for the simple reason that the neo-nazi, white suprematists, far-right ideology and militia in Russia is not only bigger in volume wrt Ukraine (https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id-moe/09348.pdf, https://css.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/center-for-securities-studies/pdfs/RAD-135-10.-12.pdf, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1022970.pdf, https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/0/e/27072.pdf, https://www.foi.se/rest-api/report/FOI-R--2592--SE, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301232300_The_New_Russian_Nationalism_Imperialism_Ethnicity_and_Authoritarianism_2000-15) but WAY MORE influential abroad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managed_nationalism). Indeed, Putin and Russian ideologists (like Dugin) have been actively engaged in exporting and supporting such far right movements abroad (https://www.justsecurity.org/68420/confronting-russias-role-in-transnational-white-supremacist-extremism/).
Not surprisingly Russian neo-nazi militia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism_in_Russia#Groups) are the ones involved in Euromaiden and the conflict in Donbas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_separatist_forces_in_Ukraine, https://ukraineworld.org/en/articles/infowatch/russian-neo-nazi). I wrote a series of additional notes on this, starting from this post: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/882175
The problem for the Russians is not if Azov battalion is ideologically neo-nazi, but that they are "Russophobe"!

The actual Nazis are one thing, the perception of those Nazis by Russians and Putin and so on is another thing, and their discourse about said Nazis is still yet a third thing. Of course, how we know anything about reality is through our and other perception and discourse on those perceptions, in this case we can be confident of some degree of objectively confident view of the Nazis due to the reporting of credibly unbiased reporters that have no stake in the outcome of whether the Nazis are there or aren't there or what they are doing or not doing (a credibility that would be based on yet still more perceptions and discourse on those perceptions). — boethius

Yes, I can collect videos too:

This one's just adorable. — “boethius

As these ones:

I explain for over 2 years how to get the best outcome for Ukraine: diplomacy, using both economic incentives and the potential for continued violence (which even if devastating for Ukraine is still harmful for Russia and, most importantly, there's huge error bars on all sorts of processes and events at the start of the conflict, which must be priced into decision making) as leverage in that diplomacy, prevent tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of deaths, mass trauma and injuries, a large part of the entire youth of Ukraine permanently gone, retain as much territory as is viably possible ... and somehow I'm pro-Putin. — boethius

You keep framing things in a way that I find rather questionable.

To me, “the West” refers to a political strategic alliance between numerous democratic countries: there are conflicting agendas between Western countries and within Western countries. And Western governments have also changed over 20 years. Russia is one country, with a despotic regime that has been lasting for more than 20 years. Westerners likely care about not losing their standards of life more than Russians. Westerners can voice their discontent more often, more loudly, more widely than Russians and can be infiltrated by pro-Russian propaganda more than Russia can be infiltrated by pro-Western propaganda. Competing political/economic lobbies (including those financed/guided by foreign powers like Russia) can thrive and weaponise Western people’s discontent against any government. That’s why boosting military build-up, implement coherent/timely foreign policies over a long period of time and getting confrontational with a foreign foes, namely foreign policies that demand sacrifice to the nation are much more easy to enforce for Russia than for the West. In other words, the decision-making process and the political will in Western democracies is structurally more weak and vulnerable to international shocks, than in the authoritarian regimes.
So to the extent there was/is a Western failure to support Ukraine adequately this may have less to do with ethic of Western decision makers than with the structural problems of Western decision making as such. And what makes your argument still pro-Putin is again its hypocritical purpose of morally discrediting the West, even if the lack of resolve and cohesion in the West is not inherently immoral and it stems also from people like you whose prejudicial distrust over Western institutions amplifies lack of resolve and cohesion.

The tensions started in 2008 when NATO declared Ukraine and Georgia were on the path to NATO membership. Russia's first response was to invade Georgia. — boethius

Again it is insufficient and illogical to start viewing these conflicts from 2008.

Both Abkhazia and Southern Ossetia conflicts had started well before 2008. So again, it's far more proper to start with 1991-1992 South Ossetian war (and btw. there was in 1918-1920 a Georgian-Ossetian conflict with Ossetians siding with the Russian Bolsheviks). In Abkhazia the war was fought 1992-1993, where again the Russians supported the rebels.

The similar strategy seen in Moldova (Transnistria) and Ukraine (the Donbass) could be already seen here. When the pro-Russians insurgents were losing it, suddenly Russia intervened and put "peacekeepers" to make it a frozen conflict. Just like prior to 2022 invasion the Russian army came to help if the rebels were in trouble.

And this also questions your idea that all this started in 2008 and with NATO enlargement. It didn't start then. Just as it didn't start in 2008 with the attempts to make Crimea Russian. Those ideas started basically as early as Ukraine came independent. Far before the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. Only when Putin came to power started the annexations and wars after Putin had defeated the Chechens. For Putin, going to war had been a very successful endeavor until 2022 (as the last war he started is still ongoing).

The facts are NATO expands towards Russia all while referring to Russia as their "competitor" and "enemy" and so on, and Russia has been reacting to that expansion. — boethius

Again this delusional rhetoric from you. We've already have had this discussion.

It's very questionable from you to sideline the Partnership for Peace, the "new NATO" that focused in fighting terrorism, the Cold War being over, the various times of "resetting" the US-Russian relations done by George W Bush, Obama.

The critical pivot point was 2014 when there was a coup in Kiev and Russia annexed Crimea. — boethius

There was a very popular revolution in Ukraine, not a coup how ever you try to point out Nuland and others talking to the Ukrainians. And in your narrative you totally forget the important elections afterwards where the far right lost their seats in Parliament. That kind of example how Ukraine has improved it's democracy isn't good for your narrative. But great that you at least admit that Russia annexed Crimea. Not that Crimean people opted to join by referendum Russia after Crimean volunteers (who looked and still look like Russian VDV paratroopers and special forces) occupied the Crimean parliament and other installations.

We Finns did the exact opposite of Zelensky: we had a diplomatic plan and used military force as leverage to get the best deal feasible in the circumstances; a deal that was both a surrender and admitting culpability for the war and repaying massive reparations to the Soviet Union — boethius

Exactly the opposite? I disagree. Zelensky has tried actually to negotiate far more than Finns did. Ukraine is far larger than Finland and in a totally different situation. Besides, Finland didn't start peace negotiations in 1941, 1942 or 1943. And this is quite logical: when there's imminent collapse (in 1940) and a hopeless situation in 1944.

Ukraine's situation is not hopeless. Although Russian propaganda tries to promote this, just as the idea of Europe being "tired" of the war and ready to throw Ukraine under the bus.

So to the extent there was/is a Western failure to support Ukraine adequately this may have less to do with ethic of Western decision makers than with the structural problems of Western decision making as such. And what makes your argument still pro-Putin is again its hypocritical purpose of morally discrediting the West, even if the lack of resolve and cohesion in the West is not inherently immoral and it stems also from people like you whose prejudicial distrust over Western institutions amplifies lack of resolve and cohesion. — neomac

One of the basic problems is that there isn't similar case like Ukraine when the West has supported one side in an conflict or had it's own conflicts. Invasion of Iraq was quite dubious, done with false arguments and little understanding of how unstable Iraq was. Yugoslavian civil war was indeed a civil war. And Serbia shows that even if Serbians ousted Milosevic, they weren't at all happy with the US after NATO had bombed their country. Yet the assault on Ukraine 2022 is a clear cut example of one country attacking another with Putin giving even more delusional arguments (neonazis controlling Ukraine and hence a denazification of Ukraine) than the WMD argument for invading Iraq.

What we should note is that if Putin would have opted just for Crimea and not tried to instill revolution in all Russian areas (which didn't happen in Kharkiv or Odessa, but only in the Donbass), it might have worked. We could have been fine with that as Europe was already at easy with a "frozen conflict" in Ukraine. Yet February 24th 2022 changed all that. Now it's quite simple.

Yet some have this idea of "forever wars" and want to see it totally differently with the US as the perpetrator of the war. It starts with just focusing on the West or on the US and then not thinking of anyone else being an independent agent with their own objectives. Hence all the flak against Ukraine, when actually there rarely is a more simple case for supporting a country against it's aggressor. Ukraine is fighting for us.

[...] Putin and Russian ideologists (like Dugin) have been actively engaged in exporting and supporting such far right movements abroad (https://www.justsecurity.org/68420/confronting-russias-role-in-transnational-white-supremacist-extremism/).
Not surprisingly Russian neo-nazi militia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism_in_Russia#Groups) are the ones involved in Euromaiden and the conflict in Donbas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_separatist_forces_in_Ukraine). — neomac

And the invading Russians have installed people they allegedly sought to do away with. For that matter, Kadyrov's Chechnya resembles Nazi rule noticeably more.

But their Nazi thing is a great (rabble-rousing) rhetorical/propaganda device (like sort of extending The Great Patriotic War), and that's what it is here, bullshit or lying, ready to get picked up by others. How do you talk with someone who doesn't care about truth? Maybe that's why Kyiv cut lines to Moscow.

From memory, this campaign of theirs started also accusing other countries of Nazism, sometimes covertly (e.g. university campuses), but they didn't continue like for Ukraine.

2024 voting in occupied Ukraine:

_{Russians bring in security forces for sham presidential elections in Ukraine's occupied territories
^{— Tetyana Oliynyk · Ukrainska Pravda · Feb 28, 2024}
Russia increases police and military presence in occupied Ukrainian territories ahead of sham presidential ‘elections’ - NRC
^{— Alla Shcherbak · The New Voice of Ukraine · Mar 3, 2024}
What to know about Russia’s presidential election, set to give Putin another six-year term
^{— Katie Marie Davis, Dasha Litvinova · AP · Mar 10, 2024}
On Russian TV ahead of the election, there’s only one program: Putin’s
^{— Emma Burrows · AP · Mar 11, 2024}
Moscow 'to falsify' votes in occupied Ukrainian regions
^{— Oleksandra Vakulina · Euronews · Mar 11, 2024}
Ukraine-based Russian armed groups claim raids into Russia
^{— Jaroslav Lukiv · BBC · Mar 12, 2024}
Occupied Ukraine encouraged to vote in Russian election by armed men
^{— Vitaly Shevchenko · BBC · Mar 13, 2024}
Viewpoint: Russian authorities seek strong election showing for Putin
^{— Jonathan House · GZERO · Mar 13, 2024}
Russia's 2024 presidential election: What is at stake and what is not
^{— Caprile Anna · European Parliament · Mar 13, 2024}
UK intelligence explains how residents of temporarily occupied territories are forced to vote for Putin
^{— European/Ukrainska Pravda · Mar 13, 2024}}

Your mileage may vary. The articles are by and large consistent, though. And the Kremlin denies transparency / independent monitoring. I'd like to have seen Duntsova with a strong open free campaign, coverage, country-wide.

One of the basic problems is that there isn't similar case like Ukraine when the West has supported one side in an conflict or had it's own conflicts. Invasion of Iraq was quite dubious, done with false arguments and little understanding of how unstable Iraq was. Yugoslavian civil war was indeed a civil war. And Serbia shows that even if Serbians ousted Milosevic, they weren't at all happy with the US after NATO had bombed their country. Yet the assault on Ukraine 2022 is a clear cut example of one country attacking another with Putin giving even more delusional arguments (neonazis controlling Ukraine and hence a denazification of Ukraine) than the WMD argument for invading Iraq. — ssu

Among other issues, there is one which I find philosophically deep and troublesome: namely, the notion of sovereignty as it is shaped by the Westphalian system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_system)

What we should note is that if Putin would have opted just for Crimea and not tried to instill revolution in all Russian areas (which didn't happen in Kharkiv or Odessa, but only in the Donbass), it might have worked. We could have been fine with that as Europe was already at easy with a "frozen conflict" in Ukraine. Yet February 24th 2022 changed all that. Now it's quite simple. — ssu

That sounds about right. BTW how are the Finns taking the recent Russian threats: https://www.deccanherald.com/world/putin-says-russia-will-deploy-troops-to-finlands-border-now-it-is-in-nato-ria-reports-2935190 ?

And the invading Russians have installed people they allegedly sought to do away with. — jorndoe

:up:

But their Nazi thing is a great (rabble-rousing) rhetorical/propaganda device (like sort of extending The Great Patriotic War), — jorndoe

Yes the Russian forget to mention that before the Great Patriotic war there was:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact
And that during the Great Patriotic war "while millions of Ukrainians fought against the Nazis as part of the Red Army during WWII, approximately 250,000 Ukrainians joined the German forces and participated in the Holocaust and other German atrocities."
https://origins.osu.edu/read/living-ghosts-second-world-war-and-russian-invasion-ukraine?language_content_entity=en
Not to mention, that there was a comparable number of Russian collaborationists of the Nazis:
https://www.feldgrau.com/WW2-German-Wehrmacht-Russian-Volunteers/

Among other issues, there is one which I find philosophically deep and troublesome: namely, the notion of sovereignty as it is shaped by the Westphalian system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_system) — neomac

The Westphalian system is the backbone of the international order. Or it should be. Here many would point out how much the sovereignty is breached by the US and the West. I think the simple fact is here that when a sovereign state loses or is incapacitated from securing it's borders, other sovereign states morph into vultures around it. Perhaps they aren't interested in the country itself, but they are interested if other nations try to get a hold in them. There are some many examples of this: Yemen, DRC, Libya etc. Especially what is worrisome that in the case of the Libyan civil war, the backers of different sides ought have to been allies! This is very damaging to the US as it's so-called allies don't act in a cohesive way, but against another. Luckily the situation in Ukraine is still clear and simple and Western Europe is committed to the support of Ukraine. The real question is the US.

BTW how are the Finns taking the recent Russian threats: — neomac

Well, the border has been quite empty from Russian froops since 2022 for some reason. Finns were more worried about the refugee swarms, but that seems to have calmed down. There wasn't any confusion this time as Russia had already used the approach (sending refugees and migrants to the border) years ago. Then people didn't understand what was happening. Now they did and simply closed the border.

Again it is insufficient and illogical to start viewing these conflicts from 2008.

Both Abkhazia and Southern Ossetia conflicts had started well before 2008. So again, it's far more proper to start with 1991-1992 South Ossetian war (and btw. there was in 1918-1920 a Georgian-Ossetian conflict with Ossetians siding with the Russian Bolsheviks). In Abkhazia the war was fought 1992-1993, where again the Russians supported the rebels.

The similar strategy seen in Moldova (Transnistria) and Ukraine (the Donbass) could be already seen here. When the pro-Russians insurgents were losing it, suddenly Russia intervened and put "peacekeepers" to make it a frozen conflict. Just like prior to 2022 invasion the Russian army came to help if the rebels were in trouble. — ssu

Well these other pre-2008 things are not really vis-a-vis Ukraine, it's seems closer to reading tea leaves.

Of course there's a historical context and lot's of things relevant before 2008, but that definitely seems the pivot point that changed the status quo with respect to both Georgia and also Ukraine. Merkel literally warned her American colleagues that Putin would interpret the intention to expand into Ukraine as a declaration of war.

And again, I'm not arguing some sort of contra-positive that for sure Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if there was no push or "pretend push because we're doing something we somehow also know and everyone knows we're not going to do" of NATO into Ukraine.

I'm arguing that if Putin had designs on Ukraine since 1999 or even 1991 or even before for that matter, that NATO expansion played into his designs and provided him the pretext to consolidate domestic support. Russia had become pretty integrated with the West by 2008, so it's a "easy thing" to just up and invade Ukraine and upset the applecart. If there was no reason to do so there was a lot of business and money in dealing with the West so it would be a difficult sell to other Russian elites as well as the public.

Again this delusional rhetoric from you. We've already have had this discussion.

It's very questionable from you to sideline the Partnership for Peace, the "new NATO" that focused in fighting terrorism, the Cold War being over, the various times of "resetting" the US-Russian relations done by George W Bush, Obama. — ssu

True, we have had this conversation before and it's always the same total at-odds. It's honestly bizarre the idea that Russia should view NATO as just a force for peace and stability and is good for Russia.

... And you're arguing here that Russia actually does view Russia that way.

Obviously they don't.

The US has literally codified Russia as an official state "adversary" and they have all sorts of books and papers by policy makers completely dedicated to the topic of avoiding peer competitors, even regional, arising anywhere as their singular obsession.

The US, via NATO, has done all sorts of offensive military actions. Even if you really did believe it was all out of the "goodness of their heart" it's honestly baffling the idea that the Russians not only should but do also see it that way.

There was a very popular revolution in Ukraine, not a coup how ever you try to point out Nuland and others talking to the Ukrainians. And in your narrative you totally forget the important elections afterwards where the far right lost their seats in Parliament. That kind of example how Ukraine has improved it's democracy isn't good for your narrative. But great that you at least admit that Russia annexed Crimea. Not that Crimean people opted to join by referendum Russia after Crimean volunteers (who looked and still look like Russian VDV paratroopers and special forces) occupied the Crimean parliament and other installations. — ssu

First, how do we know what a populate revolution is without elections?

Oh yeah, it's whatever we say is popular.

Second, a coup is still a coup even if popular.

Exactly the opposite? I disagree. Zelensky has tried actually to negotiate far more than Finns did. Ukraine is far larger than Finland and in a totally different situation. Besides, Finland didn't start peace negotiations in 1941, 1942 or 1943. And this is quite logical: when there's imminent collapse (in 1940) and a hopeless situation in 1944. — ssu

The idea Zelensky has tried to negotiate more than the Finns in the Winter War (what I was talking about) is completely absurd. In the Continuation War of course the "main thing" is the battle between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and Finland is largely a bystander.

I don't have much time now, but I do have time I'll write down some citations of historians on the Finns negotiation strategy in the Winter War and then likewise the Continuation War.

A little spoiler, the Finns never make declarations like they'll only negotiate after the Soviets Withdraw their forces or then "Stalin could end the war any day he wants" and so on.

As these ones: — neomac

Yeah sure you can equate Ukrainian Nazi indoctrination with Russian nationalist Neo-Tzarism or whatever you want to call it.

The point of my argument and the evidence that supports it is not "Ukraine bad! Russia good!"

The point of the argument is that the West supporting the Nazi groups in Ukraine is at best handing an amazing propaganda victory and reason for war to Putin and the Kremlin and at worst are far more powerful than the West realizes and these groups will successfully execute a coup.

And who are the Russians that would be predisposed to a war to regain territory anyways? The Russian nationalists! So is making an equivalence with Russian nationalists going to convince Russian nationalists that the Nazis in Ukraine are fine? Obviously not.

It matters only for Western propaganda that first the Nazis in Ukraine are denied they even exist, and then once that's untenable to just wish-wash it away with "oh there's Nazis everywhere" and when that doesn't actually work because there simply aren't similar groups everywhere then ending finally with "well Russia also has extreme Nationalism too".

If we're concerned about the real world, then what effect these Nazis have is providing a convincing reasons for Russia to fight in Ukraine. Now, if you want Russia to invade Ukraine then supporting the Nazi factions is definitely something you would do. If you don't want Russia to invade Ukraine or if they do you want Russian soldiers to more likely have actual morale problems then you'd want to suppress these Nazi groups and make it clear they aren't the "West's boyz".

The other problem with equating Ukraine to Russia as an argument to defend Ukraine is that just begs the question of why we're on Ukraine's side. Ok, Ukrainian nationalism is as problematic, bad and out of control as Russian nationalism ... so why are we supporting Ukraine again? Seems at best a coin flip, but Russia has more resources so probably more practical to just side with them in this scenario, if we had to pick sides.

Anyways, you asked for my sources to backup my claims, I understand by your moving the topic to Russian nationalists that you accept said sources do indeed lend sufficient reason to my claims.

Medvedev is a top official, but comes through like a rambling comedian these days. He wasn't always, so what happened anyway? (Here's a detailed story from Jun 27, 2023.) Back on Jul 27, 2022, he posted the Kremlin's plan for Ukraine according to him: ^{ERRATA below}

Before "the special military operation":



And after:



Ukraine left as a small region around Kyiv, Russia having absorbed most, the rest divided between Poland and Romania, with a small snack for Hungary. At least Moldova is untouched (until further notice). On Dec 19, 2023, Putin suggested something similar. Well, anti-Ukraine rhetoric is easy enough to find, especially (but not always) from the Kremlin circle. I suppose, if those other countries can be turned against Ukraine, then who knows? A week prior:

Now the geography is different, it's far from being just the DPR and LPR, it's also Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions and a number of other territories. This process is continuing logically and persistently. — Lavrov (Jul 20, 2022)

On Mar 4, 2024, he presented the same maps again at the Russian 2024 World Festival of Youth in front of a large audience, held just south of Sochi. (By the way, a somewhat similar map was posted on Mar 24, 2022 by the late Illia Kyva.)

Ukraine certainly is Russia — Medvedev (Mar 4, 2024)

Whatever one makes of it, some analysts have commented. The irredentist rhetoric has been seen on many occasions by now. There is sort of a consistency here, whether calculated for intimidation, plain propaganda, or more.

ERRATA (thanks ):

In the brain of the President of Ukraine, damaged by psychotropic substances, the following picture of the bright future of his country arose (Fig. 1).
Western analysts believe that this will actually be the case (Fig. 2). — Medvedev

Well these other pre-2008 things are not really vis-a-vis Ukraine, it's seems closer to reading tea leaves. — boethius

On the contrary, they show what Russian foreign policy in it's near abroad is like. And shows the reason why the Eastern European countries especially the Baltic countries wanted to join NATO and were quite correct in joining NATO.

I'm arguing that if Putin had designs on Ukraine since 1999 or even 1991 or even before for that matter, that NATO expansion played into his designs and provided him the pretext to consolidate domestic support. — boethius

(Before 1991 you did have the Empire intact with the Soviet Union.)

Boethius, nobody is contradicting you here. I think everybody agrees with this. I've stated myself years ago before 2014 that NATO enlargement was the threat number 1. in Russian military doctrine.

If there was no reason to do so there was a lot of business and money in dealing with the West so it would be a difficult sell to other Russian elites as well as the public. — boethius

Putin doesn't care about international business and economics. That has been obvious for quite a while. He has made his career from starting wars, actually. I think he is quite happy place with Russia transforming to a war-state.

The idea Zelensky has tried to negotiate more than the Finns in the Winter War (what I was talking about) is completely absurd. — boethius

Well, Russia didn't start talks about aquiring parts of Ukraine as in the case of Stalin with Finland, if that is your point. But otherwise it's quite different. The Finns didn't start negotiations with Russians in the start of the Winter War, only when the military situation was desperate. Just ask yourself then: when did the Finns have negotiations with Russians in 1941, 1942 or 1943? Zelensky has tried negotiate with the Russians, several times. In fact, his campaign for the Ukrainian presidency started with trying to negotiate with the Russians, which he attempted before the Russian invasion. So your comment is very absurd, the typical Ukraine bashing we hear from you.

Back on Jul 27, 2022, he posted the Kremlin's plan for Ukraine according to him: — jorndoe

Correction, do note it's not the "Kremlins plan" what he says:

(by Google translate): In the brain of the President of Ukraine, damaged by psychotropic substances, the following picture of the bright future of his country arose (Fig. 1).
Western analysts believe that this will actually be the case (Fig. 2).

Which still is extremely delusional. Haven't heard anyone in the West purposing that Poland, even Romania, would take large parts of Ukraine. The only theoretical discussion has been about Moldova and Romania, which share a lot.

It just shows the thinking of the Kremlin of how borders can be so easily changed. Or simply the media tactic of confusing Russians themselves.

The point of the argument is that the West supporting the Nazi groups in Ukraine is at best handing an amazing propaganda victory and reason for war to Putin and the Kremlin and at worst are far more powerful than the West realizes and these groups will successfully execute a coup. — boethius

And who are the Russians that would be predisposed to a war to regain territory anyways? The Russian nationalists! So is making an equivalence with Russian nationalists going to convince Russian nationalists that the Nazis in Ukraine are fine? Obviously not. — boethius

It matters only for Western propaganda that first the Nazis in Ukraine are denied they even exist, and then once that's untenable to just wish-wash it away with "oh there's Nazis everywhere" and when that doesn't actually work because there simply aren't similar groups everywhere then ending finally with "well Russia also has extreme Nationalism too”. — “boethius

As far as the propaganda battle is concerned, I made my arguments already. For each propaganda there is a counter-propaganda. However the circumstances for playing pro-Russian vs pro-Western propaganda are asymmetric: 1) Western propaganda can not reach Russian audience as easily, deeply and widely as the Russian propaganda can reach the West. And politics shouldn’t adapt to propaganda needs but the other way around. To that extent, it’s not much the Western politicians that are “handing” easy propaganda exploits, but Western democracy as such. Unfortunately to counter attempts at exploiting the democratic system against itself by authoritarian regimes, Western politicians will be compelled to sacrifice democracy to preserve national stability (either in pro-Russian or anti-Russian vain), that’s the price to pay for supporting authoritarian regime’s propaganda in the West. 2) The neo-nazi component in the Ukrainian society doesn’t threaten Western interest as much as Russian imperialism does (indeed, the war started by Russian neo-nazi and imperialist militia), while the Ukrainian neo-nazis couldn’t reasonably be an actual or incumbent offensive threat to Russia (as the pro-Russian argument might go, if hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian combatants do not stand a chance to win the Russian war machine despite the Western support, that’s even more true for 20k neo-nazi combatants with even less Western support). Besides the Ukrainian neo-nazi fringe due to the war against Russia and their exposure to Westernisation (prospects of joining Europe and NATO) declined in political relevance, ideological influence, number of combatants within Ukraine. And if there is a risk for their resurgence, as your video suggests, this is due to Putin’s war against Ukraine and if Putin wins. This could be one more reason why the West may be compelled to not only support the Ukrainian resistance against Putin but also refuse to recognise Putin’s annexations.

If we're concerned about the real world, then what effect these Nazis have is providing a convincing reasons for Russia to fight in Ukraine. Now, if you want Russia to invade Ukraine then supporting the Nazi factions is definitely something you would do. If you don't want Russia to invade Ukraine or if they do you want Russian soldiers to more likely have actual morale problems then you'd want to suppress these Nazi groups and make it clear they aren't the "West's boyz”. — boethius

Russia invaded Ukraine prior to any Western military support to Ukraine and independently from any neo-nazi narrative, since the Russian imperialist and neo-nazi militia wanted to take back Donbas and Crimea before the Westernisation of Ukraine could happen. After the end of the Cold War, the neo-nazi movements and network which raised everywhere in the US, Europe and Russia under the threat of liberal globalization and islamic jihadism, weren’t a specific issue of Ukraine, nor a specific problem for Russia (e.g. Ukrainian neo-nazis were against Ukrainian political corruption and jewish power everywhere, from West to East Ukraine, from North to South Ukraine). On the other side, Ukrainian anti-Russian nationalism has been always a problem for Russian imperialists, and it proceeded the competition between the US and Russia during and after the Cold War. The Euromaidan (in which pro-Russian far-right hooligans plaid a relevant role in the ignition of violent suppression https://khpg.org/1385933116) were the occasion for a split of the Ukrainian neo-nazi groups between pro-Russian (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Gubarev) and anti-Russian (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andriy_Biletsky), and a convergence between historical Ukrainian anti-Russian nationalism and Ukrainian neo-nazi militia (BTW notice that “most of the unit's members are Russian speakers from Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Brigade).
In other words, we are talking about a phenomenon indigenous to Ukraine which pre-existed the Western support. And Western propaganda can’t do much to influence the Russian people because Putin is the one who runs the propaganda in Russia. So there is no point in prioritising the purging of a “tiny tiny tiny” group of Ukrainian neo-nazis over the fight against the Russians, also because they are good fighters (likely, they will be the first ones to die on the front) and exposition to Westernization could have been enough to domesticate them, as it arguably happened to some extent.
All I can concede is that the “denazification” narrative may have looked a smart propaganda move from Putin’s perspective to persuade his people about the “special military operation” to the extent his people were/are receptive to Russian propaganda because: 1) liberal Russians reject nazism for ideological reasons 2) non-Russian minorities in Russia hate neo-nazis because they are victim of their violence 3) the Russian old generation hates neo-nazis because they remind them of WW2 and the great patriotic war 4) Russian imperialists and neo-nazis are enemies Ukrainian neo-nazis because they resist Russian hegemony in Ukraine.
Talking about “denazification” could also be smartly exploited to appeal to Westerners harbouring anti-American feelings for whatever reason, because Ukrainian neo-nazis may serve American interest.
However, I wouldn’t overstate the importance of the denazification propaganda for the Russians either, for many reasons: 1. Putin and his circle seem to play the denazification narrative depending on the conflict evolution, like the nuclear threat, so the denazification narrative seems more a means than a goal 2. Russians at large are claimed to be more depoliticised wrt war than politically committed (https://russiapost.info/society/passive) 3. Russian private militia do not seem to rely on the neonazi narrative (see Girkin or Pregozhin) 4. Why should a Russian caucasian soldier give a shit about a genocide of ethnic Russians by a Ukrainian neo-nazis after all, since they were victims of RUSSIAN neo-nazis’ violence (https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/russian-neo-nazis-strike-again-right-wing-execution-video-under-investigation-a-500053.html)?

The other problem with equating Ukraine to Russia as an argument to defend Ukraine is that just begs the question of why we're on Ukraine's side. Ok, Ukrainian nationalism is as problematic, bad and out of control as Russian nationalism ... so why are we supporting Ukraine again? Seems at best a coin flip, but Russia has more resources so probably more practical to just side with them in this scenario, if we had to pick sides. — boethius

The West is compelled to support Ukraine, because Russia is fighting against the West, while Ukraine is fighting for Westernization. Besides, as I argued elsewhere while the war in Ukraine it’s a fight for hegemony for the US, for the Europeans it’s rather a fight for preserving functional democratic institutions and averting the risk of bringing the hegemonic fight inside Europe.
In addition to security concerns, there are some strategic commodities which Ukraine can bring to Europe (https://visitukraine.today/blog/1783/only-ukraine-has-this-the-uniqueness-of-our-land-and-its-importance-for-the-whole-world).

Anyways, you asked for my sources to backup my claims, I understand by your moving the topic to Russian nationalists that you accept said sources do indeed lend sufficient reason to my claims. — boethius

Well I asked something specific [1], you didn’t provide the source I asked yet. While the sources you provided so far support your views significantly less than you seem to realise. In any case, my conclusion is that your sources do not lend sufficient reason to your claims, as I argued after taking into account the wider historical and geopolitical context.




[1]

“such as nazi groups doing their best in the Donbas to trigger the current larger war, and explicitly explaining to Western journalists that's what they want: a grand purifying war and destruction of Russia ... and then Berlin!”

“Many of the factions supporting these provocative policies vis-a-vis Russia had no qualms of explicitly stating their main goal (to Western journalists on camera) is starting a war with Russia that will destroy said Russia.”

“The Nazi's are definitely there in Ukraine (I am happy to re-post all those Western journalist documenting it) and are definitely a problem (mainly for Ukraine). They are also a genuine security concern for Russia (as they have no hesitation to explicitly say their goal is a war with Russia and to destroy Russia”

Can you link your source?

So, how to not "provoke" the Kremlin (and North Korea)? I guess it depends on their plans...?

No military (or related change/activity) in the vicinity, whether reactionary or not? I.e. lower defenses because they're offenses...?

Nothing toward democracy freedom humanitarianism all that, no pressure, no sanctions, no frozen assets — that's all propaganda, meddling, illegal, interference, provocation. Free reins (or "blindness") would presumably not provoke. (Though I'm not quite sure what Kim Jong Un would do with that.)

As to the Kremlin and Ukraine: no Ukrainian defense to speak of. Alternatively, capitulation.

As to North Korea, while not shy about nuclear tests and shooting missiles, it seems just about anything (sometimes nothing in particular) elicits an angry response.


What's the Kremlin circle been up to? Some strategic steps to undermine democracy and extend geographically, well-known to history:

• attain (political) power by intimidation (Pompey used military)
• manipulate popular support, achieve cult status (check Caesar)
• marginalize government bodies (Augustus sidelined the Senate)
• gain control of judiciary, fix courts (per Banno)
• seize and constrain communication (media), employ in service

▸ geopolitically divide et impera
▸ instigate conflicts and alter economy accordingly

How much of such like has the Kremlin circle accomplished? (Putin, Patrushev, Bortnikov, others.) A decades-long coup?

Haven't heard anyone in the West purposing that Poland, even Romania, would take large parts of Ukraine — ssu

Yeah, I don't get it... It's...random... Like plucked out of the thin air...

I guess this has become a part of everyday life in Kyiv:

This Kyiv florist captured a missile attack on CCTV (— Anastasiia Shulha · Reuters via CBC · Mar 21, 2024 · 42s)

... Busy traffic on the street in the background.

Reminds me a bit of some radio stations during the 2nd world war:

Reporters Without Borders launch satellite to reach Russian-speaking territories (— Euronews · Mar 22, 2024) | via RSF/RWB

Coverage: Russia, the Baltics, occupied territories of Ukraine. Will satellite dishes be banned by the Kremlin?

There have been several reports on this stuff by now:

Deportation and re-education: life in Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine (— Shaun Walker, Pjotr Sauer · The Guardian · Mar 6, 2024)
UK Defence Intelligence: Russia may be preparing to deport residents of occupied territories of Ukraine (— European/Ukrainska Pravda · Mar 11, 2024)

Development?

After over two years of fighting, the Kremlin has finally come to the conclusion that it's actually fighting a war in Ukraine.

The admission marks an escalation in official language used to describe the conflict, which the Kremlin initially referred to as a "special military operation".

"Yes, it started as a special military operation, but as soon as this bunch was formed there, when the collective West became a participant on Ukraine's side, for us it already became a war," Peskov said.

Naturally that this is the way the Cold War usually was fought in Vietnam, Afghanistan and other places hasn't yet naturally been officially recognized by the Kremlin.

, maybe they're seeking to justify whatever military endeavors and changes to the economy.
Could also help take domestic minds off Putin having seized power seemingly indefinitely.
^{(↑ straightforward and plausible anyway, conspiracy theorists might even say something like this was their plan all along)}


A Russian friend of a friend living in France, about two years back...

Every morning I wake up before Anton and reach for my phone to watch the news. When Anton opens one eye, the first thing I report is: Kyiv is standing, Zelensky is alive. — Anna Frid · Mar 15, 2022

... Kyiv/Zelenskyy being representative against the Gremlin I think.

Vladislav Inozemtsev lives life on the edge. Kremlin critique can be unhealthy. :) He's not far off the mark.

Reflexive control came up again in ISW's analyses. Dis/mal/misinformation, manipulation, get others to speak the Kremlin's case, in addition to the shooting and bombing, are parts of their multipronged campaigns. By the way, the article seems to run contrary to some posters.

Denying Russia’s Only Strategy for Success
^{— Nataliya Bugayova, Frederick W Kagan, Kateryna Stepanenko · ISW · Mar 27, 2024}

Russia cannot defeat Ukraine or the West - and will likely lose - if the West mobilizes its resources to resist the Kremlin. The West’s existing and latent capability dwarfs that of Russia.

The notion that the war is unwinnable because of Russia’s dominance is a Russian information operation, which gives us a glimpse of the Kremlin’s real strategy and only real hope of success.

The Russian strategy that matters most, therefore, is not Moscow’s warfighting strategy, but rather the Kremlin’s strategy to cause us to see the world as it wishes us to see it and make decisions in that Kremlin-generated alternative reality that will allow Russia to win in the real world.

Using the term "the West" like so suggests a homogeneity that's not quite there as of typing, though — incidentally, perhaps due to reflexive control and all that in part. They conclude the article with some strategies against the Kremlin.

EDIT typo, minor updates

It's really about influencing the American politicians that think the war can be negotiated to an end by not giving support to Ukraine. So basically Putin is pinning his hopes on people like Matt Gaetz and the like.

And this of course resonates to an audience that simply sums up everything that the US supports as "forever wars" that are basically destined to fail and enthusiastically devours Russian propaganda.

Ukraine should agree to a negotiated settlement before they lose more land. What a shame it didn’t happen years ago. So many lives could have been saved.

It’s frustrating that Russia will win this and seemingly get away with an illegal invasion. I feel for the Ukrainian people being caught up in this proxy war.

Even though the nature of the Moscow terror attack remains ambiguous, it appears now that Turkey is throwing the US under the bus.

Two of the terrorists had visited Istanbul prior to the attack, and it seems Turkey may be looking to exonerate itself by cooperating with the Russian investigation.

Senior Turkish official Ömer Çelik stated the terror attack could have only been carried out with help of a foreign nation, by which he is clearly suggesting that a nation other than Turkey was involved, and well, there aren't many candidates to choose from.

If it turns out the US was involved in this attack, and I honestly find that quite plausible (even though it's far from certain what happened), we are looking at a new low in western foreign politics - an all-time low, perhaps - and it would be further evidence that the United States is looking to escalate the conflict.


I would stress that given Turkey's relatively neutral position between NATO and Russia, it would be very hard to imagine Turkey having been involved, or trying to falsely accuse its military allies. Therefore I think there is some weight to this statement by the senior Turkish official.

On the contrary, they show what Russian foreign policy in it's near abroad is like. And shows the reason why the Eastern European countries especially the Baltic countries wanted to join NATO and were quite correct in joining NATO. — ssu

The problem with Ukraine in NATO is that Ukraine has not been let into NATO.

If you're point is Russia, being an empire, will seek dominate where it can (where it does being its "sphere of influence") its expand when it can: sure, obviously, but that's exactly my point that given Russia's propensity to expand, playing footsie with Ukraine and supporting the Nazis there is just inviting and providing the pretext Russia would need to sell to its own population and its partners and non-Western countries that's invasion is reasonable (which it has successfully done, and Western hypocrisy is excellent diplomatic leverage outside the West, because no one likes hypocrites).

Now, if you want to say "well maybe Ukraine did have a lot of Nazis, concerning amount anyways, and tolerated and armed those Nazis, and the West did too, and maybe they were waging war against Russian speakers in the Donbas, but still!! Innocent virgin that doesn't deserve to be invaded!!" again, even if that's true, just a damsel in distress (which definitely implies, to me anyways, not so much agency, but maybe you mean that argument in a more woke modern way than how I read it), we've provided excellent propaganda material to Russia that materially helps it execute on its expansionist ambitions, and, more importantly, have no means to deterring Russia from doing so.

Ok, "Russia bad" ... what exactly can we do about that?

A reasonable answer to that question is not "Russia bad!!"

(Before 1991 you did have the Empire intact with the Soviet Union.)

Boethius, nobody is contradicting you here. I think everybody agrees with this. I've stated myself years ago before 2014 that NATO enlargement was the threat number 1. in Russian military doctrine. — ssu

Well I'm contradicting it. It could be true that Putin "lured NATO in" not so close that it's a "real problem" (the Baltics being small and unimportant countries with basically resources) but close enough to provide pretext to take what is practical to take. It's possible. There's just no evidence for it.

US also does all sorts of interference and invasions as a general rule of being an empire, but that doesn't establish they are therefore behind everything, as you've pointed out many times. You need more than just the "character of imperialism" as evidence Putin and other Russian elites had some sort of elaborate plan to always appear reacting to what NATO does, but actually NATO was dancing to their tune all along. It's a far fetched theory with zero evidence (requiring believing things like Nord Stream was built with the secret intention of being bait for the US to blow up, not as a basis for peaceful and mutually beneficial relations), but sure, could be true, in which case what does that establish? Just that Russians are far better strategists and NATO dances to the Russian tune and maybe NATO should stop doing that, as the corollary is that we're still playing into the Russian hand, still dancing that Russian jig on command.

Putin doesn't care about international business and economics. That has been obvious for quite a while. He has made his career from starting wars, actually. I think he is quite happy place with Russia transforming to a war-state. — ssu

He obviously does as business and economics is what funds wars.

Without the diplomatic leverage, such as NATO clearly trying to encroach to one of Russia's most massive and most vulnerable borders, it may not have been diplomatically possible to just randomly invade Ukraine, as other countries wouldn't "get it".

The Finns didn't start negotiations with Russians in the start of the Winter War, only when the military situation was desperate. — ssu

I don't have the time right now to transcribe all the relevant citations, but I'll try to do so in the next few days.

Actual historians very much disagree with your view.

Had Ukraine accepted the peace deal on offer at the start of the war, then there would be a parallel following Finland on the key points: accepting no way to win, accepting loss of territory, based on sober realism that it's the best outcome against a far superior opponent.

What Ukraine does is the complete opposite of the Finnish military and diplomatic strategy, and completely unrealistic.

Now, if you want to say "well maybe Ukraine did have a lot of Nazis, concerning amount anyways, and tolerated and armed those Nazis, and the West did too, and maybe they were waging war against Russian speakers in the Donbas, but still!! — boethius

Hum...
Paradoxically—at least for purveyors of Kremlin propaganda, which holds that Ukrainians have been oppressing ethnic Russians—most Azov members are in fact Russian speakers and disproportionally hail from the Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/defenders-of-mariupol-azov

About Andriy Biletsky, founder of the Azov Battallion:
A native Russian speaker born in the predominantly Russian-speaking city of Kharkiv, Mr Biletsky refused to identify himself as a neo-Nazi instead preferring to call himself a Ukrainian nationalist - but some of his public statements speak for themselves.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/03/18/inside-azov-neo-nazi-brigade-killing-russian-generals-playing/

we've provided excellent propaganda material to Russia that materially helps it execute on its expansionist ambitions — boethius

The West can’t reasonably troubleshoot everything the Russian can use as a pretext. They do not lack creativity and can literally spin anything in their media (as we have seen, the Isis-K terrorist attack is readily associated to Ukraine, and do you remember the "bioweapons labs" in Ukraine?), while the West can’t do much about it no matter what it does (https://thehill.com/policy/defense/380483-congress-bans-arms-to-controversial-ukrainian-militia-linked-to-neo-nazis/) nor Ukraine (https://www.voanews.com/a/ukraine-parliament-adopts-law-on-self-rule-for-eastern-region/2451232.html, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/azov-battalion-drops-neo-nazi-symbol-exploited-by-russian-propagandists-lpjnsp7qg).
Besides, if we’ve provided excellent propaganda material to Russia, you should most certainly agree that “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault”, “How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline”, “The War in Ukraine Was Provoked” are also excellent propaganda material provided to Russia by the West.