Ukraine Crisis

boethius

They view Russia through a lens of unending cynicism (and I would argue that is reasonably appropriate), but fail to realise America functions in exactly the same way. — Tzeentch

Well, there is one important difference in that the US is actually participating in a real genuine genocide right now, whereas it's only imagined that Putin is Hitler and Russia is carrying out a genocide.

So, the equivalence only goes so far.

neomac

Again with your piece of pro-Russian propaganda? — neomac

You're responding to a simple statement of fact.

So obviously the Kremlin believed it was their business, and whether you agree with that or not, if you do not take warnings like these seriously, you're a fool, or you're the United States preparing to sacrifice a pawn. — Tzeentch — boethius

More loaded than simple. The framing is suggesting a questionable alternative: either Westerners didn’t take the Russian warnings seriously or they were serving the evil US at the expense of the Ukrainians. Unfortunately neither Ukrainians were pawns (the image is used to stress that Ukrainians have no agency like mechanical puppets or are just gullible/corrupted) nor the Russian warnings have been disregarded (indeed, Russian warnings HAVE BEEN TAKEN SERIOUSLY, if that means act in accordance to Russia’s demand DO NOT LET UKRAINE JOIN NATO and Ukraine never joined NATO until now, also Ukraine remained neutral by constitution and popular support until the occupation of Crimea, and yet the EUROPEANS WERE RELUCTANT TO COUNTER RUSSIA, even then, that’s how seriously they took the Russian warnings [1]). The further questionable implicature is that the US is the evil mastermind exploiting Ukrainians to aggress Russia. Such assumption is questionable on geopolitical and common-sense grounds: if the geopolitical arena is inherently competitive and conflictual then ALL players (including minor actors like Ukraine or Hamas) are expected to do competitive and controversial things, especially when pursuing hegemonic goals (like Russia and the US). So claiming that the US is “provoking” Russia equates to claiming that the US is doing something competitive and controversial wrt Russian hegemonic ambitions, and therefore it is to be blameful and evil, it means you do not understand the game or you're spinning pro-Russian propaganda. Besides the West (including the US) wasn’t that confrontational with Russia, as I’ve argued: the Western-led globalization enabled and encouraged Putin’s aggression of Ukraine WAY MORE than whatever grievance Putin had. As far as common-sense goes: if you were to choose based on avg standards of life, where would you prefer for you and your beloved ones to live, under US hegemony or under Russian hegemony? This is not to say there are no third alternatives, but that if there weren’t I would still prefer to live under the US hegemony than under the Russian hegemony. To that extent I’m pro-US and reason accordingly. That’s the only “exceptionalism” I can readily accord to the US vis-à-vis Russia.

[1] Pro-Russian propaganda complains a lot about Western intelligence and military interference in Ukraine and then argues for Ukrainian neutrality, but it forgets Russia’s massive interference in political countries, especially in their neighborhood (including Ukraine), and the main military naval base in the Ukrainian territory. It's like Germany or Italy declaring to be neutral with an American military base in their territory.

For example, if you pull a gun on me and warn me you'll shoot me if I take another step, I'd be a fool to ignore that warning whether I feel you'd be justified in shooting me or not. At the end of the day I don't want to be shot and I need to navigate the real world and not the world as I wish it was. I may wish you wouldn't shoot me despite your warning or then wish that someone would jump in front of me to take the bullet and so I don't suffer the consequences of my own actions, but if that's not what reality is like then I'm a fool to make decisions based on delusional wishes. — boethius

First, as I said Russian warnings were taken seriously, but obviously neither the US nor Ukraine could accept whatever condition Russia would require for peace: the US is the hegemon (so submission to Russia’s demands aren’t expected, not even respect for its sphere of influence, China is complaining about the same), Ukraine was/is open to Westernisation precisely to get rid of Russian oppressive hegemony, and Europeans are arguably interested in Ukraine for the same compelling reasons Hitler was (“Ukraine is a God-endowed country. For centuries she has excited the envy of her neighbors because of her unique situation, her fertile soil, her abundance of raw materials, and her gentle climate” https://www.amazon.fr/Hitlers-Occupation-Ukraine-1941-1944-Totalitarian/dp/125802585X). So there was a convergence of interests at the expense of Russian imperialism.
Second, there are military miscalculations, divergence of political interest, divergence in political decision making and/or divergence in marketisation of political decisions among all major players. But the degree of resilience may vary significantly (e.g. I take Western democracies as more vulnerable, individually and collectively, than autocracies like Russia). The West was overconfident Russia wouldn’t attack, because NATO arguably wasn’t an incumbent military threat to Russia in any meaningful way and, even less so after the occupation of Crimea, which was tolerated by Western Europeans. Unfortunately this encouraged Russia to raise the stakes (and any future attempt to appease Russia can turn against the West in the same way). This is called: OPPORTUNITY. So we should stop talking about provocation and talk of OPPORTUNITY. Putin (with the blessing of his Chinese boy friend) took the OPPORTUNITY to aggress Ukraine because the West was/is perceived as WEAK and DECADENT. Then you have to explain to me how a weak and decadent West constitutes a serious threat to a strong and non-decadent Russia.

That the US would drop Ukraine like a hot potato the moment the war no longer serves US interests was as obvious at the start of the war as it is now.
You can complain about "complacency" all you want, but unless it's a surprise betrayal, which is not in this case, then that's not a basis for decision making.
People should do A, B, and C and therefore I will do D based on the assumption they will do what they should, is only valid if there's reason to believe people will actually do that. — boethius

I’m not a decision maker and I do not pretend to know or to know better than political decisions makers. Besides I think no decision maker involved in this conflict is deciding without considering a pool of advisors more competent than anybody I hear in this forum in all relevant domains (economics, propaganda, military, etc.), secretive diplomatic channels and classified information (not available to the general public). So even when mistakes may look trivial, the reasons why such mistakes happen may not be as trivial.
For that reason I just limit myself to understand the ongoing events based on certain geopolitical and historical arguments because they are the kind of arguments actual political advisors (like Kissinger, Brzezinski, Wolfowitz) and their critics (like Mearsheimer or Walt) take to be relevant in foreign policy decision making, besides information from sources I perceive as reliable enough. I think this is the kind of critical examination should be welcomed in such a philosophy forum.
In accordance to what I said earlier, claiming “the US would drop Ukraine like a hot potato the moment the war no longer serves US interests was as obvious at the start of the war as it is now” doesn’t seem anything more than claiming “the US is doing something controversial during a hegemonic competition with Russia”. I find such claim rather USELESS to pin responsibility or evilness, since that’s the “anarchic” game being played (and I would argue it MUST be played also for moral reasons, despite the dangers, the tragedies and human fallibility) as if one sitting in the stands complained that that dude on the ring started punching the other dude in the face for no reason and that’s immoral, without realising he is watching a boxing match.
So if it gives the impression to be a good argument to pin responsibility or evilness , then either the game is not understood or it’s a case of pro-Russian propaganda.

The Ukrainians see the US abandon their "close allies" and "deal friends" in Afghanistan, watch Afghanis literally fall off the last airplanes, and then tell themselves: hmmm, I want me some of that. — boethius

Your conclusion holds if the analogy between Ukraine and Afghanistan holds. But to me it doesn’t because the conditions of the conflict are significantly different in the two cases: in the former, the US antagonist is primarily Russia and the concerned sphere of influence is Europe, in the latter it’s respectively Islamist terrorism (or more specifically Al-Qaeda and Talibans) and Middle-East. Islamist terrorism doesn’t arguably look as challenging to the US hegemony as Russia. Europe is an area which (still) is not as disputed as the Middle-East and its integrated institutional, social, economic assets can more readily serve American economy and politics (this aspect can likely develop further with a Westernised Ukraine) than what the US could find in the Middle East.

Making decisions based on reality and not wishes or assuming what other people "should do" when they have no track record of dong it, is a principle of decision making so basic it even appears in Disney movies:

The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do. For instance, you can accept that your father was a pirate and a good man or you can't. But pirate is in your blood, boy, so you'll have to square with that some day. And me, for example, I can let you drown, but I can't bring this ship into Tortuga all by me onesies, savvy? So, can you sail under the command of a pirate, or can you not? — Captain Jack Sparrow

Which I've quoted before but clearly the lesson remains lost, but your philosophical compass should definitely point directly at this paragraph to see you through these conceptually rough seas. — boethius

You argument would sound more compelling if one aimed at understanding politics through propaganda. But I understand propaganda as a tool of politics (not the other way around), and this implies two things: first, the standard is not necessarily accuracy but effectiveness and, second, propaganda is not the only tool or the most important tool for political decision making. So criticism of propaganda based on accuracy or relevance may remain questionable even when sounding plausible.
Besides my understanding of politics relies more on geopolitical and historical considerations than on propaganda highlights one can read in the news. I would like to understand political reasoning prior to communicative needs addressing national audience, and transversally or comparatively wrt ideologies and regimes. So such reasoning is definitely part of what politicians can and are arguably expected to take into account in their decision making.

Putin will be forced to use tactic nuclear bombs, now. European populists and men-of-honor save Europe with your indisputable all-knowing wisdom! — neomac

You still don't get it.

As Ukraine loses the capacity to legitimately threaten Russia, NATO can therefore augment whatever doesn't change the outcome. — boethius

I wouldn’t take the current snapshot of the conflict as definitive. The war isn’t over yet and its future consequences may take years, if not decades, to manifest. Westerners, Ukrainians and Russians are not just fighting for their present but also for their future which is something we do not see yet.

Why is Steadfast Defender, the largest NATO military exercise since WWII, happening now rather than last year ... or the year before that ... when it would have actually been a legitimate threat of intervention as well as legitimate threat of moving even more more equipment and weapons into Ukraine? A threat that would have genuinely applied a lot of pressure on the Russians.

Because Russia is no longer under pressure in Ukraine and so this additional NATO pressure is no longer all that meaningful. — boethius

So you are claiming that even though Russia is complaining:
https://tass.com/politics/1740307
https://tass.com/politics/1743107
https://tass.com/defense/1756871
the West shouldn’t take Russia seriously?

jorndoe

The problem with these people is that they've fallen hook, line and sinker for a story of American exceptionalism.

They view Russia through a lens of unending cynicism (and I would argue that is reasonably appropriate), but fail to realise America functions in exactly the same way. — Tzeentch

Well, that's kind of odd, since you've repeatedly railed on just about the evil US, with

(and I would argue that is reasonably appropriate) — Tzeentch

being a rare exception. :D Countless comments have been repeated about others than invader and defender, shooting blame from the hip, presenting plain speculation as plain fact, finger-pointing, positing mala fides, what-have-you. (Actually, wasn't "Everyone bad" established long ago?)

I guess you (and certain others) leave it to others to pick up the slack, or the thread could go monotone, perhaps as far as going pro-Kremlin circle or indistinguishable therefrom.

But, hey, let's for a moment run with your "the same" then, and differentiate by other means:

Looking at other Russian neighbors, who want to see Ukraine become like another Belarus? :down: Another Baltics? :up: (What about where to raise kids?) Pick your poison? — Apr 2, 2024

Oct 4, 2023 map — Irredentism versus sovereignty
Who/what honored / got behind what UA wanted, which was reasonable, more/less than others?
Democracy versus authoritarianism (including proliferation)
Trajectories: development (or trying) versus regress
Comparisons

Maybe I'll call failure to recognize such like ↑ "Kremlin-blindness". Unless they're too obvious to mention?

Resuming the analysis (sub-thread):

Is it then your assertion that the Kremlin had no (reason to) care about this (E+D) and implications — it was no concern of theirs? — Apr 4, 2024

Tzeentch

Maybe I'll call failure to recognize such like ↑ "Kremlin-blindness". — jorndoe

None of the things you named there, regrettable they may be, can hold a candle to the damage the United States has wreaked upon the world.

When I say Russia and the US operate on roughly the same principles I'm being generous to the US. One could easily make the point the US is way, way worse.

Need me to refresh your memory about US history?

jorndoe

↪Tzeentch

, so, using the thread to air other grievances? I suppose that could explain the Kremlin-blindness here. (Say, how to differentiate from an anti-US campaign? No matter.) You might fire up a fresh opening post to express them, perhaps what to do. (check this :smile:)

regrettable — Tzeentch

:grin:

... and part of the war and factors into decision-making.

Resume the analysis/sub-thread?

Is it then your assertion that the Kremlin had no (reason to) care about this (E+D) and implications — it was no concern of theirs? — Apr 4, 2024

jorndoe

FYI, some election-related events ^{(tass)(rferl)(csmonitor)(bbc)(politico)(nytimes)(bbc)(wired)} around the Euromaidan / Dignity Revolution commotion (2013 Nov — 2014 Feb), in chronological order (though durations vary):

2014 Apr 11 · Russian authorities (Chaika) pass materials regarding Yarosh to Interpol
2014 Apr 12 · a full platoon under Girkin (Surkov) seizes Sloviansk in early Donbas war
2014 May 22 · CyberBerkut attacks and disables Ukrainian election system
2014 May 23 · Ukrainian election system restored
2014 May 25 · Ukrainian presidential election
2014 May 25 · Malware removed from election system that would have rendered Yarosh winner (37%) over Poroshenko (29%)
2014 May 25 · Russian Channel One declares Yarosh winner (37%)
2014 May 26 · CyberBerkut attacks Ukrainian election infrastructure, disrupting tally collections
2014 May 29 · Poroshenko wins Ukrainian presidential election (55%)
2014 Jul 25 · Interpol issues wanted notice for Yarosh at request of Russian authorities
2016 Jan 2 · Yarosh apparently no longer on Interpol's wanted list

Coincidences? ... Planned? ... Curious.

Tzeentch

↪Tzeentch, so, using the thread to air other grievances? — jorndoe

No one here is arguing that Russia is right in what it does.

This is what you can't seem to understand: my argument is not that we ought to look more favorably on Russia's actions, but that we ought to look more critically at the United States'

Obviously, the latter is something you seem chronically incapable of doing, and you, along with some others, are trying to project that bias onto me by framing me as "pro-Russian", "Kremlin-blind", etc.

neomac

No one here is arguing that Russia is right in what it does.

This is what you can't seem to understand: my argument is not that we ought to look more favorably on Russia's actions, but that we ought to look more critically at the United States' — Tzeentch

Playing dumb ain't gonna help you, dude.

First I doubt you are intellectually honest in claiming that you are not arguing that "Russia is right in what it does" given claims such as [1]

Second, your complaint can be easily retorted: my argument is not that we ought to look more favorably on the US's actions, but that we ought to look more critically at Russia. And if that is what makes me pro-US, then the opposite argument, namely the exact argument you just made makes you pro-Russian. You take Russia to be a lesser evil than the US. I take the US to be a lesser evil than Russia. To call mine a bias and yours not a bias, you have give compelling arguments, so far you offered questionable arguments.

[1]

I do believe the matter of Ukraine becoming part of the American sphere of influence represented a legitimate security concern to the Russians. — Tzeentch

jorndoe

↪Tzeentch

, double down insisting on teaching select parts of US history? :grin:

^{(2023Mar21, 2023Dec17 - no sainthood there, but no matter)}

Resume the analysis/sub-thread?

Is it then your assertion that the Kremlin had no (reason to) care about this (E+D) and implications — it was no concern of theirs? — Apr 4, 2024

Since you appear to only have eyes on the US here — other things being "regrettable" :grin: — was E+D then thought :up: / :down: by the US, would/did they act on/against that? (I suppose, in general, it can differ among US administrations)

Actually, what would or did whatever different parties do with that, with what they wanted, and why? (though it can vary/change, especially in democracies)

^{(↑ still part of the analysis)}

ssu

Second, your complaint can be easily retorted: my argument is not that we ought to look more favorably on the US's actions, but that we ought to look more critically at Russia. And if that is what makes me pro-US, then the opposite argument, namely the exact argument you just made makes you pro-Russian. You take Russia to be a lesser evil than the US. I take the US to be a lesser evil than Russia. To call mine a bias and yours not a bias, you have give compelling arguments, so far you offered questionable arguments. — neomac

:100: :up:

Everything has to be put into context and scale. Ukraine didn't threaten Russia, Russia has made crystal clear it's imperialistic territorial ambitions in Ukraine and is still delusional in wanting purge Ukraine from the "neo-nazis", who it says control Ukraine. Now perhaps 70 000 Ukrainian soldiers 11 000 Ukrainian civilians and over 100 000 Russian soldiers have been killed, hence this isn't a minor issue.

What mistakes had been done by the West, it simply doesn't erase the fact that Putin decided to escalate a frozen conflict to a full scale conventional war with the objective of continuing the land grab it started over in 2014. Those are the facts and thus stating that somehow "Russia was forced to act" and the war is actually perpetrated by the US is simply false.

And then if we focus on what mistakes the West has done, that's actually an interesting question which doesn't go on the biased line propagated by the Kremlin, where everything was manipulated by the US and Ukraine and Ukrainians aren't actors in their own country. (As they are so artificial, anyway)

The real critique of the US could be the too little too late doctrine in supporting Ukraine, as the US didn't from the start think Ukraine would have a chance to defend itself so successfully. The assistance became a show in micromanagement of individual weapon system transfers...as if some units would be a silver bullet in a large scale war. The fear of (nuclear) escalation worked to cow the US from giving assistance when it could have been very effective, when Russia wasn't yet entrenched behind the Gerasimov line and was still claiming that this was only a "special military operation".

Somehow the Cold War era wars in Korea and Vietnam didn't come to mind here: at least the Superpowers did understand that assisting someone who is fighting the other Superpower isn't a direct act of war. But this seems to have been forgotten and the nuclear talk from Putin and Medvedev cowed the West.

Tzeentch

Ukraine didn't threaten Russia, [...] — ssu

Oh... How odd then that the Russians insisted for over fifteen years that it was an existential security threat and marked it as a red line.

And what a genius plan to ignore such warnings!

How strange that Ukraine ended up in the position that it did.

How very odd, indeed.

What mistakes had been done by the West, it simply doesn't erase the fact that Putin decided to escalate a frozen conflict to a full scale conventional war with the objective of continuing the land grab it started over in 2014. — ssu

European leaders themselves have admitted they treated the Minsk accords as a temporary armistice during which Ukraine could be armed and prepared for war.

You're completely ignoring the West's provocative role in all of this.

The real critique of the US could be the too little too late doctrine in supporting Ukraine, as the US didn't from the start think Ukraine would have a chance to defend itself so successfully. — ssu

The US doesn't care about Ukraine, or whether Ukraine is able to defend itself.

This isn't about Ukraine. This is about geopolitics.

Ukraine was simply a mechanism by which the US could sow instability in Eastern Europe, which is clearly the reason it sought to change Ukraine's neutral status - the key to stability between Russia and Europe - because it's the only reason the US would pursue such a policy in a geopolitically sensitive region.

So why criticise the US over a job well done?

They got exactly what they wanted, and the Europeans are utterly oblivious and lapping it all up.

The Americans have got you worried about the alligator next door, yet you're completely oblivious to the alligator you've gotten into bed with.

Do you even realize that if the Americans are successful in stirring up trouble between Europe and Russia, you're sitting in the front row to receive the blows?

ssu

Oh... How odd then that the Russians insisted for over fifteen years that it was an existential security threat and marked it as a red line.

And what a genius plan to ignore such warnings!

How strange that Ukraine ended up in the position that it did.

How very odd, indeed. — Tzeentch

What genius says things like the above.

There's nothing odd with that. Russian imperialists see Ukraine as the existential part of the to make them a great Power. This isn't any new news. Even others agreed with this:

quote-russia-can-be-either-an-empire-or-a-democracy-but-it-cannot-be-both-without-ukraine-zbigniew-brzezinski-91-50-43.jpg

quote-russia-can-be-either-an-empire-or-a-democracy-but-it-cannot-be-both-without-ukraine-zbigniew-brzezinski-91-50-43.jpg

Ukraine's fault was to think that Russian leaders would stay as reasonable as the (ex)-Soviet leaders that peacefully dismantled the Soviet Union. Ukraine's second error was to trust that by giving away it's nuclear deterrence and to trust the written promises given to it by Russia. And the third error was that many thought foolishly that the aspirations for Ukraine were just about NATO expansion. Well, Putin's bizarre historical ideas should have obviously shown that this isn't just about not, but really about Russia itself. As if Crimea didn't already show that.

(Many years earlier, far before the 2022 invasion, the objectives were there to be seen...)
960x0.jpg?format=jpg&width=1440

Tzeentch

There's nothing odd with that. Russian imperialists see Ukraine as the existential part of the to make them a great Power. — ssu

In other words, you're saying the Russians lied to us for 15 years and their warnings should have been ignored, as they were?

Another question; suppose Finland is next on the chopping block. Would you also favor this strongman attitude of no negotiations or diplomacy with the Russians? Fight on till the last Finn, as it were?

neomac

And what a genius plan to ignore such warnings! — Tzeentch

Despite all the grievances Russia may have voiced out loud about NATO enlargement (but let’s not make a drama about it https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/1398379/Putin-lets-Nato-recruit-in-Baltic.html), Putin’s complaint would have made more sense if Ukraine had joined NATO. But that didn’t happen. Besides Putin was pretty sneaky about his war lord appetites (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ukraine-putin-invasion-after-denials-now-says-no-occupation-plan/). All the more reason to be skeptical about Putin’s honest dispositions toward peace settlements.

European leaders themselves have admitted they treated the Minsk accords as a temporary armistice during which Ukraine could be armed and prepared for war. — Tzeentch

That's another mischaracterization. Minsk accords were meant to solve a conflict between Russia and Ukraine peacefully. But neither the West nor Ukrainians trusted Russia given the outcome of the Budapest Memorandum and other agreements between Russia and Ukraine (like The Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation), the problematic nature of the Minsk agreements (especially for the Ukrainians https://ecfr.eu/article/ukraine-russia-and-the-minsk-agreements-a-post-mortem/), and its violations (especially by Russia https://cepa.org/article/dont-let-russia-fool-you-about-the-minsk-agreements/).

You're completely ignoring the West's provocative role in all of this. — Tzeentch

You should completely ignore it too, for the reasons I already clarified. Besides we shouldn’t forget the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reset happening in those 15 years you are blabbering about.

Ukraine was simply a mechanism by which the US could sow instability in Eastern Europe, which is clearly the reason it sought to change Ukraine's neutral status - the key to stability between Russia and Europe - because it's the only reason the US would pursue such a policy in a geopolitically sensitive region. — Tzeentch

This may be true to some extent. But again the framing is very much disputable.
First, as Mearsheimer would argue "the only reason the US would pursue such a policy in a geopolitically sensitive region" implied sacrificing an alliance with Russia to contain China. So the calculus implied significant strategic costs for the US too, actually a strategic blunder some might argue. At the same time keeping the EU down ain't going to help the US, so the US may be forced to empower Europe to counterbalance anti-US forces.
Second, the Europeans exposed themselves to Russia's hegemonic ambitions without much concern of their protector (the US), which ain't that smart either. Besides Russian political influence is dangerous for the European political stability since Russia is fomenting populist movements in the West to turn against Western institutions (NATO and EU) and Western democracy (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2023/10/vladimir-putin-russia-ukraine-germany-far-right/675838/, http://pdc.ceu.hu/archive/00007035/01/PC_Russian-Connection_2014.pdf, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2014-03-25/putins-western-allies).
Third, Ukraine may very much bring its boon to the West, if it manages to join it. So that the loss of business ties with Russia wouldn't have come without some compensation for the EU and the Ukrainians.

ssu

In other words, you're saying the Russians lied to us for 15 years and their warnings should have been ignored, as they were? — Tzeentch

They might be unhappy of NATO enlargement, but as you should notice that the enlargement of Sweden and Finland didn't actually get much if ANY response. The whole thing was a non-event. Why? Because it's a minor point, just like humanitarian issues and democracy is a minor issue to the US, but it still talks a lot about those issues in it's foreign policy discourse.

Hence to think that the reason to attack Ukraine was to avoid NATO enlargement is simply false. That (to deter Ukraine from becoming a NATO partner) was already done actually by the show of forces with large military exercises on the Ukrainian border. Besides, the whimsical idea here is to think that what countries the US Presidents says to become members would really become members de facto laughable. That it took two years for Sweden to get into NATO should tell that. No, the real reason to invade Ukraine was to gain territory, create that landbridge to Crimea, create that Novorossiya. This is not speculation, it's a fact: Russia has annexed more territories, some that it even doesn't have control. This, plus the russification efforts done in the occupied territories, should make this really clear.

What is now becoming very clear that Putin was lead to think that the invasion would be quick and similar to what happened with Crimea. And the West wouldn't be a problem... just as earlier in 2014 it hadn't been

Another question; suppose Finland is next on the chopping block. Would you also favor this strongman attitude of no negotiations or diplomacy with the Russians? Fight on till the last Finn, as it were? — Tzeentch

If Russia makes territorial claims then yes, absolutely, my attitude would be the same of my grandparents generation. If it comes to fighting, fight like they did.

It is absolutely delusional and outright deadly to go and accept the Russian demands and think that will give you peace. Just ask that from the Estonians, the Lithuanians or the Latvians how great it was to accept the Russian demands last time. What the Kremlin would want is would be the "Finlandized" Finland during Kekkonen's era. Or that at least for starters. Hence I'm glad that the social democrats took us to NATO, and we got Sweden there too!

But I guess it's something you cannot fathom as you think that Russians are so 'reasonable' in their demands. (Just like the denazification of Ukraine) :roll:

Tzeentch

They might be unhappy of NATO enlargement, but as you should notice that the enlargement of Sweden and Finland didn't actually get much if ANY response. The whole thing was a non-event. Why? Because it's a minor point, just like humanitarian issues and democracy is a minor issue to the US, but it still talks a lot about those issues in it's foreign policy discourse.

Hence to think that the reason to attack Ukraine was to avoid NATO enlargement is simply false. That (to deter Ukraine from becoming a NATO partner) was already done actually by the show of forces with large military exercises on the Ukrainian border. Besides, the whimsical idea here is to think that what countries the US Presidents says to become members would really become members de facto laughable. That it took two years for Sweden to get into NATO should tell that. No, the real reason to invade Ukraine was to gain territory, create that landbridge to Crimea, create that Novorossiya. This is not speculation, it's a fact: Russia has annexed more territories, some that it even doesn't have control. This, plus the russification efforts done in the occupied territories, should make this really clear.

What is now becoming very clear that Putin was lead to think that the invasion would be quick and similar to what happened with Crimea. And the West wouldn't be a problem... just as earlier in 2014 it hadn't been — ssu

In other words, when a former, nuclear-armed great power talks about existential security threats and red lines for fifteen years, ignore them and assume they are lying.

Genius.

If Russia makes territorial claims then yes, ... — ssu

This conflict didn't start over territorial claims. It started over NATO membership for Ukraine.

Lets suppose Russia would have voiced security concerns over Finland entering NATO over the course of 15 years.

Ignore them and assume they are lying?

ssu

In other words, when a former, nuclear-armed great power talks about existential security threats and red lines for fifteen years, ignore them and assume they are lying.

Genius. — Tzeentch

Do you have reading comprehension problems? Just as the US speaks of humanitarian rights and democratic freedoms all the time, so does Russia about NATO expansion. Are both lying? No, of course they care about their pet issues. But you have to look twice at the reason for starting wars. But seems that you are not willing to even to consider this. Somehow the World has to have these unitary reason.

And then just strawman about ignoring them and assume they are lying.

Besides, please give us the reference where Putin has said himself before 2022 that Ukraine itself poses a threat to Russia.

Genius.

jorndoe

A brief timeline of events:

2010 Jan 17	·	Ukrainian presidential election
2010 Feb 7	·	election runoff (Yanukovych, Tymoshenko)

2013 Nov 21	·	Euromaidan starts

2014 Feb 18	·	Revolution of Dignity starts
2014 Feb 22	·	Euromaidan ends
2014 Feb 23	·	Revolution of Dignity ends; organized unrest in Donbas starts
2014 Feb 27	⚔	Russian troops ("little green men") start seizing Crimea
2014 Mar 18	·	Russia annexes Crimea
2014 Mar 31	·	Kharkiv Pact annulled by the Kremlin
2014 Apr 6	⚔	insurgents seize government buildings in Donbas
2014 Apr 12	⚔	Donbas war starts; platoon under Girkin (Surkov) seizes Sloviansk
2014 May 2	·	organized unrest in Donbas settles down
2014 May 25	·	Ukrainian presidential election (Poroshenko)

2019 Mar 31	·	Ukrainian presidential election
2019 Apr 21	·	election runoff (Zelenskyy, Poroshenko)

2021 Jan 1	⚔	ongoing scattered insurgent attacks in eastern Ukraine
2021 Nov 10	·	the US reports Russian military buildup near Ukrainian border

2022 Jan 17	·	increasing Russian troops in Belarus; increased separatist strife in eastern Ukraine
2022 Jan 25	·	Russian military exercises in Crimea and southern Russia near Ukraine
2022 Feb 10	·	Russo-Belarusian military exercises start
2022 Feb 20	·	Russo-Belarusian military exercises end
2022 Feb 22	⚔	Russian "peacekeeping" troops enter Ukraine
2022 Feb 24	⚔	Russia invades northern, eastern, southern Ukraine
2022 Sep 30	·	Russia annexes Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia

2024 Jan 1	·	Russia occupies roughly a fifth of Ukraine

In retrospect, what might have been different from early on?

Some factors ...

the Kremlin likely planned for a while, multipronged too
democracies tend to act slowly/hesitantly, autocrats are less bound
the Kremlin takes initiatives (attacks), others react (less proactive measures)
divide and rule strategies have worked, and can work, well for the Kremlin
international peacekeepers in Ukraine didn't seem appropriate/feasible
early unrest had appearance of mere/internal domestic conflict
tiptoeing around Russia
Kremlin-anxiety (not the Moldovan kind here, but) nuclear in particular
an effective (internationally implemented) Ukrainian no-fly zone would risk direct confrontation with Russia
China has likely been supplying the Kremlin with intelligence including satellite, reliable intelligence matters all around
western countries have already been accused of neo-colonialism/imperialism, meddling, war-mongering, you-name-it
Russia has occasionally been promoted as all-but "invincible", though Russia was never itself threatened with invasion here
can all defense be narrated as offense, can all defensive measures be cast as threats?

(It's worth noting that more or less all implemented measures have been met with criticism.)

▸ Crimea apparently took everyone by surprise. Hardly a fire was shot err hardly a shot was fired. In response, international supporters might have helped Ukraine with resources to counter the takeover (no secure Russia-Crimea land-bridge at the time). The Black Sea Fleet could have faced noticeable risk.

▸ The early insurgency might have seen international peacekeepers or more international involvement. Sufficient attention (and international presence), perhaps including mediation, could potentially have affected the course of events.

▸ In response to military buildup, international supporters might have quickly helped Ukraine with substantial defensive resources. Sufficient preparations·measures could have made a difference, including to the later grain and Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant situations.

▸ International military exercises (presumably not under a NATO umbrella) in Ukraine might have deterred the Kremlin from escalating aggression. NATO exercises in the neighborhood have been held with little response from the Kremlin.

▸ Perhaps more comprehensive upfront analysis·coverage·awareness of Kremlin and other story-telling from early on could have affected discussions·debates·back-and-forths·dis/agreements·re/actions etc. Ukrainian sovereignty, sentiments among non-NATO'ers (Moldova, Austria, Georgia, Ukraine, etc), NATO'ers to-be (Finland, Sweden), NATO'ers (Poland, the Baltics, Germany, etc) and NATO'ers no-longer-to-be (none as of typing), and other relevant topics could be included.

▸ Sustained, but specific, international propaganda·attention·exposé on Putin (say, at least after being named TIME Person of the Year in 2007), including directed at China, might have had some effect. Kremlin efforts (and their effects) have been seen.

Lessons learned? Not learned?

Tzeentch

Besides, please give us the reference where Putin has said himself before 2022 that Ukraine itself poses a threat to Russia. — ssu

No idea why I would have to give a reference for that, since that is obviously not part of my argument. :chin:

And then just strawman about ignoring them and assume they are lying. — ssu

This is not a strawman.

This is what you're proposing: that we assume Russia is lying about the security concerns it voiced for over 15 years, and that they can therefore safely be ignored and antagonized.

So, back to my question which you failed to answer: let's suppose Russia voiced security concerns over Finland for fifteen years, red lines and all. Just ignore it?

I guess the question isn't so easily answered in the affirmative when it is your own country that's cast into the abyss, hm?

ssu

This is what you're proposing: that we assume Russia is lying about the security concerns it voiced for over 15 years, and that they can therefore safely be ignored and antagonized. — Tzeentch

This is laughable.

What security concerns made Russia to annex Crimea?

What security concerns made Russia to annex later Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts?

What security concerns made Russia to start Russification programs in the territories it occupies?

What security concerns made Putin talk over and over again how important Ukraine is to Russia, how they are historically together and how artificial an independent Ukraine is?

It would be totally similar if the US invaded Cuba because Cuba's close ties to Russia and then annexed the Island with the US president saying that Cuba is a natural part of the US as it had been earlier and the independence given to the Island in 1902 was a huge mistake from earlier administrations. And the US president would say again and again that Cuba was a natural part of the United States because of the historical ties. And not only Cubans would be given US citizenship, but also English would taught in schools in hope to replace Spanish. When all this would happen, a person with similar reasoning like you would blame Russia for this invasion, and say it's all because of Russian adventurism into the American continent and the US would have been forced to do so. The US had to react like this! Why didn't Russia listen???

How ridiculous would for this person to totally disregard the annexation part, the rhetoric of Cuba being a part of US, the actions taken in Cuba and to deny this being an act of literally classic imperialism? But but but...security concerns of possible Russian troops and missiles like in the 1960's! Nothing else matters!!!

And then when people would counter him and point out that the US annexed the Island, hence it's desires and objectives were far more than just keeping the Russians out, this guy would just insist that all this happened because of Russian policies and the US had to do what it did. And even if others would have nothing against the fact that Russian ties did play part here, it would naturally would look to be more of a fig leaf for the invasion than the primary cause, when you look at the actions taken.

That's how crazy your argumentation is.

ssu

Lessons learned? Not learned? — jorndoe

The lesson that should be learnt is that Russia isn't a state that basically is happy with it's borders and has severe problems to be a nation state... because it isn't one. And the West cannot do anything about this.

Even if the Soviet Empire collapsed, Russia is still not a nation state. It's only 71% Russian and the 29% other minority groups. Russia has nearly two hundred minorities and 270 languages and dialects are spoken in the country. And these people aren't immigrants, but varies people that the Russian Empire subjugated, many surprisingly late in the 19th Century. Hence Russia truly fears "decolonization" and it breaking apart. This is the basis of Russian insecurity. The only reason we seem not to understand this is because it's a continuous landmass, not something separated by sea. Yet present day parts of Russia are as "normal" as would be a France with Algeria as it's intergral part (as we should remember that Algeria wasn't for the French a colony, but part of France).

The basic problem is that many in the West have thought, just like @Tzeentch and others like him here think, that everything that Russia does is an reaction to what the West does. This leaves to flawed thinking that if left alone, Russia would be peaceful and coexist peacefully.

This isn't the case, especially because of the leadership.

One has to understand Putin's point about the collapse of the Soviet Union being the worst thing that happened in the 20th Century. The collapse happened because Russia itself, under Yeltsin, didn't want to be part of the Soviet Union after the Putsch. This made it all so startling. This would be similar if England and the English would demand independence from the UK and say fuck to everything British. In that case, hardly the Welsh, the Scots or the Northern Irelanders would choose either to live in hollow United Kingdom. They would simply find themselves being independent countries. And likely afterwards some English politicians would start thinking that being British wasn't such a bad idea and thus try to regain that UK in some form. And likely they would view Whales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as "special case" with a lot jealosy if other countries made close relations with the former members of the UK.

This is the reason why Putin acts this way and how Russia sees it's "near abroad". This is also why for example the Baltic States and former Warsaw Pact members wanted right from the start to get under the cover of NATO. They had this brief "window of opportunity" to detach from Russia.

Yet the actual NATO members of the Cold War didn't see it this way. They saw the Cold War ending with the collapse of the Soviet Union and didn't assume the inevitable Russian rebound and thought that a new era had begun. Hence the biggest problem for NATO was to find a new mission, because the OG Cold War NATO was antiquated. Or so it was thought.

And afterwards many think, that it was the NATO enlargement that was the reason. But for Russia with it's imperial past, it's authoritarian system, it's fears of further collapse of "decolonization", it has other reasons to act as it has. And in Ukraine it really has shown it's true colors here.

Tzeentch

That's how crazy your argumentation is. — ssu

Except that none of this is actually part of my argument.

I'm not making any arguments about whether Russia's security concerns are justified, which is what you are doing.

I'm making the argument that when Russia speaks about existential security concerns and red lines for a decade-and-a-half, one should take it seriously.

That's contrary to what you are proposing. What you are saying is that, since you are unable to understand why the Russians would see Ukraine entering NATO as a security threat, they must be lying and their warnings can safely be ignored.

Well, we have seen what comes of that: the destruction of Ukraine.

That's why I have asked you whether you would be similarly careless if it were Finland paying the price of war. You have yet to answer that question.

ssu

Except that none of this is actually part of my argument.

I'm not making any arguments about whether Russia's security concerns are justified, which is what you are doing. — Tzeentch

It's not about the justification, it's about what the real objectives here are. Does Russia have the right to annex territories is the justification part. But it has done so, hence this isn't about NATO enlargement.

I'm making the argument that when Russia speaks about existential security concerns and red lines for a decade-and-a-half, one should take it seriously. — Tzeentch

And Ukraine wouldn't have been a NATO member. Naturally NATO cannot go against it's own charter and basically add to it "countries hoping to be members have to have the permission from Russia to join". Hence Ukraine wasn't joining NATO. Period. Hence the motive for the invasion lies somewhere else.

Well, we have seen what comes of that: the destruction of Ukraine.

That's why I have asked you whether you would be similarly careless if it were Finland paying the price of war. You have yet to answer that question. — Tzeentch

Wrong. I've answered it. My grandfathers fought the Russians and so would I, even if I'm quite old. Their generation lost a lot more killed than the this Ukrainian generation has seen. Finland lost in WW2 2,5% of the total population. 96 000 soldiers died from 3,8 million people. Civilian losses were surprisingly small.

Now ask yourself: has yet 2,5% from the Ukrainian people (or basically 5% of the men) yet been killed?

And I think you don't understand Finnish mentality on the subject. They have made consistently polls about the attitudes towards the defense of the country by asking the same question again and again for decades: "Would you defend your country in war, even if the outcome would be questionable". Hence the question is if would you defend your country, even if there's a real possibility of losing the war. The vast majority of Finns have said yes, they would. Still do. I would also.

And if Russia nukes all the cities in Finland and ethnically cleanses out the rest surviving Finns, then take as many of them out with you and good luck with that barren nuclear wasteland then. And when likely it wouldn't come to that, defend your country to get then a better deal... like staying independent. But you get that only when the other side sees a negotiated settlement better that the continuation of the war.

Tzeentch

It's not about the justification, it's about what the real objectives here are. — ssu

Hence the motive for the invasion lies somewhere else. — ssu

Exactly. You believe the Russians were lying about their security concerns. That's precisely my point.

This is how you invite war to your doorstep.

Wrong. I've answered it. My grandfathers fought the Russians and so would I, even if I'm quite old. Their generation lost a lot more killed than the this Ukrainian generation has seen. Finland lost in WW2 2,5% of the total population. 96 000 soldiers died from 3,8 million people. Civilian losses were surprisingly small.

Now ask yourself: has yet 2,5% from the Ukrainian people (or basically 5% of the men) yet been killed?

And I think you don't understand Finnish mentality on the subject. They have made consistently polls about the attitudes towards the defense of the country by asking the same question again and again for decades: "Would you defend your country in war, even if the outcome would be questionable". Hence would you defend your country, even if there's a real possibility of losing the war. The vast majority of Finns have said yes, they would. I would also.

And if Russia nukes all the cities in Finland and ethnically cleanses out the rest surviving Finns, then take as many of them out with you and good luck with that barren nuclear wasteland then. And when likely it wouldn't come to that, defend your country to get then a better deal... like staying independent. — ssu

At least you are consistent insofar as you would happily cast your own country into the same abyss.

Well, Finland is sitting on the front row. You might just get exactly what you wish for.

The nonchalance with which you speak about turning your own country into a nuclear wasteland to deny it to the Russians, one would think you were a Ukrainian rather than a Finn. It's downright uncanny how eager you already appear to be for war.

You understand this is exactly the type of sentiment an actor like the US will use to put you infront of its wagon?

Tzeentch

The Ukrainians see the US abandon their "close allies" and "deal friends" in Afghanistan, watch Afghanis literally fall off the last airplanes, and then tell themselves: hmmm, I want me some of that. — boethius

Looks like the Finns are in similar spirits. :lol:

One would think the Americans eventually run out of sacrificial lambs to throw on the pyre, but alas.

ssu

Exactly. You believe the Russians were lying about their security concerns. That's precisely my point. — Tzeentch

Again no. They are not lying!

Does the US lie when it talks about democracy and humanitarian rights? No. The simple fact is that sometimes realpolitik goes over these issues, like when it comes to certain allies, yet it doesn't mean that the US would be lying about democracy and humanitarians rights. So I don't know where you get this strange idea to assume there lying. Besides, Russian imperialism has always been defined by defense of the realm, just as Catherine the Great said:

I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them.

.

Similarly situation with Russia and NATO expansion. Even in the Russian military doctrine published years ago before 2014 NATO expansion was defined as threat number 1. So surely they are not lying what they see as their security concerns. Yet what I commented to @jorndoe, is that to think that NATO expansion this is the only objective, even the prime objective, is wrong. If NATO wouldn't have expanded, then taking Ukraine would have been far more easy to Russia.

The nonchalance with which you speak about turning your own country into a nuclear wasteland to deny it to the Russians, one would think you were a Ukrainian rather than a Finn. It's downright uncanny how eager you already appear to be for war. — Tzeentch

Well, seems you don't have any idea what deterrence is about. Deterrence has to be credible and deterrence is to keep the peace. And luckily that deterrence was reinforced by joining NATO. And also Sweden joining NATO.

The nonchalance with which you speak of accepting Russian demands as a solution to get "peace" shows how naive your thinking is.

You understand this is exactly the type of sentiment an actor like the US will use to put you infront of its wagon? — Tzeentch

You understand that Finland not being in NATO would put Finland in a far more precarious situation than now? Obviously not. And as I've said many times, it's unlikely that Russia will use military action against Finland, but there are 1001 other ways to pressure our country. It would be far more worse if a) we wouldn't be in the EU and b) we wouldn't be in NATO.

And I think Finns have a far more realpolitik view of allies. The last so-called ally was Hitler's Germany, which we had to fight immediately once we made armstice with Russia. Proper Dolchstoss, I would say.

Tzeentch

The nonchalance with which you speak of accepting Russian demands as a solution to get "peace" shows how naive your thinking is. — ssu

When have I ever mentioned accepting Russian demands?

This is another example of how skewed your view is.

In your eyes, proposing to negotiate for a diplomatic solution is "accepting Russian demands", "appeasement", etc.

To you, the only option seems to be war.

History teaches us that such a stance does not protect one from conflict, but instead brings conflict closer.

Also, you speak of realpolitik, but as far as I'm concerned there's nothing realistic about volunteering as cannon fodder for team America. There is only one power in the West that is conducting realpolitik, and that's the US.

ssu

When have I ever mentioned accepting Russian demands? — Tzeentch

Five months ago here. It's the typical idea that Russia would have (somehow) accepted a negotiated peace... but it was the West that fumbled it by "standing firm".

But let's just look at the text of the Istanbul Communiqué:

We didn't get a Russian proposal, but the proposal had this line:

Proposal 2: These international security guarantees for Ukraine would not extend to Crimea, Sevastopol, or certain areas in the Donbas. The parties to the treaty would have to define the boundaries of these areas or agree that each party understands these boundaries differently.

That leaves the territories quite open. And this is the proposal for the Russians. And lastly, what is there for Russia to wait a few years and then continue the annexations? There already were the Minsk agreements. Just think for a moment about this...

First there was the Minsk Protocol...

...and that ended when Russian forces took Donetsk INTL.

Then there was Minsk II in 2015...

...but that didn't end the fighting. The frozen conflict continued, until 2022 it was "Denazification time"!

In your eyes, proposing to negotiate for a diplomatic solution is "accepting Russian demands", "appeasement", etc. — Tzeentch

Real peace or armstice happens only when both parties are incapable of military victory and understand it. Now Russia doesn't see it this way. It simply hopes that the US gets bored and that it can still get a military victory. So there really is no incentive for Russia to seek a negotiated peace.

Both times Finland was negotiating with Russia, notice what was on stake for Russia. In the Winter War in 1940, there was the genuine possibility that Soviet Union might face both French and British troops. Soviet Union didn't want this to happen. During the Continuation War in 1944 the assault on Finland had stalled, Finns had even made counterattacks and putting more troops to the Finnish front would be away from the major theater and hinder the effort in taking Berlin. And Finland still had behind the frontline it's Salpa defensive line. Stalin was worried that the Western allies might get there first if he continued the fight with Finland.

In both cases the option for a negotiated settlement was better for the Russian side.

You fight to win until you make a settlement if/when you can't. You don't do it like the Americans in Afghanistan: fight, but declare simultaneously a deadline for your departure.

Tzeentch

It's the typical idea that Russia would have (somehow) accepted a negotiated peace... but it was the West that fumbled it by "standing firm". — ssu

We have various neutral sources telling us that. Even the Ukrainians themselves have come forward with this, because they are starting to understand the degree to which they're being used by the Americans.

What's your grounds for simply ignoring these accounts?

It's like every bit of reality that doesn't fit your preconceived notions is conveniently voided out.

ssu

What's your grounds for simply ignoring these accounts? — Tzeentch

It didn't happen, hence this is crying over spilled milk. Remember that years have gone from this.

And especially after Putin annexed more Oblasts, Ukraine lost interest. Annexation of parts that Russia even doesn't all control tells quite something else than a desire or willingness for a negotiated peace.

Ukraine Crisis

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions