I'm hoping to build out a, especially on Åland and Gotland, a modern high-tech anti-air system with AI. — Christoffer

Åland islands is a de-militarized zone. It's a really interesting question when Finland would send forces there.

The only Finnish forces there are the local police and the border guard. And Russia has an consulate there, which is described as more of a forward intelligence gathering post. At the height of the Cold War it had 140 personnel. That's a huge consulate workforce for Islands with a population of 30 000. And Russian helicopters do have the ability fly directly from Russia to the Islands. The military history is interesting, and a great example of two countries accepting a third party international solution. The decision on the Åland Islands is one of the few things the League of Nations succeeded in solving.

Until then, I gladly joining NATO as well as ssu. If war hits our borders, this time, you will not be alone, this time we will fight side by side against the fucker. But hopefully some random, unknown security guard close to Putin realize what is happening to the world and just ends him. — Christoffer

Well, if it's just Gotland and not Åland, I hope we do the same for you and come to help!

The unfortunate fact is that after few months, assuming the war takes so long, war in Ukraine will be "the new normal". After all, we just experienced a world wide pandemic. How scary would that have sounded before? Now it's not so scary anymore.

Basically the Finnish Parliament has now to discuss the subject of NATO membership, the cat is out of the bag. What the Prime minister has acknowledged is that the parties are seriously debating the question. Until now basically both Sweden and Finland have trained as they would be in NATO, have had these agreements with NATO, are "enhanced partners" and Sweden has a long history of covert cooperation with the US, yet the neutrality fig-leaf has been OK for Russia.

Now both of our countries are sending arms to Ukraine, Russia's new enemy. Historical first for us, historical second (after sending weapons to us) for you. Yet not something that a "non-aligned/neutral" country would do. And because EU is also arming Ukraine, this actually isn't illogical as we are part of the EU. Even the Swiss have taken measures against Russia. Things are changing.

Above all, the decision actually ought to be done together, at the same time.

Of course, there is what Russia has said now and Putin basically in 2016:

“It is obvious that the admission of Finland and Sweden to NATO, which is primarily (…) a military bloc, would have serious military and political consequences that would require retaliatory steps by our country,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said at a weekly press briefing in Moscow, quoted by Russian news agencies.

Worthy to listen one view about Putin's objectives and his money. But what is true is that war is what has made Putin. His first Presidential campaign was basically a war. War's have improved his popularity, and they have gone quite well for him. Up until now, when he didn't do the necessary groundwork...



Not seeing many Russians proudly wearing ribbon of St. George, which I remember many Russians proudly wearing when Crimea was annexed to Russia in 2014.

Read the publication of the paper that were supposed to be released when Russia won the war in Ukraine. It's clear what Putin promised Lukashenko. — Christoffer

I'd be a bit sceptical about a hypothetical "victory article" published by one side. Things that are reported by several different sources that don't rely on the same source usually can be trusted and the real details surface only later. Things that are true usually leave a large trail behind them.

No. Why?

I guess I'd follow what is said in the Finnish constitution.

(But really, I think that is unlikely. At least now. Yet if Sweden and Finland would ask NATO membership, I guess Americans would have a heated debate.)

Since ssu and @Christoffer seem so keen on ascribing to me positions I don't hold, I thought I'd make a post here to easily refer to.

I think the recent invasion of Ukraine was caused mostly by Putin's autocratic desire for a Russian empire.

I think that's also the least interesting and least important cause.

It's the least interesting because no one should be surprised by it, he's been saying as much for years.

It's the least important because none of us have any influence at all in Russia. The Russians themselves are doing a sterling job of opposing the war from their end.

Our concern is the extent to which our actions, mistakes, and systematic policies have lead to this. How, faced with a despotic leader intent on empire building, we did absolutely fuck all about it, but rather just made the situation worse by warmongering and sabre-rattling.

Our concern is the institutions which benefit from war, regime change, post-war reconstruction and a broken economy on its knees seeking loans to which we can attach punitive terms. — Isaac

Thank you for that, Isaac.

For you, the least interesting thing is what Putin's motives and objectives are and what he does. What you focus is what the West does, because likely you live in a country that either is an ally of the US or is the US. I get it.

Well, For me and @Christoffer, what Putin does is the most interesting thing. Our countries are in a severe diplomatic crisis. Not at war like Ukraine, but still in a crisis. We haven't been part of that West you refer to. My country is the only country on Russia's Western border that a) isn't a NATO member and b) doesn't have Russian troops in it. And @Christoffer's country has a small patch of water between Russia. Both aren't in NATO, so both know how hostile Russia can be even when we don't pose a threat, that "springboard" to it. Just being a "potential" one creates the same tension. Also I can see the consequences of this crisis in my puny life too.

Just to give one example, I just spent my children's school holidays last week next to the Russian border as our summerplace is only 10km from the border. We went up to the border to a small shopping center that was intended to serve Russian tourists. There naturally weren't any tourists, as the ruble has collapsed. Nor are there the vast amounts of Russian trucks that few years ago crossed the border coming and going and made huge lines on the border (because Russian border control is, let's say, bureaucratic). Now it was all as silent as it was when there was the Soviet Union. Even then there was the odd Soviet truck crossing the border. Now nothing. You literally can see what the term "sanctions" really mean in reality. Now the government is advising people to avoid any kind of travelling to Russia.

Now in our countries likely the discussion of joining NATO will start at earnest. Especially Finns have tried to push it away and thought that all is well with the eastern neighbor relations. But we've been just fooling ourselves. So this crisis isn't over and hopefully you understand that just what Vlad decides to do or how he react does matter here.

The United States has not threatened Sweden or Finland, but I think they may be the rare exceptions. — FreeEmotion

Interesting historical fact: Stalin asked the US to bomb Finland during WW2. The United States rejected this as the two countries were not at war. In fact, the US never declared war to Finland during WW2. Only on June 30th 1944 the US broke off diplomatic relations with Finland when President Ryti, in order to get more assistance from Germany, signed personally an alliance with Germany and issued promises that Finland wouldn't seek a separate peace with Russia. Which naturally it did immediately and which it got after a month in September 1944. Then Finns started fighting their old brothers-in-arms. A Dolchstoss and proud of it!

There's a saying in Dutch : where two people are fighting, two are to blame. — Benkei

And how much do you blame the Dutch of the fighting that they took part from May 10th to May 14th 1940?

Belarus appears to have entered the war yesterday based on imint. This is pure desperation. Belarus just had a year of mass uprisings against the Russian backed regime. - On another note, I guess I was behind. Belorussians are already sabotaging railways and transport for the Russians, with some groups forming.

More mass arrests Sunday, unclear about Monday. They are clamping down on information. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That Belarus would join the war I find hard to believe (as you do also).

This would be the craziest thing ever. So a country, that has had no hostile intentions against Ukraine, no animosity, has had not long ago major popular demonstrations against the ruling regime, would then go an participate in a war that their President has until now said that they aren't part of. Wouldn't make sense. I'd wait for real confirmation on this.

But if it is so, Belarus is crumbling.

Words from 2014 from Adrian Basora, words that still apply.

Extremely well:

Putin’s Motives and Russian Grand Strategy

Vladimir Putin’s Ukraine strategy is driven by three goals: survival, empire and legacy.

First and foremost, Putin sees the fate of Ukraine as an existential issue both for himself and for the authoritarian regime that he and his inner circle have gradually rebuilt over the past fifteen years. The Orange Revolution of 2004 was a deep shock to Putin because of the echoes it created in Russia and because Ukraine seemed to be on the brink of becoming a major source of longer-term “democratic diffusion” right on Russia’s long southwestern border. Fortunately for Putin, however, the luster of this revolution quickly wore off once its leaders gained office and failed to live up to their reformist promises. From the start there was infighting between Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko; reforms were postponed; the Ukrainian economy spiraled downward and corruption remained rampant.

By the time Yushchenko’s presidency ended in 2010, many voters had come to see Viktor Yanukovych as a preferable alternative. Yanukovich also reportedly benefited from substantial financial and “political technology” support from Moscow. For Putin, Yanukovych was a promising alternative to the western-oriented “Orange” leaders, since he seemed likely to maintain strong trade and financial ties with Russia, show proper deference towards Moscow and, above all, keep Ukraine out of NATO. But it turned out that too many Ukrainians were unwilling to follow the Putin/Yanukovich script.

When Yanukovich fled Kiev on February 21, it must have seemed to the Kremlin that a second wave of the Orange Revolution had taken control of Ukraine. Putin no doubt trembled with fury – but also with fear.

Putin’s second driving motive for going all out to reassert as much dominance as possible in Ukraine combines his goals of restoring a Russian empire and of burnishing his personal legacy. It is abundantly clear that Putin seeks to restore Russia to its former imperial glory, and in so doing to secure for himself a place in history as one of the greatest Russian leaders of all time. In a 2005 speech, Putin famously stated that “the breakup of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century.”

Now we are seeing the next act in this tragedy playing out...

Surely even you can see that trying to claim him as an expert when he agrees with you and delusional when he doesn't is utterly absurd. — Isaac

But he isn't delusional!!! I'm not sure where you see the illogicality here.

He clearly states how Russia thinks. What is so hard to understand that Russia see's the West as a threat AND has territorial aspirations on the territory of it's neighbors?

Cannot those happen at the same time? Mearsheimer understands this and that is why he wanted Ukraine to retain a nuclear deterrence. Putin has shown quite well these both sides in his words and actions. Haven't you ever heard about Novorossiya? No?

Besides, don't sideline all those third nations starting from Ukraine. Yes, I understand, you want to talk about the US. However, they aren't the only actor important in the story. And if I say that this war is Putin's fault, it doesn't mean that the US or NATO has done everything right.

What is false to think that all this is happening because of the US wants to enlarge NATO and nothing else. Either you genuinely think that Russia would have left Ukraine alone if NATO wouldn't have made any moves to the East or then don't care an iota on what Russia does with its neighbors. Well, if the second is true, why post on this thread? If the first is true, then that is absolute horseshit! You can just look at the meddling of Russia in other ex-Soviet states that nobody is talking about joining NATO and just what Putin has said for years about "the artificial" Ukraine.

The former Soviet countries have had the urge to join NATO because of Russia's imperial aspirations. What is so wrong to opt for EU / NATO / The West than to be under the control of an authoritarian imperialist like Putin?

Both and write correctly what it looks like when people are obsessed about the actions of the US and see everything happening in the World because of it. Although the US is important, not everything revolves around it's decisions and actions.

:100:

OK.

You see, the smartest thinkers not only saw that NATO expansion would get the Russian Bear angry. They also saw the obvious imperialism aspirations that Russia has too. Especially when it came to Ukraine.

But perhaps when you are situated on a flat land going from Europe to China, one wants to keep the borders as far as possible. If that means aggressive expansion and hostility towards your neighbors, well, being on the offense is the best defense, I guess.

The number of influential and knowledge people in the West who understood that what the West was doing would lead to fucking tragedy, is mind boggling. Yet utter morons who are totally fixated on Putin as a personality - while ignoring decades of history and politics - would like to sanctify a West which very well knew its own role in bringing this about: — StreetlightX

How about then reading what for example John Mearsheimer so well said far earlier:

Mearsheimer in 1993:

Conventional wisdom argues that Ukraine should be forced to give up its nuclear weapons to ensure peace and stability in Europe. This is quite wrong. As soon as Ukraine declared its independence, Washington should have encouraged Kiev to fashion its own secure nuclear deterrent. The dangers of Russian-Ukrainian rivalry bode poorly for peace. If Ukraine is forced to maintain a large conventional army to deter potential Russian expansion, the danger of war is much greater than if it maintains a nuclear capability. U.S. policy should recognize that Ukraine, come what may, will keep its nuclear weapons.

Yes, as John Mearsheimer said, giving up it's nukes lead to a disaster for Ukraine. That indeed was the failure that West did. It really was too naive to think that a peace of paper, assurances that Russia accepts its borders and sovereingty etc, would do it for Ukraine.

Sometimes, American political advisers do know what they are talking about:

I don't deny anything you've said is possibly true. — Isaac

Thank you.

It's also possibly true that the US had a even greater role then you suggest. That theory isn't overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary, so it remains possible. They've done it loads of times before, so it remains plausible also. — Isaac

Then hopefully history will later tell that! But do notice that what is lacking is the smoking gun showing that indeed there was a far greater role than we know now. For example, if you could show that the US assisted the Svoboda-party in the 2012 elections, then things like that would make your argument more credible.

And then there is the obvious case that we know, thanks to the Russian intelligence services, that Victoria Nuland and the US embassador wanted to keep Tyahnybok out of the government. So how can the US have this affection to neo-nazis, when they don't want them in the government?

Both Pyatt and Nuland wanted to keep Tyahnybok and Klitschko out of an interim government. In the former case, they worried about his extremist ties; in the latter, they seemed to want him to wait and make a bid for office on a longer‐​term basis. Nuland stated that “I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary.” She added that what Yatseniuk needed “is Klitsch and Tyanhybok on the outside.”

As I've seen this, it was the Ukrainians that likely wanted to contain Svoboda, yet taking them into the interim government and not wanting it to be hostile against the new government. And after elections, they were out. Not thinking of this from the Ukrainian political dimension (which was earlier explained just why the extreme right came to be so popular in 2012 electons), but just what the US wants and does, is too narrow.

There's not a single solution being proposed which doesn't involve America. If, in 2014, America were so keen to oust Yanukovich they were willing to get into bed with Neo-Nazis and far-right extremists, then it shows that their motives were just anti-Russian, not pro-humanity (as if we needed any further evidence that American intentions are not pro-humanity!). — Isaac

You remember what the first phase of the Revolution of Dignity, the student protest were called? The EuroMaidan. The time when Ukrainians were waving flags of the EU. And this still has an obvious link to the present, where President Zelensky wants that Ukraine would be accepted part of the EU. This urge to be part of the West is obvious in Ukraine. In 2014 it was basically only a quite normal trade agreement, the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement, that caused Russia to pressure Ukraine and Yanukovich to back down from the agreement.

That was the spark, it should be noted.

And thus to see all this merely a way for the US to get at Russia isn't correct. It doesn't explain the events and the motives of the various actors, starting from the Ukrainian people. They (the Ukrainians) had seen how countries that had joined the West had prospered where they were left poor. Now if some American politician just sees this a way to get at Russia and nothing else, well, that's not what the Ukrainians and the Russians saw in this.

For Russia it was important that Ukraine wouldn't fall closer to the EU, hence this wasn't just about NATO or the US. And then come the territorial objectives that Russia had towards Ukraine. The Russian minority that was favorable towards Russia. And everything that Putin has talked about history, the "special relationship" between Russia and Ukraine, which is an artificial entity without link to Russia, according to Putin.

Napoleon and Hitler have been the real threats to Russia from the West. Neither of them is around, even if one is buried in a Mausoleum.

The real problem is that Russia has always had this border issue: there aren't any obvious geographical borders, but flatland from Europe to Asia. And hence they've always been insisting on having more territory for defense and see springboards everywhere where they are threatened. And of course, the threat of the enemy serve authoritarian regimes well.

I think an essential step toward a real and lasting solution would be to understand that the root cause of the problem is not Russian aggression but Western imperialism. — Apollodorus

Our thread troll, informing us of the official Russian view :smile:

Boris Johnson, too, stands to profit from this, with his covid indiscretions firmly forgotten, he's guaranteed a reelection. — baker

Things can happen, but listening to Johnson speak in the Parliament and then listening to the reply of the Labor opposition leader Keir Starmer to him, being in unison and giving solid support was very telling of the present attitudes. It seemed to surprise and truly impress Boris and shows indeed that can be possible. The British are united. At least now.

And I think that others here will agree, those who stand to profit is also the Western defense industry (as will the Russian arms industry). Thanks all to Putin! Rarely if ever a country like Germany doubles it's defence budget and EU will send arms to Ukraine. Germany is sending 500 Stingers and 1000 anti-tank weapons. Poland is sending anti-aircraft guns and mortars. Estonia is finally permitted to send the field howitzers it wanted to send to Ukraine along with US the Javelins.

The Netherlands is sending arms:

The Dutch government will supply 50 Panzerfaust-3 anti-tank weapons and 400 rockets, the ministry said in a letter to parliament.

Even Sweden will send arms:

The decision to send 135,000 field rations, 5,000 helmets, 5,000 pieces of body armour and 5,000 single use anti-tank launchers is the first time Sweden has sent weapons to a country in armed conflict since the Soviet Union invaded Finland in 1939, Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson tells reporters.

Of course Sweden has sold weapons to countries, but in just sending them to another country Andersson speaks the historical truth.

And few hours ago, so has my country too:

On the proposal of the Government, the President of the Republic decided today that Finland will deliver 2,500 assault rifles, 150,000 cartridges for the attack rifles, 1,500 single-shot anti-tank weapons and 70,000 combat ration packages to Ukraine as material aid.

Such arms support from so many countries has hardly happened for a long time if ever. Putin surely is unifying the West.

I'll try to make it clear. There are some facts about which it seems we agree... — Isaac

Thanks for your answer, you have made your point clear. OK, It's an interesting topic, I agree, but I think one main question to you is the following: What is the link to the present situation in Ukraine?

But anyway, let's go to your main points:

2. Some of these were Neo-Nazis and far-right activists unhappy with the governments recent favouring of Russian over US aid. — Isaac

4. The US supported the far right factions. There's a suspicion, grounded on some evidence, that they lent more than just 'support'. — Isaac

First thing to notice: when there is a revolution or political turmoil, the radicals and normally the so-called "fringe" are active and play a very major part in the events. Yet the fact is that the majority of people actually aren't radicals and extremists, hence in ordinary elections they don't do so well. Hence only in severe crisis can extremists take power, which can happen in revolutions (like the Russian Revolution).

To take examples:

What was the opposition in East Germany when the Berlin Wall came down? Hippies and various artists called the "Neues Forum". Who did the East Germans vote for in the first elections of unified Germany? West German parties, not the Neues Forum.

The Svoboda-party had enjoyed the largest support during the Yanukovich era prior to 2014:

As part of the wave of protests against Yanukovych government, the ultra right-wing party, “Svoboda,” won the parliamentary elections in 2012 with 10.5% support. This is tantamount to a “landslide” result, considering the results of the parliamentary elections in 2006 and 2007, of which they won a modest 0.36% and 0.76% of the votes, respectively.

And why is this? Yuriyv Shveda writes the following:

"Svoboda” became the first radical nationalist party to enter the Ukrainian Parliament. However, the success of Svoboda does not signify popular support for the radical Ukrainian nationalist ideology. The support for Svoboda was because of tactical reasons rather than ideological. First, as a protest against the anti-Ukrainian policy of Yanukovych, the voters had chosen the most defiant nationalist party in Ukraine. Second, in essence, Svoboda supporters ensured the fiercest opposition against the government. This was necessary as the national-democratic forces had discredited themselves – many of the deputies after the victory of Yanukovych in the 2010 presidential election turned traitor and joined the government coalition. Given the situation, Svoboda, with a clear position and rigid discipline, would keep its deputies in the opposition coalition, thereby firmly and vigorously opposing the government.

So note here that this happened in 2012. Now, the real question (I don't know) is just how active in this period the US was with Svoboda. Let's first think why Svoboda (and the Right Sector) were so important here.

The Maidan revolution can be put into three parts: 1) The Student Euromaidan, 2) The Maidan Camp and finally 3) The Maidan Sich (Struggle). At the shortest,the Student Euromaidan was dispersed in November 31 and then protest became more of ousting Yanukovich government. And in the "Maidan Sich" phase, the Svoboda and the Right Sector took prominance, because it was a huge violent riot. And skinheads and riots mix together quite well.

The role of Svoboda is explained by Volodymyr Ishchenko in the following way:

Svoboda had indeed played an indispensable role in Maidan mobilization and coordination processes and this was not an accident. The party possessed a unique combination of resources among Maidan participants: ideologically committed activists, resources of a parliamentary party, and dominant positions in the local authorities in Western regions. First, unlike other major opposition parties in Ukraine (hardly more than electoral machines) Svoboda possessed thousands ideological activists organized in a nation-wide party cells network. Even if Svoboda activists were a minority among all Maidan supporters, there were still more of them than of any other single opposition party or NGO coalition. They were regularly and intensively participating in activities of Kiev Maidan camp, particularly, helping to maintain them in the periods of downturn mobilization (like in the end of December 2013 – the first half of January 2014).

So obviously the extreme-right had played a major role in the riots. And it had gotten a major victory in the 2012 elections. Now when the regime collapsed, the question likely was what to do with the extreme right that just had played such a role in the events. One idea would be to give them something and hope they loose in the next elections. That just is something that would politically be one option. This could come from considerations of Ukrainian internal politics, not from the US wanting it to happen.

So now to the real question: Was the US be OK with Svoboda because a) they liked the party and had helped it to be what it was, or b) they didn't care about it's roots and ideology, but went with it because it was such an important part of the Maidan and in the Ukrainian opposition? If you say option a), then I guess you have to explain why and when this collaboration started, because I don't know that. Especially when the Interim government was formed after Yanukovich had fled the country. Let's just remember that John McCain (R) and Chris Murphy (D) went to Ukraine (alongside Victoria Nuland) in December 2013, when already the Maidan was well underway.

I think a real question, which is very conspirational, are the shootings at the Maidan. So, where the right-wing extremists also taking shots at their fellow protestors? Was the US behind that? The last thing is a bit of a stretch, as the people in charge (Nuland, Pyatt, etc) were already so well tracked by the Russian intelligence that their phonecalls were bugged (and likely they didn't care so much before the tapes surfaced).

But even if this is an interesting historical discussion, does this really have something to do with the present war?

I'd say, rip the band-aid already. — Christoffer

I have fireplaces at my home, and wood. So fine with me too!

Take the most contentious issue between us, the role of the far-right in Ukraine and America's part in supporting them. What is it you're aiming for in spending so much time insisting that the evidence for US involvement is sketchy, that the far-right have little influence now, that the Neo-Nazis are only a few in a large armed force...

Why underplay it? Why is it important to you everyone here is clear - there's only a few Neo-Nazis in the armed forces, they were only in government for a short time, and America's involvement is not proven? — Isaac

I haven't said the involvement isn't proven.

I've consistently said that yes, the US meddled in revolution, but that the revolution basically happened because of internal developments in Ukraine. Did the US support the Maidan-revolution? Yes. Were there many different groups and political parties in the opposition? Yes. How much did the US focus on the extreme-right, how much the extreme-right had then influence, you be the judge. I guess in a riot, neonazis, just like anarchists on the left, might be useful. But serious question: how much does this have to do with the events now?

To explain what I mean, let's take another case where the US openly and proudly admitted that it really had assisted and helped an opposition to overthrow a government, assisted the opposition on how to organize the political movement and gave support even in the form of spray cans to write anti-government slogans. And that's the case of the ouster of Slobodan Milosevic in ex-Yugoslavia / Serbia. Then the actor was basically the State Department, not actually the CIA.

(Washington Post, 200) In the 12 months following the strategy session, U.S.-funded consultants played a crucial role behind the scenes in virtually every facet of the anti-Milosevic drive, running tracking polls, training thousands of opposition activists and helping to organize a vitally important parallel vote count. U.S. taxpayers paid for 5,000 cans of spray paint used by student activists to scrawl anti-Milosevic graffiti on walls across Serbia, and 2.5 million stickers with the slogan "He's Finished," which became the revolution's catchphrase.

Regarded by many as Eastern Europe's last great democratic upheaval, Milosevic's overthrow may also go down in history as the first poll-driven, focus group-tested revolution.

Yet is now Serbia part of NATO? No, on the contrary, it has close ties with Russia. You see, the opposition gladly took the assistance, but I think the fact that the US and NATO had bombed earlier Serbia made it so that they didn't welcome the Americans with open arms.

Hence you cannot say that the US installed a new Pro-US government because it didn't. You can say that they did have a major role, however it should be noticed that the Serbians themselves had a say what happened next and no puppet-regime or even pro-US administration was installed. And once Milosevic was out, the US lost interest in Serbia. Russia didn't. So in a way, it wasn't similar to let's say "Operation Ajax" in Iran, where an democratically elected government was overthrown in the interest of Western oil companies.

And from the examples where the US did invade, did install a puppet-regime, the huge trouble these regimes have had with the US and with their people has been obvious. Just look at Afghanistan or how cool or lukewarm the relations are between the US and the Iraqi governments.

And on the role of neo-nazis in Ukraine, well, we could surely have that debate in the same way about neo-nazis and Trump and Charlottesville and Jan 6th, but I think the majority of the people don't think that neo-nazi ideology isn't the most important factor in US politics, even if extreme-right domestic terrorism is an issue. Not all Trump supporters are neo-nazis, even if some are.

So I think you should make the case just why the neo-nazis are so important in the case of present Ukraine. I'm open to listen and learn new stuff, really.

What Chechnya looked after the first war (which the Russians lost, basically). That's what a city looks like after the war having gone for 1 year, 8 months and two weeks.


It should be also noted that Putin actually rebuilt the city after the war.

If the fighting goes into slow house to house clearing, then Kharkiv or Kyiv might look like Grozny above. And Kharkiv has historically seen a lot of fighting in WW2, being a Hero City of the Great Patriotic War.

But I also wouldn't have thought they'd send in the Chechen forces either. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Putin won the war in Checnya. Putin has already used Chechen mercenaries in Donbass in 2014. And he has used them also in Syria.

(REUTERS, 2014): Seasoned Chechen fighters, whose combat experience often dates back to the 1994-96 and 1999-2000 wars, fight on both sides in east Ukraine, adding to the complexity of a conflict in which the West says Russian troops are involved.

(From 2014)


Putin isn't a leader that withdraws from wars. Up until now he has either won his wars or continues them (as in Syria).

If reports of Russia calling in Belorussian forces are true it shows that Russia is likely in more of a crisis than is apparent. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That would be bad. A real escalation of that war.

I hope they didn't call the Ukrainians to agree to their terms or then face also the Belorussian armed forces too.

Mine's simple. I want to hold my government and its allies to account for their role in this, I want to make sure they don't get to play the white knight, saviours of the innocent. — Isaac

Ok, fair enough, Isaac.

Let me put it this way: If governments usually lie, there sometimes can be the rare occasion when the truth serves them and they will say the truth. In that case one should note that accepting this truth doesn't make you a supporter of their usual lies.

As has been many times said, no one is saying that US is a white knight, a savior of the innocent. But sometimes it's obvious that the other (here Russia) is doing something that is totally wrong. That even many Russians are against. That it is stupid and likely extremely counterproductive and a tragedy.

But I just can't fathom your aim. — Isaac

How about that sovereign independent states should be left alone. Military force shouldn't be used. That countries ought not to first underwrite that they accept the borders and the territories of others and then brake on that promise. That there should be peace.

Listen, we can talk about the wrongs that the US and the West has done. Yes, Putin has referred to them too. But this thread is about the Ukraine crisis. Or now the Russo-Ukrainian war.

Hopefully this clears my views to you.

Or put him in a mock trial, if they get him. That he's target 1 and his family target 2 is quite probable. It's very logical to try to strike at the enemy leadership in war.

Not that I don't think a new Cold War is happening since it is with China, but that's already been going on for a while now. — Mr Bee

Notice that now Russia is de facto quite attached to China. If Russia can't sell the gas and oil to Western Europe, where can Putin sell it? Yet China isn't a pariah state, it hasn't invaded Taiwan, so it has room to move. All this is an advantage to China.

Just like after the clamp down of the Belarus protests Lukashenko is in a vassal position to Putin now, a sidekick. Before Lukashenko did snap at Russia with sometimes taking the side with Ukraine in the conflict, but now there isn't any other room than to be the satellite of Russia. Which is perfect for Putin.

is an uncountable infinity a mathematical object? — Agent Smith

I know this wasn't a question for me, but have to say: Yes, it is a mathematical object.

Just as is even Cantor's Absolute infinity. (Which he didn't talk much about, but still...)

Yes, I know you hate Ayn Rand. (Except, of course, for you.) :) — ZzzoneiroCosm

Oh no. Here we go again. An Ayn Rand thread... 16 hours and 5 pages.

Observe that this was from a phone call that the FSB/SVR tapped and leaked. Then the Russian intelligence services worked far better than now. (Or have you seen "proof" of the genocide Putin was talking about?)

And Yat's interim government ruled for some months, and then Petro Poroshenko was elected as President (who doesn't appear in the Nuland tapes) and Yat's second government (now elected) continued without Svoboda.

That Yanukovich fled to Russia and even the break-away Republics loathed him so much that they didn't want him (even if he came from the Donbass and obviously would have given them credence) tells a lot that it actually was a popular revolution and Yanukovich didn't have support anywhere. The revolution wasn't an astro-turf event. For some the "Revolution of Dignity" is still something orchestrated by the US, not a popular uprising that the US got involved (as usual). Which, the first option, is also the Putin line.

It’s good that politics has largely kept the far-right movements out of power, — NOS4A2

Great, nice to hear that someone agrees that free elections and democracy can work even in Ukraine!

These groups are given near impunity from the law. — NOS4A2

I think that Ukrainian officials have tried to contain them. And especially not make them to gang up with Putin's neo-nazis. Likely they wouldn't naturally be pro-Putin, but just be against the Ukrainian government. FSB supports any group that is advantageous to them. Yes, it's confusing. But Russia has been a fervent supporter of far-right movements, which becomes hilarious when you think of nazism and Russia.

Just ask yourself, if it would be the US government that would be in disarray (as Ukraine was in 2014), what kind of people would go as volunteers do defend the country at the border?

No wait...

Look at what kind of people in the US voluntarily have gone to patrol the southern border. It isn't even a hypothetical question. And how are they depicted by the media?

VOP and AZ Desert Guardians have embraced QAnon and far-right conspiracy theories about “child sex camps,” “rape trees” and “jihadists” supposedly being found in the Arizona desert. The two leaders frequently credit these conspiracies with inspiring them to engage in border operations that initially began with searches for cartel camps and slowly evolved into detaining migrants.

Do all of those volunteers helping the border guard share similar thoughts? Unlikely, but likely the reporter has looked at some individuals who genuinely are QAnon people.



The real question for you is to think just how much has this to do with the current situation where a huge quantity of people, men and women, are standing in line to join the territorial units of the Ukrainian armed forces and the National Guard. Where the ruling party holds a majority of seats in the Parliament is a centrist party that is against all kinds of extremists. Somehow, who is actually in power in Ukraine doesn't matter, because of events that happened eight years ago.

As @SophistiCat and others including me have tried to explain, the idea that neonazis are in power, can take power, are some kind of power brokers or something because eight years ago they had seats in an interim government or whatever is simply silly talk.

And even if they try to deny this, some (not you) are using the neo-nazi card in the most disgusting way. So you have on this thread exchanges like this...

Brave citizens fighting for their lives. — Amity

Yes. Brave, brave neo-nazis... — Isaac

And then references are given to 2014 and the times of the Maidan-revolution and the interim government. What never is answered is what the link of all this is to today when there obviously is huge popular support for the Ukrainian government among it's citizens. Who simply aren't neo-nazis.

Things ought to be put into the correct context and perspective.

:100:

Here's the scary thought.

Three days ago I referred here to the possibility of Russia "escalating to de-escalate". There are already hints of this possibility (or at least it being on the table).

Putin made a quite open threat in his speech earlier and now has raised the level of his nuclear forces. The reason wasn't anything specific. Now the call from Ukraine to negotiate is positive, but it can be also more threats, bullying and demands for territory. We'll see what happens there.

It seems that Putin understands that this is very costly war for him. The best option for him is to have a rapid short war where he can declare he has gained his objectives. If the figures that Ukraine is giving about Russian casualties are even remotely truthful, this war is costing Putin much. Similar losses cannot be taken for months. And it's only been a few days. With now nearly 1000 Ukrainian military targets hit comes the slow slog of urban warfare.

And he'll need now that Russian military later. Germany, the sleeping European giant, has been awaken and it will double it's defense budget immediately. Now over 100 billion euros to defense is much (which obviously many will later point to conveniently forgetting the actual reason for this). And of course we are going to start to see an influx of weapons assistance to Ukraine. This means that a) either Putin has to make peace, b) he has to take the Western border of Ukraine and close the supply routes to the Ukrainian forces or c) scare the Europeans shitless.

And do note that Russia has held military exercises where in the end nuclear weapons have been used to de-escalate the situation and get at least an armstice. It's still unprobable, but for example Medvedev saying that Russian doesn't need relations with the West is alarming.

Russia doesn't really need diplomatic ties with the West anymore, ex-president and top security official Dmitry Medvedev said on Saturday

* * *

Also what should be mentioned is how totally different the attitude of Poland and Hungary are to the Ukrainian refugees. I think it was a great political move from the Ukrainian government to call every man of 18 to 60 years to defend their country. Basically they cannot use everybody, but it's the idea that really counts. This obviously did a lot to warm the hearts of neighboring countries when the refugees coming are women & children and not military aged men. The out pouring of help especially in Poland is notable compared to the hybrid operation that Belarus staged just few months ago.

(Again, under different circumstances, European borders are again open by countries that were reprimanded by closing them earlier)

:up:

If the best you can do is "You're wrong...because of all the things I've said already" then it's clear this conversation isn't going anywhere" — Isaac

So to @Christoffer you answer:

How have you determined that his motive is to create a Russian empire, other than taking (some of) his words as truth? — Isaac

I think this answer tells it all.

I expect that was all to do with Afghanistan and probably not very comparable. — jamalrob

Not actually. US military presence in a country is US military presence in a country.

Especially with Kazakhstan, Russia's belly would be exposed to the US with US forces there. And Kazakhstan for example holds the Baikonur Cosmodrome, which is quite important for Russia. Obviously now the US would desperately need any airbase in the area from where to check Afghanistan. it had bases in Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan with intense training and support with Kazakhstan.
Yet now, Russia simply said no. It held the Central Asian states close and btw sent forces to quell riots Kazakhstan. And nobody in the West raised a finger.

In short, to influence countries it's better to be a friend than a threat. Just look at how well the "Monroe Doctrine" works in Cuba, Venezuela or Nicaragua.

Well, well. Quelle surprise! So, you are finally admitting that annexing Crimea wasn't Putin's idea but had been a strategic objective of Russia before the time of Putin. — Apollodorus

Yes.

But others likely wouldn't have gone to do it with war and military force. That is the point here.

You see, there could have been a policy to be friendly to Ukraine. Not to bully them. As I posted earlier, polls in Ukraine earlier show that prior to everything that happened in 2014, more people in Ukraine favored a security arrangement with the CIS than with NATO and most believed in neutrality.

So you ask yourself, why couldn't have Putin shown restraint as he showed in Central Asia, where for some time in Tajikistan there were both a US military base and a Russian military base. Did he bully the Central Asian states because they had contacts with the US military? No. Russia waited and worked behind the scenes. And now there are no US bases in Central Asia.

Without a military annexation of Crimea things would be different. Add to that Russia would have had good ties to the West and NATO countries would have continued to dismantle their armed forces as they done.

That's the real tragedy, it's all because Putin (and you) think Russia is entitled to a bigger land mass than it now has.

If Putin would have made first priority to be the economy, not security, he would have had a far better chance of holding Ukraine in the sphere-of-influence voluntarily.

...all of absolutely no use to us in understanding how this was allowed to hspen, he could have just cut all that without effect, yes? — Isaac

Notice what you quoted yourself. Because I was exactly referring to with the quote you made: "the leading NATO countries, in order to achieve their own goals, support extreme nationalists and Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, who, in turn, will never forgive the Crimeans and Sevastopol residents for choosing reunification with Russia."

The talk of neonazis ruling Ukraine is simply and absurdly delusional. This has been explained to you again and again and you simply aren't willing to get it.

Putin attacked and invaded all of Ukraine this year. This year isn't 2014. There isn't a Maidan revolution going on.

Even the mainstream media has picked up how delusional this rhetoric is:



Simply put, the idea that Putin wouldn't have invaded Ukraine, would have left it alone, if only NATO and the US had kept to it's own devices and been passive is not credible. Because all the issues I have many times repeated. By annexing territory, you obviously have quite different motives than just to stop security arrangements between third parties.

Olaf Scholz has made a true 180-degree turn.

Germany is giving arms to Ukraine. Scholz has promised that defence expenditure will be above 2% in Germany. That means that basically Germany will double it's defence expenditure.

Things are changing in the new Cold War.

... by showing that it is (in part) the US's fault, Europe's fault. Had we left well alone Putin would have been robbed of both strategic gain and narrative excuse, but our meddling to further our own economic interests has, in fact, provided both. — Isaac

And this is the main issue here.

You don't read what Putin actually says. He does explain his actions. He didn't need even the excuse of NATO having a springboard to attack Russia through Ukraine. Of course he mentions that, but note what else he talks. Just listen to him.

Putin did have territorial aspirations that came true: he did annex Crimea. This objective was clear even in the 1990's before the time of Putin. Russia has wanted to have Crimea and has wanted to control Ukraine. This would happen even if NATO would never have taken new members (as it's articles say it can do). Just look at actions of Russia in Belarus and Kazakhstan.

You see, in Kazakhstan your scenario did happen: the US had strong military influence there. And how did Russia respond? Did it bully Kazakhstan? Not openly, but the US is gone from there. The Russians prevailed. Kazakhstan is very much in the sphere of influence of Russia. This shows how Russia really can handle US enlargement. That the US had military bases all over in Central Asia and now has nothing, no military base. Nothing is mentioned about it, which shows how you really defy US enlargement. Because the US would desperately want one base now, if it could have one. Russia simply said no. Russia did control Ukraine through Yanukovich, whose error was that he didn't crush the Maidan revolt as have been done now in Belarus or Kazakhstan.

Yet a Russian leader calling Ukraine an "artificial country" is so crucial here. A leader of another country, here Russia, calling it's neighbor artificial and that it should be together with Russia, is such an obvious take a way of the true intentions.

And furthermore, Putin does not have any excuse, any narrative, for invading Ukraine even now.

There wasn't any genocide against the Russia speaking minority. There aren't any neonazis in control of Ukraine today. Ukraine wasn't going to be a NATO member, not with a limited war going on in the Donbass. This is just Stalinist rhetoric.

Yet with the actions that Putin has done, he has created a self fulfilling prophecy: he has created again the "Old-NATO". Western countries are now responding to him.

Now, after a large scale invasion of a neighbor, the West does see Putin as an hostile threat and will respond to it with arming themselves.

I have never said, implied, or alluded to the idea that Putin's attack is justified because Ukraine is currently dominated by neo-nazis. — Isaac

Good to hear that. Sorry if people get confused when you talk about neo-nazis being in power and Putin saying that neo-nazis are in power in Ukraine. Now if I understand you correctly, you refer to 2014 and to the US involvement in the events in Ukraine.

I made the point that the US should not be treated as saviours because they are willing to support no less unscrupulous a party if it serves their economic interests. — Isaac

That's the quote from you.

I think that others have said this to you, but I'll also say it. Nobody is treating the US as saviours. They come in and try to influence things and usually just make a huge mess. (And then the US administration changes and everything turns upside down.) But back to Ukraine, do also note that after the interim government there were elections, and then the extreme right wasn't anymore in power (in the administration). You have to acknowledge that. I think this was the confusing part.

And lastly, that part of history really hasn't anything to do with the current government of Ukraine, so what is the connection to this thread? Or is it just a side mention?

Again waving frantically the Hitler-card and going with Putin's favorite "Ukraine is run by neo-nazis"-argument, Isaac? Or that US backed a coup...which then has stayed in power for the last eight years?

Just to refresh, again and again...

President Zelensky's 'Servant of the People' party claims to be centrist, and it has 254 seats in the Parliament. The Verkhovna Rada has 450 seats. The party was established in 2018, so well after 2014. So basically Zelensky's government enjoys a majority in Parliament. Yes, it's a party that says it promotes "Ukrainian centrism" with an ideology that "denies political extremes and radicalism", but is for "creative centrism" and has roots in libertarianism and is said to be "centrist, big-tent, anti-corruption, pro-Europeanism". Those kind of "neonazis". (Before the current war they weren't anymore so enthusiastic about libertarianism. As obviously they understood that they don't want to promote neo-liberalism, which the Ukrainians don't like.)

Those are the "drug addict neo-nazis" that are ruling "the artificial" Ukraine that Putin's is going around to "de-nazify".

And then the neo-nazis from eight years ago:

Oleh Tyahnybok (and his Svoboda-party) were the "neo-nazis", if you could say the ultra-right party was like that in 2014. They had gotten seats in the Parliament during the prior Pro-Russian government. That interim government (that caused this nazi-panic) was for a few months and in the elections eight years agoin 2014, the neo-nazis lost and were not anymore in the elected government. Right now, I guess they have now one seat in the Parliament.

But for some reason, for something that happened eight years ago, Ukraine is still run by neo-nazis.

Which is totally and absolutely ludicrous, insane argument.

Germany will supply Ukraine with 1,000 anti-tank weapons and 500 Stinger surface-to-air missiles from Bundeswehr stocks so it can defend itself against Russia, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said on Saturday.

1000 anti-tank weapons and 500 Stingers is a huge weapons delivery. Basically it will empty the stocks of the Bundeswehr (not all, but a big portion) and hence new weaponry will be bought.

hings were fine with Russia up until the Crimea incident, that's when all the Russia scare started again. — Manuel

In the West, this is true. The Russo-Georgian war was sidelined as it's not Europe and resets buttons were pushed.

But for the Russian side the huge issue was Kosovo. In Kosovo, NATO was suddenly making demands on one sovereign country and started a war against it. And Russians saw this and thought "Holy Shit! That could be us!"

So in fact when the mistake was done was when the "Old-NATO" was transformed to the "New-NATO" of peace-enforcement and outside the theater operations. If my country would have joined NATO back then, I presume (looking at Estonia) that we would have been berated for having a conscript (reservist) army designed to defend a large scale attack from the East as being totally outdated. Small professional army capable of international deployment was then the idea.

Now for obvious reasons, "Old-NATO" is back.

Also, if Russia joined NATO, they'd have to deal with a voice that would occasionally dissent from certain actions, so that could complicate certain military operations. — Manuel

US and Russia as allies would have been that would have made a true global hegemony and made it even uglier. Many people here would absolutely loath the alliance. And China naturally would be scared shitless. (We and the Swedes would be happy, though)

Think about it, just how convenient would have Russia been to fight the "War on Terror"? They already fear their Muslim minority. Russia doesn't care about casualties, it has global reach and huge market for US weapons. How lucrative would it have been for the military-industrial complex to build weapon factories in Russia and use cheap Russian engineers? How lucrative would have it been for the US to upgrade the Russian navy?

Why this is only hypothetical comes to the basic fact: Russia has never accepted that it isn't an Empire, one of the Great Powers. Both the UK and France accepted their position after the Suez Incident. Russia hasn't been there. Especially with Putin, who sees Russia as the Great Power and doesn't give a fuck about the economy.