ssu Considering the demands Putin had on the table before the war, none of which Ukraine was in a position to meet, what strategic objectives do you think he wants to reach before willing to enter peace talks for real? — Benkei

Who knows. I assume at least securing a land bridge to Crimea and at least getting the parts of Donbas that are now "independent states". He cannot retreat now from assisting the Donetsk and Luhansk Republics, that likely later will join the Russian Federation afterwards. And if Ukraine opts for peace and accepts that they are now Russia, that would be a victory for him. A Pyrrhic, quite meaningless victory, but still a victory.

The maps like the ones under here may hint at the objectives that Russia has or might have. These kind of maps showing a Novorossiya became popular after 2014:





Of course there are the Ukrainians here too. They might be not so "Finnish" and give large chunks of their territory just to preserve their independence. People consisting only a few million know they are quite expendable, replaceable and can be forgotten just like the Armenians. But when there are 44 million Ukrainians, that makes it different. Zelensky and Ukrainians in general can continue this war for a long, long time if they wish. And that's the really ugly part. Now the casualties are in the thousands, but the death count can easily be in the tens of thousands, and can climb to the hundreds of thousands. The worst thing is if this become the "Great Patriotic War II" for Ukaine. Or Russia. In a way this war is like a civil war between close Slavic people and has civil wars often are, can turn very bloody.

Can't believe she's only six at times! — Benkei

They are smart and learn a lot from their parents. I haven't talked about the war with my daughter. But she came next to me and drew a heart with an Ukrainian flag. Her best friend has close family in Ukraine.

The same applies in between any two levels. The leap between inanimate matter (chemistry) and living organism (biology) is also quite huge, and the questions asked are totally different. — Olivier5

Exactly. And everywhere you can see a link from chemistry to biology, but not in the questions. Treating biology just as "complex chemistry" doesn't make sense. You are dealing with such phenomena that simply don't make any sense to treat them as chemistry. And if we got rid of the name "biology" and put it under the name "complex chemistry", the matter wouldn't be any different.

1. What harm will it do to Putin if he loses the war in Ukraine as a consequence of NATO/US/ Europe assistance? How will such a situation harm his grip on power, rather than simply cement the 'bulwark against the west' narrative which keeps him there? — Isaac

What harm could a lost, pointless war could do to the leadership that instigated it? A lot. After losing the Falklands War and not getting the "Malvinas" back, the junta in Argentina was deposed. After the disastrous war against the West after invading Kuwait, Saddam Hussein faced an insurrection both in the north and the south, that he succeeded only barely crushing. Losing at Ukraine could be disastrous for Putin, so likely he would simply call it quits before that would happen. The fact is that Ukraine is in no condition to militarily crush Russia like let's say Israel did in the Six Day War. Victory for Ukraine is to fight Russia into a standstill.

2. Why do you think Putin bothered with all the 'denazifying' and 'resist NATO expansion' pretexts? If he's the mad tyrant you say he is, why not just declare war on Ukraine for the glory of Russia and shoot anyone who disagrees? — Isaac

He's not a mad tyrant. His weakness might be that he has only a small group of yes-men that surround him and nobody of them wants to say how stupid or disastrous an invasion of Ukraine would be. His actions have worked tremendously well up to this point, hence to overplay one's card is nearly unavoidable.

Because Ukrainians are so close to Russians, that they can see each other as brothers, just like Finns and Estonians can see each others brother people, Putin has to dehumanize the opponent: the leadership and the armed forces. They have to be neo-nazis. The enemy has to be the worst kind of people possible, who have somehow taken control of Ukrainians. The rhetoric comes from the invasion of Russia by Nazi Germany, the Great Patriotic War, which is I think far more important, far more closer and a far emotional issue than the "Battle of Britain" is for the British. Everybody uses there the rhetoric of fascist/nazi/neo-fascist/neo-nazi/fascist-imperialist to depict the worst enemy.

You have a problem as you don't seem to accept that societies are part of the natural world and so are constrained by the same general ecological limits, even while being also radically free to invent new worlds if such worlds are possible. — apokrisis

Did I say that? As if I wouldn't accept that humans are part of the natural World?

And here you see the issue I'm trying to make clear for you. Economics is really as they defined it in the 19th Century: Political economy. It is political. It cannot avoid not being political. It's all about politics. If you try to assume that it isn't, that there is some Leibnizian way we talk about about it and hide this into mathematical formulas and pseudo-scientific narrative, it's simply wrong. The politics starts from how people see mainstream economics itself. Or Marxian economics. Or any other school of economic thought. The divide is just huge. You can see it well even here in discussions about economics.

Every human social system that has ever existed has found ways to balance social cohesion with individual autonomy. — apokrisis

Really? I think that history is full of examples of societies collapsing because of the unsustainability of the system and the incapability of the elite to solve the societies problems. Civil wars, upheavals, political turmoil, show that this balance hasn't been the result.

It is like the error that C.P. Snow made in his distinction when argued about two cultures, of this juxtaposition between "science" and "art". Because in his famous book The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution Snow too then presented in the end of his book the idea that "science" could help us on solving the political problems of the present. And for him it was the Cold War and only if we would apply "science" the problem would be solved. Just like the Leibnizian dream of there being a universal language for us to solve our problems and understand each other. But of course it didn't go that way either for Leibniz or for Snow. The Cold War stopped when the Soviet experiment collapsed, when people had had enough of a system nobody believed in anymore. It was a political development.

I don't have to pick a side in some religious fashion. It just becomes a hopefully pragmatic and measurable economic question. Do we bank on the dream of fusion power arriving in time, or do we fully price in the cost of burning fossil fuel? — apokrisis

It is simply not a "pragmatic and measurable economic question". It is simply a political question. And I assume you know that. What do we really do in our legislation, in our monetary policy, with our taxe rates and how we use those taxes, how we spend on R&D? Those all are political questions, which in a democracy and in a capitalist system are decided one way and in an authoritarian, central planned economy are planned in a different way. And then there's the most often case of mixed economies in between. And all of these will start from different premises, different political situations, to solve these issues and understand even the questions differently.

And since they have different premises, different World views, it's really a bit difficult to argue about universal solutions.

Why then are we being stuck with obscene price rises? — Natherton

The biggest reason is the money printing. If you create so much money, then prices finally rise.

It's the systematic flaw in our financial system based on having ever more debt.

. It will be organised to maximise its social cohesion and its individual independence. — apokrisis

How? Maximize what? How do you maximize "social cohesion" and "individual independence"? What do you really measure, if you want to maximize the two? Because to maximize something, you have to have the ability measure it.

The larger problem is then the ecological setting of the sociocultural system in question - the thermodynamic equation that defines what is a functional "burn rate". — apokrisis

What burn rate?

The rate at which you can afford to eat your world sets the general constraint on what will prove to be a functional, stable and persisting social organisation. — apokrisis

What general constraint? What is a functional, stable and persisting social organisation? We can have many ideas of just what is a "functional, stable and persisting social organisation". Yet shouldn't the society be dynamic, capable of adapting to changes where stability and the persistence of social organization might be a bad thing?

As I said, one person could define a "functional, stable and persisting social organisation" one way and another totally differently. So we have a problem.

It's not rocket science. — apokrisis

It's not science. I have absolutely no clue of what kind of actual policies you would implement with that kind of description. It could be just anything... because you could give nearly any kind of definitions to the issue referred to.

I'm kind of hoping there might be a more objective way to address the issue such as what the long term consequences for Ukraine, Russia, Europe, the US, and the rest of the world might be. — dclements

We can speculate only so far.

Basically the invasion of Ukraine by Russia has been a geopolitical earthquake that isn't at all over yet. Both NATO and EU have transformed a lot in only few days. And Russia has made a move that will define it's path for a very long time. The Russian Roulette has been played and the gun has fired. Who gets killed is the real question.

Obviously China now sees how effective (or ineffective) the sanctions of the West are and will take that into consideration. And China is the obvious candidate to hold peace talks with Ukraine and Russia, as now Russia is quite dependent of China thanks to the sanctions. So for China, this all is good. Only if Russia collapses it's bad.

An interesting dynamic of the Ukraine-Russia conflict is that China is observing what is going on over there in order to help them what some of the issues they will have to deal with if and when they finally decided to attack Taiwan in order to get it back. — dclements

Let's first think what Taiwan is for China.

For the PRC Taiwan is basically the last remnants of the Civil War where the Kuomingtang retreated. It would be like if during the US Civil War the Confederacy would not have surrendered, but had retreated to present Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands and held high their flags on those islands to this day. There in the Caribbean the former secessionists would now have prospered and continued with everything the Confederacy was about. If not at the present having anymore slaves, they would still at least have some kind of Apartheid-type segregation. All this would simply annoy the hell out of US politicians as the Confederacy on a small island would be "unfinished business" and the liberals would demand to end finally such blatant racism and a stain in the Americas. To get public support and a notch in the history books by finally squashing the rebels and ending segregation would be obvious temptation for any "Northern" politician.

For China Taiwan represents a similar annoyance and temptation.

Especially when Taiwan is a) more prosperous per capita than mainland China and b) it's now a democracy. It's existence is this annoying remark how weak China still is and where the American "line of islands" start. Yet this jingoistic bait has also it's drawbacks. First, if the US responds and gets angry (let's say the Chinese sink an American flat top) your facing all out war with the US. Second, even if the US only gives materiel support, invading an island can end up in a huge "Bay of Pigs times twenty"-fiasco, a failure that wouldn't only threaten the present leadership but perhaps the position of the whole Communist Party itself. An invasion of Taiwan could basically result in an Chinese version of the Gallipoli campaign: a humiliating costly defeat. And then it could ruin the economy, the lucrative trade China enjoys. And thus China is extremely closely looking at what is happening to Russia now. How effective are the sanctions. And how willing is the West to arm Ukraine. China can also look at how Putin, who has tried from 2008 to truly modernize the Russian armed forces, is now performing against a determined foe.

So the way to understand economics in the most general sense is that it is the way the organism that is a society believes it can organise itself to survive and thrive in a material and efficient cause fashion. — apokrisis

Yet economics is the belief part. That belief part of believing that it can organize itself to survive and thrive is the problem. Belief is the problem.

Because you look at it with the idea: "OK, let's organize the society to survive and thrive" and go with central planning or then say: "OK, let's have the society organize itself to survive and thrive" and go with free market capitalism. Or anything in between. Or something else.

And there's the problem. That general description what you said, and I'm not disagreeing with it, simply doesn't answer anything that has to be answered... in order for that society to survive and thrive.

1993 Cambodia, 1996 Guatemala, 1998 Northern Ireland, 1999 Columbia...

Peace talks work. They work better when adolescent-level idealists aren't bleating about the fact that one of the parties lied. — Isaac

And which of the conflicts would reject my hypothesis?

With Cambodia you mean 1991? The Cambodian-Vietnamese War went on for 10 years. Decisive victory for Vietnam and collapse of the Khmer rouge and it's Democratic Kampuchea. An obvious example of a).

Guatemalan Civil War went on for 36 years. You somehow object it to be the case of b)?

1998 Northern Ireland: The Troubles went on from the late 1960's to 1998. That's also 30 years. I think it was also a case of b).

1999 Columbia is surely different. No peace agreement was achieved! Yes, FARC has signed a peace accord in 2016 and laid down their arms in 2017, but then in 2019 still a few continue the struggle against the evil capitalists...

Peace talks have their role as I said: in of either case a) or b).

Russian resources will be depleted, and Putin will be defeated. — Number2018

Hmmm... that might take a bit of time. Just to give an example: let's think of the T-72 tank. It's 50 years old. About 18 000 tanks were produced in all. About 2 000 are in use. So how much are in reserve?

Over 7,000 T-72s are in storage, but the Russians believe they can be upgraded to the T-72B3 variant package with little difficulty. This means that the modern T-72B3 variant will be a workhorse in the coming years.

And then there are the T-80, T-90 and the tiny batch of Armata tanks about in all 5 000 added to the T-72. For comparison, the US has 2,000 Abrams tanks in use and 3,000 in reserve. Now the tank production has been low, that is true. But then again, Russia is in a new situation: it's engaged in a large conventional war. It just might simply start to produce tanks by putting people into "military" service and change the production into war-time economy. Decreases a lot of your costs when you can pay a cleaners salary to your mechanics and engineers. The production won't be on the level of WW2, but I think they can in few years replenish what they are losing now.

But we shouldn't then think reality is mechanical. We should also work on an understanding of reality that is properly holistic. — apokrisis

As having read economics and as an economic historian, which the latter basically some even don't consider a "science", the obvious problem is subjectivity.

It's not a coincidence that the old name for economics was "political economics". It is actually extremely political. The "mathematical turn" that has happened in economics only tries to hide this fact. And if people base their actions on what they have learned in "economics", then their actions in the aggregate are made because of what they have learned. Hence what is the role of "economics", can it be a "purely objective model of reality?"

No.

The basic problem doesn't go away just by assuming some premises that avoid vicious circles or self-fulfilling prophecies. Or in the most stupid way, just to assume a "black box" where something happens, install it to the model and everything is mathematically fine.

History itself actually tells how we avoid this problem. In history we understand the uniqueness of every historical event and time. We understand how meaningless it is to try to hammer such complexity into some mathematical formula, but we use narrative: "Let me tell you a story of the history of the human civilization..."

I think it reinforces my understanding that each level on the hierarchy of scale provides information and understanding not provided at the other levels. — T Clark

I think it's really about the questions we make. Or the answers we want to have.

For example, from metal you can make ships, aeroplanes or space rockets. The physics, chemistry and metallurgy is the same. Yet the problems and questions are different, even if there is no difference in chemistry or physics. Metallurgy cannot itself answer the various complex questions that aerodynamics or hydrodynamics answers to. They on the other hand don't answer to question concerning the performance of the metal in space and how to make a functioning satellite.

Now when you make the leap from biology to sociology, the questions are so much different, that the answers basic biology can give hardly matter anymore.

How do we stop wars? Is it by measuring how severe they are and hand-wringing about how bad it all is? Or is it by successful peace negotiations? — Isaac

Peace negotiations happen either when a) one side has had enough and is facing at least the possibility of unconditional surrender / total defeat or when b) both sides have had enough of it.

This isn't a border clash or some remote island, when the other side is trying to take the capital of one side. So I'm not seeing either a) or b) happening yet.

So there are Neo-Nazis in many countries but not in Ukraine? — Isaac

Read properly. Neo-nazi problem.

There's more likely a problem with the foreigners running around with de-nazification on mind.

Right. And? What has the severity of the problem got to do with anything? — Isaac

So there's a war going on in Ukraine.

Isaac: And? What has the severity of the problem got to do with anything?

Just remembering the first comment you made on this thread, just 18 days ago:

What! Governments exaggerating a threat so that powerful industries can benefit. Sounds like some kind of crazy conspiracy theory to me.

Best just trust what the official experts have to say on the matter...

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/russia-ukraine-news-latest-today-nato-us-reject-putin-claims-withdrawl/

...so that's settled then. The experts say Russia is preparing for war and I'm sure the billions that the pharmaceuticalarms industry will make is just a coincidence.

Of course, you might find some experts disagreeing, but with none of you being military strategists, you wouldn't want to be 'doing your own research', would you?

Besides, have you not read the news? Those nasty truckers are funded by the Russians, best be on the safe side, lest they fund any more peaceful protestsdomestic terrorists. — Isaac

:up:

Joking aside, I fear that Putin, cornered and desperate, will turn to the tried and true solution - perhaps the only one that he has left: terror, the likes of which we haven't seen since Stalin. — SophistiCat

Do you know how genocidal the war in Checnya was? The Second Chechen War was Putin's war. First among many.

You can look up the widely varying casualty estimates, but they have to be understood in the light that there are only 2 million Chechens. The Second War, Putin's Presidential election campaign basically, shows directly what kind of war Putin is capable of. And how a war can deteriorate into slaughter and brutality. At first (at the First Chechen war) the Chechens applied similar things that Ukrainians are doing now in Kherson etc, go openly to talk to or demonstrate at the soldiers and present their outrage. Chechen Women stopped some armored columns by creating human walls on the road. Yet once the casualties grew, such actions disappeared.





The longer the war goes, the more the hatred increases and the truly ugly side of war is shown. Now it's been just a week and a few days, so it's just the start of this.

If there's a neo-nazi problem in Ukraine — Isaac

Is there? I don't think there is. I think there are neo-nazis in many countries.

I think in Ukraine there is a "Your neighbor wants to de-nazify you" problem.

I think that problem is far more severe than anything else, which ought to be the topic...

But of course we can talk about Ukraine and for example Climate Change. Or Ukraine and Covid. Or wokeness in Ukraine... Or neonazis...

For example, flooding Ukraine with Javelin and Manpads and other Western military donations (from people not willing to actually fight in Ukraine) may not have any chance of changing the outcome and can backfire in many ways.

Or, maybe, it will force Putin to the negotiation table and a resolution is found sooner rather than later.

We'll certainly find out. — boethius

That we surely will know.

What the timetable for that is, nobody knows.

Another week, a month, six months, a year or more, who knows...

What history tells us that a war fought with this kind of intensity will likely last something like few weeks, but less than a year:

Six day war: as the name says
Russo-Georgian war: 12 days
Yom Kippur war: 2 weeks and 5 days
2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war: 1 month 2 weeks
1982 Lebanon war: main phase 4 months, in all three years (with low-intensity part)

Why I'm very slow in my analysis; it's extremely difficult to evaluate things with so much propaganda in all directions. — boethius

I see that you make honest question and do think about it. Your not a preacher here, but open at thinking.

The fact is that raising a topic like right-wing extremism in Ukraine now can send many the wrong message when there is this Russian leader that has invaded Ukraine and talking about de-nazification of the country lead by neo-nazis. I think you understand this too.

But people hear dog-whistles everywhere.

I'm not completely convinced. For example, Syria opposition was painted as "freedom fighters" for a long time ... despite obviously being mostly jihadists and, if not, just some lighter version of Islamic authoritarianism. — boethius

I think that Western journalists have little knowledge on Syria (as they had on Libya) as these have been quite closed authoritarian countries from the start. But considering what a genuine fiasco the whole US operation was... yeah. (Of course in Syria you have the situation where a minority is repressing the majority, and Assad has angered the Sunni majority so much, that the minorities have to simply fight alongside. The conflict was made a religious fight on purpose)

Yet think about it how for example Hungary's Victor Orban has been depicted. Or think about the scares about Austrian leaders starting from Kurt Waldheim. And Germany has it's neo-nazi scares as it has it's "Hitler-Welles". The fact is, that if the Zelensky administration would have links to the extreme-right, which they are against, it would have been earlier reported.

My point here is basically that there's a downside to that tactic in that it gives extremely good pretext to invade ... according to CNN, Putin's popularity has risen from 60% to 70% in Russia since the war started. — boethius

Putin is grasping for all kinds of pretexts. Starting from an non-existent genocide. The US, NATO and neo-nazis are the mix for today. And even when there obviously is support for him, I would be critical of just how objective those polls are in a country where being against the country and the war can get you into jail. In 2014-2015 you could see Russians here in Finland carrying the St. Georges ribbon. Now a lot of them are simply shocked. It is very different.

EU and NATO have taken direct force off the table (for I think good reason), so the constructive thing left to do is diplomacy. Putin bashing I don't think will save any lives. — boethius

The Ukrainians have to defend their country, halt the Russian attacks and inflict losses enough to get Putin to honestly talk about an armistice or peace. And then likely they have to make concessions, like accepting that Crimea is part of Russia. Or then they can surrender...which they surely won't.

That is the way to peace. Now it's time for war.

(A Russian tank crew getting into the right war mood in Southern Ukraine...)

But they can't if they are blocked from trading technology, semiconductors etc. That's the point of the technology sanctions. — Christoffer

Uh, do notice that similar sanctions were there also with the Soviet Union. And if they need artillery pieces and tanks, then they just use older ones and manufacture more ammunition.

At the same time, manpower is cheap, but with a plunged Rubel people won't get far on what they earn, so it'll turn to slave labor and a vastly underperforming technological advantage. — Christoffer

It's an authoritarian regime, which can become even more authoritarian. Many Russians fear that marshal law will be implemented, which Putin has denied. Just like he denied that he had any intention to attack.

I believe that his goal now is to destroy as much as possible, — Christoffer

The quick dash to capture Kiev and for the Ukrainian government to fall didn't happen. And obviously the Russians didn't have the logistics capable of sustaining with easy such an operation. This points to the possibility of Putin truly living in a cocoon surrounded by yes-men: any opposition based on reality wouldn't even get to his ears. The first reports of hungry Russian soldier roaming around for food came from Belarus even before the start of the war, which was telling. Basically it's now for the slow slog. As Ukrainians logically prefer to fight in urban terrain (not on wide fields where armour and firepower triumph), the Russians seem to try to surround the cities. The next phase is the Stalingrad or Berlin type of fighting, which would be absolutely devastating.

Of course Ukraine dominates the Western media scene and we seldom see destroyed Ukrainian armor or units (but some references there are). So I would be cautious in judging just on how bad the situation for Russian armed forces is. Of course there is the possibility that's it even worse, but that we will see.

Likewise, as I say, it's not clear to me what exhaustive criticism of authoritarianism and totalitarianism accomplishes. Criticizing people who are subject to press and democratic scrutiny (what we in the West can learn and do better) seems to me more constructive. — boethius

If you criticize on side and when the other sides does it, you stay silent or just see "no reason" to mention it, many would interpret that as having a bias. I think one should judge sides with equal standards. Unfortunately many people have this urge to "defend" one side. I remember on the old site when in 2003 the US invaded Iraq. Many came here to defend the action and balk at us who were critical about the whole WMD-argument for the invasion. Later came those who defended Bush that he "had only gotten bad intel". And now we got Apollodorus.

When one basically reurgitates the lines of an authoritarian regime that has now made it a law that saying anything wrong about the army or the "special military operation" will get you at most 15 years imprisonment, is a bit hypocrite.

Would you get in your country a 15 year prison term if you say something against your country's handling of a crisis? Russians didn't either before this week.

I think it is notable that Russia has (finally) descended into a Stalinist narrative, because it does have major implications here.

It maybe true. My argument on this point is not what's true and false, who broke what first etc. — boethius

Thanks for the "maybe".

But anyway, let's look at where NATO and the US did mess things up:

First about this promise of NATO never moving eastward. First to notice, this wasn't a written agreement. It wasn't done are said by NATO. It was said only by the US secretary of state in 1990 when talking about the unification of Germany. Note the year, as the timeline is important here.

After explaining why the U.S. wanted the reunited Germany to stay within the framework of NATO, Baker told Gorbachev that "if we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO 1 inch to the east."

Do notice to whom is this promise made: to Gorbachev, to the Soviet Union.

Hence you have an American politician, who basically cannot speak for all of NATO, saying something to a leader of a country that collapsed and isn't anymore. And then afterwards former parts of that now non-existent country, after become independent sovereign states, want to join NATO. Just how much things change there? You have totally different actors now.

But for Putin, head of Russia, a sovereign state that didn't exist then, but has somehow taken to represent ALL of Soviet Union, accuses of NATO breaking agreements. Well, why don't Vladimir have sellers remorse and claim that the Alaska deal the Russian Empire made with the US was wrong and now if you just give him Alaska back and he'll give you back the money, thank you! It would be similar.

And what some participants utterly fail to mention is the way HOW NATO enlarged to the east. The applicants didn't trust at all that Russia would not behave as it now has behaved (hence they were totally correct about it) and wanted article 5. guarantees. Their motivations were consistent and their fears have been showed to be true. The US and the West had different ideas.

And now we come to the real errors that the West made: The US thought that Russia was past, wouldn't be a problem, wouldn't bounce back up. Wouldn't have those territorial aspirations that it has now had and is having. And looking at the void the Soviet Union had left, their focus was more on NATO Article 1. That by integration to the Western defense system these countries wouldn't have border disputes and start fighting each other. And the Cold War was over! NATO had to reinvent itself! New threats! Terrorism, international operations! Things that, uh, Trump said decades later! Armies had to change from defending their territory to small, nimble organizations capable of performing out-of-the-theater operations. Article 5. was some old relic from the Cold War, which wasn't important. And lastly, Clinton hoped to get some votes from American voters of East-European descent. Aaah, those votes, how important they are. And if Russia wanted to join, sure, just take your place in the line back there!

And then came first Bosnia and then the NATO war in Kosovo, which was the WTF moment for Russia. The ties to Russia broke then.

And the last failure was George Bush promising something that simply couldn't be kept: that Ukraine and Georgia would become NATO members in some time. Like later. As Ukraine had, uh, a lot of problems. Vladimirs response we have seen, and as I have said, this all gave the wonderful pretext for Vlad to go for those imperial aspirations that he has. But some still believe after all of the annexations, that if only Baker's promise was kept. :roll:

And now Vladimir overplayed his had and started a disastrous war. And now NATO transformed to what was during the Cold War and Germany has done a historical 180 degree turn as a new Cold War started. This was such a bad move from Vlad, that it may be the beginning of his end.

I would very much like to see someone demonstrate the neo-Nazi's of Ukraine are as fringe as they are in the US (where, as I mention, I do not think Republican's generally speaking were and are "tainted" by fringe neo-Nazi's supporting Trump and that leftist propaganda was irresponsible; of course, doesn't mean there's not a lot of racism in the Republican base and neo-Nazi's are not also racists, nor plenty totally legitimate reasons to be against Trump and republicans). — boethius

One issue is clear: the Western media is and would be very alarmist about the extreme-right having large influence in any European country. Just to give an example, our Russia troll Apollodorus, refers to 2014 BBC articles and so on. For example VICE NEWS had a lot of covering about this and for example interviewed the Azov battalion fighters. (Then the young news channel did great reporting of the conflict in a long series called Russian Roulette, which can be found in YouTube)

Why did the extreme-right got traction in Ukraine prior to 2014? The best explanation I found was this, which I posted 6 days ago. But because as this thread goes on with a rapid pace, I'll repost it here:

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 the discredition of the "normal" right posed people to vote for neo-nazis. But after the Maidan revolution they had enough of them. The Svoboda-party made a huge election loss in 2014 and now is a tiny minority in the Ukrainian Parliament.

But just like the US, where you can make a documentary of a militia, but portraying the country to be run by militias isn't an accurate picture. The vast majority of Americans don't believe in their ideologies. And of course the events now happening in Ukraine, how active people are against the Putin's invasion and dare even to demonstrate against the occupier in Kherson and are actively taking part in the defense of their country tells something far different.

Russia would be a dominant player in Europe if Washington thinks it should be a dominant player in Europe. NATO countries also have economic priorities also. — FreeEmotion

Nah. Don't think everything evolves around the US. The US isn't at all this omnipotent actor on the World stage.

The simple fact is that if you are successful in international trade, you need to have goddamn good relations with your trading partners. And even if you don't, then either your lucrative markets or the competitive manufacturing, if you have it, will attract businessmen.

Just to give an example: the Chinese made their historical growth mainly by themselves. It really wasn't an American project. Neither was the industrialization of South Korea or Taiwan implemented and organized by foreigners. In the case of China, the US incorrectly assumed that with more prosperity and a bigger middle class, China would liberalize and become more Western. Yet communists cannot give up power: they would be finished.

Yet one never should underestimate just how much perseverance Russians have. If their economy will falter, then they stand in line for bread. The sanctions won't stop Putin, that's for sure. If the people survived the collapse of the Soviet economy, they surely can survive sanctions too.

Second issue is that unlike some third world country that has bought everything, Russia can produce it's tanks, artillery pieces and aircraft. There not as expensive as their Western counterparts and manpower is cheap. So when we can see those destroyed armored columns, they can be replaced. Many can criticize the modest performance of the Russian armed forces, but usually Russia has these slow starts and then simply learns by doing. If for instance observers are pondering why the large long column hasn't moved anywhere for days from north of Kiev, then you can also ask why Ukrainians haven't destroyed it or encircled them into smaller pieces (into mottis).

The real question is what Putin's objective is and in a stalemate, what Putin would accept for armistice and peace. Because that has to be basically the objective of Ukraine. Peace that is favorable to Ukraine is a possibility: it is getting huge aid from the West and it has the will to fight. Added up, the West sending 10 000 anti-tank weapons to Ukraine does start to matter, but those won't save cities and their population from Russian artillery.

Ah, I wasn't thinking that trade relationships would or did trump security policy. I posted the chart just to give people like me a clearer idea of the Ukranian economy. — Bitter Crank

Compare that to Russia's major trading partners, here from 2020. With the sanctions, it's evident that China will have a huge role in Russia. And that Russia is in trouble. Besides China, major trading partners (that are loyal allies) are only Belarus and Kazakhstan.

1. China: US$49.1 billion (14.6% of Russia’s total exports)
2. Netherlands: $24.8 billion (7.4%)
3. United Kingdom: $23.2 billion (6.9%)
4. Germany: $18.6 billion (5.5%)
5. Belarus: $16 billion (4.7%)
6. Turkey: $15.9 billion (4.7%)
7. Kazakhstan: $14.1 billion (4.2%)
8. South Korea: $12.5 billion (3.7%)
9. United States: $11 billion (3.3%)
10. Italy: $10.1 billion (3%)
11. Poland: $9.6 billion (2.8%)
12. Japan: $9.1 billion (2.7%)
13. Finland: $7.1 billion (2.1%)
14. Ukraine: $6.3 billion (1.9%)
15. India: $5.8 billion (1.7%)
16. Belgium: $5.7 billion (1.7%)
17. France: $4.8 billion (1.4%)
18. Uzbekistan: $4.7 billion (1.4%)
19. Egypt: $4 billion (1.2%)
20. Latvia: $3.2 billion (1%)

The fact is that this has been a catastrophy for Putin. He might get some kind of result in this war which he can declare a victory, but that will be a Pyrrhic victory. And truly, wtf he will do then with the Donbass? Because occupying Ukraine will drain the living daylights out of the Russian economy. Russia will be weak and will play the second fiddle towards China. You can see here that the Russians living here are in total shock of the events happening in their country. Nothing like that happened in 2014 or during the Russo-Georgian war. This is totally different.

Security policy trumps trade policy always. If you think that there's such an important trade relationship that it would deter war, there isn't. Just look at WW1.

Curious how you view the nuclear first strike strategy. A possible attack, an ability to pose the threat, and intelligence reports that the other country is having an 'intention to attack' of course no one know intentions, just some missiles placed in Cuba pointing at the American heartland. — FreeEmotion

Nuclear weapons are for posturing, not for use. Just look at how scared people are of any kind of nuclear accident: the accident in Fukushima didn't kill anybody, but had huge implications everywhere. Now just think what using a small tactical nuclear warhead (50kt or less) would create. You think that people wouldn't care if in the social media feed or in the television they had headlines like "NUCLEAR WAR!".

That's why nuclear first strike strategy is dangerous. You can say about it at peacetime whatever you want, that is just posturing, but actual first use is different. As I've said, the most worrisome possibility is the idea of "Escalation to De-escalation": to use tactical nuclear weapons in order to get an armistice. To show that you really mean it this time and now it's time to call it quits. After all, if you bow down at the possibility of nuclear annihilation, is that so bad, really? That's were the danger lies. Because once that "shock-and-awe" goes away, what do you do when the other one responds with a similar strike?

Do you want a diminished Russia? If then say so. I do not want any country to be diminished. — FreeEmotion

Russia is a big country, so why would I want it to be diminished? So no. The Russians are genuinely nice, warm people and have a soul more of an artist than an engineer, those that I have been with. They are Europeans and I genuinely think (call me naive, I don't care) that the Russians could well have a democracy, but they haven't been given a real chance. That's the real tragedy, that people loyal to the former authoritarian regime of the Soviet Union captured and retained power in Russia.

Actually, I would really, really like to have a stable, prosperous Russia as a neighbor who feels safe and understands that it has an important position in the World. It can have it's huge military and it's nuclear weapons, if it only would be as peaceful as Switzerland: a small country that has never attacked anybody, but who has surrendered only when faced with Napoleon and who nobody dared ti attack either in WW1 or WW2. If only Russia's leaders would understand that power is the capability of their people, not in the size of the territory. And if you want to be rich, then have trade with other countries. Let those nukes be the Alps for Russia creating an impenetrable fortress if they want to feel secure. Nobody isn't after them and they can easily contain the foreign bankers and businessmen. Yet the idea that everybody is against them creates the perfect pretext for imperialism and a justification for the authoritarianism.

The problem is if NATO doesn't let you in the club, maybe take that into consideration in dealing with your largest neighbor that can flatten your cities. — boethius

I think that the rules when you can get in are NATO written in the articles of NATO and evident from the application process. If NATO doesn't want a small country inside, then what kind of a threat is that country to Russia? But this is not solely about "security". It's about being a "Great Power".

Just to quote again the obvious:

Vladimir Putin, however, has explicitly stated that he views Ukraine as part of Russia. He was determined to reclaim this allegedly lost Russian territory regardless of whether, say, Poland joined NATO. NATO expansion was always a convenient pretext, but never the reason, for Russia’s invasions of Ukraine.

But I guess we are in agreement on this, or in somewhat of an agreement.

Things change, if you can argue the other side broke the agreement (didn't deliver the product) then you can justify not following the agreement too (not paying for what wasn't delivered); of course, one's arguments need to be credible. — boethius

Nobody else broke the agreement. In fact, there is no credibility in that you first accept the territorial sovereignty of the states (meaning that you really don't have any issues where the border is drawn) and then you annex parts of it and basically start to talk abou Novorossiya and the Ukraine as a country being "artificial", if it's not part of Russia. With those kind of changes, you lose all credibility.

End result? Putin just have created self-fulfilling prophecies as his actions have resulted what he made earlier accusations about. Hence can be smug about it as they become true.

Yesterday Vladimir Putin said the following:

“There are no bad intentions towards our neighbors. And I would also advise them not to escalate the situation, not to introduce any restrictions. We fulfill all our obligations and will continue to fulfill them,” Putin said in televised remarks, according to Reuters.

“We do not see any need here to aggravate or worsen our relations. And all our actions, if they arise, they always arise exclusively in response to some unfriendly actions, actions against the Russian Federation,” he added.

Hence the next likely "NATO agent-provocateurs", who by their (and their countries actions) will "aggravate and worsen" the relations and will escalate the situation on Russia's Western border after Zelenskyi are these two women:

(They both speak English, not Finnish or Swedish...as the message isn't just for their people)


The process has begun and the war in Ukraine will continue to a conclusion that we yet don't know.

But even this assumption is dangerous because stopping NATO expansion is not a justification for a military takeover of another country. — schopenhauer1

Oh that doesn't matter...according to some here. As I've said the legitimate reasons to use military force is when you are attacked. That you attack some other country for hypothetical, possible attacks isn't legitimate. And when the neighbor has no intention to attack, no ability to pose a threat to you, then whose cause the war is should be obvious.

The long term strategic objectives: to secure Crimea with a land bridge, take land east of the Dnieper river (at least enough to easily attack any buildup on the near side), — boethius

When that "securing" happens through annexations, you do understand that is really classical imperialism.

And you do understand that the whole motivation for countries neighboring Russia to join NATO is the threat of this? (Which some here on purpose forget in their illogical reasoning)

True, Ukraine has a "right" to join NATO and sign the treatise it wants ... problem is NATO wasn't actually making an invitation with anything on the table to sign. — boethius

Yes, and people holding the view that the real culprit here is NATO hold dearly to what George Bush jr. proclaimed. Which was just one US President (that change every then and now) and which needs all the members to agree with the issue.

Ukraine also has a "right" to sign a treaty with Russia (committing to not join NATO for example), it can do so now, and it could have done so years ago too. — boethius

And that actually would have been totally possible, if Russia wouldn't have had the imperial aspirations towards Ukraine. Far before all of this, Putin used to be the most popular politician in Ukraine. Not anymore.

Logical fact is that Russia would be a dominant European player if 1) it wouldn't be hostile to it's neighbors and have imperialist aspirations and 2) had understood that it has to get it's economy competitive and better and that it's best resource is an well educated population.

Only the US can just go around ripping up treatise; other Nations would think twice before reneging on a treaty it just signed without any rational whatsoever. — boethius

And how much Putin thought of the Budapest memorandum or international law in 2014? I think you can put Russia in the same category.

it is likely the Israelis would have destroyed any chance of that, and also, why has Iran not developed nuclear weapons yet? — FreeEmotion

After the Osirak raid in 1981 I think Israel was complacent and people didn't notice that Iraq continued the research. Another example is how far the Syrians got with their nuclear program and Israel only by chance got information about it and destroyed it (without talking much about it).

Iran has balanced a fine line with their nuclear weapons. They have smartly understood that it's all about posturing and deterrence with nuclear weapons, not use. Hence to have even the ability to make nukes gives them deterrence and still they could agree with Obama and the West. Going full "North Korea" will likely just make the Saudis get their own nuclear weapons. Now in this situation, Saudis aren't opting for it.

Of course everything here is about Israel's neighbors (and historical enemies) trying to have a counterbalance to Israel's nuclear deterrent. As you can see from history, Israel can make strikes anywhere because no other country in the area has nuclear weapons.

. I am of the opinion that Putin has a valid point, if Ukraine joins NATO his hands are tied regarding Crimea. — FreeEmotion

How? You see, Russia has the Kaliningrad enclave surrounded by NATO countries, that doesn't have a landbridge (the famous Suwalki corridor) to Belarus or mainland Russia.And Russia has already built a bridge to Crimea. And Russia would have had a multitude of ways to keep a) Ukraine out of NATO and b) the European NATO countries disarming themselves. Starting annexing territories made the totally different response, which you seem not to get!

Here's Putin driving a Kamaz truck on that Bridge into Crimea:

Ukraine poses a threat to Russia in many ways, because its alliance with the West will benefit them to the detriment of Russia. If you do not accept that I can do nothing about it. — FreeEmotion

And where then do you yourself draw the line where countries "pose a threat" to Russia and are the ones where Russia is justified to use military force. I guess that means also that my country and @Christoffer's country pose a threat to Russia and for you, it's justifiable that Russia will attack us too, because of "the threat" we impose to Russia. Because that will be the next phase of this conflict. It's already well under way.

Or perhaps then Moldova? Oh, the huge threat Moldova possibly joining NATO makes to Russia. And why not include NATO members like the Baltic States? Would you agree to have WW3 if Russia goes for that landbridge to Kaliningrad through Lithuania? Above all, Russia has already demanded NATO forces to withdraw from all Eastern member countries and that the US and Western members cannot hold any exercises in Poland, Romania, the Baltic States etc. That is their demand. So that's were the appeasement policy and "understanding Russia's legitimate security needs" will go in the end.

Perhaps you just should demolish NATO, because Russia feels threatened about it.

I believe Zelenskyi is bound to doing the bidding of his NATO masters at the moment — FreeEmotion

Zelenskyi is trying to stay alive and lead his country against Russian invasion. Oh right, it's the "bidding of his NATO masters", when the country isn't in NATO...

It is a pleasure (on one level) to view a horrible event than has no person consequences. 9/11 is a classic example: Fascinating event! I knew absolutely no one who would be or was affected. The forest fires in California were not entertaining, because I knew a couple of people who were directly affected, and we could both see and smell the smoke 1500 miles away. — Bitter Crank

How correct you are. And of course, the ugly parts in 9/11 like the people leaping to their death from the twin towers, or in war coverage of dead children or that insides of humans spilled out look quite like the stuff on display at your supermarket's meat counter is usually censored starting by the photographers themselves. If news or a media outlet shows truly shocking footage, they do have an agenda. Even if reporting atrocities is something good journalism ought to do.

The fact is that until now, the countries that had wars in recent history have had a language barrier between us and they haven't been so connected to the social media. With Ukraine, it's different. And when it comes to the information war, basically is focused on desperately hiding what is happening in Ukraine behind quite Soviet-style discourse. Likely it won't work, especially if the "special military operation" drags out to months or years.

Situation of the refugees. That one million have fled in a week out of 44 million tells about the intensity of the war. And what is also telling is the amount of volunteers going to fight to Ukraine. Something similar to the Spanish Civil War, actually. Things are really starting to be as in the 1930's.

If WMD's existed, and also don't forget the ability to 'hit London in 45 minutes' was a reality, I would have given the benefit of the doubt to NATO and the powers that invaded Iraq. — FreeEmotion

First of all, NATO didn't attack Iraq, it wasn't an NATO operation. NATO countries belonged to the alliance, but so did Pakistan, Morocco, Egypt and even Hafez Assad's Syria.

Second, it's not if they existed. Iraqi missiles never had the range to hit London. Yet the nuclear weapons program did exist, he did use chemical weapons against Iranians and the Kurds. Hence there's no potentiality of them. Had the Gulf War not happened, it's likely that Saddam Hussein would have obtained a nuclear deterrence (even if the Israelis hit the Osirak reactor earlier). But the Gulf War, the later weapons inspections and Operation Desert Fox destroyed it. And thus the drumming for war, talks of the "Mushroom Cloud" after 2001 by Bush were propaganda concocted in the White House.

Similar false propaganda like the neo-nazi argument or that a genocide is (was) perpetrated by the Ukrainians in the Donbas.

In the same way, if Russia has the knowledge that the military arrangements being carried out in Ukraine posed a threat to its security, then I am not going to say that invasion was the wrong thing to do. — FreeEmotion

Sorry, but I draw the line to justifiable defense to when a country is actually invaded. Not to attacking other countries because of vague hypotheticals. Pre-emption is still an attack, and then the war preparations ought to be evident to have any justifiable credibility (which is usually difficult). What kind of a threat Ukraine posed to the country with the largest nuclear weapons arsenal? Just answer that yourself.

If you accept that Russia has the right to attack Ukraine, then to be logical you should accept that then the US had the right to invade Iraq, because of the "potential", basically hypothetical threat that it posed. But that isn't even the real reason why Putin attacked Ukraine: he wants to control Ukraine and already has taken chunks of it. It's simply classic imperialism.



Or think about it this way: if Russia would promise to withdraw from Ukraine, promise to give back the Donbass and Crimea and stick to the Budapest memorandum and only thing Ukraine had to do is promise that it never, never joins NATO and remains neutral, you think Zelenskyi wouldn't take that offer? I'm sure he would. I think that even NATO would go with that sighing a relief. Do you genuinely think that Putin would give that kind of proposal? Of course not!

To think the Russian attack was a) only to halt NATO expansion or that b) Ukraine posed a threat to Russia is simply stupidity of believing the lies of Vladimir Putin. And that is foolish and basically dangerous.

On the other hand, In addition to pressing for as much assistance as possible short of that, it is saying the ground forces are toast without Russia air support. In that respect, the impending decision to bombard cities into submission is an admission that the mission, as purported, is a failure — Paine

Or at least, it hasn't been a spectacular achievement like the annexation of Crimea. Naturally the reporting is biased for the Ukrainians (and why wouldn't it be), but the Russians have made advances in the south. We have to remember that Ukraine is a huge country and it's only been little over a week.

The truth is that Ukrainians themselves have to fight the Russians to the negotiating table, perhaps managed by China. What they need are huge amounts of anti-tank and surface to air missiles. And then for peace, accept to lose territory. Or then face a genocidal war of losing civilians and soldiers during the Afghan-Soviet war.

Unlike, for example, Iraq having WMD's which was proven to be false; obviously, that propaganda would have worked a lot better if they even found some WMD's — boethius

Actually, let's not forget that Saddam DID have a WMD's and a nuclear weapons program prior to the invasion of Kuwait and the Gulf War. In fact, what then later was found out that Clinton's "Operation Desert Fox" had destroyed the last remnants of Saddams WMD's. So it was false, but not totally made up. Yet it has been multiple times from various separate people shown how Cheney pushed for war and took the WMD issue without base as a reason for war. One of the few things that happened during the Trump era was that the lie "The President just got bad intel" was buried. He didn't, they simply tried to get any reason to start the war.

Just like Putin with his neo-nazi and genocide talk.

And the Ukrainian neo-nazi argument is something similar. Ludicrous. It would be as to depict neo-nazis having great power in the US run by the Biden administration, because of Trump's attitudes towards them when the Charlottesville attack happened. And if neo-nazis support Trump and Republican support Trump, then each and every Republican is a neo-nazis, right?

Drug addicts? Ruling Ukraine? I don't say these things. — boethius

Putin says these things. Those are the reasons given to this war. That is the Stalinist narrative. What do you think the de-nazification of Ukraine is about?

The main point is that this is a ridiculous war. It genuinely doesn't have credible argumentation. The Putin that annexed Crimea was totally different: thought about actual Russians and Russian speaking minorities, gained total strategic surprise and used well all his information warfare abilities. This is the propaganda of Stalin.

Why would we discuss neo-nazis otherwise? As the accusation that Ukraine is doing 'genocide' is so ludicrous even Russian don't try to give lies about, seems that to be "critical" about the West, then the narrative "Ukraine is filled with neo-nazis" is the only issue that sticks. Because in 2014 extreme right did play a part and people were confused about that.

It's really difficult for me to imagine that the entire EU really couldn't have prevented this war with credible negotiation. — boethius

Look, he already annexed Crimea and used proxies to gain more territory. Only Ukrainian resistance and him not using forces as now prevented a land bridge to be gained too between Crimea and Russia in 2014-2015. The annexations tell extremely clear what his intensions and objectives have been. If we assume that what politicians write and say doesn't matter.

What is so difficult to understand, when you look at what Putin has said and done, for whom the collapse of the Soviet Union was the worst thing that happened last Century?

No EU "credible negotiation" would have done anything. If one thinks so, one is just fooling oneself and basically going and trusting a liar, who said that Russia wouldn't attack. I guess this and the idea that "all this wouldn't have happened if no NATO enlargement" are just those arguments for those who only see to criticize the West as something valid (as they don't care so much about Putin or Russia).

It's like the argument that WW2 would have been avoided, if only Germany would have been given the right to annex the parts of Poland that it wanted. Yeah sure, a guy that write "Mein Kampf" and gives all those speeches and built that shining war machine would have then been totally satisfied and peaceful for rest of his life.

As I say, the argument entirely depends on how much credibility you lend these neo-Nazi's. — boethius

To talk about drug addict neo-nazi's ruling Ukraine is utter nonsense and just Stalinist propaganda rhetoric. It's the level Putin has fallen to.

It's for the ignorant clueless babushka in Russia who believes what is said in the State run television. It's the mantra that the officials use to show their dedication and trustworthiness to the regime. They don't believe really it, but that's not the point. It's a show of strength, you show where you stand, the official line! Russian discourse is rapidly collapsing to the Soviet era, to mantra's that don't mean anything, to lithurgy that you praise to show you are in favor of the rulers.

The dehumanization of the enemy is important. Especially when people have earlier felt that Ukrainians are their brothers. Just like Estonians are to us. So there has to be that evil, that they are "liberating" the Ukrainians from.

The style actually is closer than you think: it's the well-educated, professional Republican politician who then goes with the most outrageous Q-Anon conspiracy.