Putin is just the kind of man that Trump dreams of being but unlike Trump he has a at least a modicum of executive ability. — Wayfarer

You know, I've come to this conclusion myself too. Trump as the self centered narcissist genuinely admires the strong man Putin and Trumps actions have to be viewed from this perspective. But for Trump reality is a reality show, while Putin genuinely seems to view things that he is doing from a historical perspective. Hence his actions now are responses to things that happened decades ago.

Just look at Putin's war speech. What takes a long time is for him to cover the end of USSR and the Cold War, NATO enlargement, Kosovo, Libya, WMD's of Iraq, reference to Germany invading Soviet Union in 1941. The speech port of the artificial Ukraine, which now peacekeepers go now to de-nazify, surprisingly short.

How relevant are these? Is this more serious than was previously expected (the sanctions), or is it more or less "normal"? — Manuel

Things promised earlier. I think the basic problem is that you cannot make really hard sanctions as they will start to hurt you a lot. Now that would really show resolve, but I don't think that people care so much of the plight of the Ukrainians to have problems themselves. I think Germany doesn't have any interest to have rolling blackouts and an energy crisis especially when it's still winter.

And the simple reason is this:

Russia is the main EU supplier of crude oil, natural gas and solid fossil fuels

The stability of the EU’s energy supply may be threatened if a high proportion of imports are concentrated among relatively few external partners. In 2019, almost two thirds of the extra-EU's crude oil imports came from Russia (27 %), Iraq (9 %), Nigeria and Saudi Arabia (both 8 %) and Kazakhstan and Norway (both 7 %). A similar analysis shows that almost three quarters of the EU's imports of natural gas came from Russia (41 %), Norway (16 %), Algeria (8 %) and Qatar (5 %), while over three quarters of solid fuel (mostly coal) imports originated from Russia (47 %), the United States (18 %) and Australia (14 %).

His speeches and conduct do not indicate the measured reasoning of a rational statesman. — Wayfarer

Yes, well,... we have had Donald Trump, you know. And others. Not hard to find, actually.

But your argumentation is totally reasonable. I think here what is notable is the change to his earlier speeches and texts. Yet a lot is quite the same, actually. Perhaps Vlad doesn't try to be nice to people, but shows what he feels.

The US imposed sanctions on Putin.

Don't know how much it matters. — Manuel

Eu imposed similar sanctions. Also foreign minister Sergei Lavrov's assets were frozen.

I guess Germany and Italy were against the Swift-sanctions, so no Swift embargo.

(Do notice that there is a Nordstream 1 -gasline operational and something like 55% of Germany's gas comes from Russia)

What? How is that evidence that Ukraine wouldn't have wanted to join anyway? — Isaac

How about polls about NATO membership in Ukraine. Is that enough for you?



Due note please the friendly attitudes that obviously Ukrainians had before Putin started bombing and annexing their country.

The simple fact that there was no huge popularity to join NATO before, when Putin hadn't been so aggressive. And Crimea and Donbass were in Ukraine. All those Russian speaking and ethnic Russians living in Ukraine. Viktor Janukovytš by the way came from the Donbass region and even they, the People's Republics, didn't want him anymore. But before in 2010 he had won in elections Julija Tymoshenko.

War is also dying. (As obviously people can understand)

If well over 137 Ukrainians died in two days of fighting, then that is about the number of 50 000 deaths in a year. From reports of military losses, the rate something equivalent of daily losses that the US suffered in a month during the heaviest fighting in Iraq of Afghanistan. Just remembering that to combat deaths there usually are many more wounded. So this is a very large and bloody war.

And Putin hasn't wimped out of any war he has started: either he finishes the job (Chechnia, Georgia) or continues the job (Syria).

But @Baden, that is precisely what I'm talking with Finladization. The thing I continued:

But what is obvious is he would want to control over the doings of Finland. — ssu

What you refer to is precisely what I referred to. It's already happening. Remember that Finland is the only Western neighbor of Russia that a) isn't a member of NATO and b) doesn't have Russian troops inside it's borders.

Of course, if I listen to actual Russian opposition leaders, they are painting a far more bleaker future for my country alongside Putin.

Aleksei Navalnyi tweeted (about Vladimir Putin's speech) few days ago:

Replace "Ukraine" in his speech with "Kazakhstan", "Belarus", "Baltic countries", "Azerbaijan", "Uzbekistan" and so on, even including "Finland". And think about where the train of geopolitical thought of this senile grandfather may take him next.

All this ended very badly for everyone in 1979. And it will end just as badly now. Afghanistan was destroyed, but the USSR also received a mortal wound.

See Aleksei Navalnyi's tweet.

:up:

No one knows, but plenty speculates that even if he succeeds in defeating Ukraine, he will still not benefit from this. There's almost no "win" for him in any of this. — Christoffer

Which really begs the question why.

The idea of gaining physical territory is quite anachronistic. First it has huge political drawbacks and every nation that annexes something from somebody else will have a bad time with it. Be it country like Morocco, Israel, China among others. It's totally reasonable just why the international community doesn't accept annexations. Then comes the other issues.

A desert where nobody lives with a huge oil field or natural resources might be understandable. A region where majority of the population is favorable to you, even if the economy is a basket case, is still understandable. Hence annexation of Crimea was logical imperialism in the sense that Crimea was only an economic problem, not a security problem. Yet to take by war a region that is already poor with people very hostile towards you doesn't make any sense. Does Putin think that capturing Kiev and installing a puppet regime and things will be fine? Those troops have to stay and occupy a huge country of 44 million people.

But again, he made the intellectual journey already years ago with grand thoughts of Eurasia and with the thoughts of Aleksandr Dugin.

If you still don't understand, do let me know and I'll explain it to you in greater detail — Apollodorus

Oh I do understand. You cannot be more clear. I did try asking what you thought of the annexations and you have given a clear answer.

Granted, but the danger for me is the focus on psychology rather than strategy. — Baden

Psychology doesn't matter at all, actions do. Yet usually one has to take that what a person says is what he truly thinks. Of course he can lie for obvious purposes, just like saying Russia has no intention of invading Ukraine. And then, invasion. But the fact that NATO is out to get Russia and won't stop at anything can a thing that Putin genuinely thinks is true. Or any opposition that he faces is only implanted by the West and it's desire to instigate "Color Revolutions".

Similar event is actually the overdrive that democrats went with the Russian meddling in the elections. Yes, the Russians were active. But only up to a point. No, they didn't decide the elections.

It can be answered seriously, but it's an intellectually lazy, boring, and counterproductive line to take, especially when there are obviously identifiable reasons for what's going on. If you look at the situation in terms of pure power politics, Putin may well come out on top. If you make the mistake of searching for some moral element, then you shouldn't be analyzing politics at all because it will all look mad. — Baden

I agree that just saying "he's mad" is intellectually lazy and boring.

Perhaps it should be described a bit better. That he is confined to a cabal that won't say anything against him. Now, if you don't have anybody challenging you, you really might go astray in your thinking. Especially when you start wars. I think the now noted exchange between Putin and his Intelligence Chief shows that people around him are terrified of him. Or at least, it seems like that.



The fact is that politicians start to believe their own lies. Believing ones own lies is then viewed as a sign of strength. Because "the truth" doesn't matter, everything is just usable rhetoric to advance your agenda and to obtain your objectives. I think this was also evident in the Trump administration.

Keep on trolling.

But I have to say I like what Baden posted earlier. Tells a lot about you @Apollodorus:

As Putin is obviously trying to reconstitute and reconquer the Russian (Soviet) Empire, he truly is the modern imperialist in the genuine sense.
— ssu

for some strange reason you keep blabbering on about "Russian empire"
— Apollodorus

You obviously don't understand the term "empire".
— Apollodorus

....

Putin ... clearly intends to restore some of the Russian Empire, which I believe he is perfectly entitled to do.
— Apollodorus

Presented without comment. — Baden

Probably the real reason why Saddam Hussein had to be ousted was the flow of sanction busting black market oil. — Metaphysician Undercover

Hardly.

Likely it was simply that the neocons could hijack power in the US and used the "window of opportunity" given by 9/11. Besides, Saddam Hussein had tried to kill the father of the sitting President in Saudi Arabia, so George Bush younger might have had a grudge against him. And it looked like an easy picking I guess. Perfect example of American imperialism at it's worst.

Neocon madness:

Do you have such evidence? — Isaac

Yes. The obvious evidence is that Russia has annexed Crimea. Case closed.

If that evidence for you of Russia having territorial desires for Ukraine, I wouldn't know what is. Or the many Putin speeches and writings how Ukraine is an artificial country and how Ukraine and Russia belong together. The last European leader having similar rhetoric was Slobodan Milosevic towards other members of Yugoslavia. Thanks to him, the disintegration of Yugoslavia didn't happen as peacefully as the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

We have a choice - what to do next. The only thing that matters is that choice, the consequences of it. — Isaac

Yes. And luckily the Baltic States did make a choice. Both Sweden and Finland sighed a relief when the Baltic countries joined NATO. The two countries surely aren't in any position to give any security guarantees to Baltic States (which was informally asked first by UK).

Ukraine made the wrong choices. It gave up it's 1900 nuclear warheads to Russia. It gave them up for a bullshit piece of paper in 1994 where the United States, Russia, and Britain committed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “to refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country.

It made the wrong choice of believing that international boundaries would be respected and specific guarantees made to it would protect it. It didn't.

Just for people to know what the Budapest memorandum was about. That the countries gave back the nuclear warheads in their possession, UK, US and Russia promised the following things.

1) Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.
2)Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
3)Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to influence their politics.
4)Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
5)Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
6)Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitment.

Once Putin rose to power, the maneuvers to obtain Crimea started in 2009.

This is probably gonna be the start of the downfall of Russia overall if I'm being frank. — Mr Bee

If Ethiopia has made it so far, so will Russia.

It will persist. Frail, bitter, troubled... or perhaps something even improves! I sure hope so, as it would be nice to see Russian tourists back here again. They are nice people. It sad to see here the border region, where they have made a lot of investments for Russian tourists. Now as the ruble has crashed, there's none of them.

6,000 warheads. Delusional dictator with nuclear arsenal and historic grudges is no laughing matter — Wayfarer

Who mades threats using them, has held military exercises where nukes are used to "escalete to de-escalate" the situation.

It's really a serious question, not just propaganda.

I think he has lost touch with his people. Doesn't care about what they think or where the economy goes. Just claiming genocide and Ukrainians being nazis doesn't sink in...especially when you have before said that all the talk of you invading Ukraine is American nonsense. He truly made a "great" effort in getting Russians to back the second Chechen war, which basically was his election campaign for the presidency. But then he was young.

Now at the second day of the war there ought to be some war enthusiasm. Talk about a messy idiotic war like Afghanistan.

The basic problem is that he cannot understand that a harmless opposition can be that: harmless. But for him any opposition is an existential threat. This is the weak spot of authoritarian regimes: if you don't have to show economic growth, people will not be happy and your response will make things worse.

I'm not sure what the pre-existing war's got do with it — Isaac

Meaning that there already has been a war going on since 2014.

Pro-Western imperialist agendas cause more death and misery than this war will - ten times over. — Isaac

Yet that doesn't justify Russia's actions. And when Russia has gone to war, it has been far more indifferent to civilian casualties as it is with it's own casualties. This can easily be seen from the war in Syria, Chechen Republic, Afghanistan. But that doesn't make then US a white knight.

Russia are not a crazy one-off Marvel bad guy which sprung out of nowhere. The US are not white knights who are going to come in on their chargers and save the world — Isaac

Of course. But note that sometimes they are correct in what they say: Russia's critique of NATO's actions in Kosovo or Libya are fair and understandable as is now Biden's critique of Putin's attack.

It doesn't make it OK to beat up someone who didn't attack you because another guy has done also in different occasions. Of course there are no white knights and evil entities, but simply to put it: imperialism is wrong. If countries have become independent, they really have had the motivation to become independent. And they have the right for it, you simply cannot make the case that Ukrainian independence is an "astro-turf" idea. Nobody ought to say that a country of 44 million is "artificial", hence I can annex territories from it.

(Btw, it's telling that these People's Republics, once Putin acknowledged their independence, waved Russian flags, not their own flags.)

This is an inevitable conflict, caused as much by Western provocation and puppet-mastery as it is by Russian lunacy and stubbornness. — Isaac

It's only the "as much" which I reject to as basically already Ukraine wasn't going to become NATO and the simple fact IS THAT IF PUTIN WOULDN'T HAVE TERRITORIAL DESIRES IN UKRAINE, UKRAINE WOULDN'T WANT TO BE IN NATO. Remember that prior 2014 Ukrainians genuinely thought of Russians as their brothers. Vladimir Putin was very popular then in Ukraine.

Everything doesn't revolve around the US. The actual relations and realities between Ukraine and Russia matter here.

I don't know why you're pretending you cannot tell the difference to aspirant members bordering Russia and existing members.

Or the fact that over asking is a rather transparent negotiation tactic. — Benkei

Benkei, the demands that Putin has made for NATO do effect existing NATO members. Not only aspirant members. Actually, the only "aspirant" members are Ukraine and Georgia now I guess.

Russia and all NATO states that were members in May 1997, before the first eastern European countries were invited to join the alliance, shouldn’t “deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other States in Europe” that were not already in place on that date, according to one of the treaties published Friday by the Foreign Ministry in Moscow.

This means that NATO countries like US, Germany, UK, the Netherlands, cannot exercise in Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary or in 11 other member states.

A mutual defense pack that cannot train inside it's own borders basically cripples NATO. But if you think that appeasement would somehow work, Putin simply would push as long until he can. After all, he wants the eradication of the whole NATO. And in his war speech he was quite clear who he sees as the enemy:

Of course, the question is not about NATO itself. It merely serves as a tool of US foreign policy.

Merely a tool of US sidelines totally every other member in NATO, who actually have felt that it has been a good tool for their own security policy.

I think it would be informative to read what Putin actually has said: Putin's speech 24.2.2022

It's telling that there are there are protests against the war in Russia. Not much, but something.

(Washington Post)MOSCOW — Thousands of people protested President Vladimir Putin’s attacks on Ukraine in cities across Russia on Thursday, a striking show of anger in a nation where spontaneous mass demonstrations are illegal and protesters can face fines and jail.

More than 1,700 people were arrested in at least 47 cities across the nation, according to rights group OVD-Info.

Even Russia Today confirmed the protests:

Anti-war slogans filled central Moscow and Saint Petersburg streets on Thursday, as hundreds took to protest against the ongoing Russian military operation in Ukraine. Police in the Russian capital have said they temporarily detained 600 people.

Yet what is more ominous to Putin isn't that there aren't great enthusiasm for the war. If he has been methodically using the Stalinist playbook on how to attack, the Russians seem not to be there. After all, they were just a while ago said that Russia wouldn't invade and that all was just hype from the US. At least in 2014 Russians did openly use the ribbon of St George and the annexation was popular with Russians. Seems that it isn't now. Putin has gotten old. And perhaps total power has corrupted him totally and he has lost his touch to the country.

I hope starting this war will be the start of the downfall of Putin.

So Finland is next? — frank

I don't think so. Not at least in the same way.

He hasn't written a long rambling text about how Finland is an artificial country and actually it would be best for everybody that it would be part of Russia. But what is certain that he doesn't want Finland (or Sweden) to join NATO.

But what is obvious is he would want to control over the doings of Finland. I'll give examples: Like that the SVR chief in Helsinki would give merely as a cordial suggestion, a speech written by the SVR, for Finland to give at the UN general meeting. And that the Finnish President would then give the speech word for word at the UN.

Or then that due to aggressive behavior of the US, Finland (and Sweden) would abstain from any military training with NATO.

And then perhaps that Finland would have some military exercises with Russia (something that the Soviets asked, but Finns declined).

And then perhaps that Russia would partly take care of our air defense (which again the Soviets asked, and to which the Finns didn't give an answer and no Russian SAMs were deployed to Finland).

That kind of control Putin surely would want from us.

It's like the 70's show!

As far as anarchy, that's exactly how you and I are operating right now. I don't require a government to interact with you. I simply have to engage with you in acceptance of the principle that forcing you to do anything you do not want to do is a violation of ethics at its source. I need nothing more than that principle, same as everyone else. — Garrett Travers

But Garret, you likely know this forum. If one of us starts flaming, makes toxic ad hominems or promotes openly nazism, that member would be off from this forum in and instant never being able to return (assuming they found out you are already banned). And likely a lot of bots and algorithms are checking automatically what we are discussing and if enough alarms go off, someone will check what is this about.

We have everywhere these Overton windows and have had them in the past and will have them in the future. So even now there are rules and regulations what to follow, just for functionality, not for control or power. And even that "the principle that forcing you to do anything you do not want to do is a violation of ethics at its source" is obviously a limitation to our "freedom".

Yes, I don’t get the Nazi angle. But upon briefly looking into it, Russia and pro-Russia forces have been using antifascist rhetoric and evoking “genocide” against the “Orange Junta” since Poroshenko. Here’s a good article on it. Putin using the same rhetoric (among many other things left unreported) to justify his advance the direct result of this species of belief and propaganda. — NOS4A2

Antifascism is something from the Soviet vocabulary.

Simple fact is that Russia had it's Great Patriotic War against Hitler, so the idea of fighting Nazis is much appreciated in Russia. In a war you dehumanize the enemy. If Ukrainians are brothers, then there have to be someone that have to be the enemy: the Nazis! If Putin targets the Baltic States and NATO unity, you will surely read from the Putinist what kind of closet-Nazis the Baltic people are. Or the Finns. Or the Swedes. Because why would you help a bunch of Nazis, when your grandfathers or great grandfathers fought them also?

Putin wants to rebuild Russia as a great power, NOT the Soviet Union. Ukraine was already part of Russia long before the Soviets came on the scene. — Apollodorus

He wants to reconstruct the pre-Soviet Russian Empire. He sees the Russian Revolution as an interruption in that project. — jamalrob

It's good that people find here some agreement. Of course some view that he (Putin) is entitled for this, while others do not. But the fact is, this is not just about NATO enlargement. Hopefully some would understand that.

But what really has happened is the World has changed now far more than what happened in 9/11.

The Second Cold War is a reality. No "resets" happening anymore. People will start thinking about nuclear weapons again.

And the blissful trust in globalization has collapsed. Western countries will understand that they cannot rely on Russia (or China), when it comes to their strategic resources, at least. Western Europe cannot rely on Russia fossil fuels or Chinese cheap labour. Security of supply will be one thing.

They should've sacrificed Ukraine and at a much earlier stage. It's no use to hold a position you're not planning on defending. — Benkei

Sacrificed Ukraine? You think sacrificing Ukraine and Putin would be fine. And what is so wrong to respect the borders of sovereign states that earlier Russia has accepted? I can assure you, the next thing would be to demand NATO to basically end the agreement with a huge number of it's current members because Putin has already demanded it!

And what is here the position? That one former US President went to comment that both Ukraine and Georgia will be NATO members? That's how far it got, but correct me if I'm wrong. Because NATO membership has to be accepted by all members, not by what the US president says, as article 10 refers.

Article 10

The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty.

The Azov Battalion was incorporated into the national guard of Ukraine, though. The UN has accused them of atrocity and war crime in the past. I wouldn’t say the Ukrainian government are neo-Nazis, but such elements are present and currently fighting against the Russians. Even NBC recently filmed them training old ladies and other locals. — NOS4A2

One battalion, that had a strength of 300 in 2014 isn't much in a 200 000 strong armed forces. (You know, company, battalion, regiment, brigade, division, corps)

And if you don't believe that anything hasn't been done after they were put into the National guard, be then sceptical about it.

But it's notable to understand why this Azov battalion, that hasn't been at the frontline (until now, I guess) since 2014, was then important. Ukraine was totally incapable of responding to the Russian attack in 2014. They could only move one paratroop brigade into the Donbass region that was all. It took six months for Ukraine to mobilize other army units with main battle tanks into the area and during that time the volunteer battalions held an important role. Do notice that then also Russia just "provided assistance" to the Rebel People's Republics. Old VICE NEWS reports portray vividly and truthfully in what total disarray the Ukrainian forces were: some even gave up their weapons to angry Donbass people. And ordinary people sent food and supplies to the soldiers at the front.

It would be like if the US government collapsed and the army really wasn't incapable of getting anything to a border, then I guess (and in their wet dreams) a ton of militia people in the US would run down to the border and defend it. Who likely would have a lot of politically incorrect ideas.

But if you think then Putin isn't talking horseshit when he says nazis are rampant in the Ukrainian government and the country has to be de-nazified, well uh...

Poroshenko was many things, but "neo-Nazi" he was not. — SophistiCat

Yes. And not even somebody that Victoria Nuland was talking about (a favorite trope of those favoring the Russian narrative use about the interim government of Ukraine).

But for many that elections are held and people choose someone isn't the correct narrative. Everybody are just puppets installed by Great Powers. If the crisis would happen between my country and Russia, suddenly the Finnish politicians would be just the pawns of the CIA and Soros too, I guess.

I still do not trust the line we're sold as to the cause of this war. — Benkei

And which is that by your definition? Well, Putins accusations of a genocide in Donbass surely isn't true as is the line that Ukraine forms a threat to the World's largest nuclear power.

I'm also, as usual, flabbergasted how little value NATO and the US see in being considered trustworthy and dependable. And they got owned by Russia twice in basically the same theater. — Benkei

I'm not sure what you mean by this. What should they have done?

The choice is a pro-Russian proxy government, sanctioned and led by kleptocrats or a pro-US proxy government indebted to the hilt and led by stone cold profiteers. — Isaac

Let me get this straight: for you it doesn't matter that already 14000 have been killed in a limited war that now has been changed to unlimited conventional war, where it's totally possible that even nuclear weapons could be used (and likely there's a bigger death toll). That doesn't mean anything?

Is it really EXACTLY the same thing that some George Soros finances some pro-Western group which later either succeeds or fails in elections? Really no difference?

For me when Bush invaded Iraq was wrong, because is was a faulty stupid decision that already (and incredibly) had been acknowledged to be utterly bad choice even by the perpetrators.

Putin invading now the whole of Ukraine is as bad and faulty and stupid decision as was the invasion of Iraq was. Just read what said about the reaction of Russians. Ordinary Russians aren't for this war, they are confused about it. There are no huge jingoist patriotic celebrations on the Red Square thanking Putin for his decision to go to war. It was different in 2014.

I think that people have this idea that because the US has made so stupid mistakes and has bombed so many places, now, for some reason, it has to be the culprit in this fiasco too. Because, how else could one explain this than because of the US?

The Svoboda party was in the interim government for some months and then didn't go anywhere in the elections. And it's been eight years since the interim government, but anyway.

And Trump was supported by neonazis. Now, what's the connection then with neonazis and the Biden administration?

I'll just repeat: In the confusion of the Maidan revolution, it was understandable to think "what the heck is going on" with extreme right-wing groups in Ukraine. And naturally Russian propaganda smeared back then all of the interim government to be neonazis. But elections showed there wasn't much support for them, to put it simply.

Isaac, let's start from the facts, shall we.

For any that don't know, that's Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the anti-Semitic Svoboda party, later installed into power by the US. — Isaac

Oleh Tyahnybok wasn't ever installed to power. That simply is not correct.

After the Maidan revolution the interim government was lead by Arseniy Yatsenyuk and then later the president after elections was Petro Poroshenko. And the current leader, a former comedian, has a true grudge against Poroshenko. Zelenskyi's party has basically been against extremists in Ukrainian politics. I'd define it (the current political party in power in Ukraine) as centrist populist even if they have said they are liberal and libertarian, they have back away from being supporters of neoliberalism. (As obviously Ukrainians don't like neoliberalism)

Oleh Tyahnyboks party got seats in 2012 to the Ukrainian parliament. Now the faction he represents is down to one seat. It's not in the administration. Oleh Tyahnybok got 1,16% of the vote in the Presidential elections in 2014 after the Maidan Revolution. So it's really meaningless. But yes, there are these fringe movements in Ukraine. But they are not in power.

In the confusion of the Maidan revolution it would be understandable to take in the argument that "these are Nazis", but now, AFTER EIGHT YEARS, to reurgitate the same things again don't work. As if nothing has happened in Ukrainian politics. As if neonazis really had anything to do with Ukrainian politics or held power in the 200 000 strong Ukrainian armed forces. Yes, volunteers were the first response when the war broke out in 2014.

We shouldn't forget that Darth Vader was also political candidate in Ukraine. No, seriously:


Which just shows how pissed off Ukrainians are with their corrupt politicians, but at least they do have democracy.

Ah! The Ukrainian government are nazis.

Well, as I discussed with @StreetlightX earlier, there indeed still is this neonazi party in the Ukrainian Parliament. With ONE SEAT. And it is NOT IN THE GOVERNMENT. Zelenskyi's party was formed in 2018 and he was elected President of Ukraine in 2019, beating incumbent president Petro Poroshenko with nearly 73% of the vote to Poroshenko's 25%. So I guess Ukrainians weren't so enthuastic about Poroshenko.

So Zelenskyi's party wasn't even then on the political arena when McCain was roaming around supporting the Maidan...

And actually, Volodymyr Zelenskyi is jewish.

So, anyone believing the imminent need of de-nazification of the Ukrainian government... :roll:

Yeah, the airport is required to create an “air bridge” in order to bring in more troops. What I don’t understand is why they’d let CNN film them, potentially compromising the operation. — NOS4A2

Likely because they are Russian paratroops and not GRU or intelligence troops. They haven't yet been ordered not to speak to any journalist, so they behave as soldiers typical will behave.

I don’t know why but this video of Russian soldiers allowing CNN to film them is odd. — NOS4A2

Antonov Airport is just next to Kiev. Few kilometers from the city limits. Having there paratroops means that the armored spearheads from Belarus and the Russian border have to quickly come there. The paratroops cannot hang out there alone for a long time, even if they get reinforcements by plane. Hence it's likely that Putin will try to go for the jugular and take (surround) the capital and put a new pro-Russian government into place.

But at least there's one improvement: the CNN journalist is saying that they are Russian paratroops, not "little green men" who people don't know who they are. His observations of what is likely going to happen is quite realistic.

Maybe a letter from some relatively powerless local authority members from around the corner in the neighborhood doesn't count for much (I'm not sure), but it's something. — jamalrob

It's a lot, actually.

It's the only thing that will stop imperialists like Putin.

The Russians themselves. Nobody else will do anything. Or can do.

Those scientists and journalists who condemn Russia's actions and speak the truth are very courageous people who at this moment dare to say this. The "cancel culture" in Putin's Russia, especially when the country is at war, is totally different from the woke sillyness in the West.

Likely what those scientists and journalists will get from the West are accusations of being Western stooges. Surely they have links to George Soros!

Yet I believe there are many Russians who understand what is happening and how wrong it is. Many in Russia likely believed the lie, promoted here also, that all this war-talk was just all US hype. That Russia wouldn't invade. Well, Putin did invade, did widen the war to a totally different scale. To many other places than in the Donbass. Russians are fed up with dictators, but as they do have one, they have been still silent. And if in 2014 the case looked different, it is undeniable that many Russian speaking in Crimea were for joining Russia, now attacking Kiev is a different thing. For the Russians, this is similarly futile war as invading Afghanistan.

Maybe this will push us together, Swedish and Finnish alliance, strengthening our entire line of defense. — Christoffer

Our politicians agree with this. But it's actions, not words that are important.

And there are historical experiences of this. We here often forget that there were Swedish volunteers fighting in our Winter War and Continuation War. And notable portion of Swedish Air Force fighters participated in the Winter War with (Flygflottilj 19 and it's 5 Hawker Hearts and 12 Gloster Gladiators (with the three crowns insignia covered up). This actually was important as there were absolutely no Finnish fighter aircraft to spare to defend the aerospace over Lapland.

(Swedish fighters during the Winter War in Lapland)


Yet let's see.

Some of our politicians might still insist that this isn't our mess, we are out this picture. Or that let's not make it worse by angering the bear. And that our non-alignment policy has worked well. And the fact is, it's not that Putin has territorial ambitions over Sweden or even Finland. His ambition is to control the foreign policy of our countries, to put a wedge between us and NATO countries. He would be extremely happy, if Finnish government would start acting the same way as it did during the Cold War: never saying a bad thing about Russia and being a mouthpiece for at certain issues. That is the real issue with our countries.

What we need now is genuine leadership from our leaders, not denials that everything is OK...with us and Russia.

The US government says he doesn't have the ability to occupy Ukraine. It's a logistics problem.

He can attack and make changes, leave a Russian military presence, but that's it. — frank

As he has stated, his objective is to destroy the Ukrainian military.

Åland Island are even demilitarized, so it's an easy picking for Putin, if that would happen. The border guards over there aren't much of a match and Russian helicopters have the range to fly there.

Now as tough sanctions (as EU members) and counter-sanctions from Russia will already happen, it does beg the question of what is the point? It dawned to me before the corona epidemic when sitting in the soldiers home in the local military garrison with fellow reservists and Finnish career officers and watched young British soldiers eating pizza. We are just fooling ourselves here with the non-aligned thing. Or simply giving this fig-leaf to Putin not to act.

But he clearly intends to restore some of the Russian Empire, which I believe he is perfectly entitled to do. — Apollodorus

At least as a troll, you are honestly open with your views. And people can make up their minds about your ideas.

IMO all the talk of Europe becoming "more united" in the face of Russian aggression is nonsense, as it obviously is an artificial and temporary unity that cannot possibly last as long as Europe is dominated by powers on its outskirts, like France and Britain — Apollodorus

Funny delusions again. Thanks to Putin, old NATO is back again. The Russian are feared and despised, The Ukrainians are fucked, and NATO is united. Yeah, great moves from Putin!

(notice that this interview was before the Russian invasion)


The real question is if that enthusiasm that was for the annexation Crimea holds now in Russia.

For us in Europe, especially Sweden, we have a real risk of invasion of our island Gotland since it's a strategic military point to govern the entire Baltic sea. So it is quite possible that the process to join NATO is fast and it will include Sweden and Finland — Christoffer

Yeah I think exactly the same. This conflict and issue would make the European nations to regroup and stay together, reinforcing the treaties and cooperation. EU has to take of it and not lead anyone to make a gap among the members and alliances. — javi2541997

And that's the big question for us. Hopefully both Sweden and Finland can decide together if to join NATO. Not to make a move behind the other one's back, as the two countries have talked about military cooperation for so long now. Or the EU gets it act up (which it won't, but anyway)

And Putin has promised a swift and tough measures if Finland applies to NATO. Of course, it see both Sweden and Finland already as allies of NATO, that's for sure. The B-52s flying over Sweden in exercises just days ago makes this obvious.

Of course we can insist that a) this doesn't matter to us, b) we have good relations with Russia and c) joining NATO isn't current for us.

In other words, we just finlandize us again. Which obviously is what Putin really wants us to do.

It pays to remember just how many WMDs were found in Iraq and what the intelligence community thought it knew and how that was spun by politicians and Powell in particular.

Edit: let me translate that "anybody who believes the US and UK narrative is an idiot". — Benkei

That was a week ago @Benkei. You still think so?

(At least I admitted I got Covid wrong at start, thanks to you and others, I changed my mind. It was a pandemic, not media hype.)

The problem is that there's a mentally challenged lunatic called Putin who is indirectly threatening with nuclear weapons. — Christoffer

Which he possibly can use.

In the Stalinist rhetoric to ESCALATE TO DE-ESCALATE the war. Russia’s military doctrine dictates the use of nuclear weapons in response to any non-nuclear assault on Russian territory.

The doctrine goes like this: make a conventional attack, try destroying the enemy and reaching your military objectives by conventional means. Once that starts not to have the desired effect and your attack stalls, use tactical nuclear weapons to bully the opponent into a favorable terms for you and you obtain those objectives you wanted.

See Escalate To De-Escalate: Russia’s Nuclear Deterrence Strategy

See Russia’s Crazy Nuclear War Strategy: Escalation...to De-escalate?

This is something the Russia HAS TRAINED IN MILITARY Exercises. First a conventional war, then use of nuclear weapons in the end. For de-escalation.

Because WE KNOW from Fukushima, a nuclear accident that didn't kill anyone (as when the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami killed nearly 20 000) the World just remembers Fukushima.

One low yield tactical nuke will do it. The world will go crazy to demand the immediate cessation of hostilities. People will forget the Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons. They will easily be lured into thinking that all-out nuclear war is imminent between the US and Russia. And Putin will show how STRONG he is. People like Trump will continue to admire him.

Now it's time for the conventional cruise missiles, the MLRS attacks and attacks from everywhere even from Belarus.

Yeah. We do have states, nations and governments. They have to operate somehow. How they operate is that evil you talk about: politics. If you think anarchy is the answer, that is a political idea some people don't like.