Comments

  • Ukraine Crisis
    Destroyed columns say something else. — ssu

    The first phase of the war was to just take as much territory unopposed (or minimal resistance) as possible and take undefended settlements. This involved small mechanized units without any sort of battalion formation, so if they did meet resistance they'd just get blown up and run away back to a battalion formation. In parallel Russian's blew up some things with cruise missiles.

    I.e. take as much territory as possible with minimal civilian casualties. The reason the Eastern front didn't move is because Ukrainian army had a front setup there ... so why attack the hardest point. In particular, had Ukraine sued for peace (accepted it would not join NATO ... which NATO isn't offering as a possibility anyways) then this was a compromise between military and PR objectives (an amicable resolution could have been reached at this point with minimal trauma, deaths and bad blood; it was not "incompetent" Russian military, but common sense politics).

    There's a lot of small settlements everywhere to go anywhere that the Russians do have to deal with. So there is this sort of small scale urban combat.

    However, as soon as the Russians meet heavy resistance approaching a city they setup a siege and start encircling the city by demolishing the suburbs and satellite towns with artillery as they make their way around.

    There's only one exception--of an urban combat operation to take a city without laying siege or demolishing large parts of it--is Kershon, which has an obvious strategic importance of being the major crossing of the Dnieper in the south, so critical if you want to then just go North to cut Ukraine in half, East of the Dnieper and East of Kiev.

    All Russia has to do is simply link up in the middle of Ukraine. No one is even proposing that Ukrainian army is able to offer effective opposition in flat open spaces to major Russian battalion formations. Sure, always possible to harass supply lines as salients are pushed forward (before fanning out) and also ambush some smaller advanced units. However, I do not see how Ukrainians are going to stop the Russians simply linking up in the middle of Ukraine and just avoiding Urban combat as much as possible.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    That's one of the reasons why they're the bad guys. — RogueAI

    Go fight them then.

    And, what I describe is not unique to the Russians; if you use guerrilla tactics and arm civilians, then there's going to be more civilian casualties.

    What's the American's excuse for when they're trigger happy with the drones and blow up civilians having a wedding or whatever?

    Same exact thing. You kill a bunch of American soldiers with guerrilla tactics and suicide bombers and they retaliate one way or another.

    It's basic psychology.

    Not only does the perception of what is a legitimate threat change to encompass more things to shoot at and blow up, but empathy for the civilian population is also reduced.

    The entirety of the rules of war is based on the visual distinction between soldier and civilian.

    It is a "gentlemen's agreement" to not break these rules, but accept defeat rather than resort to blurring the line between civilians and soldiers, because A. if you need to resort to arming civilians you have probably already lost and B. it makes civilians legitimate targets and soldiers should protect civilians and not vice-versa (protecting civilians can include surrender).
  • Ukraine Crisis
    The other thing that really pisses me off is the Western media taking at face value extra-judicial execution of alleged Russian special forces.

    I saw a video where a Ukrainian brown shirt butted a guy in the face, had him run down the street, and then shot him in the back; and this was presented as "dealing" with Russian special forces. Not official media, just the youtuber caption for what was happening, but the mass media are not pointing out that these stories have zero basis to assume these people are Russian special forces and saboteurs, and, even if they are, extrajudicial killing of an unarmed captured enemy is still a war crime; Western media just casually mention Ukrainians have been finding and killing them.

    However, what I did see on a Western mass media was footage of "civilians" getting hit by mortar fire ... without pointing out they included "civilians" carrying around assault rifles that got handed out out to them.

    Even more absurd, the legal rational for these executions is these "special forces" are in civilian clothing (which would still need a legal process, but who cares) at the same time as Ukrainian leaders hand out weapons to civilians to Western media fanfare!

    These reports of executing special forces in civilian clothing could reach Putin's desk and his reaction could literally be right now "good thing we have zero special forces in civilian clothing in Ukraine right now."
  • Ukraine Crisis
    And I say these things because, right now, if the EU stopped being little fucking bitches, they could negotiate a resolution that includes tracking down every single one of these weapon systems when the war is over.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Also, we've seen this exact script play out before.

    When Russia intervened in Syria, the "resistance" had an amazing social media campaign, took out many Russian tanks and vehicles (some of it real, some of it fake) with Western supplied anti-tank missiles, high praises from the Western media, and denigrating the Russian equipment and personnel, and predictions of the Russian's losing etc.

    Russian's would respond to the social media offensive with a press conference pointing to having blown one thing up, with basically the message that "see, we blow up things too".

    On the ground, Russian forces simply relentlessly took ground every day with heavy artillery clearing the way, with a few setbacks here and there.

    That the exact same play book is now being used in Ukraine by the exact same people far closer the Russia's border there's little reason to expect won't work.

    The argument "they didn't win in a week and therefore lost" doesn't really make sense.

    Pointing to successful guerrilla tactics in a conventional war likewise doesn't point the way to victory.

    For everyone of these guerrilla tactics to pick off a tank, the Russians will just shell to the ground several neighborhoods to express their frustration with that.

    Setting up some sort of insurgency after the war doesn't benefit normal Ukrainians nor will it change the outcome of the war, just empowers extremists to cause mayhem for decades (which if the Russian's are too difficult to kill, they'll turn these weapons on Ukrainian "softies" trying to rebuild the country and their international relations in a common sense way).

    And for everyone of these missiles that gets used against the Russians, 2, 3 maybe 10 (in the case of the manpads) will be sold on the black market. Likewise all the rest of the small arms as well.

    People really want fanatics with manpads in the heart of Europe and almost zero barriers to bring them anywhere in Europe to fire at any civilian plane at any time for the next 20 years?

    Abandoning conventional rules of war in favour of some sort of tictoc fueled "last stand against the galactic Empire" serves no one, least of all Ukrainians, and is simply undermining European security as a whole for decades.

    Of course, American's are smiling about that, but why EU nations are going along with this madness for the "views" is truly disheartening.

    If you can't win a conventional war, the duty of leaders is to surrender to avoid unnecessary loss of life. Neither Ukrainians nor Europeans will benefit from thousands of sophisticated missile systems being distributed to every extremist group in Europe that can buy them.

    You think these "almost" neo-Nazi's won't sell these weapons to Jihadists?

    It's true police madness.

    If you don't care enough about Ukraine to send your own troops to try to win a conventional war with trained soldiers, flooding the place with sophisticated small arms changes nothing and will cause insecurity on the entire continent for decades.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Now 17 000 anti-tank weapons is huge amount. That it has been sent in less than a week is noteworthy: — ssu

    The US already gave Ukraine some 3 billion USD of weapons since 2014 ( / loaned them the money to buy them). That so far hasn't stopped the Russians.

    From what I see in terms of militarily strategy--whereas the Russian build out of their logistics on 3 fronts does take time and has met some losses and setbacks--the Ukrainians logistics I don't think are going great.

    Russia's strategy is to simply avoid urban combat (where these javelines would be most effective), surround cities.

    If their south forces meet their North forces by simply going around urban areas and shelling to oblivion any ad hoc enemy positions along the way, then Russia can just setup a conventional defensive line North-South across the whole of Ukraine.

    These anti-tank weapons have very limited use against a conventional defensive line (aka. trenches and other fortified positions supported by artillery) in flat open country.

    Everyone is saying "urban combat, urban combat" ... but if Russian forces just avoid urban combat and cut the country in half it is effectively laying siege to not only Kiev but the entire East of the country.

    Combat in the East after that point is simply a matter of time before ammo runs out, and mayors and commanders can only ask people to starve only so long.

    In the West, assaulting a conventional battle line would require heavy artillery and tanks, anti-tank weapons would be relatively meaningless.

    Notably, the only city the Russian's have so far actually done urban combat and occupied is the only city required to carry out the above plan: Kherson. Every other city the Russian's are simply laying siege at minimal risk to themselves.

    The armor dashes at the start of the war make sense to simply take as much territory as possible as Ukraine didn't preemptively mobilize, also make sense in terms of public relations of starting "the soft way", and also gave the chance to Ukraine to get a "taste" of war and maybe accept the offered peace terms.

    Ukrainian leadership decided that calling Russia's bluff of doing things the hard way was a better idea, and so started handing out small arms to civilians to make clear the cost of urban combat in a social media campaign the likes the world has never seen.

    ... Which is what Western media keeps on going on about, how it's a "second Russian Afghanistan etc." but, other than the only city Russia has taken with experienced Urban combat units, I don't see any need for Russia to do any urban combat at all.

    Russia has never stated it wants to occupy and passiffy Ukraine, everyone agrees it's impossible to do with their committed troop numbers and would be a costly disaster if they did commit the troops to try to do it ... so maybe that's just not their plan, but what they can do is cut the country North-South and just wait out the Ukrainian will to fight.

    Easy to be brave when your heroic and defiant statements immediately get a thousand likes on facebook. It's far harder hungry, tired, cut off from communications, running out of ammunition, and no viable pathway to victory in the face of continuous shelling.

    I have actually trained to go up against conventional Russian military tactics. It's not a fucking game: it's building and sitting in multi layered networks of trenches and other fortifications for the purposes of protecting your own heavy artillery counter battery fire. Throw in a shit ton of mines, an air / anti-air game going on in parallel for control of the sky, armored offensives and counter offensives to break through enemy lines (for the purposes of destroying their slow moving heavy artillery), and you can "maybe" fight the Russians off within a days march from their own border.

    I honestly don't see how javalins are going to stop the process of relentlessly removing any obstacles with a zillion heavy artillery shells.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    It's genuine, Peskov is Putin's man. — ssu

    It's Reuters and they're reporting as Moscow's offer.

    What I mean is that there's no reason to assume if the offer was taken, that Moscow would continue military operations and not withdraw as stated.

    No one now believes Ukraine will ever join Nato, nor ever get Crimea back, nor get the breakaway provinces back.

    Yet, the West has been telling, and is telling Ukraine to refuse to formally accept the obvious reality.

    The usual logic of refusing to accept concessions of this kind is that maybe they ask more concessions later, and then more, and more and more, and you're forced to fight at some point anyways, but have now given concessions for no reason ... but that logic doesn't hold if the fight is happening.

    I honestly don't get the logic, other than use Ukrainians as cannon fodder to setup the new cold war and all the arms sales that goes with that

    True, but we aren't discussing the portrayed genocide that Ukrainian government according to Putin was doing in the Donbas. No evidence of that has been even given (or fabricated) from the Russian side I think. — ssu

    There's been a lot of fighting and ethnic Russians dying in Donbas since 2014 (regions no one doubts wants to break with Ukraine) and likewise language and cultural suppression of ethnic Russians generally speaking. Certainly not the level of a "genocide," but, again, if you're tolerating neo-Nazi's who are extreme anti-Russian fanatics it's an easy sell to say they have genocidal intentions to remove ethnic Russians from Ukraine (which they say they do) and the policies and things like Azov brigade are the start to that genocidal plan, which left unchecked, would be appeasement, and may not be easy to stop later etc.

    Better late than never I guess?
    Did sanctions have an effect of sorts? Ukrainians cause difficulties?
    Anyway, seems the Nazi story fell out of favor.     — jorndoe

    This has more-or-less been the offer the whole time, before the war too it seemed clear to all analysts there was an agreement that Ukraine was neutral and accepting the separation of break away regions, then there would not be a war.

    If Putin makes this very, very, very good offer (accept not having what one already doesn't have and can never get: NATO membership, Crimea, Donbas), and Ukraine refuses, then it's again playing into Putin's hand to sell the war to the home audience as well as other non-aligned states.

    Putin can go to the Indians and when they bring up the war, he can say "hey, I made a pretty good offer, it was refused; people can't be simply unreasonable in these issues".

    It definitely succeeds in flipping the moral burden and lowers the cost of continuing the war, if Ukraine refuses the deal.

    Now, if Ukraine accepts the deal and Putin continues the war anyways ... well, situation hasn't changed but it's a far harder sell both to the home audience as well as other states Putin will need to deal with to re-orient Russia's economy away from the West.

    If Ukraine accepts the deal and it's implemented as stated, then we'll see if international opinion views that as Russia being "defeated" by Ukrainian resistance or just stopping a war started to achieve certain reasonable objectives and then stopping the war when those reasonable objectives were achieved.

    The so called "ludicrous" demand that NATO pull back it's advanced forces to around Germany ... is honestly not that ludicrous. It's NATO that insisted those advanced forces weren't to target Russia, but the stated reason for missile bases in places like Poland was to strike the middle east if I remember correctly.

    As for neo-Nazi's, Azov brigade is surrounded in Mariupol and will certainly be dealt with and their entire city already collectively punished, and, more importantly if there is an end to the war, the Ukrainian neo-Nazi or "ultra nationalist" delusion that war with Russia is actually a good thing may fall out of favour and Ukrainians maybe less sympathetic to having them proudly walk around with their Nazi inspired insignia.

    Putin can easily say he's dealt with the neo-Nazi problem himself by killing hundreds, perhaps thousands of "ultra nationalists" on the battle field.

    Furthermore, a peace deal would certainly have a whole bunch more details than the main points, and would certainly include Russia arresting any neo-Nazi's on the territories it is currently occupying, and would then have some trials for the home audience (call them show trials if you want).
  • Ukraine Crisis
    LONDON, March 7 (Reuters) - Russia has told Ukraine it is ready to halt military operations "in a moment" if Kyiv meets a list of conditions, the Kremlin spokesman said on Monday.

    Dmitry Peskov said Moscow was demanding that Ukraine cease military action, change its constitution to enshrine neutrality, acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory, and recognise the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states.     — Reuters

    There's zero reason to assume this offer isn't genuine.

    Unless Ukraine has some way to "win", then Russia will simply implement these conditions by force.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    I think there is a tendency on the pro-NATO side to argue either (a) that there are no neo-Nazis in Ukraine or (b) that the threat they pose is insufficient to justify war. — Apollodorus

    I definitely agree.

    I bring up the "how many is too many" as it's honestly seems to me a complicated moral and political question to answer. Are we actually comfortable with a country tolerating and supporting 1 Azov brigade? Is it "Nazi enough" etc. If it's allowable, where do we draw the line?

    Not something I think we can settle now, but maybe a good debate after the war. It's relevance in the current situation is that given the difficulty in addressing this basic question, maybe some credible response (such as
    ↪Isaac
    has already outlined a basic policy about, which seems fine) is a good diplomatic move, and also maybe (regardless of what the West thinks) Russians largely back the war and sanctions may punish them for it ... but not save a single Ukrainian life.

    However, this deliberately ignores the wider point Putin is making, namely that the invasion or “special military operation” is a response to NATO expansionism and aggression: — Apollodorus

    Yes, this is definitely the main reason for the War, the neo-Nazi's being either a pretext (if they don't exist) or then just additionally provoking Russia and giving it excellent justifications to its population (who may not follow geopolitics as closely as we do here) to react to their longer term security concern.

    In any case, we mustn’t forget that NATO itself has used “genocide”, “ethnic cleansing” and similar claims as a justification for war, as in the 1999 bombing of Serbia. So, I think it is crucial to decide whether we want this thread to be an objective and fact-based discussion or a counterfactual exercise in pro-NATO propaganda. — Apollodorus

    Definitely the more the West is hypocritical the less it's able to corral the various pseudo-liberals countries around. Ignoring something in Western media doesn't mean it's ignored elsewhere, and, for example, India media pointing out Western hypocrisy is going to significantly lesson any public concern about these Ukrainians.

    In brief, completely agree with your analysis on these various points.

    I think everyone agrees that targeting civilians is wrong. But this doesn’t mean that we should white-wash Zelensky and cover up his links to pro-Western oligarchs and US interests. — Apollodorus

    Definitely over simplifications in Western media ... which Western politicians now seem to simply take at face value (there's even a bizarre reversal sometimes where even the mainest of the main stream journalists are like "isn't it more nuanced than that" and politicians respond basically "nope, just that simple and clear cut").

    Most Europeans and Americans knew nothing about Ukraine literally 2 weeks ago, and suddenly take at face value the "consensus" that has emerged on social media.

    The deaths and trauma and increase in energy and food prices globally is true historic tragedy.

    But ... if we're not actually going to follow through the virtue signaling by attacking Russia (which ... isn't that the appeasement argument: we should have attacked Hitler sooner?) then the only other option is through diplomacy which requires understanding the other perspective and striking the best bargain.

    People seem to genuinely believe that sacrificing Ukrainian lives without any military justification (just ... "maybe" they'll insurgency later), is, sure is maybe not justifiable, but it is justifiable to preserve our virtue signalling on social media and personal sense of righteousness from our keyboard in our living rooms thousands of miles away.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Pray tell, what areas are those? Their best chance for hearts and minds in a major city was Kharkiv, which is overwhelmingly populated by ethnic Russians and right across the border. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    Obviously Crimea and the separatist regions they already occupy. You may also overestimate the willingness of normal people to throw away their lives once the war is over and it's entirely possible to continue their lives normally, whether in the Ukraine whatever that ends up being, or now Russian occupied Ukrainian territory, or then in the EU somewhere.

    hey stalled there, didn't have the forces to take the city because of their ridiculous number of lines of attack, and resorted to shelling residential neighborhoods for hours on end in what looks like exactly the sort of punitive siege tactics that produce insurgencies. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    As I stated in one of my first comments in this thread, I believe the strategy is to cut through Ethnic Ukrainian territory to the west of the Dnieper river thus cutting off all supplies East of there and making it a matter of time for forces there to surrender or run out of bullets.

    They aren't "bringing down the hammer" in ethnic Russian regions precisely for the "hearts and minds" purposes, they are punishing Ethnic Ukrainians.

    Now, the exception to this general pattern is shelling Mariupol to the ground, but this I think is not simply it's strategic significance but Azov brigade is based there so collective punishment for that and fits into the narrative of "de-Nazification".

    If protestors drive out the new Russian backed countries Russia will just invade again? Another surprise offensive war to liberate their neighbor as their economy implodes? Yeah, that'll go over well. It's not like invasions are expensive or anything. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    This war was expensive because Russia was not "poised to invade" any moment. Russia needed 8 years to minimally sanctions proof itself (Russia certainly found all those sanctions threats the West constantly talked about credible as far as I can see) and to ramp up economic ties with China.

    However, if Ukrainian army is decimated and Russia makes it clear it will simply invade if there's any buildup of any kind, any arms shipments from the West at all for instance (Ukraine can build it's own weapons for basic military needs), then the next invasion would be far cheaper ... and must less land to cover.

    Armed civilians are useless? What do you think the mujahideen fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan were? — Count Timothy von Icarus

    Mujahideen were not civilians.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Sorry, but almost everything about this analysis is wrong. The coverage of resistance efforts by regular civilians plays an obvious military role. It is providing civilians and reservists with the small arms that they would need to conduct an insurgency against a Russian occupation. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    Ah yes, the point of handing out arms to non-uniformed civilians on live television and making them legitimate military targets and undermining the rules of war we want to accuse the Russian's about ... is so that they can wage an insurgency after the occupation.

    If you want to create an insurgency, then you want to create the networks and arms smuggling routes into the country.

    You think the average Ukrainian caught up in the patriotic "stand" is going to go around randomly killing Russian soldiers in an occupation with a riffle they barely know how to use ... and may not even have bullets for?

    I don't think so, they'll go back to their lives (assuming they're still alive).

    On-top of that, Russia may not even occupy Ukraine to begin with, and they've given no indication they even intend to.

    Once they've decimated the Ukrainian military (blown up those billions of USD of arms the US has given Ukraine since 2014) and gotten the concessions they want (such as keeping their land bridge to Crimea, any province that "wants to" separate can do so--whether that's actually true or just the regions Russia expects no insurgency and can take without hassle, doesn't matter), and, most importantly, Ukraine finally surrenders on the condition of never joining NATO ... there's zero reason to believe Russia wouldn't simply go back to it's borders (it's new borders).

    EU would be left with the legacy problems of cleaning up, and Russia will make clear it will just invade again if it's conditions aren't met.

    So, what actual evidence is there that giving small arms to civilians who, we both seem to agree, have zero relevance in modern conventional warfare currently happening (at least by the Russians on the Ukrainians), accomplishes something other than getting those and many other civilians killed?

    The duty of a soldier in the modern rules of war is to protect civilians, which does include surrender when further fighting is not justifiable ... soldiers and leaders handing out small arms to civilians to protect themselves (i.e. protect those soldiers and leaders handing out the small arms from the enemy with civilian lives ... somehow, not really clear, I guess a play for a no-fly zone) is reversing on its head literally a thousand years of diplomatic efforts to render warfare less destructive than it needs to be.

    At least call it conscription with some formal process to become an identifiable combatant followed by at least some training. Handing small arms to civilians (literally calling it "handing out weapons to civilians") was a media play to garner sympathy in the West, dramatically showing the average Ukrainians "will to fight and defend their country", not a credible military strategy nor responsible or even legal under the current rules of war the West is criticizing Putin about.

    Decisions to kill or not are made primarily on the basis of whether people are carrying a rifle or not (which, civilians easily get killed by those decisions anyways as the evidence bar isn't so high).

    Handing out small arms to civilians and having them wander around to "insurgency" later will just get them killed. From a professional military perspective, it's outrageous.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Yet as nearly in every Western country, radical elements can pose a threat, but when Ukraine is under such fierce attack from Russia, this hardly should be the most important issue about Ukraine. — ssu

    It's relevant because that's Putin's stated justification for the war.

    There are lot's more issues we could discuss. There are two sides of a discussion, if people against "discussing neo-Nazi's in Ukraine" followed that principle and didn't discuss it, then the points would be noted (obviously Putin's saying it's the justification, etc.) and the conversation would then move on.

    The conversation stays on this point because people insist on trying to prove it shouldn't be discussed!

    But I agree that it's not the most relevant issue, nor the most important justification for the war: which is Ukraine not joining NATO (which Putin also talks about and demands). The neo-Nazi's, from my point of view, is more an example of how simply ignoring legitimate grievances, painting Putin as "a monster tyrant" (which we both agree is a caricature), backfires diplomatically. So, it's relevant as one of Putin's stated justifications, but also an opportunity to introspect about the EU's diplomatic process on Ukraine since 2014.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    To justify the costs of the war before the Russian population. But the Ukrainian Jews find this justification preposterous. — neomac

    Yeah, sure, explain the position of Ukrainian Jews to Putin as a diplomatic response if you want.

    Or then ignore anything Putin says as your negotiation strategy ... but then why go speak about anything if the plan is just to simply ignore the points of the counter-party?

    Or go fight in Ukraine and defend it from Russian aggression.

    People seem to be debating based on the premise that keeping social media momentum that any act of defiance no matter how irrelevant militarily speaking (such as just "defying" Putin on this philosophy forum), is going to save Ukrainian lives.

    It won't. Russia can't just be cancelled due to social media momentum like some talking head who said the wrong thing on a podcast.

    Russia is currently winning this war and no amount of social media is going to change that.

    Effective diplomacy can save thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of Ukrainian lives, and arguably millions due to energy price increases and food shortages by actively making this war more disastrous than it is.

    Maintaining a stale-mate by flooding in arms can force an adversary to the negotiation table.

    But there is no stale mate, Russia couldn't take all of Ukraine in a week because it's so big ... but for the same reason there is no practical way for Ukrainians to defend all of Ukraine. As long as Russian army is steadily advancing, then it is winning and will simply continue to do so until it has "clearly won", and then will negotiate.

    Russia certainly had a very soft invasion to start the war to give the Ukrainians the chance to accept the demands of being a neutral country. For the sake of "having the right to join NATO" which NATO isn't offering, those demands are refused and civilians armed to demonstrate a existential battle to the death and call Putin's bluff.

    Well, Putin wasn't bluffing about invading Ukraine in the first place, and isn't bluffing about doing things the hard way (relentless heavy artillery bombardment that javelines and manpads can't do much about, only equally heavy counter battery and the logistics to continuously supply shells and fuel, which Ukraine doesn't have).

    It's common sense. If NATO isn't actually letting Ukraine in the club (which, to be clear, they could have done anytime) then if you call Putin's bluff about invading, rather than conceding something you don't even have (being in NATO), you better be right or you've wrecked your country and traumatized every citizen and gotten many killed.

    If you stage a media campaign of "existential resistance" and passing out riffles to civilians (who will have no effect in a modern battle field and Russia being "less modern" than the US doesn't change that, and get sent a flood of small arms like javelines and manpads from sympathetic countries), to call Putin's bluff about willingness to use tactics that are effective against small arms (big arms), then, again, you better be right about Putin's bluff otherwise your cities get leveled under relentless heavy artillery bombardment and your small arms tactics are of no use.

    If the outcome of the war is the same, Russia wins, what was the point of calling Putin's bluffs, which obviously weren't bluffs? Just to prove that Putin was willing to "do what it takes"?

    Ukrainian government has had a "Putin defiance, zero compromises" policy since 2014, and goaded on in the West ... and, sadly it seems, truly believed the West was a friend and not just egging them on. Seems to me real tears over the no-fly zone and real frustration with NATO for not actually helping (small arms are effective against US ... because US is unwilling to level cities to the ground and US, at least pretends, to be occupying places for the citizens own good; and, even then, small arms tactics don't actually push US front lines back or overrun US bases, just harasses US patrols until the will to continue occupying the territory, more importantly the strategic purpose, is reduced to zero and then the American's leave ... and even then takes decades of small arms tactics to get to that result).

    Yes, Russia does not have as many smart munitions ... but you don't need smart munitions if sending tens of thousands of incredibly cheap shells to obliterate the entire enemy position from tens of kilometres away, gets the job done.

    Effective resistance can, in some cases, encourage a settlement on better terms.

    Ineffective resistance is A. ineffective and B. likely just angers the counter-party more inviting harsher tactics and worse terms of a negotiated settlement.

    And pretty much every military analysist interviewed on TV says the same things (including the former director of the CIA): Ukrainians are fighting so bravely, we got to support them with arms, punish Russia with sanctions so "they learn", blah, blah, blah, but obviously Russia is going to win and Ukraine can't do anything to change that outcome. Why the small arms then? Just virtue signaling that "we tried ... but not really cause you totally not welcome in our little NATO club"?

    Sending someone to die should at least serve some strategic purpose, not simply play well on TikToc.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    > You've still not made clear your link between proof of the scale of Neo-Nazism (its mere existence is not even in question) and its role at the negotiating table. — neomac

    Guy, this is Putin's stated justification of the war.

    A response at the negotiation table can be be "we don't believe it" or "here's proof there's no neo-Nazi's" or "it doesn't matter" or then "we also don't like Nazi's and would agree to policies that reduce their numbers and influence, however bit it is, after a peace is achieved."

    Are you basically suggesting that if Russian diplomats bring up the Nazi justification that Ukrainian and / or Western diplomats just say nothing?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    No, it has not. It hasn't even been understood yet. — Christoffer

    I literally quoted the response.

    And as
    ↪FreeEmotion
    just pointed out, there's a difference between saying it's exaggerated or "not exactly Nazi's ... but really close" and saying such groups don't exist at all or have no ties to Ukrainian formal government.

    I agree he is not a mad tyrant. His weakness is that he has been left with a Russia that is broken up into little pieces a very hostile alliance of nations. It was a cold war, but it was a war, and it was won, maybe a Versailles- type humiliation is what the winners of the Cold War want. — FreeEmotion

    That's not really in the cards due to the Nuclear weapons.

    I think what's more likely is the winners of the cold war want a second cold war (sell more weapons and have more "fun").
  • Ukraine Crisis
    I'm just gonna repeat this again, since the problem is that any legitimization of the propaganda narrative actively supports the spread of that propaganda. — Christoffer

    This has already been responded to, what's you're rebuttal?

    This reminds me of the Orwell essay “Through a Glass, Rosily”.

    """
    The recent article by Tribune's Vienna correspondent provoked a spate of angry letters which, besides calling him a fool and a liar and making other charges of what one might call a routine nature, also carried the very serious implication that he ought to have kept silent even if he knew that he was speaking the truth. He himself made a brief answer in Tribune, but the question involved is so important that it is worth discussing it at greater length.

    Whenever A and B are in opposition to one another, anyone who attacks or criticises A is accused of aiding and abetting B. And it is often true, objectively and on a short-term analysis, that he is making things easier for B. Therefore, say the supporters of A, shut up and don't criticise: or at least criticise "constructively", which in practice always means favourably. And from this it is only a short step to arguing that the suppression and distortion of known facts is the highest duty of a journalist.
    """     — NOS4A2

    Furthermore, are you saying the West and also Ukraine hasn't been making any propaganda about the current situation?

    Neo-nazis in Ukraine are not worse than most other nations having neo-nazi groups. All nations work to push those groups back, but using this fact in relation to this war is ONLY in relation to Putin's propaganda reasons. — Christoffer

    But this is simply not the case; the neo-Nazi's in Ukraine are not suppressed by the Ukrainian government in any credible way since 2014, and it's been documented with plenty of journalists going and reporting on it since 2014.

    You can't just make false equivalence because it suits your own propaganda. Well you can ... just doesn't make it true.

    Ukraine has Azov brigade and other groups patrolling the streets since a few years (aka. brown shirts) with formal government powers, what's the equivalence in Sweden or Portugal or Canada?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    You're advocating that in response to this propaganda, we play exactly the role set out for us in it. And you seem to think that will help undermine it? — Isaac

    My point is the West should have had some policy response anytime since 2014, so as to credibly say there are other ways to deal with neo-Nazi's than a full scale invasion; such as the policies you mention as well as just putting pressure on Ukrainian government to distance themselves from neo-Nazi's, to keep it a fringe thing (as that's a good objective in itself anyways).

    That would have made a better negotiation position before the war started (who knows, maybe, in itself, prevented the war if Putin couldn't sell it at home without this justification).

    Now that the war is here, ignoring the issue further plays to the Kremlins position about it, but not-ignoring it would undermine "NATO resolve" to ensure maximum civilian trauma and casualties of Ukrainians, while doing nothing that will change the outcome.

    So, that's more lessons learned (to motivate starting credible diplomacy at some point).

    Going forward, the main relevance of the issue is that it's Putin's stated justification, so obviously relevant to discuss as you point out.

    The other way it's relevant is more just as a lesson learned of how ignoring legitimate grievances of the counter party for a decade certainly doesn't help.

    Pointing out the coherent arguments that can be made based on there clearly being neo-Nazi's in Ukraine with formal integration into governance, is relevant in that it maybe explains why Russian's are convinced by it and maybe make us second guess the impact of sanctions on the Russian people.

    If the propaganda is effective, as based on true elements the West cannot debunk (I'm sure you're aware how long it would take the two of us, not to mention anyone else, to actually agree on a "what's too many" threshold; we could easily still be debating meticulously all the political, moral and information-evaluation aspects in 3 decades; so, if it would take us that long to be "more sure" of our position, it's a pretty good basis for propaganda: facts are clear and basiclaly self-documented by the neo-Nazi's in Ukraine and the argument based on those facts is of a valid form, requiring significant philosophical energy to really demonstrate to be "a lie"), which will inform the probability of the Russian government, army and / or population giving up on the war, which is an important element for decision making.

    Doing things (without even attempting to understand the Russian perspective) that increase violence and (from a purely self-referential Western media perspective) "sound like it will pressure the Russians" is not necessarily constructive if it won't actually pressure the Russians.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Have it EVER occurred to you that he's pushing this denazification narrative in order to keep the loyalty to the cause back home in Russia intact? — Christoffer

    No one's saying otherwise, obviously it is also propaganda, will be exaggerated.

    Doesn't mean there isn't a neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine that has solid evidence (crazy speeches and interviews by people essentially self-identifying themselves as neo-Nazi's ... and the argument "they're only fanatically anti-Russian and not so much anti-Semite and just like the Nazi's world view and approach to politics and get inspiration from the Nazi's struggle against the Soviets ... is not necessarily that important distinction for Russians).

    Likewise, doesn't mean the EU shouldn't be able to agree with Russia, anytime since 2014, that neo-Nazi's aren't a good thing and there can be some good faith cooperation on that issue.

    By ignoring a legitimate grievance you make the propaganda effect even greater as the counter party can now say "See, see! they just deny these people exist (which we know they exist because I can play an interview of their grand plan to destroy Russia right now); therefore, EU and US are using these people against Russia." Which is simply a true argument, these neo-Nazi's were tolerated because they were the only one's not only willing but totally enthusiastic about fighting separatists in the East; yes, Russians sent in their own "volunteers" but had these neo-Nazi types not insisted on attacking these break away regions there would not have been any fighting.

    So, what's the ultimate truth of the situation and the moral and political principles of who's justified doing what, is one question.

    However, the more relevant question is that considering NATO will not send anyone to actually fight in Ukraine (i.e. no NATO country actually cares all that much about Ukrainian lives or Ukrainian sovereignty) the only way EU (obviously US will cheerlead more bloodshed as it leads to more arms sales generally speaking in starting a new cold war by traumatizing everyone in Europe at the expense of Ukrainians) can avoid more unnecessary bloodshed is through diplomacy. If you want to solve things diplomatically it requires acknowledging legitimate grievances of the other party.

    If you don't want to solve things diplomatically, then go hop on a plane and fight in the Ukrainian volunteer brigades, tell us later if you won or not.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    One has to prove that neo-nazi problem exists, if it is relevant and to whom. Neo-nazi activists are present both in Russia and all western countries, not only in Ukraine. Is this a problem? — neomac

    You literally prove in the next clause of your sentence that neo-Nazi's in Ukraine are a problem ... because they're a problem everywhere.

    Which, is a false equivalence. Neo-Nazi's are clearly not the same level of problem in every Western nation, there's going to be more or less with more or less power and influence.

    The neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine is things like Azov brigade that has been admitted by Western governments themselves to be neo-Nazi based and inspired.

    Western governments "responded" by simply not training and arming Azov brigade directly, which is not really a credible response and still accepts their legitimacy and that the Ukrainian governance is overall legitimate in integrating Azov brigade.

    Now, you can argue Azov brigade is not "so neo-Nazi" just generally inspired by Nazism as they want to fight Russians and actively advocate for a war with Russia.

    However, it's completely coherent argument to say one Azov brigade is too many Azov brigades and we'll invade your entire country if you tolerate them as part of your formal governance. (This is not a group playing cat and mouse with police, but are the de facto police where they operate)

    Now, regardless of whether Azov brigade is "too much" and tolerating it further would be appeasement, what we can know for sure is that this is the major justification for the war by the Kremlin.

    What we can also know for sure is that if the EU had credible policies since 2014 to try to dissuade Ukraine's formal government flirting with and also and using neo-Nazi's to fight separatists that A. maybe those policies would have actually worked and there wouldn't be things like Azov brigade and B. the EU could credibly say there are other ways to deal with neo-Nazi's other than a full scale invasion.

    Instead, since the EU did nothing, they just deny the problem further (which admit is essentially "by definition" there) and Germany just declared itself the "experts on Nazi's" and that there is no neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine ... which doesn't necessarily sound convincing to a Russian.

    It sets up a very poor diplomatic position.

    Now, you may say "Ha! NATO doesn't need diplomacy with this madman Putin" ... but then why isn't NATO in Ukraine.

    As for sending small arms and arming civilians.

    Small arms without heavy equipment and a logistical network will not defeat Russia that has heavy equipment and a logistics network (certainly has had problems ... but it's still a lot better to have a logistics network with some problems than none at all).

    Giving riffles to civilians in a modern conflict is essentially condemning them to die and makes all civilians legitimate military targets. The rules of war around civilians and soldiers requires soldiers to be in identifiable uniforms.

    Obviously, the West doesn't care if Ukrainian civilians are used as cannon fodder (with zero ability to impact the outcome of the war, I guarantee you that), but, again, it's another bad faith thing Putin can point to at home: these cowards are arming civilians to protect their positions of power.

    It takes real time and effort and training to be remotely effective in a modern battle space.

    True, civilians can help in non-combat roles ... but then why would they need riffles?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Isaac


    Indeed, we maybe forced to consider the possibility that the invasion of Ukraine was likewise a difficult choice and there was "no alternative".
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Shell has defended its decision to purchase Russian crude oil despite the invasion and bombardment of Ukraine.

    The oil giant said in a statement that the decision to purchase the fuel at a discounted price was "difficult".

    It confirmed that it had bought a cargo of Russian crude oil on Friday but it had "no alternative".     — BBC
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪ssu


    Certainly, you have in mind Finland's defense against the Soviet Union.

    ... However, Finland did "lose" the war and cede land for the sake of a resolution, and the Soviet Union was more worried about the Nazi's.

    The Finn's fought courageously and successfully defended most of the country ... but also had an element of political realism, adapted to the wider political context (Soviet Union did have a reachable tolerance for losses) and also carried out successful diplomacy to ultimately resolve the conflict.

    Finland also did not make "virtue signalling" but dangerously irrational political moves such as invade Russia itself, even when Finland had the opportunity during the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union.

    Finland's survival was not based only on sending people to fight and die, but also political realism, non-escalation even at the apex of the war, and of course diplomacy.

    Also of note, the debate of whether Finland could have avoided the war entirely by making some relatively small concessions to Stalin (compared to the land and lives ultimately lost) continues to this day.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    What history tells us that a war fought with this kind of intensity will likely last something like few weeks: — ssu

    Yes, hopefully sooner rather than later.

    Also, though we need to try to understand the Putin / Kremlin / Russian perspective for the best chance of peace, I honestly don't know what it is.

    Could be Putin blundered into this ... or maybe the Kremlins looking at these sky high commodity prices and high fiving each other, as, if the war lasts weeks as you say it might and costs some tens of billions seems the estimate, the legacy of commodity prices may last years or decades and net Russia trillions.

    The problem with the "boohoo commodity price increase global economic disaster; the war is such a terrible disaster" is that if you provide no incentive for Russia to participate in the global economy ... but are going to buy their commodities anyways, and China isn't going to leave a fellow tyrant hanging, then this isn't a "bad result" for the Kremlin. Certainly immoral to cause such a disaster, but if the world plays hardball with Putin ... what's the argument that Putin should play softball back.

    And indeed, once the war is over and Western leaders are dealing with even worse inflation, people may not accept the argument "their suffering is necessary for Ukrainians to have prolonged a war for a true apex of virtue signaling on social media; literal victory through defeat" for long.

    Of course, everything could unravel over night for the Kremlin, but that doesn't seem a good result either.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    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. — ssu

    Clearly, I make the counter argument here as Western media I think makes the former in abundance.

    As I say, could be true that Putin "planned all this" since 2014 and is the one that wants the new cold war and just import Chinese totalitarian technology.

    It could also be a more messy process with plenty of opportunities, in particular the EU, to have avoided this truly disastrous war.

    Obviously, Putin did start the war and it's a disaster for the world.

    Strategically, could easily benefit Russia in medium / long term (such as super increase in commodity prices which Russia's economy is based on, seizing the bread basket of Ukraine), and from Putin's perspective West isn't doing him any favours so he's not doing them favours.

    True, insane amounts of risk in this move and can be a total disaster for Russia ... but that is also not necessarily a good outcome for the world with so many nuclear weapons (both escalating Putin to use of nuclear weapons as well as an unraveling of the Russian state and losing nuclear weapons to the black market ... which, presumably, is the whole point of extreme sanctions is to collapse the adversaries economy and cause a failed sate situation, which Western leaders literally say is their goal).
  • Ukraine Crisis
    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. — ssu

    I think we're totally in agreement that a failure to understand (or even take interest) in regions before, during and after involvement in military conflict isn't a good basis of decision making.

    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. — ssu

    Completely agree there's as much (sure, perhaps even more, who knows) propaganda coming from Russia as from Ukraine or Western media.

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

    What I can be more certain of is that the West only has diplomacy to try to reduce the bloodshed, and getting into the Putin / Kremlin / Russian perspective (regardless of what is absolutely true of all these questions) is necessary for any successful diplomatic process.

    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 mood in Southern Ukraine...)     — ssu

    This is a difficult question. Certainly it's what's happening. What is the "best thing" to do for a negotiated settlement is unclear to me.

    Maybe if Zelensky signed a paper committing not to join Nato (who did not and is not letting him in the club nor establishing a no-fly zone for him) before the war, there would be no war and all this madness and suffering, not just in Ukraine but globally as these events cause never-before-seen commodity price increases in never-before-seen number of commodities.

    Zelensky wouldn't be a hero ... but literally the entire planet wouldn't suffer, and he'd be considered by historians a selfless wise man.

    Now, if he signed, didn't get into NATO which wasn't on offer anyways, and Russia still invaded then he'd be both wise and a hero.

    Certainly there must be some basis for introspection of Ukrainian leadership of how they got their country, and the entire world, into this mess as well.

    As with Russia and as with the EU / NATO.

    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.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    The problem of Ukraine being “neo-Nazi” when President Zelensky and many Ukrainian oligarchs (Pinchuk, Kolomoyskyi, Bogolyubov, Khan, Surkis, Rabinovich, Tymoshenko, etc.) are Jewish, seems a bit puzzling. — Apollodorus

    Not really puzzling.

    Nor more puzzling as the US arming jihadists and supporting jihadists to fight Assad or Qaddafi, as I've already mentioned. If there's only one kind of person who's going to fight your battle, then you either support that kind of person or your battle isn't fought.

    However, the fact is that though genuine neo-Nazis are a minority, there are large numbers of Ukrainian nationalists of all shades from moderates to ultras, and they tend to be anti-Russian, especially in the current climate. — Apollodorus

    Definitely agree.

    So, when Putin says “neo-Nazis”, he doesn’t mean neo-Nazis in the West European or US sense – except perhaps as a general hate term - but in the Russian sense of “anti-Russian nationalists”. — Apollodorus

    Yes, as I mentioned in my exchanges with @ssu, the neo-Nazi claims, regardless of the "real truth", is certainly also exaggerated propaganda.

    I'm more interested in whether this argument is really working in Russia as a whole, than whether we can really measure "Naziness" and also construct some threshold of "too much Naziness" etc. which I think is still an interesting moral-political theory to get into, but not too relevant at this stage (more academic than helping deescalate the situation and end the war).

    In fact, there seems to be more to the story, but I think it is pretty clear that powerful Ukrainian business and media groups with links to the West are behind Zelensky’s government. — Apollodorus

    Yes, I totally agree, and in terms of "rights", certainly Ukraine had a right to join the EU and NATO ... using that as a basis to criticize Russian policy against that, seems to make little sense.

    If EU and NATO want Ukraine in the club, by all means let them in the club a year ago and prevent all this bloodshed at the risk of nuclear war being a shell away.

    Western media has been obsessing over the idea of "Putin's miscalculation" but certainly these Zelensky and his supporters miscalculated in calling Putin's bluff.

    If I call your bluff and go all in at the poker table, and you win because you're not bluffing ... I've never been praised as a hero for such a decision.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ROFL. Dude, get off the stuff you're on. — hairy belly

    Superb argument skills.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪ssu


    Your rebuttal is certainly legitimate and worth discussing.

    Bringing real facts to the table is always appreciated. And I think we do see more or less the same facts, just debating what to make of them. So, in that spirit:

    One issue is clear: the Western media is and would be very alarmist about the extreme-right having large influence in any European country. — ssu

    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.

    But the West wanted Assad gone so mostly ignored this issue. Even when the opposition consolidated into mostly Islamic State extremists, the West still cheered the fall of the Assad regime ... more or less ignoring what would replace them.

    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. — ssu

    I have no problem accepting your argument voting for Svoboda was "tactical".

    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. If true, certainly these sorts of factoids about a lot of people voting for Svoboda and Azov brigade, and proud neo-Nazi's claiming credit for the coup in 2014 using violence and on a mission of war with Russia that they want the fight and want the violence etc. regardless of their real world relevance, certainly plays into Putin's hands if he wants to attack Ukraine

    Now, "how many neo-Nazi's with how much power is too many neo-Nazi's with too much power" honestly is a difficult question to answer.

    Obviously, we don't like neo-Nazi's, and we agree they are in Ukraine and agree Putin is using that as the justification for the war.

    Is there some absolute moral answer to this question; honestly, I do find the argument of some threshold of Nazi's justifying invading a valid one, but what that threshold is and what the "truth is" is difficult to answer.

    It's also, in my point of view, not such a practical question when the war is on going. First priority in terms of intellectual energy I would argue is finding some way out of the war.

    After that, we can debate who's most to blame for exactly what for decades to come.

    What seems more fruitful in terms of discussion is that clearly the EU had no real response to a legitimate concern of their being any neo-Nazi brigades whatsoever and, whether Putin would have acted differently or not, is clearly something the EU could have made more clear (that it doesn't actually like neo-Nazi's either and has policy responses to that) and would, at the least, make me personally happier to have seen.

    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. — ssu

    Totally agree Russia is accelerating towards totalitarianism, which, for me, is potentially a worse outcome for the world than the war in Ukraine itself. It could be "Putin's plan" all along, or it could be a failure of EU diplomacy to find other solutions than push Russia in this direction as hard as possible since 2014.

    And, if the EU does some introspection on it's only diplomatic failure while "having Ukraine's back" ... which it obviously doesn't have or EU soldiers would have been in Ukraine before the war, then maybe such learning would make diplomacy more effective starting now.

    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.

    Which is a conversation I had with Brussels bureaucrats literally years ago, that I didn't see the purpose in just calling Putin names. Indeed, I don't even think the name calling is even credible, if Putin was so evil ... why are we still even alive to point out his evilness and not already dead in Nuclear Armageddon? They didn't really have an answer to this argument, but would just keep calling Putin names anyways and bring out entirely unrealistic political arguments like Russia has to be punished for taking Crimea even if they accepted that was a foregone and rational action after Ukraine turned anti-Russian.

    I just don't see how this attitude of "Putin is literally Hitler" is constructive. Indeed, if Hitler had as many nuclear weapons it's arguable that the argument "Hitler is literally Hitler" would be, unfortunately, not so constructive and some concessions for peace are necessary.

    Thanks for the "maybe". — ssu

    Yes, obviously the first goal of diplomacy is to find acceptable diplomatic solutions.

    If those solutions fail, and things are resolved the hard way, the advantages of having done diplomacy well and clear treaties being violated and so on is not too significant, but is still a consideration.

    Certainly treatise get violated all the time, but my basic point is that the narrative around them (in this case not to the West, but other potential partners of Russia) does matter.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    You use this word a lot to brush aside arguments but are you aware of your own lack of credibility, not to mention your apparent lack of logic and coherence? — Olivier5

    I'm saying I don't find it a credible premise (that the Trump administration and USA government as a whole was / is has more than fringe neo-Nazi elements). You are then free to argue it is credible. But if you're not motivated to, then that's the end of the argument on that point: I don't find Trump a credible neo-Nazi and you do.

    However, in terms of coherence (more suitable topic for a philosophy forum than journalistic questions plenty of journalists have investigated) you are basically arguing that Trump is definitely a neo-Nazi (and so justified in invading? I guess) and also Ukraine more so and so more so justified in invading to deal with, but, only because you also claim Putin is likewise a neo-Nazi (or neo-Nazi like) then he personally is not justified in invading other literal neo-Nazi's even if the cause, as such against Trump and the Ukrainian neo-Nazi's such as Azov brigade, is justified in itself.

    Or then explain how Trump's neo-Nazi connection is in anyway relevant to the topic at hand. I'll take more interest in it then, but if it's not really relevant (just suppressive whataboutism fire) then you're free to make another thread on Trump being a neo-Nazi (or supporter, or defender, or whatever connection you want to argue).
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Trump praised neonazi groups for heavens sake. Your priorities are screwed. The preoccupying modern fascist leaders are Putin, Trump and co. They are the fascists who matter right now. — Olivier5

    We can get into it if you want, but the idea neo-Nazi power in the US is comparable to neo-Nazi's in Ukraine I don't think is in anyway credible.

    Trump is incoherent, he says a lot things. In saying "there's good people" I would imagine he thought was some banal "good people in every country" kind of statement.

    What I think is certainly true is that Trump liked and likes thugs spilling blood in the streets for Trump, and certainly would have liked to see some sort of brown shirt uprising that would keep him in power.

    I would certainly agree Trump doesn't care much whether thugs supporting him are neo-Nazi's or just run-of-the-mill republicans, but it's a big stretch to say Trump is therefore a neo-Nazi or then neo-Nazi's had considerable influence in American governance.

    As I mentioned, we can certainly criticize Trump for not distancing and opposing neo-Nazi's enough, just as I'm criticizing the EU for the same: doesn't make Trump administration nor the EU neo-Nazi's themselves.

    There's some neo-Nazi's, sure, and there's an association; but one must demonstrate this is more than a fringe movement and the association closer than just that, but there's real collaboration and integration. Of which, literally making neo-Nazi battalion groups and literal brown shirt gangs that can patrol cities, as has happened in Ukraine, is more than fringe and more than association.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    And, to be clear, the leftist smearing of Trump with neo-Nazi association I felt irresponsible and a boy who cried wolf dynamic, likewise the idea Trump was somehow a Putin agent or any close collaboration (though, certainly mutual sympathy as ideological authoritarians).

    For example, it was rumored that Trump had Mein Kampf (at least I hear this rumour) ... but is it even possible to confirm? And, as a student of history, I could easily have this book in my library (though, difficult to argue the same for Trump, but still, the motivation is still not clear from simply having the book).

    And indeed, it maybe precisely due to this leftist smearing that then neo-Nazi's in Ukraine was dismissed as a concern, under the assumption it must be a fringe group (which is certainly the automatic assumption in the Western press if the issue is even recognized).

    Had the left not smeared Trump with neo-Nazi association, their appearance in greater and more organized numbers in Ukraine may have been taken more credibly and at least something done about it (maybe the war still happens, but I'd rather be able to say the EU is not de facto neo-Nazi supporters, and there some strong evidence to point to about the EU actually opposing neo-Nazi in Ukraine in some meaningful sense).

    Propaganda is not simply a right wing thing, and liberal and left wing propaganda is equally dangerous and counter productive to our own cause (there are of course people on the left who pointed that out throughout "Russia gate" and neo-Nazi smearing; and, what's crazier, is there's plenty of totally credible things to criticize Trump for--the idea more must be invented is honestly bizarre, and, the only rational reason you need more is if you want to deflect from the fact the Democratic party has the same kind of corruption ... just "less so", and "can't we have a bit of the corruption" isn't so great an argument).
  • Ukraine Crisis
    I thought it was Putin's justification to invade Ukraine? — jorndoe

    Yes, that's his stated justification. So, it's obviously relevant to discuss in terms of it being the stated justification for the war, in particular in terms of perception in Russia (to what extent a majority of Russian's agree or not and therefore put up with the hardships of war).

    Whether it's true or not is a second issue.

    What's clear is that it's not an argument invented a couple of weeks ago; there's been plenty of press about neo-Nazi's in Ukraine since 2014 as well as their own speeches and interviews.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Olivier5


    I honestly don't find it credible to say Putin is a neo-Nazi or helping the neo-Nazi cause.

    You are free to expound on it though.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Or a justification to remove Putin or invade Russia? — jorndoe

    There's a difference between moral justification and justification as such.

    It would indeed be morally justified to press a button that transforms Russia instantly into a thriving and prosperous Nordic style democracy and make Putin a bar tender somewhere on a beach in Jamaica.

    If we talk of moral justification we're basically talking what situation would be good if we could wish it into existence.

    However, justification as such (real decisions in the real world) are not wishes but have all sorts of consequences that need to be taken into account.

    The West imposing Nordic style thriving democracy on Russia and forcing Putin into bar tending in Jamaica, through force would have all sorts of disastrous consequences for the world.

    There is no realistic pathway to achieve the goal through force. The goal maybe justified, that does not justify reckless actions that makes the situation worse.

    Just as, maybe it is justified to invade Ukraine and mitigate their neo-Nazi problem, but there was not actually a practical way to do it without making the situation worse for Russia.

    The West certainly believes it's mass-media hating Putin even more than before is some sort of miscalculation, but my original post was basically questioning that basic premise. Likewise the sanctions. Russia has done a lot of work sanction proofing themselves, but to what extent it has been enough is certainly up for debate.

    The war is early days, so it's difficult to tell if there's some purely material and strategic objectives Russia is able to achieve at greater benefit than cost in the long term.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    They are not a fringe group in the Moscow, though. — Olivier5

    Neo-nazi's in Moscow?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    One overall point, is that, in general, the West seems to simply ignore the element of Nuclear weapons if it suits them for Putin-bashing.

    Obviously, that Ukraine could develop nuclear weapons in the context of the already existing de facto war with Russia in East Ukraine, would and is simply ignored (I'm not sure if Russia makes this point at all, but it's I think worth pointing out).

    Likewise, the potential consequences of actively trying to destabilize the economy and society of a large Nuclear power is simply ignored.

    If the Russian state did simply fall apart, as seems to be the implicit goal of Western sanctions (whether realistic or not, talking heads in the media would be ecstatic of "victory"), the consequences of both nuclear escalation as well as losing nuclear weapons to the black market in a chaotic unraveling of the Russian state is a dangerous game to play.

    I, personally, wouldn't play it and would try to deescalate the situation.

    Accept that if the West didn't go defend Ukraine with troops before the war, it's a bit of a cry baby game to try to make up for it with sending weapons and volunteers after the war has started.

    If people really cared so much about Ukraine, they would have been there already, not only after it's a big virtue-signal on social media.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Good that I'm not arguing that. I'm just sating that Putin is not in any significant way different from the 'neonazis' he brandishes as an excuse for his mass murders. — Olivier5

    It's certainly a relevant point to debate; in particular, if Putin actually wanted this schism with the West to create a new cold war, then that is certainly pretty bad.

    However, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary, such as Russia only starting sanction-proofing programs after, and not before, sanctions were started, and only taking Crimea after, and not before, there was a legitimate threat to Russia's security.

    And, in terms of the legitimate security threat Ukraine poses; it's argued that Russia has Nuclear weapons but Ukraine doesn't.

    However, Ukraine has many nuclear reactors that can be used to source plutonium to make nuclear weapons. If you listen to Ukrainian neo-Nazi talks and interviews, they certainly seem the people that would try to make and to use nuclear weapons and truly want more chaos and destruction.

    Once you have commercial nuclear reactors it is not all that hard to make nuclear weapons, especially with advances in computer simulation and CNC machining, 3D printing etc. North Korea did it, from a far worse starting point.

    If things were reversed, and the West was dealing with a belligerent country with plenty Nuclear reactors, the invasion would be a foregone conclusion. For this very reason, the invasion of Iran has been constantly talked about. The big difference is that Iran doesn't have already plenty Nuclear reactors that makes sourcing plutonium far easier and would need the launch capabilities to reach the US ... hence, why Israel is far more concerned, but, also, Iran isn't Islamic State with an ideology that may actually want to use nuclear weapons against Israel regardless of the consequences.

    (Ukraine being close enough to easily hit Moscow with a cheap ballistic missile once you had a Nuclear warhead)

    Now, how influential these neo-Nazi's are is one question, but what's not really questionable is the EU did basically nothing about them since 2014, and, as an EU citizen, that's the aspect of policy I can rightly criticize of the governance structures I live in.

    Of course, if they are only a fringe group (such as, in the US, such a concern would be pretty outlandish), doesn't matter, but the problem with neo-Nazi's in Ukraine is they really do seem more than fringe.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    He is the gay nazi type. It's a flavour alright. — Olivier5

    I don't feel that's a useful analytical framework, as then Trump is also a nazi type.

    Indeed, even authoritarians in Israel supporting apartheid would be "Nazi types" in such a framework.

    Likewise, Islamic State jihadists who hate Jews as much (maybe a lot more) than neo-Nazi's, would, in your framework, also be "Nazi types" that presumably also hate Arabs a lot too.

    It's more useful and coherent and leads to better discourse to say Nazism is a form of a authoritarianism with it's own ideology distinct from other forms of authoritarianism.

    Keep in mind that Russia is as nominally democratic as the Ukraine.

    It would be very difficult to argue that Ukraine is a "better democracy" than Russia; indeed, the entire premise of the 2014 uprising was that the Ukrainian administration at that time was not legitimately democratic ... and nothing fundamental has changed in Ukrainian governance processes since then.

    Also, authoritarian does not equate to "bad". There are good forms of authoritarianism nearly universally agreed, such as parents have an authority on children for some years of life (that the community or state can intervene in, again authoritarianism between society / state and parents, but with a large burden of proof that it's necessary, due to the fundamental justification of parent authority).
  • Ukraine Crisis
    If Putin wants to get rid of neonazis, he should fire a bullet in his head. — Olivier5

    Putin's not a neo-Nazi.

    People can be a different flavour of authoritarianism. Indeed, there were authoritarians before Nazi's even existed.

    For example, Trump and the republican's are also very authoritarian leaning, doesn't make them neo-Nazi's.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    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". — ssu

    I agree with your points here.

    And, again, NATO and Ukraine were completely free to sign a treaty and have Ukraine join anytime since 2014 or even Ukraine becoming independent.

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

    Yes, I don't think our positions are so far apart, and we certainly agree the war is terrible and would have been better to avoid.

    I focus on criticizing "the West" because Western media make the anti-Putin arguments in abundance (I honestly don't feel there's any need to make new one's; of course, totally relevant to debate, which is why I present the counter arguments that may exist).

    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. Who's "morally responsible exactly for what" in complex international political situations and processes is a different question to "what should we do", which, credible and concerted diplomacy is my thoughts on; diplomacy is insanely cheap compared to the costs the entire world is facing due to this crisis.

    Of course, maybe it's true that diplomacy could not have worked and Putin was intent on the invasion since 2014 or even before, but what makes me uncomfortable is, arguably, the largest political institution (with some degree of sovereignty and diplomatic leverage) and trading block (massive diplomatic leverage), is unable to demonstrate any credible diplomatic process since 2014.

    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.     — ssu

    It maybe true. My argument on this point is not what's true and false, who broke what first etc. But just that there is a cost to refusing good faith diplomacy. Obviously, the West didn't care since 2014 of engaging with Russia diplomatically and would just write him off as a madman in the press.

    However, the perspective I wanted to bring up is the other authoritarian or authoritarian leaning non-Western countries. Their governments are going to be, a priori, more sympathetic to Putin's Russia and security concerns (as, naturally, they are very focused on their own security concerns), so my point was that if Putin can sell his actions as good faith to this audience, they are easier to deal with.

    Of course, the cost of the large states just ripping up treatise or interpreting them in a wildly insane way (a memo can make torture legal as long as you have a euphemism for example), is not very high. However, it is a consideration, and you're always in a better position in a negotiation if you can demonstrate the counter-party refusing reasonable offers.

    The West's position since 2014 is not to make any offers at all but just do sanctions ... of which Russia responding to by carrying out sanctions proofing programs then makes war in Ukraine more doable ... which is what we have now.

    Of course, what would reasonable offers be and whether Russia would have accepted them is a different question, but the EU not having any track record of working on them, just basically ignoring the whole situation in Ukraine since 2014 and letting the bad blood fester there (precisely because of the neo-Nazi's other EU countries wanted to be hands-off, from what I can tell) only to "pop out" and now pretend Ukraine was this bastion of liberal freedom all along.

    And again, your arguments could be true and we could see large scale social uprising in Russia as this war was a huge incompetent mistake. My presenting the counter argument is basically the question of to what extent this narrative is a Western media / tic tok driven fantasy.

    Revolutions and mass uprisings are often a surprise, and I would definitely agree the Kremlin is risking that, and, indeed, maybe everything has gone totally out of control and nothing has gone as planned.

    However, I wouldn't view that as necessarily a good process (even if I don't like authoritarianism in Russia, or anywhere), and if it is actually true, again diplomacy would be, in my opinion, recommended to avoid nuclear escalation.

    And, diplomacy begins with understanding the other party's point of view, so my comments are mostly motivated by that.
Home » boethius