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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

They are not a fringe group in the Moscow, though. — Olivier5

Neo-nazi's in Moscow?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Then I explained Putin's ties to the European neo-Nazis and far-right, since you said you were not aware of it. — hairy belly

You don't seem to understand how argument works.

You assumed the argument as your premise--that neo-Nazi's would be a justification for war--and your rebuttal was that Putin also has ties to neo-Nazi's.

Putin's ties to neo-Nazi's would not make a sound argument about justification of fighting neo-Nazi's unsound, it would just make Putin a hypocrite. The argument would still be sound.

Arguing someone is a hypocrite is different than arguing any of their positions are unsound, invalid or false in themselves.

I can present only sound arguments, but be a hypocrite since I simply don't do what I argue; doesn't make my arguments unsound.

Putin's argument that neo-Nazi's are bad, and there's too many in Ukraine, could be sound, and his also supporting neo-Nazi's would then make him a hypocrite.

That's the state of that exchange between us. Now, if you want to backtrack and argue there aren't or then not enough neo-Nazi's in Ukraine, you may do so, but that's independent of Putin's ties to neo-Nazis. Or then, you can continue your own argument that assumed there was enough neo-Nazi's in Ukraine but just that Putin's a hypocrite for also supporting neo-Nazi's and so demonstrate that.

However, if you're backtracking, then Putin's ties to neo-Nazi's isn't really relevant, and if you aren't backtracking then feel free to demonstrate Putin's ties to neo-Nazi's and what relevance that has: for example, if we assume there's too many neo-Nazi's in Ukraine and therefore the Russian's invading is justified, it's this a larger harm to neo-Nazi's (doing more good than not) compared to whatever other links Putin has to neo-Nazi's (how does demolishing a neo-Nazi state help the neo-Nazi cause?).

So, that wasn't my question. Do YOU agree with Putin's use of force to takeover another country? — schopenhauer1

I don't really reason by taking an opinion first ... and then asking for more information. My initial comment was asking people who knew more about the subject.

As I say, I don't like neo-Nazi's. Now, if as @ssu says they're irrelevant, then for certain there's no justification for the war. However, it is a legitimate question how many neo-Nazi's a state can foster, integrate into institutions and have battalions, carry out language and cultural suppression (form of genocide) and not be morally responsible and invite entirely just war on itself.

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

That being said, I do not view the Kremlin as a "good" government.

For example, if some country randomly attacked China (totalitarian hellscape, as I call them), in the narrow "self defense" justification then China would be justified for fighting back. But in the larger context of China not being a just state then it's actions are not justified generally speaking. Of course, it gets complicated; for example, I think few would argue China detectives finding a serial killer is "unjust" just because China's state is unjust.

Now, it maybe said Ukraine hasn't attacked Russia ... but Russia would respond Ukraine has been attacking ethnic Russians in the East that have a right to separate after a coup of a democratically elected leader (which, true or false, neo-Nazi's take credit for staging a violent coup). Therefore, not only are there neo-Nazi's that the Ukrainian government are responsible for supporting and so invite invasion, but it is also self-defense of the ethnic Russian separatists.

Ukraine may respond to that the coup / revolution is non of Russia's business, and that Russia attacked first by taking Crimea and it is Ukraine that has a right to fight back in self defense.

These arguments can go on more or less forever.

However, my original comment was seeking insight into something else and far, far worse.

Which is Putin and the Kremlin actually want a total break with the West to recreate the Soviet style totalitarianism based on China's "perfecting" it using modern technology (IPR courtesy of the West of course).

In this case, of course, the moral arguments above are completely irrelevant.

Of course, the Western narrative would be immediate response "Yes! Yes! Putin's evil and wants to re-create Soviet totalitarianism". However, such a response contradicts the idea sanctions are "hurting" the Kremlin. You can't have it both ways of saying sanctions are disrupting Russia and undermining the Kremlin's grip on power and about to trigger an uprising in Russia as normal people get fed up who see zero reason for the war in Ukraine ... and, also, total break with the West is exactly what Putin and the Kremlin want in order to import the Chinese system of social control.

Of course, you can also have a situation where a state is pretty bad but attacked by something even worse, so, reluctantly, we are glad the first bad state succeeds. For example, we in the West are generally reluctantly grateful that Hitler didn't conquer the Soviet Union even if Stalin gave Hitler a run for his money in terms of evil dictatorship, the Nazi's seemed genuinely worse (hence alliance with the Soviet Union). Likewise, the pro-Assad argument (from a democracy is good point of view) rests on Islamic State being far worse than a run-of-the-mill dictatorship.

Certainly Putin and Kremlin would have preferred an easy victory and no sanctions (you don't "need" sanctions to transition away from Western integration, which Russia has been doing since 2014), but the narrative of "miscalculation" assumes Putin and Kremlin didn't have a plan B in place if massive sanctions were put in place and defeating Ukraine longer and more arduous.

This seems dangerous. So in this view, Canada should takeover the US because there are known neo-Nazi groups and white supremacists? Or the other way around if that was known? This is just slippery slope justification. — schopenhauer1

As I've said several times, if neo-Nazi's are fringe (as I would agree they are in the US) the argument doesn't follow. One would need some threshold of neo-Nazi "de facto power" for the argument to work. Unfortunately, neo-Nazi's in Ukraine simply do not seem like a fringe group, I much rather they were. Now, are they "enough" to for this argument to work; that would be a political theory (what would be "enough") and factual question (are there enough) that with all the propaganda is difficult to just randomly guess about.

Just the presence of neo-Nazis.. that is your basis for invading a country? Also, if there were neo-Nazis found in Russia should Ukraine or anyone else invade Russia? — schopenhauer1

I've explained many times, as above, there needs to be enough, some threshold of too many neo-Nazi's with too much influence, that it can be credibly argued not-invading them is appeasement.

Yes, stated reason...along with a rambling manifesto about how Ukraine was once part of the Soviet Union and isn't stupid how that was lost when the USSR disbanded. — schopenhauer1

Yes, obviously discussing the stated reason for something is relevant. You can argue is purely propaganda if you want, but it's obviously relevant to the situation.

I just don't get your position here.. I guess my question to you is do you agree with Putin's use of force to takeover a country? — schopenhauer1

I'm presenting the counter argument to the Western media narrative, understand the counter-party perspective, which is the basis of negotiation; which I think is preferable to more bloodshed.

As I said, war seems entirely justifiable if the neo-Nazi element is above some critical threshold. It is definitely, from my point of view, uncomfortable amount of neo-Nazi elements to easily argue against his justification. So, that doesn't make me happy, nor the EU doing absolutely nothing about it.

Considering the West had 8 years to do something about neo-Nazi's in Ukraine, I think the burden of proof is on those Western actors to demonstrate how they are fringe or marginal in Ukraine's de facto governing processes.

For example, the neo-Nazi association with Trump I would agree is totally fringe thing and not a justification to assassinate Trump, and the whole "Trump is a neo-nazi or supporting neo-Nazi's" I viewed as irresponsible and propaganda (although, I certainly didn't nor do support Trump; just, Republican's aren't significantly composed of neo-Nazis).

However, there does legitimately seem a lot more in Ukraine.

And, therefore, not invading can be argued to be the appeasement.

Correct. And that's because the movement is anti-Russian. — Apollodorus

Indeed, and did Europe benefit from directly and indirectly supporting violent anti-Russian extremists?

Now, possible, war would have happened anyways, but with some actual track record of opposing these neo-Nazi's, this entire conversation wouldn't be happening and the EU could credibly say there are other policies available to reduce neo-Nazi influence and full scale invasion is unwarranted.

Right? But this is just reiterating m point. Losing a trade partner should not be a legitimate reason to then takeover that country. — schopenhauer1

I've never said it was ... nor is anyone. Putin's stated reason is "de-Nazification".

What I'm pointing out is that, in a political realist point of view, the EU removing itself as a good faith trading partner of Russia and instead just parroting US talking points that "Putin be bad boy", removes the downside to attacking Ukraine.

Resulting in only upsides and no downsides.

Any rational strategist will do a move that has minimal downsides and plenty of upsides without hesitation.

Western media is saying this is miscalculation because they don't like Putin "even more" now ... but were they doing him any favours before?

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

For sure. This is definitely classic imperialism.

And you do understand that the whole motivation for countries neighboring Russia to join NATO is the threat of this? — ssu

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

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

I'm not saying NATO is the real culprit, I explained at some length that I do not view criticism of authoritarianism as constructive. I'd much rather see Russia a vibrant democracy. However, criticism of Russia doesn't serve much of an analytical purpose.

Also, I actually appreciate Russia not nuking the planet ... so far. I honestly believe that's worth at least some good faith offers of economic collaboration in return and having a more nuanced public discourse than "Putin is basically the Satan" ... I think Satan would have nuked the planet.

At some point, political realism is required. If you're not going to let Ukraine into Nato, the actual credible diplomacy is a better course of action than just shit talking Putin.

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

It is possible that this was Russia's "plan all along", the problem is, without a credible negotiation process, you can't demonstrate that, as no reasonable offers and no reasonable response to legitimate grievances are ever made in which to prove the counter party's bad faith.

The offer: "Do not insist Ukraine doesn't join NATO ... which we are not going to let Ukraine join by the way, but we'll leave them hanging high and dry if you invade" is not credible diplomacy.

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

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

The "good faith / bad faith" game is one of proving one is more good faith than the other, as no one's perfect.

If there was some new agreement, clear commitment by Russia to not invade in exchange for Ukraine committing not to join Nato and remaining neutral, and then Russia invades anyways without any further changes in the status quo, that's then clear bad faith.

NATO promised not to move east, which Russia tolerated right up to it's border (on small areas), a good faith move to tolerate that and not just invade everyone; from Russia's point of view, that good faith must be answered with good faith (such as committing not to expand all the way to large borders ... and also be one shell away on thousands of KM of border, from nuclear escalation). That's how negotiation works.

I'm not saying it's a cause for military action, I'm saying the EU refusing good faith collaboration with Russia lowers the downsides of military action.

The basic logic is: Well, if EU isn't offering us anything, and forcing us to reorient our entire economy both inwards (to be immune to sanctions threats) and towards China (to be immune to sanctions threats) and offload our USD and build up gold reserves ... may as well take Ukraine.

Now, if it was "the plan all along", then the "sanction proofing" of Russia would have happened before, and not after, sanctions were first imposed.

If there were no sanctions, Russia would not have sanctioned proof (no way to justify it to their population they can't use Western brands) and therefore the cost of the Ukrainian war would have been significantly higher (cause real economic dislocations, instead of manageable nuisance ).

Of course, there's still an impact, and could tip the Russian population over the edge, just not as much as in 2014 when Russia had far greater economic dependencies ... maybe because it wasn't in some insane scheme to basically cut all ties with Europe and invade Ukraine before 2014 for zero justifiable reason.

The whole process just underlines the opinion of nearly every expert on the issue that sanctions do not work as a deterrent and decrease rather than increase chances for peace.

A continued role for NATO benefitting the US' influence in it as the most powerful military country. It's ability to project that power across the world through local bases. An increase in countries wanting to join NATO. — Benkei

Obviously countries want to join NATO, and NATO could have let Ukraine in if it wanted to.

However, for nations already in NATO (basically all of Europe) there's not necessarily any benefit to letting new countries in (it would have been great for Ukraine, no questions about that ... but could also trigger world war III and nuclear exchange, which isn't necessarily a good risk to take for the sake of Ukrainians ... and NATO has chosen not to; big surprise).

And, of course, NATO countries can say all they want that other nations have "a right" to join ... but if the offer's not actually on the table, that sort of talk doesn't actually get you any NATO protections.

It's like me telling you again and again you have "a right" to work at this company ... but, also, I'm not offering you a job ... but you definitely have a right to the job, if it was offered, but it isn't so ... basically NATO discourse on Ukraine.

The cost? Mostly a loss of soft power (weakened trust in Western countries), which weakens European countries more than it does the US. Again a relative gain for the US, although they never cared much about soft power to begin with. — Benkei

It's a huge relative gain for the US by reducing the relevance of soft power generally speaking.

It's Europe that has a legitimate moral basis, and the largest economy, to lead the world with soft power.

US doesn't want to see that happening, but wants leadership of the West to be hard power centered (aka. new cold war) ... which, seems, now it is.

In one media cycle the disasters of Iraq and abandoning allies in Afghanistan are totally forgotten, all Western nations must kiss the ring of the top "don" of NATO and build a new Iron curtain with the "evil" red army.

I'm pretty sure we're in agreement, but please point out any nuances or differences.

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

Yes, exactly, seen as their the stated reasons for the war, it's relevant to discuss certainly in the context that that's what Putin says is the justification.

I totally agree that Putin and Russia will exaggerate whatever neo-Nazi presence is in Ukraine. We're not in disagreement that, whatever the truth, it's also propaganda.

However, it seems to me undeniable that there are neo-Nazi organizations in Ukraine / "ultra nationalists" that seems to, at least, sympathize with them.

It's also undeniable that the EU has put zero pressure on Ukraine, even symbolically, to curb this movement.

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

The long term strategic objectives: to secure Crimea with a land bridge, take land east of the Dnieper river (at least enough to easily attack any buildup on the near side), destroy the existing Ukraine military capability, secure a treaty guarantee of not joining Nato in a negotiated peace (and, anyways, after such a mess I don't think Nato will be considering that anyways), and, yeah, sure, why not take those gas deposits on the coast, are all perfectly rational strategic objectives that Russia is likely to achieve.

The downside of the war is cutting collaboration with the EU (Russia's largest trading partner), but since EU will continue to by Russia gas anyways ... the "big loss" of cutting economic ties has not and is unlikely to happen.

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

You misunderstand what a credible negotiation is. I do not mean that a credible negotiation would have for sure avoided the war nor is a credible negotiation just giving the counter party everything they want.

However, in a credible negotiation, if it fails, and you want to accuse the other side of bad faith and refusing all reasonable offers ... well you need to be able to produce a paper that represents your reasonable offer the counter party refused. If you can't, it's just speculation.

Likewise, in almost any negotiation (in particular between organizations) there are lot's of issues, and each side always has legitimate grievances. The "Azov" brigade that even Western governments admit is a neo-Nazi-ish and naming things after Nazi collaborator war heroes and carrying out suppression of the Russian language and, yes, Russia's own security concerns that ... if not assuaged ... they'll invade Ukraine and lots of blood will be spilled ... as they have just done, are all legitimate grievances.

Now, obviously there's also legitimate grievances on Ukraine side and EU side etc.

A credible negotiation tries to parse all those grievances as well as add positive reasons for a resolution.

EU has more-or-less just ignored the issue, repeats "Putin is bad", paid lip service to "Ukrainian sovereignty".

That's not a credible negotiation process.

Now, if there was some indication of making credible offers and responding to credible grievances (such, yes, indeed, these neo-Nazi elements we don't like either, and their having their own paramilitary organizations we don't see as a good thing either, and, because we're also against it, we'll put some pressure on Ukraine and at least denounce it; that we support Ukraine independence ... but not neo-Nazi, however many they be) ... and Russia still invaded.

Ok, yes, was the plan all along and diplomacy was bad faith on the Russian's part.

However, without a credible good faith process on the EU side, it's simply not possible to then just accuse the other party of bad faith.

It's also completely stupid if Russia just invades anyways and the EU does nothing meaningful about that (send troops for instance, which would not trigger article 5 insofar as the fighting is over Ukraine and not attacking a NATO nation per se--of course, no nation in Europe wants to).

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

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

Now, if Ukraine signed and Russia still invaded; ok, same exact result, nothing was "lost" because Ukraine couldn't have joined NATO anyways (... otherwise it would be in NATO now), but then the sell to the Russian people and how non-Western Nations view it would be very different. Only the US can just go around ripping up treatise; other Nations would think twice before reneging on a treaty it just signed without any rational whatsoever. It makes it difficult to make agreements with anyone in the future.

LMAO. — hairy belly

Great argument, I'm impressed. Someone arguing their point on a philosophy forum, engaging with rebuttals and other points of view ... is somehow unusual.

The whole point of an open forum like this is that people can't be shut down for arguing their point of view in good faith.

If I was just repeating the same thing, not responding to new points (which, in philosophy, are sometimes subtle and nuanced), ask the mods to ban me.

Dude, to whom are you replying? — hairy belly

I literally quote the people I'm replying to.

However, as mentioned, I'm presenting the opposing view to that of the Western media. If Russia is exaggerating the neo-Nazi threat in Ukraine (which I would definitely agree, whatever the threat is, Russia is exaggerating it) the Western media has been doing their own exaggerations: military failure (not credible to say when strategic goals are already achieved), Russian opposition to the war (certainly some but there's no reports of large scale revolution at the moment), and Russian economy will free fall into some sort of failed state (... yes ... but only before, and not after, transferring all Western IP to China and South-East-Asia more generally; economic sanctions do not matter if you can just get vital equipment elsewhere easily ... which you obviously can from China ... that's what the West does too; the real economic value the West provides at this point is basically brands, but nobody stops doing business simply because they need to switch brands).

Oh, and the most ludicrous, that "declaring" renewables are now a priority is sticking it to the Russians somehow. "In 50 to 100 years will be independent on Russian natural resources. Haha! take that Russia!". I work in the renewable energy sector ... and this idea is so insanely idiotic, it severely discredits every politician that repeats it.

Definitely we should have started to transition to renewable 50 years ago, not only stop subsidizing but forcing the internalization of true costs of fossil, and, so, be largely independent of Russian fossil fuels by now. I could go on how hypocritical it is too: saving the planet means absolutely nothing in making renewable a real priority ... but "Putin bad, boohoohoo" and suddenly everyone's on the renewable bandwagon ... which, again, is just empty talk, policies will barely change once the blood we see today just dilutes into the 24hr news cycle of the usual carnage.

↪boethius What, specifically, is Russia afraid of wrt to neo-nazi's? — RogueAI

Mostly we've been talking in the context of Putin's stated justification for the war; Putin literally calls it a "de-nazification" operation.

I certainly agree with @ssu that it's "mostly" propaganda; and, propaganda can be true; just because someone has a bias and purpose for spreading information, doesn't mean it's not true.

The best propaganda is usually based on true elements that form the basis of valid arguments and, with time, impossible to say really.

Unlike, for example, Iraq having WMD's which was proven to be false; obviously, that propaganda would have worked a lot better if they even found some WMD's, people would be pointing to a single vial of something with zero real strategic relevance to do this day ... if they had found it. And, for example, the deaths of the fire bombing of Dresden were certainly exaggerated by Goebbels, but the fire bombing did happen.

So, for the current propaganda game, it is pretty important for most wars for the enemy to be an ideological enemy. The US has no problems slaughtering Arabs in the middle East because they are ideological enemies. Without understanding the neo-Nazi justification, the war in Ukraine seems incomprehensible because, otherwise, Ukrainian's are not ideological enemies of Russia, they are fellow white people (hence the horror in Western media and "serious response" from Western nations and institutions; obviously if Russia went and slaughtered Muslims, even white Muslims, there wouldn't be "sanctions" about that).

However, there is also a longer strategic view. There is certainly a neo-Nazi movement in Ukraine which is certainly growing. How big it is now and how big it would grow to if left unchecked by both the EU and Russia is difficult to say.

However, it clearly represents a real risk. Russia certainly doesn't want a neo-Nazi state on it's doorstep for the indefinite future, could cause all sorts of problems. The time to invade was more-or-less becoming "now or never" with the modernization of Ukraine's military, so, to mitigate the risk of a neo-Nazi state in Ukraine (and, the current President being Jewish doesn't somehow mean every future administration will have a Jewish leader; things change), invading now may seem not only a good option due to the real perceived threat of neo-Nazi's festering on the board but also that it's an easy sell to the population by simply amplifying what's there already.

People should also keep in mind that the Kremlin is a pretty old institutions, and old institutions tend to have long memories and long foresight.

The geo-political framework is undergoing rapid change, who knows what the future holds, but what is clear is that, even at relatively high cost, Russia can take large parts of Ukraine now that are of long term strategic benefit: connecting Crimea and pushing the border right to the Dnieper river (or at least close enough that there's no room to make defensive infrastructure on the near side), the West insists on providing zero value to Russia (just grandstanding and sanctions and no meaningful collaboration), therefore, taking the East of Ukraine has only long term strategic benefits and no long term strategic costs (if the EU has given up on any meaningful collaboration, which it clearly has).

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

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

And, if I was just hearing about this now, I'd be very skeptical and presume it is just fabricated propaganda. However, I've been hearing and reading about it since 2014. Also, the Russian language and suppression policies I also read about before (from non-Russian sources), doesn't seem invented now for the purposes of propaganda.

Now, obviously it's also propaganda. It's just way easier to make propaganda based on real elements that support a valid argument.

Now, whatever the "true" level of neo-Nazi's in Ukraine, there's obviously the perception of it as a relevant factor; for instance, explaining the lack of full scale rebellion, perhaps even majority support, in Russia.

And, since, whatever the reality, this perception of there being a credible neo-Nazi force in Ukraine since 2014 should, if we're doing credible diplomacy, be met with the credible response from the West and the EU of such neo-Nazi's. Obviously, just because the West ignores it doesn't mean Russia media ignores it, and, without a response to the perception (which could be proving there are only 10 of these neo-Nazi's doing drugs in an alleyway) it is again an excellent fuel for propaganda to point out the West has no response, tolerates them (which, Germany being the largest EU nation, isn't a good look), are hypocrites etc.

I do negotiation for a living. To run even a small corporation requires negotiating with people I disagree with, people I don't like, people wanting from me what I don't think is fair but they have the leverage to get it.

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

The only reason it appears sound is because there is a hidden premise: "If Putin himself has no ties to such groups". — hairy belly

I say say assuming the premises are true it's a sound argument, I then go into some discussion about the premises.

It's entirely possible the argument is sound; but, my point is more of perception of it's soundness in Russia.

However, you're counter criticism was that, even assuming the premises are true, that the argument doesn't hold because Putin has himself ties to neo-Nazi's.

Your argument assumed the premise, and I was nearly pointing out it's therefore a sound argument (you weren't, in that rebuttal, arguing against the premises or the logic just making a parallel argument)--so, argument is sound in itself according to your own rebuttal, but only hypocritical of Putin to use if he has neo-Nazi ties according to your argument.

Now, whether there's some "absolute neo-Nazi value" we can determine as well as some "neo-Nazi threshold that justifies invasion" would be one political and moral argument to have.

However, what I'm focusing on is more Russia's argument (this is literally the argument Putin uses, "de-nazification" he calls it) as well as, I think pretty clear, the West didn't do anything about neo-Nazi's in Ukraine nor chastise Ukraine in anyway for carrying out language suppression campaigns of the Russian language.

The war consolidates Putin's power, is amazing for China, and achieves US objectives of preventing a real "World Leader" competitor, which both China and Russia could never be, but Europe would have already displaced US as a global leader with A. peace with Russia and the enormous benefits of it's mineral riches and B. some fucking balls in positions of influence rather than "leaders" that both make sure they appear, as well as seem to feel in their heart of hears, that they must be USA bitches.

This Ukraine war is a disaster for Europe, easily prevented, and a few speeches doesn't rectify anything. Washington, Moscow and Beijing are all getting what they want. Indeed, China and USA far more than Russia, but at least Russia's getting something.

Europe gains nothing, loses a lot, and it's failure to do anything meaningful to have peace, is because European elites do not care much about European interest, neither Ukrainians nor their own populations; they care about US interests, for reason I honestly don't get (I talked years ago with bureaucrats in Brussels about there being no purpose or benefit to antagonizing Russia for no discernible reason; they honestly didn't get my point of view, would just repeat USA talking points about the issue).

When I pushed for some sort of justification, "like why? why though?" they would just get angry with me.

And the "appeasement" argument doesn't work as there's already NATO ... which, ok, sure let Ukraine in by surprise over a weekend ... and see how that goes, but if, by your own admission, no one's letting Ukraine into NATO, why a pointless war of words and sanctions that simply push Russia towards China rather than stick to the European policy of economic ties with democracies a good way to spread to democracies. There was zero logic nor even any understanding of the political situation with Europe's largest neighbor ... supplying 40% of it's natural gas.

As far as I could tell, Brussels bureaucrats just like sucking American dick. Offensive, maybe, but I find pointless bloodshed and cities leveled to the ground more offensive ... don't like that ... well either do diplomacy or go send troops there to defend against said shelling you say you don't like. Honestly, arguing with a mix-tape of stupid would have been a more interesting conversation.

Argument has basically been: if we appease Russia by doing diplomacy in some credible way, they may invade Ukraine ... but stop there because everyone else is in Nato. However, if we don't appease Russia they will for sure probably invade Ukraine as we're for sure as hell not letting Ukraine in our little Nato club, as that would be provoking Russia too much. Therefore, we are fucking morons.

Credible diplomacy not only may have worked, but also increases the costs significantly for Russia if there were credible offers turned down, credible denunciation of neo-Nazi's in Ukraine, EU stopping Ukraine's language suppression programs etc. common sense things, all increase the likelihood of peace directly but also decrease the cost-benefit of war as it's a harder sell to your own population.

Instead, USA is basically "Hey, Germany, go make sure neo-Nazi's are seen to be of credible importance in Ukraine with the implicit backing of the EU, and also make sure they can do whatever language and cultural suppression of Russian speakers there that said neo-Nazi's dream of: make sure Russia sees you do it Germany, I'm counting on you."

I was merely pointing out that it wouldn't follow logically because Putin himself has such ties. — hairy belly

It doesn't make the argument in itself unsound, would just make Putin a hypocrite.

Also, all these arguments I've presented are "for the sake of argument", presenting the counter-arguments to the Western media (at least in the first week of the war, almost declaring "victory" ... seems starting to balancing out now somewhat).

This is definitely a risky move by the Kremlin, so could indeed fail; but with at least some strategic gains in Ukraine (that Russia has already solidified) I wouldn't say there's actual chance now for military failure (Kremlin can stop anytime and just consolidate the land grabs they've made so far, say "enough war" we have achieved our security objectives and to demonstrate our "peaceful intentions" are ending the war here, and declare victory).

The large size of Ukraine makes total occupation difficult / impossible, but, the large size of Ukraine makes a lot of land grabbing easy. For the same reason Russia can't easily occupy all of Ukraine, Ukraine cannot easily defend all of Ukraine.

Definitely full scale rebellion in Russia would be a failure or then failing to re-orient their economy towards China integration. I'm definitely not saying these aren't risky things, just presenting the arguments and, indeed, potential facts in which success is possible.

In particular, the Western media is basically just in a circle of saying Putin is failing because the Western media doesn't like Putin like "a lot" now ... but that was already the case from Putin's perspective.

Putin's not some youtube influencer living in fear of being cancelled by Western media corporations.

However, it's not clear to me Putin has neo-Nazi far right ties. There are lot's of flavors of authoritarianism (which Putin definitely has lot's of ties) but neo-Nazi are definitely fringe on the world stage as a whole; indeed, seems to me Ukraine has the biggest such movement (precisely due to conflict with Russia, the old Nazi propaganda and "opposition to communism" can find sympathetic ears as well as "enemy of my enemy is my friend" tolerance from others).

It logically follows only if you ignore Putin's ties to the European far-right (neo-Nazis included). — hairy belly

I'm not defending Putin here. As I say in my original post, seems to me this war in Ukraine (whether the original intention or not) will consolidate a Russia-China totalitarianism axis (if you want to call it an "axis of evil", no complaints here), and Russia has and will continue to import China's totalitarian technology and, together, they will export that to other nations.

I always, however, focus my criticism on people who, at least nominally, have the same objective as me (real freedom for people, whatever our differences in vaguely imagining it), as that criticism is constructive. The 1984 totalitarian hellscape of the PRC needs only be noted ... there's no real point in arguing with the PRC about it and ... as far as I can tell, they don't participate in our little conversations here.

It could be that Russia had decided it would invade all of Ukraine already in 2014 and all diplomacy was genuinely meaningless. Nevertheless, doing nothing meaningful (even symbolically) about neo-Nazi's in Ukraine is a powerful weapon in Putin's hand. Likewise, diplomacy during and since 2014 seems as bad-faith on the Western side as for Russia.

Russia's demands were also not really unreasonable: agree to not join Nato or we invade. Ukraine: Fuck you, we'll join Nato if we want! Nato: awesome bros, we're such good friends, hugs!!

Then Russia invades as they said they would ... I don't see Ukraine with any meaningful friends.

Now, you can say if Ukraine signed such a deal, Russia would invade anyways ... but the result is the same. Strategically, taking the deal is a no brainer if you are a Ukrainian and want the best chances for peace (US doesn't actually want peace between Russia and EU; it's a fundamental strategic objective, US "policy makers" are happy to talk about).

? — ssu

I already responded above, but if you believe there's enough neo-Nazi's, definitely that justifies invading Ukraine if fighting the first Nazi's was justifiable. I don't see any problem with that logic.

Of course, people against the invasion will argue the neo-Nazi element is fringe and irrelevant, and the pro-invasion (i.e. Kremlin and supporters) will argue it's above whatever threshold is needed to justify the invasion.

And, I'm not being facetious here; this is literally the argument Putin makes, and, regardless of "fact", the perception that it's true (which I honestly don't know what the average Russian thinks) has an impact on events.

Notice that not only Crimea was different, but that the whole situation was now different than in 2014. Let's remember that Kharkiv was a mainly Russian speaking city. Ukraine didn't collapse as Putin had estimated. — ssu

Oh, I definitely agree it's totally different.

Why my first comment was in the form of a question of people who know more about Russian sentiment. Definitely military moral could collapse and Russian people "take to the streets"--it's certainly a possibility--but the Western media seems, at least, exaggerating the odds.

The nation building part has gone splendidly! Ukrainians have never been so united in defending their country against an hostile invader. — ssu

Yes, for Ukrainian speakers, definitely, but I doubt it was ever Russia's plan to occupy the entire Ukraine, but just A. punish Ukraine for unfriending them (an important message to other client states of Russia) and B. take all pro-Russia territories that won't have an insurgency and C. increase energy prices and D. cause lot's of real problems for the EU.

Really, not "rebelling" in any meaningful sense? Oh, only thousands have been detained and tough sanctions have been set against demonstrations, but that isn't meaningful? It has been so meaningful that tough new laws proposals are made and rumors go around of martial laws. — ssu

I mean on the scale of a true rebellion to topple the government. There are definitely protests, which I would definitely agree could spark a meaningful rebellion (hence the arrests).

If you want say these protesters are meaningful rebels I would agree, but, at the moment at least, I do not see the Kremlin at risk of a large enough rebellion to stop their war plans or threaten their grip on power.

Fighting neo-nazis...

Starting with the Jewish President who is a native Russian speaker and his party that has majority of the seats in the Rada, which has an ideology "denying political extremes and radicalism, but being for creative centrism". — ssu

As I say, the argument entirely depends on how much credibility you lend these neo-Nazi's. That it's the basis of a sound argument goes a long way to explain Russian's more-or-less accepting the war, for now. It's certainly relevant in the propaganda and, I would say, based on uncomfortable amount of real evidence.

Does it "actually" justify the invasion because there's "enough neo-Nazi's" and, even if there was, Ukraine would be a significant enough threat like the original Nazi's, would be a different question and I would definitely agree it's a stretch, but a "stretch" is a far better propaganda tool than something totally fabricated (like WMD's in Iraq for example or Afghanistan had something to do directly with 911).

Is there a popular nazi-esque leader that could plausibly become dictator? And do the neo-nazi's in Ukraine have significant political power? For example, how many parliament seats do Ukranian neo-nazi's have? — RogueAI

That's why I say it depends on how much influence you believe they have ... obviously, Russians are going to be skeptical of the argument that "a popular Nazi leader hasn't risen ... yet".

Of course, the propaganda goes in all sorts of directions, so "how many seats" they have in parliament or other positions of power etc. is difficult say; however, what I think is credible is that it's not a fringe movement, used merely as pretext; they are definitely there and have real power (just how much can be debated).

What is also I think difficult to contest, is that the neo-Nazi element is far greater in Ukraine than it ever was supporting Trump (where, I would say neo-Nazi's are truly a fringe movement in the US) ... yet, the mere association of neo-Nazi (fringe, but real) in the US with Trump was the justification to say Trump was a new potential Hitler.

Now, I didn't and don't like Trump, and (if he could) I'm sure he would have and would now declared himself Emperor of the Universe, but I think it was simply far fetched to say his movement was literally neo-Nazi based.

What I can say for myself, is I don't like people having it both ways: if you argued neo-Nazi supporting Trump is a reason to fear Trump (or the Trump movement) would rise as a new Hitler (an argument people certainly made) then ... it does seem to me to logically follow that Putin's rational for invading Ukraine (with neo-Nazi in far greater relative power compared to the Trump administration) entirely justifiable. "Not invading Ukraine" would be the Nazi appeasement from this point of view.

Of course, Ukraine is not 1930's Germany with a potential to invade all of Europe, but, in terms of how things play at home for the Kremlin if they A. achieve strategic aims and B. perceived to defeat Nazi's, then it's likely to sit well with a lot of Russians and the short term economic disruptions livable.

The Wests coddling those neo-Nazi's like some sort of freedom fighters, definitely doesn't help the West's cause of inflicting any real annoyance to the Kremlin.

The sanctions, the bad press, the UN declarations, the "courageous speeches" would be, in a real and/or perceived victory by Russia and reorientation of their economy, but empty words echoing to no where.

It is of course early days ... but strategic goals being met (such as land bridge from Crimea to Russia) don't actually embarrass Russia in any meaningful way. Nitpicking about a few extra losses may not matter.

Of course, the whole thing is a massive risk. If the Russian people did "rise up" due the hardships of war and sanctions then it would be a true disaster for the Kremlin. My describing the neo-Nazi situation is to explain why that has not and may not happen. Basic point being, Western talking heads wagging their finger at Putin is hardly a "strategic loss", and that's all I can see at the moment.

Indeed. Why should Eritrea support a world that threw millions of vaccines away that instead could have saved a lot of lives? Economy and capital ruling again. — EugeneW

Yes, Westerners often forget that no one much else sees any "prosperity" and, therefore, do not feel they owe anything to the Western system.

... indeed, a lot of Westerners themselves don't see much of that freedom prosperity (inside where they actually live). Western media will put up a handful of "middle class" having fun in some caricature mall in a sea of poverty and call it capitalism "winning".

Thanks for the detailed reply; as I state in my post, I myself am wondering about the thinking of the Kremlin, but I think it's fruitful I present the counter arguments to your rebuttal.

He probably knew that there would be sanctions, but the sanctions have really been harder than anything seen in history. I don't think he anticipated the level they're at. — Christoffer

Preparing in advance for "total sanctions" is not necessarily a sign they are unexpected. They are also not yet total; only some banks are shutoff from SWIFT and Western corporation "abandoning" Russia ... only matters if there's no replacement in Russia or China.

Putin's power relies on him looking strong. Everything from threats to the recent breaking of Sweden's borders with fighter jets is his jabs to show strength. It's also, in my opinion, a sign of desperation. He doesn't have control over the situation, especially when it starts to affect his war chest. — Christoffer

The Russian army is shelling cities to the ground and already achieved a key strategic goal of linking Crimera to Russian territory. Russia may pay a price for these land grabs, but all military analyst agree whatever Russia takes it will keep. There was no insurgency in Crimea, citizens were in the least ambivalent about Russian control; hence, Russia simply keeping such territory and leaving insurgent territory and so having conventional fronts is a perfectly acceptable endgame. The parallels with Iraq and Afghanistan don't really make any sense as Russia isn't trying to "nation build" in an entirely different and hostile culture.

But China isn't as clear-cut as it seems. They try to play both sides and if Russia's economy tanks the trade agreements might mean little to them. Even China works hard for renewable changes and gas and oil might not be needed in the long run. We don't really know how long the sanctions will be in play, it could end tomorrow if Putin withdraw his troops, or more likely, it will drag on for long. China's actions in the UN shows that they're not fully on board with Russia, regardless of how they've communicated towards them. — Christoffer

China will not stop buying Russian minerals and energy, and won't stop selling to Russia whatever it has to sell. Transitioning to renewables in any credible way is a half century project ... to just get started. This war in Ukraine will be a long forgotten episode in the densest fog of the 24 news cycle, and Russia will be still selling gas and oil and minerals. True, EU pays a "higher price" but if global instability increases price generally, it's still a higher price to sell at a 20% discount something that is now twice as costly.

Again, words are cheap and what China says matters little; if they aren't going to put sanctions on Russia (which they won't) then what they say or vote or virtue signal in the media or the UN, is of no meaning whatsover.

So I think the west is ripping the band-aid right now, aiming for other solutions to things like climate change or global trade. Russia could very well become a third world country because of Putin, but he doesn't care since he's too occupied with his "New World Order" empire fantasies. When all of this is over, he might have his new borders drawn, but the cost will be so high that it could force upon him a new Russian revolution, destroying everything he thought he had. — Christoffer

If you project energy needs out a few decades (which certainly Russia pays close attention to), there is declining conventional oil reserves that are difficult to replace (they exist, but are dirty, expensive and cannot necessarily be scaled to replace depletion elsewhere). The famous "peak oil" is very real and is happening in terms of what are called conventional fossil fuels.

It maybe Russia's analysis (which is not at all fringe) that their resources are not replaceable in any practical sense, renewable capacity cannot be scaled at a rate to effectively displace depleting fossil reserves. Unlike the 80s and precursor to the fall of the Soviet Union, low oil prices are history and, by extension, any fundamental risk to the Russian economy. In short, there will always be buyers for what Russia is selling.

If he thinks cutting the west off from trade is good, he is truly delusional. And cutting off trade is the only way to ensure being separated from the west. — Christoffer

The West has transferred basically all it's IPR to totalitarian China in exchange for slave labour.

The one critical thing China doesn't have, advanced semi conductor industry, it is still all based in South-East Asia that China has significant clout in; no semi conductor producing South East Asian country, including Taiwan, is going to burn political capital to try to stop China reselling chips to Russia.

Western sanctions are only effective if A. you have nothing of critical value to sell to a third party that doesn't care much about the sanction and ... well basically that's it. North Korea doesn't have anything of critical value to sell the Chinese and the Chinese don't care to subsidize them, so the economy completely collapses (trade is definitely necessary; but if Sanctions don't de facto cut trade with the global integrated economy, they are of no long term significance; certainly disruptive in the short term, but Russians have always highly prized the long term advantages of territory).

Also, in terms of economy, there is also today a structural difference, in that the rapid expansion phase of capitalism is approaching limits. This would be a topic for another day, but without real growth the "dynamism" of capitalism does not necessarily out perform command economies. Capitalism is the process of new institutions out performing old ones based on fundamentally new innovations of some sort; if room for innovation slows then there is little need to displace old institutions through chaotic "market forces" and you can just keep the same one's as nominal or de facto government bureaucracies. Feudalism was incredibly stable because there was little room for innovation, and, make a long story short, the energy cost of displacing existing institutions had no upshot: so they just all stuck around (church, guilds, aristocracy, family farms etc.).

That's what I think. I think Kremlin didn't expect sanctions to be this severe and I don't view Putin as aspiring to anything else than his own empire fantasies. He has big ideas for the future of Russia, but he thinks in old terms, he believes the world moves as it did 30 years ago, he thinks the old way of invading and controlling through propaganda works, but it's much harder to do that today. — Christoffer

It's possible, but if cutting ties with the West is an "acceptable outcome", the severe sanctions is actually doing Putin a favour: banishing Western companies and Western influence from Russia in a weekend.

Russia's economy is based on resources: energy, food and minerals. There is no non-Western country that would refuse the buy cheaper from Russia, much less go without the resource, for the sake of some happy sounding Western words ... which many of the authoritarian leaning / transitioning states (Brasil, India, Turkey) don't like to hear anyways (at least their governments).

Indeed ... EU is still buying gas from Russia as it "supplies words and arms" to Ukraine.

Information flows much easier and more independent while geopolitics rely more heavily on vital global trade and corporate investments than actual authoritarian leadership. We can criticize that in itself, but that's the zeitgeist we live in. If he thinks he could "Hitler" himself into power as in the 20th century he will be deadly mistaken. — Christoffer

Putin is no Hitler with ambitions to take over all of Europe. Ironically, Putin's justification (why the Russian people aren't "rebelling" in any meaningful sense) is fighting neo-Nazi's in Ukraine, which are definitely there and have been coddled and apologized for by Western powers for some reason and largely ignored by the Western press. However, the Russian press doesn't ignore Ukrainian's waving Swastika's and parallel symbols and praising Nazi "war heroes".

Indeed, depending on how strong you believe these neo-Nazi elements are, it can be argued the Russian invasion is entirely justifiable if fighting the Nazi's the first time ever was.

And again, Russia has already achieved key strategic objectives and can declare a magnanimous new peace now at anytime and declare victory.

I would guess the plan is that there is not much fighting in the East, as that's where they plan to Annex, so they will cut through Ukrainian speaking territories North to South, and call it a day. As they do not need to fight in any urban combat, except a few key way points and ports, once they create a North-South front they can simply annex everything to the East of that.

(They've sent a 40 km armor column to simply surround Kiev, creating the required pressure on leadership to sign the deal they want, who will say they Ukrainians fought with honour, blah blah blah, but the bloodshed must end and the page must be turned ... sad, sad, sad ... end of speech)

Putin owns him now. — SophistiCat

Indeed, we are seeing the consolidation of authoritarianism and the retreat and retrenchment of "Western values" ... not some sort of pyrrhic victory for those values.

For example, what did the West do for the rest of the world, in particularly economically, during the pandemic? Basically nada, and it's a fools errand to expect loyalty and honour in return for none.

Since there are people on the forum who know more about and, I believe, even live in Russia, I am curious what people think of the extent all the economic sanctions by the West were an acceptable consequence to the Kremlin? As Putin himself said "all outcomes are acceptable"?

Western media takes it as a foregone conclusion that this was a "miscalculation" by Putin ... because it's played so poorly in the Western press and Western nations have flocked to offer moral support and a bit of hardware and economic sanctions.

However, the Kremlin has been preparing itself for this exact threat by the West since 2014, building redundancies for all critical systems and scaling up economic ties with China.

Of course, Oligarchs are punished via their Western assets ... but the Kremlin may not actually care about that, indeed, presumably most oligarchs are also competitors in some way and reducing elite power is never "so bad" from the top's perspective (the Roman Emperor was a stable position as it controlled something like half the Empires GDP ... in the stratosphere of wealth compared to other elites, likewise emperor of China and other stable authoritarian systems have a big gap between the two top rungs of the ladder).

Oligarchs were necessary insofar as there was economic ties with the West, just as China required fostering their own oligarchs to interface with the West to expand economically based on Western intellectual property (an oligarch is a friendly and understandable face for Western investors and CEO's). However, structurally speaking, oligarchs are not necessary if you want independence from Western capitalism.

Another way to put it is that there's no reason to believe Putin cares about Abramovich tears over the Chelsea football club. This is "terrible" only from the perspective of Western financial talking heads where taking a billionaires wealth (even for breaking obviously laws) is the worst thing that can ever happen in the history of the planet; but Russian oligarch wealth outside of Russia there's no reason to assume matters much to the Kremlin. Indeed, the whole premise of "punishing" oligarchs to somehow pressure Putin maybe doing Putin a favour (creates easy leverage for Putin over the oligarchs ... no reason to assume it's vice-versa in anyway).

Obviously Russia's invasion plays poorly in Western media ... which then Western media points to as a "backfiring" the fact Western media really doesn't like Putin (a bit of self projection as being lambasted by the Western media is the worst thing for a talking head to experience).

In terms of geo-politics, Russia can source all essential components and capital equipment from China, and is obviously self sufficient in food and energy and minerals.

Furthermore, if democracy is the big threat to Russian authoritarianism (which I would definitely agree with), then severing all ties to the West seems like a good strategy to deal with that threat (from the authoritarian perspective) ... and, there's a big authoritarian world out there that doesn't give a shit about Western values; if the US is in decline, the impetus to even pay lip service maybe removed.

So, considering all this, I am wondering to what extent the economic war is either an acceptable risk (certainly the West and Russia have been exchanging words about since 2014), or even a desired outcome to impose "made in Russia" and Russian controlled information systems etc.?

For example, once China no longer needed to grovel for Western IPR, it then built it's own parallel information systems. So, if you actually want Russia to become a copy of China's authoritarian system ... this war with Ukraine accomplishes that.

I am totally against authoritarianism and I view China as a 1984 styled hellscape, but I am wondering at this point how far the "pivot" to China was predetermined to go and the Ukraine war basically total commitment to the "China way" of doing things. Or, do people more familiar with Kremlin history and logic, support the idea of the Western press that the war is backfiring and Western responses are a surprise "act of courage" (of course, by taking almost zero actual risk, naturally)?

(There's of course many military, intelligence agents and bureaucrats that remember the authoritarian Soviet days, including Putin, and may regret the fall of that system, including Putin, and may look to China as having "ironed out the kinks" in that system, indeed, even gone to China, including Putin; such an outcome, in my opinion, is more to fear than the war in Ukraine itself; it would represent consolidating pure totalitarianism and laying the foundation to absorb more and more countries into such a system ... for the West, in recent times, seems only to ever offers words about freedom, and no one can eat them.

I can essentially guarantee you, that to a lot of the world, in particular elite classes, the abandonment of Afghanistan and now this war in Ukraine paints a very clear picture: The West cannot or will not defend it's "friends", don't trust its words, they are worth nothing. Token symbolic support is of little use when you're being shelled.)

Anti-vaxxers & Assange? — Agent Smith

1. What does anyone here think of the link between Assange & Conspiracy theories? There's lotsa ammo in the warehouse, sir! — Agent Smith

What Assange helped expose were obvious conspiracies such as unjustified killing of journalists and torture (denied at the time ... and even if "legal" in the States due to someone writing a memo, that didn't make it magically legal in other countries where supporting, directly or indirectly, the US torture program was obviously illegal, at least nominally, in other Western countries).

Assange being extradited to the US is likewise an obvious conspiracy between US and UK governments, as the charges are complete bullshit. But again, if you use the standard any thing stamped "legal" by a government cannot, by definition, be a conspiracy to make a mockery of the law or then against international legal standards or simply moral standards, then feel free to assume Assange publishing whistle blower information can be considered "espionage".

Likewise, if high ranking politicians openly advocating assassinating someone is cause for political asylum if coming from a corrupt government of a poor country ... but not if the US does it. Feel free to apply such a double standard.

Now, dictionary has re-defined "anti-vaxx" to refer to those also against mandates; i.e. creating second class citizens. Assange, like most anti-authoritarians on both the right and the left, are against such mandates. The whole point of the limit to government power is not that "well, it's ok as long as the government happens to be 'right'" it's because governments should need to actually convince their populations to comply (use that reason and science they keep talking about to convince people to comply in good faith) and also ... maybe the government's gets it wrong next time; who's to judge.

If people aren't convinced because they have lost faith in institutions for waging unjust wars, letting elites get away with obvious crimes, degrading the environment, obvious irrational and massively harmful policies like the war on drugs, degrading work conditions, fraudulent inflation numbers justifying lowering wages in real terms and increasing rents, etc. etc. etc. maybe trust and respect need to be earned, and making credible institutions is the solution and not institutions simply skipping the whole "convince people" part and using coercion and force to implement "right according to themselves".

Are the obvious conflict of interest, misrepresenting data, hiding data, using proxy data to draw unsupported conclusions, not collecting data that can only say "the wrong things", etc. etc. a criminal conspiracy? Well, no. It's business as usual.

I hadn't dared to post Norman's work, I'm glad someone did. Another perfectly decent career down the pan. He hasn't had a single paper accepted by any journal since publishing his query about the validity of these statistics. A perfectly normal (actually slighter higher than average) acceptance rate up to that point. But apparently nothing to see here...

Since it's out now - his evidence to the UK's Parliamentary committee - https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/13847/pdf/ — Isaac

The idea Dr. Norman (and his whole team!) can just be removed from the conversation is completely absurd. Likewise, other experts, of which there are many with advanced degrees, professorships, questioning the statistical "evidence" of the governments as well as moral / legal basis for mandates in any case.

I was told by a doctor, who I happen to know, just last weak that she spoke with her infectious disease colleagues and they are all against the mandates and say the policy is driven by politics and not science; that the health minister her has made "fighting Covid" her little personal war.

Of course, these doctors aren't against reasonable policy vis-a-vis Covid, but against using Covid as the only health metric of society. For instance, my friend doctor and most of her colleagues were extremely worried about school closings due to the mental health consequences on children (rich kids with good parents "no school" can fun, but a lot of poor kids school is the place they get a good meal, have structure and feel safe, not to mention just physical space needed to stay healthy: being stuck in an apartment was difficult for adults and adult relationships, yet society decided the affect on children can be completely ignored; and that's not even to mention the obvious consequence on learning!).

But, ok, if they're wrong (in particular that we can know "cost-benefit" without even collecting the data about the costs!), people can present the rebuttal.

Academics that don't speak out are simply corrupt.

Why do independent left-wing voices, supposedly concerned about things like social welfare, fighting corporate overreach and government 'sponsorship' rackets, act like they're in Pfizers PR department...? — Isaac

One reason I've been away from the forum a few months is I accused a private equity investor of money laundering (because he was obviously laundering money and trying to use our engineering documents and concepts to do so ... then tried to make me actively help launder money by offering a million Euro bribe), which created a shit storm that persists to this day.

But the other reason, is that the libertarian critique of most of the left turns out to be true, not surprising for the corporate left, but I have been genuinely surprised at the extent it's true for also for the "independent voices".

Likewise, I thought maybe the US needed assault weapons for all to check US government power ... but in advanced democracies we were "better" and there was effective democratic processes that made the threat of violent insurrection unnecessary political tool.

It's painful to see I was wrong, how easily so called advanced democracies become "paper carrying" jurisdictions.

Turns out Nazi's were totally correct about the use of coercive medical interventions (whatever people want to call it), relentless propaganda and blaming everything on a scapegoat that in turn solicits unquestioning loyalty to government power insofar as governments can deliver on harms to those scapegoats.

I guess the idea now is that the Nazi's were just wrong about the reasons for their coercion, wrong about their particular version of "peer reviewed science", and wrong about the class of people targeted for scapegoatism and second class citizenship ... but they were right about the basic setup, as long as the reasons happen to be claimed as "correct" this time? That's the European policy?

That's why mandatory vaccination could be a last resort. It would force the government to act more transparently and to take at least a part of the responsibility for the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.

The only problem is that with covid in particular, the "effectiveness" of the vaccine would be about the same as the course of the disease without the vaccine, and then the government could take the credit and make vaccination mandatory indefinitely. — baker

Agreed ... except I would say that was already the plan last year ... as I pointed out over a year ago:

In which case, the likely situation is still not "good". The current vaccine programs are too little and too late to affect this winter season; coronavirus has demonstrated strong seasonal tendency and so will anyways go down in the spring and it will be difficult to know if the vaccine is working or not, and if we will be hit by a third wave next season anyways, whether due to the vaccines not working or new strains defeating the vaccine. — boethius