I thought there was no way Putin marches on Kiev. Putin might be a lot less rational than I thought.
Europe not only exists between Russia and the U.S., it has several sovereign nations (like the Ukraine). I'm not NATO's biggest fan, but if Ukraine is/was, more power to them. In 1986, Spain voted to join NATO via referendum with 56.9% in favour [ratifying membership held since 1982]. In 1997, Hungary voted to join NATO via referendum with 85.3% in favour [joined the same year]. In 2003, Slovenia voted to join NATO via referendum with 66.0% in favour [joined the same year]. In 2008, Georgia voted to join NATO via referendum with 77.0% in favour [advisory, as they were not invited]. If Ukraine were in NATO, the current situation would (surely?) not be unfolding. The world might have been better off if NATO died alongside the Warsaw Pact, but it's not clear if (for example) Lithuania would have been better off. If there were a similar referendum today in Ireland, I'd vote nope, no, nein, ní hea, but if I there were a similar referendum in Ukrainian last month ...
Lots of countries are sending arms to the Ukraine. That's great and all. But where will those arms end up in a year's time?
The reaction to this conflict is pretty exemplary for what should have happened in any number of other recent conflicts.
He said he would use horrific means, if necessary, to achieve this goal - "consequences greater than any you have faced in history" - and many people immediately assumed this would mean his nuclear arsenal, but it could also mean the mass deployment of various types of thermobaric weapons, attacks on nuclear plants, and escalated shelling of the kind they've already started on hospitals and kindergartens.
In the same speech on February 24th, he had stated earlier that: "As for military affairs, even after the dissolution of the USSR and losing a considerable part of its capabilities, today’s Russia remains one of the most powerful nuclear states. Moreover, it has a certain advantage in several cutting-edge weapons. In this context, there should be no doubt for anyone that any potential aggressor will face defeat and ominous consequences should it directly attack our country.". So the assumption did not seem a stretch in that context.
I think everyone is really overestimating the potential impact of sanctions on Russia. They have been preparing for this for a long time. They've been sanctioned many times for Crimea, Georgia, etc. The last round of sanctions ended up probably hurting the West more than them in the long run. They've been working with China on their own SWIFT alternative ever since we cut off Iran.
The sanctions will affect the vacations of Russian oligarchs, equivalent to a political kick in the balls. It will also fuck over the poor, equivalent to a political increase in cholesterol.
Also, they've still got the gas and Europe still needs it. If Russia cut it off right now there would be a humanitarian crisis and the real possibility of NATO going to war. But I think at this point they both know that's not gonna happen.
I honestly cannot imagine a humanitarian crisis in the EU resulting from the loss of access to Russian oil/gas (in the sense that the phrase has been used elsewhere). It will however fuck over the poor in many EU countries (including Germany).
And most importantly, the sanctions don't even touch the people in control of the politics. The people living there are just like you and me and it will get worse for them but what are they gonna do, just like what are you gonna do about our fucked up economic situation as a result of our evil empire's bullshit.
Glad you brought this up because the status quo seems to be that Russia should be sanctioned in ever possible way, which is kind of fucked up (I mean come on, they were expelled from FIFA World Cup, that's surely going too far? :p).
And eurovision!
Seriously, I don't agree with all the sanctions either and in fact I don't agree with most sanctions against rogue countries because they target the general population which is just an innocent victim in most cases. There is just something disturbingly biblical in severely punishing an entire nation for the wrongs of its (often antidemocratic) leaders. It's the same logic that supports the use of nuclear weapons.
This...@Senseye I think the nuclear weapon parallel makes sense here. The most recent sanctions are the nuclear option. The others were already putting immense pressure on the Russian economy, but were more directly focused on those at the top. And even that was considered unimaginable a week ago; people were rightfully doubtful that western politicians would be willing to go after the oligarchs who are so deeply embedded in economies and cultures outside of Russia. I'm relieved that happened, but I get the impression things are spiraling out of control. Sanctioning the Russian people is implying their voluntary compliance in the regime, even though it's a regime that over the last few days put children behind bars for protesting along with their parents. Even if you think, nonetheless, that they should be held personally responsible, the important thing is that we still don't know where their anger will turn after this, let alone the anger of Russians who already blame the US/NATO & Ukraine for this war.
Also important - I think this is the default end of economic pressures that the West can apply. But it's far from the end of the war. I see so many Ukrainians campaigning to #closethesky, ie, asking NATO to engage with Russia and launch a direct, mass-casualty, multi-national battle (I don't want to say "launch WWIII" because I do agree with them that we're already in it). So what happens next? The US has to just sit and wait things out if they continue according to their current strategy, constantly pressured by people around the world who are watching a livestream of genocide while the victims implore them to help. I can see this leading to NATO involvement, which hugely raises the likelihood of nuclear war.
As for the number of people who support Putin, it's been pretty crazy but there is a sizeable portion of the international left (not the far left, but the kind of weird-ass illiberal left that has blindly supported people like Maduro and Assad in recent years) that have always seen Putin's challenges to US hegemony favorably and are basically supporting this war 100%. Obviously, I too have been amused on several occasions by Putin's challenges to US hegemony. But this is a fight between two world powers, USA and Russia (NATO being a mere instrument of US hegemony), and the left doesn't have a dog in that fight beyond standing with the Ukrainian people who've been caught in the middle of a reactionary war.
Putin's no bolshevik, he's an ex KGB and enemy of the peoples of the world, Russia is a police state just like the USA and I don't give two shits about its sphere of influence. I certainly don't think Ukraine should go back to Russia à la the prison of nations under tsarist rule or the stalinized USSR. Lenin's last stand against Stalin was all about giving self-determination to these historially oppressed peoples, even at the risk of losing them for the Soviet Union. When Putin said the Ukraine was "always Russia" and came into existence as a bolshevik invention, in his own twisted way he was telling the truth, if only because the early bolsheviks were the only ones to recognize it as a nation in between the long tsarist and stalinist nights.
I gotta catch up with the news and see how this is going.
yeah those ignorant edgelords who seem to think Putin is somehow a Communist are all over twitter and ruining the Ukraine hashtag. I keep blocking them but they're endless.
Europe not only exists between Russia and the U.S., it has several sovereign nations (like the Ukraine). I'm not NATO's biggest fan, but if Ukraine is/was, more power to them. In 1986, Spain voted to join NATO via referendum with 56.9% in favour [ratifying membership held since 1982]. In 1997, Hungary voted to join NATO via referendum with 85.3% in favour [joined the same year]. In 2003, Slovenia voted to join NATO via referendum with 66.0% in favour [joined the same year]. In 2008, Georgia voted to join NATO via referendum with 77.0% in favour [advisory, as they were not invited]. If Ukraine were in NATO, the current situation would (surely?) not be unfolding. The world might have been better off if NATO died alongside the Warsaw Pact, but it's not clear if (for example) Lithuania would have been better off. If there were a similar referendum today in Ireland, I'd vote nope, no, nein, ní hea, but if I there were a similar referendum in Ukrainian last month ...
Lots of countries are sending arms to the Ukraine. That's great and all. But where will those arms end up in a year's time?
...
Ukraine also gave up their nuclear weapons in the 90's in exchange for some vague promise of support from the US. It probably would've been a worse world if they'd kept them, but obviously a safer Ukraine. So I could predict them heading in the direction of right-wing Poland after this, with a similar sense of betrayal + heightened nationalism leading to historical revisionism, authoritarianism, militarism, etc.
In the same speech on February 24th, he had stated earlier that: "As for military affairs, even after the dissolution of the USSR and losing a considerable part of its capabilities, today’s Russia remains one of the most powerful nuclear states. Moreover, it has a certain advantage in several cutting-edge weapons. In this context, there should be no doubt for anyone that any potential aggressor will face defeat and ominous consequences should it directly attack our country.". So the assumption did not seem a stretch in that context.
Around 13:25.
That "moreover" is doing a lot of work. I'm sure Putin wants to give people the impression that he's capable of turning to nuclear weapons - which is true - but also providing himself with an "off-ramp" so that he doesn't need to destroy the world in order to save face. He thinks words matter; that's why he's also trying to empty the meaning of words like "nazi" and "genocide" by using them flippantly and falsely. And if he would eagerly end this specifically with the nuclear option, I think he would've said so explicitly.
So while I think there's a good chance he won't, I'm far from convinced now that he wouldn't use nuclear weapons. He needs to end the war quickly because the economy is a ticking time bomb. And if he loses this, he probably suspects that he won't go into retirement. I think that's what caused all this in the first place; he knows that he has to maintain his power or else he'll die. And I think his fear of death reached new heights during covid, when he spent the whole time socially isolated in a bunker.
The irony is that he might not use his nuclear arsenal for the same reason - he's so fearful of death. But if he realizes he's lost the war, I don't know which option he'll pick:
[VIDEO][/VIDEO]
edit: I see a lot of people saying "the" Ukraine which some Ukrainians might be annoyed by, just fyi. The word literally means "borderland" so it's connected to Russian imperialism. I guess removing "the" takes some of that edge off (though the whole thing is a weird englishism anyway).
I'm watching this now and they're (I mean the Ukrainian soldier who popped in) just constantly asking for NATO to claim a no fly zone over Ukraine...https://online.yes-ukraine.org/2022-march bad idea!!
I thought there was no way Putin marches on Kiev. Putin might be a lot less rational than I thought.
Europe not only exists between Russia and the U.S., it has several sovereign nations (like the Ukraine). I'm not NATO's biggest fan, but if Ukraine is/was, more power to them. In 1986, Spain voted to join NATO via referendum with 56.9% in favour [ratifying membership held since 1982]. In 1997, Hungary voted to join NATO via referendum with 85.3% in favour [joined the same year]. In 2003, Slovenia voted to join NATO via referendum with 66.0% in favour [joined the same year]. In 2008, Georgia voted to join NATO via referendum with 77.0% in favour [advisory, as they were not invited]. If Ukraine were in NATO, the current situation would (surely?) not be unfolding. The world might have been better off if NATO died alongside the Warsaw Pact, but it's not clear if (for example) Lithuania would have been better off. If there were a similar referendum today in Ireland, I'd vote nope, no, nein, ní hea, but if I there were a similar referendum in Ukrainian last month ...
You're making it sound as if it's everyone's god-given and democratic right to join NATO if that's what they really want. I ask you then whether you also think it's everyone's god-given right to hold a gun to their neighbor's head. That's exactly what is happening here. Joining NATO means setting up missiles pointing at Moscow right on Russia's border. I personally don't give a crap whether such a dangerous decision is reached by referendum.
Framing NATO as some kind of self-defense collective of equal and soveriegn members is wrong and it's what the US would like to have us all believe. Even after dragging NATO countries to "unprovoked" war in the middle east for 20 years, something some people are very rapidly forgetting. As far as I'm concerned, the taliban weren't bothering anyone before USA & their NATO junior partners razed Afghanistan to the ground.
I have to take some time to read the links you posted later, still at work.
Also important - I think this is the default end of economic pressures that the West can apply. But it's far from the end of the war. I see so many Ukrainians campaigning to #closethesky, ie, asking NATO to engage with Russia and launch a direct, mass-casualty, multi-national battle (I don't want to say "launch WWIII" because I do agree with them that we're already in it). So what happens next? The US has to just sit and wait things out if they continue according to their current strategy, constantly pressured by people around the world who are watching a livestream of genocide while the victims implore them to help. I can see this leading to NATO involvement, which hugely raises the likelihood of nuclear war.
I wasn't seeing this as the beginning of WW3.
Do you think the Spanish Civil War from '36 to '39 was part of WW2? Some people do. There are some paralels. Spain was a theater in which the USSR sent troops to fight Franco and Mussolini's fascist forces in a prelude to WW2, and I think that this could be another Spain, as in an antechamber in which the USA and NATO fight a proxy war with Russia prior to a direct military confrontation between world powers.
Sanctioning the Russian people is implying their voluntary compliance in the regime, even though it's a regime that over the last few days put children behind bars for protesting along with their parents. Even if you think, nonetheless, that they should be held personally responsible, the important thing is that we still don't know where their anger will turn after this, let alone the anger of Russians who already blame the US/NATO & Ukraine for this war.
I don't really have first hand experience with living in a dictatorship and state propaganda and all, so I can't say if the Russian people are deluded by it. I've seen a few interviews with elderly Russians (who apparently just watch state TV) and they seem to buy into the lie that Ukraine is attacking in Donbass areas and this whole episode is just the Russian army defending them. *shrug*
In general I still support the sanctions. Yes, Russian protesters get beaten and thrown in jail. That should be a clue to the populace you live under a nasty regime and should wonder if they can be trusted in any aspect. And yes, protesting is a dangerous business in Russia so only a few people are brave enough to do it. Easier to go along to get along.
Sanctions might change that, in the sense that when there is widespread deterioration in quality of life, maybe even widespread hunger, more people (maybe a majority of people) will start to protest. Can't jail everyone. Maybe then Russian citizens will call for their own regime change. Who knows? I lack sympathy for people who let themselves get ruled by narcissist megalomaniacs. There should be a price for stupidity and I sense the Russian people may be about to pay it. If they want to blame the west instead of Putin, so be it.
Madrigal wrote:
Joining NATO means setting up missiles pointing at Moscow right on Russia's border.
That's not necessarily true is it? Poland and Hungary are NATO members and I don't believe they have nuclear weapons on their territory. Ironically, if Russia succeeds in conquering Ukraine, these NATO countries will be on their border, so if NATO on your border = nukes on your border (in your worldview) Russia should be careful what they wish for.
That's not necessarily true is it? Poland and Hungary are NATO members and I don't believe they have nuclear weapons on their territory.
Just because a NATO country doesn't have nuclear weapons now doesn't mean they won't be a launching pad for them in the future. Obviously.
Here's an article on that: https://asiatimes.com/2022/02/get-out-o ... clear-war/
Here's an excerpt:
Russia says that the US decision to unilaterally cancel the INF treaty and the installation of Mk-41 launchers in Poland and Romania pose a direct threat to Russian security. The Russians argue that the US can launch Tomahawk nuclear cruise missiles from MK-41 launchers.
Ironically, if Russia succeeds in conquering Ukraine, these NATO countries will be on their border, so if NATO on your border = nukes on your border (in your worldview) Russia should be careful what they wish for.
I was thinking the same thing last night, like wait, what? /Keanu Reeves moment
Did you hear about that article that popped up on Russian state media announcing that Ukraine was once again rightfully a part of Russia, and it was quickly taken down as if it had been a mistake? I am thinking Putin wants to mindfuck the West into believing his endgame is keeping all of Ukraine so that he can bargain for neutrality and demilitarization.
Did you hear about that article that popped up on Russian state media announcing that Ukraine was once again rightfully a part of Russia, and it was quickly taken down as if it had been a mistake? I am thinking Putin wants to mindfuck the West into believing his endgame is keeping all of Ukraine so that he can bargain for neutrality and demilitarization.
I did hear about the article. Not sure if it was just an error or a scheme. Who knows.
I've been hearing pundits talk like Putin might settle for half of Ukraine or so - up to the Dnieper river, as it would be easier for him to hold post invasion. If true, I would re-iterate my support for continued sanctions.
To me, Putin's demands for a new government and demilitarization are nuts. Completely unreasonable. Staying out of NATO would have been perhaps reasonable pre-invasion. Russian could have promised not to invade if Ukraine stays out of NATO. Can't bargain with that now.
You're making it sound as if it's everyone's god-given and democratic right to join NATO if that's what they really want. I ask you then whether you also think it's everyone's god-given right to hold a gun to their neighbor's head. That's exactly what is happening here. Joining NATO means setting up missiles pointing at Moscow right on Russia's border.
I doubt whether Russia would be very concerned about missiles being set up on their border. I'm pretty sure none of the major powers would have any trouble plonking a few missiles into the Kremlin from pretty much anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere. SLBMs have a range of 5,500 kms so submarines could tootle along anywhere in the Barents Sea or the Baltic and plonk a couple right into the Kremlin with a few thousand kms to spare.
I remember camping on the side of the Bug river in Poland and looking over into Belarus and thinking the whole place wasn't much of a geographical barrier (not like New Zealand) and you could drive tracked vehicles pretty much where ever you wanted.
I think people are seriously curious about what Putin's plans are tactically: he has a tiny fraction of his amount of fighters deployed and doesn't have air superiority (Ukraine still has most of its air force and its Turkish drones are creating havoc). Ukraine's Stugna P Anti Tank Missiles and NLAWS and St. Javelin are rapidly making Main Battle Tanks and AFVs obsolete in perfect tank country. His vehicle advance has outstripped his ability to provision them and they've been running out of gas all over the place (drones hitting fuel trains probably hasn't helped). There have even been reports they're using civilian spec walkie talkies to communicate and the Ukrainians have intercepted their communications and disrupted their activities. It's been a bit of a mess militarily.
To be frank it's been pretty embarrassing for Putin and that's not likely to be a good thing.
