Probably that taking Ukraine back from Putin will involve much more bloodshed and a higher potential for a nuclear exchange than using military force to defend it from the beginning would have.
> Are you for or against that? What are the reasons for your position?
If Putin says its war then it's war, no? The west has justified not intervening to avoid war. If it's war anyway, then we should intervene. If this isn't explicit enough, we should intervene militarily in Ukraine.
> You need to expand on your comment for it to have meaning.
Not really, there's a lot implied by my comment...
Russia will quickly start losing a conventional war. They would turn to nukes. When it seems like Russia is losing, all nuclear nations would be on high alert. They being on high alert with fingers on triggers is bad not just for Nato and Russia but also for non participating countries like China, India, Pakistan, Israel, NK because when there is a nuclear war on the horizon, everyone wants to be on the alert. However, each country raising alert will cause suspicion on the other country. For example, China raising its alert level will trigger India to do the same followed by Pakistan. All it takes now is one nuke to fly (may be between Nato and Russia or even a false launch detection). Now all countries will trigger all their nukes purely out of suspicion in the fog of war due to panic.
So that's why Russia can shoot/burn or destroy people /cities /infrastructure, NATO will not lift a single finger in terms of actual participation in war to help Ukraine (whatever the public opinion might be).
losing the war of course. And without NATO intervening that won't happen. There are 600k more Russian troops and countless military equipment to throw at Ukraine. West can keep the arms flowing but it won't matter by even as early as next week because the UA supply lines are falling apart.
The best outcome at this juncture is to fall back to western most cities and save as much land and army as they can. Especially the army pinned in the eastern most provinces have to start moving back and meet up with the remnants in Kharkiv, Kyiv and other cities. If they fall back fast, RA cannot really pursue them as their supply lines are stretched as well. They have to get mobile and freely move around now for any chance of preventing a complete rout (and capture of the army at breakaway provinces).
Some people assume the cause is lost and that people like Putin only understand force.
I see the point. But I disagree with that...
* First we need to make sure we tried every other option. If WW III does start we need to be 100% sure it wasn't started when there was some other option.
* I think he's a very logical actor. People incorrectly say that his operations don't make sense. They make perfect sense. He did test runs in Crimea, Eastern Ukraine and Syria. The west didn't do anything so he assumed nothing bad will happen
The problem is he's stuck now. He wants to withdraw but he can't without looking weak. He climbed too high on the tree and he knows that if he withdraws without a "win" he won't live much longer. The west needs to find a way that he can spin as a "win" moving forward. Otherwise this might snowball.
> Mr. Putin’s tendency, American intelligence officials have told the White House and Congress, is to double down when he feels trapped by his own overreach.
It's not that he only understand force. If he wanted to negotiate he could do it. He had plenty of opportunity to do it, and still has. At this point it really, really feels that Putin do actually want a war. He's doing absolutely everything he can to have a war.
Rational or not doesn't really matter if what he wants is a war (I mean, he already started a war with Ukraine of course).
He does want to bring Russia back to glory. That's for sure. I think he doesn't want direct conflict with the USA. Like most bullies I think he feel happy about uneven war with small countries like Ukraine. I doubt he wants war with NATO.
It's a persecution complex that's very common in Russia. They're paranoid about western expansion. This has some historical merit to be fair.
Unfortunately, Russians aren't so lucky. Tiny South Korea is richer than Russia. Can you imagine how well Russians (with their enormous and rich country) would be doing if they were occupied by Americans and not Putin?
Compared to other OECD countries, South Korea's female suicide rate is highest with 15.0 deaths by suicide per 100,000 deaths according to the suicidal rate list, while the male suicide rate is third highest with 32.5 per every 100,000 deaths.
That was my understanding/position until a few days ago. But from what I understand he shifted his strategy from "taking over Ukraine" (so part of his plant to bring back his fascist dream of a lost glory) to "repeat Allepo and Grozny but for Ukraine cities" (aka bomb cities to complete annihilation), which does not go well with the idea that he just wants to bring any glory back to Russia.
I hope so. I wouldn't bet the life of everyone on earth on that. Russia has enough nukes to destroy the world and a direct conflict with the USA might deteriorate quickly.
> * I think he's a very logical actor. People incorrectly say that his operations don't make sense. They make perfect sense. He did test runs in Crimea, Eastern Ukraine and Syria. The west didn't do anything so he assumed nothing bad will happen
People don't know what they are talking about. It is extremely simple, just 2 words - missile defense. Russia has nukes and NATO wants to protect themselves by moving their missile defense systems closer to the Russian border, to shoot the nukes down before they can reach the atmosphere. Russian army and economy suck and they won't be able to handle a standout with NATO armies without nukes, so Putin makes "special operations" to prevent them from moving missile defense systems closer. Simple
I think we should not just give up something each time somebody is blackmailing us. I did not see many asking NATO start a war but we need to show Russia that we can do shit too, they can start "special operations that are not wars" and we can stop trading with them, send their rich back to Putin. If we want to negotiate with Putin we should have a strong position, and IMO sacrificing other countries to "appease" Putin ego is cowardliness and signals Putin that he can restore URSS because we love our comfort.
Yet, that’s still the main answer because the US has pivoted to respond to Asia’s future version of the “Ukraine” incident (aka Taiwan), and the only major EU power taking the responsibility to increase their military is Germany, which also takes time to complete.
Appeasement would have been to allow the LPR and DPR independence and cede Crimea before all of this even started.
To avoid devastation, needless deaths and the mass exodus of refugees. Now even if the war was over tomorrow it would take decades to recover - to deal with unexploded ordnance and for people to return.
I agree with most of this. Ukraine was a shitshow until quite recently.
> When Zelensky managed same as the old Boss, to hideaway millions offshore, the Western Media was silent.
Except he didn't offshore money collected from corruption. His business made that money. Maybe a slightly sketchy way to avoid paying taxes to a corrupt government.
Except the very last one:
> Putin's hand was forced
The west was pretty close to capitulating on allowing Ukraine to join NATO when they invaded. And no one's forced them to attack civilian targets.
Putting an enemy alliance on your doorstep, close to Moscow is intensely provocative. This is on top of the other shenanigans we've already pulled with NGOs in the Russian sphere of influence, and Russian sphere of control.
We Americans blockaded (quarantined) Cuba for putting missles on our doorstep.
It is a very similar situation.
Buffer states can be a good thing.
Zelensky has treated Kolomoisky with kid gloves despite the PrivatBank thefts [1]. Why? Because his election campaign was bankrolled in Kolomoisky [2], and 1+1 channel, owned by Kolomoisky, gave Zelensky highly favorable news coverage. This despite Kolomoisky establishing & supporting the Dnipro-1 Regiment [3] which was implicated in humans right abuses, and murders of ethnic Russians. This same Dnipro-1 Regiment was the one accused by Amnesty International of blocking foods and clothing supply shipments to Eastern Ukraine. Dnipro-1 is considered a sister battalion of Dnipro-2, and the more infamous Azov Battalion [4]
Even taking the nuclear threats out of the equation and pretending the war is won easily, the question of Ukraine's eastern regions remains. If a majority of citizens of Donbas want to be part of Russia, would NATO help Ukraine wage the same war against insurgency its been waging for years? It's a very messy question. I think I'd prefer Ukraine to cut their losses and recognize Luhansk and Donetsk as independent before supporting sending planes in.
Ukraine hasn't waged a war against insurgents. They are Russians pretending to Ukrainians. How do you think they shot down the Dutch plane? With AK-47? No. With a Russian Buk.
Strictly speaking, yes. Strictly speaking, invading a territory that is just a border away from the Atlantic Treaty's borders, with no clear indications that the advance will stop at any point, is very clearly 'akin to declaration of war', too.
He already spent so much of his money and so many of my nerve cells. Let the guy finish already, i dont want it all to be for nothing but hysteria and skyhigh prices on everything. We need results
Everyone who's been following the events since 2014 predicted this. This isn't out of the blue, it's been a long time coming and the west could've prevented it.
This didn't start in 2014, this started in 1990, when it was informally agreed that there would be no eastwards NATO expansion. Then NATO expanded eastwards anyway, after all there was no formal agreement, and Russia kind of accepted it. In 2008 with the Bucharest declaration Ukraine and Georgia started the process of becoming NATO members. Russia attacked Georgia. Until 2014 under Yanukovych Ukraine no longer pursued a NATO membership, after that this again became more and more a priority and Russia annexed Crimea, intervened in eastern Ukraine and finally now this war.
I can give you the sense in which I consider this the beginning, even though it is mostly restating what I already said. I think the primary reason for this war is that Putin does not want NATO at his borders. That this would not happen was informally agreed in 1990 but unfortunately did not make it into any official documents. After that each eastward expansion of NATO was seen by Russia as the violation of a promise. When in 2008 Ukraine and Georgia started their way to become NATO members this was the final straw and Putin attacked Georgia and eventually Ukraine.
Sure, we can now argue whether the promise (1990), the first NATO expansion afterwards (1999), the Bucharest declaration that Ukraine and Georgia will become NATO members (2008) or Ukraine changing its stance from remaining unaligned to seeking a NATO membership (2014) should be labeled the beginning of the current situation, but I think it is fair to pick 1990 as this is where the situation that Russia does not want was laid out.
There are most likely also other interest such as oil and gas in Ukraine but I don't think they are the primary reasons, even though they might have tipped the calculations. And I consequently think that this could have been avoided if the Ukraine would not have pursued a NATO membership or if Russia would also have joined.
NATO expansion is definitely one of the primary viewpoints. There are convincing rebuttals against those viewpoints as well though. Geopolitics is messy and chaotic. There probably were mustache twirling strategists hellbent on pursuing an anti-ussr agenda despite the USSR no longer existing. I've never heard anyone argue they are the architects of NATO's expansion. I'm curious. European and african commentators I've been checking have very much emphasized that the states themselves decided to join NATO, that they weren't solicited or coerced by NATO itself. Considering lukashenko implied Moldova is next, it doesn't seem like they were unreasonable to try to pursue NATO as a means of assuring continued sovereignty. I think for most of the general public, the beginning was last week. Put to people working in state departments all around the world, off the record and unpublished, I wonder what their answers would be.
I feel like it changes a lot depending on how you feel about hegemony.
Edit: If north and south Korea were about to unify, but China invaded to reconstitute a north Korean buffer state, where was the beginning and what could have been done? Should the south have refused the north because it didn't want to be seen as expanding? Should the north have? China definitely wouldn't be invaded by a unified Korea, maybe they would argue that how they are positioned in international trade justifies it. I'm trying to think of parallels and this is what I've come up with.
Nobody forced anyone to join NATO, at least as far as I can tell. The problem is Putin does not trust NATO, he does not perceive NATO as a defensive alliance that will do nothing unless you poke it, he perceives NATO as an ever expanding organization that accumulates power and influence for the west and the USA in particular. And while the west argues that sovereign countries can decide on their own whether or not they want to join NATO, Putin made it very clear that he considers this unacceptable.
The most similar situation is in my opinion the Cuban Missile Crisis. The USSR could argue that Cuba is free to decide whether or not they want nuclear missiles stationed in their country, the USA argues that it is an unacceptable security thread to have those missiles so close to their border. What would have happened of the USSR had not backed down? Would the USA have tolerated the missiles or would the USA have attacked Cuba or at least the launch sites? What would the USA do today, say if China agreed with Mexico to place military assets in Mexico?
The US stationed missiles in Turkey and as a response the USSR stationed missiles in Cuba. The crisis ended when the USSR publicly deconstructed their sites and the US agreed to do the same to theirs privately. This all because Kennedy needed to save face and have the USSR be the agressor.
So if NATO would decide to invade Belarus right now, then it might be similar to the Cuban missile crisis. Until then, it is just a gross oversimplification of a conflict that is the result of complex relations between countries.
tangent: I don't know if you have ever seen Noam Chomsky discuss Kennedy's decisions at that point, but I think it is the only topic I've ever seen him visibly furious over.
This [1] is probably not the talk you have seen, at least I would not describe Chomsky as furious in that clip. But I was not aware - maybe I once knew and forgot - that removing the missiles from Turkey was not really a concession but planned anyway because they were obsolete.
I am not sure if you understood my analogy, let me try to be more explicit. The USSR tried to put nuclear missiles next to US borders, the USA did not like this. Ukraine wants to become a NATO member, Putin views this as NATO - maybe as a proxy for the USA - eventually putting military assets - potentially nuclear missiles or whatever he is most concerned about - next to Russian borders, Putin does not like this.
In case of the Cuban Missile Crisis the actions of the USSR were only a response but still not tolerated. You could maybe find an equivalent, something that Russia did first and that then caused Ukraine to seek a NATO membership, but I don't think this is important for the analogy. The equivalent of Russia backing down and not stationing missiles in Cuba for Cuba's protection would be Ukraine not joining NATO.
But I have to admit that I don't get your analogy either, would you mind elaborating?
For me the analogy falls flat, as the cuban missile crisis is a response to something the US did, and the invasion of Ukraine is a response to something that Ukraine did (and not NATO)
NATO did not court Ukraine, instead Ukraine wishes to be a member, the current invasion to prevent it being so ironically a case in point. Finland is now considering joining as well, as a response to Russias agression.
It is clear that Russia does not think to invade Finland as well, as it does not consider it to be a part of its old empire, but it does Ukraine.
So in this case it is the sovereignty of a country that is being challenged, as Russia is trying to strongarm countries into backing off from joining NATO. It is not threatening NATO directly. That is a big difference with the Cuban missile crisis.
In the Cuban missile crisis it is very clear that both sides were pointing arms at each other and coercing members of their respective alliances to comply. Here a potential member is invaded. Korea, Vietnam or even the colonisation if Africa would make more sense as an analogy, of power blocs deciding what a country belongs to.
For me the analogy falls flat, as the cuban missile crisis is a response to something the US did, and the invasion of Ukraine is a response to something that Ukraine did (and not NATO)
I think I didn't make my main point in the analogy very clear. In case of the Cuban Missile Crisis the USA decided that US security concerns override Cuban sovereignty and security concerns as the missiles were requested as a deterrent against further US interference after the Bay of Pigs Invasion. In case of Russia NATO takes the stance that sovereignty and security concerns of other countries, especially now Ukraine, prevail. This actually used to be different, in the 1990s NATO was initially careful with NATO expansion and created the Partnership for Peace program to make the process more gradual hoping to avoid tensions.
NATO did not court Ukraine, instead Ukraine wishes to be a member, the current invasion to prevent it being so ironically a case in point. Finland is now considering joining as well, as a response to Russias agression.
I would argue that the distinction between NATO and Ukraine is not too important from Putin's point of view. He claims that the West, NATO, and especially the USA are interfering in other countries and shaping their governments. If you believe this, the line between a country wanting to join NATO and NATO wanting a country to join becomes pretty blurry.
It is clear that Russia does not think to invade Finland as well, as it does not consider it to be a part of its old empire, but it does Ukraine.
This has been repeated frequently, but is there actually any good evidence that Putin thinks this way? I haven't looked into this, so I am only vaguely aware of two points. When Putin became president in 2000, there was a controversy about the national anthem of Russia and Putin decided to use the USSR one with new lyrics. His explanation was that there was already enough change and considered it as a small token of stability.
Then I am aware that he called the fall of the Soviet Union a tragedy, but I don't know about the context. On the other hand in 2000 he said roughly this.
You can not take anything back. You can neither get your youth back nor the years that have passed. Even more, if we try to return to the past, we will certainly destroy everything permanently. But we can do something so that people are not only not worse off but better off than in the past.
This isn't made any easier by the fact that we are talking about at least two decades and viewpoints change. But I would really be interested in evidence one way or the other and how this might have changed over time.
EDIT: The points about the national anthem and going back in time I got from the documentary Putin's Witness which was recently uploaded by Ukrainians in two parts [1][2] with English subtitles. I was quoting from the scene at 18:05 in part two. The subtitles in those videos may be more faithful translations as I just roughly translated it from the German version of the documentary.
I would also like to highlight what follows 22:50 in part one, it's about the apartment bombings and Putin visiting the scene. I can hardly imagine a more stark contrast between his words then and his actions now. And the whole things is of course a big controversy in itself, were those terrorist attacks or did Russian forces blow up Russian apartment buildings in order to unite people behind Putin and legitimize military interventions? If it was staged, did Putin know or was even involved?
Although everything you're saying is correct, you're being downvoted. And then people will just throw up their hands and wonder why Putin would do this lol
I am absolutely no expert in politics, I just spend two days reading and watching stuff to learn how we ended up in this situation. I am now writing this comments to share what I learned but also to be challenged and corrected in case I got things wrong. So I don't mind downvotes, especially if it is because I got things wrong and people correct me and I gain a better understanding. And I am also willing to take a few downvotes because people just don't like what I say, even though it is a bit annoying as my comments end up further down and are probably less likely to receive comments pointing out my mistakes.
Russia not being a democracy is the real problem. From early 2000 on Putin has solidified his power through shady means. Look up the various killings, from journalists and others.
After that, he has used all of his “Active Measures” (look that up too) to divide the West. Also I sincerely doubt we would be in this mess if Russia was a functioning democracy.
Basically you have one guy who can damage the world, answering to no one. Russia and Russians was never the problem, just one man and his cronies.
There were a ton of alternatives that would have made Russia more powerful and respected without resorting to Soviet tactics.
Russia not being a democracy is the real problem. From early 2000 on Putin has solidified his power through shady means. Look up the various killings, from journalists and others.
Of course, I will not argue with that, Russia is no democracy and Putin an autocrat who is willing to kill for his power. But this doesn't necessarily make any implications about his foreign policy, you can run an autocratic country without desiring to conquer the rest of the world.
After that, he has used all of his “Active Measures” (look that up too) to divide the West.
I am aware of the term but not much more and I will do some further reading. But interestingly the Wikipedia article [1] in the section »1991 to present« starts with 2014, which is well passed 2008 and aligns with Ukraine's renewed desire to become a NATO member.
I have skipped through it and it mirrors my first impression from Wikipedia - the first part talks about the time before the dissolution of the USSR, then it jumps to the time after 2008 and mostly after 2014.
I think I have seen this before and skipped through it slowly enough the get the gist, all the details and which fake news were spread is not really too interesting to me. I have no reason to doubt that the USSR or Russia did use those active measures.
The interesting thing is the gap in the timeline which aligns with other resources I found. There was a time when all the current mess was avoidable, a time at which Russia was eager to work with the West, a time at which Russia was heading towards a NATO membership through the Partnership for Peace program. But things went south and Russia turned against NATO and the USA again, Putin's 2007 speech at the Munich Security Conference is probably the most well known expression of Russia's or Putin's frustration [4].
M. E. Sarotte: Not One Inch - America, Russia, and the Making of Post-Cold War Stalemate (2022) [1]
John Mearsheimer: Why is Ukraine the West's Fault? (2015) [2]
Vladimir Pozner: How the United States Created Vladimir Putin (2018) [3]
Vladimir Putin: Speech at Munich Security Conference (2007) [4]
Would be interesting to see what the gap is. Thanks for the links btw.
I do know Obama really wanted to get closer to Russia in the sense of a better relationship at the start of his presidency. So what exactly happened I cannot tell.
I think the gap in the usage of active measures is easily explained. As I said, the documentary starts before the dissolution of the USSR, this was the Cold War, no surprise that such methods were used. After that there were relatively good relationships between Russia and the West, certainly into the early 2000s and Putins first term. Look at the Partnership for Peace map [1], there was a chance to unite all of Eurasia with NATO. This didn't work out, as far as I can tell it was a pretty complicated situation with all the fallout after the collapse of the USSR. The USA, or at least some circles, probably also viewed such unification efforts as a threat that would diminish US influence and power.
I guess things really went south post 9/11 when the USA really used its power without accountability. In its 2007 speech at the Munich Security Conference he is frustrate with how the USA acts, how it ignores the UN which he considers the only legitimate entity to decide over military interventions. He complains that the USA wants a unipolar world order. Then in 2008 the Bucharest Declaration opens the way for Ukraine and Georgia to become NATO members and this crosses the red line. It had of course been crossed before with the Baltic states but Russia still swallowed that.
Russia intervenes in Georgia in 2008. And in the active measures documentary you see some dates from the time after 2008, the good relations with the West are over. But the vast majority of examples in the documentary are actually from after 2014, when the the pro-Russian Yanukovych government, that had essentially suspended seeking a NATO membership, was replaced and a NATO membership became a priority again. He annexed Crimea, intervened in eastern Ukraine, and stepped up active measures. He was now somewhat running out of time, Ukraine becoming a NATO member was unacceptable to him but there was no indication that anyone would care.
By keeping Ukraine in conflict in Donbas he could prevent a NATO membership for some time, but it would probably only be a matter of time until Ukraine would become powerful enough to take back eastern Ukraine. And once Ukraine would become a NATO member, he would have to face NATO instead of Ukraine. And this would probably also mean that it would be likely that he will lose the strategically important naval base in Sevastopol on Crimea.
It's not wrong, but it's not the whole story. Why would these typically small countries bordering Russia want to join a military alliance in the first place? It's because of the experience with their large autocratic and unstable neighbor and they are, of course, once again proven right.
Can you point me in a more specific direction? Are you referring to events before, during or after the dissolution of the USSR? I already read the Wikipedia article on Estonia-Russia relations [1] but nothing really stood out between their separation from the USSR and 2004. Some back and forth over the treatment of the Russians remaining in Estonia. I will also check the other Baltic countries.
The other thing I would argue is that you can not use the current war in Ukraine as a reason why the Ukraine should become a NATO member if it is indeed true that Russia attacked primarily because Ukraine wanted to become a NATO member.
We're playing chicken with a lunatic. He knows that. We know that. He knows we know that.
His only play is to act (?) even crazier.
'War' means nuclear war, means the death of probably a large portion of the world population. It's the thing we thought we could stop worrying about 30 years ago.
He doesn't like that he's clearly losing, so he's decided to threaten the end times if he can't get his way. And it might even work, if we truly believe he'll do it.
The problem is the best way he can prove that is to crack the atom over Kyiv.
If the point of nukes is "And then everybody dies", then that sounds like a pretty good argument for that we need to disarm all the nukes everywhere, no one should be allowed to have them.
North Korea is a bit different in terms of resources and borders than Russia and still, no one wants to mess with Kim(though i'm pretty sure their rockets will be shot before entering the atmosphere)
Ethnic Russians are in the minority in some places https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Percentage_of_Russia... so some people might try to secede and set up a new nation state. Well, it's been tried before in Chechnya and in the end Russian troops reconquered the territory. But if the Russian military appears sufficiently weak, separatists might try again.
nukes is the best things that happened and the reason why there is not world wars anymore. You can make an argument that Izrael should give 3 or 4 warheads to Iran.
It would de-escalate the proxy wars.
There aren't world wars any more because the next one will likely be the last. Some decades of relative peace is a pretty poor return from something that will likely end humanity at some point.
Nukes have been around for less than a century, a blink of an eye in historical terms, and have already come close to obliterating the world multiple times. It only takes a single war to undue millennia of progress.
Honestly, if throwing nukes in Europe, including nuclear fallout over NATO states, is not the red line, then there isn't any. If you allow Putin to throw nukes and answer with more economic sanctions, then the West is a complete joke.
Putin put a red line on Ukraine joining NATO (regardless weather he has the right to) and the west didn't care about his line drawing.
So I guess in international relations, there are no lines? There's nobody to set them
I am admittedly not even close to an expert to what's going on over there, but my understanding is that Ukraine and its people are very close to the heart of Russia. That makes me think that dropping a nuke people who you consider your brothers is out of the question.
>I am admittedly not even close to an expert to what's going on over there...
Don't let that stop you from weighing in with your opinions. It doesn't deter the other eleventy billion people pontificating about this crisis in somewhere they hadn't heard of til a fortnight ago.
Instead of snark, could you provide something constructive? I'm trying to get a better understanding of the relationship, and from my research, Russian leaders and citizens appear to be quite fond of Ukrainian people. Is this not accurate?
You [and the vast majority of other people] could start by at least seeking out the other side of the story and not unquestioningly swallowing this ridiculous American over-simplification of every global crisis into "We're the good guys and they're the bad guys."
The Russians have legitimate fears about the encroachment of NATO and American weaponry right onto their doorstep. You might want to look up a historical event called 'The Cuban Missile Crisis' to see how the US has acted in the past, in a similar situation [see also Nicaragua, Venezuela, etc]
The Russians believe that a democratically elected and pro-Russian government in Ukraine was over-thrown by a US engineered coup [Euro Maidan] and replaced by a fiercely right-wing anti-Russian regime, which is hell-bent on joining NATO and thus having American missiles stationed there [and Ukraine is a lot closer to Russia than Cuba is to America]
The Russians also say their citizens in the two breakaway regions are being genocided. Although that is, at best, an exaggeration used to justify the invasion.
Now, before you accuse me of being a Russian supporter or apologist, I'm not. I'm as outraged by this invasion as anyone else. But to simply pretend that it's all happened because evil mad dictator Putin has suddenly turned into Adolf Hitler reincarnated, while Uncle Sam has been innocently sitting on the sidelines, polishing his halo, is to bring a play school level of critical thought process to bear on the situation.
Sadly, I think even tactical nukes leads to runaway nuclear war. If Russia nukes Kyiv, NATO/the US respond with a conventional invasion of Russia that leads to larger nuclear escalation as Russia feels threatened. That gets the US to use nukes which destroys the world.
Short answer: Ukraine surrenders. Long answer: Millions dead. People here no idea what is Putin thinking. He is hell bent to get Ukraine. When Russia did that 70 years ago, they don't mind 20mils to reduce Hitler's men to women child or old. Ukraine is far weaker than Nazi Germany. Plus, Putin can sponsor Iran and NK with massive nukes upgrade. He can also arm your average plane hijackers with that too. Zelensky surrenders will save many of us who are non-Ukrainian. The war in Ukraine will also stop. A couple of decades later, Ukraine can regain independence when there is a regime change in Russia. Putin not going to live forever but Ukraine can. I see so many people cheering for Zelensky are just ensuring death sentences for more civilians in Ukraine and also future terrorism-on-steroid victims. You all have gratifying emotional response to cheer for Zelensky, but logically to surrender is better outcome here even though extremely hard to do. Just go read Russian warfare doctrine. Never they do a short war. It is always war on attrition unlike American "mission accomplished" short war doctrine. There is no point talling ahypothetical fantasy not existing. We all know Western countries are reluctant to use nukes while Russia always will (read their doctrine and military training). Russia has bigger land and more obscure than western counterparts. In EVERY multiverse of nukes warfare, Russia always come out ahead (yes pyrrhic victory but still wins).
Edit: read about it some more and Kiev appears to be the old name from the Soviet era which is not well accepted by Ukraine people. It's odd that we in Romania still use this old form given that Kyiv was proposed and accepted in 1995.
There is one more move for Putin's regime in terms of economy if he wants to keep going.
It's to shift into conquest mode and burn up your system. It's a non-sustainable move, and if you're going to do it, then typically they go for broader conquest (Moldova would be an example of expanding the conquest, as would formally taking Belarus). In normal times the economy is sustainable: you have $n GDP and $n tax revenue coming in, and you can do certain things with that stream. Sanctions crimp that heavily of course. So Putin can move to an unsustainable model, which means it'll collapse on him eventually, but people in his situation often do it anyway.
You do it by forced labor, labor gulags, forced building of manufacturing, total war mobilization of the large Russian population like it's WW2 again. Over time this would break Russia, near-term it would be a potent spike in their potential to march and conquer territory. The Germans did this during WW2, shifting out of sustainable economy to burn-it-up mode. It can't last indefinitely and it involves killing large numbers of citizens in the process. You have to redirect your economy into a command funnel, which starts to destroy all sorts of structures as you shift your resource allocations to war efforts (so for example Putin shifts labor resources to manufacturing tanks, and as a consequence there's not enough labor to operate grocery stores or repair potholes in the streets or whatever).
Russian propaganda by a new green account, how predictable.
The Russian army hasn't been making progress against Kyiv for several days, and in fact Ukraine has been launching successful counteroffensives the last two days.
Russia has been successfully killing civilians though.
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
This guy is all through this thread posting the latest Russian propaganda lines (Zelensky fled, etc). There's a time for charity, and an account with no history spouting wartime propaganda isn't it.
If the invasion goes very poorly and Russia is at risk of losing, Putin will detonate a nuclear weapon over a non-populated area (whether in Ukraine or Russia). It's one of the few ways he can escalate up another level, prior to war with NATO and or nuclear war. When he does it, he'll say it's a message to NATO forces to back off and stop supplying Ukraine (he'll need to blame external actors for his behavior).
NATO should immediately begin a no fly zone over the Lviv region (with the possibility of widening it as necessary), in case Zelenskyy needs to leave Kyiv and or the Ukrainians generally need to establish a new base of government. They could shield that region / territory from Russia right now without prompting a Russia v NATO war, as it would require no attack on Russia to maintain near-term. If Russia tries to contest it, they're initiating the war, as they knew the area was protected by NATO forces. It would work as a maneuver. Putin could of course always claim that any move by NATO into Ukraine is an act of war, and or that Russia owns Ukrainian territory so any move by NATO into Ukraine is identical to invading Russia and other blatherings, but he can invent claims at any time to proclaim NATO started a war: the question is, can it be pulled off without sparking a war with Russia, and right now I believe it could be.
Yeah let's further escalate because "you believe" it won't spark a war with Russia. I've read a wide range of opinions in the last few days, with almost all belonging to the trash. What has become more than apparent is that serious game-theoretic analysis focused on realism and cold hard facts is sorely needed.
Zelensky was in Lviv, last time his deputies saw him. He hasn't been in Kyiv for day, if not weeks.
Rumors are they haven't seen him for days and he's out of the country now, setting up a government in exile, and continue waging a US-backed insurgency.
For his pride and image it is, which seems to be the most important thing. Taking Ukraine also appears to be impossible at this point though. The only major city he has taken has massive protests. Subduing 40 million hostile people in a country with that much territory would require huge number of soldiers and a lot more money than Russia can afford
There's absolutely no way he survives politically from a pullout in Ukraine. His entire image is built upon the authoritarian "tough guy" trope and pulling out of an engagement, particularly one that he initiated has frankly been embarrassed operationally up to this point, would 100% end his regime.
So many very serious people gravely explain that we must stand by and watch residential areas get shelled and rocketed to smithereens, creating a million refugees in the first week, as a democratic nation gets overrun by a mad dictator.
Apparently we have to do this because otherwise the mad dictator will irradiate Europe and maybe North America too.
But somehow the mad dictator won't split the atom if we only crater the mad dictator's economy and provide the weapons that kill his troops.
> ... with a lunatic
Do mad dictators have clearly demarcated red lines like that?
Seems like a truly mad dictator would unleash doomsday if he's losing the war, regardless of which side of the red line we're on.
It's well known that the secret to winning the game theoretical stalemate is to pretend you're irrational.
If only playing crazy could get you anything you wanted life would be so easy for good actors. He could pretend he won, pack and go home. If his propaganda machine is so strong people will eat it and even if they don't there's not much they can do about it anyway. He may just need a pyrrhic victory he can sell domestically.
Putin has lied constantly during this conflict. He said his troops were not on Ukraine's border when they were. When called out on that, he said they weren't going to invade right up until they did invade. The latest is that Russia agreed to honour a limited ceasefire around civilian evacuation corridors but then broke that ceasefire.
Evidently, all we can do is respond to what Putin does. One must assume that, if the West declared war on Russia, Russia would take specific military actions. Since Russia has not responded to sanctions with those military actions, Putin evidently does not view sanctions as a declaration of war, no matter what noises come out of his mouth.
This is the downside of constant prevarication for state leaders. If Putin ever truthfully tells the West where there is line past which he will respond with force, nobody will know he's telling the truth. e.g. Putin has repeatedly implied that instituting a "no fly" zone would result in nuclear war, but it's clear we can't trust that. It may be a lie. If NATO planes move in Russian planes may simply move out with no further response from Russia.
How do we know that it were the Russians who didn't respect the ceasefire?
EDIT: this point is being repeated over and over but I have not seen anything that would corroborate the ukranian side of the story (neither the russian to be fair).
You realize that TASS is state-owned and just repeats the same propaganda that comes from Kremlin, don't you?
EDIT: To be more specific, the news I heard on Ukrainian media was that corridors were indeed open for a brief period, but fire started again almost at the moment when transports with refugees began moving, giving them no chance to leave.
Not at all. The agreement to create temporary ceasefires to evacuate civilians were the only real outcome of the last talks. It was largely reported in Russian media. Today during the morning briefing the Russian officials said that the zones and logistics were agreed and respected but russian forces haven't observed any movement of civilians. They observed rearrangement of ukranian units though.
The ukranian live YouTube channel I follow provided a few messages from (allegedly) people nearby (e.g. no buses or people were still in shelters). No clear picture from these messages.
It's sad that we can't trust most media to give the real story. It seems that 98% of all media today has an agenda. I suspect that social media echo chambers are a distraction that drives a lot of this regardless of political affiliation.
How does this even work? In that particular case has it crossed the journalists' mind to check what the Russian position is? Did he understand implicitly that would be frowned upon by the boss/editor?
We (Ukrainians) believed Russians once, in Ilovaisk. Of course, we will not believe them second time. Our government sends notices to citizens to not trust Russian promises about evacuation or green corridors.
Because of Ilovaisk tragedy, «green corridor» now has meaning of death threat, e.g. «we will make green corridors for Russians» means «we will fool Russians and then kill them», not a promise of a safe escape.
When Russians says that they will open a green corridor for us again, everyone is flies from them.
I hope this war stops as soon as possible. The Russian people I know (including myself) don't support the war and are trying to help with the humanitarian aid, refugees etc (I'm outside russia).
so what you are saying is, your government officially agrees with russia about humanitarian corridors, but then tells your own citizens not to follow them?
Do you have a picture of the notice? How do you know it's your government?
We know that Russian humanitarian corridors are fake, so we tell our own citizens to not follow them, because they will die again. However, we need to regroup our units as much as Russians, so we agreed on ceasefire.
I did not follow this closely because I'm busy with my own problems right now (furreal of 3 man killed by Russians will be tomorrow, so I need to make preparations). However, my advice to our government is in line with advices of other veterans of war with Russia: don't trust them. Russia invaded Ukraine and killed thousands after years of lies about peace. Why they will be honest today?
In ilovaisk it was ukranian troops who were marching armed through the exit corridor. It's clear that this could escalate quickly.
The exit corridors now are for civilians and there is at least the red cross who is monitoring. I find it hard to believe that russian army would attack civilians in open daylight. That would be a grave war crime and impossible to hide.
> I find it hard to believe that russian army would attack civilians in open daylight.
What you find hard to believe is clearly evidenced on a daily - sorry, hourly - basis in Ukraine right now. You don't need to believe, you can just see.
I don't understand all this talk of a "no-fly" zone. That idea boils down to: "let's start killing Russians". That is an act of war, and to think he could respond to it with any other interpretation is lunacy.
Yes, that is why it wasn't done, despite all cruelties against Ukrainians. One could argue, that as long as Russian troups are only engaged over Ukraine it is something different, but I think it is wise not to push this so far. But the other side is: if NATO wanted, they could have a no-fly zone over Ukraine any time.
Some of the sanctions are definitely too much, as they will worsen the life of regular Russians and Europeans too much, without many strategic benefit, since both sides believe they are right, making them antagonize each other, leading only to further escalation
> Some of the sanctions are definitely too much, as they will worsen the life of regular Russians and Europeans too much
As a regular European: good.
We are at war, I'm more than willing to pay personal costs to inflict pain and casualties to Russia, even more so if those costs are "only" financial. I absolutely want my government to hurt us if that means hurting Russians even more.
> We are at war, I'm more than willing to pay personal costs to inflict pain and casualties to Russia, even more so if those costs are "only" financial. I absolutely want my government to hurt us if that means hurting Russians even more.
Tell that to people who live on minimum salary, maybe they will explain you something about "financial price"
While I have some sympathy for those who are less lucky than me, in the long run playing the appeasement game will hurt them even more. Furthermore, government can take ad-hoc redistributive actions, such as increased or reworked taxation. Our government is already spending 46% of the GDP in random crap for far less noble reasons.
OTOH I hate from the bottom of my heart the entire wave of pseudo-intellectuals and anti-western useful idiots who push the "two-sides" narrative. (Just to be clear because this is the internet -- I'm not implying anything about you specifically)
Putin claims we're already in one. Their military is crumbling. Create some safe air corridors in Ukraine to supply the cities, just like we did with Berlin in the cold war.
Also, he's shown too many cards. His military is incompetent and/or looting itself.
Probably better to announce we're going to do this unless he "clairifes" his position.
Edit: Also, his strategy only works if the US behaves rationally, and also assumes that he will not behave rationally because he's senile and dying of cancer. Call (his subbordinates') bluff by making it clear Biden's battier than Regan.
Declaring war on Ukraine is also a declaration of war. Putin started this and no matter what happens, world war 3, nuclear, whatever: Putin started it. Putin escalated it.
He was already threatening nuclear if he doesn't get what he wants. If he's serious about that, nothing the west does besides rolling over and just giving him the world will stop him from doing that and giving in to him will, in my opinion, only embolden him by showing him that his threats get him results.
If he wants to end the sanctions, then he can withdraw from Ukraine and we'll go from there.
Remember also that Putin lied multiple times: its just a military exercise, not invading, you're crazy (then he invaded); civilians won't be targeted or harmed (and then he started targeting and killing civilians). Nothing he promises or says can be trusted.
Having said that, its all rather difficult. If he's backed into a corner and sees no other way out, what's stopping him from going "Fuck it, I'm screwed either way, launch the nukes"...
So? Many people equally believe that the Iraq war was unjustified. Just because someone else does something bad, doesn't give you the right or an excuse to also do something bad.
> Nobody is going to launch nukes, that’s just silly.
Right up until Putin invaded Ukraine, everybody was saying he won't invade Ukraine, that's just silly. But he did anyway. You don't know what Putin will or won't do, especially now that Ukraine turned out to not be so easy to take and the world has largely banded together against him. If he's backed into a corner and feels that he's doomed either way, then who knows what he is willing to do.
> He will likely just void IP rights and patents in retaliation to sanctions.
How about we stop with the blame game and start figuring out how to conduct foreign policy in a way that leads to desirable geopolitical outcomes for all parties involved. The humanitarian catastrophe that resulted from the US' invasion of Iraq was far worse than what's happening in Ukraine anyways, so all this moralizing by the West just comes off as hollow and hypocritical.
If the US leadership over the last thirty years was even a little less unscrupulous and short-sighted, we could have averted this geopolitical catastrophe currently unfolding in Eastern Europe, but I'm sure the fact that "Putin started it" will be great comfort when the nukes start falling and everyone you knew or cared about is dead.
I don't understand, do you want to stop the blame game, or would you rather have it pointed at the US, because:"the US started it"?
Two wrongs don't make a right, now do they? I find it mind boggling that such an act of agression can be made immune to critique because "some other country did it worse that one time."
I didn't say the US started it, my point is both countries made poor decisions which led to this outcome, not just Russia.
So instead of trying to assign blame, lets try to resolve this situation to all parties' benefit, rather than lionizing one side, and demonizing the other. Which ultimately means taking Russia's security concerns and legitimate grievances seriously, because if this gets out of hand, then it will be to the whole world's sorrow.
We can only deal with what we have in front of us right now. Right now, Russia is 1) committing war crimes in Ukraine and 2) threatening the world with nuclear war if he doesn't get what he wants. So of course we are talking about the situation at hand. When the imminent threat is over, by all means, we can criticize everyone else who is or has committed evil too, including the US and China for their crimes against civilians.
But right now, the crisis at hand is that Russia has invaded Ukraine and Putin has lied again and again. How can we take Russia's grievances seriously when Putin has been acting on bad faith all along.
You can take Russia's grievances on their own merit, Putin's behavior notwithstanding.
The crisis at hand is that we have, along with our counterparties in Russia and the EU, created a region of instability along the outer Soviet arc that has existed since its formal collapse in 1991. This war in Ukraine is just the latest manifestation of this.
I personally would like my government to try and negotiate with Putin, and to make an honest effort to address his concerns, in an attempt to put an end to hostilities. How many more times do we have in us, to creep along the edge of nuclear war, are you all so eager for the grave? Clearly you feel differently, and I guess that's where we will have to disagree.
I have a proposal for you. Russia gets out of Ukraine and instead is allowed to control your country. If that would appease Putin, would you support it?
No legitimate grievances warrant invading another country. And even if you disagree, definitely no legitimate grievances warrant targeting civilians. That’s terrorism, plain and simple. Putin is a terrorist.
Putins acts have demonstrated that Ukraine’s desires to join the EU and NATO are absolutely warranted, to protect themselves from exactly this.
Additionally, Putin has threatened anyone that gets in his way from getting what he wants with nuclear war. We can debate about whether it’s an idle threat or not but if it’s true, then that and his attack on civilians shows that he has no regard for human life, that he would rather face his own peoples annihilation if it means he can also punish those who stand in his way. Someone making such threats, and who had a clear history of lying, cannot be trusted. What does listening to him achieve if nothing he says can be trusted? Nothing he agrees can be trusted, so what agreement can possibly be made?
The invasion of Ukraine was premeditated, he was planning it for many many months based on the movement of troops and equipment and the leaked reports I heard about. This wasn’t a reaction to a breakdown in diplomacy, this was a long planned invasion.
I’m not saying we should invade Russia back and I’m not saying we shouldn’t take great care when dealing with the situation. I am saying that Putin cannot be trusted and I fear diplomacy doesn’t work against someone whose promises cannot be trusted and someone who has shown to have great ambitions yet also a callous disregard for human life. I also don’t think we can reasonably assume that he won’t use nuclear weapons when his attack on Ukraine is becoming increasingly brutal as he’s getting more desperate.
So what are we to do? Just give him what he wants? Show him and the rest of the world that brutality and threatening nuclear war gets you whatever you ask for?
Just as Ukraine refused humanitarian corridors during the last 8 years in Donbass, they are refusing them now to their own civilians to exit cities under siege.
It's amazing how people think Ukraine is this shining beacon of freedom and Russia is this evil orc empire, when in fact, they both have the same transparency score, aka just as corrupt.
Now tell me, how is recognizing independence of a province populated by a persecuted ethnic group, and then marshalling troops to protect it any different from NATO vs Kosovo?
The minority is Russian, so I guess it's a safe pre-approved behaviour to hate them and ignore their persecution by literally self-admitted neo-nazis.
Now it seems that he is going to be downvoted to oblivion but I think he shouldn’t. Why? It’s exactly this kind of opposite and constructed opinion (right or wrong really it doesn’t matter) that help us to be better critical thinkers and get a better view of the world. If he is wrong then we will know even more why about the subject. If he is right then our views have now dramatically changed! Now of course we have to take time ourselves to go to his material, in the rabbit hole of infos, fact check, check the sources etc… Or else we are no better than the other person we disagree with! Just lucky to be on the right side. Or! Not even knowing that we are in the wrong one and never being able to know it without putting the effort!
Thanks to his comment and going down to the rabbit hole of infos and fact checking etc… I now know a lot more about what’s going there, Ukraine, the geopolitical states, Russia… and also why people may think like OP. Doesn’t mean I agree. But I have now a lot better and wider understanding than before. And that’s too bad to not respect people that just help ourselves to achieve that even if we disagree with them.
I highly recommend this lecture by a Finnish military intelligence expert for anybody looking to understand Russia's actions better. It was very enlightening at least to me, goes in depth to how Russia's history has shaped its culture and thinking in bad ways. English subtitles available.
I think there is a philosophical question of whether the act of severing relations without active, pointed violence, could be considered an act of war.
After all, trade and increasing cooperation and communication is commonly believed to be the antidote to war. When we trade with each other for things we need, then it makes taking what we need with violence a less economically attractive option.
So, by instigating sanctions and cutting off trade relations, how could that be construed as anything other than "we're taking all options for settling disputes off the table, except violence"?
I'm not taking Russia's side here, and the situation is obviously more complicated since they were the ones to initiate violence in Ukraine, but it does seem like the West has effectively made a strong alliance with Ukraine and declared war on Russia, even if they have yet to exchange bullets (or nukes) directly.
> how could that be construed as anything other than "we're taking all options for settling disputes off the table, except violence?
Because is it explicitly an option for settling disputes that is not violence? If you don’t want countries to go to war, you need solutions to settle disputes that aren’t violence. Trade sanctions are one such solution.
Karl Kautsky had the same idea about trade and communication making war impossible. Named that peaceful capitalism last phase as "Ultra-imperialism" [1], but then... WWI happened.
Well, he might as well say that since he got nothing to lose right now. Russians are feeling it, more than half of all countries are against him.
What I'm finding interesting is that there's no impartial news in this whole conflict. Either Russia (it seems any Russian leader on that position would act the same way) is somewhat justified on doing it (because of NATO's expansion to the east, etc...) or He's the next Hitler trying to expand the Russian empire and trample any democracy next to him.
I only found one video explaining the conflict from both sides of the conflict on an impartial matter. The creator did his job explaining the economic, political and geographical aspects of the conflict.
My two cents:
The conflict is complex on both sides:
- Russia thinks Europe and the US are their enemies. They don't want them as "neighbors" even though they do business together, play sports together, etc...
- The right to self-determination of the Ukrainian people is a fact. They need to do what's good for them in all aspects of their lives and with this conflict escalating, they are more than willing to join NATO.
Possible Outcomes:
1. Russia "wins":
- 2/3 of the world won't be conducting any type of business with the country.
- This will push a further polarization of the World, literally creating cold war 2
all over again just that this time we'll have 3 proxy powers: Western, Russia and
China.
2. Russia "loses":
- Government collapses: I don't even know what would happen with Russia if Putin is
deposed. Chaos will be the least of the issues that Russia would be dealing with.
- Government "caves" to Ukrainian demands: This will undoubtedly create bitterness from
the Russian people to the West in general and will put nations to rethink their postures
and form alliances to shield themselves from Western sanctions.
3. Russia agrees to cease fire if Ukraine doesn't enter to NATO: This would imply Russia not giving up Crimea nor
the "independent" states formed after the war.
4. Putin goes nuclear: Not much to say...
I can't imagine what Ukrainians are going through right now. It's easier to condemn and go to war with Russia but let's just think about it for a moment. The implications of a full scale war between NATO and Russia, when the latter is threating to use its nuclear weapons. I'm not from the US nor Europe and I'm looking a grim future all of us if this conflict keeps escalating.
There has to be a diplomatic way for the sake of Ukraine, Russia and the rest of the World.
219 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 274 ms ] threadAre you for or against that? What are the reasons for your position?
You need to expand on your comment for it to have meaning.
If Putin says its war then it's war, no? The west has justified not intervening to avoid war. If it's war anyway, then we should intervene. If this isn't explicit enough, we should intervene militarily in Ukraine.
> You need to expand on your comment for it to have meaning.
Not really, there's a lot implied by my comment...
Russia will quickly start losing a conventional war. They would turn to nukes. When it seems like Russia is losing, all nuclear nations would be on high alert. They being on high alert with fingers on triggers is bad not just for Nato and Russia but also for non participating countries like China, India, Pakistan, Israel, NK because when there is a nuclear war on the horizon, everyone wants to be on the alert. However, each country raising alert will cause suspicion on the other country. For example, China raising its alert level will trigger India to do the same followed by Pakistan. All it takes now is one nuke to fly (may be between Nato and Russia or even a false launch detection). Now all countries will trigger all their nukes purely out of suspicion in the fog of war due to panic.
So that's why Russia can shoot/burn or destroy people /cities /infrastructure, NATO will not lift a single finger in terms of actual participation in war to help Ukraine (whatever the public opinion might be).
So what is the trigger in your opinion: NATO involvement, or losing the war?
What do you think would happen if NATO doesn't intervene and Putin still loses the war?
The best outcome at this juncture is to fall back to western most cities and save as much land and army as they can. Especially the army pinned in the eastern most provinces have to start moving back and meet up with the remnants in Kharkiv, Kyiv and other cities. If they fall back fast, RA cannot really pursue them as their supply lines are stretched as well. They have to get mobile and freely move around now for any chance of preventing a complete rout (and capture of the army at breakaway provinces).
I see the point. But I disagree with that...
* First we need to make sure we tried every other option. If WW III does start we need to be 100% sure it wasn't started when there was some other option.
* I think he's a very logical actor. People incorrectly say that his operations don't make sense. They make perfect sense. He did test runs in Crimea, Eastern Ukraine and Syria. The west didn't do anything so he assumed nothing bad will happen
The problem is he's stuck now. He wants to withdraw but he can't without looking weak. He climbed too high on the tree and he knows that if he withdraws without a "win" he won't live much longer. The west needs to find a way that he can spin as a "win" moving forward. Otherwise this might snowball.
This is the part that's particularly scary to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk5RDy6xFJQ
> Mr. Putin’s tendency, American intelligence officials have told the White House and Congress, is to double down when he feels trapped by his own overreach.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/03/us/politics/biden-putin-s...
Rational or not doesn't really matter if what he wants is a war (I mean, he already started a war with Ukraine of course).
It's a persecution complex that's very common in Russia. They're paranoid about western expansion. This has some historical merit to be fair.
Compared to other OECD countries, South Korea's female suicide rate is highest with 15.0 deaths by suicide per 100,000 deaths according to the suicidal rate list, while the male suicide rate is third highest with 32.5 per every 100,000 deaths.
Not like they were negotiating in good faith anyways, as they continued to shell the East.
I don't agree that we have to find a way for Putin to save face.
At some point there will be a coup d'etat, if the army and the oligarchs suffered too much.
Keep in mind he killed all opposition in Russia.
People don't know what they are talking about. It is extremely simple, just 2 words - missile defense. Russia has nukes and NATO wants to protect themselves by moving their missile defense systems closer to the Russian border, to shoot the nukes down before they can reach the atmosphere. Russian army and economy suck and they won't be able to handle a standout with NATO armies without nukes, so Putin makes "special operations" to prevent them from moving missile defense systems closer. Simple
These can be launched into the orbit from any point on Earth, and de-orbited onto the target from literally any direction in the sky.
It's one of the reasons why it's so hard to defend against them.
To avoid devastation, needless deaths and the mass exodus of refugees. Now even if the war was over tomorrow it would take decades to recover - to deal with unexploded ordnance and for people to return.
We're way past appeasement.
> When Zelensky managed same as the old Boss, to hideaway millions offshore, the Western Media was silent.
Except he didn't offshore money collected from corruption. His business made that money. Maybe a slightly sketchy way to avoid paying taxes to a corrupt government.
Except the very last one:
> Putin's hand was forced
The west was pretty close to capitulating on allowing Ukraine to join NATO when they invaded. And no one's forced them to attack civilian targets.
We Americans blockaded (quarantined) Cuba for putting missles on our doorstep.
It is a very similar situation.
Buffer states can be a good thing.
Zelensky has treated Kolomoisky with kid gloves despite the PrivatBank thefts [1]. Why? Because his election campaign was bankrolled in Kolomoisky [2], and 1+1 channel, owned by Kolomoisky, gave Zelensky highly favorable news coverage. This despite Kolomoisky establishing & supporting the Dnipro-1 Regiment [3] which was implicated in humans right abuses, and murders of ethnic Russians. This same Dnipro-1 Regiment was the one accused by Amnesty International of blocking foods and clothing supply shipments to Eastern Ukraine. Dnipro-1 is considered a sister battalion of Dnipro-2, and the more infamous Azov Battalion [4]
[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-files-civil-for...
[2] https://www.occrp.org/en/the-pandora-papers/pandora-papers-r...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnipro-1_Regiment
[4] https://www.firstpost.com/world/russian-military-operation-p...
Nope.
Entry to NATO has to be unanimous.
But if we get involved, we probably can't just blow up stuff and walk away -- I think that only works in movies :)
https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs
"Outrage" on the news really should be replaced with "thing we expected to happen has happened".
Is the rest of the quote. Cherry-picking 101. Jesus, Reuters. WTF do you want me to pay for?
He already spent so much of his money and so many of my nerve cells. Let the guy finish already, i dont want it all to be for nothing but hysteria and skyhigh prices on everything. We need results
Sure, we can now argue whether the promise (1990), the first NATO expansion afterwards (1999), the Bucharest declaration that Ukraine and Georgia will become NATO members (2008) or Ukraine changing its stance from remaining unaligned to seeking a NATO membership (2014) should be labeled the beginning of the current situation, but I think it is fair to pick 1990 as this is where the situation that Russia does not want was laid out.
There are most likely also other interest such as oil and gas in Ukraine but I don't think they are the primary reasons, even though they might have tipped the calculations. And I consequently think that this could have been avoided if the Ukraine would not have pursued a NATO membership or if Russia would also have joined.
I feel like it changes a lot depending on how you feel about hegemony.
Edit: If north and south Korea were about to unify, but China invaded to reconstitute a north Korean buffer state, where was the beginning and what could have been done? Should the south have refused the north because it didn't want to be seen as expanding? Should the north have? China definitely wouldn't be invaded by a unified Korea, maybe they would argue that how they are positioned in international trade justifies it. I'm trying to think of parallels and this is what I've come up with.
The most similar situation is in my opinion the Cuban Missile Crisis. The USSR could argue that Cuba is free to decide whether or not they want nuclear missiles stationed in their country, the USA argues that it is an unacceptable security thread to have those missiles so close to their border. What would have happened of the USSR had not backed down? Would the USA have tolerated the missiles or would the USA have attacked Cuba or at least the launch sites? What would the USA do today, say if China agreed with Mexico to place military assets in Mexico?
So if NATO would decide to invade Belarus right now, then it might be similar to the Cuban missile crisis. Until then, it is just a gross oversimplification of a conflict that is the result of complex relations between countries.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcUUgYQASfI
In case of the Cuban Missile Crisis the actions of the USSR were only a response but still not tolerated. You could maybe find an equivalent, something that Russia did first and that then caused Ukraine to seek a NATO membership, but I don't think this is important for the analogy. The equivalent of Russia backing down and not stationing missiles in Cuba for Cuba's protection would be Ukraine not joining NATO.
But I have to admit that I don't get your analogy either, would you mind elaborating?
NATO did not court Ukraine, instead Ukraine wishes to be a member, the current invasion to prevent it being so ironically a case in point. Finland is now considering joining as well, as a response to Russias agression.
It is clear that Russia does not think to invade Finland as well, as it does not consider it to be a part of its old empire, but it does Ukraine.
So in this case it is the sovereignty of a country that is being challenged, as Russia is trying to strongarm countries into backing off from joining NATO. It is not threatening NATO directly. That is a big difference with the Cuban missile crisis.
In the Cuban missile crisis it is very clear that both sides were pointing arms at each other and coercing members of their respective alliances to comply. Here a potential member is invaded. Korea, Vietnam or even the colonisation if Africa would make more sense as an analogy, of power blocs deciding what a country belongs to.
I think I didn't make my main point in the analogy very clear. In case of the Cuban Missile Crisis the USA decided that US security concerns override Cuban sovereignty and security concerns as the missiles were requested as a deterrent against further US interference after the Bay of Pigs Invasion. In case of Russia NATO takes the stance that sovereignty and security concerns of other countries, especially now Ukraine, prevail. This actually used to be different, in the 1990s NATO was initially careful with NATO expansion and created the Partnership for Peace program to make the process more gradual hoping to avoid tensions.
NATO did not court Ukraine, instead Ukraine wishes to be a member, the current invasion to prevent it being so ironically a case in point. Finland is now considering joining as well, as a response to Russias agression.
I would argue that the distinction between NATO and Ukraine is not too important from Putin's point of view. He claims that the West, NATO, and especially the USA are interfering in other countries and shaping their governments. If you believe this, the line between a country wanting to join NATO and NATO wanting a country to join becomes pretty blurry.
It is clear that Russia does not think to invade Finland as well, as it does not consider it to be a part of its old empire, but it does Ukraine.
This has been repeated frequently, but is there actually any good evidence that Putin thinks this way? I haven't looked into this, so I am only vaguely aware of two points. When Putin became president in 2000, there was a controversy about the national anthem of Russia and Putin decided to use the USSR one with new lyrics. His explanation was that there was already enough change and considered it as a small token of stability.
Then I am aware that he called the fall of the Soviet Union a tragedy, but I don't know about the context. On the other hand in 2000 he said roughly this.
You can not take anything back. You can neither get your youth back nor the years that have passed. Even more, if we try to return to the past, we will certainly destroy everything permanently. But we can do something so that people are not only not worse off but better off than in the past.
This isn't made any easier by the fact that we are talking about at least two decades and viewpoints change. But I would really be interested in evidence one way or the other and how this might have changed over time.
EDIT: The points about the national anthem and going back in time I got from the documentary Putin's Witness which was recently uploaded by Ukrainians in two parts [1][2] with English subtitles. I was quoting from the scene at 18:05 in part two. The subtitles in those videos may be more faithful translations as I just roughly translated it from the German version of the documentary.
I would also like to highlight what follows 22:50 in part one, it's about the apartment bombings and Putin visiting the scene. I can hardly imagine a more stark contrast between his words then and his actions now. And the whole things is of course a big controversy in itself, were those terrorist attacks or did Russian forces blow up Russian apartment buildings in order to unite people behind Putin and legitimize military interventions? If it was staged, did Putin know or was even involved?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc8-EaP5GM4
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtGqcYH4hUk
After that, he has used all of his “Active Measures” (look that up too) to divide the West. Also I sincerely doubt we would be in this mess if Russia was a functioning democracy.
Basically you have one guy who can damage the world, answering to no one. Russia and Russians was never the problem, just one man and his cronies.
There were a ton of alternatives that would have made Russia more powerful and respected without resorting to Soviet tactics.
Of course, I will not argue with that, Russia is no democracy and Putin an autocrat who is willing to kill for his power. But this doesn't necessarily make any implications about his foreign policy, you can run an autocratic country without desiring to conquer the rest of the world.
After that, he has used all of his “Active Measures” (look that up too) to divide the West.
I am aware of the term but not much more and I will do some further reading. But interestingly the Wikipedia article [1] in the section »1991 to present« starts with 2014, which is well passed 2008 and aligns with Ukraine's renewed desire to become a NATO member.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures
From there you can search up some terms and periods mentioned in that video.
You can find more perhaps at https://csis.org
The interesting thing is the gap in the timeline which aligns with other resources I found. There was a time when all the current mess was avoidable, a time at which Russia was eager to work with the West, a time at which Russia was heading towards a NATO membership through the Partnership for Peace program. But things went south and Russia turned against NATO and the USA again, Putin's 2007 speech at the Munich Security Conference is probably the most well known expression of Russia's or Putin's frustration [4].
M. E. Sarotte: Not One Inch - America, Russia, and the Making of Post-Cold War Stalemate (2022) [1]
John Mearsheimer: Why is Ukraine the West's Fault? (2015) [2]
Vladimir Pozner: How the United States Created Vladimir Putin (2018) [3]
Vladimir Putin: Speech at Munich Security Conference (2007) [4]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXBKGRPwfZw
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ58Yv6kP44
I do know Obama really wanted to get closer to Russia in the sense of a better relationship at the start of his presidency. So what exactly happened I cannot tell.
I guess things really went south post 9/11 when the USA really used its power without accountability. In its 2007 speech at the Munich Security Conference he is frustrate with how the USA acts, how it ignores the UN which he considers the only legitimate entity to decide over military interventions. He complains that the USA wants a unipolar world order. Then in 2008 the Bucharest Declaration opens the way for Ukraine and Georgia to become NATO members and this crosses the red line. It had of course been crossed before with the Baltic states but Russia still swallowed that.
Russia intervenes in Georgia in 2008. And in the active measures documentary you see some dates from the time after 2008, the good relations with the West are over. But the vast majority of examples in the documentary are actually from after 2014, when the the pro-Russian Yanukovych government, that had essentially suspended seeking a NATO membership, was replaced and a NATO membership became a priority again. He annexed Crimea, intervened in eastern Ukraine, and stepped up active measures. He was now somewhat running out of time, Ukraine becoming a NATO member was unacceptable to him but there was no indication that anyone would care.
By keeping Ukraine in conflict in Donbas he could prevent a NATO membership for some time, but it would probably only be a matter of time until Ukraine would become powerful enough to take back eastern Ukraine. And once Ukraine would become a NATO member, he would have to face NATO instead of Ukraine. And this would probably also mean that it would be likely that he will lose the strategically important naval base in Sevastopol on Crimea.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership_for_Peace#/media/F...
The other thing I would argue is that you can not use the current war in Ukraine as a reason why the Ukraine should become a NATO member if it is indeed true that Russia attacked primarily because Ukraine wanted to become a NATO member.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia%E2%80%93Russia_relatio...
His only play is to act (?) even crazier.
'War' means nuclear war, means the death of probably a large portion of the world population. It's the thing we thought we could stop worrying about 30 years ago.
He doesn't like that he's clearly losing, so he's decided to threaten the end times if he can't get his way. And it might even work, if we truly believe he'll do it.
The problem is the best way he can prove that is to crack the atom over Kyiv.
It really goes to show that nukes just shouldn’t exist- there’s no “counter” to them if the other side is suicidal
THat's the point of nukes. Even if your economy and army suck, you still can be sure that no one will try to go through your borders to get some
There have been several proxy wars between USSR and USA during the Cold War.
Nukes have been around for less than a century, a blink of an eye in historical terms, and have already come close to obliterating the world multiple times. It only takes a single war to undue millennia of progress.
https://youtu.be/o861Ka9TtT4
https://youtu.be/1OitCT1KT4k
Ukraine never joined NATO. Ukraine was never even given a membership action plan.
> and the west didn't care about his line drawing.
Neither did Putin; the moving red lines were about pretext, not reasoning.
Unfortunately, Putin doesn't seem to care.
We need to stop thinking of nations as this one dimensional cult of personality of their leader.
I think Putin would have a very difficult time getting his generals to agree to nuking Kyiv.
That's the kind of order which leads to coups.
They just don’t know how much support they have
The default penalty for a slightly different perspective is 15 years in prison
The expected penalty is falling out of a first floor window
Everyone is surrounded by people vying for power that will double cross anyone to imprison their direct competitors
Its a prisoners dilemma that allows Putin to use his consolidated power unabated
Except if you would assassinate Putin.
The Russians have legitimate fears about the encroachment of NATO and American weaponry right onto their doorstep. You might want to look up a historical event called 'The Cuban Missile Crisis' to see how the US has acted in the past, in a similar situation [see also Nicaragua, Venezuela, etc]
The Russians believe that a democratically elected and pro-Russian government in Ukraine was over-thrown by a US engineered coup [Euro Maidan] and replaced by a fiercely right-wing anti-Russian regime, which is hell-bent on joining NATO and thus having American missiles stationed there [and Ukraine is a lot closer to Russia than Cuba is to America]
The Russians also say their citizens in the two breakaway regions are being genocided. Although that is, at best, an exaggeration used to justify the invasion.
Now, before you accuse me of being a Russian supporter or apologist, I'm not. I'm as outraged by this invasion as anyone else. But to simply pretend that it's all happened because evil mad dictator Putin has suddenly turned into Adolf Hitler reincarnated, while Uncle Sam has been innocently sitting on the sidelines, polishing his halo, is to bring a play school level of critical thought process to bear on the situation.
He keeps advancing and capture of Kiev is now only a matter of time.
And all the while, the sanctions will destroy his economy. No economy = no money to build more war machine.
Edit: read about it some more and Kiev appears to be the old name from the Soviet era which is not well accepted by Ukraine people. It's odd that we in Romania still use this old form given that Kyiv was proposed and accepted in 1995.
It's to shift into conquest mode and burn up your system. It's a non-sustainable move, and if you're going to do it, then typically they go for broader conquest (Moldova would be an example of expanding the conquest, as would formally taking Belarus). In normal times the economy is sustainable: you have $n GDP and $n tax revenue coming in, and you can do certain things with that stream. Sanctions crimp that heavily of course. So Putin can move to an unsustainable model, which means it'll collapse on him eventually, but people in his situation often do it anyway.
You do it by forced labor, labor gulags, forced building of manufacturing, total war mobilization of the large Russian population like it's WW2 again. Over time this would break Russia, near-term it would be a potent spike in their potential to march and conquer territory. The Germans did this during WW2, shifting out of sustainable economy to burn-it-up mode. It can't last indefinitely and it involves killing large numbers of citizens in the process. You have to redirect your economy into a command funnel, which starts to destroy all sorts of structures as you shift your resource allocations to war efforts (so for example Putin shifts labor resources to manufacturing tanks, and as a consequence there's not enough labor to operate grocery stores or repair potholes in the streets or whatever).
The Russian army hasn't been making progress against Kyiv for several days, and in fact Ukraine has been launching successful counteroffensives the last two days.
Russia has been successfully killing civilians though.
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
There are just so many ways this goes very badly, I don’t see how one can be optimistic.
NATO should immediately begin a no fly zone over the Lviv region (with the possibility of widening it as necessary), in case Zelenskyy needs to leave Kyiv and or the Ukrainians generally need to establish a new base of government. They could shield that region / territory from Russia right now without prompting a Russia v NATO war, as it would require no attack on Russia to maintain near-term. If Russia tries to contest it, they're initiating the war, as they knew the area was protected by NATO forces. It would work as a maneuver. Putin could of course always claim that any move by NATO into Ukraine is an act of war, and or that Russia owns Ukrainian territory so any move by NATO into Ukraine is identical to invading Russia and other blatherings, but he can invent claims at any time to proclaim NATO started a war: the question is, can it be pulled off without sparking a war with Russia, and right now I believe it could be.
Rumors are they haven't seen him for days and he's out of the country now, setting up a government in exile, and continue waging a US-backed insurgency.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/03/05/...
He could probably just withdraw, no? Russia isn't under existential threat. Is taking Ukraine really the only option for Putin?
So many very serious people gravely explain that we must stand by and watch residential areas get shelled and rocketed to smithereens, creating a million refugees in the first week, as a democratic nation gets overrun by a mad dictator.
Apparently we have to do this because otherwise the mad dictator will irradiate Europe and maybe North America too.
But somehow the mad dictator won't split the atom if we only crater the mad dictator's economy and provide the weapons that kill his troops.
> ... with a lunatic
Do mad dictators have clearly demarcated red lines like that?
Seems like a truly mad dictator would unleash doomsday if he's losing the war, regardless of which side of the red line we're on.
It's well known that the secret to winning the game theoretical stalemate is to pretend you're irrational.
If only playing crazy could get you anything you wanted life would be so easy for good actors. He could pretend he won, pack and go home. If his propaganda machine is so strong people will eat it and even if they don't there's not much they can do about it anyway. He may just need a pyrrhic victory he can sell domestically.
Evidently, all we can do is respond to what Putin does. One must assume that, if the West declared war on Russia, Russia would take specific military actions. Since Russia has not responded to sanctions with those military actions, Putin evidently does not view sanctions as a declaration of war, no matter what noises come out of his mouth.
This is the downside of constant prevarication for state leaders. If Putin ever truthfully tells the West where there is line past which he will respond with force, nobody will know he's telling the truth. e.g. Putin has repeatedly implied that instituting a "no fly" zone would result in nuclear war, but it's clear we can't trust that. It may be a lie. If NATO planes move in Russian planes may simply move out with no further response from Russia.
EDIT: this point is being repeated over and over but I have not seen anything that would corroborate the ukranian side of the story (neither the russian to be fair).
https://tass.com/society/1417395
EDIT: To be more specific, the news I heard on Ukrainian media was that corridors were indeed open for a brief period, but fire started again almost at the moment when transports with refugees began moving, giving them no chance to leave.
The ukranian live YouTube channel I follow provided a few messages from (allegedly) people nearby (e.g. no buses or people were still in shelters). No clear picture from these messages.
Gotta read that manufacturing consent book.
Because of Ilovaisk tragedy, «green corridor» now has meaning of death threat, e.g. «we will make green corridors for Russians» means «we will fool Russians and then kill them», not a promise of a safe escape.
When Russians says that they will open a green corridor for us again, everyone is flies from them.
I hope this war stops as soon as possible. The Russian people I know (including myself) don't support the war and are trying to help with the humanitarian aid, refugees etc (I'm outside russia).
Do you have a picture of the notice? How do you know it's your government?
I did not follow this closely because I'm busy with my own problems right now (furreal of 3 man killed by Russians will be tomorrow, so I need to make preparations). However, my advice to our government is in line with advices of other veterans of war with Russia: don't trust them. Russia invaded Ukraine and killed thousands after years of lies about peace. Why they will be honest today?
The exit corridors now are for civilians and there is at least the red cross who is monitoring. I find it hard to believe that russian army would attack civilians in open daylight. That would be a grave war crime and impossible to hide.
What you find hard to believe is clearly evidenced on a daily - sorry, hourly - basis in Ukraine right now. You don't need to believe, you can just see.
> That would be a grave war crime
You don't say!
> and impossible to hide.
They don't care.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz
Some of the sanctions are definitely too much, as they will worsen the life of regular Russians and Europeans too much, without many strategic benefit, since both sides believe they are right, making them antagonize each other, leading only to further escalation
And no one knew that before introducing them. Considering that they say that they already knew about the invasion a year ago.
As a regular European: good.
We are at war, I'm more than willing to pay personal costs to inflict pain and casualties to Russia, even more so if those costs are "only" financial. I absolutely want my government to hurt us if that means hurting Russians even more.
Tell that to people who live on minimum salary, maybe they will explain you something about "financial price"
OTOH I hate from the bottom of my heart the entire wave of pseudo-intellectuals and anti-western useful idiots who push the "two-sides" narrative. (Just to be clear because this is the internet -- I'm not implying anything about you specifically)
https://www.focus.de/finanzen/boerse/konjunktur/top-oekonom-...
What long run, i wonder
Also, he's shown too many cards. His military is incompetent and/or looting itself.
Probably better to announce we're going to do this unless he "clairifes" his position.
Edit: Also, his strategy only works if the US behaves rationally, and also assumes that he will not behave rationally because he's senile and dying of cancer. Call (his subbordinates') bluff by making it clear Biden's battier than Regan.
If they aren't in bitcoin, why would they try to seize a peaceful nuclear reactor?
He was already threatening nuclear if he doesn't get what he wants. If he's serious about that, nothing the west does besides rolling over and just giving him the world will stop him from doing that and giving in to him will, in my opinion, only embolden him by showing him that his threats get him results.
If he wants to end the sanctions, then he can withdraw from Ukraine and we'll go from there.
Remember also that Putin lied multiple times: its just a military exercise, not invading, you're crazy (then he invaded); civilians won't be targeted or harmed (and then he started targeting and killing civilians). Nothing he promises or says can be trusted.
Having said that, its all rather difficult. If he's backed into a corner and sees no other way out, what's stopping him from going "Fuck it, I'm screwed either way, launch the nukes"...
So? Many people equally believe that the Iraq war was unjustified. Just because someone else does something bad, doesn't give you the right or an excuse to also do something bad.
> Nobody is going to launch nukes, that’s just silly.
Right up until Putin invaded Ukraine, everybody was saying he won't invade Ukraine, that's just silly. But he did anyway. You don't know what Putin will or won't do, especially now that Ukraine turned out to not be so easy to take and the world has largely banded together against him. If he's backed into a corner and feels that he's doomed either way, then who knows what he is willing to do.
> He will likely just void IP rights and patents in retaliation to sanctions.
He can go for it.
If the US leadership over the last thirty years was even a little less unscrupulous and short-sighted, we could have averted this geopolitical catastrophe currently unfolding in Eastern Europe, but I'm sure the fact that "Putin started it" will be great comfort when the nukes start falling and everyone you knew or cared about is dead.
Two wrongs don't make a right, now do they? I find it mind boggling that such an act of agression can be made immune to critique because "some other country did it worse that one time."
So instead of trying to assign blame, lets try to resolve this situation to all parties' benefit, rather than lionizing one side, and demonizing the other. Which ultimately means taking Russia's security concerns and legitimate grievances seriously, because if this gets out of hand, then it will be to the whole world's sorrow.
But right now, the crisis at hand is that Russia has invaded Ukraine and Putin has lied again and again. How can we take Russia's grievances seriously when Putin has been acting on bad faith all along.
The crisis at hand is that we have, along with our counterparties in Russia and the EU, created a region of instability along the outer Soviet arc that has existed since its formal collapse in 1991. This war in Ukraine is just the latest manifestation of this.
I personally would like my government to try and negotiate with Putin, and to make an honest effort to address his concerns, in an attempt to put an end to hostilities. How many more times do we have in us, to creep along the edge of nuclear war, are you all so eager for the grave? Clearly you feel differently, and I guess that's where we will have to disagree.
Putins acts have demonstrated that Ukraine’s desires to join the EU and NATO are absolutely warranted, to protect themselves from exactly this.
Additionally, Putin has threatened anyone that gets in his way from getting what he wants with nuclear war. We can debate about whether it’s an idle threat or not but if it’s true, then that and his attack on civilians shows that he has no regard for human life, that he would rather face his own peoples annihilation if it means he can also punish those who stand in his way. Someone making such threats, and who had a clear history of lying, cannot be trusted. What does listening to him achieve if nothing he says can be trusted? Nothing he agrees can be trusted, so what agreement can possibly be made?
The invasion of Ukraine was premeditated, he was planning it for many many months based on the movement of troops and equipment and the leaked reports I heard about. This wasn’t a reaction to a breakdown in diplomacy, this was a long planned invasion.
I’m not saying we should invade Russia back and I’m not saying we shouldn’t take great care when dealing with the situation. I am saying that Putin cannot be trusted and I fear diplomacy doesn’t work against someone whose promises cannot be trusted and someone who has shown to have great ambitions yet also a callous disregard for human life. I also don’t think we can reasonably assume that he won’t use nuclear weapons when his attack on Ukraine is becoming increasingly brutal as he’s getting more desperate.
So what are we to do? Just give him what he wants? Show him and the rest of the world that brutality and threatening nuclear war gets you whatever you ask for?
Where was everyone during the last 8 years during the Donbass war where Ukraine deployed battalions composed of neo-nazis against unarmed civilians?
Further unapproved thoughts from approved sources:
1. US ambassador decided who they'll pick for the puppet during the 2014 coup, right on this call: https://youtu.be/WV9J6sxCs5k
2. Ukraine is the only country with an official neo-Nazi battalion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion
3. Ukraine parliament speaker was an open anti-semite and neo-nazi, and also served as minister of national security(!): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andriy_Parubiy https://www.channel4.com/news/svoboda-ministers-ukraine-new-...
4. Ukraine commits assaults and arson against their rather sizable ethnic minorities, again, using their neo-nazi groups: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/02/ukraine-dead-o...
5. Ukraine has neo-nazis at every level of their government: https://youtu.be/KfaAyiP8Wuc
6. Ukrainians killing civilians for 8 years using the same neo-nazi battalions mentioned above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas
Just as Ukraine refused humanitarian corridors during the last 8 years in Donbass, they are refusing them now to their own civilians to exit cities under siege.
It's amazing how people think Ukraine is this shining beacon of freedom and Russia is this evil orc empire, when in fact, they both have the same transparency score, aka just as corrupt.
Now tell me, how is recognizing independence of a province populated by a persecuted ethnic group, and then marshalling troops to protect it any different from NATO vs Kosovo?
The minority is Russian, so I guess it's a safe pre-approved behaviour to hate them and ignore their persecution by literally self-admitted neo-nazis.
Go ahead and support Nazis openly.
Now it seems that he is going to be downvoted to oblivion but I think he shouldn’t. Why? It’s exactly this kind of opposite and constructed opinion (right or wrong really it doesn’t matter) that help us to be better critical thinkers and get a better view of the world. If he is wrong then we will know even more why about the subject. If he is right then our views have now dramatically changed! Now of course we have to take time ourselves to go to his material, in the rabbit hole of infos, fact check, check the sources etc… Or else we are no better than the other person we disagree with! Just lucky to be on the right side. Or! Not even knowing that we are in the wrong one and never being able to know it without putting the effort!
Thanks to his comment and going down to the rabbit hole of infos and fact checking etc… I now know a lot more about what’s going there, Ukraine, the geopolitical states, Russia… and also why people may think like OP. Doesn’t mean I agree. But I have now a lot better and wider understanding than before. And that’s too bad to not respect people that just help ourselves to achieve that even if we disagree with them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF9KretXqJw
Based on the lecture it's evident that the Russian government only respects force. Soft measures will only encourage them.
After all, trade and increasing cooperation and communication is commonly believed to be the antidote to war. When we trade with each other for things we need, then it makes taking what we need with violence a less economically attractive option.
So, by instigating sanctions and cutting off trade relations, how could that be construed as anything other than "we're taking all options for settling disputes off the table, except violence"?
I'm not taking Russia's side here, and the situation is obviously more complicated since they were the ones to initiate violence in Ukraine, but it does seem like the West has effectively made a strong alliance with Ukraine and declared war on Russia, even if they have yet to exchange bullets (or nukes) directly.
Might does not exclusively mean kinetic might.
Because is it explicitly an option for settling disputes that is not violence? If you don’t want countries to go to war, you need solutions to settle disputes that aren’t violence. Trade sanctions are one such solution.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-imperialism
What I'm finding interesting is that there's no impartial news in this whole conflict. Either Russia (it seems any Russian leader on that position would act the same way) is somewhat justified on doing it (because of NATO's expansion to the east, etc...) or He's the next Hitler trying to expand the Russian empire and trample any democracy next to him.
I only found one video explaining the conflict from both sides of the conflict on an impartial matter. The creator did his job explaining the economic, political and geographical aspects of the conflict.
My two cents:
The conflict is complex on both sides:
- Russia thinks Europe and the US are their enemies. They don't want them as "neighbors" even though they do business together, play sports together, etc...
- The right to self-determination of the Ukrainian people is a fact. They need to do what's good for them in all aspects of their lives and with this conflict escalating, they are more than willing to join NATO.
Possible Outcomes:
1. Russia "wins": - 2/3 of the world won't be conducting any type of business with the country. - This will push a further polarization of the World, literally creating cold war 2 all over again just that this time we'll have 3 proxy powers: Western, Russia and China.
2. Russia "loses": - Government collapses: I don't even know what would happen with Russia if Putin is deposed. Chaos will be the least of the issues that Russia would be dealing with. - Government "caves" to Ukrainian demands: This will undoubtedly create bitterness from the Russian people to the West in general and will put nations to rethink their postures and form alliances to shield themselves from Western sanctions.
3. Russia agrees to cease fire if Ukraine doesn't enter to NATO: This would imply Russia not giving up Crimea nor the "independent" states formed after the war.
4. Putin goes nuclear: Not much to say...
I can't imagine what Ukrainians are going through right now. It's easier to condemn and go to war with Russia but let's just think about it for a moment. The implications of a full scale war between NATO and Russia, when the latter is threating to use its nuclear weapons. I'm not from the US nor Europe and I'm looking a grim future all of us if this conflict keeps escalating.
There has to be a diplomatic way for the sake of Ukraine, Russia and the rest of the World.