> We are now in a war where both sides – Ukraine and the West on one side and Russia on the other – see each other as an existential threat that must be defeated.
I think this is exaggerating a little bit. Ukraine (of course) "only" wants to get all its occupied territories back, which sounds reasonable. Plus reparations for the damage caused, and to join NATO to prevent this from happening again. Which would however be unacceptable for Putin, who has set off to conquer the whole of Ukraine and would end up with thousands of soldiers killed and less territory than he started out with. So, even if the goal is not "total defeat", still not going to happen...
No it won't. Once US provides ATACMS the war will be effectively over.
Ukraine will be able to reach all corners of Crimea and the Donbas with high-precision missiles cutting off all supply lines and ground based communications. And this isn't a hypothetical situation since we've already seen what Ukraine has been doing with Storm Shadow.
The only reason US hasn't ended this earlier is because it's in their interest to drag this out and cause not only a military default for Russia but also end Putins' reign. The fact that all of the West media magically found out that Surovikin was working for Wagner indicates that there is a lot of political warfare from the US as well.
>No it won't. Once US provides ATACMS the war will be effectively over.
I would also add that Russia has effectively lost the war after they couldn't capture Kyiv in 3 days. Now Russia is putting off the inevitable by continuing to send Russian men to their deaths in Ukraine.
Currently Russia is scraping the bottom of the barrel by using T-54/T-55 tanks:
"The only reason US hasn't ended this earlier is because it's in their interest to drag this out and cause not only a military default for Russia but also end Putins' reign. "
I don;'t think this is a at all the 'only' reason, but it certainly stands to reason, and it is exactly what they should continue to do.
pushing for a ukraine victory while putin is still in place might well trigger a 'cornered rat' response. Exhaust them, to the point that they are unable to fight on, and the regime will perhaps collapse on it's own.
The only reason US hasn't ended this earlier is because it's in their interest to drag this out
You can have fun believing made-up stuff if you want.
Meanwhile, there are far-more obvious and pragmatic factors involved. These systems need to be re-engineered somewhat, and tracking systems put in place to ensure the Ukrainians don't do what they're not supposed to do.
And other reasons. But again, you seem to have made up your mind about what you want to believe.
Moscow mearsheimer.. Another Putin propaganda distributor pretending to be an academic. He has been totally wrong so far, including predicting there would be no war. So why give him more credit at the bank of public debate? It's just another troll..
> He fails to mention that the protestors were killed by sniper fire by Yanukovych
There's no conclusive proof that this is what happened. No official investigation has taken place (or has been concluded) and Ukrainian authorities have shown time and again that there was no political will to really discover how the events unfolded. (Ukrainian authorities have also been "reprimanded" for this lack of investigation by the EU or UNHCR, can't remember now and I don't have time to look for a source).
There are several alternative reconstructions of the events, for example the one by Ivan Katchanovski[1] which has also published several hours of original footage on his YouTube channel[2]. I would suggest anyone with an open mind to take a look at those.
I would be really wary of making unsubstantiated claims like those on events that are this controversial.
> There are several alternative reconstructions of the events, for example the one by Ivan Katchanovski[1] which has also published several hours of original footage on his YouTube channel[2]. I would suggest anyone with an open mind to take a look at those.
Ah from the reconstructions's you pick the one from the person who is heavily quoted by Russian propaganda outlets thats super surprising.
If you want some rigorous examination of the events, ones that aren't described by academics as' "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven"'
Then id suggest you look at the Carnegie-Mellon reconstruction which refutes pretty much all his claims.
> If you want some rigorous examination of the events, ones that aren't described by academics as' "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven"'
Why not quote the full sentence?
> Katchanovski's original paper was criticised by David R. Marples. Marples called it "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven", but also acknowledged that Katchanovski "has raised some new evidence that suggests new investigations into the sniper massacres are much needed," that "the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome and his gathering of new material is commendable," and that "his paper does provide evidence that there were several separate groups of snipers, including anti-government ones."
I'd like to particularly emphasize:
> the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome
> there were several separate groups of snipers, including anti-government ones."
The fact that he is quoted by Russian media is irrelevant. If that is enough for you to automatically discredit it, that says more about you and your unwillingness to examine alternative versions of this story rather than the story itself.
BTW, keep in my mind that I never said this alternative version is the truth. I'm just noticing that it exists and that the official version has too many holes to just drop sentences like this:
> He fails to mention that the protestors were killed by sniper fire by Yanukovych
> The fact that he is quoted by Russian media is irrelevant. If that is enough for you to automatically discredit it, that says more about you and your unwillingness to examine alternative versions of this story rather than the story itself.
He's not quoted by Russian media, how's quoted by media that nearly exclusively posts information that is Russian propaganda.
Again, this is not relevant. It seems extremely biased to reject his opinion just on the basis on who quoted him. Noam Chomsky is frequently quoted in Russian propaganda outlets. Should we disregard everything he says?
By they way, you conveniently glossed over all the other points, where even the same person *you* quoted admitted the huge problems with the current narrative.
> Again, this is not relevant. It seems extremely biased to reject his opinion just on the basis on who quoted him. Noam Chomsky is frequently quoted in Russian propaganda outlets. Should we disregard everything he says?
It was a comment on how you seem to pick sources really.
> By they way, you conveniently glossed over all the other points, where even the same person you quoted admitted the huge problems with the current narrative.
I've shown you that your own source is highlighting these problems, but you chose to deliberately ignore them. It's really hard to continue this conversation assuming you are replying in good faith, so I'm not going to.
> If you want some rigorous examination of the events, ones that aren't described by academics as' "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven"'
Then ailef proposed this quote as the “full context”:
> > Katchanovski's original paper was criticised by David R. Marples. Marples called it "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven", but also acknowledged that Katchanovski "has raised some new evidence that suggests new investigations into the sniper massacres are much needed," that "the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome and his gathering of new material is commendable," and that "his paper does provide evidence that there were several separate groups of snipers, including anti-government ones."
The pertinent part seems to be “the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome and his gathering of new material is commendable”.
And how could you possibly know that? The article highlights how this is most likely not the final goal of the Russian aggression against Ukraine and provides logical and rational reasons as to why.
> And how could you possibly know that? The article highlights how this is most likely not the final goal of the Russian aggression against Ukraine and provides logical and rational reasons as to why.
Because Russian media (RIA Novosti, which is the Russian government owned domestic news agency). literally posted a article congratulating Putin on capturing Ukraine?.
Biased sources are more reliable when they make a statement contrary to their expected bias then when they do so for it, so a statement painting the “special military operation” as a successful war of territorial aggrandizement, when the public position of the regime has been that that is not the goal, is more reliable than ones in line with public regime propaganda.
The problem with all of this is you have to correctly assess their "expected bias". And this assessment is, in turn, affected by your own bias which you have not considered in your analysis. Given this, it seems easy to fall into the trap of just accepting whatever already fits your narrative and discarding the rest.
> So Russian media is now reliable when what they say fits your own purpose?
When Putin is telling us Putin wants to capture all of Ukraine.
I would say they are reliable yes.
Just like when Russian media says they should destroy more dams in Ukraine I believe them.
No amount of evidence would satisfy you, you literally have a primary source (the government) telling you their intentions and you are trying to reject it.
I tried to read the article using Google Translate but I found no evidence of this statement (capturing all of Ukraine). Could you point me to the relevant passage?
Please note that this is different from statements like "bring Ukraine in the Russian sphere of influence" or similar things. Unless you wanna conflate military objectives with geopolitical ones.
> I tried to read the article using Google Translate but I found no evidence of this statement (capturing all of Ukraine). Could you point me to the relevant passage?
>> Ukraine gained independence in 1991 as the Soviet Union dissolved (this is just for reference).
>> Russia is restoring its unity - the tragedy of 1991, this terrible catastrophe of our history, its unnatural dislocation, have been overcome. Yes, at a high price, yes, through the tragic events of the virtual civil war, because now brothers separated by belonging to the Russian and Ukrainian armies are still shooting at each other - but Ukraine will no longer be anti-Russia. Russia is restoring its historical fullness by gathering the Russian world, the Russian people together - in its entirety of Great Russians, Belarusians and Little Russians. If we had abandoned this, allowed temporary division to gain a foothold for centuries, we would not only betray the memory of our ancestors, but would also be cursed by our descendants - for allowing the collapse of the Russian land.
>> Now there is no problem - Ukraine has returned to Russia. This does not mean that its statehood will be eliminated, but it will be rebuilt, re-esturbished and returned to its natural state of part of the Russian world.
All I see is very vague wording and metaphors which are very far from a very specific *military* objective that is conquering the entirety of Ukraine.
They might mean that or might not, but it's not explicitly stated. You are choosing one possible interpretation and sticking to it like it's the only one.
He said that some claim that Putin would try to conquer all of Ukraine. All of it.[1] He said that that would be a mistake and that Putin is “too smart” to do that. And what does Russia care about Western Ukraine?
He also said that it would be a mistake for Russia to get bogged down in Ukraine for a long time. So then it depends on whether you think Russia is already “bogged down”; then either Mearsheimer changed his mind or else he’s contradicting himself.
[1] There was also the outlandish “try to re-establish Greater Russia” which is a bit absurd since Russia doesn’t have the capacity to do that even if it wanted to (2015 Mearsheimer said either that Putin does want that or that he may want that).
Pretty sure based on what you're writing that the reality I'm perceiving is quite different from yours. The only thing the Wagner event demonstrated is the lightning-quick reflexes of the Russian decisionmakers and their absolute stranglehold on power. Things are looking ever more grim for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people (who at the end of the day are really those that suffer/will suffer the most).
> Pretty sure based on what you're writing that the reality I'm perceiving is quite different from yours. The only thing the Wagner event demonstrated is the lightning-quick reflexes of the Russian decisionmakers and their absolute stranglehold on power.
The days Wagner marched on Moscow were literally the worst day for the Russian airforce in something like 50 years.
They lost something like 6 aircraft in a single day, with something along the lines of 12 airmen.
> Things are looking ever more grim for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people (who at the end of the day are really those that suffer/will suffer the most).
I don't see how things look even more grim for Ukraine? theres fights going on in the Russian MoD, top generals are missing rumoured to be under house arrest.
A PMC took over a town and got 200km from Moscow with only something like 8k troops.
It makes it look like Russia is entirely unable to defend its own borders, and like Putin has partially lost control.
Mearsheimer is realist. Realism expects that only big players (USA, China, Russia) have agency and everyone else is a drone without agency. This is fundamentally wrong. See Critique of Realism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXmwyyKcBLk
Look at the reactions in the US to the story that came up just a few weeks ago about a possible Chinese "spy base" in Cuba. Cuba being a sovereign state and all, I'll let you draw the parallelism yourself...
> Look at the reactions in the US to the story that came up just a few weeks ago about a possible Chinese "spy base" in Cuba. Cuba being a sovereign state and all, I'll let you draw the parallelism yourself...
Theres been a Chinese spy base in Cuba for two years at this point, and yet no invasion.
Russia has had its border with NATO extended greatly by this war, by Finland joining, and yet no war with Finland.
It doesn’t make sense to 21st century people. So-called Balance of Power Politics doesn’t make sense to the 21st century mindset—only to the 19th century mindset.
(In his 2015 lecture he contrasted 21st century people (the Washington Establishment) with 19th century people (people like himself and “the Chinese”).)
Basically the West including USA and some others promised that NATO would not “move one inch” eastward in return for German unification. That was under Gorbachev. That was only an oral agreement though and funnily enough Gorbachev now has denied that such an agreement was made… not that it matters that much, really.
So Robert Zoellick claims. But the evidence is against him.[1]
> Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
And here you have Gorbachev himself, telling that nothing like that was ever said
> M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country
There is no relevance what declassified documents says, when Gorbachev himself say that there was no such agreement. You can hold on it as tightly as you want to, but you can't change the history.
> There is no relevance what declassified documents says, when Gorbachev himself say that there was no such agreement. You can hold on it as tightly as you want to, but you can't change the history.
This is such a pig-headed and unreasonable stance that it doesn’t warrant a real response.
Denies that the subject even came up with Western representatives, Warsaw Pact leaders or Communist Party leadership. As he points out, nobody foresaw collapse of Warsaw Pact, so there was simply no reason to discuss anything like it. That would've made as much sense as discussing in 1999 what to build on World Trade Center grounds. Nobody knew that the WTC area would become a pile of rubble in two years' time.
> Denies that the subject even came up with Western representatives, Warsaw Pact leaders or Communist Party leadership.
Please don’t lie. Der Spiegel mentions Hans-Dietrich Genscher who said that “NATO will not expand to the east”—who is also mentioned in my link of course—and then Shevardnadze says that:
> Eventually, we agreed that a united Germany could be part of NATO under certain conditions. […] AN EXPANSION OF NATO BEYOND GERMANY’S BORDERS WAS OUT OF THE QUESTION.
All-caps is mine since people seem to be hard of hearing or something.
> As he points out, nobody foresaw collapse of Warsaw Pact, so there was simply no reason to discuss anything like it.
Oof, such a nice attempt at muddying the waters.
The intro question does not question the fact that NATO expansion was discussed at all (on the contrary it confirms it); it only asks why it wasn’t demanded in writing.
> So why didn't you get this commitment from NATO on paper?
Which was already indirectly stated by myself (I said “oral agreement, which I’m sure you can nitpick to death as well).[1]
So I see that you are trying to conflate the fact that non-expansion was assented to verbally with the apparent totally unrelated fact that Soviet bigwigs didn’t see the point of worrying themselves about getting any actual guarantees from the Western elites since apparently (them being short-sighted, or not-caring) that wasn’t a real threat or concern to them.
These things are completely unrelated. Shevardnadze has, through that interview, affirmed that the Westerners talked to them about non-expansion of NATO. And yet here you come and blurt out that he either wasn’t concerned about NATO expansion, isn’t concerned right now, or both. Huh? That doesn’t contradict anything that I’ve said and is just completely irrelevant.
Shevardnadze says multiple times that NATO expansion was never discussed, no matter what angle the journalists used to ask about it.
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: Was the eastward expansion of NATO ever discussed in the inner circles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1990?
>> Shevardnadze: The question never came up.
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: Nevertheless, the eastward expansion happened a few years later. Did you feel, at the time, that the German diplomats deceived you?
>> Shevardnadze: No. When I was the minister of foreign affairs in the Soviet Union, NATO's expansion beyond the German borders never came up for negotiation. To this day I don't see anything terrible in NATO's expansion.
Couldn't be more clear.
There's not a single Soviet representative who has said that yes, we had an agreement, and that it was violated. No paper trail of any kind either (discussion papers, meeting notes, personal diaries). It's a made up story.
Oh sure. Except I also quoted the same person who definitely confirmed that:
> An expansion of NATO beyond Germany's borders was out of the question.
From your own link.
I don’t know what the hell he meant by “not came up for negotation”. Someone could tell me that I will definitely get five hot dogs for lunch and then I can later say that it “never came up for negotation” since I never cared about hot dogs to begin with. (What do I care whether he personally cared about Nato expansion or not? That’s irrelevant!) Dead politicians.
You’re just mincing words (“agreement”) at this point, which I have already addressed.
>> I don’t know what the hell he meant by “not came up for negotation”.
Thankfully he clarifies that by saying "the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact was beyond our realm of comprehension".
The USSR was hosting elite divisions and nuclear weapons in Poland at the time and didn't expect anything to change, what was there to discuss or negotiate?
The main question that came up was whether Americans would roll their tanks up to Polish border after German reunification, THAT is the "eastward expansion" they discussed.
So far no-one have disproved the fact that Westerns were talking at the Soviets about non-expansion. Which was my claim. That this Georgian didn’t care about it because he didn’t see any threat of expansion is irrelevant.
The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990.
It's not, if you consider his bio. He had a delusion that he could reform the USSR, make republics sign a new union treaty and maintain Russian dominance over Eastern Europe. Russia - leader, others - serfs who have only as much freedom as Moscow allows.
Instead, Eastern Europe ditched the Russian empire of misery on the first opportunity and never looked back, and that's what he was so bitter about. He hoped that the West would prop up his crumbling colonial empire.
When it comes to any clear assurances, even Gorbachev says NO. Is there anyone from the Soviet side who has actually confirmed it or is it pure western self-flaggelation?
>> I'll go with his version of the events and their significance.
It's not even his version. You've just cherry-picked a single sentence, attributed significance over all else, and ignore everything else he says, and what other contemporary participants have said, and the historic context of it all.
> When it comes to any clear assurances, even Gorbachev says NO. Is there anyone from the Soviet side who has actually confirmed it or is it pure western self-flaggelation?
Do you have trouble reading? Clearly the agreement was completely non-binding and informal. This was stated from the start, multiple times.
There was never any agreement, because a suggestion of even such agreement is anachronistic garbage.
I'll let Soviet foreign minister Shevardnadze explain it:
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: In February 1990, Germany's foreign minister at the time, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured you that "NATO will not expand to the east," and that states like Poland and Hungary could never be part of the military alliance. Because the conversion had revolved mainly around East Germany, Genscher even became more explicit, saying that: "As far as the non-expansion of NATO is concerned, this also applies in general." According to reports, you replied that you believed everything he said. So why didn't you get this commitment from NATO on paper?
>> Shevardnadze: Times have changed. At the time we couldn't believe that the Warsaw Pact could be dissolved. It was beyond our realm of comprehension. None of the participating countries had doubts about the Warsaw Pact. And the three Baltic states, which are now part of NATO, were still part of the Soviet Union then. Eventually, we agreed that a united Germany could be part of NATO under certain conditions. For example, a national army limited to 370,000 members and Germany waives the right to nuclear weapons. An expansion of NATO beyond Germany's borders was out of the question.
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: At the end of March 1990, Genscher and the then US Secretary of State James Baker, talked about the fact that there was interest among "central European states" about getting into NATO. You knew nothing of this?
>> Shevardnadze: This is the first I've heard of it.
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: Did you have a conversation with your colleagues in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary about a possible eastward expansion of NATO in the spring of 1990?
>> Shevardnadze: No, that was never discussed in my presence.
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: The German documents give the impression that Moscow counted on the dissolution of both the Warsaw Pact and NATO. Did you really think that would happen?
>> Shevardnadze: That may have been discussed after I resigned from the ministry of foreign affairs in December 1990. However during my time in office it was not.
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: In May 1990, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev brought up the subject of the Soviet Union joining NATO during talks with the Americans. The Americans took that very seriously.
>> Shevardnadze: Gorbachev had that idea but he never took any realistic steps towards achieving this. Which is why it was never really discussed amongst the Soviet leaders.
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: Was the eastward expansion of NATO ever discussed in the inner circles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1990?
>> Shevardnadze: The question never came up.
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: Did the subject play a role in the ratification process of the Two-Plus-Four agreement (where the signatories included the two Germanys and the four powers that occupied Germany after World War II) that unified Germany?
>> Shevardnadze: No, there were no difficulties whatsoever with the ratification process.
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: Nevertheless, the eastward expansion happened a few years later. Did you feel, at the time, that the German diplomats deceived you?
>> Shevardnadze: No. When I was the minister of foreign affairs in the Soviet Union, NATO's expansion beyond the German borders never came up for negotiation. To this day I don't see anything terrible in NATO's expansion.
> There was never any agreement, because a suggestion of even such agreement is anachronistic garbage.
That’s fine. You either lack reading comprehension (see previous replies) or judge the material to be “not an agreement”.
And that’s okay. Because you don’t contest—or if you are you are failing at it—the claim that verbal statements about NATO non-expansion[1] were made by the Western representatives in the general direction of the Soviet representatives. Which was the claim that I have been proving ever since the first reply[2] to my comment.
[1] Choosing my words carefully here in order to not trigger your “agreement” firewall.
The only one lacking reading comprehension here are you, if you want to go down the path of personal insults.
"Verbal statements" and "in the general direction" is an unconvincing attempt to turn history on its head.
Many things were said as the USSR was falling apart, but no-one from the Soviet side has ever elevated them to the level of an agreement that countries should abide by. Hence why Russia didn't protest when former Warsaw Pact countries joined NATO.
The narrative appeared 17 years later when Putin started looking for ways to isolate Georgia prior to invasion.
> Many things were said as the USSR was falling apart, but no-one from the Soviet side has ever elevated them to the level of an agreement that countries should abide by. Hence why Russia didn't protest when former Warsaw Pact countries joined NATO.
Of course these officials are not going to say that there was some formal agreement since there was none in the first place.
I have never said that there was a formal agreement. I have never said that the talks produced some kind of proof-of-agreement. I have never said that there was anything binding about it.
Now stop pestering me with this irrelevant side-topic that only you care about.
> The narrative appeared 17 years later when Putin started looking for ways to isolate Georgia prior to invasion.
“The invasion”. You’re supposed to use the definitive article here.
As a Danish guy who has been to both Ukraine and Eastern Germany I'm fine with undoing German unification and handing Eastern Germany to Russia and letting Ukraine into NATO.
This is just plain spreading pro-Russian narrative, while Russia plans to commit yet another disaster, this time nuclear one. Guess that will be just another bullet point on pathetic "NATO made me do this" bingo menu.
Like everything else this guy has put out in regard to this conflict -- it's just pure mindfuck, right from the first paragraph.
That said - it's very adroitly written and well-organized mindfuck, and it's very easy to skim the points it's trying to make, and really - you'd be doing yourself a disservice by letting yourself become too reliable on GPT.
Or even worse -- on having other people run it through GPT for you.
Posting Russian propaganda is cringe, and sharing it is, too.
Russia wiped out any gains they faced from this conflict after the initial push failed to steamroll Kyiv. By utilizing their armed forces against a conventional military capable of mounting anything more than an insurgency, Russia tipped their hand and let everybody know the military prowess the world had assumed they had was smoke and mirrors.
Russia lost any chance of victory once the US decided to start offering overt aid. The US's military-industrial complex, without even wartime level ramp-up, has demonstrated the ability to keep Ukraine well enough equipped to maintain technological superiority indefinitely. Meanwhile Russia is raiding museums.
The best case scenario for Russia at this point is to use their ability to prolong the conflict as a bargaining chip, possibly to keep control of Crimea. Meanwhile, the US gets an ally spitting distance from Moscow, and Russia is humiliated on the world stage. In the worst case, infighting within Moscow shatters Russia into a pile of disorganized warlord states.
That's, of course, assuming the war remains conventional. If, as the author of this insipid piece suggests, a losing Moscow resorts to nuclear combat...
Everybody dies. Moscow can't risk the US interpreting their nuclear strike on Ukraine as provocation of a first (second? eh) strike, so they would have to preemptively target the US. The US knows this so they would be firing everything we've got to try and knock out Russia's ability to retaliate. And we wouldn't just be hitting Russia. US doctrine says that in nuclear war, we target everybody who poses a threat. Millions of uninvolved Chinese would die. It's a shit show all around.
Which is why it's a ridiculous farce of a scenario. Russia knows they lose a nuclear war, and they lose it far worse than "Oh, Moscow and its surrounding land are now a minor country", they lose it in a "Everything and everybody we ever cared about dies in nuclear fire" sort of way.
80 comments
[ 5.2 ms ] story [ 156 ms ] threadI think this is exaggerating a little bit. Ukraine (of course) "only" wants to get all its occupied territories back, which sounds reasonable. Plus reparations for the damage caused, and to join NATO to prevent this from happening again. Which would however be unacceptable for Putin, who has set off to conquer the whole of Ukraine and would end up with thousands of soldiers killed and less territory than he started out with. So, even if the goal is not "total defeat", still not going to happen...
No it won't. Once US provides ATACMS the war will be effectively over.
Ukraine will be able to reach all corners of Crimea and the Donbas with high-precision missiles cutting off all supply lines and ground based communications. And this isn't a hypothetical situation since we've already seen what Ukraine has been doing with Storm Shadow.
The only reason US hasn't ended this earlier is because it's in their interest to drag this out and cause not only a military default for Russia but also end Putins' reign. The fact that all of the West media magically found out that Surovikin was working for Wagner indicates that there is a lot of political warfare from the US as well.
I would also add that Russia has effectively lost the war after they couldn't capture Kyiv in 3 days. Now Russia is putting off the inevitable by continuing to send Russian men to their deaths in Ukraine.
Currently Russia is scraping the bottom of the barrel by using T-54/T-55 tanks:
https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/16744726598185205...
Meanwhile Ukraine is getting equipped with modern vehicles, the latest tanks, and F-16 airplanes.
I don;'t think this is a at all the 'only' reason, but it certainly stands to reason, and it is exactly what they should continue to do.
pushing for a ukraine victory while putin is still in place might well trigger a 'cornered rat' response. Exhaust them, to the point that they are unable to fight on, and the regime will perhaps collapse on it's own.
You can have fun believing made-up stuff if you want.
Meanwhile, there are far-more obvious and pragmatic factors involved. These systems need to be re-engineered somewhat, and tracking systems put in place to ensure the Ukrainians don't do what they're not supposed to do.
And other reasons. But again, you seem to have made up your mind about what you want to believe.
He’s also as pro-America as you would expect any American in that academic field to be. He’s just coming at it from a Realist perspective.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
He also treats the fake referendum conducted by Russia after Russia seized Crimea as matter of fact despite it being completely fake and made up
He has an extremely biased view which is 100% inline with Russian propaganda and not shared by anybody in the West
There's no conclusive proof that this is what happened. No official investigation has taken place (or has been concluded) and Ukrainian authorities have shown time and again that there was no political will to really discover how the events unfolded. (Ukrainian authorities have also been "reprimanded" for this lack of investigation by the EU or UNHCR, can't remember now and I don't have time to look for a source).
There are several alternative reconstructions of the events, for example the one by Ivan Katchanovski[1] which has also published several hours of original footage on his YouTube channel[2]. I would suggest anyone with an open mind to take a look at those.
I would be really wary of making unsubstantiated claims like those on events that are this controversial.
[1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2658245
[2] https://www.youtube.com/@IvanKatchanovskiPhD
Ah from the reconstructions's you pick the one from the person who is heavily quoted by Russian propaganda outlets thats super surprising.
If you want some rigorous examination of the events, ones that aren't described by academics as' "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven"'
Then id suggest you look at the Carnegie-Mellon reconstruction which refutes pretty much all his claims.
http://maidan.situplatform.com
Why not quote the full sentence?
> Katchanovski's original paper was criticised by David R. Marples. Marples called it "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven", but also acknowledged that Katchanovski "has raised some new evidence that suggests new investigations into the sniper massacres are much needed," that "the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome and his gathering of new material is commendable," and that "his paper does provide evidence that there were several separate groups of snipers, including anti-government ones."
I'd like to particularly emphasize:
> the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome
> there were several separate groups of snipers, including anti-government ones."
The fact that he is quoted by Russian media is irrelevant. If that is enough for you to automatically discredit it, that says more about you and your unwillingness to examine alternative versions of this story rather than the story itself.
BTW, keep in my mind that I never said this alternative version is the truth. I'm just noticing that it exists and that the official version has too many holes to just drop sentences like this:
> He fails to mention that the protestors were killed by sniper fire by Yanukovych
He's not quoted by Russian media, how's quoted by media that nearly exclusively posts information that is Russian propaganda.
Theres a difference.
By they way, you conveniently glossed over all the other points, where even the same person *you* quoted admitted the huge problems with the current narrative.
It was a comment on how you seem to pick sources really.
> By they way, you conveniently glossed over all the other points, where even the same person you quoted admitted the huge problems with the current narrative.
What problems are these? its hard to tell.
You said:
> If you want some rigorous examination of the events, ones that aren't described by academics as' "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven"'
Then ailef proposed this quote as the “full context”:
> > Katchanovski's original paper was criticised by David R. Marples. Marples called it "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven", but also acknowledged that Katchanovski "has raised some new evidence that suggests new investigations into the sniper massacres are much needed," that "the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome and his gathering of new material is commendable," and that "his paper does provide evidence that there were several separate groups of snipers, including anti-government ones."
The pertinent part seems to be “the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome and his gathering of new material is commendable”.
Mostly, yes.
Not because of that, but its not really an example of the bias you discuss producing the wrong result.
So your reply is a non sequitur?
Doesn't that lecture also say that he doesn't think Putin would try and capture all of Ukraine?, thats exactly what he's trying to do right now.
And how could you possibly know that? The article highlights how this is most likely not the final goal of the Russian aggression against Ukraine and provides logical and rational reasons as to why.
Because Russian media (RIA Novosti, which is the Russian government owned domestic news agency). literally posted a article congratulating Putin on capturing Ukraine?.
They outed their own intentions from the start.
You can read it here yourself if you want.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20...
Is this supposed to be a comprehensible sentence fragment?
When Putin is telling us Putin wants to capture all of Ukraine.
I would say they are reliable yes.
Just like when Russian media says they should destroy more dams in Ukraine I believe them.
No amount of evidence would satisfy you, you literally have a primary source (the government) telling you their intentions and you are trying to reject it.
Please note that this is different from statements like "bring Ukraine in the Russian sphere of influence" or similar things. Unless you wanna conflate military objectives with geopolitical ones.
>> Ukraine gained independence in 1991 as the Soviet Union dissolved (this is just for reference).
>> Russia is restoring its unity - the tragedy of 1991, this terrible catastrophe of our history, its unnatural dislocation, have been overcome. Yes, at a high price, yes, through the tragic events of the virtual civil war, because now brothers separated by belonging to the Russian and Ukrainian armies are still shooting at each other - but Ukraine will no longer be anti-Russia. Russia is restoring its historical fullness by gathering the Russian world, the Russian people together - in its entirety of Great Russians, Belarusians and Little Russians. If we had abandoned this, allowed temporary division to gain a foothold for centuries, we would not only betray the memory of our ancestors, but would also be cursed by our descendants - for allowing the collapse of the Russian land.
>> Now there is no problem - Ukraine has returned to Russia. This does not mean that its statehood will be eliminated, but it will be rebuilt, re-esturbished and returned to its natural state of part of the Russian world.
Did you even read it?.
They might mean that or might not, but it's not explicitly stated. You are choosing one possible interpretation and sticking to it like it's the only one.
I mean, just look at it:
>> Russia is restoring its unity - the tragedy of 1991, this terrible catastrophe of our history, its unnatural dislocation, have been overcome.
Adjusted for the sensitivities of western audiences:
>> Germany is restoring its unity - the tragedy of 1918, this terrible catastrophe of our history, its unnatural dislocation, have been overcome.
The subtext is abundantly clear.
He said that some claim that Putin would try to conquer all of Ukraine. All of it.[1] He said that that would be a mistake and that Putin is “too smart” to do that. And what does Russia care about Western Ukraine?
He also said that it would be a mistake for Russia to get bogged down in Ukraine for a long time. So then it depends on whether you think Russia is already “bogged down”; then either Mearsheimer changed his mind or else he’s contradicting himself.
[1] There was also the outlandish “try to re-establish Greater Russia” which is a bit absurd since Russia doesn’t have the capacity to do that even if it wanted to (2015 Mearsheimer said either that Putin does want that or that he may want that).
There are reports of serious infighting between Russian FSB and MoD.
Just days after Wagner demonstrated clearly they could take Moscow if they wanted to.
The days Wagner marched on Moscow were literally the worst day for the Russian airforce in something like 50 years.
They lost something like 6 aircraft in a single day, with something along the lines of 12 airmen.
> Things are looking ever more grim for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people (who at the end of the day are really those that suffer/will suffer the most).
I don't see how things look even more grim for Ukraine? theres fights going on in the Russian MoD, top generals are missing rumoured to be under house arrest.
A PMC took over a town and got 200km from Moscow with only something like 8k troops.
It makes it look like Russia is entirely unable to defend its own borders, and like Putin has partially lost control.
How can this be a convincing argument in the 21st century?
And remind me who forced Finland and Sweden to join NATO just a few months ago ?
Sure seems like they did this on their own volition given it passed their parliamentary processes.
Theres been a Chinese spy base in Cuba for two years at this point, and yet no invasion.
Russia has had its border with NATO extended greatly by this war, by Finland joining, and yet no war with Finland.
(In his 2015 lecture he contrasted 21st century people (the Washington Establishment) with 19th century people (people like himself and “the Chinese”).)
Basically the West including USA and some others promised that NATO would not “move one inch” eastward in return for German unification. That was under Gorbachev. That was only an oral agreement though and funnily enough Gorbachev now has denied that such an agreement was made… not that it matters that much, really.
Which is not true. https://hls.harvard.edu/today/there-was-no-promise-not-to-en...
> Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
That list includes James Baker, his former boss.
[1] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017...
> M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country
https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbac...
But all of those declassified documents weigh heavier than his words.
Who’s next? Bush Sr.?
This is such a pig-headed and unreasonable stance that it doesn’t warrant a real response.
Let's see what Soviet foreign minister Shevardnadze had to say: https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-e...
Denies that the subject even came up with Western representatives, Warsaw Pact leaders or Communist Party leadership. As he points out, nobody foresaw collapse of Warsaw Pact, so there was simply no reason to discuss anything like it. That would've made as much sense as discussing in 1999 what to build on World Trade Center grounds. Nobody knew that the WTC area would become a pile of rubble in two years' time.
Please don’t lie. Der Spiegel mentions Hans-Dietrich Genscher who said that “NATO will not expand to the east”—who is also mentioned in my link of course—and then Shevardnadze says that:
> Eventually, we agreed that a united Germany could be part of NATO under certain conditions. […] AN EXPANSION OF NATO BEYOND GERMANY’S BORDERS WAS OUT OF THE QUESTION.
All-caps is mine since people seem to be hard of hearing or something.
> As he points out, nobody foresaw collapse of Warsaw Pact, so there was simply no reason to discuss anything like it.
Oof, such a nice attempt at muddying the waters.
The intro question does not question the fact that NATO expansion was discussed at all (on the contrary it confirms it); it only asks why it wasn’t demanded in writing.
> So why didn't you get this commitment from NATO on paper?
Which was already indirectly stated by myself (I said “oral agreement, which I’m sure you can nitpick to death as well).[1]
So I see that you are trying to conflate the fact that non-expansion was assented to verbally with the apparent totally unrelated fact that Soviet bigwigs didn’t see the point of worrying themselves about getting any actual guarantees from the Western elites since apparently (them being short-sighted, or not-caring) that wasn’t a real threat or concern to them.
These things are completely unrelated. Shevardnadze has, through that interview, affirmed that the Westerners talked to them about non-expansion of NATO. And yet here you come and blurt out that he either wasn’t concerned about NATO expansion, isn’t concerned right now, or both. Huh? That doesn’t contradict anything that I’ve said and is just completely irrelevant.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36534571
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: Was the eastward expansion of NATO ever discussed in the inner circles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1990?
>> Shevardnadze: The question never came up.
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: Nevertheless, the eastward expansion happened a few years later. Did you feel, at the time, that the German diplomats deceived you?
>> Shevardnadze: No. When I was the minister of foreign affairs in the Soviet Union, NATO's expansion beyond the German borders never came up for negotiation. To this day I don't see anything terrible in NATO's expansion.
Couldn't be more clear.
There's not a single Soviet representative who has said that yes, we had an agreement, and that it was violated. No paper trail of any kind either (discussion papers, meeting notes, personal diaries). It's a made up story.
> An expansion of NATO beyond Germany's borders was out of the question.
From your own link.
I don’t know what the hell he meant by “not came up for negotation”. Someone could tell me that I will definitely get five hot dogs for lunch and then I can later say that it “never came up for negotation” since I never cared about hot dogs to begin with. (What do I care whether he personally cared about Nato expansion or not? That’s irrelevant!) Dead politicians.
You’re just mincing words (“agreement”) at this point, which I have already addressed.
Thankfully he clarifies that by saying "the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact was beyond our realm of comprehension".
The USSR was hosting elite divisions and nuclear weapons in Poland at the time and didn't expect anything to change, what was there to discuss or negotiate?
The main question that came up was whether Americans would roll their tanks up to Polish border after German reunification, THAT is the "eastward expansion" they discussed.
So far no-one have disproved the fact that Westerns were talking at the Soviets about non-expansion. Which was my claim. That this Georgian didn’t care about it because he didn’t see any threat of expansion is irrelevant.
Thanks.
The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990.
I take his word over yours.
> M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility.
Which just confirms, that there was no such agreement.
But what Gorby said above is much more important than the simple lack of a written agreement.
Instead, Eastern Europe ditched the Russian empire of misery on the first opportunity and never looked back, and that's what he was so bitter about. He hoped that the West would prop up his crumbling colonial empire.
When it comes to any clear assurances, even Gorbachev says NO. Is there anyone from the Soviet side who has actually confirmed it or is it pure western self-flaggelation?
As pertains to this matter - I'll go with his version of the events and their significance.
You can go along with whatever you like.
It's not even his version. You've just cherry-picked a single sentence, attributed significance over all else, and ignore everything else he says, and what other contemporary participants have said, and the historic context of it all.
It's whatever you want it to be then, I suppose.
Look, I think we're done here. Read and cherry pick whatever you want, and go to town with it - as suits your fancy.
Do you have trouble reading? Clearly the agreement was completely non-binding and informal. This was stated from the start, multiple times.
I'll let Soviet foreign minister Shevardnadze explain it:
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: In February 1990, Germany's foreign minister at the time, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured you that "NATO will not expand to the east," and that states like Poland and Hungary could never be part of the military alliance. Because the conversion had revolved mainly around East Germany, Genscher even became more explicit, saying that: "As far as the non-expansion of NATO is concerned, this also applies in general." According to reports, you replied that you believed everything he said. So why didn't you get this commitment from NATO on paper?
>> Shevardnadze: Times have changed. At the time we couldn't believe that the Warsaw Pact could be dissolved. It was beyond our realm of comprehension. None of the participating countries had doubts about the Warsaw Pact. And the three Baltic states, which are now part of NATO, were still part of the Soviet Union then. Eventually, we agreed that a united Germany could be part of NATO under certain conditions. For example, a national army limited to 370,000 members and Germany waives the right to nuclear weapons. An expansion of NATO beyond Germany's borders was out of the question.
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: At the end of March 1990, Genscher and the then US Secretary of State James Baker, talked about the fact that there was interest among "central European states" about getting into NATO. You knew nothing of this?
>> Shevardnadze: This is the first I've heard of it.
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: Did you have a conversation with your colleagues in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary about a possible eastward expansion of NATO in the spring of 1990?
>> Shevardnadze: No, that was never discussed in my presence.
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: The German documents give the impression that Moscow counted on the dissolution of both the Warsaw Pact and NATO. Did you really think that would happen?
>> Shevardnadze: That may have been discussed after I resigned from the ministry of foreign affairs in December 1990. However during my time in office it was not.
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: In May 1990, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev brought up the subject of the Soviet Union joining NATO during talks with the Americans. The Americans took that very seriously.
>> Shevardnadze: Gorbachev had that idea but he never took any realistic steps towards achieving this. Which is why it was never really discussed amongst the Soviet leaders.
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: Was the eastward expansion of NATO ever discussed in the inner circles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1990?
>> Shevardnadze: The question never came up.
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: Did the subject play a role in the ratification process of the Two-Plus-Four agreement (where the signatories included the two Germanys and the four powers that occupied Germany after World War II) that unified Germany?
>> Shevardnadze: No, there were no difficulties whatsoever with the ratification process.
>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: Nevertheless, the eastward expansion happened a few years later. Did you feel, at the time, that the German diplomats deceived you?
>> Shevardnadze: No. When I was the minister of foreign affairs in the Soviet Union, NATO's expansion beyond the German borders never came up for negotiation. To this day I don't see anything terrible in NATO's expansion.
That’s fine. You either lack reading comprehension (see previous replies) or judge the material to be “not an agreement”.
And that’s okay. Because you don’t contest—or if you are you are failing at it—the claim that verbal statements about NATO non-expansion[1] were made by the Western representatives in the general direction of the Soviet representatives. Which was the claim that I have been proving ever since the first reply[2] to my comment.
[1] Choosing my words carefully here in order to not trigger your “agreement” firewall.
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36534745
"Verbal statements" and "in the general direction" is an unconvincing attempt to turn history on its head.
Many things were said as the USSR was falling apart, but no-one from the Soviet side has ever elevated them to the level of an agreement that countries should abide by. Hence why Russia didn't protest when former Warsaw Pact countries joined NATO.
The narrative appeared 17 years later when Putin started looking for ways to isolate Georgia prior to invasion.
Of course these officials are not going to say that there was some formal agreement since there was none in the first place.
I have never said that there was a formal agreement. I have never said that the talks produced some kind of proof-of-agreement. I have never said that there was anything binding about it.
Now stop pestering me with this irrelevant side-topic that only you care about.
> The narrative appeared 17 years later when Putin started looking for ways to isolate Georgia prior to invasion.
“The invasion”. You’re supposed to use the definitive article here.
So it was non existent then some in-person informal not written down agreement that is non binding means literally nothing.
Even more so when the country this totally real "informal non-binding" agreement is with collapses and ceases to exist.
Like everything else this guy has put out in regard to this conflict -- it's just pure mindfuck, right from the first paragraph.
That said - it's very adroitly written and well-organized mindfuck, and it's very easy to skim the points it's trying to make, and really - you'd be doing yourself a disservice by letting yourself become too reliable on GPT.
Or even worse -- on having other people run it through GPT for you.
Russia wiped out any gains they faced from this conflict after the initial push failed to steamroll Kyiv. By utilizing their armed forces against a conventional military capable of mounting anything more than an insurgency, Russia tipped their hand and let everybody know the military prowess the world had assumed they had was smoke and mirrors.
Russia lost any chance of victory once the US decided to start offering overt aid. The US's military-industrial complex, without even wartime level ramp-up, has demonstrated the ability to keep Ukraine well enough equipped to maintain technological superiority indefinitely. Meanwhile Russia is raiding museums.
The best case scenario for Russia at this point is to use their ability to prolong the conflict as a bargaining chip, possibly to keep control of Crimea. Meanwhile, the US gets an ally spitting distance from Moscow, and Russia is humiliated on the world stage. In the worst case, infighting within Moscow shatters Russia into a pile of disorganized warlord states.
That's, of course, assuming the war remains conventional. If, as the author of this insipid piece suggests, a losing Moscow resorts to nuclear combat...
Everybody dies. Moscow can't risk the US interpreting their nuclear strike on Ukraine as provocation of a first (second? eh) strike, so they would have to preemptively target the US. The US knows this so they would be firing everything we've got to try and knock out Russia's ability to retaliate. And we wouldn't just be hitting Russia. US doctrine says that in nuclear war, we target everybody who poses a threat. Millions of uninvolved Chinese would die. It's a shit show all around.
Which is why it's a ridiculous farce of a scenario. Russia knows they lose a nuclear war, and they lose it far worse than "Oh, Moscow and its surrounding land are now a minor country", they lose it in a "Everything and everybody we ever cared about dies in nuclear fire" sort of way.