Well first you got to get an agreement from some reasonable Chinese engineer that the drunk neighbour really does need tutelage, and then yes, peaceful skies...
That assumes we don't see tariffs as war while Russia, and presumably the poster, do consider it war. Otherwise both sides would acknowledge we're at (cold?) war.
Oh, you know. Shooting down a civilian airliner full of Dutch citizens. Poisoning people on British soil. Multiple times. Funding neo-NAZI or various far-right political parties. Blatant sabotage and espionage.
We've been appeasing Russia since the 1990s, and the only thing we've gotten in return is constant Russian escalation (Georgia 2008, Ukraine 2014, Ukraine 2022, sabotage galore, ...)
What we do see is that when Ukraine or anyone else tramples their red lines (Finland, Sweden joining NATO) nothing happens.
If they dare hit us with something they do it regardless of what we're doing. Very hard to see how we get out of this short of the Putin regime falling.
People like you really do want to see the world burn...
At what point do you admit that you just don't understand Russia at all? Because if your understanding matched reality Russian people would have overthrown Putin two years ago, just like every Western newspaper and magazine said.
Basically what you are saying is: we keep escalating and they still haven't hit the big red button. Do you really think a decision to do that would come that easily? Why would it be done when unprovoked?
Lastly, this type of behavior - keep trying one's luck to see how far boundaries can be pushed - is what toddlers do. Maybe grow up?
The comment I responded to basically said this verbatim. The russkies don't actually have any red lines, so just hit them. Now: Stalin didn't actually start a nuclear war (though he could have). These "civilized Europeans" who are pushing for escalation are therefore more evil than Stalin.
Russia has been undermining democracies all over the world since puttin' came to power, sometimes from shadows sometimes not so much. US elections, any EU elections, heck my own country had or maybe still has a very healthy FSB/GRU community meddling into anything they can, and parts of political spectrum especially far right is literally on their payrolls. Seems a ridiculous claim, but all far right organizations in central/east Europe switched from focusing on their national sovereignty into uncritical open russia support within last decade, which goes directly against their core principles.
Russia (well its cleptocratic corrupt leadership) is as much afraid of democracy as US was of communism in 50s - seen as existential threat to 'russian way'. This doesn't represent opinion of population, but in such regime their opinion is largely irrelevant, and they know well to bow down and be quiet or else.
And Europe is top target - geographically closest, russia feels they should export their glory as far as they can, and also not so homogenous so feeding confrontations within block, ie by supporting folks like Orban or now also Fico.
That's one extreme example, Assange has literally leaked the raw footage and names of operatives.
Plenty of people speak out and oppose the government in the US and have for a long time, all without going to jail. In Russia opposition leaders are jailed and die. Even ordinary citizens are jailed for speaking publicly.
The US has also gone through several transfers of power replacing the head of state.
He leaked raw footage of a war crime. Thats it. Thats all. Did the US put the war criminals in prison? Fuck no. They put the guy who leaked the footage of the war crime in prison.
Ive met plenty of Putin supporters and they downplay and excuse these kinds of abuses in exactly the same way you just did. It's two sides of the exact same coin.
My argument is that it's a false equivalence. Both are bad. Yet Assange breathes and is finally free. Navaly is dead. People who merely attended his funeral risked prison time.
It's a matter of degree, not overall nature. They're both imperial powers. Russia tends to be more brutal towards internal dissidents; America overthrows more democracies and is generally more invasion happy.
Navalny was also pretty obviously a western stooge with western backing, made popular by western propaganda, pushing a pro western agenda, whereas Assange was just a dissident who exposed a war crime whom western imperialists tried to paint (really pathetically) as a Russian spy.
It's like arguing over whether the crips or the bloods are different because one had a lower body count this year or something.
The westerners who protest navalny or get incensed about Russia's human rights record remind me of the multitude of Soviets in the 1950s who used to protest Jim Crow and lynchings in America.
Gotta say though, between the kindergartener ass finger pointing game you manage to force people here into playing, this comment of yours reminded me of a Pink Guy song.
In that, Pink Guy laments about how much he hates black people for hogging all the girls. But then the narrative slowly transitions towards this borderline homoerotic hymn about how effortlessly muscular they are, and how massive their dongs tend to be. Just a thought.
People who complain about America secretly love it? Then I guess the American patriots have nothing to complain about. Just closeted and repressed patriotism.
The most ridiculous whataboutism I've seen this week.
... it's almost like one could be opposed to both imperialisms? But also realize that Russia's variety is even worse ?
Here's the key difference between American imperialism and Russian imperialism: when the US invaded Iraq (or Vietnam, or meddled in Nicaragua & El Salvador etc) hundreds of thousands took to the streets and actively opposed it and worked (unsuccessfully) to stop it.
Where are the Russians doing the same about the war in Ukraine?
Putin & Lavrov's bootlickers should try a new line of attack. This one got stale a long time ago.
The people that count are awake, they're just doing nothing as, despite realising that Russia has a crap military, its considerably easier to let Ukraine fight with both hands tied behind their backs.
It seems to be another case of 'but who will replace pootin...but, guess what folks - he's going to die eventually.
You're right that the situation is complicated, but helping Ukraine now is necessary. Leadership in Russia will change eventually, but we can't wait for that to happen before taking action.
> And who might have an advantage if it were sabotaged?
Basically everyone on both sides? Gazprom gets out of a now money-losing sanctioned black hole that had already gone bankrupt months earlier. Russia gets to sow dissension between allies over the whodunit. Germany gets a "well, nothing we can do" excuse if the winter had been nasty and public pressure built to push Ukraine to surrender.
Just because they are rattling their rattler doesn’t mean they don’t also have ability to bite. War hawks like to test the opponent in hopes the opponent is rational.
One hopes Russia, North Korea and China remain rational. Yet they retain the ability to strike and underestimating that is foolish.
Those were escalations not red lines, and Putin has not threatened a nuclear response to anything Ukraine has done (or even anything it could feasibly do).
The western media declares pretty much every escalation step to be a crossed red line though. This meme has reached new heights of absurdity.
Edit:
* No, Putin did not threaten to nuke anyone if Sweden joined NATO. A western newspaper might have declared it to be a red line. It's not a red line.
* No, Putin did not threaten to nuke anyone if Finland joined NATO. A western newspaper might have declared it to be a red line. It's not a red line.
* No, Putin did not threaten to use nukes if Ukraine invaded pre 2014 Russian territory or fired drones at refineries. A western newspaper might have declared it to be a red line. It's not a red line.
* No, "Putin said something vaguely ominous about nukes" is not drawing a red line.
I welcome your "not a red line" interpretation of quotes like these:
> Dmitry Medvedev, who serves as deputy chairman of Putin’s powerful security council, was more explicit in January. “The defeat of a nuclear power in a conventional war may trigger a nuclear war,” he said. - https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/01/...
> Anticipating international condemnation and countermeasures, Putin issued a stark warning to other countries not to meddle, saying, “whoever tries to impede us, let alone create threats for our country and its people, must know that the Russian response will be immediate and lead to the consequences you have never seen in history.” https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/russia-launches-attacks-u...
> Those were escalations not red lines, and Putin has not threatened a nuclear response to anything Ukraine has done (or even anything it could feasibly do).
Putin threatened nukes if Sweden and Finland joined NATO, but I'm sure that's just a meme as well.
Are Ukraine's rather successful incursion into Russian territory and successful strikes against oil refineries and airfields deep inside Russian territory escalations or red lines?
I can never tell which is which with Russian apologists
The Polish foreign minister already let slip some months ago what's probably really going on behind the scenes -- the US has made it clear to Russia through back channels that any use of "tactical" nukes would be met with the uncorked arsenal of US or NATO conventional forces along the front line in Ukraine. That's, I believe, a legit red line that Russia cannot cross.
As for so-called "strategic" nuclear weapons, nobody is that stupid.
Russia knows full well what it's up against and that it's an inferior force in all respects. All the bluster from idiots like Medvedev is for domestic audiences.
What they can't take by force in Ukraine they'll ruin, covering it in minefields and destroyed cities. If they can't have it, they want it destroyed as an internal example of what happens if you try to toss off their kleptocracy. Belarus among others I'm sure are watching closely.
> We really don't want open war between the Western powers and Russia.
True. But unfortunately Putin loves playing on that fact to keep us frozen and hesistant to send aid.
Ukraine’s recent advance into Kursk shows you how little his supposed red lines actually exist.
And to the often held claim that NATO is a threat to Russia and is to blame for making Russia move into Ukraine, Russia’s actions in Ukraine betray this little myth. They’re depleting the stocks of expensive tactical ballistic missiles as well as very expensive high end surface-to-air missiles by hucking them at even tiniest targets in Ukraine.
This isn’t what you would do if you were actually worried about needing to confront aggressive, well funded western neighbors later.
In one of those ironies that seem to populate modern life, the now public ineptitude of the Russian military in Ukraine has in fact given some western military leaders an inkling that directly taking on the Russians is a viable option.
It’s Russia whose the one that can’t afford more open war than they already have.
They can’t even handle their current one against single country with NATO hand-me-downs.
Russia would love nothing more than to scare people into cutting Ukraine off, but most aren’t dumb enough to fall for that anymore. Russia is ruled by a raging narcissist, but the people that carry out his orders are gangsters who want luxury and power, not an ideological suicide.
The “we are strong, muh nukes” is really meant for Russian television.
Consider that the theatre of international relations and politics is only one, and that behind the scenes there is a bigger narrative at work around trade and corporate power and most importantly the oil and gas sector.
There are many in the investor class who have interests in both Russian and Western oil & gas companies. And under the Trump administration the same people even openly penetrated the official state executive (Rex Tillerson, etc.)
The spectre of climate change -- or more particularly what state actors might actually eventually attempt to do about it -- unites those people more than national borders divide them. Number must go up.
Most of the song and dance about the Russo-Ukrainian war is about this. Nordstream 2 being only one part of it.
The most insightful comment I have seen in this thread.
It assumes a single investment context, the global (read: western) financial system, right?
Is the latter more firmly wedded to the idea of growth than the rest of the world, or is that an illusion? Consider the (unsuccessful but suggestive) attempts to establish a commodities-backed currency by BRICS. Is this an attempt to sustain growth by alternative means, or to preempt and manage its end?
My impression is a system in which the national interest takes a backseat to investor interests can't contemplate reform in which the number might cease to go up, because growth is a load-bearing feature of governance (read: those in and with a hotline to government want growth for their own benefit, and need it to secure the support of a population which has also come to expect it). Some nations, while heavily dependent on the global financial system, have maintained at least the semblance of sovereignty, on the other hand, and may be able to consider the situation in (slightly) more realistic terms.
Of course, decline is nearly as ripe for exploitation as growth, while perhaps requiring more expenditure in narrative construction, so I hazard no guess on which system prefaces a more humane future.
> It assumes a single investment context, the global (read: western) financial system, right?
Why should it? Capital accumulation and trade happens regardless of the currency or method of exchange. It will find a way to flow. All that is solid melts into air.
That is exactly what Russia is aiming for. A few wires and fences, maybe a misguided rocket on NATO soil. It will not lead to a confrontation. But it will lead to a public cry to increase our own defences. That could only happen at the expense of the Ukrainian support.
Not really. Most of Europe has already been supporting Ukraine while also working on building up their own militaries. Seeing one of your neighbors get invaded is a great incentive to increase total defense spending.
The news I have been reading was a, Ukraine is using more than NATO is producing (hence, we are depleting) and b, production is ramping up very slow.
Small fun fact when I was in the military: we had to shoot as much as possible because the ammunition was approaching shelf live. I have shot thousands of rounds while enjoying myself with the MAG. A decade later a politician suggested the military to shout 'pang! pang!' because they had no rounds to practice with. The ammunition factory (where my brother in law worked) was closed down and military compounds were converted to housing. But yes, military spending is going up fast, but this will not be in time to help Ukraine.
But production is ramping. And no one has any illusions left about Russia, so once stocks get high, they're going to stay high. The factories are going to keep running until Europe has far more arms than before. Besides, most of Europe's weapons practically had Russia's name on them already, and they're doing the job of holding back Russian imperialism more effectively in Ukraine than they would at home. Russia won't be launching offensives into more of Europe before they can catch their breath, production-wise.
Disarming your enemy by absorbing their bullets in your troops and tanks is a really bad strategy. Putin was safer when Europe was complacent.
Europe talks about ramping up production, not sure if that is actually happening.
> Disarming your enemy by absorbing their bullets in your troops and tanks is a really bad strategy.
Certainly, losing 1k+/day of your own men (imagine the logistics of that) and shooting women and children first is horrible. But it is a winning strategy. Russia is ramping up much much faster, they switched to a war economy. And they managed to show economic growth.
I suppose we agree, support for Ukraine is top priority and we need to turn around to achieve that.
Hardly a winning strategy if you can only do it once, IMO. Russia has already consumed a huge fraction of their Soviet legacy of equipment, and their demographics are in trouble for the foreseeable future.
But yes, I'd like to see aid to Ukraine increase to the point they can actually win, not just bog Russia down.
> But it is a winning strategy. Russia is ramping up much much faster, they switched to a war economy. And they managed to show economic growth.
No, this is not a winning strategy for Russia and they will absolutely lose a war of attrition ad long as the weet continues to support Ukraine.
The "economic growth" Russia is claiming is not real. Their numbers are made up and dumping everything into producing war material artificially props up the economic growth values, but it's not actual growth.
> Europe talks about ramping up production, not sure if that is actually happening.
It is happening, all right. There are four large ammunitions companies in Europe -- all are expanding. Pretty much every NATO country is increasing defense spending.
At the same time, it's true that a lot of it is empty bluster. The UK and Germany, in particular, think budget cuts are more important than defense spending and are holding back. On the other extreme are countries like Poland, headed for defense spending of 5% of GDP. So it's a mixed bag, but the overall curve is sharply up.
> pushed into the meat grinder to satisfy some unholy combination of military profiteering, resource colonialism, bad foreign policy, and hubris.
Or, you know, not to be the victims of genocide?
> Recall a leading diplomat in the West promised Gorbachev not to move NATO "an inch to the east" as the Soviet Union fell.
Ah, the old "NATO forced Russia to start a genocide" bullshit.
The only reason NATO is expanding is the atrocities Russia is committing. If they don't want a _defense_ alliance close to their borders then maybe they should stop invading other countries?
> Do you think this is some kind of game?
No, I think it's a blatant example of fascist imperialism, and useful idiots who wants to bow to it.
Ukrainians know that no matter how horrific the war, Russian occupation is worse still. Recall reports that Ukrainians POWs are now just shot on the spot, not mention the horrors of Bucha and other nameless locations, the looting, everything.
It's incredible, Russia had so much goodwill in (at least parts of) Ukraine prior to Feb 2022 and messed that up so spectacularly.
All the mumblings about Russia at war with the US only started once Russia was humiliated in the first weeks of the war.
The problem with your simplistic analogy is that we as a society can afford to treat rapists harshly without having to worry that if we push the rapist too far, nuclear fireballs might suddenly appear over thousands of our city centers.
And what are we Americans getting in exchange for the risk of nuclear war's being much higher than it would otherwise be? We haven't been able to stop Moscow from continuing to take Ukrainian territory.
Czechoslovakia in 1938 is not the only relevant historical analog. Another analog might be Austria in 1945, which took great pains to placate the Soviets, a strategy that continued all throughout the Cold War, so for example Austria never joined NATO. And I think they banned political parties that made anti-Communism part of their platform. Placating turned out very well for Austrians because the Soviets removed its troops from Austrian territory in 1945 or 1946 (in exchange for the Western allies's removing its troops) and never attacked Austria. Finland also placated the Soviets during the same four decades, not joining NATO till last year, and again, it turned out well for the average Finn. So on the international level, it is not true that the smart move is always to resist or confront an aggressor.
But more importantly: while deciding to confront Moscow rather than placate it might be a rational move for Kiev, that does not automatically mean that it is in the US's interests to help Kiev confront Moscow. The idea that the US should act as some sort of world police or even police among the European nations is foolish IMHO, which is what a simplistic analogy with how a government treats rapists invites us to think.
Cut wires in Europe, blown up air bases and aircraft in Russia. I see such attempted sabotage as more of a cry of desperation.
EDIT also, NATO is doing more than nothing. The intelligence, the know how, some of the weaponry decimating Russia deep strategic assets and reserves are coming straight from Europe. I guess it's just better to keep a cool head about cut wires and keep on sending these supplies.
Has it even been confirmed that Russia did this? Anyone can cut a cable. This could be environmental groups. I highly doubt that Russia would do anything to a NATO air base, which would give NATO an excuse to do just what you demand.
They have been avoiding escalation with the West all the time.
Environmental groups capable of diving with explosives. ynow, thw same guys that accidentally spray paint the wrong airplane to protest or glue themselves to the ground
What explosives? The quoted Barents Observer says the cable had been cut. No major newspaper has picked up the story, in fact the interest remains as low as the interest for the alleged France Olympics railway cable sabotage.
It looks to me as if these relatively unimportant sabotage acts are used to stir up sentiment in social media. As we can see here, it works.
wait ... who again blew up nordstream 2? as far as i know it was ukraine with help from poland backed by the murica. and no it's not even a conspiracy theory anymore at this point.
Secondly, even if it was Ukraine it would be okay as it's a valid target during an ongoing war whereas a sabotage against Norway is not since they're not in an active war.
That nordstream mission damaged the country that invaded Ukraine and was a wake up call for rather pro-russian Germany government (or more like pro-russian-gas at any cost), its rather a typical spec ops and they didn't even try very hard to cover it up. Plus highly logical and considered as one of possibilities right after the attack.
Why would Ukraine attack NATO member when they receive all the help and support from them? No logical reason I can think of.
"Despite the war, Ukraine collects lucrative transit fees for Russian oil and gas estimated to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year."
So did Poland for a long time. No wonder they are against Nordstream, which circumvents the transit fees and the control.
Why would Ukraine do it? Both Ukraine and the U.S. have an interest in isolating Germany from Russia. If they did it, they might have thought that the investigation would not lead to them.
I smell a protest. French trains were disrupted prior to the olympics. Fiber lines are a soft target that crosses public land, often in remote locations, and so is very difficult to defend.
Well, then they will get fined but they will never pay because after some time some horse trading will be take place, for instance when the other countries need Hungary's vote for additional financial support for the Ukraine.
115 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 233 ms ] threadJust little things. Not warlike at all.
What we do see is that when Ukraine or anyone else tramples their red lines (Finland, Sweden joining NATO) nothing happens.
If they dare hit us with something they do it regardless of what we're doing. Very hard to see how we get out of this short of the Putin regime falling.
At what point do you admit that you just don't understand Russia at all? Because if your understanding matched reality Russian people would have overthrown Putin two years ago, just like every Western newspaper and magazine said.
Basically what you are saying is: we keep escalating and they still haven't hit the big red button. Do you really think a decision to do that would come that easily? Why would it be done when unprovoked?
Lastly, this type of behavior - keep trying one's luck to see how far boundaries can be pushed - is what toddlers do. Maybe grow up?
You... have things completely backwards.
Russia does seem to be the one agitating and pushing boundaries, especially when former Soviet states elect more independently minded governments.
Russia (well its cleptocratic corrupt leadership) is as much afraid of democracy as US was of communism in 50s - seen as existential threat to 'russian way'. This doesn't represent opinion of population, but in such regime their opinion is largely irrelevant, and they know well to bow down and be quiet or else.
And Europe is top target - geographically closest, russia feels they should export their glory as far as they can, and also not so homogenous so feeding confrontations within block, ie by supporting folks like Orban or now also Fico.
Plenty of people speak out and oppose the government in the US and have for a long time, all without going to jail. In Russia opposition leaders are jailed and die. Even ordinary citizens are jailed for speaking publicly.
The US has also gone through several transfers of power replacing the head of state.
Ive met plenty of Putin supporters and they downplay and excuse these kinds of abuses in exactly the same way you just did. It's two sides of the exact same coin.
Navalny was also pretty obviously a western stooge with western backing, made popular by western propaganda, pushing a pro western agenda, whereas Assange was just a dissident who exposed a war crime whom western imperialists tried to paint (really pathetically) as a Russian spy.
It's like arguing over whether the crips or the bloods are different because one had a lower body count this year or something.
The westerners who protest navalny or get incensed about Russia's human rights record remind me of the multitude of Soviets in the 1950s who used to protest Jim Crow and lynchings in America.
In that, Pink Guy laments about how much he hates black people for hogging all the girls. But then the narrative slowly transitions towards this borderline homoerotic hymn about how effortlessly muscular they are, and how massive their dongs tend to be. Just a thought.
No, people who complain about America like our guy did might.
> Then I guess the (...) patriots have nothing to complain about.
Do they ever?
... it's almost like one could be opposed to both imperialisms? But also realize that Russia's variety is even worse ?
Here's the key difference between American imperialism and Russian imperialism: when the US invaded Iraq (or Vietnam, or meddled in Nicaragua & El Salvador etc) hundreds of thousands took to the streets and actively opposed it and worked (unsuccessfully) to stop it.
Where are the Russians doing the same about the war in Ukraine?
Putin & Lavrov's bootlickers should try a new line of attack. This one got stale a long time ago.
Pretty sure a bunch of them got arrested early on for doing the same kind of protest stuff.
Guessing they've all either left or decided to keep their heads down for safety?
No one in Germany wants to be occupied by Russia again.
They said the same about Trump, yet Trump delivered more Javelins to Ukraine than Obama.
Also do you believe that Ukraine's success isn't partially because of West's help?
I'm not defending Russia,
I'm just telling you to stop being naive to believe that West is just bunch of idiots not doing anything to protect themselves
The people that count are awake, they're just doing nothing as, despite realising that Russia has a crap military, its considerably easier to let Ukraine fight with both hands tied behind their backs. It seems to be another case of 'but who will replace pootin...but, guess what folks - he's going to die eventually.
P.S.: Speaking of sabotage, what exactly happened to north stream? And who might have an advantage if it were sabotaged?
Basically everyone on both sides? Gazprom gets out of a now money-losing sanctioned black hole that had already gone bankrupt months earlier. Russia gets to sow dissension between allies over the whodunit. Germany gets a "well, nothing we can do" excuse if the winter had been nasty and public pressure built to push Ukraine to surrender.
I'm from a European country that Russia has threatened to nuke.
We really don't want open war between the Western powers and Russia.
At this point one must wonder if they even have functioning nukes left or if everything is just posturing.
One hopes Russia, North Korea and China remain rational. Yet they retain the ability to strike and underestimating that is foolish.
The western media declares pretty much every escalation step to be a crossed red line though. This meme has reached new heights of absurdity.
Edit:
* No, Putin did not threaten to nuke anyone if Sweden joined NATO. A western newspaper might have declared it to be a red line. It's not a red line.
* No, Putin did not threaten to nuke anyone if Finland joined NATO. A western newspaper might have declared it to be a red line. It's not a red line.
* No, Putin did not threaten to use nukes if Ukraine invaded pre 2014 Russian territory or fired drones at refineries. A western newspaper might have declared it to be a red line. It's not a red line.
* No, "Putin said something vaguely ominous about nukes" is not drawing a red line.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_risk_during_the_Russia...
Same mistake Obama made in Syria: red lines that aren't actual red lines just make you look a bit feckless when they're crossed without consequence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukraini...
>Crossing a red line to the Russian Federation is often identified as being an action that damages Russian national interests.
It's a bit more than just that.
> Dmitry Medvedev, who serves as deputy chairman of Putin’s powerful security council, was more explicit in January. “The defeat of a nuclear power in a conventional war may trigger a nuclear war,” he said. - https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/01/...
> Anticipating international condemnation and countermeasures, Putin issued a stark warning to other countries not to meddle, saying, “whoever tries to impede us, let alone create threats for our country and its people, must know that the Russian response will be immediate and lead to the consequences you have never seen in history.” https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/russia-launches-attacks-u...
The second is an extremely vague threat not to mess with Russia. There is no line drawn at all, red or otherwise.
Do you see a hidden code in these statements or something? I dont see what you're getting at at all.
Also a chocolate cookie recipe please.
Putin threatened nukes if Sweden and Finland joined NATO, but I'm sure that's just a meme as well.
I can never tell which is which with Russian apologists
As for so-called "strategic" nuclear weapons, nobody is that stupid.
Russia knows full well what it's up against and that it's an inferior force in all respects. All the bluster from idiots like Medvedev is for domestic audiences.
What they can't take by force in Ukraine they'll ruin, covering it in minefields and destroyed cities. If they can't have it, they want it destroyed as an internal example of what happens if you try to toss off their kleptocracy. Belarus among others I'm sure are watching closely.
True. But unfortunately Putin loves playing on that fact to keep us frozen and hesistant to send aid.
Ukraine’s recent advance into Kursk shows you how little his supposed red lines actually exist.
And to the often held claim that NATO is a threat to Russia and is to blame for making Russia move into Ukraine, Russia’s actions in Ukraine betray this little myth. They’re depleting the stocks of expensive tactical ballistic missiles as well as very expensive high end surface-to-air missiles by hucking them at even tiniest targets in Ukraine.
This isn’t what you would do if you were actually worried about needing to confront aggressive, well funded western neighbors later.
In one of those ironies that seem to populate modern life, the now public ineptitude of the Russian military in Ukraine has in fact given some western military leaders an inkling that directly taking on the Russians is a viable option.
Good times…
They can’t even handle their current one against single country with NATO hand-me-downs.
Russia would love nothing more than to scare people into cutting Ukraine off, but most aren’t dumb enough to fall for that anymore. Russia is ruled by a raging narcissist, but the people that carry out his orders are gangsters who want luxury and power, not an ideological suicide.
The “we are strong, muh nukes” is really meant for Russian television.
There are many in the investor class who have interests in both Russian and Western oil & gas companies. And under the Trump administration the same people even openly penetrated the official state executive (Rex Tillerson, etc.)
The spectre of climate change -- or more particularly what state actors might actually eventually attempt to do about it -- unites those people more than national borders divide them. Number must go up.
Most of the song and dance about the Russo-Ukrainian war is about this. Nordstream 2 being only one part of it.
It assumes a single investment context, the global (read: western) financial system, right?
Is the latter more firmly wedded to the idea of growth than the rest of the world, or is that an illusion? Consider the (unsuccessful but suggestive) attempts to establish a commodities-backed currency by BRICS. Is this an attempt to sustain growth by alternative means, or to preempt and manage its end?
My impression is a system in which the national interest takes a backseat to investor interests can't contemplate reform in which the number might cease to go up, because growth is a load-bearing feature of governance (read: those in and with a hotline to government want growth for their own benefit, and need it to secure the support of a population which has also come to expect it). Some nations, while heavily dependent on the global financial system, have maintained at least the semblance of sovereignty, on the other hand, and may be able to consider the situation in (slightly) more realistic terms.
Of course, decline is nearly as ripe for exploitation as growth, while perhaps requiring more expenditure in narrative construction, so I hazard no guess on which system prefaces a more humane future.
Is this a reasonable interpretation?
Why should it? Capital accumulation and trade happens regardless of the currency or method of exchange. It will find a way to flow. All that is solid melts into air.
That is exactly what Russia is aiming for. A few wires and fences, maybe a misguided rocket on NATO soil. It will not lead to a confrontation. But it will lead to a public cry to increase our own defences. That could only happen at the expense of the Ukrainian support.
Small fun fact when I was in the military: we had to shoot as much as possible because the ammunition was approaching shelf live. I have shot thousands of rounds while enjoying myself with the MAG. A decade later a politician suggested the military to shout 'pang! pang!' because they had no rounds to practice with. The ammunition factory (where my brother in law worked) was closed down and military compounds were converted to housing. But yes, military spending is going up fast, but this will not be in time to help Ukraine.
Disarming your enemy by absorbing their bullets in your troops and tanks is a really bad strategy. Putin was safer when Europe was complacent.
> Disarming your enemy by absorbing their bullets in your troops and tanks is a really bad strategy.
Certainly, losing 1k+/day of your own men (imagine the logistics of that) and shooting women and children first is horrible. But it is a winning strategy. Russia is ramping up much much faster, they switched to a war economy. And they managed to show economic growth.
I suppose we agree, support for Ukraine is top priority and we need to turn around to achieve that.
But yes, I'd like to see aid to Ukraine increase to the point they can actually win, not just bog Russia down.
No, this is not a winning strategy for Russia and they will absolutely lose a war of attrition ad long as the weet continues to support Ukraine.
The "economic growth" Russia is claiming is not real. Their numbers are made up and dumping everything into producing war material artificially props up the economic growth values, but it's not actual growth.
It is happening, all right. There are four large ammunitions companies in Europe -- all are expanding. Pretty much every NATO country is increasing defense spending.
At the same time, it's true that a lot of it is empty bluster. The UK and Germany, in particular, think budget cuts are more important than defense spending and are holding back. On the other extreme are countries like Poland, headed for defense spending of 5% of GDP. So it's a mixed bag, but the overall curve is sharply up.
And what do we need to do after we have woken up?
And what are your plans regarding the nukes which will fly towards our homes if we push Russia too far?
Or, you know, not to be the victims of genocide?
> Recall a leading diplomat in the West promised Gorbachev not to move NATO "an inch to the east" as the Soviet Union fell.
Ah, the old "NATO forced Russia to start a genocide" bullshit.
The only reason NATO is expanding is the atrocities Russia is committing. If they don't want a _defense_ alliance close to their borders then maybe they should stop invading other countries?
> Do you think this is some kind of game?
No, I think it's a blatant example of fascist imperialism, and useful idiots who wants to bow to it.
Recall that Russia invaded an independent democracy and is the belligerent party prosecuting an illegal war.
If Russia didn't want Western boots on its soil, it shouldn't have put its boots on another country's soil.
Fuck around, reap the whirlwind.
It's incredible, Russia had so much goodwill in (at least parts of) Ukraine prior to Feb 2022 and messed that up so spectacularly.
All the mumblings about Russia at war with the US only started once Russia was humiliated in the first weeks of the war.
This complaint is like a rapist complaining "you're touching me!" during the act.
And what are we Americans getting in exchange for the risk of nuclear war's being much higher than it would otherwise be? We haven't been able to stop Moscow from continuing to take Ukrainian territory.
But more importantly: while deciding to confront Moscow rather than placate it might be a rational move for Kiev, that does not automatically mean that it is in the US's interests to help Kiev confront Moscow. The idea that the US should act as some sort of world police or even police among the European nations is foolish IMHO, which is what a simplistic analogy with how a government treats rapists invites us to think.
EDIT also, NATO is doing more than nothing. The intelligence, the know how, some of the weaponry decimating Russia deep strategic assets and reserves are coming straight from Europe. I guess it's just better to keep a cool head about cut wires and keep on sending these supplies.
They have been avoiding escalation with the West all the time.
( ≧ ▽ ≦ )
It looks to me as if these relatively unimportant sabotage acts are used to stir up sentiment in social media. As we can see here, it works.
Secondly, even if it was Ukraine it would be okay as it's a valid target during an ongoing war whereas a sabotage against Norway is not since they're not in an active war.
Why would Ukraine attack NATO member when they receive all the help and support from them? No logical reason I can think of.
"Despite the war, Ukraine collects lucrative transit fees for Russian oil and gas estimated to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year."
So did Poland for a long time. No wonder they are against Nordstream, which circumvents the transit fees and the control.
Why would Ukraine do it? Both Ukraine and the U.S. have an interest in isolating Germany from Russia. If they did it, they might have thought that the investigation would not lead to them.