Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war
economist.comFrom wikipedia:
Bulverism is a term for a rhetorical fallacy that combines circular reasoning and the Genetic fallacy with presumption or condescension. The method of Bulverism is to "assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error." The Bulverist assumes a speaker's argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker came to make that mistake (even if the opponent's claim is actually right) by attacking the speaker or the speaker's motive. The term Bulverism was coined by C. S. Lewis[1] to poke fun at a very serious error in thinking that, he alleged, recurs often in a variety of religious, political, and philosophical debates.
Similar to Antony Flew's "subject/motive shift", Bulverism is a fallacy of irrelevance. One accuses an argument of being wrong on the basis of the arguer's identity or motive, but these are strictly speaking irrelevant to the argument's validity or truth.
John Mearsheimer has a really great video from 6 years ago about Ukraine that I found fascinating: https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4
Basically, he thinks the west precipitated the crisis by pushing to have Ukraine join NATO, and he thinks it should remain a buffer state between NATO and Russia
> he thinks the west precipitated the crisis by pushing to have Ukraine join NATO
NATO doesn't want Ukraine to join NATO (at least, not for the foreseeable future). That's why, even now, when Ukraine is more or less begging to join NATO, NATO has done diddly squat to do so.
A lot of the pressure to join NATO within Ukraine has increased since Russia invaded Georgia and then Crimea. Russia only has itself to blame for the fact that its neighbors are terrified of Russia violating their territorial integrity and want to run as fast as possible from its sphere of influence.
That's really not true. The US put massive pressure on NATO under Bush Jr for Ukraine to join NATO, but Ukraine eventually faltered. They formalized a position that Ukraine was able to join NATO, and put a lot of pressure on France and Germany so that it would be that way.
Eventually, Euromaidan happened and Ukraine tried to cash into those overtures, but the West wasn't ready to back it up.
That’s the Georgia playbook as well. They encouraged Georgia to fight the Russians. Georgians lost territory and lives and the American and Western allies shrugged and said “oh well, that’s unfortunate”.
Your comment implies that Georgia might have had better ways out of that situation, that’s probably not true.
Trying to solve an ancient ethnic conflict by force was definitely not the best way to go.
Expecting that western countries will start a third world war just to help you get rid of all those inconvenient Russian peacekeepers was simply stupid.
It seems to me that people often seem to forget that Georgia was never a "good guy" in that conflict: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian–Ossetian_conflict
> Your comment implies that Georgia might have had better ways out of that situation, that’s probably not true.
Georgia was pushed and encouraged by Western allies which then turn away and abandoned it.
NATO cannot admit any country that is involved in active combat. Otherwise it would automatically trigger article five, and doom the world to nuclear armageddon. Even the Bunker Boys in New Zealand may not survive all-out nuclear war with thousands of atomic and super-atomic bombs going off at once.
I would lean toward avoiding that situation, if possible.
Nuclear winter is apparently not so extreme as initially thought https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Criticism_and_d... Anyway, it would be nice to not try it.
[I'm not in a bunker, but in case of a global thermonuclear war I hope everyone forgets to nuke Argentina.]
How many times have they run the experiment of detonating ~10,000 atom bombs at once?
How many atomic bombings have resulted in stratospheric soot injection? The answer, I believe, is 0, even including the two atomic bombs that were dropped on populated areas. Major conflagrations that result in stratospheric soot pumps are extremely difficult--the Kuwaiti oil fires didn't manage that, and that involved literally setting oil wells ablaze uncontrollably.
Without stratospheric soot injection, there's no global climate impact except on very short terms. Even with stratospeheric soot injection, well, look at how severe the global cooling following Pinatubo was: we'd reverse global warming since 1850... for a year or two.
(Like GP, though, I'm not keen on actually testing this hypothesis in real life.)
How do you know that soot injection and nuclear winter are the only possible side-effects from detonating all the bombs at once? We are still frequently surprised by experiments in chemistry and physics that produce weird results when scaled up. The Quantum Hall effect, for an example off the top of my head.
Even if not exactly joining NATO, there is an attempt to create close military ties:
The Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP): "Berlin plus agreement" from March 2003, which allows the EU to use NATO structures, mechanisms and assets to carry out military operations if NATO declines to act.
The European Defence Agency (EDA): established in July 2004 and is based in Brussels. It supports the EU Member States in improving their military capabilities in order to complete CSDP targets as set out in the European Security Strategy.
The European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement (EUUAA): The agreement commits both parties to promote a gradual convergence toward the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and European Defence Agency (EDA) policies.
I see a lot of opinions here that seem to want to a) blame the current administration, b) blame NATO for the current threat of war. That's like blaming the victim in an abusive relationship as nobody in the west wants war. What these opinions miss are the following relevant facts: 1. NATO has consistently pushed back on Ukraine's interest in joining NATO for fear of the geopolitical impacts, specifically Russia. 2. Ukraine has become steadily more European and less Russian in the last decade, and has slowly been falling away from Russia, both culturally and economically. This is Putin's last-ditch attempt to keep Ukraine in the Russian sphere of influence. It is destined to fail, because the Ukrainian people have started to move on, although there is a very large, aging contingent of former Soviet, pro-Russia people who don't like what has been happening from a cultural standpoint. However the best way to tell where a country is going is to ask the youth. They often speak English and would prefer to be a modern democracy. We in the US at least should continue to do what we've done for 70 years and work for democracy with all the tools at our reasonable disposal. The world largely moving to democracy did not happen by accident.
#1 is simply and absolutely not true. See Buharest summit of 2008, where NATO explicitly welcomed Georgia and Ukraine aspirations to join. Current state of affairs in both countries is a direct result of that.
"The Alliance did not offer a Membership Action Plan to Georgia or Ukraine, largely due to the opposition of Germany and France." ... "Russian President Putin was pleased about the alliance deciding not to invite Georgia and Ukraine to the Membership Action Plan at least for the time being."
“agreeing that "these countries will become members of NATO"”
> Basically, he thinks the west precipitated the crisis by pushing to have Ukraine join NATO
This is a downright lie. Anyone who follows NATO knows that there has been very little desire to allow Ukraine to join.
It's really not. NATO doesn't want Ukraine now that Russia is serious about opposition, but in the 2006-2009 the US was fighting really hard for Ukraine to join NATO despite opposition by France and Germany. Eventually Ukraine had a change of mind, but not before NATO formally stated Ukraine was welcome.
The move away from NATO/EU ambitions was unpopular domestically in Ukraine and led to Euromaidan, after which it turned out that NATO and co. weren't willing to back up their posture anymore.
You should listen to the talk by Mearsheimer, it's very instructive and interesting. There is a reason he is such a respected mind on geopolitics.
The US is not the same thing as NATO, even if it is the leading country in it.
Oh please, US would push back against UK's .280 British small arms cartridge[0] for NATO harmonization, despite there was already ample testing shown that the more powerful 7.62mm cartridge was nigh-uncontrollable in automatic fire. Only for the Vietnam war to demonstrate the deficiencies of 7.62NATO, and then US and NATO adopted 5.56mm, proving the initial UK testing right.
If the US can make all its members adopt a small-arms cartridge despite it not being particularly ideal, the separation between the US and NATO is merely a facade.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9751mm_NATO#T65_series...
The US exerted enough pressure over NATO that it's policy became NATO policy in that case.
The only way this argument makes sense is if Ukraine's sovereignty is not acknowledged.
That's not true. It's not just up to Ukraine to join NATO, it has to get approval for it. Beyond that, the US directly and blatantly meddled in Ukrainian affairs to make that happen.
It's true. Even your comment suggests Ukraine is not a sovereign nation, else you'd acknowledge they are free to join any alliance they wish.
But they're not free to join NATO, are they? They need approval of all member states to do so. Last time they tried, France and Germany almost prevented them from joining. If they are free to choose NATO, why aren't they a member right now? Why aren't they a EU member? Why isn't Turkey a EU member?
https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300259933/not-one-inch
M. E. Sarotte wrote a whole book on it.
I haven't finished reading the whole thing, but it starts with the fall of the Berlin wall, and reunification, where US and Germany figured that it was possible to have their cake and eat it - Soviet troops out of East Germany, NATO being allowed to stay, Warsaw pact falling apart, and NATO enlarging as a military alliance instead of pan-european (Atlantic to Urals) security arrangement. Russia was at its very weakest, and not in the position to object much; plus missteps by Gorbachev and Yeltsin contributed to enlargement.
You've got Yeltsin wanting Russia to join NATO, back when US enjoyed quite a bit of good will, only for them to slowly realize that plans like Partnership for Peace is meant to enlarge NATO; the US is not going to let Russia join NATO, despite some wishful-thinkng; NATO membership being dangled in front of Ukraine to encourage them to return the soviet era nukes back to Russia or have them destroyed; NATO's enlargement policies is basically neo-containment of Russia at the get-go...
I'm sure it's only going to get more colourful as the book goes on.
In any case, it's rather disingenuous for US and NATO to dangle membership to Ukraine. They know even in the 80s and 90s that Russia would strongly object to a military alliance that has Article 5 in it, not to mention a NATO member state would generally be required to have foreign troops and weapons (among other things nukes) on their soil. At the end of the day, US is probably not going to risk nuclear war over this, but at the same time, it just keeps using Ukraine to try and stick it to Russia. Regardless of what Ukraine's wishes actually are (and it's more diverse than the media generally likes to portray), realistically it's not something that Ukraine has the only say in the matter - US will continue to find any which way to further is neo-containment aims; Russia would continue to oppose that.
What I fear for folks who watch that video, is they leave with the perception ( most came in with ) that peaceful Putin's Russia was minding their own business and one day there comes big bad NATO bully taking over the "buffer states".
At least from the late 90's on, those countries knew what's up and they tried to assure their chances of survival. OF course there are multiple interests as always but after a World War and 50 years under communism can you blame them?
The Cold War never ended, its just that one side was temporarily out of commission and the geniuses from the other side just stopped caring.
Just hope this "Ukraine is West's fault" doesn't turn into some realpolitik's version of affluent white guilt.
Well, it is a bit more nuanced. In 1990s there was a surge in various nationalist movements in ex-USSR republics trying to establish national identity on ethnic grounds. In some countries this resulted in armed conflicts with ethnic cleansings. In others minorities were discriminated or pushed to severe their historical and cultural ties. “Alien” passports in Latvia and restrictions on teaching of Russian language in Ukraine were the most notable examples. Russia traditionally protected Russian minorities in Baltics and Ukraine, which resulted in tensions between the countries. Indeed, when you build an ethnic national state and ignore large minority with ties to a nuclear superpower, you may be worried about survival. Whether ethnic national state should be a thing in XXI century is another question (maybe we should also ask Belgians about how do they feel about speaking French).
I am a firm believer in hat it was NEVER about protecting russians abroad. I'm from Latvia and might be biased, but evidence points that they have other reasons behind their continuous aggression.
Spot on. My heart is with you (have family in Latvia).
A president with a poor approval rating and a war machine left without a war to fight make fast friends.
Making it neutral would truly be the best outcome for everyone.
It looks more and more like this is propaganda from the US—Which is rather unfortunate for my oil holdings.
This is what it looks like, especially when the US government is day and night trying to incite a war between Ukraine and Russia. Because Russia is not buying it, they are constantly "reading the mind" of the Russians and saying what they will do, even though neither Russian nor Ukraine are saying they want war.
In the end, just follow the money: if Russia enters into a war, the US is the only to benefit, the same way that in WW2 the US was the great beneficiary. It is always nice to incite wars far away from your country, when you're the main seller of weapons.
It looks more and more like the western world is acknowledging Russia's prior aggression in the region, and their current aggression that sees them amassing upwards of 200k troops at Ukraine's border.
Suggestions otherwise are conspicuously in-step with Russian propaganda.
I see in your other comments you are towing the Russian propaganda line. Your comment here didn't age well.
I read this as why the economist and friends want russia to want war.
but maybe im just cynical and jaded?
You are not alone. The economist articles related to Russia/Ukraine for the past few weeks are pure war mongering.
This article is pure propaganda war. It is this generation's "WMDs in Iraq"
And the industrial-military complex will laugh all its way to the bank while stepping on the innocents corpses
I live under a rock, can you clarify why the Economist wants Russia to want war, and who those friends are?
I doubt the Economist much cares. As for the parties unknown who direct the Economist’s editorial staff? I could only speculate. Since such speculations would necessarily include offering some pretty unsavory possibilities, I’ll not share them here.
To write paywalled click-bait articles about it.
Russia annexed Crimea and has been engaged in a proxy war in Donbas for 8 years. The Kremlin has now amassed 100K - 200K troops at Ukraine's border.
Yet, the Russian propaganda machine continues to claim it's the West that wants war.
Can you explain how the West is the aggressor here?
You dont need any propaganda machine to see that countries that are furthest from the conflict geographically and economically have the least to lose. That is why the warmongerist representing US/UK war efforts in every conflict is so excited about the situation.
Having little to lose is not a rationale for doing something.
You've still not explained how the West is the aggressor in the face of the continued overt Russian military aggression that we can all see.
One reason to incentive warmongering I assume is domestic politics in the Western countries: Biden's and Boris Johnson approval ratings are pretty low, and nothing better than war to give it a boost. Take Johnson for instance: some days ago the news was his parties during the pandemic, but, alas, not anymore.
Ukraine is at the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe, where Western powers regularly encourage color revolutions bringing the country to a point of civil war. "The west" has virually no skin in the game but leaders would prefer Russia sanctioned and isolated so that once again US has unchallanged superpower status.
Meanwhile, as discussed, Russia, Ukraine and EU have a lot to lose in a devastating and bitter war. At the same time Russia is obliged to keep stability and relative prosperity in the region for its citizens at home and Russian nationals abroad.
The best route for Russia is to defend the status quo as passively as possible while waiting for the Ukrainians to realize that for the "west" Ukraine's destruction is about as good as Russia's. And I think this route is feasible for Putin, so this will happen(not much).
Aside from the fact that some of your statements are plainly incorrect, you're claiming that the U.S. is fomenting war simply because it wants "unchallenged superpower status".
That is obviously quite vague and unrevealing. A very elementary assertion that elides calls for verifiable facts.
Worse, Russia has rolled tanks in the region, annexed territory, and continues to fight a separatist war. The idea that they are somehow not the aggressor completely defies all reason and observable reality.
Likewise, the idea that they are somehow keeping stability and prosperity in the region through their overtly imperialistic military aggression in an otherwise peaceful context is directly contrary to the reality. Ukraine simply wishes to remain a free and sovereign democratic nation. If Russia were not invading and threatening them, there would be no conflict.
Three comments later, and you have still failed to explain how the West is the aggressor.
While I agree with that premise, it is good to point out the NATO troops in Poland and the Baltic countries and weapon shipments to Ukraine is a thing. Though I doubt this is at the same scale, and we as simple people have no way to verify any of this and people generally trust the propaganda on whichever side they are on.
NATO troops and weapon shipments to Ukraine became a thing after Russia started threatening Ukraine's existence -- we want to help the Ukrainian people. We as "simple" people can decide whether we trust people like Putin or people like Biden.
No. It is not. The pressure for Ukraine to join NATO has been simmering for decades before the west financed a coup to put literal nazis in power in Ukraine. Don't believe this kindergarten geopolitics they fed your people to ensure you'll be happy to send kids to die to enrich the military industrial complex
> Don't believe this kindergarten geopolitics they fed your people to ensure you'll be happy to send kids to die to enrich the military industrial complex
This is kind of weird given that NATO propaganda right now is justifying the absence of intervention—making the case that despite the illegality of current Russian action and the potential expanded invasion, Ukraine might get aid but essentially must be written off because the alternative is a World War—whereas it is Russian propaganda that is justifying war.
Like, of NATO wanted to send the kids from NATO countries to die to enrich the military-industrial complex, they really ought to get their propagandists to stop working against their own goal.
Of course, the pressure come from the US, which has proven in the last decades to resort to this kind of propaganda blitz before they embark in another unjustified military adventure. This is another "OMG!!!! WMDs in Iraq". And as always the American media does its part in manufacturing consent for a war that nobody needs now. Make no mistake, the US government is the aggressor here.
This comment did not age well.
Or neither.
Russia is defending herself from the aggressive encroachment of NATO. It is not very different from the US in the past not wanting Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba.
There is a sort of aggression in that the West, and most the world's people really, like human rights and democracy and oppose the murderous dictator for life thing. Obvs that threatens Putin and he doesn't want that stuff setting in too much in his neighborhood.
The NATO, which shouldn't be expanding eastwards, wants missiles in Ukraine pointing at Putin's face.
Why shouldn't it be expanding eastwards? Seems to me that if a bunch of countries want to get together to protect each other, they have every right to do so.
Especially when a near-by country has a habit of being an aggressor:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Ru...
And let's not forget Malaysia Airlines Flight 17:
> Especially when a near-by country has a habit of being an aggressor
Some Islamic terrorists use terror to try to form a Qoqaz caliphate on Russian territory, and Russia fighting this development within their own borders is "being an aggressor". Meanwhile the US flies to to the other side of the world to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, which I suppose was a defensive action by its Department of Defense.
If NATO was nothing but a self defense pact, I'd tend to agree, but then if that was the case no one in NATO would want to expand too much.
NATO is not just a self defence organisation. It's an offensive tool. NATO has gone into more offensive missions (at least 3) than truly defensive missions (literally zero - I don't count the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan as a defensive act).
For many members of NATO, the only existing military threat is within NATO itself (see: Turkey and some of its neighbors).
The truth is, NATO expanding is a great way for the West to force it's enemies to increase their defense spending and to lower the cost of offensive military interventions.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion
"How Russia Got So Big":
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1R_ycU_fS4
My ancestry is Slavic. You're going to go have a hard time convincing me not to worry about Russia.
I'm not trying to convince you not to worry about Russia. I'm explaining why NATO is worrisome to many countries. You can be as worried about Russia as you'd like, and they're going to be just as worried about NATO, and so are the citizens of many other countries.
>The truth is, NATO expanding is a great way for the West to force it's enemies to increase their defense spending and to lower the cost of offensive military interventions.
As a westerner, that does sound pretty great- especially in the face of hostility from a glorified KGB thug like Putin.
Sure. But when you're building up an offensive stance you can only expect hostility back. And it helps strongmen get into power, too.
It is well-known that offense is the best form of defense.
> The NATO, which shouldn't be expanding eastwards
If you neighbor wants to invade you and has done that already at least one in the past decade you might want a stronger ally than nobody. That is up to the country to decide. Though the cold war has shown that neither party wins in a climate of fear.
If countries close to Russia both geographically and historically are more comfortable aligning with NATO rather than Russia, perhaps the problem is with Russia.
> Russia annexed Crimea
The Russian military was in the Crimea back when redcoats were stationed in New York City, and has been in the Crimea ever since.
Russia also signed a treaty that said it agreed that Crimea was part of Ukraine, not Russia. It tore that treaty up and invaded Crimea because Ukraine was thinking about not extending Russia's lease on Sevastopol.
The US secretary of state, James Baker, promised Russia that NATO would not expand eastward if Russia withdrew its military from the Warsaw Pact countries. This sounds like a broken promise to me.
> The US secretary of state, James Baker, promised Russia that NATO would not expand eastward if Russia withdrew its military from the Warsaw Pact countries
No, he didn't.
And even if he did promise the USSR that, I don't see a signed international agreement. Any such personal assurance with no formal agreement could not reasonably be viewed by anyone as anything more than a statement of policy of the then-current administration, not an open-ended binding commitment. I do see a signed treaty, signed much later, committing Russia to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, that was in force when it invaded and occupied much of Ukraine.
Except he didn't promise the USSR anything like that. The only commitment he made was to relay the request for a commitment to not expand NATO to the US negotiating team. It was rejected by the US team and the language the USSR suggested never made it into any treaty.
I think that's fair, but it's not like the former communist countries were forced at gunpoint to join NATO.
Russia may not like it (and I'd imagine I wouldn't were I in the same position) but invading countries because of their own sovereign decisions is unlikely to be successful in the long-term.
… and because American naval base was to be built there.
https://en.topwar.ru/44990-zachem-vms-ssha-sobiralis-remonti...
The link to the official government page is dead now. But I have seen the original with my own eyes back a few years ago. And even saved it as a PDF, but can’t find it now.
Ah now, by that logic it would be acceptable for the British government to invade and occupy Ireland, India, and much of the rest of the world.
By which I mean, historical presence in an area tells us little about the legitimacy of current day activities.
And even then, Crimea was a terrible thing, but it made strategic sense (the russian fleet base is there). I don't see any real strategic benefit for Russia with invading the rest of Ukraine.
> British government to invade and occupy Ireland
The British government does occupy Ireland, its military is stationed in Thiepval and Holywood.
The last all-island democratic vote in Ireland was the second Dáil, which voted for the island to separate from the UK. A century on, British troops, who have been on a bloody campaign in Ireland from Drogheda to Bloody Sunday and on, still occupy Ireland.
> The British government does occupy Ireland, its military is stationed in Thiepval and Holywood.
Are you from Ireland? Because I am, and this is an absolutely ludicrous reading of the situation.
The British and Irish governments partitioned Ireland, for a bunch of reasons 100 years ago. If you look at what people in the North of ireland (still part of the UK want), most of them want to remain as they are (which is fine, even if I personally would prefer the island of Ireland to be one nation again).
> The last all-island democratic vote in Ireland was the second Dáil, which voted for the island to separate from the UK. A century on, British troops, who have been on a bloody campaign in Ireland from Drogheda to Bloody Sunday and on, still occupy Ireland.
The last all ireland vote occurred in 1998, to ratify the Good Friday agreement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Northern_Ireland_Good_Fri...
While I'm sure that tensions run high in the Russian/Central/Eastern Europe part of the world with respect to Ukraine, dragging in inflammatory propaganda from other parts of the world (that you clearly know very little about) is incredibly unhelpful, and quite frankly rather offensive to people who have to live with it.
But, I also mentioned India in my comment. By your OP, it appears legitimate for the British to invade India right now. Do you agree or disagree with this statement, and why or why not?
> If you look at what people in the North of ireland (still part of the UK want), most of them want to remain as they are
If you look at what the people in Crimea voted for, they voted to be part of Russia. If what people in a region want is paramount as you seem to say then eastern Ukrainian regions seem to want to break from Ukraine and align with Russia. Russia has not done anything in the Ukraine which England has not done or is not doing in Ireland, to your apparent approval.
> The last all ireland vote occurred in 1998
The Dáil vote was all ireland, the 1998 was two separate votes, on the whole island for the same issue. Any how the result from the second Dáil and the 1998 vote were on the same principle affirmed, the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies.
> I also mentioned India
Your original comment has modern Ireland as unmolested by the British military, which is not the case.
A referendum held amidst annexation cannot possibly be legitimate.
> If you look at what the people in Crimea voted for, they voted to be part of Russia. If what people in a region want is paramount as you seem to say then eastern Ukrainian regions seem to want to break from Ukraine and align with Russia.
So, I presume you're talking about this referendum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum
In general, I tend not to respect referendums that are preceded by invasion of military forces (who I believe were not Russian, according to the Russian government of the time?). But yes, you are correct, the people of Crimea did vote for this.
However, this is massively, massively different from both the original Treaty between the UK and Ireland in 1920, as all UK troops had withdrawn before this occurred. Additionally, the 1998 referendums took place in an environment where most of the violence had stopped for a number of years, which is definitely not the case in Ukraine.
> Russia has not done anything in the Ukraine which England has not done or is not doing in Ireland, to your apparent approval.
So, you'd be fine if the Russians wiped out the native language of the Ukrainian people, cut down their forests and watched as multiple millions of them died? Clearly you wouldn't be (I hope) and only someone with absolutely no context on Irish/UK history would make such a ludicrous claim. Additionally, it was the United Kingdom that this did, not England (which only exists as a nation in sports).
> The Dáil vote was all ireland, the 1998 was two separate votes, on the whole island for the same issue. Any how the result from the second Dáil and the 1998 vote were on the same principle affirmed, the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies.
I feel like you may have mistaken the 1916 proclamation of independence with the 1998 referendum, which I think speaks to your lack of understanding of the issues (and I cheerfully admit that I know very little about the history of Russia/Crimea/Ukraine). From a Republic of Ireland point of view, the 1998 referendum was actually about giving up a territorial claim on the six counties of Northern ireland, which is very different from what happened in Crimea.
> Your original comment has modern Ireland as unmolested by the British military,
I just cant even, with this statement. Like, every weekend when I was growing up, there were violent deaths in the North of ireland (and Britain) on behalf of terrorists/freedom fighters (delete as appropriate). There was definitely a bunch of terrible things done during this period, but the vast majority was driven by people living on the island of Ireland, not the British government. The British government didn't make it any better, but they didn't mass 130k troops around the North at any point.
> I also mentioned India
I'm going to assume that you have no answer to my question then.
On that note, I'll bow out of this conversation as I'm not sure it's productive for either of us. Hope you have a great morning/afternoon/evening.
>> Ah now, by that logic it would be acceptable for the British government to invade and occupy Ireland, India, and much of the rest of the world.
Mongolia would like to have a word.
> The Russian military was in the Crimea back when redcoats were stationed in New York City, and has been in the Crimea ever since.
No, it hasn't.
From the creation of Soviet Ukraine in 1919 through 2014, Russia neither controlled nor pretended to control Crimea (except for a 9 year period from 1945-1954), which it acknowledged was its own entity (prior to 1945) or part of Ukraine (after 1954).
(People sometimes equate the USSR, which essentially replaced the Russian Empire with “Russia”, but the modern Russian Federation is a direct linear continuation of the entity that was known as the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, not the USSR, just as Ukraine is a direct linear continuation of the entity that was known as the Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic.)
Crimea was part of Russia until about sixty year ago.
> Crimea was part of Russia until about sixty year ago.
The 9 year period it was part of the Russian Federation ended closer to 70 years ago, but I’ve updated the GP to reflect it.
> its own entity (prior to 1945)
Still, nested within the Russian Federation as an administrative entity. (Also, autonomy throughout the USSR was more or less a formality anyway.)
Strange, Wikipedia thinks it was a part of RSFSR:
> The Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic[a] was an Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic *of the Russian SFSR* (1921–45) and the Ukrainian SSR (1991–92) located on the Crimean Peninsula. The political unit was succeeded by the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.
[0]
> On April 26, 1954 The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea Oblast *from the Russian SFSR* to the Ukrainian SSR.
> Taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the Ukrainian SSR, the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet decrees:
> To approve the joint presentation of the Presidium of the Russian SFSR Supreme Soviet and the Presidium of the Ukrainian SSR Supreme Soviet on the transfer of the Crimea Province *from the Russian SFSR* to the Ukrainian SSR.
Regarding "...is a direct linear continuation of the entity that was known as the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, not the USSR":
> The Republic of Byelarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine, as successor states of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in connection with the Treaty, shall assume the obligations of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under the Treaty
[1]
Does USA position on this matters?
Especially considering Russia is still repaying USSR's foreign debt.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea#Decree
[1] https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/27389.pdf
This seems to be a popular edgy opinion but I think it's useful to occasionally remember who has thousands of soldiers massed on the border.
HackerNews has a weirdly pro-Russia bent, at least in these comment sections. People talking about how NATO "shouldn't expand" (why not, if the nations involved want to join a voluntary pact?) and how Crimea is and has been Russian, even though the Russians invaded and conquered it in the past decade... Really odd. Not just making arguments against US involvement but flat out repeating false, pro-Russian propaganda.
> People talking about how NATO "shouldn't expand" (why not, if the nations involved want to join a voluntary pact?)
Ok, I have no "pro-Russia" bent at all, I think they are to blame in this whole story as their concerns could've been addressed by diplomacy like most European leaders have been trying to say... but do you really not know why Russia doesn't want NATO to expand to Ukraine and how it might think war is a justifiable way to stop that from happening? And if that's the case, how it might be prudent of NATO to avoid expanding or insinuating it might do so, to avoid making things even worse than they've already been (with Krimea and Eastern Ukraine in a war situation for several years)?
It's hard to do so, but try to imagine yourself being a decision maker on the Russian side. Seeing an extremely important, historically aligned neighbour that has a very large, geographically un-obstructed border with you, and who can block your access to extremely important maritime routes, trying to join a military alliance who sees you as one of their main enemies.
While I may not agree with the Russians, I can absolutely understand why they think war is justifiable and I can totally see how NATO nations should do everything it can to avoid this war, they have nothing to lose, while Russia has a lot at stake... sometimes, it's a wise move to back off your expansion to avoid loss of life and making the situation much, much worse (imagine a world with Russian-occupied Ukraine for years to come)... when it all could've been avoided by a mostly symbolic back off as the Russians demand (symbolic because there was very little hope for Ukraine to actually join NATO in the near future, to my knowledge).
I highly recommend the Caspian Report channel on YT and its series on this conflict to understand the motivations on each side: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNIU6TRsRzk
GP: >> People talking about how NATO "shouldn't expand" (why not, if the nations involved want to join a voluntary pact?)
You: > but do you really not know why Russia doesn't want NATO to expand to Ukraine
Why would Ukraine want to align with NATO instead of the country that just invaded it?
> While I may not agree with the Russians, I can absolutely understand why they think war is justifiable
Why?
> it might be prudent of NATO to avoid expanding or insinuating it might do so, to avoid making things even worse than they've already been
Sounds like appeasement to me
> when it all could've been avoided by a mostly symbolic back off as the Russians demand (symbolic because there was very little hope for Ukraine to actually join NATO in the near future, to my knowledge).
The why go to war over something symbolic?
It's hard to communicate, it seems, when people seem to do all they can to not understand the other side. (talking not only about this exchange, by the way).
Your quotes of me are disingenuous.
OP asked why NATO shouldn't expand. I answered that doing so will surely trigger a war, as Russia made clear already.
> Why would Ukraine want to align with NATO instead of the country that just invaded it?
I suppose you mean "wouldn't", and I would agree that they want to align with NATO as the current government is very anti-Russia (notice that Ukraine goes back and forth on this, it's not always the way it is now). But what a country wants is not always what they can do. I am sure Georgia would love to join NATO too and make sure Russia never invades it again... but is NATO willing to go to war with Russia over Georgia? Or over Ukraine? The answer is no. NATO already said so: they will not support Ukraine militarily if Russia invades.
So the real question is whether it's worth letting Russia invade Ukraine simply because NATO cannot meet the Russian demands to say Ukraine will not join NATO.
> The why go to war over something symbolic?
You must've misread something... NATO meeting the Russian demands would be symbolic in my understanding (again, because NATO didn't have concrete plans to let Ukraine join it... Russia just wants NATO to make that official - a mostly symbolic act). But NATO not meeting this demand will cause a war for sure, which has nothing symbolic about it. Children will die (have you seen the faces of the soldiers on the front line, FFS they are children, 18 yos).
> The why go to war over something symbolic?
They are not going to war. They just expand their presence on the borders to make a point. If NATO feels menace with those deployments, they are expected to understand that Russia feels the same. If NATO is not making commitment on paper not to expand and to scale down their current presence, Russia will not make commitments to stop those annual military exercises they have been doing for years.
Have you rethought these comments at all, Ivan?
Yes. They remain valid as a way of thought for many Russians before the war and should be kept for history. Hardly anyone in Russia was considering real war as a possibility, so when Putin made the orders it came as a deep shock. Before the recognition of separatist territories, his strategy seemed at least rational if wrong. He could be understood, even if his actions were not approved. Not anymore. I do not know when this transition happened, when the last red line was crossed by him in his mind, but now it is total uncertainty. Whatever he planned with this invasion, his calculations are so obviously mistaken, that it is hard to understand how this decision was made at the first place. It will not help Russia to achieve any long term or short term goals and it will jeopardize his own rule. Now he is certified crazy. And this is scary as shit.
Thank you for coming back and adding this. Indeed, it is scary as shit, and because now any kind of trust in whatever Russia says or claims is lost there is absolutely no way to contain this. Russia could join peace negotiations and it wouldn't amount to anything. This does not have a happy ending I'm afraid.
Best of luck. We'll probably all need it.
Thank you very much for the perspective, I think people all around the world are shocked at his brazenness and even people who were "right" about his plans are horrified to be so.
> HackerNews has a weirdly pro-Russia bent
Maybe US corporate media, owned and controlled by 1% heirs, has a particularly imperial bent, wanting to expand the American empire even farther, in this case US tanks and missiles alongside Ukraine's long border with Russia (which incidentally is filled with Russian speaking ethnic Russians who do not want this). US media is also filled with beneficiaries and think-tankers from the military industrial complex president Eisenhower talked about. The interferers in European affairs George Washington warned about. Anne Applebaum, quoted in this thread, is an un-American, anti-American who wants confrontation with Russia for whatever psychological or political reasons. With the average inflation-adjusted US hourly wage below what it was a half century ago (even before Covid), with a country racked with Covid, the US should not get dragged into a military adventure on Russia's border. Let the Europeans deal with the diplomatic niceties, the US should stay out.
I mean part of it could be that lots of us have actually been to Russia (I fit in that category) or are Russian. We don’t need to rely on third party sources to tell us how to think. I’ve also been to China and it’s so much worse but the US propaganda machine loves China, in fact we’re watching them trivialize a country that places minorities in concentration camps on primetime TV.
Doesn’t seem odd to me at all. The media has lost credibility and our government is morally bankrupt.
I’ve been to Russia, am married to a Russian, own homes both in Moscow and Kiev.
Many Americans on HN who have never visited either country have a weirdly pro-Russian bend.
That would explain cogent arguments based on the real world. Does it explain blatantly false ones that align with Russian propaganda?
What about the American propaganda that the government doesn’t spy on its citizens, because if it weren’t for Russia the person who brought that to light would be sitting in a jail cell instead of taking interviews.
do you agree that Cuba should be able to join a voluntary pact with USSR and US shouldn't do anything about it?
You don’t have to be pro-Russian or pro-Putin (two different things!) to be critical of the current US and NATO policy. When Germany was cautious about reacting to Russian military deployment on Ukrainian border, Americans started calling its important NATO partner as unreliable. Europe may have different perspective on what is going on and how to resolve the crisis. In an equal partnership everyone has the right to speak and and common policy is developed through consensus rather than by one partner dictating to others what to do. Russian government did a lot of wrong things, by fueling a civil war in a neighboring state and covering up war criminals that have shot a civil airplane. It does not mean they are going to go to war that will not help them to achieve anything meaningful. Also, it is a fallacy to assume that anyone calling US government statements a warmongering and wrongdoing is repeating pro-Russian propaganda (after all, those statements are simply opinions and interpretations - current administration never presented Russian invasion as a matter of fact). The very same facts presented by US intelligence can be interpreted in different ways, and even Ukrainian government sees them differently than United States. The US interpretation is doing more harm than good: stocks are falling, flights are being cancelled and brain drain from Ukraine is accelerating. Should we blindly trust them or at least try to do some homework to verify their claims and approaches?
It is hard not to be skeptical about the drum beats for war. Pick any conflict from Vietnam to Syria/Iraq and you'll find a complicit media parroting false pretenses.
Any amount of reckoning (fact checks?) for these past incidents (dangerous misinformation?) would go a long way.
You are right. Russia is not even dignified with national interests, it is the Ukraine and "Vladimir Putin and his entourage".
I don't think you're too cynical, but we can have our own takes. From what I was able to piece together, Russia isn't the one starting this conflict, in action. It's NATO aligned countries trying to get Ukraine to join NATO. Russia made it very clear, that ain't happening and they'll go to war over it.
So who's still agitating for war?
The zero-evidence claims that Russia was about to invade sure look like pure propaganda from the same people who are thirsty for it.
I mean, that's still Russia being the aggressor. Ukraine, as a sovereign nation, can align with who they wish, and be lobbied by anyone and everyone to do so, and Russia doesn't get a say in that.
And if 20 years from now, Mexico and Canada decide to align with China and invite Chinese troops to set up on the border with the US, then the leader of the US should explain to US citizen living near the borders, "Hey, I know this makes us vulnerable, and I don't like it any more than you do, but I cannot ethically do anything about it because no country gets a say in the military alliances of any other country," according to you?
Did you forget Cuba exists and that the US was regarded a the agressor for trying to get the soviets out of there? Or would it have be totally ok with you if we invaded them?
The US didn't need to invade: President Kennedy instituted a naval blockade and that plus Kennedy's promise to remove US missiles from Turkey in exchange was enough to get the Soviets to agree to remove their missiles from Cuba.
That blockade of course was an agressive act against Cuba, and it was the correct course of action IMO because a rule that says that no country will be agressive towards any other country is unworkable because there is no power above the countries that could enforce the rule. (The UN is toothless.) If a country's leaders adhere to an unenforceable rule and insist on other countries doing the same, that will on average lead to more death and less prosperity for the world than if each country's leaders rationally pursues their country's interests IMO.
Some courses of action at the country level are more ethical than others, but it is more complicated than you imply it is and any ethical framework has to take into account certain realities.
> The US didn't need to invade: President Kennedy instituted a naval blockade and that plus Kennedy's promise to remove US missiles from Turkey in exchange was enough to get the Soviets to agree to remove their missiles from Cuba.
We did try to assassinate Castro several times, so not exactly.
> That blockade of course was an aggressive act against Cuba, and it was the correct course of action IMO because a rule that says that no country will be aggressive towards any other country is unworkable because there is no power above the countries that could enforce the rule.
Practically speaking yes, but there are enough treaties in place at this point that if someone invades someone else they are at least breaking some of their own rules. Think of it like a credit system for countries, the more you break rules you laid down for yourself, the less credibility you have going forward. Decentralized global governance of sorts.
> Some courses of action at the country level are more ethical than others, but it is more complicated than you imply it is and any ethical framework has to take into account certain realities.
I didn't intend to imply it wasn't complicated when you zoom out, but it is very un-complicated when you zoom in. The guy who throws the first punch is the aggressor. Sling words, make agreements, talk a big game, but the first one to violate the sovereignty of another government is indeed the aggressor.
The US would have every right to use whatever influence they have and whatever diplomacy they can muster to try to prevent it, but yes, at the end of the day, it’s not up to them and they don’t have the right to use force to prevent it.
That would be a perfectly rational response, yes.
> can align with who they wish
Historically, this has never been true. Countless wars were started when the balance of power was threatened, even by such a small thing as marriage (can’t they marry “who they wish”?)
I think many people are unable to consider the whole picture. They want to ideally look at these things in isolation.
There's some set of [reason] the 'west' wants Ukraine to join NATO, and in theory, there's no issue with that right?.... but in reality, the consequences could be severe. It's silly to ignore the consequences when you've been informed upfront.
Most people wouldn't have any idea that it has anything to do with NATO, since the media is doing a wonderful job of misinforming. It's being pitched as 100% unprovoked aggression.
> a sovereign nation, can align with who they wish...
Oh wow, that's what I call thinking about the world as you wish the world were, rather than as the world actually is.
At the height of Soviet power, the USA were willing to fight enormous wars on the other side of the planet to stop a country voluntarily aligning with the USSR (dropping more bombs on it than all of WWII countries did combined, killing millions). They helped coups in countless countries and helped even genocidal regimes with the sole purpose of stopping USSR expansion, even when doing so was actually economically detrimental to themselves.
And the USA is far from alone in meddling with other countries' affairs. China, Russia, obviously, even not-so-big powers like Australia (ask New Guinea) and the UK (who loved doing that all over the world when it had the power to do so) will absolutely engage in whatever they can to make sure their interests are not compromised or even threatened.
There's something like 150.000+ troops surrounding Ukraine, collected all over the Russia. Maybe they don't want to invade, but they sure want to make things look like they are willing to do so.
The current actions are great marketing for NATO and for increased defense spending in Europe. For some time there was hope that Europe would be heading towards a peaceful time and it was harder to justify increases military expenses. This will change all that for a long time.
NATO's members and the Ukraine are sovereign countries. If they all want Ukraine to join NATO, it's not Russia's business. We don't say bullshit like "well, it's not the muggers fault he shot you. He made it clear he wanted to have your purse and was willing to shoot you for it"
I believe people in Ukraine themselves want to align with the West, not Moscow. Or who would like to be governed by kleptocrats? It may or may not come with NATO. NATO is unlikely to accept new members that are already in practice in a war with Russia.
Ukraine is currently governed by a bunch of obscene kleptocrats, thieves and gangsters, who throw regular coups that overturn election results, imprison political opponents, and shut down TV channels, and has been for decades, and getting worse. Outside of willingness to lend its population as cannon fodder to NATO, it really has nothing in common with some democratic fantasy-land many here pretend it to be. They had 8, no 31 years to make something of themselves, but they remain a hopeless lawless kleptocratic dump.
> Russia made it very clear, that ain't happening and they'll go to war over it
Russia is going to go to war with Ukraine if Ukraine does things Russia doesn't want them to do. And they told everyone they would ...
How is that not agitating for war?
>Russia isn't the one starting this conflict
>Russia made it very clear, that ain't happening and they'll go to war over it.
Which one is it?
>The zero-evidence claims that Russia was about to invade sure look like pure propaganda from the same people who are thirsty for it.
The massive troop build up along Ukraine's border and in Belarus?
You're spreading Russian propaganda.
The problem is that Russia isn’t the only country that puts out propaganda, and most people are now well aware after the lies that were used to justify the Iraq war. So far I haven’t seen any objective facts except some out of context satellite photos and anonymously sources information from the US intelligence community (A group of people who’s job descriptions are to spread misinformation)
Do you think troops have been moved to Ukraine's border in Belarus and in Russia?
Look I think you're missing the point. Chew on it for a bit, don't respond half-cocked.
You: I want do to X.
B: If you do X, I will do Y.
You can try to convince B not to do Y if you do X...
but if B is prepared to do Y, and is showing you he's prepared to do Y...
and you can't convince him not to...
then you have to consider, that if you continue trying to do X, that You are the one agitating.
Depending on what X and Y are, we condemn different actors. Agitating not really a word I would use for any pairing.
"Keep me from taking your purse" and "shoot you" we condemn B as a mugger.
"Leave me and meet someone new" and "shoot both of you" and we condemn B as a domestic abuser and potential murderer.
"Return a library book late" and "charge you $0.10 a day as a fine" and we condemn A lightly.
I would contend Russia's current actions fall squarely in the first two examples.
Let's make your examples actually match the structure I set up. You've created some weird analogies that don't relate.
A: I want to take your purse.
B: If you take my purse, I will kill you.
If A continues to try and take the purse, A is obviously the agitator.
A: I want to leave you.
B: If you leave, I will kill you.
We agree B is a monster here, and this is a police matter, not global politics.
Maybe we can create a better example...
A: Hey B I want to nail your cousin.
B: I will not allow that to happen. Bro I will ruin your world. Literally, armageddon. Don't do it.
If A continues trying to nail the cousin, clearly the agitator.. no?
You flipped my first example. I said A said "I don't want to give you my purse" B says "give me your purse or I will shoot you".
And I like how the only example you can think of where the word "agitator" flows well is when someone is trying to stop two consenting adults from having sex. Because clearly the person B on your last example is an asshole who is wrong, and you're using "agitator" to just mean "willing to ignore overt threats"
I think your own weak example highlights how you know you're wrong on this issue.
I flipped your first example because it doesn't relate to the situation we're talking about and what you were responding to.
B isn't trying to take something from A. A is trying to woo (something near B) and B is promising consequences.
It no longer has anything to do about who is right, or what is right... that black and white right and wrong are no longer relevant.
If B is willing to back up the claims, A has to seriously consider their choices.
It's pretty close to the same in my example with the cousin... It doesn't matter if B is an asshole or is wrong, what does that have to do with anything?
The funny thing is, I don't think I'm even taking a position on the actual argument... I just think there's so much narrative control that many aren't even capable of considering alternative explanations.
The problem I have with this is it seems like you're arguing for might makes right. B is basically a bully and is making a choice for both parties then (B's way or war). Meanwhile I just don't want to be bullied or feel vulnerable to my bully neighbor.
I'm not arguing in favor of might makes right, but global politics isn't simple and many of the players aren't rational or reasonable. I'm arguing for dealing with reality, and acknowledging reality. I don't have a strong position either way, to be honest, and I don't think really any of us know enough to be so confident.
What are the X & Y in this situation?
Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum where they committed to respect Ukrainian borders and sovereignty with Ukraine giving up its nuclear arsenal.
And Russia gets to decide whether another sovereign country gets to join a military alliance…why? Because they can? The amount of laundering of Russian propaganda on here is depressing if not surprising.
well, you answered it. "because they can"
Russia has already invaded Ukraine, with special forces and proxy forces, in Donetsk and in Crimea, indeed Putin claims Ukrainians and Russians are the same people. The forces they support have even committed war crimes like downing a civilian jet and killing hundreds and in recent days shelling civilian villages.
While it seems to be fashionable to make excuses for a murderous dictator like Putin, Putin’s intentions are clear and include at the very least regime change in Ukraine to install a puppet regime.
If you call massing hundreds of thousands of troops at two borders, invading two parts of a country and staging massive war games at another puppet state nearby ‘zero evidence’, your denial of reality is chamberlainesque. I hope you accept you were deeply wrong about this if Russia does invade again.
You're being hyperbolic... I am merely pointing out this doesn't appear to be unprovoked. This place should be a little more open-minded than an MSNBC panel.
That was not being hyperbolic at all, I’m just stating facts about the actions of Putin.
I would suggest those putting 50% of their active combat forces on the border of another country and taking an invasion stance are the ones who want war. Perhaps if Putin hadn't profited so much and had not allowed the oligarchs to literally loot the Russian economy over the past decade plus they, Russia, would not be in the situation they are in.
I just don't see how the economist making zero evidence claims has any influence on whether putin sends tanks over the border. To war monger, surely you must have some effect on whether war happens!
> The zero-evidence claims that Russia was about to invade sure look like pure propaganda from the same people who are thirsty for it.
The insane media drum beats are exactly like before Afghanistan and Iraq. It is so depressing how absolutely nothing has changed.
The US is not going to fight a war over Ukraine and has ordered all its troops to leave Ukraine. Russia will invade Ukraine and leave it broken for even suggesting that it could join NATO and then leave. The US is only sending troops into Eastern Europe in case Russia stays and feels like causing trouble in bordering NATO countries where the US has Article 5 obligations.
The US military industrial complex is left wanting, Biden has sinking approval ratings and nordstream 2 is about to be turned on. All signs point to needing to start a conflict by the US.
This comment did not age well.
indeed
>The zero-evidence claims that Russia was about to invade sure look like pure propaganda from the same people who are thirsty for it.
Do you still feel this way?
> So who's still agitating for war?
Putin. Putin is agitating for war.
"Elites have hijacked Russia and conflated the country's interests with their own"
Um... Replace "Russia" with the name of any nation on earth, and the sentence remains true.
As an individual with an Economics graduate degree, The Economist strikes me as such a flimsy propaganda rag, it's sad and pathetic it has any attention at all.
Nonsesnse. That's a false equivalency.
Elites have power everywhere. True. But Russia is right now a dictatorship where the elite who kiss the ring of Putin are protected. The others get jailed or worse.
There's an inner circle that decides to go to war and can make that decision without congressional approval. They can mount false flag operations (as they are doing right now) and literally attack unprovoked against the interests of the Russian people.
Sounds just like every nation...
See also Anne Applebaum:
> Putin is preparing to invade Ukraine again—or pretending he will invade Ukraine again—for the same reason. He wants to destabilize Ukraine, frighten Ukraine. He wants Ukrainian democracy to fail. He wants the Ukrainian economy to collapse. He wants foreign investors to flee. He wants his neighbors—in Belarus, Kazakhstan, even Poland and Hungary—to doubt whether democracy will ever be viable, in the longer term, in their countries too. Farther abroad, he wants to put so much strain on Western and democratic institutions, especially the European Union and NATO, that they break up. He wants to keep dictators in power wherever he can, in Syria, Venezuela, and Iran. He wants to undermine America, to shrink American influence, to remove the power of the democracy rhetoric that so many people in his part of the world still associate with America. He wants America itself to fail.
> These are big goals, and they might not be achievable. But Putin’s beloved Soviet Union also had big, unachievable goals. Lenin, Stalin, and their successors wanted to create an international revolution, to subjugate the entire world to the Soviet dictatorship of the proletariat. Ultimately, they failed—but they did a lot of damage while trying. Putin will also fail, but he too can do a lot of damage while trying. And not only in Ukraine.
* https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/putin-ukra...
It would also explain the Russian operations with regards to Brexit and the 2016 US election: the more chaos the West has, the better it is for Russia.
See also funding of more extreme political parties in the EU, with a focus on the far-right in recent years:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia–European_Union_relation...
Russia has been holding the same military drills for over a decade without triggering this panic. [0]
Also, calling Ukraine a democracy is a bit of a stretch. They shut down 3 tv stations critical of the government, and imprisoned a political rival. I am sure there are people here that would love to shutdown RT, but we don't do that in a democracy.
[0] 2020: Russian Military Exercises Near Ukraine. 100 to 120 thousand troops. No WW3, no threat of nukes. https://empr.media/news/conflict-zone/russian-military-exerc...
earlier:
2016 https://www.vox.com/2016/9/1/12729426/russia-troops-ukraine-...
2017 https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2017/09/13/whats-putin-up...
2019 https://radiolemberg.com/en/ua-articles/ua-allarticles/almos...
> Russia has been holding the same military drills for over a decade without triggering this panic. [0]
This post hasn't aged well. :)
Seems different this time.
I suspect "Anne Applebaum"'s loyalty doesn't lie with America.
We've banned this account for repeatedly posting unsubstantive comments, flamebait comments, and this sort of comment.
Without arguing over content, why the quotes? Applebaum is well documented as existing.
[flagged]
Please don't fulminate, use HN for political or ideological battle, post in the flamewar style (including nationalistic flamewar, god help us), or take threads on generic tangents, especially generic ideological ones. (Oh, and one more thing: or use allcaps for emphasis).
All this is in the site guidelines—would you mind reviewing them, and sticking to the rules when posting here? We'd appreciate it. The idea on HN is curious conversation. Comments like the one you posted one, and the others you posted to this thread, nuke that.
> the alternative is strong men using cruelty to extract wealth at any cost.
That sounds like America now...
Go to Africa to see wealth extracted at any cost. Economic and environmental devastation and lots of otherwise preventable suffering.
> Economic and environmental devastation and lots of otherwise preventable suffering.
Still sounds a lot like the US
> Democracy forever. Human rights forever. Freedom of speech, commerce, association and religion forever.
Are you familiar with the Economist? They were saying this stuff in 1843, way before it became popular. They're the real deal!
The Economist has traditionally the worst coverage of Russia amongst Western media. To the point where it starts looking like it is something personal for the editors: always the same narrative, facts and opinions that not fit in the picture are conveniently ignored etc.
This article has a lot of pure speculations, that oversimplify the internal politics and decision making process in Russia. Yes, there’s a relatively small inner circle of people loyal to Putin and sharing his views. Yes, those views are conservative and nationalist. Are those people committed to a war and occupation of Ukraine? Unless you are reading minds you cannot be sure, and for the same reason we do not believe in the world government, it does not make sense to believe in this war conspiracy, when there are explanations of Russian strategy that do not rely on insanity.
Literally everything the west said is happening before our eyes. Russia is mounting a false flag operation trying to find an "excuse" for war.
They were supposed to finish the "exercise" and instead they're adding troops. Will you "accept this as facts" when they march through the entire country or will that just be "an extended exercise". I understand it's hard to admit your own country is run by a power hungry dictator. Mine is too. It sucks.
> hard to admit your own country is run by a power hungry dictator
That is not hard. What is hard, is to realize that sometimes politics transcends particulars of the power structure and the character of the ruler, when it looks more and more like a nation has to do what it must, given the circumstances (no matter how they got there).
My country is Germany, the party I voted for is in the government and I’m pretty happy with our current foreign policy and the person responsible for it. I fully support the ban on shipping military hardware to the zones of conflict and focus on diplomatic effort.
That said, there is no evidence that this military buildup will result in anything and all those parrot talks about invasion or false flag operations are based only on mind guessing and wild assumptions of Putin’s insanity. There is more plausible explanation of what is going on. To understand it, it is necessary to look at the Russian military doctrine, its history of diplomatic interactions with NATO and the history of Russian-Ukrainian relations. Something that most of American and British media are apparently too lazy to do (German media are trying hard to understand what’s really happening and to present a nuanced picture).
Sure. All predictions are guessing. Based on prior facts. E.g. annexation of Crimea.
We're literally seeing multiple reports from independent sources of bombings in those areas. The whole kindergarten bombing clearly there to trigger action that would result in a war.
This also piles up on what they say on national TV, the fact that they issue Russian passports to people in the area to justify the whole thing etc.
Will they eventually invade?
Who knows, that's like predicting the weather. But we don't guess the weather. We use maps and facts to make educated guesses based on facts.
Are they trying to trigger a situation that will give them an excuse to invade?
Sure. Obvious as daylight.
> for the same reason we do not believe in the world government, it does not make sense to believe in this war conspiracy
I fail to see what the same reason is. We don't have a world government. War seems quite likely.
I like this daily "What's in the Putin's head" guessing in the West media. The man himself stated everything 15 years ago in his Munich speech. The core problem - European security is build at the expense and against Russia. NATO expansion after USSR dissolution(which was voluntary act) is seen as proof of its hostility and having military bases of the hostile military alliance right at your borders is existential threat. It is this simple.
53 points from 2 hours ago but already off the front page
This piece is clearly war mongering propaganda, but the discussion in the comments here is somewhat decent. It’s too bad HN immediately kills any concrete discussion about world events like this.
The comments and discussion was actually what I was interested in reading when I posted this
>This piece is clearly war mongering propaganda
I fail to see how it is mongering any wars. It's saying Putin may seek war but not advocating for that.
I personally think the most concrete outcome of the current situation is that no future nation will ever give up any nuclear weapons they come into possession of without considering what appears to be the shabby precedent set by the Budapest Memorandum. As far as I can tell as a layperson, for all practical purposes NPT is dead, and smaller nations with the means and willpower shall develop their own within 2-3 generations.
The information war on this is already very hot. Diametrically opposed viewpoints coming from each side.
US: The russians are about to invade.
Russia: No we aren't.
Honestly, as someone on the outside of this I really have no idea what to believe. Is Putin just putting up a show of force but not actually going to pull the trigger, or is this the real deal preps for imminent invasion?
Yeah, looks like it was the real deal.
The scare of the attack is a great revenue generator for media companies. People in those parts are quite baffled why all of the sudden American media started caring about Ukraine. It’s not bad that they do, but it’s almost like they are goading Putin to attack.
Bloomberg even had a headline prepared that the attack already happened. Then they “accidentally” released it, and then of course, apologized. But they still got everyone’s attention.
The scare of the attack is also beneficial for the Biden administration. If Putin doesn’t attack, he will claim he saved the word from WWIII. If Putin attacks, he will say, of course he did, we told you so. But will he send American soldiers to defend Ukranians? I am guessing not. Just send few blankets and MREs.
Who cares what Biden will say? If Russia does something as drastic as a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, what's next? European basic security is threatened. I don't care whether something will make Biden look good or not.
> Who cares what Biden will say?
Well he happens to be the US president. His constituents and the rest of the world might care.
This article strikes me as rather uninformed
> The problem is that the same logic was just as true eight years ago when the fateful decisions were made to annex Crimea and to stir conflict in Ukraine’s Donbas region.
Crimea is the location of Russia's Black Sea navy fleet, and the population there is majority Russian speaking and sided with the pro Russian government during the Euromaidan protests.
The other day the US envoy to the UN, warned in an official speech that Russia might make the discovery of a mass grave as a casus belli for invading Ukraine, a few hours later Russia Today reported on having found a mass grave of native Russians.
This is not counter espionage, it is counter trolling, watch these joke by Putin how these scary KGB people think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0oic-ix9bM
So to begin with, fact, Putin is a better chess player than Biden.
You might think, oh it's just a board game, computers are better at it. You could say that.
Apparently the strategy right now is get right next to the border of Ukraine and do military exercises, then watch as NATO loses its shit with every passing second.
Part of me wonders if it’s all a ploy to drive up oil prices.
It's already driving gas prices up, which also has some effect on oil prices.
gas prices are driven by gasprom for few weeks already (jusr after a court in Germany forbid the new baltic pipeline usage).
I think the question the article brings up is, why is Russia playing chess against Ukraine and other such countries?
Why isn't Russia instead building bridges, establishing stronger economic bonds, and addressing its own issues inside itself to help increase the quality of life of its people?
And they seem to answer it by saying that Putin and entourage love chess and are really good at it, that's why.
Thus the conclusion is that they are more focused on themselves then what's best for their people.
I don't know if that's true, but it's what I understood from the article.
You assume that nationalism is not viewed by the Russian people as "what's best" for them. Are you sure of your assumption? Not every country believes in the West's new spirit of authoritarian corporatism (some might call it fascism) and collectivist social tendencies.
So, Russia takes on a war posture. NATO naturally responds rather predictably, then Russia just pulls its troops back?
What, exactly, is the strategic advantage there?
They try to make a point by demonstrating what is NATO expansion to them. Their only goal is to reduce NATO presence, not to expand anywhere. By creating a menace without actual invasion they try to discredit US government which makes failing predictions one after other and shifting public opinion, so that NATO will be forced to negotiate a number of treaties on favorable conditions. After all, NATO did seem to promise non-expansion as recently found archive document shows.
Destabilizing “the west” and preventing Ukraine from joining NATO. Look at the pandemic… Soon there will be toil about defensive measurements and expenses. The economy wont like a chronic war threat either. Putin just has to move Russia’s troops every now and then.
Russia splits the West, which is already in some chaos.
Germany is heavily reliant on Russian gas and has been unenthusiastic about sanctions, never mind stronger action. France is being "diplomatic". The UK is an incoherent mess because of Brexit and a mentally ill prime minister.
Also, energy prices. Which happen to benefit both sides.
It's exactly the strategy Russian trolls farms use on social media. Find multiple wedge issues, weaponise them - typically with narcissistic gaslighting and DARVO - inflame grudges and bad feelings on both sides, try to destroy the other side's common identity and purpose.
Putin will have to declare a victory of some sort, but it's likely to be formal annexation of a fairly small region. He'll also be able to blame poverty in Russia on Western sanctions.
The real weapon is the constant psychological and emotional pressure and deliberate confusion.
NATO has no de jure or de facto commitment to Ukraine. Together and individually they've said repeatedly they don't want Russia going in to Ukraine and they've offered Ukraine support both military and non-military short of an actual commitment while at the same time threatening Russia with sanctions.
What exactly is stopping Putin from acting? Every day that goes by and Putin fails to act is it better to say "NATO is losing it's shit" or "Putin is afraid to act and is trying to find a way to declare victory without the burden of acting"
Nothing is stopping Putin from acting, he is acting. It's a menace. He has the option of acting--he can--but at the moment he's getting all kinds of results without actually declaring a war.
He's winning the war before it even begins.
Why does this feel like projection?
It looks like your account has been using HN primarily for ideological battle. Would you please stop that? It's against the site guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and we ban such accounts regardless of what they're battling for or against.
If you or anyone want further explanation, see these links:
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
my favorite hot take from the economist about this war was that one article that considered if Russia might lose because the roads in Ukraine during spring are just dirty and bad
from one of the worst publications to get one’s opinions from this graduated into comedy
edit: for some people it was a serious enough proposition to entertain that i had to check and indicate that no, the analysis shows that russia won’t lose because of dirty roads
https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2022/02/07/...
Doesn’t really line up with your comment, but perhaps you’re talking about a different article?
okay, i misremembered. for me it’s like i was wrong about an onion article
You misremembered to such an extent that the article actually said the exact opposite of what you thought it did?
Impressive.
if i write an article saying “is elon musk alien?.. no” it would be reasonable to say that i wrote an article about him being an alien. it’s not their conclusion that is idiotic, it’s the hypothesis itself
I think you’re just failing to comprehend what you’re reading. Nobody is suggesting that this would have a dramatic impact.
During my time in the military I was in the armored brigade, muddy conditions of the spring really sucked.
Nobody thinks that this would lose Russia the war, but it’s still a kind of a pain in the ass.
Not sure why you think this is funny? Ground conditions are a critical factor in how Russia can use their armour.
against whom exactly? nato? usa? or ukraine? in which of those cases it’s something meaningful? what would it even mean to lose/“be stopped” in each case that it would be impacted by dirty road?
american imagination about this conflict surely runs wild
> against whom exactly? nato? usa? or ukraine?
Ukraine
> in which of those cases it’s something meaningful? what would it even mean to lose/“be stopped” in each case that it would be impacted by dirty road?
Armour can get bogged down as the ground defrosts in the spring - that’s what they mean.
> american imagination about this conflict surely runs wild
I’m British.
The "mud could complicate things for Russia" is one of the statements that the White House officials made, e.g. [1].
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-invasion-of-ukraine-...
Well, that's one of the things that did help to do in the Nazis during Barbarossa (amongst many others of course). The Russians even have a name for it:
wait until you learn about Cossacks
I read crazy theory conspiracy this is about destabilising EU and our energy policy. US can not put sanctions on closest allies directly (NS2), so there has to be war. Just crazy conspiracy theory though...
Russia has absolutely nothing to gain by escalating war in Europe. America has nothing to lose. Everyone knows who wants war.
Neither part of that is true. The US and the entire world economy will suffer immeasurably if there's all out war. The US will be seen as even more ineffectual internationally than it already is after Afghanistan, emboldening Chinese aggression in Taiwan and elsewhere.
Russia - lets be clear, the country that is threatening an all out invasion of a Sovereign nation it's already attacked and occupied; has the possibility of gaining territory, blocking NATO expansion, threatening it's former Warsaw Pact partners into favourable deals, gaining control over Ukraine's enormous agricultural resources, etc etc.
Tell that to Crimea people.
The Russian military was in the Crimea two centuries ago, and has been there ever since. The new aspect in the past decade is western calls for them to be removed.
The revival of Ukrainian nationalism in the modern era was actually a major project of Lenin's. The west is picking up and working on Lenin's own project, although in a slightly different form.
The Cuban government has for decades asked the US to remove its military presence from Cuba, including the detention center where it kidnaps people from random countries (again, against protest from those countries) and tortures them. Perhaps white upper middle class western liberals can rally to the Cubans cause.
Russia was only in Sewastopole. Rest of Crimea was Ukrainian, which was confirmed by a treaty signed by Russia.
I have talked to Crimeans. They overwhelmingly wanted to join Russia... as do a huge number of Ukrainains.
I would really like to know if Russia would still do it for ego reasons alone.
Who wants war?
It’s often USA.
I mean in this situation
Well so far no one started the war.
Do you still feel this way?
For some alternative perspective - here is an analysis from Chinese government outlet Global Times:
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202202/1252149.shtml
US needs Ukraine crisis to harm European economy, and legitimize its military presence
...
Chinese analysts said Sunday that keeping the crisis intense will benefit the US in several fields: legitimizing its military presence in Europe by demonizing Russia and poisoning Russia-EU ties, increasing uncertainties and concerns to harm the eurozone economy so there will be more capital flight from the continent to the US and thus easing the US inflation pressure, and using the tension to stir up trouble for China-Russia ties.
...
When CNN reported that neither the people in Ukraine nor people in Russia were talking about the happenings between Russia and Ukraine as much as Washington did, it is natural to ask why would Washington cares so much about things far away from home when there are plenty of urgent things to take care in the US?
Lots of fun creative writing opportunities in authoritarian propaganda offices.
Honestly I think it is a better explanation than Putin and his buddies have taken over everything and they are evil and have tunnel vision.
they (Putin and friends) a better and way more experienced players than e.g. Biden
Absolutely true. Similarly, US needs China to invade Taiwan and take over the whole South China Sea to justify their presence in the Far East. And who are the CCP to deny such an ambition?
Yeah. Drum the war drums and watch Taiwan's key industry flee to safe habour in the US.