Ukraine

[meiam]

If US/NATO was planning on invading Russia... why aren't they doing just that now? Russia is bogged down in Ukraine and has to use most of its army just to fight to a standstill, if the US wanted to take over Russia it would be trivial to do it now. If the whole idea of NATO being a threat to Russia was even remotely correct, now would be the perfect time to strike. Ordinary Russia and people who are fed that non sense (China/India) must realize this by now, no?

 

[Seanchaidh]

If it was, then do you not think the US would be preparing direct intervention right now?

You seem prone to jumping to conclusions about how people and other entities should act. It has led to some very scattered thinking.

Anyway, there is no particular reason why it should or would. It's not entirely clear that it isn't, though I'd find it somewhat surprising; the plan seems to be to expend Ukraine to damage Russia.

Ukrainians-- including in Donbas-- want Russia to fuck off back to its own borders.

Your link says:

Audience: the population of Ukraine aged 18 and older in all oblasts, except for the temporarily occupied territories of the Crimea and Donbas. The sample is representative by age, sex and type of settlement. Sample population: 1200 respondents. Survey method: CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews). Error of representativeness of the study with a confidence level of 0.95: not more than 2.8%. Dates: March 12-13, 2022.

Do you know what "except for" means?

Anyway, let's find some common ground. I assume, since you favor sanctions as a means to end the war, that you also favor empowering Zelensky to negotiate the end of sanctions on behalf of those imposing the sanctions as part of a peace deal with Russia. Do you?

 

[Seanchaidh]

If US/NATO was planning on invading Russia... why aren't they doing just that now?

1)Because they don't actually give a single shit about Ukraine or its people except as a way to damage Russia, and they can do that adequately without a committed engagement by NATO.
2)They weren't ready to do it.
3)Russia has ICBM-delivered nuclear weapons. Their conventional military (or rather, a large portion of it but not a majority) being bogged down is not terribly important; what matters is how completely disabling a strike on their nuclear capability could be (as perceived by western decisionmakers). As I understand it, and which makes a great deal of intuitive sense, that has a lot more to do with the locations of hypersonic missiles and their launching platforms, not tanks and artillery.
4)They're happy with the current state of affairs.
5)A threat of attack doesn't need to be followed through on to be credible or useful to the threatener. War is diplomacy by other means, diplomacy is war by other means, and undermining the security of a state has repercussions for both.

 

[Terminal Blue]

You seem prone to jumping to conclusions about how people and other entities should act. It has led to some very scattered thinking.

You haven't thought about it, scattered or otherwise.

If you're going to claim that a country is a "satellite" of another, you are alleging a one-sided relationship based on control. The US used to have satellites in central and south America, regimes it had installed through giving covert aid to military coups or right-wing paramilitaries. US influence over these regimes was material, it was not reliant on any personal willingness on the part of the leadership to concede to US demands against their own national interests, it was backed up by very real and obvious threats and the enduring presence of US security and military "advisors". The US also benefited in clear and material ways from those regimes, mostly through the ability to economically exploit their populations.

So, how is that one-sided relationship being maintained in Ukraine? Where are the tools of control? Where are the signs of economic exploitation? For that matter, how exactly does the US incite a popular revolution in which half a million people go out to the streets, risking death in the face of police firing live ammunition, to protest? Did the CIA pay all those people? Again, are they all mind-controlled with hallucinogens and brainwashing? Where are the mechanisms of control? How is control being maintained? Where is the evidence for any of what you're saying?

Again, let's get to the heart of the problem. You have realised (correctly) that neo-Imperialism in particular is frequently concealed behind the façade of bilateral agreements, where one-sided exploitation is presented publicly as two-sided cooperation. However, what you have concluded from this (and only when it comes to the US, for some reason, because you don't seem capable of recognizing Russian neo-Imperialism at all) is that no agreement or alignment with the US can ever be bilateral. There is no reason why any government would align itself with US interests besides some form of insidious and (conveniently) invisible control.

And again, this is the facade of anti-Imperialism draped over a mindset that essentially vindicates and does not challenge Imperialism. You exhibit the belief that Imperialism works perfectly, that it is perfectly capable of subsuming the interests of Imperial subjects with those of the metropole, that it is organic and natural and seemingly inevitable, and then qualify that with the paper thin caveat of believing that it is bad (but only when one country does it more than others). I would call that the most weak and flaccid critique of Imperialism imaginable, but it's not even a critique of Imperialism, it's a desire for Imperialism to be less monopolar.

The plan seems to be to expend Ukraine to damage Russia.

That hardly seems necessary.

What's really a sad irony here is that you've bet on the lamest horse in the race. If the goal was actually to make the world less monopolar, you would have been better off supporting Ukraine's entry into the EU. But I guess if you overlook all the crypto-fascism, racialized pan-Slavism and Christian nationalism, the tiny economy ruined by decades of neoliberal mismanagement and the totally ineffective army, framing Russia as a rival to the US has a certain nostalgic appeal doesn't it..

Anyway, let's find some common ground. I assume, since you favor sanctions as a means to end the war, that you also favor empowering Zelensky to negotiate the end of sanctions on behalf of those imposing the sanctions as part of a peace deal with Russia. Do you?

Why would elected representatives of any country voluntarily allow another country to bypass or take control over their political system?

I mean, granted, you seem to think that happens constantly by some kind of magic so I shouldn't find this as surprising as I do.

If you're asking whether @Silvanus would support an end to or easing of sanctions in the event of a Russian withdrawal, just ask that. Stop imagining that every country on earth (except Russia) is ruled by some kind of shadowy conspiracy that coordinates their decisions, because that is getting dangerously close to certain other things the Russian right tends to believe..

 

[Satinavian]

Do you know what "except for" means?

That means all of the Donbass that Russia had not yet conquered when the questions were asked, is included. And proves beyond doubt that Russia is not welcomed or wanted in the territory it suppossedly wants to liberate.

Anyway, let's find some common ground. I assume, since you favor sanctions as a means to end the war, that you also favor empowering Zelensky to negotiate the end of sanctions on behalf of those imposing the sanctions as part of a peace deal with Russia. Do you?

While that would be a headache regarding souverainty, i would not be against it in practice. The sanctions are primarily to end the war and this would help their purpose. If people would be able to pay for an end to the war and full Russian retreat with lifted sanctions, they would do so in an instant.

However, the practicalities ... . That would involve all the other nations directly into the negotiation with either bestowing Selenskji with the power to make binding treaties in other countries name which would probably highly unconstitutinal in a lot of places or him having to get confirmation for every single proposal from every involved party.

But another question for you :

Why do you think Russia is introducing the Ruble as currency into the Cherson Oblast if it is not planning to annex it ? That has nothing to do with the sham-rebublics of the Donbass because those never claimed Cherson.

 

[Silvanus]

Your link says:



Do you know what "except for" means?

It excepts the occupied territory of Donbas. Which is about half of Donbas.

It wouldn't cover DPR and LPR, but it would presumably cover the rest. Admittedly looking back my description is a bit misleading and I should've specified.

Anyway, let's find some common ground. I assume, since you favor sanctions as a means to end the war, that you also favor empowering Zelensky to negotiate the end of sanctions on behalf of those imposing the sanctions as part of a peace deal with Russia. Do you?

Yes, I would support that.

However, the practicalities ... . That would involve all the other nations directly into the negotiation with either bestowing Selenskji with the power to make binding treaties in other countries name which would probably highly unconstitutinal in a lot of places or him having to get confirmation for every single proposal from every involved party.

No, not necessarily. Sanctions are not created by treaties, and nor do they require treaties to end.

All it would require is for the governments which implemented them to agree to abide by a request from the Ukrainian government. In the case of highly procedural legislatures like the UK, it would probably also involve passing a bill, but that kind of bill would pass without any trouble.

 

[Hawki]

If US/NATO was planning on invading Russia... why aren't they doing just that now? Russia is bogged down in Ukraine and has to use most of its army just to fight to a standstill, if the US wanted to take over Russia it would be trivial to do it now.

Never start a land war in Asia.

Alternatively, start a land war in Europe, and move into Asia.

Might work. 0_0

 

[Satinavian]

No, not necessarily. Sanctions are not created by treaties, and nor do they require treaties to end.

All it would require is for the governments which implemented them to agree to abide by a request from the Ukrainian government. In the case of highly procedural legislatures like the UK, it would probably also involve passing a bill, but that kind of bill would pass without any trouble.

Honestly, i am more concerned about the EU, where member states transferred specific powers to specific bodies to get a common trade policy but certainly did not allow those bodies to transfer those powers to other, non-EU entities. I am not sure what would be needed to make that work. In the worst case, it has to be approved by every single member parliament and might even get several constitutional court challenges.

Of course people could state that they would probably do whatever Selenskji agrees to and avoid that hassle. But then they could theoretically take that back whenever the result is not to their liking.


As for treaties, well, if a peace treaty between Ukraine and Russia included that the UK dropped certain sanctions, wouldn't that require the UK to be a signatory as well ? And if it wasn't, what would happen if the UK reimposed the sanctions over the next, unrelated grievances ?

 

[Silvanus]

Honestly, i am more concerned about the EU, where member states transferred specific powers to specific bodies to get a common trade policy but certainly did not allow those bodies to transfer those powers to other, non-EU entities. I am not sure what would be needed to make that work. In the worst case, it has to be approved by every single member parliament and might even get several constitutional court challenges.

Of course people could state that they would probably do whatever Selenskji agrees to and avoid that hassle. But then they could theoretically take that back whenever the result is not to their liking.


As for treaties, well, if a peace treaty between Ukraine and Russia included that the UK dropped certain sanctions, wouldn't that require the UK to be a signatory as well ? And if it wasn't, what would happen if the UK reimposed the sanctions over the next, unrelated grievances ?

The UK wouldn't need to be a signatory to any peace treaty, no; the lifting of the sanctions would just need to pass through Parliament. And if the paper specifically said it was dependent on a peace treaty between Ukraine and Russia, that would be UK law.

Legally speaking, Zelensky could not make promises on behalf of other governments. But those other governments can simply make clear that the lifting of sanctions would be actioned on the Ukrainian government's request, and after that point, he could in practice make those promises.

 

[meiam]

1)Because they don't actually give a single shit about Ukraine or its people except as a way to damage Russia, and they can do that adequately without a committed engagement by NATO.
2)They weren't ready to do it.
3)Russia has ICBM-delivered nuclear weapons. Their conventional military (or rather, a large portion of it but not a majority) being bogged down is not terribly important; what matters is how completely disabling a strike on their nuclear capability could be (as perceived by western decisionmakers). As I understand it, and which makes a great deal of intuitive sense, that has a lot more to do with the locations of hypersonic missiles and their launching platforms, not tanks and artillery.
4)They're happy with the current state of affairs.
5)A threat of attack doesn't need to be followed through on to be credible or useful to the threatener. War is diplomacy by other means, diplomacy is war by other means, and undermining the security of a state has repercussions for both.

1) So they don't need to expand NATO to eastern Europe to damage Russia.
2) So even though they've been expanding NATO to eastern Europe for decades they're still not ready to start their insidious plan to invade Russia.
3) So expanding NATO to eastern Europe is pointless since it all comes down to nuclear strike.
4) So they don't want to expand NATO to eastern Europe anymore.
5) So they can threaten Russia just fine without expanding to eastern Europe.

Geee it sure sound NATO doesn't care about threatening Russia by expanding to eastern Europe, but I though Putin had to invade Ukraine to stop NATO expanding to eastern Europe?

 

[Satinavian]

Legally speaking, Zelensky could not make promises on behalf of other governments. But those other governments can simply make clear that the lifting of sanctions would be actioned on the Ukrainian government's request, and after that point, he could in practice make those promises.

That would work if Russia was negotiating in good faith. But when they just seek pretenses to prolong the war until they are satisfied, they can just complain about him not actually having that power because that is still with the other nations parliaments and no one can force them to keep any promises.
It could also be a move to paint him and Ukraine as not the relevant partner to further the narrative of this really being a conflict between Russia and the West.

 

[Silvanus]

That would work if Russia was negotiating in good faith. But when they just seek pretenses to prolong the war until they are satisfied, they can just complain about him not actually having that power because that is still with the other nations parliaments and no one can force them to keep any promises.
It could also be a move to paint him and Ukraine as not the relevant partner to further the narrative of this really being a conflict between Russia and the West.

Russia can decide to stonewall negotiations regardless of whether Zelensky actually has the ability to negotiate the ending of sanctions. But it's nonetheless true that he can be conferred that ability, and Russia would be made aware of it.

I imagine at this point, the war is turning out to be such a massive drain on Russian military personnel, equipment, and prestige, that a lot of senior Russian politicians are probably wanting a way out. They also likely feel that Russia needs some key achievement it can hold up to claim (at least partial) victory. Until they get that, they're committed, in order to save face.

Ukraine, meanwhile, is less likely than ever to cede territory, because they've discovered what utter horror the people under Russian military occupation are subjected to. The idea of willingly allowing the people who committed the atrocities at Bucha to control other Ukrainian towns uncontested is unconscionable.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Pope says NATO may have caused Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

Francis says transatlantic military alliance was ‘barking’ at Russia’s door.

www.politico.eu

All the ways catholicism has appeared in the news recently has been a rollercoaster.

 

[bluegate]

Pope says NATO may have caused Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

Francis says transatlantic military alliance was ‘barking’ at Russia’s door.

www.politico.eu

All the ways catholicism has appeared in the news recently has been a rollercoaster.

Figures a bunch of child molesters would side with the fascist gangster tsar.

 

[Kwak]

Intercepted call: Russian admits that he enjoys torturing Ukrainians, and his mother says she would get a “buzz” out of it too

ALYONA MAZURENKO - TUESDAY, 3 MAY 2022, 9:42 pm

www.pravda.com.ua

Men and boys among alleged rape victims of Russian soldiers in Ukraine

UN chief on sexual violence warns dozens of cases under investigation are ‘tip of the iceberg’

www.theguardian.com

 

[Satinavian]

All the ways catholicism has appeared in the news recently has been a rollercoaster.

Meh, the pope has been pretty consistantly anti-Russia in this conflict, considering how much they usually try to stay neutral with wars and such.

And the treatment of Kirill is pretty unprecedented in recent times considering how the Vatican has tried to mend relations to the orthodox churches for decades now. A pope lecturing a patriarch is quite the strong statement.

Have seen statements about this for a couple of days now. But not yet confirmef from any non-Ukrainian source.

While the Ukrainian side has a better track record than the Russian one one when it comes to telling the truth, i don't just take their word alone either, specifically when it comes to numbers.

Now considering all the other quite extensive and often organized looting the Russian army does, it is belieable. On the other hand, no other parties have confirmed the claims for days so it might be wrong.

 

[tstorm823]

Figures a bunch of child molesters would side with the fascist gangster tsar.

He compared this war to Rwanda, that's not really siding with Putin.

 

[Silvanus]

The ACLED reports on conflicts throughout several African states, and is one of the best sources for keeping up with the broad strokes of developments in African civil wars.

Over the past few months they've identified the Wagner Group, the neo-Fascist mercenary company which is fighting alongside the official Russian military in Ukraine (and which is owned by Putin's close confidante) as responsible for massacres of civilians and the intentional killing of children in Mali.

Regional Overview: Africa 26 March-1 April 2022

Weekly reports on the latest conflict developments in Mozambique and Ethiopia are made available by the Cabo Ligado and Ethiopia Peace Observatory

acleddata.com

Regional Overview: Africa 9-15 April 2022

Weekly reports on the latest conflict developments in Mozambique and Ethiopia are made available by the Cabo Ligado and Ethiopia Peace Observatory

acleddata.com

 

[Kwak]

Have seen statements about this for a couple of days now. But not yet confirmef from any non-Ukrainian source.

Fits the pattern.

Russia 'deliberately targeting' Ukraine's food stocks — EU Commission

The comment by Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis came as the Commission announced plans to produce more food to offset disruption caused by the war. #EuropeNews

www.euronews.com

 

[Seanchaidh]

Yes, I would support that.

Good! That seems to be the opposite of what both the US and UK are doing and saying.

It excepts the occupied territory of Donbas. Which is about half of Donbas.

It wouldn't cover DPR and LPR, but it would presumably cover the rest. Admittedly looking back my description is a bit misleading and I should've specified.

The inclusion of parts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts is not clear from the text.