Ukraine

[Silvanus]

For Russia it would have meant a continual weakening of their security situation as more and more weapons and training flow into Ukraine[...]

Literally zero foreign military bases were in Ukraine except Russian ones. Overwhelmingly more Russian weaponry and personnel in Ukraine before the war.

and either eventual subjugation by the United States or very likely a war later on that would be more difficult to win and even more likely to escalate into a nuclear apocalypse.

Hysteria.

They were losing the 'peace' (such as it was). Ultimately what this war is about is whether Russia is weak enough for the United States and NATO to bully it with impunity. All sides seem to agree that, no, it isn't, and Ukraine is paying the price. It is a price that the US and NATO deem worth it as they are still insisting that Zelensky be the one to negotiate any peace while at the same time not empowering Zelensky to negotiate on their behalf an end to sanctions or other conditions which the Russians want in exchange for peace.

What does "bullying Russia with impunity" look like, exactly?

They weren't controlling Russia's domestic or foreign policy. They weren't forcing it into economic devastation. They weren't attacking it or threatening its territory. They were paying it over a billion a day for its oil, and letting it rule however it wanted... within its own borders.

You're just characterising NATO offering other countries membership to be "bullying Russia", which is laughable absurdity. Its not Russia's fucking business whether a different sovereign country joins; they don't get to control the foreign policy of other sovereign countries anymore.

All the while, of course, you have absolutely no problem with gigantic coercion aimed at other countries. The only country that earns this hand-wringing about "bullying" is poor victimised Russia; all the countries that Russia is invading, ethnically cleansing, carpet-bombing etc, they don't receive that same concern. When it comes to them you'll just label them all Nazis and look the other way as civilians are gunned down in the street.

"Imperial annexation" is the only result that will satisfy the West because it will mean that Ukraine has indeed fought to the last Ukrainian and maximized the damage to Russia.

You know what approach would minimise the damage to Russia, save those Ukrainians, and also avoid imperial annexation?

Russian withdrawal. In fact, that's the only approach that would, since they're the sole power here with complete control over whether to end the invasion.

They chose to attempt to conquer a neighbouring country and forcibly absorb its territory. They then failed, lied about their reasons for invading in the first place, and are now dragging it out in at effort to save political face by extracting something they can sell as a victory. Literally every party involved wants them to withdraw, except a small cabal of Russian ultra-capitalists who fear their own political position would collapse if they retreated. So unwilling Russian conscripts and Ukrainian civilians die in their tens of thousands.

 

[Hades]

Its hard to take comments about ''Russia's security concerns'' or ''bullying'' very seriously. The post cold war settlement was hardly some Carthaginian Peace that was so crippling that Russia had no other choice but to violently lash out. Okay, Russia's time as a global war was over, but Russia was also given every room imaginable to profit in the global security order.

Russia was left in complete control of their domestic policies, and the only countries they lost were never a natural part of Russia to begin with. Russia was even allowed to keep Kaliningrad despite them having seized it from Poland/Germany by force. Western governments and business flocked to do business with Russia and turned it into a very lucrative oil and gas market. Even Russia violating its neighbors was something the west tacitly condoned. The worst thing you can say about this arrangement is that Russia has been demoted from undisputed global power to the greatest of the secondary powers. And while that might sting a bit its still a far more comfortable position than fallen empires usually find themselves in.

So if Russia was given full control of its own domestic policies, if Russia was granted wildly lucrative trade deals and if the west even looked the other way when Russia tortured its neighbors then what exactly is the problem? For a defeated superpower that has a long list of atrocities Russia came off remarkably well.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yeah, but the domino effect. Russia had to invade to stop the dominoes falling.

On a somewhat unrelated note, remember just after Trump won and Seanchaidh was angrily denying the possibility of any Russian interference in the election? I used to think it was because they supported Sanders and blamed the results on him not being chosen by the Democrats, but now I wonder if it wasn't because they support Putin.

 

[EvilRoy]

All of this is irrelevant, of course, because as we all seem to know it is the sovereign right of every country's leadership to help the United States bully other countries.

Well, yes. Countries get to decide who they ally with and who they work with. They also get to decide who they work against. That is what it means to be a sovereign nation.

Since you've decided to class this situation as "The West" vs "Russia", and you refuse to consider that the individuals inside of a country could possibly agree with their elected leaders, then you should at least be able to contextualize this situation as Russia failing to provide a case for being a good ally.

This isn't a downtrodden socialist/communist country not being able to compete with the attractive wealth and power of The West, this is the ultra capitalistic, wealthy Russia. All they had to do to win is offer a better bribe, and as the most powerful nearby neighbor to Ukraine that should have been easy. Between wealth, shared history, shared culture, and proximity this should have been a slam dunk. Money for the leaders, bread and circuses for the people. The West could never compete if Russia actually tried to be an attractive ally.

As it is, Russia didn't offer a good enough deal. Ukraine has no obligation to stand by Russia against The Evil West, so off they trot to the EU looking for some wealth and comfort of their own. Sucks to suck, Russia. Of course Russia can't handle losing and so we get an invasion.

 

[Agema]

This isn't a downtrodden socialist/communist country not being able to compete with the attractive wealth and power of The West, this is the ultra capitalistic, wealthy Russia. All they had to do to win is offer a better bribe, and as the most powerful nearby neighbor to Ukraine that should have been easy.

Well, kind of no.

The thing about empires is that they are supposed to suck the wealth out of colonies for the benefit of the home states, not hand money out from the centre to the colonies. Russia wants to make money out of Ukraine, not give it money.

Secondly, Russia is not that wealthy: its economy is smaller than Italy's. It runs a big current account surplus from natural resource exports, but when set against what it would require to significantly subsidise an entire country long-term, not enough. And certainly not enough to counteract the West. It doesn't really make much anyone wants anymore so it's not a good partner to import from. It also wastes its money on corruption and plutocrats, so its wealth is squandered and it's a poor export market. It needs to bribe Ukraine twice over, as it also needs to make up for Ukraine wanting easier access to more useful markets that would benefit its development.

Thirdly, there's a degree of moral hazard. If Russia bribes Ukraine to stay onside, it motivates all the other ex-Soviet states still in the Russian sphere to make loud noises about looking for new and exciting friends so they have to be bribed too.

Finally, there's a political angle. Russia is domineering, corrupt, and more than a little brutal: when it squashed Georgia, countries like Ukraine had a good view of what they were next to. Ukrainians might have liked the idea of a close bond with Russia, but that doesn't extend to being under Russia's thumb. Russian money was already swilling into Ukraine, funding a lot of those plutocrats Seanchaidh complains about and driving a huge amount of corruption. Even with bribes to raise Ukraine's wealth, there is absolutely no guarantee Ukrainians would be satisfied with it, because corruption has a habit of souring pretty much everything it touches. (There are lots of shitty parties out there running countries for little reason other than the parties they replaced infuriated the populace with corruption.)

In the end, Russia invaded Ukraine (and I mean all three times since 2014) precisely because it had nothing else. What Euromaidan demonstrated was that Ukraine was drifting irrevocably out of Russia's grip, and Russia had no tool left but brute force. Russia's interpretation of the Minsk Agreement was designed to permanently place Russian proxies from Donbas in the Ukrainian government, ensuring Russia had the ability to disrupt any Ukrainian attempt to move away. When it became clear Ukraine was not willing to go along with the Russian interpretation and that route was closed, Russia invaded wholesale.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

They were losing the 'peace' (such as it was). Ultimately what this war is about is whether Russia is weak enough for the United States and NATO to bully it with impunity.

Can you point out to me any point during the past decade where any NATO country publicly stated that Russia has no right to exist?

I mean, watching these mental gymnastics you go through in order to defend a murderous, imperialist tyrant because you want to see America hurt is amusing, but it's getting kind of old.

 

[Hawki]

Its hard to take comments about ''Russia's security concerns'' or ''bullying'' very seriously. The post cold war settlement was hardly some Carthaginian Peace that was so crippling that Russia had no other choice but to violently lash out. Okay, Russia's time as a global war was over, but Russia was also given every room imaginable to profit in the global security order.

Russia was left in complete control of their domestic policies, and the only countries they lost were never a natural part of Russia to begin with. Russia was even allowed to keep Kaliningrad despite them having seized it from Poland/Germany by force. Western governments and business flocked to do business with Russia and turned it into a very lucrative oil and gas market. Even Russia violating its neighbors was something the west tacitly condoned. The worst thing you can say about this arrangement is that Russia has been demoted from undisputed global power to the greatest of the secondary powers. And while that might sting a bit its still a far more comfortable position than fallen empires usually find themselves in.

So if Russia was given full control of its own domestic policies, if Russia was granted wildly lucrative trade deals and if the west even looked the other way when Russia tortured its neighbors then what exactly is the problem? For a defeated superpower that has a long list of atrocities Russia came off remarkably well.

I think that's kind of sugar-coating it though. Russia's descent after the collapse of the USSR wasn't pretty. Even if outsiders flocked to do business, living standards for the Russian people did indeed decrease (e.g. life expectancy went down significantly).

To borrow a phrase/concept, I certainly understand Russia's "imperial hangover." Doesn't justify any of their actions in Ukraine (or if we go further afield, Chechnya for instance), but it's understandable. You can find parallels in countries ranging from the UK, to Turkey, to China, even if their responses have varied.

Yeah, but the domino effect. Russia had to invade to stop the dominoes falling.

I'm kind of left to ask how many dominos are left to fall.

It's kind of weird, actually, thinking of "domino theory," only instead of countries falling to communism, it's countries breaking away from a former communist heartland. I mean, Russia's alienated every country in Europe bar Belarus and Serbia (add others if you want), so the dominos are kind of on their way.

 

[Asita]

On a less frustrating note, may I take a moment to recommend some additional historical context for the Ukraine itself? It's pretty approachable, if brief and a bit of a highlights reel. For anyone willing, the ad revenue for the video goes to Direct Relief's Ukraine response, so it's also an easy way to give a little for humanitarian relief.

 

[Hades]

I think that's kind of sugar-coating it though. Russia's descent after the collapse of the USSR wasn't pretty. Even if outsiders flocked to do business, living standards for the Russian people did indeed decrease (e.g. life expectancy went down significantly).

To borrow a phrase/concept, I certainly understand Russia's "imperial hangover." Doesn't justify any of their actions in Ukraine (or if we go further afield, Chechnya for instance), but it's understandable. You can find parallels in countries ranging from the UK, to Turkey, to China, even if their responses have varied.

For the average citizen it might have been dramatic but the Russian state is not driven by the needs of the average citizen. Some plebs facing drastically decreasing living standards isn't going to bother the oligarchs. The economic collapse of Russia also had more to do with the deficiencies of the Russian state than its place in the world order.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Zelensky will have his nice new house in Israel, though.

Explain this.

Yes, I'm ignoring everything else because I don't care any more. This one needs an explanation.

 

[CM156]

Explain this.

Yes, I'm ignoring everything else because I don't care any more. This one needs an explanation.

There are numerous possible interpretations of this statement.
None of them good, though.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Explain this.

Yes, I'm ignoring everything else because I don't care any more. This one needs an explanation.

Israeli Nazis!

 

[Avnger]

Explain this.

Yes, I'm ignoring everything else because I don't care any more. This one needs an explanation.

Sean has gone full red-brown alliance in his quest to own the libs.

 

[EvilRoy]

Well, kind of no.

The thing about empires is that they are supposed to suck the wealth out of colonies for the benefit of the home states, not hand money out from the centre to the colonies. Russia wants to make money out of Ukraine, not give it money.

Secondly, Russia is not that wealthy: its economy is smaller than Italy's. It runs a big current account surplus from natural resource exports, but when set against what it would require to significantly subsidise an entire country long-term, not enough. And certainly not enough to counteract the West. It doesn't really make much anyone wants anymore so it's not a good partner to import from. It also wastes its money on corruption and plutocrats, so its wealth is squandered and it's a poor export market. It needs to bribe Ukraine twice over, as it also needs to make up for Ukraine wanting easier access to more useful markets that would benefit its development.

Thirdly, there's a degree of moral hazard. If Russia bribes Ukraine to stay onside, it motivates all the other ex-Soviet states still in the Russian sphere to make loud noises about looking for new and exciting friends so they have to be bribed too.

Finally, there's a political angle. Russia is domineering, corrupt, and more than a little brutal: when it squashed Georgia, countries like Ukraine had a good view of what they were next to. Ukrainians might have liked the idea of a close bond with Russia, but that doesn't extend to being under Russia's thumb. Russian money was already swilling into Ukraine, funding a lot of those plutocrats Seanchaidh complains about and driving a huge amount of corruption. Even with bribes to raise Ukraine's wealth, there is absolutely no guarantee Ukrainians would be satisfied with it, because corruption has a habit of souring pretty much everything it touches. (There are lots of shitty parties out there running countries for little reason other than the parties they replaced infuriated the populace with corruption.)

In the end, Russia invaded Ukraine (and I mean all three times since 2014) precisely because it had nothing else. What Euromaidan demonstrated was that Ukraine was drifting irrevocably out of Russia's grip, and Russia had no tool left but brute force. Russia's interpretation of the Minsk Agreement was designed to permanently place Russian proxies from Donbas in the Ukrainian government, ensuring Russia had the ability to disrupt any Ukrainian attempt to move away. When it became clear Ukraine was not willing to go along with the Russian interpretation and that route was closed, Russia invaded wholesale.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I'm working off of Sean's assertion that The West bought Ukraine via Zelensky. As has been discussed in the thread over and over by people trying to explain to him - there was pretty minimal amounts of Western money involved in that particular situation. Could Russia get out-bid if competitors took the situation seriously? Sure, but to date they haven't been so by that metric it shouldn't require much more than a brief diversion of the standard corruption/plutocrat money to get the government on side. In the short to mid term, yeah, they would have to actually give decent trade deals to Ukraine and provide economic growth and stability along with the comfort of not having to change, but eventually, it could turn into a Belarus situation, where dependence and control are so near complete that speaking Bel-Russian instead of Russian can get you stabbed in the wrong part of town and thrown off campus in the right part.

The fatal flaw in all this being, as you said, the fact that Russia views Ukraine as a tool to be exploited instead of an actual partner. If they won't pony up the necessary bribes and/or play the long game, they won't win against the simple offer of partnership with the EU.

 

[Agema]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I'm working off of Sean's assertion that The West bought Ukraine via Zelensky. As has been discussed in the thread over and over by people trying to explain to him - there was pretty minimal amounts of Western money involved in that particular situation.

The West didn't buy Zelensky. The oligarch that backed Zelesky is not actually pro-Western (although is strongly anti-Russian). He supported Zelensky to remove an actual pro-Western president that he had a personal grudge against.

Moving towards the West is just the natural direction Ukraine would take. To put this in representative figures, in 2000, Russia was Ukraine's biggest trade partner: Ukraine exported about 25% to and imported about 40% of its total trade from Russia. In under 20 years, those figures had more than halved to 10% and 15% respectively: significantly lower than Ukraine's trade with the EU, and that trend was only continuing.

And it's not just that. Ukrainians will be aware of what was going on in Eastern Europe and the Baltic States. For instance, in 1990, Poland and Ukraine had GDP/capita approximately the same. Now, Poland has a GDP/capita about 4-5 times higher than Ukraine. Sticking with Russia has got Ukraine approximately nowhere in 30 years, when they can see that all the ex-Communist countries that moved towards the EU have experienced rapid development. It is true that Ukraine, like Russia, has "oligarchs" and significant corruption. However, the economic realities for oligarchs are just like they are for other Ukrainians. The EU is where the money and development is. The exception is mostly in the south and east (especially Donbas), because that is the area with particularly strong social and economic links with Russia.

Likewise on the social and political side, the EU is simply more attractive than Russia. Reports consistently show that even in countries with low overall opinions of the USA and West, the West is still in specific ways often admired: for things like low corruption, stability, democracy and rule of law. People universally want those things. Ukraine has been cycling through one-term presidents primarily because of intense frustration with corruption. (And honestly, invasion aside, Zelensky might not have made enough impact in this regard to survive the next election either, like his predecessor.) Again, here, why support Russia? Russia is both immensely corrupt itself and has been a massive driver of Ukrainian corruption: the Kremlin-favoured president Yanukovych was probably the most corrupt since independence.

Seanchadh's drivel is essentially a small factor dishonestly magnified into a universal explanation so he can excuse Russian aggression. The big picture is just that Russia is a stagnant country losing its grip over neighbours who see that to move on and progress, they have to forge links elsewhere.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

Israeli Nazis!

 

[EvilRoy]

Seanchadh's drivel is essentially a small factor dishonestly magnified into a universal explanation so he can excuse Russian aggression. The big picture is just that Russia is a stagnant country losing its grip over neighbours who see that to move on and progress, they have to forge links elsewhere.

Oh I understand, I'm just taking a different tact here. Since everyone keeps explaining to him why and how he's wrong and it just isn't working, I'm coming from the other way. I'm, for the sake of argument, accepting that his interpretation is correct, and then trying to demonstrate that even if someone agrees with his starting point, Russia still isn't in the right and attempting to spread the blame so heavily onto others doesn't really make sense.

 

[Silvanus]

Russian ships carrying stolen Ukrainian grain turned away from Mediterranean ports -- but not all of them | CNN

A Russian merchant ship loaded with grain stolen in Ukraine has been turned away from at least one Mediterranean port and is now in the Syrian port of Latakia, according to shipping sources and Ukrainian officials.

www.cnn.com

So, Russia has begun using occupied Ukrainian ports (such as the port of Mariupol) to steal Ukrainian-produced steel and grain, and sell it overseas. Ships carrying stolen grain have been turned away from a few international destinations, but not all-- they've been accepted (IIRC) at Turkey and Syria.

State TV in Russia is openly stating as such, advertising that grain exports have resumed from the "liberated" City. Leaving out the fact that the actual producers of that grain have had the product of their labour stolen and sold for the profit of the thief.

 

[Hawki]

Russia-Ukraine war at 100 days: Compassion fatigue is here

While Putin no doubt welcomes the metastasising onset of compassion fatigue, Zelenskyy has to fear it.

www.aljazeera.com

Zelensky’s Terrible Dilemma—and Ours

Capitulation or Bloody Resistance?

quillette.com

TL, DR, the war may be swinging in Russia's favour, and time may be on its side for a variety of reasons.

 

[bluegate]

Russia-Ukraine war at 100 days: Compassion fatigue is here

While Putin no doubt welcomes the metastasising onset of compassion fatigue, Zelenskyy has to fear it.

www.aljazeera.com

Zelensky’s Terrible Dilemma—and Ours

Capitulation or Bloody Resistance?

quillette.com

TL, DR, the war may be swinging in Russia's favour, and time may be on its side for a variety of reasons.

They just need to dig in and insist that the captured territory is now Russian, sadly.