Ukraine

[Silvanus]

Germany shelves Nord Stream 2 pipeline

Undersea pipeline, meant to ferry natural gas directly from Russia to northern Germany, is owned by a subsidiary of Gazprom.

www.politico.eu

Germany has halted certification of Nord Stream 2 in response.

 

[Agema]

Germany shelves Nord Stream 2 pipeline

Undersea pipeline, meant to ferry natural gas directly from Russia to northern Germany, is owned by a subsidiary of Gazprom.

www.politico.eu

Germany has halted certification of Nord Stream 2 in response.

Good. I hope that's just the start and there's much more to come.

 

[Silvanus]

Have just read the transcript of Putin's speech on Ukraine delivered yesterday.

Most relevant sections are here: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/extracts-putins-speech-ukraine-2022-02-21/ but the full transcript is available quite easily. A lot of it is devoted to a rambling and partially-fabricated history lesson about Ukraine.

One wonders, if Putin is solely concerned with Donbas, why he devoted so much of the speech to trying to invalidate the very concept of Ukrainian statehood. Hmm.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

Have just read the transcript of Putin's speech on Ukraine delivered yesterday.

Most relevant sections are here: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/extracts-putins-speech-ukraine-2022-02-21/ but the full transcript is available quite easily. A lot of it is devoted to a rambling and partially-fabricated history lesson about Ukraine.

One wonders, if Putin is solely concerned with Donbas, why he devoted so much of the speech to trying to invalidate the very concept of Ukrainian statehood. Hmm.

This is the most blatant " white man burden." Bulshit I have ever heard from 21st century leader.

"Modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia, more precisely, Bolshevik, communist Russia. This process began immediately after the revolution of 1917...

That's like saying India should be grateful to Britain for creating their modern state. Also there was a Ukrainian identity before the Russian Revolution, the revolution gave them an opportunity to Breakaway.

"As a result of Bolshevik policy, Soviet Ukraine arose, which even today can with good reason be called 'Vladimir Ilyich Lenin's Ukraine'. He is its author and architect. This is fully confirmed by archive documents ... And now grateful descendants have demolished monuments to Lenin in Ukraine. This is what they call decommunisation. Do you want decommunisation? Well, that suits us just fine. But it is unnecessary, as they say, to stop halfway. We are ready to show you what real decommunisation means for Ukraine."

They were already a free country, they already had borders, then Lenin came in and took them over. He did not create Ukraine, he's subjugated it and then Ukraine got continuously got fucked along with the other Soviet States because they weren't Russian enough.

"Ukraine never had a tradition of genuine statehood."

Statehood is a thing agreed and believed in by the people living in an area of similar culture. They have their own language for crying out loud. Saying a nation that has been independent for almost 30 years isn't generally a state is absolutely maddening.
----
The rest of the speech is just overexplained nonsense about America's going to go over and steal Russia's lunch money. Honestly much of a speech is just rambling nonsense.

 

[Agema]

That's like saying India should be grateful to Britain for creating their modern state.

+1

Also there was a Ukrainian identity before the Russian Revolution, the revolution gave them an opportunity to Breakaway.

+1

They were already a free country, they already had borders

Sort of. It's more accurate to say that there were some Ukrainian proto-states (or in the case of South Ukraine an anarchist collective) after the 1917 revolution, and Poland took the opportunity to carve off a substantial chunk of Ukraine too (reclaimed in 1945). There was effectively a pre-Ukrainian state hundreds of years ago in the form of the Cossack realm, which the Russians eventually squashed.

 

[Hades]

One thing that's very worthy of concern is that Ukraine is not a unique situation. Just about every argument Putin gives to justify his invasions of Ukraine such as Russian minorities that require ''protecting'', a shared history with Russia(Russia often having conquered and tormented them), and the supposed ''betrayal'' of them joining the west over Russia also exist within all of Russia's neighbors. Those factors also apply to the Baltic countries, they apply to Poland and Hungary. All countries that were formerly subjugated by Russia, have Russians within their borders and which have rejected Russia in favor of the west.

The one difference is that those countries are members of NATO, but that just means that the safety of all Russia's neighbors is conditional. It means that if Russia has a chance to seize those countries they'll take it, it means that should NATO weaken, fracture or break up then Russia can use the exact same arguments it uses in Ukraine to justify interventions in Poland or Estonia.

 

[Avnger]

Is it an indication of something real or a reflection of deliberately stoked hysteria?

What was there to back down from? The only people-- literally the only people-- who said he was going to invade are the United States and their media handmaidens. Oh, and the Azov Battalion. I guess we're very studiously listening to Nazis nowadays. Can we be really sure that Putin has "backed down" if it is not confirmed by the swastika-sporting genocide advocates?

The more I look into this, the more I have to conclude that this entire series of events is just the most generously funded military in the entire world by far complaining that Russia has a military at all: highlighting the portions of it that are somewhat near Ukraine and calling it a "massive" build-up.


The Russian military has just over a million active duty personnel (per International Institute for Strategic Studies (25 February 2021). The Military Balance 2021. London: Routledge. p. 191. ISBN 9781032012278 cited by wikipedia) of which that Guardian map graphic claims to account for 150,000. About 15%. Frankly, I'm now wondering where the hell the rest would be that is so important.


OK, I ignored this before, but come on. Ships! You're literally complaining about Russia having a naval presence in the Black Sea. They haven't run aground in Georgia or Turkey or Romania or ventured into the Mediterranean (assuming Turkey would let them, I don't even know). Such provocation! I bet their Black Sea naval presence is larger than their Caspian flotilla, too!

They're doing military exercises with Belarus (just like the United States does military exercises in many other countries such as South Korea, Germany and so forth).

A lot of those dots on that Guardian map graphic are in Belarus. How much of this "massive" build-up can be explained by movement to Belarus for those (presumably impermanent) military exercises?

There is no good reason whatsoever for people in the West to treat claims made by Western media that Russia is doing something threatening with anything but the most demanding skepticism.

[...]

So what you're saying is that the placement of the troops themselves is mostly irrelevant to your analysis; it's not about whether it's reasonable for Russia in a defensive posture to have ~3% of its active duty personnel doing exercises in Belarus and another ~12% spread between Smolensk, Kursk, Voronezh, Crimea, and the border near Donbas.

This is basically just the complaint that Putin commands a military gussied up in disparaging tone.

So much for "hysteria" over "Putin commanding a military" for "training exercises with Belarus."

I'd wonder if you'll ever acknowledge how wrong you were, but we both know the answer to that.

 

[Kwak]

it means that should NATO weaken, fracture or break up then Russia can use the exact same arguments it uses in Ukraine to justify interventions in Poland or Estonia.

It doesn't need to use arguments at all really, no-one is fooled by their rationalisation attempt, it was for their own sense of proprietary only.

 

[bluegate]

And here we have Putin's lapdog praising him and simultaneously suggesting the US invade Mexico...


#RandomSenileOldManInterjection

 

[Agema]

it means that should NATO weaken, fracture or break up then Russia can use the exact same arguments it uses in Ukraine to justify interventions in Poland or Estonia.

This of course was the aim when it said NATO should withdraw (in terms of deployments) from Estonia to Romania. What Russia was effectively arguing was the right to threaten and militarily bully all of them, as a way of recovering influence in eastern Europe.

 

[CM156]

This of course was the aim when it said NATO should withdraw (in terms of deployments) from Estonia to Romania. What Russia was effectively arguing was the right to threaten and militarily bully all of them, as a way of recovering influence in eastern Europe.

Russia has mastered DARVO.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Ukraine – Who is firing at whom and who is lying about it? | MR Online

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has an observer mission along the line of control between the government and rebel side in south east Ukraine.

mronline.org

So much for "hysteria" over "Putin commanding a military" for "training exercises with Belarus."

Their stuff that was in Belarus is still in Belarus, isn't it?

I'd wonder if you'll ever acknowledge how wrong you were, but we both know the answer to that.

You're jumping the gun, of course. The claim wasn't that Russia was going to recognize some breakaway states and then move to fortify them-- territories that by the way haven't been under the control of Ukraine for eight years. The claim was that Ukraine was about be overrun by the Slavic hordes.

Do you think the movements under discussion would have been necessary for Russia to bus in (to an apparently friendly welcome) the numbers it has to Donetsk and Luhansk? On another note, have you ever wondered why we never seem to see any diagrams showing Ukrainian troop positions around the Donbass? Bit strange to only see one side. I guess the Ukraine just doesn't have a military!

 

[Silvanus]

You're jumping the gun, of course. The claim wasn't that Russia was going to recognize some breakaway states and then move to fortify them-- territories that by the way haven't been under the control of Ukraine for eight years.

Actually, using the DPR/LPR-Ukraine conflict as a pretense for moving Russian troops into Ukraine is pretty much exactly what a lot of "Western intelligence" said would happen.

And yes, Donetsk and Luhansk hadn't been under Ukrainian control... in large part because of a Russian-sponsored and Russian-armed insurgency. Funny that when the US sponsors and arms insurgency groups overseas to bring about exploitable situations so they can use them as excuses to intervene, you rightly call it out for what it is... but as soon as Russia does the same thing, eyes are averted.

The claim was that Ukraine was about be overrun by the Slavic hordes.

This, of course, is the rancid old tactic of equating all criticism of a right-wing government with racism against the country's people. A move directly from the Netanyahu playbook.

Do you think the movements under discussion would have been necessary for Russia to bus in (to an apparently friendly welcome) the numbers it has to Donetsk and Luhansk? On another note, have you ever wondered why we never seem to see any diagrams showing Ukrainian troop positions around the Donbass? Bit strange to only see one side. I guess the Ukraine just doesn't have a military!

The Donbas is in Ukraine. Even Russia officially recognised Donetsk and Luhansk as Ukrainian territory until literally a day or so ago, when it became convenient not to.

You're basically saying that having troops on the border between one part of your own country and another is the same as having troops marching into a neighbouring sovereign country.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Actually, using the DPR/LPR-Ukraine conflict as a pretense for moving Russian troops into Ukraine is pretty much exactly what a lot of "Western" intelligence said would happen.

Were they saying that because they were planning on provoking conflict there themselves?

The OSCE has been saying that there has been an uptick in hostile incidents in the Donbass, that the shells are mostly landing on the DPR/LPR side of the line of contact, and meanwhile western media is saying that there is "no credible reporting" of any Ukrainian attacks there at all. We're evidently being sold something.

 

[Gergar12]

And here we have Putin's lapdog praising him and simultaneously suggesting the US invade Mexico...


#RandomSenileOldManInterjection

if he were smarter he would have said to invade Canada which makes more sense than Mexico or even just Baja Mexico. Invading Canada would be easier than invading Mexico due to the cartels, lots of guns, and Mexico's culture of resistance to foreign invaders(France, and the US).

Also, the population of Mexico is around 130 million, and the US population is around 330 million.

And yes I know Canada's in NATO, but invading Mexico is an order of magnitude more insane.

 

[CM156]

if he were smarter he would have said to invade Canada which makes more sense than Mexico or even just Baja Mexico. Invading Canada would be easier than invading Mexico due to the cartels, lots of guns, and Mexico's culture of resistance to foreign invaders(France, and the US).

Also, the population of Mexico is around 130 million, and the US population is around 330 million.

And yes I know Canada's in NATO, but invading Mexico is an order of magnitude more insane.

Both are insane, just in equal ways but not to an equal degree.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Both are insane, just in equal ways but not to an equal degree.

The US could recognize the independence of the Zapatistas and then have the Zapatistas tell them to stay the hell out

 

[Kwak]

It doesn't need to use arguments at all really, no-one is fooled by their rationalisation attempt, it was for their own sense of proprietary only.

Proprietary wasn't the word I was thinking of, I meant propriety. The appearance of doing things 'properly'.
Why can't they just be honest and say yeah, we want to invade because we want to eliminate the people inconvenient to us and to take control of it and to call it our own.

 

[thestor]

If Russia outright invades Ukraine, I just hope the West has the sense and the guts to invite Finland into NATO.

 

[Seanchaidh]

You're basically saying that having troops on the border between one part of your own country and another is the same as having troops marching into a neighbouring sovereign country.

You're right that the situations are different; the Ukrainians were actually shooting. Everything else is an arbitrary distinction.