Why Vladimir Putin and his entourage want war
economist.com
economist.com
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.
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
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.
Eventually, Euromaidan happened and Ukraine tried to cash into those overtures, but the West wasn't ready to back it up.
Georgia was pushed and encouraged by Western allies which then turn away and abandoned it.
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
I would lean toward avoiding that situation, if possible.
[I'm not in a bunker, but in case of a global thermonuclear war I hope everyone forgets to nuke Argentina.]
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.)
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.
This is a downright lie. Anyone who follows NATO knows that there has been very little desire to allow Ukraine to join.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Suggestions otherwise are conspicuously in-step with Russian propaganda.
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.
but maybe im just cynical and jaded?
Any amount of reckoning (fact checks?) for these past incidents (dangerous misinformation?) would go a long way.
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.
The insane media drum beats are exactly like before Afghanistan and Iraq. It is so depressing how absolutely nothing has changed.
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.
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.
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”?)
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.
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.
>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.
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.
Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum where they committed to respect Ukrainian borders and sovereignty with Ukraine giving up its nuclear arsenal.
"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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
Putin. Putin is agitating for war.
Do you still feel this way?
Doesn’t seem odd to me at all. The media has lost credibility and our government is morally bankrupt.
Many Americans on HN who have never visited either country have a weirdly pro-Russian bend.
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.
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
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?
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).
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.
Best of luck. We'll probably all need it.
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?
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.
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:
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.
As a westerner, that does sound pretty great- especially in the face of hostility from a glorified KGB thug like Putin.
"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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Mongolia would like to have a word.
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.)
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.
Still, nested within the Russian Federation as an administrative entity. (Also, autonomy throughout the USSR was more or less a formality anyway.)
> 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
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.
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).
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.
And the industrial-military complex will laugh all its way to the bank while stepping on the innocents corpses
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.
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.
> 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...
Yes. To which I say: FUCK THAT. Democracy forever. Human rights forever. Freedom of speech, commerce, association and religion forever.
America is imperfect. Capitalism is imperfect. We can, should, and must do better to realize our ideals. We should provide a stronger safety net while preserving the ability to reap large rewards for delivering large value. We must deliver reliable, impartial, humane justice & rule of law that applies regardless the color of your skin and the size of your bank account. There are historic injustices and contemporary injustices.
But I love living in a country where you can look at all those flaws, talk about them, and push for improvements. Where the default is letting you strive for something better. Where everyone gets a say in what the rules are. It's messy. It's messy BY DESIGN because the alternative is strong men using cruelty to extract wealth at any cost.
So yeah. Truth, justice and the American way. More power, freedom and autonomy to the Ukrainians and anyone else who dreams of a better life out of Russia's spiteful shadow.
That sounds like America now...
Still sounds a lot like the US
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.
Are you familiar with the Economist? They were saying this stuff in 1843, way before it became popular. They're the real deal!
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...
This post hasn't aged well. :)
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
I fail to see what the same reason is. We don't have a world government. War seems quite likely.
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.
I fail to see how it is mongering any wars. It's saying Putin may seek war but not advocating for that.
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?
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.
Well he happens to be the US president. His constituents and the rest of the world might care.
> 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
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.
What, exactly, is the strategic advantage there?
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.
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"
He's winning the war before it even begins.
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.
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...
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
Doesn’t really line up with your comment, but perhaps you’re talking about a different article?
Impressive.
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.
american imagination about this conflict surely runs wild
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.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-invasion-of-ukraine-...
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 - 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.
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.
...