The "media" gets a bad rap, but I think we have reached a particularly bad place if the general public is so distrustful of it that we can't use it to communicate about very serious public safety matters.
It's hard to know what is serious and what isnt.
It's very obvious that his demands are impossible. Putin is really a master at playing people. It's kind of shocking people are _still_ falling for it.
All of those negotiations were a strategy for confusion, not solution.
Putin never intended anything else than an attack.
'Negotiations as misdirection' makes literally no sense. Who would he be misdirecting? Nobody is coming to Ukraine's aid.
The US waited until the actual invasion began to impose serious sanctions. Misdirecting for a few days could easily have bought Putin enough time to make arrangements for both his personal and national finances. That's idle speculation on my part, but it doesn't seem terribly unlikely.
After he has attacked, he has the initiative, and can threaten ww3 if any NATO troops enter the combat zone, and a few troops are not much use anyway.
Timing.
As for the talks:
They were instrumental in getting away with the attacks, Putin played that for all it was worth, taking a leaf right out of Hitlers playbook.
This is the sort of rhetoric that is why no one believes the media, too much fear of sounding unhinged and delusional.
The more likely explanation is, IMO, that Trump was just unhinged enough to actually do something, unlike the mellow Biden, who'll obviously just sit and wait (or, well, sleep).
Also, he let Erdogan do whatever he wanted. And the Saudis. He didn’t care!
And even if you don’t believe that, Trump is currently okay with the invasion.
He introduced new sanctions for Iran and killed one of their highest ranking officers. Precision strikes instead of wasteful wars.
Turkey and SA are US allies, Trump just continued that long-standing policy, as does Biden.
> And even if you don’t believe that, Trump is currently okay with the invasion.
Quote? Trump said Putin's "pretty smart", which, judging by their progress towards Kyiv, and the lack of response by the West, well, you can't say it's not smart (at least in the short term... long term, remains to be seen).
Let us not devolve into the Rorschach test that is Trump's administration and our personal interpretations. It serves no purpose but to feed relative trolls.
This is a sub thread discussing some nuance of how we got to this point.
> Let us not devolve into the Rorschach test that is Trump's administration and our personal interpretations.
I don't appreciate the gratuitous insult that we can't objectively discuss the actions of a past president.
Regardless of any point made on the subject, what one side considers objective, the other side considers biased and tainted. Your rejoinder on the existential insult (though a consequence of human nature) is noted -- and your wish shared that we could exist with any real semblance of objectivity. We primates aren't objective creatures when it comes to arguments that at least one side has turned its axioms into articles of faith.
For the record, I expect we agree substantively on an analysis of Trump's presidency, both in terms of motivations, outcomes, and impacts.
Trump praised Putin at every turn (even did that again today and called the invasion "smart"). Went against NATO. Had closed door meetings and got rid of the transcripts. Asked that the US ambassador to Ukraine be fired. Wanted dirt on Biden in exchange for releasing the (congress-approved) military aid to Ukraine. And so on. An entire book could be written on this based only on public information.
If Trump is Putin's puppet why did he publicly criticize Germany for being overly reliant on Russian pipelines for their energy needs?
The recent deployment near the border wasn't the first, although it was definitely an order of magnitude bigger - there were, in fact, questions on whether the exaggerated scale was so brazen and disproportionate (and unbalanced - their Asian border is now pretty weak...) that it couldn't be anything more than posturing.
https://www.google.com/search?q=russian+military+drill+ukrai...
Like, I get that the previous buildups could be dismissed as saber rattling and training exercises, but Putin literally announcing, "HEY I'M COMING IN, I'M SENDING IN TROOPS TO UKRAINE NOW", how do you dismiss that?
You're never sure whether the Chinese submarine is "exercising its rights to international waters" or is preparing for a strike; or the US-Swedish troops are just making friends with each other or getting ready to invade.
That's totally apart from the obvious "sabre rattling" bit.
Kind of like the IT admin that doesn't check backup integrity often enough because there's never been a data loss issue in years.
The government still isn't recommending fleeing. They want to stay and fight--not preside over refugee flows to Poland.
That kind of humanity is of course much harder to experience when bombing or using drones, but I do not know if they're being used.
So far Russia's done precision strikes and is simply rolling troops down roads. They won't encounter much resistance.
A month (or more?) ago Zelenskiy said he's not sending Ukrainians to die. Today there's a lot of tough talk but there's no indication that Ukrainians will put up a fight and die en masse...
There's no evidence to the contrary. It has just begun.
Russian army just does what it's been told. They're risking their lives to make a select few oligarchs a couple billion richer each. They don't want to be there.
If this doesn't end within a week, it'll take years. Putin knows this, hence the offers of unconditional surrender.
When Germany invaded NL for the first little bit there were not many casualties, those came later.
It's bad but it's obviously modern warfare and there likely won't be massive casualties because the Ukrainians aren't marching to die since the west already abandoned them.
We were told Russia would be rolling tanks through the mud and fighting in trenches... Lots of propaganda.
And an hour ago I watched Biden say sanctions are as bad as missiles SMH...
Anyhow, the west abandoned Ukraine, I really doubt too many Ukrainians are eager to die for nothing.
As in: you don't believe that Ukrainians will defend their country?
Because the confirmed number of military KIA in the first hours of the war is only "several dozen" it's "a weekend in Chicago". Just incredibly ghoulish.
To believe that Ukrainians will just let their country be run over is naive, what bugs me is that they are left to hang in the wind rather than that they receive help, that's the one thing that Putin really fears right now judging by his performance earlier, clearly aimed at persuading the public in the West that he would rain nuclear destruction on any country that decides to interfere.
Good enough to supply troops to NATO, not good enough to be defended when it matters? They should go back to 1989 as well?
Besides, there is no reason for Putin to claim those, nor a real strategic value. Ukraine has value: the pipelines, the coast, the Dnieper, and the example for Belarusians not to get ideas once Lukashenko goes. That it would remain a Moscow satellite was basically the agreement post-1990, this makes it more explicit. Sucks for self-determination and all that, but again, avoiding nuclear holocaust is probably worth losing the occasional battle.
> Besides, there is no reason for Putin to claim those, nor a real strategic value.
The strategic value of Lithuania or the North of Poland for Russia can not be underestimated.
> Sucks for self-determination and all that, but again, avoiding nuclear holocaust is probably worth losing the occasional battle.
It isn't the West that is threatening nuclear holocaust here, Putin did just that on live television and if that threat works this time I don't see any reason why it would not work the next.
Historically appeasement of dictators never ends well, I don't see why this would be the exception.
Oh but I referred to sentiment at the other end of the alliance.
> if that threat works this time I don't see any reason why it would not work the next.
Eh, I don't completely disagree, but the risk/reward calculation of invading a full NATO member with deployed military infrastructure is undoubtedly different - if anything because the stay-behind capabilities in those areas would be very difficult to uproot.
> Historically appeasement of dictators never ends well
The luxury of getting rid of dictators in certain countries by swinging a bigger club, effectively ended in Hiroshima in 1945.
France/UK argued that helping elected governments (or people's militias) against their invader could ignite war spreading throughout Europe, so they would rather not irritate these angry dictators. Where did this strategy get us? It's hard to imagine just how different Europe (and probably the rest of the world, for better or for worse) would be today if the western powers had intervened at that time.
It's also worth noting already at the time, social-liberal democracies from the USA to France were very unwelcoming of refugees from the nazi regime. Let's make sure to make them welcome no matter what our governments say, there's quite empty housing for everyone!
No, France was invaded because they didn't shore up their Northern border.
> Let's make sure to make them welcome no matter what our governments say, there's quite empty housing for everyone!
I absolutely agree, except I reckon this is the time for the Visegrad bloc to take them, for once.
Technically correct, yet completely misses the point. If you don't want to be bullied, don't let someone bully anyone else. To be clear, i'm extremely hostile to any colonial Empire (Russia/USA/France/etc) and i'm certainly not a fan of military intervention.
My point is not to compare modern Russia to the nazis, but rather that this laissez-faire policy in regards to military invasions of sovereign territories doesn't exactly have a history of leading to a more peaceful situation overall (see also: France in Mali, USA in Iraq/Afghanistan, China in Tibet, Turkey in Bakur).
And why do you expect Ukrainians to march to their deaths if your country and NATO won't help?
It is very much like the run up to World War II, when countries were making all kinds of deals with Hitler regarding neutrality because they believed that that would keep them out of the firing line, when in fact it enabled a war on a much larger scale than would have ever materialized if the allied sphere had immediately struck back. But even the United States only responded after Pearl Harbor. So, now we have a real problem, and the people of the Ukraine get to choose between abandoning their country, fighting back or living under the Russian jackboot for as long as it takes to plunder their country.
This is not a good day, for anybody.
You say nice words and the "right thing" but the US hasn't done shit for Ukraine.
I agree we should have an even stronger response to Russia right now in terms of just completely crushing their country economically. And perhaps provided more air defense weapons.
But I wouldn't take a bet that Putin wouldn't call our bluff (of troops sitting in Ukraine). And if it's not a bluff......
No, they won't die for this.
He called a former Ukrainian colleague today. According to him Russia obtained complete air souvereignty today. Ukrainian air defence was destroyed by sea-launched cruise missiles. Regular Ukrainian troops are not fighting. They leave their weapons behind and go away. High ranked russian staff promised not to chase them. To the majority of Ukrainian soldiers it just feels not right to shoot russians. So Russia covered a lot of ground today without firing much. Extremist formations on both sides and Russian mercenaries are the ones who do real fighting.
This is consistent with the media insofar as you would usually expect: x killed troops in y, z troops caught, strategic installations damaged etc. You cannot get these reports if one side literally throws their guns away and goes home.
In my friend’s opinion Kiev will fall within the next few days if not tomorrow, the government will either flee or get captured and he joked there will be elections next week.
This is very false, there have been forces deserting, but not in any significant numbers.
While in the morning, attack was sudden and situation looked very bleak for Ukraine, towards the evening, army has been more or less mobilized and started to take back territory.
Unfortunately, the worst is to come.
>In my friend’s opinion Kiev will fall within the next few days if not tomorrow, the government will either flee or get captured and he joked there will be elections next week.
Your friend is a terrible human being.
… do you have anything else to add to the discussion?
Well, do I even have to at this point?
Unfortunately, it does no one any good. All we can do at the moment is sanction Russia. But it does argue that we should be prepared for a nuclear response if they cross any line west, as long as Putin or some other madman is in power there.
I would rather die than live in a shithole under Putin.
The only madness would be not using nuclear weapons against Putin if he crosses NATO lines. If he wants to die rich, he can live a long life. Otherwise let him die with his missiles, and his daughter who dances.
There's still the hope that nobody, not even an imperialist Putin, would be willing to risk the total destruction of his own country if not of human civilization over some territorial ambitions.
Luckily, this is Russia. There is always someone willing to stab the tzsar in the back when the time comes.
So the solution of the OP is to be madder than him and start nuclear war first?
I wish there were someone to replace the mad tzar, its long overdue
And yes, it's evil, and no, it has nothing to do with their border security, that's a ridiculous suggestion, in the same vein, you would be ok with Russia annexing Poland, Lithuania, Finland or Estonia because they are armed and bordering Russia.
As for the whataboutism, that wasn't the subject.
No, it's ridiculous.
Russian economic development through war doesn't save Russian babies, it will kill them.
Ukraine's attempts to prepare against invasion do not justify said invasion.
you don't have to be the head of intelligence to understand importance of ukraine, even if it isn't technically our job to defend it. Germany, UK and Italy have scored an own goal, as has US policy of russian reset. zero upside, heavy downside, bad trade.
NATO is now more relevant than ever before.
Wow, this must be a new low in these threads.
No, Eastern Europe is Europe's 'backyard', and in fact it isn't a backyard. Romania, Poland, the Baltics, Hungary, Czechia, and so on are all solidly part of Europe.
Calling Siberia or Kamchatka Russia's backyard might be accurate. But just like Canada isn't America's backyard neither is Ukraine - or any other former USSR vassal state - Russia's backyard.
Neighbors is an entirely different term.
As for Europe-Russian disputes, there is such a thing as NATO, which was good enough to be relied on after 9/11, I take it that it is still in force? If not can you point me to the news that I apparently missed?
>An area nearby to a country or other jurisidiction's legal boundaries, particularly an area in which the country feels it has an interest. https://www.yourdictionary.com/backyard
Which seems spot on, I swear I didn't just write that myself. The WSJ even went so far as to call Equatorial Guinea (in West Africa) part of America's backyard: https://archive.fo/8UjYC
"In my own backyard" would connote what you are saying, but there's an extra word "own" there.
That's like saying that United States and North America are "neighbors". Is that "true"? Or is it a category error?
Not only does this assume everyone in the thread is American, but also completely disregards the sovereignty and historic significance of many Eastern European countries.
My own country only exists because India wanted to get back at Pakistan and helped us in our independence war. If they hadn’t, we’d still be part of Pakistan—which would be what it would be.
“I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
Biden played it like shit. If they had never warned of war maybe Putin could have saved face.
Instead Biden antogonized Russia, pledged support to Ukraine but didn't actually do anything. They sold out Ukraine. They wanted Ukrainians to do what, fight and die? What good was US intelligence? The US isn't doing shit...
How exactly did he antagonize Russia?
> The US isn't doing shit...
What do you want the US to be doing? Are these actions feasible?
Nothing because it's too late. But had the west given some concrete promises to Ukraine, I don't know at any time in the last few years, do you really think Russia would have invaded?
> How exactly did he antagonize Russia?
Really? He kept threatening sanctions, kept saying the invasion was happening... Even Zelenskiy told Biden to stop...
Edit - now Biden is gloating about being right, talking about sanctions but not helping Ukraine
Edit2 - Biden's press conference is so bad SMH... Hahaha Biden just said the sanctions will be just as bad as Russian missiles are to Ukraine. Clown world...
What specifically do you mean by "concrete promises"?
The US has been sending military aid to Ukraine for years. Trump tried to withhold it but was eventually forced to send it anyway, it was a pretty big story:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_scandal#...
Actually admitting it to the EU or NATO. Actually pledging to defend it.
I'm confused by how this is antagonizing Russia. By saying what Russia was actually doing is the reason they kept doing it?
So he made a bunch of threats then publicly said he won't do anything... Do you think this helped the situation? Even Zelenskiy told him to STFU.
They could have stationed troops in Ukraine. Or they could have taken NATO membership off the table. Or done any number of things but they literally did nothing except threaten sanctions.
Then Biden went on TV to gloat about being 'right' after giving up Ukraine... SMH
I think people just genuinely didn’t think Putin would call everyone’s bluff and be willing to eat all the economic sanctions.
A quick search gives this as the answer to who their largest oil buyers are: China, the European Union, South Korea, India and Japan.
China will do what China wants here. But South Korea, Japan, and the European Union will end up being harder to sell to, if possible at all, in the near future. India is a toss-up, depends on how they decide to participate in all this.
Yes. From Putin's POV: two mehs and one thumbs way up
This is probably why he gave such a strong warning against NATO intervention (re: veiled nuclear threat), he doesn't want anyone interfering with that initial push, which could then lead to a long drawn out conflict.
And this is also probably why Trump, Tucker and other hard right leaders and factions are still parroting pro-Putin propaganda. If "Shock and Awe" works, then the "post-war" narrative is going to switch to something like "See that wasn't a big deal, the media was just scaremongering, the Ukrainian people did not want to fight, and prefer to be a part of Russia. Everyone needs to chill out and move on."
This is not to say that I don't think Putin is crazy. But just trying to read between the lines, I think they think they can get away with this. After all they did invade Crimea with little pushback. On one hand, I hope Ukraine will pull through, but on the other hand, I do worry that the longer this draws out, the further we get away from Putin's playbook, and then more erratic he will be. But if this thing is over in a few days, watch for the right wing to start pushing for a quick return to normalization with Russia.
That's your problem. Putin doesn't care about Russia. This invasion has nothing at all to do with the economic or strategic well-being of the nation of Russia. This has to do with the preservation and expansion of the political power of one single man and his oligarchal cronies. The rest of the country can burn as long as they hold power.
Biggest mistake the West has made is thinking that soft power will work with Putin. He just doesn't care. Sanction some oligarchs and he still goes home to his palace like nothing ever happened.
It's simply not true. He has enriched them not the other way around.
It's very common amongst leaders who have been in power for so long.
Also given his age he is unlikely to be around to see the negative decline of Russia as a result of this action.
For unknown reasons Ukraine started to want to join EU and/or NATO.
If Ukraine joins NATO then Russia would be basically surrounded by NATO forces.
The biggest issue here is that USA has been placing rockets near the borders of Russia in NATO countries and these rockets just happen to face Russia. If Ukraine joined NATO, who's to say that USA wouldn't place rockets there's as well and thus have an incredibly huge reach into Russia.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a pacifist, if I could I would remove all militaries, there's really no reason to have them, since I believe that with rational conversation you can solve any and all issues.
But a fact is still a fact even if you don't like it...
I've been waiting for ten years and am still waiting for my country to legalise marijuana.
Everyone just needs to chill~
Can't we just pass the joint around and be friends?
Also, what strategic value does Ukraine have, that for instance the Baltic countries (also NATO members) do not? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I can’t shake the feeling that the “Russia doesn’t like NATO and Ukraine becoming a member is a bridge too far” argument feels more like a straw man than anything else.
I’m probably just too dumb to get it, so if someone more enlightened would like to clarify why invading Ukraine helps the Russian anti NATO effort I’d be much obliged!
That's mostly because in terms of NATO war isn't allowed, thus generally speaking there's isn't a lot of reason to be scared of the huge army that NATO represents.
What's really annoying to me as a coder and gamer is that, strategically speaking what Russia did was logical and expected. I'm speaking from a point of view of if this was StarCraft, EU4, CK2 or Civ5. And from that point of view, my biased monkey brain is telling me that if US left the EU alone, there wouldn't be a possible WW3 brewing...
Mildly interesting note, my father is studying Multinational law thing and we were talking about the role of NATO, the function it serves. We got to that topic because my argument was that my country (Slovenia) should either stop having a military or focus on having few but very specialised units, because as it is now, it's mostly just a waste of money, that's because we've got a population of ~2 million and about ~4-7k military units, depending on how you count them. Regardless, it's a number that compared to other countries is not even note worthy. Which is why my argument was that our military in its current state is a waste of money. BUT because we're so small we don't really have air forces, which is where NATO comes in. Because we don't have air forces our air is protected by currently Hungarian forces and the ones from Italy a few years ago.
What I was trying to find out with the conversation with my father was, if there's a way to gain the protection of NATO without having an army. But sadly that's not possible, because too be in the NATO, you have to have an army... There also UN which could protect you, but there response isn't guarantied and the response time is much longer then NATO. Thus ima way you're kinda forced to have an army...
I would still prefer removing our army, I mean... We've got pretty lakes and nice mountains, also good wine, why would anyone want to attack us? :D
But I agree that in the modern world, conventional armies tend to be a massive waste of money. It's just that occasionally a Putin-level threat comes along, and at that point you'll be glad you have them.
This is obviously a very sensitive topic at this time, and I hesitate even to post this comment. But I think everyone should be free to draw their own conclusions.
This is a pretty low quality source for anything Russia related.
https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/vladimir-putins-apologists-sp...
Could it perhaps be related to the fact that they were promised neutrality (also by Russia) in exchange for giving up their nuclear weapons... and then Russia invaded Crimea anyway?
The reason is simple and trivial: because EU and NATO are much better friends than Russia. This is why countries willingly join it.
He’s quite happy to sacrifice the lives and prosperity of millions of Russian people if necessary in pursuit of this plan. He’s quite happy to preside over chaos and destruction and call it peace.
Putin won’t stop until he is stopped with force and he has very clearly stated his long term goals - the expansion of the Russian empire for his profit. He has not been subtle about this, the invasion was planned at least weeks ago and the signs were all there:
Except those countries are actually in NATO, so the circumstances will be quite different. Won't stop him from influencing pressure though.
His stated goal is to reconstitute the USSR. One route past the nato problem would be to fund opposition groups in these states, poison opponents and induce them to leave NATO prior to invasion.
If he is allowed to take Ukraine he will not stop there.
This was one of the pivotal moments: "US President George W Bush, in 2002, pulled the US out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which banned weapons designed to counter ballistic nuclear missiles." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49198565
Since then it has been slow and steady escalation https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/timeline/
while we fritter away the time that would allow us to deal with Climate Destruction.
Yes Putin == $BAD_MAN. Yes USA == $OTHER_BAD_MENS. No, neither of those justifies military action on either side.
This is a stupid waste of time.
"I am absolutely convinced that Ukraine will not shy away from the processes of expanding interaction with NATO and the Western allies as a whole. Ukraine has its own relations with NATO; there is the Ukraine-NATO Council. At the end of the day the decision is to be taken by NATO and Ukraine. It is a matter for those two partners."
I don't know enough about Russia's changing attitudes towards the USA: how much of it was hope that they could work things out together to jointly oppress the rest of the world; how much of it was biding time in a weakened state before they could mount a plausible defence against the USA.
But it does seem probable that the prospect of being left without the possibility of firing nuclear weapons at the US while staging bases are set up ever close to Russia would be undesirable to Russia.
Do not take from this that I am defending Russia's actions. I have no interest in either a US nor a Russian Imperium and think that the Ukranian right to manage their own affairs without being attacked is paramount. The same way that I believe that Venezuela and Iran have a right not to be attacked.
All the neighbors of Russia have always known that one must expect that Russia will invade them at the first opportunity, so they made efforts to join NATO as it was obvious that like Ukraine, they do not have enough resources to fight alone against Russia.
Entering NATO was not easy for them, because the main NATO countries imposed a lot of conditions and the new NATO members had to actually unofficially pay their membership with billions of dollars in contracts awarded to companies from various old NATO members.
The NATO membership was not a free gift and it was paid dearly precisely because the new members were those who wanted the NATO expansion, to be protected against the Russians.
It was not the old NATO who desired the expansion towards Russia.
Moreover, calling the new NATO members as "ex-Soviet satellite states" is an insult. They have never been satellite states by their own will.
All the countries from the Eastern Europe are states who have been invaded by the Russians during WWII and where the Russians were able to install puppet governments and steal whatever they wanted as a consequence of the agreements between USA and Great Britain with Stalin.
The states from Western Europe have paid their freedom from Hitler with little of their own money but mostly with what was not theirs to give, i.e. with the countries from Eastern Europe, which were given to the Russians.
This idea that it somehow coercing Eastern European countries to join is baseless and ridiculous.
Not everything comes down to dollars and cents. The Russian president spelled out in his speech that he believes that Ukraine has always been a region of Russia, and never an independent state, and therefore he believes it has no right to an independent existence. The motivations are mostly in historical terms, even if there are economic gains for Russia in the end.
Also, an authoritarian state like Russia using its military might to shut down a nascent democracy like Ukraine is a pretty powerful narrative for the pre-emininence of the former type of government over the latter. There has been quite a bit of solidarity on this subject between authoritarian governments like Russia and China in recent years.
I don't think the accuracy rate for these predictions will be too good but plenty of people seem to think otherwise.
But plagues and pandemics were a thing in the past. So were wars. And man-made ecological disasters.
Therefore, while climate change and COVID might be real, most of the proposed solutions are completely fake.
And to be frank, I "saw it coming", but not that much more than her. I was maybe 50/50 on an attack up until yesterday.
I think I'm justified in having these beliefs, and some portion of people might agree with me, while another portion might call me an idiot, but the reality is that no matter how objectively "right" or "wrong" I am in having these beliefs, the fact still stands that the end result is I no longer believe a single thing mass media says. If they ever do have a legitimate, "true" message they need me to receive, whether about Ukraine, or Covid, or whatever comes next, they no longer have any ability to influence my thoughts or actions.
At this point I feel standard mass media has become so institutionalized, so corrupt, so completely politicized, that there's not even reform possible; the whole system has to be torn apart and replaced with some new system, before I'll even consider listening again.
He does not run the world.
Because he has the World's most powerful intelligence agencies behind him?
I know, children and propagandists will say "but, what about Iraq?" or some-such.
But most serious people know that we generally hear about the relative few intelligence failures versus the multitudes of successes, and that the U.S. and its allies unquestionably wield the World's foremost intel services.
And, here, we have the benefit of hindsight so we know unequivocally: our intelligence had it right and "she" would have done well to "turn to America's president for information".