Putin says Western sanctions are akin to declaration of war
reuters.com
reuters.com
His only play is to act (?) even crazier.
'War' means nuclear war, means the death of probably a large portion of the world population. It's the thing we thought we could stop worrying about 30 years ago.
He doesn't like that he's clearly losing, so he's decided to threaten the end times if he can't get his way. And it might even work, if we truly believe he'll do it.
The problem is the best way he can prove that is to crack the atom over Kyiv.
It really goes to show that nukes just shouldn’t exist- there’s no “counter” to them if the other side is suicidal
THat's the point of nukes. Even if your economy and army suck, you still can be sure that no one will try to go through your borders to get some
There have been several proxy wars between USSR and USA during the Cold War.
Nukes have been around for less than a century, a blink of an eye in historical terms, and have already come close to obliterating the world multiple times. It only takes a single war to undue millennia of progress.
Ukraine never joined NATO. Ukraine was never even given a membership action plan.
> and the west didn't care about his line drawing.
Neither did Putin; the moving red lines were about pretext, not reasoning.
Unfortunately, Putin doesn't seem to care.
We need to stop thinking of nations as this one dimensional cult of personality of their leader.
I think Putin would have a very difficult time getting his generals to agree to nuking Kyiv.
That's the kind of order which leads to coups.
They just don’t know how much support they have
The default penalty for a slightly different perspective is 15 years in prison
The expected penalty is falling out of a first floor window
Everyone is surrounded by people vying for power that will double cross anyone to imprison their direct competitors
Its a prisoners dilemma that allows Putin to use his consolidated power unabated
Except if you would assassinate Putin.
>I am admittedly not even close to an expert to what's going on over there...
The Russians have legitimate fears about the encroachment of NATO and American weaponry right onto their doorstep. You might want to look up a historical event called 'The Cuban Missile Crisis' to see how the US has acted in the past, in a similar situation [see also Nicaragua, Venezuela, etc]
The Russians believe that a democratically elected and pro-Russian government in Ukraine was over-thrown by a US engineered coup [Euro Maidan] and replaced by a fiercely right-wing anti-Russian regime, which is hell-bent on joining NATO and thus having American missiles stationed there [and Ukraine is a lot closer to Russia than Cuba is to America]
The Russians also say their citizens in the two breakaway regions are being genocided. Although that is, at best, an exaggeration used to justify the invasion.
Now, before you accuse me of being a Russian supporter or apologist, I'm not. I'm as outraged by this invasion as anyone else. But to simply pretend that it's all happened because evil mad dictator Putin has suddenly turned into Adolf Hitler reincarnated, while Uncle Sam has been innocently sitting on the sidelines, polishing his halo, is to bring a play school level of critical thought process to bear on the situation.
He keeps advancing and capture of Kiev is now only a matter of time.
And all the while, the sanctions will destroy his economy. No economy = no money to build more war machine.
Edit: read about it some more and Kiev appears to be the old name from the Soviet era which is not well accepted by Ukraine people. It's odd that we in Romania still use this old form given that Kyiv was proposed and accepted in 1995.
It's to shift into conquest mode and burn up your system. It's a non-sustainable move, and if you're going to do it, then typically they go for broader conquest (Moldova would be an example of expanding the conquest, as would formally taking Belarus). In normal times the economy is sustainable: you have $n GDP and $n tax revenue coming in, and you can do certain things with that stream. Sanctions crimp that heavily of course. So Putin can move to an unsustainable model, which means it'll collapse on him eventually, but people in his situation often do it anyway.
You do it by forced labor, labor gulags, forced building of manufacturing, total war mobilization of the large Russian population like it's WW2 again. Over time this would break Russia, near-term it would be a potent spike in their potential to march and conquer territory. The Germans did this during WW2, shifting out of sustainable economy to burn-it-up mode. It can't last indefinitely and it involves killing large numbers of citizens in the process. You have to redirect your economy into a command funnel, which starts to destroy all sorts of structures as you shift your resource allocations to war efforts (so for example Putin shifts labor resources to manufacturing tanks, and as a consequence there's not enough labor to operate grocery stores or repair potholes in the streets or whatever).
The Russian army hasn't been making progress against Kyiv for several days, and in fact Ukraine has been launching successful counteroffensives the last two days.
Russia has been successfully killing civilians though.
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
There are just so many ways this goes very badly, I don’t see how one can be optimistic.
NATO should immediately begin a no fly zone over the Lviv region (with the possibility of widening it as necessary), in case Zelenskyy needs to leave Kyiv and or the Ukrainians generally need to establish a new base of government. They could shield that region / territory from Russia right now without prompting a Russia v NATO war, as it would require no attack on Russia to maintain near-term. If Russia tries to contest it, they're initiating the war, as they knew the area was protected by NATO forces. It would work as a maneuver. Putin could of course always claim that any move by NATO into Ukraine is an act of war, and or that Russia owns Ukrainian territory so any move by NATO into Ukraine is identical to invading Russia and other blatherings, but he can invent claims at any time to proclaim NATO started a war: the question is, can it be pulled off without sparking a war with Russia, and right now I believe it could be.
Rumors are they haven't seen him for days and he's out of the country now, setting up a government in exile, and continue waging a US-backed insurgency.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/03/05/...
He could probably just withdraw, no? Russia isn't under existential threat. Is taking Ukraine really the only option for Putin?
So many very serious people gravely explain that we must stand by and watch residential areas get shelled and rocketed to smithereens, creating a million refugees in the first week, as a democratic nation gets overrun by a mad dictator.
Apparently we have to do this because otherwise the mad dictator will irradiate Europe and maybe North America too.
But somehow the mad dictator won't split the atom if we only crater the mad dictator's economy and provide the weapons that kill his troops.
> ... with a lunatic
Do mad dictators have clearly demarcated red lines like that?
Seems like a truly mad dictator would unleash doomsday if he's losing the war, regardless of which side of the red line we're on.
It's well known that the secret to winning the game theoretical stalemate is to pretend you're irrational.
If only playing crazy could get you anything you wanted life would be so easy for good actors. He could pretend he won, pack and go home. If his propaganda machine is so strong people will eat it and even if they don't there's not much they can do about it anyway. He may just need a pyrrhic victory he can sell domestically.
He already spent so much of his money and so many of my nerve cells. Let the guy finish already, i dont want it all to be for nothing but hysteria and skyhigh prices on everything. We need results
Evidently, all we can do is respond to what Putin does. One must assume that, if the West declared war on Russia, Russia would take specific military actions. Since Russia has not responded to sanctions with those military actions, Putin evidently does not view sanctions as a declaration of war, no matter what noises come out of his mouth.
This is the downside of constant prevarication for state leaders. If Putin ever truthfully tells the West where there is line past which he will respond with force, nobody will know he's telling the truth. e.g. Putin has repeatedly implied that instituting a "no fly" zone would result in nuclear war, but it's clear we can't trust that. It may be a lie. If NATO planes move in Russian planes may simply move out with no further response from Russia.
EDIT: this point is being repeated over and over but I have not seen anything that would corroborate the ukranian side of the story (neither the russian to be fair).
EDIT: To be more specific, the news I heard on Ukrainian media was that corridors were indeed open for a brief period, but fire started again almost at the moment when transports with refugees began moving, giving them no chance to leave.
The ukranian live YouTube channel I follow provided a few messages from (allegedly) people nearby (e.g. no buses or people were still in shelters). No clear picture from these messages.
Gotta read that manufacturing consent book.
Because of Ilovaisk tragedy, «green corridor» now has meaning of death threat, e.g. «we will make green corridors for Russians» means «we will fool Russians and then kill them», not a promise of a safe escape.
When Russians says that they will open a green corridor for us again, everyone is flies from them.
I hope this war stops as soon as possible. The Russian people I know (including myself) don't support the war and are trying to help with the humanitarian aid, refugees etc (I'm outside russia).
Do you have a picture of the notice? How do you know it's your government?
I did not follow this closely because I'm busy with my own problems right now (furreal of 3 man killed by Russians will be tomorrow, so I need to make preparations). However, my advice to our government is in line with advices of other veterans of war with Russia: don't trust them. Russia invaded Ukraine and killed thousands after years of lies about peace. Why they will be honest today?
The exit corridors now are for civilians and there is at least the red cross who is monitoring. I find it hard to believe that russian army would attack civilians in open daylight. That would be a grave war crime and impossible to hide.
What you find hard to believe is clearly evidenced on a daily - sorry, hourly - basis in Ukraine right now. You don't need to believe, you can just see.
> That would be a grave war crime
You don't say!
> and impossible to hide.
They don't care.
"Outrage" on the news really should be replaced with "thing we expected to happen has happened".
Sure, we can now argue whether the promise (1990), the first NATO expansion afterwards (1999), the Bucharest declaration that Ukraine and Georgia will become NATO members (2008) or Ukraine changing its stance from remaining unaligned to seeking a NATO membership (2014) should be labeled the beginning of the current situation, but I think it is fair to pick 1990 as this is where the situation that Russia does not want was laid out.
There are most likely also other interest such as oil and gas in Ukraine but I don't think they are the primary reasons, even though they might have tipped the calculations. And I consequently think that this could have been avoided if the Ukraine would not have pursued a NATO membership or if Russia would also have joined.
I feel like it changes a lot depending on how you feel about hegemony.
Edit: If north and south Korea were about to unify, but China invaded to reconstitute a north Korean buffer state, where was the beginning and what could have been done? Should the south have refused the north because it didn't want to be seen as expanding? Should the north have? China definitely wouldn't be invaded by a unified Korea, maybe they would argue that how they are positioned in international trade justifies it. I'm trying to think of parallels and this is what I've come up with.
The most similar situation is in my opinion the Cuban Missile Crisis. The USSR could argue that Cuba is free to decide whether or not they want nuclear missiles stationed in their country, the USA argues that it is an unacceptable security thread to have those missiles so close to their border. What would have happened of the USSR had not backed down? Would the USA have tolerated the missiles or would the USA have attacked Cuba or at least the launch sites? What would the USA do today, say if China agreed with Mexico to place military assets in Mexico?
So if NATO would decide to invade Belarus right now, then it might be similar to the Cuban missile crisis. Until then, it is just a gross oversimplification of a conflict that is the result of complex relations between countries.
In case of the Cuban Missile Crisis the actions of the USSR were only a response but still not tolerated. You could maybe find an equivalent, something that Russia did first and that then caused Ukraine to seek a NATO membership, but I don't think this is important for the analogy. The equivalent of Russia backing down and not stationing missiles in Cuba for Cuba's protection would be Ukraine not joining NATO.
But I have to admit that I don't get your analogy either, would you mind elaborating?
NATO did not court Ukraine, instead Ukraine wishes to be a member, the current invasion to prevent it being so ironically a case in point. Finland is now considering joining as well, as a response to Russias agression.
It is clear that Russia does not think to invade Finland as well, as it does not consider it to be a part of its old empire, but it does Ukraine.
So in this case it is the sovereignty of a country that is being challenged, as Russia is trying to strongarm countries into backing off from joining NATO. It is not threatening NATO directly. That is a big difference with the Cuban missile crisis.
In the Cuban missile crisis it is very clear that both sides were pointing arms at each other and coercing members of their respective alliances to comply. Here a potential member is invaded. Korea, Vietnam or even the colonisation if Africa would make more sense as an analogy, of power blocs deciding what a country belongs to.
I think I didn't make my main point in the analogy very clear. In case of the Cuban Missile Crisis the USA decided that US security concerns override Cuban sovereignty and security concerns as the missiles were requested as a deterrent against further US interference after the Bay of Pigs Invasion. In case of Russia NATO takes the stance that sovereignty and security concerns of other countries, especially now Ukraine, prevail. This actually used to be different, in the 1990s NATO was initially careful with NATO expansion and created the Partnership for Peace program to make the process more gradual hoping to avoid tensions.
NATO did not court Ukraine, instead Ukraine wishes to be a member, the current invasion to prevent it being so ironically a case in point. Finland is now considering joining as well, as a response to Russias agression.
I would argue that the distinction between NATO and Ukraine is not too important from Putin's point of view. He claims that the West, NATO, and especially the USA are interfering in other countries and shaping their governments. If you believe this, the line between a country wanting to join NATO and NATO wanting a country to join becomes pretty blurry.
It is clear that Russia does not think to invade Finland as well, as it does not consider it to be a part of its old empire, but it does Ukraine.
This has been repeated frequently, but is there actually any good evidence that Putin thinks this way? I haven't looked into this, so I am only vaguely aware of two points. When Putin became president in 2000, there was a controversy about the national anthem of Russia and Putin decided to use the USSR one with new lyrics. His explanation was that there was already enough change and considered it as a small token of stability.
Then I am aware that he called the fall of the Soviet Union a tragedy, but I don't know about the context. On the other hand in 2000 he said roughly this.
You can not take anything back. You can neither get your youth back nor the years that have passed. Even more, if we try to return to the past, we will certainly destroy everything permanently. But we can do something so that people are not only not worse off but better off than in the past.
This isn't made any easier by the fact that we are talking about at least two decades and viewpoints change. But I would really be interested in evidence one way or the other and how this might have changed over time.
EDIT: The points about the national anthem and going back in time I got from the documentary Putin's Witness which was recently uploaded by Ukrainians in two parts [1][2] with English subtitles. I was quoting from the scene at 18:05 in part two. The subtitles in those videos may be more faithful translations as I just roughly translated it from the German version of the documentary.
I would also like to highlight what follows 22:50 in part one, it's about the apartment bombings and Putin visiting the scene. I can hardly imagine a more stark contrast between his words then and his actions now. And the whole things is of course a big controversy in itself, were those terrorist attacks or did Russian forces blow up Russian apartment buildings in order to unite people behind Putin and legitimize military interventions? If it was staged, did Putin know or was even involved?
After that, he has used all of his “Active Measures” (look that up too) to divide the West. Also I sincerely doubt we would be in this mess if Russia was a functioning democracy.
Basically you have one guy who can damage the world, answering to no one. Russia and Russians was never the problem, just one man and his cronies.
There were a ton of alternatives that would have made Russia more powerful and respected without resorting to Soviet tactics.
Of course, I will not argue with that, Russia is no democracy and Putin an autocrat who is willing to kill for his power. But this doesn't necessarily make any implications about his foreign policy, you can run an autocratic country without desiring to conquer the rest of the world.
After that, he has used all of his “Active Measures” (look that up too) to divide the West.
I am aware of the term but not much more and I will do some further reading. But interestingly the Wikipedia article [1] in the section »1991 to present« starts with 2014, which is well passed 2008 and aligns with Ukraine's renewed desire to become a NATO member.
From there you can search up some terms and periods mentioned in that video.
You can find more perhaps at https://csis.org
The interesting thing is the gap in the timeline which aligns with other resources I found. There was a time when all the current mess was avoidable, a time at which Russia was eager to work with the West, a time at which Russia was heading towards a NATO membership through the Partnership for Peace program. But things went south and Russia turned against NATO and the USA again, Putin's 2007 speech at the Munich Security Conference is probably the most well known expression of Russia's or Putin's frustration [4].
M. E. Sarotte: Not One Inch - America, Russia, and the Making of Post-Cold War Stalemate (2022) [1]
John Mearsheimer: Why is Ukraine the West's Fault? (2015) [2]
Vladimir Pozner: How the United States Created Vladimir Putin (2018) [3]
Vladimir Putin: Speech at Munich Security Conference (2007) [4]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXBKGRPwfZw
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
I do know Obama really wanted to get closer to Russia in the sense of a better relationship at the start of his presidency. So what exactly happened I cannot tell.
I guess things really went south post 9/11 when the USA really used its power without accountability. In its 2007 speech at the Munich Security Conference he is frustrate with how the USA acts, how it ignores the UN which he considers the only legitimate entity to decide over military interventions. He complains that the USA wants a unipolar world order. Then in 2008 the Bucharest Declaration opens the way for Ukraine and Georgia to become NATO members and this crosses the red line. It had of course been crossed before with the Baltic states but Russia still swallowed that.
Russia intervenes in Georgia in 2008. And in the active measures documentary you see some dates from the time after 2008, the good relations with the West are over. But the vast majority of examples in the documentary are actually from after 2014, when the the pro-Russian Yanukovych government, that had essentially suspended seeking a NATO membership, was replaced and a NATO membership became a priority again. He annexed Crimea, intervened in eastern Ukraine, and stepped up active measures. He was now somewhat running out of time, Ukraine becoming a NATO member was unacceptable to him but there was no indication that anyone would care.
By keeping Ukraine in conflict in Donbas he could prevent a NATO membership for some time, but it would probably only be a matter of time until Ukraine would become powerful enough to take back eastern Ukraine. And once Ukraine would become a NATO member, he would have to face NATO instead of Ukraine. And this would probably also mean that it would be likely that he will lose the strategically important naval base in Sevastopol on Crimea.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership_for_Peace#/media/F...
The other thing I would argue is that you can not use the current war in Ukraine as a reason why the Ukraine should become a NATO member if it is indeed true that Russia attacked primarily because Ukraine wanted to become a NATO member.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia%E2%80%93Russia_relatio...
He was already threatening nuclear if he doesn't get what he wants. If he's serious about that, nothing the west does besides rolling over and just giving him the world will stop him from doing that and giving in to him will, in my opinion, only embolden him by showing him that his threats get him results.
If he wants to end the sanctions, then he can withdraw from Ukraine and we'll go from there.
Remember also that Putin lied multiple times: its just a military exercise, not invading, you're crazy (then he invaded); civilians won't be targeted or harmed (and then he started targeting and killing civilians). Nothing he promises or says can be trusted.
Having said that, its all rather difficult. If he's backed into a corner and sees no other way out, what's stopping him from going "Fuck it, I'm screwed either way, launch the nukes"...
If the US leadership over the last thirty years was even a little less unscrupulous and short-sighted, we could have averted this geopolitical catastrophe currently unfolding in Eastern Europe, but I'm sure the fact that "Putin started it" will be great comfort when the nukes start falling and everyone you knew or cared about is dead.
Two wrongs don't make a right, now do they? I find it mind boggling that such an act of agression can be made immune to critique because "some other country did it worse that one time."
So instead of trying to assign blame, lets try to resolve this situation to all parties' benefit, rather than lionizing one side, and demonizing the other. Which ultimately means taking Russia's security concerns and legitimate grievances seriously, because if this gets out of hand, then it will be to the whole world's sorrow.
But right now, the crisis at hand is that Russia has invaded Ukraine and Putin has lied again and again. How can we take Russia's grievances seriously when Putin has been acting on bad faith all along.
The crisis at hand is that we have, along with our counterparties in Russia and the EU, created a region of instability along the outer Soviet arc that has existed since its formal collapse in 1991. This war in Ukraine is just the latest manifestation of this.
I personally would like my government to try and negotiate with Putin, and to make an honest effort to address his concerns, in an attempt to put an end to hostilities. How many more times do we have in us, to creep along the edge of nuclear war, are you all so eager for the grave? Clearly you feel differently, and I guess that's where we will have to disagree.
Putins acts have demonstrated that Ukraine’s desires to join the EU and NATO are absolutely warranted, to protect themselves from exactly this.
Additionally, Putin has threatened anyone that gets in his way from getting what he wants with nuclear war. We can debate about whether it’s an idle threat or not but if it’s true, then that and his attack on civilians shows that he has no regard for human life, that he would rather face his own peoples annihilation if it means he can also punish those who stand in his way. Someone making such threats, and who had a clear history of lying, cannot be trusted. What does listening to him achieve if nothing he says can be trusted? Nothing he agrees can be trusted, so what agreement can possibly be made?
The invasion of Ukraine was premeditated, he was planning it for many many months based on the movement of troops and equipment and the leaked reports I heard about. This wasn’t a reaction to a breakdown in diplomacy, this was a long planned invasion.
I’m not saying we should invade Russia back and I’m not saying we shouldn’t take great care when dealing with the situation. I am saying that Putin cannot be trusted and I fear diplomacy doesn’t work against someone whose promises cannot be trusted and someone who has shown to have great ambitions yet also a callous disregard for human life. I also don’t think we can reasonably assume that he won’t use nuclear weapons when his attack on Ukraine is becoming increasingly brutal as he’s getting more desperate.
So what are we to do? Just give him what he wants? Show him and the rest of the world that brutality and threatening nuclear war gets you whatever you ask for?
Where was everyone during the last 8 years during the Donbass war where Ukraine deployed battalions composed of neo-nazis against unarmed civilians?
Further unapproved thoughts from approved sources:
1. US ambassador decided who they'll pick for the puppet during the 2014 coup, right on this call: https://youtu.be/WV9J6sxCs5k
2. Ukraine is the only country with an official neo-Nazi battalion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion
3. Ukraine parliament speaker was an open anti-semite and neo-nazi, and also served as minister of national security(!): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andriy_Parubiy https://www.channel4.com/news/svoboda-ministers-ukraine-new-...
4. Ukraine commits assaults and arson against their rather sizable ethnic minorities, again, using their neo-nazi groups: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/02/ukraine-dead-o...
5. Ukraine has neo-nazis at every level of their government: https://youtu.be/KfaAyiP8Wuc
6. Ukrainians killing civilians for 8 years using the same neo-nazi battalions mentioned above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas
Just as Ukraine refused humanitarian corridors during the last 8 years in Donbass, they are refusing them now to their own civilians to exit cities under siege.
It's amazing how people think Ukraine is this shining beacon of freedom and Russia is this evil orc empire, when in fact, they both have the same transparency score, aka just as corrupt.
Now tell me, how is recognizing independence of a province populated by a persecuted ethnic group, and then marshalling troops to protect it any different from NATO vs Kosovo?
The minority is Russian, so I guess it's a safe pre-approved behaviour to hate them and ignore their persecution by literally self-admitted neo-nazis.
Go ahead and support Nazis openly.
Now it seems that he is going to be downvoted to oblivion but I think he shouldn’t. Why? It’s exactly this kind of opposite and constructed opinion (right or wrong really it doesn’t matter) that help us to be better critical thinkers and get a better view of the world. If he is wrong then we will know even more why about the subject. If he is right then our views have now dramatically changed! Now of course we have to take time ourselves to go to his material, in the rabbit hole of infos, fact check, check the sources etc… Or else we are no better than the other person we disagree with! Just lucky to be on the right side. Or! Not even knowing that we are in the wrong one and never being able to know it without putting the effort!
Thanks to his comment and going down to the rabbit hole of infos and fact checking etc… I now know a lot more about what’s going there, Ukraine, the geopolitical states, Russia… and also why people may think like OP. Doesn’t mean I agree. But I have now a lot better and wider understanding than before. And that’s too bad to not respect people that just help ourselves to achieve that even if we disagree with them.
Is the rest of the quote. Cherry-picking 101. Jesus, Reuters. WTF do you want me to pay for?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz
Some of the sanctions are definitely too much, as they will worsen the life of regular Russians and Europeans too much, without many strategic benefit, since both sides believe they are right, making them antagonize each other, leading only to further escalation
And no one knew that before introducing them. Considering that they say that they already knew about the invasion a year ago.
As a regular European: good.
We are at war, I'm more than willing to pay personal costs to inflict pain and casualties to Russia, even more so if those costs are "only" financial. I absolutely want my government to hurt us if that means hurting Russians even more.
Tell that to people who live on minimum salary, maybe they will explain you something about "financial price"
OTOH I hate from the bottom of my heart the entire wave of pseudo-intellectuals and anti-western useful idiots who push the "two-sides" narrative. (Just to be clear because this is the internet -- I'm not implying anything about you specifically)
https://www.focus.de/finanzen/boerse/konjunktur/top-oekonom-...
What long run, i wonder
Russians can get up to 15 years in prison for calling war in Ukraine for what it is - a war. Instead they are supposed to call it "special military operation".
By the same token economic sanctions on Russia should not be called economic war. Instead, they are "special economic operation". Let's make putin eat his own words.
</sarcasm>
But if we get involved, we probably can't just blow up stuff and walk away -- I think that only works in movies :)
After all, trade and increasing cooperation and communication is commonly believed to be the antidote to war. When we trade with each other for things we need, then it makes taking what we need with violence a less economically attractive option.
So, by instigating sanctions and cutting off trade relations, how could that be construed as anything other than "we're taking all options for settling disputes off the table, except violence"?
I'm not taking Russia's side here, and the situation is obviously more complicated since they were the ones to initiate violence in Ukraine, but it does seem like the West has effectively made a strong alliance with Ukraine and declared war on Russia, even if they have yet to exchange bullets (or nukes) directly.
Might does not exclusively mean kinetic might.
Because is it explicitly an option for settling disputes that is not violence? If you don’t want countries to go to war, you need solutions to settle disputes that aren’t violence. Trade sanctions are one such solution.
Are you for or against that? What are the reasons for your position?
You need to expand on your comment for it to have meaning.
If Putin says its war then it's war, no? The west has justified not intervening to avoid war. If it's war anyway, then we should intervene. If this isn't explicit enough, we should intervene militarily in Ukraine.
> You need to expand on your comment for it to have meaning.
Not really, there's a lot implied by my comment...
Russia will quickly start losing a conventional war. They would turn to nukes. When it seems like Russia is losing, all nuclear nations would be on high alert. They being on high alert with fingers on triggers is bad not just for Nato and Russia but also for non participating countries like China, India, Pakistan, Israel, NK because when there is a nuclear war on the horizon, everyone wants to be on the alert. However, each country raising alert will cause suspicion on the other country. For example, China raising its alert level will trigger India to do the same followed by Pakistan. All it takes now is one nuke to fly (may be between Nato and Russia or even a false launch detection). Now all countries will trigger all their nukes purely out of suspicion in the fog of war due to panic.
So that's why Russia can shoot/burn or destroy people /cities /infrastructure, NATO will not lift a single finger in terms of actual participation in war to help Ukraine (whatever the public opinion might be).
So what is the trigger in your opinion: NATO involvement, or losing the war?
What do you think would happen if NATO doesn't intervene and Putin still loses the war?
The best outcome at this juncture is to fall back to western most cities and save as much land and army as they can. Especially the army pinned in the eastern most provinces have to start moving back and meet up with the remnants in Kharkiv, Kyiv and other cities. If they fall back fast, RA cannot really pursue them as their supply lines are stretched as well. They have to get mobile and freely move around now for any chance of preventing a complete rout (and capture of the army at breakaway provinces).
I see the point. But I disagree with that...
* First we need to make sure we tried every other option. If WW III does start we need to be 100% sure it wasn't started when there was some other option.
* I think he's a very logical actor. People incorrectly say that his operations don't make sense. They make perfect sense. He did test runs in Crimea, Eastern Ukraine and Syria. The west didn't do anything so he assumed nothing bad will happen
The problem is he's stuck now. He wants to withdraw but he can't without looking weak. He climbed too high on the tree and he knows that if he withdraws without a "win" he won't live much longer. The west needs to find a way that he can spin as a "win" moving forward. Otherwise this might snowball.
This is the part that's particularly scary to me.
> Mr. Putin’s tendency, American intelligence officials have told the White House and Congress, is to double down when he feels trapped by his own overreach.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/03/us/politics/biden-putin-s...
Rational or not doesn't really matter if what he wants is a war (I mean, he already started a war with Ukraine of course).
It's a persecution complex that's very common in Russia. They're paranoid about western expansion. This has some historical merit to be fair.
Compared to other OECD countries, South Korea's female suicide rate is highest with 15.0 deaths by suicide per 100,000 deaths according to the suicidal rate list, while the male suicide rate is third highest with 32.5 per every 100,000 deaths.
Not like they were negotiating in good faith anyways, as they continued to shell the East.
I don't agree that we have to find a way for Putin to save face.
At some point there will be a coup d'etat, if the army and the oligarchs suffered too much.
Keep in mind he killed all opposition in Russia.
People don't know what they are talking about. It is extremely simple, just 2 words - missile defense. Russia has nukes and NATO wants to protect themselves by moving their missile defense systems closer to the Russian border, to shoot the nukes down before they can reach the atmosphere. Russian army and economy suck and they won't be able to handle a standout with NATO armies without nukes, so Putin makes "special operations" to prevent them from moving missile defense systems closer. Simple
These can be launched into the orbit from any point on Earth, and de-orbited onto the target from literally any direction in the sky.
It's one of the reasons why it's so hard to defend against them.
To avoid devastation, needless deaths and the mass exodus of refugees. Now even if the war was over tomorrow it would take decades to recover - to deal with unexploded ordnance and for people to return.
We're way past appeasement.
Also, he's shown too many cards. His military is incompetent and/or looting itself.
Probably better to announce we're going to do this unless he "clairifes" his position.
Edit: Also, his strategy only works if the US behaves rationally, and also assumes that he will not behave rationally because he's senile and dying of cancer. Call (his subbordinates') bluff by making it clear Biden's battier than Regan.
If he thinks this is war and it’s a war he’s willing to fight then he should fire the first bullet or shut up.
There will be crippling sanctions for long enough to change Russia as we know it. And there will be endless supplies of arms to anyone in conflict with an ever poorer Russia. If Putin wants any other future then he better start negotiating.
If Putin views it that way, that removes the main obstacle to a NATO-enforced Not Fly Zone in Ukraine, which is that Putin would view it the same way.
But, no, it's not a declaration of war. It’s more of a special economic operation for the demilitarization and deputinization of Russia.
What I'm finding interesting is that there's no impartial news in this whole conflict. Either Russia (it seems any Russian leader on that position would act the same way) is somewhat justified on doing it (because of NATO's expansion to the east, etc...) or He's the next Hitler trying to expand the Russian empire and trample any democracy next to him.
I only found one video explaining the conflict from both sides of the conflict on an impartial matter. The creator did his job explaining the economic, political and geographical aspects of the conflict.
My two cents:
The conflict is complex on both sides:
- Russia thinks Europe and the US are their enemies. They don't want them as "neighbors" even though they do business together, play sports together, etc...
- The right to self-determination of the Ukrainian people is a fact. They need to do what's good for them in all aspects of their lives and with this conflict escalating, they are more than willing to join NATO.
Possible Outcomes:
1. Russia "wins": - 2/3 of the world won't be conducting any type of business with the country. - This will push a further polarization of the World, literally creating cold war 2 all over again just that this time we'll have 3 proxy powers: Western, Russia and China.
2. Russia "loses": - Government collapses: I don't even know what would happen with Russia if Putin is deposed. Chaos will be the least of the issues that Russia would be dealing with. - Government "caves" to Ukrainian demands: This will undoubtedly create bitterness from the Russian people to the West in general and will put nations to rethink their postures and form alliances to shield themselves from Western sanctions.
3. Russia agrees to cease fire if Ukraine doesn't enter to NATO: This would imply Russia not giving up Crimea nor the "independent" states formed after the war.
4. Putin goes nuclear: Not much to say...
I can't imagine what Ukrainians are going through right now. It's easier to condemn and go to war with Russia but let's just think about it for a moment. The implications of a full scale war between NATO and Russia, when the latter is threating to use its nuclear weapons. I'm not from the US nor Europe and I'm looking a grim future all of us if this conflict keeps escalating.
There has to be a diplomatic way for the sake of Ukraine, Russia and the rest of the World.
If they aren't in bitcoin, why would they try to seize a peaceful nuclear reactor?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF9KretXqJw
Based on the lecture it's evident that the Russian government only respects force. Soft measures will only encourage them.