Is that meant to demonstrate economic strength?
* Russians have massive amount of brain drain. Most of tech employees have left, leaving only people extracting oil, people who turn it into fertilizer and gasoline and supporting roles.
* They can't build military tech because of sanctions. Starting to use 1950s and 1960s tanks.
* They've privatized and violated tons of foreign companies (for example Renault gave away 68% of car manufacturer Avtovaz to the state). Nobody in their right mind will bring money there in the future.
* They can't import smartphones, tech or luxury cars (things that keep russian upper middle class happy).
> Cutting Russia off from SWIFT has only strengthened their ties to India and China
There has been both strengthening and weakening. Russia depends on China, not the other way around.
> and now we're dealing with soaring food and energy prices at home
It hurts both ways. This is normal. Appeasement would be a better choice?
Yeah, you just keep believing that. Western media was happy to report the mass exodus at the beginning of the war, but for some reason didn't notice that the vast majority of them have returned by now. Undoubtedly, some will be better prepared next time and will leave for good, but that definitely won't be 'most of tech employees' because there's nowhere for them to go. It's really hard to emigrate to the West (you have no idea how difficult it is even for those working in IT), and neighboring countries can't soak up that many (I'm from one of them).
Pope Francis says Ukraine war was ‘perhaps somehow provoked’
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/14/pope-francis-u...
"The pontiff warned [..] against what he said was a fairytale perception of the conflict as good versus evil"
"We need to move away from the usual Little Red Riding Hood pattern, in that Little Red Riding Hood was good and the wolf was the bad one [..] something global is emerging and the elements are very much entwined."
Of course, one could argue Ukraine has a right to self determination, but we effectively egged them on and on. And now here we are - Ukraine is getting destroyed in a war of attrition, more or less a proxy war.
One could argue that, but that would be their eagerness to ignore and dismiss important details of Ukraine's founding legal documents that made their independence possible in the first place.
If one reads the Declaration on the State Sovereignty of Ukraine from 1990 [1], one will find it in Chapter IX: "The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention to become a permanently neutral state in the future, which does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three non-nuclear principles: not to accept, produce or acquire nuclear weapons".
Ukraine's constitutional sovereignty has always been and still is predicated on respecting these conditions, but a whole lot of politicians, foreign and domestic, want you to believe otherwise because it serves their political goals.
[1] https://zakon-rada-gov-ua.translate.goog/laws/show/55-12?_x_...
https://www.amazon.com/Red-Blood-Tales-Sisters-Grimmer/dp/08...
Geopolitics aint no fairy tale. It's gang warfare writ large.
He mentions in the article that an unnamed world leader told him Russia would get upset at NATO being so close to their border. Putin has publicly mentioned this multiple times before the war with Ukraine.
Finally, Ukraine has the right to join any alliance it wants and for Russia to invade over that is bullshit. If you want to bring up promises about not joining NATO then we must talk about promises not to invade. Russia has already done this before in 2014
In geopolitics, nobody has any particular rights. Whoever has the bigger stick and better propaganda gets their way.
One could argue that there’s no reason to have sanctions on Cuba, that Palestinians should also have the right to self determination, that America doesn’t have the right to interfere in the developing world.
That’s not how the world works, regardless of right or wrong.
IMO - the west could have prevented this war. Regardless of what Ukraine wants, an agreement that NATO will not expand eastwards for 60 years in exchange for Russia not invading. That was all we needed.
Why does it matter if a NATO country is on the border anyway? In the age of ICBMs, stealth bombers, and drones is the real concern that some large NATO force would march over the border for a land invasion of Russia?
This question, no matter how well intentioned, is irrelevant.
Russia views NATO as an existential threat. It’s irrelevant whether you agree with that NATO is such a threat or not. Russia does not want NATO on or by its borders. They’ve been making this clear since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
You can disagree with them, argue in favor of NATO expanding eastward, or specifically making Ukraine a member state, etc. These are all moot points.
Russia has made their position extremely clear. The war is obviously not a surprise.
Tell us something. Why does it matter to the US when China tries to expand its sphere of influence over HK or islands in the Pacific?
What would happen if a Chinese bloc propagated itself to the Western Hemisphere and established an alliance with Cuba or South America?
Surely the same argument - that none of it matters in the day of nuclear weapons and ballistics capabilities - that same argument would valid, right? But would Washington stand for this? Absolutely not.
Cuba is still being punished to this day. The Monroe doctrine is still very real.
Russia warned about this for decades. The West basically told Russia that they don’t matter, that they’re a has been, and NATO will do whatever it wants.
Well, here we have the consequences. Now Bidens administration is quietly admitting that the war is becoming an economic liability for the US, but I digress.
Sometimes it's because exactly what is obviously the reason.
Ukraine can do whatever it wants. It was up to NATO to flat out reject any prospects of Ukraine’s membership and prevent the war, but they egged it on.
Ukraine can do whatever it wants, but the simply truth is that Ukraine is now just ground zero in Washington’s proxy war with Russia. They could have remained neutral and avoided this disaster.
No, it doesn't have this right to join ANY alliance, as it may violate one of the conditions (military bloc neutrality) under which their sovereignty was granted to them by the USSR, which Russia is a legitimate successor of: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31746866
[1] The election has been widely recognized and endorsed as being fair and an accurate reflection of voters' intentions by all international agencies observing the election including the OSCE and PACE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_el...
You provided a source to show the elections were valid but who was questioning that? The cause of the uprising (from wiki)
"In November 2013, a wave of large-scale protests (known as Euromaidan) erupted in response to President Yanukovych's sudden decision not to sign a political association and free trade agreement with the European Union (EU), instead choosing closer ties to Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union. "
And you also speak about lack of representation but
"A total of 315 of the 349 MPs registered in the sitting hall supported the document on Friday." [1]
That's a huge majority in any political system. I think there's room for debate whether the people were represented sufficiently by the president's actions.
Regardless, again unlike jan 6th, a foreign country was involed and later invaded. Two, the revolutionaries reason was truthful and not a lie about election fraud , and three a meaningful percentage of the population was involved which gives some merit to a revolution.
Sources
1.https://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/ukraine-politics/pa...
The motion you are mentioning was the Ukraine cabinet passing a resolution (in other words a statement of intent) to continue working towards an EU Association Agreement, the exact same sort they currently have with places such as Israel, Egypt, South Africa, Syria, and many other such nations. [1] That cabinet then chose to not pass any further acts that would have been necessary to move forward with said agreement. Instead it started moving towards the creation of a 3-way association agreement between Ukraine, the EU, and Russia that would help ensure trade could flow amongst all parties. [2]
That's when you started getting protests, which quickly escalated into riots and insurrection efforts. And you then also get completely bizarre scenes like this [3]. That is John McCain in the capital of Ukraine, telling protesters that America is with them and that their future is with America and Europe. Imagine if you had something comparable during January 6th from comparably high level Chinese/Russian officials. It's not only completely surreal, but also understates the issue. Because this was effectively a superpower declaring war on the current establishment of a much weaker country, which is going to endlessly embolden insurrection efforts.
As for merit, neither the protests nor insurrection were supported by the majority of the country [4], at least not until the government was overthrown at which point there were reasons for self censorship, and likely also disrupted polling as various regions began rejecting the new government and declaring their independence. And I don't believe you've considered the implications of your statement that so long as a "meaningful" percent of people participate in an insurrection, it has merit. US elections are regularly decided on near 50/50 scales. Obviously you don't support the idea of the losing party now just trying to violently overthrow the winning party. The only thing that large participation would show is the degree of radicalization among the losing party, which is certainly not a positive thing.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Association_Agr...
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Ukraine...
[3] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93eyhO8VTdg
[4] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan#Public_opinion_abou...
That's not quite true, as an engineer in Russia, I'm not witnessing massive exodus (yet?)
Russia is ahead of the west both in ballistics & air defense using mostly off the shelf consumer chips that are very easy to smuggle in via 3rd parties.
> Starting to use 1950s and 1960s tanks.
Retrofitted tanks that get the job done. These are being sent to the rear for policing (occupying) operations as well as given to the Donbas separatists.
> Renault gave away 68% of car manufacturer Avtovaz to the state
Pretty sure that was on Renaults own volition. The Chinese are more than glad to take up the slack.
This is an absolutely absurd claim. I will say that it is flat-out FALSE.
Probably not a troll, but a true believer. As a Russian/American following this sick war with abject horror, it really depresses me...
That's the scent I get from these comments. The same lies that I've been hearing on Russian TV for years and years. "Sanctions? Russia's doing better than ever! Failures? The entire war has been going exactly as planned! Technology? We have some of the most advanced military tech in the world! Ukraine? It was never a country to begin with!"
Anyways:
- https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pentagon-demurs-biden-confir...
- https://missilethreat.csis.org/system/russian-air-defense/
- https://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2019/06/26/the-r...
I doubt this will continue.
The West has clearly demonstrated that their sanction and Russo-phobia will target not just politicians and oligarch, but normal people as well. Students being expelled, employees and artists fired, hospitals not treating them, etc.
Ordinary Russians aren't safe/welcome in the West, and they know it. Going home is their only choice (or praying that Russia collapses soon and Russo-phobia ends... sounds like a gamble).
* Electronics can be imported via China and Kazakhstan. Thousands of kilometers of line of contact, plenty of T62's in good condition, why not give them to separatists? It is not as if Ukraine has anything better to offer. Cruise, ballistic missiles on the conveyor and in the air. Every day and night.
* So? You are not planning to restart the business in the near future as a result of your position? Bye. Toyota, Honda, and Nissan have all already announced their return. Asian cars it is. Although, cars are still very expensive.
* Lol. Again, China and Kazakhstan. It's been cheaper to order from China than ever before (or since 2016 as I remember). Aside from that, phones and other electronics are available in store at prices even lower than before due to market rate prices. GPU's are literally more accessible than three months ago.
What hurts is inflation, but it's everywhere. Also, it's kinda annoying not to be able to pay for some services that I usually use through russian bank's credit card. I guess I'll need to travel to another country in order to get a regular card, many russians did that already.
They have 260+ captured Russian tanks, for one thing. Ukraine has asked supporting countries to instead send howitzers, anti-air guns/missiles, and multiple-launch rockets. By the end of this war Ukraine might end up with the largest tank army in Europe. https://oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenti...
By most reports Ukraine (and Russia for that matter) are both much more limited by supply of trained tank crew than lack of physical tanks. Hundreds of Russian tanks requiring 3 crew members were already being driven by crews of 2 (in some cases untrained), and therefore combat ineffective right from the start.
Russia has lost an estimated 1000+ tanks in 3 months of war, and now has all but stopped doing maneuver operations, whether because they are scared to lose more or have run out of supply. From what I understand Russia’s tank production has entirely stopped for lack of microchips and other components.
> Cruise, ballistic missiles on the conveyor and in the air. Every day and night.
The rate of Russian use of long-distance missiles dropped off dramatically after the first couple months of the war. They wasted their missiles blowing up hundreds or thousands of militarily irrelevant civilian targets (apartment buildings, hospitals, schools, etc.). External experts don’t have perfect knowledge of Russian supplies, but the most plausible inference is that the Russian military is running out of whatever stores they were willing to use here. (Presumably there is still some reserve, but missiles getting used are not being obviously replaced.)
What the Russian military does have a lot of compared to Ukraine is artillery and artillery ammo, and unguided rocket launchers. Pretty much all of the stockpiled 152 mm (Soviet caliber) artillery ammo in Europe was already sent to Ukraine and Ukraine has almost run through it all, but Ukraine doesn’t yet have enough 155 mm (NATO caliber) howitzers to replace the 152 mm artillery that is out of ammo. Hopefully they will get hundreds more NATO howitzers in the coming weeks and months.
As Ukraine officials beg for help, and ask for half of US army armor 4th month into the war, you guys keep inhaling copium, dreaming in your beds about Russia "being destroyed" in Ukraine. I wouldn't expect anything less from western propaganda enjoyers tbh. Also taking oryx stats seriously, that's fun.
While some parts were definitely messy, and it really is a tradegy donbass and crimea situation had to be resolved this way, you'll soon be aware about the real situation in Ukraine, no matter how bad you want to believe the lies.
"The rate of Russian use of long-distance missiles dropped off dramatically" I offer you to check Ukrainian telegram channels, like "труха" for example (2mil followers) which will gladly tell you about this "dramatic decline".
“It’s unfortunate those pesky Ukrainians had the audacity to exist, which forced us to invade their sovereign country, shell their cities to rubble, and mass murder their civilians. Just like we were forced to mass murder Chechens, Georgians, and Syrians. And might have to mass murder Poles, Finns, Lithuanians, Romanians, or Kazakhs in the future.”
Just like the US "was forced" to mass murder Iraqis because, in addition to fake WMD claims, the US intelligence was linking Saddam to Bin Laden.
I wonder how exactly you would characterise Khattab, among other "prominent" "freedom fighters", and his role in the Chechen wars. Would you be willing to accommodate similar kind of characters in your country of origin and, possibly, give them a freedom to attract and gather a following among certain kinds of radicals? Would the US be willing to accommodate Al-Qaeda in, say, Texas?
If nothing else, the Iraq war led to a sharp political change in the USA. With any luck the senseless war of aggression in Ukraine will lead to similar changes in Russia. But since Russia is a fascist dictatorship, peaceful politics is outlawed and any changes are likely to be more violent.
* * *
The 1999 apartment bombings in Russia attributed to Khattab (among others) were most likely a false flag operation undertaken by the Russian state security service, under orders from Vladimir Putin. Using self-terrorism killing hundreds of your own civilians as a pretense for launching a war and mass-murdering tens of thousands of your unhappy oppressed colonial subjects while obliterating their cities is a hell of a way to cement personal power.
you are deflecting from the question:
> Would you be willing to accommodate similar kind of characters in your country of origin
Khattab and his friends like Basayev and other "freedom fighters" have a long and undisputed history of butchering civilians that they were proud of. Taking a maternity ward hostage, or beheading western communication engineers, or, say, stuffing an elementary school with explosives and taking the kids hostage, and many other similar things were done in broad daylight with these lunatics officially bragging about killing civilians. But you've conveniently swept it under the rug. Well, here is the answer: if a group like that operated in the US, they would have been shot like rabid dogs at all cost, very quickly.
> Iraq war led to a sharp political change in the USA
What change? US continued to have troops on the ground in those countries for decades, culminating with the rise of ISIS in Iraq _on Obama's watch_, no less. Matter of fact, there are still several thousand US troops in Iraq _and_ Syria, doing God knows what there, on my dime.
In the USA, violent groups are treated as a law enforcement problem, unless direct police violence is necessary to prevent them from harming someone. Extremists who commit local crimes are arrested and prosecuted, and afforded all of the normal protections of the legal system.
For example, the Oklahoma City bombers Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were tried and sentenced to death and life imprisonment, respectively. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
There is a chance domestic terrorists could be let off based on prosecutorial incompetence or sympathy, jurors’ personal beliefs, or a future executive pardon, but going through a legal process is much better than extrajudicial assassination.
The US government has plenty of skeletons in its closet, but there is nothing in its recent history close to the annihilation of Grozny. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1999–2000)
right, and in line with this level of evidence and argumentation, 9-11 in the US was presumably organised and conducted by a joint operation between the Pentagon and FBI.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings#Rus...
https://www.gq.com/story/moscow-bombings-mikhail-trepashkin-...
> 9-11 in the US was presumably organised and conducted by a joint operation between the Pentagon and FBI
This is not very plausible given the extensive available evidence about the plane hijackers and their biographies. More plausible (though still unproven) is speculation about the role of Saudi elite. Zacarias Moussaoui claimed in a deposition that major donors to Al Qaeda included “Prince Turki al-Faisal, then the Saudi intelligence chief; Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, the longtime Saudi ambassador to the United States; Prince al-Waleed bin Talal, a prominent billionaire investor; and many of the country’s leading clerics.” (quotation from NYT) Of course, while he had the access to know about what happened, Moussaoui is not the most credible source.
In the US where free speech is protected, those who made various claims and conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks (Bush did it! Israel did it! The CIA did it! etc.) didn’t get locked up or murdered, unlike the people investigating or raising questions about the Russian apartment bombings. For instance, Artyom Borovik, Anna Politkovskaya, and Alexander Litvinenko, all of whom were assassinated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artyom_Borovik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Politkovskaya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko
Only, for some reason the free speech protection did not help Assange from being prosecuted and his life being destroyed for broadcasting US war crimes evidence in Iraq [1]. The same could be said about your prior mentioning of the Battle of Grozny. There were real terrorist groups in Grozny that had to be eliminated, and in a 2007 Baghdad there was nothing but a false pretence.
[1] the infamous US taxpayer-funded "keep shooting" "collateral damage" done in Iraq: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYTxuW2vmzk
If he ever is successfully extradited to the USA, he will be afforded the same protections of the law as any other accused person. He will face a trial by jury, and have access to an attorney. The prosecutors will need to prove to the jury that he committed a specific crime.
But he won’t be assassinated, summarily executed, or imprisoned without trial, as regularly happens to government critics in Russia.
Sounds like they're already on the outskirts of Moscow and don't actually need the $40 billion.
Maybe we can get some of that back?
Why would they try to go to Moscow? They don’t have the logistical capacity to pull it off and it would be in nobody’s interest. Unlike Russia they don’t seem to be ruled by crazy people.
More realistically Ukraine will lose a bit more ground and a few more towns in Donbas before the Russian offensive culminates, and then as more supplies come in they will eventually counter-attack when they get a chance. The Russian military will run out of soldiers and equipment while the Russian economy sputters, and will be slowly pushed out of Ukrainian territory. What happens as a result to domestic policy in Russia will be highly volatile and is hard to predict.
Which systems exactly (models, etc)? And who exactly will field them?
> Ukraine will lose a bit more ground in Donbas before the Russian offensive culminates
Correct, that's one of their stated objectives
> The Russian military will run out of soldiers and equipment
They ran out of both two months ago, didn't you hear?
> Russian economy sputters
Any evidence that this is happening or will happen?
Russia has lost on order 20k dead soldiers and some multiple of that wounded, thousands of lost pieces of equipment, etc. But that is still less than half of the resources they committed in Ukraine. Despite steep losses, attrition hasn’t yet completely obliterated the Russian armed forces.
But since they have done no general mobilization in Russia, those lost troops are not being replaced, and more and more units are losing combat effectiveness with each passing month. They are also running out of untrained separatist cannon fodder from Donbas.
Ukraine has also suffered tens of thousands of casualties and lost a great deal of equipment. But since Ukraine is fighting for survival, it has much more available manpower, and its soldiers have better morale and motivation. The bottleneck for Ukraine is training and advanced weapons like artillery, rockets, missiles, and fighter jets.
> Any evidence [Russian economic trouble] is happening or will happen?
Lots of Russian industry has already shut down, and GDP is expected to contract 15% this year and an additional several percent the year after (for reference, US GDP contracted by 4.3% in the great recession, and by about 30% during 1929–1933). Europe is transitioning to other energy sources as fast as possible. In the medium term Russia is not capable of continuing much of its domestic oil production without foreign equipment and expertise. Few foreign investors are going to feel any confidence to invest in Russia, for years.
And the best thing - rich Russian escaping Russia end up being sanctioned, hence, many stay.
Let's see who can suffer more: Westerns + accepting a global food crisis with millions of dead people in the Third world (thanks to the sanctions, NOT the war per se) or the Russians who lived like shit before and know that this is yet another round of sufferings.
From the Mongol invasions to WWII to the Soviet Union, Russians have a lot of experience with collective suffering and deprivation.
One reason I heard my Russian friends repeating is that "it's a bit country so we need a strong ruler to keep it together". But history shows this is not true. Also a federation of states like the USA would probably work better than the current setup where a short guy from Moscow is sending Buryat boys to die in a country they haven't seen before.
Excuse my ignorance… but how is it different from a tall guy from Connecticut sending, I dunno, Montana boys to die in a country they haven't even heard of? I'm just trying to understand the difference.
Russia has historically been invaded by such people as Genghis Khan(actually his grandson, Tamerlane, Napoleon, Charles )I forget which one) of Sweden, and Hitler.
The USA on the other hand is protected by two oceans and has not had a foreign army on the continent since 1815.
[0] Some people blame the spirits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK7l55ZOVIc
here is a fun one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian_occu... Russia really doesnt like the fact Poland not only occupied Moscow, but also got Kings son elected Tzar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_monarchs#Tsars...
Yeah, I keep hear Putin repeat it, always blaming the West. There are two logical fallacies here: first, the Russian fleet is blocking Ukrainian ports, not the other way round, and second, even if we ignored the situation on the Black Sea, it is Putin who started the war. I know Russian accept this logic and victim-blaming, but its' strange to see it on HN.
As for Russians living through bad times, I still wonder why do you have to accept all this crappy treatment. I know when you revolted in 1917 the result was a total mess but maybe it will be better this time. I really believe the Russian people deserve a better fate than what the next years are going to bring you.
How long before their economy collapses? Of course with the idea that everything you're saying is true. Which at this point, I have no basis to disagree with you. I'm just wondering how long you think it will take for all of this finally come to a head.
> is run by (mostly) competent people
Citation needed.
Russians themselves have gotten used to consumer goods etc from the west, but they are mostly too afraid to rise up against or fight for Putin, who has most of modern russian state built around himself. So, no uprising from within probably.
Altogether if not the end of summer, then it's into very scary territory. Famine + energy prices - while Russia being unable to advance in Ukraine because of seasonal changes.
I too can issue a currency, set its value at 1,000,000 USD per unit and declare monopoly in trading it.
There are plenty of Forex exchanges trading RUB for any currency. Including USD, EUR and others. Governments don’t have control over all exchanges so they can’t set the price. The price is determined by supply & demand (ie: the market). Governments do have some levers they can use: buying or selling reserves to put up or downward pressure on the market price.
To limit trading of a currency you’d have to limit exchanges to any other currency. If you limit RUB-USD for example, people could still trade RUB-EUR and EUR-USD, thus still creating a defacto RUB-USD pricing.
For several years we bet the global economy on the idea that we could safely coexist with an aggressive dictator. That bet did not pan out. I agree with you that the least painful time to remove our dependence on Russian fuel was several years ago, but we failed to take the ample warnings and here we are in a crisis. At least we're finally dealing with it.
What would you suggest as an alternative? Continue doing business as usual as if they're not murdering women and children?
No we should do everything possible to stop it.
There is a problem though - when "murdering women and children" is done by approved country "Continue doing business as usual" is pretty much what the West does. And I am not aware of any real repercussions for the crimes committed.
The war in Ukraine is a straightforward story with an obvious bad guy, and it doesn’t require much self reflection to figure out or cause much cognitive dissonance.
"They" were fine with their own government killing hundreds of thousands in Iraq and whole bunch of other countries. They're fine with their government threatening ICC as organization and its members. They've definitely picked their battle and frankly I think by doing all those things without any repercussion they are being hypocrites and setting example to other countries. No high moral ground here. The whole world affairs are quite disgusting for that matter.
Personally I just try to think about nice things that humanity still manage to produce and as I am a creative person my brain is always busy with rather more inspiring matters.
The media & their masters tells us who to support. And Ukraine vs Russia is profitable.
[1] https://zakon-rada-gov-ua.translate.goog/laws/show/55-12?_x_...
Second, that was also based on the promises made in the Budapest memorandum. Seeing that Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, the situation is already drastically different. Ukraine's choice post-2014 were to surrender to Russia's whims, or try to find allies to protect it from future Russian incursions.
And third, the Ukrainian SSR had sovereignty before it declared independence ( nobody "granted it sovereignty"), de jure ( being a component of the USSR with at least nominal, if not real depending on the guys in Moscow, autonomy) and de facto.
These are the same in the followed legal events (see below)
> Second, that was also based on the promises made in the Budapest memorandum
The Budapest memorandum was signed in 1994. The Declaration on the State Sovereignty of Ukraine was signed in 1990 and it pre-dates all further legal documents that led to Ukraine's independence. All subsequent legal documents and events are predicated on respecting and referencing the declaration of 1990. The Constitution of Ukraine of 1996 references and follows the Act of proclamation of independence of Ukraine from August 24, 1991, which in turn follows and references "Implementing the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine" [1]. Implementing the declaration means following and executing all intentions of the declaration, that's why I said above that "conditions" and "intentions" mean the same thing in the underlying legal procedures.
> Seeing that Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014
you forgot to add: after a prior armed coup against a legitimately elected president in Kyiv. The coup, among many other things, violated the right to a political representation of the people's voice who voted for that president. In case of president Yanukovych, these were the people of the eastern Ukraine, including Crimea, who were deprived of their right to a democratic process in their country.
> And third, the Ukrainian SSR had sovereignty before it declared independence ( nobody "granted it sovereignty"), de jure ( being a component of the USSR with at least nominal, if not real depending on the guys in Moscow, autonomy) and de facto.
Blatantly false, the Ukrainian SSR had certain autonomy under the Union, as did a few other european and asian SSR's, but it didn't have sovereignty [2]. This is the whole reason the Declaration of 1990 exists in the first place, as it was the means to declare and begin a legal transition to a sovereign state. And in that sense sovereignty was granted to Ukraine, because there only are two ways a nation can obtain sovereignty: either by fighting for it in a war or by coming into a peaceful legal agreement on mutually respected terms and conditions. In 1990, the second approach was taken and the terms and conditions were declared and signed by all parties in the Declaration on the State Sovereignty of Ukraine.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_of...
[2] Under the Soviet one-party model, the Ukrainian SSR was governed by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union through its republican branch: the Communist Party of Ukraine. No decision of the government of Ukraine (Council of Ministers) was adopted without approval of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Soviet_Socialist_Rep...
I wonder, how many people will die because of Russia (war) vs. because of Western sanctions (famine+energy crisis). So far Russia is "winning" but let's wait until the winter...
What other mechanisms does the world have to try to stop Russia's invasion of Ukraine? Boots on the ground?
It's also messed up that we don't consider the downstream effects of sanctions as collateral damage. How many millions of people can the west allow to starve due to sanctions and still hold the moral high-ground?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/06/sri-lanka-faci...
Pretty weird to read all these articles about shortages of IT professionals, and compare that to the immigration barriers your governments have put. Although I guess your typical HN visitor probably wouldn't be very interested in influx of cheap labor that will bring down his salary to sane levels.
-Russia wins in Ukraine
-The sanctions were ultimately ineffective, for the reasons you explain above
-China takes Taiwan during major US political unrest, at BEST destroying the fabs and at worst gaining full control of the leading 3nm/2nm etc process
-A deeper China-Russia alliance, which was expedited by our ineffective sanctions now, puts the screws to US/western companies by blocking access to the latest semiconductor tech
Russia has so far demonstrated that it isn’t capable of much on that front. Ukraine is a big country, they’re barely doing a city at a time, and they’ve only had success on a small front that they’re very familiar with.
-The sanctions were ultimately ineffective, for the reasons you explain above
This remains to be seen - they’re definitely “effective” because they’re changing everything, question is how the West could be “miscalculating”.
-China takes Taiwan during major US political unrest, at BEST destroying the fabs and at worst gaining full control of the leading 3nm/2nm etc process
That would require China to launch an enormous large scale operation, which they’ve just seen can be a total shit show. An invasion would probably not allow them to “take” the 2-3nm process either, and it wouldn’t give them the returns on the investment. Most importantly China currently does not need to be invading Taiwan to be in an advantageous strategic position - they’re “winning” as is.
-A deeper China-Russia alliance, which was expedited by our ineffective sanctions now, puts the screws to US/western companies by blocking access to the latest semiconductor tech
Currently Russia has only managed to weaken and isolate itself. The symmetrical relationship Putin would need probably isn’t on the table, and Russia isn’t a worthwhile partner for China in such a terrible and toxic condition.
(Question is if putting “screws” on western companies is “bad” thing, but that’s another matter.)
All of these things worried me before the war, but Russia’s total incompetence has, if anything, greatly held back the China-Russia relationship.
Russia is weeks, perhaps days, away from consolidating the Donbas. An area larger than the UK and one of their primary objectives.
> Currently Russia has only managed to weaken and isolate itself.
Russia is coming out of this with multiple new trade partnerships, financial payment integrations and military alliances.
NATO population is 10 times that of Russia. The difference in economy/technology/production even more drastic. What winning are you talking about?
In Ukraine. NATO's population is irrelevant if Russia is not fighting NATO.
Imagine, somebody did it for Afghanistan in 2001 what do you think NATO response would be?
Tensions are already rising between the Saudi's and Russians, who are frustrated with Russia's drop in output since the war started. This will only exacerbate the west moving away from fossil fuels - essentially weakening oil power world wide.
On top of that, all the money they're making from oil has been pretty much paying off accumulated foreign debts. People are concerned about the export - but it doesn't matter if you export a lot if you can't import what you need for an extended war effort or for your citizens.
I think Russia has already lost this war from a geopolitical perspective. Even if they take the Ukraine, their position is worse than it was from before.
Regarding debts, the Russian federal debt is one of the lowest in the world. Google/Yandex it.
And as for the citizens, yeah - no more BMWs or iPhones (just kidding, those will come from Kazakhstan and Armenia at a markup)...
Please, enlighten us, what should be done?
So yes, you could turn a blind eye on Russian soldiers murdering people, stealing, raping, and so on, but it would be naive to think it will eliminate the problem: it will make it worse in the long term.
OK, now let's hear how it could be "easily avoided".
And of course it sounds nice to say sovereign nations ought be able to choose their own alliances and relationships, yet how long do you think that rhetoric would last if Russia managed to get Mexico to join a military alliance that was more or less openly framed as a force to "contain" the United States? And to add extra icing on the cake, what if they managed to get Mexico to join only after actively and overtly supporting an insurrection that overthrew a democratically elected pro-US regime?
https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-says-ukraine-war-seize...
"Putin said on Thursday that the Ukraine invasion is about expanding Russian territory.
Before, Putin insisted that Russia was freeing Ukraine from so-called Nazis and preventing genocide.
Putin said it was his destiny to "return and reinforce" Russia like Peter the Great did."
"Peter the Great waged the Great Northern War for 21 years. On the face of it, he was at war with Sweden taking something away from it… He was not taking away anything, he was returning. This is how it was. The areas around Lake Ladoga, where St Petersburg was founded. When he founded the new capital, none of the European countries recognised this territory as part of Russia; everyone recognised it as part of Sweden. However, from time immemorial, the Slavs lived there along with the Finno-Ugric peoples, and this territory was under Russia’s control. The same is true of the western direction, Narva and his first campaigns. Why would he go there? He was returning and reinforcing, that is what he was doing.
Clearly, it fell to our lot to return and reinforce as well. And if we operate on the premise that these basic values constitute the basis of our existence, we will certainly succeed in achieving our goals."
He's obviously speaking by analogy about Ukraine without stating as much, but there's something much more specific he's referencing. This [2] is a map of Ukraine by native language, which is about as close as you can get to ethnicity. After the pro-Russian government in 2014 was overthrown, it's essentially those areas in red that declared their independence and have remained independent since.
[1] - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/68606
[2] - https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/02/world/ukraine-di...
OK, you can have Czechoslovakia! (stop there, please)
OK, you can have Poland.
...France?
You see how this doesn't work anymore.
indeed, the UK, France, and Italy should not have been allowed to sign The Munich Agreement of 1938, moreso Poland should not have been allowed to annex Trans-Olza from Czechoslovakia, certainly not in an act of a military ultimatum.
Nuclear weapons changed the circumstances so much that direct comparison with 1938-1939 is impossible. We neither can give Slovakia away, nor have we a reason to. On the other hand, for Ukraine, swallowing the bitter pill and losing territory would also clear the way for NATO application (the civil war in the east makes it de iure impossible) and would give them time to prepare to defend from much better fortified positions, with much greater access to Western weaponry, and with much better contingency plans.
He will not let the West to recover. Were his 200,000 troops to march into Poland instead of Ukraine in February, the entirety of NATO in Europe would' be in a giant trouble until USA would've brought forces from North America.
For as long as the West will be showing fear, he will continue to attack.
Damn right you are (not in the literal sense of a secret deal, but the effects are similar). IMO Germany bears the most responsibility for this situation, on par with Putin himself. Ukraine was screwed big time by German diplomacy and their ambiguous stance. That Ukrainians still want to belong to the West is a miracle. Once the war is over, they should, and I think they will, start asking questions about all the "NATO membership is on the table, the doors are open" alternating with "well, you'll need to wait some 20 years to get past the doors anyway". I sincerely hope this will weight on the conscience of Germans enough to substantially lessen the amount of money they will demand from Ukraine for the support they (reluctantly) are showing now.
Appeasing dictators with delusions of grandeur simply doesn't work. It might buy you some time, but you better prepare during it.
Then there's the nuclear arsenal of NATO. Would Hitler attack Poland if it had nukes capable of putting an end to the Fuhrer himself, his Volk, and his Reich? From what I learned he wasn't suicidal until much later. Is Putin right now? Possibly, but I think he'd get assassinated long before his order to perform "special military operation" against a NATO country could reach his troops.
How so? If you prepare for war in the meantime ( like Ukraine did between 2014 and now), yes, but otherwise i don't see anything but postponing that loss of lives.
Yes, exactly - I should have written it more clearly:
> Buying time is the same as saving thousands of lives. I would hardly say that means it doesn't work [- unless you decide to waste that time by not preparing sufficiently.]
In short, you're right - buying time on its own doesn't help much.
I don't think Ukraine prepared sufficiently, by the way. I don't know what their leaders thought, but joining NATO was effectively a pipe dream due to the unresolved civil war in the east. Without NATO nukes it was obvious that they will need to fight for survival at some point. How come they need so much weaponry and ammunition right now? Where are the stockpiles accumulated over the last 8 years, where are the nationalized factories that produce tanks and guns, where are the roads, railways, bunkers, weapon caches, evacuation routes, minefields, trenches, and so on? Apparently in Switzerland - the most peaceful, neutral country (in Europe at least) - they have enough bunkers to house all its population and then some. They are used as warehouses normally... and mostly for long-lasting foodstuffs, too. How come Ukrainian civilians, after 8 years of preparation, need to hide in theaters? You could say that it's in hindsight that we know Russia would attack, but.. It's Russia we're talking about! They have a lot of similar wars in their history, both in the past ~1k years and in the past 50 years - enough to conclude that they will try to attack if the circumstances are favorable to it (after a major, world-wide crisis, preferably).