Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Sir Adrian]

Ukraine attacked its own territory now?

[dogukan]

Russia fields 200k troops, most of it's military hardware, Russian officials talk of Ukraine being a "fake agent country" and NATO is the aggressor.
Russia is just doing its regular exercises.

Then this changes into: oh no Putin is just 5d chess trolling West to humiliate them.

Then it changes to, ah Ukraine is going to attack that is why those soldiers are there.

Then, "ah, Putin was going to recognize the donetsk republics anyways", just to screw with West.

So yeah, basically the weaker Ukranian army was apparently planning to attack the Russian bear when the whole 200k and tons of heavy hardware the world has not seen since WW2 is right on their border.

The right-wing crowd in the West is ready to jump from conspiracy to conspiracy with no consistency to deliver their toxifying message. It is all about toxifying and jumping onto every fake news simply to find room hit at the target in any way possible. What baffles me is how much the left in the West buys into this Russian attempt to make their threat appear less than it really is....

[Heathen Hammer]

I find it interesting how over the course of time Western narrative went from chad "anyone in Eastern Ukraine that doesn't support Russian government is an invading Russian tourist soldier and therefore any violence against anyone pro-Russian is fully justified" to virgin "Ukraine was never planning to attack those republics in the first place, Russia bad".

[Sir Adrian]

anyone in Eastern Ukraine that doesn't support Russian government is an invading Russian tourist soldier

This doesn't even make sense.

[Heathen Hammer]

This doesn't even make sense.

Scroll Mudpit back to Ukrainian general threads from 2014/15.

[antaeus]

So yeah, basically the weaker Ukranian army was apparently planning to attack the Russian bear when the whole 200k and tons of heavy hardware the world has not seen since WW2 is right on their border.

To be fair... Georgia did indeed attack it's Russian catspaws in 2008... Making the miscalculation that Russia wouldn't get involved.

If it wasn't for the escalation over the past 15 months, Ukraine could have eventually found themselves strong enough to contemplate doing a Georgia and attempting to reintegrate Donbas by force. It would be a miscalculation of course... but we all like to fool ourselves. I imagine their planners have made rough sketches for various scenarios which would allow this E.g. Putin leaving power.

[duda]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbj1...ng%27sPolitics

Full-heartedly recommended, as maybe the last objective voice on the issue for the coming months... A great extension on his prior lectures as well. I'm sharing it here, because when it comes to certain perspectives being brought out here, all I can see is severe cases of Alzheimer's, and an absolute lack of general context, other than the usual -Russia BAD vs. Russia GOOD- versions of reality.

[Ludicus]

Psss...Heathen Hammer, Love Is a Many-Splendored Thing...

Trump Calls Putin 'Genius' for Move on Ukraine - Rolling Stone

Trump thinks he’s doing great.
“I said, ‘This is genius,'” Trump said on a right-wing podcast. “Putin declared a big portion of … Ukraine … as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. … I said, ‘How smart is that?’ And he’s going to go in and be a peacekeeper.
That’s strongest peace force. … We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re going to keep the peace all right. Here’s a guy who’s very savvy … I know him very well. Very, very well.”

No comments?

--
Edit,

Ukraine is not in NATO

Russia made it clear, Ukraine can never join the NATO.The US disagrees.

It's not a threat

Not really considering the fact that the main issue at hand is the possible inclusion of Ukraine into NATO.And more. Read the full article,
Why Intermediate-Range Missiles Are a Focal Point in the Ukraine Crisis

In seeking to explain why there are currently 100,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border, commentators have invoked everything from the role of NATO expansion in the 1990s to the history of Kievan Rus in the 9th century. But a more recent development deserves discussion as well: America’s withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019.

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was a bilateral agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union, signed in 1987, which eliminated a specific delivery system: surface-to-surface missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, henceforth referred to as theater-support missiles. Washington withdrew from the treaty in 2019,

Missiles in the Ukraine Negotiations

In October 2021, just as the current Ukraine crisis began, Putin expressed his frustration with the international community regarding his proposed missile moratorium: “Has anyone even reacted to our statement that we will not deploy this kind of missile in the European part if we produce them, if they tell us that no one will do so from the United States or Europe? No. They never responded.” He built on these comments in a December press conference, saying “Are we putting our rockets near the borders of the United States? No we’re not. It’s the U.S. with its rockets coming to our doorstep.”

The return of theater-support missiles, brought on by the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty’s demise, challenges Russia’s security and undoubtedly influences the country’s decision-making. Since the treaty’s end, Russia’s actions have sent a clear message that it would not let intermediate-range missiles reemerge in Europe. However, the response from the West not only failed to address Russia’s concerns but treated the reintegration of these missiles as a foregone conclusion, focusing almost exclusively on the relative advantage that their deployment could provide to the United States and NATO. While NATO expansion may very well be the primary driver of Russia’s actions toward Ukraine, the return of these strategic missiles is also a factor that the United States should consider.

--

Belarus' inclusion to CSTO is a real threat to Ukraine...

CSTO: We Could -- But Won't -- Intervene In Ukraine

The non-Russian CSTO member states have kept distance from that conflict, to the point that the organization had to formally state that Russia's allies would not be forced to fight in Ukraine.
The group said in a statement,
Ukraine is not a member of the CSTO, and the use of the rapid reaction forces on its territory is not allowed according to the current agreement ... Any action of the rapid reaction force in the region of collective security of the CSTO and the composition of the group is subject to the Council of Collective Security of the CSTO on the basis of consensus and agreement of all member states of the organization, including Kyrgyzstan."

[Sir Adrian]

One more time, Ukraine joining NATO is not a threat to Russia. In fact it is Russia posing an existential threat that is the main, and some would say single, factor driving Ukraine towards NATO. A peaceful Russia that minds its own business and collaborates with the rest has nothing to fear from NATO.

[Infidel144]

Totalitarian collectivists: Russia is the boss of Ukraine.

[Vanoi]

Psss...Heathen Hammer, Love Is a Many-Splendored Thing...

Trump Calls Putin 'Genius' for Move on Ukraine - Rolling Stone


No comments?

--
Edit,

Russia made it clear, Ukraine can never join the NATO.The US disagrees.


Not really considering the fact that the main issue at hand is the possible inclusion of Ukraine into NATO.And more. Read the full article,
Why Intermediate-Range Missiles Are a Focal Point in the Ukraine Crisis



--

CSTO: We Could -- But Won't -- Intervene In Ukraine

You do know the Russians broke the very IRBM you mentioned? It only mentions Washington leaving the treaty in 2019. Russia violated it before Washington's withdraw.

If Russia wants those missiles gone they'd have to get rid of theirs as well. Including their brand new hypersonic and land based cruise missiles they just developed.

[antaeus]

Russia made it clear, Ukraine can never join the NATO. The US disagrees.

This is not an entirely accurate statement. NATO's position is one of principle. As a collective defence structure, they maintain the principle that only NATO (and it's members) can decide who can join. This is only a US position so much that it is a NATO position, and one based on principle, so is unlikely to change.

[Love Mountain]

You do know the Russians broke the very IRBM you mentioned? It only mentions Washington leaving the treaty in 2019. Russia violated it before Washington's withdraw.

If Russia wants those missiles gone they'd have to get rid of theirs as well. Including their brand new hypersonic and land based cruise missiles they just developed.

Hypersonic missiles aren't illegal under the INF treaty. Russia's violations involve covertly developing and testing missiles that are in breach of the INF treaty (testing is in itself, a violation). Our (U.S.) accusation is that variants of Iskander missiles exceed their advertised 500 km range. Furthermore, we believe that those missiles are produced and covertly deployed under the guise of being normal Iskander missiles. This isn't far-fetched of course, it's very questionable that Russia would develop and deploy a ballistic missile en-masse that has a range of mere 500 km. Missiles are expensive, and there are already platforms that can be modified to essentially do the exact same thing that the Iskander does (Kalibr missiles).

My argument was something along the lines of "Putin is concerned by Ukraine's success as a Western looking democracy (at least in aspiration), because he views Ukraine and Russia as culturally inseparable - and that success undermines his own authoritarian legitimacy at home as being necessary" I justified the argument based on his statements to that effect - that Ukraine and Russia are culturally linked in the essay. Although I partially based my argument on one presented by Foreign Affairs.

I still don't follow. Ukraine and Russia are, in fact, culturally inseparable. Putin is factually correct. Ukraine and Russia have a unified cultural history as late as 1800s before seeing, what can be described as, a firm divergence. Moreover, Putin himself says that Ukraine is perfectly entitled to a sovereign state. Putin's essay is a crime of omission, he downplays Ukraine's independent history and completely omits the annexation of Crimea. To quote you, "Putin's feelings on the subject" don't reflect that he is threatened by an independent Ukraine. Quite frankly, what he resents, is what he views as a history of corruption and economic failure being blamed on Russia rather Ukraine's own economic elites. This really plays more to Russia's narrative that Ukraine's current government is illegitimate, and filled with Nazis and opportunists. The article you mentioned also doesn't particularly reflect your position.

In general, the idea that Russian people will start lusting for Democracy when they see a successful Ukraine is preposterous for a few reasons. Firstly, it assumes that Ukraine will actually be successful, or that in the long-term Democracy will yield better living conditions. I myself, would much rather be a citizen of gas station Saudi Arabia, than of growing Democracy Romania. Second, the idea that the public or young people always prefer Democracy is erroneous. One should look at China, or any state in Middle East, even those who were rattled by the Arab Spring. The "will of the people" is a flimsy and unpredictable thing. Finally, it assumes that Putin is actually worried about his ability to suppress unrest. It's quite clear by looking at Belarus or Kazakhstan, that Putin is two steps ahead of that. Euromaidan paralyzed and changed Ukraine because Ukraine's government was corrupt, weak, and lacked a powerful internal apparatus. For powerful states like Iran, unrest is just another Monday. So, with that theory out of the way, I think fear of NATO expansion is much simpler and much more elegant explanation. It has immediate and long-term impacts, which can be measured, and ultimately do a much better job of explaining Russia's behavior.

Finally and important move by Germany. From now on, West will be smartee about Russia as long as the current expansionist regime stands.

Putin made his intentions Almost a reclaim of the whole ex-USSR. Their views ARE as expansionist, as imperialistic as ultranationalist as Nato tried to explain for so long. Russian intelligence came close to convincing the west that it is not a threat and that NATO is unmecesary but ultimately failed. Yesterday, all that acting ended.

The cornered putin regime has given nato a new purpose, an opportunity to integrate, coordinate, prepare more. Legitimizes fether funding and defece buil up throughout Eastern Europe.

This is an absurdity. First of all, Russia is a status quo power in most areas. Even in Europe, where it is a revisionist, not an expansionist power, the ultimate aim of Russia is to preserve the former USSR status quo, not to annex everyone. Or are you thinking Russian tanks will be rolling into Astana, Kazakhstan any day now?

Second, Russia has been protesting NATO expansion for years, and the West has been hyping up the Russia threat for the same amount of time (while dismissively calling it a 'gas station').

Finally, the purpose for NATO was always to be an anti-Russia alliance. It's mission set post Cold-War expanded, it didn't shrink.

[antaeus]

I still don't follow. Ukraine and Russia are, in fact, culturally inseparable. Putin is factually correct. Ukraine and Russia have a unified cultural history as late as 1800s before seeing, what can be described as, a firm divergence. Moreover, Putin himself says that Ukraine is perfectly entitled to a sovereign state.

Much like Australians and British are culturally inseparable? I don't think this holds up. My culture didn't exist in 1800, cultural change and evolution happens quick. Especially when artificially exaggerated by political discourse over decades. Ukraine and Russia might have been integrated in 1800. But that doesn't mean they are now, or will be in 100 years.

Putin currently sees it as follows:
"....Modern Ukraine was entirely and fully created by Russia, more specifically the Bolshevik, communist Russia,” Mr. Putin said. “This process began practically immediately after the 1917 revolution, and moreover Lenin and his associates did it in the sloppiest way in relation to Russia — by dividing, tearing from her pieces of her own historical territory."

As of yesterday, Putin is leaning towards delegitimising the Ukrainian state in it's current form entirely.

Putin's essay is a crime of omission, he downplays Ukraine's independent history and completely omits the annexation of Crimea. To quote you, "Putin's feelings on the subject" don't reflect that he is threatened by an independent Ukraine. Quite frankly, what he resents, is what he views as a history of corruption and economic failure being blamed on Russia rather Ukraine's own economic elites. This really plays more to Russia's narrative that Ukraine's current government is illegitimate, and filled with Nazis and opportunists. The article you mentioned also doesn't particularly reflect your position.

I agree with you, Putin does stress the illegitimacy of the current government in Ukraine. But we're now both speculating his motives here, and what you're speculating isn't inconsistent with what I'm speculating. Although, as I suggested in my previous post... time is moving forwards: Putin has clarified his position on the legitimacy of Ukraine as an entity. We might both speculate that he was fine with Ukraine as an entity while it's leaders were leaning towards a closer relationship with him, and I might speculate (as per Foreign Affairs) that Ukraine's intent to form closer ties with the EU pricks at paranoia from Putin over his domestic security, but as we stand here today, he is now speaking of the whole of Ukraine's historic existence.

In general, the idea that Russian people will start lusting for Democracy when they see a successful Ukraine is preposterous for a few reasons.

This is risking straw man. I'm not speculating what the Russian people think, I'm speculating what their absolutist and oligarchic leader fears about what they might think. The two are very different.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Ukraine literally did that in 2014-15.

Not when Russia had most of their military on their border and was clearly poised to invade the country.

To be fair... Georgia did indeed attack it's Russian catspaws in 2008... Making the miscalculation that Russia wouldn't get involved.

If it wasn't for the escalation over the past 15 months, Ukraine could have eventually found themselves strong enough to contemplate doing a Georgia and attempting to reintegrate Donbas by force. It would be a miscalculation of course... but we all like to fool ourselves. I imagine their planners have made rough sketches for various scenarios which would allow this E.g. Putin leaving power.

After the Russian catspaws started shelling Georgian territory.

[PointOfViewGun]

CSTO: We Could -- But Won't -- Intervene In Ukraine

Please do not alter my question to make it appear as if its a statement and then respond to that. That doesn't address my post at all. I'm asking again; Belarus' inclusion to CSTO is a real threat to Ukraine and Poland?

[Mithradates]

Ukraine MPs vote to give permission for civilians to carry firearms

KYIV, Feb 23 (Reuters) - Ukraine's parliament on Wednesday voted to approve in the first reading a draft law which gives permission to Ukrainians to carry firearms and act in self-defence.

That means select fire AKs for everyone. This... is gonna be interesting.

[antaeus]

After the Russian catspaws started shelling Georgian territory.

Yes. And Georgia miscalculated by invading a Russian tributary in response.

Ukraine MPs vote to give permission for civilians to carry firearms

That means select fire AKs for everyone. This... is gonna be interesting.

Iraq 2004 comes to mind. This won't slow an invasion. But it will make governing the place afterwards a bit iffy. Especially with the CIA on the ground directing things.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Especially with the CIA on the ground directing things.

Leading death squads for killing russians like the leftists in Chile, El Salvador or Nicaragua in the past?

If the CIA is involved, everything is worse afterwards.

[antaeus]

If the CIA is involved, everything is worse afterwards.

No disagreement there. But that's their purpose. To make adversarial states ungovernable.