Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Muizer]

Here's what will happen if the apologists get their way:

-Russia gets Ukraine.

-After they get it, they will demand Latvia.

-Then Estonia.

-Then Lithuania.

-Then Poland.

-Then Germany.

-Then the rest of the former Soviet satellites.

-Then they will eyeball the rest Europe.

-Then they will knock on our door. With a battering ram.

-Then the apologists will open the door and invite them in.

Realistically, Russia will probably eye Latvia and Estonia, because in the Kremlin thesaurus "Large Russian minority" is a synonym for "Casus Belli". Furthermore, we might expect Russia to want to reclaim some sort of overlordship of Slavic Europe

That is already reason enough to resist Putin's Russia. Adding to the list with fictitious scaremongering ambitions reminiscent of cold war anti soviet rhetoric does not make the argument stronger. Rather the opposite.

[Kyriakos]

^I agree that some targets are likely (those who have large local Russian minorities). The rest sound very fictional/unreal.

[PointOfViewGun]

It effectively divides Ukraine in two. So big blow to Ukraine indeed...
But then again some of us already know Ukraine has lost at this point of time. It's now a matter of how much longer the Zelensky regime is willing to prolong this war (which will of course substantially increase the death toll and destruction of Ukraine).
We see in WW2 Germany prolonged the war for nearly 2 years. So not out of the question this can be done here; possibly even longer if murica and murican ran NATO continue it's support...

How's that massive offensive of Russia going? Did Russia only going to get Bakhmut?

[mishkin]

Realistically, Russia will probably eye Latvia and Estonia, because in the Kremlin thesaurus "Large Russian minority" is a synonym for "Casus Belli". Furthermore, we might expect Russia to want to reclaim some sort of overlordship of Slavic Europe

That is already reason enough to resist Putin's Russia. Adding to the list with fictitious scaremongering ambitions reminiscent of cold war anti soviet rhetoric does not make the argument stronger. Rather the opposite.

the guy is truly the slavic political version of hitler. I'm sorry but I can't help but think about the occupation of Czechoslovakia and what happened with Austria

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Realistically, Russia will probably eye Latvia and Estonia, because in the Kremlin thesaurus "Large Russian minority" is a synonym for "Casus Belli". Furthermore, we might expect Russia to want to reclaim some sort of overlordship of Slavic Europe

That is already reason enough to resist Putin's Russia. Adding to the list with fictitious scaremongering ambitions reminiscent of cold war anti soviet rhetoric does not make the argument stronger. Rather the opposite.

I agree. Putin himself as "first chief historian of Russia" has declared what belongs to the "historical Russia" (= czaristic Russian Empire).

The Balts (and other Eastern Europeans) are rightfully worried about russian Expansion and so should we as Western and Central European Allies.

He must be stopped in Ukraine.

[Muizer]

IMHO it is wisest to find the largest common denominator when you try to organize opposition to something. In this case IMHO it is the mere fact of starting a war is in itself just unacceptable. Nobody should be allowed to get away with that anywhere on the planet and for whatever reason. It is unfortunate the GW Bush compromised the US' integrity in that regard, because unless the US is prepared to proclaim they were wrong to start the 2nd gulf war, we end up trying to draw a line in a moral no-man's land where arguments to separate Bush from Putin become extremely fragile and contrived.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

IMHO it is wisest to find the largest common denominator when you try to organize opposition to something. In this case IMHO it is the mere fact of starting a war is in itself just unacceptable. Nobody should be allowed to get away with that anywhere on the planet and for whatever reason. It is unfortunate the GW Bush compromised the US' integrity in that regard, because unless the US is prepared to proclaim they were wrong to start the 2nd gulf war, we end up trying to draw a line in a moral no-man's land where arguments to separate Bush from Putin become extremely fragile and contrived.

I agree completely.

[Ludicus]

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...758942502&z=12

Zoom in Backhmut. You can see it salient that if abandoned shortens the line and roughly 1/2 miles behind is a series high ground and another small urban center. For the Russians critically they secure no great rail center - vital to their logistics nor even a access to any great 6 lane highways. They just get the same fight 2 miles farther from their rail head.

Conon, in my opinion, the mere suggestion that hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers die every day for an essentially political reason makes no sense: A few minutes ago. Ukrainian forces still trying to hold Bakhmut despite heavy casualties-The Guardian.

Ukraine’s authorities insist they will continue to try to hold the city despite them suffering an estimated 100-200 casualties a day – with some saying the reason is more political and symbolic than practical.

--
The pipeline gas affair revisited,

According to the NYTimes, the involvement by the Ukrainian government could destroy the international support for Kiev the US has built. Any findings that put blame on Ukraine or pro-Ukrainian groups could it harder for the NATO/EU to maintain a united front in support of Ukraine. Intelligence Suggests Pro-Ukrainian Group Sabotaged

Relevant quotes,

“U.S. officials declined to disclose the nature of the intelligence, how it was obtained or any details of the strength of the evidence it contains. They have said that there are no firm conclusions about it, leaving open the possibility that the operation might have been conducted off the books by a proxy force with connections to the Ukrainian government or its security services”.

“US officials said it might constitute the first significant lead to emerge from several closely guarded investigations, the conclusions of which could have profound implications for the coalition supporting Ukraine.”

“Any suggestion of Ukrainian involvement, whether direct or indirect, could upset the delicate relationship between Ukraine and Germany, souring support among a German public that has swallowed high energy prices in the name of solidarity”.

More,

“Mats Ljungqvist, a senior prosecutor leading Sweden’s investigation, told The New York Times... “Do I think it was Russia that blew up Nord Stream? I never thought so. It’s not logical…”

To sum up. Washington washes its hands, claiming Biden has limited influence on Kiev.

Die Zeit reports, ”traces/tracks (spuren) lead in the direction of Ukraine”. Nord-Stream-Ermittlungen: Spuren führen in die Ukraine

The German investigative authorities have apparently made a breakthrough in solving the attack on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines. After joint research by the ARD capital studio, the ARD political magazine Kontraste, SWR and ZEIT, it was possible to largely reconstruct how and when the explosive attack was prepared in the course of the investigation. Accordingly, traces lead in the direction of Ukraine.

----
Already nine months ago, according to one of the US' most influential foreign policy magazines, Ukraine's Implausible Theories of Victory - Foreign Affairs

Ukraine’s backers have proposed two pathways to victory. The first leads through Ukraine. With help from the West, the argument runs, Ukraine can defeat Russia on the battlefield, either depleting its forces through attrition or shrewdly outmaneuvering it. The second path runs through Moscow. With some combination of battlefield gains and economic pressure, the West can convince Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the war—or convince someone in his circle to forcibly replace him. But both theories of victory rest on shaky foundations. —and would come at very high costs.

If you have read my previous post #7827 I insist that an imperfect peace is the best option. Zelenskiy's utopic search for perfect peace locks his country into what looks like endless war.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Thats simply not true.

German press is talking about an ominious pro-ukrainian group of 5 men and a woman with unknown nationality yes, but not about proofs for an involvement of the ukrainian government. The traceable hints are strangely disappearing in Ukraine, so a russian false flag operation can't be excluded.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Conon, in my opinion, the mere suggestion that hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers die every day for an essentially political reason makes no sense: A few minutes ago. Ukrainian forces still trying to hold Bakhmut despite heavy casualties-The Guardian.

Because the Rashists suffer 5x the losses.

If you have read my previous post #7827 I insist that an imperfect peace is the best option. Zelenskiy's utopic search for perfect peace locks his country into what looks like endless war.

An endless war is a preferable alternative to Russkiy Mir.

[Coughdrop addict]

Realistically, Russia will probably eye Latvia and Estonia, because in the Kremlin thesaurus "Large Russian minority" is a synonym for "Casus Belli". Furthermore, we might expect Russia to want to reclaim some sort of overlordship of Slavic Europe

That is already reason enough to resist Putin's Russia. Adding to the list with fictitious scaremongering ambitions reminiscent of cold war anti soviet rhetoric does not make the argument stronger. Rather the opposite.

Scaremongering?

Let's look at the facts:

1: Putin has said through his lackey Kadyrov that he intends to both restore all former Soviet territory and expand it. As Kadyrov would already be laying smashed on the sidewalk after mysteriously falling out a window if he said anything but what Putin wanted him to say, I think we can take the fascist dictator's stated imperialistic ambitions at face value.

2: Russia has a massive, well-funded, and powerful organization of fifth-columnists operating in every western nation pushing Putin propaganda and urging surrender to Russia, with millions of dupes and useful idiots swallowing their lies without question. They cover it with the fig leaf of "peace" or "not our fight" on the left and "Russia stands for traditional values over the woke west" on the right, but make no mistake, they fully intent to open the gates and let Russia in.

3: Lastly, Putin rightly sees democracy as the greatest threat to his rule. Because he relies on fear and oppression to stay in power, he can't afford to have democracies just sitting out there as a constant reminder to the oppressed masses that another way is possible. Should the Russian people realize that they could have a better life under democracy, and that they outnumber Putin's thugs many times, his lifespan would be measured in minutes. So he must seek to destroy or subvert every democracy he can.

[Kyriakos]

I really doubt the voters in Russia care much about the democracy of (say) Estonia or Latvia, let alone feel threatened by its existence. An attack there is more likely only due to the Russian minorities - the rest are fairytales imo.

[Sar1n]

I really doubt the voters in Russia care much about the democracy of (say) Estonia or Latvia, let alone feel threatened by its existence. An attack there is more likely only due to the Russian minorities - the rest are fairytales imo.

Many Russians, especially those supportive of Putin, don't feel threatened by the Baltic states. They feel Russia is entitled to them.

[Abdülmecid I]

None of the countries included seem even remotely likely to be invaded. This line of thinking is actually contradicted, not supported, by the cause for the current conflict, which is Ukraine's willingness to join NATO. If Russia will supposedly not hesitate to disregard the NATO membership of Estonia, Latvia and the rest of the countries randomly included, then why did it make such a big deal out of Ukraine's prospects to join the war? Seems rather inconsistent to me.

1: Putin has said through his lackey Kadyrov that he intends to both restore all former Soviet territory and expand it. As Kadyrov would already be laying smashed on the sidewalk after mysteriously falling out a window if he said anything but what Putin wanted him to say, I think we can take the fascist dictator's stated imperialistic ambitions at face value.

So, do you consider Putin's public statements a reliable source for the goals of Russia's foreign policy? Do you also believe that Russia has also invaded Ukraine to uproot any Nazi elements dominating the country's politics?

2: Russia has a massive, well-funded, and powerful organization of fifth-columnists operating in every western nation pushing Putin propaganda and urging surrender to Russia, with millions of dupes and useful idiots swallowing their lies without question. They cover it with the fig leaf of "peace" or "not our fight" on the left and "Russia stands for traditional values over the woke west" on the right, but make no mistake, they fully intent to open the gates and let Russia in.

How is this a fact? Pro-Kremlin narratives are almost completely absent from the public discourse. There has been massive support for Ukraine and even calls for a more active implication in the conflict. Pretty much every major party, including even the far-right, has condemned the Russian invasion. Sounds as plausible as the Dolchstosslegende to me.

3: Lastly, Putin rightly sees democracy as the greatest threat to his rule. Because he relies on fear and oppression to stay in power, he can't afford to have democracies just sitting out there as a constant reminder to the oppressed masses that another way is possible. Should the Russian people realize that they could have a better life under democracy, and that they outnumber Putin's thugs many times, his lifespan would be measured in minutes. So he must seek to destroy or subvert every democracy he can.

The Russian Federation has been coexisting with neighboring liberal democracies since its inception, so there doesn't seem to be even a correlation between Russia's aggression and the factor you suggest has played such a major role. Which is also a bit contradictory to the first alleged cause.

[Kyriakos]

Many Russians, especially those supportive of Putin, don't feel threatened by the Baltic states. They feel Russia is entitled to them.

Seems likely, but Russia wouldn't attack unless it is clear there won't be any war with much of nato. They'd likely try with the minorities there, and in different manner (calls for limited self-governmental autonomy, which obviously won't lead to acceptance - nor should they, btw).

[Muizer]

I think it is important to remember that the notion that "The West is out to get us" is deep seated and heartfelt in the "Russian psyche". So when we hear Lavrov saying Russia was attacked by Ukraine, that may sound absurd to us, but in Russia it's not, because it fits a century old narrative.

And, in fact, it was definitely true to start with. The conflict between the West and Communist Russia did not revolve from the start around political principles like "freedom and democracy vs tyranny". It originated with the western elite, encompassing the entire political caste, being afraid for their wealth and status should Socialism 'spread' to other countries. A threat they perceived not just from foreign states, but from their own people as well. The mere fact that in those circles, before WWII, supporting fascists was weighed up as a realistic antidote is proof enough freedom and democracy and an aversion to tyranny had nothing to do with it.

So yeah right from the Inception of the SU, Russians have been taught the lesson that the West is not to be trusted and is in fact out to get them. And even though Putin is now at the head of a state which bears more resemblance to a fascist one than a socialist one, he still uses that imagery. Whether he believes in it himself or merely thinks it is effective or both doesn't really matter. That is the lens many Russians are accustomed to view the world through.

And so to extrapolate the invasion of Ukraine to a desire for world domination through conquest is a mischaracterization. And it is never smart to not try to understand your opponent. It can be smart though to convince your own people that the intentions of your enemy are the worst of the worst, but personally I'm not interested in propaganda whichever side it's coming from.

To this I might add that personally I think that Putin does not fear democracy at all. Domestically he sees it as easily repressed by propaganda and repression. In other states he sees it as a weakness ready to be exploited. What reason do we really have Putin fears democracy anyway.... The spectacular failure of the "arab spring"? The democracies slipping towards dictatorship in places like Hungary and Turkey? Where is democracy actually winning? Need I mention Trump and Bolsonaro?

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Putin is more influenced by conservativ monarchistic imperialism than communistic ideology.

He is very influenced by the works of Ivan Alexandrovich Ilyin:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Ilyin

The key concept of Ilyin's legal philosophy was legal consciousness (правосозна́ние, pravosoznanie) which he understood as an ability of an individual and of the society as a whole to respect the law and to obey it willingly, to defer the authority and other citizens.^[120] Ilyin derived the concept of law from the Hegelian idea of the spirit and asserted that:

"Law in its original, "natural" sense is nothing other than a necessary form of the spiritual being of a human. It indicates that order of equal, free self-sufficiency of each in which alone spiritual life is possible on earth."^[10]

Legal consciousness, therefore, is "already given in embryo to each person". Positive law, then, is a way to shape transcendental norms of law present in legal consciousness.^[10] Ilyin distinguishes between a "correct" legal consciousness based on conservatism, morality and religion and a "formalist" legal consciousness that considers only the posited, rationalized law and, therefore, gives no clues to understanding what law is.^[121] According to Ilyin, mature legal consciousness is always rooted in Christian ethics and monarchism, the monarchy being the natural realization of the Divine providence. Monarchic legal consciousness tends to perceive the state as a family and unite the citizens with family bonds while the monarch becomes not only legal but also a spiritual ruler. His ideal was the monarch who would rule for the good of the country, would not belong to any party and would embody the union of all people, whatever their beliefs are. To serve this monarch is not an act of submission but rather of conscious and free choice of a responsible citizen. To the contrary, the republican legal consciousness praises individual freedom, social climbing and disregard for authority and is eager for radical changes. People view the state not as a family, but rather as a danger that needs to be contained with checks and balances. Democratic elections, according to Ilyin, tend to elevate sneaky and evasive politicians.^[122] Ilyin repeatedly condemned the totalitarian state and emphasized the need to develop a form of 'legal consciousness' among the population.^[123] In his 1949 article, Ilyin argued against both totalitarianism and "formal" democracy in favor of a "third way" of building a state in Russia: "Facing this creative task, appeals of foreign parties to formal democracy remain naive, light-minded and irresponsible."^[124]


Ilyin's chauvinistic views on Ukraine were typical of Russian White émigrés.^[136][e] Unlike Alfred Rosenberg, who was in favor of collaboration with the East Slavs against Bolshevism and offered them national independence, Ukrainian independence was anathema to him. In 1934, Ilyin stated he was "in no way sympathetic to either conversations or plans for the separation of Ukraine".^[138] He saw it as one of the reasons he lost his job at the institute.^[139]

In 1938, in a small but significant article, Ilyin wrote: "Little Russia and Great Russia are bound together by faith, tribe, historical destiny, geographical location, economy, culture and politics", and predicted: "History has not yet said its last word".^[140][141]
Ilyin disputed that an individual could choose their nationality any more than cells can decide whether they are part of a body.^[113]: 23 What Snyder actually said: "Social advancement was impossible because the political system, the social system, is like a body… you have a place in this body. Freedom means knowing your place."^[142]


Ilyin has been quoted by Russian President Vladimir Putin in his speeches on various occasions, and is considered by some observers to be a major ideological inspiration for Putin.^{[17][183][184][185][186][187][188]} Putin decreed moving Ilyin's remains back to Russia, and in 2009 consecrated his grave.^[189] At Russian New Year 2014, all high-ranking bureaucrats and local government officials were sent a copy of "Our Tasks", a work by Nikolai Berdyaev and Vladimir Solovyov.^[190] He was quoted or mentioned by Dmitry Medvedev, Sergey Lavrov, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, Vladislav Surkov, and Vladimir Ustinov.^[3] On 30 September 2022, Putin gave a speech on the Russian annexation of four territories in Ukraine, where he quoted Ilyin.^[191]

[nhytgbvfeco2]

voters in Russia

That's a good one! LMAO

[Septentrionalis]

I really doubt the voters in Russia care much about the democracy of (say) Estonia or Latvia, let alone feel threatened by its existence.

If you are looking for a way to confirm in one sentence that you know nothing about Russia, and people aren't taking your word when you try a straight-forward confession of ignorance, that is a really good way to convince them.

[Septentrionalis]

None of the countries included seem even remotely likely to be invaded. This line of thinking is actually contradicted, not supported, by the cause for the current conflict, which is Ukraine's willingness to join NATO. If Russia will supposedly not hesitate to disregard the NATO membership of Estonia, Latvia and the rest of the countries randomly included, then why did it make such a big deal out of Ukraine's prospects to join the war? Seems rather inconsistent to me.

It seems inconsistent if one thinks that NATO is a fundamental factor here. It is rather the west, and Russia is very much against former Eastern Bloc countries getting into cahoots with the west. NATO is just a military union of the west, and it looks really weak and divided at the moment. Dangerously weak.

Most of the members have been neglecting their militaries for decades, not bothering to spend resources and basically taking NATO as a way to freeload and let American taxpayers take care of strategic-level defense capability while just allowing US and other NATO countries to have bases in their area. Even in mutual operations before the Ukraine conflict, NATO forces have often been poorly supplied and trusting the Americans to offset their shortcomings.

Germany, in despite of US trying to convince them to pull their weight, have been more concerned with appeasing Russia and buying their gas, essentially colluding with the enemy. And not doing anything to increase their military spending and keeping their end of the bargain. Very recently, only 11 % of Germans said that they would fight even for their country, let alone fight for someone else's country.

In Greece, only about 10 % of people polled agreed that Greece should fight for their NATO allies if they were attacked. In fact, Russia is seen more favorably than the US by a small majority of respondents. Turkey is undemocratic, against the values on which NATO was founded, and downright antagonistic to many pursuits of US and the NATO. Hungary is increasingly undemocratic and in many ways a Kremlin lapdog. Many other NATO countries, such as Italy, France, and Spain, are just lackluster.

The crisis in Ukraine and the unwillingness to help has only underlined the fact that if Russia ever decides to invade the Baltics, as they clearly have demonstrated they would want to, there is no telling if the so far untested mutual defense article would mean much. It is not unlikely that the situation that would require an immediate and strong response would be met with now familiar "we shouldn't escalate the situation", "but Russian energy imports", "we cannot risk a world war / nuclear conflict over X", and general dilly dallying and playing time. Not everyone being onboard would give everyone else the perfect excuse not to do anything.

I am convinced that it is better to have a small alliance of truly dedicated countries who would risk life and limb for their allies than a large group of freeloaders and fair-weather friends who are keen to enjoy more or less free-of-charge protection but not commit themselves. I am sure that the hawks in Kremlin, Tehran, Pyongyang, Beijing, and other places of similar nature are watching this division within NATO ranks and that they like what they see.