Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[antaeus]

Russia has been a tumor in this part of Europe for over 2 centuries. There is no possible scenario in which Russia starts behaving like a normal country. The only sensible path for a sustainable future is the dissolution of the Russian Federation and the integration of the more reasonable fragments into NATO and the EU.

Russia is behaving like it is led by an oligarch at the head of a oligarchic system of government. It is behaving as if it is entirely subservient to an experienced and entirely empathy-free dictator. But this situation was neither inevitable, nor is it necessarily indefinite. Russia in the 1990s prior to Putin, and before Yeltsin lost it, started to behave like a normal country - At least regarding international relations. They were invited to be (and still are) a part of NATO's Partnership for Peace programme, the original soft touch pathway for NATO membership for former Soviet countries. They could have easily been a part of NATO by now, and thoroughly integrated into Europe. Remember, in the 90s, Russia even gave the US virtually full access to it's nuclear weapons programme to help secure it. After 20 years of Putin it is really hard to imagine that level of trust. But Yeltsin couldn't master the oligarchs, went weird, attacked Chechnya, and was replaced their number 1 pick. But Putin won't be around forever, and he will be difficult to replace.

Ironically, NATO membership might also have been great for Russia's hegemonic ambitions. It hasn't exactly stymied Turkey's adventurism in Iraq, Syria, Libya or Azerbaijan. It certainly didn't hold the US back from unilaterally invading Iraq.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Russia has been a tumor in this part of Europe for over 2 centuries. There is no possible scenario in which Russia starts behaving like a normal country. The only sensible path for a sustainable future is the dissolution of the Russian Federation and the integration of the more reasonable fragments into NATO and the EU.

So……the most paranoid of Russian propaganda is…….accurate?

But this situation was neither inevitable, nor is it necessarily indefinite. Russia in the 1990s prior to Putin, and before Yeltsin lost it, started to behave like a normal country.

Russia in the 90s was deferential to the West because it had to be to stave off total collapse. Geography alone would always have made such deference a temporary condition of the aftermath of the collapse of the USSR. If the US were committed to breaking up the country into satellites, that would have been the time to do it. Putin campaigned to “Make Russia Great Again” and has seen moderate success in relation to where he started. That’s why for all his authoritarian oligarchic tendencies, he is genuinely popular in most contexts. As Adrian suggested the only permanent “solution” is to break huge countries like Russia and China into smaller states that compete against each other. The British were pretty good at this and they still failed in the end. The Americans are not very good at it and are already showing a lack of commitment in any case.

[Heathen Hammer]

Russia has been a tumor in this part of Europe for over 2 centuries. There is no possible scenario in which Russia starts behaving like a normal country. The only sensible path for a sustainable future is the dissolution of the Russian Federation and the integration of the more reasonable fragments into NATO and the EU.

Is this post meant to be satire?
EU itself is semi-loyal to Russian fuel and won't even join America's feeble attempt at economic sanctions.
If anything, it will be EU itself that will disintegrate due to primarily domestic reasons as EU regimes lose popularity with their own people, while Russia makes some kind of anti-globalist anti-NATO pact with Viseguard states.

[Sir Adrian]

So……the most paranoid of Russian propaganda is…….accurate?

They made it accurate by going back to their old tsarist and soviet mannerisms after they made a lot of progress towards normality in the 90s.

[Heathen Hammer]

They made it accurate by going back to their old tsarist and soviet mannerisms after they made a lot of progress towards normality in the 90s.

If by "normality" you mean being ruled by a corrupt oligarchy that shot at democratically-elected Parliament with tanks for denying pro-Western alcoholic degenerate Yeltsin dictatorial powers, then why should such "normality" be ever considered, let alone desired?
Not to mention that Soviet mannerisms are largely result of Western bankers and governments bankrolling communist scum, so consider the eventual re-imagining of European borders by Russia as reparations for what West did to Russia century ago.

[komisarek]

Russia has been a tumor in this part of Europe for over 2 centuries. There is no possible scenario in which Russia starts behaving like a normal country. The only sensible path for a sustainable future is the dissolution of the Russian Federation and the integration of the more reasonable fragments into NATO and the EU.

Before I'm accused of being some kind of a Russian Troll, I would like to point out that I'm Polish...

I don't want to break your bubble but every country has certain geopolitical interests that they pursue. There is no such thing as a "normal" country. Britain has not behaved like a "normal" country in the last six years or so, for example. Sure, it doesn't send troops to anyone's borders, but looking at the Daily Mail comment section and the article lineup, that scenario is probably Conservatives' wet dream.

The Soviet Union did not behave any worse than US (in my opinion) during its existence. Ask people in Vietnam, Libya, Afghanistan or Syria who they prefer, Russians or Americans, and I'm willing to wager it's not going to be the latter (for the most part). Of course if you speak to Poles or Lithuanians, you will likely get a different opinion. Great powers exert their influence over the weak - that's how it always has been.

In the last two centuries we should remember that Russia stopped Napoleon after the entirety of Europe fell, helped bleed Germany in WW1, and then again REALLY bled them in WW2. I don't think they deserve to be called a "tumor" in Europe, considering that without the SU, as much as I'm not a fan of it, my family would have probably ended up in an extermination camp.

The most interesting part to me is this: Whenever you hear some good news about the Soviet Union, Ukrainians will say "Don't forget us! We were part of it too!". When you hear something bad though... "Them bloody Russians, we never wanted to be part of the SU".

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Before I'm accused of being some kind of a Russian Troll, I would like to point out that I'm Polish...

I don't want to break your bubble but every country has certain geopolitical interests that they pursue. There is no such thing as a "normal" country. Britain has not behaved like a "normal" country in the last six years or so, for example. Sure, it doesn't send troops to anyone's borders, but looking at the Daily Mail comment section and the article lineup, that scenario is probably Conservatives' wet dream.

The Soviet Union did not behave any worse than US (in my opinion) during its existence. Ask people in Vietnam, Libya, Afghanistan or Syria who they prefer, Russians or Americans, and I'm willing to wager it's not going to be the latter (for the most part). Of course if you speak to Poles or Lithuanians, you will likely get a different opinion. Great powers exert their influence over the weak - that's how it always has been.

In the last two centuries we should remember that Russia stopped Napoleon after the entirety of Europe fell, helped bleed Germany in WW1, and then again REALLY bled them in WW2. I don't think they deserve to be called a "tumor" in Europe, considering that without the SU, as much as I'm not a fan of it, my family would have probably ended up in an extermination camp.

The most interesting part to me is this: Whenever you hear some good news about the Soviet Union, Ukrainians will say "Don't forget us! We were part of it too!". When you hear something bad though... "Them bloody Russians, we never wanted to be part of the SU".

This, this, this. And let not forget that 3,8 million Wehrmacht soldiers (2/3 of the dead soldiers of the Wehrmacht) were killed in Russia. Without Russia and the Sovietunion the generation of my grandfathers would still have run amok in Europe for a very long time.

And lets take a look, what Russia heritage to european culture is:

Tolstoi,Puschkin, Nabakov, Gogol, Solchenizyn...

Russian ballett for example "Swan lake" and "Nut cracker"(Tschaikowski!!!)

So Russia was, is and will ever be an important part of Europe and european culture!

[antaeus]

I think komisarek's objection was to the idea that countries behave 'normally'. And that we have a selective understanding on what roles Russia and the Ukraine have in this normalcy. Certainly the US has a long history of invading it's neighbours to uphold its interests. Although the contexts for most of these invasions are not simply that a country isn't aligned with their interests - if it was, we wouldn't have any dictators in Cuba or Venezuela. Rather in these contexts, the US has invaded because of a combination of interests, and a localised spark. E.g. Gangsterism in Panama, a UN resolution in Haiti, a request for help by regional multinational organisations in Granada. No such combination of supporting factors exists in the Ukraine.

Within this context, operating as a 'normal' country means that they are not using unilateral threats of violence to achieve foreign relations goals. For consistency, the US certainly did not operate as a 'normal' country when invading Iraq in 2003, although there are a number of legal arguments based on prior UN resolutions that could be argued as justifying the invasion, and the argument was clearly made that Iraq was risking the security of it's neighbours. Again, the Ukraine can not risk the security of Russia, or it's other neighbours. It can however undermine Putin's prestige personally simply by existing and realigning itself closer to the powers Putin sees as adversaries. Putin's desire is purely to ensure influence and maintain his position. The US has not invaded a neighbour for purely prestige reasons in centuries.

A realist interpretation would say "So what" to the accusation of hypocrisy. Russia doesn't have the means to both invade the Ukraine and achieve their stated goal (the scaling back of NATO to post-Soviet levels). As we've discussed previously, an invasion of the Ukraine would lead to a lessening of Russian influence in Eastern Europe, and a hardening of NATO opposition. It could only ever be Pyrrhic. As has also been stated, Putin could have invaded in 2014 with much more ease, and either way, invading Georgia in 2008 hasn't stopped Georgia seeking NATO protections, and an invasion of the Ukraine now might even secure those. This would also be why an invasion is unlikely, and what we're likely seeing is brinkmanship for a domestic audience to mark the 30th anniversary of what Putin himself describes as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century". My guess is that like Chinese flying aircraft near Taiwan, this will go quiet in a month or two, once the domestic reasons dissipate. Oh it will stay as rhetorical device, but the immediacy of the threat will fade.

[komisarek]

It can however undermine Putin's prestige personally simply by existing and realigning itself closer to the powers Putin sees as adversaries. Putin's desire is purely to ensure influence and maintain his position. The US has not invaded a neighbour for purely prestige reasons in centuries.

Personally, I don't believe that's true. Ukraine is valuable due to its position (perfect area to launch an attack into the heart of Russia, since this land has doesn't really have any defensive features) as well as its access to the black sea and the resources within it, that are as of yet underdeveloped. Of course, conventional land warfare isn't really a thing nowadays, but Russia is concerned about NATO creeping closer and closer, and it has every right to be. Let's not forget a large Russian population too.

Is taking over Ukraine and then dealing with its rabid nationalists, and risking wrath of NATO and crippling sanctions a profitable move? Probably not. Will it happen? I doubt it. I'm willing to agree a lot of it is for a domestic show, but certainly not all. Russians want to make political gains in an area they consider to be their rightful sphere of influence - that's quite obvious.

[antaeus]

Personally, I don't believe that's true. Ukraine is valuable due to its position (perfect area to launch an attack into the heart of Russia, since this land has doesn't really have any defensive features) as well as its access to the black sea and the resources within it, that are as of yet underdeveloped. Of course, conventional land warfare isn't really a thing nowadays, but Russia is concerned about NATO creeping closer and closer, and it has every right to be. Let's not forget a large Russian population too.

Is taking over Ukraine and then dealing with its rabid nationalists, and risking wrath of NATO and crippling sanctions a profitable move? Probably not. Will it happen? I doubt it. I'm willing to agree a lot of it is for a domestic show, but certainly not all. Russians want to make political gains in an area they consider to be their rightful sphere of influence - that's quite obvious.

Nobody can launch an attack into the heart of Russia any more. Without a massive change in the world's ability to shoot down nuclear weapons, Russia is essentially immune to foreign invasion. And has been since the 1960s. Those countries that do have the capacity to invade Russia, don't need Ukrainian territory to do so. As you suggest, this perspective reflects a WW1 or WW2 concept of warfare.

As for NATO being an aggressor, that also doesn't hold up. Countries are looking to NATO for protection from Russia. Since the end of the Soviet Union, Russia has invaded Georgia, Ukraine, and arguably Moldova and Chechnya. Countries don't seek NATO membership to threaten Russia. They seek to join to make themselves safe from Russian coercion. Ukraine and Georgia have already been invaded by Russia. It's entirely logical that they would look to best protect themselves from this in future. Countries are offended by being considered someone's 'region of influence' without their consent and are justified in looking t their security. The idea that NATO threatens Russia, especially considering that Russia could have joined NATO, is a manifestation of paranoia directly from the mind of it's paranoid leader. Putin fears that NATO will prevent him from influencing his neighbours through coercion. This impacts Putin's prestige, not Russia's.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Lets not forget Ukraine in Nato means zero reaction time for Russia in case of ballistic missiles. The US almost started a nuclear war about this in Cuba in 1962. Its their backyard.

[antaeus]

Lets not forget Ukraine in Nato means zero reaction time for Russia in case of ballistic missiles. The US almost started a nuclear war about this in Cuba in 1962. Its their backyard.

Nobody is proposing hosting Nukes in Ukraine. That would justify concern from Russia. Ukraine, after Russia's invasion in 2014, reaffirmed it's commitment to the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty.

Although again... if Ukraine did find itself under the protection of a nuclear deterrent, either it's own, or an allied one, they would be entirely justified given that Russia has invaded them within the last decade. You can't attack a country, then claim them defending themselves from you is unjustified.

The base level of NATO membership means that it's members are obliged to come to each other's aid if attacked. Beyond that each country manages it's own foreign relations and defence relationship with NATO. For example, Norway doesn't host any foreign troops out of respect for Russia - but if Russia attacked Norway, it would be an attack on all. Ukraine's membership could be similar - purely defensive. NATO membership hasn't obliged it's members to support or agree with Turkey's invasion of Syria or the US invasion of Iraq. It is a defensive agreement. So membership only threatens Russia's capacity to coerce through violence. It doesn't increase any threat to Russia.

[Vanoi]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-no...134122500.html

Sergei Shoigu is starting to sound like Baghdad Bob.

[antaeus]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-no...134122500.html

Sergei Shoigu is starting to sound like Baghdad Bob.

It's a little more sophisticated than Baghdad Bob.

Russian disinformation primarily focusses on muddying the information space. What you tend to find is a multiplicity of official and semi-official personas putting out all sorts of 'theories' on the subject. Some of those theories might be stupid or contradictory. Their social media machine circulates them and fringe elements in the West take them on and give them life. This leads to extra man-hours having to be spent on filtering through the noise, and it undermines trust in leadership in the West. At this point, it doesn't matter what 'the truth' is. Because there are so many competing ideas that offer plausibility.

Bellingcat did a fantastic exposition on how Russian disinformation systems work in the first season of their podcast here: The podcast shows how their freelance journalists used Russian social media to track and debunk Russia's 'theories' on the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, eventually tracking down and identifying by name, the individual officers involved in the downing. But it wasn't an easy task.

[Vanoi]

It's a little more sophisticated than Baghdad Bob.

Of course. But no where near as entertaining.

Russian disinformation primarily focusses on muddying the information space. What you tend to find is a multiplicity of official and semi-official personas putting out all sorts of 'theories' on the subject. Some of those theories might be stupid or contradictory. Their social media machine circulates them and fringe elements in the West take them on and give them life. This leads to extra man-hours having to be spent on filtering through the noise, and it undermines trust in leadership in the West. At this point, it doesn't matter what 'the truth' is. Because there are so many competing ideas that offer plausibility.

It's classic Russian disinformation but I think it's also being used to drum up support among Russians. A war in Ukraine is actually not that popular in Russia.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blog...tins-downfall/

Now the article's title is ridiculous but they make some compelling points about Russian attitudes toward Ukraine. I doubt a war that would be very popular in Russia. Especially if it ends up being bloody.

Bellingcat did a fantastic exposition on how Russian disinformation systems work in the first season of their podcast here: The podcast shows how their freelance journalists used Russian social media to track and debunk Russia's 'theories' on the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, eventually tracking down and identifying by name, the individual officers involved in the downing. But it wasn't an easy task.

I've seen Belling at's work from Ukraine to Syria. Great journalist. In this case Russia is simply recycling old disinformation and using it in a different place. Shoigu has frequently claimed that rebels are poised to launch attacks with chemical weapons in Syria against Assad. It never actually happens but it's a good way to slander the enemy and shielding your own ally, Assad, who has been accused of ordering attacks with chemical weapons.

The real question is do people still believe it?

[Heathen Hammer]

People still view that Bellingcat blog as legitimate source of information unironically? If I wanted to hear deranged neoconservative propaganda drivel I'd look up Collin Powell speeches about Iraq WMDs.
In the meantime, weak and pathetic US government is issuing its final warning - to stop importing smartphones into Russia if it invades Ukraine.
The fact that this feeble regime can't even make a threat that wouldn't sound pathetic, makes one believe that Ukraine fate is sealed.

[Vanoi]

At worse Ukraine loses more territory. The Russians can't occupy all of Ukraine successfully and hold it. Russia invading Ukraine will only go on to destroy what little influence the Russians have in Eastern Europe (besides Serbia) and further cement Eastern European support for NATO. Russia gets sanctioned and continues to be a pariah state.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

I guess we should take a look on a map with the status quo:



And remind ourselves what happened in 2014 before the war in Ukraine began:

2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine - Wikipedia

[Heathen Hammer]

At worse Ukraine loses more territory. The Russians can't occupy all of Ukraine successfully and hold it. Russia invading Ukraine will only go on to destroy what little influence the Russians have in Eastern Europe (besides Serbia) and further cement Eastern European support for NATO. Russia gets sanctioned and continues to be a pariah state.

If I were Putin, I'd just make a deal with Western Ukrainian nationalists. In exchange for opening "Western front" on Kiev, they can have Western Ukraine (which isn't really important to Russia geopolitically), all while such an alliance would create precedent to normalize relations between Russia and Central European nations, especially in light of their general growing resentment with EU and Western European neoliberal regimes.
All Russians would have to do to accomplish that would be just cooling it with pro-Soviet remarks, which wouldn't be that difficult, given how its only old boomers in Russia that care for USSR. Communism is dead, but Pan-Slavism has its potential.

[swabian]

You sell us natural gas, so that our crazy politicians can avoid regular blackouts affecting all of beloved Europe. We pay you s of money for it. Accept deal, nostrovia,

Dread the day that the green actually is working out. You may tread on the same ice as Dubai is treading on.