I think that apologists for Russia would be more convincing if Russia weren't actively mobilizing troops and now actually invading Ukrainian territory. It is a shame that Russia is unable to leave...
I think that apologists for Russia would be more convincing if Russia weren't actively mobilizing troops and now actually invading Ukrainian territory.
It is a shame that Russia is unable to leave the 20th century and join the rest of the world in the 21st century to help figure out how to cooperate and build prosperity and advance the human condition. Instead Russia chooses to deal in the archaic: militant ethnicism, land conquest, subterfuge, and neo-feudalism. What a drag on our species.
Sad to say, but I reckon the rest of world is probably a lot more like Russia than it is like the wealthy nations you were likely referring to. Hell, even Japan is run in large part by...
Sad to say, but I reckon the rest of world is probably a lot more like Russia than it is like the wealthy nations you were likely referring to. Hell, even Japan is run in large part by ethnonationalists, albeit peaceful ones. South Korea as well. Hungary is a notable friend to Russia, and they exist within the EU. The big difference is that, unlike Russia, most of these other players do not have the military capability to behave as Russia does. The ones that do (China), act much in the same way.
It's not Russia that's the outlier. It's the wealthy North Atlantic countries.
And even then, it's not like the "civilized nations" of Western Europe are above this when it's not in their backyards. The Francafrique, for example, is a key tool of French neoimperialism in...
And even then, it's not like the "civilized nations" of Western Europe are above this when it's not in their backyards. The Francafrique, for example, is a key tool of French neoimperialism in West Africa. Alternatively, look at what the United States and Saudi Arabia are doing to Yemen. The more you learn about international relations the more depressing it gets.
Oh absolutely, I didn't mean to insinuate that the North Atlantic nations are paragons of virtue who've moved past such barbaric acts, just that it isn't the norm to strive for those ideals. With...
Oh absolutely, I didn't mean to insinuate that the North Atlantic nations are paragons of virtue who've moved past such barbaric acts, just that it isn't the norm to strive for those ideals.
With that said, for all the wrongs that those western nations commit, I don't want imply some sort of equivalence between them and the more openly imperialistic and revanchist nations like Russia and China.
The Francafrique was established by De Gaulle as a way to give France's African colonies independence on paper while maintaining a tight leash by keeping their currencies tied to the franc and...
Can you elaborate?
The Francafrique was established by De Gaulle as a way to give France's African colonies independence on paper while maintaining a tight leash by keeping their currencies tied to the franc and basing large numbers of troops in the region. It's largely a carrot-and-stick relationship which keeps local elites in power to ensure "stability" and punishes leaders that try to decrease French influence in their countries. For example, when Guinea refused to sign the accords tying it to the Francafrique, France immediately stopped aid to the country and withdrew all of its colonial employees, who destroyed as much infrastructure and equipment as they could in reprisal. Numerous leaders like Thomas Sankara in Burkina Faso and Sylvanus Olympio in Togo have been targeted by French-backed military coups. These activities have been extremely profitable for political-business networks in France, with hundreds of thousands of euros gained from debt, aid, and resource extraction or drained through French importing monopolies. Although the Francafrique has been weakened in the post-Cold War era, it still has high influence over large portions of West and Central Africa.
I thought they were supporting the internationally recognized government against Iran-backed rebels?
Saudi Arabia and the UAE have been bombing and blockading Yemen for years, which has led to famine and massive civilian casualties. The Houthi government is in near-total control of Yemen, which makes the sanctions placed against it by the United States even more devastating for civilians. Since Yemen is not integrated into the U.S.-dominated global economy, these sanctions do not affect the Houthis' ability to wage war, but they affect ordinary people there who are already living through a massive humanitarian crisis. The Biden admin is flirting with reviving the Trump-era designation of the Houthis as a terrorist organization, which would make it much harder and more expensive for Yemenis to obtain food, medicine and other vital imports and could make it impossible for Yemenis abroad to send money to relatives still living there. Overall, it seems clear that the US' involvement has only made the situation worse and allowed the Saudis and Emiratis to push the conflict to new heights.
This is all quite sinister, and it's hard to know what to think. The question that keeps rattling around my brain is how likely is this to escalate beyond Ukraine? And as a follow up, what is the...
This is all quite sinister, and it's hard to know what to think. The question that keeps rattling around my brain is how likely is this to escalate beyond Ukraine? And as a follow up, what is the chance that we see at least one nuke deployed? I remember reading somewhere (I'll try to dig out a source) that in the last decade or so, most of Russia's war games have concluded with the "detonation" of a tactical nuclear device (referred to somewhat paradoxically as nuclear de-escalation).
Ok, so... now what? Congrats, Ukraine, you have a second chance to either get into a shooting war with Russia, or let them take a bite of your country and hope they don't want another. What an...
Ok, so... now what?
Congrats, Ukraine, you have a second chance to either get into a shooting war with Russia, or let them take a bite of your country and hope they don't want another. What an incredibly shitty choice.
Thing is, that's not actually the choice being made here. They already have the answer to whether or not Russia will want another bite. It's a 100% guaranteed yes, considering this isn't the first...
either get into a shooting war with Russia, or let them take a bite of your country and hope they don't want another.
Thing is, that's not actually the choice being made here. They already have the answer to whether or not Russia will want another bite. It's a 100% guaranteed yes, considering this isn't the first time. The question is actually this:
Ukraine, do you want to get into a shooting war with Russia, or slowly, over decades, be devoured whole by Russian invasions every few years, causing endless turmoil until you collapse completely?
With the number of soldiers in position, I don't think it will be bites by bites this time but we will see. It is a messed up situation, motivated by misplaced pride, greed and power. Much...
With the number of soldiers in position, I don't think it will be bites by bites this time but we will see. It is a messed up situation, motivated by misplaced pride, greed and power. Much technological progress has been made in the last 100 years, but humans have not made much progress. There are too many people who believe that power comes from destruction and expansion while cooperation is a softer but stronger force in the long run.
They could give it up and join NATO, I guess. It would at least give them political support to cause Putin to pump the brakes. But really, I'm not sure that'll work, and the last time appeasement...
They could give it up and join NATO, I guess. It would at least give them political support to cause Putin to pump the brakes.
But really, I'm not sure that'll work, and the last time appeasement was done with a country it didn't go particularly well. It is absolutely a horrible position for Ukraine to be put in.
Ukraine has sought NATO membership ever since it regained its independence. The blocker is NATO - in particular, Hungary is believed to be willing to veto any attempt to add Ukraine, and while the...
Ukraine has sought NATO membership ever since it regained its independence. The blocker is NATO - in particular, Hungary is believed to be willing to veto any attempt to add Ukraine, and while the rest of NATO is not so vocal, many of them are hesitant to add a member at such risk of triggering article 5, and with article 5, another world war - not to mention potentially nuclear apocalypse.
Sadly, it seems like negotiation has already failed, since that was the goal of the Minsk agreements which were signed in 2015 but have largely been ignored since then. Probably too late for any...
Sadly, it seems like negotiation has already failed, since that was the goal of the Minsk agreements which were signed in 2015 but have largely been ignored since then. Probably too late for any trust to be rebuilt in the separatist regions with how badly decentralization has failed. There's already been low-level fighting in Donetsk and Luhansk for years, so a ceasefire was never truly on the cards.
Any idea what Russian citizens think of that or what the public opinion seems to be? I assume they're not hearing anything of it or if they do, it's some fairy story that is meticulously edited to...
Any idea what Russian citizens think of that or what the public opinion seems to be? I assume they're not hearing anything of it or if they do, it's some fairy story that is meticulously edited to cater to the Russian people.
I would highly suggest reading this analysis of Putin's speech from yesterday. It frames the last century of Russian history in terms of three major betrayals: first, the Bolshevik revolutionaries...
I would highly suggest reading this analysis of Putin's speech from yesterday. It frames the last century of Russian history in terms of three major betrayals: first, the Bolshevik revolutionaries for creating SSRs that contradicted "Great Russian" national chauvinism; second, the Communist Party elites for pandering to nationalist sentiments that eventually broke up the USSR; and third, the United States for reneging on its promise not to induct eastern European countries into NATO and maintain friendly relations with Russia. While it's obviously false to claim that everyone in Russia agrees fullheartedly with these sentiments, it's at least a good barometer for what Putin feels will play well with his supporters.
Like any place, you're going to have opinions across the board, but at least the way my wife tells it, pretty much no one wants war with Ukraine and that according to Russian media, it's western...
Like any place, you're going to have opinions across the board, but at least the way my wife tells it, pretty much no one wants war with Ukraine and that according to Russian media, it's western media that's hyping up the potential for war with Ukraine. With that said, there are Russian reports that the Ukrainians are shelling the separatists in Eastern Ukraine and that it's becoming a humanitarian crisis. She says that on social media, there are claims that Russia is preparing to/has taken in refugees from the region.
I don't think there will be a further invasion, unless Ukraine attacks the rebel-held regions. Putin's already won his prize (the three Russian-majority areas in eastern Ukraine), there would be...
Linda Thomas-Greenfield, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told an emergency meeting of the Security Council that Moscow's recognition of the eastern regions was part of its attempt to create a pretext for a further invasion of Ukraine.
I don't think there will be a further invasion, unless Ukraine attacks the rebel-held regions. Putin's already won his prize (the three Russian-majority areas in eastern Ukraine), there would be little to gain now from a bloody war against a reliable natural gas customer.
Unfortunately I don't think this is true. For one, Putin's stated grievances list Ukraine as an existential threat. In his address yesterday he said he believes the West will help arm Ukraine with...
Unfortunately I don't think this is true. For one, Putin's stated grievances list Ukraine as an existential threat. In his address yesterday he said he believes the West will help arm Ukraine with nuclear weapons. We know that's bullshit and he knows that's bullshit but that's him painting Ukraine as a threat to the Russian people. Getting the full DNR and LNR doesn't satisfy Russians when Putin's telling them the West will arm Ukraine with nuclear weapons. Secondly, there are a lot of tanks and soldiers deployed on the border in Belarus with more arriving everyday. This represents the shortest distance for a Russian attack on Kyiv.
Edit: In addition to all the regular soldiers in Belarus Russia is also now deploying it's national guard equivalent into Belarus: https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1495935345984262150. (That Twitter account is a great follow if you're morbidly interested in all of this btw).
I don't think so. For one, I think this is entirely ideological - from an economic, or even political point of view, this endeavor is not really worth it to begin with. This whole thing is...
I don't think so. For one, I think this is entirely ideological - from an economic, or even political point of view, this endeavor is not really worth it to begin with.
This whole thing is massively expensive for Russia. Just the maintenance cost of hosting ~190k modern troops, with modern armaments, is extremely expensive. Then, add in the cost of all the sanctions (with Germany halting the NS2, it's clear that this is no joke for already faltering Russian economy), if all they gain is the Russian majority areas of the east, it would be a disaster for Russia. I mean, I think it's going to be a disaster for Russia regardless, but from Putin's speech, clearly the impetus here is an ideological one, based around a perception that Ukraine belongs to Russia.
Becoming an international pariah and massively damaging an already damaged economy without even being able to claim some sort of spiritual victory for "reclaiming" Ukraine would be an abject disaster for Putin. So I hope it happens, but I anticipate much worse.
There's also the next point of contention already looming: The "independent republics" in Ukraine's east lay claim to their entire respective administrative districts, but have since been driven...
There's also the next point of contention already looming: The "independent republics" in Ukraine's east lay claim to their entire respective administrative districts, but have since been driven from substantial parts of said districts by Ukraine forces. As far as I can tell, that hasn't changed much. But I can see Putin claiming the entire districts as independent, including the Ukraine-held parts. "Safeguarding" ethnic russians in those areas by military force would leave Ukraine with two options: (a) Ukraine backs away, giving up territory without a fight, essentially surrendering to Russia's whim. (b) Ukraine defends its sovereign territory against a Russian invasion, escalating this into a full-on conventional war between two nation states.
I agree that it's ideological, but I'm not sure how much they would need accomplish to be able to declare a victory. Russian propoganda doesn't seem all that constrained by reality, so why...
I agree that it's ideological, but I'm not sure how much they would need accomplish to be able to declare a victory. Russian propoganda doesn't seem all that constrained by reality, so why couldn't they play up whatever they achieve?
Strange that even the PRC isn't siding with Russia here. Though, China has never stuck its neck out to defend allies, I'm assuming its to avoid jeopardizing the relationships that align with their...
In very brief remarks, Chinese U.N. Ambassador Zhang Jun made no mention of Russia’s actions on Monday, saying all parties “must exercise restraint, and avoid any action that may fuel tensions."
Strange that even the PRC isn't siding with Russia here. Though, China has never stuck its neck out to defend allies, I'm assuming its to avoid jeopardizing the relationships that align with their economic goals.
In addition to what @Rez said, the cost-benefit of supporting Russian aggression is unfavorable for China. Despite competition with the West, China still desires to maintain relations with the...
In addition to what @Rez said, the cost-benefit of supporting Russian aggression is unfavorable for China. Despite competition with the West, China still desires to maintain relations with the West and a multipolar future (US, EU, Russia, China) that was already underway with Europe desiring a security framework independent of the US. Supporting Russia would cause a western alliance alignment where it's US and EU vs. China and Russia, where China is stuck with the weakest of the four.
I think that apologists for Russia would be more convincing if Russia weren't actively mobilizing troops and now actually invading Ukrainian territory.
It is a shame that Russia is unable to leave the 20th century and join the rest of the world in the 21st century to help figure out how to cooperate and build prosperity and advance the human condition. Instead Russia chooses to deal in the archaic: militant ethnicism, land conquest, subterfuge, and neo-feudalism. What a drag on our species.
Sad to say, but I reckon the rest of world is probably a lot more like Russia than it is like the wealthy nations you were likely referring to. Hell, even Japan is run in large part by ethnonationalists, albeit peaceful ones. South Korea as well. Hungary is a notable friend to Russia, and they exist within the EU. The big difference is that, unlike Russia, most of these other players do not have the military capability to behave as Russia does. The ones that do (China), act much in the same way.
It's not Russia that's the outlier. It's the wealthy North Atlantic countries.
And even then, it's not like the "civilized nations" of Western Europe are above this when it's not in their backyards. The Francafrique, for example, is a key tool of French neoimperialism in West Africa. Alternatively, look at what the United States and Saudi Arabia are doing to Yemen. The more you learn about international relations the more depressing it gets.
Oh absolutely, I didn't mean to insinuate that the North Atlantic nations are paragons of virtue who've moved past such barbaric acts, just that it isn't the norm to strive for those ideals.
With that said, for all the wrongs that those western nations commit, I don't want imply some sort of equivalence between them and the more openly imperialistic and revanchist nations like Russia and China.
Can you elaborate?
I thought they were supporting the internationally recognized government against Iran-backed rebels?
The Francafrique was established by De Gaulle as a way to give France's African colonies independence on paper while maintaining a tight leash by keeping their currencies tied to the franc and basing large numbers of troops in the region. It's largely a carrot-and-stick relationship which keeps local elites in power to ensure "stability" and punishes leaders that try to decrease French influence in their countries. For example, when Guinea refused to sign the accords tying it to the Francafrique, France immediately stopped aid to the country and withdrew all of its colonial employees, who destroyed as much infrastructure and equipment as they could in reprisal. Numerous leaders like Thomas Sankara in Burkina Faso and Sylvanus Olympio in Togo have been targeted by French-backed military coups. These activities have been extremely profitable for political-business networks in France, with hundreds of thousands of euros gained from debt, aid, and resource extraction or drained through French importing monopolies. Although the Francafrique has been weakened in the post-Cold War era, it still has high influence over large portions of West and Central Africa.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE have been bombing and blockading Yemen for years, which has led to famine and massive civilian casualties. The Houthi government is in near-total control of Yemen, which makes the sanctions placed against it by the United States even more devastating for civilians. Since Yemen is not integrated into the U.S.-dominated global economy, these sanctions do not affect the Houthis' ability to wage war, but they affect ordinary people there who are already living through a massive humanitarian crisis. The Biden admin is flirting with reviving the Trump-era designation of the Houthis as a terrorist organization, which would make it much harder and more expensive for Yemenis to obtain food, medicine and other vital imports and could make it impossible for Yemenis abroad to send money to relatives still living there. Overall, it seems clear that the US' involvement has only made the situation worse and allowed the Saudis and Emiratis to push the conflict to new heights.
Haha this is amazing, along with the many lame attempts by Russian accounts to discredit it.
This is all quite sinister, and it's hard to know what to think. The question that keeps rattling around my brain is how likely is this to escalate beyond Ukraine? And as a follow up, what is the chance that we see at least one nuke deployed? I remember reading somewhere (I'll try to dig out a source) that in the last decade or so, most of Russia's war games have concluded with the "detonation" of a tactical nuclear device (referred to somewhat paradoxically as nuclear de-escalation).
Ok, so... now what?
Congrats, Ukraine, you have a second chance to either get into a shooting war with Russia, or let them take a bite of your country and hope they don't want another. What an incredibly shitty choice.
Thing is, that's not actually the choice being made here. They already have the answer to whether or not Russia will want another bite. It's a 100% guaranteed yes, considering this isn't the first time. The question is actually this:
Ukraine, do you want to get into a shooting war with Russia, or slowly, over decades, be devoured whole by Russian invasions every few years, causing endless turmoil until you collapse completely?
Not much of a question anymore.
With the number of soldiers in position, I don't think it will be bites by bites this time but we will see. It is a messed up situation, motivated by misplaced pride, greed and power. Much technological progress has been made in the last 100 years, but humans have not made much progress. There are too many people who believe that power comes from destruction and expansion while cooperation is a softer but stronger force in the long run.
They could give it up and join NATO, I guess. It would at least give them political support to cause Putin to pump the brakes.
But really, I'm not sure that'll work, and the last time appeasement was done with a country it didn't go particularly well. It is absolutely a horrible position for Ukraine to be put in.
Ukraine has sought NATO membership ever since it regained its independence. The blocker is NATO - in particular, Hungary is believed to be willing to veto any attempt to add Ukraine, and while the rest of NATO is not so vocal, many of them are hesitant to add a member at such risk of triggering article 5, and with article 5, another world war - not to mention potentially nuclear apocalypse.
Yikes, I wasn't aware of all of that background. It's an even worse situation than I thought.
Sadly, it seems like negotiation has already failed, since that was the goal of the Minsk agreements which were signed in 2015 but have largely been ignored since then. Probably too late for any trust to be rebuilt in the separatist regions with how badly decentralization has failed. There's already been low-level fighting in Donetsk and Luhansk for years, so a ceasefire was never truly on the cards.
Any idea what Russian citizens think of that or what the public opinion seems to be? I assume they're not hearing anything of it or if they do, it's some fairy story that is meticulously edited to cater to the Russian people.
I would highly suggest reading this analysis of Putin's speech from yesterday. It frames the last century of Russian history in terms of three major betrayals: first, the Bolshevik revolutionaries for creating SSRs that contradicted "Great Russian" national chauvinism; second, the Communist Party elites for pandering to nationalist sentiments that eventually broke up the USSR; and third, the United States for reneging on its promise not to induct eastern European countries into NATO and maintain friendly relations with Russia. While it's obviously false to claim that everyone in Russia agrees fullheartedly with these sentiments, it's at least a good barometer for what Putin feels will play well with his supporters.
Like any place, you're going to have opinions across the board, but at least the way my wife tells it, pretty much no one wants war with Ukraine and that according to Russian media, it's western media that's hyping up the potential for war with Ukraine. With that said, there are Russian reports that the Ukrainians are shelling the separatists in Eastern Ukraine and that it's becoming a humanitarian crisis. She says that on social media, there are claims that Russia is preparing to/has taken in refugees from the region.
What can one say? This will increase tension.
I don't think there will be a further invasion, unless Ukraine attacks the rebel-held regions. Putin's already won his prize (the three Russian-majority areas in eastern Ukraine), there would be little to gain now from a bloody war against a reliable natural gas customer.
edit:
Well shit, I was wrong.
Unfortunately I don't think this is true. For one, Putin's stated grievances list Ukraine as an existential threat. In his address yesterday he said he believes the West will help arm Ukraine with nuclear weapons. We know that's bullshit and he knows that's bullshit but that's him painting Ukraine as a threat to the Russian people. Getting the full DNR and LNR doesn't satisfy Russians when Putin's telling them the West will arm Ukraine with nuclear weapons. Secondly, there are a lot of tanks and soldiers deployed on the border in Belarus with more arriving everyday. This represents the shortest distance for a Russian attack on Kyiv.
Edit: In addition to all the regular soldiers in Belarus Russia is also now deploying it's national guard equivalent into Belarus: https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1495935345984262150. (That Twitter account is a great follow if you're morbidly interested in all of this btw).
I don't think so. For one, I think this is entirely ideological - from an economic, or even political point of view, this endeavor is not really worth it to begin with.
This whole thing is massively expensive for Russia. Just the maintenance cost of hosting ~190k modern troops, with modern armaments, is extremely expensive. Then, add in the cost of all the sanctions (with Germany halting the NS2, it's clear that this is no joke for already faltering Russian economy), if all they gain is the Russian majority areas of the east, it would be a disaster for Russia. I mean, I think it's going to be a disaster for Russia regardless, but from Putin's speech, clearly the impetus here is an ideological one, based around a perception that Ukraine belongs to Russia.
Becoming an international pariah and massively damaging an already damaged economy without even being able to claim some sort of spiritual victory for "reclaiming" Ukraine would be an abject disaster for Putin. So I hope it happens, but I anticipate much worse.
There's also the next point of contention already looming: The "independent republics" in Ukraine's east lay claim to their entire respective administrative districts, but have since been driven from substantial parts of said districts by Ukraine forces. As far as I can tell, that hasn't changed much. But I can see Putin claiming the entire districts as independent, including the Ukraine-held parts. "Safeguarding" ethnic russians in those areas by military force would leave Ukraine with two options: (a) Ukraine backs away, giving up territory without a fight, essentially surrendering to Russia's whim. (b) Ukraine defends its sovereign territory against a Russian invasion, escalating this into a full-on conventional war between two nation states.
I agree that it's ideological, but I'm not sure how much they would need accomplish to be able to declare a victory. Russian propoganda doesn't seem all that constrained by reality, so why couldn't they play up whatever they achieve?
Strange that even the PRC isn't siding with Russia here. Though, China has never stuck its neck out to defend allies, I'm assuming its to avoid jeopardizing the relationships that align with their economic goals.
In addition to what @Rez said, the cost-benefit of supporting Russian aggression is unfavorable for China. Despite competition with the West, China still desires to maintain relations with the West and a multipolar future (US, EU, Russia, China) that was already underway with Europe desiring a security framework independent of the US. Supporting Russia would cause a western alliance alignment where it's US and EU vs. China and Russia, where China is stuck with the weakest of the four.