Ukraine

[CWSmith]

My worry now is whether Russia can back down without losing face. Have they put themselves in a corner?

[StevenBauer]

Jennifer Cohn is good. Her research on voting should be known by everyone. Here’s her Ukraine piece:

https://jennycohn1.medium.com/whats-all-the-fuss-about-ukraine-1ba8e53d99ee

[skuthorp]

edited to say, faulty geography and the wrong sea!

But it's still a very big bite and may give Russia indigestion.

[Osborne Russell]

Of course the ROTW doesn't owe Russia anything. That is not the point. The Allies didn't owe Germany anything in 1945 either. The rich don't owe anything to the poor, and when an earthquake wipes out Haiti nobody owes them any aid.

It is enlightened self-interest to offer assistance in all these cases, though.

This argument of course avoids the issue of legal authority to do jack in Russia; and Russia's willingess to allow jack to be done; and where the money would come from. We're going to teach the heirs of Imperial Russia how to run their outfit, from Kamchatka to Bulgaria, and pay them to do it?

[Osborne Russell]

Russia (and the USSR) have long histories of imperial aspirations. The continuation of these aspirations today hasn't been caused by the US, and I suspect that it's wishful thinking to say that more active involvement in Russia's domestic politics in the 1990s would have expunged or even controlled these aspirations.

Yep.

There is an Irish saying: if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

[Osborne Russell]

My worry now is whether Russia can back down without losing face. Have they put themselves in a corner?

Not yet. They can back off. Then it falls to the west to decide to allow the conquests in Ukraine and Georgia to stand. The west will dither and in a few years Russia can try again.

Someone pointed out that the latest caper has ironically brought NATO closer to encircling Russia than ever. Sooner or later the dithering will stop, and necessity will be recognized.

[Paul Pless]

Someone pointed out that the latest caper has ironically brought NATO closer to encircling Russia than ever. Sooner or later the dithering will stop, and necessity will be recognized.

the real difference not being russia's actions
but the fact that biden is no trumpian stool pigeon for putin

[skuthorp]

My worry now is whether Russia can back down without losing face. Have they put themselves in a corner?

It's more can Putin afford to back off without losing face, but I doubt he will. And if he doesn't will there any european intervention? I doubt anyone will join in over Ukraine, but if Vlad judges then that europe is weak will the Baltic states be next? And would that trigger another european war?

[George.]

The Russians eeem to still long for a Czar. Vlad is just the latest incarnation of that imperial dream. The myth of a strong man seems built into their psyche.

That may be part of it. Another part is that when they briefly had a liberal democracy in the 1990s it came with a side dish of unrestrained savage capitalism, delivered to them by Western institutions and consultants who were more focused on getting a slice of privatized assets than on establishing a well-regulated free market. The result was predictable: oligarchy and an atrocious disparity in wealth and income between the poor and the newly rich.

Yet another part was NATO expanding all the way to Russia's borders. The average Russian might ask: what is the purpose of NATO other than to oppose Russia?

Put those two together and you get support for someone who promises to fix it.

Putin's regime is a reaction to that.

[Osborne Russell]

Another part is that when they briefly had a liberal democracy in the 1990s it came with a side dish of unrestrained savage capitalism, delivered to them by Western institutions and consultants . . .

Delivered to them by themselves.

[George.]

Delivered to them by themselves.

No, Ozzie. They had no idea how to even start after 70 years of communism. Delivered by "experts" financed by the World Bank, IMF, State Department, etc. Believe me, I had a front-row seat, and it was disgusting.

[Osborne Russell]

No, Ozzie. They had no idea how to even start after 70 years of communism.

What? No for-real economists or political scientists in Soviet Russia, only Communists? Whose fault was that?

In any case, an expert communist knows exactly how communism develops from capitalism, therefore, he knows capitalism.

Delivered by "experts" financed by the World Bank, IMF, State Department, etc. Believe me, I had a front-row seat, and it was disgusting.

A front row seat where? In the room where the west decided to install an autocracy to go to war with?

[woodpile]

Now the white house is backing off their "immanent invasion" talk, could have guessed that for some time, it's all been a game of posturing and testing a weak POTUS. After Putin's loss in Afghanistan, his country's economic condition and knowing the Ukraine would be a bloody cat fight, the "immanent invasion" talk never made sense.

[George Jung]

.... which is surprising, really....

Just kiddin'!

[Osborne Russell]

Now the white house is backing off their "immanent invasion" talk, could have guessed that for some time, it's all been a game of posturing and testing a weak POTUS. After Putin's loss in Afghanistan, his country's economic condition and knowing the Ukraine would be a bloody cat fight, the "immanent invasion" talk never made sense.

It always makes sense because Russia makes claims that can only take the form of invasion. Invasion is always more or less imminent, more so with time as Russia gathers the resources.

Pray tell, was invasion of Ukraine imminent before Russia invaded Ukraine?

p.s. It was the Soviet Union that lost in Afghanistan, not Putin.

[Paul Pless]

This is an unlikely interpretation of events.

lmfao

[johnw]

That may be part of it. Another part is that when they briefly had a liberal democracy in the 1990s it came with a side dish of unrestrained savage capitalism, delivered to them by Western institutions and consultants who were more focused on getting a slice of privatized assets than on establishing a well-regulated free market. The result was predictable: oligarchy and an atrocious disparity in wealth and income between the poor and the newly rich.

Yet another part was NATO expanding all the way to Russia's borders. The average Russian might ask: what is the purpose of NATO other than to oppose Russia?

Put those two together and you get support for someone who promises to fix it.

Putin's regime is a reaction to that.

I'm always astonished at how little agency you give Russians for restructuring their own country. The Marshall Plan worked, in part, because of a severe program of deNazification, in part because they were essentially restoring Germany to an earlier state, Germany already having achieved a prosperous democracy prior to the Depression and the descent into Nazism.

There has never been a time when Russian wealth was not distributed based on political power.

Why is there an alliance to oppose Russia? Because Russia continues to be a threat to its neighbors.

Or are you under the impression that NATO exists to invade Russia?

[Garret]

This is an unlikely interpretation of events.

Other than his having it backwards, it's close - no?

[johnw]

By the way, I think Putin has hinted how he might back down. He has said the west is trying to provoke him into war. All he has to say now is, I'm not falling for that.

[George.]

A front row seat where? In the room where the west decided to install an autocracy to go to war with?

At the World Bank. My wife was in the Division of Energy and Infrastructure, Department of Russia and Central Asia, when Russia was being told to privatize everything ASAP, never mind due diligence, or no financing would be forthcoming. The carpetbaggers and future oligarchs loved it. The millions who ended up unemployed just as the social safety net was taken down (again, at the behest of the West), not so much. But the "experts" promised Russia that the pain would be short-lived and a bright future was just around the corner. Those people would put Republican tax-cutters to shame.

[johnw]

Invasion is always more or less imminent, but rarely immanent.

But might the imminent invasion immanentize the eschaton?

[George.]

The Marshall Plan worked, in part, because of a severe program of deNazification, in part because they were essentially restoring Germany to an earlier state, Germany already having achieved a prosperous democracy prior to the Depression and the descent into Nazism.

Actually, the Marshall Plan worked because the US poured billions into the German economy with few strings attached, and ended de-Nazification as Communism looked like the bigger threat.

[Joe (SoCal)]

BREAKING NEWS

The U.S. has exposed what it says is a Russian plan to use a fake video to create a pretext to invade Ukraine, senior officials said.

Thursday, February 3, 2022 12:40 PM EST

The plan — which the United States hopes to spoil by making public — involves staging and filming a fabricated attack by the Ukrainian military either on Russian territory or against Russian-speaking people in eastern Ukraine.

[Gerarddm]

Putin once mentioned that the dissolution of the USSR was the greatest geo-political catastrophe in the past 100 years.

A guy with that attitude is certainly capable of anything. They wouldn't be moving plasma shipments to the Ukraine border for their 100K troops if he was not bloody serious in seeing just how far he can get away with a Sudetenland-type move.

As for convincing ordinary Russians that NATO is anti-Russian, my reaction is WELL, DUH.

[George Jung]

'Found corpses'?

Nah. Sounds fake.

Russia would just 'make' corpses, to fit the need.

[George.]

Why is there an alliance to oppose Russia? Because Russia continues to be a threat to its neighbors.

Or are you under the impression that NATO exists to invade Russia?

That is correct in 2022.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, not so much.

[Osborne Russell]

At the World Bank. My wife was in the Division of Energy and Infrastructure, Department of Russia and Central Asia, when Russia was being told to privatize everything ASAP, never mind due diligence, or no financing would be forthcoming. The carpetbaggers and future oligarchs loved it. The millions who ended up unemployed just as the social safety net was taken down (again, at the behest of the West), not so much. But the "experts" promised Russia that the pain would be short-lived and a bright future was just around the corner. Those people would put Republican tax-cutters to shame.

I could see that happening, except -- did the Russians have to do it? Why was outside financing suddenly necessary?

Who was this "Russia" that the WB was leaning on? Who was the Russia that came before, whose job it would have been to accomplish the transition?

Looks to me like communism bred the gangsters who were already integrated into the "security" apparatus. The only transition was to drop the vestigial communism. They must have peed themselves when the WB told them, hurry and up take everything or we won't give you our money.

[Ted Hoppe]

And to think I was hoping to ride my Motorcycle to Kiev this summer.

[woodpile]

This is an unlikely interpretation of events.

My opinion, so, what's your "interpretation of events" or do you just want to disagree with no substance.

[ERGR]

The former Soviet states Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania choose a different path than Russia and are doing fairly well. There wasn't any reason why Russia couldn't have done the same. Western Europe would have welcome Russia, but that would have meant that Russia would have been just another European country.
/Erik

[skuthorp]

It would also mean that the former aparatchics of the soviet state and the secret police and internal security personnel would be vulnerable to prosecutions for what were actually crimes at the time of committing, but were never prosecuted. Likely Vlad amongst them.

[Osborne Russell]

The former Soviet states Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania choose a different path than Russia and are doing fairly well. There wasn't any reason why Russia couldn't have done the same.

Same with all the Warsaw pact nations, right? And Yugoslavia.

Western Europe would have welcome Russia, but that would have meant that Russia would have been just another European country.

The real deal-killer.

[johnw]

That is correct in 2022.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, not so much.

You think they had forgotten the decades of being under Moscow's thumb?

It is not clear from your reply whether you think NATO exists to invade Russia.

[johnw]

Actually, the Marshall Plan worked because the US poured billions into the German economy with few strings attached, and ended de-Nazification as Communism looked like the bigger threat.

Denazification was done before the Marshall plan started. The Marshall Plan started in 1948. We actually provided more aid to the French and the British than we did to the Germans. 5% of the funding went to CIA front groups, mainly liberal-leaning. the idea was to rebuild democratic institutions, not just the economy. Putin thinks advocates for democracy are a big threat to his regime.

Country	1948/49 ($ millions)	1949/50 ($ millions)	1950/51 ($ millions)	Cumulative ($ millions)
Austria	232	166	70	468
Belgium and Luxembourg	195	222	360	777
Denmark	103	87	195	385
France	1,085	691	520	2,296
West Germany	510	438	500	1,448
Greece	175	156	45	376
Iceland	6	22	15	43
Ireland	88	45	0	133
Italy and Trieste	594	405	205	1,204
Netherlands	471	302	355	1,128
Norway	82	90	200	372
Portugal	0	0	70	70
Sweden	39	48	260	347
Switzerland	0	0	250	250
Turkey	28	59	50	137
United Kingdom	1,316	921	1,060	3,297
Totals	4,924	3,652	4,155	12,731

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

[George.]

Denazification was done before the Marshall plan started.

Denazification was halted. It was never "done."