Ukraine

[WI-Tom]

I'll bet you're the only one

I wouldn't be surprised. I'm expecting to disagree with some of what sandtown says, but I respect his views and, even more so, his values. I think it's hard for him to get a fair hearing from those who already have well-formed opinions and aren't willing to see them challenged.

Tom

[WszystekPoTrochu]

The US has been provoking Russia for the past ten or fifteen years.

How? How did USA provoke a full scale invasion on a third country? What did USA do to spark a genocide?

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Stefan Korshak’s report just now:

https://medium.com/@Stefan.Korshak/n...s-1d00ec189e2d

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

sigh. The US has been provoking Russia for the past ten or fifteen years. The US always does this, then sanctimonious people spout the "the bad guys made us respond" line.

It's nonsense. Did you miss out on history when you got your degree ?

What does “provoked” mean, here?

I can provoke a dumb animal by teasing it and I can do the same with a toddler.

But how does one nation state “provoke” another nation state into invading a third nation state?

It’s just silly.

[JayInOz]

I wouldn't be surprised. I'm expecting to disagree with some of what sandtown says, but I respect his views and, even more so, his values. I think it's hard for him to get a fair hearing from those who already have well-formed opinions and aren't willing to see them challenged.

Tom

Happy to have my views challenged Tom- unless it's accompanied by constant snark, condescension and sarcasm. The fact that I'm becoming more and more intolerant as I get old doesn't help

[HRDavies]

If that's what we're arguing here, then I have some questions:

1. If it's the U.S. that Russia has been provoked by, then why invade Ukraine? Twice? What's the connection that makes a repeated invasion of another sovereign nation a response to what the U.S. has done?

Because the US is using Ukraine to threaten Russia. Answer this and you'll know why : Why did the US blockade Cuba in 1962 ? What country in its right mind will allow nuclear-equipped missiles to be placed on its doorstep ?

Go a step further : what is mutually-assured destruction ? Who came up with Star Wars ? Was it the soviet union ? which country on this planet is always always always pushing to control the world with force ? What happens to the credibility of your defense when the other party can negate it ?

"Unprovoked", it is to laugh. They were very much provoked.

2. Is Russia's claim that their actions have been provoked by the continued expansion of NATO justified? Well, in the history of NATO, have they ever invaded anyone?

Which country is the major force behind NATO ? Who invaded Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, overthrew governments all over the world ? That we know of ?

Claiming that "NATO has never done anything bad" is disingenuous. The US, as a major part of NATO, has never done anything that was not bad.

3. Or, are they really afraid not of invasion, but of the way that democratic governance is expanding, making Russia and other autocracies less and less relevant on the world stage?

That's a fantasy in your own mind. Nobody gives a damn about that crap, the US least of all. Whoever does what we want is the anointed Good Guy, no matter how evil they are. There's two hundred years of proof, if you do even the slightest bit of research. Start with Smedley Butler.

4. How does the fact that membership in NATO is voluntary affect our judgments on this issue? It's not like NATO is grabbing territory to build an empire. Yes, they let other nations join. Why shouldn't they?

And why shouldn't the Soviet Union put missiles in Cuba ? It's a sovereign country. They have the right to do anything they want.

Except in the real world, that isn't how it works.

5. Most importantly, how does any of this--even if all your premises are granted--justify an invasion of Ukraine? And if it's not justified, why defend it? No one but Putin et al sent Russian troops to Ukraine. They bear the ultimate responsibility. Do you agree that they were wrong to invade, and that the act of invading Ukraine makes Russia guilty of war crimes as defined in international law? If not, why not? Those seem like incontrovertible facts to me, and the most relevant ones.

"Justification" is nonsense. It's all fine and dandy to sit in your armchair and squeal about what you think is right and holy. But you (and I) don't control the world. Nations will do what they think they have to do. Russia doesn't want to do this. It's a ton of money and huge disruption to their lives. They feel they have to.

Look at US behavior over the past 200 years, they are probably correct. You can start with the Monroe Doctrine - good ol' James there, a slave owner, decided that the US owned half the world. We weren't strong enough yet to decide we owned all of the world. But we got around to it later. We have a long and well-documented history of overthrowing governments. We've been trying to crush Russia ever since their revolution. We're still worried about the domino theory I guess ?

I personally think Washington DC is a bunch of imbeciles. We know what happens with this world domination scheme. They are following the trail blazed by Rome and the UK, confident that we'll be smarter. But we aren't. If anything, we're dumber. It's not how you carry out the plan of Empire that's flawed, it's the very concept of Empire backed by military force. Ponzi schemes don't fail because they aren't well-implemented, they fail because they are inherently flawed. But that's what we insist on doing, following an idiot program. We're stupid.

You could probably drop the snide hostility, by the way.

You're too old to be having these emotional dreams, and you're from the US, you really should know your own history. The stuff you have said about Ukraine is nonsense, they are not a lovely group of people striving for democracy and freedom and 'human rights', they are a totally messed-up third-world disaster with a large proportion of nazis and thugs and tremendous internal pressures, being used as a catspaw by the US. If you feel that's a good thing, that's fine, but please don't romanticize it with these irrelevant emotional justifications. White Man's Burden was a pitiful joke and a giant lie. Countries don't ever do "what is right", they do what they think will bring them the largest gains (usually monetary, but also power).

Meanwhile, the US, which is pissing away billions on this scheme, has encampments of thousands of messed-up people living in tents under the freeway, a health care system which is unbelievable garbage, inflation of easily 50% for the things you need to live (food, electricity, rent, that kind of thing - altho laptops and bigscreen teevees are cheaper every year woohoo !) ... this dream of empire is eating the US up from the inside but we don't let that stop us.

We're going to get what we deserve, and it ain't pretty.

What does “provoked” mean, here?

I can provoke a dumb animal by teasing it and I can do the same with a toddler.

But how does one nation state “provoke” another nation state into invading a third nation state?

It’s just silly.

It's not silly at all and history is full of examples. You put a country into a situation where they feel they have to defend themselves. It's actually a standard tactic (the US used it to steal Texas from Mexico, for example) and has been for a thousand years.

The US has learned this tactic from the UK, by the way. Take everything the UK did that was bad, and we copy it only do it even worse.

by the way, if the word "provoked" upsets you, then why do people even bring it up ? It was Wi-Tom who got all upset that this attack was "unprovoked"

[gypsie]

Spirited attempt Tom #6965, but I fear utterly wasted.
your interlocutor is incapable of interlocuting without full on A-hole BS. 100% pure troll.

I counsel ignore, but I know it can fall on deaf ears.

[WszystekPoTrochu]

Yes, I know that arguing with obvious trolls is a wasteful time allocation, but...

Because the US is using Ukraine to threaten Russia. Answer this and you'll know why : Why did the US blockade Cuba in 1962?

So how many missiles did USA launch towards Cuba? How many of Cuban children were kidnapped and forcefully adopted into families in New York, Seattle and Alaska?
How many nuclear missiles are there in Poland? Estonia? Romania? When did Ukraine get on formal track to NATO admission?

Who invaded Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, overthrew governments all over the world?

Vietnam - not NATO. Not even close.
Iraq - not NATO
Afghanistan - not NATO

And why shouldn't the Soviet Union put missiles in Cuba?

Because it did to international safety the same damage that hypersonic missiles are doing today. Wanna have a valid analogy? China feeling provoked over USA military presence on Taiwan. Wanna have an invalid analogy? A huge european country where people repeatedly protested against ties with Russia, but which has no formal military ties with USA nor any american military presence.

Russia doesn't want to do this. It's a ton of money and huge disruption to their lives. They feel they have to.

They have to if they want to remain an international bully. In all other scenarios, they have enough people and resources to remain in G20, and even in G8, without resorting to military means.

You're too old to be having these emotional dreams, and you're from the US, you really should know your own history.

It's funny that we're somehow supposed to carry no prejudice towards muscovites after the last 200 years of regular ruthless wars, oppresion of minorities and hostile actions towards half of Europe.

they are a totally messed-up third-world disaster with a large proportion of nazis and thugs and tremendous internal pressures, being used as a catspaw by the US

I am very grateful for that russian troll self-identification, really. Makes all previous attempts at giving you the benefit of doubt a thing of the past.
But do carry on, there's a niche for just so many trolls here and you're at least well spoken.

[WI-Tom]

Happy to have my views challenged Tom- unless it's accompanied by constant snark, condescension and sarcasm. The fact that I'm becoming more and more intolerant as I get old doesn't help

Yes, I think that actually applies to most posters here on the WBF. The hostility and personal attacks get old real fast. I didn't mean to accuse people of being unwilling to discuss their views when the discussion remains civil. I take that part back!

Tom

[WI-Tom]

Spirited attempt Tom #6965, but I fear utterly wasted.
your interlocutor is incapable of interlocuting without full on A-hole BS. 100% pure troll.

I counsel ignore, but I know it can fall on deaf ears.

Reading HR Davies' reply, I have to agree with you. Apologies to those who have followed this thread more closely and have been shaking their heads at my overly optimistic hopes for a civil conversation about different views.

I don't use the ignore list. But I do ignore some people and some posts.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

In case you care, here are some of the ways you continue to bring the much-deserved label of "full on A hole BS":

That's a fantasy in your own mind.
...
if you do even the slightest bit of research.
...
It's all fine and dandy to sit in your armchair and squeal about what you think is right and holy.
...
You're too old to be having these emotional dreams, and you're from the US, you really should know your own history.

Well, no. That last comment was a response to a question I raised, not a belief I stated. You're free to express disagreement, or question the validity of the point I raised, but as you wrote it, your response is pure condescension. You come across like a real jerk. Do you care about that? I find the WBF is a bunch of the best friends I've never met (I've met a few but I'll never meet them all). I doubt I'd feel that way if I treated other forum members the way you do.

Now, along with being condescending and just plain insulting, this next bit is also completely disconnected from reality:

The stuff you have said about Ukraine is nonsense, they are not a lovely group of people striving for democracy and freedom and 'human rights', they are a totally messed-up third-world disaster with a large proportion of nazis and thugs and tremendous internal pressures, being used as a catspaw by the US. If you feel that's a good thing, that's fine, but please don't romanticize it with these irrelevant emotional justifications.

Besides the hyperbole and histrionic over-reactions, which rarely facilitate civil discussion, I never said anything about Ukraine. I asked some questions that challenged your apologist's views about Russia's invasion. I didn't say a single thing about Ukraine, much less describe them as "a lovely group of people striving for blah blah blah."

How do you expect to be taken seriously, really? When what you rant about has nothing to do with what other people have said? Are you even aware that this is what you are doing?

I have to agree with everyone who thinks that the persona you choose to portray here is not worth any more of my time. A pity, because I think that rational discussion about assumptions and beliefs is one of the most interesting kinds of discussions we can have. But your persona is all froth and outrage, and no rationality. I would never choose to spend any time with someone who acted like this in real life. If they walked into a restaurant I was at and started acting like you act, I'd walk out..

This is me, walking out.

Tom

[C. Ross]

Moving beyond mud wrestling with those who make mud pits….

Where does this war go, and where goes Ukraine?

It certainly seems like the Ukrainians are good at fighting when they have adequate weapons, and the Russians don’t seem to have many plays in their playbook beyond mass artillery, attrition, and attacks on civilian infrastructure. (See WWII, Chechnya, Syria, Crimea, Ukraine) I think it’s reasonable to forecast that, short of Russian use of nuclear weapons or an ally entering in support, Russia will be pushed back and pushed either out of the country or to a negotiating table. The war may burn itself out or roll back to the 2014-2022 stasis. Who sees Russia “winning”?

But can Ukraine “win”? If the war ends in victory, stasis, or negotiations Ukraine has a huge hill to climb. Their infrastructure and civilian properties are tattered. They may face continued bombardment if the end game is un-negotiated stasis. Their population has fled, many of whom won’t return. Pre-war they had serious public corruption problems and their demographics were unbalanced - too many aged people and too few young people.

I am inspired by their resilience and even humor. It’s amazing to me how quickly street life returned to Kyiv after bombardment. But can they dig themselves out, like South Korea did? Or will they be hobbled for generations, dependent on western aid (which some would say will continue to “provoke” Russia)? I see a challenging future for these inspiring brave people. What’s a more optimistic but realistic view?

[WI-Tom]

I agree with your take--I have a hard time picturing a winning outcome for Ukraine. Unless something drastically changes with Russia, or the rest of the world steps in to make some changes, which doesn't seem likely.

Tom

[skuthorp]

If Ukraine manage to push the Russians out that's one thing, but its not winning because Russia is still there threatening to invade again as it always has been. It's hard to find an end game there.
And for the rest of us the phoney/proxy war continues and the possibilities of a 'mistake' expand.

[Garth Jones]

Moving beyond mud wrestling with those who make mud pits….

Where does this war go, and where goes Ukraine?

It certainly seems like the Ukrainians are good at fighting when they have adequate weapons, and the Russians don’t seem to have many plays in their playbook beyond mass artillery, attrition, and attacks on civilian infrastructure. (See WWII, Chechnya, Syria, Crimea, Ukraine) I think it’s reasonable to forecast that, short of Russian use of nuclear weapons or an ally entering in support, Russia will be pushed back and pushed either out of the country or to a negotiating table. The war may burn itself out or roll back to the 2014-2022 stasis. Who sees Russia “winning”?

But can Ukraine “win”? If the war ends in victory, stasis, or negotiations Ukraine has a huge hill to climb. Their infrastructure and civilian properties are tattered. They may face continued bombardment if the end game is un-negotiated stasis. Their population has fled, many of whom won’t return. Pre-war they had serious public corruption problems and their demographics were unbalanced - too many aged people and too few young people.

I am inspired by their resilience and even humor. It’s amazing to me how quickly street life returned to Kyiv after bombardment. But can they dig themselves out, like South Korea did? Or will they be hobbled for generations, dependent on western aid (which some would say will continue to “provoke” Russia)? I see a challenging future for these inspiring brave people. What’s a more optimistic but realistic view?

I think the optimistic view (and hopefully realistic, but I'm not certain about that) is that the Ukrainians hold on and push the Russians out. Then they are accepted into NATO and the EU, start rebuilding and continue to transform themselves into a Western Europe style democracy. At that point they would be protected by Article 5 of NATO and the massive EU economy.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Moving beyond mud wrestling with those who make mud pits….

Where does this war go, and where goes Ukraine?

It certainly seems like the Ukrainians are good at fighting when they have adequate weapons, and the Russians don’t seem to have many plays in their playbook beyond mass artillery, attrition, and attacks on civilian infrastructure. (See WWII, Chechnya, Syria, Crimea, Ukraine) I think it’s reasonable to forecast that, short of Russian use of nuclear weapons or an ally entering in support, Russia will be pushed back and pushed either out of the country or to a negotiating table. The war may burn itself out or roll back to the 2014-2022 stasis. Who sees Russia “winning”?

But can Ukraine “win”? If the war ends in victory, stasis, or negotiations Ukraine has a huge hill to climb. Their infrastructure and civilian properties are tattered. They may face continued bombardment if the end game is un-negotiated stasis. Their population has fled, many of whom won’t return. Pre-war they had serious public corruption problems and their demographics were unbalanced - too many aged people and too few young people.

I am inspired by their resilience and even humor. It’s amazing to me how quickly street life returned to Kyiv after bombardment. But can they dig themselves out, like South Korea did? Or will they be hobbled for generations, dependent on western aid (which some would say will continue to “provoke” Russia)? I see a challenging future for these inspiring brave people. What’s a more optimistic but realistic view?

I agree with your summary of the position, Cris, but I disagree with your conclusions.

I do think that South Korea provides a parallel.

I don’t think we should assume that the government of Russia will be determined to “try again”. Pretty much all European nations have invaded one another over contiguous land borders over the last millennium. By and large, they haven’t done it continually.

[birlinn]

Putin maybe realise that by taking on Ukraine, he will eventually be taking on the EU.
Things do move slowly in EU land though. I think that the EU are more important than NATO in this case.
Pity the UK is not part of the EU, but we are trying.

[JimD]

The US, as a major part of NATO, has never done anything that was not bad.

That's a little harsh.

[JimD]

Stating the obvious, but there's a big difference between defeating an invading army and defeating the state that sent it. Assuming Ukraine prevails militarily on its own soil, what it will be owed is huge reparations from Russia. Anyone see a path for that to happen?

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Stating the obvious, but there's a big difference between defeating an invading army and defeating the state that sent it. Assuming Ukraine prevails militarily on its own soil, what it will be owed is huge reparations from Russia. Anyone see a path for that to happen?

That’s the easiest part.

See here:

[johnw]

Stating the obvious, but there's a big difference between defeating an invading army and defeating the state that sent it. Assuming Ukraine prevails militarily on its own soil, what it will be owed is huge reparations from Russia. Anyone see a path for that to happen?

The Russians see a path to reparations. They claim the west is trying to legitimize using seized Russian central bank reserves for reparations. Sounds like a good idea to me.

[gypsie]

Putin maybe realise that by taking on Ukraine, he will eventually be taking on the EU.
Things do move slowly in EU land though. I think that the EU are more important than NATO in this case.
Pity the UK is not part of the EU, but we are trying.

I agree, EU membership is the more important.
With that there's a strong incentive for Ukrainians to return and an organisation with resources to rebuild.

Divert everything from Hungary and Turkey into Ukraine

[StevenBauer]

Meanwhile, in Warsaw, the street where the Russian Embassy is located has been renamed:

7FE73122-2E32-4511-98F5-32376521A620.jpg


Avenue Of The Victims Of Russian Aggression.

[Tom Hunter]

Going back to C. Ross's question about what happens after the war. As a population its pretty clear that Ukraine has responded to the invasion with many volunteer groups, civilian, military and in between. I am hopeful that civic engagement will continue post war and make growth slowing corruption much more difficult. War is a crucible for a nation, and if Ukraine does win it will be a different country after victory.

I'd also expect them to get more ambitious. Their younger generation will look at many problems and think "this cannot be harder than beating the Russians, let's do it".

I'm not certain this will happen, but I am hopeful that it will.

[StevenBauer]

The Ukrainians say they will be in Crimea by December. I believe them.

[dutchpp]

The ISW Russian offensive campaign assessment, November 19.
https://www.understandingwar.org/bac...nt-november-19

Key Takeaways

• Russian forces are reportedly beginning to reinforce their positions in occupied Luhansk, Donetsk, and eastern Zaporizhia oblasts with personnel from Kherson Oblast and mobilized servicemen.
• US intelligence officials stated that Russian and Iranian officials finalized a deal in early November to manufacture Iranian drones on Russian territory.
• Ukrainian forces continued counteroffensive operations on the Svatove-Kreminna line.
• Russian forces maintained their offensive operations around Bakhmut, Avdiivka, and west of Donetsk City despite reports of high losses around Bakhmut.
• Russian forces continued efforts to fortify areas around ground lines of communication in southern Ukraine while struggling with the partial loss of the use of the Kerch Strait Bridge.
• Russian media sources continued active discussions of an impending second wave of mobilization.
• The number of Russian prisoners appears to have dropped by about 6.5% since January of 2022 likely due to intensive Wagner Group recruitment.
• Russian authorities are working to establish control over the information space in occupied territories and identify Ukrainian partisans.

[Henning 4148]

About the provoked / unprovoked - starting a war where thousands of young people lose their lifes, many more people loose their homes, have no heating in winter, go hungry or even die of hunger, get traumatized - it simply can not be justified when taking the ten commandments as a reference. To start the war was not the decision of these young people who get killed, it was the decision of a few old people. Old people who believe they have the right to sacrifice the life of thousands of young people, to destroy the homes of people, to let them freeze and go hungry. I can see nothing that would give old people such a right. I can see nothing that would give anybody such a right.

[skuthorp]

Old politicians have always been good at that………………… they come to believe their own propaganda, and then get thinly disguised bribes their parties that enable them to maintain themselves in power…… and in a two party state both sides are 'bribed' by the same interests. Casualties? Humans breed very efficiently, or have done up to now anyhow. But the fertility rate is dropping……..

[C. Ross]

I appreciate the optimistic views on Ukraine. I hope you’re all right, especially the prospects of them joining the EU. Why shouldn’t all European nations join a continental union? (Looking at you, Britain.)

One prospect is reparations. We’ve seen that movie before and it ends badly. I’m sure the West could take Russia’s reserves and I’m sure Russian propagandists can spin it into a tale of unspeakable criminal villainy. Like those propagandists some people here would add that to the pile of Western perfidy and provocation. And do we want to see a shamed and depleted Russia when it’s people have been saturated with authoritarian propaganda for the last 20 years?

I hope there can be a negotiated settlement where Ukraine regains all its land taken since 2014, Russia agrees not to place offensive military forces within a reasonable distance from the Ukrainian border, and there is some provision to limit or prohibit NATO offensive forces inside Ukraine even if Ukraine joins NATO. A taking of some Russian reserves may be inevitable just because it would be easy to do, but I hope it would be balanced with some kinds of provisions that enable Russia to continue running pipelines through Ukraine and other things that support Russia’s economy. And, if Ukraine chooses to join the EU or NATO Russia will not judge this to be a violation of the peace (as long as other provisions are adhered to.)

Separately, I hope that an open hand is offered to Russia to connect to the West with peaceful intentions. I hope that a turn towards democracy is possible in Russia, encouraged and supported by the West. It will take Purin’s passing to provide and opening for this, though sadly I see another strongman succeeding Putin and no chances for a free election until things get bad enough or corrupt enough that strongman leaders in Russia have no future. I do not see a peaceful future should Russia and China deepen their current authoritarian bent, refusing to enter a community of fair trade, fair play, and democratic rule. Why should we (continue to) push Russia towards that axis?

[ERGR]

All of Ukraine must be returned to Ukraine. I agree that we should continue to offer Russia a place in the civilized world, as we did after the Soviet Union was dissolved. This time at least Sweden will keep the sword ready, like Finland and Poland did.
/Erik

[StevenBauer]

Zelensky has offered peace talks. As soon as the Russians leave Ukraine they can talk all they want. Why does anyone have a problem with that?

[Gerarddm]

Keep killing Russians. Eventually they will get the message.

[C. Ross]

Zelensky has offered peace talks. As soon as the Russians leave Ukraine they can talk all they want. Why does anyone have a problem with that?

I don’t. Though a negotiation to get them to leave remaining occupied lands may be in Ukraine’s interests to avoid more bloodshed. But I see that as Ukraine’s choice.m

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Perun on Kherson:

https://youtu.be/fxR1jmZTLew

As usual, make yourself a coffee and pull up the comfy chair. In a world of ninety second summaries, Peron goes for the marathon.

[skuthorp]

I appreciate the optimistic views on Ukraine. I hope you’re all right, especially the prospects of them joining the EU. Why shouldn’t all European nations join a continental union? (Looking at you, Britain.)

One prospect is reparations. We’ve seen that movie before and it ends badly. I’m sure the West could take Russia’s reserves and I’m sure Russian propagandists can spin it into a tale of unspeakable criminal villainy. Like those propagandists some people here would add that to the pile of Western perfidy and provocation. And do we want to see a shamed and depleted Russia when it’s people have been saturated with authoritarian propaganda for the last 20 years?

I hope there can be a negotiated settlement where Ukraine regains all its land taken since 2014, Russia agrees not to place offensive military forces within a reasonable distance from the Ukrainian border, and there is some provision to limit or prohibit NATO offensive forces inside Ukraine even if Ukraine joins NATO. A taking of some Russian reserves may be inevitable just because it would be easy to do, but I hope it would be balanced with some kinds of provisions that enable Russia to continue running pipelines through Ukraine and other things that support Russia’s economy. And, if Ukraine chooses to join the EU or NATO Russia will not judge this to be a violation of the peace (as long as other provisions are adhered to.)

Separately, I hope that an open hand is offered to Russia to connect to the West with peaceful intentions. I hope that a turn towards democracy is possible in Russia, encouraged and supported by the West. It will take Purin’s passing to provide and opening for this, though sadly I see another strongman succeeding Putin and no chances for a free election until things get bad enough or corrupt enough that strongman leaders in Russia have no future. I do not see a peaceful future should Russia and China deepen their current authoritarian bent, refusing to enter a community of fair trade, fair play, and democratic rule. Why should we (continue to) push Russia towards that axis?

This would be as difficult a moral pill for the west to swallow as was that of post WW2 Germany with all that history of genocide. But somehow I doubt we'll get that choice as the Rus go on as before supported by China, for their own purposes.