Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

KirkDuyt said:
Seriously though, you can't honestly argue that western Europe and Russia employ the same amount of propaganda. That's absurd.
Click to expand...
It works in different ways. Major newspapers in the West do not hire people they think will cause problems. It's the manufacture of consent. In autocracies, the state is the primary game in town and will use force instead of other means, like blackballing or discrediting covertly like we do here.


The Firestarter said:
@neverdie Move this shit to some other thread, this one is for the situation in Ukraine .
Click to expand...
I'm about to quit posting. You're framing the Ukraine issue as democratic and insisting NATO/West is about democracy over autocracy. The above bears directly upon that and exposes it as nonsense.
 
MTF said:
See, if the US does enough fecked up shit, clearly that gives Russia the right to invade one of its neighbors right. Didn't you read the rulebook?
Click to expand...
Russia doesn't have the right to invade. I never make that argument once. My last post here as some want to cherish the notion of NATO being driven by democratic means and that is too absurd to engage with.
 
MTF said:
See, if the US does enough fecked up shit, clearly that gives Russia the right to invade one of its neighbors right. Didn't you read the rulebook?
Click to expand...
I wonder how back in time we are going to get in that whataboutism.
 
@neverdie , with respect, you have an incredibly simplistic reading of some of those situations and, in some of them, just plain wrong. The Egypt reading is particularly strange.

If you've ever had the pleasure to peruse Egyptian media (or any other Arab country's media) and I assume its the same in Russia, you'd see what a media that actually functions as a pure propaganda mouthpiece is like. There's literally no comparison to western media, as biased as that can also be.

The West/ the EU/ NATO clearly looks after its own interests. As does Russia and any country as much as they can. That fact doesn't automatically then make any two actors in a situation equally culpable.

I see, as usual in these situations, some posters rushing to paint situations in an almost comically cartoonish reading of righteous West vs evil Western country. As well as some who decide because X or y Western country have done something bad, this automatically puts them in the wrong in the current situation.
 
I feel very sorry for the people of Ukraine whatever the outcome here.
 
africanspur said:
@neverdie , with respect, you have an incredibly simplistic reading of some of those situations and, in some of them, just plain wrong. The Egypt reading is particularly strange.

If you've ever had the pleasure to peruse Egyptian media (or any other Arab country's media) and I assume its the same in Russia, you'd see what a media that actually functions as a pure propaganda mouthpiece is like. There's literally no comparison to western media, as biased as that can also be.

The West/ the EU/ NATO clearly looks after its own interests. As does Russia and any country as much as they can. That fact doesn't automatically then make any two actors in a situation equally culpable.

I see, as usual in these situations, some posters rushing to paint situations in an almost comically cartoonish reading of righteous West vs evil Western country. As well as some who decide because X or y Western country have done something bad, this automatically puts them in the wrong in the current situation.
Click to expand...
1. I'm not talking about Egyptian media, I'm talking about the very recent and current NATO supported autocracy which governs Egypt.

2. Russia is an autocracy. I agree. NATO supports autocracies when it suits them. It currently supports dozens. That fact is of massive relevance if we're going to pretend that NATO presence in Ukraine is to defend democracy. It isn't. That's a demonstrable lie.

3. There are many situations unfolding simultaneously. To look at Ukraine in isolation is the simplistic and cartoonish mode of logic here.

I can agree that Russian autocracy is bad but cannot agree that NATO is in Ukraine because Russian autocracy is bad. That should be an easy fact to grasp for anyone who really wants to critically engage with facts instead of sentiment.


Now I'm going to quit posting.

africanspur said:
I feel very sorry for the people of Ukraine whatever the outcome here.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
I should have checked its 92.3 % according to Wiki citing Nohlen and Stover. If that figure is acceptable? I would correct my post but you know it doesn't change my point. The vast majority wanted independence and that included a majority of ethnically Russian Ukrainians all across the country at that time.

I don't dispute that opinions change and events change them and that includes being invaded by a foreign power which triggered a civil war.

From gaining independence and having that independence acknowledged at the time by both the president of Russia and the president of USSR events inside Ukraine rightly remain matters for the Ukrainians to decide. Not Russia or the west or NATO.

Russia won't accept that. NATO hasn't asked them to join but there are 150'000 Russian troops about to invade their country unless it agrees to never let them join.

These are not the same things at all.
Click to expand...
Your point was solely based on flawed numbers from a 30-years old referendum (and I’ve referenced another one where the majority of Ukrainian population had voted to remain in USSR just a few months prior to show you how pointless it is to try & assess current political climate by those numbers).

The trigger for a civil war in Ukraine was Euromaidan, not the invasion. Now the reasons behind that civil war is a more complicated matter and they certainly included a significant and prolonged influence of Russian foreign politics.

Yes, Russia has no business interfering with Ukrainian internal politics. And Russia’s military support had played a horrible part in escalation of that conflict and led to thousands of deaths, directly and indirectly.

I just hate when people simplify geopolitics without learning anything on the subject — and your post is a clear example of such approach (and it shouldn’t get a pass simply because you’re on the right side of the argument).
 
Raoul said:
Democracy is innately woven into US and NATO’s strategic interests, particularly among nations in Europe (or in the European sphere). A vast majority of Ukrainians want to be able to decide their own path instead of having a neighboring autocracy and it’s dictator bully them into submission and emplace a puppet leader in Kiev. At the end this is all about Putin wanting restrict the spread of democracy onto his doorstep, because he fears it will embolden domestic pro-democracy movement to one day overthrow him from within and lead to his own execution. The easiest way for him to avoid this is to invade his former Soviet neighbors and expand his sphere of influence, thereby reestablishing a new iron curtain.

At the end of the day this is about democracy and autocracy, which is why it’s very easy to take a moral position on which of the two is the correct side, and is also why some of the fence sitting arguments about “both sides” being at fault are the sort of narratives that only serve to muddy the waters, which winds up benefiting Russian propaganda.
Click to expand...
Well put.
 
harms said:
Your point was solely based on flawed numbers from a 30-years old referendum (and I’ve referenced another one where the majority of Ukrainian population had voted to remain in USSR just a few months prior to show you how pointless it is to try & assess current political climate by those numbers).

The trigger for a civil war in Ukraine was Euromaidan, not the invasion. Now the reasons behind that civil war is a more complicated matter and they certainly included a significant and prolonged influence of Russian foreign politics.

Yes, Russia has no business interfering with Ukrainian internal politics. And Russia’s military support had played a horrible part in escalation of that conflict and led to thousands of deaths, directly and indirectly.

I just hate when people simplify geopolitics without learning anything on the subject — and your post is a clear example of such approach (and it shouldn’t get a pass simply because you’re on the right side of the argument).
Click to expand...

The trigger for Euromaidan was Russia's attempt to force Ukraine into the Russian controlled Eurasian block.
 
neverdie said:
It works in different ways. Major newspapers in the West do not hire people they think will cause problems. It's the manufacture of consent. In autocracies, the state is the primary game in town and will use force instead of other means, like blackballing or discrediting covertly like we do here.



I'm about to quit posting. You're framing the Ukraine issue as democratic and insisting NATO/West is about democracy over autocracy. The above bears directly upon that and exposes it as nonsense.
Click to expand...
Are you saying western news papers don't hire people they know will cause problems for the state? If so, that is not true. At all. Im speaking mostly from a Dutch viewpoint in this instance of course, but we have plenty of publications and journalist who are very vocal in their opposition of most of what their government does.

Imagine Geert Wilders treating Putin like he threats Mark Rutte. He would've dissappeared a long time ago.

It is both different in method, but also very much in intensity. The West has more freesom of press than Russia and more democracy. Doesn't mean it's in any way perfect, Impartial or benevolent. But in terms of press coverage and freesom thereof. It's an entirely different level.
 
Raoul said:
Democracy is innately woven into US and NATO’s strategic interests, particularly among nations in Europe (or in the European sphere). A vast majority of Ukrainians want to be able to decide their own path instead of having a neighboring autocracy and it’s dictator bully them into submission and emplace a puppet leader in Kiev. At the end this is all about Putin wanting restrict the spread of democracy onto his doorstep, because he fears it will embolden domestic pro-democracy movement to one day overthrow him from within and lead to his own execution. The easiest way for him to avoid this is to invade his former Soviet neighbors and expand his sphere of influence, thereby reestablishing a new iron curtain.

At the end of the day this is about democracy and autocracy, which is why it’s very easy to take a moral position on which of the two is the correct side, and is also why some of the fence sitting arguments about “both sides” being at fault are the sort of narratives that only serve to muddy the waters, which winds up benefiting Russian propaganda.
Click to expand...

The US in particular do not care one bit about democracy as long as those in charge are convenient and willing to cater to US interests. Given their record It really is hilarious to suggest otherwise.

The issue is nothing other than each side wanting their preferred proxy to be the buffer.

If it was genuinely about democracy the Ukraine situation would have been front and centre for some time now. It's one thing to talk about a Russian or Western controlled puppet in Kiev but the fact is Ukraine has been in civil war for some time and largely ignored.
 
About 80% of the posts in the last 3-4 pages can be best summarized with this:

 
Don't Kill Bill said:
The trigger for Euromaidan was Russia's attempt to force Ukraine into the Russian controlled Eurasian block.
Click to expand...
Hence literally my next sentence? Russia has always influenced Ukrainian internal politics — sometimes more, sometimes less. And it has always supported the pro-Russian block, for example getting Ukraine better gas prices when right men were in charge etc. To say that the entire pro-Russian block in Ukraine is the result of Russian politics would be very simplistic though and I've often saw such claims — a huge part of the country tends to gravitate towards the East for multiple reasons (closer economical ties with Russia, ethnicity, language) and Putin used it to try & to establish control over the whole country. He failed.

You've said that the trigger for the civil war was a foreign invasion though... did it happen before the Euromaidan but I may have missed it?
 
Jippy said:
The Observer shot down the Brit claims earlier.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ver-uk-claim-that-putin-plans-coup-in-ukraine
Click to expand...

I agree that it's a strange and dubious plan, but what is likely happening is that Western intel agencies are pushing out information about any potential plans to hinder Russia's ability to implement them. As with the US announcement that Russia was considering using provocateurs to stage false flag attacks on its soldiers as causus belli.

In the cases of Russia installing a puppet government, it would likely be after a full invasion or direct push for Kyiv. Once Zelenskyy and the rest move out of Kyiv, one of Russia's puppets would make moves to take power while claiming support of the Ukrainian people. It doesn't have to be especially convincing if they have Russian AKs pointed at everyone in Ukraine.
 
Smores said:
The US in particular do not care one bit about democracy as long as those in charge are convenient and willing to cater to US interests. Given their record It really is hilarious to suggest otherwise.

The issue is nothing other than each side wanting their preferred proxy to be the buffer.

If it was genuinely about democracy the Ukraine situation would have been front and centre for some time now. It's one thing to talk about a Russian or Western controlled puppet in Kiev but the fact is Ukraine has been in civil war for some time and largely ignored.
Click to expand...

The advancement of democracy is woven into the strategic interests of any democratic nation. Therefore all democracies care about democracy being accessible to people in other nations. But more importantly, its simply the right thing to do, particularly in light of a nation teetering on the precipice of falling into an autocratic abyss. Why wouldn't everyone reject this ?

The US deals with plenty of non-democracies as well (including Russia), but once an autocrat like Putin embarks on a neo-imperialist campaign to spread authorianism abroad, that has to be vigorously pushed back against. I don't think most would find this view remotely controversial. Its simply the correct and sensible thing to do.
 
harms said:
Hence literally my next sentence? Russia has always influenced Ukrainian internal politics — sometimes more, sometimes less. And it has always supported the pro-Russian block, for example getting Ukraine better gas prices when right men were in charge etc. To say that the entire pro-Russian block in Ukraine is the result of Russian politics would be very simplistic though and I've often saw such claims — a huge part of the country tends to gravitate towards the East for multiple reasons (closer economical ties with Russia, ethnicity, language) and Putin used it to try & to establish control over the whole country. He failed.

You've said that the trigger for the civil war was a foreign invasion though... did it happen before the Euromaidan but I may have missed it?
Click to expand...

I am sure that there were many ethnically Russian Ukrainians who were very angry at losing "their president" after Euromaidan which made fertile ground for Russia's involvement. The separatists were armed encouraged and supported by Putin. Their numbers bolstered by Russian soldiers and aircraft, anti aircraft and artillery on Ukrainian soil.

That's an invasion to me and one which was causal to the ongoing civil war.

I know some people who even today like to claim these forces just popped into existence and made their own weapons out of stuff they had laying around but the little green men were in fact Russians. The whole thing was set in motion by Putin as a response to Euromaidan.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
I am sure that there were many ethnically Russian Ukrainians who were very angry at losing "their president" after Euromaidan which made fertile ground for Russia's involvement. The separatists were armed encouraged and supported by Putin. Their numbers bolstered by Russian soldiers and aircraft, anti aircraft and artillery on Ukrainian soil.

That's an invasion to me and one which was causal to the ongoing civil war.

I know some people who even today like to claim these forces just popped into existence and made their own weapons out of stuff they had laying around but the little green men were in fact Russians. The whole thing was set in motion by Putin as a response to Euromaidan.
Click to expand...
Again, you've missed my point. I'm not arguing that the invasion didn't happen, Russian army didn't appear on the disputed Eastern lands & didn't actively support separatists with weapons, supplies and training. Neither do I agree with Putin's arguments for doing so (funnily enough his regime still doesn't officially accept the fact that Russian military was & still is involved in the conflict and yet continues to explain the supposed reasons behind its activity).

You've said that the civil war was triggered by an invasion — it wasn't (as you've said, Putin had used Euromaidan to justify his invasion). You've also used weird arguments (just to explain yet another fault in your original argument — by your logic most Russians had also voted to be independent from Russia in 1991) to make some generic statements that misrepresents the real picture. There's enough intentional misrepresentation of events from both sides as it is, we don't need anymore even if it's genuine and has the very best intentions.

Russia is inseparable from the Ukrainian civil war — both as one of its instigators and as one of the sides (closely associated although not fully synonymous with DNR & LNR). But it isn't the sole reason behind it and neither was it the one who had actively started it. Putin did use the existing conflict to achieve his goals and he did everything in his power to make the rupture between the Ukrainian sides almost uncrossable.
 
Smores said:
The US in particular do not care one bit about democracy as long as those in charge are convenient and willing to cater to US interests. Given their record It really is hilarious to suggest otherwise.

The issue is nothing other than each side wanting their preferred proxy to be the buffer.

If it was genuinely about democracy the Ukraine situation would have been front and centre for some time now. It's one thing to talk about a Russian or Western controlled puppet in Kiev but the fact is Ukraine has been in civil war for some time and largely ignored.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm fully behind Ukraine and everyone who backs it in this particular situation (don't forget to turn on my VPN :nervous:) but to say that US does whatever it does to protect democracy is hilarious. As it happens, it does protect Ukraine's democracy but it's nothing more than a lucky side-effect.
 
YouOnlyLiveTwice said:
If Putin isn't the bad guy in this i don't know what to believe anymore. Sure the west has interest in this too, but can interest not also come from a good place? Protecting Ukraine's sovereignity is the most important thing imo, and the west gives them a chance to do that via goods.

Tbf it's difficult to not be a bit suspicious of a guy who poison the people he view as enemies.
Click to expand...

That's the victory of russian propaganda. "Look, we're all bad, all the same, so don't worry, don't complain, because whatever happens it's all bad". A lot of people apparently buy into that.
 
neverdie said:
Russia doesn't have the right to invade. I never make that argument once. My last post here as some want to cherish the notion of NATO being driven by democratic means and that is too absurd to engage with.
Click to expand...

I’m unsure what point you’ve been trying to make in that case
 
neverdie said:
Vietnam.
Cuba.
Chile.
Iraq.

The first three were invaded to repress democratic movements. The will of the people put down without mercy. The first two were abject failures, thankfully. Unfortunately millions of people had to die in IndoChina all the same.

The fourth was invaded because the US/UK wanted to make Iraq part of their sphere of influence. Democracy was used as an excuse, too.


Iran.

The West supported a tyrant (as they had with Saddam in Iraq). When the Revolution overthrew the Shah, the West let the Shah have refuge and also started to undermine Iran anyway it could.


The West sold weapons to the Iran and Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war.

Where was the democratic motive here?


Egypt.

The regime of Mubarak was a brutal dictatorship. The Arab Spring was supported by the West but only insofar as it might undermine Syria and Libya. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and so on, were never supposed to be on the table. Sisi was installed and retains the support of the West. He too is a tyrant.

Where's the democracy?

South Africa. The US administration under Reagan and even Bush were supporting SA apartheid regime up until the very end.

Where's the democracy here?

It's democracy when it suits and autocracy when expedient. So to try and frame US/NATO action in Ukraine as a moral action is beyond absurdity.

Putin is an autocrat. That's true. So are all the above instances with the exception of the democratic movements the West/NATO/US purposefully destroyed.
Click to expand...
This is very muddled, you are conflating a number of different events, alliances and players. Iraq wasn't a NATO operation. Lord knows why you are talking about Cuba. NATO is a specific instrument for a specific purpose, mainly keeping the peace in Europe. (There was arguably some drift here after the fall of the Soviet Union; there was some casting about for a new mission for NATO, but current events show there's no need for that.)

Regarding Nato and democracy, it is a military alliance designed to protect its democratic members. It is right there in the first paragraphs of the founding treaty.
 
Last edited:
TheGame said:
Great thread here:

Click to expand...


Reading that, seems to me that a de facto partition of the country is a likely outcome.

(edit): should say further partition given the current situation.
 
maniak said:
That's the victory of russian propaganda. "Look, we're all bad, all the same, so don't worry, don't complain, because whatever happens it's all bad". A lot of people apparently buy into that.
Click to expand...

It's very much a part of what Donald Trump did domestically. Paint everyone as corrupt and evil and your own corruption and evilness can be waved away. It's what the Soviets did and what China does.
 
Russia is not going to invade Ukraine. What does Russia gain? Land? They've got enough of that. What do they stand to lose? Big energy sales to the EU, sanctions and the cost of war in Rubles and men.

if Russia does invade Ukraine nobody is going to fight a war to stop Russia. Countries will talk big but ultimately they'll fight to the last Ukrainian.

Why? Because Russia is a military superpower. It might not be economically but is militarily. War with Russia would mean hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers, trillions of lost equipment and bombs falling on European and American cities.

Nobody is going to pay that price for Ukraine.

This is all just brinkmanship. The EU and NATO want the countries around Russia to be in thier sphere of influence and act as a buffer between them and Russia. Russia wants the same.
 
Zlatattack said:
This is all just brinkmanship. The EU and NATO want the countries around Russia to be in thier sphere of influence and act as a buffer between them and Russia. Russia wants the same.
Click to expand...
You have that exactly backwards - the countries around Russia want to be in the EU/NATOs sphere of influence! And why do you think that is?!

You asked what Russia gains - read the Twitter thread embedded above, it's very clear about it.
 
The phrase "sphere of influence" was used 8 times today. Very cool stuff.
 
harms said:
Again, you've missed my point. I'm not arguing that the invasion didn't happen, Russian army didn't appear on the disputed Eastern lands & didn't actively support separatists with weapons, supplies and training. Neither do I agree with Putin's arguments for doing so (funnily enough his regime still doesn't officially accept the fact that Russian military was & still is involved in the conflict and yet continues to explain the supposed reasons behind its activity).

You've said that the civil war was triggered by an invasion — it wasn't (as you've said, Putin had used Euromaidan to justify his invasion). You've also used weird arguments (just to explain yet another fault in your original argument — by your logic most Russians had also voted to be independent from Russia in 1991) to make some generic statements that misrepresents the real picture. There's enough intentional misrepresentation of events from both sides as it is, we don't need anymore even if it's genuine and has the very best intentions.

Russia is inseparable from the Ukrainian civil war — both as one of its instigators and as one of the sides (closely associated although not fully synonymous with DNR & LNR). But it isn't the sole reason behind it and neither was it the one who had actively started it. Putin did use the existing conflict to achieve his goals and he did everything in his power to make the rupture between the Ukrainian sides almost uncrossable.
Click to expand...

No.
By your logic a country votes for independence and then lists all the countries in existence that its voted for independence from or the vote doesn't count.

By the way,

" Yes, Russia has no business interfering with Ukrainian internal politics" and " Russia is inseparable from the Ukrainian civil war — both as one of its instigators and as one of the sides"

If your first statement here is true then the second can't be right. I can't think of a way that any country interferes with the internal politics of another more than fighting on one side of a civil war there.
 
I wonder if Putin is "boiling the frog" now. As in, gradually increase tension to the point that a conflict feels 'normal' and suppress some of the current Western hyper-anticipation.
 
FortBoyard said:
What do we think the actual NATO response to an invasion will be? I think that sanctions will be the only action, with the risk of armed intervention (even if it is only aerial support) being viewed as too likely to start nuclear posturing.

The strong arm tactics from Russia will likely result in some form of appeasement.
Click to expand...

First of all, I'm not a military expert. However, I can expect more ways than just economic sanctions as means to suffocate Putin's plans. If I were NATO military leaders, I would strongly focus on the following options if the event that Putin chooses to go all the way:
  1. Send fleets to block the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, and perhaps even the Norwegian Sea. That would be a way to disrupt naval movement going in and out of Russia, which is tightly linked to their economy.
  2. Apply pressure by isolating the Kaliningrad Oblast, perhaps even reciprocating directly to a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Remember that Kaliningrad used to be the Eastern Prussian city of Königsberg, and that Poland currently holds most of what used to be East Prussia.
  3. If it's not already done, whatever NATO assets are on the ground now should train Ukrainians to master the art of asymmetrical warfare. We know that has been a nightmare for most superpowers for decades, especially in Afghanistan.
Regardless of what happens, Putin better not think that no more countries would want to join NATO after Russian aggression. Most NATO countries were not particularly warm to the idea of welcoming Ukraine in the alliance although there is nothing against Ukraine making an official demand that would be duly reviewed. However, Sweden and Finland making the same demand would easily be welcome by a majority of NATO members. Currently, a majority of Swedes view NATO favorably (65% according to a November 2020 poll) while the Finnish PM already stated earlier this month that joining NATO was a solid option on the table despite Finland's long-standing neutrality.

Raoul said:
Democracy is innately woven into US and NATO’s strategic interests, particularly among nations in Europe (or in the European sphere). A vast majority of Ukrainians want to be able to decide their own path instead of having a neighboring autocracy and it’s dictator bully them into submission and emplace a puppet leader in Kiev. At the end this is all about Putin wanting restrict the spread of democracy onto his doorstep, because he fears it will embolden domestic pro-democracy movement to one day overthrow him from within and lead to his own execution. The easiest way for him to avoid this is to invade his former Soviet neighbors and expand his sphere of influence, thereby reestablishing a new iron curtain.

At the end of the day this is about democracy and autocracy, which is why it’s very easy to take a moral position on which of the two is the correct side, and is also why some of the fence sitting arguments about “both sides” being at fault are the sort of narratives that only serve to muddy the waters, which winds up benefiting Russian propaganda.
Click to expand...

This. Putin has no business telling a neighboring country how to choose its own destiny.

You know what irks me the most in Russia attempting to rebuild that Soviet empire? It's the fact that ethnic Russians still want to dominate other ethno-linguistic groups instead of treating them as equals; it has been that way since the old Romanov empire from centuries ago. Some people will say this or that about the British Empire as it turned into the Commonwealth of Nations, but the big difference is that member states have been treated as free and equal since the London Declaration in 1949. The Russian government could have kept their political influence abroad if they did something similar to what Britain did, but no, they had to go with the mindset of Russia dominating other Slavic people.

As for Putin, there will come a day when either he will be overthrown by his own people or anything related to his reign will be purged after a natural death in the same way Stalinism was purged by Nikita Khrushchev after Stalin's death. That country is in need of a strong cultural reboot regardless.

The Firestarter said:
Depressing read.
Click to expand...

That is an understatement. Considering that Russia has a net loss of over 2 million people between 1991 and now on top of an underwhelming economy and a social fabric in shambles because of COVID, it looks even more stupid as to why they want more land to control without enough people to do whatever with it.
 
So the Russians are now planning on doing exercises just on the verge of Irish waters. What are they up to?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.