Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

tomaldinho1 said:
Understood, I don't remember that to be honest. I remember people being put down for saying Russia/Putin had to invade etc. which seems completely ridiculous, even more so now. I thought it was the popular viewpoint that the US would relish one of its main rivals getting bogged down in long drawn out war.
Click to expand...

There had definitely been a lot of pushback on obvious things like this being a proxy war, though it's not the thing that makes people the most angry.

Both in this thread and society in general, it's interesting how a war like this impacts discourse. Talking about NATO expansion has been completely normal for decades: as a concept, as geopolitical strategy, and directly related to Russia. Now, because some have claimed that NATO expansion was one of the reasons Russia chose to invade, and a subset of those again using it as a justification, this completely normal topic has been completely tabooed. I'm sure I've told this story before, but I was watching an interview with some previous NATO bigshot, on a topic not related to Russia or Ukraine, and you could feel the tension when the once super common term was almost used: "[blaba] NATO expan... enlargement". You have to be able to talk about the concept still, but it's no longer socially or politically viable to use the words.

Similarly, in material talking about militant white supremacists, the Azov battalion had been a common topic of conversation for the last decade, for several reasons: it being an organized far white militia in and of itself, it being a way for far right people to travel to gain fighting and organizational experience, it being a recruitment network for the far right, and its position in far right general propaganda and advertisement. But now, because Putin made up the whole denazification thing as for why he invaded, any talk of Nazism is Russian propaganda and is getting memory holed. It's ignored, denied, downplayed, and the in vogue thing is to uncritically buy the nakedly politically convenient rebranding, even though no one believed that prior to 2022.

It's weird watching these 180 switch ups happen in real time.
 
NotThatSoph said:
There had definitely been a lot of pushback on obvious things like this being a proxy war, though it's not the thing that makes people the most angry.

Both in this thread and society in general, it's interesting how a war like this impacts discourse. Talking about NATO expansion has been completely normal for decades: as a concept, as geopolitical strategy, and directly related to Russia. Now, because some have claimed that NATO expansion was one of the reasons Russia chose to invade, and a subset of those again using it as a justification, this completely normal topic has been completely tabooed. I'm sure I've told this story before, but I was watching an interview with some previous NATO bigshot, on a topic not related to Russia or Ukraine, and you could feel the tension when the once super common term was almost used: "[blaba] NATO expan... enlargement". You have to be able to talk about the concept still, but it's no longer socially or politically viable to use the words.

Similarly, in material talking about militant white supremacists, the Azov battalion had been a common topic of conversation for the last decade, for several reasons: it being an organized far white militia in and of itself, it being a way for far right people to travel to gain fighting and organizational experience, it being a recruitment network for the far right, and its position in far right general propaganda and advertisement. But now, because Putin made up the whole denazification thing as for why he invaded, any talk of Nazism is Russian propaganda and is getting memory holed. It's ignored, denied, downplayed, and the in vogue thing is to uncritically buy the nakedly politically convenient rebranding, even though no one believed that prior to 2022.

It's weird watching these 180 switch ups happen in real time.
Click to expand...

It gives too much credit to label Azov as far right ultranationalists because it gives them credence that they were/are a legitimate political organization with actual beliefs and ideology.

they were a bunch of dumbass knucklehead Shakthar Donetsk/Kharkiv/Dynamo Kiev ultras and hooligans who decided to pick up arms after the shambolic performance of the AFU were unable to provide them protection during the start of the Donbass war. The knobheads attracted more knobheads and people of all sorts of ideologies started joining and next thing you know it turns into a group of football hooligan/ultranationalist/neo-nazi/degenerates who liked violence.

Azov isn't an issue anymore. The majority of the founders of Azov are now in random insignificant officer positions in other battalions/units and the core far-right/nazi/bellends of Azov got destroyed at Mariupol before the scattered remnants got absorbed into the AFU proper.
 
NotThatSoph said:
There had definitely been a lot of pushback on obvious things like this being a proxy war, though it's not the thing that makes people the most angry.

Both in this thread and society in general, it's interesting how a war like this impacts discourse. Talking about NATO expansion has been completely normal for decades: as a concept, as geopolitical strategy, and directly related to Russia. Now, because some have claimed that NATO expansion was one of the reasons Russia chose to invade, and a subset of those again using it as a justification, this completely normal topic has been completely tabooed. I'm sure I've told this story before, but I was watching an interview with some previous NATO bigshot, on a topic not related to Russia or Ukraine, and you could feel the tension when the once super common term was almost used: "[blaba] NATO expan... enlargement". You have to be able to talk about the concept still, but it's no longer socially or politically viable to use the words.

Similarly, in material talking about militant white supremacists, the Azov battalion had been a common topic of conversation for the last decade, for several reasons: it being an organized far white militia in and of itself, it being a way for far right people to travel to gain fighting and organizational experience, it being a recruitment network for the far right, and its position in far right general propaganda and advertisement. But now, because Putin made up the whole denazification thing as for why he invaded, any talk of Nazism is Russian propaganda and is getting memory holed. It's ignored, denied, downplayed, and the in vogue thing is to uncritically buy the nakedly politically convenient rebranding, even though no one believed that prior to 2022.

It's weird watching these 180 switch ups happen in real time.
Click to expand...
The NATO point is fine to bring up, but it just can't be used as a valid excuse for war.
Azoz I thought the whole thing was that they did have history as you describe above but that was literally about the entirety of what Putin could point towards in Ukraine.
 
Surely Macron will up aid at least given he hosted the bloody thing.
 
hellhunter said:
One of the AfD's scaremongering tactics is trying to convince people that Scholz, Merz and everyone but them wants to send German troops to Ukraine. I assume this is just a statement to alleviate that fear
Click to expand...
Personally, I think Scholz is just an idiot. He’s been hesitant to help out Ukraine throughout. Don’t think the coming elections change that.
 
HTG said:
Personally, I think Scholz is just an idiot. He’s been hesitant to help out Ukraine throughout. Don’t think the coming elections change that.
Click to expand...
His hesitance is a reoccurring theme, so absolutely fair to assume that it's indeed his conviction and not an election related thing, but it would be a weird timing considering those elections to move away from his line
 
Russia once again saying they have no problem with EU membership. So their stance against nato is basically against the US since EU membership is a de facto security guarantee, nato or not.
 
B20 said:
Russia once again saying they have no problem with EU membership. So their stance against nato is basically against the US since EU membership is a de facto security guarantee, nato or not.
Click to expand...
What can we read into this as a genuine question from a russian strategic point of view? If they are against Nato "expansion" but not a EU defence treaty expansion which as you say is the same security garuntee in terms of Nucluar detterence and force, do the russians either genuinely think the US could act as an agressor? and they arent concerned about an EU build up closer to their borders. Or are they unconcerned about an EU defensive force in either the willingness of the EU to action come to the defence of one of its signituries or its force potential.

From my rough understanding, a fully mobalised EU military force (this could be the point as currently this isnt the case?) in concert has as much technical superiority as a US led one would have against Russia. IE majority Nato standard, similar capability but not quantity in air power and 5th gen aircraft etc.
 
B20 said:
Russia once again saying they have no problem with EU membership. So their stance against nato is basically against the US since EU membership is a de facto security guarantee, nato or not.
Click to expand...
A bit of confusing wording here. They seem to refer to economic integration. But "military alliances" are different. However, what's the difference if EU membership comes with security guarantees from all EU members.

Russian delegation on the EU:
"This is the sovereign right of any country. We are talking about integration and economic processes, and here, of course, no one can dictate anything to any country. We're not going to do that," Peskov says.

"But our stance on matters related to security, defence or military alliances is completely different. There's another issue there, and it's well known to everyone," he adds
Click to expand...
 
VorZakone said:
A bit of confusing wording here. They seem to refer to economic integration. But "military alliances" are different. However, what's the difference if EU membership comes with security guarantees from all EU members.

Russian delegation on the EU:
Click to expand...
The EU cannot make security guarantees. It will get blocked by Hungary and Slovakia. So the Russian position is hardly generous.
 
Frosty said:
The EU cannot make security guarantees. It will get blocked by Hungary and Slovakia. So the Russian position is hardly generous.
Click to expand...
So thats the russian plan then, get a peace deal with the agreement they wont stop Ukraine joining the EU, spend a year rearming with sanctions removed, attack again while
Ukraine has no security garuntees while hungary and slovakia block admission?
 
Frosty said:
The EU cannot make security guarantees. It will get blocked by Hungary and Slovakia. So the Russian position is hardly generous.
Click to expand...
The EU treaty includes a clause to enforce military assistance if a member state is attacked.

EU membership would be a security guarantee. Which makes that statement weird because effectively the EU is a military alliance.
 
stefan92 said:
The EU treaty includes a clause to enforce military assistance if a member state is attacked.

EU membership would be a security guarantee. Which makes that statement weird because effectively the EU is a military alliance.
Click to expand...

Here is quite a good piece on the potential of that guarantee:

https://csds.vub.be/publication/mut...-the-united-states-abandons-european-defence/

My scepticism is summarised by this quote from the above piece:

"Article 42.7 has been the underdog in European mutual defence debates. It could be a powerful mutual defence framework if member states decided to develop serious response mechanisms and capabilities behind any invocation, and its relevance is likely to increase in light of the security challenges and threats Europe is facing – and the uncertainty it will face with regard to the United States’ willingness to protect Europe."

The EU’s mutual assistance clause states that member states have “an obligation” to provide “all aid and assistance by all the means in their power”. Article 42(7) specifically acknowledges the special status of neutrality that some EU member states have with respect to the EU’s security and defence policy (e.g. the Danish opt-out and the neutrality of states like Ireland, Malta and Austria): “This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.”
 
hellhunter said:
His hesitance is a reoccurring theme, so absolutely fair to assume that it's indeed his conviction and not an election related thing, but it would be a weird timing considering those elections to move away from his line
Click to expand...

In some ways I agree with him, that this isn't a time to publicly announce post-peace plan troop involvement. There is no accepted peace plan, and the European countries currently are not involved in the negotiation process. There is no outline of what authority or protection those troops would have, if we get to that stage.

Starmers announcement that he is willing to put troops into Ukraine was then followed up with him saying that US involvement is required to maintain peace. "US security guarantee is essential for a lasting peace, because only the US can deter Putin from attacking again". What kind of statement is that at this point? He has no idea what he is committing to and clinging on to US assistance is not the position to be taking right now.

Their focus should be on increasing aid to Ukraine and planning European security and defenses without the US. If they want to have a say in the resolution of this war then take decisive actions that can influence Ukraines strength in the current fighting. And it does sound like they are planning a large aid package which is good, but we might have to wait until after the German elections for the details on that.
 
I feel really bad for Ukrainian people. You get attacked for no reason, then you have no choice but to fight in a war, now the war could be over but all your resources will be looted by greedy powerful people. Basically looking like a European Libya, Iraq like future unless something happens. All because you had a nice piece of land with great natural resources.
 
Wonder what Russia will say in these talks about Kursk. It's not exactly a good thing for them that they haven't been able to push Ukraine out of Kursk yet.
 
Russia-linked propaganda campaign pushes to undercut German support for Ukraine
Behind a traveling photo exhibit in Germany about the suffering of children in the Russia-Ukraine war is a network connected to Moscow. It comes as officials in Berlin report an increase in Russian-sponsored interference ahead of German elections.
Click to expand...
The goal was to penetrate protest movements in the European Union and erode support for governments supplying weapons to Ukraine to defend itself against Russia, according to documents shared with Reuters by two sources from a European intelligence agency.
Click to expand...
https://www.reuters.com/investigati...s-undercut-german-support-ukraine-2025-02-18/
 
VorZakone said:
Wonder what Russia will say in these talks about Kursk. It's not exactly a good thing for them that they haven't been able to push Ukraine out of Kursk yet.
Click to expand...

They could just let Ukraine keep it, and then in a few years claim it as occupied territory that needs to be liberated. I don't think any peacekeeping force would want to guard it.

Or trade it for the part of Kharkiv that Russia took last summer.
 
VorZakone said:
Wonder what Russia will say in these talks about Kursk. It's not exactly a good thing for them that they haven't been able to push Ukraine out of Kursk yet.
Click to expand...
If we really think that they'll negotiate in good (odd choice of words) faith there, they'll probably propose to exchange it for some of the territory that they've officially claimed (the entire Zapoizhzhia & Kherson oblasts are, in the eyes of the Russian law, parts of Russia now... even the territories that weren't under their control at the time of that "decision" and aren't now). It's not like Ukraine wants Kursk.

That's not to say that Ukraine is going to (or should) accept that, of course, but I'd imagine those would be Russia's first bargaining chips in the opening rounds of negotiations. I'm genuinely struggling to see how these are going to go though as Russia feels like its in the position of power (and in many ways it is with Trump pushing from the other end) and I know for sure that Ukraine isn't at the point of a basically complete capitulation, which is basically what Russians are going to be asking for.
 
geo-politics 2025

vou72svuixje1.jpeg
 
Why do people think that European nations has the same/similar equipment quality than the Americans?

The gap is pretty big.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.