Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

VorZakone said:
I can sort of see a population revolt against the oligarchy when Putin dies. Sounds optimistic, I know.
Click to expand...
I can totally see him appointing a completely unknown successor the same way Yeltsin appointed him.
 
Last edited:
The Firestarter said:
This is assuming Russia will somehow become a democracy once he goes.
Click to expand...

I don't think it has to become a full on democracy in a central European sense. It could still be the Russia of old, but with less corrupt leadership that doesn't rig elections for the purpose of keeping one man in charge for life.
 
maniak said:
Then we'd finally see if nato exists for something or just to drain money from countries that really need it in other areas.
Click to expand...

Okay, so we are to take away from this that you are, in fact, willing to risk WW3 by sending troops to defend Ukraine? Actually, this answer makes it seems like you would almost welcome it.
 
Raoul said:
I don't think it has to become a full on democracy in a central European sense. It could still be the Russia of old, but with less corrupt leadership that doesn't rig elections for the purpose of keeping one man in charge for life.
Click to expand...
When a certain group has complete control, its hard for them to relinquish it. What hopefully can happen is an internal struggle within that group, which causes its breakage.
 
maniak said:
Yeah I'm sure Portugal is in nato because we're terrified of being invaded by Russia. Many nato members are in because it was something that came almost hand in hand with entering the EU.

But seriously, I'm pro-nato, but I would like to see nato defend its interests, and standing up to Putin is doing that. Sanctions and sending weapons to the counties Rusia invades obviously doesn't work. Status quo seems to be letting putin do whatever he wants, I'd like to see something different otherwise most people will start questioning the utility of this alliance. Not the people like us here who follow politics, but the normal person who doesn't follow much politics. Populists use this exact argument, "why are we spending millions in weapons when our hospitals and schools are struggling"?
Click to expand...
I don't think NATO should be defending Ukraine militarily as it's not a member. But that's not to say the West doesnt have an interest in deterring Putin. We can back Ukraine in loads of ways that would increase the price of Russian involvement, strengthen the alliance, and yes, welcome nations that wish to join and would be a military asset.
 
Last edited:
Dutch and spanish fighter jets being sent to guard Bulgarian air space now, as Bulgaria do not have any themselves.
Light anti-tank weapons from the United Kingdom have already arrived. The Czech Republic plans donate 152-milimeter caliber artillery ammunition to Ukraine in the coming days. Germany will supply a fully equipped field hospital to Ukraine. The first shipment of American-directed materiel, 200,000 pounds of lethal aid, including ammunition for fighters on the front lines, has arrived in Ukraine. American anti-aircraft systems to be redirected from Latvia and Lithuania, has been approved by Washington.
 
Last edited:
nimic said:
Okay, so we are to take away from this that you are, in fact, willing to risk WW3 by sending troops to defend Ukraine? Actually, this answer makes it seems like you would almost welcome it.
Click to expand...

I think Putin would back down, so no, I wouldn't expect nor welcome war.
 
Cardboard elk said:
Dutch and spanish fighter jets being sent to guard Bulgarian air space now, as Bulgaria do not have any themselves.
Click to expand...
They are sending F-35 , Bulgaria has only Mig-29 (and f-16 on order), and some useless 3gens which are not worth mentioning.
 
VorZakone said:
I can sort of see a population revolt against the oligarchy when Putin dies. Sounds optimistic, I know.
Click to expand...

There's no mainstream clamour for revolution at all. It's worth noting that Putin is very popular in Russia. I don't know how fair the elections are there, but regardless, some independent polls have at times put him at 70-80% approval.

Sections of Russian society are deeply mistrustful of the west and see Putin (and United Russia) as a strong front that will look out for Russian interests. Putin more or less handpicked Medvdev as the 'interim President' when he became Prime Minister for a few years - a continuation of Putin's style of governance, and there was very little pushback or protest. When Putin leaves it will be business as usual.
 
maniak said:
I think Putin would back down, so no, I wouldn't expect nor welcome war.
Click to expand...

Okay, but what if he doesn't back down? What if he keeps invading Ukraine even in the presence of NATO soldiers? "They started it" is no comfort in the event of World War 3, and by putting NATO soldiers in a position where they are fighting Russian troops we've massive increased the risks of it. It's going to be very hard for the NATO countries to back down at that point.

We learned that appeasement doesn't work from WW2, but the Cold War should have taught us that if the goal is to avoid a global nuclear war, at some point someone has to avoid increasing the tension even if it makes them look weak.
 
nimic said:
Okay, but what if he doesn't back down? What if he keeps invading Ukraine even in the presence of NATO soldiers? "They started it" is no comfort in the event of World War 3, and by putting NATO soldiers in a position where they are fighting Russian troops we've massive increased the risks of it. It's going to be very hard for the NATO countries to back down at that point.

We learned that appeasement doesn't work from WW2, but the Cold War should have taught us that if the goal is to avoid a global nuclear war, at some point someone has to avoid increasing the tension even if it makes them look weak.
Click to expand...
r/askhistorians doesn't seem to have a problem with appeasement:
 
nimic said:
Okay, but what if he doesn't back down? What if he keeps invading Ukraine even in the presence of NATO soldiers? "They started it" is no comfort in the event of World War 3, and by putting NATO soldiers in a position where they are fighting Russian troops we've massive increased the risks of it. It's going to be very hard for the NATO countries to back down at that point.

We learned that appeasement doesn't work from WW2, but the Cold War should have taught us that if the goal is to avoid a global nuclear war, at some point someone has to avoid increasing the tension even if it makes them look weak.
Click to expand...

That's fair, so where would we draw the line, because you say "de we really want to start ww3 because of ukraine?", but is that different if you just replace ukraine with latvia or estonia or lithuania or poland or romania or bulgaria. Would the will to go to war be different?
 
maniak said:
That's fair, so where would we draw the line, because you say "de we really want to start ww3 because of ukraine?", but is that different if you just replace ukraine with latvia or estonia or lithuania or poland or romania or bulgaria. Would the will to go to war be different?
Click to expand...

All of those would be different because they're part of NATO and the EU. That might sound cynical, but that's just the way it is right now. You could of course imagine a scenario where Putin pushes those too, but that's a lot less likely since he knows there would have to be a response. We could compare it to the Greek Civil War after WW2, which the Soviet Union kept out of because of previous agreements that Greece was in the US sphere of influence. That doesn't mean I consider Ukraine part of Russia's sphere of influence, but Russia certainly does, and either way they aren't part of the EU or NATO.
 
VorZakone said:
r/askhistorians doesn't seem to have a problem with appeasement:
Click to expand...


I know, I was simplifying. Most people think of appeasement as a negative, even though it a) was perfectly understandable given the Great War was only twenty years in the past, and b) Britain and France weren't ready for war. Though one unforeseen consequence of appeasement was that the Soviet Union realized that if the west were willing to sacrifice their democratic central European ally Czechoslovakia to Hitler, they wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice the Soviet Union. I'd say the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a direct result of the Munich Treaty. But that's neither here nor there.
 
Cardboard elk said:
Dutch and spanish fighter jets being sent to guard Bulgarian air space now, as Bulgaria do not have any themselves.
Light anti-tank weapons from the United Kingdom have already arrived. The Czech Republic plans donate 152-milimeter caliber artillery ammunition to Ukraine in the coming days. Germany will supply a fully equipped field hospital to Ukraine. The first shipment of American-directed materiel, 200,000 pounds of lethal aid, including ammunition for fighters on the front lines, has arrived in Ukraine. American anti-aircraft systems to be redirected from Latvia and Lithuania, has been approved by Washington.
Click to expand...
The West is truly invading Ukraine, then.
 
The Firestarter said:
This is assuming Russia will somehow become a democracy once he goes.
Click to expand...
'What we think: No more Adolf Hitlers!. . . Britain and the other Powers must swiftly show Nasser that they are going to tolerate no more Hitlers !.. . There is no room for appeasement'. (1956, Daily Herald).


The Suez Canal was about democracy, as well. "Democracy" has to be the least "democratic" term ever used in justification of military action. It has never been about democracy and never will be. If it was about Democracy, the Chilean government wouldn't have been brutally murdered by the CIA. It was domocratically elected. If it was about democracy, the West would engage directly with Hamas. Democracy is a nonsense term used make what military forces do seem OK to people because there is no way of justifying what they actually do and why they actually do it.

Iraq was about democracy (after the WMD turned out not to exist). Afghanistan became about democracy, after it became impossible to justify US presence there. NATO is now about democracy despite the fact that its apparent reason for existence died in 1991.
 
neverdie said:
'What we think: No more Adolf Hitlers!. . . Britain and the other Powers must swiftly show Nasser that they are going to tolerate no more Hitlers !.. . There is no room for appeasement'. (1956, Daily Herald).


The Suez Canal was about democracy, as well. "Democracy" has to be the least "democratic" term ever used in justification of military action. It has never been about democracy and never will be. If it was about Democracy, the Chilean government wouldn't have been brutally murdered by the CIA. It was domocratically elected. If it was about democracy, the West would engage directly with Hamas. Democracy is a nonsense term used make what military forces do seem OK to people because there is no way of justifying what they actually do and why they actually do it.

Iraq was about democracy (after the WMD turned out not to exist). Afghanistan became about democracy, after it became impossible to justify US presence there. NATO is now about democracy despite the fact that its apparent reason for existence died in 1991.
Click to expand...
What's your point?
 
The Firestarter said:
What's your point?
Click to expand...
My point is take "democracy" out of the conversation. It serves no purpose except as propaganda. It doesn't matter if Russia becomes a democracy or if Ukraine becomes a democracy or if Saudi Arabia becomes a democracy or if anywhere else becomes a democracy. The "great game" as it was called, when people were more honest, has been going on since before communism ever existed and since before "democracy" was "democracy".
 
neverdie said:
My point is take "democracy" out of the conversation. It serves no purpose except as propaganda. It doesn't matter if Russia becomes a democracy or if Ukraine becomes a democracy or if Saudi Arabia becomes a democracy or if anywhere else becomes a democracy. The "great game" as it was called, when people were more honest, has been going on since before communism ever existed and since before "democracy" was "democracy".
Click to expand...
Bit of a word salad that, but okay, remove it from the conversation. What would you replace it with?
 
The Firestarter said:
Bit of a word salad that, but okay, remove it from the conversation. What would you replace it with?
Click to expand...
Strategic military and economic domination. There is no distinction between foreign military operations and economic interest. It is described in terms of pathos, in emotion, because the logos, the logical description, is too absurd to support and reveals the nastiness which fronts for "democracy" (or "communism", either).

Or just read Orwell on the strategic misuse of language.
 
neverdie said:
Strategic military and economic domination. There is no distinction between foreign military operations and economic interest. It is described in terms of pathos, in emotion, because the logos, the logical description, is too absurd to support and reveals the nastiness which fronts for "democracy" (or "communism", either).

Or just read Orwell on the strategic misuse of language.
Click to expand...
I dont think anyone here disputes that what Russia is doing is about strategic domination. However, that's because that country is lead by a nostalgic old man who wants to restore a previous empire , a man who has a complete control over all affairs in that country and is completely unchallenged.
The point about "democracy" was that the vision for domination over Ukraine might not necessarily be shared by the majority of Russians, and therefore it would be a different state of affairs if the head of state was actually democratically elected.
 
The Firestarter said:
I dont think anyone here disputes that what Russia is doing is about strategic domination. However, that's because that country is lead by a nostalgic old man who wants to restore a previous empire , a man who has a complete control over all affairs in that country and is completely unchallenged.
The point about "democracy" was that the vision for domination over Ukraine might not necessarily be shared by the majority of Russians, and therefore it would be a different state of affairs if the head of state was actually democratically elected.
Click to expand...
I agree.

But my point is this: what the West, via NATO, is doing is indistinguishable from what Russia is doing. It is strategic economic/military domination on each side. We call it "democracy", they call it "defense against aggression". Until people realise that NATO is about the same thing as Russia, China, or whoever else, the confusion will persist.

More specifically, what "democracy" means in the Ukrainian context is "a regime favourable to our economic/military interests, even if it were to murder its own people". Much like Saudi Arabia or any number of allies and former allies, many despotic, we supported because of "democracy".
 
neverdie said:
I agree.

But my point is this: what the West, via NATO, is doing is indistinguishable from what Russia is doing. It is strategic economic/military domination on each side. We call it "democracy", they call it "defense against aggression". Until people realise that NATO is about the same thing as Russia, China, or whoever else, the confusion will persist.
Click to expand...

This is going way too far. You should know you're going too far when you have to put "democracy" in quotation marks. Of course this has a lot to do with the Americans and their fears of not controlling everything that happens in the world. But this particular instance has a lot more to do with Putin and his belief that Ukraine is part of the Russian sphere of influence, and as such does not have the legitimate right to decide for their own. It's pure imperialism. We can talk about interventions in Syria all day long later, but in this case one side is more to blame than the other.
 
Could we all agree on that Russia would win NATO’s got talent, if that time America let them in after the fall of Soviet Union…

 
nimic said:
The best thing about the Soviet Union was definitely the anthem. I realize the Russian one has the same melody, but it just doesn't feel like the same.

Click to expand...

As it stands, it would appear Putin is more of a Pet Shop Boys fan music wise.
 
nimic said:
This is going way too far. You should know you're going too far when you have to put "democracy" in quotation marks. Of course this has a lot to do with the Americans and their fears of not controlling everything that happens in the world. But this particular instance has a lot more to do with Putin and his belief that Ukraine is part of the Russian sphere of influence, and as such does not have the legitimate right to decide for their own. It's pure imperialism. We can talk about interventions in Syria all day long later, but in this case one side is more to blame than the other.
Click to expand...

It maybe doesn't go far enough. Your point in bold underscores why I put "democracy" in quotation marks. When wars are sold as defenses of "democracy", then "democracy" deserves closer inspection. There is nothing radical about that.

Yes, the Russians believe Ukraine is part of the sphere of influence and NATO believes that it should be part of ours. That's the distinction. Each side adjusting to the other.

By the way, neither side gives a feck what the Ukrainians think except that each can wield out Ukranians who agree with their own position.
 
neverdie said:
I agree.

But my point is this: what the West, via NATO, is doing is indistinguishable from what Russia is doing. It is strategic economic/military domination on each side. We call it "democracy", they call it "defense against aggression". Until people realise that NATO is about the same thing as Russia, China, or whoever else, the confusion will persist.

More specifically, what "democracy" means in the Ukrainian context is "a regime favourable to our economic/military interests, even if it were to murder its own people". Much like Saudi Arabia or any number of allies and former allies, many despotic, we supported because of "democracy".
Click to expand...
So you imply here that the Ukrainian "regime" is murdering its own people?
 
nimic said:
The best thing about the Soviet Union was definitely the anthem. I realize the Russian one has the same melody, but it just doesn't feel like the same.

Click to expand...


I would say dying and killing is our best attribute by far, though.
 
The Firestarter said:
So you imply here that the Ukrainian "regime" is murdering its own people?
Click to expand...
No, I'm implying that it wouldn't matter to NATO if it did (like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and so many more allies). What the West (and Russia) want is the land and the economic/military benefits that come with it. The Ukranian people matter the same as the Saudi people, Egyptian people, Yemenese people, and whatever other people you care to mention. So long as it allows business to continue, murder and genocide is deemed collateral damage weighed against broader interests.
 
Someone had mentioned that Putin had 70% approval.. Like where do you guys get that from, from fecking Putin himself? From that old phone that he has in his office? It’s literally the worst end of the spectrum.
 
The Firestarter said:
So you imply here that the Ukrainian "regime" is murdering its own people?
Click to expand...
I’ll not imply, I’ll tell you so: Ukrainian government has murdered innocent Ukrainians whom who be pro-Russian. They’re still Ukrainian though, from Donbas and Lugansk.

Just a bit of context. My great grand mother is Ukrainian. When she moved to USSR, she didn’t even have a surname, anyway, I digress; there’s Ukrainian blood that flows through me but I fully oppose those guys whom are in power and the anything to do with the Maidan quite frankly.
 
Paxi said:
I’ll not imply, I’ll tell you so: Ukrainian government has murdered innocent Ukrainians whom who be pro-Russian. They’re still Ukrainian though, from Donbas and Lugansk.
Click to expand...
Is there a source for this that is not Russian?
 
The Firestarter said:
Is there a source for this that is not Russian?
Click to expand...


There you are. Those people are Ukrainian just like those people whom are burning them out. There was nothing done about this, no condemnation, nothing.

And there are plenty of videos just like this, where are shelled civilians lying dead in Lugansk/Donbas.
 
Paxi said:


There you are. Those people are Ukrainian just like those people whom are burning them out. There was nothing done about this, no condemnation, nothing.

And there are plenty of videos just like this, where are shelled civilians lying dead in Lugansk/Donbas.
Click to expand...

I asked for a non Russian source and you provide Russia Today. Okay.

Watched the video, couldn't really make sense of it. It was 30 secs of excerpts, I don't know the backstory of this event, or the location itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.