jones wrote:

Not buying this "Putin has gone insane, is on steroids etc" garbage, whenever a country is at odds with the West their leaders have lost their marbles.

You're right to not buy it but after catching up on the latest news about Russia going on nuclear alert it's pretty clear Putin's happy to cultivate that image too to maintain a sense of ambiguity and strength. The original story was that France stated (pointedly) that NATO was a nuclear alliance in a briefing a couple of days ago. That story was bounced around the Russian media making that seem an imminent threat from NATO. Therefore you get today's headlines which seemed bizarre on first glance but basically posturing.

Burnwinter wrote:
jones wrote:

Honestly I thought when it comes to racism I've seen a bit but this is some wild shit 😆 not that I didn't believe God knows how many whites felt that way but why does everyone all of a sudden feel the urge to compare beautiful Ukrainians to the savage negroes and Musulmans where it's not just common but expected for them to die in wars.

It's sad to me, the intuitive response is surely the other way round, to ask why this support, this humane journalism haven't been offered in the cases of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Sudan and more? And the answer is clear: those were either the west's wars or not its problem … but since that answer's too reflective, they will search for a different rationale with terms like "civilisation", or talk about "peoples not used to conflict" … the contradictions of this ideology are repellent, especially considering their human cost.

I don't agree that this is a specific ideology or tension that's particular unique to the EU or Europe or the West as a whole. I've lived in 4 uniquely different countries - Britain, India, Singapore and Malaysia - and this kind of thought process exists at a national level at one form or another in every country.

It's very hard to discuss this without sounding like whataboutism but I think it's more instructive to see a framework for a pathforward where these kind of questions around race are surmounted. Case in point, at the moment 60% of Britain would be in favour of bringing in people from Ukraine in - now replace that with Afghans or Syrians - you'll see that rating drop by 30% easily. Is it because they look the same? Absolutely. But equally there's 60% support in bringing 3m people leaving Hong Kong too. That's happened the past two years with minimal fuss and a fair amount of support. And they're not blonde, blue eyed Europeans.

For the record, there's also stories of Indian students not being allowed to cross the Polish border by Ukrainian guards - partly because of India abstention at the UN

I would agree with you, white supremacism is a historical aberration brought about by uneven development and geography. So is the concept of race as it manifests today for that matter. I'd say the capacity to embark on a centuries long colonial expansion lurks in every people, but it was Europe's mercantilism, internecine warfare and later its capitalism that armed it with the tools and practices to make it happen.

Today the foundations of nationalism (or its supra-national variety in the EU) have more to do with ideological production than complexion … skin colour, modes of dress, extreme claims about religious practices or "incompatible values" are vehicles for the labour of the ideological producers … to back this up, you can just look at the history of what white Europeans have said and continue to say about each other.

So I'd say the reason for that 30–60% gap is firstly that there's far less ideological vilification of East Asians as individuals or "speculative citizens" in recent history, and secondly that Hong Kong is seen as a British property and associated with patriotic nostalgia, and its people the victims of suppression by the Chinese state, which is the new geopolitical bogeyman.

As an example of how this works, you could consider the claims that Ukrainian refugees are "civilised", educated, watch Netflix etc … thing is, in the case of Australia's offshore black sites, the people, predominantly Persian, Afghan or Afghan Hazara, Rohingya or Syrian, who have been held in them are widely tertiary educated, with engineering and medical degrees etc. That's because it was their class position in their countries of origin that allowed them to fund and attempt the difficult transit here as refugees, often sending younger sons ahead of a family that stayed behind.

I am tired of it all, as in my lifetime over here there have been several waves of "enemy-making" nationalism, Japan in the 80s, Islam in the 90s and beyond, China more recently. Each has constructed a new manifestation of racism out of the basic fabric of Australian white supremacism. The case of China is troublesome, as it will become the world's most powerful state and harbours territorial and imperial ambitions, but doesn't do so on the basis of the caricatured politics Australians get from their news outlets.

I deeply fear the advent of a historical era in which I'm drowned in a glut of anti-Chinese sentiment. My Prime Minister and Defence Minister are spouting Sinophobic rhetoric for domestic political gain every day lately.

If this shitty, pointless war were to end in a withdrawal with some concessions for Russia, I hope the EU may over time consider disengagement from the United States on military policy and re-engagement with Russia. Nearing 70 and with Putin's constituency eroding, perhaps there will eventually be a chance to do what they could've done ages ago, and integrate Russia into the European security environment and economic system.

Cries about "Putin's gangsterism" versus the hurdles to implement strong economic sanctions have brought not just the broad spectrum economic entanglement of Russia and Europe into focus, but the complicity of western corporations, regulators and political parties with Russian extractivism and its oligarchic system. We're all already connected, and in my opinion based on a ton of travel, people around the world are much more similar than they are different. We are a peaceful species caught up in artificial scarcity and forced labour. The hope would be that in a better future we'll look back on this era of borders as the abomination akin to slavery that it is.

So I'd say the reason for that 30–60% gap is firstly that there's far less ideological vilification of East Asians as individuals or "speculative citizens" in recent history, and secondly that Hong Kong is seen as a British property and associated with patriotic nostalgia, and its people the victims of suppression by the Chinese state, which is the new geopolitical bogeyman.

I think that misses the point for me. Certainly there's an element of sticking it to China and historical nostalgia (I guess) but by and large it's because those from Hong Kong are politically centre right, urbanised and predominantly consumers. In other words, they slot into a different bracket of society. Like you pointed out, having medical or engineering degrees isn't sufficient to be considered 'middle class' or 'civilised' rather it's what you consume and how. Broadly it's a similar story for British Indians today vs the same Indians who moved to the UK in the 50s/60s.

We're all already connected, and in my opinion based on a ton of travel, people around the world are much more similar than they are different. We are a peaceful species caught up in artificial scarcity and forced labour. The hope would be that in a better future we'll look back on this era of borders as the abomination akin to slavery that it is.

I agree - people are basically the same. But I've generally found that most people like their borders - I don't necessarily mean national ones either. A lot people like their little corner of the city/village/town and will never want that to change. It's weird but I think it's also important to entertain that as a preference and build a world that works despite those conditions.

Mirth wrote:

I think that misses the point for me. Certainly there's an element of sticking it to China and historical nostalgia (I guess) but by and large it's because those from Hong Kong are politically centre right, urbanised and predominantly consumers. In other words, they slot into a different bracket of society. Like you pointed out, having medical or engineering degrees isn't sufficient to be considered 'middle class' or 'civilised' rather it's what you consume and how. Broadly it's a similar story for British Indians today vs the same Indians who moved to the UK in the 50s/60s.

This is a great point, and perhaps a reason why multiculturalism is often valued by white societies in terms of new avenues for consumption—Japanese or Korean cinema, special new kinds of cuisine, etc.

I do agree that class doesn't translate. In Australia migrants with tertiary qualifications don't move smoothly into those echelons of our society. Someone with a Polish medical degree from the Soviet era you'll find working as an admin lady, her husband with a PhD in solar engineering as a systems administrator. The ride-sharing world is notoriously full of South Asian people with technical degrees, etc. Likewise, my guess would be that educated Ukrainians wouldn't walk into professional roles in Germany either. It is a kind of systemic abjection often justified in terms of "paying your dues". The way round in Australia is the system of international students, uniformly middle class, whose families pay large sums for them to get their qualifications here, and then move on to matching careers while seeking pathways to permanent residency.

Mirth wrote:

I agree - people are basically the same. But I've generally found that most people like their borders - I don't necessarily mean national ones either. A lot people like their little corner of the city/village/town and will never want that to change. It's weird but I think it's also important to entertain that as a preference and build a world that works despite those conditions.

A world without borders wouldn't be one in which everyone moved. My experience is the same as yours on that front, people move if they have a strong incentive, only a minority do otherwise. If you take away the spatial partition of labour, housing and access to resources (never mind security and basic freedoms) globally into winners and losers, on which the present world system depends absolutely, you create the conditions under which a homeostasis of populations is actually possible. At the moment, it's not, and exclusionary borders are a refusal of feedback from the violence of that system which gradually mounts and appears in other ways, like war, terrorism or civil unrest.

What do the world now do with Belarus now that the puppet state has joined in to invade Ukraine?

Couple of perspectives from me as a Russian speaking ex-Soviet whose people have been enslaved by the Russians for a long time:

  • Turning on Russian TV these days is really shocking, they've gone from bias to full-blown Goebbels style propaganda in the space of a few years. Really a lost cause.
  • Russians protesting at home and abroad gives me at least some hope for the future. However you wonder how far regime change in Russia can go since the main opposition is a neo-Nazi like Navalny.
  • There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of Putin's motives in the West, mainly because people believe his "NATO expansion security threat" bullshit. This is only about the security of the monetary assets belonging to him and his cronies. Putin cannot afford any of the ex-Soviet states to take any positive steps towards democracy and the rule of law, because ultimately the Russian people may start asking themselves questions like "how come we have the most natural resources in the world but 40% of our population lacks money for food and clothing?" It is important to keep in mind that the entire ex-Soviet space is connected and functions like a big organised crime syndicate. Oligarchs and state leaders have (monetary) interests everywhere and ultimately all fall under the umbrella of and answer to the big leader Putin (note that his nickname in the Russian speaking world is "Papa" - i.e. godfather). So Putin is not so much a state leader but more of a mafia boss. Basically read Garry Kasparov on this.
  • These things will continue to happen as long as the international order is not based on values but interests. The so-called free world lectures us on values but its actions show that it only cares about interests. As various people have pointed out in this thread Western countries infringe international law as well and invade other countries as well. NATO member Turkey has in the last decade invaded and occupied parts of Libya, Syria and Kharabakh, some with full American agreement. The Saudis are waging a war in Yemen with US support which has cost more than 400,000 lives. Genocide has been committed against the Yezidis in the Middle East and genocide continues against the Uyghurs in China but no serious steps were/are taken to prevent either. So the West can lecture the rest of the world on human rights and international law all it wants, but actions speak louder than words. And dictators like Putin know this use this to tell their public that they are no different from the rest of the world.
  • This is very worrying for all ex-Soviet states, whose citizens will be destroyed by the sanctions as well. The tragedy is that many of those citizens wanted to break free from the corrupt Russian yoke, but ultimately got no help from the so-called free world when it mattered. Think Georgia, Armenia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. I hope Ukraine will be the exception.
  • It amazes me that there are still Western commentators out there who argue for appeasement, saying that "we will be dragged into a (bigger) war". The bigger war will come anyway if Putin is not stopped. I guess they missed history class when the late 1930ies were discussed.
  • It would not surprise me if other dictators use this opportunity to pursue their own aims. If I was Taiwan I would be worried about Xi. Aliev has already started ethnically cleansing additional villages in Kharabakh. Interestingly both these chaps recently met Putin or even concluded a friendship agreement with him.
  • Finally, as an Armenian it is incredibly painful to see how much the world cares about Ukraine and how little they cared about us two years ago. Being reminded of the fact that your people's lives are worthless is not a great experience. But I hope Ukraine survives.
Burnwinter wrote:
Mirth wrote:

I think that misses the point for me. Certainly there's an element of sticking it to China and historical nostalgia (I guess) but by and large it's because those from Hong Kong are politically centre right, urbanised and predominantly consumers. In other words, they slot into a different bracket of society. Like you pointed out, having medical or engineering degrees isn't sufficient to be considered 'middle class' or 'civilised' rather it's what you consume and how. Broadly it's a similar story for British Indians today vs the same Indians who moved to the UK in the 50s/60s.

This is a great point, and perhaps a reason why multiculturalism is often valued by white societies in terms of new avenues for consumption—Japanese or Korean cinema, special new kinds of cuisine, etc.

I do agree that class doesn't translate. In Australia migrants with tertiary qualifications don't move smoothly into those echelons of our society. Someone with a Polish medical degree from the Soviet era you'll find working as an admin lady, her husband with a PhD in solar engineering as a systems administrator. The ride-sharing world is notoriously full of South Asian people with technical degrees, etc. Likewise, my guess would be that educated Ukrainians wouldn't walk into professional roles in Germany either. It is a kind of systemic abjection often justified in terms of "paying your dues".

There are different levels to it, Ukrainians won't find it perfectly possible to assume any profession here but it's far from impossible either, I know plenty of medical professionals who came from ex-Soviet states who got their approbation here without too much hassle. Speaking from experience however none of my relatives ever had any of their degrees acknowledged, an uncle even is an attorney at international law and it wasn't considered because apparently it's not applicable here, my brother in law is an accountant with vocational training, uni degree and work experience (in a French company to boot) and he's working in a factory here etc. Systemic abjection is a pretty good description for it.

https://www.cityam.com/kremlin-blames-liz-truss-for-putins-decision-to-raise-nuclear-alert-level/

This is possibly my favourite 'Thick of It' quote of the conflict:

Putin put Russia’s nuclear forces on a “special regime of duty” yesterday, igniting fears of a global nuclear conflict.

Putin’s spokesperson Dmitry Peskov today said: “There were unacceptable statements about possible conflict situations and even confrontations and clashes between Nato and Russa. I will not name the authors of these statements, although it was the British foreign secretary.”

😆

Great point on the elite interests driving this Gurgen … but why don't you think NATO's expansion plays a part here?

Russia has opposed it since the USSR ended. For Russia, it increased the urgency of the annexation of Crimea and now this invasion. If Ukraine had been a NATO member, Crimea would've been subject to NATO's security guarantees. Though Russia has no prerogative to carve land off its neighbours, it's never been about what's right, more how has the United States enthusiasm for Ukraine in NATO served Europe's security?

I'm also sorry about what 2020 was like for Armenians. They (we) really do not care. I know where Nagorno-Karabakh is from learning briefly about the 90s conflict in school, but that's about it. The coverage of that renewed conflict was truly minimal anywhere other than Twitter, where it was at least mentioned, but only for a few days.

I suspect many onlookers don't care so much about Ukraine either. The appetite for the spectacle is there but is it directed towards preserving life? Twitter is full of blue ticks fantasising about nuclear war or some other Russian escalation today, and if not then they're fantasising about forced regime change in Russia. Working in a sector that's based on attention, a Pavlovian salivation seems to start at the thought of the bonanza a worsening crisis would bring.

I think it plays a role but in the context of kleptocracy and push for democratisation. NATO membership usually means a step towards democratisation (Turkey is the outlier) and sometimes also EU membership, which in itself is another step towards democratisation. The KGB kleptocrats who run the ex-Soviet world cannot allow this. Although the West is more than happy to launder their money, it is much more difficult to pillage a country's natural resources without consequences once that country is part of the Western sphere of influence. In 2014 there was no serious talk of NATO membership, the Ukrainian people just wanted to be rid of their dictator. There was also no serious talk of NATO membership for Georgia, Armenia and Kazakhstan, others countries Putin has brought back into the fold.

The worst thing about this "we poked the bear" narrative that many right-wing types in the West are propagating is that it completely denies the fact that people in ex-Soviet countries have agency too and may have ideas about the direction their country should move into. NATO did not actively seek to expand. These countries asked to join because they think there is a better future out there.

Gurgen wrote:

The worst thing about this "we poked the bear" narrative that many right-wing types in the West are propagating is that it completely denies the fact that people in ex-Soviet countries have agency too and may have ideas about the direction their country should move into.

Exactly and, more to the point, Eastern European countries have a more positive view and the places more likely to meet the 2% funding threshold than Western Europe.

It's not surprising that you now end up with headlines like this: https://yle.fi/news/3-12337202

Russia may or may not take Ukraine but they'll end up with more NATO troops on their Western border and will likely become extremely dependent on China. All for what?

Ironically Putin is the one poking the bear.

I was reading that the main reason they took Crimea was to regain access to their only real warm water port. Yet getting any ships out of there would require them to navigate through NATO controlled waters... access which Turkey are apparently now going to block as is their right during war time 😆

I mean I'm not going to say he shouldn't be worried or do anything about Russia's vulnerabilities, but I can't help but think the best thing to do if you're surrounded by an enemy that you have no real hope of ridding yourself of, is to make them a buddy, or at least pretend?

To be fair Russia did try plenty of diplomatic avenues in the last 20 years. Not defending Russian actions of last week but the West and Kiev have ignored all options on the table leading up to this.

That's the nature of diplomacy - 20 years isn't even that long. You keep going. The same Russia has been arguing with Japan over the Kuril Islands for more than half a century but they haven't started carpeting bombing Tokyo. Besides, like Gurgen said, regardless of what NATO or Russia want, it's the people living there that should have the agency to chart their own path and we both know that for a lot of people their issues with Moscow go back nearly a century so spending 20 years trying to make up for that isn't particularly remarkable.

I'm too exhausted to say anything more on this whole inhumane clusterfuck right now, but I do want to say that I really appreciate the insights by all of you here, the thoughtfulness with which all of you are approaching this and the fact that everyone here has remained civil. I've been keeping up with this thread every day and I've genuinely learned quite a bit. I'll also quote Burnwinter's dystopian outlook on the concept of borders if I ever get around to writing a manifesto 😆

I hope that now or later there's a role for the Russian people in halting this conflict, unwinding its consequences and taking back control of the lands on which they live and the industries in which they work.

I'm sure they're aware today that their quality of life is set to be hugely degraded by the immediate outcomes of Putin's desperation to shore up the capacity of a declining Russian state to broker profits to its blocs of capital.

Ukraine represents an existential threat to Russia. Their oil reserves are that significant. Putin had to act.

There's a line between "foreign policy realism" and "Putin apologism" … Fiona Hill in the above article isn't an apologist.

I think there are some questions that come up about which parties saw this possibility clearly. The US and NATO were aware of some risk of invasion as the pathway for Ukraine to become a member was laid down, and probably Zelenskiy's advisors too.

I guess they decided to go for it anyway, perhaps underrating the chances any of this would happen. Getting closer to NATO aligns well with Ukraine's self-determination since 2014 (although that's a geographically uneven question).

No matter how this pans out, as well as the horrific impact of the war on Ukraine, it's likely there will be instability in Russia, and there's been a rewriting of conventions across Europe.

Mirth wrote:

That's the nature of diplomacy - 20 years isn't even that long. You keep going. The same Russia has been arguing with Japan over the Kuril Islands for more than half a century but they haven't started carpeting bombing Tokyo. Besides, like Gurgen said, regardless of what NATO or Russia want, it's the people living there that should have the agency to chart their own path and we both know that for a lot of people their issues with Moscow go back nearly a century so spending 20 years trying to make up for that isn't particularly remarkable.

I'm aware of this and not disputing it. Just saying that it's not like there haven't been a) efforts elsewhere and b) that war just broke out, the Donetsk and Lugansk republics have been shelled by Kiev for a while now. Of course this won't register with many but the crimes that Russia has been committing for the last week have been committed by the Poroshenko and Zelensky governments for the last eight years, 15,000 estimated dead and counting.

Same thing with the Ukrainian people's agency: I know Ukrainians who hate Russia and Putin with a passion that would make the sternest McCarthyist blush and even more who consider Russians and Ukrainians to be one people, both with perfectly valid arguments for themselves. Some will remember Holodomor others will cite Soviet action against Poland when the latter grabbed large parts off Ukrainian territory a hundred years ago. It's a messy situation which would be difficult enough for Ukrainians to sort out for themselves, it becomes virtually impossible with so many much more powerful nations in the background working on their schemes.

Alisher Usmanovs had his assets sized. Thank God he's out of the club.

flobaba wrote:

Ukraine represents an existential threat to Russia. Their oil reserves are that significant. Putin had to act.

To the Russian regime, not Russia. For some reason the two are always equated.

Qwiss! wrote:

Alisher Usmanovs had his assets sized. Thank God he's out of the club.

Good thing our piece of shit billionaire owner has the correct passport.

For you guys who are more knowledgeable, what do you think of this take? It does not explicitly mention the oligarch/mafia narrative of Gurgen's, but can easily be read into it.  I thought it was well done and interesting, but these days it's hard to know what's what. 

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/02/ukraine-how-can-the-war-end/

I could not believe Putin really would invade Ukraine, because I could see no sensible outcome for him. I still cannot. Initiating a war on this scale has no legal justification, and no moral justification either. Russian troops are in areas which have no wish to be ruled by Russia.

Those of us who opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq must also oppose the illegal invasion of Ukraine. Whether the Ukrainian government is obnoxious or not is as irrelevant now, as the obnoxiousness of Saddam Hussein was irrelevant then. I am as fed up now with being asked if I support Ukrainian Nazis as I was then with being asked if I supported Saddam Hussein.

It is simply illegal to wage a war for regime change, without the endorsement of the UN security council.

I have great sympathy for Russian security concerns about encirclement by NATO and forward missile deployments. But seeking regime change by invasion in Ukraine could not possibly be the answer. I still have not the slightest idea what Putin seeks to achieve. It is simply impossible – and has been since the annexation of Crimea – that a democratic Ukraine is voluntarily going to elect a pro-Russian government. After this invasion, the only way a pro-Putin regime could be maintained in Ukraine would be by extreme authoritarianism, going well beyond the prevailing system in Russia itself.

Let me put it starkly. This can only finish with a government in Kiev which absolutely hates Putin as now do the Ukrainian people, or with Russia maintaining a puppet regime by extreme repression. There isn’t a way out with a peaceful, neutral Ukraine. Once you try to resolve matters by pure force, you lose that option. If I were Ukrainian, there is no way now I would be agreeing to the demilitarisation of my country.

As for denazification – which certainly is needed in Ukraine – Putin has given the “heroic anti-Russian nationalist” meme of the Ukrainian nazi groups a massive boost. While labelling the entire nation and government as Nazi is just wrong.

I did not think Putin would invade, for all those reasons. I did not even think he would acknowledge moving troops into the Donbass. I was unsure what to argue about that if he did. The Kosovo parallel with the newly acknowledged Donetsk and Lughansk republics is arguable. As a supporter of Scottish Independence, I am open to arguments from self-determination, and you can read Murder in Samarkand on the capriciousness of former internal Soviet borders. But this has gone far beyond that.

Yet we have seen nothing like the simply massive civilian casualties the West inflicted on Libya, Iraq or Afghanistan. Not anything like the same order of magnitude. In the town of Sirte, Libya alone NATO bombing killed 15,000 people. Casualty figures being given for the whole of the Ukraine so far are still in the hundreds, and thank God for that.

Either Putin has not entirely willed the means, or his armed forces are resisting obeying his wishes. Russia has not unleashed anything like the kind of firepower that would need to be unleashed to subdue Ukraine. Western media has gone into full war porn mode, but the extent of real fighting is uncertain. There seems to be a great deal of shadow boxing.

I do not know the explanation for this. It seems very possible Putin has underestimated Ukrainian morale, and really believed Ukraine would crumble. In fact, Zelensky is playing a blinder in terms of maintaining morale, however staged his photo-ops. The more pressing question is whether Putin overestimated the willingness of his own military to kill Ukrainians, or whether Putin himself lacks the will. In Grozny, he was directly responsible for civilian casualties on a truly terrible scale, but is he like the West in putting much less value on Muslim lives?

To date, Kiev has faced nothing like what Sirte faced from NATO or Grozny faced from Russia – but not because Russia lacks the capacity to do it.

If Putin is himself ready for massive Ukrainian deaths, is his military pulling its punches? I am reminded of the War of Slovenian Independence, where the soldiers of the massively superior Yugoslav army just refused to kill Slovenes. In that case, many of the Yugoslav troops were initially told it was just a live fire exercise, which lends credibility to the idea the same is happening with Russian troops here.

Putin has not improved his negotiating position. My own friends and allies on the left are suggesting that the answer is for there to be a ceasefire and Western agreement to no further expansion of NATO, and a new arms control treaty governing missile deployments. That would certainly be ideal but it is not going to happen.

You have to understand the realpolitik of the Western elite. They will never damage their own interests. That is why the sanctions that would really hurt Putin, targeting companies like BP and Shell over their Russian interests or the real oligarchs like Usmanov, Deripaska and Abramovic, will never happen because they would damage the interests of the British elite. It is why the UK government fly Ukrainian flags but will not let Ukrainians come without visas. They don’t really care about the ordinary people at all.

The NATO leadership now see Putin in a position where he either has to back down and retreat, or inflict massive casualties on the Ukraine and get bogged down there for decades. If they wanted to save the Ukrainian people, this would indeed be the time for West to negotiate. But the lives of ordinary Ukrainians mean nothing to them.

So rather than find Putin a ladder to climb down, they will strike heroic poses, wave Ukrainian flags and send more weapons. I fear Putin will go for the mass deaths scenario. Macho is his entire brand, and his speech last Sunday was worryingly fundamentalist. I do wonder if he is losing the room at home – he spoke of the end of the Soviet Union as a calamity, but Russians under forty cannot even remember the Soviet Union at all. Nobody under 50 can remember it in any kind of functioning order.

One final thought for now. I applaud those brave people in Russia who have demonstrated for peace. Almost 2,000 have been arrested. But remember this – under the Tory government’s new policing bill, taking part in a demonstration in England and Wales not approved in advance by the police could bring up to ten years in prison. Just one example of the rife hypocrisy submerging us all at present.

Gurgen wrote:
flobaba wrote:

Ukraine represents an existential threat to Russia. Their oil reserves are that significant. Putin had to act.

To the Russian regime, not Russia. For some reason the two are always equated.

Oh yes of course. I'm speaking from the regime's perspective not the people's.

When has the people's perspective ever been relevant, anywhere? We're just subjected to the games they play.

jones wrote:
Qwiss! wrote:

Alisher Usmanovs had his assets sized. Thank God he's out of the club.

Good thing our piece of shit billionaire owner has the correct passport.

Yeha no matter what America ever does its billionaires assets will never be frozen.

That's the gaping flaw in the pundits' claims the type of financial sanctions being applied (for which the eurozone debt crisis was the laboratory) represent a global stabiliser.

I've seen some speculation the force of the sanctions is partly with the aim of showing China a few things.

FEBravo wrote:

For you guys who are more knowledgeable, what do you think of this take? It does not explicitly mention the oligarch/mafia narrative of Gurgen's, but can easily be read into it.  I thought it was well done and interesting, but these days it's hard to know what's what.

Found this very informative, I think quite a lot of the starting passage might be bumf (the land war across the North European Plain angle felt dated, but maybe I'm clueless), but the geographical inquiry into Crimea and Donbas, and the spectrum of possible stakes in the invasion was really well done.

You get some idea what some reduced territorial objectives of the Russian state might be, and how those have motivated and might affect economic and political aspects of this conflict over time.

Burnwinter wrote:

I hope that now or later there's a role for the Russian people in halting this conflict, unwinding its consequences and taking back control of the lands on which they live and the industries in which they work.

Definitely Burnsy. I have friends in Moscow who have said for ages that Putin and Medvedev are the ones killing all hope for things to ever improve in Russia. When I first got to know them back in 2011 they were disillusioned about Russians being a century behind Europe in terms of activism (their words, not mine). Since then it feels like more and more political protests have manifested themselves though; everything from Pussy Riot to the tens of thousands marching in Moscow to protest the election result, the rise of (and jailing of) Navalny, and so forth.

It's a complete amateur analysis by me and it's probably overly simplistic, but it doesn't feel like a coincidence that Putin during that same period has amped up his attempt to stroke nationalistic flames among those who secretly envy the days of Stalin and Khrushchev, when things were essentially as shit for the average person but at least Russia was relevant and respected as a superpower. Couple it with the fact that the Maidan took off similarly in Ukraine during the 2010s. Putin feels the unrest at home and sees Yanukovych flee Ukraine.

If this war could bring about protests on a national scale back home maybe he'd be done for. A lot of Putin's power both as an independent and during the United Russia years has come from this sense of helplessness that exists, the feeling that nothing will ever improve because there's never been any strong opposition to join; just oligarchs looting all the resources while society keeps deteriorating and falling into disrepair for the people.

Ahead of Biden's speech in Congress on Tuesday, Zelensky urged the President to impress upon Americans the urgency and implications of Russia's invasion.
"He is one of the leaders of the world and it is very important that the people of the United States understand (that) despite the fact that the war is in Ukraine ... it is [a] war for the values of democracy, freedom," Zelensky said.

Zelensky reiterated calls for the US and NATO to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine or put boots on the ground. "I've already addressed and (spoken) to some Western leaders with this request, because I do believe that leaders do have to support democratic countries and they have to help them."

okay. so is this ukraine inviting the US in? the US gets rightly demonized for intervening globally. why is ukraine asking the US to get involved? why arent they just asking for humanitarian aid, accepting refugees, etc? why arent they asking for back channel military support instead of openly asking the US to get involved?

ive tried to stay out of this thread, because i know what the view of the US is, and while i fundamentally disagree with a lot of US foreign policy stuff, i find myself conflicted on stuff like this. ive been a NATO skeptic, but ive grown even more opposed to the idea of the US intervening on our own, because we never leave a situation better than how we found it.

but again, what should the US do here, when the leader of ukraine is asking the US to get involved?

also, one thing i dont really understand is why putin feels threatened by NATO. is it purely because he feels that if a country joins NATO, he cant pull the strings and exert power over them? surely that must be it. because given russia's nuclear stockpile, none of the NATO countries actually wants to go to war with russia. as insane as the russia fever was in the US the last 5 years, no one has ever intimated that putin should be removed from power. its not like his actual position is at stake. why is he afraid of NATO? is he afraid he wont be able to push around finland? or exert oversized influence in ukraine? those feel like poor reasons to start a war that could completely decimate his economy and support at home.

mdgoonah, check out the politico article that Jones burnwinter posted above...good read, and answers many of your questions.

the one burnsy posted? the interview with fiona hill? i'll read it now. thanks

I think the whole situation does rest on the non-obvious, but not unreasonable premise Russia should have great power status and a strong economic and political future.

If you take those premises, then Russia as a present day petrostate needs to control oil and gas in its region and be able to project military power.

It's at this point that the prospect of an ambiguous NATO presence encircling it and cutting off the historical Soviet access to the Black Sea, and carrying with it all the same risks of escalating to nuclear war in the case of conflict … that all becomes quite untenable because it contradicts the premises.

The reason NATO isn't engaged in this war is because it would give Putin the pretext to drop a 1–5kt nuke somewhere, probably in Ukraine. From that perspective, a Russia encircled with a NATO Ukraine would be placed in that position permanently. As someone said the other day, "nuclear weapons really put a lot of negative infinities into decision trees" …

mdgoonah41 wrote:

also, one thing i dont really understand is why putin feels threatened by NATO. is it purely because he feels that if a country joins NATO, he cant pull the strings and exert power over them? surely that must be it. because given russia's nuclear stockpile, none of the NATO countries actually wants to go to war with russia. as insane as the russia fever was in the US the last 5 years, no one has ever intimated that putin should be removed from power. its not like his actual position is at stake. why is he afraid of NATO? is he afraid he wont be able to push around finland? or exert oversized influence in ukraine? those feel like poor reasons to start a war that could completely decimate his economy and support at home.

There are zero good reasons for him to start a war but plenty of reasons he should feel threatened by NATO, more specifically by the US. Russia in the 90s wasn't just a klepto paradise for the soon to be oligarchs but also for American "investors" and their government appendages too. That much became evident to the world's remaining superpower immediately after the Cold War was over and that's the reason why the US got so heavily involved in backing the deeply unpopular Yeltsin in the 90s even when he was using Russian tanks to shell his own parliament and population, to make sure the free for all for Russian natural resources wouldn't end. US media and both Bush Sr and Clinton were euphoric and called Yeltsin a national hero: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2018-10-04/yeltsin-shelled-russian-parliament-25-years-ago-us-praised-superb-handling

Putin for all his faults put an end to that both domestically and internationally, domestically by getting the support and then buying out the oligarchs and internationally by ending Yeltsin's large scale privatisations and fire sale of Russian assets to any foreign investors who were interested. American lobby groups and governments since very early on have had it in for him for that reason and wanted him gone for about 20 years now and tried pretty much every avenue, mostly sanctions, escalation via NATO east expansion also funding domestic opposition.

Not like there isn't real opposition to him in Russia, there most definitely is but there are plenty of Trojan horses like Kasparov or Navalny who have zero interest in the betterment of Russians and are only opposition to Putin for their personal ambitions. I've seen the same in my home country and in loads of other third world countries - foreign funded opposition to a ruler who's a piece of shit in general serves multiple purposes, either the Western backed opposition finds a way to worm itself into power, if it doesn't you create a martyr to show for Western media (Navalny, Tymoshenko in Ukraine, Guaido in Venezuela etc) or at the very least you split the opposition in the country into factions which can still be useful later on.

Putin might not even have survived if it weren't for the sharp upward movement of commodity prices shortly after he succeeded Yeltsin, but his halting of the deterioration of Russian living standards - average life expectancy dropped from 70 in 1989 to 60 at the end of Yeltsin's reign - coupled with nationalist (not even unjustified at that point) rhetoric and building up of Russia from ruins made him immensely popular domestically, for pretty much the same reason he's hated by the West.

For the world's remaining super power the end game has always been the removal of Putin and the instalment of another Yeltsin who a) would guarantee there's no opposition to be expected in military and nuclear terms and b) would flog Russian resources at bargain prices.