"Emerging from the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917, this idea posited Russia as a Eurasian polity formed by a deep history of cultural exchanges among people of Turkic, Slavic, Mongol and other Asian origins. In 1920, the linguist Nikolai Trubetzkoy — one of several Russian émigré intellectuals who developed the concept — published 'Europe and Humanity,' a trenchant critique of Western colonialism and Eurocentrism. He called on Russian intellectuals to free themselves from their fixation on Europe.... Suppressed for decades in the Soviet Union, Eurasianism survived in the underground and burst into public awareness during the perestroika period of the late 1980s. Lev Gumilyov, an eccentric geographer who had spent 13 years in Soviet prisons and forced-labor camps, emerged as an acclaimed guru of the Eurasian revival in the 1980s. Mr. Gumilyov emphasized ethnic diversity as a driver of global history. According to his concept of 'ethnogenesis,' an ethnic group could, under the influence of a charismatic leader, develop into a 'super-ethnos' — a power spread over a huge geographical area that would clash with other expanding ethnic units.... But Eurasianism was injected directly into the bloodstream of Russian power in a variant developed by the self-styled philosopher Aleksandr Dugin.... Russia had always been an empire, Russian people were 'imperial people,' and after the crippling 1990s sellout to the 'eternal enemy'.... In 2013, [Putin] declared that Eurasia was a major geopolitical zone where Russia’s 'genetic code' and its many peoples would be defended against 'extreme Western-style liberalism.' In July last year he announced that 'Russians and Ukrainians are one people,' and in his furious rant on the eve of invasion, he described Ukraine as a 'colony with a puppet regime,' where the Orthodox Church is under assault and NATO prepares for an attack on Russia."
Writes Jane Burbank, a professor in Russian history, in "The Grand Theory Driving Putin to War" (NYT).
The resistance of the Ukrainians is a profound rebuttal to the theory. But theories can be revised and must be revised to incorporate undeniable events in the real world. Assuming Burbank's analysis is correct, how can Putin adapt his ideology and extract Russia from its predicament? Destroying everything in Ukraine and making Ukrainians hate Russia is completely inconsistent with the theory.
पोस्ट्स
१११ टिप्पण्या:
Do you find the use of "must" more persuasive than "should"? Whenever I hear "must", I automatically ask "by what requirement?" and "imposed by who?" and then begin thinking of counter-examples where the "must" has been or can be ignored and there are no consequences that result.
For me, if the use of "must" fails, it's use weakens the assertion/argument.
It's actually quite simple. Most people aren't as wedded to their racial theories as Hitler was. If Ukrainian civilians continue to violently resist Putin while flogging Russia for killing civilians, they can count on the Chechnya solution- have cities completely flattened until Ukraine cries uncle. These days there are quite a few Chechen soldiers in the Russian Army, even if there are quite a few Chechen rebels who defected to Ukraine.
Anyways, Jane Burbank is more attached to her racial theories than Putin was. The simple fact is that Russia was Europeanizing for decades since Yelstin, and "Eurasia" was greatly exaggerated. The sheer level of betrayal from every European country including the Swiss will put paid to further Westernization efforts. Clearly the various cabal functionaries involved have never tried to rob Russians before, and I suspect they're going to find Putin's future response extremely unpleasant.
Let's look at every reason but the expansion of a hostile and aggressive military alliance to Russia's border, because if we look at Putin's stated reasons, which every foreign policy expert who wasn't a neocon took for granted since we promised Gorbachov not to expand NATO east, that makes us the baddies, therefore we do these Putin mind reading exercises to avoid dealing with our own culpability in this matter.
Russia's border is NATO's manifest destiny, right? My country, right or wrong, right? Ignorance is strength! We have been here before and it is not a proud chapter in our history.
Why did the Ukrainians undertake an offensive operation into Donbass (Where they have been committing war crimes like using white phosphorus artillery on civilian populations, BTW, for 8 years) , striking a match in the tinderbox, when Russian troops were massed on Ukraine's border, except to instigate a war?
Now the US strategy, cheered on here, is to drag out the war to maximize Russia's losses, no matter the cost in Ukrainian lives. We will see who comes out of this beloved by the victims in this war.
I can't be the first to say this but...
We have to destroy Ukraine to save it.
Or more philosophically,
We have to destroy the physical Ukraine to save the spiritual Ukraine.
Plato vs. Aristotle, round 1,000,000?
Gumilyov was the son of Anna Akhmatova. He is the imprisoned son in "Poem Without a Hero."
Eurasianism is scary, but with what the West is becoming maybe not so scary as it used to be.
That's not to justify or support Putin. It's just to say that the context may have shifted.
Note the similarity to "Manifest Destiny," an idea still common in the "Indispensable Nation."
he [Putin]] described Ukraine as a 'colony with a puppet regime
If the US Vice President ordered the Ukrainian President to fire Ukraine's attorney general within two hours, then the Ukrainian President obediently fired the attorney general within two hours.
Aleksandr Dugin is the voice inside of Putin's head. Good that this article mentions him. Better if all Americans learn about who Dugin is and what he's about. It would explain much of where Putin's thinking lies.
Ukraine isn't resisting. The Biden Regimen and the lying hack D press along with the elite Hollywood libtards have created the world's largest stage play with thousands of crisis actors and millions of crisis extras to give the illusion of a war of resistance.
Everyone knows that the real people of Ukraine welcome Putin's rescue operation but have been forced to pretend to defend their country.
Only Trump, Tucker and Sean are telling us the real truth.
I don't see much difference between Pelosi family wealth and Castro family wealth or Putin wealth.
Biden wishes... he's trying.. big guy.
tim in vermont said...Let's look at every reason but the expansion of a hostile and aggressive military alliance to Russia's border, because if we look at Putin's stated reasons, which every foreign policy expert who wasn't a neocon took for granted since we promised Gorbachov not to expand NATO east, that makes us the baddies, therefore we do these Putin mind reading exercises to avoid dealing with our own culpability in this matter.
Exactly. Well said.
I'd go further and say these mind reading exercises are also intended to justify doing exactly what the government wants to do and intends to do regardless.
It reminds me of similar mind-reading exercises intended to avoid culpability and justify expansion of power. For example, we know all Trump voters are motivated by racism, white supremacy and rage at being "left behind".
We know the Jan 6th rioters intended to overthrow the government and destroy democracy.
We know that all those who don't want to take the vaccine are unreasonable and anti-science. There are many examples.
"this idea posited Russia as a Eurasian polity formed by a deep history of cultural exchanges among people of Turkic, Slavic, Mongol and other Asian origins."
Well, ideas come and go, and people can rationalize anything, but this "idea" states a fact. Short of breaking up Russia into very small parts, it's going to act as a big Eurasian power with lots of critical resource and lots of neighbors it wants to control in some fashion.
"how can Putin adapt his ideology and extract Russia from its predicament? Destroying everything in Ukraine and making Ukrainians hate Russia is completely inconsistent with the theory"
Not necessarily. A destroyed Ukraine is second best but still a decent buffer and a warning. Empires can handle subjugation; fear can work almost as well as love.
Eurasian women are hot!
Prof. Burbank does not grapple with Putin's embrace of Peter the Great, and therefore she is cherry-picking her theory insofar as Putin is concerned. As with other crazed "blood and land" theoreticians, Putin doesn't need anything more than a doctrine--no matter how ridiculous-- loudly proclaimed to move forward.
I heard a talk last night by a former US ambassador to NATO who pointed out that Putin kept himself isolated during COVID apparently reading bad Russian history. Maybe he read the New York Times. They certainly could have given him the lowdown on Ukrainian corruption and neo-Nazism.
Ukraine (and Russia) are like Hollywood: no one knows anything.
"Assuming Burbank's analysis is correct, how can Putin adapt his ideology and extract Russia from its predicament? Destroying everything in Ukraine and making Ukrainians hate Russia is completely inconsistent with the theory."
It's a little late for "the butcher of Mariupol" to curry favor with the Ukrainians or the rest of the world in order to find a graceful way out of his war. The Russian invasion has culminated in a stalemate because of the tactical competence of the of the Ukrainians and strategic and tactical incompetence of the Ruskie army, and only massive infusions of men, material and logistic competence and/or severe escalation to tactical nukes can break the stalemate so long as the Ukrainians continue to have the will to fight. As I have said before (to derision from the local Putin apologists,) the Russian army is a paper tiger with an over centralized, but disjointed command and control structure that lacks combined arms proficiency and flexibility on the battlefield. They only win the same way they beat the Germans in WWII, which is by using overwhelming brute force, killing civilians and scorching the earth until the civilian leadership says "no mas," which is going to require nukes. That's very unlikely to happen. Besides, Zelensky appears to have already won by fighting Putin to a stalemate. Moreover, don't think Russia's neighbors haven't noticed, including the non-NATO countries on Ukraine's borders. So, now Ukraine's neighbors are supposed to be worried that Putin is going to expand the war to those other countries by attacking them? With what army? The current one is currently engaged in grinding itself into hamburger.
History repeating. If only__________ could cleanse ____________ and be free of _________ - happiness and peace will follow. Just ignore the death upfront.
You didn't need your life and home anyway? While the west dithers with skin color and chromosome wars.
All must be cleansed! Purified. Returned back. Change. Hope. Fascism. globalism. anti-globalism. unipolarism. liberalism. anti-tradition. Tradition. technocracy. Grand Reset. Conservatism. Progressivism. Communism. Anti-Capitalist-ism. Fascist.
Meanwhile - Putin is rich like Pelosi. or is it the other way around? Ukraine energy company makes Biden family wealthy. Ignore that part please.
When Hitler was in the Bidenbunker, ops I mean , Fuhrerbunker, he had access to tons and tons of GAS.. Germany stockpiled tabun, sarin, and soman but refrained from their use on the battlefield during WW2. In total, Germany produced about 78,000 tons of chemical weapons. By 1945 the nation had produced about 12,000 tons of tabun and 1,000 pounds (450 kg) of sarin!!
Now if Hitler, being nuts, could not bring himself (or maybe his staff could not bring themselves) to use these when Russians were at the gates, why does anyone think Putin will use this nuke stuff?
Do you really think Putin HIMSELF fires the nukes??? As Hillary said, "it takes a village"... and that village may very well say, "no".
So the Ukraine will fight on... maybe years if the West keeps feeding them weapons and food.
And the West, more or less lead by Biden, will fight to their last Ukrainian!
There's no evidence that Putin is trying to resurrect the Russian Empire. And frankly, its none of business if he does. All the Countries that became independent in 1990s did so because Moscow allowed it. Its their backyard.
You can see the libeal/left hive mind/ Regime media at work. We get constant charges that Putin is Hilter and trying to CONQUER THE WORLD from the gutter press, while the highbrow press gives us these "Think pieces" about how blah,blah Putin is the "new stalin" or the 'New Czar" or whatever.
You know what country is really a complete Dictatorship? China. When the last time Lindsey Graham suggested assassinating the Chinese leader?
tim in vermont,
"Let's look at every reason but the expansion of a hostile and aggressive military alliance to Russia's border,"
Aggressive?
When NATO marshals its forces for an exercise, do you worry it's just a transparent cover story and they're actually preparing to strike across the border into Russia?
"since we promised Gorbachov not to expand NATO east,"
Did we expand NATO eastward while Gorbachev was premier?
Speaking of promises, I seem to recall Russia's promising to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity in return for getting their nukes back. I think Lavrov dealt with this elegantly: The Ukraine regime is illegal, therefore our commitment is null and void.
So if I take these together, we are the baddies for not respecting a promise we made to a man no longer the leader of a country that doesn't exist; but Russia has been left with no choice but to invade Ukraine despite their more recent assurance they wouldn't. Strange that Ukraine would have wanted to join NATO...provocative bastards.
People have a hard time getting it throught their head that Ukraine is NOT our ally and never was. Or that the Ukraine can have peace anytime they wish by giving up the Crimea and letting the two breakaway republics go. Oh, and respecting Russian minority rights and not joining NATO.
If Ukraine had avoided war by agreeing to this in January would any American be upset? except Romney and Miss Ladybug? But American just like wars. They love getting hysterical, and chirping about "Brave little country X, standing up to the bully" or "By God, we have to stop them from CONQUERING THE WORLD!!"
As for the state of the war. Putin only committed 300,000 troops and is trying to keep military and civilian losses to a reasonable level. Its also the "Mud Season". Maybe the Russian army is imcompetent. Mabye the Ukrainians are skillfull fighters. We don't know. we don't have enough information. You'd have to know the Russian Pre-war plans and measure that against what actually happened.
If the Russians are trying to starve out Kharlov and Kiev, it doesn't matter whether they continue to advance or not. Its frustrating that all the military analysis in the MSM is either Ukrainian propaganda or superficial guesswork.
"...expansion of a hostile and aggressive military alliance to Russia's border"
NATO is neither hostile nor aggressive. That's Putinist propaganda. Let's also keep in mind that NATO was already on Russia's border in the Baltics and Russia didn't invade.
And NATO was one the USSRs border for decades and no war broke out in Europe. So we can dismiss "NATO was being scary" as an excuse for Putin's imperialist aggression.
And let's keep in mind all of those "foreign policy experts" have been wrong about every single foreign policy question since the mid-1980s. Especially that anti-semite Mearshimer.
The funniest thing about the whole Russia-Ukraine war was how quickly pretend conservatives and libertarians have shown themselves to be philosophically aligned with the hate America first lefties. It's all the US' fault, or the West's fault - anybody but Putin's. But Putin gave the orders to invade. That's the line of demarcation.
According to his concept of 'ethnogenesis,' an ethnic group could, under the influence of a charismatic leader, develop into a 'super-ethnos' — a power spread over a huge geographical area that would clash with other expanding ethnic units.... But Eurasianism was injected directly into the bloodstream of Russian power in a variant developed by the self-styled philosopher Aleksandr Dugin.... Russia had always been an empire, Russian people were 'imperial people,' and after the crippling 1990s sellout to the 'eternal enemy'.... In 2013, [Putin] declared that Eurasia was a major geopolitical zone where Russia’s 'genetic code' and its many peoples would be defended against 'extreme Western-style liberalism.' In July last year he announced that 'Russians and Ukrainians are one people,' and in his furious rant on the eve of invasion, he described Ukraine as a 'colony with a puppet regime,' where the Orthodox Church is under assault and NATO prepares for an attack on Russia."
But yeah, Putin doesn't want to take over / conquer / fight the whole world, and isn't a threat to anyone outside of Russia.
Right Tim?
rcocean is - like other "foreign policy experts" substituting wishful thinking about Russia's pre-war stance with the reality. Taking John Mearshimer's whishcasting on Putin over Putin's own spoken stances (in public and in private meetings) is foolishness.
Putin stated quite clearly and repeatedly he wants all of Ukraine, not just the Crimea and parts of Donbass. Anyone who says those little bits of territory were his goal is ignoring Putin's own words. He also wants the Baltics, Belarus, and Moldova.
He's putting the USSR back together. He has said as much, and said it repeatedly. It takes a "foreign policy expert" to pretend that's not what his goals are and that they know Putin's mind more than Putin does.
For those who say this is all "western propaganda" - go read the RT and other Russian news from the past few years. It's all laid out very clearly.
When an ethno-nationalist states his goals publicly, it's usually a good idea to listen.
rcocean said...
People have a hard time getting it throught their head that Ukraine is NOT our ally and never was. Or that the Ukraine can have peace anytime they wish by giving up the Crimea and letting the two breakaway republics go. Oh, and respecting Russian minority rights and not joining NATO.
Some very stupid people, some who like Mike Sylwester fantasize about the 2013 "Ukrainian Presidential Election" that never actually happened, have a hard time getting it throught their heads that Putin IS our enemy, and always will be.
Ukraine can have "peace" any time it's willing to let Russia violate the 1994 agreement for Russia to respect Ukraine's borders and start the process of dismembering it, while making sure not to get any allies, so that Russia can come back and finish the destruction of Ukraine at a later date.
I mean, it's not like Hitler wanted more of Czechoslovakia than the Sudetenland, right?
And, having violated one agreement to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity, it's not like Putin would ever violate a newer agreement, right?
So, I guess the question RC is this:
Is it that you really are that stupid and historically ignorant?
Or is it that you just think we are?
"There's no evidence that Putin is trying to resurrect the Russian Empire. "
This is only true if you don't follow Putin's speeches as published in Russian media.
Closing your eyes to evidence is not the same as evidence not existing.
Dugin the satanist. In the literal sense.
doctrev said...
It's actually quite simple. Most people aren't as wedded to their racial theories as Hitler was. If Ukrainian civilians continue to violently resist Putin while flogging Russia for killing civilians, they can count on the Chechnya solution- have cities completely flattened until Ukraine cries uncle.
1: Ukraine hasn't been carrying out errorist attacks on Russia the way the Chechens did
2: Ukraine can easily be supplied with heavy weapons (Javelin anti-tank and Stinger anti-air weapons both count as "heavy weapons" in this context)
3: Russia wasn't under economy ending sanctions for attacking Chechnya.
So, other than the fact that the situation is completely different, I'm sure the outcomes will be entirely the same
"Did we expand NATO eastward while Gorbachev was premier?"
This is the kind of sophistry which rightly prevents Putin from trusting us, and no future Russian leader will trust us either, but you go ahead, it's only WW3.
I forgot one: "The only good Russian is a dead Russian."
It's a little late for "the butcher of Mariupol" to curry favor with the Ukrainians
Have you seen any of the video of interviews with the people coming out of there? It is a majority Russian city that the Ukrainian govt sent Nazis to occupy. Those interviews comport with the interviews of the people there since the coup we fomented in Ukraine in 2014, which put those Neo Nazis in power. Like I said, ignorance is strength, and the more ignorant you are of the recent history of Ukraine, the more likely you are to adapt the US party line.
But if you enjoy the warm tender embrace of a loving Big Brother, it's best not to know any history. Right now the Ukrainians are publishing video of their own war crimes in Donbass, from 2015, where they used white phosphorus on civilians, and claiming it's the Russians doing it today. It helps to be ignorant to buy this stuff.
Afghanistan was a stable democracy before the Soviets fomented a coup there and installed a communist government, we (Biden's paymasters) made the same gambit in Ukraine, and look at it now.
"a Mariupol eyewitness says that Mariupol theatre was blown up by Ukrainian Azov Battalion and was not bombed from air."
The Neo Nazis blew up the theater to try to drag us into the war, WWIII. The truth will eventually out, when nobody cares any longer, but I am sure that the people who suppressed Hunter Biden's laptop, and Joe Biden's Ukrainian corruption are giving you the straight truth.
rcocean said...
As for the state of the war. Putin only committed 300,000 troops and is trying to keep military and civilian losses to a reasonable level.
So, what your'e saying is that you're a complete and utter ignoramus abotu military matters.
The entire Russia Army is just 1 million troops.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/29-largest-armies-in-the-world.html
Russia has earned an excellent reputation for having a well-trained and powerful army. Currently, it is ranked fifth as far as the largest armies in the world go. Its army is made up of personnel aged between 18 and 27, and it currently has 1,013,628 soldiers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Ground_Forces
Size 280,000 active duty
Every troop Russia can spare, and a bunch they probably can't, is currently in Ukraine.
If China started a border provocation right now, Russia has squat they can use to stop it
Somehow I don't think the Russians of the time viewed Mongol conquest as a "cultural exchange."
"he described Ukraine as a 'colony with a puppet regime,' "
Is that true or not? Joe Biden fired their attorney general for hassling his son's client.
Putin is a strongman ruler who rules by intimidation and helps himself to his country's wealth, just like the Ukrainian regime. If you think I think that Putin is a good guy because I believe that this war could have been averted on terms that would have been acceptable to nearly everyone but the neocons like Liz Cheney and the Nazis in Ukraine.
I am sure that if we manage to defeat Russia within such a short distance of Moscow, they will take it like good sports, and not a single one of those 6,000 nukes will be launched, because our propaganda will prevent it. Instead, they will overthrow Putin and ask Victoria Nuland who should replace him, and Hunter Biden will be taking bids on Russia's vast resources, with only 10% held for "the Big Guy."
How many Ukrainians should die to give Putin a bloody nose? A lot of Democrats see this war as payback for the Trump presidency, which we now know Putin had nothing to do with, but no matter, Ukrainians are poor and their lives are cheap.
All three sides want the Nazis in Mariupol dead, the Ukrainians hope to salvage some propaganda value from their "heroic deaths," but this is gonna be Fallujah all over again.
If they don't reinflate the empire soon, there won't be anyone alive whose experience reminds them it needs to be reinflated.
I can understand Americans being wary of our getting too involved in the fate of Ukraine. It's a long way away, and who here really understands the issues. That said, I don't see how anyone can take a pro-Putin stance. There are over three million refugees. I don't know what's propaganda and what's news, but when people pack their belongings into a suitcase and flee, you may be certain that they are sincere about their wish to avoid Russian rule. Likewise irregulars who, with a minimum of military training, go out to risk and, frequently, suffer death against the invaders, you may be sure that they are also sincere.....Putin invaded Ukraine. His invasion, to date, has not been as brutish as the Russian invasion of Germany (or the German invasion of Russia), but,by contemporary standards, it's pretty awful and something to be forcefully condemned.
"I don't know what's propaganda and what's news,"
You should have stopped right there.
But yeah, Putin doesn't want to take over / conquer / fight the whole world, and isn't a threat to anyone outside of Russia.
What Putin fantasizes and what he can accomplish are two completely different things. The people who say that Poland is next are just trying to stir up greater NATO involvement in the Ukraine invasion.
Tim in Vermont: "Have you seen any of the video of interviews with the people coming out of there? It is a majority Russian city that the Ukrainian govt sent Nazis to occupy."
Yes I have, and to a person they have expressed support for Zelensky and the Ukrainian government - to a person! - and also condemned the civilian slaughter by the Russians. Your ravings about "Nazis" and apologies for Ruskie war crimes are disingenuous and despicable. Don't know why you are so focused on defending Putin in the face of overwhelming evidence of Ruskie atrocities from multiple different international organizations and reporters with no axe to grind, but your unflinching defense of Putin is cowardly.
Brutish invasions and occupations are kind of a cultural tradition in the Eurasian land mass. This is the land of Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, Ivan the Terrible, and Stalin. Putin is referring back to these hallowed traditions.....I never understood serfdom. Was serfdom an institution imported from the west or, rather, was the abolition of serfdom something done in response to western pressure?...The knout was uniquely Eurasian. They used the knout and not the cat o' nine tails. I'm sure it was not day at the beach being flogged with a cat o' nine tails, but such a punishment inflicted pain but not death. Those who suffered more than just a few blows from the knout had a fair chance of dying....There's not a lot in Eurasian history and traditions that's worth embracing.
Michael said...
Somehow I don't think the Russians of the time viewed Mongol conquest as a "cultural exchange."
=========
nor did anyone in Americas wrt Europeans
I hope the US has a long enough attention span to continue supplying the Ukrainians with arms, money, intelligence, sanctions and sanctuary for however long they want to keep fighting to drive the Russian army out of their country.
Weak minded people have been bombarded with social media psyops facilitated by Fox News and the Trump crime family to soften up the US in coordination with Putin the Great's territorial ambitions. He was hoping Trump could hamstring NATO, but he failed. Once the election was lost, Trump launched the stop the steal January Sixers insurrection in an attempt to trigger a civil war. Next, his dark money backers funded the Canadian Truckers protests to trigger an American onslaught of Trucks to goad Biden into a violent overreacting military action to trigger the deplorables into Civil War.
All these subversive actions failed. However, Trump convinced Putin that the US would stay neutral and Europe was a bit much of weak women and soyboys and would shrink from a Blitzkrieg of Ukraine.
All of these strategies and tactics failed. Now Trump and Fox are sticking with their Putin propaganda campaign which is also failing. However, there are still millions of brainwashed deplorables fuelling echo chambers on social media in support of the Putin plan to make Russia Great Again.
This too is a giant failure.
tim in vermont:
"This is the kind of sophistry which rightly prevents Putin from trusting us, and no future Russian leader will trust us either, but you go ahead, it's only WW3."
I was being a wiseass, to point out what seems like a have-it-both-ways contradiction. You point out a promise you say we made (news to me) to the leader of a government that no longer actually exists. You elide the promise Russia made to an entity that still does. They got what they wanted, then invaded anyway when it suited them.
By the way, Gorbachev disagrees with you. We don't come away faultless here, but the history is a bit different than Putin alleges:
"M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it.
"Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled. The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been observed all these years. So don’t portray Gorbachev and the then-Soviet authorities as naïve people who were wrapped around the West’s finger. If there was naïveté, it was later, when the issue arose. Russia at first did not object."
2014 Interview with Gorbachev
But yeah, my flippant response in the Althouse comments section is exactly why the former KGB man doesn't trust us. He'd be ready to trust us if we'd just stop aggressing against Russia. And all we have to do is swallow his self-serving lies, and when he invades a neighbor say they probably had it coming, and look for how it's our fault. Do you believe Russia, and specifically Putin, have any agency at all?
"it's only WW3"
I want to avoid that as much as you do. I also assign primary blame for this invasion to the man who ordered it.
USA - Ukraine funsies or shenanigans&adventures
is this relevant ; credible ?
I’d fuck a TERF if she was cute
Just a reminder that by some accounts, the trans gaze is the male gaze
"Its frustrating that all the military analysis in the MSM is either Ukrainian propaganda or superficial guesswork."
There are other possibilities, too, you know. It could be that they are reporting facts and all the propaganda is coming from your side, the Russians. I have no dog in this hunt, other than I'm opposed to making women and children suffer through combat and deprivation; so I lean toward placing the lion's share of the blame on the ones who assembled an army on the border of another country and then invaded it.
tim in vermont said...
"Did we expand NATO eastward while Gorbachev was premier?"
"This is the kind of sophistry which rightly prevents Putin from trusting us, and no future Russian leader will trust us either, but you go ahead, it's only WW3."
It isn't sophistry. It's a legitimate question. Why should we care if Putin trusts us or not? He should worry if we trust him and obviously we don't. Care to address why? Never mind. I will. In all those former counties in eastern Europe that the soviet empire used to own the native inhabitants were second class citizens. In the Baltic States, Poland, Hungary, Germany etc. the elite were Russians who treated the locals as subordinate. Is it any wonder the first act of independence was to ask for protection via NATO.
Ukraine, no matter how corrupt, has the right to exist. As a soveriegn nation has every right not to be invaded.
"All three sides want the Nazis in Mariupol dead, the Ukrainians hope to salvage some propaganda value from their "heroic deaths," but this is gonna be Fallujah all over again."
No, it's Stalingrad all over again with the Ruskies playing the Nazi role, i.e., laying siege to a city, reducing it to rubble, refusing to let the civilians leave or attacking them as they try. In other words, they starve the women and children along with their foe. Fallujah was hand-to-hand urban combat pursued with the intent of minimizing civilian casualties by allowing civilians to escape. Besides, if you're going to fight in an urban environment, it's best to not create so much rubble to be used as defensive positions. If, on the other other hand you're just looking to kill people and destroy real estate with minimum casualties of your own you lay back and kill inhabitants indescriminately using long range artillery. Which is what the Ruskies are doing.
You really don't shit about warfare do you?
I see comments saying NATO is defensice treaty - True or False based on evidence?
educate me.
"Let's look at every reason but the expansion of a hostile and aggressive military alliance to Russia's border, …"
What difference does it make where the NATO boundary is? Nobody thinks NATO would, under any circumstance, invade Russia. Even Putin knows that. The idea is laughable.
The 2014 Biden/Maidan/Slavic Spring in the Spring world series from Tripoli to Kiev, disenfranchised, denied essential services, sustained assaults targeting Ukrainians by a Kiev-aligned military and paramilitary axis, and operates Wuhan-style biohazardous labs, too. 8 years... 33 trimesters since the West aided and abetted the birth of a civil war in Ukraine. 33 trimesters that Zelensky et al failed to offer reconciliation and remediation to the Ukrainians affected, and either close or open the labs to international inspection.
"I also assign primary blame for this invasion to the man who ordered it."
I assign the primary blame to the guy who didn't pick up the phone and make a deal after threatening Russia. If you refuse to look at a map, and see how strategically important Ukraine is to Russia, then it becomes plain why you want to simplify away all of the relevant factors in this conflict.
But if you want to look at first actors in this crisis, look no further than the coup that we backed that installed this government , ended Ukraine's neutrality, and set the country on a course for war with Russia.
"As a soveriegn nation has every right not to be invaded."
Moamar Khadafy could not be reached for comment. As a sovereign state, Ukraine had every right not to be subjected to a US coup that started a nasty civil war.
All of your comments pretend that the coup was not of America's doing.
Wow, the Putinistas commenting here are sure going insane;
'Doctrev' very explicitly so;
"they can count on the Chechnya solution- have cities completely flattened until Ukraine cries uncle. "
Translation: it isn't a war crime when doctorov's side is doing it and Putin has the right to do it anyway.
"The sheer level of betrayal from every European country including the Swiss will put paid to further Westernization efforts."
The European reaction on the Russian invasion and rape of the Ukraine (how many times the last 100 hundred years has that been) constitute a 'robbing'. How dare those Western untermenschen disagree with Putin the Great.
As for Timmie, that one has gone from 'surrender monkey' 'the Ukraine should just surrender for the sake of the world' (paraphrasing the comments I read from him after Putin rattled Russia's nuclear arsenal) to full blown Putin propagandist.
And there are those who repeat that Putin isn't Hitler and doesn't want the conquer the world. Regardless what BS this kind of comparisons are (*) not being as bad as Hitler doesn't excuse Putin/Russia or any other criminal regime.
And to remind those schiff-for-brains, the Ukraine is a sovereign country, a country which hasn't broken international law and has no UN resolutions for criminal actions against it (unlike Iraq under Saddam) and a country which poses no threat against its neighbors (except perhaps by simply existing). ...
If Russia's actions are allowed to succeed then there is no 'International law' or 'International community' based on said law and everything is up for grabs.
Btw, interesting to notice the Kafkian contrast between doctrev and timmie. The one glorifying in crimes against humanity "cities completely flattened" and the other justifying the invasion by accusing the Ukraine of the same kind of crimes (but strangely undocumented even by Russian propaganda) against the breakaway republics (now with the use of 'white phosphorus artillery for eight years' retroactively added. I suppose should Russia use a tactical nuclear weapon then Timmie will write something like 'the Ukraine has used tactical nuclear weapons for the last eight years ...').
(*) For instance, Stalin wasn't Hitler either, only just as bad. And if wanting to conquer the world constitutes being 'Hitler' than even Hitler wasn't 'Hitler'
"Trump crime family to soften up the US in coordination with Putin "
LOL, this is how propaganda works, Howard knows that Biden is caught dead to rights and all he has against Trump are accusatione that never pan out, no matter the resources put into the investigation, so he lashes out to muddy the waers.
Nobody who has believed the proven false accusations in Russiagate, that were repeated incessantly by this same media you guys all seem to believe, can approach this conflict with clear head. There is simply too much pride involved to allow the admission that a person swallowed Rachael Maddow's lies. Howard probably thinks that this war is about punishing Putin for Trump's election and no amount of dead Ukrainians is too many.
"The people who say that Poland is next are just trying to stir up greater NATO involvement in the Ukraine invasion."
As The New York Times put it in about 1990: "Nato expansion east is a bonanza for arms dealers."
Resistance at scale from Ukrainians would indeed be a big rebuttal. I know that’s supposed to be what I’m seeing on all the tv channels, but I’m not yet persuaded the resistance is particularly Ukrainian. We’ve gotten good at this cloak and dagger and other aspects of the bullshit business. I bet Ketanji Brown would have less trouble defining a Ukrainian than a woman.
"Ukrainians" and trans "women" stomping all over Women’s History Month. No safe spaces.
"Yes I have, and to a person they have expressed support for Zelensky and the Ukrainian government "
Now limit your search to prior to this war, 2014 to 2020.
“Weak minded people have been bombarded with social media psyops facilitated by Fox News and the Trump crime family to soften up the US in coordination with Putin the Great's territorial ambitions. He was hoping Trump could hamstring NATO, but he failed.”
Well said! Everyday reading these threads one can see how little by little the right is moving toward outrightly siding with Putin and believing his propaganda. I’ve asked many times over the years of reading and commenting here…what is wrong with you people? It heartening to see several conservative commenters who seem to not have fallen prey to Putin, Fox, Trump disinformation and are resisting Putin’s agenda.
""There's no evidence that Putin is trying to resurrect the Russian Empire. "
This is only true if you don't follow Putin's speeches as published in Russian media."
I am completely against the West getting directly involved in this thing. As I have said before, a shooting war between nuclear powers is a really stupid idea. No matter how hard you try to limit such a conflict to conventional weapons, the temptation of the losing side to go nuclear is too great.
That being said, I think we can dispense with the "Putin is the real victim here" bullshit. He invaded a sovereign nation because said nation was thinking about joining an alliance he didn't like. That sovereign nation was thinking about it because they feared (correctly) Putin might invade them. His army is the one shelling and bombing civilians. His army is the one that is trying to occupy a country not theirs. Whatever justifications Putin might have had for his actions, the invasion made mute.
tim in vermont said...
Let's look at every reason but the expansion of a hostile and aggressive military alliance to Russia's border, because if we look at Putin's stated reasons, which every foreign policy expert who wasn't a neocon took for granted since we promised Gorbachov not to expand NATO east, that makes us the baddies, therefore we do these Putin mind reading exercises to avoid dealing with our own culpability in this matter.
So much bullshit in so little space.
1:Every single country on Russia's border is either hostile to it, or a slave of it. Because Russia is a hostile and expansive empire that only stops expanding when it's militarily forced to
2: If NATO were an "aggressive" military alliance, then sometime in he last 30 years NATO would have attacked the incredibly weak Russia.
But NATO never did, now did it?
3: If we look at Putin's actions, and compare them to his stated reasons and other statements, we know that he doesn't want Ukraine in NAO because he wants to dominate and engulf Ukraine, which would be impossible if Ukraine was part of NATO.
The Baltic States are all on the Russian border, and part of NATO. Do tell us all the attacks launched on Russia by this "hostile and aggressive military alliance" on Russia's border.
Gee, you mean their hasn't been a single one?
Gee, you mean Putin's spreading utter bullshit when he claims that NATO being on Russia's border would be a military threat to Russia, rather than just an impediment to Russia bullying its neighbors?
Russia's border is NATO's manifest destiny, right?
Tim, you're sitting here arguing that the entirety of Eastern Europe is Russia's manifest destiny, of, I
m sorry, "sphere of influence".
So cut the bullshit, ok?
Or is it just that once you cut the bullshit, there's nothing left?
The people of every single country not part of Russia have an absolute moral and legal right not to be run from Russia.
Stop fighting to sell them into Russia slavery
we promised Gorbachov not to expand NATO east
Really? When was that treaty signed? I certainly don't remember it.
Who is "we"?
How does that "promise" compare to Russia's "promise" to honor Ukraine's borders in exchange for Ukraine giving up nukes?
Why did the Ukrainians undertake an offensive operation into Donbass
Because it's part of their country that Russia is trying to steal, and as a sovereign country they have every right in the world to fight to drive out the Russian invaders.
You do really that Russian "promise" to respect Ukraine's borders, right?
you don't claim that supporting a separatist movement in Donbass qualifies as Russia keeping its promise, right?
Now the US strategy, cheered on here, is to drag out the war to maximize Russia's losses, no matter the cost in Ukrainian lives.
No, the US strategy is victory.
People who aren't pathetic losers do understand taht concept. Why don't you?
Oh, wait, you DO understand "victory". it's just that you're bound and determined to see Putin win, not the people of Ukraine
This is the kind of sophistry which rightly prevents Putin from trusting us, and no future Russian leader will trust us either, but you go ahead, it's only WW3.
Are you seriously trying to claim that anyone, anywhere, can ever trust any Russia ruler?
"Russia" is a patchwork of cultures created by the expansion in the 19C of the Russian empire. How much should it give up of what it seized; how much is really Russia? The Ukraine lies along the Dnieper and Russian Christianity came from Constantinople up along the Dnieper making Kiev its major center. Later the center moved to Moscow and Moscow was the center when the Empire expanded east and south and when the Communists ruled. Moscow caused the Ukrainian famine.
This history can be pulled around to mean anything - it can mean that the Ukraine, the original founding center of Russia, is an integral part of Russia or it can mean that the Russian empire ruling from Moscow is a separate entity. For instance, suppose England was geographically contingent to the US - would we be entitled to say that England was a natural part of the US and must join us? Or have we had separate histories caused by the American Revolution and other history?
Russia is re-upping for empire so it emphasizes former connections to the Ukraine. And the Ukraine wishes to go toward democracy so it emphasizes former separations from the Empire. The former connections mean that Russia can't treat the Ukraine as it did Islamic Chechnya. You can't pose as the defender of the Russian Orthodox faith and flatten Kiev, the historic center of that faith and other ancient sites scattered through the Ukraine. The caliph can't bomb Mecca and Constantinople. However Putin-of-the Empire can bomb civilian entities such as apartment buildings, and hospitals and he's doing it. The Ukrainians are willing to fight under these conditions to keep a society tending toward democracy.
But why are we in this contention? We learned from Hitler that authoritarian governments are unbelievably evil. They torture, they jail, beat up and murder for holding opposing opinions, politics or religions. And they expand their evil. So, ignore the victims' screams from down the street and soon they're at your gate. We founded NATO to hold back one such government which was Communist and located in Russia and now we're battling with another such government which is empire-driven and located in Russia.
The conflict between authoritarian governments and democracy won't go away because we don't want to think about it. As has been said: silence is violence, meaning silence enables violence and this applies to the Ukraine.
And this isn't a case of the RINOs being right. Trump stated in his interview on Sunday that his administration transferred Javelins to the Ukraine and that he'd "do more" if he were President but that Putin wouldn't have invaded had he been President. The RINOs weakened Trump and helped bring in Biden the Bewildered, the Dem choice to lead us in a dangerous world. Putin, already determined to expand but temporally halted by Trump's rebuild of the US Army, saw an aged incompetent as an opportunity and ... here we are.
This isn't the war we want, but we have to help the Ukraine because this is that war we've got.
rcocean said...
There's no evidence that Putin is trying to resurrect the Russian Empire. And frankly, its none of business if he does. All the Countries that became independent in 1990s did so because Moscow allowed it. Its their backyard.
You are a disgusting piece of shit
"Oh, fuck those Eastern Europeans! Yeah, they were enslaved by Hitler, then Stalin came along and enslaved them again. If Putin wants to enslave them now, then they can all just burn!"
NATO on Russia's border is only a "threat" to Putin's desire to "resurrect the Russian Empire".
Since Putin claims Ukraine in NATO IS a threat, we therefore have not merely evidence but solid proof that Putin is trying to resurrect the Russian Empire.
Since Putin has spent his entire time as dictator of Russia as an enemy of the US, it is quite obviously in our best interests to not let him recreate said empire.
Ukraine, the Baltic States, Poland, etc. are not "Russia's back yard". The Urals are "Russia's back yard.
Those places are independent countries with citizens who have an absolute right not to be dominated or enslaved by Russia.
They get a vote, Putin doesn't
TheOne Who Is Not Obeyed said...
The funniest thing about the whole Russia-Ukraine war was how quickly pretend conservatives and libertarians have shown themselves to be philosophically aligned with the hate America first lefties. It's all the US' fault, or the West's fault - anybody but Putin's. But Putin gave the orders to invade. That's the line of demarcation.
I'd say "sad", or "pathetic" rather than "funny", but other than that you're spot on
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/03/23/putin-orders-europe-to-pay-rubles-for-russian-gas-a77053
Medvedev is the one stirring up the threats to Poland. Again, you Putin cucks preach the best way to respond to a bully is to blame the victims and defenders for their existence. Your battered wife syndrome is showing. You are becoming an increasingly isolated and reviled minority. Keep digging because it only steels the resolve of ordinary people of the Free World.
"an eccentric geographer"?
tim in vermont said...
Putin is a strongman ruler who rules by intimidation and helps himself to his country's wealth, just like the Ukrainian regime
Bullshit
Ukraine is corrupt. Not as corrupt as Russia but yes, it's corrupt.
They have their current President because there IS no "strongman" in Ukraine like there's Putin in Russia.
Ukraine has never practiced the sort of "murder anyone who disagrees with the government, block any opposition parties from having any ability to reach the public" methods of Putin.
And Ukraine has never invaded any of the countries on its border.
If you think I think that Putin is a good guy because I believe that this war could have been averted on terms that would have been acceptable to nearly everyone but the neocons like Liz Cheney and the Nazis in Ukraine.
Not, I think you're an asshole because everyone with a functioning brain knows that what Putin's demanding is the dismemberment of Ukraine, banning Ukraine from getting any allies in the future, to be followed by the absorption of the rest of Ukraine into Russia, either by corruption or by invasion.
Which is to say, "all" Putin is demanding is the destruction of Ukraine as an independent country.
You are fucked up beyond compare when you claim that only a Ukrainian Nazi would oppose that
Oh, wait, let me guess, Tim Trudeau believes that everyone fighting against teh Russian invaders is a "Ukrainian Nazi"
You disgust me
Maynard said...
Me: But yeah, Putin doesn't want to take over / conquer / fight the whole world, and isn't a threat to anyone outside of Russia.
What Putin fantasizes and what he can accomplish are two completely different things. The people who say that Poland is next are just trying to stir up greater NATO involvement in the Ukraine invasion.
Did you never take a class that covered 20th Century European history at all, or did you flunk it?
If you let Putin conquer and absorb Ukraine, that makes Putin more powerful. Oh, and now he shares a border with Poland, which used to be part of Russia, and is now part of NATO, so it's a major threat that must be dealt with.
The time to deal with an expansionist dictator is BEFORE he accumulates enough power to harm you, not after.
Let's turn it around:
What is going to stop Putin from expanding Russia and conquering whatever countries have the misfortune to currently be near his Greater Russian Empire?
Unless your answer is something other than "Putin's death" or "enough military force protecting those countries so that Russia can no longer expand", then the correct time to block any expansion is right now
Narayanan said...
I see comments saying NATO is defensice treaty - True or False based on evidence?
educate me.
Why don't you educate us, instead?
Name the times that NATO has invaded another country
Name the times that NATO, like the Warsaw Pact, invaded a member country to overthrow its government and replace it with one more subservient to the rulers of NATO
When Serbia was at war with its neighbors, NATO bombed Serbia until it stopped making war on its neighbors. it didn't invade Serbia, didn't overthrow the Serbian government and replace it with a more congenial one
Which countries live under the threat of a NATO invasion, and what defense positions have they set up to make it harder for NATO to invade?
If you come up with "I don't know of any" as your answers to my questions, then NATO is a defensive alliance, no?
"to full blown Putin propagandist."
It's unbelievable to me that the facts as they were known and widely accepted in the West up until four weeks ago looks like Putin propaganda. But Greenwald is right, war goes right to some primitive part of people's brain, and lots of people, deep down, love it. Lot's of people get a lot of vicarious pleasure out of watching the suffering of those plucky Ukrainians and those evil Russian Orcs, even if consciously it feels like it makes them "sad." Why do people pay good money to go to sad movies? Because they like it.
Are you not entertained?
Nobody here cares about the 2014 coup the US backed in Ukraine, when Biden was in charge of Ukraine, ending its former neutrality, or they would have a better response than name calling and cries of traitor. Whatever, the truth will out in the end, no point arguing about stuff in this blizzard of lies. Just don't ask me to line up behind Joe Biden and his throne of lies, when he treated the corrupt sewer that is Ukraine as his personal piggy bank.
It looks like Belarus, according to Bloomberg, is going to enter the war to cut off NATO arms shipments from Poland. Sounds like another escalation.
tim in vermont said...
"The people who say that Poland is next are just trying to stir up greater NATO involvement in the Ukraine invasion."
As The New York Times put it in about 1990: "Nato expansion east is a bonanza for arms dealers."
So, Tim's go to sources are Putin and the New York Times?
That explains a lot.
I'll list here the open questions that Tim has avoided answering, because they rip his position to shreds:
1: Where / when / how did "we" "promise" Gorbachev that "NATO won't expand East"?
2: Who are "arms dealers" who got massively rich on NATO's eastward expansion? Last I checked, Poland still has a bunch of MiGs, rather than American replacement planes
3: Once Putin gets the three parts of Ukraine he currently is publicly asking for, and gets Ukraine forced to be "neutral", which is to say to not have any allies to help protect it from Russian invasion, what is there to keep Putin from later invading Ukraine and taking over the rest of the country?
His promise? You know, like Russia promised to respect Ukraine's borders in 1994?
Lacking such a guarantee, what's the difference between Ukraine "accepting Putin's deal", and unconditional surrender?
Links with solid details or it didn't happen
tim in vermont said...
"Yes I have, and to a person they have expressed support for Zelensky and the Ukrainian government "
Now limit your search to prior to this war, 2014 to 2020.
So, that is really funny.
Tim says "it's those damn Ukrainian Nazis who are making things so bad in Mariupol. Just look at what the people coming out of there have to say!"
So jay dub DOES look, and reports that they're not complaining about "that son of a bitch LBJ", I mean "Ukrainian Nazis", they're complaining about Putin.
So, rather than attempt to provide us links to people saying what Tim previously claimed they were saying, he moves the goalposts to before Putin's invasion.
WTF is wrong with you, Tim?
"Now limit your search to prior to this war, 2014 to 2020"
We're talking about this war, Feb 24 through today. If you want to go back in history, why not go all the way to 1938/39 to the Holodomor and Russia's participation in Stalin's intentional starvation of 3.9 million Ukrainians? That makes anything perpetrated on the Ruskies by the Ukrainians absolutely trivial by comparison, but no doubt explains the contempt many Ukrainians have for the Ruskies. Inconvenient for you, I realize, but very much germane to the situation.
daskol said...
Resistance at scale from Ukrainians would indeed be a big rebuttal. I know that’s supposed to be what I’m seeing on all the tv channels, but I’m not yet persuaded the resistance is particularly Ukrainian. We’ve gotten good at this cloak and dagger and other aspects of the bullshit business.
Well, now, that's impressively lunatic
So Russia's 300,000 invading soldiers are being stopped by "clock and dagger" CIA agents?
But for some strange reason Russia doesn't have any video evidence of this, at all, to share with the world to show that the peaceful Ukrainian people are really welcoming their Russian brothers as liberators?
On a serious note:
I haven't seen any Russian produced video of the locals "welcoming their Russian liberators with open arms and cheers".
Nothing from Eastern Ukraine, supposedly holding all those "ethnic Russians who are desperate to be part of Holy Mother Russia", showing the people celebrating.
Tim? Syl? daskol? rcocean?
Any of you Putin stooges have anything that purports to show anyone welcoming the Russian Army?
Or are you all just "Ukrainians are only NPCs, the have no rights, and don't matter"?
As The New York Times put it in about 1990: "Nato expansion east is a bonanza for arms dealers."
Am I the only one who notices Tim continually disparages the press, US and World varieties, as propagandists and war mongers until he comes across a press quote that he likes, whereupon he cites the same "propagandists and warm mongers" to justify his opinions? I guess when you have already stooped to take the side of the aggressors who are murdering a neighbor's elderly, women and children it's too late to try to maintain any type of intellectual integrity. Better to just spray bullshit across the page and hope no one calls you out.
From his lips to God's ears.
Tim from Vermont on CNN.
The most quoted "Russia Experts" in the media said the Steele Dossier was credible and Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian Disinformation.
well there are more basic and immutable facts, like the terrain has rarely been conducive to mounting an operation like this, the German offensive that happened a week earlier in 43, is the exception,
"NATO is neither hostile nor aggressive."
NATO bombed Russia's ally in Serbia. OK, NATO didn't invade, but it still caused damage.
The West/NATO supported the breakup of Serbia when Kosovo and Montenegro went their own ways.
NATO bombed Russia's ally in Libya.
The US has bombed Russia's ally in Syria.
NATO has wanted to put missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic, ostensibly to protect against Iran, but which could have other purposes.
The US supported the overthrow of a democratically elected President in Ukraine who was friendly to Russia in 2014.
Political rhetoric in the US for the past several years has been relentlessly anti-Russian.
If I'm Russian, I might be inclined to think that the West/NATO/US is hostile and sometimes aggressive.
Understanding the other side's point of view doesn't mean you agree with it, but it is something you should attempt to do. Maybe if our so called foreign policy experts had done so, things could have taken a different path.
The Ukrainians have resisted for over 8 years, more than 32 trimesters, the Slavic Spring, the regular and paramilitary forces of diversity, inequity, and exclusion, and operators of Wuhan-style labs.
Chris Lopes said...
I am completely against the West getting directly involved in this thing. As I have said before, a shooting war between nuclear powers is a really stupid idea. No matter how hard you try to limit such a conflict to conventional weapons, the temptation of the losing side to go nuclear is too great.
That being said, I think we can dispense with the "Putin is the real victim here" bullshit.
Hey Tim, Mike, rcocean, Achillies, etc. et. al:
Chris's post here is how you oppose US involvement without being a wretched creature or Putin suckup.
I have disagreements with what Chris wrote there. But those disagreements don't make him evil, twisted, sick, or a moron.
Pretending that Putin's the victim here, OTOH, does
tim in vermont said...
Nobody here cares about the 2014 coup the US backed in Ukraine
I care about it.
Was in favor of it then, and I'm even more in favor of it now.
Since there's so many lies about what happened, let's review the actual history, shall we?
Viktor Yanukovych was elected President of Ukraine in 2010
He took office, and acted as President over the next 3 years.
However:
In 2004, Constitutional amendments were adopted that significantly changed Ukraine's political system; these changes are sometimes referred to as the 2004 Constitution. In 2010, then-President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych reverted these changes on the basis of a ruling made by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. Following the events of Euromaidan, the 2004 amendments were reinstated.
This is not what we call a law-abiding President who respects the system.
In February 2013, the Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian parliament) overwhelmingly approved finalizing a political association and free trade agreement with the European Union (EU).
In November 2013, a wave of large-scale protests (known as Euromaidan) erupted in response to President Yanukovych's sudden decision not to sign the agreement, instead choosing closer ties to Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union.
So, first he uses a corrupt "Court" to toss out 6 years old Constitutional changes that decreased his power, then he decides to unilaterally give the finger to the people of Ukraine and try to force them into closer association with Putin's Russia
He's "head of Country", NOT "head of State". He had no legitimate business trying to do that
The Revolution of Dignity (Ukrainian: Революція гідності, romanized: Revoliutsiia hidnosti), also known as the Maidan Revolution,[2] took place in Ukraine in February 2014[2][1] at the end of the Euromaidan protests,[1] when deadly clashes between protesters and the security forces in the Ukrainian capital Kyiv culminated in the ousting of elected President Viktor Yanukovych and the overthrow of the Ukrainian government.[1][2]
Translate "deadly clashes between protesters and the security forces" as Yanukovych tried to murder the protesters into submission, but failed.
But yeah, it was all just an "illegitimate Obama coup"
Blogger JaimeRoberto said...
"NATO is neither hostile nor aggressive."
NATO bombed Russia's ally in Serbia. OK, NATO didn't invade, but it still caused damage.
Gee, why was it that NATO bombed Serbia? Was it because the Serbians misgendered Hillary?
Or was it because Serbia was engaging in war against its neighbors, wars the Serbians started, and NATO was trying to force them to stop the slaughter?
The West/NATO supported the breakup of Serbia when Kosovo and Montenegro went their own ways.
Did the West/NATO sign an agreement promising to respect Yugoslavia's borders?
No
Does Yugoslavia still exist?
No
Was Serbia engaging in acts of war against the people of Kosovo and Montenegro before NATO supported their separation?
Yes
So other than being completely different than what's happening in Ukraine, it's a great point!
/sarc
NATO bombed Russia's ally in Libya.
Gee, would that be after Libya engaged in acts of war against NATO / US troops by supporting terrorist attacks that killed those soldiers?
The US has bombed Russia's ally in Syria.
The US isn't NATO, and the US border already is contiguous with Russia's
NATO has wanted to put missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic, ostensibly to protect against Iran, but which could have other purposes.
By "missiles" you mean "anti-ballistic missile defense systems", yes?
And yes, they could have "other purposes" like keeping the Russians from nuking people.
The horror!
The US supported the overthrow of a democratically elected President in Ukraine who was friendly to Russia in 2014.
Dealt with above.
Political rhetoric in the US for the past several years has been relentlessly anti-Russian.
Putin's been anti-American his entire time in power.
If I'm Russian, I might be inclined to think that the West/NATO/US is hostile and sometimes aggressive.
Of course we're hostile to a despotic kleptocracy that wants to rule the world, and aggressively supports some of the worst and most oppressive governments on the face of the planet.
That just means we're neither stupid nor evil
What we're not going to do, unlike Russia, is invade Russia, or sponsor terrorist organizations in Russia
Understanding the other side's point of view doesn't mean you agree with it, but it is something you should attempt to do. Maybe if our so called foreign policy experts had done so, things could have taken a different path.
I understand their point of view. But I also understand it's utter bullshit
From another thread:
tim in vermont said...
Crimea had a plebiscite in which about 90% of citizens voted and they voted to become part of Russia by nearly 90%.
http://electionresources.org/ua/president.php?election=2010®ion=01
2010 Presidential election vote between Viktor Yanukovych and Yulia Tymoshenko:
February 7, 2010 Runoff Election Results - Autonomous Republic of Crimea
Registered Electors 1,559,474
Voters 1,049,591 67.3%
Invalid Ballots 12,627 1.2%
Against All 34,005 3.2%
Candidate Votes %
Viktor Yanukovych 821,244 78.2
Yulia Tymoshenko 181,715 17.3
So, the idea that 90% of voters came out and voted 90% in favor of separation from Ukraine is so beyond ludicrous that we're at a "no thinking person can believe those results are honest" state of affairs.
WTF Tim?
Did you never take a class that covered 20th Century European history at all, or did you flunk it?
If you let Putin conquer and absorb Ukraine, that makes Putin more powerful. Oh, and now he shares a border with Poland, which used to be part of Russia, and is now part of NATO, so it's a major threat that must be dealt with.
LOL. There is nothing like an indignant neocon.
I grew up on 20th Century European history, so the classes were easy. My father (born in 1920 Europe) fought in WWII and escaped Communism by coming to America. So, I really have to laugh an an idiotic neocon who has it all figured out.
Greg, NATO is supposed to be a defensive organization. As such, what was the defensive justification for bombing Serbia? I'm not saying Serbia was a wonderful country, but they did not attack a NATO country. Likewise with Libya, at least at the time we took out Qadafi.
As for missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic, you correctly note that they could be used against Russian missiles. They also could be used to enable a NATO first strike. Like you, I don't think NATO would do that, but if I'm Russian, do I trust NATO to not do so?
"The US isn't NATO". True, but without the US there is no NATO and we are the major driver in the organization.
"Of course we're hostile to a despotic kleptocracy that wants to rule the world." Despotic kleptocracy, agreed. Ukraine is also a kleptocracy, though maybe not despotic. But wants to rule the world? Now who is buying into utter bullshit? A country with a GDP the size of Canada is not going to rule the world. They'll be lucky to rule Ukraine and still hold on to some of their more restive territories.
Destroying everything in Ukraine and making Ukrainians hate Russia is completely inconsistent with the theory
Totalitarianism is inherently self-hatred. Just like Stalin killed his own people, just like Mao killed his own people, just like Hitler in the end chose national suicide for the German people who, he thought, did not live up to what he thought they should be so he was going to scuttle the ship with everyone on it, Putin is perfectly happy to kill the Russian people, beginning with the ethnic Russians who live in Ukraine and consider themselves to be Ukrainians.
making Ukrainians hate Russia
Many Ukrainians already hated Russia due to the Holodomor. That episode also increased their antisemitism due to the identification of Jews with the Russian Communists. Not an entirely fanciful connection, Bela Kun had the same effect in Hungary.
JaimeRoberto said...
If I'm Russian, I might be inclined to think that the West/NATO/US is hostile and sometimes aggressive.
If I'm a Russian, I might be inclined to think that the whole world is hostile, because Russia is the kind of evil country that makes just about everyone else hostile towards them.
The war in Donbas is 8 years old. The conflict about modern Ukraine territory is more than 30 years old. Look at arguments between both sides when they emerged as independent countries after collapse of Soviet Union. Putin is not saying anything new, but simply repeating 30 year old statements.
Perhaps the real question is not what is happening to Russia. Perhaps the real question is what is happening to the West?
yes qadaffis fall, despite the fact he cooperated with us, bled from the sahara to the niger river delta, lets ignore that edwin wilson supplied muammar with the full consent of the chief officials at langley,
the decapitation of the previous polish cabinet, the shooting of the Dutch airliner, those were more proximate causes of war, those occured 12 and and 6 years respectively,
War in Ukraine plays on a different movie screen to Indians inhabiting that part of the British Empire
looks sort of like Kashmir as bone of contention between India and Pakistan at partition in 1947 and even now.
USA got in bed with Pakistan and India cuddled with USSR.
"They also could be used to enable a NATO first strike. Like you, I don't think NATO would do that, but if I'm Russian, do I trust NATO to not do so?"
Yes. NATO is not attacking Russia. Period. And unless he's developed dementia (which, I suppose, is possible), Putin knows that.
Maynard said...
LOL. There is nothing like an indignant neocon.
I grew up on 20th Century European history, so the classes were easy. My father (born in 1920 Europe) fought in WWII and escaped Communism by coming to America. So, I really have to laugh an an idiotic neocon who has it all figured out.
There's nothing like a moron who thinks he can substitute insults for arguments (I combine, I don't substitute).
1: Not a neocon
2: WWII came about because the French and British were too pathetic to shut down Hitler when he decided to remilitarize the Rhine
We're now at the "Hitler takes the Sudetenland" level, and you're still arguing that it's all a flash in the pan that will go away if we just calm down.
No, it won't
Blogger JaimeRoberto said...
Greg, NATO is supposed to be a defensive organization. As such, what was the defensive justification for bombing Serbia?
It was attacking other countries that we liked more.
"Defensive"
"Stopping attackers"
If you are raping a woman, I wonder you to stop, and shoot you when you don't stop, that's a "defensive firearm use".
I'm not saying Serbia was a wonderful country, but they did not attack a NATO country. Likewise with Libya, at least at the time we took out Qadafi.
Doesn't matter if they are a good or bad country. Doesn't matter if they're attacking a NATO country.
What matters is they were the military aggressors, and we confined ourselves to stopping their attacks on others.
As for Libya? That was a major F'up by the Obama Admin. I'm not going to even try to justify that one
As for missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic, you correctly note that they could be used against Russian missiles. They also could be used to enable a NATO first strike. Like you, I don't think NATO would do that, but if I'm Russian, do I trust NATO to not do so?
Russia has air launched and sub launched ballistic nuclear nuclear missiles. An ABM system in Poland doesn't let us launch a first strike, it just gives us a chance to shoot down some nuclear missiles launched in a small strike.
Anyone who finds that threatening is someone who should be threatened
"The US isn't NATO". True, but without the US there is no NATO and we are the major driver in the organization.
Yes, but the claim is that "having NATO next door" is a threat. So you can't then honestly switch from "NATO" to "the US"
"Of course we're hostile to a despotic kleptocracy that wants to rule the world." Despotic kleptocracy, agreed. Ukraine is also a kleptocracy, though maybe not despotic.
There's lots of kleptocracies in the world. Ukraine does not want to be a world power, and does not want to set itself up as a worldwide enemy of the US. Heck, it doesn't even want to bow around any of its neighbors.
Russia does
But wants to rule the world? Now who is buying into utter bullshit? A country with a GDP the size of Canada is not going to rule the world. They'll be lucky to rule Ukraine and still hold on to some of their more restive territories.
Every country they take over makes their GDP and power greater.
Russia and Ukraine are two of the world's biggest wheat exporters. Combining them together makes Russia more powerful.
Then they go after the next meal. And the next.
And keep on going until they're stopped
Which means the intelligent thing to do is to stop them now, before they get bigger and harder to stop
There are a lot of us who recognize that in the current Ukraine kerfuffle, as far as GOVERNMENTS go, there are no good guys. The people? Including the soldiers getting killed on both sides? They're mostly good people. In a corrupt system, no matter which army they're in. The civilians getting killed? Boy, it's tough living in a war zone.
Saying there are no good guys is not a popular position- seems supporters of both sides want everyone to take a side, as if we were directly involved. With no clear-cut good guys, why take a side? But I do like what the Ukrainian side is doing. Showing the world that the Russian Army and equipment are crap. Which many of us already knew.
I don't expect to take sides again until and unless the Boogaloo happens. Then everyone here will have to take a side, because not taking a side I'm sorry to say will put you on the other side.
1: Ukraine hasn't been carrying out terrorist attacks on Russia the way the Chechens did
2: Ukraine can easily be supplied with heavy weapons (Javelin anti-tank and Stinger anti-air weapons both count as "heavy weapons" in this context)
3: Russia wasn't under economy ending sanctions for attacking Chechnya.
So, other than the fact that the situation is completely different, I'm sure the outcomes will be entirely the same
3/23/22, 9:37 AM
Russia insists that Ukraine has been attacking Russian-speaking citizens in the Donbas for some time. I'm not certain if that's simple propaganda or genuine concern: for obvious reasons, American news won't have been any more enthusiastic to report it than they would racial murders in South Africa.
I don't have time to dispute everything you've said, but let me just ask: do you read any sources sympathizing with the Russian view of the war? In general, I think the quality of information on Salem Media and CNN is abysmal, but ISW serves as a good starting point, and the French government has some pretty solid maps out. As for the Russians, RT.com and The Saker are very accessible- even if I thought Saker was a loony Russian fanboy even before the war, the fact that his insights are a bit more grounded than David "End of Russia" Frum make him worth reading.
I'm sure people would scream PUTIN for deriving any lessons past the First Chechen War or Afghanistan, but nonetheless Russia has learned a great deal since those wars. The simplest answer as to why that higher tech isn't used is because it's being saved for a shooting war with NATO. The hypersonic missile strike in Lviv was a sign that some of those weapons may not just be hype.
Candide said...
The war in Donbas is 8 years old. The conflict about modern Ukraine territory is more than 30 years old
No, any "conflict about modern Ukraine territory" was settled in 1994 when Ukraine agreed to give up its nukes in exchange for Russia agreeing to the existing borders.
Unless Russia is willing to re-arm Ukrain with nukes, Russia has no claim on any territory or people inside those borders.
Not Crimea
Not Donbass
Not anything
"I'm altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it further" is what you say when you want no one to ever trust you, or make deals with you, ever again. And that's what Russia's trying to pull in Ukraine
Gospace said...
There are a lot of us who recognize that in the current Ukraine kerfuffle, as far as GOVERNMENTS go, there are no good guys
Bzzt, no
On one side (Ukraine) there's crooks.
on the other side (Russia) there's crooks, robbers, rapists, and murderers.
While neither side is good, one side (Ukraine) is infinitely superior to the other (Russia)
Greg The Class Traitor said,
"...any "conflict about modern Ukraine territory" was settled in 1994 when Ukraine agreed to give up its nukes in exchange for Russia agreeing to the existing borders."
You must be referring to the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances signed on December 5, 1994 by the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom, which "included security assurances against the threat or use of force against Ukraine’s territory or political independence. The countries promised to respect the sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine. Parallel memorandums were signed for Belarus and Kazakhstan as well."
Few obvious points:
- No agreement is absolutely unconditional and any agreement presupposes humane and predictable behavior from all parties. For example, if one party to the agreement goes insane and starts doing dangerous things, the other party should have an option to disregard the agreement and maybe even take it upon itself to confront and physically restrain the insane party.
- Please note that I haven't said that Ukraine went insane and became dangerous. So far I only said that any agreements can be respected only up to a certain point. That is what the Budapest Memorandum promised, "to respect the sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine."
- So now the question is, did Ukraine went too far and became dangerous to anybody?
Obviously we have a profound disagreement on this issue here. Some people here think Ukraine committed atrocities in its actions against separatist regions and other people tend to overlook these actions by Ukraine. In my judgement Kiev rulers did commit atrocities against the separatists and I saw many testaments that Ukraine side has its ample share of "robbers, rapists, and murderers". It seems to me that you tend to ignore the issue and whitewash the atrocities perpetrated by Ukrainian side.
This is not intended to justify Russian invasion. My hope is to get to the point where we can agree on basic facts. When one side says, "Look at these atrocities by Ukraine!" and the other side says, "None of that matters because there was a Memorandum on Security Assurances signed on December 5, 1994 so Ukraine can do whatever it wants within its own borders!", we are talking past each other. Only when we agree on basic facts, we can reach a conclusion about Russian actions.
Candide said...
Greg The Class Traitor said,
"...any "conflict about modern Ukraine territory" was settled in 1994 when Ukraine agreed to give up its nukes in exchange for Russia agreeing to the existing borders."
You must be referring to the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances signed on December 5, 1994 by the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom, which "included security assurances against the threat or use of force against Ukraine’s territory or political independence. The countries promised to respect the sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine. Parallel memorandums were signed for Belarus and Kazakhstan as well."
Yep, that would be the one
Few obvious points:
- No agreement is absolutely unconditional and any agreement presupposes humane and predictable behavior from all parties. For example, if one party to the agreement goes insane and starts doing dangerous things, the other party should have an option to disregard the agreement and maybe even take it upon itself to confront and physically restrain the insane party.
That;'s nice.
That's not what happened.
The people of Ukraine threw out a President who decided to:
1: Overstep the bounds of his office
2: Murder the citizens who protested his illegitimate behavior
Russia responded by violating Ukraine's territory and existing borders.
So Russia is obviously and clearly in the wrong. Further, anyone in Ukraine who supported Russia in its 2014 actions committed acts of war while helping Russia to violate the Budapest Agreement
- So now the question is, did Ukraine went too far and became dangerous to anybody?
Obviously we have a profound disagreement on this issue here.
There is no possible reasonable disagreement on this issue. Ukrainians protesting against the Ukrainian President, inside the Capitol city of Ukraine can not possibly be considered an "act against Russia" in respect to teh Accords.
The killings were the pro-Russian President using State Security forces to murder Ukrainian protesters. To the extent that Russia was backing those killings, Russia was in default.
Ukraine was not.
Now, feel free to update my knowledge of history, but I do not recall the new Ukrainian government engaging in programs against Yanukovych supporters once getting rid of him, and before
1: Russian backed separatist movement engaged in violence against Ukrainians and / or
2: Russia invaded
Actions of type 1 would be crimes which the Ukrainian gov't had every right to punish
Actions of type 2 would be a violation of the agreement, thus putting Russia permanently in the wrong.
If you try to rob me, and I shoot you, you don't get to complain, even though shooting you is, in the ordinary course of events, a greater wrong than robbing me. Because by robbing me, you stepped outside the lines that protect you from being shot
Once Russia and / or its agents violated the Budapest Accords, I'm totally uninterested in any crimes they wish to level against Ukraine.
Because criminals don't get to have anyone care about their complaints.
When Russia leaves Ukraine, all the separatist movements are ended, and we return to everyone respecting the territory, political independence, sovereignty, and existing borders of Ukraine, THEN if Ukraine continues to do bad things to non-criminal ethnic Russians in Ukraine will that be of concern.
But so long as they're at war with Ukraine, and trying to dismember it, they get no protection
Here Candide, let me make it really simple:
War sucks
If you start a war, you don't get to complain about how much war sucks
The Russian backed separatist movements in Ukraine were an act of war against Ukraine
The separatist movements were not created in response to atrocities by the government of Ukraine, but merely because they lost a political fight
Once you get a war going, and that's what the Russians did in 2014, you're going to get atrocities. That's why you don't start wars
Russia does not have, and is not entitled to, a "sphere of influence". Because what an SoI means is "the people of the countries in that "sphere" have no right to make political decisions that the "sphere owner" disagrees with.
In the Budapest Accords, Russia explicitly agreed that it would not have such control over Ukraine
So the fact that Putin was butthurt that he couldn't dominate Ukraine is just too damn bad for him. It's not grounds for violating the Accords
And Greg The Class Traitor jumps right in to prove that people taking a side can’t understand why others don’t in this war.
There are Russian supporters with blogs. I read them daily. And they sound just like Greg
And Gospace jumps right in to show us all how to make a really vapid "comment".
What am I saying that's wrong? you can't say?
Then you really have nothing of value to offer
NATO is neither hostile nor aggressive. That's Putinist propaganda.
This is nothing but western/NATO propaganda. Only a complete idiot would believe this kind of nonsense. Don't fall for your own side's lies about its good intentions. And it makes little difference whether we believe this or not. What matters is whether the Russians believe this, and clearly they don't and never have.
As has been noted, there is no such thing as a weapon that only fired defensively. Every weapon system can be used offensively. The Russians have endured attacks and huge losses from western powers just over the last century. If we Americans are not yet over our civil war of 160 years ago, why should the Russians be ignoring their more recent and much bloodier history?
Mind your own business said...
NATO is neither hostile nor aggressive. That's Putinist propaganda.
This is nothing but western/NATO propaganda. Only a complete idiot would believe this kind of nonsense. Don't fall for your own side's lies about its good intentions. And it makes little difference whether we believe this or not. What matters is whether the Russians believe this, and clearly they don't and never have.
1: Everyone is hostile to Russia, or else bought off. because Russia is a hostile shithole of a country that is a threat to anyone around it
2: If NATO were "aggressive" then Russia would no longer exist, because teh power disparity is such that Russia is simply incapable fo competing
The "Iron Curtain" wasn't to protect the East from the West, it was to keep the East from escaping Russia and getting to the West.
Are there people who have their heads so far up their backsides that they can lie to themselves and pretend otherwise?
Of course there are. Heck, there are people who believe that the Democrats policies aren't what has caused the current inflation!
Is there any reason why we should care about those people, or act in consideration of their delusional BS?
No
NATO has been on Russia's western border for decades. No invasions of Russia have happened. All that's happened is that Russia hasn't been able to bully the Baltic States.
So the proper response to someone who claims that NATO actually poses a threat to Russia is GFY, loser
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा