[Wellsy]

The argument that NATO should not intervene because of risk of 3rd world war/nuclear annihilation makes no sense to me. That’s pretty much an admission that remaining NATO countries will not intervene if Poland, or more likely Lithuania is attacked. If Ukrainian lives are not worth the risk, surely no civilian lives are worth the risk.

If the argument is that NATO should never intervene when non-NATO members (like Sweden or Finland) are attacked, then this should be clearly spelled out.

I mean that is the idea of NATO.  A defensive pact where an attack on one member state is considered an attack on all, triggering a response from multiple nuclear armed nation and the global superpower. Its why Russia won't invade Poland or Lithuania; those are NATO States and US ICBMs/British Trident Missles etc stand ready.

But that works both ways. If NATO attacks Russia, and an intervention in Ukraine would be an attack on Russian military forces, then Russia also has nuclear weapons and therefore the MAD principle applies. Neither side can risk it, no matter who attacks, everyone loses.

But Ukraine is not covered by that. While it may be very supported by NATO nations, its invasion has not triggered WWIII for that reason. Similarly an invasion of NATO into Afghanistan did not cause Russian or Chinese responses, as why would it?

War between nuclear states is the risk, and that's potentially world ending, so no one does it. If NATO or Russia takes aggressive action it is against isolated countries outside of defensive pacts.

[spidermonkey09]

 What Wellsy said. One can be unconvinced about the morals of NATO in defending some countries but not others, but that's the point of joining the alliance. Its currently working exactly as it was designed to.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Worth reflecting on the similarities between what happened in Georgia, and the calls for help from the west by Zelenskyy.

@ 17'



It's very easy for us to accept the polarising arguments of freedom vs oppression.
It's important to be remember how selective we can be when listening to impassioned pleas from our side of that divide.

Help for the humanitarian crisis can't afford to be seen to be flying a flag of either colour.

It's also important to think seriously about how useful it is for us to be able to paint the crisis in such a polarised way. How interested are we genuinely in the humanitarian impact.

I'm not talking about how "you and I" feel in response, but in the arguments we accept.

Much of that is a given Matt, of course.

But the "Whys", "Hows" and the consequences, are the questions, and where changes can be made, with or without historical reference.

First you had Zelenskyy pleading for assistance from the West, and then saying goodbye.

[Wellsy]

What Wellsy said. One can be unconvinced about the morals of NATO in defending some countries but not others, but that's the point of joining the alliance. Its currently working exactly as it was designed to.

Tbh in terms of the situation and options right now, I'm not sure NATO going into Ukraine would actually necessarily be in the best interests of the Ukrainians. After all a nuclear war would be considerably worse than their current situation, dire as that is.

[Oldmanmatt]

Worth reflecting on the similarities between what happened in Georgia, and the calls for help from the west by Zelenskyy.

@ 17'



It's very easy for us to accept the polarising arguments of freedom vs oppression.
It's important to be remember how selective we can be when listening to impassioned pleas from our side of that divide.

Help for the humanitarian crisis can't afford to be seen to be flying a flag of either colour.

It's also important to think seriously about how useful it is for us to be able to paint the crisis in such a polarised way. How interested are we genuinely in the humanitarian impact.

I'm not talking about how "you and I" feel in response, but in the arguments we accept.

Much of that is a given Matt, of course.

But the "Whys", "Hows" and the consequences, are the questions, and where changes can be made, with or without historical reference.

First you had Zelenskyy pleading for assistance from the West, and then saying goodbye.

Of course he asked for assistance. Ukraine has had an unprecedented degree of assistance and partly because of the lessons learned in Georgia, Syria, Chechnya etc. We and other Western nations have been training and equipping them since 2014. The amount of support given now, economically and militarily is stunning.
This has been expected for months, too; which I’ve only just realised. Have a Google and look at where our largest “exercise” in decades, with our most elite troops (sorry Pete) and a rather powerful Carrier Battle group; just happens to be, right now.

Then there’s the friendly border issue. We have excellent pathways to support Ukraine, that simply didn’t exist for previous Russian targets.

Not really sure what you’re getting at, to be honest, though? Should we be doing more? What? Or were you implying that having done less (been unable to, imo) in the past we should do less now?

Got an email from the Chief of Staff today, reminding me (us, not me specifically) that we’re not allowed to go to Ukraine and fight, even if we are on leave (I kid you not, in those exact words).
This almost certainly means, somebody has gone, on leave. Probably several somebodies…

[mrjonathanr]

Did you watch all of the Chicago talk Matt?

[Oldmanmatt]

Did you watch all of the Chicago talk Matt?

Yeah.
But I’m old and jaded. I just hear angst and “what if” etc. With a lot of “if only” and hindsight.
Nothing that isn’t “true”, it’s just pointless when you have to deal with the current reality.
If I’d been in charge, I’d have done it differently, if that helps.

Navel gazing, under the circumstances, useful for informing future strategy.

Probably be ignored by every administration in the Western world, much as every other historical analysis ever made. Yes, that’s frustrating.

As I said, I’m feeling a bit cynical.

[mrjonathanr]

Did you watch all of the Chicago talk Matt?

Yeah.
But I’m old and jaded. I just hear angst and “what if” etc. With a lot of “if only” and hindsight.
Nothing that isn’t “true”, it’s just pointless when you have to deal with the current reality.

Not sure about hindsight, it's from 2015? Unless you mean regarding the events of 2014? It seems Putin is doing exactly what Mearsheimer suggested he might if Ukraine moved further to the West. 'Led up the primrose path' regarding Nato and EU membership does not seem implausible as an analysis. They are, excepting supplies from the west, basically facing Russia alone.

Clearly, Russia is gearing up to ruin the country, absent a negotiated settlement or total capitulation. Is the former achieveable?

[seankenny]

I haven’t watched this video but I’m aware of Mearsheimer’s general view.

As a counterbalance here is an interview with the writer Anne Applebaum who takes a very different - and much more hawkish - view.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-dishcast-with-andrew-sullivan/id1536984072?i=1000551348177

She’s American but married to a Polish politician, lines in Poland and speaks Russian. I find her view, in particular the weight it gives to Poles and others as having agency outside of Russian imperialism, very persuasive. Russia is having the mother of all imperial hangovers, struggling to relinquish control over its former dominions much as the French and the British did 50 or more years ago. I’ve only been to Russia once but had the immediate and powerful sense of Moscow as an imperial capital, something that this conversation covers well.

I’m not sure where Matt’s comments about historical analysis being ignored comes from: most politicians are keen students of history, to the extent that even in this shitty cabinet there is a history PhD holder.

[scooba2cv]

https://www.netflix.com/gb/title/80031666?s=a&trkid=13747225&t=cp&vlang=en&clip=80077973

This is well worth a watch in the current circumstances, they clearly have a pro West/ EU feeling so as others have said even if they install a "government" it will mean nothing to a true ukraninan.
 they ousted a government once in 2014,  the same puppet government Putin Is rumored to to try and re install. (Sorry if it's already been posted) .

[Oldmanmatt]

I’m not sure where Matt’s comments about historical analysis being ignored comes from: most politicians are keen students of history, to the extent that even in this shitty cabinet there is a history PhD holder.

Just cynicism. I was thinking of this cartoon, but couldn’t remember the artist’s name to link it. Brain threw it up with my morning alarm (go figure, memory is weird).
https://twitter.com/t_b_toro/status/1497787364965449728?s=21

[Oldmanmatt]

Via some Canadian Paramedics/Fire Fighters and Veterans, are trying to get this shared (either directly to people there, where possible or via the hashtag Ukraine) so that it makes it’s way to people in Ukraine who might be able to use it.
It’s a link to a Ukrainian translation of GSMSG’s field trauma guide for treating battlefield casualties. Frankly, the English version is worth keeping on your phone, since similar trauma can occur in non-battlefield situations too.

https://www.gsmsg.org/ukrainiantccc

[DAVETHOMAS90]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/23/putin-narrative-ukraine-master-key-crisis-nato-expansionism-frozen-conflict

[mrjonathanr]

So what is your conclusion, Dave?

Edit The Guardian article is the eve of the war. It’s conclusion- that Putin merely needs a bogged down conflict to achieve his aims- did make me wonder when I read it last week. Now, it doesn’t hold, but does raise the issue of NATO expansion. The problem is, we are past that now, the question is what to do about a raging war.

[Oldmanmatt]

NATO cannot. The UN won’t. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power (or do you expect Russia to abstain or perhaps vote for it?)

A “no fly zone” will not happen.

[petejh]

Worth reflecting on the similarities between what happened in Georgia, and the calls for help from the west by Zelenskyy.

@ 17'



It's very easy for us to accept the polarising arguments of freedom vs oppression.
It's important to be remember how selective we can be when listening to impassioned pleas from our side of that divide.

Help for the humanitarian crisis can't afford to be seen to be flying a flag of either colour.

It's also important to think seriously about how useful it is for us to be able to paint the crisis in such a polarised way. How interested are we genuinely in the humanitarian impact.

I'm not talking about how "you and I" feel in response, but in the arguments we accept.

Dave, good link. I listened to the whole of Mearsheimer's lecture (including the Q&As) as I was driving back from Switzerland on Wednesday.

I also listened this morning to Sean's linked podcast featuring Anne Applebuam - as should you, if you genuinely want to try to understand the many different agendas and mindsets involved in this disaster.

I find myself agreeing with many of Mearsheimer’s views on the bigger picture of 'balance of power' theory regards NATO / US, Russia/China. Although I *do* wonder to myself how much of what this prof eloquently describes and foresees is just blatantly obvious to anyone, even minions without PhD’s in international relations and studies in security. 'Great powers will vie with each other for control and influence and the US should be focussing on China as its greatest competitor'... You don't say!

For such a supposedly wise scholar in this talk he got it utterly wrong about Putin’s likely response to Ukraine, didn’t he. Which makes me wonder if you actually listened to it all?
At various points in his lecture he proclaims: ‘I believe Putin is far too smart to invade Ukraine’, or words to that effect.
He goes on to remark: ‘it would be the end of Russia if Putin were to try to invade Ukraine in pursuit of Greater Russia, but Putin’s far too smart and strategic a thinker to make that mistake’. Clearly not.
He also says: 'in fact, the west should try to encourage Russia to invade Ukraine as it would lead to the ending of Russia'. But Putin's too smart to do that, right?

How completely wrong was the prof about a subject he's supposedly a specialist in. Which should make you pause and question what else might he may end up being completely wrong about... academics aren't future-knowers. Same as market commentators - they're 10 a penny and incentivised to have opinions, right or wrong, by it being their job to do so. I’d be interested to know what he thinks now with benefit of hindsight and the last 10 days of Russia's abject failure to blitzkrieg across Ukraine.

It pissed me off to hear Mearsheimer's dropping the dog-whistle for leftists: 'Ukraine contains fascists'. A dog whistle to distract attention onto Ukraine and away from the *genuinely* fascist mafia-state of Putin's Russia -
If Ukraine containing within its population and political system (a tiny element of) fascism is a valid rationale for Russia to invade and destroy,  then France; Denmark; Norway; Poland; Germany; Netherlands; Spain; the UK and pretty much every other democracy you can name up to and including New Zealand and Canada are valid states for invasion by a great power for the rationale of 'eradicating their fascist elements' or 'denazification' as Putin puts it.  Every country contains fascists in their population - its a human phenomena. Like every body of water contains some level of harmful bacteria. I can honestly see how Russia may have some legitimate minor concerns over the lack of representation for the Russian-speaking population in eastern Ukraine. That does not make Ukraine a fascist state and it does not validate the action Putin's Russia has taken. See further post for some reading on 'is Ukraine Fascist?'.

I’m response to the rest of your post Dave, of course it’s generally a good thing to try to understand other people’s viewpoints and concerns, I naturally try to see things from all angles just because it's the quickest way to understand a topic better.

IMO the most likely long term outcome is a Ukraine split west/east with the Russian-speaking eastern third becoming a pseudo-state under the complete control of Russia, as per Belarus. Mearsheimer points out this would put Russian and NATO troops face to face across a disputed border, which he suggest will be a recipe for total disaster. But it’s happened before in Cold War Europe and we managed not to nuke each other, lets hope his views on that turn out to be as incorrect as his beliefs about Putin's likely response to Ukraine were.

[Oldmanmatt]

Actually, there might be other reasons to believe the “no fly zone” might not be necessary. It’s already apparent that the Russian airforce isn’t as engaged as expected and there has been a lot of speculation about why.
However, quite a bit of footage has emerged, now, which might offer an insight:
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CauJAizsRXT/?utm_medium=copy_link
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CauFn7IjY84/?utm_medium=copy_link

Some speculation amongst our Warfare Officers that manned aircraft are not viable anymore, or soon to be obsolete. Much like Armoured vehicles are clearly not competitive against highly mobile infantry, armed with armour killing light weapons. Russia might be trying to fight a 20th century war against a 21st century opposition, they will, probably, overwhelm through sheer numbers, but whether they can hold their gains???

[petejh]

'Is Ukraine Fascist, as Putin claims?' 
(TLDR - no, is it f*ck)

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/putin-calls-ukraine-fasci_b_6600292

Well worth a read.

[petejh]

And finally DT a couple of articles directly countering your man's 'realism' theories. My view roughly aligns with those expressed in these two articles. I think your reasoning is deeply flawed, and totally ignorant of the agency of populations in those countries being subjected to aggression.
The realism theories you're espousing and some of the madder 'stop the war coalition' views bring to mind the attitude 'she got hit/raped/murdered because they brought it on themselves by antagonising their abuser'. Of course the abuser in this case is a nuclear power so nothing is that simplistic.

'Realism theories':
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/03/03/can-realism-explain-war-ukraine/

'Westsplaining'
https://newrepublic.com/article/165603/carlson-russia-ukraine-imperialism-nato

[petejh]

edit: double post.

[seankenny]

I see Pete has posted a couple of links and this post I wrote is just a more garbled and less knowledgeable version of the New Republic article he links to. So read that not this!

Still, I'm going to inflict it on the thread anyhow.

My problem with the argument that the Ukraine war is caused by NATO is that it removes agency from smaller countries, just as the usual left-wing arguments about Iraq absolve Iraqis (and indeed Saudis and Iranians) of making mistakes and committing attrocities, as well as ignoring their successes. Everything comes down to the simplified wishes of larger states, which I just don't buy. I mean, Georgia and Ukraine want to join NATO. They view that as in their interests. Do only the citizens of large powerful states deserve the right to live in peaceful alliances, or should powerful states determine others' policies? That's just imperialism.

To reiterate a point from the Anne Applebaum interview, how does having a few thousand soldiers in Poland really change the security of Russia given that the US, France and the UK could obliterate most of their cities in twenty minutes? NATO countries simply do not want to attack or invade Russia and it's a paranoid fantasy - or even outright projection - to pretend that they do. If Russia were a functioning democracy that didn't want to invade its neighbours then the west would certainly welcome a strong alliance with them and their further integration into the western economic system, because it would be one less thing to worry about with respect to China. Needless to say I think this would be way better for ordinary Russians and this should be our eventual goal. We need to admit that we fucked up in the 1990s as much as Russia needs to admit it's not an imperial power any more.

Steele's argument in the article above seems to rest on the point that NATO "promised" not to expand eastwards, but uses as an argument Obama's 2010 agreement that this shouldn't come at the expense of Rusisan security. But... so what? That was before Russia decided to invade invade Ukraine twice and send assassins to kill opponenets in the UK. Surely a strategy that led to the exact opposite of its aims should be abandoned.

Anyhow... thanks to Twitter I have learnt much more about tyres and greasing bearings and how not doing them regularly makes fighting much harder. Fascinating stuff, in small doses!

[Oldmanmatt]

And finally DT a couple of articles directly countering your man's 'realism' theories. My view roughly aligns with those expressed in these two articles. I think your reasoning is deeply flawed, and totally ignorant of the agency of populations in those countries being subjected to aggression.
The realism theories you're espousing and some of the madder 'stop the war coalition' views bring to mind the attitude 'she got hit/raped/murdered because they brought it on themselves by antagonising their abuser'. Of course the abuser in this case is a nuclear power so nothing is that simplistic.

'Realism theories':
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/03/03/can-realism-explain-war-ukraine/

'Westsplaining'
https://newrepublic.com/article/165603/carlson-russia-ukraine-imperialism-nato

Yes. Particularly the second article.
My Romanian relatives, are very worried by what is happening and very much echo those thoughts and similar. (Romania is a very odd nation, they have two distinct, almost unintegrated, populations, Latin Romanians and Gypsy. They have contended with a poor reputation in the West for decades as a result, so find themselves completely dismissed and ignored).

[andy popp]

It pissed me off to hear Mearsheimer's dropping the dog-whistle for leftists: 'Ukraine contains fascists'. A dog whistle to distract attention onto Ukraine and away from the *genuinely* fascist mafia-state of Putin's Russia -

Those dog whistles are certainly there, but I'm not sure they are only, or even primarily, intended for leftists (generally. I've no idea who Mearsheimer intended it for). Certainly the principal source for the "Ukraine is Nazi" is Russia itself (a fascist state, as you rightly say Pete) and the far/alt right, who are also responsible for circulating it through conspiracy theory sites/groups to conspiracy vulnerable audiences, whether left or right or no clear politics. We've all seen a proliferation of Putin fan boys over the last couple of weeks, often people who were anti-vax. I've seen people then talking about Putin standing up to the New World Order (a far right dog whistle if ever there was one) or linking videos on Bitchute. Some of these people think they're on the left but have become shills for the right. Basically, in this quadrant of the political spectrum I'm not sure left/right labels make much sense any more. None of this is to deny there is an audience for some of this stuff on parts of the left (e.g. parts of Stop the War).

[Oldmanmatt]

It pissed me off to hear Mearsheimer's dropping the dog-whistle for leftists: 'Ukraine contains fascists'. A dog whistle to distract attention onto Ukraine and away from the *genuinely* fascist mafia-state of Putin's Russia -

Those dog whistles are certainly there, but I'm not sure they are only, or even primarily, intended for leftists (generally. I've no idea who Mearsheimer intended it for). Certainly the principal source for the "Ukraine is Nazi" is Russia itself (a fascist state, as you rightly say Pete) and the far/alt right, who are also responsible for circulating it through conspiracy theory sites/groups to conspiracy vulnerable audiences, whether left or right or no clear politics. We've all seen a proliferation of Putin fan boys over the last couple of weeks, often people who were anti-vax. I've seen people then talking about Putin standing up to the New World Order (a far right dog whistle if ever there was one) or linking videos on Bitchute. Some of these people think they're on the left but have become shills for the right. Basically, in this quadrant of the political spectrum I'm not sure left/right labels make much sense any more. None of this is to deny there is an audience for some of this stuff on parts of the left (e.g. parts of Stop the War).

The crossover now, into areas such as the “wellness” crowd etc of (what is actually) far right ideology is incredible. I’ve watched quite a few “hippie” magic crystal/yoga cures herpes types descend into raging anti-vax conspiracy theory nutters over the course of the pandemic. Not in my own social media bubble, but t definitely in my partner’s feed. One, in particular who is now touting that Putin vs the Illuminati line.
I watch some US pro-Russia SM posters, as a balance (I guess, morbid fascination too) and they seem to alternate between reporting on Russian gains with “Freedom Convoy” updates. Almost always with a “Christian” anti black/gay/everyone not a white evangelical angle.

Edit: the above pro-Russians, seem to un ironically claim that Ukraine is being racist in who is allowed to leave (claiming blacks are being beaten at the border) as an example of how “Nazi” Ukrainians are, then in the next post lament the “immigrants” that are undermining their vision of the US.

[petejh]

That’s fair enough Andy, regards the left/right theme being somewhat irrelevant and I’m not trying to make this into a left/right issue - it clearly isn’t and you’re right there’s rhetoric aimed at all along that spectrum.

The ‘Ukraine contains fascists’ remark by Mearshiemer did strike me as one to particularly jerk the emotions of the more leftist extremes but perhaps that’s incorrect,  I suppose a more relevant take on it would be where people are on the ‘authoritarian / libertarian’ scale, than the left-right scale. People can obvs be right or left wing economically while being either more or less authoritarian or libertarian.

Interesting you note the anti-vaxx link to Putin apologists. I’ve noticed the same. As a small example, in a small investors group on Telegram that I *was* a member of (I left last week due to this), 4 out of the 6 in the group were anti-vaxx and of those 4 I was getting distinct vibes from 2 of them of believing Putin’s misinformation. One of them was sharing reports from online media outlets with a Russian bias and trying to justify it by saying it gave ‘a more balanced view’. When challenged that the stories carried an anti-Semitic bias they wouldn’t apologise but just doubled down with a defensive ‘the west is biased too’ whataboutery.