[DAVETHOMAS90]

That's a good and laudable post JR, but it does cut both ways.

Every poster I've read has been trying to have a discussion and been met with a seemingly wilful refusal from Dave to either speak with any clarity or provide any evidence. Hardly surprising people get wound up!

 All that said, I do agree that a return to the topic would be preferable, and that it's a forum for discussion.

That's bollocks.

The questions I've been asking, concern things like Russian money supporting the Tory party, problems with visas (just some examples of things raised elsewhere), are there hidden interests - whether in supply of arms or otherwise - that lead to a response that isn't as strong as it may be? I've questioned Johnson's ability in the circumstances.

I then question whether Putin's previous perspective on NATO the EU, may offer grounds for an opening in diplomacy.

All reasonable questions to ask, but I think it's pathetic to discount that because I don't pretend to be a mastermind military strategist - or even worse, I'm unqualified to comment because I even suggest considering dialogue.

I've given plenty of references which people can view and consider, and hopefully ask other questions about ways forward.

I'm not going to come on here and pretend to have "answers".

No, you just want something to fight against. It's pathetic.
It's as though it's got nothing to do with the crisis in Ukraine.

Sean (& others) spends more time asking for any clue, any evidence of Putin's request to join NATO, and uses the fact that I've not come back immediately with references simply to discount that too.
That's just about being hostile for the sake of it. Nothing about a "discussion", it's about a group wanting to exclude anything that doesn't fit their view.

You want something to fight against, and in my view that reflects the folly of making out that any suggestion of dialogue - or consideration of our own position in Europe - makes one a Putin apologist.

I've tried to post things that in my view offer valuable insight into possible alternative approaches, thinking that others may find that interesting too.

This is more about a mob of people acting as though anything that doesn't fit their view, is some sort of attack.

It happens all over the forum.

[mrjonathanr]

I found this interesting, albeit bleak:
https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/03/03/how-does-this-end-pub-86570

[seankenny]

Since that's at least partly directed at me, JR, I'd like to reply before, as you sensibly say, moving on to more interesting and important things. (Tho I think arguing about arguing is also good, at least in small doses.)

Dave said there is "exclusion" going on. Whereas I've seen nothing but engagement - trying to find out exactly what he is saying because frankly it doesn't make much sense. This is not about a "party line" and that term makes me disheartened because it's more fundamental than that. Asking to someone to produce some kind of evidence for an assertion about the world has to be the cornerstone of discussions and debates. Without that we are heading into the dangerous make-up-reality-as-you-go-along world of Putin, Trump and anti-vaxxers. If forum posters want to emulate those approaches then they should expect some push back and for me Dave was engaging in this. Clearly ymmv.

I took the time to read the short paper Dave posted and it was good and informative, basically saying what many people here have said, but with much more detail and authority. Thanks for posting the link. But... many posts have acknowledged Putin's view but argued that it's regressive, brutal, rejected by those he wants to conquer. I kind of read Dave's posts as suggesting that anyone who calls Putin a bad man has just been whipped up into a frenzy and has never tried to think about Russia more broadly, even if on a fairly basic level. Yeah, thought about it, read about it, still reckon his aims are illegitimate and his methods barbaric. Usually I prefer to refer to evil acts rather than being evil, but clearly there is a select club of humans who really are worthy of that description. Discussing whether Putin gets entry is somewhat trivial right now though.

Edit: didn't see Dave's post before writing the above and no wish to reply to most of it, but hopefully he can see that "That's just about being hostile for the sake of it" is way off the money.

[danm]

https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep22141?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Really interesting article on Russian National Identity and the Russia Ukraine Crisis.
I think it's really important to think about the different ways in which The West and Putin view the action.

Well worth a read. I understand that even suggesting that will brand me an apologist. 

Chill Dave, I explained why I thought the previous article you linked was flawed and probably biased, which is not the same as accusing you of the same. Perhaps some of the rancour on here got to you, so I forgive your waspishness.

The article on Russian identity is a good read, I'd heard an excellent explanation on R4 of the view from Ukraine on shared identity showing a very different perspective. The gist of it was that Russia grew from the original seed of Kievian Rus but that because Russia had then formed an Empire that they feel they have a god given right to rule all the Russosphere. Ukrainians in general are more independent, less tolerant of institutions and authoritarianism and usually raise the middle finger at people who tell them what to do.

On a final note, I hope the wargame geek is wrong.

[jwi]

Yeah, Putin and his circles believes in crazy conspiracy bullshit about Russian history. That is of very little interest to anyone. This kind of conspiracy crap is not the reason they believe they have the right to rule Ukraine, it is the other way around. It always is.  No one becomes a murderous pan-slavist imperialist shithead because they believe an easily falsifiable reading of the history of the Kievan Rus, they believe in an easily falsifiable reading of the history because they are murderous pan-slavist.  (Much as no one become anti semite because they believe the jews control media, they believe the jews control media because they are anti semite.)

[joel182]

No, you just want something to fight against. It's pathetic.
It's as though it's got nothing to do with the crisis in Ukraine.

Why will you not call it a war?

[joel182]

I kind of read Dave's posts as suggesting that anyone who calls Putin a bad man has just been whipped up into a frenzy and has never tried to think about Russia more broadly, even if on a fairly basic level. Yeah, thought about it, read about it, still reckon his aims are illegitimate and his methods barbaric. Usually I prefer to refer to evil acts rather than being evil, but clearly there is a select club of humans who really are worthy of that description. Discussing whether Putin gets entry is somewhat trivial right now though.

Edit: didn't see Dave's post before writing the above and no wish to reply to most of it, but hopefully he can see that "That's just about being hostile for the sake of it" is way off the money.

FWIW one reason I think it's correct to describe Putin as evil is that I see the damage his actions cause not only to my Ukrainian friends but also to my Russian friends. They too are separated from their families and scared for the future. They have seen their countries wealth stolen by Putin and his cronies. What future could they have had if their countries wealth was invested into a Russian Sovereign Fund instead of into superyachts for mobsters and brutal wars of aggression?

[petejh]

I found this interesting, albeit bleak:
https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/03/03/how-does-this-end-pub-86570

This is all 'imo'.

Bleak, but imo based on an incorrect presumption - that Russia doesn't suffer unacceptably massive loses in the process.
From the link:
Judging from how things stand now, Putin, having invested so much in this war already, seems unlikely to settle for anything less than the complete subjugation of the Ukrainian government. If the current uneven pace of Russian military progress doesn’t accomplish the job, the most likely strategy for doing this is to make an example of a city like Kharkiv, leveling it as if it were Grozny or Aleppo, both cities that Russia has brutally destroyed in the recent past, and then threatening to burn Kyiv to the ground. He can accompany this with special forces attacks in the capital to disrupt the civilian population and sow further confusion and discontent. Ultimately, he needs at least to force the ouster of President Volodymyr Zelensky and his government.

Neither of those two things are achievable for Russia, without huge loses to their own forces simply because of the strength of resistance against Russia's aggression. This is for various reasons inc. the type of weaponry supplied by the west negating Russia's preferred option of using armour and airpower to crush resistance - instead tehir armour is being decimated by £20k Swedish/British missiles. Their' 'special forces' aren't very special and are being killed too. Hence why they're resorting to standing off and artillery destroying cities/towns from a distance. Flattening towns/cities isn't the same as taking over the country - it's destruction but not occupation. Ukraine's decision to resist (which I don't think is going to change) means Russia will simply never win on the ground without losing massive numbers of troops in fighting. Even for a mad toxic cunt like Putin it must reach a point of unacceptable cost, when taken along with the destruction of their economy. He can't be sitting alone without other powerful people in his ear starting to question the cost.

It was always looking to me that they wanted the eastern provinces as the minimum negotiating position, and try to go for broke by taking everything else as well. They've failed to take everything else by force and they'll continue failing despite making incremental gains which cost thousands more lives. They're slowly backsliding to the negotiating table and settling for the eastern provinces and some kind of talk of buffer neutrality. Putin will claim something along lines of 'total success in eliminating the terrorist threat to our borders and securing peace for Donbas' etc. Of course it's all complete bullshit it always has been. Zelensky would be mad not to accept losing the eastern regions versus suffering more destruction and loss of life, and imo this is what he'll agree to. He's also making noises about neutrality, makes complete sense to give up something you weren't going to get anyway for a very long time at least (nato membership). There sticking point will be who polices the border between them - some kind of UN observer force agreeable to both Russia and Ukraine, perhaps Turkish? Of course it's all cynical as fuck but it's all relative - when the other options look so terrible a formerly terrible option (giving up Donbas and designs on nato) starts to look much better.

[Oldmanmatt]

I found this interesting, albeit bleak:
https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/03/03/how-does-this-end-pub-86570

This is all 'imo'.

Bleak, but imo based on an incorrect presumption - that Russia doesn't suffer unacceptably massive loses in the process.
From the link:
Judging from how things stand now, Putin, having invested so much in this war already, seems unlikely to settle for anything less than the complete subjugation of the Ukrainian government. If the current uneven pace of Russian military progress doesn’t accomplish the job, the most likely strategy for doing this is to make an example of a city like Kharkiv, leveling it as if it were Grozny or Aleppo, both cities that Russia has brutally destroyed in the recent past, and then threatening to burn Kyiv to the ground. He can accompany this with special forces attacks in the capital to disrupt the civilian population and sow further confusion and discontent. Ultimately, he needs at least to force the ouster of President Volodymyr Zelensky and his government.

Neither of those two things are achievable for Russia, without huge loses to their own forces simply because of the strength of resistance against Russia's aggression. This is for various reasons inc. the type of weaponry supplied by the west negating Russia's preferred option of using armour and airpower to crush resistance - instead tehir armour is being decimated by £20k Swedish/British missiles. Their' 'special forces' aren't very special and are being killed too. Hence why they're resorting to standing off and artillery destroying cities/towns from a distance. Flattening towns/cities isn't the same as taking over the country - it's destruction but not occupation. Ukraine's decision to resist (which I don't think is going to change) means Russia will simply never win on the ground without losing massive numbers of troops in fighting. Even for a mad toxic cunt like Putin it must reach a point of unacceptable cost, when taken along with the destruction of their economy. He can't be sitting alone without other powerful people in his ear starting to question the cost.

It was always looking to me that they wanted the eastern provinces as the minimum negotiating position, and try to go for broke by taking everything else as well. They've failed to take everything else by force and they'll continue failing despite making incremental gains which cost thousands more lives. They're slowly backsliding to the negotiating table and settling for the eastern provinces and some kind of talk of buffer neutrality. Putin will claim something along lines of 'total success in eliminating the terrorist threat to our borders and securing peace for Donbas' etc. Of course it's all complete bullshit it always has been. Zelensky would be mad not to accept losing the eastern regions versus suffering more destruction and loss of life, and imo this is what he'll agree to. He's also making noises about neutrality, makes complete sense to give up something you weren't going to get anyway for a very long time at least (nato membership). There sticking point will be who polices the border between them - some kind of UN observer force agreeable to both Russia and Ukraine, perhaps Turkish? Of course it's all cynical as fuck but it's all relative - when the other options look so terrible a formerly terrible option (giving up Donbas and designs on nato) starts to look much better.

The only real difference between that an yesterday’s briefing here, was they didn’t actually refer to Putin as a “mad toxic cunt”, though the MOD language used essentially meant the same thing.
Currently, we’re told, 10,000 dead seems confirmed, for Russian losses. To put that in context, the Soviets lost 15,000 over 9 years in Afghan and that is credited with significant influence on the collapse of the Union. Losing that many in 9 days, instead of years; will become impossible to hide from his own people very quickly.
Also, the 10k figure is three days out of date.

Edit:

Also, we might be about to witness a very, very dark irony, as Russian troops freeze to death, whilst laying siege, as invaders, to major cities. Temps of -20⁰C expected for the next two or three days.

[Johnny Brown]

Even for a mad toxic cunt like Putin it must reach a point of unacceptable cost, when taken along with the destruction of their economy. He can't be sitting alone without other powerful people in his ear starting to question the cost.

You'd like to think so. This footage of him receiving a briefing from his head of intelligence just prior to the invasion suggests otherwise:



My reading is that the guy is a textbook psychopath. His only experience of empathy is observing it as a sign of weakness in others.

In a 2018 documentary, President Putin commented that "…if someone decides to annihilate Russia, we have the legal right to respond. Yes, it will be a catastrophe for humanity and for the world. But I'm a citizen of Russia and its head of state. Why do we need a world without Russia in it?"

I think we can realistically extend that worldview to himself. I think either he gets removed, likely meaning killed, or he sticks to his guns. But I hope I'm wrong. If he does withdraw, how does he recoup his lost pride?

[TobyD]

I'd definitely tend to agree with JB here, Putin can't back down as far as I can see, losses don't matter to him, and he's done multiple things in the past which seemed irrational and unlikely.

He'll go for more widespread conflict if he's not getting his way. It's very worrying but seems the most likely.

[petejh]

I agree with that assessment of Putin. But no matter how <insert malevolent label xyz> Putin is, he doesn’t live alone in Russia without reliance on other people to pull various levers for him. Powerful people who do have empathy, friends relatives and children they love, visions of the future not involving a global radioactive wasteland etc., have agency to prevent things going too far. They may not have used their agency yet (and maybe never will), but it exists if they feel the overall cost versus gain makes them inclined to use it.

[mrjonathanr]

The intelligence chief is half paralysed with fear. I would like to think the analysis that Putin will settle for claiming some eastern territory as a resounding success is correct. He does not appear a man who copes well with being thwarted however.

[spidermonkey09]

I remember watching that 'security council' briefing before things kicked off and thinking it looked like a scene from the Death of Stalin. Absolutely risible stuff.

Developments in the last few days, diplomacy on the Belarus border, Zelensky dangling the potential 'off-ramp' to Putin in his address this morning, and the fact that Putin has been having calls with Macron and Bennett in Israel among others, suggest to me that things are heading in the negotiated settlement direction. It may well take a very long time to get there though.

[Rocksteady]

I found this interesting, albeit bleak:
https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/03/03/how-does-this-end-pub-86570

It was always looking to me that they wanted the eastern provinces as the minimum negotiating position, and try to go for broke by taking everything else as well. They've failed to take everything else by force and they'll continue failing despite making incremental gains which cost thousands more lives. They're slowly backsliding to the negotiating table and settling for the eastern provinces and some kind of talk of buffer neutrality. Putin will claim something along lines of 'total success in eliminating the terrorist threat to our borders and securing peace for Donbas' etc. Of course it's all complete bullshit it always has been. Zelensky would be mad not to accept losing the eastern regions versus suffering more destruction and loss of life, and imo this is what he'll agree to. He's also making noises about neutrality, makes complete sense to give up something you weren't going to get anyway for a very long time at least (nato membership). There sticking point will be who polices the border between them - some kind of UN observer force agreeable to both Russia and Ukraine, perhaps Turkish? Of course it's all cynical as fuck but it's all relative - when the other options look so terrible a formerly terrible option (giving up Donbas and designs on nato) starts to look much better.

A few years ago I read the book 'Prisoners of Geography' which is very good and opens with Russia's obsession with Ukraine and Crimea. The premise being Ukraine is the only way an invader from the West would bring (has ever brought) a land army against Russia, and that Russia also needs Crimea for a 'warm water port' and so utilise the powers of their navy.

I wonder if Putin has always really been after a land corridor between Russia and Crimea through the Ukraine, including the Donbas region.

And then all the other stuff is a gung-ho attempt at taking it all, going for regime change (as he's been antsy ever since the pro-Russian government was ousted). If he is truly that cold and strategic, even if he fails at the above, it gives him a bargaining chip - he can leave Kyiv and remove all troops from the north of the country, but keep the territory that links Russia to Crimea.

[Fultonius]

I found this interesting, albeit bleak:
https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/03/03/how-does-this-end-pub-86570

It was always looking to me that they wanted the eastern provinces as the minimum negotiating position, and try to go for broke by taking everything else as well. They've failed to take everything else by force and they'll continue failing despite making incremental gains which cost thousands more lives. They're slowly backsliding to the negotiating table and settling for the eastern provinces and some kind of talk of buffer neutrality. Putin will claim something along lines of 'total success in eliminating the terrorist threat to our borders and securing peace for Donbas' etc. Of course it's all complete bullshit it always has been. Zelensky would be mad not to accept losing the eastern regions versus suffering more destruction and loss of life, and imo this is what he'll agree to. He's also making noises about neutrality, makes complete sense to give up something you weren't going to get anyway for a very long time at least (nato membership). There sticking point will be who polices the border between them - some kind of UN observer force agreeable to both Russia and Ukraine, perhaps Turkish? Of course it's all cynical as fuck but it's all relative - when the other options look so terrible a formerly terrible option (giving up Donbas and designs on nato) starts to look much better.

A few years ago I read the book 'Prisoners of Geography' which is very good and opens with Russia's obsession with Ukraine and Crimea. The premise being Ukraine is the only way an invader from the West would bring (has ever brought) a land army against Russia, and that Russia also needs Crimea for a 'warm water port' and so utilise the powers of their navy.

I wonder if Putin has always really been after a land corridor between Russia and Crimea through the Ukraine, including the Donbas region.

And then all the other stuff is a gung-ho attempt at taking it all, going for regime change (as he's been antsy ever since the pro-Russian government was ousted). If he is truly that cold and strategic, even if he fails at the above, it gives him a bargaining chip - he can leave Kyiv and remove all troops from the north of the country, but keep the territory that links Russia to Crimea.

I suspect this is the main play. Plan A: take all (presumed to be a walkover), Plan B: fall back and secure the corridor. I heard the wind farm I was on in November has had it's substation blown up and a turbine went on fire. Not sure if that was Russia or the incompetent operators...

[DAVETHOMAS90]

https://scheerpost.com/2022/03/07/chris-hedges-worthy-and-unworthy-victims/

[Fultonius]

https://scheerpost.com/2022/03/07/chris-hedges-worthy-and-unworthy-victims/

I'm not sure what this adds?  I agree with many of the points. Yemen is an atrocity, Iraq - my stance has softened a bit from "Blair is in outright war criminal" to something less harsh since the podcast series someone linked on here, Afghanistan - I don't even know where to start...

But still, I think there's a lot of false equivalence in that article?

As much as I think Syria was an outright mess, probably mainly a proxy war between the west and Russia and many, many people lost theirs lives under brutal circumstances there was at least some (albeit maybe overblown, hyped, propagandised) evidence of a brutal dictator harming his own people, and the ISIS thing.

Where is the dictatorship in Ukraine? Where is the brutal suppression of dissent?

I don't think the premise of going into Iraq, Syria etc. were strong enough. I think "The West" too often jumps in heavy handed. But I just don't see this being the case in Ukraine.

I started posting this a few days ago and didn't have the time to do it well...it might end up being the same again...but:

Yes, Nato have been making manoeuvres, ramping up "exercises" in the Balkans, bringing in unprecedented levels of "peacetime" troops around the black sea, Latvia, Poland, Albania etc. Of course, this *is* an encroachment. Is it too heavy handed? I don't have the military strategy knowledge to assess this, but it sure could be used by Putin as evidence of a "Looming threat" man, just look at the anti-Russian slant on any and all news for the last 10 years.

I'm just not sure, and happy to hear more thoughts either way on whether or not we ARE being heavy handed, or wither this was the appropriate response to the perceived threat??  Obviously in retrospect, it looks like the right call - but has it provoked this attack?

Argh, run out of time again....just not got time for this war haha!

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Another interesting commentary on the Is it as simple as "Putin's a bad man"? question:



Sorry, it's Russell Brand. I like his delivery and insight.

I thought the previous article was quite simple, again also inviting us to consider our own conceits.

It was inviting us to reflect on our own position, our own interpretation, what do we have to gain - and lose - for e.g. by referring to Putin as simply "a bad man"?

How objectively do we view our own action and it's consequences?

How are they perceived by others? In your own analysis, are you giving an example of the very point raised? I do think our own interests already influence how we interpret things, and what we accept as "givens".

[TobyD]

I remember watching that 'security council' briefing before things kicked off and thinking it looked like a scene from the Death of Stalin. Absolutely risible stuff.

I thought exactly the same thing. Risible, yet absolutely terrifying.

[mrjonathanr]

I got as far as ‘the militarisation of Ukraine is in essence an encroachment on Russian sovereignty’ 4.18.

No, whatever the complexities of their relations, the internal affairs of Ukraine are not under Russian sovereignty. Invasion is, however an encroachment on Ukrainian sovereignty.

[Oldmanmatt]

I got as far as ‘the militarisation of Ukraine is in essence an encroachment on Russian sovereignty’ 4.18.

No, whatever the complexities of their relations, the internal affairs of Ukraine are not under Russian sovereignty. Invasion is, however an encroachment on Ukrainian sovereignty.

I find it all smacks of a “cap doffing” acceptance that Russia should be accepted as global “nobility”.
It also reeks of post colonial angst and that deep guilt that so many intellectuals feel about Western history, that seems to result in accusations of “Imperialism” for even the most expedient interventionist foreign policy; by any Western country or organisation.
Putin (ergo Russia) is an out of control psycho. At this point, how we got here is irrelevant. By all means dissect it post crisis (so we can make the same mistakes again in the future).
I don’t think anybody thinks the situation erupted in a vacuum and obviously all sorts of actions can now been seen to have lead us here. Wishing that “we” had done things differently is rather moot, though.

[spidermonkey09]

That Brand channel pushes conspiracy theories about Covid, Bill Gates, social credit, Hillary Clinton and the WEF. Video titles include 'I've been warned not to talk about this', 'are they just puppets?' and 'the narrative is shifting.' 

Even allowing for some clickbait titles its not a good look.

[teestub]

People not wanting to click on that Brand link and fuck up their algorithm, this is the first link he provides, not sure it does a great job of defending the pre Maidan Ukraine president as it’s trying to! https://jacobinmag.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea

[Will Hunt]

I watched the first few minutes. More red flags than the USSR.
Brand's whole argument stems from a first principle that any "mainstream narrative" must be wrong/a sinister construct and goes from there.