[mrjonathanr]

From Wikipedia: The Azov Special Operations Detachment is a right-wing extremist, neo-Nazi,formerly paramilitary, unit of the National Guard of Ukraine,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion

[Oldmanmatt]

The Azov Special Operations Detachment is a right-wing extremist, neo-Nazi,formerly paramilitary, unit of the National Guard of Ukraine,

Dan, is perfectly well aware of that. He seeks to paint all Ukrainians as Nazis. He believes that “Nazis exist in Ukraine” is equal to “all Ukrainians are Nazis”. This is because he can’t keep his head out of rabbit holes, his noggin is a bit big and is now stuck there.

[shark]

Sorry about that folks. I deleted his posts on Friday and thought I’d deleted his account as well but obviously hadn’t. It has however tested the effectiveness of the early Dan warning system. Thank you everyone who messaged me.

[Oldmanmatt]

Unfortunately, there is no lie here:


In the Times, I believe.

[TobyD]

I'd like to add another recommendation for "the rest is history " 4 part history of the modern USSR, and the rise of Putin. They concluded that there are two ways this could end, the destruction of Ukraine or the destruction of Putin's regime.  I'd completely agree,  there really isn't any way out of this now for Putin,  hes using indiscriminate weapons and illegal weapons on a peaceful civilian population.  He can't just apologise or hope its forgotten about. 

[Oldmanmatt]

I'd like to add another recommendation for "the rest is history " 4 part history of the modern USSR, and the rise of Putin. They concluded that there are two ways this could end, the destruction of Ukraine or the destruction of Putin's regime.  I'd completely agree,  there really isn't any way out of this now for Putin,  hes using indiscriminate weapons and illegal weapons on a peaceful civilian population.  He can't just apologise or hope its forgotten about.

The destruction of Ukraine, is unlikely to constitute an “end”. I would guess that Putin is finished, even if he doesn’t realise or if it takes a considerable time, he has shown his weakness and the vultures are descending to settle onto the ground around him.
Not to mention, only a generation and a bit ago, Stalin thought he’d solved the “Ukrainian problem”. I mean, how many Georgians are fighting in Ukraine right now?

[AJM]

... there really isn't any way out of this now for Putin,  hes using indiscriminate weapons and illegal weapons on a peaceful civilian population.  He can't just apologise or hope its forgotten about.

I hope you're right, and that the current levels of Western outrage really do make this a game changer, but I can't help but wonder - one of the reasons people are worried about Ukraine's civilians is the concern is that he will do exactly the same thing to them as he did to Aleppo and Grozny. We all remember this now, but it probably wasn't that long ago that we had forgiven, forgotten, or at least pushed those episodes out of mind.

The fact the floods of refugees are on our doorstep, and cynically that we have latched onto Ukraine in a way we never did the Chechens or Syrians, probably makes it too hard to ignore, particularly the longer it draws out.

But I guess if he had won quickly and brutally levelled a city or two along the way (or to create an example to achieve that end) - in that hypothetical world, would be still be beyond the pale for the latter in a few years time... I'm cynical

[Oldmanmatt]

... there really isn't any way out of this now for Putin,  hes using indiscriminate weapons and illegal weapons on a peaceful civilian population.  He can't just apologise or hope its forgotten about.

I hope you're right, and that the current levels of Western outrage really do make this a game changer, but I can't help but wonder - one of the reasons people are worried about Ukraine's civilians is the concern is that he will do exactly the same thing to them as he did to Aleppo and Grozny. We all remember this now, but it probably wasn't that long ago that we had forgiven, forgotten, or at least pushed those episodes out of mind.

The fact the floods of refugees are on our doorstep, and cynically that we have latched onto Ukraine in a way we never did the Chechens or Syrians, probably makes it too hard to ignore, particularly the longer it draws out.

But I guess if he had won quickly and brutally levelled a city or two along the way (or to create an example to achieve that end) - in that hypothetical world, would be still be beyond the pale for the latter in a few years time... I'm cynical

Race, or at least ethnicity, plays into it massively.
Previous attacks have been on “non-Europeans” far enough away to be “other”.
This will play out in the Western consciousness as an attack on a “close cousin”, possibly even “step-sibling”. Humans are very tribal, this time it’s definitely family, though.

The above is not an endorsement of such thinking, just my cynical (possibly imagined) observations.

[Nails]

I'm not convinced ethnicity plays as large a part in the West's reaction to the war in Ukraine as many people suggest. I'm sure it's a factor but I also think that comparable conflicts involving Russia were effectively quite different. The Russo-Georgian war was very short lived and had no where near similar levels of destruction as Ukraine (probably worth noting that Georgia is also around 90% Christian and 80% ethnic Georgian who I think most people would consider to be white, literally "Caucasian"). The 2 Chechen wars I think appeared more to outsiders as separatist conflicts rather than an invasion of a peaceful independent country.

I also suspect that proximity is a very large factor. What shocks people most I think is the large scale invasion of an independent country. There are very few examples of this in recent history. I'm happy to be corrected but the only one I can think of is Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

[andy popp]

It's very hard  to conclude that race and ethnicity don't play a role in shaping attitudes to the refugee crisis the war in Ukraine is generating however.

The Mail is currently running two stories heaping praise on the wonderful generosity of the British people - and a selection of Daily Mail readers especially - who are offering to open their homes to Ukrainian refugees (whether or not the scheme ever gets off the ground is another question). This is a newspaper that has spent years vilifying and dehumanizing (black and brown) refugees in the most disgusting manner, to an extent that has no doubt influenced both the voting public and government policy.

Frankly, the hypocrisy (of the paper) disgusts me.

ps. I'm not arguing this is a uniquely British phenomenon. The Danish government, for example, is particularly hostile to refugees ... normally.

[jwi]

I very much doubt there is anyone who does not understand that neighbouring countries (Poland/Ukraine or Jordan/Syria) welcome more refugees than far flung places. Geography is real.

Last time I remember a country outright invaded a neighbour was when Iraq invaded Kuwait. It did not take many days until that was stopped iirc.

[AJM]

Last time I remember a country outright invaded a neighbour was when Iraq invaded Kuwait. It did not take many days until that was stopped iirc.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions

Not neighbours, but launched from neighbouring territory I would have thought Iraq would warrant some kind of mention, except on the very strictest of definitions.

Obviously the last time Russia invaded Ukraine is relevant for this list, as in the context of Syria is the chunk that Turkey seems to have taken of Northern Syria.  Some of them you might characterise as outsiders weighing in on an existing civil war, some things don't seem to have made the cut at all, maybe some of them were legally secession attempts... but either way, saying the last time was Kuwait seems to be stretching it a little...

[Oldmanmatt]

A couple of interesting follows. The first being an acquaintance of an acquaintance and the second dug up through the first chap’s posts:
https://instagram.com/cossackgundi?utm_medium=copy_link
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani?s=21

[jwi]

Last time I remember a country outright invaded a neighbour was when Iraq invaded Kuwait. It did not take many days until that was stopped iirc.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions

Not neighbours, but launched from neighbouring territory I would have thought Iraq would warrant some kind of mention, except on the very strictest of definitions.

Obviously the last time Russia invaded Ukraine is relevant for this list, as in the context of Syria is the chunk that Turkey seems to have taken of Northern Syria.  Some of them you might characterise as outsiders weighing in on an existing civil war, some things don't seem to have made the cut at all, maybe some of them were legally secession attempts... but either way, saying the last time was Kuwait seems to be stretching it a little...

I am not a big fan of colonial wars, postcolonial wars (hello France) or proxy conflicts either, but as you noticed I carefully avoided them in the definition.

Another thing: find me one Syrian not on Assad's side who does not fully support the Ukrainian defence of their country.

[Wellsy]

I think there definitely has been a double standard in terms of the suffering of civilians in Ukraine compared to, say, Yemen

What is going on in Ukraine is awful, disgusting, immoral etc. But the KSA bombing kids in Yemen is also those things and that has been going on for a while to largely indifference from most people.

[AJM]

Last time I remember a country outright invaded a neighbour was when Iraq invaded Kuwait. It did not take many days until that was stopped iirc.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions

Not neighbours, but launched from neighbouring territory I would have thought Iraq would warrant some kind of mention, except on the very strictest of definitions.

Obviously the last time Russia invaded Ukraine is relevant for this list, as in the context of Syria is the chunk that Turkey seems to have taken of Northern Syria.  Some of them you might characterise as outsiders weighing in on an existing civil war, some things don't seem to have made the cut at all, maybe some of them were legally secession attempts... but either way, saying the last time was Kuwait seems to be stretching it a little...

I am not a big fan of colonial wars, postcolonial wars (hello France) or proxy conflicts either, but as you noticed I carefully avoided them in the definition.

At what point does the definition become so tight as to be meaningless?

If Kuwait was the last time "this sort of thing" happened, and that was sorted out fairly quickly, that implicitly says that it's a rare event (the second time in circa 30 years) and beyond the normal course of international relations. I just don't think the evidence supports that.

I am not sure what the point of your last sentence about Syrians supporting Ukraine was - it seemed unrelated to my point.

[Nails]

There are undoubtedly massive double standards with regard to the West's reaction to worldwide atrocities. I just suspect the difference has more to do with proximity and perceived threat to ourselves rather than ethnicity. And, yes the Daily Mail leaps on the help Ukrainian Refugees bandwagon when they know that it plays well with their readership, but remember the Mail's attitude to Eastern Europeans in the UK prior to Brexit.

[Fultonius]

I think there definitely has been a double standard in terms of the suffering of civilians in Ukraine compared to, say, Yemen

What is going on in Ukraine is awful, disgusting, immoral etc. But the KSA bombing kids in Yemen is also those things and that has been going on for a while to largely indifference from most people.

I'm not so sure about "indifference" certainly amongst my friends and family most are aware and disgusted, but feel pretty powerless. One of the (less but valid) reasons I quit Wood is that my division are winning more and more work in Saudi Arabia and I don't want to work directly for KSA.

I think the fact its brown on brown and no risk to the UK means its much less in the news / forums and therefore less in people's mind.

If course, there are those who *are* indifferent, but I don't think it's fair to say everyone is. Still not sure what to do about it though....

[seankenny]

This New Yorker interview with Russia scholar Stephen Kotkin is good on Putin in historical context and what that might mean for the war and for Russia. I’ve read one of his books on the fall of the Soviet Union and it was very good.

One thing that appeals to me about his explanation is that it puts Russian history and society at the forefront. I always find the typical “alt progressive” view - represented here by the article DT linked to above, or indeed the standard Stop the War/Corbyn line - is that it’s so parochial. Western governments are responsible for everything and all agency is removed from internal actors, whether that’s Russian state security guys or Iraqi clerics etc etc.


https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/stephen-kotkin-putin-russia-ukraine-stalin

[Wellsy]

There are undoubtedly massive double standards with regard to the West's reaction to worldwide atrocities. I just suspect the difference has more to do with proximity and perceived threat to ourselves rather than ethnicity. And, yes the Daily Mail leaps on the help Ukrainian Refugees bandwagon when they know that it plays well with their readership, but remember the Mail's attitude to Eastern Europeans in the UK prior to Brexit.

I think there's a few factors but that the factors largely come down to war, famine etc being acceptable in the Middle East and not in Europe. Why? Race, proximity, the extent to which it is a variation from the expected norm, extent of journalistic access and focus etc. Yemen is BAU but Ukraine is definitely not, not on this scale anyway.

[Oldmanmatt]

There are undoubtedly massive double standards with regard to the West's reaction to worldwide atrocities. I just suspect the difference has more to do with proximity and perceived threat to ourselves rather than ethnicity. And, yes the Daily Mail leaps on the help Ukrainian Refugees bandwagon when they know that it plays well with their readership, but remember the Mail's attitude to Eastern Europeans in the UK prior to Brexit.

Not sure I agree, though I think you have a valid point about proximity.
However, imagine Russia had just invaded Australia.

[jwi]

It is advisable to prioritise conflicts in neighbouring countries over those far away. Ukraine's industry and agriculture is already deeply connected to the supply chain for central europe. And it is not like Russia would stop if they conquer Ukraine (despite what people would prefer to fantasise about. I do not know a single person from the Baltics or Russia who are convinced that Article 5 is worth a lot more than the paper it was written on). The Baltics would fall next and possibly Poland and Finland. Berlin is closer to Lviv than Paris (culturally, historically and geographically).

Everyone I know who is really really upset about Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine are either Ukrainian or from a neighbouring country or have already been deeply engaged in voluntary work towards helping in Syria and Yemen. 

[petejh]

There are undoubtedly massive double standards with regard to the West's reaction to worldwide atrocities. I just suspect the difference has more to do with proximity and perceived threat to ourselves rather than ethnicity. And, yes the Daily Mail leaps on the help Ukrainian Refugees bandwagon when they know that it plays well with their readership, but remember the Mail's attitude to Eastern Europeans in the UK prior to Brexit.

Not sure I agree, though I think you have a valid point about proximity.
However, imagine Russia had just invaded Australia.

Other stuff like proximity and ethnicity comes into the calculus I'm sure, but I think what's most resonant about Russia/ Ukraine is that this is a case of an autocracy - a particularly cynical, corrupt and increasingly fascist one - trying to invade and erase a liberal democracy. A true clash of ideologies.
A comparison might be China subjugating Hong-Kong. But in that case there's very little practically any of the liberal democracies could do to prevent China getting what it wants, without tipping the world into chaos for a principle. In the case of Ukraine, by economic and military means we *can* prevent Russia from getting what it wants. So it comes down to practicality as well as values.
The true test will be Taiwan, coming to a planet near you v.soon no doubt. I believe the west will have to step aside and let China take it. This is like that but Russia is far weaker.

[Will Hunt]

Apologies if this is naive, but just because Putin wants to invade Baltic states why should it follow that he can/will?

His war in Ukraine is shaping up to be a disaster for him. He's lost up to 200,000 Russians who have fled to neighbouring countries since the invasion started (these will be mobile, middle class people - the type of people who staff businesses and institutions that are integral to a well-functioning society), he's been placed under crippling sanctions, having to ramp up internal suppression of dissent, etc. Not to mention his military losses. He may well proceed to level Ukraine but if he's left with a substantial resisting territory to control he's going to have to commit forces there. With an economy in ruins, how is he going to fund further ventures into other countries? And might his value equation have shifted such that he wouldn't consider another war worthwhile even if he could finance an army?

[Oldmanmatt]

Apologies if this is naive, but just because Putin wants to invade Baltic states why should it follow that he can/will?

His war in Ukraine is shaping up to be a disaster for him. He's lost up to 200,000 Russians who have fled to neighbouring countries since the invasion started (these will be mobile, middle class people - the type of people who staff businesses and institutions that are integral to a well-functioning society), he's been placed under crippling sanctions, having to ramp up internal suppression of dissent, etc. Not to mention his military losses. He may well proceed to level Ukraine but if he's left with a substantial resisting territory to control he's going to have to commit forces there. With an economy in ruins, how is he going to fund further ventures into other countries? And might his value equation have shifted such that he wouldn't consider another war worthwhile even if he could finance an army?

Spot on.
Plenty of well informed people think exactly this.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CbDWI0BMb61/?utm_medium=copy_link
I’ve put the link to an Instagram summary of the twitter thread, because it’s relatively difficult to pin down the thread and it doesn’t seem to be on Kamil’s Substack yet.