Navigating the Tensions in Ukraine: A Scientific Perspective

[StevieTNZ]

NZ's Parliament is sitting for the first time in a week - the first motion moved, in relation to Russia invading Ukraine:

I believe Mr Speaker said the prayer in Ukrainian:
The motion moved by the Prime Minister:
The response by the Leader of the Opposition:
Comments by the co-leader of the Green Party:
Comments by the leader of the ACT Party:
A procedural matter:
The Māori Party co-leader speaking, and then the vote for the motion put at the end: https://vimeo.com/683094379

 

[256bits]

Ukraine uses Turkish drones against Russian tanks and armoured vehicles​

https://www.businessinsider.com/ukr...-as-videos-show-destroyed-russia-tanks-2022-2
I think Ukraine should have been better prepared, even as late as last week after a week of warnings. Ukraine has had a year or two to build up defenses.

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/...-plane-destroyed-ukraine-scli-intl/index.html
An AN-225 transport aircraft was destroyed by Russian missiles. Why wasn't that aircraft removed to a safe nation a week before?

Wondered about that.

Wondered also about why Zelensky before the conflict started was dismissing US reports of invasion as being inflammitory, and advising his people to be calm and relaxed.
Sure, when you have a bear at the door you don't poke it to get it more aggressive, but at least you prepare in case it breaks the door down.
Did Zelinsky himself under-reprepent his own peoples resolve?
Cat and mouse BS not working out for either side.

 

[artis]

I'm not interested in clogging this thread with personal theorising about history and politics.

Fair enough, I sometimes get too long and rambling about topics which worry me, if that makes you feel better I applaud your neutrality.

By your logic, maybe you can say this is also Latvia's fault for joining NATO? Would you argue that Latvia should offer to Putin to relinquish their NATO membership in order to stop the war? Maybe you can offer Putin control of Latvia too?

No, NATO is fine, that was not my point, besides why would I ever offer any Russian control of the country for which my grandfather fought and almost died for and got deported to Siberia? My point was/is that there is a certain situation in Russia and Ukraine is in a much different position than Latvia or Poland or Sweden or any other country. Comparisons like these never work. We have to look at the situation at hand, Ukraine is not in NATO, Putin is aggressive and starting WW3 to help Ukraine would be an even bigger blunder than the one we are currently in. Then we risk losing not just Ukraine but also my country Latvia, and much of Europe, and depending on where you are you too. Do you wish for that to happen?

How did the US approach Russia?

This is somewhat ahistorical. The US approached Japan and Germany by occupying them for a decade, totally obliterating their government, removing everyone from power, installing their own people at the top, and crushing the populace with propaganda while ruthlessly hunting down and removing from society the people who were deemed most at fault for the previous behavior.

If Russia volunteers to try the same thing I'm sure the US would be willing to give it a shot. This didn't actually work in Iraq and Afghanistan though, so we might not remember how to actually make this work...

If by occupying you mean having political and economical control then I agree. Again Russia is in a different situation than was Japan or Germany. My point was this. Germany was defeated and ridiculed after WW1 which made their population angry and resentful, such sentiment gave rise to Hitler (who could have otherwise been just an amateur artist and painter) Hitler then gave rise to WW2, but after WW2 the allies especially US adopted finally the right policy, that was to help and rebuild and show a better example.
The US Marshall plan is still I think one of the most successful political and economic policies ever implemented anywhere in the world.

The Swedish posture of “neutrality” is virtual.

Sadly I couldn't agree more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_during_World_War_II

Before the war, thousands of European Jews sought temporary refuge in Sweden, and were denied. Sweden allowed Germans to pass freely to other countries, and sold iron ore that became vital to the Nazi campaign of war. As the war began to shift in favor of the Allies, the Swedes changed their strategy with regard to aiding the precariously situated European Jews, who up to that point had been refused refuge in Sweden.

Perhaps the most important aspect of Sweden's concessions to Germany during the Second World War was the extensive export of iron ore for use in the German weapons industry, reaching ten million tons per year

An AN-225 transport aircraft was destroyed by Russian missiles. Why wasn't that aircraft removed to a safe nation a week before?

It was kept there for repairs I think. I think it would be hard to evacuate a plane that large during enemy fighter bombing anyway.

Wondered also about why Zelensky before the conflict started was dismissing US reports of invasion as being inflammitory, and advising his people to be calm and relaxed.
Sure, when you have a bear at the door you don't poke it to get it more aggressive, but at least you prepare in case it breaks the door down.

In all honesty Ukraine has done better than expected by anyone , even Putin is thinking his strategy through once more, that says alot. I for one think they were prepared given the rather limited support they got before the actual Russian aggression started.

 

[artis]

As to the "clogging up the thread" as @PeroK referred, here is my basic thinking, I would appreciate any feedback on it, after all besides some members disliking me , don't we all still enjoy intellectual approach to matters VS emotional? @russ_watters see for example whether you agree with my in depth explanation of this.

Dictators don't have power just all by themselves, they need at least some support to have power. I think on average the threshold is about no less than 1/3 of the population total.
A dictator without any backing is essentially just a murderer running from the police.

History has examples of how this works. Nicolae Ceausescu is one example
https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-fall-of-nicolae-ceausescu-romanias-last-communist-leader

As the decade ground on and the harsh austerity regime led to frequent power cuts, fuel shortages and an escalation in poverty while vast sums were being ploughed into the needless destruction and remodelling of cities such as Bucharest, it was inevitable that something would eventually snap.
The spark that lit the flame occurred in the town of Timisoara. A small protest against the eviction of a dissident Hungarian pastor from his church-owned flat quickly escalated into a huge anti-government demonstration. Ceaușescu allowed the police, the armed forces and the Securitate to open fire on the crowds and many men, women and children were killed or injured.

When dissenting voices began to be heard across the country about the Timisoara massacre and who was ultimately to blame for it, Ceaușescu realized he had made an error. He held an open-air meeting in Bucharest three days after the massacre, blaming anti-Romanian troublemakers for the uprising. The crowd was having none of it, and what was meant to be a pro-Ceaușescu rally soon turned into an anti-Ceaușescu demonstration as the crowd began to boo and shout abuse at the stunned dictator. Realising he was in very real danger of being lynched, Ceaușescu ducked into a nearby government building as Bucharest exploded into riots.

Here is an interesting bit

The dictator’s previously loyal armed forces turned on him, now siding with the protesters

The same almost happened in the 1991 USSR coup, the hardline communists basically arrested Gorbachev and held him in his "dacha" while commanded the army in the streets. But the army was not that willing to go against the people in the streets because almost everyone shared similar feelings about the country and which direction it should go.

I think it's simple, once your population becomes poor and faces harsh reality and then you decide to push them some more at some point that necessary threshold of support fades and from a dictator who controls matters you become a criminal running from police, or mob or people on streets whichever.

This is why China saw what is happening to the USSR and changed their tactics welcoming western capital, because the Communist party realized that between keeping power and keeping Marxist ideology they can only chose one but can't have both at the same time.
China is only able to do what it does now (concentration camps, police state etc) because it allowed it;'s people to get a better life therefore keeping the minimal necessary support on which they can then implement aggressive policies no other democratic government could afford to implement. It's a delicate balancing act essentially , where you balance fear and terror for one part of population but also give chance and opportunity to another.

The USSR fell because there was nothing to balance, the government had run the economy to ground and people were fed up, then the government tried to crush the revolt by force and ended up being crushed themselves as simple as that.
To make matters worse USSR was made up of many individual republics with different ethnic backgrounds and there was also a strong motivation to be more independent and national.So you ask how does any of this matter to the current situation? It's simple, my reasoning is that Putin can do what he does because he has that necessary support from within, it may sound scary or you might not believe me but that is the reality. There is a non negligible portion of the Russian Federation that accepts and wants what Putin does, and that is (to borrow a phrase...) "Make Russia Great Again"
Many Russians (especially the older folks) have that same resentment the Germans had after WW1, they feel ridiculed and laughed at from the west, and expanding NATO to the point of accepting Ukraine for them is unacceptable, they perceive the west as dirty pigs and rotten capitalists.( I personally know an older Jewish man who still thinks Stalin was great, simply because he saw the Red army kill Germans and Germans in turn killed his family, you see older people don't change that easily even in the face of truth revealed to them.)
This is the base that "enables" Putin, all major politicians have a base like that , otherwise they cannot have power. Trump for example used a large part of US that did not agree with where liberalism is going, agree with it or not, that was his base, He was "enabled" by them.
Hitler wasn't a lone man with a uniform and an obscene mustache, he was enabled by large masses and popular opinion.So where does that lead us? Well you either
1) Change that threshold that "enables" Putin, aka his support drops below that necessary for him to stay in power and then he is escorted by his own security forces out of Kremlin. This might happen with time if enough Russians find that his economic and military policy is detrimental to them

2) You take him down by force, like US has done with small third world country governments/dictators , but in the case of Russia , well good luck with that...

3) You approach the situation at hand and make the best possible scenario.
My own idea would be this. A peace treaty with very few but strict points.
Point 1) Immediate ceasefire and Russian withdrawal of army from Ukrainian soil.
Point 2) Strongly monitored by international parties - referendum in each Ukrainian province to vote whether the people want to join Russia or be part of Ukraine. Those that vote by a large majority to join (60+%) well let them join, the rest is Ukraine.
Point 3) After this Russia and NATO and Ukraine signs a document that says that from now on Ukraine will be independent and sovereign and without Russian meddling and also without NATO but with the option of joining EU. If Russia violates this, then Ukraine reserves the option to ask military assistance from NATO and NATO gives them weapons and everything else needed for war officially not covertly as is done now.PS. If anyone thinks this has not happened before, Well let me enlighten you, Latvia (my country) we gave to Russia a border region years ago , why? Because the absolute majority of the people there were Russians anyway and they wanted to join Russia. This defused the situation because now we don't have parts of our country that can turn separatist and if Russia makes any advance towards us we can then simply call it what it is - an act of violence and aggression.

 

[Rive]

my reasoning is that Putin can do what he does because he has that necessary support from within

Putin could start because he had adequate support. (*) But as we can see what he got is actually not what he has bargained for: nor in Ukraine, nor with the 'west' and apparently neither in Russia.

Don't take the situation as static. It is not.

So now the question is that whether the discrepancies are enough to pull together an opposing and able faction at home before Ukraine falls.

(*) well, at least: power...

 

[artis]

This morning a harsh reality occurred for a father and his son trying to escape war, they for whatever reason were shot at with some heavy caliber, father died while son was watching, Son is screaming in foul and frantic Russian for his father not to die.


Later son died too, their last survived german shepherd sits by his former owners dead body


When was the last time you heard of Monaco imposing sanctions on anyone?...
https://www.reuters.com/business/we...assets-following-ukraine-invasion-2022-02-28/There are reports of Truckers running with Rus and Belarus number plates getting attacked/shot at from Ukrainian forces, sadly such tactics even though understandable only play into Putin's rhetoric

 

[artis]

My Fb feed has Ukrainians saying that Russia is going "all in" there is supposedly a huge column of army heading towards Ukraine being supported by air support,
CNN says the column is 40 miles ! long, @PeroK you might dislike my commentary but to "pat myself on the back" it seems my current assessment so far has been and is very on point. Putin doesn't seem to back down , I still project he will most likely double down until there will be nothing left, at this point I don't know what is the final endgame but I feel Ukraine will suffer like few have suffered, sadly.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/01/europe/ukraine-russia-invasion-tuesday-intl-hnk/index.html

Some destruction from days before, Radio Free Europe added English subtitles
https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-bucha-russian-destroyed/31728780.html

The famous youtuber "bald and bankrupt" filming his own escape from Kyiv on the 25ft of February as Russian tanks advance towards the city, highly recommend this video as well as his other ones, he has traveled a lot in Russia and former republics, one can get a decent real "ground" view about the life in former republics from Ukraine to Moldova etc.




@Rive I'm not taking the situation as static, I am speaking as of now, I said myself the situation can change and Putin can lose that necessary support at home. Time will show.Russian banks switching from SWIFT to the Chinese alternative


NATO countries giving their USSR/Russian fighter aircraft to Ukraine for use. About 70 planes in total. Planes will be sent to Polish airfields where Ukrainian pilots will pick them up and perform attacks into Ukrainian territory. Mig 29's and Su25, so Russia fighting against it's own machinery essentially
https://tass.com/world/1413703
https://aviationsourcenews.com/news...ceive-70-more-aircraft-from-eu-nato-countries

 

[Maelstorm]

First of all, I'm in the United States. I will admit that I do not understand the current political climate in Russia. However, I have done research into the motivations of President Vladimir Putin's military campaign against the Ukraine.

https://www.nato.int/nato-on-the-map/#lat=51.35236516524707&lon=18.138987724097394&zoom=1&layer-1

Looking at the above map, one can see why Putin wants Ukraine, and it also explains his threats against Finland and Sweden. The Warsaw Pact ended in 1991 and saw the dissolution of the former USSR, countries that were part of the pact, and part of the USSR itself (East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Moldovia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kyrgyzstan). Ukraine, Belarus, and the Republic of Moldova was part of Russia itself and separated into their own countries. Now today, most of the former Soviet republics in Eastern Europe have joined NATO. This includes Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Romania. With the Ukraine courting the west, Putin feels threatened and is taking action to keep Ukraine from joining NATO and the European Union. It's obvious that Belarus has close ties with Moscow because they are preparing their military forces to join Russian forces in Ukraine. Based on my research, Moldova has close ties to the European Union.

The original reason (as we are taught here in the US) that Joseph Stalin annexed the afore mentioned countries, and forced the others to join the Warsaw Pact and the USSR was because Russia suffered heavy losses from Nazi Germany's invasion during WWII. With two world wars on the continent in the span of 30 years, Stalin was preparing a defense if a third war broke out, and was going to use these countries as a buffer to his own.

Needless to say, Putin was a colonel in the former KGB, so he still has the old Soviet style of thinking. Seeing those nations become part of NATO is probably frightening to him. He sees Ukraine courting western alliances and possibly joining NATO and the European Union as a threat to the national security of Russia...at least in his mind. So, Putin's motivation is to install a pro-Russian government in Ukraine to bolster the security of Russia. After that, who knows. But I have read a lot of comments here about Germany in 1938 and 1939, and I remember what was taught in school here about that too. Famous last words, "Peace in our time..."

Don't get me wrong, people here in the US are worried about the situation too because this could easily escalate into WWIII. If that happens, then the likelihood of the conflict going nuclear is very high indeed. This is why the United States is not sending troops to directly fight in Ukraine. But, we are moving troops around to help with the defense of NATO allies just in case Putin decides to try something. We really don't want to directly fight Russian troops and risk starting WWIII. Now, if Putin decides to attack a NATO ally, I guarantee you that the United States will step in and use whatever means necessary to end the threat, including the deployment and use of nuclear weapons if needed. Putin knows this, so he will probably stop at installing a pro-Russian government in Ukraine. I am most definitely NOT making excuses or apologizing for Putin's actions.

Remember, Putin has children and grandchildren, and the Russians do cherish their children just as much as the rest of us.

As a side note, there are three movies that EVERY world leader needs to watch...

• Failsafe (1964)
• The Day After (1983)
• Threads (1984)

When The Day After came out in 1983, I was 10 years old. That movie scared the hell out of me. The President of the United States at the time, Ronald Regan, watched that movie. Afterwards, he commented that the generals in the Pentagon were insane if they think we could win a nuclear war with Russia.

 

[PeroK]

@Maelstorm missing from your analysis is that the ex-Soviet bloc countries such as Poland had and have a LOT more to fear from Russia than Russia has to fear from them.

 

[PeroK]

... and NATO, the EU and Western alliances are held together by cooperation. The Warsaw Pact was maintained by force. Force against governments (Prague 1968 etc) and force against the people (the Berlin wall).

Our democracies are far from perfect but bear no relation to dictatorship, communist or otherwise.

 

[phinds]

The Warsaw Pact was maintained by force.

Our democracies are far from perfect

And the confluence of those two statements is shown perfectly by what happened in Hungary, 1956. The following is not a historical account but an emotional one.
https://sandefur.typepad.com/freespace/2009/06/thanksgiving-1956-by-ee-cummings.html

 

[artis]

Now today, most of the former Soviet republics in Eastern Europe have joined NATO. This includes Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Romania.

The highlighted country (bold by me) does no longer exist, it is now two separate sovereign countries namely,
The Czech republic and Slovakia, both beautiful places,lovely architecture and nature, I have been in both.

The original reason (as we are taught here in the US) that Joseph Stalin annexed the afore mentioned countries, and forced the others to join the Warsaw Pact and the USSR was because Russia suffered heavy losses from Nazi Germany's invasion during WWII. With two world wars on the continent in the span of 30 years, Stalin was preparing a defense if a third war broke out, and was going to use these countries as a buffer to his own.

This was also a form of "The winner takes it all" as has been the case in history countless times before.
The Soviet Red army fought Germans and as Germans retreated and ran towards the end of their war effort Red army troops closed in from all countries to the east of Germany (Poland, Czech republic, the Baltics etc.)
While allied forces like US, UK, closed from west, the Red army and west met near Torgau along the Elbe river, a historical moment in the war as Germany was at that point effectively cut in two and for all practical purposes defeated. It was just that after the war ended unlike the Americans the Soviets did not leave but stayed in the parts that they had previously fought Germans, after all this was the original plan between Hitler and Stalin known famously as "Molotov - Ribbentrop pact" in a bit changed way. This pact is notorious for it's secret protocol that basically divided Europe between Stalin and Hitler, just that Hitler made mistakes tried to grab too much and got killed so in the end Stalin got more of his part.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_Day

The first contact between American and Soviet patrols occurred near Strehla, after First Lieutenant Albert Kotzebue, an American soldier, crossed the River Elbe in a boat with three men of an intelligence and reconnaissance platoon. On the east bank they met forward elements of a Soviet Guards rifle regiment of the First Ukrainian Front, under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Gordeyev

The First Ukrainian front by the way was a battalion assembled from the people from what was back then "The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist republic" and

During 1943–1944, the Red Army recruited, more than 3 million people or 10% of the total population of Ukraine (in the Volyn region, this figure was 16%). In the troops of 1–4 Ukrainian fronts (mainly in infantry units and other formations), Ukrainians accounted for 60–80% of Soviet Red Army soldiers

Given we here know this history well, it is ever more so sad to see the very people who once fought side by side, and now their grandsons are fighting one another for no practical benefit, unlike back then.

Don't get me wrong, people here in the US are worried about the situation too because this could easily escalate into WWIII

Currently I would say this is almost exclusively dependent on the actions of NATO and Putin and no one else, if either steps too far or makes a bad mistake we could wake up to a totally different reality, so as bad as it sounds in a sense it's safer that the US current administration is sort of slow on doing anything about this. At least I feel safer that way, because just in case Putin has lost his mind in the way in which @fresh_42 here has said multiple times then making him lose it completely might be bad for all of us.
Us Latvians sent a load of US stingers to Ukraine just as this war began now few days ago, so there let me be proud for a second of our decisive and brave actions for a second here just as I am proud of Ukrainians exceeding all expectation and their president even though a comic by profession showing bravery orders of magnitude larger than most EU current leaders have.

The President of the United States at the time, Ronald Regan, watched that movie. Afterwards, he commented that the generals in the Pentagon were insane if they think we could win a nuclear war with Russia.

No worries, Russians have had their fair share of idiocy too. Khruschev liked alcohol quite well, and it seems world fate in terms of WW3 has been somewhat influenced by what happened at a bar
https://apnews.com/article/66d356ded2c3906342c6892532772463
https://warontherocks.com/2014/10/the-bartender-who-accidentally-saved-the-world/

I suggest a good read not that long, just goes to show that sometimes world history changing events get built upon little random details that slip in and out here and there.

 

[Frabjous]

No, NATO is fine, that was not my point, besides why would I ever offer any Russian control of the country for which my grandfather fought and almost died for and got deported to Siberia?

After this Russia and NATO and Ukraine signs a document that says that from now on Ukraine will be independent and sovereign and without Russian meddling and also without NATO but with the option of joining EU.

Kaliningrad is under a Russian-perceived threat. What privileges the Baltic States to possesses the self-determination that you would deny Ukraine?

 

[snorkack]

The original reason (as we are taught here in the US) that Joseph Stalin annexed the afore mentioned countries, and forced the others to join the Warsaw Pact and the USSR was because Russia suffered heavy losses from Nazi Germany's invasion during WWII. With two world wars on the continent in the span of 30 years, Stalin was preparing a defense if a third war broke out, and was going to use these countries as a buffer to his own.

That part is unlikely. He wanted to grab what was available. I don´t think Stalin planned for Cold War and West doubling down at Yalta and Potsdam, or for Iron Curtain through the middle of Europe. Stalin would have welcomed local communists taking over in Italy and France, as seemed possible in 1945-1946... and if they had, they would have had the alignment but lack of tight political control like the local communists in Yugoslavia or China.

 

[pinball1970]

In the meantime
The same stuff what went in Aleppo few years ago

I did not say it was a good situation, just better than escalation.

First of all, I'm in the United States. I will admit that I do not understand the current political climate in Russia. However, I have done research into the motivations of President Vladimir Putin's military campaign against the Ukraine.

• Failsafe (1964)
• The Day After (1983)
• Threads (1984)

When The Day After came out in 1983, I was 10 years old. That movie scared the hell out of me. The President of the United States at the time, Ronald Regan, watched that movie. Afterwards, he commented that the generals in the Pentagon were insane if they think we could win a nuclear war with Russia.

I only saw Threads a few years ago, horrific. I refused to watch it at the time.

Some better news today from our PM

"In a speech after the press conference on Tuesday, Mr Johnson said the UK had set aside £220m in humanitarian and emergency aid, and placed 1,000 British troops on standby to help with the humanitarian response in Europe.
He said the government was making it easier for Ukrainians in the UK to "bring their relatives our country", adding this could end up being more than 200,000 people."

 

[ergospherical]

Why do you , as well as others, here have to make this personal? I would not deny anything nor am I in a position to deny anyone anything. I only speak from a historical as well as strategical/political perspective I can understand some might dislike that but that has nothing to do with me.

I think what's irritating some members (myself included) is that it's quite exasperating to read these argumentative posts by non-experts like yourself - with slightly above-average googling skills - "debating" a brutal, real-world & unfolding invasion which they cannot comment on with any authority. Can you stop it, please.

 

[Rive]

This 'war' is rather strange. As it seems so far, from the 'red army' no air support, minimal logistics, all time low morale, no recon, no patrols, no occupation/territory keeping. Only (!) numbers thrown in.

This should be taken with a pinch bucket of salt, but still: fits.

 

[DennisN]

I read an interesting opinion piece in The Guardian by historian Yuval Noah Harari:

Why Vladimir Putin has already lost this war (by Yuval Noah Harari in The Guardian)

The article reflects pretty much how I feel and think about it, but I haven't expressed it in this thread yet as I have been more focused on what's going on currently.

In short: Yes, a country can be invaded and conquered. But can it be held?

I do currently not see Putin being able to obtain his objectives (I mean long term objectives).
And I think it's pretty clear that Putin has underestimated Ukraine (both the fighting spirit and sentiment) and also underestimated the response of the rest of the world.

 

[Astronuc]

Russia pummels Ukraine’s No. 2 city (Kharkiv) and convoy nears Kyiv​

https://apnews.com/article/russia-u...iness-europe-abc3e297725e57e6052529d844b5ee2f

Ukraine says its pilots are in Poland picking up donated MiG-29 fighter jets. Poland isn't commenting.​

https://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-says-pilots-poland-picking-054947409.html

Fiona Hill says Putin tried to tell Trump that in a conflict 'the nuclear option would be on the table' but she didn't think the former president understood the warning​

https://www.businessinsider.com/fiona-hill-trump-missed-putin-warning-nuclear-option-possible-2022-2
So, it shouldn't come as a total shock that Putin put his nuclear forces on alert and made a threat to the rest or the world, namely US, UK and EU. Was the warning passed on to the current administration?I think Putin method is coercion, intimidation and ultimately aggression with those who don't comply with his wishes/demands.

 

[Mike S.]

I hope this forum will welcome pro-Russian perspectives also. I've read Putin's speech transcript and some of RT.com's offerings ... I just haven't been convinced. But you can't refute, or exclude, a point of view without hearing it! A mistake that some of the over-the-top European censorship efforts of late has been failing to recognize.

The argument that Ukraine in NATO was just too much pressure is not unreasonable. The question for the pro-Russians is why Putin couldn't settle that question in a gentlemanly fashion. Agree to withdraw his Russian passport holders and leave all of the eastern provinces to Ukraine, while keeping the area of Crimea that was transferred to Stalin without plebiscite, and guaranteeing free navigation in the Sea of Azov, and in exchange Ukraine promises never to join NATO, and NATO signs off on that, but they can still join EU. Or something similar. Wasn't two eastern provinces enough leverage? Couldn't pressure have been applied as simply as some mild ceasefire violations by proxies? I'd think one goal should have been to have free commerce into Ukraine from both sides, and in so doing, protect Russia from any potential sanctions regime.

People on the pro-Ukraine side need to be cautious about getting carried away. Think of how quickly all the goodwill toward the U.S. after 9/11 was forfeited by ham-fisted military moves! Yes, at first sanctions and defense looked like they would be a washout. Then we get into crazy games where every sports league throws out the Russians (but wasn't sports supposed to be a peace gesture?), and their second-largest bank, but not their first- or third-largest, gets thrown out of Swift. The British went from encouraging people to go sign up for the Ukraine military to threatening them with being prosecuted as terrorists, and instead of the usual two years to do that, it only took them two days! Nobody fights for a good cause without getting sent to prison, everybody knows that. But why?

The whole economy of the world is in danger, not just Russia, and it's not part of a well-coordinated strategy, but a whole slew of emergency moves being made most likely with the same sort of ulterior motives as the average COVID precaution that says that wearing a certain badge and being tracked by the right non-health authority makes you less likely to spread the disease. The goal here STILL needs to be to "land this thing", not just go on with the crowd not knowing where it's marching off of. I understand the urge to stop Putin, but if people aren't going to give Zelensky the main things he actually asks for (EU membership... before he's pressured to give up trying?), random substitutes may be less than useless.

 

[fresh_42]

I hope this forum will welcome pro-Russian perspectives also.

I do not think so. You can explain the perspective since it belongs to the settings, such as the fact that Putin at home is still backed by the majority of Russians, mainly due to a year-long bombardment by propaganda and factually forbidding any media that oppose his positions.

However, you can not welcome someone's position who started an unprovoked war, uses banned weapons (thermobaric, cluster), and kills innocent children and civilians.

​

 

[Mike S.]

However, you can not welcome someone's position who started an unprovoked war, uses banned weapons (thermobaric, cluster), and kills innocent children and civilians.

We have to be careful about being too self-righteous. The U.S. has not been very good about cluster bombs or mines -- or attacking peaceful countries -- either. (To be sure, I would like to think that if the Panamanians or the Libyans had rallied behind their leaders with the pluck of the Ukrainians, it might have batted us across the nose hard enough to make us a better country) More importantly, we forget just how many older Russians died under perestroika and the economic collapse of the Soviet Union, while Americans patted themselves on the back. Now the sanctions are destroying the ruble and the Russian markets and where is the sympathy for the people who will be affected?

This has to end with a peace. And that means trying to show some understanding for the other side.

 

[fresh_42]

We have to be careful about being too self-righteous.

No. Not if one party kills children. There is no excuse.

The U.S. has not been very good about cluster bombs or mines -- or attacking peaceful countries -- either.

This isn't the topic and is irrelevant. One evil can never be used to justify another evil.

 

[Mike S.]

This isn't the topic and is irrelevant. One evil can never be used to justify another evil.

So you're against crashing the Russian economy then?

 

[Rive]

Now the sanctions are destroying the ruble and the Russian markets and where is the sympathy for the people who will be affected?

From another angle, those sanctions now shows how deeply Russia were treated as a partner previously.
So, question: why should anybody keep a partner who defines the other side as enemy instead?

 

[fresh_42]

So you're against crashing the Russian economy then?

Not at all. This is an effect and not a cause. Everything that is happening now is only and merely a consequence of Putin's war.

 

[Mike S.]

Everything that is happening now is only and merely a consequence of Putin's war

None of it is the effect of the U.S. setting an example of violence? I would have thought everything can be called the effect of something.

I'm not saying don't fight, but you should only be fighting if you honestly believe it is the best available path to a good outcome. "Russia is bad so we want to hurt them" is not a sensible argument. If you think you can get Putin overthrown in a couple of weeks and that will bring about a better life for Russians and Ukrainians and Americans, that would be a good cause. Very much Bhagavad-Gita territory here.

 

[snorkack]

I do not think so. You can explain the perspective since it belongs to the settings, such as the fact that Putin at home is still backed by the majority of Russians, mainly due to a year-long bombardment by propaganda and factually forbidding any media that oppose his positions.

It is not "the fact" that he is "still backed" by "majority" of Russians. It also is not "solely" due to the bombardment by propaganda.
Putin´s propaganda addresses preexisting beliefs and concerns. Denying and diminishing these preexisting beliefs and concerns is not the only way to address the results - whether these preexisting concerns were real or already false.

 

[fresh_42]

It is not "the fact" that he is "still backed" by "majority" of Russians. It also is not "solely" due to the bombardment by propaganda.
Putin´s propaganda addresses preexisting beliefs and concerns. Denying and diminishing these preexisting beliefs and concerns is not the only way to address the results - whether these preexisting concerns were real or already false.

Maybe, but this wasn't my message. I said that there is a difference between an explanation and an agreement. An important distinction. So substitute my example with an example that pleases you.

Edit: I haven't found a poll. I was repeating what a journalist in Moscow said yesterday.

 

[artis]

I think what's irritating some members (myself included) is that it's quite exasperating to read these argumentative posts by non-experts like yourself - with slightly above-average googling skills - "debating" a brutal, real-world & unfolding invasion which they cannot comment on with any authority. Can you stop it, please.

Yes that is what I thought given the silence from others is not random.
As for your assessment , well , thank you at least for " slightly above average" skills,I'll take that as my "participation trophy" as they call them in US and go home. But definitely I don't know more than the average westerner here... It's not like I have been born here, lived my life here interacted with people here and learned history as an additional subject in University,
But fine since my comments are not necessary and maybe your right, anyone can google basic stuff and make their own conclusions.

Wishing all a great further chat.

 

[Astronuc]

A top Russian official appeared to threaten France with 'real war' after the French finance minister said Western sanctions would 'cause the collapse of the Russian economy'
https://www.businessinsider.com/rus...war-economic-collapse-medvedev-lemaire-2022-3

I don't know the context of what was said, I hope the rhetoric cools down. We do not need an escalation of the conflict.

Update/edit to above: Apparently, a French minister declared economic 'war' on Russia, and then beat a retreat
https://news.yahoo.com/france-declares-economic-war-against-135622654.html

we forget just how many older Russians died under perestroika and the economic collapse of the Soviet Union,

That whole situation could have been and should have been handled differently. However, I would expect many folks in the west don't know history or follow foreign policy, but leave it to the 'experts' or politicians and business persons. Yeltsin was a mistake, but that is history (1990s). Putin came to power as a result.

Putin was born in Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg) and studied law at Leningrad State University, graduating in 1975. He worked as a KGB foreign intelligence officer for 16 years, rising to the rank of lieutenant colonel, before resigning in 1991 to begin a political career in Saint Petersburg. He moved to Moscow in 1996 to join the administration of president Boris Yeltsin. He briefly served as director of the Federal Security Service (FSB) and secretary of the Security Council, before being appointed as prime minister in August 1999. After the resignation of Yeltsin, Putin became acting president, and less than four months later was elected outright to his first term as president and was reelected in 2004.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Yeltsin

On a different topic:
References to vacuum bombs mean 'thermobaric bomb'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon

 

[fresh_42]

I don't know the context of what was said, I hope the rhetoric cools down. We do not need an escalation of the conflict.

The problem is, that a Russian defeat could well mean the end of the regime (quote: Vladimir Kaminer, Berlin, today). And that makes the whole situation so dangerous: Freedom [of decision] is just another word for nothing left to lose (Janis Joplin).

 

[Astronuc]

The problem is, that a Russian defeat could well mean the end of the regime (quote: Vladimir Kaminer, Berlin, today). And that makes the whole situation so dangerous:

The situation is precarious and grave.

However, what is a reasonable resolution for a 'home invasion' by a neighbor? Allow the invader to harm or expel rightful occupants and give over the home?

Will the invader pack up and leave peacefully after ransacking the home? Then what?

Lessons from 102 years ago and Versailles?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Conference_(1919–1920)

 

[russ_watters]

I hope this forum will welcome pro-Russian perspectives also. I've read Putin's speech transcript and some of RT.com's offerings ... I just haven't been convinced. But you can't refute, or exclude, a point of view without hearing it! A mistake that some of the over-the-top European censorship efforts of late has been failing to recognize.

We welcome perspectives based in facts and logic, but not lies and misinformation and we will not apologize for censoring them.

The argument that Ukraine in NATO was just too much pressure is not unreasonable.

I've seen this claim several times, but always skipping the actual argument. What is it? Pre-emptive response: yes, it is unreasonable.

We have to be careful about being too self-righteous. The U.S. has not been very good about cluster bombs or mines -- or attacking peaceful countries -- either.

Somebody else did a bad thing once is never a valid justification for doing a bad thing now. Nor are the people in this discussion leaders of their respective countries, bearing any personal responsibility for those bad things.

 

[Rive]

Russian defeat could well mean the end of the regime

Up to the definition of 'regime'. The Russian political leadership is a very complex mixture of various factors, and is unlikely to fundamentally change anytime soon, even in case they losing fail in this war.
Putin might be replaced, so 'spice wealth must flow'.