Navigating the Tensions in Ukraine: A Scientific Perspective

[artis]

By the way, today Vladimir Zhirinovsky died, at age 75.
Apart from his drunk rants of nuking US and how George Bush is a idiot cowboy (the video is still out there but since the man died , well let's forget) he was also a strong supporter of Putin's imperialist policy.
He once said that in a war with NATO , most bombs would fall in the parts closer to Russia etc.
For those that care about the details you can google his name the news are full.

 

[vela]

You can not take Putin at his word. It is worthless and done for domestic PR and manipulating opponents.

But you can take a Russian spokeperson at his/her word that they have no intention of using nuclear weapons? Just because Putin says something doesn't mean it's automatically a lie. He's been consistent about insisting Ukraine stay out of NATO, and it's not implausible he feels this way because he sees NATO as a threat, even though we don't.

 

[vela]

You really believe he believes that? That would be a powerful combination of crazy and stupid if it's true, and doesn't indicate to me that we can trust his stability enough for appeasement to produce a fruitful result for us.

I think he thinks if western leaders (except Trump) had the chance, they'd try to get him removed from power and replaced. It's a vicious circle. He acts out based on his assumptions. We see him as evil, corrupt, and a danger to the rest of the world and treat him accordingly, which simply reinforces his belief we're out to get him.

Invading Russia might not be the most likely way of removing him from power, but it's also not infeasible. He saw the US make up fake reasons to invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power.

I think you have a tendency to think Putin sees us the way we see ourselves. We're the West. We're good! American exceptionalism at its finest. He doesn't think of us that way.

 

[BillTre]

But you can take a Russian spokeperson at his/her word that they have no intention of using nuclear weapons? Just because Putin says something doesn't mean it's automatically a lie.

Its also not implausible that all that is coming out of Russia on this is a continuous stream of BS going back (lo these many years) to when he first got in power and ment to benefit only Putin.

He's been consistent about insisting Ukraine stay out of NATO, and it's not implausible he feels this way because he sees NATO as a threat, even though we don't.

There is nothing really supporting this (like real actions) and it seems stupid to me.
"He wants to get nuked because the neighbors of the biggest country in the world have changed."
Jeez. What a bunch of crap!

His motivations are Putinian:
He has a lot to gain if people take his rantings more seriously than they should, with little consequences (since many wouldn't believe him anyway).
When he's telling the truth. its an accident, like a stopped clock being right twice a day.

 

[DennisN]

The war is consuming my thoughts, so I ought to give it a rest for a while.

I understand. This is very serious stuff, and it takes its toll. I also feel it. Take care!

 

[bob012345]

The Doomsday Clock hasn't been moved any closer since the invasion of Ukraine. It is still set at 100 seconds to midnight as it was in January.

https://thebulletin.org/2022/03/bul...=Web&utm_campaign=DoomsdayClockMarchStatement

 

[russ_watters]

I think he thinks if western leaders (except Trump) had the chance, they'd try to get him removed from power and replaced...

Invading Russia might not be the most likely way of removing him from power, but it's also not infeasible.

So that would make this about him, not about Russia. I didn't realize that's what you meant and doesn't seem to fit his narrative. Still, I guess it's possible that he sees this but it would be a halucination.

I think you have a tendency to think Putin sees us the way we see ourselves. We're the West. We're good! American exceptionalism at its finest. He doesn't think of us that way.

No, I don't. Those are opinions, not facts. I don't expect him to share my "good" vs "bad" opinions. But as a former intelligence officer I would expect him to be good at evaluating facts, regardless of his opinion of us. I would expect that he's aware of the facts that the US has not acquired any new territory since WWII and has never expressed any desire much less made any move to invade Russia or depose him personally. And that since the end of the Cold War we've only withdrawn from Europe. From a military standpoint I would expect he could accurately have assessed that prior to this war we were less of a threat to him/Russia than any time since WWII.

I suppose he could view Lithuania being part of NATO as the US's "bad" influence, but he can't be unaware of the fact that we are not stationing troops in Lithuania.

He saw the US make up fake reasons to invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power.

It's possible he saw that and extended it to himself, but it would be a stretch and again require him to have a loose screw and an additional knot.

BTW, Bush was honest where it should matter to a guy like Putin: he clearly and honestly stated the goal of deposing Hussein.

[edit]
Let's play that out a bit more. Suppose this is all about him personally. Suppose he viewed the next steps as:

1. Ukraine joins NATO
2. US moves troops into Ukraine
3. US invades Russia to depose Putin

Him invading Ukraine would have to be a pre-pre-emptive strike to prevent these. But why would we need Ukraine to execute our evil plan? Latvia is a member of NATO, borders Russia and is about the same distance from Moscow as Ukraine is. And it has a nice port (as do its neighbors, which are also in NATO). Why didn't we just send all our troops to attack from there?

It would be odd for Ukraine to be the linchpin in our evil plan that there's no evidence exists.

[Edit] Skipped part of this:

I think he thinks if western leaders (except Trump) had the chance, they'd try to get him removed from power and replaced. It's a vicious circle.

Circle? Cycle? I'm not seeing what you're referring to. I only see a cycle of Putin invading and conquering neighbors with little reaction from us. Laying low for a little while, then repeating. Until now.

 

[russ_watters]

I feel like responding point-by-point is diluting my position so I will restate more succinctly:

The United States does not now nor has it ever had a desire to invade Russia. Not this or any president nor any substantial fraction of the population. This is fact. If Putin is not aware of or does not believe this fact then he has a poor grasp of critical facts. That would be shocking for a seasoned intelligence officer. So I do not believe that he does.

 

[Vanadium 50]

or has it ever had a desire to invade Russia.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force,_Siberia

 

[bob012345]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force,_Siberia

That wasn't so much a desire to invade and conquer Russia as a necessity to stop the Bolsheviks.

 

[vela]

The United States does not now nor has it ever had a desire to invade Russia. Not this or any president nor any substantial fraction of the population. This is fact. If Putin is not aware of or does not believe this fact then he has a poor grasp of critical facts. That would be shocking for a seasoned intelligence officer. So I do not believe that he does.

Can you guarantee that will never change? If NATO were to decide, for whatever reason, to attack Russia, Putin would much prefer having Ukraine as a buffer than as a enemy nation right on its hard-to-defend border.

 

[BillTre]

Can you guarantee that will never change? If NATO were to decide, for whatever reason, to attack Russia, Putin would much prefer having Ukraine as a buffer than as a enemy nation right on its hard-to-defend border.

I think the rest of Europe needs a buffer from Russia, in case it decides to invade some other country.

Oh, but I guess that is just so much more unlikely to happen than NATO invading Russia!

 

[russ_watters]

Can you guarantee that will never change? If NATO were to decide, for whatever reason, to attack Russia, Putin would much prefer having Ukraine as a buffer than as a enemy nation right on its hard-to-defend border.

That's just silly and you're moving the goalposts. Previously it was that we want to depose Putin but now you're accepting that we don't but asking if I/we can promise it will never change. No, of course we can't - that would be impossible for anybody. But by that logic there's 38,000 other wars that should start now based on lack of future guarantees that Chile doesn't intend to invade Namibia (therefore Namibia should invade!) or New Zealand might later decide to invade Canada (therefore Canada should invade!). Or, of course, we should invade Russia because Russia might in the future decide it wants to invade us. That framing leads to every possible combination of combatants initiating wars against each other.

At this point I can't tell what you're after. Are you still speculating on behalf of Putin or are these your opinions? I can't fathom these thoughts appearing in Putin's head.

 

[russ_watters]

I think the rest of Europe needs a buffer from Russia, in case it decides to invade some other country.

Oh, but I guess that is just so much more unlikely to happen than NATO invading Russia!

Well, if we invade Ukraine to create a buffer against Russia does that count as invading Russia since Ukraine is Russia? What if we invade and then withdraw, does that make it a neutral buffer zone? Just to be sure, maybe we should bulldoze and mine the entire country and put up a wall on each side to make it clear that what's in the middle is definitely a neutral buffer zone.

 

[vela]

That's just silly and you're moving the goalposts.

It seems like you never understood where the goalposts were, and you're the one making ridiculous extrapolations.

You asserted Ukraine should be brought into NATO. I said that could very well provoke Putin. My argument was that Putin sees NATO as an adversary, and he absolutely doesn't want an enemy nation on a hard-to-defend portion of the border in the event that a conflict between NATO and Russia erupts. It's not just about the past and the present. It's about what might happen in the future. Putin's not going to be fine with Ukraine joining NATO simply because NATO hasn't seriously threatened Russia so far.

Your argument seems to be there's no reasonable way for Putin to think NATO is a threat to him now or in the future, but it doesn't really matter what you think is reasonable. It's what he thinks and fears based on his experiences that matters here.

 

[artis]

I suppose he could view Lithuania being part of NATO as the US's "bad" influence, but he can't be unaware of the fact that we are not stationing troops in Lithuania.

I'm afraid this is not true.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/where-nato-forces-are-deployed-2022-01-24/
NATO does station troops within the alliance borders. Some are stationed permanently while others rotate.
We in the Baltics have had all sorts of troops rotate here, Germans, Italians, Americans etc.
US soldiers have participated in drills and some are stationed here.
One thing is certain, the number of troops stationed here so far was minimal, it was barely enough to fill all the tanks with fuel at once, let alone attack Russia.
Putin is making a bargain, he takes Ukraine (if he does) but he gets many times more NATO troops on the other nearby territories + increased EU defense spending, all under way.
Apparently Ukraine is worth it politically and strategically , I do not believe that Kremlin did not anticipate any of this.

 

[artis]

Can you guarantee that will never change? If NATO were to decide, for whatever reason, to attack Russia, Putin would much prefer having Ukraine as a buffer than as a enemy nation right on its hard-to-defend border.

I think vela is right in a sense. I myself don't believe NATO would attack Russia though but let's look at it from a numbers approach

As I said before in this thread , from a purely strategic and military viewpoint having NATO in Ukraine is a weakness for Russia.
We are focusing all the time on politics and good will, yes sure I also don't think NATO will just try to invade Russia, but that is besides the point. If you laid out a battle map in front of an absolutely neutral war expert and asked in which position Russia is better off militarily, and there were 3 options where

Option 1 ) Ukraine in NATO
Option 2 ) Ukraine neutral buffer
Option 3) Ukraine part of Russia or under Russian influence

What do you honestly think would the neutral expert say?

And this is again just from a strategy viewpoint, not taking into account the wishes of smaller nations or value of human life, just pure numbers and maps and positions.

I think the answer is clear, Russia is better off militarily by option 2 or 3.The US has actually done similarly just the difference is that the US tried to do it with much less violence and bloodshed. Instead of just invading Cuba which US had the power to do, they tried to take down Castro alone. Not sure how they managed to fail so many times but still this is historical fact, US tried to overthrown regime in Cuba more times than I can count.
And let's not kid ourselves , US did not care about the freedom or well being of Cubans, US cared about Cuba not being a close position controlled by enemy forces. Cuba is/was important for US as a tactical position. That is why having USSR ICBM's on the island was a red line crossed.This is the sad fate of smaller nations being close to large nations they often get in the crosshairs.
it's just that Russia is on average more violent and tends to deal their political and military objectives with less care for surrounding nations, but Russia is not the only major power that has behaved this way. Pretty much every empire in history from Romans to USSR have done this.
That is not an excuse, given my location I would be dumb to excuse Russian aggression (contrary to what some, one? emotion driven member here has thought a while ago) I'm just stating the facts. Whether you like em or not is up to the reader

 

[artis]

Oh and one more thing, let's stop being hypocritical , I still recall how @ergospherical told me I'm just a armchair wiseguy with slightly above average googling skills , and yet here we are where most of you have piled up the last couple of pages with tons of emotion based speculation and arguing as if any of us had any say in this or any other world conflict.
If anything I should be the one who speculates emotionally given the risk to my well being that my proximity to the conflict gives, maybe @Bandersnatch too as he is even closer to Ukraine I believe.

Sorry for this but I felt I had to say it, otherwise I got criticized for something others are doing and having no problem. Yes I might have been a bit preachy, that I agree is annoying.

I think we need to remember that we are not enemies here nor aggressors, so let us not hold any grudge over one another, politics is a hellish subject to discuss anyway. It is very unfortunate that while discussing a dictator and his actions we start a proxy war on an internet forums.
I honestly don't think anyone here agrees with violence or invasion as a way of international relations, it;s just the details we get tangled up.

 

[PeroK]

It seems like you never understood where the goalposts were, and you're the one making ridiculous extrapolations.

You asserted Ukraine should be brought into NATO. I said that could very well provoke Putin. My argument was that Putin sees NATO as an adversary, and he absolutely doesn't want an enemy nation on a hard-to-defend portion of the border in the event that a conflict between NATO and Russia erupts. It's not just about the past and the present. It's about what might happen in the future. Putin's not going to be fine with Ukraine joining NATO simply because NATO hasn't seriously threatened Russia so far.

Your argument seems to be there's no reasonable way for Putin to think NATO is a threat to him now or in the future, but it doesn't really matter what you think is reasonable. It's what he thinks and fears based on his experiences that matters here.

Could you, in all honesty, go to Ukraine and look into the eyes of the people there and expound your view? Explain to them that it was the West's expansionism threatening Russia that forced Putin into action against them? That really they should be blaming the EU, the US and the UK for the shelling of their cities, the rape and murder of their people?

What are you going to say to the people of Ukraine? That they should stop "threatening" Russia as Putin demands?

The whole of Russian state TV is 24x7 "pure hatred" as @wrobel tells us. Do you disbelieve him? How is it possible for a sane human being not to see the tidal wave of hatred, fear and violence that Putin and his supporters and army have unleased on an essentially peaceful, democratic country?

This is as pure a war of naked aggression as you will ever find in any history books. As unprovoked as any. There was no threat to Russia that was not invented by Putin expressly for the purpose of justifiying a war.

 

[artis]

 

[artis]

This video is I believe as close as anyone can get to the emotions of pain and suffering and bravery at the same time

 

[PeroK]

This video is I believe as close as anyone can get to the emotions of pain and suffering and bravery at the same time

We'll probably never know how much we owe the people of Ukraine for fighting as well as they have. They may well have saved half of Europe from a lifetime of Russian occupation, dictatorship, oppression and brutality.

Assuming they survive the onslaught we should work on the assumption that we own them everything.

 

[PeroK]

Your argument seems to be there's no reasonable way for Putin to think NATO is a threat to him now or in the future, but it doesn't really matter what you think is reasonable. It's what he thinks and fears based on his experiences that matters here.

Just to reiterate the Russian position: Ukraine is not actually being attacked, Kyiv has not been shelled and no civilian areas have been hit:



Where does that fit into your assumption of Putin's reasonableness? You're talking about a regime that can look you in the eye and deny there's even a war going on.

How could you possibly imagine holding negotiations with these people? Their world is layer upon layer of lies and misinformation.

Where you see reasonableness, most of us see something from a totalitarian nightmare.

 

[wrobel]

I think the rest of Europe needs a buffer from Russia

looks like the "rest of Europe" consists of the first rate people and the "buffer" consists of the second rate ones.

 

[wrobel]

Putin's not going to be fine with Ukraine joining NATO simply because NATO hasn't seriously threatened Russia so far.

does that justify the invasion?

 

[artis]

looks like the "rest of Europe" consists of the first rate people and the "buffer" consists of the second rate ones.

Actually it was like this, at least in the 20th century. Eastern Europe, especially the Baltic states were the most luxurious part of the USSR , meanwhile after the breakup of the USSR we were looked at as the most degraded and left behind part of Europe, together with maybe Romania and only above countries like Albania , Ukraine etc.
In a sense this is true because our standard were indeed above the USSR average, we surpassed Ukraine, Kazakhstan etc and most of Russia but it was not as high as that attained by people living in capitalist democracies like west Germany, UK, France. Therefore we have always been somewhat in the middle.

Sure enough and most of us here share no illusion that if WW2 did not happen and there was no USSR occupation (but most importantly if the USSR wasn't marxist/communist), we the Baltics would have had a western European life standard all along.
Back in the 1920's and 30's we had a decent little economy going for us. This thread is not the right place for it but we were gaining steam back then.To note some interesting historical facts, we even had some world first's like the company VEF which was a national electronics manufacturer produced the worlds first miniature spy camera "VEF Minox" , invented by a Latvian born German inventor Walter Zapp.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minox
During the Soviet times we participated in a lot of science research and technology development but most of it was incorporated within classified military secrets and the real inventors and scientists never got the world fame they would have gotten if they worked from an independent country. Much of the success was simply written off for the USSR as a whole.

Many really good drugs got invented but sure enough they never got the true recognition they deserved as it all came from "USSR". The drug Mildronate is one good example. It's a heart drug that helps many and has almost no side effects, so much so professional athletes use it until it got included into the "anti doping" list.
https://www.usada.org/spirit-of-sport/education/meldonium/During the USSR few got to ever go out the "Iron curtain" so Baltics was a popular tourist destination from all across the USSR. Our beaches in the 60's , 70's and 80's looked like this daily. In that image there is everyone Ukrainians, Russians, all the "stans" etc.

What you don't see and what today's youth has not learned while those that are too old have forgotten is how all these people were actually a burden for a planned economy like that of the USSR. In a capitalist system this much people would mean money, lots of it, in the USSR this much people in one place meant empty store shelves and endless lines.
The electric trains passing from capital to this resort did pass every 5 minutes but each of them was full to the roof, we Latvians sometimes felt like guests in our own land...This is how it feels being in the middle especially if that middle is a Russian made Marxist superstate with planned economy and social life from George Orwell's "1984"

 

[vela]

Could you, in all honesty, go to Ukraine and look into the eyes of the people there and expound your view? Explain to them that it was the West's expansionism threatening Russia that forced Putin into action against them? That really they should be blaming the EU, the US and the UK for the shelling of their cities, the rape and murder of their people?

The only person laying blame on the West seems to be you. I never did.

 

[vela]

does that justify the invasion?

No. Did I say it did?

 

[PeroK]

No. Did I say it did?

You have been implying fairly strongly that Putin was justified and arguing against the view that it is his unjustified war of aggression and ambition.

 

[vela]

Oh and one more thing, let's stop being hypocritical , I still recall how @ergospherical told me I'm just a armchair wiseguy with slightly above average googling skills , and yet here we are where most of you have piled up the last couple of pages with tons of emotion based speculation and arguing as if any of us had any say in this or any other world conflict.

The same thought crossed my mind. I'll stop posting.

 

[vela]

You have been implying fairly strongly that Putin was justified and arguing against the view that it is his unjustified war of aggression and ambition.

I have not. Describing what I think Putin's mindset is is not the equivalent to justifying his actions. I'll leave it at that.

 

[MikeeMiracle]

Your argument seems to be there's no reasonable way for Putin to think NATO is a threat to him now or in the future

Well, it depends on if you consider surrounding Russia with bases, weapons, troops is a threat or not. I would argue it does constitute a threat in a similar way the how the US has surrounded China with bases constitutes a threat to them. There is no equivalent threat in the other direction from Russia or China, the west or NATO are not "surrounded."

Putin has decided that he doesn't like the Ukrainian leadership and wants to overthrow them. The west decided they don't like Assad in Syria and started a war to overthrow him. The west didn't like Saddam in Iraq and so started a war to overthrow him. None of these wars are justified but due to our political leanings and media bias some are deemed "acceptable" and some are not depending on who is doing the overthrowing and if we consider them as "friendly" nations or not...

This is all just a game the bigger powers play for power and influence, unfortunately the real losers are always the same, the innocent civilians caught in the cross fire.

To clarify I do not support Putin's actions in Ukraine in the same way I didn't support our actions in Syria or Iraq. I struggle to see any necessity for any of the wars that have occurred this century, they all seem to have been wars for influence.

 

[artis]

I have not. Describing what I think Putin's mindset is is not the equivalent to justifying his actions. I'll leave it at that.

I felt just like you before, there is the problem here on PF that even when you attempt to approach the other side intellectually certain members will get emotional and the discussion will resort to "but how could you" "don't you see , children are dying etc" or the other spectrum "let's nuke em preemptively" etc.

Safe to say if I, for example, dare to say that Putin is not just evil but rational in his cruelty then I get to share the blame for the victims in Ukraine. Such approach is nonsense.

Just like I introduced the topic of buffer zones weeks ago here and @PeroK for example added me to the ignore list (no hard feelings, at least not from me Perok, we can interact again whenever you wish), hasn't responded since, is that an intellectual approach? Well I'd say it;s anything but that.
I really don't feel guilty of anything, I explicitly stated that it is not my personal opinion, but who cares , we are ready to die for our viewpoint and opinions aren't we? In this sense we are just like Putin, and truth be told I'm not even sure whether Putin is ready to die for whatever plan he currently believes...

 

[PeroK]

Well, it depends on if you consider surrounding Russia with bases, weapons, troops is a threat or not. I would argue it does constitute a threat in a similar way the how the US has surrounded China with bases constitutes a threat to them. There is no equivalent threat in the other direction from Russia or China, the west or NATO are not "surrounded."

Putin has decided that he doesn't like the Ukrainian leadership and wants to overthrow them. The west decided they don't like Assad in Syria and started a war to overthrow him. The west didn't like Saddam in Iraq and so started a war to overthrow him. None of these wars are justified but due to our political leanings and media bias some are deemed "acceptable" and some are not depending on who is doing the overthrowing and if we consider them as "friendly" nations or not...

This is all just a game the bigger powers play for power and influence, unfortunately the real losers are always the same, the innocent civilians caught in the cross fire.

To clarify I do not support Putin's actions in Ukraine in the same way I didn't support our actions in Syria or Iraq. I struggle to see any necessity for any of the wars that have occurred this century, they all seem to have been wars for influence.

This is all too easy. All wars are wrong and the west is just as bad as Putin. I don't accept that.

Iraq was madness and our governments got away with it. But, Ukraine is fundamentally much worse: it's the destruction of a free democracy (with the view to destroy more free democracies subsequently). And, whatever you think about Iraq, opposition to the war did not result in 15 years in prison. The tragedy is that the Iraq war took place despite all the checks and balances of democracy; despite the balanced reporting.

There are no checks and balances on Putin within Russia. None. He can say what he likes, do what he likes and not a word can be said against him. That ought to terrify you. However much I opposed the Iraq war, I'm not going to shrug and say Putin is no worse than Blair and Bush. That's all too easy.

 

[PeroK]

If Putin is no worse than Zelensky, and democracy no better than tyranny, then why are the Ukrainians fighting with everything they have to resist? Why do I feel sick at the thought of what Russia might do to Eastern Europe?