Navigating the Tensions in Ukraine: A Scientific Perspective

[Office_Shredder]

I think dangling NATO membership for Ukraine in front of Putin for so long was like waving a cape in front of a bull. The US and EU should have kept quiet about it and just done it already.

Way too messy. Does the us then take crimea back for Ukraine? Do they take the breakout regions in the east for them? There's no way you let someone join NATO and then let that kind of thing fester in their borders, and there's no way NATO wanted to get involved militarily.

 

[fresh_42]

I think dangling NATO membership for Ukraine in front of Putin for so long was like waving a cape in front of a bull. The US and EU should have kept quiet about it and just done it already.

Well, he proved them right! The failure I see is that Ukraine didn't release the two eastern provinces and Crimea, and requested NATO membership the minute Russia would have incorporated them. It was pretty obvious that they wouldn't have gotten it back.

 

[morrobay]

While I can support Poland,Hungary,and Czechoslovakia in NATO. It is understandable that Putin could be rattled about the former USSR Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in NATO.

 

[WWGD]

Did they offer anything? Even "no nuclear missiles on the border", which the US didn't like as near as Cuba?

Nato missiles are antiballistic. Those in cuba were Nuclear.

 

[WWGD]

While I can support Poland,Hungary,and Czechoslovakia in NATO. It is understandable that Putin could be rattled about the former USSR Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in NATO.

Why do you think they want to join Nato, instead of allying themselves with Russia?

 

[fresh_42]

Nato missiles are antiballistic. Those in cuba were Nuclear.

This is meanwhile totally irrelevant. We have nuclear weapons on the sea! And to be honest, the US wouldn't accept a Russian military basis on Cuba even nowadays. It is indeed hypocritical what NATO and the involved governments practice here.

 

[WWGD]

This is meanwhile totally irrelevant. We have nuclear weapons on the sea! And to be honest, the US wouldn't accept a Russian military basis on Cuba even nowadays. It is indeed hypocritical what NATO and the involved governments practice here.

Given the current turmoil in cuba, not sure Russians would want one. Nor in the other new (semi-) colony of Venezuela.

 

[BillTre]

While I can support Poland,Hungary,and Czechoslovakia in NATO. It is understandable that Putin could be rattled about the former USSR Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in NATO.

Poor little Russia.
Everybody's picking on them.
Better just let them have their way.
What a bunch of crap!

These other countries and their people also have rights and concerns, which some people would sacrifice for the questionable approval of an evil liar.

 

[morrobay]

Poor little Russia.
Everybody's picking on them.
Better just let them have their way.
What a bunch of crap!

These other countries and their people also have rights and concerns, which some people would sacrifice for the questionable approval of an evil liar.

I agree for all above. My point is only how I imagine Putin is reacting.

 

[hutchphd]

It is understandable that Putin could be rattled about the former USSR Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in NATO.

Because of their long and bellicose history marauding over St Petersburg? Why is this understandable? He is defective.
Thankfully they are all paid up with their NATO dues.

 

[WWGD]

Poor little Russia.
Everybody's picking on them.
Better just let them have their way.
What a bunch of crap!

These other countries and their people also have rights and concerns, which some people would sacrifice for the questionable approval of an evil liar.

I think it's a conflation of wants and needs, unwarrated in any way. Putin wants Nato to provide a buffer. Thus he attacks. No treaties nor international law warrants him this. I would want to have a private penthouse and $1,000,000 in my bank account. But I'm not a 5-year old and can distinguish between wants and needs. At most, I will "attack" the local deli for tonight's dinner.

 

[morrobay]

I think it's a conflation of wants and needs, unwarrated in any way. Putin wants Nato to provide a buffer. Thus he attacks.

Putin wants NATO as a buffer ?

 

[WWGD]

Putin wants NATO as a buffer ?

No, wants Nato to provide a buffer.

 

[morrobay]

Then what would that be?

 

[WWGD]

Then what would that be?

Supposedly Ukraine. That is hos claim, at least.

 

[Jarvis323]

I think the problem is not really all about NATO and Russian security. I think there are two main issues (1) Natural gas pipelines, Ukrainian natural resources, and corrupt oligarchs and their conncections (2) If Ukraine becomes a successful and prosperous democracy, it undermines the confidence in dictatorships.

In a way, Putin kills two birds with one stone by forcing Ukraine to be an isolated puppet state under control of corrupt Oligarchs connected to the Kremlin.

Putin (not necessarily the Russian government or people) is especially serious about the second one I think. Because he is the dictator. It is him personally who is threatened by Ukrainian success. I think he will sacrifice Russian interests to protect himself, but he is taking risks and it can backfire. He is on a tightrope I think.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It is understandable that Putin could be rattled about the former USSR Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in NATO.

Of course. Those are really part of Greater Russia.

 

[fresh_42]

Of course. Those are really part of Greater Russia.

I know that this was ironic. But for the sake of clarity:

Russia is indeed a multi-ethnic country. The Baltic States, on the other hand, tend not to be one of them. Let's face it, Estonians are more of a Finnish province.

 

[WWGD]

I know that this was ironic. But for the sake of clarity:

Russia is indeed a multi-ethnic country. The Baltic States, on the other hand, tend not to be one of them. Let's face it, Estonians are more of a Finnish province.

I understand Karelia was essentially abandoned and it became a wasteland, almost unpopulated. Though not sure if doing something with it would have been better in some sense.

 

[fresh_42]

I still don't get over Putin's chuzpe to call a Jew a Nazi.

 

[Astronuc]

NPR - "Ukraine's border agency says male citizens aged 18 to 60 cannot leave the country as long as martial law is in place. President Zelenskyy invited men from around Europe to fight, saying the war with Russia involves the entire continent." Seriously?!

 

[WWGD]

I still don't get over Putin's chuzpe to call a Jew a Nazi.

He's likely not playing with a full deck.

 

[russ_watters]

While I can support Poland,Hungary,and Czechoslovakia in NATO. It is understandable that Putin could be rattled about the former USSR Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in NATO.

How so?

 

[morrobay]

Because with Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in NATO , Putin then has no buffer zone. I don't question these three in NATO . I am imagining it is a problem for Putin. Especially since they were former USSR. I recall an earlier post of yours where you said this also.

 

[morrobay]

How so?

 

[artis]

Ok folks, I see there is some lacking information and arguably understanding with regards to the quite complicated issues at hand. I would like to present a neutral and informative explanation out of my own personal curiosity and need to understand the current situation, given my location and history I think (to the best of my ability) I understand the Russian side fairly well (both the propaganda part and the truth part) please before replying to this make sure to see the linked papers and articles and read them, it is important for a neutral and meaningful conversation.

The famous talking point about NATO expansion which is one of the main Kremlin objections with regards to Ukraine invasion, is actually somewhat valid geopolitically, for many reasons some of which I already talked in my post #197
but from a purely geographical perspective , imagine yourself in the Kremlin, then look at this map

If Finland at some point decides to join NATO (Sweden is already "allied" friendly and would lend their airfields for NATO fighters if need be) and if Ukraine does too (Ukraine is by far the largest European country besides Russia) then geopolitically the whole Russian western side including it's exit to many seas is effectively shielded by NATO bases and troops on ground, missile defenses, air defenses, sea, land, etc
I think it is fair to say USA for example has no real Russian controlled lands in it's vicinity, it is shielded by natural factors like Pacific and Atlantic ocean as well as Canada to it's north and Mexico in the south. Pretty much the only thing Mexico can endanger US with geopolitically is too much cheap drugs...

A good take on this in the link below
https://www.pressenza.com/2022/02/t...-invisible-people-in-the-conflict-in-ukraine/

And speaking of false promises, the one given by "west" to Ukraine that it will safeguard it in exchange for it's leftover Soviet nuclear arsenal was the first lie in a series of lies from both west and Russia. Sure enough if Ukraine now had some of those older Russian hydrogen bomb tipped MIRV ICBM's the whole specter of an invasion would seem much different. (One could also argue that such a massive thermonuclear arsenal in the hands of regional oligarchs and inexperienced serviceman could be a lethal weapon and a terrorist threat)

Anyway for sake of accuracy let me post just some of the "promises" that were given over the years but not kept.

Ukraine suddenly found itself independent and the third-largest nuclear power in the world. Thousands of nuclear arms had been stationed on its soil by Moscow, and they were still there. In the years that followed, Ukraine made the decision to denuclearize completely. In exchange, it would get a security guarantee from the U.S., the U.K. and Russia, known as the Budapest Memorandum. The implication was Ukraine would not be let to stand alone and face a threat should it come under one

They basically were 100x as strong as North Korea would ever be in terms of nuclear weapons and they gave it all up, for ... nothing.

Now here comes the part I bet none (some?) of you know,
Back in 1990, due to the inevitable prospect of German reunification Gorbachev was given many assurances to how far NATO would go and how should the situation look.
I suggest reading this link , George Washington Universities national security archive, an in depth article with tons of supporting documents, history before your eyes
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-...on-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

A slightly different take by Radio Free Europe, Gorbachev here downplays any western assurances given for NATO expansion to him back then, sure enough his prestige in Russia has always been very low as he is associated with the personified "destroyer of the USSR", so his personal "memory" of the events might get foggy on purpose...
https://www.rferl.org/a/nato-expansion-russia-mislead/31263602.html

With NATO in former republics such as the one I'm writing from , western troops are at their closest, some 350 miles from Moscow center, for modern weaponry that is essentially "pissing distance" away.
Now back in 2004 when NATO took in new member states (last NATO expansion) including all Baltic states, I think Putin was mad as hell, but due to historical reasons he got over it, then in 2008

A year after Putin's speech, at a Bucharest summit in April 2008, NATO declined to offer Georgia and Ukraine a fast-track path to membership but assured the two countries that they would eventually join the alliance

This was when I think they decided in Kremlin to eventually do something about it,
fast forward to 2014 and "Maidan" and the Ukrainians ousting the pro- Russian government, this I think was when Moscow started drawing up real plans realizing Ukraine is a "Titanic" from their perspective that is heading fast pace towards the iceberg of NATO.

A good explanation of how Moscow thinks
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-today

A new book, Not One Inch: America, Russia, and the Making of the Cold War Stalemate, by the prize-winning historian Mary Elise Sarotte, charts all the private discussions within the western alliance and with Russia over enlargement and reveals Russia as powerless to slow the ratchet effect of the opening of Nato’s door. The author concludes the charge of betrayal is technically untrue, but has a psychological truth.

On top of all this, it doesn't help much that some of the historical troops in Baltic states have been known to be associated with Nazi regime and SS legion, there are complicated historical reasons for why that happened but since I know that background, even as a non Jew myself I can safely say that there were antisemitic sentiments back then and during the German occupation a certain number of people did commit war crimes here together with the Nazi regime, Moscow has used this ever since as a blanket statement to point out racism and antisemitism as reasons for why we - the Baltics cannot be trusted.

Now why do I say this? Because Ukraine has also had problems with certain movements having antisemitic tendencies and Moscow uses that well for their propaganda and incorporates into it. Sure enough the Ukrainians are themselves to blame for not being able to get their sh!* together and not let dangerous radicals join their ranks among good patriotic people.
For example see here , the Azov battalion that helped the Maidan 2014 revolution, their members have had problems with Nazi affilliation
https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/world-...ome-ukrainians-contemplate-guerrilla-war.html

Even their logo incorporates some Nazi related symbolism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion

And they happened to make some war crimes along the way when the conflict started to unfold back in 2014, does that make Russia innocent? No but it gives the "fuel and ammunition" and legal right to claim what they claim is true.All in all Moscow uses this for it's gain, I don't mean this as a blanket statement that Ukrainians are nazi's because clearly they are not in general (historically Ukraine has had a large Jewish population) but loose governance and wrongly calculated moves play into the hands of the Kremlin.Now the reason why Putin did not attack the Baltics before we joined NATO, although he knew years before we were doing it and it was no secret is because we historically have been further away from Russian influence both culturally as well as politically, even though we share the same past of being in the USSR.
Ukraine is much much closer to Russia in every way imaginable, ethnically, culturally, politically, socially (one could argue with a straight face Ukrainians would blend in easily if they wished in the already large ethnic diversity of slavic people living inside the borders of the Russian federation [not to say they have to but in theory]), and they share a large inland border with Russia while also being a strategic point militarily, folks, make no mistake, losing Ukraine to NATO and the west would be the dumbest thing from a "chess" and military standpoint Russia could do, given it's past losses and current NATO position, rest assured there was no other way but for this to happen, and now let me say the harsh words for which I will probably get critique, --
It is partly the west's fault!
There were multiple avenues that NATO could have used to leave Ukraine neutral with some mutual assurance treaties between all involved parties, but I won't get into that because that would be current politics as opposed to past one and that would become too heated most likely so I already have given a quite vast information to think about those that are interested.All in all the US has bit overcalculated their influence as they did with Afghanistan and it has backfired as it did many times in the past, just like with the "Mujahideen" and giving them weapons and investing too much in the middle east which then came back as the "thank you" by the Saudi funded and Iran, Afghanistan militia backed terrorist groups calling US "great Satan" and 9/11 among other things.

This might sound selfish but from a personal point of view as someone who is located at the front lines of NATO, I don't think pushing eastward more was a sane idea from the beginning,
Just to end this on a cautious note, I will quote a man known personally to me who worked for my countries security service at some point, "Russia will face NATO in a hot war sooner or later given the course for the past 30 years"

@fresh_42 I really fail to see how you can claim the "insanity" part for Putin given all this comprehensive political strategy that is laid out before our eyes to see, well for those of us who understand it.
Let me just repeat my opinion, he is not insane unlike the Islamic radicals of 9/11 and ISIS etc, who could arguably be insane, Putin is simply very angry and he has been somewhat cornered over the past decades, again this is not my wish or opinion, just mere political reality.
You can bet on it, Russian special forces and intelligence has countless plans calculated throughout these past years for every possible scenario and the pros and cons all written down.
The reason for striking now is because of the pandemic, while the world is still busy relapsing, Putin will try to clean up his backyard, it's as simple as that.

 

[artis]

I know that this was ironic. But for the sake of clarity:

Russia is indeed a multi-ethnic country. The Baltic States, on the other hand, tend not to be one of them. Let's face it, Estonians are more of a Finnish province.

This is true, especially about the Estonians, I assume you have lived there for some time because no one outside of this region would understand the issue. On the other hand, for the sake of truth we also have a historically large Russian group living here. After all the Baltic states were all part of Russian empire back before the October revolution. The Russian speaking group got larger during the USSR, of all Ukrainians take up a considerable portion of them, given they were builders who came here to build the highrises when construction started booming after WW2 in the 1950's and 60's.
All in all from a today's perspective it's not easy to control a multiracial country that is next door to Russia but we here in the Baltics have been rather successful at that, so much so that we are regarded even by Russians as the best part of the former USSR, many still wish to live here.

This is meanwhile totally irrelevant. We have nuclear weapons on the sea! And to be honest, the US wouldn't accept a Russian military basis on Cuba even nowadays. It is indeed hypocritical what NATO and the involved governments practice here.

although I'm not 100% sure how you meant this but I think you partly then agree with my own assessment that NATO and the White house has been a bit day dreamy about how much they can accomplish and how far they should go before they reach the point of no return. The same way Khrushchev got a bit carried away when he decided it's a good idea to put Soviet nuclear tipped ICBM's on Cuba.
Oh and by the way since you like to give those psychological diagnosis to world leaders, let me agree with you here that Khrushchev could have been arguably crazy, even Russians admit that, hard to say the exact cause but I suspect his "relationship" with large amounts of vodka played it's part during his later years of life. But then again the courage to denounce Stalin in front of the KGB and Communist party leaders right after Stalin's death, you had to drink vodka to do that...

 

[artis]

As for current news, the word is going around here that Ramzan Kadyrov the leader of Checnya and a loyal friend to Putin has agreed to send his best men to kill off the Ukrainian government and anyone in their way.
The Chechens are known to be rather brutal and tough and skilled fighters so apparently my own guess would be that Kyiv is showing some considerable resistance if they are asked for help.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ashed-Ukraine-detain-kill-Kyiv-officials.html

They were also involved back in 2014 as it seems
https://worldbulletin.dunyabulteni....-chechens-ready-to-go-to-ukraine-h138006.html

Kadyrov advises Zelensky to apologize to Putin,
https://hindustannewshub.com/russia...ensky-to-apologize-to-putin-the-moscow-times/

 

[WWGD]

Ok folks, I see there is some lacking information and arguably understanding with regards to the quite complicated issues at hand. I would like to present a neutral and informative explanation out of my own personal curiosity and need to understand the current situation, given my location and history I think (to the best of my ability) I understand the Russian side fairly well (both the propaganda part and the truth part) please before replying to this make sure to see the linked papers and articles and read them, it is important for a neutral and meaningful conversation.

The famous talking point about NATO expansion which is one of the main Kremlin objections with regards to Ukraine invasion, is actually somewhat valid geopolitically, for many reasons some of which I already talked in my post #197
but from a purely geographical perspective , imagine yourself in the Kremlin, then look at this map
View attachment 297604

If Finland at some point decides to join NATO (Sweden is already "allied" friendly and would lend their airfields for NATO fighters if need be) and if Ukraine does too (Ukraine is by far the largest European country besides Russia) then geopolitically the whole Russian western side including it's exit to many seas is effectively shielded by NATO bases and troops on ground, missile defenses, air defenses, sea, land, etc
I think it is fair to say USA for example has no real Russian controlled lands in it's vicinity, it is shielded by natural factors like Pacific and Atlantic ocean as well as Canada to it's north and Mexico in the south. Pretty much the only thing Mexico can endanger US with geopolitically is too much cheap drugs...

A good take on this in the link below
https://www.pressenza.com/2022/02/t...-invisible-people-in-the-conflict-in-ukraine/

And speaking of false promises, the one given by "west" to Ukraine that it will safeguard it in exchange for it's leftover Soviet nuclear arsenal was the first lie in a series of lies from both west and Russia. Sure enough if Ukraine now had some of those older Russian hydrogen bomb tipped MIRV ICBM's the whole specter of an invasion would seem much different. (One could also argue that such a massive thermonuclear arsenal in the hands of regional oligarchs and inexperienced serviceman could be a lethal weapon and a terrorist threat)

Anyway for sake of accuracy let me post just some of the "promises" that were given over the years but not kept.


They basically were 100x as strong as North Korea would ever be in terms of nuclear weapons and they gave it all up, for ... nothing.

Now here comes the part I bet none (some?) of you know,
Back in 1990, due to the inevitable prospect of German reunification Gorbachev was given many assurances to how far NATO would go and how should the situation look.
I suggest reading this link , George Washington Universities national security archive, an in depth article with tons of supporting documents, history before your eyes
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-...on-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

A slightly different take by Radio Free Europe, Gorbachev here downplays any western assurances given for NATO expansion to him back then, sure enough his prestige in Russia has always been very low as he is associated with the personified "destroyer of the USSR", so his personal "memory" of the events might get foggy on purpose...
https://www.rferl.org/a/nato-expansion-russia-mislead/31263602.html

With NATO in former republics such as the one I'm writing from , western troops are at their closest, some 350 miles from Moscow center, for modern weaponry that is essentially "pissing distance" away.
Now back in 2004 when NATO took in new member states (last NATO expansion) including all Baltic states, I think Putin was mad as hell, but due to historical reasons he got over it, then in 2008

This was when I think they decided in Kremlin to eventually do something about it,
fast forward to 2014 and "Maidan" and the Ukrainians ousting the pro- Russian government, this I think was when Moscow started drawing up real plans realizing Ukraine is a "Titanic" from their perspective that is heading fast pace towards the iceberg of NATO.

A good explanation of how Moscow thinks
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-todayOn top of all this, it doesn't help much that some of the historical troops in Baltic states have been known to be associated with Nazi regime and SS legion, there are complicated historical reasons for why that happened but since I know that background, even as a non Jew myself I can safely say that there were antisemitic sentiments back then and during the German occupation a certain number of people did commit war crimes here together with the Nazi regime, Moscow has used this ever since as a blanket statement to point out racism and antisemitism as reasons for why we - the Baltics cannot be trusted.

Now why do I say this? Because Ukraine has also had problems with certain movements having antisemitic tendencies and Moscow uses that well for their propaganda and incorporates into it. Sure enough the Ukrainians are themselves to blame for not being able to get their sh!* together and not let dangerous radicals join their ranks among good patriotic people.
For example see here , the Azov battalion that helped the Maidan 2014 revolution, their members have had problems with Nazi affilliation
https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/world-...ome-ukrainians-contemplate-guerrilla-war.html

Even their logo incorporates some Nazi related symbolism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion

And they happened to make some war crimes along the way when the conflict started to unfold back in 2014, does that make Russia innocent? No but it gives the "fuel and ammunition" and legal right to claim what they claim is true.All in all Moscow uses this for it's gain, I don't mean this as a blanket statement that Ukrainians are nazi's because clearly they are not in general (historically Ukraine has had a large Jewish population) but loose governance and wrongly calculated moves play into the hands of the Kremlin.Now the reason why Putin did not attack the Baltics before we joined NATO, although he knew years before we were doing it and it was no secret is because we historically have been further away from Russian influence both culturally as well as politically, even though we share the same past of being in the USSR.
Ukraine is much much closer to Russia in every way imaginable, ethnically, culturally, politically, socially (one could argue with a straight face Ukrainians would blend in easily if they wished in the already large ethnic diversity of slavic people living inside the borders of the Russian federation [not to say they have to but in theory]), and they share a large inland border with Russia while also being a strategic point militarily, folks, make no mistake, losing Ukraine to NATO and the west would be the dumbest thing from a "chess" and military standpoint Russia could do, given it's past losses and current NATO position, rest assured there was no other way but for this to happen, and now let me say the harsh words for which I will probably get critique, --
It is partly the west's fault!
There were multiple avenues that NATO could have used to leave Ukraine neutral with some mutual assurance treaties between all involved parties, but I won't get into that because that would be current politics as opposed to past one and that would become too heated most likely so I already have given a quite vast information to think about those that are interested.All in all the US has bit overcalculated their influence as they did with Afghanistan and it has backfired as it did many times in the past, just like with the "Mujahideen" and giving them weapons and investing too much in the middle east which then came back as the "thank you" by the Saudi funded and Iran, Afghanistan militia backed terrorist groups calling US "great Satan" and 9/11 among other things.

This might sound selfish but from a personal point of view as someone who is located at the front lines of NATO, I don't think pushing eastward more was a sane idea from the beginning,
Just to end this on a cautious note, I will quote a man known personally to me who worked for my countries security service at some point, "Russia will face NATO in a hot war sooner or later given the course for the past 30 years"

@fresh_42 I really fail to see how you can claim the "insanity" part for Putin given all this comprehensive political strategy that is laid out before our eyes to see, well for those of us who understand it.
Let me just repeat my opinion, he is not insane unlike the Islamic radicals of 9/11 and ISIS etc, who could arguably be insane, Putin is simply very angry and he has been somewhat cornered over the past decades, again this is not my wish or opinion, just mere political reality.
You can bet on it, Russian special forces and intelligence has countless plans calculated throughout these past years for every possible scenario and the pros and cons all written down.
The reason for striking now is because of the pandemic, while the world is still busy relapsing, Putin will try to clean up his backyard, it's as simple as that.

Why do all these countries seek to join Nato, if not because Russias actions, behavior lead them to tjink it's in their interest to join?

 

[artis]

Why do all these countries seek to join Nato, if not because Russias actions, behavior lead them to tjink it's in their interest to join?

Yes due to historical reasons, sure countries like the Baltics seek to have future guarantees and safety assurances, you are correct. But I wasn't presenting the information from the perspective of former republics I specifically said I am presenting the viewpoint (to the best of my ability) that currently persists in Moscow and the Kremlin. Without knowing your opponent you are in the dark essentially.

 

[artis]

This is how driving in Ukraine now looks like, it's like a real life game of "battleship" with guessing which path will leave you alive.


Now if what is true from the sources here locally, Zelensky himself is still in Kyiv despite the odds against him and his men, he films videos and uploads them occasionally to inform his men to stay loyal, well you got to ask yourselves do you know of any politician who would not run away? So far I must say I am somewhat surprised by Zelensky's bravery, he started out as a comedian and then became a politician , now he is a soldier effectively. An interesting career.

A tank seemingly on purpose drove over a civilian car in Kyiv, but the driver has survived it seems, and just when you thought miracles don't happen in real life


This is said to have been part of the group that stole Ukrainian armored vehicles and tried to pose as Ukrainians to perform a "Trojan horse" move, they were recognized and a shootout ensued

 

[artis]

To give you another aspect of this war, religion , yes religion, both Ukraine and Russia are historically orthodox and have been for many centuries, The Russian/Ukrainian orthodox tradition is more than 1000 years old, that is a huge cultural heritage both in terms of physical monuments and buildings as well as culture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Russian_Orthodox_Church
Recently they have faced opposition. Now why does that matter you say? Because unlike in the west Russia and Ukraine are still very religious states, religion and God matters in this part of the world.
Historically in Russia, somewhat less so in Ukraine the church has been affiliated with the state , especially during the period of the USSR in fact it was only allowed to exist in a special form and most bishops and clergy men were actually agents of KGB they just preached gospel in the meantime while writing down the "confessions of sins" from the civilians they attended to.
Now lately the church has been under the blessing of the Kremlin, the Kremlin uses the Russian orthodox church as one of it's many intelligence arms and a PR stunt to show that Putin and the leaders of the GRU, FSB, etc are men of faith , this might seem laughable to those in USA or Europe as in USA, Europe hardly anyone would care whether the director of the CIA or NSA or NATO is a man of faith but in Russia to many it matters still that their leader is someone who protects the classical way of life and faith. This is partly also why Russian government has been so clearly against any western influence in terms of LGBTQ and other issues, two main reasons, first is that Russian mentality is mostly against such minority issues, allowing for same sex marriage as was done in the US would be seen as extreme perversion and also a political weakness.
These minority issues are also one of the reasons why US gets mocked and hated so dearly by many around the world from Russia to the middle east, your minority issues are essentially a fuel for the Kremlin and Islamic radicals alike to show how pathetic and weak/morally corrupt the west is (somewhat along the lines of the old Bolshevik story of the rotten west), it is just seen as something so obscene, but on the other hand, both of the mentioned entities do love your money and some of the goods produced so there is some irony in everything.

I will not even put in the links because if you wish you can just simply google " Kremlin Russian church" etc and there will be a plethora of articles to read in this regard.
Let's just suffice with a picture of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin "kissing" the head of the Russian church - Patriarch Kirill

And Putin has also had his fair share of kissing Icons of the church (which he was advised against during the pandemic) and attending church. some photos of it in this link
https://www.oocities.org/capitolhill/parliament/5160/Putin/religion.html
https://www.google.com/search?q=put...HR4WA3oQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1366&bih=615&dpr=1Now fast forward all is going well so far , Putin is in church, the candles are lit, the light is dim , the angels sing Carols...
and then a "mic drop", kind of "what the hell" moment, The Ukrainian orthodox church decides to split away from the Russian orthodox church and become "self -governing"

To reiterate what I said above about the importance of the church here, taken from the article in the link

KAKISSIS: So under the Soviet Union, the church that exists - that wasn't destroyed by the Kremlin, but the Kremlin did severely control and regulate it. Professor Brik, the religion expert, he said that though Ukrainians aren't particularly religious, they all go to church on Easter and Christmas. They baptize their kids because, you know, the church is just part of their culture.


BRIK: Ukraine is very similar to other Eastern European and post-communist countries in this respect. In our societies, religion is very much connected to the sense of national identity. So it is very important to think about yourself as an Orthodox if you want to say that you are truly Ukrainian.

So I can bet you somebody in Kremlin said "Oh hell no!" when this happened, and it became part of the deal ever since.
Some history in the links below.
https://religionnews.com/2022/02/09...reflects-historic-russian-ukrainian-tensions/

https://religiondispatches.org/make...ussia-and-ukraine-it-will-be-a-religious-war/

This same drama is being played out within Orthodox Christianity at this very moment. Just like Muslims, Orthodox Christians have spent the better part of the modern age in an uncomfortable dance with the West. Throughout this time, Orthodox Christians have disagreed about what their relationship should be to the liberal, secular, rationalist world

Read as "rotten, perverse, morally dead" world. I know orthodox Christians personally who already count the US as dying from within.
But more importantly

Modern Russia also has designs on Africa, where it seeks to compete with China and the Western powers for influence on a continent of natural resources and growing markets. And there’s little doubt that Russia has, in recent years, sought increasingly to use the Russian Orthodox Church as an instrument of foreign influence: in Ukraine, Serbia, Western Europe, and the United States. A tactic only made possible by the Patriarchate of Moscow’s desire to establish itself as the leader of the conservative Orthodox cause.

Now with Ukraine and Zelensky being "spoiled" and trying to brake away this cultural influence is under threat and so just adds to the anger in the Kremlin.
Oh and make no mistake!, the Russian government despite it's brutal and bloody past has always had a great deal of soft power in it's arsenal. Back in the Soviet times cultural workers and poets were among the most respected people who got to go abroad and publish their works even if they were mediocre as long as they had a sentiment about the "beautiful socialist reality" within them. Surely their trips and vacations were guarded by KGB agents wearing suits and pretending as fellow intellectuals but nevertheless, they were the pawns in the game to recruit intellectuals living in exile to join back to the Soviet cause.
I've read a book about one of my fellow countrymen, a man who was a KGB agent and did just this , he was sent to US to work as the coordinator for cultural visits and exchange.
He defected to the US in the 80's, later died from unknown causes, well as expected...

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blo...inst-ukrainian-orthodox-independence-in-2020/So I've wrote a great deal, it took some time to gather up what I know, I hope my effort is useful to those seeking to understand the situation from a deeper more intellectual stance and not just the "flag waving" parade that is going on now online.

 

[artis]

Now to jump back to current events once more, look at this video , from my own viewpoint a very "on point" and precise summation of the current situation , definitely I'm impressed. This man has done his homework
You can take much of what he said "to the bank"!

 

[artis]

You've posted some opinions how you think Russian see things and how you think the West has played a role, and even some history related to those two countries, but you've largely skipped the most important point of view, which is Ukraine's point of view and the history of Russia and Ukraine relations.

That is true but not because I would want to be biased here rather because of the "overflow" of information from all sides given the sudden attack, no one here has had the time yet, including me, to think through the everyday Ukrainian experience, that being said I share both grief and sympathy for Ukraine as all former republics here share similar fate to some point.

the Soviet Union waged one of the largest genocides on Ukraine in history. Ukrainians hatred of the Soviet Union was so extreme, that when the Nazi's invaded they hoped they would be liberated from Moscow at first. Of course then they learned the hard lesson. They were sandwhiched by two sides both inflicting brutality on them. I honestly don't know how any Neo-Nazi's can exist now in Ukraine, especially considering the Nazi's had planned to exterminate all of the Slavic people eventually. But there are some apparently, and that is unfortunate.

Yes, the USSR under the rule of Stalin implemented collectivization policy which was to take away food from those that resisted being incorporated within the "Kolhoz" aka Collective farm system, this led to mass starvation. NKVD aka "cheka" agents seized grains and all food and shot those who resisted. Bodies of dead people were across streets and corners, people just crawled up and died wherever.
This led to what is known as "Holodomor" or Great famine,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Truly one of the most extreme human suffering (both in scope as well as cruelty) in the entire history of this planet. Something not that many know or understand in the west, so thanks @Jarvis323 for pointing out and reminding. Although I can't blame the people in North America espeically and west in general, they have enjoyed almost carefree life for nearly 1.5 centuries without a major war on their soil (North American case), unlike Europe especially eastern Europe which has seen bloodshed of unparalleled proportions.

As for your point about the Nazi sympathies, yes I can agree to an extent, indeed also here in Latvia many saw German troops more favorably then the Russian Red army ones, because it was general knowledge and also somewhat true that Germans had higher manners and were nicer in general than Red army soldiers and regime.
But The Jewish population on the other hand felt quite differently, I still know some older Jews who are soon to be 90, who still see Russia and the former USSR favorably even in spite of Soviet red terror, that is solely because the Germans the moment they came in they rounded up people and began separating Jews and taking them to prison camps where they were either shot or burned as in Auschwitz.

So there is more than one opinion and for different races the history also is different. But to do justice to this part I would need to write a book length of material here which is not feasible.
So pardon if I leave something out.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Although I can't blame the people in the west, they have enjoyed almost carefree life for nearly 2 centuries without a major war on their soil, unlike Europe especially eastern Europe which has seen bloodshed of unparalleled proportions.

Does your definition of the west not include Western Europe?