Navigating the Tensions in Ukraine: A Scientific Perspective

[artis]

Does your definition of the west not include Western Europe?

Well in case of Europe one would have to draw a line at multiple points because most of western Europe experienced war but for a short term and suffered smaller destruction, apart from Germany of course.
In the east "war" was already happening even before real war began in 1939. Ever since the October revolution and truth be told even before that (in 1905 for example) there were prosecutions and unrest only the sides changed, First it was the Czar doing that to the "workers" then it was the newly founded USSR doing that to everyone they got their hands on,
Here in the Baltics there was no peace, well for a short period maybe between 1920's up to 1939, when Stalin gave us an ultimatum to either accept their troops within our land (the excuse was to fight Germans) or suffer annihilation. We accepted and then WW2 started.
Both during the war in 1941 as well as after it , in 1949 there were mass deportations. Trains arrived mid night and soldiers rounded up the ones who were on "the list" as "enemies of the state" they with all their families were packed up into huge trains with railcars for animal transport and sent to Siberia. There in forced labor most died, some died in the journey as it took about 2 weeks.

I could go on and on so yes I think the east has suffered far more than the west if we are talking about Europe.
After all for the west Europe war ended with 1945, for us it only kind of ended in the 1960's and we fully regained something approximating independence in 1991.
The stories really differ by alot.
But technically you are correct Europe has had war on it's soil, even western Europe

 

[Office_Shredder]

You said two centuries, so you're also chucking out world war 1.

I do agree that despite that, and especially recently, Western Europe has had a relatively easy time as far as having its civilization destroyed by invading armies goes (and the US obviously even moreso).

 

[artis]

You said two centuries, so you're also chucking out world war 1.

I do agree that despite that, and especially recently, Western Europe has had a relatively easy time as far as having its civilization destroyed by invading armies goes (and the UD obviously even moreso).

Well that is a true point, damn I entirely forgot about WW1, yes truth be told I made a mistake I wrote west while actually thinking USA and North America, so my bad, let me change that

 

[wrobel]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_ins_Reich
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

The rest started on 9/1/39. We leap exactly 83 years and 5 months.

all dictatorships are similar and commit similar crimes

 

[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.

I refer to his state of mind thinking like a Czar and identifying himself with Russia as a whole. You may call it Napoleon complex, I call it F60.0. @russ_watters nailed it: "He didn't get the memo". And how do you justify that he is openly threatening to start a nuclear war? This alone is insane. And suffering hubris does not mean stupid.

 

[PeroK]

Well that is a true point, damn I entirely forgot about WW1, yes truth be told I made a mistake I wrote west while actually thinking USA and North America, so my bad, let me change that

You're also forgetting the US Civil War (160 years ago). You can't just "forget" WWI and expect us to take what you say seriously. Your analysis pays no attention to historical facts.

 

[Mike S.]

I see people have focused on religion here, and there is certainly some interesting material to consider. For Putin to call a Jew a Nazi is at once utterly absurd and false, but also not as fundamentally implausible as you might think. Look up the Continuation War between Finland and Russia. There were patriotic Jewish soldiers honorably defending their country ... for the Axis... against a Russian invasion conducted under the blind eye of the Allies ... and some of them were actually nominated for the Iron Cross! Yes, there were functioning synagogues behind Axis lines. If there's a moral to take from that, it's that war doesn't make sense, and if you can find the place where all logic and reason have broken down completely, that spot is the dead moral center of the war.

We should also see how things play out involving the Russian Orthodox Church and its apparent subservience to Putin's will, and how that all works in terms of ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Canonical_Communion_with_the_Moscow_Patriarchate The U.S. has never been very comfortable with such issues - I remember even one of the recent Supreme Court nominees was being attacked for potentially being under the influence of the Pope, and this is a more 'interesting' case.

 

[fresh_42]

all dictatorships are similar and commit similar crimes

I am less referring to autocracies in general, more to the faintness of the observers allowing things to develop and sometimes end up in an absolute catastrophe.

For short: appeasement was and is never a valid means to stop a war.

 

[snorkack]

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.

The problem with collectivization policy was that the people on the red side - which means, townspeople and soldiers, the people who were not directly involved in growing food but who were dependent on peasants growing food and parting with it, and who stood to starve if the peasants would not or could not, as they had during Civil War - were suspicious and distrustful of the peasants, and thought that the peasants would refuse to give food away if the peasants were not getting enough immediate reward, would hide food, make false claims about natural conditions causing bad harvest, and refuse to work hard and enjoy leisure if they thought their harvest would be taken without compensation. In the first years of collectivization, people survived, because the harvests were decent, but this set the expectations/norms. In 1932, weather was bad, but the townsfolk was unwilling to make as much allowance for it as necessary, and trigger-happy to accuse the peasants of cheating and exaggerating their losses.
So when people did starve, the townsfolk viewed them as deadbeats who were themselves at fault for not working well enough to feed the towns and themselves.
The effects of the famine seem to have been patchy - depending on how far the harvest ended up falling below expectations. Ukraine had largest number of dead, but not all regions of Ukraine equally. Kazakhstan had larger proportion of population dead, though fewer total than Ukraine. Russia was not safe - several regions of Volga, South Urals and South Siberia were affected.

 

[Mike S.]

The problem with collectivization policy was that the people on the red side ... were suspicious and distrustful of the peasants...

I think you need to go deeper. The USSR made bad decisions due to lack of information, but the lack of information was due to censorship. Wherever people are prevented from sharing their opinions as a free and open society, death follows. This occurs even when the deficit goes unnoticed or seems to have an explanation, like your workplace not telling you which people had Covid yesterday. But for a totalitarian state or a totalitarian planet, death is the mercy and the hope.

 

[fresh_42]

Please keep in mind that this thread is about current events. Try not to go into speculations, politics, or religion.

Whenever it is about Europe, history is automatically included. We appreciate those comments particularly from our Baltic members because they have insights and knowledge due to their own history. It is less meaningful if such comments come from corners of the world that did not have had similar history lessons at school like the ones who are concerned.

So please, keep in mind that we cannot reteach the entire European history, not even since the Crusades and the Knights Templar. But this is approximately the time window that must be considered to understand the present.

 

[artis]

And how do you justify that he is openly threatening to start a nuclear war? This alone is insane.

Just to make one point clear, I am not justifying anything nor anyone here. I am completely open to your diagnosis, all I said is that it seems to me there are lots of rational though cruel points he is trying to score that is merely it. I mean we both have more or less the same overall information I think, from there on it;s opinion.

You're also forgetting the US Civil War (160 years ago). You can't just "forget" WWI and expect us to take what you say seriously.

I did not "forget" WW1 as such, it would be hard for me to know the stuff before and after and then miss something like a 20 million death war in between don't you think?
I also am pretty informed about US Civil war and the reasons for it, I just made a error in my remark and I don't believe that is the reason to doubt the majority of what I have said for which I can provide ample references. You are more than welcome to take me up on anything I've said from history so far and I will give you references need be.

Your analysis pays no attention to historical facts.

I accept your statement but I myself would disagree.

I see people have focused on religion here, and there is certainly some interesting material to consider. For Putin to call a Jew a Nazi is at once utterly absurd and false

Not sure where is the focus here , I made a single post wishing to better describe what I think is less known about the state of affairs of religion and state in Russia as well as Ukraine.
That being said I agree with you, Zelensky is most definitely not a Nazi.
There have been elements within Ukraine's nationalist movement that are far right and would indeed fall under the "suspicion" and I already gave links to such instances.
The simple truth is you can find evidence for both in all countries including and especially so in former republics of the USSR. We have both far right as well as far left, it;s just that even if the majority of Ukrainians are not far right and I do think they are not (they just want a decent life and their own nation) some that are always get picked out and used for propaganda purposes by Kremlin.

The problem with collectivization policy was that the people on the red side - which means, townspeople and soldiers, the people who were not directly involved in growing food but who were dependent on peasants growing food and parting with it, and who stood to starve if the peasants would not or could not, as they had during Civil War - were suspicious and distrustful of the peasants, and thought that the peasants would refuse to give food away if the peasants were not getting enough immediate reward, would hide food, make false claims about natural conditions causing bad harvest, and refuse to work hard and enjoy leisure if they thought their harvest would be taken without compensation. In the first years of collectivization, people survived, because the harvests were decent, but this set the expectations/norms. In 1932, weather was bad, but the townsfolk was unwilling to make as much allowance for it as necessary, and trigger-happy to accuse the peasants of cheating and exaggerating their losses.
So when people did starve, the townsfolk viewed them as deadbeats who were themselves at fault for not working well enough to feed the towns and themselves.
The effects of the famine seem to have been patchy - depending on how far the harvest ended up falling below expectations. Ukraine had largest number of dead, but not all regions of Ukraine equally. Kazakhstan had larger proportion of population dead, though fewer total than Ukraine. Russia was not safe - several regions of Volga, South Urals and South Siberia were affected.

Well I'm not saying that this wasn't an issue, sure the history is complicated, but I am saying that essentially it was the Soviet policy that created this mess,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932–1933
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Holodomor

According to Simon Payaslian, a tentative scholarly consensus classifies the Soviet famine (at least in Ukraine) as a genocide,[20] whereas John Archibald Getty states that the scholarly consensus classifies the Holodomor as a policy blunder that affected many nationalities, rather than some genocidal plan.[21] Scholars say that it remains a significant issue in modern politics and dispute whether Soviet policies would fall under the legal definition of genocide

You see we can speculate all day about whether it was direct genocide or nature assisted genocide or else. I know a bunch of simple facts and one of them is far stronger than all others.
My own grandfather owned a rather large farm, he produced grain, meat and milk. He wasn't exactly a "Rockefeller" but he had decent income and was wealthy for all practical considerations. Many farmers that had been farming for many generations had acquired land resources and produced and sold goods.
When the Soviet collectivization came all such farmers were labeled "enemies of the state" or "kulaks"
Their land was taken from them and "nationalized" , as you would expect people robbed of their life's work at gunpoint had no real incentive to work or produce anything for anyone.
Without these policies even with bad weather there would be no such famine as there was I'm sure.
Truth be told the Soviet agriculture (of which Ukraine was a major part due to it's good large lands) really only ever picked up speed after WW2 with more modern equipment and lots of struggle before.
That is how I see it , given I have a somewhat personal "family" experience with Collective farms, at least their beginnings.
My father never got back the lands that were taken from my grandfather, I regained some of them but after 70+ years instead of farmland it had become a forest.
If you came here every other family could tell you a story of how something that they had was taken from them if they happened to be "above average" in terms of owning a property or having land.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

But why does he need a buffer zone? "I need a buffer zone" is not a complete thought. The point of a buffer zone, presumably, is to protect against something. Protect against what?

As I said before, this reason is nonsense.

 

[fresh_42]

Note: I removed two posts because neither separation of state and church nor communism is the topic here.

 

[russ_watters]

It is indeed hypocritical what NATO and the involved governments practice here.

No it isn't. Again, one is a threat and the other is a defense against the threat.

 

[russ_watters]

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

I would argue that it's not a buffer that he wants, since attacking removes the buffer. He wants Ukraine. The risk for NATO in Ukraine isn't losing the buffer its losing the opportunity to invade and seize.

He says "buffer" but means "places left unprotected so I cam invade them."

 

[PeroK]

No it isn't. Again, one is a threat and the other is a defense against the threat.

Precisely. The EU grows by countries applying to join! Not by being invaded! The EU didn't invade Poland, Romania and the Baltic countries - they applied to join the EU! Whereas, Ukraine did not apply to join Russia in an alliance. It was invaded to force it to comply with Russia's wishes by military force. This is the fundamental difference.

PS this was supposed to be the new world order post-1990. Voluntary alliances of nations; not empires.

 

[fresh_42]

No it isn't. Again, one is a threat and the other is a defense against the threat.

This is a bit of a biased view. Cuba could well justify a Russian military basis on its soil by the threat of the US. a) They have already landed in Cuba. b) They have massive sanctions in place against their current government.

Russia has been severely attacked twice in its younger history. They even had by far the most civilian casualties in WW II. To say NATO is no threat ignores these facts.

 

[PeroK]

Russia has been severely attacked twice in its younger history. They even had by far the most civilian casualties in WW II. To say NATO is no threat ignores these facts.

Sorry, I can't get my head round this way of thinking.

 

[geordief]

Is Putin going to seal Belarus ' fate?

Any support for the regime there will have to have diminished surely with their close up and engaged view of events

Is their time coming ?

 

[fresh_42]

Sorry, I can't get my head round this way of thinking.

I tried to describe the Russian position, and I know it is common there. I do not consider NATO a threat myself, but I have a totally different point of view. Russians have a different one, and I have no good argument why my assessment is more valid than theirs. They can always refer to 20,000,000 deads in the last century.

 

[russ_watters]

This is a bit of a biased view. Cuba could well justify a Russian military basis on its soil by the threat of the US. a) They have already landed in Cuba. b) They have massive sanctions in place against their current government.

Russia has been severely attacked twice in its younger history. They even had by far the most civilian casualties in WW II. To say NATO is no threat ignores these facts.

It's been 60 years(not that i concede relevant parallels). Does Putin really believe that's relevant today? Heck, our change in posture is largely what enabled Putin's advance.

 

[Mike S.]

The facts on the ground seemed meaningful here, but I never really understood. Russia had established "frozen war" and "passportization" in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine (Abkhazia, Ossetia, Transnistria). It was obvious that Russia wouldn't attack NATO because that would be World War III and NATO wouldn't allow any of the frozen-war countries to join for the same reason. So the no-brainer would have been for NATO to publicly encourage those countries to negotiate for a "Finland-like status" where they would not have any foreign alliances and not have any foreign troops on their soil. I don't know if the Russians would have been willing to give up their toeholds for a deal, but why didn't NATO at least push for that idea? A buffer is no less convenient for NATO than for Russia - it's one less place for fighter jets to scrape the paint off each other - and Finland was still free to join the EU and be a Generally Nice Place To Live. Better than a lot of others in this world.

 

[snorkack]

Sorry if you feel that the explanation of the basis of communism was off-topic.
But while a lot of Ukrainians feel themselves as independent people, a large part of Russians feel them about like a civil war.
This means that the propaganda on the Russian side is effectively like a propaganda for Russians to go to a civil war. And the objections of a lot of Russian people to the war are much like objections to a civil war - they regard Ukrainians as their own people, therefore they are opposed to attacking.

 

[PeroK]

I tried to describe the Russian position, and I know it is common there. I do not consider NATO a threat myself, but I have a totally different point of view. Russians have a different one, and I have no good argument why my assessment is more valid than theirs. They can always refer to 20,000,000 deads in the last century.

We're supposed to be looking to the future; not digging up grudges from the past. I don't believe modern Russians generally think like that. This is the work of an isolated dictator.

The simple truth is that Putin is relying on the cowardice of the EU and NATO not to act. He can hardly rely on that and also think the same nations would contemplate an invasion of Russia.

 

[fresh_42]

It's been 60 years(not that i concede relevant parallels). Does Putin really believe that's relevant today? Heck, our change in posture is largely what enabled Putin's advance.

It needed two great politicians (de Gaulle and Adenauer) to overcome the French-German hostility and the EU to end a history of centuries of war. Nothing similar has been done between Russia and "the West". IKEA and Mercedes alone don't heal such deep wounds.

I am not claiming that this position is right in an objective sense. But I do claim that the Russian majority still considers NATO as a threat, maybe not so much of the younger generation.

 

[fresh_42]

We're supposed to be looking to the future; not digging up grudges from the past. I don't believe modern Russians generally think like that. This is the work of an isolated dictator.

And here I think you are wrong. This might be looking so from the far west, but it doesn't look so after more than a century of political indoctrination for Russians.

Edit: You are right that Putin very likely considers the EU, not NATO, as a threat for his, let's say it as is, dictatorship. But he uses old adversaries that are still in Russians' minds. I would stress another historic parallel when a dictator used already given adversaries for his purpose, but I know you do not like those arguments (I recommend Hegel).

 

[WWGD]

This is a bit of a biased view. Cuba could well justify a Russian military basis on its soil by the threat of the US. a) They have already landed in Cuba. b) They have massive sanctions in place against their current government.

Russia has been severely attacked twice in its younger history. They even had by far the most civilian casualties in WW II. To say NATO is no threat ignores these facts.

Sanctions against cuba exist mostly in paper. Cuba has a healthy amount of trade with several countries

 

[WWGD]

Above is a list of countries that export to cuba.There are also several dollar-only stores that are chock full of everything you'd want. How do they supply themselves through sanctions? Cuba does not engage in more commerce because it does not pay its debts. Helms-Burton exists mostly on paper.

 

[PeroK]

It needed two great politicians (de Gaulle and Adenauer) to overcome the French-German hostility and the EU to end a history of centuries of war.

I can't keep up with your romp through the history of the 20th Century. Roosevelt, for example, thought de Gaulle was crazy. Europe held together despite de Gaulle. I will point out also that it was the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Germany!

 

[fresh_42]

Cuba isn't the topic here. I only drew a parallel as we were talking about buffer states. Does the US still occupy parts of Cuba or not? It is simply unfair to name Transnistria and request a different assessment for Cuba.

Someone has to speak for Russian people. They surely do not want this war. But not to compare Russia's buffers with Chinese or American buffers is simply one-sided and stubborn.

 

[russ_watters]

It needed two great politicians (de Gaulle and Adenauer) to overcome the French-German hostility and the EU to end a history of centuries of war. Nothing similar has been done between Russia and "the West". IKEA and Mercedes alone don't heal such deep wounds.

You don't need an alliance to end hostilities, you just need to...end hostilities. What did the US do when the USSR collapsed? Did we take the opportunity to invade while they were weakened? No, we packed up our tanks and went home from Europe because the threat was gone.

I am not claiming that this position is right in an objective sense. But I do claim that the Russian majority still considers NATO as a threat, maybe not so much of the younger generation.

I don't believe that, but nor do I believe their will even matters.

[Edit] And let's not kid ourselves here: Germany, France, the EU? They have never been a threat to the USSR since the new world order post-WWII. The only "threat" is the US.

 

[fresh_42]

I can't keep up with your romp through the history of the 20th Century. Roosevelt, for example, thought de Gaulle was crazy. Europe held together despite de Gaulle. I will point out also that it was the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Germany!

Have you read what I said at all?

... to overcome the French-German hostility ...

The Marshall plan or Roosevelt haven't the least to do with it. Who is bending facts? And that is what you all do if you want to understand the Russian (not Putin's) mindset. It is the biased view of the West.

 

[fresh_42]

I don't believe that

I wish I had you at my side during dozens of such discussions (with my nonacademic Russian (ex-) girlfriend and her friends when it came to politics) ...

 

[PeroK]

The Marshall plan or Roosevelt haven't the least to do with it.

They have as much to do with this thread as Adenauer and de Gaulle.