Navigating the Tensions in Ukraine: A Scientific Perspective

[fresh_42]

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

This is not true, simple as that. Until then the two called themselves 'hereditary enemy'. This was the position that had been to overcome.

Nobody ever did the same with the Russian population. Their indoctrination lasts for more than 100 years now, and they do not have a 'free press'. They are all only consuming the equivalence to the station with the three letters.

 

[snorkack]

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 where dictators used already given adversaries for their purpose, but I know you do not like those arguments (I recommend Hegel).

What was the source of the crisis, to recall? In 2013, the negotiations were for EU association treaty. EU was pressuring Ukraine for a lot of concessions in Ukraine domestic politics as a price for EU associations. While Russia pressured Ukraine to pick Russia over Ukraine. In November 2013, Yanukovych picked the Russian terms... and Euromaidan followed. In three months, Yanukovych was overthrown by domestic violent uprising, inside his term... Russia perceives the action of EU in 2013...2014 as inciting internal subversion. And acts threatened.

 

[fresh_42]

Russia perceives the action of EU in 2013...2014 as inciting internal subversion. And acts threatened.

You could also say that Maidan has been originally against corruption and oligarchs. And now it is revisiting from the east.

 

[PeroK]

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

The key question is whether Putin's position is unassailable. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I interpret what you're saying is that he is? He, the Russian Parliament, the leaders of the Russian Military, the leaders of the Russian industries and a majority of the Russian people believe that, as he says, they have no choice but to attack Ukraine? If so, then, I guess, we have either WWIII or another Cold War.

I don't believe that. That was true in the USSR. There was a genuine division along a fundamental political divide: Capitalism versus Communism.

But, Russian industries depend on the global ecomony and I can't believe that they believe that their country must make war against the west. If they thought they could overrun all of Europe, then of course, perhaps a pan-European Russian empire would have considerable appeal. But, they must know that this invasion of Ukraine is a monumental gamble and that domination of Eastern Europe as it was under the USSR is impossible. (As long as the USA stays loyal to NATO at least!)

The world is fundamentally different from the 1950s to 1980s. I don't believe that Putin is internally unassailable, the way the Politburo was.

 

[fresh_42]

He, the Russian Parliament, the leaders of the Russian Military, the leaders of the Russian industries and a majority of the Russian people believe that, as he says, they have no choice but to attack Ukraine?

This is not what I have said anywhere or anywhen.

I said that he probably considers Ukraine's attempt to join the EU as a threat to his autocracy.
I said that he uses common (within the Russian society, not the Russian elite) enemy images like NATO, fascism, drug addicts (and I'm waiting for gays) to justify his in my mind personal war.
And I said that there haven't been any attempts from the West other than IKEA and Mercedes to overcome those old prejudices.

 

[BWV]

From the POV of the US and Western Europe’s national interest, it should have been clear that NATO membership should only be extended to the countries absorbed by the USSR in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact - I.e yes on the Baltics but no on Ukraine and Caucuses (although the border of Ukraine changed considerably with the invasion of Poland in 39 so it’s not quite so neat)

It’s a geopolitical reality that certain old imperial spheres of influence need to be shown some respect - China re Taiwan and Tibet is another example. Thought it was reckless of McCain to agitate for Georgian NATO membership, for example. The problem is regimes change - we admit Ukraine it Georgia to NATO, what happens if they get some dictator who starts agitating for more Russian territory?

That said, this current war is 100% on Putin and hopefully will lead to his end as the war appears to be turning into a bloody quagmire.

 

[morrobay]

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.

Why does he need a buffer zone. Maybe you should ask @fresh_42 post #285

 

[BillTre]

All these arguments about about Russia needing some kind of buffer region to protect itself from invasion from other countries is BS subterfuge to rationalize their (Putin's actually) expansionist dreams.
Yeah they have a history with being invaded in WWII, but there is no threat of that now.
Anyone who believes Putin's transparent rationalizations is a fool. Its all for PR, internal and international.

Rather they are the threat to their neighbors. Ther neighbors need a buffer from Russia.

 

[Mike S.]

All these arguments about about Russia needing some kind of buffer region to protect itself from invasion from other countries is BS subterfuge to rationalize their (Putin's actually) expansionist dreams.

May be, but we're not singing Imagine here. Russia wants a buffer zone, and the question is, do we need to be pushing to put NATO troops in every single country in the region? Or would an agreement for their independence and peace be sufficient? Especially since we could always sign them up anyway if Russia doesn't keep to the agreement, and not even feel guilty about it. The worst that could happen is that Russia could invade the "buffer" countries while they're defenseless -- and that differs from the current situation how exactly?

 

[snorkack]

All these arguments about about Russia needing some kind of buffer region to protect itself from invasion from other countries is BS subterfuge to rationalize their (Putin's actually) expansionist dreams.
Yeah they have a history with being invaded in WWII, but there is no threat of that now.
Anyone who believes Putin's transparent rationalizations is a fool. Its all for PR, internal and international.

Rather they are the threat to their neighbors. Ther neighbors need a buffer from Russia.

It was not implausible that there was a threat to Russia and Russia was not a threat.
The issue is the difference between a stationary bandit and a roving bandit. The public face was to pretend to be a stationary bandit, but Putin ended up behaving like a roving bandit.

 

[BillTre]

It was not implausible that there was a threat to Russia and Russia was not a threat.

Yes it is implausible. The only real threats to Russia come from their own actions.

Or would an agreement for their independence and peace be sufficient?

There already is such an agreement (signed by Russia). Its worthless.

we could always sign them up anyway if Russia doesn't keep to the agreement

How's that working out now?

The current type of responses to Russia's blatant aggression are way too slow, which probably has to do with why Putin is doing what he's doing.

 

[fresh_42]

Ther neighbors need a buffer from Russia.

This is a Western point of view. The Eastern one is different.

 

[BillTre]

This is a Western point of view. The Eastern one is different.

What about the eastern view from within Russia's little (easternly located) neighbors.
Russia is not the only view of interest here. They just want people to forget about their victims.

 

[fresh_42]

What about the eastern view from within Russia's little (easternly located) neighbors.
Russia is not the only view of interest here. They just want people to forget about their victims.

I agree, and certainly with the facts. I've said twice that Russia is currently proving right why they all want to join NATO. However, Putin justifies his war that is in my opinion solely undertaken to create a czar-like image of himself in history books by certain arguments. And these arguments use the given prejudices and year-long indoctrination that is available in Russian society. Come on, every warlord does exactly this! This is not even new. Heck, I was afraid of NATO, too, not so long ago!

And it is also a fact that we did little to change those prejudices.

 

[artis]

I wanted to do a quote-reply type of thing but since so much has been posted let me just make some short (yes I know I usually expand too much... somewhat like Russia) answers, if anyone is interested given @PeroK took my one mistake earlier and said he then questions everything I have said so far.

@russ_watters let me answer you since you raised the point multiple times here,

The buffer zone idea is simple, nobody , at least not me, is saying that Russia needs buffer zones because NATO will attack it, truth be told I don't even think Putin believes that. But this is not the issue don't you understand? The issue is simple, take a map, (I already somewhat explained this in detail previously but it seems few took me seriously) now look at the countries bordering Russia from all western side, almost all European countries, now include Ukraine in them also and suppose all these countries have weapons systems within them near the border, systems that you don't control!
This is not about whether someone will use those systems or not, it's simply about the FACT that they are there and that's it.
Russians , not just Putin by the way , there is quite a percentage of people in Russia who don't exactly like that. It's not about the threat it's about the fact that you have less and less control over your backyard.

Now do these political and military wishes and interests of Russia coincide with the interests of the small republics that border Russia? Of course not , but they have never coincided , never!
It's not like we border Russia for the first year , we live here for more than 1000 years, arguably even more.
We have had disputes over the border and who will control who and what since that time.

Now, so what is the solution?
Here is my take , arguably a rational one. Especially given this is my direct interest and area of concern, I'm literally sitting next to Russian thermonuclear missiles! (which might be a good thing, given the yield you wouldn't want to drop them so close to home...)You cannot have a scenario where Russia is completely buffered up and surrounded from all sides with weapons even if nobody attacks, that simply will never work, it has never worked for any large country, truth be told not even US. Another factor is the enemy close by archetype, especially if you are not all that successful like Russia was in the 90's, look at Germany, one of the reasons Hitler was successful is because Germans felt betrayed and ridiculed after WW1, so came WW2. Remember dictators are not exactly lone wolf players, you have to have a large support in order to make ordinary people with a family of 3 children take up uniforms and murder Jews by day while read children's books to their kids by evening...

NATO already expanded much further than it could have ever dreamed off, no American president before 1990 would ever even in their wildest dreams think that one day NATO will be 300 miles from Moscow!
The problem with world powers often (both Russian and US) is they don't know when enough is enough!

You reach the balance point and then you keep it, balance in international politics is a fine tuning thing, you have to be careful, just because something looks right doesn't mean it has to be done.
We had an almost balance like state so far, before the Ukrainians started revolting in 2014 we had I'd say he most peace we have ever had here.
Teasing Ukraine with the option of NATO and telling Putin he will have to be ok with US tanks within Ukraine which apart from Russian propaganda is indeed the historical seat and cultural center of the Russian empire was a bit too much, it's sort of like meeting your new girlfriend and then pushing her into sexual relationship the next day, you can't move that fast or that far.I know this sounds bit selfish, one could say "yes you got NATO and now when others want the same you say - no for you" but this is a political reality.My own idea is that Ukraine should have been given guarantees that it will be able to join EU but not NATO, while Russia should have been told to keep out of Ukraine , so as long as they keep out of Ukraine NATO doesn't step in but if Russian interferes with Ukraine then NATO will help them.

Instead what happened is this. NATO dangled the option for Ukraine to join, Zelensky being a smart and young man spent much time traveling abroad pushing everyone to accept Ukraine in both EU and NATO, meanwhile Russia was somewhat left out of the dialogue , and now Putin is in Ukraine with force.And please respect my opinion, I am not pro anybody here I'm trying to be as neutral as one can be, but bad politics is bad politics I have to call it out.
My former driving instructor said once "if you make the right choices you can avoid any accident" at first I kind of thought his nuts, but then it settled to me, indeed just like in chess, you make a couple of bad moves from the start and you lose at the end.

This in no way or form "whitewashes" Russian imperialist past nor their current aggression, but every coin has two sides. My take is this could have been avoided.

 

[wrobel]

However, Putin justifies his war

God bless you for this bold font

 

[PeroK]

NATO already expanded much further than it could have ever dreamed off, no American president before 1990 would ever even in their wildest dreams think that one day NATO will be 300 miles from Moscow!
The problem with world powers often (both Russian and US) is they don't know when enough is enough!

In other words, you just don't get the idea that every nation gets to decide for itself. It's the difference between coercion and military domination and peaceable unions of nations.

It seems to me that Ukraine a) did not join NATO; b) did not join the EU; and c) Russia invaded in any case.

 

[fresh_42]

God bless you for this bold font

I can't say anything negative about the Russian people I have met, except for their homophobia perhaps. But I am sure that the vast majority do not want this war for a minute, not just the thousands of protesters and the 2,000+ they have already arrested.

 

[artis]

Another comment, NATO if it only wants to serve it's original goal, doesn't need every country in Europe and the middle east to join it, originally it was just fine even without half of what it has today.
Ukraine could have joined EU and Had some deals with Putin and NATO could have simply said ,we will not go into Ukraine and you won't too.

IIRC back in the Cold war days NATO only had western Europe and Soviet ICBM, loads of them, were sitting right next on the border lines, American ICBM's were stationed in west Germany, Italy IIRC, and other parts.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-.../us-nuclear-presence-western-europe-1954-1962
And all was fine. We had balance. We also had it post 1990, even in the face of NATO expansion.

Now it;'s no secret that European NATO allies have nuclear weapons stored on site

The current numbers of nuclear bombs and their locations is an official secret, although it is widely understood that about 100 to 150 bombs are kept at air bases in Belgium, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, and Turkey.[1] Before the early 1990s, however, the U.S. had thousands of nuclear weapons in NATO Europe, with the late 1960s a peak in the range of 8,000

Now if Ukraine joined NATO it would mean Ukraine would also have nukes on it;'s border, it has a vast border that stretches deep into Russian territory, a border that is arguably the most sensitive of any land border Russia has in Europe.
Also Russia's exit to Black sea.

In other words, you just don't get the idea that every nation gets to decide for itself. It's the difference between coercion and military domination and peaceable unions of nations.

I'm sorry Perok but it seems to me you are the one who is stubborn here.
I "get" every idea, I live in a country where we voted for NATO, I did too.
But it seems to me you don't get geopolitics and military strategy,
Ukraine in NATO is not just a single issue deal, it's not just about whether Ukraine wants it or not, it;'s much more complicated.

If my next door neighbor wants a higher paid job that is fine, but when my next door neighbor starts storing tons of gunpowder at his house I might have an issue with that...

US lived through the Cuban missile Crisis, did you not learn anything from that experience?
Kennedy I bet was up all night and day in those stressful days until it was resolved.
Cuba does not even have a land border with the US, and back then those were R12 Dvina missiles, with a range of 2000km or just bit over 1200 miles, so posed a threat to only the US south, IIRC the max payload was a 4Mt single bomb.

Europe effectively still has much more than that with a land border contact with Russia, once you see it in this light it makes more sense.

 

[Astronuc]

It seems to me that Ukraine a) did not join NATO; b) did not join the EU; and c) Russia invaded in any case.

a) and b) were pending, and c) happened as a preventative measure of a) and b).

 

[artis]

a) and b) were pending, and c) happened as a preventative measure of a) and b).

I think you got it. not to say that measure c was a good one from a humanistic perspective but it definitely was a good option from a military strategy point.
Actually Trump was correct when he recently made those remarks that from a strategy point this is the right time and the right place to grab. But again a country is not a single issue deal, strategy is one thing, real people and their wishes is another, often they don't go together.

I will say it again there were other avenues this is simply failed politics from all sides

PS. I bet Tibet would love to tell China what they really think of them, maybe NATO should let Tibet join? I am all for the people of Tibet and their different view as opposed to China's military atheism but sometimes you just can't have all those nice things because we live in a complicated and cruel world, instead of the best you chose the least evil.

But please let me say it once more, this is a intellectual (hopefully) discussion, don't mistake my arguments for my personal view, maybe then @PeroK you won't have to be sad about what I say.
I am not a dictator!

 

[phinds]

It was not implausible that there was a threat to Russia and Russia was not a threat.

SERIOUSLY ? I cannot imagine how you came to either side of that conclusion since it simply flies in the face of reality.

 

[PeroK]

a) and b) were pending, and c) happened as a preventative measure of a) and b).

Why did Ukraine want to join NATO? To protect itself from a Russian invasion? Why did Russia invade Ukraine? To stop it joining NATO!

The darkest, blackest Catch-22.

 

[fresh_42]

I "get" every idea, I live in a country where we voted for NATO, I did too.

I voted for a party with 'leave NATO' on its agenda. I simply didn't and don't want to be dragged into a war just because some morons voted a moron into office. We had one megalomaniac. That's enough.

 

[artis]

I voted for a party with 'leave NATO' on its agenda. I simply didn't and don't want to be dragged into a war just because some morons voted a moron into office. We had one megalomaniac. That's enough.

Well truth be told once your in NATO while in Europe (wherever that is) it's a wise thing to stay in NATO.
NATO is like the summit of Everest , not everybody gets there, not everybody should (arguably), but those who happen to be there should simply enjoy the view...

 

[fresh_42]

Well truth be told once your in NATO while in Europe (wherever that is) it's a wise thing to stay in NATO.
NATO is like the summit of Everest , not everybody gets there, not everybody should (arguably), but those who happen to be there should simply enjoy the view...

Until an unpredictable idiot comes to power. We had one. Thanks, but no thanks. Not again. I am more afraid of untrustworthy politicians in power than I am of any attack. Modern wars will (and ancient wars have been) fought on the economic frontline (cp. China), or quite new, on the internet.

 

[PeroK]

I voted for a party with 'leave NATO' on its agenda. I simply didn't and don't want to be dragged into a war just because some morons voted a moron into office. We had one megalomaniac. That's enough.

I can't understand your views on this. You started off complaining about appeasement, comparing NATO and the EU now to Munich 1938. Now, you tell us that you don't want any part in anyone else's war. You don't want to be part of a strategic alliance? That you have no stomach for a fight?

 

[artis]

Why did Ukraine want to join NATO? To protect itself from a Russian invasion? Why did Russia invade Ukraine? To stop it joining NATO!

The darkest, blackest Catch-22.

I see some parallels between Ukraine and China and the coronavirus. China (given it's tough security and police state) had the option to keep Covid inside, then only Chinese people would have suffered, but it seems given their extreme measures they did quite well, but instead they let it out and now it is what it is.

Global politics is just like that, you can chose either someone somewhere suffers or everybody suffers. US and Cuba before Castro was no different, many Latin American countries suffered because US had their interests there and so kept loyal puppet governments , essentially the same thing Russia had in Ukraine until 2014.
Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy here? Yeah sure one could argue US had it much less and not as brutal but still.

This is not a to be or not to be issue, this is a how far do you go , issue.
Yes Ukraine could have just kept on being Ukraine now we risk running all of Europe into war, which is the better option here ?
Now if there is anyone here who would be ready to die for the sake of ideology and perfectionism I respect that, and I respect every Ukrainian soldier who puts himself in front of bullets for what he believes.
I'm just not that big of a believer and not that brave or having that strong of an ideology, but I'm honest.

This is exactly why we have good diplomats , good spies, and good politicians to avoid having to resort to fundamentalism and existential last minute issues and red buttons.

 

[Astronuc]

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.

Certainly Germany, France, EU, US have not been military threats. None of those entities had militaristic intentions against Russia since the collapse of the USSR.

After the collapse of USSR, there was the Commonwealth of Independent States, and Russia probably thought it still had some control. Then the other republics pulled away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Independent_States

Back in the 1990s, I worked on some projects with Eastern European utilities as they turned west and away from Russia. Russia was the dominant supplier in Eastern Europe, and slowly EU and US companies began chipping away at their business. The Russians were certainly not pleased. They didn't like having to compete in the global market.

In the late 1990s, I attended a conference in Eastern Europe, and a substantial portion of the audience were Russian scientists, engineers and some managers. I had good conversations with the Russian scientists and engineers, but the tone was very muted in the presence of the managers, who were ex-military and had no experience in nuclear technology, just connections in the government/military.

In the 2000s, the US and EU were supporting various Russian programs, and in some cases bringing scientists out of Russia. I'm sure the Russian government didn't appreciate that.

More recently, the US government has been helping the Ukrainian government and nuclear industry become more independent from Russia. For example,

01 September 2021 - https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/US-Ukrainian-energy-partnership-foresees-five-new

22 November 2021 - https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Westinghouse-signs-initial-contract-for-Ukrainian

05 January 2022 - https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Ukraine-pushes-for-domestic-uranium-supply

13 January 2022 - https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Kotin-elaborates-Ukraine-s-AP1000-plans

I suppose now, Energoatom becomes Russian, assuming Putin takes complete control of Ukraine, or at least most of it.

Ukraine plans to invest as much as $1.3 billion in the development of its aviation sector between 2021 and 2030.
https://simpleflying.com/airbus-ukraine-new-airline/

Plans indefinitely suspended.

These are just a couple of examples.

 

[fresh_42]

I can't understand your views on this. You started off complaining about appeasement, comparing NATO and the EU now to Munich 1938. Now, you tell us that you don't want any part in anyone else's war. You don't want to be part of a strategic alliance? That you have no stomach for a fight?

I am with Pope Francis on this: War is the failure of politics. I had a different opinion until I saw how easy it is to get the commander in chief of the world's largest strike forces, and how little you must be qualified for that position. We have had our monster. No need for repetition. Build some nukes if necessary, but do not rely on you know whom. It is not completely excluded that there have been similar considerations by the Russians, but this is pure speculation I have to admit.

 

[artis]

Certainly Germany, France, EU, US have not been military threats. None of those entities had militaristic intentions against Russia since the collapse of the USSR.

After the collapse of USSR, there was the Commonwealth of Independent States, and Russia probably thought it still had some control. Then the other republics pulled away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Independent_States

Back in the 1990s, I worked on some projects with Eastern European utilities as they turned west and away from Russia. Russia was the dominant supplier in Eastern Europe, and slowly EU and US companies began chipping away at their business. The Russians were certainly not pleased. They didn't like having to compete in the global market.

In the late 1990s, I attended a conference in Eastern Europe, and a substantial portion of the audience were Russian scientists, engineers and some managers. I had good conversations with the Russian scientists and engineers, but the tone was very muted in the presence of the managers, who were ex-military and had no experience in nuclear technology, just connections in the government/military.

In the 2000s, the US and EU were supporting various Russian programs, and in some cases bringing scientists out of Russia. I'm sure the Russian government didn't appreciate that.

More recently, the US government has been helping the Ukrainian government and nuclear industry become more independent from Russia. For example,

01 September 2021 - https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/US-Ukrainian-energy-partnership-foresees-five-new

22 November 2021 - https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Westinghouse-signs-initial-contract-for-Ukrainian

05 January 2022 - https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Ukraine-pushes-for-domestic-uranium-supply

13 January 2022 - https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Kotin-elaborates-Ukraine-s-AP1000-plans

I suppose now, Energoatom becomes Russian, assuming Putin takes complete control of Ukraine, or at least most of it.

Ukraine plans to invest as much as $1.3 billion in the development of its aviation sector between 2021 and 2030.
https://simpleflying.com/airbus-ukraine-new-airline/

Plans indefinitely suspended.

These are just a couple of examples.

Well it's sad, Ukraine could have went where France did , and have it's entire electricity supply almost nuclear.
Would have been a great story for the country that had the world's worst peace time nuclear accident.

All in all I don't think it was the manufacturing and energy sector that "broke the camels back", it was the politics the "knock knock, knocking on NATO's door"

 

[snorkack]

I see some parallels between Ukraine and China and the coronavirus. China (given it's tough security and police state) had the option to keep Covid inside, then only Chinese people would have suffered, but it seems given their extreme measures they did quite well, but instead they let it out and now it is what it is.

They did not have that option. They lost some time in Wuhan because they were surprised at just how bad it was, but once they realized, they did a reasonable and successful job clamping down the rest of China.
The rest of the world had a warning, but most of them did not have the means to respond like rest of China had. South Korea did a decent job in March 2020, but they were worn out, too.

 

[fresh_42]

They did not have that option. They lost some time in Wuhan because they were surprised at just how bad it was, but once they realized, they did a reasonable and successful job clamping down the rest of China.
The rest of the world had a warning, but most of them did not have the means to respond like rest of China had. South Korea did a decent job in March 2020, but they were worn out, too.

Patient zero in Germany was a Chinese woman weeks after Wuhan.

 

[artis]

I think I myself will refrain from further strategy discussions from various sides, it seems as much as we wish we cannot keep ourselves from becoming emotional, and I also don't want other members to form a wrong impression about me or my personal views.

I will continue on commenting live events if that is welcome, and giving some "inside" knowledge as I get lots of info from people I know or share connections with that are inside Ukraine now.

All in all this is the end of the 3rd day of war so far, it is hard to speculate as of now for the reasons of why this has been so but from what I can gather it seems that Ukrainians are showing A level resistance and have exceeded all expectations, they themselves are in shock of how they have managed to pull it off so far, given their extremely poor military technology and the fact that they are both outnumbered and outgunned.

This is either good or bad depending on how Putin will react, good if it prolongs the conflict and eventually gives Ukraine some leverage to negotiate with Russia on their own without NATO, bad if Putin becomes berzerk and throws all his military at them.

Belarus and it;s autocratic leader Alexander Lukashenko said that if Kremlin will ask he is ready to deploy his own military to help Russians, currently they are in Ukraine on their own, while Kadyrov Chechen "specnaz" elite fighters are roaming the country doing the "targeted killings"

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022...y-says-forces-deployed-ukraine-to-back-russia

 

[artis]

Let me throw in some interesting history bit.
Poland is now accepting Ukrainian refugees which is good, but about 100 years ago Poland itself fought a war with Ukraine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Ukrainian_War

According to a noted interwar Polish publicist, the Polish–Ukrainian War was the principal cause for the failure to establish a Ukrainian state in Kyiv in late 1918 and early 1919. During that critical time the Galician forces, large, well-disciplined and immune to Communist subversion, could have tilted the balance of power in favor of a Ukrainian state. Instead, it focused all of its resources on defending its Galician homeland. When the western Ukrainian forces transferred rast in the summer of 1919 after they had been overwhelmed by the Poles, the Russian forces had grown significantly, and the impact of the Galicians was no longer decisive

To translate this into common language. So basically the Poles fought the Ukrainians thereby weakening them, the weakened Ukrainian nationalists did not establish a sovereign state while in the meantime republics like the Baltic states did just that , therefore Ukraine was left as part of the Russian empire successor aka the USSR.
Because of this Ukraine is an easier target for Russia now as it can claim legally that Ukraine never existed before the USSR collapsed, which in a paper and law sense is true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lviv

A beautiful border city of Ukraine close to the Polish border. Once was in the hands of Polish forces back in the war period. Now it's the "go to" refugee city for those that seek to flee Ukraine.

Ukrainian capital Kyiv is also beautiful , it has a lot of world heritage worth buildings which I hope will survive this rampage.