Putin’s case for invading Ukraine rests on phony grievances and ancient myths
The Russian leader doesn’t want to believe Ukraine exists. But that’s not how modern nations work.

By Timothy Snyder
Timothy Snyder is author of a half-dozen books on Russia and Ukraine, including “The Road to Unfreedom” and “Bloodlands.” He is the Levin Professor of History at Yale and writes the newsletter “Thinking About… .”

January 28, 2022 at 9:09 a.m. EST

Last July, Vladimir Putin supplied the mythical basis for Russian war propaganda in an essay titled “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians.” The essential idea is that Russia has the right to Ukraine because of things that happened a thousand years ago in Kyiv. At the time, the city was a trading hub of Viking slavers who were gaining dominance over local Khazars. It takes some fanciful thinking to see here a reason for Russia to invade Ukraine in the 21st century, as it seems prepared to do. The absurd particulars, though, are less important than the principle. If countries can claim other countries on the grounds of millennial myths, the modern state system ceases to exist.

Putin’s idea is that Ukraine is a fraternal nation because of how he personally feels about the past. This is known as imperialism. It flies in the face of the basic legal principle of state sovereignty and the basic moral principle of democracy. People who speak of other nations as little brothers wish to be Big Brother. Whether Ukraine is a nation or not is a question for Ukrainians today, not for imaginary Russians in an imaginary past. In Putin’s presentation, though, the West is to blame when Ukrainians don’t answer the question the way he would like. He seems to believe that Ukrainians would share his view about “historical unity,” if only the West would get out of the way.

Russian propaganda depends upon myths and counterfactuals, all spun in the direction of Russian greatness and innocence. Putin writes that when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the principle for deciding the borders of its constituent republics should have been: “Take what you brought with you.” In history as it actually happened, however, it was the Russian republic of the U.S.S.R. that brought about the end of the Soviet Union. The whole point was to liberate Russia from what was then understood to be the burden of supporting the periphery. Boris Yeltsin, the man who achieved this, accepted the borders of the Soviet Russian republic as Russia’s. As Yeltsin’s handpicked successor, Putin knows all this very well. Today he is dreaming of the Russian Empire that the Bolsheviks destroyed. But it “brought” nothing to the U.S.S.R. It no longer existed. And it was never a Russian nation-state. Its dynasty and much of its elite was of non-Russian origin; most of its population spoke languages other than Russian, and few of those who did speak Russian would have known what a nation was before the Bolsheviks made their revolution in 1917.

What Ukraine “brought” with it was the shape of the Soviet Union itself. The Bolsheviks were cosmopolitans aiming for the whole world. The wars that followed taught them the importance of the national question. The U.S.S.R. they founded in 1922 was a communist party-state, but it took the form of a federation with a Ukrainian republic, a Russian republic, a Belarusian republic and Caucasian republics. This reflected a general understanding that Ukraine was a country that had to be acknowledged. As an indirect result of the need to recognize other national questions, Russia was created as a republic of the U.S.S.R. It was this unit that Yeltsin extracted from the Soviet Union 30 years ago.

A Ukrainian soldier washes his clothes at a former airbase on the front line in eastern Ukraine on Jan. 22. (Guillaume Herbaut/Agence VU)
A politics that begins with myths of innocence is a politics that ends in violent resentment. The propaganda of loss is meant to set up the permanent presumption that Russia is a victim. That Russians suffered in the 20th century is, of course, beyond all doubt. People living in the Russian republic of the U.S.S.R. died in terrible numbers under Stalinism and during the German occupation. Those are incontrovertible facts. But they are exploited by the Kremlin to create a sense that only Russians suffered, and therefore only Russian leaders may judge others. “Genocide” and “fascism” become magic words which, when pronounced, liberate Russians to do whatever they want, including invade their neighbors.

And yet people inside the Ukrainian republic of the U.S.S.R. suffered more in the 20th century, both from Stalinism and from the Germans. Ukrainians today have as much right to remember the past as Russians do. Their idea that the experience of World War II justifies respect for legal boundaries is in harmony with the United Nations Charter and with international law generally.

After World War II, the U.S.S.R. established an outer empire in Eastern Europe. These communist replicate regimes were joined in a military alliance known as the Warsaw Pact. Russian propaganda today uses another family metaphor to describe its former members: Russian diplomats speak of former Soviet republics and onetime satellite states as “orphans.” During its existence, the Warsaw Pact was used to invade one of its own members — Czechoslovakia in 1968. The Soviet Union also invaded Hungary all by itself in 1956 and intervened in East Germany in 1953. The Solidarity movement in Poland was crushed by the local communist regime, since the Red Army was bogged down in the invasion of Afghanistan at the time. After the revolutions of 1989, the member states of the Warsaw Pact all applied to join NATO, for reasons that everyone, including Russian leaders, understood perfectly well at the time.

When Russian leaders claim today that NATO has betrayed Russia, they tap that same mythical vein of violated innocence. On May 27, 1997, Russia signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act. It was acknowledged by all parties at the time that NATO would expand and was open to “all emerging European democracies.” Just four days later, Russia signed a treaty with Ukraine, recognizing its borders. Moscow may disapprove when former Warsaw Pact members or former Soviet republics apply to join NATO, but such desires are not a result of Western iniquity or broken promises. They are a result of Soviet and then Russian behavior. NATO membership was not popular in Ukraine until Russia invaded the country in 2014. Not surprisingly, most Ukrainians these days wish their country belonged to a powerful defensive alliance.

Now that NATO membership has majority support in Ukraine, former Russian president and prime minister Dmitry Medvedev refers to Ukrainians as “vassals.” Russian propaganda made similar moves to solidify a certain mind-set before the last invasion. In early 2014, a major Kremlin theme was the idea that Ukraine was a “failed state” that required Russians to repair it. A state that claims that another state does not really exist is behaving as an empire. Ukraine is as much a state as Russia, a basic fact that Russia itself recognized until it invaded eight years ago. Until then, there was nothing at all in Russian diplomacy to question Ukraine’s existence, borders or right to sovereignty.

In invading Ukraine and annexing territory in 2014, Russia violated international law in general and its agreements with Ukraine in particular. Perhaps most poignant among these was the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. At that time, Ukraine was the third-largest nuclear power in the world, based on the number of nuclear weapons in its territory. It agreed to give up all of its nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees from the United States, Britain and the Russian Federation. Given this record of invading countries whose security it has guaranteed, it is worth asking if Russia would respect future agreements, especially those it signed while threatening further invasion.

In the Kremlin’s thinking, Russia is a victim because Ukraine exists, and a victim again because Ukraine has a foreign policy. The aggressive assertion of innocence goes still further. Putin also claims that Russia is a victim of today’s Ukraine because of the diminishing influence of Russian culture in the country. In his article from last summer, he equates the reduced sway of Russian culture and language in Ukraine to an attack on Russia by a weapon of mass destruction. In the real world, the Russian language is in no danger: The globalized Internet favors Russian over Ukrainian in Ukraine, and most television is in Russian. What has changed with time, especially since the invasion of 2014, is the popular attitude toward language: The percentage of Ukrainian citizens who identify as speakers of Russian has declined. Younger people are now more likely to identify themselves as native speakers of Ukrainian. No Ukrainian policy ever led to as much Ukrainization as Russia’s war on Ukraine.

The whole notion of invading a neighbor to protect an ethnic group is more than suspect. This was the rationale given by Hitler to dismantle Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1938 and the reason given by Stalin for the invasion of Poland in 1939. If Russia believed that people in Ukraine were threatened because of their culture, it had legal routes it could have pursued before 2014; it didn’t.

People who speak Russian in Ukraine are far freer than people who speak Russian in Russia. One such person is the president of Ukraine. Volodymyr Zelensky, whose best language is Russian, defeated his predecessor Petro Poroshenko in a democratic election in 2019. In Russia, a political rise of this kind is impossible. Putin’s rival Alexei Navalny, the victim of an assassination attempt by the Russian secret services, is now in a prison that resembles a concentration camp.

So all this Russian propaganda is untrue, but even if any of it were true, it would not justify invasions and threatened invasions. Is it meant to serve ideology or strategy? What we know for sure is that Russia’s leaders, whatever the ideology or strategy might be, believe in psychology. The one consistent element of Russian propaganda is that Russia has suffered and that it is the West’s fault — your fault. When Russia does something inexcusable, you are meant to be shocked, blame yourself and make concessions.

Shock and guilt will not lead to peace. Security cannot be gained by chasing myths into a netherworld where Russians are always innocent, Ukrainians do not exist and Americans should take the blame for it all. If Russia gets what it wants by behaving badly and programming others to take the blame, expect more of the same in years to come.

Time spent negotiating since December has helped bring Russian demands toward something that can be parsed, if not accepted. It is important — and this does seem to be happening — that American positions extend the field of subjects so that both sides can find starting points beyond the doomed terrain of fantasies of innocence and guilt. To be sure, something is wrong in the European security architecture — just ask the Ukrainians. What that is, and how it might be repaired, will require multiple starting points, the participation of multiple partners and a good deal of time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/01/28/putin-russia-ukraine-myths/?

Pro-Moscow separatists once marched in this Ukraine border city.
Now it’s standing against Russia.

Story by Isabelle Khurshudyan
Jan. 29, 2022

RUSSIA-UKRAINE BORDER — The helicopter cut through the gray sky, following the path of the razor-wire fence below it. Lt. Col. Uiry Trubachov, of Ukraine’s Border Guard Service, squinted up at the chopper.

“Those are Russians,” he said.

Before Russia’s invasion and annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2014, the border barriers didn’t exist. Now, they separate Ukraine’s easternmost cities and towns from the buildup of Russian troops on the other side — and what U.S. officials and allies have warned could be the vanguard of an attack on Ukraine.

At Ukraine’s northeastern border crossing near Kharkiv — the country’s predominantly Russian-speaking, second-most populous city, with about 1.5 million people — the fences are controversial. Some who live right at the edge of the boundary resent the obstruction to Russian territory they used to visit often — to pick mushrooms in the nearby forest or see friends in Belgorod, a Russian city about an hour away from the main land crossing.

The language and identity fault lines that weave through Ukraine are especially pronounced here — a region where pro-Russian separatists once raised their flag. Across many parts of Ukraine, Russia tugs with a sense of common bonds and shared history. But Ukrainians have nonetheless chosen a pro-Western path that carries the powerful momentum of the future.

It’s also what makes Kharkiv a rich study in Ukrainians’ views toward Russia as its president, Vladimir Putin, deepens a showdown with NATO over what Moscow perceives as its sphere of influence, which includes Ukraine.

‘Defending Kharkiv’
The Kremlin attempts to exploit the East-West pull in Ukraine with propaganda that accuses the Ukrainian government of oppressing Russian speakers. But many in Kharkiv fiercely objected to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s comments to The Washington Post that the city could be a prime target for Russia.

“Realistically if Russia decides to enhance their escalation, of course they are going to do this on those territories where historically there are people who used to have family links to Russia,” Zelensky said. “Kharkiv, which is under Ukraine government control, could be occupied.”

Kharkiv may not harbor as much resentment of Russia as other parts of Ukraine. But the pro-Russian sentiments from 2014 that threatened to turn the city into another Moscow-backed separatist territory — similar to the Donetsk and Luhansk enclaves in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region — no longer have major sway.

“People here love Ukraine because Ukrainians live here,” said Kharkiv’s mayor, Ihor Terekhov. “Yes, we speak Russian. If you ask me if Kharkiv citizens want Ukraine to be friends with Russia, the answer is definitely yes. But do they want war? Definitely not. Do they want for us to be a piece of Russia? Of course not.”

“We will not be giving away the city of Kharkiv to anyone,” Terekhov added. “We will be standing shoulder to shoulder defending Kharkiv.”

“We have a long history of being ignored by others, feeling abandoned, exchanged for something else, and thank God this is not happening.”
— Gamlet Zinkivskyi, artist in Kharkiv

As pro-Russian separatists marched through Kharkiv with Russian flags in early April 2014, Gamlet Zinkivskyi had a front-row seat. His apartment balcony at the time looked onto one of downtown Kharkiv’s main streets. He watched with dismay as demonstrators occupied the regional administration building and declared the sovereignty of a so-called “Kharkiv People’s Republic.”

“That was a moment when I started packing my things and thinking where to go,” said Zinkivskyi, a prominent artist and Kharkiv native. “I knew I couldn’t stay here. If Kharkhiv becomes Russian, that’s it, I’m leaving.”

Unlike the separatist movements in the Donbas region — touching off an ongoing conflict that has claimed nearly 14,000 lives since 2014 — the one in Kharkhiv ultimately fizzled. Kyiv’s forces maintained control of the city. It instead welcomed scores of refugees fleeing the fighting in the new self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk republics.

The plight of those people — and seeing what ultimately became of the separatist regions — helped shift attitudes in Kharkiv, Zinkivskyi said. Life in those territories is locked in a political limbo with few job opportunities. Many people end up moving to Moscow at their first opportunity. In the city of Donetsk, which has a population of about 900,000 people, a nighttime curfew is in place four days a week.

“Some people used to believe that Donetsk will turn into Donetsk City, with skyscrapers, and New Yorkers dreaming of moving to the Donbas,” Zinkivskyi said. “That didn’t happen, to put it mildly.”

“And those people realized that, hey, they didn’t want the same thing happening in Kharkiv,” he added.

About a 30-minute drive from downtown Kharkiv is what looks like a row of storage containers. It is actually a camp for people who fled the separatist territories. Each block has small apartments — smaller than most college dorm rooms — with shared kitchens and bathrooms.

“We’ve suffered enough. Instead of living in constant negativity, you want some joy.”
— Liudmilya Makarova, displaced from Luhansk in 2014

Liudmilya Makarova has been living here with her daughter, who has Down syndrome, and her son since 2015, about a year after they fled the self-proclaimed Luhansk separatist republic. The kids sleep on the bunk beds. Makarova is on a couch that doesn’t have room to unfold into a bed. Colorful drawings line the wall, giving the space a cozy feel despite the cramped quarters. But it was never supposed to feel like home.

“I had no idea it would last so long, with no end of it in sight,” Makarova said.

Her last memories of her home in Luhansk were hiding in the cellar with her children as intense fighting broke out between the rebels and government forces, including airstrikes. She was too afraid to leave the space to cook for them.

“I couldn’t keep watching my children cry,” she said. “I’m recalling that and I’m starting to shake.”

Talk of a fresh attack from Russia is triggering for some of the camp’s residents who already fled war once. Makarova said she keeps away from the news. One of her neighbors, Marina Kirbaba, follows it more closely.

“We’ve been through this before,” Kirbaba said. “I don’t think that — well, then again, who knows what Putin has in his head. I don’t know why he would attack? Why?”

Scanning the border
What used to be an empty field surrounded by thick forest is now split by trenches Ukraine has never had to use. The military built them, with wooden-planked walls, at the eastern edge of the Kharkiv region in 2015 as the separatist conflict in Donbas flared.

Just beside the trenches is an observation tower with cameras that monitors activity near this border around-the-clock.

If the Russians choose to invade Kharkiv, this won’t stop them, said Trubachov, of Ukraine’s Border Guard Service. But it might slow them down enough for Ukraine to call in reinforcements.

“The situation is stable and under control,” Trubachov said. “Directly near the line of state control, we do not observe the movement or gathering of Russian troops — I mean, the territory that we can control by observing.”

When the fencing was installed seven years ago, it, quite literally, walled off a small border village of about 100 retirees. Now a line of trenches run behind their farm plots, followed by the fence. Getting in or out of the village means passing through a border guards’ security checkpoint.

Ukrainians are able to enter Russia at the nearby land border crossing. But people from the village complained that it’s a long walk for them to get to the checkpoint and the crossing process is challenging. It used to just be a 10-minute walk behind their yards.

“The governments can’t agree on anything and people are suffering.”
— Olga Mykhailivna, lives on Ukraine-Russia border

One woman started crying because she said she’s been unable to visit her son’s grave, which is in Russia. He died during the Soviet Union’s war in Afghanistan during the 1980s. Another lamented that she could buy groceries cheaper across the border in Russia.

“We are not feeling any aggression toward Russians, we are Russians, too,” said 77-year-old Mikhail Fokiev. “Moreover, we have plenty of relatives there.”

But asked what he would do if the Russian military crossed into this region, Fokiev said he would go west, further into Ukraine.

“What else is there to do?” he asked.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2022/ukraine-russia-east-kharkiv/?

It is all down to the European plains. From Germany to the Ural mountains there are no natural barriers that separate nations or states (or nation states) from their neighbours. Anyone with the will can pretty much invade Russia at will. Not that they’ll succeed in conquering it, both Hitler and Napoleon Bonaparte ultimately failed, but they did a fuckload of damage. So Russia has always sought a buffer zone. With the collapse of the Warsaw Pact one layer of that zone vanished, with the breakup of the USSR the second layer went.

Putin simply can’t not see the EU and NATO as a threat to Russia, just biding their time and plotting to invade sooner or later. (Sorry for the double negative but I think it is warranted).

Ukraine sees the EU and NATO as part of the free world living a better life than what they have. So the temptation to join, or attempt to join is pretty compelling.

Maybe Ukraine should declare neutrality, a bit like Switzerland or Sweden to give themselves a bit of breathing space. Economically they could come to some kind of looser trade deal with the EU than full membership – like Norway or Switzerland.

But, the democratic nations of the world should back up Ukraine’s desire for democracy and independence from Russian interference.

Which country is sending arms and ammunition into the Ukraine?

Which country is murdering children in Iraq by refusing humanitarian aid?

Oh wait, it’s the same country.

If I didn’t know better, I’d say “Bring back Trump!”.

party_pants said:

It is all down to the European plains. From Germany to the Ural mountains there are no natural barriers that separate nations or states (or nation states) from their neighbours. Anyone with the will can pretty much invade Russia at will. Not that they’ll succeed in conquering it, both Hitler and Napoleon Bonaparte ultimately failed, but they did a fuckload of damage. So Russia has always sought a buffer zone. With the collapse of the Warsaw Pact one layer of that zone vanished, with the breakup of the USSR the second layer went.

Putin simply can’t not see the EU and NATO as a threat to Russia, just biding their time and plotting to invade sooner or later. (Sorry for the double negative but I think it is warranted).

Ukraine sees the EU and NATO as part of the free world living a better life than what they have. So the temptation to join, or attempt to join is pretty compelling.

Maybe Ukraine should declare neutrality, a bit like Switzerland or Sweden to give themselves a bit of breathing space. Economically they could come to some kind of looser trade deal with the EU than full membership – like Norway or Switzerland.

But, the democratic nations of the world should back up Ukraine’s desire for democracy and independence from Russian interference.

Can’t agree. The only reason Putin sees the EU and NATO as a threat is because they are opposed to Russian imperialism, and they represent democracy and the rule of law.

A decent Russian leader would have nothing to supposedly “fear”.

There’s a lot I don’t know but …

What is it that Russia wants to achieve? I don’t just mean the government, but the bulk of the populace, particularly the ethnically Russian Russians. Their economy has hardly grown at all since 2014. Wealth inequality is off the charts (GINI from 0.7 in 2008 to 0.88 in 2018). Their immense resource wealth could be making them a nation of broad personal wealth like Norway but instead corrupt oligarchies and self-induced sanctions have left them way behind. But Putin remains very popular. If they do take Ukraine, they’ll no doubt win but they’ll suffer continued losses of personnel in a territory that will be hard for them to govern, and tens of billions of dollars in lost revenue due to expanded sanctions. They’ll have better access to a Mediterranean port but no one to export to. The benefits will be intangible or even illusory.

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

It is all down to the European plains. From Germany to the Ural mountains there are no natural barriers that separate nations or states (or nation states) from their neighbours. Anyone with the will can pretty much invade Russia at will. Not that they’ll succeed in conquering it, both Hitler and Napoleon Bonaparte ultimately failed, but they did a fuckload of damage. So Russia has always sought a buffer zone. With the collapse of the Warsaw Pact one layer of that zone vanished, with the breakup of the USSR the second layer went.

Putin simply can’t not see the EU and NATO as a threat to Russia, just biding their time and plotting to invade sooner or later. (Sorry for the double negative but I think it is warranted).

Ukraine sees the EU and NATO as part of the free world living a better life than what they have. So the temptation to join, or attempt to join is pretty compelling.

Maybe Ukraine should declare neutrality, a bit like Switzerland or Sweden to give themselves a bit of breathing space. Economically they could come to some kind of looser trade deal with the EU than full membership – like Norway or Switzerland.

But, the democratic nations of the world should back up Ukraine’s desire for democracy and independence from Russian interference.

Can’t agree. The only reason Putin sees the EU and NATO as a threat is because they are opposed to Russian imperialism, and they represent democracy and the rule of law.

A decent Russian leader would have nothing to supposedly “fear”.

I am not agreeing with Putin’s assessment of the EU and NATO. Merely reporting it. If you take that as your starting presumption then all the pieces fall into place and give a clearer vision of the way Putin thinks.

mollwollfumble said:

Which country is sending arms and ammunition into the Ukraine?

Which country is murdering children in Iraq by refusing humanitarian aid?

Oh wait, it’s the same country.

Sweden?

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

It is all down to the European plains. From Germany to the Ural mountains there are no natural barriers that separate nations or states (or nation states) from their neighbours. Anyone with the will can pretty much invade Russia at will. Not that they’ll succeed in conquering it, both Hitler and Napoleon Bonaparte ultimately failed, but they did a fuckload of damage. So Russia has always sought a buffer zone. With the collapse of the Warsaw Pact one layer of that zone vanished, with the breakup of the USSR the second layer went.

Putin simply can’t not see the EU and NATO as a threat to Russia, just biding their time and plotting to invade sooner or later. (Sorry for the double negative but I think it is warranted).

Ukraine sees the EU and NATO as part of the free world living a better life than what they have. So the temptation to join, or attempt to join is pretty compelling.

Maybe Ukraine should declare neutrality, a bit like Switzerland or Sweden to give themselves a bit of breathing space. Economically they could come to some kind of looser trade deal with the EU than full membership – like Norway or Switzerland.

But, the democratic nations of the world should back up Ukraine’s desire for democracy and independence from Russian interference.

Can’t agree. The only reason Putin sees the EU and NATO as a threat is because they are opposed to Russian imperialism, and they represent democracy and the rule of law.

A decent Russian leader would have nothing to supposedly “fear”.

I am not agreeing with Putin’s assessment of the EU and NATO. Merely reporting it. If you take that as your starting presumption then all the pieces fall into place and give a clearer vision of the way Putin thinks.

They have the second biggest nuclear arsenal in the world. The US wouldn’t invade Russia unless it was ready for the world to end, and no one else could even dream of it.

dv said:

There’s a lot I don’t know but …

What is it that Russia wants to achieve? I don’t just mean the government, but the bulk of the populace, particularly the ethnically Russian Russians. Their economy has hardly grown at all since 2014. Wealth inequality is off the charts (GINI from 0.7 in 2008 to 0.88 in 2018). Their immense resource wealth could be making them a nation of broad personal wealth like Norway but instead corrupt oligarchies and self-induced sanctions have left them way behind. But Putin remains very popular. If they do take Ukraine, they’ll no doubt win but they’ll suffer continued losses of personnel in a territory that will be hard for them to govern, and tens of billions of dollars in lost revenue due to expanded sanctions. They’ll have better access to a Mediterranean port but no one to export to. The benefits will be intangible or even illusory.

Russians have very little experience of Western-style democracy. They expect their leaders to be corrupt, brutal and “strong”. They’ve been fed many generations of paranoid propaganda about the rest of the world.

dv said:

There’s a lot I don’t know but …

What is it that Russia wants to achieve? I don’t just mean the government, but the bulk of the populace, particularly the ethnically Russian Russians. Their economy has hardly grown at all since 2014. Wealth inequality is off the charts (GINI from 0.7 in 2008 to 0.88 in 2018). Their immense resource wealth could be making them a nation of broad personal wealth like Norway but instead corrupt oligarchies and self-induced sanctions have left them way behind. But Putin remains very popular. If they do take Ukraine, they’ll no doubt win but they’ll suffer continued losses of personnel in a territory that will be hard for them to govern, and tens of billions of dollars in lost revenue due to expanded sanctions. They’ll have better access to a Mediterranean port but no one to export to. The benefits will be intangible or even illusory.

Buggered if I know.

Nationalism breeds stupidity.

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

It is all down to the European plains. From Germany to the Ural mountains there are no natural barriers that separate nations or states (or nation states) from their neighbours. Anyone with the will can pretty much invade Russia at will. Not that they’ll succeed in conquering it, both Hitler and Napoleon Bonaparte ultimately failed, but they did a fuckload of damage. So Russia has always sought a buffer zone. With the collapse of the Warsaw Pact one layer of that zone vanished, with the breakup of the USSR the second layer went.

Putin simply can’t not see the EU and NATO as a threat to Russia, just biding their time and plotting to invade sooner or later. (Sorry for the double negative but I think it is warranted).

Ukraine sees the EU and NATO as part of the free world living a better life than what they have. So the temptation to join, or attempt to join is pretty compelling.

Maybe Ukraine should declare neutrality, a bit like Switzerland or Sweden to give themselves a bit of breathing space. Economically they could come to some kind of looser trade deal with the EU than full membership – like Norway or Switzerland.

But, the democratic nations of the world should back up Ukraine’s desire for democracy and independence from Russian interference.

Can’t agree. The only reason Putin sees the EU and NATO as a threat is because they are opposed to Russian imperialism, and they represent democracy and the rule of law.

A decent Russian leader would have nothing to supposedly “fear”.

I am not agreeing with Putin’s assessment of the EU and NATO. Merely reporting it. If you take that as your starting presumption then all the pieces fall into place and give a clearer vision of the way Putin thinks.

I don’t think that’s the way he thinks. He sees the West as a threat to himself and his imperialistic aims, not a threat to Russian sovereignty.

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

Can’t agree. The only reason Putin sees the EU and NATO as a threat is because they are opposed to Russian imperialism, and they represent democracy and the rule of law.

A decent Russian leader would have nothing to supposedly “fear”.

I am not agreeing with Putin’s assessment of the EU and NATO. Merely reporting it. If you take that as your starting presumption then all the pieces fall into place and give a clearer vision of the way Putin thinks.

I don’t think that’s the way he thinks. He sees the West as a threat to himself and his imperialistic aims, not a threat to Russian sovereignty.

I don’t think he sees the last two as separate items.

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

I am not agreeing with Putin’s assessment of the EU and NATO. Merely reporting it. If you take that as your starting presumption then all the pieces fall into place and give a clearer vision of the way Putin thinks.

I don’t think that’s the way he thinks. He sees the West as a threat to himself and his imperialistic aims, not a threat to Russian sovereignty.

I don’t think he sees the last two as separate items.

The point is, he doesn’t think the West is going to invade Russia unless he invades other people’s countries to use as a “buffer zone”, it’s bullshit.

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

I am not agreeing with Putin’s assessment of the EU and NATO. Merely reporting it. If you take that as your starting presumption then all the pieces fall into place and give a clearer vision of the way Putin thinks.

I don’t think that’s the way he thinks. He sees the West as a threat to himself and his imperialistic aims, not a threat to Russian sovereignty.

I don’t think he sees the last two as separate items.

Я государство.

I suppose another angle is that the three former Soviet Union states that have joined NATO and the EU (Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia) are, in the scheme of things, doing okay both socially and economically. If Ukraine were to go down the same path and visibly enjoy greater fortunes than Russia, it would be a terrible advertisement for Russia-alignment.

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

I don’t think that’s the way he thinks. He sees the West as a threat to himself and his imperialistic aims, not a threat to Russian sovereignty.

I don’t think he sees the last two as separate items.

Я государство.

exactly.

‘L’etat c’est moi’

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

I don’t think that’s the way he thinks. He sees the West as a threat to himself and his imperialistic aims, not a threat to Russian sovereignty.

I don’t think he sees the last two as separate items.

The point is, he doesn’t think the West is going to invade Russia unless he invades other people’s countries to use as a “buffer zone”, it’s bullshit.

The thought is bullshit. But I think Putin thinks it all the same. Given his history and previous career etc.

Ooh, there’s a thread.

My guess is that Putin will invade a part of the Ukraine in order to have a land route to the black sea and the Crimea, and from there to the Mediterranean.

There is only a couple of weeks left to do this because the ground is thawing.

If he times it right, his tanks will advance, then the land will turn to mud and no-one can do anything about it.

The UN will wave hands and be all angry and stuff, but Putin will have taken more land, and moved his border a bit closer to Europe.

Here’s a live action map
https://liveuamap.com/?ll=46.849118508058964;36.234853515624984&zoom=7

Turkey’s Erdogan visits Ukraine with unique perspective on brewing crisis

By Karen DeYoung and Kareem Fahim
Today at 6:59 p.m. EST

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan plans to arrive in Ukraine Thursday, the latest in a string of NATO leaders to visit Kyiv. But he is bringing a somewhat different message and perspective.

While Erdogan has repeatedly expressed the hope that Russian President Vladimir Putin would not “resort to an armed attack and occupation of Ukraine,” he has framed those admonitions as advice from a friend, trying to balance Turkey’s need for cordial relations with Russia, its increasingly lucrative military partnership with Ukraine, and its commitments to the Atlantic alliance.

“We would never want a war between Russia and Ukraine,” Erdogan said in a speech Tuesday in northeastern Turkey. “I hope we can resolve this peacefully.” His trip comes after an unsuccessful effort to host the Ukrainian and Russian leaders for a mediation meeting, followed by a solo invitation to Putin. The Russian leader responded coolly, saying through a spokesperson that he would visit Erdogan “once the coronavirus situation and their work schedules allow.”

Turkey occupies a unique geographic and political position in the region, including its control over access to the Black Sea, and the presence of three pipelines carrying Russian natural gas to its territory and beyond to Europe. In a relationship marked by bouts of cooperation and confrontation, Erdogan and Putin have generally kept up a steady dialogue, managing at least temporarily to resolve differences over Syria and Central Asia. In 2017, Erdogan bucked NATO and the United States with the purchase of a $2.5 billion Russian antiaircraft defense system, leading Washington to suspend Turkey from participation in the F-35 stealth fighter program and from purchasing the planes.

Rather than giving Turkey a unique opportunity as a peacemaker, however, the current tensions have made Ankara desperate to avoid a confrontation, said Gonul Tol, director of the Turkey program at the Washington-based Middle East Institute.

In an earlier crisis, when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, “Erdogan didn’t know how to react,” Tol said. “At the time, there was a lot of Western pressure, but he tilted towards Russia,” including by dithering over whether to allow U.S. military ships carrying humanitarian aid to pass through the Bosporus into the Black Sea. Six years later, when Russia annexed Crimea, Turkey refused to join the West in imposing sanctions on Moscow, despite Erdogan’s anger over a move that was seen as reducing Turkey’s influence in the Black Sea region.

In the current confrontation with Ukraine and NATO, Erdogan has been even more constrained because of domestic concerns: He faces an election next year amid a dire domestic economic crisis. Russia has the power to make matters worse by canceling flights carrying the hordes of Russian tourists that visit Turkey each year or banning Turkish agricultural products — measures Putin has used in the past to signal displeasure.

Turkey’s sale of armed drones to Ukraine — part of Ankara’s feverish effort to find new markets for its rapidly expanding defense industry — has stoked Russian fears that an influx of NATO weapons is shifting the military balance in its region. The Russian concerns came to a head in October, when a strike by a Ukraine-operated Turkish Bayraktar TB2 drone destroyed a howitzer used by Russia-backed separatists in the eastern Donbas region.

In a telephone conversation in December, Putin chastised Erdogan over Ukraine’s use of the weapons, calling it “destructive” behavior and “provocative,” according to a Russian readout of the call. Erdogan plans to sign a free-trade agreement with Ukraine during his visit there, Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said Wednesday.

Both U.S. and Turkish officials believe that, even in the event of conflict in Ukraine, Putin will not play the pipeline card with Turkey. Ankara has the power to strike back by causing trouble in places where Russia has separate interests and the two have been on opposite sides, including Syria and Libya.

The Russian threat is seen as much more potent for gas traveling to Europe through Ukraine. The Biden administration believes it has put in place a fallback, in the event of a cutoff, to provide enough natural gas to heat European homes and keep factories running by persuading other large global suppliers in the Middle East and Africa, as well as U.S. commercial producers, to make up the difference.

The immediate, Ukraine-related problem has revived other concerns related to Turkey’s control over access from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea, as detailed in the Montreux Convention, a1936 treaty that gives it the right to regulate the passage of warships and other vessels of security concern through the narrow Dardanelles and Bosporus passages that divide the country between Europe and Asia.

While the Montreux Convention affirms freedom of passage for commercial vessels, it limits the number, tonnage, armaments and length of stay of military vessels of states not bordering the Black Sea. During the Obama administration, Turkey refused to allow LNG (liquefied natural gas) tankers to pass through the straits, effectively scuttling a proposal to construct an LNG terminal in Odessa, Ukraine. Turkey said such shipping could be vulnerable to missile attack and was thus a security concern.

In recent days, Erdogan’s defense minister reiterated the Turkish government’s adherence to the treaty. Those comments were widely seen as an effort to assuage Russia, which sees the pact as a way to limit the number of NATO warships in the Black Sea and the duration of time they spend there.

“Our stance is open and clear. We have been expressing for years that we are in favor of the countries bordering the Black Sea, living in peace, dialogue, tranquility and prosperity within the framework of the Montreux regime,” Hulusi Akar, the defense minister, said during a videoconference on Monday with senior military officials. The treaty was “beneficial for all parties,” he added, saying it was “out of the question to give up on it under present conditions.”

A U.S. Defense Department spokesperson, Marine Lt. Col. Anton T. Semelroth, noting that Turkey has long supported U.S. and NATO operations in the region, said the country had always fulfilled its treaty obligations, “and we have every indication” it will continue to do so.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/02/02/ukraine-turkey-russia-pipelines/?

Has anyone else noticed that this event coincides with the departure of Angel Merkel.

Merkel would have opposed the use of NATO by the US to start another cold war with Russia.

This new patsy wouldn’t.

Molls backing the baddies, as usual.

Bubblecar said:

Molls backing the baddies, as usual.

Moll has a problem walking and chewing at the same time.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

Molls backing the baddies, as usual.

Moll has a problem walking and chewing at the same time.

So global politics is a big ask.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

Molls backing the baddies, as usual.

Moll has a problem walking and chewing at the same time.

So global politics is a big ask.

Well he’s got everything wrong that he could get wrong in that little analysis.

The only country likely to “start a war” in this situation is Russia, which has armies parked on the Ukrainian border for that very purpose.

And Germany is the least likely Western nation to get involved in Ukraine’s defence.

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

Molls backing the baddies, as usual.

Moll has a problem walking and chewing at the same time.

So global politics is a big ask.

Well he’s got everything wrong that he could get wrong in that little analysis.

The only country likely to “start a war” in this situation is Russia, which has armies parked on the Ukrainian border for that very purpose.

And Germany is the least likely Western nation to get involved in Ukraine’s defence.

except that when it’s all over and the good guys have won, and the good guys write the history, who were the baddies really

mollwollfumble said:

Has anyone else noticed that this event coincides with the departure of Angel Merkel.

Merkel would have opposed the use of NATO by the US to start another cold war with Russia.

This new patsy wouldn’t.

This analysis seems much more realistic than the one above.

“Kremlin is top destination for spooked European leaders.

Rarely in recent years has the Kremlin been so popular with European visitors.

French President Emmanuel Macron arrives Monday. The Hungarian Prime Minister visited last week. And in days to come, the German Chancellor will be there, too.”

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-07/white-house-russian-attack-on-ukraine/100809348

Ukraine government forces have shelled areas within rebel-held territory to the east of the country, a breach of ceasefire agreements designed to bring an end to the conflict, according to Russian-backed separatist groups.

Forces from the Ukrainian side were accused of using mortars, grenade launchers and a machine gun by the representatives of the would-be breakaway territory — the Luhansk People’s Republic — in the first reports of munitions being used in the conflict gripping Europe for more than a month now.

“Armed forces of Ukraine have rudely violated the ceasefire regime, using heavy weapons, which, according to the Minsk agreements, should be withdrawn,” rebel representatives from the Luhansk in the Ukrainian-Russian ceasefire control group said, according to Russia’s independent news agency Interfax.

However, officials from Ukraine denied attacking the separatist-held region, stating that they themselves came under artillery fire but did not retaliate.

Kingy said:

Ukraine government forces have shelled areas within rebel-held territory to the east of the country, a breach of ceasefire agreements designed to bring an end to the conflict, according to Russian-backed separatist groups.

Forces from the Ukrainian side were accused of using mortars, grenade launchers and a machine gun by the representatives of the would-be breakaway territory — the Luhansk People’s Republic — in the first reports of munitions being used in the conflict gripping Europe for more than a month now.

“Armed forces of Ukraine have rudely violated the ceasefire regime, using heavy weapons, which, according to the Minsk agreements, should be withdrawn,” rebel representatives from the Luhansk in the Ukrainian-Russian ceasefire control group said, according to Russia’s independent news agency Interfax.

However, officials from Ukraine denied attacking the separatist-held region, stating that they themselves came under artillery fire but did not retaliate.

They’ll be finding Ukranian-uniformed corpses outside of a Russian radio station next.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/ukraine-fires-mortars-on-separatist-territory-in-breach-of-ceasefire-say-russia-backed-rebels/ar-AATY9wk?

Every duck hunter has been saying for weeks that Russia would provoke matters with a false-flag operation.

Kingy said:

“according to Russian-backed separatist groups.”

Lol

dv said:

Kingy said:

“according to Russian-backed separatist groups.”

Lol

Yes.

Like asking ‘Teddy’ what he thinks about something, and believing that David Strassman might have a different opinion.

party_pants said:

Every duck hunter has been saying for weeks that Russia would provoke matters with a false-flag operation.

It’s pretty pathetic.

And those wise pundits in the press suddenly saying “of course it was a bluff all along” may soon be looking foolish.

see the strategy is good the pandemic was just a rehearsal

US President Joe Biden says Russian invasion is inevitable, it’s mild, it’s unstoppable, it’s too contagious, it’s something we’ll just have to live with, it’s not worth losing the economy over, it’s not even happening if we don’t test for it, it’s necessary¡

oops sorry we meant the actual

US President Joe Biden says he is “convinced” Russian President Vladimir Putin has made a decision to invade Ukraine, and though there is still room for diplomacy, he expects Russia to move on the country in the coming days.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-19/ukraine-russia-border-troops-military-shelling-joe-biden/100844784

sorry correct thread

Vladimir Putin has ordered Russian troops into Ukraine, following decrees recognising separatist republics in eastern Ukraine

the end

SCIENCE said:

sorry correct thread

Vladimir Putin has ordered Russian troops into Ukraine, following decrees recognising separatist republics in eastern Ukraine

the end

Putin’s useless EGO war.

Tau.Neutrino said:

SCIENCE said:

sorry correct thread

Vladimir Putin has ordered Russian troops into Ukraine, following decrees recognising separatist republics in eastern Ukraine

the end

Putin’s useless EGO war.

wait we thought it was all about the money

ah well at least they’re looking for a peaceful solution

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-22/putin-orders-russian-peacekeepers-ukraine/100849964

Putin has ordered his Defence Ministry to dispatch Russian peacekeepers to eastern Ukraine’s two breakaway regions, the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, after he said Moscow would recognise their independence.

SCIENCE said:

ah well at least they’re looking for a peaceful solution

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-22/putin-orders-russian-peacekeepers-ukraine/100849964

Putin has ordered his Defence Ministry to dispatch Russian peacekeepers to eastern Ukraine’s two breakaway regions, the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, after he said Moscow would recognise their independence.

“peacekeepers”

Otherwise known as the army; troops.

some takes, we’ve even tried to include their profile clips to help y’all gauge

SCIENCE said:

but also this just 10 days

yeah.

Georgia and Ukraine have had NATO aspirations for a long time but Russia has successfully stalled the process through invasion, as:

“States which have ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes, including irredentist claims, … must settle those disputes by peaceful means in accordance with OSCE principles. Resolution of such disputes would be a factor in determining whether to invite a state to join the Alliance.”

Ukraine’s only hope to join NATO then would be to drive Russia out of Crimea and the Donbas (pretty difficult to do without NATO intervention) or basically just give up the territories and formally accept the new reduced boundaries so that they no longer have any “irredentist claims” to attend to.

dv said:

Fair point.

Michael V said:

dv said:

Fair point.

Hmmm.

Not really.

As far as I know, the UK army is not amassed on the Eire border, and Northern Ireland has open democratic elections.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

dv said:

Fair point.

Hmmm.

Not really.

As far as I know, the UK army is not amassed on the Eire border, and Northern Ireland has open democratic elections.

And the majority of Brits don’t want it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

dv said:

Fair point.

Hmmm.

Not really.

As far as I know, the UK army is not amassed on the Eire border, and Northern Ireland has open democratic elections.

The two Donbass republics also have democratic elections.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

Fair point.

Hmmm.

Not really.

As far as I know, the UK army is not amassed on the Eire border, and Northern Ireland has open democratic elections.

The two Donbass republics also have democratic elections.

That would be fair treat for Russia.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

Fair point.

Hmmm.

Not really.

As far as I know, the UK army is not amassed on the Eire border, and Northern Ireland has open democratic elections.

The two Donbass republics also have democratic elections.

I’m not well up on the details here, but TATE tells me that:
“the Donbas or Donbass is a historical, cultural, and economic region in south-eastern Ukraine, some of whose territory is occupied by two unrecognized separatist states, the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic. “

So are you saying these separatist states have democratic elections?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

dv said:

Fair point.

Hmmm.

Not really.

As far as I know, the UK army is not amassed on the Eire border, and Northern Ireland has open democratic elections.

you colonial apologist

;)

we mean, fk, the DPRNA also have democratic elections, and they do mass troops on borders

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Hmmm.

Not really.

As far as I know, the UK army is not amassed on the Eire border, and Northern Ireland has open democratic elections.

The two Donbass republics also have democratic elections.

I’m not well up on the details here, but TATE tells me that:
“the Donbas or Donbass is a historical, cultural, and economic region in south-eastern Ukraine, some of whose territory is occupied by two unrecognized separatist states, the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic. “

So are you saying these separatist states have democratic elections?

yes, but the politics of the region are overly polarised..

Someone said Russia has the same economics as Spain.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Someone said Russia has the same economics as Spain.

Seems a strange thing to say.

diddly-squat said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The two Donbass republics also have democratic elections.

I’m not well up on the details here, but TATE tells me that:
“the Donbas or Donbass is a historical, cultural, and economic region in south-eastern Ukraine, some of whose territory is occupied by two unrecognized separatist states, the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic. “

So are you saying these separatist states have democratic elections?

yes, but the politics of the region are overly polarised..

so it’s not democracy unless there’s false balance

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Someone said Russia has the same economics as Spain.

Seems a strange thing to say.

not according to this article

Russia’s Economy Has Shrunk So Much It’s Now Almost The Same Size As Spain
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/russia-economy-gdp-v-spain-2014-12?r=US&IR=T

Russia’s Economy Has Shrunk So Much It’s Now Almost The Same Size As Spain

Tau.Neutrino said:

Someone said Russia has the same economics as Spain.

They meant that their economies were of a similar dollar level.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Someone said Russia has the same economics as Spain.

Seems a strange thing to say.

I think they mean GDP or some other economic parameter.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

Fair point.

Hmmm.

Not really.

As far as I know, the UK army is not amassed on the Eire border, and Northern Ireland has open democratic elections.

The two Donbass republics also have democratic elections.

Also, your comment seems to misrepresent the comparison maybe?

In this analogy, Russia is Great Britain, Ukraine is Ireland, the “republics” of Donetsk and Luhansk (and I suppose Crimea) represent Northern Ireland, and the parts of Ukraine not controlled by Russia represent the Irish Republic, Russian troops in Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea represent British troops in Northern Ireland. The irredentist Russian-sponsored movements in the early 21st century in Ukraine represent British sponsored “Orange” movements in Northern Ireland in the early 20th century. The Soviet Union is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

The analogy falls down a bit in that a fully independent Ireland never really looked like a being a goer. Although legally it appeared up in the air in 1921 and 1922, in reality Ulster was never out of British control, so there was no period of whole-Ireland independence to compare to the period of whole-Ukraine independence 1991 to 2014.

sibeen said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Someone said Russia has the same economics as Spain.

They meant that their economies were of a similar dollar level.

OK, well that’s surprising, but certainly possible.

SCIENCE said:

diddly-squat said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m not well up on the details here, but TATE tells me that:
“the Donbas or Donbass is a historical, cultural, and economic region in south-eastern Ukraine, some of whose territory is occupied by two unrecognized separatist states, the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic. “

So are you saying these separatist states have democratic elections?

yes, but the politics of the region are overly polarised..

so it’s not democracy unless there’s false balance

Maybe voting is compulsory but there is only one party.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Hmmm.

Not really.

As far as I know, the UK army is not amassed on the Eire border, and Northern Ireland has open democratic elections.

The two Donbass republics also have democratic elections.

I’m not well up on the details here, but TATE tells me that:
“the Donbas or Donbass is a historical, cultural, and economic region in south-eastern Ukraine, some of whose territory is occupied by two unrecognized separatist states, the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic. “

So are you saying these separatist states have democratic elections?

That’s what I am saying. They each have a little parliament and rival political parties and everything.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The two Donbass republics also have democratic elections.

I’m not well up on the details here, but TATE tells me that:
“the Donbas or Donbass is a historical, cultural, and economic region in south-eastern Ukraine, some of whose territory is occupied by two unrecognized separatist states, the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic. “

So are you saying these separatist states have democratic elections?

That’s what I am saying. They each have a little parliament and rival political parties and everything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Council_of_the_Donetsk_People%27s_Republic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Council_of_the_Luhansk_People%27s_Republic

dv said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Hmmm.

Not really.

As far as I know, the UK army is not amassed on the Eire border, and Northern Ireland has open democratic elections.

The two Donbass republics also have democratic elections.

Also, your comment seems to misrepresent the comparison maybe?

In this analogy, Russia is Great Britain, Ukraine is Ireland, the “republics” of Donetsk and Luhansk (and I suppose Crimea) represent Northern Ireland, and the parts of Ukraine not controlled by Russia represent the Irish Republic, Russian troops in Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea represent British troops in Northern Ireland. The irredentist Russian-sponsored movements in the early 21st century in Ukraine represent British sponsored “Orange” movements in Northern Ireland in the early 20th century. The Soviet Union is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

The analogy falls down a bit in that a fully independent Ireland never really looked like a being a goer. Although legally it appeared up in the air in 1921 and 1922, in reality Ulster was never out of British control, so there was no period of whole-Ireland independence to compare to the period of whole-Ukraine independence 1991 to 2014.

So you exactly agree with what I said then.

Also I assumed the cartoon was referring to British government actions now, rather than 100 years ago.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Someone said Russia has the same economics as Spain.

It’s a lot poorer, on a per capita basis.

The Russian economy is basically the same size as the Australian economy despite having 5 times the population.

Tamb said:

SCIENCE said:

diddly-squat said:

yes, but the politics of the region are overly polarised..

so it’s not democracy unless there’s false balance

Maybe voting is compulsory but there is only one party.

Also certainly possible, need only look to the Cantonese Island Of The United Kingdom Loaned To CHINA for democracy in action, remember there was barely a whisper that recent voting was rigged, whether in absolute terms or compared to recent USSA elections ¡

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

dv said:

The two Donbass republics also have democratic elections.

Also, your comment seems to misrepresent the comparison maybe?

In this analogy, Russia is Great Britain, Ukraine is Ireland, the “republics” of Donetsk and Luhansk (and I suppose Crimea) represent Northern Ireland, and the parts of Ukraine not controlled by Russia represent the Irish Republic, Russian troops in Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea represent British troops in Northern Ireland. The irredentist Russian-sponsored movements in the early 21st century in Ukraine represent British sponsored “Orange” movements in Northern Ireland in the early 20th century. The Soviet Union is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

The analogy falls down a bit in that a fully independent Ireland never really looked like a being a goer. Although legally it appeared up in the air in 1921 and 1922, in reality Ulster was never out of British control, so there was no period of whole-Ireland independence to compare to the period of whole-Ukraine independence 1991 to 2014.

So you exactly agree with what I said then.

Also I assumed the cartoon was referring to British government actions now, rather than 100 years ago.

We suppose full slash comprehensive analyses of history are more complex than can usually immediately be captured in a short cartoon or analogy, and that there are valid comparisons with both past experiences and present experiences and it does no justice to dismiss either.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

dv said:

The two Donbass republics also have democratic elections.

Also, your comment seems to misrepresent the comparison maybe?

In this analogy, Russia is Great Britain, Ukraine is Ireland, the “republics” of Donetsk and Luhansk (and I suppose Crimea) represent Northern Ireland, and the parts of Ukraine not controlled by Russia represent the Irish Republic, Russian troops in Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea represent British troops in Northern Ireland. The irredentist Russian-sponsored movements in the early 21st century in Ukraine represent British sponsored “Orange” movements in Northern Ireland in the early 20th century. The Soviet Union is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

The analogy falls down a bit in that a fully independent Ireland never really looked like a being a goer. Although legally it appeared up in the air in 1921 and 1922, in reality Ulster was never out of British control, so there was no period of whole-Ireland independence to compare to the period of whole-Ukraine independence 1991 to 2014.

So you exactly agree with what I said then.

Also I assumed the cartoon was referring to British government actions now, rather than 100 years ago.

Well I can’t speak to the cartoonist’s intentions.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Also, your comment seems to misrepresent the comparison maybe?

In this analogy, Russia is Great Britain, Ukraine is Ireland, the “republics” of Donetsk and Luhansk (and I suppose Crimea) represent Northern Ireland, and the parts of Ukraine not controlled by Russia represent the Irish Republic, Russian troops in Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea represent British troops in Northern Ireland. The irredentist Russian-sponsored movements in the early 21st century in Ukraine represent British sponsored “Orange” movements in Northern Ireland in the early 20th century. The Soviet Union is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

The analogy falls down a bit in that a fully independent Ireland never really looked like a being a goer. Although legally it appeared up in the air in 1921 and 1922, in reality Ulster was never out of British control, so there was no period of whole-Ireland independence to compare to the period of whole-Ukraine independence 1991 to 2014.

So you exactly agree with what I said then.

Also I assumed the cartoon was referring to British government actions now, rather than 100 years ago.

We suppose full slash comprehensive analyses of history are more complex than can usually immediately be captured in a short cartoon or analogy, and that there are valid comparisons with both past experiences and present experiences and it does no justice to dismiss either.

NEIL: Look, guys, I know exactly whose food is whose, right. Cause I do all the shopping around here. And I do all the cleaning. My function around here, I might as well be your mothers!

RICK: But Neil, we don’t hate our mothers!

NEIL: Alright, so most metaphors don’t bear close examination!

Russia has acquired the right to build military bases in Ukraine’s two breakaway regions under treaties signed by President Vladimir Putin with their separatist leaders.

Under the two identical friendship treaties with Donetsk and Luhansk, submitted by Putin for ratification by parliament, Russia has the right to build bases in the separatist regions and they, on paper, can do the same in Russia

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-22/russia-ukraine-liuve-updates-vladimir-putin-donetsk-luhansk/100847282

Legislation is so slow in Australia, it’s nice to see there are places in the world where agreements can be made quickly

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

So you exactly agree with what I said then.

Also I assumed the cartoon was referring to British government actions now, rather than 100 years ago.

We suppose full slash comprehensive analyses of history are more complex than can usually immediately be captured in a short cartoon or analogy, and that there are valid comparisons with both past experiences and present experiences and it does no justice to dismiss either.

NEIL: Look, guys, I know exactly whose food is whose, right. Cause I do all the shopping around here. And I do all the cleaning. My function around here, I might as well be your mothers!

RICK: But Neil, we don’t hate our mothers!

NEIL: Alright, so most metaphors don’t bear close examination!

LOL

Those young ones.

:)

dv said:

Russia has acquired the right to build military bases in Ukraine’s two breakaway regions under treaties signed by President Vladimir Putin with their separatist leaders.

Under the two identical friendship treaties with Donetsk and Luhansk, submitted by Putin for ratification by parliament, Russia has the right to build bases in the separatist regions and they, on paper, can do the same in Russia

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-22/russia-ukraine-liuve-updates-vladimir-putin-donetsk-luhansk/100847282

Legislation is so slow in Australia, it’s nice to see there are places in the world where agreements can be made quickly

Just happened to have the papers right there in his drawer. What are the odds, huh?

captain_spalding said:

dv said:

Russia has acquired the right to build military bases in Ukraine’s two breakaway regions under treaties signed by President Vladimir Putin with their separatist leaders.

Under the two identical friendship treaties with Donetsk and Luhansk, submitted by Putin for ratification by parliament, Russia has the right to build bases in the separatist regions and they, on paper, can do the same in Russia

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-22/russia-ukraine-liuve-updates-vladimir-putin-donetsk-luhansk/100847282

Legislation is so slow in Australia, it’s nice to see there are places in the world where agreements can be made quickly

Just happened to have the papers right there in his drawer. What are the odds, huh?

All very fait accompli.

captain_spalding said:

dv said:

Russia has acquired the right to build military bases in Ukraine’s two breakaway regions under treaties signed by President Vladimir Putin with their separatist leaders.

Under the two identical friendship treaties with Donetsk and Luhansk, submitted by Putin for ratification by parliament, Russia has the right to build bases in the separatist regions and they, on paper, can do the same in Russia

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-22/russia-ukraine-liuve-updates-vladimir-putin-donetsk-luhansk/100847282

Legislation is so slow in Australia, it’s nice to see there are places in the world where agreements can be made quickly

Just happened to have the papers right there in his drawer. What are the odds, huh?

anything like the magical 2016 emails that leaked

https://youtu.be/WSuwiOe2dA0
How Fox’s Tucker Carlson became Putin’s biggest cheerleader

dv said:

https://youtu.be/WSuwiOe2dA0
How Fox’s Tucker Carlson became Putin’s biggest cheerleader

in fairness, MSNBC is far from being a shining example of non-partisan media coverage

dv said:

https://youtu.be/WSuwiOe2dA0
How Fox’s Tucker Carlson became Putin’s biggest cheerleader

Anything for a headline/buck?

Putin’s gas blackmail is in danger of backfiring on him

By Matt Oliver
September 16, 2022 — 7.45am

As Europe battles to keep the lights on this winter, leaders across Europe have begun framing the energy stand-off with Russia as an epic struggle between good and evil.

“It is about autocracy against democracy,” said Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission’s president, in her annual address. Her rhetoric, a far cry from past calls for diplomacy, is the latest example of hardening European attitudes amid signs the tide may finally be turning – on and off the battlefield in Ukraine.

With Kyiv’s soldiers pushing back the Russian invaders and the European Union comfortably exceeding targets for gas storage, academics and experts say that – although the coming months will be among the hardest in living memory – Vladimir Putin no longer holds the leverage he once did over the Continent’s gas supplies.

The Russian president has mercilessly throttled flows into Europe this summer, pushing up household energy bills and forcing governments to announce support packages of an unprecedented scale to protect consumers. But after playing many of his strongest cards in the stand-off with EU leaders, who have supported Ukraine and sanctioned Russia, Putin’s weaponisation of gas is now at risk of spectacularly backfiring, according to John Lough, an associate fellow at Chatham House.

Read more:

https://www.theage.com.au/business/the-economy/putin-s-gas-blackmail-is-in-danger-of-backfiring-on-him-20220915-p5bi60.html