Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[Raheem]

I agree it's complex (politics is) and other things are at play but I disagree that NATO isn't seen as a threat to Putin (or Russia) even if it isn't.

It isn't threat, it isn't seen as a threat, but the idea that it is a threat is promoted by Russia, because the alternative would be to admit the reality that Russia is engaging in pure imperialist violence and destruction in Ukraine.

 

[elbows]

Also this from the Times:

Welcome to nginx!

archive.ph

Ukraine has demanded more western air defences after a Soviet-era missile appeared to misfire, killing two people in Poland and threatening a Nato confrontation with Russia.

Volodymyr Havrylov, Ukraine’s deputy defence minister, said Kyiv needed more sophisticated weaponry to defend itself from the daily bombardment of Russian cruise missiles and kamikaze drones.

Havrylov told The Times that President Putin was responsible for the deaths at a Polish grain silo about four miles from the Ukrainian border, although he admitted that his government’s use of Soviet-era weapons could sometimes result in “accidents”.

On a visit to Britain, Havrylov, a former air defence officer, acknowledged that “sometimes there might be some kind of accidents” while refusing to comment on the specifics of the Polish attack.“The West should demonstrate its readiness to build up the right air defence capability for Ukraine,” he said.

“We have to protect our infrastructure with all possible means. To avoid situations similar to what maybe happened in Poland, Ukraine should have very strong and very effective air defence capability. That’s why everybody should contribute to that.”

Its also a sensitive issue for Ukraine because:

Ukrainian civilians have been killed inside their country by the falling debris from S-300s and other air defence systems fired to intercept Russian missiles. In many interception cases, the debris from both munitions falls together.

That article also includes various examples of how different figures in various countries have tried to put their own spin on the Polish incident. The fact Ukraine is pissed off that the US has recently gone public about their desire for Ukraine to show more willingness to negotiate with Russia is also mentioned.

 

[cupid_stunt]

I have no idea about the authors motive

For those without a paywall buster installed, eat your hearts out - archive.ph

 

[Magnus McGinty]

It isn't threat, it isn't seen as a threat, but the idea that it is a threat is promoted by Russia, because the alternative would be to admit the reality that Russia is engaging in pure imperialist violence and destruction in Ukraine.

How do you know this?

 

[Supine]

How do you know this?

Watching the news

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Watching the news

The news says that Putin/Russia doesn’t feel threatened by NATO expanding to their borders?

 

[Smangus]

The news says that Putin/Russia doesn’t feel threatened by NATO expanding to their borders?

I sort of admire your tenacity, not much mind.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I sort of admire your tenacity, not much mind.

Is this a game of tag?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

You engage with one poster then another appears with the answer. Almost as if you have the same brain. Fucking weird.

 

[Smangus]

Is this a game of tag?

No, an internet forum.

 

[Smangus]

You engage with one poster then another appears with the answer. Almost as if you have the same brain. Fucking weird.

Well, if you want a private conversation go down the pub with your mates or something.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Well, if you want a private conversation go down the pub with your mates or something.

Asking someone to expand on their views without someone else doing it for them is ‘wanting a private conversation’?

 

[Spymaster]

Yep. A lot of people criticising Zelensky for contradicting Poland and NATO. Well of course there's a likelihood that he's the one telling the truth, and theyre lying to de escalate. If that's the case, bit of a slap in the face.

Zelensky is understandably in full-on ‘blame Russia for everything’ mode, which may not have done him any favours in this case but it’ll soon be forgotten. Sounds like Poland are already reconciled to the fact it was an accident. Plus of course, he almost certainly didn’t know for sure who’s missile it was initially and possibly still doesn’t. He’d have been better off saying that it could have been a fuck-up due to overwhelmed air defence systems and if it was, sorry. By the way, can we have a load of Patriots now?

The immediate aftermath of a calamity, amidst the attempted destruction of your homeland is probably not the best time for well reasoned diplomacy though.

 

[Rimbaud]

The news says that Putin/Russia doesn’t feel threatened by NATO expanding to their borders?

The expansion to their borders happened 18 years ago so it is a bit of a delayed reaction.

But it's wrong to say Russia felt their security and sovereignty was threatened by it. Russia has nukes, they know NATO is never going to attack them.

It is more accurate to say that they feel that their sphere of influence and role as a great power was threatened by it. That is why they don't care so much about Finland joining NATO, even though that has a much longer border with Russia than Ukraine does and is a stone's throw from Moscow and St Petersburg - because Finland is seen less as part of their sphere compared to Ukraine.

The drift of Ukraine towards the West has largely been driven by Ukrainians and has been met, until recently, with skepticism from NATO and the EU.

So this is less about Russia reacting to defend their security, and more about them lashing out with violence to try and arrest their declining relevance.

The conditions for Russia to have a large buffer zone and sphere of influence are gone. The Russian economy is barely larger than Iran's, and its population isn't that much bigger either (86million to 145 million). Given these conditions it is absurd for Russia to expect large areas of Eastern Europe and Central Asia to remain as buffer zones. The countries that were part of the 1999 and 2004 NATO enlargements, plus Ukraine and Moldova, have a population roughly the the same as Russia itself and combined they amount to significantly larger nominal GDP than Russia does. And that isn't even included the Caucususes and Central Asian States which Russia has declining influence over as well.

At its core, this is the reason for declining Russian influence over its "near abroad." And it has a lot more to do with the kleptocratic petrostate created by Putin and his cronies than it has to do with NATO expansion.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

The expansion to their borders happened 18 years ago so it is a bit of a delayed reaction.

But it's wrong to say Russia felt their security and sovereignty was threatened by it. Russia has nukes, they know NATO is never going to attack them.

It is more accurate to say that they feel that their sphere of influence and role as a great power was threatened by it. That is why they don't care so much about Finland joining NATO, even though that has a much longer border with Russia than Ukraine does and is a stone's throw from Moscow and St Petersburg - because Finland is seen less as part of their sphere compared to Ukraine.

The drift of Ukraine towards the West has largely been driven by Ukrainians and has been met, until recently, with skepticism from NATO and the EU.

So this is less about Russia reacting to defend their security, and more about them lashing out with violence to try and arrest their declining relevance.

The conditions for Russia to have a large buffer zone and sphere of influence are gone. The Russian economy is barely larger than Iran's, and its population isn't that much bigger either (86million to 145 million). Given these conditions it is absurd for Russia to expect large areas of Eastern Europe and Central Asia to remain as buffer zones. The countries that were part of the 1999 and 2004 NATO enlargements, plus Ukraine and Moldova, have a population roughly the the same as Russia itself and combined they amount to significantly larger nominal GDP than Russia does. And that isn't even included the Caucususes and Central Asian States which Russia has declining influence over as well.

At its core, this is the reason for declining Russian influence over its "near abroad." And it has a lot more to do with the kleptocratic petrostate created by Putin and his cronies than it has to do with NATO expansion.

Interesting points, but you contradict yourself by arguing simultaneously that NATO expansion happened 18 years ago so is irrelevant now, but then talk about buffer zones and spheres of influence (which I agree with btw) as if that is more relevant yet that happened with the fall of the iron curtain which was longer than 18 years ago.

 

[teqniq]

Russia seems to be lobbing a lot of ordinance at Ukraine right now:

 

[kabbes]

Russia seems to be lobbing a lot of ordinance at Ukraine right now:

Still, NATO though.

 

[Cid]

Interesting points, but you contradict yourself by arguing simultaneously that NATO expansion happened 18 years ago so is irrelevant now, but then talk about buffer zones and spheres of influence (which I agree with btw) as if that is more relevant yet that happened with the fall of the iron curtain which was longer than 18 years ago.

There is no existential threat to Russia, and Russia doesn't seem to believe there is (because Latvia/Estonia and now Finland). There is a threat to the vestiges of Russian imperialist ambition as represented by their desire to preserve buffer zones/zones of control. Don't really see any contradiction there.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

There is no existential threat to Russia, and Russia doesn't seem to believe there is (because Latvia/Estonia and now Finland). There is a threat to the vestiges of Russian imperialist ambition as represented by their desire to preserve buffer zones/zones of control. Don't really see any contradiction there.

Yet this ignores NATO expanding INTO those very buffer zones with the suggestion that Ukraine could also join representing a closing window of opportunity for Russia for the very argument you are making. The mind boggles.

 

[A380]

Buffer zone = country where people aren’t allowed to do tiny unimportant things like choose the government they want or the level of human rights protection they want…

Bloody liberals.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Buffer zone = country where people aren’t allowed to do tiny unimportant things like choose the government they want or the level of human rights protection they want…

Bloody liberals.

Happens the world over.

 

[A380]

Happens the world over.

I know, and I think it’s shit.

What’s your opinion?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I know, and I think it’s shit.

What’s your opinion?

I think it’s shit. Discussing something doesn’t mean I agree with it. We covered that yesterday.

 

[The39thStep]

Haha, well done for your Wikipedia research. Yes, they interned a whole lot of people they shouldn't have done (most of whom were subsequently released), but they also interned all the right people (literally 'right' including Oswald Mosley and assorted BUF types.) Meanwhile, over in France, those sort of people arranged a capitulation to Hitler, the formation of the Vichy regime and then a regime of collaboration that included deporting thousands of French Jews to extermination camps. So I thank god for internment as it helped to save our country from the fifth columnist and defeatist elements who wanted us to capitulate to Hitler.

As for maomao he's confirmed that he wouldn't have fought against Fascism in the Second World War (ie. he wanted other people to fight and die for his freedom). What about you?

My starting point was actually the book 'Collar the Lot' by Peter Gilman which I read some time ago and would recommend to you.

Moseley and his wife were of course treated differently under Churchill's Collar the Lot policy. Initially detained separately. Diana was at Holloway prison where she complained about the lack of suitable bathing facilities. Tom Mitford (Diana’s brother) dined with Churchill and put to him her view that the Mosleys should be interned together. They were allocated a little house inside Holloway Prison where they were allowed to cook their own meals and have regular visitors.

It's worth debating but I'm not sure that the internment of the BUF and German sympathisers did help save our 'our country from the fifth columnist and defeatist elements who wanted us to capitulate to Hitler'. I think it was good for moral however Frances's defeat was a military defeat and if we had suffered a military defeat by invasion there would have been no shortage of collaborators as there were in other countries ( in any case I assume the Moseleyites would have been released) .

What about me? Well, I have since I was around 21 years old physically and ideologically fought fascism so I would have enlisted as my parents did. However, I wouldn't have had the same view as you regarding conscientious objectors, Uncomfortable as you might find it we've moved on since WW1 when 'deserters' were shot at dawn and conscientious objectors had white feathers thrown at them. In fact, by WW2 we had moved on and the vast majority of conscientious were involved in the war effort but in roles and positions where it did not involve them being in a position where they would have to take human life.

 

[Spymaster]

Yet this ignores NATO expanding INTO those very buffer zones with the suggestion that Ukraine could also join representing a closing window of opportunity for Russia for the very argument you are making. The mind boggles.

NATO expansion in the area is in response to Russian behaviour, not the cause of it.

NATO has never expressed an interest in invading Russia or given them cause to think they would. Russia, on the other hand, has quite a form sheet for attacking its neighbours. Russia does not fear a NATO attack. They fear that their influence over their near neighbours is waning. And it is.

 

[A380]

I think it’s shit. Discussing something doesn’t mean I agree with it. We covered that yesterday.

So you feel that it would be shit if the people living in Ukraine had had to accept a government but in place by Putin and acting in the interests of Russia to create a ‘buffer zone’ for Russia?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

So you feel that it would be shit if the people living in Ukraine had had to accept a government but in place by Putin and acting in the interests of Russia to create a ‘buffer zone’ for Russia?

It’s not about what I think. It’s about what Putin/Russia thinks. I don’t think you can completely airbrush out threatened NATO expansion into Ukraine with the current conflict or Crimea previously.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

I've said this before, but it obviously needs repeating. Russia itself is an imperialist construct, created over hundreds of years. Unlike most other recent imperialisms it did not expand overseas but overland, a product of its geography. The Bolsheviks overlaid this imperialist reality with a pretence of multinational fraternity and independence, whilst themselves partaking in genocidal activity on an enormous scale and imposing Russification on the whole USSR. By some miracle Yeltsin seems to have, on some level, believed in the fairy tale of independent nation states that was the Soviet Union. So he let the union republics secede. Putin and the nationalists want those bits back. Fundamentally NATO has got nothing to do with it.

 

[Spymaster]

It’s not about what I think. It’s about what Putin/Russia thinks. I don’t think you can completely airbrush out threatened NATO expansion into Ukraine with the current conflict or Crimea previously.

It's not being "airbrushed out". It's being argued that the prospect of NATO countries on his border is not a primary driver of Putin's aggression. That's a nonsense that you're buying into. If that was his concern, the best way forward would be to indicate that he has no expansionist designs in the region and that his neighbours have nothing to fear. Not do the opposite and give them cause to seek western pact protection.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

It's not being "airbrushed out". It's being argued that the prospect of NATO countries on his border is not a primary driver of Putin's aggression. That's a nonsense that you're buying into. If that was his concern, the best way forward would be to indicate that he has no expansionist designs in the region. Not do the opposite and give them cause to seek western pact protection.

It’s because of his expansionist desires that he sees NATO expansion into that sphere as a threat; not because he thinks he’ll be attacked by NATO although he does say it threatens Russia’s security.
It’s odd because the idea of peace negotiations have been trumpeted over recent days with one area to be agreed upon being NATO expansion into Ukraine! I’ve no idea why that would be on the table if it’s simply nothing to do with the conflict!