Was it inevitable? A short history of Russia’s war on Ukraine

[RD2003]

A level-headed (longish) article.

I would have posted the link in the main thread if not banned from it, rather than start a new one.

Was it inevitable? A short history of Russia’s war on Ukraine | Keith Gessen

The long read: To understand the tragedy of this war, it is worth going back beyond the last few weeks and months, and even beyond Vladimir Putin, writes Keith Gessen

www.theguardian.com

 

[editor]

A level-headed (longish) article.

I would have posted the link in the main thread if not banned from it, rather than start a new one.

Was it inevitable? A short history of Russia’s war on Ukraine | Keith Gessen

The long read: To understand the tragedy of this war, it is worth going back beyond the last few weeks and months, and even beyond Vladimir Putin, writes Keith Gessen

www.theguardian.com

Please don't start threads with a URL as the title. I've changed it to something more readable even though I'm not sure why you think the article deserves a whole thread of its own.

 

[RD2003]

Please don't start threads with a URL as the title. I've changed it to something more readable even though I'm not sure why you think the article deserves a whole thread of its own.

Good, I'm glad you have.

I already explained that if I hadn't been banned from the main 'war' thread, I would simply have posted it in there, as it is, in my opinion, a valuable, nuanced, contribution to the debate. And there doesn't seem to be another thread to which it is appropriate.

 

[editor]

Good, I'm glad you have.

I already explained that if I hadn't been banned from the main 'war' thread, I would simply have posted it in there, as it is, in my opinion, a valuable, nuanced, contribution to the debate. And there doesn't seem to be another thread to which it is appropriate.

That's fine. And posters can either choose to engage with you here, or post in the other thread and not have to engage with you.

 

[RD2003]

That's fine. And posters can either choose to engage with you here, or post in the other thread and not have to engage with you.

As you say, that's fine.

But the content of the article is what's important, not me.

 

[Ax^]

before reading the link

was it nato's fault that putin thought

bombing civilians was an acceptable method of warfare



*edit

and jesus did you quote the guardian

feel dirty for replying

 

[RD2003]

before reading the link

was it nato's fault that putin thought

bombing civilians was an acceptical method of warfare

Why not just read the article? It's just a fucking article in a newspaper (it doesn't matter in which one it appeared), the views to be accepted or not.

It is written, in an highly nuanced way, by somebody who knows more than me or you, or anybody else on here, about the background to what's happening.

And is Putin's regime the only one to think it acceptable to bomb civilians? Where has this bizarre thinking come from?

Here's the bad news: for centuries civilians have been targets in major (and minor) wars. It is something that accelerated as the means of waging war advanced technologically. They will be targets in the future. All over the world. We have no control over this.

 

[Ax^]

caring about people being bombed whilst we reply to each other

and not being a putin apoligist is preferable

 

[RD2003]

caring about people being bombed whilst we reply to each other

and not being a putin apoligist is preferable

What on earth are you talking about?

Read the article and comment on that. It's what the thread is meant to be about, not what we suspect each other may be thinking.

 

[Ax^]

why its in the guardian

 

[cupid_stunt]

Read it yesterday morning, it's an interesting article, there's a lot of background information, much of which I already knew, and nothing that justifies Putin's war.

/thread over.

 

[mojo pixy]

It is written, in an highly nuanced way, by somebody who knows more than me or you, or anybody else on here,

You keep doing this, and it's gaslighty shit. That some commentator knows more than you, I have no doubt; but you don't know what I know, or indeed what 'anybody on here' knows. I'm not even claiming to be an expert on anything, but ffs wind your neck in and speak for your own self. These snide little jabs at all and sundry don't support your insistence that posters should speak to the subject at hand and not to your apparent attitudes or choices of language. I don't suppose you're unaware of this either, since you also repeatedly call yourself rude names and say nobody likes you. FWIW this habit is not charming and excuses no shitty behaviour. If anything the self awareness shtick is even more ridiculous because (as you also keep posting) you're nice and comfortable at home and don't care what anyone here thinks about you.

So enjoy your thread. And in answer to your OP, no it wasn't inevitable. It was created, a little by Western triumphalism but mainly by Vladimir Putin's growing paranoia and wish for a legacy (though we may note his own children are very much not in the war zone, they too are comfortable at home, in Switzerland)

 

[RD2003]

You keep doing this, and it's gaslighty shit. That some commentator knows more than you, I have no doubt; but you don't know what I know, or indeed what 'anybody on here' knows. I'm not even claiming to be an expert on anything, but ffs wind your neck in and speak for your own self. These snide little jabs at all and sundry don't support your insistence that posters should speak to the subject at hand and not to your apparent attitudes or choices of language. I don't suppose you're unaware of this either, since you also repeatedly call yourself rude names and say nobody likes you. FWIW this habit is not charming and excuses no shitty behaviour. If anything the self awareness shtick is even more ridiculous because (as you also keep posting) you're nice and comfortable at home and don't care what anyone here thinks about you.

So enjoy your thread. And in answer to your OP, no it wasn't inevitable. It was created, a little by Western triumphalism but mainly by Vladimir Putin's growing paranoia and wish for a legacy (though we may note his own children are very much not in the war zone, they too are comfortable at home, in Switzerland)

Tell me why I don't like Mondays.

 

[mojo pixy]

Tell me why I don't like Mondays.

No,

"Tell me why" - "I don't like Mondays" .. as in it's a question and then an answer.

Nothing is inevitable, choices are being made constantly. Some because we don't like Mondays, some because we don't like losing face.

 

[Aladdin]

A level-headed (longish) article.

I would have posted the link in the main thread if not banned from it, rather than start a new one.

Was it inevitable? A short history of Russia’s war on Ukraine | Keith Gessen

The long read: To understand the tragedy of this war, it is worth going back beyond the last few weeks and months, and even beyond Vladimir Putin, writes Keith Gessen

www.theguardian.com

This is the bit in the article that makes the most sense and is not just someone using "history" to explain why "Russia" is invading Ukraine.

"This war was the decision of one person and one person only – Vladimir Putin. He made the call in his Covid isolation, failed to mount any sort of campaign to garner public support, and barely spoke to anyone outside the tiniest inner circle about it, which is why just a few weeks before the invasion no one in Moscow thought it was going to happen. Furthermore, he clearly misunderstood the nature of the political situation in Ukraine, and the vehemence of the resistance he would encounter. "

 

[Pickman's model]

A level-headed (longish) article.

I would have posted the link in the main thread if not banned from it, rather than start a new one.

Was it inevitable? A short history of Russia’s war on Ukraine | Keith Gessen

The long read: To understand the tragedy of this war, it is worth going back beyond the last few weeks and months, and even beyond Vladimir Putin, writes Keith Gessen

www.theguardian.com

You don't need to read far into it to find out that yet man thought the war was not inevitable. It's like someone's tapped out a sub-par undergraduate history essay and tidied it up a bit. Not impressed by the article or the op.

 

[Pickman's model]

This is the bit in the article that makes the most sense and is not just someone using "history" to explain why "Russia" is invading Ukraine.

"This war was the decision of one person and one person only – Vladimir Putin. He made the call in his Covid isolation, failed to mount any sort of campaign to garner public support, and barely spoke to anyone outside the tiniest inner circle about it, which is why just a few weeks before the invasion no one in Moscow thought it was going to happen. Furthermore, he clearly misunderstood the nature of the political situation in Ukraine, and the vehemence of the resistance he would encounter. "

Yeh we've discussed that to death already too

 

[RD2003]

An undergraduate essay is never a match for a post on an internet forum, though.

 

[Aladdin]

Yeh we've discussed that to death already too

Yes...I know.

It is worth repeating for posterity though.

 

[Pickman's model]

An undergraduate essay is never a match for a post on an internet forum, though.

If that's your best defence of it you should give up now

 

[RD2003]

Give up what? You're only trying to thread trash.

 

[Aladdin]

Give up what? You're only trying to thread trash.

Honestly...you are coming across as attention seeking now.

This thread is not adding to any discussion. Not really.

 

[RD2003]

Honestly...you are coming across as attention seeking now.

This thread is not adding to any discussion. Not really.

The thread is simply following a familiar, predictable pattern, and you just keep perpetuating it.

Don't like the article or the thread? Don't read the article or the thread.

 

[andysays]

I think the article is worth reading in its entirety rather than trying to pick out edited highlights. Worth noting that it was posted ten days ago now, though as it focuses on the past that doesn't make it obsolete.

But I can't see any reason to advance this particular article as worthy of our attention when compared to many others written and published recently, many of which have already been linked to.

And there's already at least one thread on the background and causes of the invasion, so not sure if this thread, tied as it is to one particular article, is really necessary or helpful.

 

[RD2003]

I think the article is worth reading in its entirety rather than trying to pick out edited highlights. Worth noting that it was posted ten days ago now, though as it focuses on the past that doesn't make it obsolete.

But I can't see any reason to advance this particular article as worthy of our attention when compared to many others written and published recently, many of which have already been linked to.

And there's already at least one thread on the background and causes of the invasion, so not sure if this thread, tied as it is to one particular article, is really necessary or helpful.

It seems that the tactic is to shunt everything away from the main war thread to little-read sub threads so that everybody can write about weaponry and continue moving lines on the map etc on the main one.

 

[Aladdin]

The thread is simply following a familiar, predictable pattern, and you just keep perpetuating it.

Don't like the article or the thread? Don't read the article or the thread.

I read the article.
It's not a bad article.
There is norhing new in it. It doesn't warrant a thread of its own.
IMO.

 

[Pickman's model]

Give up what? You're only trying to thread trash.

By no means. That article's only worthy of a thread of its own if it's a dissection of what's wrong with the guardian. It is internally inconsistent - for example yet man goes on about Ukraine being a truly bilingual nation then describes vz as a russian-speaking president. He says he went to Moscow in January to find out what was going on but doesn't say what he hoped to find there he couldn't elsewhere, or what he did find that gave him a genuine insight into what was going on. Points are supported from really strange sources - for instance, in 1993 polish officials (of what department or rank we're not told) told think tank researchers (we're not told the name of the organisation nor who the researchers were) that if Poland didn't get let into NATO they'd develop nuclear weapons. Why not polish diplomats saying the same thing to western diplomats, or some evidence of a nuclear programme?

There's a lot of narrative masquerading as analysis there, and not much in the way of thoughtful examination. Pretty much everything said there has been discussed better here, and like so many guardian articles it promises rather more than it in fact delivers.

 

[RD2003]

I read the article.
It's not a bad article.
There is norhing new in it. It doesn't warrant a thread of its own.
IMO.

It's explained further up the thread why I felt I had to start a separate one.

 

[RD2003]

By no means. That article's only worthy of a thread of its own if it's a dissection of what's wrong with the guardian. It is internally inconsistent - for example yet man goes on about Ukraine being a truly bilingual nation then describes vz as a russian-speaking president. He says he went to Moscow in January to find out what was going on but doesn't say what he hoped to find there he couldn't elsewhere, or what he did find that gave him a genuine insight into what was going on. Points are supported from really strange sources - for instance, in 1993 polish officials (of what department or rank we're not told) told think tank researchers (we're not told the name of the organisation nor who the researchers were) that if Poland didn't get let into NATO they'd develop nuclear weapons. Why not polish diplomats saying the same thing to western diplomats, or some evidence of a nuclear programme?

There's a lot of narrative masquerading as analysis there, and not much in the way of thoughtful examination. Pretty much everything said there has been discussed better here, and like so many guardian articles it promises rather more than it in fact delivers.

That's better-writing about the article rather than another poster.

 

[andysays]

It seems that the tactic is to shunt everything away from the main war thread to little-read sub threads so that everybody can write about weaponry and continue moving lines on the map etc on the main one.

It's understandable that the main thread focuses on the actual day to day events of the invasion.

If the sub threads discussing other aspects are little read, that suggests that either many people aren't so interested in the other aspects, or that those creating and contributing to the sub threads aren't doing so in a way which encourages others to read and make their own contributions (or maybe a bit of both).

If you're genuinely interested in a discussion about, I'm still left wondering why you've chose to start this particular thread, rather than contribute to the already existing one here

The long term causes of war in Ukraine​