Ukraine Part 2: Playing chicken with Kiev

[GrimTuesday]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

  I mean, I suppose the US has shown the way, but in terms of showing what not to do.

Oh c'mon no one here is relishing war they're just reacting to the same information everyone else is getting.

Yes, they are reacting to the same information as everyone else, but unfortunately their default reaction is to start salivating at the prospect of tens of thousands of people dying half way across the world in the name of combating THE RED MENACE and seeing just how far they can fit NATO's boot in their mouth. Russia is bad, no doubt about that, but NATO is the military arm of western imperialism, and I was pretty sure there was a pretty broad consensus on the left (using that term very broadly here) that imperialism is bad no matter who is doing it.

Of course lets not even go into how uncritically people are approaching this, and have just been lapping up America propaganda of the villainous Russki swooping in to devour tiny innocent Ukraine, but that is not what is happening here, the reality is much more nuanced than the picture we are being presented with.

For the record, I'm not talking specifically here, but what I have seen more broadly

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Russia is bad, no doubt about that, but NATO is the military arm of western imperialism, and I was pretty sure there was a pretty broad consensus on the left (using that term very broadly here) that imperialism is bad no matter who is doing it.

How, like, in the fuck, is NATO - which yes basically just means the US - advancing imperialism in this instance?  Please explain that to me.  Please explain to me what exactly Biden should be doing or not doing that he's not in order to NOT be imperialist.  Should he just let Ukraine fall and tell them to go fuck themselves?  Is that anti-imperialism or just John Birch isolationism?

14 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Of course lets not even go into how uncritically people are approaching this, and have just been lapping up America propaganda of the villainous Russki swooping in to devour tiny innocent Ukraine, but that is not what is happening here, the reality is much more nuanced than the picture we are being presented with.

What's the nuance?  What's the American propaganda?  This country wants to join NATO - not the other way around - and the rest of Europe is saying no.  The US is saying, both parties btw, we will do what we can but we can't put boots on the ground.  You gotta be smoking some salvia or some shit to think Russia is not the aggressor towards Ukraine.  So what reality are you imagining and how can we "more critically" approach this?

[TargBaitedStrawman]

5 hours ago, DMC said:

On a certain level this is getting ridiculous.  "US intelligence is now really, really convinced - as opposed to yesterday when they were only really convinced."  

It seems more likely. The the long term ramifications will be high still I think. Is it worth an escalated cold war with the west again?  

6 hours ago, DMC said:

I just don't think anyone should be losing any sleep over US' incessant intelligence warnings.  To paraphrase the great US-Russian diplomat Ivan Drago, "if he invades, he invades."

Da, I'm agree. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, GrimTuesday said:

Yes, they are reacting to the same information as everyone else, but unfortunately their default reaction is to start salivating at the prospect of tens of thousands of people dying half way across the world in the name of combating THE RED MENACE

That’d be weird to do; Russia doesn’t even lie about being communist the same way the USSR did.

1 hour ago, GrimTuesday said:

and seeing just how far they can fit NATO's boot in their mouth.

Not every single situation has them being the baddie.

1 hour ago, GrimTuesday said:

Russia is bad, no doubt about that, but NATO is the military arm of western imperialism, and I was pretty sure there was a pretty broad consensus on the left (using that term very broadly here) that imperialism is bad no matter who is doing it.

I imagine you’d not bristle at lefties not condemning Russia over sending arms to Cuba in response to the US showing a likelyness to launch an invasion on it again.

1 hour ago, GrimTuesday said:

Of course lets not even go into how uncritically people are approaching this, and have just been lapping up America propaganda of the villainous Russki swooping in to devour tiny innocent Ukraine

Did Ukraine do something wrong?

[Arakan]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Did Ukraine do something wrong?

Not Ukraine per se. The conflict is complicated anyway, more akin to a civil war than anything else. The thing is: everyone knew that NATO membership for Ukraine was the redline for Putin, that’s nothing new. This notwithstanding the US has been pushing to get them into the club for the better part of 20 years, ignoring what a basket case this country is in terms of systemic corruption anyway. 

Only due to the wisdom of Germany and France a US pushed member application was vetoed in 2008. The thing is: a sentence like „it is the right of a free Ukraine and its people to decide about their future and whether they want to be part of NATO or not“ sounds nice et al but it’s wrong and not how it works. Ukraine certainly can apply for NATO (and/or EU membership) but it is the right of every single member to decide via vetoing or not, whether that happens. 

Even without the Russia situation, Ukraine is not fit to become NATO member, not now or in the foreseeable future. The hawks in Washington are aware of this (but they don’t care because it’s not their neighborhood) and played the long strategic game. A hot, open war between Ukraine and Russia is the wet dream of people like Zbigniew Brzezinski…

[Varysblackfyre321]

7 minutes ago, Arakan said:

Not Ukraine per se. The conflict is complicated anyway, more akin to a civil war than anything else.

It would be if Ukraine was apart of Russia. But it’s not.

7 minutes ago, Arakan said:

The thing is: everyone knew that NATO membership for Ukraine was the redline for Putin, that’s nothing new.

He does have a propensity of invading his neighbors if can’t bully them into allyship through other means.

8 minutes ago, Arakan said:

This notwithstanding the US has been pushing to get them into the club for the better part of 20 years, ignoring what a basket case this country is in terms of systemic corruption anyway. 

Do most Ukrainians not want to be apart of NATO or have it’s support?

10 minutes ago, Arakan said:

Ukraine and its people to decide about their future and whether they want to be part of NATO or not“ sounds nice et al but it’s wrong and not how it works.

Why should Russian imperialism be seen as a legitimate roadblock for another country’s actions as a sovereign state?

11 minutes ago, Arakan said:

Even without the Russia situation, Ukraine is not fit to become NATO member, not now or in the foreseeable future.

Because?

12 minutes ago, Arakan said:

A hot, open war between Ukraine and Russia is the wet dream of people like Zbigniew Brzezinski…

Ah so Ukrainians truly wouldn’t be minded enveloped by Russia? They’re only resisting because the Evil US is tricking them.

 

[DMC]

46 minutes ago, Arakan said:

This notwithstanding the US has been pushing to get them into the club for the better part of 20 years, ignoring what a basket case this country is in terms of systemic corruption anyway. 

This isn't true.  The concerted push to join NATO over the past five years has entirely been on Ukraine's own accord.

46 minutes ago, Arakan said:

A hot, open war between Ukraine and Russia is the wet dream of people like Zbigniew Brzezinski…

Zbigniew Brzezinski has been dead for five years and has had exactly zero influence on US foreign policy for over twenty years.

[Arakan]

Just watching the Munich Security conference and it’s funny: Joe Lieberman asking Olaf Scholz if we shouldn’t Ukraine open the door to the EU. Ridiculous. But Olaf Scholz is answering very well. 

 

[Arakan]

48 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Why should Russian imperialism be seen as a legitimate roadblock for another country’s actions as a sovereign state?

It’s not up to Ukraine to decide whether it becomes EU/NATO member. What is so hard to understand about this?

 

50 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Because?

Amongst others because of frozen conflicts and of massive corruption. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

10 minutes ago, Arakan said:

It’s not up to Ukraine to decide whether it becomes EU/NATO member.

True it’s up to the respective organizations to accept any application from Ukraine and the process for formalizing such a thing would be years in the making.

Until such an event NATO has to settle on giving Ukraine tools to help keep its independence from Russia.

10 minutes ago, Arakan said:

Amongst others because of frozen conflicts and of massive corruption. 

I see very little reason for why either of those things as a disqualifies a country for NATO membership ultimately. Least at this stage and with the current makeup of its membership.

 

[Arakan]

And so it begins…according to the news fighting in Donbas is escalating and several ten thousands of civilians are fleeing towards Russia. I think Putin is trying to create a casus belli and the time window for avoiding a full out war is closing rapidly. 

2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I see very little reason for why either of those things as a disqualifies a country for NATO membership ultimately. Least at this stage and with the current makeup of its membership.

But that’s factually not true. There is a common understanding among NATO members to not integrate new members when they have frozen conflicts. Thus the French and German Veto to NATO membership of Georgia in 2008. And that’s the ultimate reason why Putin created the Donbas separatist republics. And there is of course the Crimea situation. If all of this is solved, then of course the road to NATO would be open. But here is the thing: neither France nor Germany nor the Netherlands want that for various reasons. 

Joe Lieberman was basically asking Olaf Scholz the same question (though first EU, then NATO) a few minutes ago and the answer was a „no“. 
 

 

[DMC]

I mentioned Ukrainian polling yesterday (albeit in the US politics thread), and actually a new poll - conducted Wednesday and Thursday - was just released:

Quote

After dropping to 55% in December, support for Ukraine’s NATO membership climbed back up in January and reached 62% in February, according to the survey by Ukraine’s polling organization Rating Group published Friday.

“This is the highest indicator of positive perception of Ukraine's integration into NATO in the history of observations since 2014,” it said.

Support for joining the EU is also at an all-time high at 68%.

[Toth]

I've stumbled repeatedly across the sentiment that Russia's aggression is justified because the people of Ukraine don't actually want to leave the Russian sphere of influence and the Euromaidan protests were a false flag initiated by the CIA. I've spent essentially the better part of two nights combing through the internet for evidence that would be as believable as the part about the separatists being led by 'former' KGB agents and all 'sources' that posted vaguely ominous phone calls as alleged proofs I was able to trace back to Russian think tanks almost instantly.

I got then super upset when a fucking colleague of mine then voiced the same conspiracy theory in real life with the explanation that no people would ever do an uprising without outside instigators and brushed off my findings from the nights prior as me being just naive and brainwashed by western media (even though I don't even use much of any mainstream media sources and consider myself quite paranoid about stuff) and he proudly proclaimed that in his 50 years he has gained the wisdom to say that there must be truth in the statements of both sides, which in the case of diametrically opposed accusations, that the media of a tightly controlled autocratic state must be right because independent journalists all have the same western agenda. As an example he cited the German media bias against Erdogan and how the recent coup attempt against him and his policies against the Kurds are portrayed here.

There are sometimes moments where I am thinking whether the world has gone crazy...

[DMC]

27 minutes ago, Toth said:

I've stumbled repeatedly across the sentiment that Russia's aggression is justified because the people of Ukraine don't actually want to leave the Russian sphere of influence and the Euromaidan protests were a false flag initiated by the CIA. I've spent essentially the better part of two nights combing through the internet for evidence that would be as believable as the part about the separatists being led by 'former' KGB agents and all 'sources' that posted vaguely ominous phone calls as alleged proofs I was able to trace back to Russian think tanks almost instantly.

Yeah it's really deflating that some of this "US imperialism" and consequently sympathetic-Russian propaganda is permeating the left - or at least people purportedly representing the left.  I expect it from the Trumpist crazies on the right.  In a way I take comfort from it coming from them.  But framing Putin and Russia's aggression as anything other than exactly what is - Putin and Russia's entirely unjustified aggression - is symptomatic of a social media sphere where far too many people unthinkingly latch onto anything that conforms to their interest in advertising their "hot takes" no matter where the blatant propaganda is coming from.  Which is exactly what authoritarians want.

[Arakan]

34 minutes ago, Toth said:

I've stumbled repeatedly across the sentiment that Russia's aggression is justified because the people of Ukraine don't actually want to leave the Russian sphere of influence and the Euromaidan protests were a false flag initiated by the CIA. I've spent essentially the better part of two nights combing through the internet for evidence that would be as believable as the part about the separatists being led by 'former' KGB agents and all 'sources' that posted vaguely ominous phone calls as alleged proofs I was able to trace back to Russian think tanks almost instantly.

I got then super upset when a fucking colleague of mine then voiced the same conspiracy theory in real life with the explanation that no people would ever do an uprising without outside instigators and brushed off my findings from the nights prior as me being just naive and brainwashed by western media (even though I don't even use much of any mainstream media sources and consider myself quite paranoid about stuff) and he proudly proclaimed that in his 50 years he has gained the wisdom to say that there must be truth in the statements of both sides, which in the case of diametrically opposed accusations, that the media of a tightly controlled autocratic state must be right because independent journalists all have the same western agenda. As an example he cited the German media bias against Erdogan and how the recent coup attempt against him and his policies against the Kurds are portrayed here.

There are sometimes moments where I am thinking whether the world has gone crazy...

Of course Russian aggression is not justified. But conflicts like these are always nuanced, grey, never black and white. I have no doubt whatsoever that the majority of the Crimean population for example consider themselves Russian and not Ukrainian. Why not allow them self-determination? The Ukrainian government till this day is opposed to any form of even the possibility of an international supervised referendum. And the people in Donbas might not feel the same as People in Kiew, ever considered this? During the Maidan uprising there was no such thing in the East. 

And whether you or anyone else like it: Yanukovich was the democratically elected President of the Ukraine in 2014. You don’t like him? Then go and vote against him at the next elections! 

 

 

[SeanF]

47 minutes ago, Toth said:

I've stumbled repeatedly across the sentiment that Russia's aggression is justified because the people of Ukraine don't actually want to leave the Russian sphere of influence and the Euromaidan protests were a false flag initiated by the CIA. I've spent essentially the better part of two nights combing through the internet for evidence that would be as believable as the part about the separatists being led by 'former' KGB agents and all 'sources' that posted vaguely ominous phone calls as alleged proofs I was able to trace back to Russian think tanks almost instantly.

I got then super upset when a fucking colleague of mine then voiced the same conspiracy theory in real life with the explanation that no people would ever do an uprising without outside instigators and brushed off my findings from the nights prior as me being just naive and brainwashed by western media (even though I don't even use much of any mainstream media sources and consider myself quite paranoid about stuff) and he proudly proclaimed that in his 50 years he has gained the wisdom to say that there must be truth in the statements of both sides, which in the case of diametrically opposed accusations, that the media of a tightly controlled autocratic state must be right because independent journalists all have the same western agenda. As an example he cited the German media bias against Erdogan and how the recent coup attempt against him and his policies against the Kurds are portrayed here.

There are sometimes moments where I am thinking whether the world has gone crazy...

I don't doubt that the people of the Crimea did want to be part of Russia.  But, the people of the Donbass voted 84% in favour of Ukrainian independence when they had the chance, in 1991, and I doubt if the proportion would be lower as you moved further West.

[SeanF]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah it's really deflating that some of this "US imperialism" and consequently sympathetic-Russian propaganda is permeating the left - or at least people purportedly representing the left.  I expect it from the Trumpist crazies on the right.  In a way I take comfort from it coming from them.  But framing Putin and Russia's aggression as anything other than exactly what is - Putin and Russia's entirely unjustified aggression - is symptomatic of a social media sphere where far too many people unthinkingly latch onto anything that conforms to their interest in advertising their "hot takes" no matter where the blatant propaganda is coming from.  Which is exactly what authoritarians want.

I think there is a section of the left that is quite on board with imperialism, so long as it emanates from a country that is hostile to the USA.

[Arakan]

Wikipedia: just a reminder

Quote

In 2009, Yanukovych announced his intent to run for president in the upcoming presidential election. He was endorsed by the Party of Regions and the Youth Party of Ukraine.

Minister of Internal Affairs Yuriy Lutsenko accused Yanukovych of financial fraud during the campaign. Yanukovych's campaign was expected to have cost $100 to $150 million.

On 11 December 2009, Yanukovych called for his supporters to go to Maidan Nezalezhnosti, Kyiv's Independence Square, in case of election fraud.

Early vote returns from the first round of the election held on 17 January showed Yanukovych in first place with 35.8% of the vote. He faced a 7 February 2010 runoff against Tymoshenko, who finished second (with 24.7% of the vote). After all ballots were counted, the Ukrainian Central Election Commission declared that Yanukovych won the runoff election with 48.95% of the vote compared with 45.47% for Tymoshenko.Tymoshenko withdrew her subsequent legal challenge of the result.Tad Devine, an associate of Rick Gates and Paul Manafort, wrote Yanukovych's victory speech.

Presidency (2010–2014)

Inauguration

Ukraine's parliament had (on 16 February) fixed 25 February 2010 for the inauguration of Yanukovych as president. Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko signed a decree endorsing a plan of events related to Yanukovych's inauguration on 20 February 2010. Yushchenko also congratulated and wished Yanukovych "to defend Ukrainian interests and democratic traditions" at the presidential post.

Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus at Yanukovych's invitation conducted a public prayer service at Kyiv Pechersk Lavra before Yanukovych's presidential inauguration. Patriarch Kirill also attended the inauguration along with High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton, United States National Security Advisor James Jones and speaker of the Russian parliament Boris Gryzlov.

Yanukovych's immediate predecessor, Yushchenko, did not attend the ceremony, nor did the Prime Minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, and her party, Bloc Yulia Tymoshenko.

Yanukovych was DEMOCRATICALLY elected president until end of his term in 2016. 

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think there is a section of the left that is quite on board with imperialism, so long as it emanates from a country that is hostile to the USA.

I'd say this is an overreaction, but...

15 minutes ago, Arakan said:

Yanukovich was the democratically elected President of the Ukraine in 2014. You don’t like him? Then go and vote against him at the next elections! 

Why we're bringing up a president that was removed from office in 2014 by 73% of the Ukrainian parliament (and obviously wasn't elected in 2014 but rather 2010) is beyond me.

[Werthead]

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I see very little reason for why either of those things as a disqualifies a country for NATO membership ultimately. Least at this stage and with the current makeup of its membership.

NATO allowed Turkey to join, which has caused unending headaches due to Turkey's sabre-rattling and propensity to stick its nose into the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, its own internal problem with the Kurds and its interventions in the Syrian conflict not to mention occasionally winding up Israel and Saudi Arabia and then hiding behind NATO's skirts (to the point that NATO has had to tell Turkey if Turkey starts a conflict deliberately, NATO will do nothing to protect them). If Turkey can be a NATO member, then so can Ukraine, quite easily. Of course, if Turkey was applying for NATO membership in 2022, it's quite likely it would be turned down or kicked into the long grass indefinitely.

The situation is also comparable to the Baltic States. Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia (my dad spent some time in Riga almost immediately post independence, as part of a bunch of EU companies looking to help develop it in the post-Soviet period) were not in a good shape at all in 1991 and had similar problems with endemic corruption - the Russian Mafia basically still openly ruled large parts of their economies for years - and Russia making angry noises at the idea of them being allowed into the EU and NATO. Since then, all three countries have developed well, corruption has been reduced and their economies have boomed hugely (Estonia has a vibrant tech sector, spearheaded by Skype being created there).

I think there is a genuine will in Ukraine to stamp out corruption and become a more developed country and economy. It certainly has all the ingredients for it, such as a young population, a huge amount of and resources and tremendous tech/IT potential. There's a video game developer, 4A Games (developer of the excellent Metro franchise), founded in Kyiv who started off running five-year-old hardware balanced on old school benches in an unheated former Soviet workshop and transitioned in just a few years to modern, comfortable offices with all the amenities and hardware of any modern video game studio anywhere else in the Western world. They did move their headquarters to Malta in 2014, partially in response to the conflict in the east of the country and partially because operating outside the EU was a major logistical headache, but their Kyiv studios remain active.