Jump to content

Ukraine 12: When is this an existential threat?


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

All, right, I'll say it: the sinking of the Moskva really worries me. I'm not sure such a success can go unanswered in a war.
I hope it helps pushing the Russians to a cease-fire, but I fear they will want to refuse their humiliation first.

They'll probably just spin it. Putin's entire war effort has looked like this:

 

What's one more rake? Russia's going to be deeply embarrassed no matter how this ends. It's a complete disaster in almost every way so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Should the Ukrainians not fight back?

Queue a lot of words saying nothing at all about how awful war is and how the poster 'just wishes it could be different' and 'worries about uncertainty and escalation' while making sure you all see and respect their hand wringing anxieties against the sad cruelties of humankind. No solutions. No real insight or explanation for why they need to transmute any news of Ukrainian success into responses towards a personal anxiety over an altogether nebulous depiction of calamitous future. Just more fucking whining over nothing, diffused worries of an entirely fictitious nature, against a backdrop of naked aggression and invasion. Twitter and clickbait have ruined us. Weep.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

All, right, I'll say it: the sinking of the Moskva really worries me. I'm not sure such a success can go unanswered in a war.

Yeah, they might invade Ukraine! They might indiscriminately bomb population centers! Use vacuum bombs! Commit massive war crimes against civilians!

What do you mean, they're already doing all those things?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Should the Ukrainians not fight back?

Western leaders should work around the clock to broker a cease-fire. The Russian invasion largely failed, it's the perfect moment to stop the war and end things at the negotiating table.
The West should be able to offer Putin something interesting enough for him to agree to talk, and the Ukrainians are in a position to get the terms they want/need.
With fucking Macron busy with his reelection, only Biden can make the phone call and give Putin a way out before he decides a show of force is in order. At a guess, it's a matter of hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Western leaders should work around the clock to broker a cease-fire. The Russian invasion largely failed, it's the perfect moment to stop the war and end things at the negotiating table.
The West should be able to offer Putin something interesting enough for him to agree to talk, and the Ukrainians are in a position to get the terms they want/need.
With fucking Macron busy with his reelection, only Biden can make the phone call and give Putin a way out before he decides a show of force is in order. At a guess, it's a matter of hours.

So, what should the Ukrainians give away to appease the Russian dictator?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Babblebauble said:

Queue a lot of words saying nothing at all about how awful war is and how the poster 'just wishes it could be different' and 'worries about uncertainty and escalation' while making sure you all see and respect their hand wringing anxieties against the sad cruelties of humankind. No solutions. No real insight or explanation for why they need to transmute any news of Ukrainian success into responses towards a personal anxiety over an altogether nebulous depiction of calamitous future. Just more fucking whining over nothing, diffused worries of an entirely fictitious nature, against a backdrop of naked aggression and invasion. Twitter and clickbait have ruined us. Weep.

 

Rip always posts in good faith and engages constructively with people long after they've abandoned any such common courtesies.  But yeah, just build up a straw man because you can't possibly conceive that anything outside your specific worldview could have any validity.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Western leaders should work around the clock to broker a cease-fire. The Russian invasion largely failed, it's the perfect moment to stop the war and end things at the negotiating table.
The West should be able to offer Putin something interesting enough for him to agree to talk, and the Ukrainians are in a position to get the terms they want/need.
With fucking Macron busy with his reelection, only Biden can make the phone call and give Putin a way out before he decides a show of force is in order. At a guess, it's a matter of hours.

No. Appeasing Putin failed in 2008. It failed again in 2014. It brought us to where we are now, and suggesting that he should be appeased again is such a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation that I don't know where to start. If he is allowed to recover and regroup, Russia will start another offensive war in a couple of years, possibly against Ukraine, but also possibly against a NATO country, which would lead to a nuclear apocalypse.

Western leaders should work around the clock to make sure that the back of Russia's military and economy is so thoroughly broken by this war that they are physically unable to start another one for at least two more decades.

And yes, I have a selfish motive in this. Russian ambassadors have been working hard to reignite flames of conflict in the Balkans as well. If Ukraine had fallen in a couple of days and West had appeased Putin again, Bosnia and Kosovo would have been next, and my friends and family would have been the ones being bombed and raped right now. Again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Western leaders should work around the clock to broker a cease-fire. The Russian invasion largely failed, it's the perfect moment to stop the war and end things at the negotiating table.
The West should be able to offer Putin something interesting enough for him to agree to talk, and the Ukrainians are in a position to get the terms they want/need.
With fucking Macron busy with his reelection, only Biden can make the phone call and give Putin a way out before he decides a show of force is in order. At a guess, it's a matter of hours.

You are speculating that because of the sinking of the Muskova, Putin will be open to a deal, but I don't know why you are so confident in that.  There are no signs that Putin is ready to give up. 

I don't think that the two sides are particularly close to any agreement.  Ukraine thinks they are winning (assuming Russia doesn't escalate with WMDs, they're probably right).  So they aren't going to accept anything less than the Jan 2022 borders, and possibly not even that. 

It feels like the upcoming campaign in the East could be the last one of the war (I certainly hope so), but both sides are still acting like they want to fight to improve their bargaining position.  If both sides want to fight, no peace is possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Rip always posts in good faith and engages constructively with people long after they've abandoned any such common courtesies.  But yeah, just build up a straw man because you can't possibly conceive that anything outside your specific worldview could have any validity.  

What is my worldview? That Ukrainians should not  as a matter of course be expected to give away their territory and abandon chunks their citizenry to Russian custody?

My opinion on the war in Ukraine starts and pretty much ends on the belief that a larger and more militarily armed nation state does not have the right to impose its will upon another state through implementation of violence. Just like America didn't have the right to invade Iraq or, for that matter, Afghanistan. Certainly not bellicose, more or less anti-imperial. What is my worldview again? And why do you reference it as if it's such an odious observation against my character? Are you just filling out mad-libs style rebuttals where you use buzzwords and strategic framing instead of arguments?

I didn't mean to create confusion or a straw man of any sort. So I'll say what I feel as plainly as I can.

I think that it's not cool to repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly!, declare -in high handed and oblivious language- that the rights of self determination and self defense of another people inconveniences oneself and they ought yield to unfavorable terms FROM A TREACHEROUS MURDEROUS THUG for one's own ease of mind. Particularly if the chief anxiety is an entirely prospective action that would be an unspeakable atrocity if even contemplated. 

I find the insistence to submit to violent aggressors to be ill-formed and outright harmful and "All, right, I'll say it:" 

You (or whoever else) have every right to broadcast your (or whoever's) opinion that Ukraine should enter negotiations with an acceptance of losing sovereignty precisely because they're defending themselves too well. And I like to think I have every right to say that that attitude is very very wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gorn said:

...Western leaders should work around the clock to make sure that the back of Russia's military and economy is so thoroughly broken by this war that they are physically unable to start another one for at least two more decades...

 

Exactly.  I am not sure what new invasion we need to experience from Putin's Russia before we have enough evidence to show that punching the bully in the nose is the only correct response left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Babblebauble said:

What is my worldview? That Ukrainians should not  as a matter of course be expected to give away their territory and abandon chunks their citizenry to Russian custody?

My opinion on the war in Ukraine starts and pretty much ends on the belief that a larger and more militarily armed nation state does not have the right to impose its will upon another state through implementation of violence. Just like America didn't have the right to invade Iraq or, for that matter, Afghanistan. Certainly not bellicose, more or less anti-imperial. What is my worldview again? And why do you reference it as if it's such an odious observation against my character? Are you just filling out mad-libs style rebuttals where you use buzzwords and strategic framing instead of arguments?

I didn't mean to create confusion or a straw man of any sort. So I'll say what I feel as plainly as I can.

I think that it's not cool to repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly!, declare -in high handed and oblivious language- that the rights of self determination and self defense of another people inconveniences oneself and they ought yield to unfavorable terms FROM A TREACHEROUS MURDEROUS THUG for one's own ease of mind. Particularly if the chief anxiety is an entirely prospective action that would be an unspeakable atrocity if even contemplated. 

I find the insistence to submit to violent aggressors to be ill-formed and outright harmful and "All, right, I'll say it:" 

You (or whoever else) have every right to broadcast your (or whoever's) opinion that Ukraine should enter negotiations with an acceptance of losing sovereignty precisely because they're defending themselves too well. And I like to think I have every right to say that that attitude is very very wrong.

I wasn't actually envisioning what your worldview might or might not be.  I should have said "particular" and not "specific".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s been said, possibly by Winston Churchill, that "Russia is never as strong as she looks; Russia is never as weak as she looks." I think that holds true even today.

Currently Russia are almost done taking Mariupol, and the war in the South East has gone much better for them than in the North. While the Ukrainian army has repelled them around Kharkiv and forced them to withdraw in the Kyiv region, they still lack offensive firepower. It will be very difficult for Ukraine to retake areas in the more open terrain in the South East, let alone in Donetsk and Luhansk where Russia even has some local support. Remember that the war in that area has been going on since 2014 and that the separatists, backed by Russia, have been able to hold their territory all this time. So I’m not so sure a Ukrainian military victory is imminent or even likely in the short term.

The Russian economy tanking is also a possibility, but us Europeans are financing the war by buying enormous amounts of gas. Sources close to the German government are saying it’s simply not possible to stop the gas flow in the short term. So the ugly situation continues that we’re sending billions in aid to Ukraine, but hundreds of billions to Russia.

Putin is also not going anywhere soon, despite the war fiasco. He’s still popular in Russia and the imperialist worldview is unfortunately very common there. Intellectuals in the larger cities are against the war, but their voices are silenced by harsh punishments for protesting. The people won’t rise against him, and neither will the oligarchs. They’re an entirely spineless bunch, too preoccupied with their own well-being to make a move against Putin. Lastly, even if Putin finally leaves office, there’s no indication that the next leader would be any less authoritarian.

For all these reasons I’m afraid there may be a protracted war, and Ukraine may have to make concessions in the end, no matter how wrong and unjust it would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

It’s been said, possibly by Winston Churchill, that "Russia is never as strong as she looks; Russia is never as weak as she looks." I think that holds true even today.

Currently Russia are almost done taking Mariupol, and the war in the South East has gone much better for them than in the North. While the Ukrainian army has repelled them around Kharkiv and forced them to withdraw in the Kyiv region, they still lack offensive firepower. It will be very difficult for Ukraine to retake areas in the more open terrain in the South East, let alone in Donetsk and Luhansk where Russia even has some local support. Remember that the war in that area has been going on since 2014 and that the separatists, backed by Russia, have been able to hold their territory all this time. So I’m not so sure a Ukrainian military victory is imminent or even likely in the short term.

The Russian economy tanking is also a possibility, but us Europeans are financing the war by buying enormous amounts of gas. Sources close to the German government are saying it’s simply not possible to stop the gas flow in the short term. So the ugly situation continues that we’re sending billions in aid to Ukraine, but hundreds of billions to Russia.

Putin is also not going anywhere soon, despite the war fiasco. He’s still popular in Russia and the imperialist worldview is unfortunately very common there. Intellectuals in the larger cities are against the war, but their voices are silenced by harsh punishments for protesting. The people won’t rise against him, and neither will the oligarchs. They’re an entirely spineless bunch, too preoccupied with their own well-being to make a move against Putin. Lastly, even if Putin finally leaves office, there’s no indication that the next leader would be any less authoritarian.

For all these reasons I’m afraid there may be a protracted war, and Ukraine may have to make concessions in the end, no matter how wrong and unjust it would be.

Yes, and no.

Yes, Russia has been able to hold (by proxy in the form of those seperatists, bolstered by Russian soldiers or mercs (Wagner Group)). However Ukraine has slowly but surely professionalized its military over the course of that war. After the Russian invasion, they got whole lot of new toys for their boys, so to speak, which they previously didn't have. Had they had the same kinda hardware they have now, would they have been able to retake Luhansk and Donetsk in its entirety? Maybe, or Russia would've needed to commit way more troops and resources and remove any pretense about their involvement there. 

Yes, Europe (and China and India) is financing Russia's war, there's no sugar coating that, and the Europeaans are to no small degree undermining the effectiveness of their own sanctions. However Russians do feel the sanctions. The inflation rate there is real. And it's not easy for Russia getting new military hardware (and parts) in. A bit more prosaic put: what's the point of money, if you can't buy anything with it? 

And yes, Putin isn't going anywhere. As Dubov put it, if you want any real change in Russia, you'd need a revolution. We are not anywhere close to that. And the majority of Russians back him and the war anyway. But on the other hand, it's not just Russia that's being hit by the sanctions, while Putin will be able to ride it out, I wouldn't want to make any bets about Lukaschenko. If things get too unstable in Minsk, that might be an incentive for Putin to enter talks, unless he is also willing to spend resources to prop Lukaschenko up.

Overall, your assessment about Ukraine losing this war longterm seems to be the most likeliest outcome. However, the longer this goes, the more likely it is, the domestic political pressure within Europe's capitals rises to really pull the plug and stop buying gas from Russia, consequences be damned, esp. if more atrocities ala Bucha make it to the headlines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, what should the Ukrainians give away to appease the Russian dictator?

That's for them to decide. I said the West should throw Putin a bone, not the Ukrainians.

6 hours ago, Gorn said:

No. Appeasing Putin failed in 2008. It failed again in 2014.

I've read some rather different histories. That mindful of the risk of war, European diplomatic efforts offered plans that could be acceptable for both Ukraine and Russia at least as early as 2006 (I wouldn't be surprised to find earlier ones).
Such plans would have sacralised Ukrainian self-determination, but also guaranteed its non-alignment (no joining NATO at the very least).
They were sabotaged by the US every single time.

The 2014 "fuck the EU" comment was not an accident. It's been US policy on Ukraine for more than 15 years.

6 hours ago, Gorn said:

If he is allowed to recover and regroup, Russia will start another offensive war in a couple of years, possibly against Ukraine, but also possibly against a NATO country, which would lead to a nuclear apocalypse.

Western leaders should work around the clock to make sure that the back of Russia's military and economy is so thoroughly broken by this war that they are physically unable to start another one for at least two more decades.

I think you're the one with a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.
"Breaking" Russia's military has been a US objective for about 15 years. Since 1992 if you take the Wolfowitz memo into account.
I understand you share that objective, but the Ukrainians are the ones who are paying the price for that right now.

The problem with history is that it means Putin genuinely believes this war is defensive in nature. At best you can say that the US systematically encouraged a pro-Western alignment in Ukraine, over Russia's repeated and insistant protests ; at worst, one could say that the US did everything it could to fabricate a military liability on Russia's doorstep, hoping the Russian military would be goaded into a -literal- quagmire.
The second view explains why I'm hearing sounds from Belarus that Russia is now considering the use of tactical nukes in Ukraine, that pulling out Russian troups from some areas was also a way to open up the way for WMDs.

Another way of putting it: if the objective was always to break Russia's military, then this is exactly what Putin will not let happen. He may not nuke Ukraine out of existence tomorrow, but using chemical weapons on Ukrainian military and cities may be on the table as early as next monday.
If the West, and the US especially, doesn't step in before WMDs are used, it will share the blame for the slaughter of the Ukrainian people.
I think it already does tbh: it's fucking rich to preach about self-determination, and self-defense, and "freedom" ("a lot of words saying nothing at all" as someone put it) when your children are not the ones being killed, when you throw in all the weaponry you can for other people to fight your dirty war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rippounet on most topics I really appreciate your efforts to see the nuance of every situation but I feel like your position here reflects (1) a misunderstanding of what Putin is and what Russia as a nation has been and clearly continues to be, and the resultant (2) you're skating over what Ukraine are telling us repeatedly they want and need, which is not throwing a bone to Russia at the negotiating table or promising non-alignment or whatever but as much help as possible in breaking them as hard as possible. 

Like you're still on the 'Russia was concerned about Ukraine alignment with the west' train, consistently ignoring why Ukraine wanted to do that in the first place. It was always about not aligning with the rest won't ultimately stop Russian aggression, what more do Russia need to do to convince you that the aggression was coming anyway? You don't seem to be accounting for the imperialistic and genocidal rhetoric now being used to push the war at all- a rhetoric that ex-Soviet-bloc-Europe would have told you was the intent behind the facade all along. 

tl;dr: you can't negotiate with Russia in good faith because Russia the nation doesn't have any when it comes to this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's always a chance that I'm wrong. However:

16 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

tl;dr: you can't negotiate with Russia in good faith because Russia the nation doesn't have any when it comes to this

Such rhetoric was used for the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Not only was it not helpful, but it often turned out to be flat wrong ; the US had bad faith in spades, and ultimately was the one who sunk several deals.
Looking at a few aspects of it myself, I found that the Soviets didn't "lie, cheat, or commit any crime" more than the US.
When it came to respecting treaties, the Soviets tended to respect agreements. And while many of their actions of views were despicable, they were quite honest about their realpolitik.

19 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

It was always about not aligning with the rest won't ultimately stop Russian aggression,

I'm highly skeptical of this. And at the same time, this is where I could be wrong.
I know the US acted... as usual. But that doesn't mean Putin was any better.
Of course, if both the US and Putin were determined to fight over Ukraine... then no deal the EU could propose could have prevented the war. It was going to happen sooner or later.

21 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

 (1) a misunderstanding of what Putin is and what Russia as a nation has been and clearly continues to be,

Any discourse demonizing other nations ultimately produces the very effects it pretends to oppose.
And no offense, but anyone starting from such a position loses their credibility in my book. I'm not naive about Putin, but demonizing Russia and Russians means you're part of the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

If the West, and the US especially, doesn't step in before WMDs are used, it will share the blame for the slaughter of the Ukrainian people.

No. Putin is responsible for his crimes.

He has been dictator for decades now, he had the means to make his country economically prosperous enough to where his neighbors could see some more benefits of aligning more with them over the west.

He spent that time just trying to consolidate power and riches for himself.

Ukrainians in general don’t want to be subjugated by an empire that provides an extremely subpar standard of living to its own citizens, and brutalized out of their cultural identity.

The west is in the moral right to help them, and it’s geo-political interests is to stop Russian military expansion within the region.

53 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

That's for them to decide. I said the West should throw Putin a bone, not the Ukrainians.

The only bones Putin is in Ukrainian ones.

53 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

it's fucking rich to preach about self-determination, and self-defense, and "freedom" ("a lot of words saying nothing at all" as someone put it) when your children are not the ones being killed, when you throw in all the weaponry you can for other people to fight your dirty war.

It’s so easy to say just let the fascist empire  engulf your nation when you don’t have to directly live under it or risk suffering and dying under its rule either to it’s leaders cruelty or incompetence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

and Russians

 

I very specifically said, and always specify when I'm talking about this, Russia as a state as separate to the Russian people, so I'm not particularly happy with you ignoring that to make your argument. 

 

6 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

the US had bad faith in spades,

 

I never said it didn't. The US being bad doesn't absolve Russia of anything.

 

 

 

Look, when was the last time a Western, non-Russia-aligned nation actually attacked Russia? What are their concerns about security actually based on here? They've repeatedly been the aggressor in these situations and they always have some kind of excuse and yet it always comes down to 'you're not as Russian as we'd like you to be'.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Babblebauble said:

I think that it's not cool to repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly!, declare -in high handed and oblivious language- that the rights of self determination and self defense of another people inconveniences oneself and they ought yield to unfavorable terms for one's own ease of mind.

You (or whoever else) have every right to broadcast your (or whoever's) opinion that Ukraine should enter negotiations with an acceptance of losing sovereignty precisely because they're defending themselves too well.

Thank you for writing it, so I don't have to look for words to answer that thing.

37 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

That's for them to decide. I said the West should throw Putin a bone, not the Ukrainians.

...

I think it already does tbh: it's fucking rich to preach about self-determination, and self-defense, and "freedom" ("a lot of words saying nothing at all" as someone put it) when your children are not the ones being killed, when you throw in all the weaponry you can for other people to fight your dirty war.

Well, did not last long. 

The "solution" offered here has been proven to be wildly counterproductive again and again. Just because you would like it  to work and it makes you feel good to suggest it, does not make it so.

Who are you to diminish Ukraine to some kind of pawn fighting on someone else's behalf? They are fighting for their children, they are fighting for their home. Because those children need not just to survive the day, they need to grow up and have lives. As the Ukrainians said it clearly, they don't need your symphaty, they need more means to fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Of course, if both the US and Putin were determined to fight over Ukraine.

Why do you continue to rob Ukraine of any agency?

Its the one fighting against Putin as he steals their children, rapes them, and murders them.

8 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Any discourse demonizing other nations ultimately produces the very effects it pretends to oppose.

Russia is unique in its predilection towards expanding influence  through pure military conquest and annexation of their neighbors with regards to Europe.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...