Ukraine 13: Pavlov's Bellum

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Apparently Austria is going to block Ukraine's EU accession bid. They have not explained their reasoning so far.

So much for European unity?  Will Germany, Hungary, or Turkey do same for Finland and Sweden’s bid for NATO membership?

[Zorral]

59 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

This is scary bit of Projection from the Russian Ministry of Defense

It continues to boggle the mind how authoritarian liars across the board project upon their opposition everything that They actually do, that we SEE them doing , whether it is censorship, pedophilia -- even organized pedophilia -- racism, rape and sexual assault, enforced 'religion',  repressing voting, stealing elections.  Let us not ever forget that already by 2015 the rethuglican party concluded that with open, honest voter registration and elections they could not win elections and remain forever in power in a democracy, so get rid of democracy.  All of them too, are backed by 'religion' in their regions, in one way and form or another, whether US protestant evangelicals in Africa and the USA and Latin America, to the Patriarch in Russia, the Taliban in other places, Hindu hierachy in India -- you name it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Today's report on the divisions caused in the Orthodox churches by Putin's ethnic cleansing invasion of Ukraine, this time on the Washington Post, which too is subscriber access. Recall that today is Easter celebration within the Orthodox Church.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/24/russia-ukraine-orthodox-church/

Quote

 

... At first, Kirill [Russia and Putin's Patriarch]  was seen as a modernizer who might carve out some independence for the church, after his predecessor, Alexiy II, used his political ties to raise the church’s profile after decades of atheist communism. Russian politicians bankrolled the construction of new churches, and religious leaders appeared front and center at state functions.

Since then, however, Kirill has solidified his role as an ally of the Kremlin, helping Putin cloak his political and military ambitions in the language of faith.

On Feb. 23, one day before the invasion, Kirill released a statement praising Putin for his “high and responsible service to the people of Russia” and describing mandatory military service as “an active manifestation of evangelical love for neighbors.”

In the weeks since the war started, Kirill has used his sermons to justify the campaign, portraying it as a struggle against sinful Western culture — although he is careful to avoid referring to the conflict as a war or invasion that was launched by Russia. ....

 

Evangelizing at the point of a sword, being the first arm of invasion, colonialism and annexation is an ancient, tried and true, mode of conquering.

[Zorral]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/22/magazine/ruscism-ukraine-russia-war.html

The War in Ukraine Has Unleashed a New Word
In a creative play on three different languages, Ukrainians identify an enemy: ‘ruscism.’

A tranche of opening paragraphs, as it is a long magazine story, and is, of course, subscriber paywalled. But it provides an insight into the hearts and minds of the Ukrainians themselves, that we may not otherwise have access to.

Quote

 

The City Council of Mariupol, Ukraine, was trying to make a point about mass death. Their city had been hit hardest by the Russian invasion, and thousands of corpses lay amid the rubble after weeks of urban warfare. After the revelation of Russian atrocities in Bucha and other cities in northern Ukraine, the elected representatives of the port city wished to remind the world that the scale of killing in the south was still higher. In dry and sober language, they described the fates of Mariupol residents. Occasionally, though, emotion slipped through: In passing, the council members referred to the Russian perpetrators by a term of condemnation that every Ukrainian knows, though it is not yet in the dictionaries and cannot (yet) be said in English: “рашизм.”

As Russian troops withdrew from the Kyiv region, and photographs of the corpses of murdered civilians appeared in media, Ukrainians expressed their horror and condemnation with this same word. As I read about Irpin, about Bucha, about Trostyanets, of the bodies crushed by tanks, of the bicyclists shot on the street, of the desecrated corpses, there it was, “рашизм,” again and again, in comments sections, in social media, even in the official pronouncements of the Ukrainian state. As Russia renews its attempt to destroy the Ukrainian state with its Easter offensive in the Donbas, Ukrainians will keep using this new word.

Grasping its meaning requires crossing differences in alphabet and pronunciation, thinking our way into the experience of a bilingual society at war with a fascist empire. “Pашизм” sounds like “fascism,” but with an “r” sound instead of an “f” at the beginning; it means, roughly, “Russian fascism.” The aggressor in this war keeps trying to push back toward a past as it never happened, toward nonsensical and necrophiliac accounts of history. Russia must conquer Ukraine, Vladimir Putin says, because of a baptism a thousand years ago, or because of bloodshed during World War II. But Russian myths of empire cannot contain the imagination of the Ukrainian victims of a new war. National identity is about living people, and the values and the futures they imagine and choose. A nation exists insofar as it makes new things, and a national language lives by making new words.

The new word “рашизм” is a useful conceptualization of Putin’s worldview. Far more than Western analysts, Ukrainians have noticed the Russian tilt toward fascism in the last decade. Undistracted by Putin’s operational deployment of genocide talk, they have seen fascist practices in Russia: the cults of the leader and of the dead, the corporatist state, the mythical past, the censorship, the conspiracy theories, the centralized propaganda and now the war of destruction. Even as we rightly debate how applicable the term is to Western figures and parties, we have tended to overlook the central example of fascism’s revival, which is the Putin regime in the Russian Federation.

The origins of the word “pашизм” give us a sense of how Ukrainians differ from both Russians and Americans. A bilingual nation like Ukraine is not just a collection of bilingual individuals; it is an unending set of encounters in which people habitually adjust the language they use to other people and new settings, manipulating language in ways that are foreign to monolingual nations. I have gone on Ukrainian television and radio, taken questions in Russian and answered them in Ukrainian, without anyone for a moment finding that switch worthy of mention. Once, while speaking Ukrainian on television, I stopped for a moment to quote a few words of poetry in Russian, a switch that was an effort for me. But Ukrainians change languages effortlessly — not just as situations change, but also to make situations change, sometimes in the middle of a sentence, or even in the middle of a word.

“Pашизм” is a word built up from the inside, from several languages, as a complex of puns and references that reveal a bilingual society thinking out its predicament and communicating to itself. Its emergence demonstrates how a code-switching people can enrich language while making a horrific war more intelligible to themselves. Putin’s ethnic imperialism insists that Ukrainians must be Russians because they speak Russian. They do — and they speak Ukrainian. But Ukrainian identity has as much to do with an ability to live between languages than it does with the use of any one of them.  ....

 

 

[Padraig]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So much for European unity? 

I find the idea of Austria (on its own) blocking Ukraine joining the EU a little unlikely.  On the other hand, they may have spoken up because they know that a few other countries are aligned with them.  That is sadly possible.

Letting the process start seems the minimum thing to do.  It can still take years.

[Zorral]

Conclusion to Timothy Snyder's NYT Magazine piece explaining to we English speakers the etymology of a word multi-lingual Ukraine has create to express the fascism unique to Russia.

Quote

 

.... Few beyond Ukraine seem to know that millions of Ukrainians, exercising freedom of speech in a country that allows it, have invented and are deploying a new word. “Ruscism” will sound strange at first. So did “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing,” other words that emerged from (Eastern) European wars. The concepts that clarify our world today were once strange and new. But when they point to something, they can take hold.

Russian fascism is certainly a phenomenon that requires a concept. The Russian Federation promotes the extreme right everywhere. Putin is the idol of white supremacists around the world. Prominent Russian fascists are given access to mass media during wars, including this one. Members of the Russian elite, above all Putin himself, rely increasingly on fascist concepts. Putin’s very justification of the war in Ukraine, as an act of cleansing violence that will return Russia to itself, represents a Christian form of fascism. The recent publication, in an official Russian news service, of what I consider an openly genocidal handbook, providing a plan for the elimination of the Ukrainian nation as such, confirms all this. Moscow is the center of fascism in our world.

The greatest risk of such an effectively compact word is that it will carry the sense that all Russians are fascists, simply by virtue of being Russian. Given that half the Ukrainian population is either displaced or trapped by war, with thousands of civilians killed and hundreds of thousands deported, a tendency toward general condemnation is not surprising; the fact that Ukrainians have had a very hard time convincing Russians that a war is actually taking place doesn’t help. But a usage that identifies all Russians as fascists would repeat the error it is meant to rectify. Thus far, the word is generally used as a response to particular actions, like kidnapping children or executing civilians.

The word is not only a condemnation of Russian actions; it is also an offering to the Russian language. The words “ruscist” and “ruscism” already flourish in Russian, or at least in Ukrainian Russian. I actually heard them for the first time in Russian, not in Ukrainian. It will be interesting to see if they catch on inside the Russian Federation. If they did, they would most likely be criminalized by the Russian state. Russia today is a country where it is illegal to call this war a “war,” and where reading a poem or showing a blank poster is deemed a slander of the army. Given Putin’s felt need to define the enemy of the moment as fascist, a word that points to Russian fascism is unlikely to be tolerated.

And so we see a difference between official Russia and unofficial Ukraine, one that is not about myths or ethnicity or even language preferences, exactly, but rather about how words matter in wartime, under pressure. In the tyranny, they threaten, because they might reveal truth; in the democracy, they conceptualize and suggest action. This difference is visible on the battlefield, where the Russian Army is conformist and cowering, and the outnumbered and outgunned Ukrainian Army adaptable and creative.

We also see a difference between Ukrainians and monolingual people generally. There is a liveliness inherent in Ukrainian code-switching that makes constructing the word “рашизм” possible — and once constructed, the word has a liveliness of its own. We can appreciate Ukrainian creativity, and perhaps borrow from it.

That “ruscism” is used to describe the enemy has implications for how Ukrainians define their own values. It stigmatizes Russia as an invader committing an injustice that can be linked to past injustices, and whose leaders abuse language to hide these basic facts. But it also takes as axiomatic (and thus affirms) that fascism is what is to be resisted. The language has supplied a new thing, and, as Hannah Arendt reminds us, new things are the best we can hope for in totalitarian times. The Ukrainian language has offered a neologism whose formation helps us to see deeper into the creativity of another culture, and whose meaning helps us to see why this war is fought — and why it must be won.

 

As one of the commentators to Timothy Snyder's article said, "

Quote

As Russian-speaking Ukrainian, this is an absolutely amazing article. Close to a scholarly essay. Absolutely amazing ..."

Then, as we also see in the comments to Snyder's piece, authoritarians of all kinds, whether xtian evangelists, tories, fascist, anti-democracy racists and haters, won't / don't understand this article.    For starters they are antagonistic to bilingual and multi-linguists. Second they have no comprehension of word play and its delights, particularly multi-lingual word play (why they don't read Nabokov for instance, even in English translation), don't get code-switching, and end up saying this doesn't exist, and / or it's gibberish.  Because, of course, it is gibberish to their kinds of ignorance, that they can't and refuse to recognize.

[Werthead]

1 hour ago, Padraig said:

I find the idea of Austria (on its own) blocking Ukraine joining the EU a little unlikely.  On the other hand, they may have spoken up because they know that a few other countries are aligned with them.  That is sadly possible.

Letting the process start seems the minimum thing to do.  It can still take years.

The only other country I think that would support them is Hungary, and maybe a Le Pen-led France. Otherwise I think everyone else is down for Ukraine to join. I could see maybe an argument that Ukraine should only complete the process if the war is over and not devolved into another frozen conflict, but certainly no logic to not starting the process. Hell, Russia even said it didn't have a problem with Ukraine joining the EU if peace is restored (oddly, given what started the 2013 revolution, but okay).

[Zorral]

Ukrainians can be multi-musical cultures too.  We've been listening to a special Ukrainian radio broadcast of a Ukrainian New Orleans Jazz Band playing Second Line Parade music, on this, their Easter Sunday.  It's first class.  New Orleans would welcome them whole heartedly.

 

[kiko]

13 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So much for European unity?  Will Germany, Hungary, or Turkey do same for Finland and Sweden’s bid for NATO membership?

Why would they?

[Loge]

11 hours ago, Werthead said:

The only other country I think that would support them is Hungary, and maybe a Le Pen-led France. Otherwise I think everyone else is down for Ukraine to join. I could see maybe an argument that Ukraine should only complete the process if the war is over and not devolved into another frozen conflict, but certainly no logic to not starting the process. Hell, Russia even said it didn't have a problem with Ukraine joining the EU if peace is restored (oddly, given what started the 2013 revolution, but okay).

Putin definitely hates the EU as much as NATO. As for Ukraine, there are calls to waive the rules and let them join despite not meeting the criteria. This would be problematic because a) there are more countries waiting to join and b) Ukraine still has a massive corruption problem. It also has one of the lowest GDP per capita in Europe, so the EU would have to pour in a lot of money, at the expense of the other members.

One could start the process of course, but at this point that would be purely symbolic. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

12 hours ago, Werthead said:

The only other country I think that would support them is Hungary, and maybe a Le Pen-led France. Otherwise I think everyone else is down for Ukraine to join. I could see maybe an argument that Ukraine should only complete the process if the war is over and not devolved into another frozen conflict, but certainly no logic to not starting the process. Hell, Russia even said it didn't have a problem with Ukraine joining the EU if peace is restored (oddly, given what started the 2013 revolution, but okay).

You are mistaken on that account. As Loge pointed out, there are some real issues attached to Ukraine joining the EU. Relative weakness of the economy, and the state (corruption). I mean Zelenskyy's campaign was largely funded by a befriended oligarch (forgot his name, too lazy to google, you can do it yourself), and the EU really pushed Zelenskyy to also move against him.

I mean it's not like the EU is not having its own issues with corruption among member states (Hungary). 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

16 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

When did pacifism become “hope like hell the bad folks are nicer than they look give them everything they want”?  Gandhi opposed the use of violence to oppose violence… but he still planned to oppose violance with non-violent confrontation.

 

I thought as a Christian you would sympathize with the Thou shall not kill  commandment/sanctity of life. 

Yes, I was being snide there. But, when this is your starting point, and you place that above everything else. You can get to that point fairly easily.

I am not sure whether Easter marches are a thing in the US. Here they happen traditionally each year on Easter (d'uh). Thos are rallyes/protests for peace and against war and arms trade and militarization each year. The peace movement has avoided making public statements about the war in Ukraine. Because there's sorta split within the peace movement wrt to delivering arms. There's the more hardcore fundamentalist section (the signees of that open letter), who outright condemn all violence and the delivery of arms (a standard argument goes along the lines, by delivering arms to that conflict, we are defacto particiapting in the war by prolonging the bloodshed and we let the Ukrainians pay the blood price). The other part of the peace movement have developed a more sober/realistic/real politik view. As in Ukraine needs those arms to defend itself against an agressor. 

Why did I tell you that. Well, one of the signees (I think it was Grässlin - 99% sure) has given an interview on what Ukrainians should do. The argument was so stupid, I am hard pressed not to use the r word. If you were floored before, you better grab a chair, before you read it. Ready? Ok, here it goes.

Ukraine should surrender to stop the bloodshed. And then they should start public protests against the occupation. 

That was more or less the thick and the thin of it. If you are like, right, the Russians are gonna like it, and not gonna crack down on those protests with maximum force. Then, yeah. I told this argument was not particularly well thought out. But at least in that scenario, our hands are clean. 

[broken one]

Interesting interview on present situation with Arestovich (Zelensky's advisor) on Meduza portal, sadly not translated to English (yet): https://meduza.io/feature/2022/04/24/ukraintsev-v-mire-vstrechayut-kak-bogov-spustivshihsya-na-zemlyu

The plan for now is to wait untill weapons arrive, get absorbed and Russian pressure wanes. He seems convinced that when Russians get tired Ukrainians will be able to regain all the territory lost after 24.02.2022. As for the parts of Donbas and Lugansk regions occupied since 2014 he said it would be impossible for Ukraine to take them by force - defences are too strong and Ukrainian army would be unable to gather enough soldiers to outnumber defending enemies. He also assessed chances to retake Crimea as very low (no local population support).

He also bites meek Westerners, European left and its "social experiments" (he is conservatist or sth similar). Speaks a bit about his education, spying activity, escoterics and his relationship with Dugin.

[Alarich II]

13 hours ago, Padraig said:

I find the idea of Austria (on its own) blocking Ukraine joining the EU a little unlikely.  On the other hand, they may have spoken up because they know that a few other countries are aligned with them.  That is sadly possible.

Letting the process start seems the minimum thing to do.  It can still take years.

I think, the context here is this: Schallenberg didn't say that they would veto it, but he (rightfully) pointed out, that there are other states too, waiting to join the EU (Albania, Bosnia, Serbia etc.) and that in view of these, there are maybe other models of close alignment that do not necessarily include full membership. Austrias sees itself as the link between the Balkans and Western Europe and strongly supports the accession bid of the Balkan countries. That gives them diplomatic influence especially against of growing Chinese influence in those countries. Creating a backdoor now that allows Ukraine in, but leaves them out, would weaken Austrias position. 

Also by most membership criteria, Ukraine still has a long way to go: It is very poor and still very corrupt, and that is already a problem in countries like Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary. No doubt, since the war began, Zelensky has increased his political captial and that will give him more room for reforms, once the war is over. Being a good war chief doesn't necessarily make you a good leader in peace time, though, so it is perhaps not unwise to think about alternatives to full membership, at least in the short/medium term. 

[Padraig]

9 minutes ago, Alarich II said:

I think, the context here is this: Schallenberg didn't say that they would veto it, but he (rightfully) pointed out, that there are other states too, waiting to join the EU (Albania, Bosnia, Serbia etc.) and that in view of these, there are maybe other models of close alignment that do not necessarily include full membership.

I'm a little confused.  I understand the hurdles around Ukraine joining and I know that Zelensky did ask to immediately join, while some EU states have called for an accelerated process.  But the EU hasn't even granted it membership candidate status yet.  So if Schallenberg is just saying that he wouldn't be in favour of Ukraine immediately joining, I'm not particularly surprised.  I doubt a majority of States would be in support of immediate accession.

Instead, I thought Schallenberg was saying that the endgame shouldn't be EU membership for Ukraine.  There is no point in it becoming a candidate for something it will never join (or it is so far in the future, its irrelevant).  I do imagine that Ukraine wouldn't hit the normal criteria for even candidate status but given the times, some leniency is reasonable.

2 hours ago, Loge said:

One could start the process of course, but at this point that would be purely symbolic. 

Some symbols are very important.

If Ukraine does survive this war, a huge amount of money will be required for reconstruction (which will also be a time for huge opportunity).  Its actually in the EU's interest for that money to go to a prospective member, rather than somebody who is looking for other friends.

[Luzifer's right hand]

1 hour ago, Alarich II said:

I think, the context here is this: Schallenberg didn't say that they would veto it, but he (rightfully) pointed out, that there are other states too, waiting to join the EU (Albania, Bosnia, Serbia etc.) and that in view of these, there are maybe other models of close alignment that do not necessarily include full membership. Austrias sees itself as the link between the Balkans and Western Europe and strongly supports the accession bid of the Balkan countries. That gives them diplomatic influence especially against of growing Chinese influence in those countries. Creating a backdoor now that allows Ukraine in, but leaves them out, would weaken Austrias position. 

Also by most membership criteria, Ukraine still has a long way to go: It is very poor and still very corrupt, and that is already a problem in countries like Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary. No doubt, since the war began, Zelensky has increased his political captial and that will give him more room for reforms, once the war is over. Being a good war chief doesn't necessarily make you a good leader in peace time, though, so it is perhaps not unwise to think about alternatives to full membership, at least in the short/medium term. 

We are also a deeply corrupt country with a lot of our leaders in the pocket of Putin. Our political culture has deteriorated a lot since the 2000s and many people see nothing wrong with visible corruption nowadays(the all politicians are the same line of reasoning). 

We also need Russian gas more than even Germany and some of our major banks got a lot of money from Russia and would probably collapse if everything was known.

Our government will drag it's feet as much as possible when it comes to offending Russia. Thankfully we can hide behind our neutrality for most things.

People should also not forget the Schallenberg is one of the remaining puppets of Kurz in our government. There are hints that he is planning his return and anything that makes governing for the current government difficult is good for him. People like Schallenberg do nothing with the country itself in mind they serve only one master.

[Gorn]

1 hour ago, Alarich II said:

I think, the context here is this: Schallenberg didn't say that they would veto it, but he (rightfully) pointed out, that there are other states too, waiting to join the EU (Albania, Bosnia, Serbia etc.) and that in view of these, there are maybe other models of close alignment that do not necessarily include full membership. Austrias sees itself as the link between the Balkans and Western Europe and strongly supports the accession bid of the Balkan countries. That gives them diplomatic influence especially against of growing Chinese influence in those countries. Creating a backdoor now that allows Ukraine in, but leaves them out, would weaken Austrias position. 

Also by most membership criteria, Ukraine still has a long way to go: It is very poor and still very corrupt, and that is already a problem in countries like Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary. No doubt, since the war began, Zelensky has increased his political captial and that will give him more room for reforms, once the war is over. Being a good war chief doesn't necessarily make you a good leader in peace time, though, so it is perhaps not unwise to think about alternatives to full membership, at least in the short/medium term. 

A major part of why EU lost influence in Western Balkans is because EU membership is being dangled in front of those countries for almost three decades, while still not being anywhere in sight. A lot of people in those countries have concluded (not unreasonably) that, if we'll never be full EU members, there is no reason to keep doing what EU wants us to do.

I fully support fast-tracking Ukraine's membership bid and accepting them as soon as the current war is over and the bare essential minimum of requirements is met. They are not that far off from where Romania and Bulgaria were when they were accepted.

[Alarich II]

31 minutes ago, Padraig said:

Instead, I thought Schallenberg was saying that the endgame shouldn't be EU membership for Ukraine.

He didn't actually say that, but he did say that alternatives to this endgame (full membership) should be considered in view of the long process and other countries that would also like to join. The tldr of his interview got condensed as "Austria rejects EU membership for Ukraine" first by Ukrainian media, then by Russian media who gleefully picked up this line as well.

Given the Austrian ties to Russia, this interpretation is maybe understandable.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I thought as a Christian you would sympathize with the Thou shall not kill  commandment/sanctity of life.

I believe I make the explicit point that it is absolutely possible to oppose aggression without using violence.  The refusal to comply with aggressive violent demands was Ghandi’s method.

These people are not merely advocating non-violence.  I say again they are arguing in favor of capitulation.

[Werthead]

More positive analysis from Ukraine, western and even some Russian sources over the weekend believing that Ukraine's chances of winning the conflict are increasing.

A massive "tank graveyard" has been located ten miles inside the Russian border, with indications that many of the tanks and vehicles have not cropped up on Oryx's reports or other loss reports, suggesting potentially dozens to hundreds more Russian vehicle losses have been sustained than seen before.

Some signs that people in the LPR/DPR have really lost faith in being under Russia or proxy-Russian rule, which will surprise nobody, and even LPR/DPR loyalists seem increasingly annoyed at being subsumed into Russian military formations and treated like cannon fodder. Their leadership is also increasingly being taken over by Russians from Russia, not locals.

US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin has suggested that he wants to see Russia weakened through its war in Ukraine, which some have interpreted as reinforcing the "fighting to the last Ukrainian" stereotype. I suspect he'll row back on that statement in the near future.

Russia has announced a ceasefire at 12pm BST to allow civilians to leave Mariupol.

Fierce fighting south of Izium, Russians being held up by fierce Ukrainian resistance. Another Su-34 shot down.

Oil storage tanks are on fire in Bryansk, but halfway across the oblast from Ukraine (150km from the border) and no indications there was an attack from the air. The cause is unclear.

A Russian train has also derailed in Bryansk, but that looks more like crappy maintenance and a mudslide (though some claims of "physical damage" to the rails).

 

 

[Padraig]

3 hours ago, Alarich II said:

He didn't actually say that, but he did say that alternatives to this endgame (full membership) should be considered in view of the long process and other countries that would also like to join.

Ok.  Well as long as Ukraine reach candidate status in June.  The idea of a secondary level membership is never going to work though, unless it is seen as a path to full membership.

The list of other candidates is a very mixed bag: Serbia (serious democatric problems), Albania (democratic problems IIRC), Montenegro (I don't know), Turkey (not happening any decade soon).  Bosnia isn't even a candidate status (and serious structural problems).  North Macedonia could join but Bulgaria apparently have issues with it now (after it changed its name to please Greece).  Ukraine doesn't stand out from that list, even if the EU had no intention of letting it join anytime soon a few months ago.

2 hours ago, Werthead said:

US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin has suggested that he wants to see Russia weakened through its war in Ukraine, which some have interpreted as reinforcing the "fighting to the last Ukrainian" stereotype. I suspect he'll row back on that statement in the near future.

The US government really likes to have a dig at Russia.  I saw that earlier and thought "wow".