How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[SigmatheZeta]

SigmatheZeta, are you competing in "maximum amount of falsehoods in one post" Olympic event?

I am prepared to give a fair hearing to criticism from many different quarters, but I tend to rank you with anti-vaxxers and creationists, where your participation in this thread is concerned. As far as I have seen, you live in a bizarre alternate reality.

Again, it is unusual for me to take a hawkish stance on anything. For example, I tend to have strong sympathies in favor of China, even though I tend to have a favorable view of the more liberal leaders in the Chinese Communist Party. While I lean slightly left of Wang Yang, the presence of leaders like him, in the CCP, is part of why I have strong sympathy toward China in spite of the fact that the CCP has influences that I disagree with. Just because the Chinese government is not always a rubber-stamp for my own views does not mean that I would want there to be any serious unhappiness in our relationship with that country. In spite of not always agreeing with their leadership, I have deep respect for China.

However, I see no reason whatsoever to trust the current government of Russia. I am right at the brink of saying "let's lob one into the men's room at the Kremlin," and the only thing that has stopped me from saying so, right up to this point, has been my uncertainty about Putin's intentions toward Kyiv. I think that aggression against Kyiv would be the last straw for Germany and other European NATO participants, and it would be the last straw for me.

 

[barbos]

SigmatheZeta, are you competing in "maximum amount of falsehoods in one post" Olympic event?

Where is the falsehood in Sigma's post?

Everywhere, everything there is false.

 

[Harry Bosch]

SigmatheZeta, are you competing in "maximum amount of falsehoods in one post" Olympic event?

Where is the falsehood in Sigma's post?

Everywhere, everything there is false.

Good Heavens amigo! Isn't Fox news also one of the MSM meanies?

 

[barbos]

Good Heavens amigo! Isn't Fox news also one of the MSM meanies?

Well, duh. And the video is a proof of that.
Why do you think I keep posting it?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

However, I see no reason whatsoever to trust the current government of Russia. I am right at the brink of saying "let's lob one into the men's room at the Kremlin," and the only thing that has stopped me from saying so, right up to this point, has been my uncertainty about Putin's intentions toward Kyiv. I think that aggression against Kyiv would be the last straw for Germany and other European NATO participants, and it would be the last straw for me.

Putin is rather addicted to life in the Cold War. Rational people were happy to see it end but that is the status quo that Putin is attempting to recover. It is the only life he knows and the only way he knows how to make a living. Putin is obviously unable to put himself in the place of Ukraine people wishing to be free from the Soviet yoke. He's obviously also unable to identify with your average Russian who only wants peace and prosperity, not world domination. Putin is actually more like Hitler than like Stalin.

I'll state it again because it is worth repeating. The one thing Putin fears above all else is a democratic state where he can be openly and legally challenged and where he has no more influence than anyone else, where the rule of law prevails and not strongman machismo. He's your standard juvenile psycho in this respect and unfortunately the world has plenty to go around.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Good Heavens amigo! Isn't Fox news also one of the MSM meanies?

Well, duh. And the video is a proof of that.
Why do you think I keep posting it?

Well, isn't that a link to a fox news story? Sorry, but I'm not going to click and open any link to a source that I don't know or trust. I don't want any bugs on my computer.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

@barbos I can disagree with most people on respectful terms. This is usually an indication that I take their opinions seriously. For instance, I respectfully disagree with Wang Yang's views on Taiwan. I nevertheless hold him generally in high esteem. Yes, I know that if his faction were to become ascendant in the CCP, they would want to court a closer relationship with Taiwan, but if I always had my way in everything, then life would become perilously uninteresting. I can have respect for somebody without always agreeing with them.

However, you are not going to take any pro-western stance seriously at all. You are like one of those pompous anti-maskers, who will tell you, in tones of resonating authority, that the science is unclear about the effectiveness of masks, when there is really no controversy about masks among actual scientists. You remind me of climate change deniers, who envision themselves as the "sober and objective" alternative to "climate alarmism," even though the consequences of climate change are starting to become a source of irritation.

How can you expect someone to have a sensible conversation with you when it is clear that you will not hear of any point-of-view that is not based on your bizarre alternate reality?

 

[Elixir]

How can you expect someone to have a sensible conversation with you

I see no indication that barbos harbors any such expectation.
I really like barbos; he's intelligent, has a good sense of humor and is at least bilingual if not tri or quadralingual.
It's a shame and a pity that he is so thoroughly indoctrinated into his Russia-centric views that he is unable to rationally consider forms of government other than Putinism as anything but foolish and dangerous "western" imperialist establishments. But if he opined otherwise, I doubt he'd be allowed to continue to post here.

 

[Harry Bosch]

How can you expect someone to have a sensible conversation with you

I see no indication that barbos harbors any such expectation.
I really like barbos; he's intelligent, has a good sense of humor and is at least bilingual if not tri or quadralingual.
It's a shame and a pity that he is so thoroughly indoctrinated into his Russia-centric views that he is unable to rationally consider forms of government other than Putinism as anything but foolish and dangerous "western" imperialist establishments. But if he opined otherwise, I doubt he'd be allowed to continue to post here.

Totally agree with your post. Barbos is a good debator. And I appreciate the fact that he answers most posts. But on any issue relating to Russia, he is blinded by his tribalism. It's ironic coming from me, but tribalism creates barriers to being able to listen to the other side and be open to compromise.

 

[Elixir]

It's ironic coming from me, but tribalism creates barriers to being able to listen to the other side and be open to compromise.

Don't know why you think it's ironic coming from you, HB. I've always found your posts to be well - even overly - considered.
I fault myself for reacting to barbos' biases. On some occasions I have taken time to consider what things might look like from his perspective, and have realized that his stilted claims are not that different from what I'd expect from myself, had I been immersed all my life in the culture from which he comes. This makes me even sadder about the fact of overriding tribalism, and those barriers to which you refer.

 

[Harry Bosch]

It's ironic coming from me, but tribalism creates barriers to being able to listen to the other side and be open to compromise.

Don't know why you think it's ironic coming from you, HB. I've always found your posts to be well - even overly - considered.
I fault myself for reacting to barbos' biases. On some occasions I have taken time to consider what things might look like from his perspective, and have realized that his stilted claims are not that different from what I'd expect from myself, had I been immersed all my life in the culture from which he comes. This makes me even sadder about the fact of overriding tribalism, and those barriers to which you refer.

Well, I'm a Native American. I belong to a small tribe. And I'm fiercely loyal to my tribe. So, I understand Barbos's loyalty to Russia. I get it. But here's the deal: Putin is hurting Russia. There's no reason why Russia can't sit down and peacefully speak with his neighbors about how to get along together. He wants a relationship with Ukraine that is similar to the relationship between Canada and the US. Fine. Start treating Ukraine as the US treats Canada. The US doesn't put soldiers on Canadian borders. We don't send our best snipers to the border to pick off Canadians. We don't steal parts of their land. The US has disputes with Canada all the time. We have disputes about fishing, logging, environmental concerns, water concerns on the border, and etc. We have tons of differences. But we try to work them out at the bargaining table (or the courts at worse). Threre's no reason for Russia and Ukraine to have an armed conflict. They share a border. They mostly share language. There are great economic advantages to them both if they'd work together. Ukraine could get far more economic ties with Russia than it could with the US. And it's not even close. And yet, Putin is pushing Ukraine and the rest of eastern Europe towards the west.

 

[Elixir]

Agreed.
Putin’s Russia is a rogue state, a status that hurts Russia and hurts Russians, but helps Putin maintain his grip on power.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I see no indication that barbos harbors any such expectation.
I really like barbos; he's intelligent, has a good sense of humor and is at least bilingual if not tri or quadralingual.
It's a shame and a pity that he is so thoroughly indoctrinated into his Russia-centric views that he is unable to rationally consider forms of government other than Putinism as anything but foolish and dangerous "western" imperialist establishments. But if he opined otherwise, I doubt he'd be allowed to continue to post here.

That inability to put yourself into another person's situation isn't uncommon. If you have a personal vision of how you would like society to operate and you are also able to put yourself into another person's circumstances you're on your way. Some people want equality and opportunity and access and freedoms for themselves and everyone else while others want personal power and control. Putin wants to empower himself at the expense of others and does not want an egalitarian society, undoubtedly because of fear, and he has plenty to be afraid about if he loses power and control.

But it isn't fear about the health of the Russian state, it's fear over having to embrace glasnost and having to operate on a level playing field where he isn't special anymore. No doubt he views certain arrangements as some kind of anarchy as he is not operating as the boss.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Agreed.
Putin’s Russia is a rogue state, a status that hurts Russia and hurts Russians, but helps Putin maintain his grip on power.

I see Russia more as a failed state than a rogue state, just my take. Maybe we should think of it as a monarchy.

 

[Copernicus]

It's ironic coming from me, but tribalism creates barriers to being able to listen to the other side and be open to compromise.

Don't know why you think it's ironic coming from you, HB. I've always found your posts to be well - even overly - considered.
I fault myself for reacting to barbos' biases. On some occasions I have taken time to consider what things might look like from his perspective, and have realized that his stilted claims are not that different from what I'd expect from myself, had I been immersed all my life in the culture from which he comes. This makes me even sadder about the fact of overriding tribalism, and those barriers to which you refer.

Well, I'm a Native American. I belong to a small tribe. And I'm fiercely loyal to my tribe. So, I understand Barbos's loyalty to Russia. I get it. But here's the deal: Putin is hurting Russia. There's no reason why Russia can't sit down and peacefully speak with his neighbors about how to get along together. He wants a relationship with Ukraine that is similar to the relationship between Canada and the US. Fine. Start treating Ukraine as the US treats Canada. The US doesn't put soldiers on Canadian borders. We don't send our best snipers to the border to pick off Canadians. We don't steal parts of their land. The US has disputes with Canada all the time. We have disputes about fishing, logging, environmental concerns, water concerns on the border, and etc. We have tons of differences. But we try to work them out at the bargaining table (or the courts at worse). Threre's no reason for Russia and Ukraine to have an armed conflict. They share a border. They mostly share language. There are great economic advantages to them both if they'd work together. Ukraine could get far more economic ties with Russia than it could with the US. And it's not even close. And yet, Putin is pushing Ukraine and the rest of eastern Europe towards the west.

Very well said, but there has been a very ugly, toxic side to tribalism throughout history--the tendency of a group or nation to try to impose its own way of life on its neighbors. The stereotypical example is Nazi Germany, which pursued a distorted narrative of the superiority of Germans, even to the point of borrowing symbolism (swastika) and language (Aryan) in order to establish itself as the pure modern line of the prehistoric Indo-Europeans who spread their languages and culture all over Europe and into Asia. We tend to associate this type of over-the-top tribalism with right wing extremism.

Ukraine and Russia both have their tribal chauvinists, and we have seen barbos rant about the Ukrainian ones. They tend to elevate the pro-Nazi Stepan Bandera as their heroic martyr, who ultimately was assassinated by the KGB. They represent a fringe group in Ukrainian politics, but Putin's threatening behavior has helped to elevate their influence. On the Russian side, we have a similar historical narrative that appeals to right wing extremists in that country, and that narrative has been promoted as official Russian policy under Putin. They look back to the Kievan Rus' as the heartland of Russian culture--part of their origin story--to justify an irredentist fantasy of reestablishing it. So you get this rhetoric echoing even in barbos's posts here concerning Ukraine--the myth that Ukrainian isn't a real language or that Ukraine isn't a real country. Ukrainians are portrayed as "little Russians", whereas they style themselves as "great Russians".

People try hard to rationalize Russian behavior as somehow a legitimate perspective of a great power, and that works up to a point. NATO was established as an anti-Soviet alliance, and it has expanded eastward because of a reaction to past behavior by the Russian-dominated behemoth. There is plenty of fear and hatred against Russia in eastern Europe. But that isn't the only trend that is driving Russian politics, especially as a motivation to explain the encircling and impending military invasion. In Putin's mind, at least, that is also about reclaiming Russia's historical heartland.

 

[Elixir]

Agreed.
Putin’s Russia is a rogue state, a status that hurts Russia and hurts Russians, but helps Putin maintain his grip on power.

I see Russia more as a failed state than a rogue state, just my take. Maybe we should think of it as a monarchy.

Yes, "failed" is a more apt word, as it holds against the "successful" State that Putin apparently defines as one that keeps growing - economically and geographically.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

@Elixir

I would skirt away from calling Russia a "rogue state," but they are just another imperialistic land-grabbing government. The United States was not a "rogue state" to stay as long as they did in Afghanistan, but the United States merely did, there, what nation-states have done for centuries. Imperialism and realpolitik are something that basically everybody does.

However, that is also the reason why it would be foolish to assume that Putin would not invade Ukraine. To him, it is very threatening to Ukraine joining with NATO would mean Moscow being effectively surrounded. If you look at Moscow on a map, then with Ukraine as a NATO member, NATO could attack from Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, and Ukraine, all at once. He sees discussions about Ukraine joining with NATO as provocative. If Ukraine were to join NATO, then that would set the tone for Georgia to join with NATO not long afterward. Furthermore, if he did not currently control Crimea based on an illegal military occupation, then Putin would have substantially less direct access to the Black Sea, and the fact that the EU will not recognize his annexation of Crimea threatens to handicap his navy.



If you think of it from Putin's point-of-view, NATO is effectively surrounding him on all sides and also attempting to cut him off from having any truly effective naval defense in the Black Sea, and at the same time, they are attempting to cripple his economy with harsh punitive sanctions.

I would not call Putin's behavior altogether that of a rogue state, but I feel protective toward Kyiv.

Also, Odessa is not just a place on a map to me. People live there, and they love their city.





The problem is that I understand all too well why Putin does not want the nerve center of his country to be surrounded, but Ukraine's security also matters. Ukraine is home to many people.

 

[Copernicus]

I want to recommend this excellent article, which was published on Politico's website today.

Opinion | How the West Gets Ukraine Wrong — and Helps Putin As a Result​

It isn't just about the fact that Ukraine is the largest country within the continent of Europe today. Its population is actually equivalent in size to that of Spain. It is about Ukraine's history as a nation, and it nicely rebuts Putin's Russia-oriented view that Ukrainians and Russians are "one people". The author, Rory Finnin, is associate professor of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Cambridge and the author of Blood of Others: Stalin’s Crimean Atrocity and the Poetics of Solidarity. Here is an excerpt:

Putin...has gone to extraordinary lengths to allege that there is no such thing as a freestanding Ukrainian national identity. We need to be wise to the con. One of the many fronts of Russia’s war against Ukraine is informational. Time and again Putin has actively sought to push a narrative about Ukraine and Ukrainians as deeply, historically, spiritually embedded in the so-called Russian world. “Russians and Ukrainians,” he insisted last July, are “one people, a single whole.”
...

Until the 17th century, nearly all the territory of today’s Ukraine was located within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth — that is, in a Polish “sphere of influence.” Prior to this point, for well over three centuries, the peoples we now call Ukrainians and Russians had traveled in different political orbits altogether.

These orbits intersected in the Treaty of Pereiaslav of 1654 — an event that looms large in the Russian version of Ukrainian history. At this time, Ukraine was a name for the land controlled by the Cossack Hetmanate, an autonomous polity carved from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth after a bloody Cossack rebellion against Kraków. The Ukrainian Cossacks and the Russian tsar made a pact in Pereiaslav that marked the start of an uneasy relationship. It was a transaction between parties who needed language interpreters and referred to each other with terms like “foreigner.” Today, however, the Kremlin presents the Treaty of Pereiaslav as a “reunion” (vossoedinenie), a term that conceals the reality of Russian imperial expansion.

A half century later, Tsar Peter I refused to honor what the Cossacks understood as terms of mutual defense in their alliance, prompting the Cossack leader or “hetman” Ivan Mazepa to turn his forces against Russian power. Years before, Mazepa had written a prescient poetic lament about “mother Ukraine” in tension with an untrustworthy Moscow. Mazepa’s dramatic defeat at the Battle of Poltava in 1709 inspired new lamentations. Peter’s soldiers leveled the capital of the Hetmanate, but Ukrainian Cossack political autonomy still persisted in fits and starts throughout most of the 18th century. Rich, colorful European maps at the time show “Ukraine, Land of the Cossacks” holding on to borders similar to those we know today. In 1775, however, Russian Empress Catherine II, seeking to subsume neighboring peoples into an ever-larger Russian Empire, razed the remaining Ukrainian Cossack strongholds and ushered in the institution of serfdom in their place. Note the historical arc: slow-burning imperial conquest, not eternal confederation.

As it was being absorbed into Russian imperial space in the 18th and 19th centuries, Ukraine was often referred to as “Little Russia,” a term that may go some way to explain lingering impressions of Ukraine as somehow “small” today...

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Excellent article. The phrase "Mother Ukraine" comes to mind, not only as a counter to Mother Russia but also as a statement of Ukraine's own identity, history and destiny.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

Excellent article. The phrase "Mother Ukraine" comes to mind, not only as a counter to Mother Russia but also as a statement of Ukraine's own identity, history and destiny.

Ukraine was the birthplace of the Proto-Indo-European language, wasn't it?