• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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

Back to the Atlantic Council article. Some assessments:
Melinda Haring, Deputy Director, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council: Putin’s delusional and dangerous article reveals what we already knew: Moscow cannot countenance letting Ukraine go. ...

Danylo Lubkivsky, Director, Kyiv Security Forum: Putin understands that Ukrainian statehood and the Ukrainian national idea pose a threat to Russian imperialism. He does not know how to solve this problem. Many in his inner circle are known to advocate the use of force, but for now, the Russian leader has no solutions. Instead, he has written an amateurish propaganda piece designed to provide followers of his “Russian World” ideology with talking points. However, his arguments are weak and simply repeat what anti-Ukrainian Russian chauvinists have been saying for decades. Putin’s essay is an expression of imperial agony.

Alexander Motyl, Professor of Political Science, Rutgers University-Newark: There is nothing in the article that hasn’t already been said in imperial, Soviet, or post-Soviet Russian historiography or propaganda. As the article says nothing new, it portends nothing new in Putin’s policy toward Ukraine. (With one possible exception: it doesn’t read like something someone planning a full-scale invasion would write.)

The only interesting questions are: why was it published now, and for whom was the piece written? Russians and Ukrainians have heard this before; Europeans and Americans would find the historical detail too abstruse. That leaves Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. ...

Brian Whitmore, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council: Vladimir Putin's inaccurate and distorted claims are neither new nor surprising. They are just the latest example of gaslighting by the Kremlin leader. This, after all, is the man who famously told US President George W. Bush that Ukraine was not a real country during a widely reported exchange at the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest. Putin's claim that the "true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia'' is grotesquely disingenuous. For Ukraine, partnership with Russia has mainly meant subjugation by Russia.

... It shows him to be a revanchist ruler who is prepared to construct false historical narratives to justify his imperial dreams.

Oleksiy Goncharenko, Ukrainian MP, European Solidarity party: Putin’s article claims to be about history, but in reality it is about the future and not the past. Ukraine holds the key to Putin’s dreams of restoring Russia’s great power status. He is painfully aware that without Ukraine, this will be impossible.

Putin’s essay does not actually contain anything new. Indeed, we have already heard these same arguments many times before. However, his article does help clarify that the current conflict is not about control over Crimea or eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region; it is a war for the whole of Ukraine. Putin makes it perfectly clear that his goal is to keep Ukraine firmly within the Russian sphere of influence and to prevent Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration.
He would have had a much better chance if he had not taken over Crimea. Seems like a case of "Crimea and Punishment", a pun on the title of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's novel  Crime and Punishment - "Crime and Punishment follows the mental anguish and moral dilemmas of Rodion Raskolnikov, an impoverished ex-student in Saint Petersburg who plans to kill an unscrupulous pawnbroker for her money. Before the killing, Raskolnikov believes that with the money he could liberate himself from poverty and go on to perform great deeds. However, once it is done he finds himself racked with confusion, paranoia, and disgust for his actions. His justifications disintegrate completely as he struggles with guilt and horror and confronts the real-world consequences of his deed. "
 
Some more:
Yevhen Fedchenko, Chief Editor, StopFake: There is nothing new in Putin's article. From year to year, he continues to deny the agency of Ukrainians while basing his arguments on an unapologetically neo-imperial vision of geopolitics. In his essay, Putin once again questions Ukraine’s right to exist and sends a thinly veiled threat that Ukraine will lose more territories if it positions itself as an “anti-Russia.” But territory is ultimately not the most important thing here. It is merely a bargaining chip. Putin wants to have the last word in determining Ukraine’s approach to history, culture, language, and identity. These are the decisive fronts in Russia’s war against Ukraine.

Brian Bonner, Chief Editor, Kyiv Post: This new essay underlines that Putin will never change. Nor is he exceptional. On the contrary, Putin’s condescending, imperialistic, and historically incorrect views about Ukraine are, unfortunately, shared by too many in Russia. This means Ukraine and the West will have to change and harden their own response in order to contain and isolate the Kremlin, which has nothing in common with the democratic, pluralistic nation that most Ukrainians want for themselves.
Something already starting to happen, with Sweden and Finland considering joining NATO and Ukrainians becoming pro-NATO.
Taras Kuzio, Professor, National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy: Vladimir Putin has demonstrated once again that he does not really understand Ukraine and has never seriously studied Ukrainian opinion polls. His claim that “Russia did everything to halt the bloodshed” in Ukraine is both absurd and insulting. ... This essay also proves that Putin is still in denial over his personal responsibility for the collapse of bilateral ties between Russia and Ukraine. Instead, he continues to blame everything on anti-Russian conspiracies and foreign scheming.

Volodymyr Yermolenko, Chief Editor, UkraineWorld.org: Putin's article shows that Russia will use history again and again in order to justify its political and military actions. Modern Russia remains an empire in essence. Before annexing new territories, the Kremlin seeks to annex history and assimilate its neighbors by denying their existence as separate national identities.

Putin’s current bid to promote assimilation in Ukraine is incredibly dangerous as it opens the way for a new wave of Russian expansion. Moscow is already increasingly absorbing Belarus, while claiming that this neighboring country is actually part of the same Russian nation. We should therefore expect to see a growing Russian emphasis on soft power efforts in Ukraine aimed at pushing assimilation through avenues such as religion and the media. Putin’s hybrid warfare tactics will become even smarter and more of a threat.
Interesting about Belarus.
 
Last edited:
very quickly seized the initiative, after which hysterically anti-Russian slogans began to appear. Their success is explained, among other things, by the fact that in recent years the anti-Russian trend in Georgia has been in vogue.
This sounds to me like Saakashvili attached himself to a trend already in vogue. There isn't a politician alive who isn't willing to hop in front of a parade not of their own making.

You know something the US didn't do? Invade Georgia.
Who do you think that vogue created?
Saakashvili came to power in 2004 moreless. Left after 2013 I think.
Events described are in 2019

Are you satisfied with results?
If you mean the US, that's still unproven.
 
I'm an ethnic Slav just like my Russian brothers. The world owes me because I've been brutalized by neighboring tribes over the millennia. Even the word "slave" derives directly from my ethnicity owing to how unjustly I and my fellows have been treated. The world owes me! The world owes me! The world owes me! The world owes me!

Or I could just grow up and act like a mature adult, not a petulant child.
I got a flag, ain’t got no country.
Wah, wah, wah.

1643826970170.png
 
As much as I disdain Putin, he has a point on security as viewed from the Russian side.

We were on the brink of war including nuclear weapons over Russian missiles in Cuba.

As I remember it this goes back to the EU negotiating Ukraine away from Russia on trade. It was played up in the media with sopcularions of joining the EU and NATO.

Even during the peak of the Cold War Europe was trading with Russia. Energy. It is a comlcated mess. Any comflct will have global effects. If yiu think the COVID supply chain problems are bad, just wait.

We don't seem to get that China and Russia have cultural identities going far back in history and do not wnat integration into the wetern democracies. We continue to think the all powerful USA is somehow going to bend them to our will.

I think it is reasonable for Putin to ask for assurances that Ukraine will not be militarized by NATO and there will be no nukes in Ukrain.

On the flip side Putin has to know that there s nothing in Russia anyone would want to invade for. For him it is likley all political stagecraft. We negotiate as peers and Russia is now an equal to the USA, I'd say that is what he wants.

As for violating national boundaries, we crossed the world to invade Iraq on a false pretense. Our 'aaly' Saui Arabia is raing destruction onYemen with our help and equipment we sold term. That we are being hypocritical by supporting Saudi Arabia and condemning Russia is an understemnt to say the least.

Back in the 80s I had some contact with a group of vising European engineers. I asked them how they viewed Russia vs USA. The reponse was different goals, same methods. They did not see much difference between the two.

Russian politics is not our business. There is nothing in COTUS that empowers the govt to agreively spead our system.

VN and Korea were civil wars. We are still in Korea, we lost in VN. Yet we keep modeling up through Afghanistan and Iraq. To politicans it is like college football, wave the flag and hoora. Ukraine is as much theter here as it is in Russia.

The only interest we had was money.

American political operatives made a large amount of money working for Ukrainian politicians. Biden's son was on the board of an energy company with no experience. Whiile nothing illegal came out, it was a clear quid pro quo political influence peddling.

The response?

NATO was created to protect NATO nations from Russian aggression. There are no NATO obligations to Ukraine and we the USA has no business interfering.

It is none of our business. There are people in Ukraine who want to align with Russia. It is anoter corrupt unstable state, created by drawing lines on a map in a treaty. If Rsia takes Ukraine and NATO is not able to protect the NATO borders then NATO is weak and iys all been for nothing.

The USA is not the police of the world, and we have our own problms. Iraq amd Afghanistan sucked up a lot of money, increased debt, and provided o materal benefit. We have our wn problems to deal with.
 
As much as I disdain Putin, he has a point on security as viewed from the Russian side.
No he doesn't. He's only after resources, using fake security concerns as leverage. Of course Bush did the same thing when he invaded Iraq.
 
As much as I disdain Putin, he has a point on security as viewed from the Russian side.
No he doesn't. He's only after resources, using fake security concerns as leverage. Of course Bush did the same thing when he invaded Iraq.
You have to look at Russian experience with the west ending in WWII. The Soviet cauuasly estimates run up to 20-30 million.

There is a deep cultural awarness of that. If you ask the average patriotic Russian you'd get the same kind of patriotic answer you;s get from an American.

As I said I believe this conflict started when Ukraine aligning with Europe over the Russian Federation on trade. The pro Russian Ukrainian leader was forced to flee to Russia. There was a Ukrainian coup.

So yes, in large part it is about Russian economics. But it is also about Rssdian idenity and with that security.

When I worked at Lockheed in the 80s I read a translation of a Russian military paper published in an American military journal. The Russians were probably more afraid of a western invasion then we were afraid of the Russians.

The Russian memorial for Stalingrad. I believe the Russian saying is 'never again'. They faced genocide at the hands of the Nazis. We Anericans continue to ignore that Russia and China have their own history as we try to bend them to our vision.

 
You don't know how much meddling US/Europe does, do you?
I told you already. US is actively promotes hatred of Russia. That's what recipients of all that money say themselves.
How about you explain that to us and give us citations instead of statements?
I already did, I could not find the link to the interview but she said it.
And why are you surprised? After US supported ISIS against Assad.

No. We supported some resistance groups against Assad. That's not the same as saying we supported all the groups that were fighting Assad.
 
You don't know how much meddling US/Europe does, do you?
I told you already. US is actively promotes hatred of Russia. That's what recipients of all that money say themselves.
How about you explain that to us and give us citations instead of statements?
I already did, I could not find the link to the interview but she said it.
And why are you surprised? After US supported ISIS against Assad.

No. We supported some resistance groups against Assad. That's not the same as saying we supported all the groups that were fighting Assad.
You armed groups of terrorists which you "thought" were "good" guys. And time after time they were were turning to be bad guys but you kept doing it. Makes you wonder if it was by design.
But that's not what I am talking about. I am talking about Kerry audio about ISIS.

US does not have good track record in choosing their puppets.
 
As much as I disdain Putin, he has a point on security as viewed from the Russian side.

We were on the brink of war including nuclear weapons over Russian missiles in Cuba.

As I remember it this goes back to the EU negotiating Ukraine away from Russia on trade. It was played up in the media with sopcularions of joining the EU and NATO.

Even during the peak of the Cold War Europe was trading with Russia. Energy. It is a comlcated mess. Any comflct will have global effects. If yiu think the COVID supply chain problems are bad, just wait.

We don't seem to get that China and Russia have cultural identities going far back in history and do not wnat integration into the wetern democracies. We continue to think the all powerful USA is somehow going to bend them to our will.

I think it is reasonable for Putin to ask for assurances that Ukraine will not be militarized by NATO and there will be no nukes in Ukrain.

On the flip side Putin has to know that there s nothing in Russia anyone would want to invade for. For him it is likley all political stagecraft. We negotiate as peers and Russia is now an equal to the USA, I'd say that is what he wants.

As for violating national boundaries, we crossed the world to invade Iraq on a false pretense. Our 'aaly' Saui Arabia is raing destruction onYemen with our help and equipment we sold term. That we are being hypocritical by supporting Saudi Arabia and condemning Russia is an understemnt to say the least.

Back in the 80s I had some contact with a group of vising European engineers. I asked them how they viewed Russia vs USA. The reponse was different goals, same methods. They did not see much difference between the two.

Russian politics is not our business. There is nothing in COTUS that empowers the govt to agreively spead our system.

VN and Korea were civil wars. We are still in Korea, we lost in VN. Yet we keep modeling up through Afghanistan and Iraq. To politicans it is like college football, wave the flag and hoora. Ukraine is as much theter here as it is in Russia.

The only interest we had was money.

American political operatives made a large amount of money working for Ukrainian politicians. Biden's son was on the board of an energy company with no experience. Whiile nothing illegal came out, it was a clear quid pro quo political influence peddling.

The response?

NATO was created to protect NATO nations from Russian aggression. There are no NATO obligations to Ukraine and we the USA has no business interfering.

It is none of our business. There are people in Ukraine who want to align with Russia. It is anoter corrupt unstable state, created by drawing lines on a map in a treaty. If Rsia takes Ukraine and NATO is not able to protect the NATO borders then NATO is weak and iys all been for nothing.

The USA is not the police of the world, and we have our own problms. Iraq amd Afghanistan sucked up a lot of money, increased debt, and provided o materal benefit. We have our wn problems to deal with.
I totally agree with you. We should immediately withdraw all our US troops from Ukraine. Then we should require that Ukraine stop being so mean to Russia. Those Ukrainian meanies need to be put in their place.
 
Putin's new Ukraine essay reveals imperial ambitions - Atlantic Council
Russian President Vladimir Putin has outlined the historical basis for his claims against Ukraine in a controversial new essay that has been likened in some quarters to a declaration of war. The 5,000-word article, entitled “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians,” was published on July 12 and features many of talking points favored by Putin throughout the past seven years of undeclared war between Russia and Ukraine.

The Russian leader uses the essay to reiterate his frequently voiced conviction that Russians and Ukrainians are “one people,” while blaming the current collapse in bilateral ties on foreign plots and anti-Russian conspiracies.

In one particularly ominous passage, he openly questions the legitimacy of Ukraine’s borders and argues that much of modern-day Ukraine occupies historically Russian lands, before stating matter of factly, “Russia was robbed.” Elsewhere, he hints at a fresh annexation of Ukrainian territory, claiming, “I am becoming more and more convinced of this: Kyiv simply does not need Donbas.”

Putin ends his lengthy treatise by appearing to suggest that Ukrainian statehood itself ultimately depends on Moscow’s consent, declaring, “I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia.”
Zelenskiy Trolls Putin After Russian President Publishes Article On Ukraine

Putin actually had that essay published last July on the Kremlin's official web site:

Article by Vladimir Putin ”On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“

This is really a very important point, because most analysts do not pay a lot of attention to Putin's rather extreme views of Russian history. Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia all look back to the origin of their countries in the establishment of the  Kievan Rus' by the Varangian (Swedish Viking)  Rurik dynasty, beginning with  Oleg of Novgorod in 862 and lasting until the 1240s, when the Mongol invasion swept across the area and into what is now Poland. But Russian school children are all taught this history, and Putin is spouting a very Russian nationalist view of it that obscures some of the actual historical facts to make it look like Kiev was somehow the center of the original Russian homeland. In fact, Moscow was not even a player in regional politics until centuries after the Kievan Rus' state had collapsed and the Suzdal-Valdimir-Moscow area managed to win independence from their Mongol overlords. Meanwhile, both Belarus and Ukraine had long been major cultural centers of East Slavic culture that were independent of Mongol rule. And it wasn't until after the fall of Constantinople (so-called "Tsargrad" in the East Slavic languages) fell to the Ottomans. Moscow came to style itself as the "Third Rome" and Ivan IV ("The Terrible") was the first Grand Duke of Muscovy to call himself "Tsar of all the Russias". At that point, his relatively new Russian state considered itself entitled to rule over the lands to the west--modern day Belarus and Ukraine.

The point is that Vladimir Putin is a radical right wing Russian chauvinist who deeply resented the fall of the Soviet Union. His revanchist policy of expanding the Russian Federation to the east of its boundaries from the Soviet era is really a throwback to the tsarist Russian Empire, which assimilated Belarus and Ukraine in the name of its self-declared role as the protector of the former territories held by the Kievan Rus' state. Putin doesn't just want to resurrect the Soviet Union, which is well and truly dead. He wants to resurrect the Russian Empire, which incorporated both Belarus (White Russia or Byelorussia) and Ukraine as Russian territory. The Soviet Union treated them officially as separate republics, but Putin insists that they are not even independent states.

Putin's essay--presumably his own words--is chilling in terms of what it means for the issue of Ukraine, because it suggests that none of his demands will be enough to stop his expansion to the west. As long as he lives, he will be trying to incorporate Ukraine and Belarus into Russia itself. It isn't just about NATO expansion to the east, which poses no real threat to a nuclear power like Russia. Putin wants revenge for the collapse of the Soviet Union, but he is really an irredentist who wants to recover territory that he feels Russia (not just the Soviet Union) lost. So, whatever resolution or concessions he gets for easing tensions, if he can get any, will not be the end. He will create more of these crises in the future until he gets back what he considers the historical homeland of the Russian people.
 
You have to look at Russian experience with the west ending in WWII. The Soviet cauuasly estimates run up to 20-30 million.
They made a pact with Hitler to invade and divide Poland. Their casualties were high because their soldiers would be shot if they didn't attack, unarmed sometimes. If I'm a line soldier I'd rather charge into enemy lines than turn around and be shot. And lets not forget Stalin's purges. Millions died under his hand without WW2. If you are going to make excuses for Putin's paranoia and megalomania I wouldn't bring the average Russian into the discussion. Russian media is state controlled and dissident reporters and opposition leaders are terrorized, poisoned and murdered by Putin. This doesn't compare to anything in the west where the rule of law prevails, not the rule of gangsterism. When you have to build a wall around your "country" to keep people from leaving, shooting them if they try to cross, there's a serious problem with your wonderful "country."
 
You have to look at Russian experience with the west ending in WWII. The Soviet cauuasly estimates run up to 20-30 million.
They made a pact with Hitler to invade and divide Poland. Their casualties were high because their soldiers would be shot if they didn't attack, unarmed sometimes. If I'm a line soldier I'd rather charge into enemy lines than turn around and be shot. And lets not forget Stalin's purges. Millions died under his hand without WW2. If you are going to make excuses for Putin's paranoia and megalomania I wouldn't bring the average Russian into the discussion. Russian media is state controlled and dissident reporters and opposition leaders are terrorized, poisoned and murdered by Putin. This doesn't compare to anything in the west where the rule of law prevails, not the rule of gangsterism. When you have to build a wall around your "country" to keep people from leaving, shooting them if they try to cross, there's a serious problem with your wonderful "country."
And this justifies anti-russian propaganda like the one you employ in Eastetn Europe and in Georgia?
By the way, there is no wall around Russia anymore, anyone can leave, just saying.
 
You have to look at Russian experience with the west ending in WWII. The Soviet cauuasly estimates run up to 20-30 million.
They made a pact with Hitler to invade and divide Poland. Their casualties were high because their soldiers would be shot if they didn't attack, unarmed sometimes. If I'm a line soldier I'd rather charge into enemy lines than turn around and be shot. And lets not forget Stalin's purges. Millions died under his hand without WW2. If you are going to make excuses for Putin's paranoia and megalomania I wouldn't bring the average Russian into the discussion. Russian media is state controlled and dissident reporters and opposition leaders are terrorized, poisoned and murdered by Putin. This doesn't compare to anything in the west where the rule of law prevails, not the rule of gangsterism. When you have to build a wall around your "country" to keep people from leaving, shooting them if they try to cross, there's a serious problem with your wonderful "country."
And this justifies anti-russian propaganda like the one you employ in Eastetn Europe and in Georgia?
By the way, there is no wall around Russia anymore, anyone can leave, just saying.
These meanies putting out anti-Russian propaganda need to be muzzled. How dare someone accuse Russia of being imperialistic and threatening!
 
So you found one person who agrees with you. What makes that person any more worthy of discussion than anyone else?
Not one, the whole damn lecture hall, and these are not random MSM propaganda recipients like yourself :)
The problem with what you just said is that the US and western allies do not fear democracy. Why does Putin fear democracy? Why do Chinese communists fear democracy? Why does Putin fear a democratic Ukraine? Why does Putin need non-democratic states as buffer states to Russia?
Actually, you have half of your Congress fearing democracy :)
And Putin does not fear democratic Ukraine. He fears puppet fascist regime you installed there.
Funny, we used the same justification to help overthrow (kill) the socialist Chilean President in 1974.

Again, you try so hard to make your arguments, that sound exactly like Western arguments sound legit and noble, while declaring the exact same arguments from the West as propaganda and lies.

Ukraine is its own country. If you want a more Belarussian like leader in Ukraine, Putin knows the protocol... and it doesn't require brute military intervention. I think Russia pulls this stuff to remind the West that Russia still exists and "matters".
 
So you found one person who agrees with you. What makes that person any more worthy of discussion than anyone else?
Not one, the whole damn lecture hall, and these are not random MSM propaganda recipients like yourself :)
The problem with what you just said is that the US and western allies do not fear democracy. Why does Putin fear democracy? Why do Chinese communists fear democracy? Why does Putin fear a democratic Ukraine? Why does Putin need non-democratic states as buffer states to Russia?
Actually, you have half of your Congress fearing democracy :)
And Putin does not fear democratic Ukraine. He fears puppet fascist regime you installed there.
Funny, we used the same justification to help overthrow (kill) the socialist Chilean President in 1974.

Again, you try so hard to make your arguments, that sound exactly like Western arguments sound legit and noble, while declaring the exact same arguments from the West as propaganda and lies.

Ukraine is its own country. If you want a more Belarussian like leader in Ukraine, Putin knows the protocol... and it doesn't require brute military intervention. I think Russia pulls this stuff to remind the West that Russia still exists and "matters".
I am not following you here.
My point is pretty simple. US made a coup in Ukraine and installed insane puppet regime. Same with Georgia. I don't see how is that good. And last time I checked Pinochet was not a democrat.
 
Back
Top Bottom