Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[mishkin]

I had the impression that after the failure of the invasion of Ukraine and Europe's awareness of the threat posed by Putin, his expansionist plans would stop, at least temporally, but it seems that his operations in Moldova continue.

[Alastor]

I had the impression that after the failure of the invasion of Ukraine.

Failure?

[mishkin]

Failure?

Beyond the fact that the triumphant walk to kyiv that Putin expected did not happened, in the Europe/NATO versus Russia confrontation, who has won? Who has increased their power and territories/allies? Who has lost respect/credibility?

[Alastor]

Beyond the fact that the triumphant walk to kyiv that Putin expected did not happened, in the Europe/NATO versus Russia confrontation, who has won? Who has increased their power and territories/allies? Who has lost respect/credibility?

I have stated before that I believe Putin wanted a settlement, not conquest. In that he didn't succeed sure, but did the west succeed in wresting Ukraine from Russia's influence? It doesn't seem like it.

In regards to NATO, certainly NATO grew, certainly NATO has more members and as such the US and their military-industrial complex won. But did we, the previous members of NATO, win anything? Hardly. Keep in mind that increasing your number of allies, doesn't just bring power, it brings entanglements and carries risks. I am more interested in safety than I am in power and I am fairly confident that NATO members were safer before enlargement than they are past enlargement. And in that, I don't just mean these most recent enlargements but all the enlargements that followed the cold war.

Finally, who has lost respect/credibility depends on who you are asking. In the west Russia, in the global south though? Not as easy an answer. Frankly, the bridges that the west has crossed by weaponising its financial system the way it did (starting from asset confiscations in banks and going all the way to insurance brokerage embargoes) will likely have a very negative impact on the west in the longer term.

But, to bring this back to the original point, this invasion seems about to succeed in keeping Ukraine in Russia's sphere and NATO out of it. In the process Russia has shown itself resilient to every economic sanction the west could throw at them and all the weaponry they could spare. This is not a failure.

[mishkin]

I have stated before that I believe Putin wanted a settlement, not conquest. In that he didn't succeed sure, but did the west succeed in wresting Ukraine from Russia's influence? It doesn't seem like it.

In regards to NATO, certainly NATO grew, certainly NATO has more members and as such the US and their military-industrial complex won. But did we, the previous members of NATO, win anything? Hardly. Keep in mind that increasing your number of allies, doesn't just bring power, it brings entanglements and carries risks. I am more interested in safety than I am in power and I am fairly confident that NATO members were safer before enlargement than they are past enlargement. And in that, I don't just mean these most recent enlargements but all the enlargements that followed the cold war.

Finally, who has lost respect/credibility depends on who you are asking. In the west Russia, in the global south though? Not as easy an answer. Frankly, the bridges that the west has crossed by weaponising its financial system the way it did (starting from asset confiscations in banks and going all the way to insurance brokerage) will likely have a very negative impact on the west in the longer term.

But, to bring this back to the original point, this invasion seems about to succeed in keeping Ukraine in Russia's sphere and NATO out of it. In the process Russia has shown itself resilient to every economic sanction the west could throw at them and all the weaponry they could spare. This is not a failure.

Putin wanted the denazification of Ukraine in a brief military operation, right? What happened next could not have been imagined even in his worst nightmares.

Can you explain what you mean by the dangers of the growth of NATO? For whom is it a risk that European countries are increasing their defense budgets and the capacity of their armies? (I can only think that it is horrible for pacifist taxpayers). By the way, it seems that militarily in a couple of years european countries would be able to confront the very diminished russian army.

Only where the Russian national media dominates (not to mention its educational system) and where its political agents (and its gas) have any influence can Russia be seen as the winner or the good guy in this movie.

[PointOfViewGun]

Russia's failure to storm Kyiv and hold its initial gains was a matter of failure in ability. Ukraine's failure to regain all lost land from Russia became a matter of choice of allies in supporting Ukraine with necessary equipment. The difference is quite big.

[StarDreamer]

I had the impression that after the failure of the invasion of Ukraine and Europe's awareness of the threat posed by Putin, his expansionist plans would stop, at least temporally, but it seems that his operations in Moldova continue.

Whenever dictators have shown themselves to be expansionist they do not stop even if they would fail. They will continue their efforts to expand until they are deposed or their military is completely defeated. Expansion in one country is never the end goal, expansion becomes an obsession that needs constant feeding to justify their horrid regime.

Putin's Russia won't stop waging war even in any of these cases: Total victory, "negotiated peace", partial victory, actual negotiated peace, withdrawal from all but Crimea, withdrawal from all of Ukraine. Of course the earlier I mentioned one the faster a new war will start. But only if Putin would be replaced and/or western intervention to defeat Putin's army in a more complete manner could further wars be stopped or their likelyhood significantly reduced.

Some think that western intervention would start WW3, but a Ukrainian defeat would increase the likelyhood of it starting within less than a decade to be almost certain.

[Alastor]

Putin wanted the denazification of Ukraine in a brief military operation, right? What happened next could not have been imagined even in his worst nightmares.

Can you explain what you mean by the dangers of the growth of NATO? For whom is it a risk that European countries are increasing their defense budgets and the capacity of their armies? (I can only think that it is horrible for pacifist taxpayers). By the way, it seems that militarily in a couple of years european countries would be able to confront the very diminished russian army.

Only where the Russian national media dominates (not to mention its educational system) and where its political agents (and its gas) have any influence can Russia be seen as the winner or the good guy in this movie.

Is that what he wanted? There is some debate. But I just don't see the worst nightmare part. I do believe the initial invasion was a gross miscalculation, but look at where it led. The whole of the west rallied behind Ukraine and threw everything and the sink their way to help them beat Russia back. Additionally, they weaponised their own financial system, in ways that make it seem unfathomably risky to their enemies to engage in it, to break Russia's economy. That's a nightmare scenario for Putin sure.... except, Russia held strong, its economy is growing, its winning militarily and Putin himself is secure in his position within Russia. So... not a very scary nightmare that one.

What I mean here is basically alluded to with the entanglements/risks line. Every state has its own vital interests, its own enemies, its own needs. By allying with a state you share in those. The idea that all states in Europe for example have the same attitude towards Russia and as such NATO is the way is simply put wrong. Poland and the Baltics hate Russia, it's a historic enemy for them. Does France? The attempt to shoehorn all those interests into some grand alliance simply leads to bad blood, divisions and eventually degradation. Germany's economy getting hit for example. Now in regards to growing budgets. The issue here is simple, if you build an army, you will want to use it. And that's not sth I want to see. NATO during the cold war may have subjugated Europe to the US, but by having that American shield the Europeans did not feel the need to rearm the way they had in the past. That laid the path to peace and collaboration among European states under the NATO umbrella. What happens though when a disparate alliance of many heavily armed states with varying interests coalesces? More power for the alliance sure, nominally at least, but also a loss of stability and a greater propensity towards conflict. As such less safety. As far as I'm concerned, NATO has served its purpose, if Europe is to arm itself it should do so as its own block. If we are to be in some ragtag military alliance we can at least be in one that benefits Europe's industries, instead of America's.

That's not really very true. Russia is winning this war, that's a fact even politico is now acknowledging. I rather doubt they have a Russian "education system". If anything the opposite rings more true. That only in places where western money and influence dictate things is Russia still presented as the loser. Ever there though, not without dissent.

[mishkin]

There is no debate about Putin's declared objectives when he launched his tanks against Ukraine. There was a mission and it was not accomplished, and proof of this is that two years later Ukraine is still Nazi (this is sarcasm), the dismissals and disappearances in the Russian military leadership, the hundreds of thousands of dead Russian soldiers (330.000 so far?), the forced conscriptions and the use of mercenaries and prisoners to act as cannon fodder.

Yes, Russia is the common enemy of all European countries right now. I find it incredible that you say that a powerful army can be dangerous because we will be tempted to use it. Against whom? Against Morocco? Against Monaco? Against.... Russia? Are we going to invade Russia??? I also find it incredible that you "protest" when the responsible for this arms frenzy is the Russian military threat itself. In Europe we would still have ridiculous armies and we would continue disdaining NATO if it were not for what Russia has done in Ukraine.

Blessed be the dissidence and blessed are the countries that do not imprison those who publicly say that their armies are invading forces. (By the way, yes, I wish the embarrassing RT had not been censored in Europe).

[Alastor]

There is no debate about Putin's declared objectives when he launched his tanks against Ukraine. There was a mission and it was not accomplished, and proof of this is that two years later Ukraine is still Nazi (this is sarcasm), the dismissals and disappearances in the Russian military leadership, the hundreds of thousands of dead Russian soldiers (330.000 so far?), the forced conscriptions and the use of mercenaries and prisoners to act as cannon fodder.

Yes, Russia is the common enemy of all European countries right now. I find it incredible that you say that a powerful army can be dangerous because we will be tempted to use it. Against whom? Against Morocco? Against Monaco? Against.... Russia? Are we going to invade Russia???

Blessed be the dissidence and blessed are the countries that do not imprison those who publicly say that their armies are invading forces. (By the way, yes, I wish the embarrassing RT had not been censored in Europe).

There is debate about his true aims. But even if you take his stated aims, ok, when did he say how long this was going to take, or how costly it will be? Where was he proven false? Russia hasn't accomplished its goals, sure... yet.

It wouldn't be the first time a European power invades Russia. Would it? But I am more concerned about a fragmentation and the use of this military against other European states. With a powerful navy, perhaps we could embargo that stupid UK away from Brexit, or at least credibly threaten to. And if Russia is the common enemy now, that's because of NATO's influence. It won't last.

A jab at Russia? Well, let me remind you that Assange, who revealed US war crimes, is still in prison for his journalism. Blessed are those countries that respect people freedom's and rights. Unfortunately, they don't really exist. States only afford people rights when convenient and take them away when... not. That's not a Russian patent.

[mishkin]

Do you seriously have the courage to compare the freedoms that exist in Russia and those that exist in Europe and even the United States? The level of authoritarianism, nationalism and retrogradeness? The LGTBI community is still illegal? Do children's paramilitary activities continue in schools?

I can accept it if you say that Putin has achieved his objectives in Russia, which of course were never the defense of some attacked russian population, some denazification or removing the Jew from power. Putin will never achieve his objectives in Moldova, his expansion in the West has ended.

[Alastor]

Do you seriously have the courage to compare the freedoms that exist in Russia and those that exist in Europe and even the United States? The level of authoritarianism, nationalism and retrogradeness?

I can accept it if you say that Putin has achieved his objectives in Russia, which of course were never some denazification or removing the Jew from power. Putin will never achieve his objectives in Moldova, his expansion in the West has ended.

Honestly? I don't know. I've never been to Russia and all the information I have about life there are 2nd-hand anecdotes and western-made propaganda. I have family and friends from Russia (as well as Ukraine/Belarus etc) and even their testimony is conflicting. Some praise it to sky heaven, others compare it to hell. But the same can be said for people from other European states. I know with relative certainty that gay people don't have it easy there, that is rather consistent based on testimony I've gotten, but further than that I'm just not sure. Are you? Authoritarianism is certainly sth I have experienced in the west. To what degree I would have experienced it in Russia for similar reasons, I simply have no point of reference and I don't really care to find out. I care what we do here and I find it unacceptable to ignore our shortcomings by pointing out that some other place, we have no real reference for, is ostensibly worse.

No, I am going to say again that Russia is winning and Putin may get to achieve his stated aims overall. You are assuming for some reason that he won't. Developments on the field don't support your take. As for Moldova, considering Putin's goals there is to support the Transnistrian people's right of self-determination (yes we both know what it means when great powers use that line) and he may soon have a land border with them, the outcome might not be as certain either.

[mishkin]

If the only thing you hear from russians is that it is hell or that it is heaven, that alone should give you a clue as to what is happening on a social level in the country.

The lgtbi collective is prohibited by law and arrests that end in jail occur in all the demonstrations against the war. These are facts, totally outside of any subjectivity or relativism. It is also true that children are politically indoctrinated at school. and I'm not talking about swearing loyalty to the flag, I'm not talking about absolutely anything that again you can try to compare with the United States to downplay it.

I repeat that I don't know if Ukraine is lost or not (I really think it is not), but at least it has prevented Russia from taking more steps towards the west. If you'll excuse the paraphrase, whatever the "local" result, Ukraine will be (is) the tomb of Putinism.

[Alastor]

If the only thing you hear from russians is that it is hell or that it is heaven, that alone should give you a clue as to what is happening on a social level in the country.

The lgtbi collective is prohibited by law and arrests that end in jail occur in all the demonstrations against the war. These are facts, totally outside of any subjectivity or relativism. It is also true that children are politically indoctrinated at school. and I'm not talking about swearing loyalty to the flag, I'm not talking about absolutely anything that again you can try to compare with the United States to downplay it.

I repeat that I don't know if Ukraine is lost or not (I really think it is not), but at least it has prevented Russia from taking more steps towards the west. If you'll excuse the paraphrase, whatever the "local" result, Ukraine will be (is) the tomb of Putinism.

That's not the only thing I hear, that's the range of things I hear. And as I said, I have examples of the same for other European countries.

Arrests happen in demonstrations of all kinds in the west also, this is such a weak point to make. As for the lgbti being prohibited by law I'm just not sure this is presented correctly either. I know LGBT people in Russia and from Russia, in fact I used to work very closely with one, the complaints I hear from them mostly had to do with bureaucratic marginalization, which causes problems in matters like family status and custody contests. Unfair? Sure. Unique? Hardly. All kinds of minorities have had it rough in every place imaginable. Generally, all the things you present are presented in a decisively one-sided manner and that's just not how I prefer to do things. Either way, I will repeat once more for clarity, I'm not saying Russia is perfect, I'm saying I don't care if Russia is perfect. What I do object to is this utilisation of Russia as an excuse to not fix the things we do wrong because "the others are worse". The focus should be on us, not on Russia. If Russia is bad let the Russians fix it. The rest of this discussion is largely academic as far as I'm concerned.

That is assuming of course that Russia wanted to make more steps towards the west. Of which you are certain because... reasons? When did Putin ever say he wants to conquer the west? He was explicitly asked about taking more land in fact at some point recently and his answer was "what for?" The idea that Russia dreams of owning Lisbon is no more than Russophobic fear-mongering and has never been anything more than that. As for Putinism, I am again not sure what it is you mean here. Is Putinism some kind of made up boogey man that our elites have concocted to convince us to give giving our tax money to the American military industrial complex? Or is it sth that actually has to do with Putin's regime in Russia? If the latter, he is doing quite well, recently won another electoral landslide and enjoying high levels of support internally.

-----
An interview with John Mearsheimer about the situation in Ukraine and the world, but with a European spin:

There are several points he is making that echo some I have made in this thread closely. Such as that the idea Russia wants to conquer Europe is nonsense. Or that the American umbrella provided by the Cold war era NATO did help pacify Europe. There are other points he makes I'm largely against, such as his take on the irreplaceability of NATO, that argument feels fairly weak considering he himself is attacking the stability NATO offers by making it clear it imperiled Europe via this debacle in Ukraine. Additionally he seems to flip-flop on how much agency to push back on the US Europe should exercise.

Nevertheless, an interesting interview worth listening.

[mishkin]

All the skepticism and disdain you show towards europe and the united states, all the credibility you give to Putin's statements and the willingness to excuse all their policies.

he (Putin) is doing quite well, recently won another electoral landslide and enjoying high levels of support internally.

Incredible that you would make statements like this and try to present yourself as an impartial observer. In Korea they say the same thing about Kim Jong Un. You missed a smiley with the Russian flag.

[Alastor]

All the skepticism and disdain you show towards europe and the united states, all the credibility you give to Putin's statements and the willingness to excuse all their policies.

Yes, what about it? Believe it or not I have actually watched a fair share of Putin interviews throughout the years and I do find him more credible than the majority of western politicians. At least as far as international politics go, I don't focus too much on what he is saying within Russia. That's not to say he won't fib, the green men incident is a low hanging fruit, but he won't lie needlessly and not even most of the time, which is quite sth. The way I understand Putin, he has an interest in legalism and a desire to appear nominally legitimate, not necessarily factually so, but as such he is more interested in spinning the truth than outright lying. Start watching his interviews and you may notice that too. On the other hand, I happen to live in the west and I am intimately familiar both with our systemic failures and the constant pointless lying of our political class, both internally and externally what am I supposed to show but disdain for that? Finally, I'm not sure I have excused any policies, if you mean about the internals of Russia, I said I don't particularly care what they are doing, not that they are all good. That's not excusing it.

Incredible that you would make statements like this and try to present yourself as an impartial observer. In Korea they say the same thing about Kim Jong Un. You missed a smiley with the Russian flag.

What exactly did I say there that is not true and so not sth an impartial observer would say? Is Putin not doing quite well? Did he not recently win an electoral landslide? Or is he not enjoying high levels of popularity within Russia? By all means presents these facts you have showing my claim is wrong and which are eluding me. Oh and if your argument revolves solely around "but the elections are not free or fair", sorry but I never even touched that point. I didn't say Putin won another "free and fair" electoral landslide, I said another electoral landslide. So before you go there I'm making it clear for you, it doesn't affect the point I made.

[Coughdrop addict]

Incredible that you would make statements like this and try to present yourself as an impartial observer. In Korea they say the same thing about Kim Jong Un. You missed a smiley with the Russian flag.

Ever notice how all of the all "impartial observers" on the war repeat the exact same "impartial observations" at the exact same time?

It's because they get their news from the exact same "impartial sources".

[Alastor]

Ever notice how all of the all "impartial observers" on the war repeat the exact same "impartial observations" at the exact same time?

It's because they get their news from the exact same "impartial sources".

Whatever source you are imagining this to be, it for sure is not CNN. So it's automatically better than your source... which is.

[mishkin]

Alastor, do you support the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I seriously don't know what your position is on this matter.

[Alastor]

Alastor, do you support the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I seriously don't know what your position is on this matter.

I will choose to take this question in good faith, though I hope you can see it can be taken otherwise and although I have answered it already many times, I will answer it again. No, I do not support the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Not only is it a war and as such a humanitarian disaster, it also doesn't benefit me and mine in any way. The opposite in fact. So why would I possibly support it? On the other hand, I also don't believe that this was an unprovoked conflict. I believe that our leadership in the west absolutely provoked it and bears a significant level of responsibility for this calamity that IS hurting me and mine financially and IS endangering my region of the world. They have acted irresponsibly towards their constituents, with little to no regard for what is actually in Europe's geopolitical interests. Dragged us into an avoidable conflict led by genocide Joe and his military-industrial complex with all these predictable results we are seeing now. As such, my dissatisfaction and dismay is obviously targeted towards western leaders and particularly European leaders, aka my leaders, their conduct is nothing sort of treasonous as far as I am concerned. Yet, here they are trying to convince us they are in the right side of history and all this is the fault of yet another ghost of Hitler. What truly shocks me though, is the amount of people that keep on buying this narrative.

So to reiterate, do I support the invasion? No. Do I believe Russia is the devil and this war unprovoked? No. Hence, do I support our involvement in this mess? Hell no.