so I must be a Kremlin propagandist? — Tzeentch

Nope.

What are you expecting me to respond to that? — Tzeentch

You're supposed to consider it and respond to it, not diverge off to something else. (Name-calling and such is perhaps telling.) Unless you genuinely don't think such changes would do a thing.

so I must be a Kremlin propagandist? — Tzeentch

No, you are not, but you live within the sphere of influence of the Kremlin and as such, you may not be at liberty to criticize them much.

You're supposed to consider it and respond to it, not diverge off to something else. — jorndoe

Unless you genuinely don't think such changes would do a thing. — jorndoe

I don't think my opinions on what changes to Russia would turn it into a more preferable state are in any way relevant to the question of Ukraine, and how it could have been avoided.

(Name-calling and such is perhaps telling.) — jorndoe

You are referring to yourself that called me a Kremlin propagandist, I assume?

, ...but you live within the sphere of influence of the Kremlin ... — Olivier5

I don't live anywhere near Russia, but whatever makes you feel better.


Maybe you two should lay off the copium and come with some actual positions supported by arguments, instead of this parade of nothings.

And if you can't, maybe it's time to draw your conclusions and save yourselves some time and effort?

Here's the variation on a theme: anybody disagreeing with you is under duress!

How often do people have to disagree with you that it's going to dawn on you reasonable people can disagree without them being liars, propagandists or not at liberty to speak? You can rest assured you're more often wrong than right since whatever you know is but a tiny fraction of all the possible knowledge out there.

^{By the way, the US/Saudi Arabia relations have also been criticized by people all over (including in the US). From memory, I think Trump of all people called it out. (Maybe I'll post some sort of critique of my own here on the forum. Let me give it a think.)}

OK, well, FYI I tossed something together over at: Defendant: Saudi Arabia (poll)
A start anyway. There are also topics like heavy patriarchism/female rights, Sunni versus Shia, exploitation, Yemen, etc. If the poll says "Guilty", then there's at least some consensus here to question relations with Saudi Arabia, and that includes the US — *gah* the unholy mess of oil + economies + Middle Eastern situation + politics + sponsorships — *ough* could go up in flames.

^{Posted in Humanities and Social Sciences; wasn't really sure if that's the best spot.}

I don't think my opinions on what changes to Russia would turn it into a more preferable state are in any way relevant to the question of Ukraine, and how it could have been avoided. — Tzeentch

Want me to repeat what you were asked? (Nah.)

You are referring to yourself that called me a Kremlin propagandist, I assume? — Tzeentch

I did? Nah.

(Maybe I should forget about expecting you to honestly respond.)

I don't live anywhere near Russia — Tzeentch

I'm sorry, I confused you with another poster.

As I read this ongoing thread I am reminded of the Epilogues of War and Peace where Tolstoy talks about the origins of the War of 1812. Tolstoy takes task with the historians of his day who tried to explain the war by analyzing personalities and specific events. Giving a clear summary of Tolstoy's analysis is beyond my powers of description - but to give one example he tries to explain that mobilizing 750,000 men from multiple armies to invade Russia was beyond the will of any one person - there are large scale historical forces at work that are beyond our comprehension. I'm sure someone else can explain Tolstoy better.

Would it have been possible to avoid the ongoing horror in Ukraine? If Ukraine had yielded some territory and agreed not to join NATO - would that have led to a long term peace? Or would that have only been a temporary stopgap measure and eventually Russia would have invaded anyway? I don't know - and no one else in this forum can answer that question with any certainty. It's possible that even Putin himself could not answer that question. It's all too depressing.

Maybe this is for you: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/students/modules/hi2e1/syllabus/annales_crouzet_ppt.pptx&ved=2ahUKEwiuoMuWh-b4AhUGVvEDHfENBVkQFnoECBMQBg&usg=AOvVaw3840tJF3qVm4doi86PW-cH

That's a presentation about the Annales approach to history, also known as histoire totale.

Did you know Dostoyevski's Crime & Punishment and Tolstoy's War & Peace is a discussion around this exact point? These books were published in parts in a literary magazine (if that story is true, I heard if from someone else).

Thanks - interesting read.

My understanding (misunderstanding?) of Tolstoy is that he would say that the ultimate causes of these events are beyond mankind's comprehension - and that they are inevitable. But what do I know.

My understanding (misunderstanding?) of Tolstoy is that he would say that the ultimate causes of these events are beyond mankind's comprehension - and that they are inevitable. But what do I know. — EricH

Interesting. That would be a version of historical determinism, ie what Popper called historicism. The idea that men don't do history.

Like all stories, multiple interpretations are possible but I think I agree, by and large, with that interpretation. Trump didn't win but for all the conditions making it possible for him to win. From the economic situation, political corruption, campaigning decisions by the DNC, socio-cultural history, demographics, gerrymandering up to that truck not crushing him like an ant 10 years ago.

Would it have been possible to avoid the ongoing horror in Ukraine? If Ukraine had yielded some territory and agreed not to join NATO - would that have led to a long term peace? Or would that have only been a temporary stopgap measure and eventually Russia would have invaded anyway? I don't know - and no one else in this forum can answer that question with any certainty. It's possible that even Putin himself could not answer that question. It's all too depressing. — EricH

Waging war has worked well for him in the past. It would seem reasonable that he would turn to that same tool again.

But I've also thought about the reasons wars happen. One is war profiteers. They can't start wars, but they can grease the tracks. Same with basic human bloody-mindedness. Or maybe it's not human. Maybe just the male part of the species is like that, and not even all of them, but again, that alone won't usually cause a war, but it facilitates.

The problem with looking at profiteering and aggression is that these elements are there in every war, so they don't tell you anything about specific wars. For that, you do need to look at personalities and recent events

My limited experience in life tells me people frequently fail to give weight to things like the whims and predilections of powerful people. No one wants to think it could be that simple and stupid. No, it has to be like chess or something.

Not really. Not usually. Often, the answers are right on the surface and if you look too deeply, you're getting further from the truth, not closer.

One of the things I notice is that people pour their own angst and fears into interpretations of events. Never a good idea, not if seeing the truth is the goal.

Would it have been possible to avoid the ongoing horror in Ukraine? If Ukraine had yielded some territory and agreed not to join NATO - would that have led to a long term peace? — EricH

The United States has been moving towards incorporation of Ukraine into western power structures since at least the Bush administration without pause. Every subsequent administration has doubled down on this policy.

Russia has since 2008 made clear that turning Ukraine into a western bulwark would be a considered an existential threat to Moscow, and a red line.

If the United States was completely committed to incorporating Ukraine, how much agency did the Ukrainians really have?

In my opinion, it should have been the European nations to veto both NATO and EU membership to Ukraine, and force the United States to cease stirring up trouble in their backyards.

I think this conflict was entirely avoidable if the United States had accepted the fact that Ukraine was a bridge too far.

Would it have led to long-term peace? We can't be sure, I think it's certainly possible. In the time between 1989 and 2008 relations between Europe and Russia were improving, economic ties between the two regions were expanding. Ironically, Putin was seen by many western politicians as a sensible leader.

Would Russia have invaded Ukraine, sacrificing all of this good will, if it did not have sufficient reason to fear Ukraine would slip into the western sphere? This is admittedly conjecture, but I don't think so.

Miscellanea ...

KGB archives document Red Army’s atrocities against Ukrainian village in USSR after 1945 (Paul A Goble; EP; Jan 5, 2021)

It took Red Army ‘a decade’ to subdue Western Ukraine after 1945, Russian specialist on Ukraine warns Kremlin (Paul A Goble; EP; Jan 21, 2022)

Russia’s Brutal War in the Donbas Proves Ukraine Can’t Win (Daniel Davis; 19FortyFive; Jul 5, 2022)

High death tolls in the past. A bulging Russia doesn't seem to sit well with Ukraine. A Russian takeover isn't peaceful, and what follows could be...not so good. Don't think they're likely to just give up. As some Russian commentator mentioned, they're not fighting for a person, Zelenskyy, or to attack other nations, they're fighting to repel the invaders.

relatives of the convicts told Important Stories that they began to recruit prisoners from the St Petersburg colonies to travel to the Donbass as part of the Wagner PMC
After that, about 50 convicts were taken from colonies No 6 and No 7 to the Rostov region, the publication wrote, citing sources — gulagu.net: prisoners with “combat experience” were taken out of colonies in the Nizhny Novgorod region and Mordovia (Jul 8, 2022)

A Moscow court sentenced deputy Alexei Gorinov to 7 years in jail for criticizing Russia’s military actions in Ukraine (Jul 8, 2022)

"Special operation", not "war", dammit. (Yeah, children have been among the casualties.)


According to the Donetsk People's Republic, 2356 have been killed in action and 9713 wounded in action, in 2022:

Review of the social and humanitarian situation that has developed on the territory of the Donetsk People's Republic as a result of hostilities in the period from 02 to 08 July 2022 (Jul 9, 2022)

(The wording here isn't exactly unbiased, take with a grain of salt as usual.)

The end of the "inglorious stupid clown" who is responsible for tens of thousands of lives in this senseless conflict in Ukraine. — Oleg Deripaska (Jul 7, 2022)

The clown is going. He is one of the main ideologues of the war against Russia until the last Ukrainian. — Vyacheslav Volodin (Jul 7, 2022)

Do not seek to destroy Russia. Russia cannot be destroyed. You can break your teeth on it - and then choke on them. — Maria Zakharova (Jul 7, 2022)

the logical result of British arrogance — Dmitry Medvedev (Jul 8, 2022)

:brow:

Well, obviously it's Russia being attacked, not Ukraine, Russia is the victim here, and Johnson is a murderer of Ukrainians, it's others that are arrogant, not Putin, but all will fail. (Nevermind who's doing the bombing on the ground, and what happens to other voices.)
People don't have to like Johnson, many agree he's a clown already, to see through the propaganda. Broad targets, mothers of Russian soldiers, Ukrainians, ... I predict it'll be taken in, lapped up, and propagated.


Maybe it's a thing of his?

Putin Challenges the West (Again) (Jan 27, 2022)

Putin challenges West to fight Russia on the battlefield: ‘Let them try’ (Jul 8, 2022)

Wouldn't it be more fruitful/forward-looking to try building relationships?

Kazakhstan is apparently taking an opportunity to sneak off?

Kazakhstan withdraws from CIS agreement on currency committee – UNIAN (Jul 10, 2022)

I guess Georgia left a good decade ago.

Marc Bennetts opines:

End of the bromance: why Xi is wary of going to Moscow (Jul 7, 2022)

Not sure I'd be so quick to assess. Besides, maybe Xi just doesn't like anyone. :)

Messy.

Since the situation has not really changed, there's not much further to analyse.

As predicted, the West is calibrating its support to Ukraine for a slow loss (to avoid nuclear weapons being used), and, also as predicted, the shoulder launch missiles are not effective as a basis for counter offensives or defending artillery, and the conversation has nearly completely switched to artillery and range considerations with the euphoria of the flood of Javelines and imminent victory a distant dream.

Nevertheless, propaganda would certainly degrade the conversation and I think warrant at least responding to.

Kazakhstan is apparently taking an opportunity to sneak off?

Kazakhstan withdraws from CIS agreement on currency committee – UNIAN (Jul 10, 2022) — jorndoe

Zero reason to believe this means much of anything.

Just a few months before the war Russian special forces deployed to Kazakhstan to support the Kazakhstan government against a riot / coup attempt.

End of the bromance: why Xi is wary of going to Moscow (Jul 7, 2022) — jorndoe

We have zero clue what Xi actually thinks and the idea that what the West thinks morally about things (what seems to be called "politics" in this article) actually matters to Xi is farcical.

Furthermore, Russia has the second largest arms industry in the world and is trained on all its own equipment, has no shortage of equipment, and mostly Chinese arms are copies of Russian / Soviet designs (often under license). There is zero reason to believe Russia could even make any effective use of arms coming from China.

What Russia needs from China are industrial equipment, industrial services and IT services and systems, and as long as it can get this from China then sanctions have essentially no chance of causing any major disruption to the Russian economy (may cause a recession and lot's of inconvenience, but that's very different to critical capital equipments and infrastructure and industrial maintenance services being unavailable).

Chechen parliament speaker Magomed Daudov says that first and foremost, Chechen battalions in Ukraine are fighting a jihad to defend Islam. — jorndoe

You can find not only US state senators and congress people, but also at the federal level, who have said all sorts of absolutely crazy and un realistic things.

It would be maybe worth discussing if it was Kadyrov, but even then it doesn't really matter much either, if it's just sabre rattling and exaggeration and playing to his base.

None of this seems to have much relevance at all nor form part of any thesis.

If you just want to drop in little trivia or propaganda, supporting no argument just "lookie here" and "oh, over there", just go on twitter or write a blog.

As for the actual situation in Ukraine.

The West has backed off further escalation and current weapons supplies do not seem to even match consumption rates of ammunition. The soviet calibre seem to have run out or about to (according even to Ukraine) and the West has not even supplied sufficient NATO calibre replacements.

Unfortunately, even though the West has effectively given up on Ukraine and is working on deescalation, taking ascension of Finland and Sweden in NATO as some sort of Ukrainian victory, there seems at the moment no resolution feasible of the war.

All sides can be blamed morally for that, but it is the current reality.

Since the escalation cycle has been ended by the West, Ukraine has very low possibility of military victory of any sort nor potential for a stalemate.

The media focuses on disparity of one weapons system at a time, generally content when there is some at least symbolic victory of at least some of that system being sent to Ukraine, but all this is nearly entirely meaningless if Russia has overwhelming force in both quantity and types of systems (such as air power).

For sure, Russia has not matched Western expectations of casualties of personnel and equipment in fighting small militaries in the middle east, but it seems pretty clear now that taking casualties of equipment and people is not a problem for Russia in continuing the war, and Ukrainian losses are now even admitted by Ukraine to be far higher.

Sadly, Ukrainian leadership did not see the best time for a negotiated peace was at the start (or before) the war, and completely overestimated the effective control of popularity on social media to dictate Western policy: social media popularity dictates policy insofar as it happens to already be the chosen Western policy. I think the long social media campaign by Ukraine for a no-fly zone is the best example of that; political capital and intellectual energy was spent on that rather than diplomacy or other things certainly due to the belief that enough likes and calls for the idea would result in it's implementation (rather than just humiliating "yeah, no").

Without any realistic prospect of "defeating" Russia on the battlefield, nor with sanctions, and no political possibility of compromising (which, certainly, Russia can be blamed about as well in the current situation; just the difference is they are taking territory and don't need to care as much about compromise), and without further military escalation by the West, the war will unfortunately simply drag on until Russia runs out of steam to continue advancing, which could be soon or in years to come.

In parallel to the war, as further sanctions seem now completely off the table, and the political mood now is workarounds, the global economy will simply adapt to the sanctions situation making them less and less effective over time.

In short, prognosis is more war. Sadly.

I agree. Putin could stop any time he wants to. He continues because it's benefitting him.

I agree. Putin could stop any time he wants to. He continues because it's benefitting him. — Tate

Yes, this is the political realism perspective.

The core problem with Western policy is that if you're not willing to go and fight with your own armies, then, by definition, it's not a moral imperative to fight the Russians.

However, by essentially weaponising the moralising to justify as much escalation as possible, within the bounds of the common sense political realism that a avoiding a nuclear war is the actual moral imperative in the situation, you end up with this strange beast of an aborted escalation: Ukraine is encouraged, financed, supplied to fight but can't win; sanctions are half measures (not to say full measures would be effective) and may very well hurt the West more than Russia; and no diplomacy is possible as each side has paid too high a cost to let go ... Russia of real land and Ukraine of their fantasies.

Of course, people can blame Putin for equal or larger moral failings all they want, but assuming Putin "wants to expand the Empire" then Western policies have essentially been a gift to Putin -- not doing anything about the neo-Nazi's secures domestic support for the war; encouraging Ukraine to enter total war and not negotiate allows Putin to make super minimum offers that, once rejected, justify doing things the hard way, and, of course, giving Ukrainians enough support to hurt Russia ... but not enough to win in any military sense, may indeed kill some Russians but it does not effect policy makers nor the eventual outcome much -- the Russians will extract their revenge later ... or right now in shutting off the gas.

Regretting the immorality of humankind is one activity. Trying to understand the world is another.

The second activity is better done by hypothesizing, gathering data, and allowing a likely picture to take shape. I'm relatively lucky when it comes to this because I'm not weighted down by hatred of any particular group of people in the world.

Regretting the immorality of humankind is one activity. Trying to understand the world is another. — Tate

Agreed.

However, what I would add to that is that the only moral goals are feasible goals.

Political realism is not an anti-moral or even amoral perspective, it's simply trying to choose the best possible achievable outcome depending on one's morality. Of course what's real and what's moral is up for debate.

What is comfortable and easy is of course to ignore both subjects, and live in a fantasy that has nothing to do with reality, and care nothing for the troubles of others.

However, what I would add to that is that the only moral goals are feasible goals. — boethius

Sometimes justice is just unavailable. You don't give up on justice because of that, though. You keep struggling, because it might become feasible tomorrow.

Sometimes justice is just unavailable. You don't give up on justice because of that, though. You keep struggling, because it might become feasible tomorrow. — Tate

Completely agreed.

What is feasible in the far future is fairly wide open. The world has significantly changed from the distant past, and it is reasonable to assume can be significantly different in the far future.

The complicated part is working backwards to what is actually effective to do today to contribute to a better feasible future.

And, as you say, just hanging on in case circumstances change is morally superior to giving in. Again, total agreement there.

Furthermore, even if the "most feasible" best option had a 1% chance of success (that our chances of extinction or AI enslavement or something was 99%) ... it's still the best option.

Feasible doesn't necessarily mean probable, just at least some chance of working and not delusional.

The best moral choice is whatever the "most feasible" option is. From a moral point of view, it does not matter how probable the most feasible way to achieve the best moral objectives are, only that other choices are worse.

How I conceptualised this when I was younger was that if I agree the goal of continuing humanity was paramount, if not "the" moral imperative certainly up there and should be compatible with other moral imperatives, then it does not matter if my actions extend the continuation of humanity a billion years, a million, a thousand, a hundred, a day or a second or a micro second.

If I say continuation of humanity is a good thing, then I must choose the actions that continue humanity (on some net present value probability distribution) a second than not. If that's just consuming less resources myself, the best I can do, then so be it. If I can contribute more, great.

The best moral choice is whatever the "most feasible" option is. From a moral point of view, it does not matter how probable the most feasible way to achieve the best moral objectives are, only that other choices are worse. — boethius

True. Here there may be differing cultural values that afflict regional problems. As an American, I was taught early the saying "Give me liberty, or give me death." And as it happens, this is exactly how I feel.

Maybe there are places in the world where this attitude would not be helpful. What's needed here is not a re-education of the American people. We are what we need to be. We are what circumstances have made us. We aren't going to change. And furthermore, we are not wrong about what's right and moral for us.

What's needed is a global government which can tune into the particular aspects of regional conflicts and deal with them effectively. That does not exist yet.

Wouldn't it be great if both parties ran out of bombs? Not likely to happen.

Military briefing: is the west running out of ammunition to supply Ukraine? (Jul 11, 2022)
Ukraine claims arms depot attack in occupied Kherson with Himars rockets (Jul 12, 2022)

A private company had 64 howitzers lying around; probably made a fortune off them.



Yeah, no end in sight. :/ The Ukrainians aren't likely to give up (earlier posts); Putin's Russia has become committed, seemingly to take over as much of Ukraine as they can (earlier posts).
Ukraine, even if well-armed, is a bit like sitting ducks, the defenders, nowhere else to go; Russia, the attackers, aren't being invaded, have a certain freedom of movement, and they're learning to use it, or will.

Diplomatic avenues have been fruitless.
For Ukraine, it would be like going half way to giving up, heavy concessions, and with what guarantees/consequences? It seems they're not down with repeating history nor with Putin; previous concessions didn't stop the bombing anyway.
For Russia, why talk when you can take? Putin, Peskov, and team might as well hire some good actors as diplomats; whatever they say will be dictated by military feasibilities in any case, Kremlin war strategists.
For diplomacy to have a chance, something would have to change.

As it looks, Putin's Russia has the moral low ground. At least someone is standing up to the bombing bully.

There are any number of reasons that others distrust Russia. I'm sure many others have reached the same impression through years of observations.

A new strategy for Moscow During this year’s State Duma race, Russia’s ruling party hopes to split the opposition, deceive inattentive voters, and (as always) mobilize state employees (Mar 26, 2021)

Nine Million Russians 'Deprived Of Right To Be Elected' (Jun 23, 2021)

No OSCE observers for Russian parliamentary elections following major limitations (Aug 4, 2021)

This Is a Uniquely Perilous Moment (Mar 12, 2022)

Humorous...sort of... :)

Doppelganger Dirty Trick In Russian Election Spawns Online Mockery (Sep 8, 2021)

(would have raised some eyebrows/investigations in the countries I call home)

Russia is a prominent (nuke-wielding) power on the world stage, apparently seeking respect. Yet, not so interested in building trust, which would go a long way to improving things, unlike fear. Not about others imposing their cultures onto Russian people, but about Russian relations, friendships, trying. What's the deal...? Would Russians see willingness to negotiate, compromise, seeking friendships, as a weakness, and that's enough...? Don't know, but some have suggested such like.

Russia and Ukraine near to grain export deal: UN, Turkey

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/7/13/russia-and-ukraine-near-to-grain-export-agreement-un-turkey

That's a bit of good news, given the horrors here. When this will end, who knows. But it's still on going, it's been way too long and way too dangerous.