I think it has been taken seriously for many years.

Let me put it another way. After decades of brinkmanship and the political formations made as a consequence, what is left to do when Putin threatens us with the reality of it? Prepare more ICBMs?

If the message is that he is willing to use a strategic weapon for tactical goals, it does not change the standoff. Once you have a little bit of nuclear war, there is no limit to the response.

Read the publication of the paper that were supposed to be released when Russia won the war in Ukraine. It's clear what Putin promised Lukashenko. — Christoffer

I'd be a bit sceptical about a hypothetical "victory article" published by one side. Things that are reported by several different sources that don't rely on the same source usually can be trusted and the real details surface only later. Things that are true usually leave a large trail behind them.

If the message is that he is willing to use a strategic weapon for tactical goals, it does not change the standoff. Once you have a little bit of nuclear war, there is no limit to the response. — Paine

Of course. But then the question would be whether he ought to be allowed to have his way in Ukraine to avoid nuclear war, which would be the end for everyone. I'm not saying he ought to be allowed to have his way, but this seems to be the dilemma.

If all that would be required is a guarantee that Ukraine will never be allowed to join NATO, would that be too great a price to pay to avoid nuclear war?

And who could stand as the arbiters of such a deal? There is no tribunal set up to accept promises on this basis. I would rather count on the desire to live as a countervailing force.

Well, For me and Christoffer, what Putin does is the most interesting thing. Our countries are in a severe diplomatic crisis. Not at war like Ukraine, but still in a crisis. We haven't been part of that West you refer to. My country is the only country on Russia's Western border that a) isn't a NATO member and b) doesn't have Russian troops in it. And @Christoffer's country has a small patch of water between Russia. Both aren't in NATO, so both know how hostile Russia can be even when we don't pose a threat, that "springboard" to it. Just being a "potential" one creates the same tension. Also I can see the consequences of this crisis in my puny life too. — ssu

Yeah, and everytime I hear anything about NATO "forcing" people to join I just cringe. But when I mention that Sweden and Finland are considering it and that there's no force involved, only considerations of our safety towards the threats from Putin and Russia, it's like... "well, not Sweden and Finland, but everyone else is forced by US imperialism". Ugh... Understanding that geopolitics is complex does not equal forcing a point of view onto every topic available. The US might have secondary agendas with NATO, but NATO doesn't operate by the US alone and it's not even close to a priority for NATO to do any of that. It is a defensive alliance, it's about security for members not able to stand up against unstable nations or leaders who have superior military power. It also doesn't matter what NATO did decades ago compared to how it operates today. It's almost like saying that Sweden might have a different agenda with joining NATO because we had a vast empire a few hundred years ago. What I'm interested in is the current operation and agendas of nations, leaders and people today. Because agendas and people can change, for the better or for the worse over the course of history. Not taking into account the historical aspect when making arguments creates a situation where people can just make whatever argument possible or dismiss arguments however they want with just picking something random from history to "support" their argument. Like dismissing everything I said because Sweden was questionably "neutral" during WWII by sending iron to nazi Germany's war machine. It becomes a maelstrom of bullshit.

The only thing that matters is where we are today and the only historical aspect that matters is how we got here, but that's not what we are today. Ukraine is for example not the same nation today as it was just five years ago, but people create arguments like this, jumping back and forth between how they are today and how they were in 2014, based on what fits their argument for the moment. It's a frustratingly stupid angle to discuss from.

Just to give one example, I just spent my children's school holidays last week next to the Russian border as our summerplace is only 10km from the border. We went up to the border to a small shopping center that was intended to serve Russian tourists. There naturally weren't any tourists, as the ruble has collapsed. Nor are there the vast amounts of Russian trucks that few years ago crossed the border coming and going and made huge lines on the border (because Russian border control is, let's say, bureaucratic). Now it was all as silent as it was when there was the Soviet Union. Even then there was the odd Soviet truck crossing the border. Now nothing. You literally can see what the term "sanctions" really mean in reality. Now the government is advising people to avoid any kind of travelling to Russia.

Now in our countries likely the discussion of joining NATO will start at earnest. Especially Finns have tried to push it away and thought that all is well with the eastern neighbor relations. But we've been just fooling ourselves. So this crisis isn't over and hopefully you understand that just what Vlad decides to do or how he react does matter here. — ssu

Yes, the relations with Russia were "good" in terms of its people and the cities etc. I've been thinking of vacation going to Russia and it has felt like things are pretty good, even if I've always thought Putin was unstable. But now things are in the toilet. There have been worries about how jets, submarines and ships have broken our sea borders many times and the political relations have been worsening for many years, but I'd never believed Putin to be this fucking stupid, with this increase in tensions. I was never in favor of NATO, but Putin has pushed me to be pretty much pro NATO. There's no United States influencing me or convincing me of forcing me to rethink joining NATO, it is all Putin's stupidity and dreams of empire informing me that his mental health is in the toilet and you cannot defend rationally against a delusional narcissistic despot who threatens with nuclear weapons. You need a good defense alliance and you need a plan to take that fucker out, just like it was with any other dictator in the 20th century who people today think about like: "why didn't people see what was coming? Why didn't anyone kill them early on?" Well, this is it and if something serious happens, if his "New World Order" doesn't come to pass and he snaps and want to take the world with him, that could very well be the moment people ask that question again. At least I thought that thought and can be proud that I didn't bend over to his propaganda or treated him as a rational person.

Of course, I hope neither of that happens. But he has stepped over a line where the contingency plan is clear. And the crimes he commits in Ukraine at the moment and the severity of his threats should be enough foundation for the removal of his existential right. If he literally could take the world with him as a fuck you for his own failures, that is enough to warrant an extreme solution to Putin.

Until then, I gladly joining NATO as well as @ssu. If war hits our borders, this time, you will not be alone, this time we will fight side by side against the fucker. But hopefully some random, unknown security guard close to Putin realize what is happening to the world and just ends him.

Not sure what point you are trying to make. NATO could make an executive decision to refrain from further intervention and sanctions and let the Russia/ Ukraine war unfold as it will, or capitulate and try to renegotiate on the basis of the promise to refuse to include Ukraine in NATO.

I'd be a bit sceptical about a hypothetical "victory article" published by one side. Things that are reported by several different sources that don't rely on the same source usually can be trusted and the real details surface only later. Things that are true usually leave a large trail behind them. — ssu

Yes, this is why I'm careful about it. But if it's state media, by order of Putin as the declaration of victory over Ukraine as it reads, then the reasoning might very well be in line with Putin's reasoning. It reads very much like parts reasonable thinking against the west and partially totally bonkers delusional empire dreaming. And this kind of weird back and forth seems exactly what to expect from a seasoned political figure who's become a narcissistic delusional authoritarian despot.

But I think that since no one has accurately been able to confirm its validity as being a kind of manifesto from Putin's perspective, we haven't seen it being used in news reports yet. And I don't know how if it's possible to conclude how accurate it is without more sources.

But if it is... it's pretty telling.

For me and Christoffer, what Putin does is the most interesting thing. — ssu

I find him very troubling. His annexation of Crimea seemed to me at the time like thumbing his nose at the liberal world order, calling their bluff. "Suppose," he seemed to say, "Suppose I don't play nice. Suppose I just take what I want. What are you really prepared to do about it? Public statements denouncing me? I'm quaking in my boots." It's disturbing to see in modern times such a brazen commitment to violence, such a brazen disregard for norms and institutions.

And then my country elected Trump president.

I'm not blind to the problems of modern liberal capitalism, but at least it leaves some room to maneuver, to try and make something better. In the United States, for instance, there has always been some hypocrisy in our talk of freedom and equal rights; we all know that. But some of our talk, and our publicly stated beliefs, amounted to "fake it until you make it". How people behave can, over time, change how they feel and how they think.

The Trump era might have shown this doesn't really work, that American racism, narrow-mindedness, anti-intellectualism, nativism -- the whole basket -- were there all along, hiding from public view. (Imperfectly, of course, because there has always been open racism too. But ordinary people just behind the times had learned to watch their tongues.)

But it might have shown only that such a scheme is fragile, and vulnerable to loss of confidence. If people don't agree even to play along, you can lose a lot of ground quickly. (We're not exactly starting over from scratch. The United States is a better place than it was a hundred years ago.)

That's what bothers me about Putin. He behaves as a non-believer, and like Trump can encourage others to give in to their doubts about the whole game. Why shouldn't I just outlaw the opposition party? Fuck 'em. Why shouldn't I skip even that much legal nicety and just take what I want by force? You hear this sort of embrace of the primitive, of a sort of hyper-masculine approach to politics from Trumpists all the time. (Trump practically bragged about cheating at everything. So much for the social contract.)

I have two worries: (1) that they're right, that it's all been a sham (in the strange way that Trumpists and the left share a lot of talking points); (2) that our progress has been real, but it requires our belief and it turns out this is easily undermined, creating a sort of run on the liberal bank.

So Putin bothers me as another sign that the wheels are coming off.

If such an agreement was made on the basis that Russia otherwise would have destroyed the world, it negates the purpose of what NATO could secure as a threat to Russia. NATO is meaningless in a nuclear war. It is meaningful as a barrier to territorial expansion. It is a security agreement. To promise Russia that a certain nation could not apply for membership has no bearing on whether nations support them or not when they are attacked. Membership in NATO was meant to make the response automatic, if you will.

Russia is holding a people hostage and daring anybody to do something about it.

Russia is holding a people hostage and daring anybody to do something about it. — Paine

At the moment, something is being done about it; mostly imposing sanctions on Russia and supplying 'humanitarian' aid and weapons to Ukraine. Anyway it doesn't matter what we think; we'll see how it plays out.

The important thing is to learn from such things, internalize the guilt, accept one's national destiny as, well, not so manifest or exceptional after all... Digest history. — Olivier5

Well, I think a certain degree of national pride or, at least, appreciation for one’s cultural heritage, isn’t a bad thing. In fact, I am inclined to believe that culture is the basis of civilization and that to be truly cultured is to be truly civilized.

History is certainly essential in understanding not only culture but also international relations. This is why I think the best diplomats often are not newbies appointed by ignorant politicians but people whose families have pursued a diplomatic career for generations.

Incidentally, though Boris the Turk has denied that NATO will get involved in Ukraine, Gen. Sir Richard Shirreff has said:

There is a possibility that we as a nation will soon be at war with Russia. We in this country must recognise that our security starts not on the white cliffs of Dover - it starts in the forests of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

So, the UK’s borders are now in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, i.e., on Russia’s borders! Apparently, “public opinion” (informed by the mass media) may force the UK to intervene in Ukraine, after all.

Some, it seems, never learn ….

Yes, we don't know what will happen.
I do think that how we think about it is important.

Well, I think a certain degree of national pride or, at least, appreciation for one’s cultural heritage, isn’t a bad thing. — Apollodorus

I would go further and say that a certain degree of national pride (cultural heritage appreciation) is positive, desirable, even necessary. BUT, I would then undercut that by saying national pride (and sometimes cultural heritage) is a necessary delusion. What do I mean?

I love my country--not all of it uniformly, but I'm proud of America and am not embarrassed to be an American.

Yes, I know we were established as an imperial beachhead by the English Spanish, and French. Yes, I know we deliberately and inadvertently wiped out most of the native peoples who lived here prior to our arrival. Yes, I know we created a lot of wealth on the backs of slaves. Yes, I know we have been ruled by oligarchs, some more enlightened than others. Yes, I know we burnt a lot of coal, oil, wood, and gas and contributed more than our share to global warming.

But I still love my country, and I relish its cultural output--not all of it uniformly. Much of American culture was imported from elsewhere--like coffee which has never been grown here. Coffee is a very good thing.

Love of and pride in my country may be based on certain delusions, though, like: "In God We Trust", "E Pluribus Unum", "one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all", and so on. No, I don't actually think that God prefers the United States over Australia or Mongolia. I doubt God exists at all, and as for liberty and justice for all... I rest my case.

But still being American has worked out pretty well for millions of people over the last 3 centuries. Of course, it worked out spectacularly badly for millions too--all the losers in the game. But I still love my country, and I wish it well.

The same can be said for a lot of Soviet citizens, Russians, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Chinese, Japanese, Arabian, Israeli, et al citizens. People tend to like where they live, and they all maintain a mix of realistic and delusional ideas about their homeland.

Were any of us absolutely honest, realistic, and totally non-delusional, we'd have to consider blowing our brains out forthwith.

Belarus is already crumbling. At the same time as the invasion, Putin is getting sweeping reforms to the Belarusian constitution. Lukashenko will now be allowed to serve in office until 2035, when he will be 81. His prior terms will no longer count towards term limits, and since the elections are rigged, he will serve as long as he wants. The changes to the constitution closely mimic many of the changes Putin recently pushed through in Russia, and vastly enhance Lukashenko's power. It will also allow Russian military forces to permanently occupy Belarus. 30,000 Russian soldiers may be there to stay, extra insurance against future revolts. He also forced through a change to allow Russian nuclear weapons to be staged in Belarus, an added security threat to dissuade any support for dissidents.

Russia is invading Ukraine from Belarus. The Belarusian military is supplying the Russian military, and has moved its own forces to, and in some cases over the border to help with Russian logistics. What is unclear, is if some of its more professional forces have also been used in actual combat roles.

Lukashenko said he would not involve his military in combat roles, but notably did so on the same day that he somehow allowed photos to be taken at a national security council meeting, which showed an invasion of Ukraine on a board (almost comically incompetent). It's a risky move, but perhaps less risky than moving out more of the Russian soldiers currently in Belarus, who might be more reliable for keeping order, so I could definitely see it happening.

Using their most competent units in Russian uniforms would be unexceptional given past behavior by both leaders, although you have to wonder how competent those units would even be. It certainly seems like years of graft and corruption have gutted Russia's military efficacy. Unsupported air drops leading to major casualties and downed aircraft, a mysteriously mostly MIA Russian air force, stalled vehicles left abandoned and towed off by tractors, using unencrypted radio frequencies, a supply convoy stalling out because it has run out of supplies, rations marked expired in 2015- it sounds like an absolute disaster for them.

From one of my fav Euro commentators:

Thus Western unity was back, greeted by the jubilant applause of the local commentariats, grateful for the return of the transatlantic certainties of the Cold War. The prospect of entering battle in alliance with the most formidable military in world history instantly wiped out memories of a few months before, when the US abandoned with little warning not just Afghanistan but also the auxiliary troops provided by its NATO allies in support of that once-favoured American activity, ‘nation-building’. No matter also Biden’s appropriation of the bulk of the reserves of the Afghan central bank, to the tune of $7.5 billion, for distribution to those affected by 9/11 (and their lawyers), while Afghanistan is suffering a nationwide famine. Forgotten too is the wreckage left behind by recent American interventions in Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Libya – the utter destruction, followed by hasty abandonment, of entire countries and regions.

Now it is ‘the West’ again, Middle Earth fighting the Land of Mordor to defend a brave small country that only wants ‘to be like us’ and for the purpose desires no more than being allowed to walk through the open doors of NATO and the EU. Western European governments dutifully suppressed all remaining memories of the deeply rooted recklessness of American foreign policy, induced by the sheer size of the United States and its location on a continental-sized island where nobody can get to them, regardless of the mess they make when their military adventures go wrong – and, astonishingly, gave the United States, a far-away non-European declining empire with different interests and a host of problems of its own, full power of attorney in dealing with Russia over nothing less than the future of the European state system.

What about the EU? In short, as Western Europe is returned to ‘the West’, the EU is reduced to a geo-economic utility for NATO, aka the United States.... So the winner is… the United States? The longer the war drags on, due to the successful resistance of Ukrainian citizens and their army, the more it will be noticed that the leader of ‘the West’, who spoke for ‘Europe’ as the war built up, is not intervening militarily on behalf of Ukraine. The US has given itself a special leave of absence, as Biden made clear from the start. Looking at its record, this is nothing new: when their mission gets unmanageable, they withdraw to their distant island.

https://newleftreview.org/sidecar/posts/fog-of-war

i.e. imagine trusting the US, the most incompetently stupid, murderous, and cowardly nation on the face of the planet, to deal with this.

I don't know, it seems like the author of this article never heard about nuclear weapons.
Maybe it was a typo.

Yes, we don't know what will happen.
I do think that how we think about it is important. — Paine

For you, how you and others think about it is important, if it is important for you, obviously. How the decision-makers think about it is obviously important. Anyway I was just highlighting the fact that how we think about it is not important to the outcome, because it will not contribute to that, unless you get out on the street and try to start a movement in whatever direction you might think would be the way to go.

Worthy to listen one view about Putin's objectives and his money. But what is true is that war is what has made Putin. His first Presidential campaign was basically a war. War's have improved his popularity, and they have gone quite well for him. Up until now, when he didn't do the necessary groundwork...



Not seeing many Russians proudly wearing ribbon of St. George, which I remember many Russians proudly wearing when Crimea was annexed to Russia in 2014.

It's nice how you said this as though it meant anything at all as a rejoinder.

Words from 2014 from Adrian Basora, words that still apply.

Extremely well:

Putin’s Motives and Russian Grand Strategy

Vladimir Putin’s Ukraine strategy is driven by three goals: survival, empire and legacy. — ssu

I guess what I'm trying to get at is what do you think Putin (and those that support him) end game is? To become as powerful as they were before the breakup of the USSR or even more powerful? — dclements

In short, I really feel it is survival, maybe legacy, and there is no hope of any sort of empire. In the face of media attacks, economic sanctions and military operations - for example Syria. It may not be so bad for him now, but the idea is, like any good strategist, to nip this in the bud before he has nowhere to go.

It is only a rejoinder if it was pointing to a primary condition influencing what was possible.
Otherwise, carry on as you like.

I hear that. Fair enough.

Until then, I gladly joining NATO as well as ssu. If war hits our borders, this time, you will not be alone, this time we will fight side by side against the fucker. But hopefully some random, unknown security guard close to Putin realize what is happening to the world and just ends him. — Christoffer

Well, if it's just Gotland and not Åland, I hope we do the same for you and come to help!

The unfortunate fact is that after few months, assuming the war takes so long, war in Ukraine will be "the new normal". After all, we just experienced a world wide pandemic. How scary would that have sounded before? Now it's not so scary anymore.

Basically the Finnish Parliament has now to discuss the subject of NATO membership, the cat is out of the bag. What the Prime minister has acknowledged is that the parties are seriously debating the question. Until now basically both Sweden and Finland have trained as they would be in NATO, have had these agreements with NATO, are "enhanced partners" and Sweden has a long history of covert cooperation with the US, yet the neutrality fig-leaf has been OK for Russia.

Now both of our countries are sending arms to Ukraine, Russia's new enemy. Historical first for us, historical second (after sending weapons to us) for you. Yet not something that a "non-aligned/neutral" country would do. And because EU is also arming Ukraine, this actually isn't illogical as we are part of the EU. Even the Swiss have taken measures against Russia. Things are changing.

Above all, the decision actually ought to be done together, at the same time.

Of course, there is what Russia has said now and Putin basically in 2016:

“It is obvious that the admission of Finland and Sweden to NATO, which is primarily (…) a military bloc, would have serious military and political consequences that would require retaliatory steps by our country,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said at a weekly press briefing in Moscow, quoted by Russian news agencies.

Don't watch any of those. It will rot your brain. Just read newspapers. — frank

I watch CGTN and RT as well, critically. Newspapers - which ones do you read, and maybe we need a separate thread on that.

We agree on many points, however I am not sure you appreciate how economic power factors into what seem to be purely security issues. You see no problem with economic competition, but when sanctions can be used at the slightest excuse, and selectively at that, sanctions become a dirty trick in the sphere of economics and international politics. Since all leaders are "bad" to some extent, then the is bound to happen. So also with NATO, membership can be used as a bargaining tool in many ways.

Any defense of Putin and his reasons or his thinking or actions have so clearly been shown to be stupid now. He is, by every definition of the word, a bad man. — Christoffer

They are all "bad" when they authorize the support of armed rebels in countries they are not at war with, launch missile attacks on countries and accidentally kill civilians with drone strikes and so on. I do not think these actions are defensible. Of course if a country is threatened then they have the right to take action, but is this the case? Iraq? Afghanistan?

Putin is not irrational, it may be ill-advised to carry out the military operations, but just as the UN recognizes the leaders of each country, and the international community does, so do I. What is more it seems best to respect the office as they say, respect will not be lost. I don't demonize anybody.

Putin is acting in the present, not in the past imperial mindset. Have you seen a map of the USSR? There were 20 odd states that gained independence from the Russia. Is Putin going to have 20+ wars going? I think the case for empire is overstated, these are strategic moves seen as securing states critical to the security of Russia, however it will be a difficult task to carry out.

To put it bluntly I am not sure if Putins actions are right or wrong because I do not know all the facts regarding the conflict. I would not go to war, but that is because I am anti-war and I think there are a hundred different options, but I would rather have a problem go unsolved than go to war. The Russian presidents actions have to be judged based on how well it serves his countries interests, both in the long term and short term, and yes it may involve war.

Hinting at the possibility of assassination is one of the oldest threats in the book, and it is really not worthy of that office.

imagine trusting the US — StreetlightX

This is a harrowing read: George Packer's piece on the evacuation of Kabul for The Atlantic.

Of course. But then the question would be whether he ought to be allowed to have his way in Ukraine to avoid nuclear war, which would be the end for everyone. I'm not saying he ought to be allowed to have his way, but this seems to be the dilemma.

If all that would be required is a guarantee that Ukraine will never be allowed to join NATO, would that be too great a price to pay to avoid nuclear war? — Janus

Herein lies the dilemma. Some sanctions seem to justified, but having FIFA kick out Russia out of the football team is extremely ugly. There has to be a modicum of reason, you shouldn't punish everything Russia related, it will only add fuel to the fire.

Of course, if the West lets Putin take Ukraine, then it sets a nasty precedent. On the other hand, the end of the world is very, very much a worse option.

It's a delicate balance, but, I'd take it easier with the sanctions by now. If everybody plays the "strong man" politician card, we're fucked.

The latest episode in the Conflicted podcast is very interesting on the history and geopolitical background.

Borderline Post-Soviet Disorder

Incidentally @ssu, in previous episodes Aimen Dean dismisses the inside job conspiracy theory about the Russian apartment bombings, and he's a person who knows a lot about the North Caucasian jihad.

, such destruction. :( For centuries at that.
Please keep the informative comments up. :up:
Sure hope Ukraine won't become another Chechnya.
At least Grozny seems reasonably stable (at the moment), as far as I know anyway.
I guess the Russian empire took over now-Chechnya in the 1800s after having kicked other invaders out, like the then-Persians.

The deportations are the defining moment of the modern Chechen experience. Street names were changed and gravestones uprooted to pave the roads. A statue of General Yermelov, the favourite butcher of the tsars, was erected in Grozny, bearing the inscription, 'There is no people under the sun more vile and deceitful than this one.' Every Chechen over 60 can remember the deportations. A generation of Chechens were born in exile. — Chechnya: the empire strikes back (2000)