In case this hasn't been posted yet, I'll link it below, with excerpts.

Supporting Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic Aspirations: As the United States and Allies reaffirmed in the June 2021 NATO Summit Communique, the United States supports Ukraine’s right to decide its own future foreign policy course free from outside interference, including with respect to Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO. We also remain committed to assisting Ukraine with ongoing reforms.

Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership

Worth remembering that Russia was indeed led to believe that NATO wouldn't advance beyond 1990 borders.

Doesn't excuse Putin's war crimes. But if we're serious, we have to look at relevant antecedents. This was from last September.

Zelensky was asked about his reflections on the Ukraine's ability to repel the invasion of Kyiv.

Too many Ukrainians, Zelensky told us, died not in battle, but “in the act of torture.” Children got frostbite hiding in cellars; women were raped; elderly people died of starvation; pedestrians were shot down in the street. “How will these people be able to enjoy the victory?” he asked. “They will not be able to do to the Russian soldiers what [the Russians] did to their children or daughters … so they do not feel this victory.” — The Atlantic

I think he (Putin) will portray this as he has been correct all along. See how treacherous Finland and Sweden have been? The West is out to get fortress Russia all along! That's the official line in Moscow. Old puny enemies are gathering up. So likely we will be portrayed as nazis too who discriminate ethnic Russians and are the worst scum on Earth. — ssu

Of course, Putin's entire way of handling any issue is to turn it into being "planned all along". Some experts are already pointing out that we are being compared to a Hitler alliance in Russian media. It's laughable really.

Thanks for the info. I was trying to give a fair hearing to the idea that the Ukraine invasion was provoked or partially provoked by the US. The more I learn, the more absurd that seems.

Do you agree with that? Or do you still think provocation was part of the story here? — frank

Provocation is there, but not in any concept other than in the delusions of Putin and Russia. Nato will never attack Russia so any idea from them about acting to be secure from that risk is pure nonsense. Russia even wanted to join Nato back in the day but was rejected due to an unstable democracy and society.

I maintain that there are two parts to all of this. Finland and Sweden joining Nato are a prestige hit on Russia, losing neutral borders and key sea areas of the Baltic sea. While old soviet nations joining Nato means blocking any attempt to restore the old empire's geographical borders.

Ukraine was on the edge of joining Nato and the EU, blocking any attempt by Russia to restore a major key area of the old Russian empire. So this invasion was not any provocation other than a delusion of Ukraine already being "part of Russia". This is also the major insanity that made the Russian army fail so far. They thought Ukraine would willingly accept Russian rule, but instead, Ukraine showed that they don't want anything to do with Russia. This was "news" to the delusionals in Russia.

But to the point of US provoking, I'm interested to hear what you mean by that? Nato is still misunderstood, almost intentionally (so it's easier to be apologetic to Russia), and people don't understand article 5 or how the process of joining or how decisions are made within Nato. Some think Nato is being controlled by the US and when pointing out that it's a rule by the many, they still position that everyone is being controlled by the US anyway, which is batshit insane. Sweden and Finland joining Nato are being described as an act "controlled by the US" and I just think that idea is delusionally indoctrinated bullshit by people unable to hold more thoughts than their own ideological skewed ideas in mind. We want it because we have fucking lunatics in Russia sitting on military might that we need to be able to shoot down if needed.

There's no provocation that is reasonable as a reason for Russia's acts either in Ukraine or elsewhere. Russia is pretty much proven to be a war criminal at this point, on the brink of genocidal acts. Anyone defending these acts should take a long hard look in the mirror and either reject it or accept being part of it by defending it. It was a long time since we had this clear cut good and bad dichotomy in a war conflict and I, as mentioned earlier, position that we've had too many years of grey moral acts on the world stage where proxy wars and corporate neoliberal immoral acts made people confused as to how to act in this modern world, that we forgot that we can actually have a time where we have a delusional dictator murdering people and invading major nations.

I think that people who are questioning the moral high ground that the world exists upon against Russia forget that the peacetime after world war II is unique in historical measurements and that we take for granted how our modern world won't see a maniac leader like Putin cut from the same cloth as figures like Hitler, rise to power.

We think that world war II is in the past, that people are smarter and won't accept that kind of bullshit anymore. But that kind of comfort is extremely dangerous and I think this war is an example of that apathy. We either condemn the acts, stand up against such crimes, or let our apathy fuck everything up again to let our children condemn our actions and behaviors.

I will not be part of future analyses of stupid human behavior, I will be part of the ones who stood against such bullshit. History will show who's stupid and gullible.

Putin was mainly provoked by the fact that Ukraine was successfully independent.

Long interview with Zelenskyy published in the Atlantic Monthly — Wayfarer

:up:

Yes, I posted this earlier, however it looks like people don't read all the posts and maybe that is a good thing.

The Agreement refuses to recognize Crimea as Russian territory, and promises to Ukraine to put extreme pressure on Russia until they get it back. Read the agreement.

Putin was worried, and said so in an interview, that if Ukraine joined NATO, then, under the cover of protection, launched an operation to re-take Crimea, he would not be able to do anything. So, the story goes, he had to act now.

Also, he knows as, if I know it, that Ukraine, that passed laws limiting the number of Russian books to be brought into Ukraine, and other anti - Russian policies and epithets, he was sending troops into a nation of Russian haters, and would not be welcome.

Many of the statements here are 'unsupported assumptions'. I have underlined mine.

Having trouble threading together these two narratives myself. The threat of Russia driving countries into the arms of the world's largest military alliance for protection apparently comes from the same Russia whose incompetent command, out-of-date weapons, and brainless rank-and-file are being outmatched by the world's 22ndth largest military. — Isaac

There are, it seems, different ways of argumentation, which we should be aware, those supported by facts, those by emotion (images) and by ideology. There is no point trying to convince, but meet the argument best we can.

2. Types of Arguments
Arguments come in many kinds. In some of them, the truth of the premises is supposed to guarantee the truth of the conclusion, and these are known as deductive arguments. In others, the truth of the premises should make the truth of the conclusion more likely while not ensuring complete certainty; two well-known classes of such arguments are inductive and abductive arguments (a distinction introduced by Peirce, see entry on C.S. Peirce). Unlike deduction, induction and abduction are thought to be ampliative:the conclusion goes beyond what is (logically) contained in the premises. Moreover, a type of argument that features prominently across different philosophical traditions, and yet does not fit neatly into any of the categories so far discussed, are analogical arguments. In this section, these four kinds of arguments are presented. The section closes with a discussion of fallacious arguments, that is, arguments that seem legitimate and “good”, but in fact are not.[2]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/argument/

Join Nato? Because they had too much corruption up until just recently. They kicked out the pro-Russian people and started working against state and societal corruption. Nato demands a core focus on democratic stability so they couldn't have joined earlier. And this is probably one reason why Putin acted to invade now, the timetable became shorter, if not now, then never and he would never have had any chance of reclaiming Ukraine. The problem for Putin is that he sees Western standards as weak, so I guess he thought that when the pro-Russian people were kicked out, Ukraine would have sunken into the decadence of the west and would be easy to invade, but if he actually understood history, then he would know that people fighting for freedom are the fiercest of all. — Christoffer

Where's the story that Ukraine was making headway with it's anti-corruption drive?

You guys are grasping at straws now. — Olivier5

1. There's no "you guys", that's just your association;
2. That whole exchange with Christoffer was cringeworthy;
3. I understood what you were saying and gave you the charitable interpretation so there was no "grasping at straws", where I even agreed with you;
4. Maybe stop being belligerent just because I mostly disagree with you and keep thinking and reading properly.

This has been pointed out several times. Also, Sweden and Finland stayed neutral for decades precisely because they didn't want to provoke Russia but now we have Swedes and Fins arguing on this board that such a statement didn't provoke Russia, that NATO expansion isn't a strategic threat because everything Western is totally benign and we're free to choose because "sovereignty". :chin:

So, don't bother.

There are already reports of Russian troops digging up recently buried Ukrainians and incinerating them with mobile incinerators in Mariupol. If they take Mariupol there will be 100,000 civilians to account for. Many are likely already starving to death.

Maybe stop being belligerent just because I mostly disagree with you and keep thinking and reading properly. — Benkei

Ditto. Also, it's a good idea to answer questions.

wtf? What's that about? Why? Got a link too?

There are already reports of Russian troops digging up recently buried Ukrainians and incinerating them with mobile incinerators in Mariupol. If they take Mariupol there will be 100,000 civilians to account for. Many are likely already starving to death. — Punshhh

Don't say the word 'genocide' though, or the Jews are going to feel insulted, as per @Benkei. It's "only" a very very large mass murder.

I was already writing this before I saw your last post, I will include a link at the bottom. I’m not saying this is actually happening. But there are numerous reports in the media.


I’ve already said this, but I think it is worth highlighting as in my eyes it may be a route into an understanding of why there is confusion, and opposing arguments around the causes, motivations and drivers which brought Europe (Russia included) to this crisis.

The ideology that Western freedoms are good, inviolable, liberating, right. Is taken as gospel by many in the West. This includes the notion that welcoming Eastern European countries into European institutions is an act of benevolence and kindness. That it is so good and progressive, that it could not be seen, or conceived of as being anything else.

That we are helping them, rather than expanding our empire. Blind to the fact that others might see it from the position of an expansion of empire and influence.

https://inews.co.uk/news/russian-troops-digging-up-bodies-ukrainian-civilians-preventing-burials-mariupol-officials-1578550

Nato will never attack Russia so any idea from them about acting to be secure from that risk is pure nonsense. — Christoffer

Fortunate then that no one has made any such claim. Again - will anyone invade America? No. Does America have security concerns? Yes. So in what world does 'Security Concerns'='Risk of being invaded'?

I'm interested to hear what you mean by that? Nato is still misunderstood, almost intentionally (so it's easier to be apologetic to Russia), and people don't understand article 5 or how the process of joining or how decisions are made within Nato. Some think Nato is being controlled by the US and when pointing out that it's a rule by the many, they still position that everyone is being controlled by the US anyway, which is batshit insane. Sweden and Finland joining Nato are being described as an act "controlled by the US" and I just think that idea is delusionally indoctrinated bullshit by people unable to hold more thoughts than their own ideological skewed ideas in mind. We want it because we have fucking lunatics in Russia sitting on military might that we need to be able to shoot down if needed. — Christoffer

This is lovely. The way you use 'understand' in place of 'agree' - as if the matter were settled already and those with a different perspective merely hadn't given it enough thought. and the genuine incredulity in "...when pointing out that it's a rule by the many, they still position that...", like "Even after I told them, they still continued to think something other than I think!". What model do you have of disagreement? Does the concept even have a place in your world view or is everything simply the way it seems to you to be and everyone else just too stubborn to see it?

There's no provocation that is reasonable as a reason for Russia's acts either in Ukraine or elsewhere. Russia is pretty much proven to be a war criminal at this point, on the brink of genocidal acts. — Christoffer

Yes, let's not worry about trivialities like the rule of law and fair trials, they're for those who are ideologically committed to an understanding they might be wrong. Better to just have a quick look on social media, see who's guilty and then put a hole in their head.

Anyone defending these acts should take a long hard look in the mirror and either reject it or accept being part of it by defending it. — Christoffer

I agree. Anyone defending these acts is clearly monstrous...Oh, sorry I see now you mean anyone you think are defending these acts ...

It was a long time since we had this clear cut good and bad dichotomy — Christoffer

Explain the 'good'. The 'bad' I get - unjustified invasion, killing civilians, denying easy humanitarian corridors... The 'bad' is super easy to see. But the 'good'? Who's 'good' here and what have they done to deserve the epithet?

I will not be part of future analyses of stupid human behavior, I will be part of the ones who stood against such bullshit. History will show who's stupid and gullible. — Christoffer

Yes, they'll probably erect a statue of you.

AFP: Thousands of faithful attended the “Way of the Cross” prayer service, presided over by Pope Francis at Rome’s Colosseum on Friday, a ceremony overtaken by the war in Ukraine.

It was the first time the traditional event on Good Friday, which marks the day Jesus Christ died on the cross in the Christian calendar, was held at the Roman monument since 2019, due to the Covid pandemic.

The pope, who has repeatedly condemned the conflict in Ukraine, and has called for an Easter ceasefire, prayed that the “adversaries shake hands” and “taste mutual forgiveness”.

“Disarm the raised hand of brother against brother,” he said.

Among the families who were entrusted with carrying the crucifix at each of the 14 stations of the cross were two women, one Russian and one Ukrainian, who are life-long friends.

The women carried the cross during one portion of the Way of the Cross, the traditional procession that commemorates the 14 stations of Jesus’ suffering and death, from his condemnation to his burial.

But the Vatican’s initiative, intended as a gesture of reconciliation in the face of the war that began February 24, was not well received by Ukrainian officials.

On Tuesday, the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, Bishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk, denounced an “inappropriate, premature and ambiguous idea, which does not take into account the context of Russia’s military aggression”.

For his part, the Ukrainian ambassador to the Holy See said he “shared the general concern”.

In a sign of the sensitivity of the issue, the Ukrainian media boycotted the broadcast of the ceremony, while the Vatican had added commentary in Ukrainian and Russian for the broadcast.

In the crowd at the event, Anastasia Goncharova, an 18-year-old tourist from Kyiv, said “I don’t think it’s a really good idea because we are no longer brother nations. They are killing our children, they are raping our children, stealing our house. It’s disgusting." [...]

Could be the real story. Could be made up to show that the Ukrainian made Neptune works deter future amphibious assaults. They did just get Harpoon missiles from the UK, although those are fairly antiquated, so the Neptune might be more likely. — Count Timothy von Icarus

There is a sort of indirect acknowledgement of the missile attack version from Russia in the fact that they struck a factory near Kiev that produced Neptune missiles the following night.

I agree that the mass executions of civilians, rapes, and looting reported don't seem organized. It's more indicative of terrible discipline, maybe ethnically motivated in the case of some units, but that's impossible to say. — Count Timothy von Icarus

We don't have much to go on at this point, but there are consistent patterns emerging from witness testimonies. One common theme in many stories of those who lived under Russian occupation, passed through Russian checkpoints, or were deported into Russia is the search for "Nazis" and "nationalists." Soldiers or security officers are searching documents and phones for anything they might deem incriminating. They are also looking for nationalist or patriotic tattoos. Those who arouse their suspicions are often the ones who are imprisoned, tortured or killed.

One woman, who spent a few weeks in an occupied village with her family, told about their occasional conversations with the Russian soldiers who lodged in their house (while forcing the family with two small children to stay in a cramped cellar). They said, apparently in reference to the locals, that they had orders to shoot to kill. They also said that they would shoot at any moving car after one warning shot, and there was plenty of evidence that they did just that.

Worth remembering that Russia was indeed led to believe that NATO wouldn't advance beyond 1990 borders. — Xtrix

You aren't bringing up anything new. The NATO thing has been done to death...

Yes it's very passe and not so a la mode, just a bit out of fashion, to recognize that NATO has blood on their hands. All the cool kids are over it.

On the contrary, it's the latest craze in Moscow and beyond to remind us all constantly that NATO is evil. It's far more than just a fashion: almost a mandatory opinion, hammered hour after hour, day after day, week after week.

I was already writing this before I saw your last post, I will include a link at the bottom. I’m not saying this is actually happening. But there are numerous reports in the media. — Punshhh

What's your advice on handling 'various reports in the media?' Ignore them or filter the ones beneficial to your cause?

I’m not receiving any which are not beneficial to my cause, on this issue. Although, I am largely causeless, ambivalent, in relation to the Ukraine crisis.

It is more of an issue in regard of internal British politics. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.

Some experts are already pointing out that we are being compared to a Hitler alliance in Russian media. It's laughable really. — Christoffer

The propaganda push will basically be naturally to the Russians themselves. But yes, there's also a crowd in the West that is willing to such lies as truth.

I think Russians hope that it will be somebody like Marine Le Pen that will put the brakes on ...if she wins. Yet the Trump/Putin World that Le Pen has enthusiastically supported doesn't look so cool now.

First and foremost, information warfare both in Sweden or Finland won't work. In 2014 Russia could get it's stooges to appear here in the TV to make ludicrous statements that confused a lot of people. People were then confused and startled when popular discussion forums about childcare was suddenly full of how evil the Ukrainian nazis are who overthrew an elected leader of Ukraine. Now people know what that is. And now no media is going to invite a Russian troll to discuss the war in Ukraine as to give "both sides and fair chance". Besides, the most active Finnish trolls of Putin were exposed ended up in an spectacular way in the Donbas puppet states and actually got work there.

Worth remembering that Russia was indeed led to believe that NATO wouldn't advance beyond 1990 borders.

Doesn't excuse Putin's war crimes. But if we're serious, we have to look at relevant antecedents. — Xtrix

Worth remembering that Ukraine was indeed led to believe that Russia would respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders it had.

Worth remembering that Ukraine isn't the only country that Russia has annexed territories or has intervened military in and created puppet states and frozen conflicts. And one of these countries, Moldova, has never applied to NATO, has had no intention join, but still has a "puppet state" and Russian "peacekeepers" on it's territory.

Doesn't excuse the fact that NATO has enlarged and that promises were given ...to the Soviet Union. But if we're serious, we have to look at the reasons just why countries want to join NATO.

Worth remembering that Ukraine was indeed led to believe that Russia would respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders it had.

Worth remembering that Ukraine isn't the only country that Russia has annexed territories or has intervened military in and created puppet states and frozen conflicts. And one of these countries, Moldova, has never applied to NATO, has had no intention join, but still has a "puppet state" and Russian "peacekeepers" on it's territory. — ssu

Why? Give me an example of the use 'remembering' these facts can be put to.

NATO stepping up rhetoric vis-á-vis Ukraine's desire to join it was a predictable outcome of the Russian decision to invade Ukraine in 2014. "NATO will threaten to admit Ukraine, but then not actually do anything about it because they are decadent and weak," was the official Russian line then, and in the 8 years since. And indeed, NATO didn't allow Ukraine to join after the invasion, or at any point during 8 years of conflict. Point being, nothing you're quoting is remotely new, and so it isn't a very good explanation for the decision to invade.

In terms of more relevant events, I would look at Belarus and the Central Asian states. Belarus recently had massive protests to oust Lukashanko that required serious repression to beat back. As the world focused on the invasion of Ukraine, Belarus's ruling party rammed through a host of constitutional changes. These were based on changes Putin made to Russia's constitution, and include provisions such as acknowledging a special relationship with Russia in the constitution, and allowing Lukashanko to stay in power essentially for life.

The other major change was to allow a garrison of Russian soldiers to stay permanently in Belarus. This is widely seen as a way for Lukashanko to get around the unreliability of his own armed forces and for Putin to ensure an ally can't be removed.

Meanwhile, virtually every one of the former Soviet Central Asian states has had an uncharacteristically large protest movement/unrest since 2019. Aside from unrest targeting the Russian aligned elite, and the younger generation's increasing frustration with a Russia-alligned economic model that has failed to deliver growth, there is a pivot to China by these states, which represents a growing market for exports, a growing source of investment (e.g., Belt and Road), and a much stronger model of growth.

What changed recently wasn't NATO posture towards Ukraine, but circumstances in all of Russia's satalites. The ones in Europe look to the EU as a more prosperous system. The ones in Asia look to China. This seems more like a poorly thought out plan to reestablish Russian dominance in these satalites, not to deal with NATO. This was supposed to be a rapid drive into Kyiv demonstrating Russia's revived status as a major conventional power.

It is clear from the actions of the Russian military that the leadership did not actually consider that NATO aid to Ukraine would result in any significant resistance. Russia's own invasion plan and lack of any plans for dealing with strong resistance belies the idea that they thought Ukraine was actually becoming some sort of spearhead/garrison state. They very clearly thought it could be routed in 72 hours.

So, they were baited into an invasion by the growing threat of a country they thought they could easily route with almost no losses?

Politics in Russian satalites and domestic Russian politics appear to have driven the decision, not static NATO posturing.

Of course Russian messaging now focuses on NATO. How else can they explain the Russian military's loss around Kyiv and their inability to seize Mariupol, right across the border? The claim that they are somehow fighting all of NATO, who also must have started the war, is about saving face over their terrible performance. Had the war gone as planned, the messaging would be all about NATO's irrelevance and decadence, similar to 2014.

But now that Russian modernization efforts have proven to be a failure, NATO giving Ukraine 0.032% of its annual defense budget, while still withholding most high end equipment, actually means Russia is fighting a war with NATO right now. It has to mean that, else how can they explain how their brilliant leader managed such a collosal disaster?

This seems more like a poorly thought out plan to reestablish Russian dominance in these satalites, not to deal with NATO. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That Russia has these imperial aspirations to dominate other former Soviet states is obvious. NATO has nothing to do with it.

First a Russian minority declares independence and if the countries military tries to intervene and it doesn't look good for the Russian proxies, suddenly Russia launches "a peacekeeping mission" and assists the proxies and you have in the end a frozen conflict. Because that's how to keep the tabs with the country. This has happened in Georgia, Moldova and in the last version in Ukraine. Although the Russian forces operating in the Donbas weren't called peacekeepers. Their existence was simply denied.

Yesterday the wheel came off my wheelbarrow. The bolt holding it on was rusted almost through, but it had been that way for months and yet the wheel remained on, so that can't possibly have been the cause. I guess it will have to remain a mystery.

Why? Give me an example of the use 'remembering' these facts can be put to. — Isaac

Because it really questions this delusional idea that war could have been avoided ...if only NATO wouldn't have enlarged itself.

If the Baltic states wouldn't be in NATO, then Putin would have now Russian bases in them. The example of Moldova, a country that has neutrality enshrined in it's constitution, simply shows the nature of Russian policy. Hence there are reasons for countries to want to join NATO. It should be obvious.

Because it really questions this delusional idea that war could have been avoided ...if only NATO wouldn't have enlarged itself. — ssu

And what do you see as the benefit of questioning that 'delusion'?

And what do you see as the benefit of questioning that 'delusion'? — Isaac

One shouldn't have delusions.