:D

this proxy war — Mikie

• Ukraine was the one being invaded. Invaded by Russia at the Kremlin's orders. Which wasn't invaded, or attacked.
• North Korea and Iran are waging a proxy war against Ukraine...? (Not that it matters, but I wouldn't say so personally.) By certain thinking (like motivated reasoning) they could end up being seen that way. By some anyway.

Well, it might be more "interesting" to blame someone else (like an exercise perhaps). And what the Ukrainians themselves wanted — apparently contrary to what the Kremlin wants for Russians — is hence "argumentatively" sidelined thereby:

Protesters opposed what they saw as widespread government corruption and abuse of power, the influence of Russia and oligarchs, police brutality, human rights violations,^(29)(30) and repressive anti-protest laws.⁽²⁹⁾ — Revolution of Dignity (Wikipedia)

Is that "the Ukrainian people being caught up in this a proxy war"? Getting old. In this thread at least.

I'm not really seeing a whole lot of officials/politicians of the larger countries in the world — China, the US, India, Brazil, ... — whine ever on about this dire existential threat to them. I guess Putin's Russia must be special. Ironically, instead, Ukraine, a smaller country, has clear and present evidence towards that by Russia's hands. Maybe the southern US border thing can be amplified to that purpose?

If it turns out the US was involved in this attack, and I honestly find that quite plausible (even though it's far from certain what happened), we are looking at a new low in western foreign politics - an all-time low, perhaps - and it would be further evidence that the United States is looking to escalate the conflict. — Tzeentch

Of course. (Or are we talking the Deep State CIA Masons?) Looks like a poor assumption.

US secretly warned Iran before ISIS terror attack
^{— Natasha Bertrand · CNN · Jan 25, 2024}
US repeatedly warned Russia ahead of Moscow attack, White House says
^{— The Guardian · Mar 28, 2024}

For that matter ...

Exclusive: Iran alerted Russia to security threat before Moscow attack
^{— Parisa Hafezi, Nazarali Pirnazarov, Steve Holland, Jonathan Landay, Michael Georgy, Gareth Jones · Reuters · Apr 1, 2024}

supporting the Nazis — boethius

Reiterating (again), Russian officials claim that Kyiv is a Nazi regime, and Ukraine is to be deNazified and demilitarized. That's one pillar of their justification, and it's nonsense lapped up by the gullible and susceptible to Kremlin story-telling.

It’s like you’re incapable of posting anything clear. Maybe spend less time playing with links.

It’s a proxy war between the US and Russia. Not hard to see that— been discussed plenty of times. You don’t see it — cool. I don’t care.

Hum...
Paradoxically—at least for purveyors of Kremlin propaganda, which holds that Ukrainians have been oppressing ethnic Russians—most Azov members are in fact Russian speakers and disproportionally hail from the Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine — neomac

It's not really paradoxical that there's Russian speakers in Azov considering the Azov sea borders the Donbas and Russian speaking region, although you'd still need actual evidence to backup this claim. Do you have a list of Azov members and where they come from?

Probably a better indication of where support for these groups draws from is the Svoboda's election results.

Here's a map for 2019:



There is much more support for the "Ultra right" in the West of Ukraine than the East, but there's a bit of support there too.

The West can’t reasonably troubleshoot everything the Russian can use as a pretext. They do not lack creativity and can literally spin anything in their media (as we have seen, the Isis-K terrorist attack is readily associated to Ukraine, and do you remember the "bioweapons labs" in Ukraine?), while the West can’t do much about it no matter what it does (https://thehill.com/policy/defense/380483-congress-bans-arms-to-controversial-ukrainian-militia-linked-to-neo-nazis/). — neomac

Right, right, just no way to "troubleshoot" a whole bunch of Nazis in Ukraine.

What you mean to say is that the West can't do anything about the Nazis and things like bioweapons labs, insofar as the West wants to provoke a war with Russia then you need to back the most radical elements of society.

If you don't want the war, then it's quite easy to make support contingent on concrete reductions of Nazis, and if Ukraine doesn't achieve that, well then no support, no weapons, no hundreds of billions of dollars if you get attacked.

You're presuming the West owes Ukraine something come-what-may and so if Weapons find there way to Nazis despite trying to make that "illegal" then there's nothing that can be done, we all just have to throw our hands in the air and just accept the situation. That's not the case, we could send no weapons at all. The West doesn't owe Ukraine any weapons at all.

Reiterating (again), Russian officials claim that Kyiv is a Nazi regime, and Ukraine is to be deNazified and demilitarized. That's one pillar of their justification, and it's nonsense lapped up by the gullible and susceptible to Kremlin story-telling. — jorndoe

Simply because something is used in propaganda does not mean there's no truth to it. The best propaganda is generally based on true facts and exaggerated for effect.

For example, turns out Israel exaggerated what happened on October 7th, so based on your logic we could conclude that October 7th itself is nonsense, no attack took place at all, because Israel can't actually back up it's most extreme claims.

Obviously your rebuttal to that would be that we know October 7th happened as there's a bunch of video evidence of it.

Well, the Nazis in Ukraine have just as much video evidence.

Which I post every time the Ukraine partisan echo-chamber seeps in here and the issue is just denied with pats on the back to everyone who denies in.

Then, same thing every time, when I post a selection of Western journalist reports of the Nazis in Ukraine, there's zero contending with the evidence, but the goal posts move to there's not "enough" Nazis (without ever defining what "enough" Nazis would be), or then Russia has Nazis too, or then pointing to Russian statements that exaggerate how many Nazis there are, and so on.

And the Nazis are important to understand the war. Without the Nazis there may not be any war at all. Zelensky was elected promising to go to Moscow on his knees and beg Putin for peace, and it may very well be that the Nazis and other "extreme nationalists" frustrated that plan.

Do you have a list of Azov members and where they come from? — boethius

I gave you the evidence I have. Besides the founder of Azov Battalion is natively Russian-speaker (as Zelensky) and comes from Kharkiv. The same goes for other Azov Battalion commanders (some listed here https://www.aa.com.tr/en/world/5-azov-battalion-commanders-return-to-ukraine-in-prisoner-exchange/2940501) who come from Luhansk, Crimea, Kharkiv.
If that's not enough to you, that's your problem not mine.

Probably a better indication of where support for these groups draws from is the Svoboda's election results.

Here's a map for 2019: — boethius

I have no doubt that the West Ukraine is more anti-Russian that the East, and that can reflect also in the support for the neo-nazi movements. But, despite some links between the two, I don’t find your stats about the popularity of Svoboda more useful to draw conclusions about the Azov Battalion recruits, given their different regional roots: indeed, the founder of Svoboda is from West Ukraine and the founder of Azov Battalion that fought the pro-Russian separatists is from East Ukraine. Besides, the support to Svoboda doesn’t prove that neo-nazis are/were governing Ukraine as Hamas (an Islamic terrorist group massacring Israeli civilians in Israel proper) is governing Gaza. Indeed, Svoboda “played a role in the 2014 Ukrainian revolution and Euromaidan protests but its support dropped quickly following the 2014 elections. Since then, the party has been polling below the electoral threshold, and it currently has one seat in the Verkhovna Rada.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_(political_party)
So the Ukraine got rid of Svoboda prior to the war Putin started a “special military operation” to denazify Ukraine.

West wants to provoke a war with Russia then you need to back the most radical elements of society. — boethius

The logic of “provocation” which Russians refer to has NO base in international law. I doubt that it even makes military sense to the extent NATO military exercise/aid, neo-nazi militia, nuclear weapons deployment were far from constituting an imminent or existential military threat to Russia. It makes more sense if one reasons in terms of “spheres of influence” as an answer to prospective/hypothetical threats. But if we are reasoning in terms of “spheres of influence” we must also accept its competitive logic: 1. Defensive moves over anticipated threats can be perceived as offensive and if Russia feels threatened by possible future NATO expansion then also the West may feel threatened by possible future Russian imperialist and revanchist campaigns 2. As far as the West is concerned, it shouldn’t surprise that the US is not going to curb its hegemonic ambitions just because Russia wishes so, the US is and aspires to remain the dominant hegemon, yet the US wasn’t that confrontational toward Russia either (see economic and diplomatic ties of the West with Russia at the end of Cold War, NATO and Russia cooperation at least until the Orange Revolution, returning the post-Soviet nuclear arsenal from Ukraine to Russia, the common enemy of Islamism). On the other side, Western Europeans and Ukrainians have been enough conciliatory toward Russia: Germany and France refused to have Ukraine joining NATO, while Ukraine remained neutral until Russia invaded Crimea and it also acknowledged Donbas region’s independence before the special operation started 3. If Ukrainian political leaders pursue territorial sovereignty and integrity which Russia has repeatedly acknowledged (until it didn’t), Russia can’t reasonably expect that permanently violating Ukrainian sovereignty even without prior attack by Ukrainians against Russia proper, will be tolerated by Ukraine and its INTERESTED supporters due to hypothetical future threats of the Ukrainian Westernisation 4. Ukrainian far-right and anti-Russian fringes are less threatening to the West than Russian imperialism. And actually Westernisation was the Western way to also “denazify” Ukraine, while Russia has no problems to support neo-nazi militia if they are pro-Russian.

If you don't want the war, then it's quite easy to make support contingent on concrete reductions of Nazis, and if Ukraine doesn't achieve that, well then no support, no weapons, no hundreds of billions of dollars if you get attacked. — boethius

There are 2 questionable assumptions in your reasoning: the first one is that war started because of the Ukrainian anti-Russian neo-nazi. But I (and others in this thread, if I remember correctly) argued that’s the other way around: Russian neo-nazi and imperialist groups started the war, which in turn triggered the Ukrainian anti-Russian neo-nazi. Second, both Ukraine and the West made efforts to purge the neo-nazi elements exploited by the Russian propaganda (https://thehill.com/policy/defense/380483-congress-bans-arms-to-controversial-ukrainian-militia-linked-to-neo-nazis/, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/azov-battalion-drops-neo-nazi-symbol-exploited-by-russian-propagandists-lpjnsp7qg).
What you keep missing is that neither Ukrainians, nor the US, nor the West aim at reaching WHATEVER peace if that implies unilaterally appeasing WHATEVER Russian demands. On the other side, Russia is not just passively reacting to perceived (and questionable) threats or offences in retaliatory ways: Russians pro-actively and competitively aims at restoring a sphere of influence by any means (which is what also Western Europeans are increasingly fearing). If territorial annexations (plus nuclear blackmailing) do not prove this in the most unequivocal possible way, I don’t know what is. As far as I’m concerned, the problem is not the kind of hegemonic PROVOCATIONS which Russia is growling about since in geopolitics they are part of the game (China feels provoked in the Pacific too, go figure!) as much as the pro-Russian propaganda built around such provocations (even the Ur-Nazi Hitler was provoked to invade Poland, as the anti-Ukrainian-nazi Putin reminds the West, go figure!). The problem is the many perceived weaknesses of the US and the EU (including NATO disarmament and NATO disaffection, the embarrassing end of the US’s infamous war on terror, the domestic crisis in the US, the disunity among Europeans, the rising populism in the West, the Chinese threat in the Pacific, the dependency of Europe to Russian oil, the Western mild reaction to the annexation of Crimea, etc.) which offered to Putin a window of OPPORTUNITY to pursue Russian hegemonic ambitions after a military build-up which was fuelled by business ties under Western-led globalization. In short, OPPORTUNITY explains Russia’s hegemonic gamble over Ukraine better than PROVOCATION.

You're presuming the West owes Ukraine something come-what-may and so if Weapons find there way to Nazis despite trying to make that "illegal" then there's nothing that can be done, we all just have to throw our hands in the air and just accept the situation. That's not the case, we could send no weapons at all. The West doesn't owe Ukraine any weapons at all. — boethius

I never argued that the West owes anything to Ukraine. Or that the US is not pursuing hegemonic goals in a war where Europeans and especially Ukrainians are bearing the greatest costs. What I argued is that there are strong security, political and economic concerns that push the West (Europeans included) to support the Ukrainian Westernisation and the containment of Russia’s hegemonic ambitions over Ukraine.

In the news, imperialist hegemony :D

Bulgaria and Romania join the Schengen area
^{— The EU · Mar, 30 2024}

, I'll try clarifying for you, let me bullet'ify some observations (repeats) ...

• Ukraine was the one being invaded — invaded by Russia at the Kremlin's orders, who wasn't invaded or attacked, tracing back to what the Ukrainians wanted, which likely would lead to Kremlin loss of control/influence — see "demilitarization", NATO or not

• Ukraine's supporters have been tiptoeing around Russia with resources, an observation that's been appropriated for a "drip feed hypothesis" — tiptoeing here also involved dis/agreeing discussing debating quarreling back-and-forth, domestically and internationally, bureaucracy, "many voices" to accommodate, contrary to how authoritarian regimes typically work — organized proxy warring ≠ rowing, okie that at least ain't it

• Ukraine has made it clear over and again, they want the Kremlin to leave them be, and are looking westward instead, to Putin's dismay — anyone can see that (even through the Kremlin-inspired fog)

• "the US is waging a proxy war against Russia that Ukraine is being caught up in" is about as misleading (or helpful/relevant) as "North Korea / Iran waging proxy war against Ukraine" — the Kremlin started the war against Ukraine whom are defending (including what they wanted) — so, misdirection or "blindness" or something

But, hey, if we're just talking materially supporting one team, then sure. Is that what you mean? (Right, as mentioned, it's come up before.)

And the Nazis are Nazi-propaganda is important to understand the war — boethius

Nah, please don't repost that stuff again (again), already been seen far and wide. (Presumably you know how to use links.) Problem is that once you water it down to any truth of the matter, then all become liable, including, if not especially, the Russia from where the accusations originate. It's been reiterated, but seemingly ignored (by you).

actually Westernisation was the Western way to also “denazify” Ukraine, while Russia has no problems to support neo-nazi militia if they are pro-Russian — neomac

Fair, Ukraine aspires to join the EU, has shown willingness to reform.

the US is waging a proxy war against Russia that Ukraine is being caught up in" is about as misleading (or helpful/relevant) as "North Korea / Iran waging proxy war against Ukraine" — the Kremlin started the war against Ukraine whom are defending (including what they wanted) — so, misdirection or "blindness" or something — jorndoe

It is a proxy war between the US and Russia. Easy to see why.

It is a proxy war between the US and Russia. Easy to see why. — Mikie

That's your response? Maybe give it some more thought. There's a war between Russia (invader with support) and Ukraine (defends with support). This part is not a narrative. Trivial. For most anyway.

"the US is waging a proxy war against Russia that Ukraine is being caught up in" is about as misleading (or helpful/relevant) as "North Korea / Iran waging proxy war against Ukraine" — Mar 31, 2024

Seen this elsewhere-blaming finger-pointing misleading Ukraine-sidelining distraction already.

There have been some reports of thermobaric bombs (2022Mar1, 2022Nov17, 2024Mar16), this time Velyka Pysarivka (between Sumy (↖nw) and Kharkiv (↘se)) was reportedly hit:

They staged round-the-clock terror: what a dangerous bomb the Russians used in Sumy Oblast
^{— Victoria Grabovska · Channel 24 · Mar 28, 2024}
Footage of the arrival of ODAB-1500 at the location of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the border area of the Sumy region is shown
^{— ilyaros · Military Review · Mar 28, 2024}
Russia used the ODAB-1500 heavy aerial bomb in Ukraine for the first time.
^{— BILD · Mar 30, 2024}

Detonation levels an area of some 500 m², diameter about 25 m, though you want to be further away when one goes off.

If you're point is Russia, being an empire, will seek dominate where it can (where it does being its "sphere of influence") its expand when it can: sure, obviously, but that's exactly my point that given Russia's propensity to expand — boethius

? ? ?

So if Russia you accept that Russia has this propensity to expand, how then view NATO enlargement is this US plot against Russia. More of a ploy of the neighboring countries to get under NATO security umbrella before they have a conflict with Russia.

Actual historians very much disagree with your view. — boethius

Well I've studied history in my own country and I think I know the history, so please say just to whom you refer this idea.

Had Ukraine accepted the peace deal on offer at the start of the war, — boethius

Stop right here.

There was an attempt to make peace talks. I don't recall a written peace offer on the table from Putin. Perhaps unconditional surrender is for you a "peace offer".

Besides, this is irrelevant as Russia has formally annexed more territories (partly one that it doesn't even fully control) and hence this is quite meaningless.

I can also continue saying "If Putin had only had large exercises on the border and never attacked Ukraine!". Yeah, but that didn't happen, he did invade.

It is a proxy war between the US and Russia. Easy to see why. — Mikie

America gave some security promises to Ukraine years ago if they would give up their nukes. That undoubtedly plays a factor in things.

The US intentionally sought to create instability in eastern Europe, which is why it sought to change Ukraine's neutral status, which was the key to peace.

Then, as the Russians protested and drew their red lines, the Americans knew exactly what to do to get a violent reaction out of the Russians and bring instability closer.

The reason for this is simple: both Europe and Russia stand to gain when the US inevitably gets sucked into large-scale security competition with China. Furthermore, if Europe and Russia are in chaos, it deprives China of markets which will be critical once China's sea lines of communication get cut off during said security competition.


However, unfortunately for the Americans the Russians have been holding back in an effort not to escalate. They've essentially been trying to direct things back to the status quo since the first month of the war.

The Europeans are oblivious to anything and everything, but they don't have the stomach nor capability for war. European leaders who strongly support Ukraine probably have until the end of their terms until they'll be swept aside by some right-wing populists which are popping up all over Europe.


However, that is only the short-term picture.


The long-term picture is that Europe and Russia will lose their neutral buffer Ukraine, and both will likely become fully remilitarized, creating fertile soil for future conflict.

I guess that's a way to have others do their bidding ...

Czechia busts Russian propaganda network targeting European elections
^{— Martin Fornusek · The Kyiv Independent (Deník N, Der Spiegel, Le Monde) · Apr 1, 2024}

Seems serious enough; we'll see what comes of it, if anything. Those folk should have taken the €$, told security everything, donated €$/2 to the homeless — live life on the edge. ;)

, what UA wanted was a US plot?

A neutral Ukraine was the key to stability in eastern Europe and everybody knew it. The US deliberately sought to remove Ukraine as a neutral buffer in 2008.

Therefore it's clear the Americans desired instability.

It's just too obvious and simple to ignore. Occam's razor at work.

, maybe, but you responded to something else. Here :point:

↪Tzeentch, what UA wanted was [really] a US plot [instead]? — Apr 1, 2024

^{(↑ part of the analysis)}

I'd love to engage with your posts, but I find them impossible to make sense of, and am always left guessing what point you are trying to make.


If your point is that the Ukrainians went into this voluntarily; yes, and so did for example the Vietnamese.

And, just like the Vietnamese, the Ukrainians were and are completely clueless about the fact they're being used as a pawn to further US interests.


We're now at a point where Ukraine has given away all its sovereignty, since the country runs completely on foreign aid.

Furthermore, Ukraine will be the ultimate patsy upon which everything can be pinned, because the country is in shambles and will never be held to account anyway.

That's what we saw with the Nord Stream bombing, for example - the US tried to pin it on Ukraine, because they know things can't get any worse for Ukraine anyway.


In a nutshell, the Ukrainians were naive enough to play along, and now they're essentially incapable of changing course because their country is in shambles and runs completely on foreign aid.

? ? ?

So if Russia you accept that Russia has this propensity to expand, how then view NATO enlargement is this US plot against Russia. More of a ploy of the neighboring countries to get under NATO security umbrella before they have a conflict with Russia. — ssu

Expanding your empire to get closer to a rival empire is exactly a plot against that other empire.

Now I get it, you view US empire as good and Russian empire as bad. Therefore, the US is justified in moving its military hardware and system closer to Russia. My view is more complicated than this dichotomy.

However, even if I grant this premise that the US is good and Russia bad, the problem is we don't let Ukraine into NATO. We (the US, NATO, EU, the West generally speaking) do not actually go and fight for these values you are talking about.

The policy of simply supplying Ukraine with arms fuels a disastrous war for Ukraine and loss of more territory.

There are other policy option that cohere with caring about Ukraine ... but just not enough to go and fight to defend Ukraine. Those policy options are diplomatic and not a battlefield solution.

Cheering Ukraine on to fight and supplying weapons and just "#believingUkraine" will miraculously win, causes enormous amount of death of Ukrainians, loss of population as refugees (in particular young mothers and children) and is a really bad and predictable outcome of the policy of just propping up Ukraine just enough to tread water for a while against the Russians.

F16's haven't even arrived yet, in a situation where if we were actually serious of giving Ukraine "whatever it takes", F16's and all sorts of missiles would have been supplied day 1. To say nothing of tanks and artillery and longer range missiles and so on.

Why?

Because the policy is not to help Ukraine but to damage Russia, which there is little evidence that even that is being achieved.

But if it was, it would (in my view) be completely immoral and evil to sacrifice so many Ukrainians to damage the Russians in a war that has a terrible outcome for Ukraine.

If we're not even damaging Russia but actually making it stronger, then the police is immoral, evil and retarded.

Well I've studied history in my own country and I think I know the history, so please say just to whom you refer this idea. — ssu

I am referring to "A Frozen Hell" by William Trotter and also "Upheaval" by Jared Diamond.

There's really a lot of material in these two books I think both useful for the discussion as well as making the case Ukraine is in no way following the Finnish model.

To take just a few choice quotes from Upheaval, which is a book dedicated to the theme of how nations manage crisis:

Finland illustrates flexibility born from necessity (factor #10). In response to Soviet fears and sensitivities, Finland did things unthinkable in any other democracy: it put on trial and imprisoned its own war time leaders according to a retroactive law; its parliament adopted an emergency decree to postpone a scheduled presidential election; a leading candidate was induced to withdraw his candidacy; and its press self censored statements likely to offend the Soviet Union. Other democracies would consider those actions disgraceful. In Finland those actions instead reflected flexibility: sacrificing sacred democratic principles to the extent required to retain political independence, the principle held most sacred. Quoting again from Zaloga's biography of Mannerheim, Finns excelled at negotiating "the least awful of several bad options". — Upheaval, Jared Diamond

Now, Ukraine has also postponed Presidential elections, but in the our Finnish case it was to appease the Soviet Union, not to create a wartime de facto dictatorship to ensure continued fighting without any potential political debate or change of leadership.

Both books emphasize realism, achievable goals and compromise. Before and during the war and after the war, it's the Finns trying to negotiate and find a compromise.

The Ukraine strategy of just making public ultimatums that Russia would obviously never accept and insisting on unrealistic military goals as a sort of purity test, is pretty much the opposite strategy.

The only thing that is a strict parallel between the Winter War and this war in Ukraine, is the West cynically making false promises to try to keep the war going for their own purposes.

I don't quite have time to transcribe all that I want, but I'll take time now for the citation concerning Finland's diplomatic efforts, in a chapter literally called "The Dance of the Diplomats: Round One"

Since the day he had assumed power, Finnish Foreign Minister Väinö Tanner had attempted to reopen talks with Moscow by every means he could think of. He had made personal appeals, he had sent secret emissaries to the Baltic states, he had tried to make contact through the offices of a number of sympathetic neutral nations. Moscow's only response had been a chilly silence. — Frozen Hell, William Trotter

I.e. Finland had a constant diplomatic effort as I claimed, talking to the Soviet Union, and it was Moscow, not Finland, refusing to negotiate only until compelled by facts on the ground (Moscow had created and recognized a puppet state in exile, so didn't even recognize the actual Finnish government as legitimate insofar as the belief was the war would be easy to win).

The military effort served this diplomatic strategy of achieving a peace through negotiations, offering severe concessions, including putting political wartime leaders on trial for an "illegal war" with the Soviet Union, to achieve peace.

Stop right here.

There was an attempt to make peace talks. I don't recall a written peace offer on the table from Putin. Perhaps unconditional surrender is for you a "peace offer".

Besides, this is irrelevant as Russia has formally annexed more territories (partly one that it doesn't even fully control) and hence this is quite meaningless.

I can also continue saying "If Putin had only had large exercises on the border and never attacked Ukraine!". Yeah, but that didn't happen, he did invade. — ssu

We were discussing a few weeks ago this offer and Zelensky's rejection of it (which the Western media don't even view as controversial) when the head of the Ukrainian negotiation team comes out and tells us the main point was Ukraine giving up seeking NATO membership, accepting neutralisy, everything else just cosmetic, and that they rejected the offer because "the Russians can't be trusted".

However, let's put aside what the Russians offered, what's the Ukrainians offer?

What peace deal are the Ukrainians fighting in a realistic strategy to compel the Russians to accept?

Russians putting a clearly reasonable offer on the table is literally doing the Ukrainians diplomatic work for them. The Ukrainians should have reasonable offers at every stage of the conflict.

Again, in sharp contrast to we Finns do in WWII:

Thus in 1944 as in 1941, Finnish resistance achieved the realistic goal expressed by my Finnish friend: not of defeating the Soviet Union, but of making further Soviet victories prohibitively costly, slow and painful. As a result, Finland became the sole continental European country fighting in World War Two to avoid enemy occupation. — Upheaval, Jared Diamond

The Ukrainians could have done what we Finns did: defend in a way that optimizes for Russian costs and losses, pressuring Russia into accepting a peace deal (that is not anywhere close to what we Finns would have desired: retaining access to the Arctic sea, retaining Korelia, not prosecuting literal heroes of the war, not paying reparations, not accepting defeat).

The Ukrainians don't do this, but rather ignore all the lessons of WWII.

It's not just our Finnish gumption (aka. sisu) that allows us to remain independent whereas Poland, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, France, Austria, Czechoslovak, Albania, Free City of Danzig, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Greece, Yugoslavia, Yugoslavia, Slovak Republic, Ukraine and Germany didn't remain independent but were conquered by either the Nazis or the Soviets, or one and then the other.

There were geographic and geopolitical elements that allowed Finland, along with a "can do attitude" to resist occupation of the Soviet Union.

First, Finland is not in a strategically critical location between any of the major powers fighting in WWII. You do not need to go through Finland for any of the major powers to attack each other. You can, it could be useful, that's why Stalin demanded defensive concessions and then attacked Finland, but it's not critical. Finland is far from being Belgium, a flat plain in between Germany and France.

Second, Finland was at no point the Soviet Union's main concern. The main concern of the Soviet Union in World War 2 was Nazi Germany. Therefore, if attacking Finland actually reduces Soviet security vis-a-vis Nazi Germany rather than increases it, the rational option is to cease attacking Finland and accept a peace deal.

Third, Finland has some natural defensive advantages in being mostly dense forest with the only flat plain being a choke point south of lake Ladoga. Dense forest being famously easier to defend than flat plains, and choke points being famously easier for a smaller force to hold off a larger force a la Thermopylae. Finally, just as the Germans encountered Russian winter in Russia, the Russians encountered Finnish winter in Finland. Every level of winter requires an additional set of skills and equipment.

It is not just a case of heroism and "making a stand" and all the above listed countries that didn't fight to the death just "didn't want it enough". The countries that surrendered in WWII did so because they were compelled to and further fighting was not realistically in the interest of their people.

Finland had a realistic strategy leveraging Finns willingness to fight (a death toll that would be proportionally comparable to 9 000 000 Americans dying in a war today, more American deaths than all American wars combined), geography as well as the Soviets having bigger fish to be worried about: first the Germans and then the Americans. Finland could leverage all these elements (along with things like territory and money and trade relations) to make peace the rational choice for the Soviet Union.

Ukraine has done nothing remotely similar except the willingness to fight and take extreme losses.

Now I get it, you view US empire as good and Russian empire as bad. Therefore, the US is justified in moving its military hardware and system closer to Russia. My view is more complicated than this dichotomy. — boethius

There's a lot to be critical about of US actions, but when it comes to Europe, here fortunately the US hasn't made it's biggest blunders. On the contrary, I would say.

And let's think about this.

Ask yourself, how many NATO countries have been invaded by the US or other NATO countries, when the US has thought the countries were out of line?

With the Warsaw Pact, it did this action basically twice. In Hungary and in Czechoslovakia. And at least general Jaruzelski insisted that he declared martial law in order to prevent a Russian invasion in 1981. This shows what the actual objective was for the Warsaw Pact for the Soviet Union.

So has now Russia changed so much from those times with it's Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)?

How well did the alliance with Russia protect Armenia from Azeris? How much did Russia come to the help of Armenia?

But yes, it did come to help of the government of Kazakhstan to quell riots. And that actually fits quite well the previous Warsaw Pact mentality.

, I guess you think that what they wanted was genuine (in lack of a better word), as opposed to instigated by the US? That's consistent with their efforts to join the EU anyway; they're trying, apparently against the tide of the Kremlin's efforts.

Some developments so far: — Mar 8, 2024

The election was recognized as free and fair.⁽⁴⁾ — 2019 Ukrainian presidential election (Wikipedia)

• Accession of Ukraine to the European Union » Candidacy (Wikipedia)

OK, if we run with that (genuine), then we might ask about implications, including/especially for the Kremlin, or in the eyes of the Kremlin, and they don't look favorable according to their aspirations.

When freedom and sovereignty themselves are perceived as threats then we get results like what we're seeing (word, infra, civil, grab). Too bad for Ukraine, eh? — Mar 11, 2024

By and large fairly straightforward.

Looking at other Russian neighbors, who want to see Ukraine become like another Belarus? :down: Another Baltics? :up: (What about where to raise kids?) Pick your poison? The Ukrainians chose a path. Putin makes a point about Russians + Ukrainians, then, instead of setting up programs to foster relations, he sets out to bomb them into compliance.

Wait, you still claim having the scoop on the Nord Stream thing? :D

My point is that the US deliberately sought to change Ukraine's neutral status in order to create instability in Eastern Europe - that has been its goal from 2008 onward, and it succeeded.

Ukraine was foolish enough to go along with it. How a nation could think it a good idea to ignore a neighboring great power talking about existential security concerns and red lines is beyond me. It was obvious from the get-go that it would lead to Ukraine's destruction and that the US had no intention of starting WW3 for Ukraine, ergo was always going to hang Ukraine out to dry.

But this is how the US has always operated. It has interests, and simply manipulates countries into believing their interests align with the US. Just like Vietnam, just like various countries in the Middle-East, etc.

And it always leaves behind the same result: a smoldering pile of rubble, thousands dead, chaos.

It's an all-too-familiar pattern in US foreign policy.


Also, under what rock are you living?

Wait, you still claim having the scoop on the Nord Stream thing? — jorndoe

Biden's Blackout: How America & Norway Blew up the Nord Stream Pipelines

The worst thing is that you have morally upright American journalists trying to teach you what your rotten government gets up to, but you refuse to listen.

, I'm guessing most on the thread know about this point of yours, since you've repeated it a few times.
My inquiry was a different one, though.
You departed therefrom again once having mentioned the Vietnamese — a comment I took to mean that what UA wanted was real enough, as opposed to a US plot (I suppose we might have enquired into both possibilities, but no matter).
So, implications of what they wanted, what to do with that (by the Kremlin)?

^{(↑ part of the analysis)}

On the Nord Stream thing, Sy + Rose = your (sole) source...? :brow:
Earlier on, the Swedish (+ Danish) investigators handed their material over to the German investigators, who have yet to release any findings; going by memory, further investigation fell within German jurisdiction/purview.
Also, going by memory again, some Asian ship apparently damaged something on the sea floor around the same time, perhaps by accident.
It's not settled.

You departed therefrom again once having mentioned the Vietnamese — a comment I took to mean that what UA wanted was real enough, as opposed to a US plot (I suppose we might have enquired into both possibilities, but no matter).
So, implications of what they wanted, what to do with that (by the Kremlin)? — jorndoe

In the world of international politics, and in life in general, one doesn't always get what they want, and blindly pursuing what one wants is a recipe for disaster.

The Ukrainians foolishly let themselves be seduced into thinking they wouldn't be sacrificed like a pawn by the US, which is of course exactly what is happening.

On the Nord Stream thing, Sy + Rose = your (sole) source...? — jorndoe

What about US officials, including Nuland and the US president himself? :rofl:

It's not settled. — jorndoe

Maybe to those who have their head so far in the sand that they wouldn't recognize reality if it were to hit them smack in the face.

, so, back to the inquiry, what the heck was the Kremlin to do with that, with what UA wanted?

^{(↑ still part of the analysis)}

, some cherry-picked suggestive single phrases by Rice (2014), Nuland (Jan 2022), Biden (Feb 2022), since denied by the way, to go with Sy + Rose...? And therefore the US + Norway sabotaged Nord Stream...? Nah, credulous/sought, doesn't make the cut. Pareidolic. With a bit of luck, German investigators find something though, perhaps something to substantiate your hypothesis.

Like A Glove: Nord Stream Pipeline Sabotage and American Foreign Policy
^{— Luis Tomas Orozco · The Yale Review Of International Studies · Apr 19, 2023}

at any rate, this is just speculation.

Peripherally related:

New west-east route keeps Europe hooked on Russian gas
^{— America Hernandez, Marwa Rashad, Pietro Lombardi, Nerijus Adomaitis, Kate Abnett, Christoph Steitz, Vera Eckert, Julia Payne, Francesca Landini, Nora Buli, Andrius Sytas, Angeliki Koutanto, Sergio Goncalves, Dmitry Zhdannikov, Barbara Lewis · Reuters · Apr 3, 2024}

↪Tzeentch
, so, back to the inquiry, what the heck was the Kremlin to do with that, with what UA wanted? — jorndoe

They told us Ukraine joining NATO was an existential security threat to them, and a red line, meaning they were prepared to enter into full-scale, perhaps even nuclear war over this issue.

That's the story they told us for some 15 years.

So obviously the Kremlin believed it was their business, and whether you agree with that or not, if you do not take warnings like these seriously, you're a fool, or you're the United States preparing to sacrifice a pawn.

The United States knew the Russian position, and desired instability and conflict in Eastern Europe. That's why it ignored these warnings. Ukraine was the pawn to be sacrificed, and Europe is next, if Uncle Sam gets his way.

cherry-picked — jorndoe

You can stop now jorn.

No clear-minded person would doubt the US is the most-likely culprit in the Nord Stream bombing, and you're simply making yourself look like a brainwashed idiot.

Sorry to put it so bluntly.

So obviously the Kremlin believed it was their business, and whether you agree with that or not, if you do not take warnings like these seriously, — Tzeentch

Again with your piece of pro-Russian propaganda?
Ukraine couldn't join NATO because Russia had ENOUGH Western/NATO complacent parties and issues (corruption, border issues, far-right movements) to prevent that from happening. So much so that Ukraine didn't join NATO since the collapse of Soviet Union until now.
Besides the reasons to keep NATO alive and NATO military capacity were declining. See how slow and reluctant is the West to support Ukraine? Russia is counting on the West getting tired of supporting Ukraine. Isn't it? How does "existential threat" make any sense in such circumstances other than Russia saying so?
And Ukraine was neutral until Russia annexed Crimea (https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-parliament-abandons-neutrality/26758725.html) as much as Finland did, pushed by Russian aggression of Ukraine.


These are THE FACTS. Suck it up and move on.

BTW since Russia has won and all it wanted, it has now occupied and annexed, its black sea fleet is dominating all the black sea like a boss (right?), Ukraine is a disaster and depending on the West, can what remains of Ukraine join NATO? What is Putin saying?

And, why does the US need to damage the North Stream (which can always be repaired right?) instead of simply ordering the Germans to stop doing business with Russia. Germans are servile coward minions of the Great Satan so they would do anything to please the Great Satan, right?

, that's not what Dignity (or Euromaidan for that matter) was about, though it was about looking west (democratic EU) rather than north (Putin's Russia, Yanukovych), oligarchs, government corruption + power abuse, repressive laws, police brutality, human rights violations (← mentioned a few times); they didn't protest about UA's right to seek NATO membership. Is it then your assertion that the Kremlin had no (reason to) care about this (E+D) and implications — it was no concern of theirs?

, keeping it real: you've presented your Nord Stream hypothesis as plain fact, when it is plain speculation.

More existential provocations against Holy Russia by the Great Satan and its European servile coward minions:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/222847.htm
https://tass.com/politics/1737915
Putin will be forced to use tactic nuclear bombs, now. European populists and men-of-honor save Europe with your indisputable all-knowing wisdom!

Again with your piece of pro-Russian propaganda? — neomac

You're responding to a simple statement of fact.

So obviously the Kremlin believed it was their business, and whether you agree with that or not, if you do not take warnings like these seriously, you're a fool, or you're the United States preparing to sacrifice a pawn. — Tzeentch

Is just a fact.

Ukraine couldn't join NATO because Russia had ENOUGH Western/NATO complacent parties and issues (corruption, border issues, far-right movements) to prevent that from happening. So much so that Ukraine didn't join NATO since the collapse of Soviet Union until now.
Besides the reasons to keep NATO alive and NATO military capacity were declining.
And Ukraine was neutral until Russia annexed Crimea (https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-parliament-abandons-neutrality/26758725.html) as much as Finland did, pushed by Russian aggression of Ukraine. — neomac

Is just repeating exactly as @Tzeentch just stated but just in the form of complaining about how NATO didn't let Ukraine in.

Russia gave clear warnings, Ukraine ignored those warning and got invaded.

The point @Tzeentch is making is that it's foolish to ignore those warnings whether you believe Russia is justified or not.

For example, if you pull a gun on me and warn me you'll shoot me if I take another step, I'd be a fool to ignore that warning whether I feel you'd be justified in shooting me or not. At the end of the day I don't want to be shot and I need to navigate the real world and not the world as I wish it was. I may wish you wouldn't shoot me despite your warning or then wish that someone would jump in front of me to take the bullet and so I don't suffer the consequences of my own actions, but if that's not what reality is like then I'm a fool to make decisions based on delusional wishes.

That the US would drop Ukraine like a hot potato the moment the war no longer serves US interests was as obvious at the start of the war as it is now.

You can complain about "complacency" all you want, but unless it's a surprise betrayal, which is not in this case, then that's not a basis for decision making.

People should do A, B, and C and therefore I will do D based on the assumption they will do what they should, is only valid if there's reason to believe people will actually do that.

The Ukrainians see the US abandon their "close allies" and "deal friends" in Afghanistan, watch Afghanis literally fall off the last airplanes, and then tell themselves: hmmm, I want me some of that.

Making decisions based on reality and not wishes or assuming what other people "should do" when they have no track record of dong it, is a principle of decision making so basic it even appears in Disney movies:

The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do. For instance, you can accept that your father was a pirate and a good man or you can't. But pirate is in your blood, boy, so you'll have to square with that some day. And me, for example, I can let you drown, but I can't bring this ship into Tortuga all by me onesies, savvy? So, can you sail under the command of a pirate, or can you not? — Captain Jack Sparrow

Which I've quoted before but clearly the lesson remains lost, but your philosophical compass should definitely point directly at this paragraph to see you through these conceptually rough seas.

Putin will be forced to use tactic nuclear bombs, now. European populists and men-of-honor save Europe with your indisputable all-knowing wisdom! — neomac

You still don't get it.

As Ukraine loses the capacity to legitimately threaten Russia, NATO can therefore augment whatever doesn't change the outcome.

Once artillery, IFV's and tanks would no longer risk an actual Ukrainian breakthrough and routing the Russian in a significant way, cutting the land bridge for example, then, ok, sure, have some artillery, have some IFV's, go nuts in these tanks.

Why is Steadfast Defender, the largest NATO military exercise since WWII, happening now rather than last year ... or the year before that ... when it would have actually been a legitimate threat of intervention as well as legitimate threat of moving even more more equipment and weapons into Ukraine? A threat that would have genuinely applied a lot of pressure on the Russians.

Because Russia is no longer under pressure in Ukraine and so this additional NATO pressure is no longer all that meaningful.

The problem with these people is that they've fallen hook, line and sinker for a story of American exceptionalism.

They view Russia through a lens of unending cynicism (and I would argue that is reasonably appropriate), but fail to realise America functions in exactly the same way.

Anyone who points it out is then labeled as 'pro-Russian', which is some sad coping behavior not really worth taking seriously.