Ukraine War Watch Thread

Vakanai
Posts: 313
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2022 10:23 pm

Re: Ukraine War Watch Thread

Post by Vakanai »

joe00uk wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 10:57 am
Vakanai wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 1:54 am Actually, no. Ukraine's actions aren't an arguably stronger excuse because they're an understandable response to having some of their sovereign territory violently stolen from them.
They're understandable from Ukraine's point of view, sure, but Russia has a completely different point of view based on its own interests as a nation. If the Ukrainian and Russian regimes are hostile to each other, then obviously any measure either takes to strengthen itself is going to be 'provocative' to the other. I'm not talking about who's right and wrong. But it's also important to remember that Crimea being given to Ukraine in 1954 was rather nonsensical. Its population is mostly ethnically Russian. I don't see why it should ever have made sense for them to stay in Ukraine after 2014 when an anti-Russian government seized power. As for the Donbass, Russia didn't seize it from them - those were Ukrainian citizens of Russian ethnicity who didn't want to be ruled over by a new regime which would be hostile to them. Obviously, yes, the Ukrainian government wants that territory to stay under its rule so obviously it was going to take measures to ensure that remains the case, but this is why I'm saying there are multiple valid perspectives here. There's no "one true path to enlightenment".
No. Any measure a country takes to strengthen itself is not a provocation just because their interests don't align with another country's. Every nation has the right to strengthen itself and pursue its own interests so long as those interests aren't invading another country. It was bull when my country did it in Iraq, and it's bull with Russia doing it in Ukraine now.
I don't know about what happened in 1954, it doesn't matter. Crimea was a part of Ukraine for decades, to the point where most of the population, including many of the ethnic Russians, identified as Ukranian. Russia was not invited to come in and steal it by force. And really, an anti-Russian government suddenly seized power in Crimea, and that gave Russia the blessing to go forth and conquer? That doesn't make any sense.
As for the Donbass, it isn't the Ukrainians trying to wrestle it from the Ukranians, it's Russia.
Vakanai wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 1:54 amNor is western media "cheerleading" Ukraine evidence of propaganda - Russia invaded another country, what is the "reasonable and balanced" side of that?
It is the very definition of propaganda. If the media intentionally feeds us biased information (or misinformation) for the purpose of swaying our opinion towards supporting one side or another in a conflict, that is propaganda. Are you really trying to tell me the "Ghost of Kiev" wasn't propaganda? Are you really trying to tell me that the constant stream of reports here in the West about Russia losing "any day now" are an objective assessment of the facts? Come on.
Yes, come on now. I don't know which western media news outlets you watch, but they're not some behemoth unified front dictated by one man in power like Russia's is. I only heard of the Ghost of Kyiv once, and I think that was just a snippet of an interview someone was doing with a Ukranian, not sure. Propaganda? Probably. By Ukraine itself, which I'm not gonna judge a nation for propaganda to keep spirits up and people hopeful during an invasion. By some media outlets, sure. Each outlet is going to have their own practices and standards. But not all of them are saying the same things. Because most Western outlets are free to report the news how they want. Same can't be said for Russia's outlets, dictated solely by Putin.
Vakanai wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 1:54 amAlso I don't know what country you were watching media in, but I remember seeing plenty of critics and criticism of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan here. Sure, there was less of it in the very beginning, frankly Americans were still kind of in shock for the first two or three years after 9/11 to want to give it serious unbiased thinking, but even then criticism existed. Russia allows no criticism in it's media, and the population isn't suffering a traumatic cultural shock to the system to be thinking unclearly. Russia is pure Putin led propaganda.
You've answered that yourself. There was a lot less in the beginning, and practically none in the mainstream media. I'm not so sure the 9/11 trauma factor is valid there (aside from the effects of media coverage) given most people didn't experience 9/11 firsthand or know anyone who was killed or injured. In any case, popular opinion never mattered. The American and British governments pressed ahead on it just like any authoritarian regime you could care to name and only relented after many years when their failures became too obvious to ignore.
Except, as I said, there was some even in the beginning even if less, and still some even in mainstream media. And as the shock wore off, as people began to think outside the cloud of fear, and as it became clear that "weapons of mass destruction" was a lie and more people began to understand what was happening, the criticism grew and grew. None of that is happening in Russia, none of it can happen in Russia, because it's against the law to speak out and call it a war or an invasion. And trust me, the 9/11 trauma was valid. You didn't need to to have been there firsthand or have lost someone to experience it. It was an attack on our country, destroying some of our most iconic buildings, and killing so many of our people in one heinous act, and we weren't sure if something like that wasn't going to happen again and soon. I don't think there wasn't a single one of my countrymen who wasn't a mix of shocked, saddened, angered, and scared when that happened. How we responded to it was unfortunate, but we were an easily moldable mix of emotional people who just wanted to feel safe again and wanted to do something. Russia is just acting because one man has too much power.
And yeah, the governments kept going on despite popular opinion. But I'm not trying to defend those administrations. Why do you need to defend Putin?
Vakanai wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 1:54 amAmerica and it's allies are flawed, I won't debate that fact. We've made mistakes. We frankly did shit we shouldn't have. Some of it was shock, some of it lies (weapons of mass destruction that never existed), some of it was just on us, our fault. We've owned some of it, some we haven't. But Russia is denying any wrongdoing, trying to paint themselves as the victims and their victims as extremist militants, and will not allow it's citizens to argue against the Kremlin's worldview and are being brainwashed into believing it via state sponsored propaganda. The West is not innocent, but there's no comparison here. Russia is flat out in the wrong here, is the aggressor here, and Ukraine is suffering death and despair all because of the tyrannical Nazi-like decisions of an authoritarian and ruthless megalomaniac.
Exactly, so we might as well admit our flaws and stop pretending that we're so much better than everyone else because they also have flaws. That's not to say we should become shrinking violets and start thinking of everyone else as better than us of course, which is also untrue. Popular opinion of the Iraq War in the West shifted, but it took years of embarrassing failures for the official media and the government to do the same. They also spent years denying all wrongdoing and painting themselves as victims and their victims as extremists, so I'm not sure why you're saying "there's no comparison" when there quite clearly is a comparison.
We're not pretending we're better than Russia though, we're just calling Russia out because Russia's the one wrongly invading their neighbor. Like I said, we've no problem criticizing our own nations and governments when we think we're in the wrong. America's been in the wrong, UK's been in the wrong, but it is Russia who is in the wrong right now, Russia is the one committing war crimes right now. So right now, we should be calling Russia out for it, we should be supporting Ukraine, we should be trying to make it harder for Russia to wage this war.
And again, there is no comparison. There was no 9/11 type inciting evidence. There's no criticisms allowed. No one in the nation is calling out the war crimes. The war crimes are more flagrant, and earlier. There's nothing but propaganda. This is Putin's war because he's an authoritarian leader. Our leaders may be flawed too, but at least we can vote them out.
Never mind most of our horrors were drown strikes that accidentally targeted innocent people, because remote warfare is the most anti-humanitarian idea anyone's ever had. Meanwhile, we've all seen the bodies of Ukranians dead in the street, executed.
I am not anti-Russia. I am anti-Putin. I am anti-war. I am anti-invasion. Even if the war in Iraq and this invasion of Ukraine are comparable? That doesn't change that this invasion is an unjust tragedy committed on one nation by another that has no right to be in there.
Also, I haven't been talking about who's in the right or the wrong - in case you haven't noticed. I'm no fan of Ukraine, but I don't actually support the invasion. The point I've been making this whole time is that getting different perspectives is good, whether or not you happen to agree with them.
Sure, I agree with that. But there's a difference in perspectives, like how we should respond, are sanctions right, should we send more diplomats, etc. But those are calm and informed different perspectives. There's no value in getting the perspectives of those committing the war crimes or are brainwashed by the propaganda to believe the invasion is a just act of glory. No one needed to ask the Nazis for their perspective in WWII for folks to know they were not the good guys.
User avatar
joe00uk
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 5:00 pm
Location: UK

Re: Ukraine War Watch Thread

Post by joe00uk »

Vakanai wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 12:36 pm No. Any measure a country takes to strengthen itself is not a provocation just because their interests don't align with another country's. Every nation has the right to strengthen itself and pursue its own interests so long as those interests aren't invading another country. It was bull when my country did it in Iraq, and it's bull with Russia doing it in Ukraine now.
It will always be seen as a provocation, regardless of whether or not any of us thinks it is. That's just how relations usually are between hostile states.
Vakanai wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 12:36 pmI don't know about what happened in 1954, it doesn't matter. Crimea was a part of Ukraine for decades, to the point where most of the population, including many of the ethnic Russians, identified as Ukranian. Russia was not invited to come in and steal it by force. And really, an anti-Russian government suddenly seized power in Crimea, and that gave Russia the blessing to go forth and conquer? That doesn't make any sense.
As for the Donbass, it isn't the Ukrainians trying to wrestle it from the Ukranians, it's Russia.
See, this is where historical ignorance becomes a problem. You're telling me you don't even care about a really key piece of history which sheds a lot of light on the Crimean situation. In 1954, Russia gave Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR in a short-sighted move to further increase Russian influence over Ukraine (by adding to its responsibilities this majority Russian region) among Khrushchev's own personal affinity for Ukraine. The problem is that Crimea was not ethnically Ukrainian, and once Ukraine and Russia were no longer bound together by the Soviet Union, it made no sense for it to be part of Ukraine. Since WWII, the majority of Crimea's population has been ethnically Russian and never developed a Ukrainian identity deeper than indifference to being ruled by their government. Between 1954 and 2014, it wasn't such a contentious issue because firstly Russia and Ukraine were held together under the USSR and even afterwards between 1991 and 2014, Ukraine and Russia had reasonable relations with each other most of the time. When the virulently anti-Russian Maidan regime seized power in 2014, it was not actually received that well in Crimea or in the Donbass. They were not seen as heroic revolutionaries or liberators by most of those people and as much as you claim that most people there didn't support Russia, there was certainly even less support for Ukraine in those places. It says a lot that the annexation of Crimea was a bloodless affair, for example. It certainly can't be compared to the response to this year's invasion in much of Ukraine. The claims of manufactured public support for Russia in Crimea since 2014 have also been a stretch, to say the least. There can be no understanding of the Russo-Ukrainian War without understanding that in Crimea and the Donbass, there exists substantial (even if not overwhelming) support for Russia among the population.

Ultimately, whilst it might have been "right" to wait for a more thorough legal process to decide the fate of Crimea in 2014, I think Russia had about as much right to take it by force as the current Ukrainian regime has to be in power in the first place. Both were decided illegally, by force, and at the instigation of foreign powers.
Vakanai wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 12:36 pmYes, come on now. I don't know which western media news outlets you watch, but they're not some behemoth unified front dictated by one man in power like Russia's is. I only heard of the Ghost of Kyiv once, and I think that was just a snippet of an interview someone was doing with a Ukranian, not sure. Propaganda? Probably. By Ukraine itself, which I'm not gonna judge a nation for propaganda to keep spirits up and people hopeful during an invasion. By some media outlets, sure. Each outlet is going to have their own practices and standards. But not all of them are saying the same things. Because most Western outlets are free to report the news how they want. Same can't be said for Russia's outlets, dictated solely by Putin.
Mainstream corporate media in the West is actually surprisingly unified and very censored under the control of various monopolistic elites whose beliefs and interests overlap extensively. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that they're free to report how they want or that they're not saying the same things, because the vast majority of them are repeating the same message, sometimes word for word. The actual structures behind it may be different in terms of corporate monopoly versus the more "official" control of an authoritarian state apparatus, but the end result is similar - a stifled official media in which dissent is not tolerated and the party line must be upheld until further notice. The last few years have seen this really increase in the West, and the last two years especially. The only pretence of free media in the West comes from those who agree with regime narratives anyway and so never get the chance to see what happens to dissent. I think the only mainstream media outlet that provides an exception to the rule may be Fox News (whatever you think of it), with essentially every other major player - CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, BBC, Reuters, NYT, WaPo, the Guardian, the Times, etc - towing the same line on most issues with little variation. The Biden administration is even trying to create its own Ministry of Truth, or "Disinformation Governance Board", as if it's in any position to decide such matters. Thankfully their efforts so far are failing rather embarrassingly, but it's indicative of the dominant attitude now among Western regimes. Dissent in the West has now become "disinformation" to be censored, and we've seen this in overdrive on social media platforms over the last five years.
Vakanai wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 12:36 pmExcept, as I said, there was some even in the beginning even if less, and still some even in mainstream media. And as the shock wore off, as people began to think outside the cloud of fear, and as it became clear that "weapons of mass destruction" was a lie and more people began to understand what was happening, the criticism grew and grew. None of that is happening in Russia, none of it can happen in Russia, because it's against the law to speak out and call it a war or an invasion. And trust me, the 9/11 trauma was valid. You didn't need to to have been there firsthand or have lost someone to experience it. It was an attack on our country, destroying some of our most iconic buildings, and killing so many of our people in one heinous act, and we weren't sure if something like that wasn't going to happen again and soon. I don't think there wasn't a single one of my countrymen who wasn't a mix of shocked, saddened, angered, and scared when that happened. How we responded to it was unfortunate, but we were an easily moldable mix of emotional people who just wanted to feel safe again and wanted to do something. Russia is just acting because one man has too much power.
And yeah, the governments kept going on despite popular opinion. But I'm not trying to defend those administrations. Why do you need to defend Putin?
There was "some", yeah, but you could say there was "some" criticism of the war in Russia at the beginning as well. It just so happened in both cases that it was either drowned out or censored by the narrative the regime wanted to promote. The only way to "experience" 9/11 without any of those things was the media and what it chose to broadcast. It's not like a world war or a plague in which everyone knows people who died. It's the result of orchestrated media bombardment. Also, it's a mistake to think of the whole Russian regime as just being Putin. Even the world's most powerful dictators don't rule alone. How can they? And I'm not trying to defend Putin. What I'm doing is criticising the Western response to the war. You're creating a false dichotomy.
Vakanai wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 12:36 pmWe're not pretending we're better than Russia though, we're just calling Russia out because Russia's the one wrongly invading their neighbor. Like I said, we've no problem criticizing our own nations and governments when we think we're in the wrong. America's been in the wrong, UK's been in the wrong, but it is Russia who is in the wrong right now, Russia is the one committing war crimes right now. So right now, we should be calling Russia out for it, we should be supporting Ukraine, we should be trying to make it harder for Russia to wage this war.
Actually, a lot of people in the West are pretending they're better than Russia. So much of the Western narrative rests on moralistic foundations because there aren't any good practical arguments for helping Ukraine, in terms of how it benefits us. We're told we have to suffer higher inflation and hardship for our people because we have to sanction Russia to help Ukraine, and on top of that send billions in foreign aid to Ukraine. Whereas I think that the actions countries take should have the interests of their own people at their core. Quite clearly, our governments are more committed to propping up a dying Anglo-American empire than actually tending to the welfare of our people. This conflict shouldn't involve us at all. Russia invaded Ukraine. Ukraine has the right to fight back with its own resources, but they have absolutely no right to ours. We in the West have no obligation to support either side in their conflict. You can choose to support Ukraine if you wish, but you have no duty to and neither does anyone else.
Vakanai wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 12:36 pmAnd again, there is no comparison. There was no 9/11 type inciting evidence. There's no criticisms allowed. No one in the nation is calling out the war crimes. The war crimes are more flagrant, and earlier. There's nothing but propaganda. This is Putin's war because he's an authoritarian leader. Our leaders may be flawed too, but at least we can vote them out.
Never mind most of our horrors were drown strikes that accidentally targeted innocent people, because remote warfare is the most anti-humanitarian idea anyone's ever had. Meanwhile, we've all seen the bodies of Ukranians dead in the street, executed.
I am not anti-Russia. I am anti-Putin. I am anti-war. I am anti-invasion. Even if the war in Iraq and this invasion of Ukraine are comparable? That doesn't change that this invasion is an unjust tragedy committed on one nation by another that has no right to be in there.
From the Russian point of view (again, not my own), the actions of the Ukrainian regime since 2014 have been inciting incidents - especially when you include the brutal violence they used when they came to power. Look up the 2014 Odessa massacre, for example. I'm not saying these are valid excuses to invade, but neither was 9/11 which had nothing to do with either Iraq or Afghanistan. Yeah, we can vote out our leaders and replace them with people of the same milieu who will dogmatically pursue the same policies. Our elections are fast on their way to becoming as meaningful as those behind the Iron Curtain in the 1970s.
Vakanai wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 12:36 pmSure, I agree with that. But there's a difference in perspectives, like how we should respond, are sanctions right, should we send more diplomats, etc. But those are calm and informed different perspectives. There's no value in getting the perspectives of those committing the war crimes or are brainwashed by the propaganda to believe the invasion is a just act of glory. No one needed to ask the Nazis for their perspective in WWII for folks to know they were not the good guys.
Yes, but the danger comes when you (or anyone else) decides they're superior enough to judge who's brainwashed and who isn't. Even Nazi perspectives during WWII are historically valuable (even just from a "know your enemy" point of view) - not that Russia today is anything close to Nazi Germany, which it isn't.
Last edited by joe00uk on Sat May 21, 2022 8:52 pm, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Certain Russian user
Posts: 147
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2022 1:44 pm

Re: Ukraine War Watch Thread

Post by Certain Russian user »

joe00uk wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 2:50 pm
Vakanai wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 12:36 pmI don't know about what happened in 1954, it doesn't matter.
You're telling me you don't even care about a really key piece...
Yes, this very sentence blew me away. I even rushed to reply, but... no, just no... and you are still as patient and scrupulous as in the old forum. :D
joe00uk wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 2:50 pm Yeah, we can vote out our leaders and replace them with people of the same milieu who will dogmatically pursue the same policies. Our elections are fast on their way to becoming as meaningful those behind the Iron Curtain in the 1970s.
This was well, if even ironically, worded in one book ("The Light That Failed" by Ivan Krastev, if my memory serves): "they can not replace Putin, who can change his course, while we can replace leaders, who can not change the course" Not exact quote, but something like that.
We are few, and the enemy is strong, but God is not in power, but in truth. Some with weapons, and others on horseback, but we call on the name of the Lord our God; they were defeated and fell, but we stood and stand straight.
User avatar
caltrek
Posts: 6509
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 1:17 pm

Re: Ukraine War Watch Thread

Post by caltrek »

Certain Russian user wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 3:17 pm ...

This was well, if even ironically, worded in one book ("The Light That Failed" by Ivan Krastev, if my memory serves): "they can not replace Putin, who can change his course, while we can replace leaders, who can not change the course" Not exact quote, but something like that.
So, are you saying that Putin should "change his course"?
Last edited by caltrek on Sat May 21, 2022 5:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Don't mourn, organize.

-Joe Hill
weatheriscool
Posts: 12972
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 6:16 pm

Re: Ukraine War Watch Thread

Post by weatheriscool »

Struggling in Ukraine, Russia paves way to sign up over-40s for army
Source: Reuters

In a sign of Russia's urgent need to bolster its war effort in Ukraine, parliament said on Friday it would consider a bill to allow Russians over 40 and foreigners over 30 to sign up for the military.

[snip]
Currently, only Russians aged 18-40 and foreigners aged 18-30 can enter into a first contract with the military.

Russia has suffered huge setbacks and heavy losses of men and equipment in the 86-day-old war, in which Ukraine has mobilised practically its entire adult male population. Despite taking full control of the ruins of Mariupol, Moscow remains far from its objective of seizing all of the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. read more

"Clearly, the Russians are in trouble. This is the latest attempt to address manpower shortages without alarming their own population. But it is growing increasingly difficult for the Kremlin to disguise their failures in Ukraine," said retired U.S. General Ben Hodges, a former commander of U.S. Army forces in Europe.
Read more: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ru ... 022-05-20/
User avatar
funkervogt
Posts: 1171
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 3:03 pm

Re: Ukraine War Watch Thread

Post by funkervogt »

joe00uk wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 2:50 pm Ultimately, whilst it might have been "right" to wait for a more thorough legal process to decide the fate of Crimea in 2014, I think Russia had about as much right to take it by force as the current Ukrainian regime has to be in power in the first place. Both were decided illegally, by force, and at the instigation of foreign powers.
Why do you say that?

The removal of President Yanukovych in 2014 was not done in accordance with Ukraine's constitution, so you could fairly claim that his successor, Petro Poroshenko, was illegitimate. However, Poroshenko left office in 2019, and his successor, Zelenskyy, won a free and fair election that year to become President. So, the current regime controlling Ukraine is legitimate.
joe00uk wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 2:50 pm Mainstream corporate media in the West is actually surprisingly unified and very censored under the control of various monopolistic elites whose beliefs and interests overlap extensively. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that they're free to report how they want or that they're not saying the same things, because the vast majority of them are repeating the same message, sometimes word for word. The actual structures behind it may be different in terms of corporate monopoly versus the more "official" control of an authoritarian state apparatus, but the end result is similar - a stifled official media in which dissent is not tolerated and the party line must be upheld until further notice. The last few years have seen this really increase in the West, and the last two years especially. The only pretence of free media in the West comes from those who agree with regime narratives anyway and so never get the chance to see what happens to dissent. I think the only mainstream media outlet that provides an exception to the rule may be Fox News (whatever you think of it), with essentially every other major player - CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, BBC, Reuters, NYT, WaPo, the Guardian, the Times, etc - towing the same line on most issues with little variation. The Biden administration is even trying to create its own Ministry of Truth, or "Disinformation Governance Board", as if it's in any position to decide such matters. Thankfully their efforts so far are failing rather embarrassingly, but it's indicative of the dominant attitude now among Western regimes. Dissent in the West has now become "disinformation" to be censored, and we've seen this in overdrive on social media platforms over the last five years.

That's an accurate analysis, though I think Reuters is the most neutral of the news outlets you listed, and is largely trustworthy. In the U.S., most people are tragically misled and don't even realize it, or, even worse, are aware that their favorite news sources are biased and are proud of it. The latter is a recent manifestation of the long-running "American cult of stupidity," where people take pride in their ignorance and bully smart or openminded people.

Access to information is even more controlled in places like Russia, but Americans are wrong to think the news media landscapes of the two countries represent a difference in kind; they are differences in degree.
joe00uk wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 2:50 pmActually, a lot of people in the West are pretending they're better than Russia. So much of the Western narrative rests on moralistic foundations because there aren't any good practical arguments for helping Ukraine, in terms of how it benefits us. We're told we have to suffer higher inflation and hardship for our people because we have to sanction Russia to help Ukraine, and on top of that send billions in foreign aid to Ukraine. Whereas I think that the actions countries take should have the interests of their own people at their core. Quite clearly, our governments are more committed to propping up a dying Anglo-American empire than actually tending to the welfare of our people. This conflict shouldn't involve us at all. Russia invaded Ukraine. Ukraine has the right to fight back with its own resources, but they have absolutely no right to ours. We in the West have no obligation to support either side in their conflict. You can choose to support Ukraine if you wish, but you have no duty to and neither does anyone else.
What do you mean? Russia is a major rival to the West, and thus it benefits us to do whatever we can to weaken Russia. The opportunity to do so has presented itself in Ukraine thanks to Russia's invasion. The more weapons and money we give to Ukraine, the more Russian forces are destroyed, and the more damaged their economy gets. The West has a much larger economy than Russia, so it can outspend them on the battlefield. The argument for helping Ukraine is practical.
joe00uk wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 2:50 pm From the Russian point of view (again, not my own), the actions of the Ukrainian regime since 2014 have been inciting incidents - especially when you include the brutal violence they used when they came to power. Look up the 2014 Odessa massacre, for example. I'm not saying these are valid excuses to invade, but neither was 9/11 which had nothing to do with either Iraq or Afghanistan. Yeah, we can vote out our leaders and replace them with people of the same milieu who will dogmatically pursue the same policies. Our elections are fast on their way to becoming as meaningful as those behind the Iron Curtain in the 1970s.
The Russian perspective is well-reflected in this essay: https://jacobinmag.com/2022/02/maidan-p ... ato-crimea

Basically, they feel like they're being encircled by the U.S. and its allies in a tightening noose, leaving them with no friends or protective buffer states, and Ukraine is the latest domino we're trying to knock down. Russians think the U.S. government and billionaire Westerners like George Soros systematically use "support for democracy and human rights" as a cover to sow chaos and revolution in smaller countries and to eventually gain control over them, and that we've been using this strategy to try taking control of Ukraine since 2004. (In retrospect, I think it wasn't worth it, and we should have conceded Ukraine as a Russian satellite.)

There are kernels of truth to this cynical take on U.S. and European foreign policy. As the essay I posted makes clear, the 2014 Maidan Revolution got substantial U.S. support and might not have succeeded without it. The revolutionaries ignored democratic processes, and ousted Ukraine's President illegally. Neo-Nazi militant groups committed violence to help the revolutionaries win. These facts are almost unknown in the U.S. because the mainstream media gave them insignificant coverage, and the events of 2014 are depicted as a black-and-white struggle between good and evil.

Likewise, the efforts to "support democracy and human rights" in places like Libya, Afghanistan, and Syria look like naked power grabs to Russians (and many other foreigners). The West is just better at marketing their invasions as positive things than Russia is. Most Americans are oblivious and assume that the wars they're involved in are necessary to protect democracy and human rights, or have been forced on America by a malevolent country.
User avatar
joe00uk
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 5:00 pm
Location: UK

Re: Ukraine War Watch Thread

Post by joe00uk »

funkervogt wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 10:06 pm Why do you say that?

The removal of President Yanukovych in 2014 was not done in accordance with Ukraine's constitution, so you could fairly claim that his successor, Petro Poroshenko, was illegitimate. However, Poroshenko left office in 2019, and his successor, Zelenskyy, won a free and fair election that year to become President. So, the current regime controlling Ukraine is legitimate.
I see where you're coming from, but Zelenskyy's government is still part of the same regime that seized power in 2014 - which is to say it continues the same policies, ambitions, and institutions, is controlled by the same dominant cliques and is beholden to the same oligarchs. Ukraine's democratic integrity was poor under Poroshenko, but it has not been particularly impressive under Zelenskyy either. Clearly, however, the Maidan regime has cemented itself in its power and the Ukrainian population outside of the Donbass has acquiesced to its rule. When I speak of regime continuity, for comparison, I would define Britain today as being governed by the same regime since 1688, despite numerous transfers of power between various factions of the ruling elite.
funkervogt wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 10:06 pmThat's an accurate analysis, though I think Reuters is the most neutral of the news outlets you listed, and is largely trustworthy. In the U.S., most people are tragically misled and don't even realize it, or, even worse, are aware that their favorite news sources are biased and are proud of it. The latter is a recent manifestation of the long-running "American cult of stupidity," where people take pride in their ignorance and bully smart or openminded people.

Access to information is even more controlled in places like Russia, but Americans are wrong to think the news media landscapes of the two countries represent a difference in kind; they are differences in degree.
Agreed.
funkervogt wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 10:06 pmWhat do you mean? Russia is a major rival to the West, and thus it benefits us to do whatever we can to weaken Russia. The opportunity to do so has presented itself in Ukraine thanks to Russia's invasion. The more weapons and money we give to Ukraine, the more Russian forces are destroyed, and the more damaged their economy gets. The West has a much larger economy than Russia, so it can outspend them on the battlefield. The argument for helping Ukraine is practical.
But who is "us"? Ordinary people living in the West, or the ruling elite? Our ruling elites certainly seem convinced that it's in their interests to prop up their globalised empire along with its various military outposts at all costs, but it certainly doesn't benefit ordinary people here to deal with spiralling inflation and subsequent shortages and recession. The economies of the West are nominally "large", but the reality is increasingly different. Financial gimmickry and the global reserve status of the US dollar (which is now steadily fading) used to be able to mask this fact for a while, but ultimately, with depleted natural resources and most of our manufacturing capacities off-shored decades ago, our true economic might amounts to less and less each passing year. The power of the West depends on its ability to bludgeon and bankrupt the rest of the world into submission, and that hasn't been working out too well these last few decades. The tables are turning, for better or worse, and cutting ourselves off from valuable Russian resources isn't going to make that transition any smoother for us.
funkervogt wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 10:06 pmThe Russian perspective is well-reflected in this essay: https://jacobinmag.com/2022/02/maidan-p ... ato-crimea

Basically, they feel like they're being encircled by the U.S. and its allies in a tightening noose, leaving them with no friends or protective buffer states, and Ukraine is the latest domino we're trying to knock down. Russians think the U.S. government and billionaire Westerners like George Soros systematically use "support for democracy and human rights" as a cover to sow chaos and revolution in smaller countries and to eventually gain control over them, and that we've been using this strategy to try taking control of Ukraine since 2004. (In retrospect, I think it wasn't worth it, and we should have conceded Ukraine as a Russian satellite.)

There are kernels of truth to this cynical take on U.S. and European foreign policy. As the essay I posted makes clear, the 2014 Maidan Revolution got substantial U.S. support and might not have succeeded without it. The revolutionaries ignored democratic processes, and ousted Ukraine's President illegally. Neo-Nazi militant groups committed violence to help the revolutionaries win. These facts are almost unknown in the U.S. because the mainstream media gave them insignificant coverage, and the events of 2014 are depicted as a black-and-white struggle between good and evil.

Likewise, the efforts to "support democracy and human rights" in places like Libya, Afghanistan, and Syria look like naked power grabs to Russians (and many other foreigners). The West is just better at marketing their invasions as positive things than Russia is. Most Americans are oblivious and assume that the wars they're involved in are necessary to protect democracy and human rights, or have been forced on America by a malevolent country.
Also agreed.
Vakanai
Posts: 313
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2022 10:23 pm

Re: Ukraine War Watch Thread

Post by Vakanai »

joe00uk wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 2:50 pm It will always be seen as a provocation, regardless of whether or not any of us thinks it is. That's just how relations usually are between hostile states.
Except that is false - if it was true, every single member of NATO would be invading Russia and we'd be in World War 3 those of us who survived the nuclear weapons because Russia is hostile to us. Yet we haven't, because that's not how nations should respond. Russia is not absolved just because they're hostile to Ukraine, that is ridiculous.
See, this is where historical ignorance becomes a problem. You're telling me you don't even care about a really key piece of history which sheds a lot of light on the Crimean situation.
Yes, and it's not a problem. See, because here's the thing - while historical knowledge might shed some light on the cultural situation now, and might shed some light into Putin's thinking because he's probably old enough to remember, nothing, absolutely nothing that happened that happened 68 years ago could ever possibly justify the present invasion. It was so long ago that most of humanity alive today wasn't alive then. Generations have grown up that had nothing to do with it, and you want to use it as a partial explanation for why they should suffer an invasion now?
Sorry, but while knowing history is important, being beholden to it only makes sense if you believe in propaganda used to justify the unjustifiable.
In 1954, Russia gave Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR in a short-sighted move to further increase Russian influence over Ukraine (by adding to its responsibilities this majority Russian region) among Khrushchev's own personal affinity for Ukraine. The problem is that Crimea was not ethnically Ukrainian, and once Ukraine and Russia were no longer bound together by the Soviet Union, it made no sense for it to be part of Ukraine. Since WWII, the majority of Crimea's population has been ethnically Russian and never developed a Ukrainian identity deeper than indifference to being ruled by their government. Between 1954 and 2014, it wasn't such a contentious issue because firstly Russia and Ukraine were held together under the USSR and even afterwards between 1991 and 2014, Ukraine and Russia had reasonable relations with each other most of the time. When the virulently anti-Russian Maidan regime seized power in 2014, it was not actually received that well in Crimea or in the Donbass. They were not seen as heroic revolutionaries or liberators by most of those people and as much as you claim that most people there didn't support Russia, there was certainly even less support for Ukraine in those places. It says a lot that the annexation of Crimea was a bloodless affair, for example. It certainly can't be compared to the response to this year's invasion in much of Ukraine. The claims of manufactured public support for Russia in Crimea since 2014 have also been a stretch, to say the least. There can be no understanding of the Russo-Ukrainian War without understanding that in Crimea and the Donbass, there exists substantial (even if not overwhelming) support for Russia among the population.
Yep, it's exactly as I figured. Now that I know the history, it changes nothing. I suppose however it is useless to tell you that over nearly 70 years that most Crimeans actually did grow a Ukrainian identity, or that the annexation was not bloodless.
Ultimately, whilst it might have been "right" to wait for a more thorough legal process to decide the fate of Crimea in 2014, I think Russia had about as much right to take it by force as the current Ukrainian regime has to be in power in the first place. Both were decided illegally, by force, and at the instigation of foreign powers.
No, not even remotely close. Generations who identified as Ukrainian, under the government they had political power in and could vote in, versus an annexation forced upon them by Putin.
Sorry, but there's no version of this where Ukraine is just as in the wrong as Russia.

I was going to continue to respond to your further points, but then it hit me - it's pointless. I'm arguing against propaganda. I'm trying to debate against the Putin's decades of mindwashing and influence. There's no point in arguing against someone culturally and politically determined to justify and defend Putin's actions against Ukraine. Russia should not be there. They had no right to take Crimea, no right to invade a sovereign nation, no right to be taking the Donbass now, and no right to commit war crimes and execute Ukrainians in the street. Russia is as innocent and justified right now as Nazi Germany was during the Holocaust. You can try and paint Russia's actions as a good thing, but the rest of the world isn't buying it. We won't stop Russia. Putin will get away with the violence and murders. But don't expect the rest of the world to applaud him for it.
User avatar
joe00uk
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 5:00 pm
Location: UK

Re: Ukraine War Watch Thread

Post by joe00uk »

Vakanai wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 12:16 am Except that is false - if it was true, every single member of NATO would be invading Russia and we'd be in World War 3 those of us who survived the nuclear weapons because Russia is hostile to us. Yet we haven't, because that's not how nations should respond. Russia is not absolved just because they're hostile to Ukraine, that is ridiculous.
So you're saying it's false that hostile states easily find excuses to label each other's actions as provocative?
Vakanai wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 12:16 amYes, and it's not a problem. See, because here's the thing - while historical knowledge might shed some light on the cultural situation now, and might shed some light into Putin's thinking because he's probably old enough to remember, nothing, absolutely nothing that happened that happened 68 years ago could ever possibly justify the present invasion. It was so long ago that most of humanity alive today wasn't alive then. Generations have grown up that had nothing to do with it, and you want to use it as a partial explanation for why they should suffer an invasion now?
Sorry, but while knowing history is important, being beholden to it only makes sense if you believe in propaganda used to justify the unjustifiable.
Right, so I guess in your opinion, historical events can't have lasting impacts and legacies. Also, where am I arguing in favour of invasion? I've said multiple times now that whilst these factors exist, they don't justify invasion in my view. What I'm doing is explaining why Russians may see it as justified, regardless of my own personal opinion. I'm not interested in defending either Ukraine or Russia, so I have nothing against understanding as many perspectives as possible. Clearly the same cannot be said for yourself.
Vakanai wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 12:16 amYep, it's exactly as I figured. Now that I know the history, it changes nothing. I suppose however it is useless to tell you that over nearly 70 years that most Crimeans actually did grow a Ukrainian identity, or that the annexation was not bloodless.
Except they didn't grow such an identity. Ukrainians were never more than a minority group in Crimea. At most, a sizeable chunk of the population identified as both Russian and Ukrainian because of their own ethnic mixture, but the majority of the population has been ethnically Russian since the Second World War and there was more support for annexation by Russia than opposition. Otherwise, we would have seen a lot more resistance than there actually was. Not only that, but a joint survey the Broadcasting Board of Governors (a US government agency) and Gallup was taken during April 2014 and polled 500 residents of Crimea. The survey found that 82.8% of those polled believed that the results of the Crimean status referendum reflected the views of most residents of Crimea, and just 6.7% said that it did not. 73.9% of those polled said that they thought that the annexation would have a positive impact on their lives, and 5.5% said that it would not. 13.6% said that they did not know. A more comprehensive poll released in May 2014 by the Pew Research Centre surveyed local opinions on the annexation. Despite Western criticism of the Crimean referendum, 91% of those Crimeans polled thought that the vote was free and fair, and 88% said that the Ukrainian government should recognise the results. If even Western polling found this, I think there's probably something to it. As for being bloodless, okay, I'll admit that's not strictly true - six deaths are attributable to it, with three killed by each side. Still, for a region you claim to have developed a Ukrainian identity, they certainly didn't fight very hard to keep it that way.
Vakanai wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 12:16 amNo, not even remotely close. Generations who identified as Ukrainian, under the government they had political power in and could vote in, versus an annexation forced upon them by Putin.
Sorry, but there's no version of this where Ukraine is just as in the wrong as Russia.
The Maidan regime was also forced on them. Read up on the 2014 revolution. They seized power violently and with the backing of the US, not via peaceful democratic means.
Vakanai wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 12:16 amI was going to continue to respond to your further points, but then it hit me - it's pointless. I'm arguing against propaganda. I'm trying to debate against the Putin's decades of mindwashing and influence. There's no point in arguing against someone culturally and politically determined to justify and defend Putin's actions against Ukraine. Russia should not be there. They had no right to take Crimea, no right to invade a sovereign nation, no right to be taking the Donbass now, and no right to commit war crimes and execute Ukrainians in the street. Russia is as innocent and justified right now as Nazi Germany was during the Holocaust. You can try and paint Russia's actions as a good thing, but the rest of the world isn't buying it. We won't stop Russia. Putin will get away with the violence and murders. But don't expect the rest of the world to applaud him for it.
In other words, you've given up because you can't prove anything I'm saying wrong. Okay, so be it. That's not my problem. Nowhere have I tried to defend Putin or claim that Russia's invasion is justified, and being a young man in Britain, I also don't happen to have had any exposure to "Putin's decades of mind washing and influence". Your reading comprehension clearly leaves much to be desired.
Vakanai
Posts: 313
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2022 10:23 pm

Re: Ukraine War Watch Thread

Post by Vakanai »

joe00uk wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 12:57 am ]In other words, you've given up because you can't prove anything I'm saying wrong. Okay, so be it. That's not my problem. Nowhere have I tried to defend Putin or claim that Russia's invasion is justified, and being a young man in Britain, I also don't happen to have had any exposure to "Putin's decades of mind washing and influence". Your reading comprehension clearly leaves much to be desired.
No. Given up implies accepting defeat. I don't know what argument you want to make is. That somehow the west is just as wrong or bad as Putin, or that wrong and bad doesn't exist or is a matter of perspective, but I don't care because who wants or needs a philosophical debate when people are dying? What is the point in any of this when one man has arbitrarily decided to declare war on people who don't deserve it, while outlawing his people to even call it a war? What are you after with this argument? What is your point? What is your angle? What is there to gain? What argument is being made here that makes up for the horror of what's going on here? I'm washing my hands of this debate in moral disgust, if you wish to claim some kind of victory with that, go ahead.

And there's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension - I'm just skeptical anyone can take a stance that this invasion isn't a humanitarian and unjustifiable horror and not be either under the influence of, or a participating part of, Russia's propaganda efforts.

Sorry if I come off strongly, but this is just not an issue which I can discuss in a cold, unemotional, purely intellectual manner. This whole thing literally sickens me, so when people try to sweep it up as just usual operating procedures between nations and that history most of us weren't alive for, while stating Russia's talking points that Crimeans didn't really identify as Ukrainian after nearly 70 years, it's just. I just don't have the will to continue debating this in a calm manner without getting ugly about it. We've seen the pictures of the death Russia is leaving behind, we know Putin's sins, everything else is just a pointless discussion about politics and philosophy and history that has nothing to do with what I actually care about, which is the people pointlessly dying and suffering because of a remorseless dictator's ambitions.
Post Reply