Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[chrisp65]

Ah, I can see the problem. You haven’t actually read my post. 

[KentVillan]

Wars and conflicts are always morally complex, but this is one of the less morally complex ones.

Putin is the chief villain, Russia is a basket case, and Ukraine needs support. Hard to argue against any of that.

Where the moral complexities come in is in how third parties are positioning themselves around the conflict. Are we doing what’s best for Ukraine or what’s best for the US / NATO / EU / “the west”? Is it altruism or opportunity?

Maybe the two are the same thing, but there’s a little bit of hypocrisy sometimes on this point - we make moral arguments against Putin’s fixation on Russia’s sphere of influence, and then clearly we make judgments that relate to our own realpolitik objectives.

The original sin really was letting Russia become such a basket case in the first place. All kinds of different people are to blame for that going back 100s of years. Dictators tend to thrive in chaotic situations, because they promise strength and stability, and then unfortunately that goes hand in hand with committing unspeakable atrocities.

What worries me is it’s so mainstream at the moment to say ethnic Russians are basically a race of bloodthirsty rapist idiots who need to be deprogrammed or eliminated. Sure, I don’t shed a tear for any Russians that get shot invading another country, but they’re human beings. This is not a healthy way to talk about people.

We can see in North Korea and South Korea that it’s the regime and the cultural norms, not innate features of ethnic groups, that make people behave differently in these situations. There’s nothing uniquely evil about Russians. We shouldn’t forget that.

[blandy]

18 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Pragmatism suggests they must gain no land, but not be turned in to a long term basket case. 

As always, it’s a case of be careful what you wish for.

That bit I completely agree

[blandy]

4 hours ago, KentVillan said:

The original sin really was letting Russia become such a basket case in the first place.

That's not on us, or on Ukraine.  That's on Putin, entirely.

[Awol]

I think politicians in the west can be grouped roughly into 5 categories:

Those who don’t care either way;

Those who want Russia to win (Orban, some sections of Italian and Austrian politics)

Those who don’t care about Ukraine but see the opportunity presented by the invasion to weaken Russian military potential for a decade;

Those who want Ukraine to win but are trapped inside a theory of escalation that has now been discredited by events;

Those who are balls out all-in for Ukrainian victory (Finland, Poland, Baltic states), with victory defined as full restoration of the 1991 borders which includes Crimea.  

There are people from each category in almost every western country.

[Genie]

7 minutes ago, Awol said:

I think politicians in the west can be grouped roughly into 5 categories:

Those who don’t care either way;

Those who want Russia to win (Orban, some sections of Italian and Austrian politics)

Those who don’t care about Ukraine but see the opportunity presented by the invasion to weaken Russian military potential for a decade;

Those who want Ukraine to win but are trapped inside a theory of escalation that has now been discredited by events;

Those who are balls out all-in for Ukrainian victory (Finland, Poland, Baltic states), with victory defined as full restoration of the 1991 borders which includes Crimea.  

There are people from each category in almost every western country.

Is there still a category for leaders who use the conflict to try and make themselves look better on the international stage against a backdrop of total incompetence at home? Or was it just Boris?

[sidcow]

7 hours ago, KentVillan said:

Wars and conflicts are always morally complex, but this is one of the less morally complex ones.

Putin is the chief villain, Russia is a basket case, and Ukraine needs support. Hard to argue against any of that.

Where the moral complexities come in is in how third parties are positioning themselves around the conflict. Are we doing what’s best for Ukraine or what’s best for the US / NATO / EU / “the west”? Is it altruism or opportunity?

Maybe the two are the same thing, but there’s a little bit of hypocrisy sometimes on this point - we make moral arguments against Putin’s fixation on Russia’s sphere of influence, and then clearly we make judgments that relate to our own realpolitik objectives.

The original sin really was letting Russia become such a basket case in the first place. All kinds of different people are to blame for that going back 100s of years. Dictators tend to thrive in chaotic situations, because they promise strength and stability, and then unfortunately that goes hand in hand with committing unspeakable atrocities.

What worries me is it’s so mainstream at the moment to say ethnic Russians are basically a race of bloodthirsty rapist idiots who need to be deprogrammed or eliminated. Sure, I don’t shed a tear for any Russians that get shot invading another country, but they’re human beings. This is not a healthy way to talk about people.

We can see in North Korea and South Korea that it’s the regime and the cultural norms, not innate features of ethnic groups, that make people behave differently in these situations. There’s nothing uniquely evil about Russians. We shouldn’t forget that.

We also do see quite a few examples of people clearly not happy with what's going on and how the country is run but you've got to sympathise with anyone who knows that if they protest they and their family and friends will be imprisoned, murdered, fall out of high windows, injest highly poisonous or radioactive materials.  I wouldn't blame anyone for towing the line and keeping their head down. Not everyone is built for revolution. 

[blandy]

59 minutes ago, Awol said:

I think politicians in the west can be grouped roughly into 5 categories:

Those who don’t care either way;

Those who want Russia to win (Orban, some sections of Italian and Austrian politics)

Those who don’t care about Ukraine but see the opportunity presented by the invasion to weaken Russian military potential for a decade;

Those who want Ukraine to win but are trapped inside a theory of escalation that has now been discredited by events;

Those who are balls out all-in for Ukrainian victory (Finland, Poland, Baltic states), with victory defined as full restoration of the 1991 borders which includes Crimea.  

There are people from each category in almost every western country.

What about those who just wish it would all go away?

Those who use it to seek political advantage internally?

Those who on principle take a stance, regardless?

Those who use(d) it to seek some kind of personal reputation and end up on one side or the other as a consequence?

[chrisp65]

There is part of me that would be genuinely fascinated to go along to this.

 

I’ve noticed the last time I’ve gone through Monmouth there were a few ‘NO2NATO’ stickers, then last week, a sign stuck above the tunnel.

Didn’t have Monmouth down as the birthplace of the revolution, but there you go.

[avfc1982am]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

There is part of me that would be genuinely fascinated to go along to this.

 

I’ve noticed the last time I’ve gone through Monmouth there were a few ‘NO2NATO’ stickers, then last week, a sign stuck above the tunnel.

Didn’t have Monmouth down as the birthplace of the revolution, but there you go.

NO2NATO - yes to WW3. 

Gallowayand his cronies, using a church as a platform. Not a Russian Orthodox one though which I'm sure they'd all feel happier chanting disarm Ukraine and hand her to Putin.  

[Xann]

1 hour ago, Genie said:

Is there still a category for leaders who use the conflict to try and make themselves look better on the international stage against a backdrop of total treachery at home? Or was it just Brexit Boris the Groomed.

50 minutes ago, blandy said:

What about those who just wish it would all go away?...

Adding motivation does aid with grasping the situation.

Much of the smoke has dissipated and a lot of mirrors are cracked too. The rolls of the major players would seem to be much clearer now.

Though there's always room for a twist going forward.

It's all a fascinating watch, but it's just so awful for those at the sharp end.

I think a friend's brother will be in the Russian draft soon, if it's not happened already?

[blandy]

54 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

There is part of me that would be genuinely fascinated to go along to this.

 

I’ve noticed the last time I’ve gone through Monmouth there were a few ‘NO2NATO’ stickers, then last week, a sign stuck above the tunnel.

Didn’t have Monmouth down as the birthplace of the revolution, but there you go.

Where's Catweazle gone? Thought he'd be up for that.

[KentVillan]

5 hours ago, blandy said:

That's not on us, or on Ukraine.  That's on Putin, entirely.

Strong disagree. Russia has been a basket case for decades, Putin came to power as a strong man because it was such a mess. Yes he’s made it a lot worse, and he is an evil piece of shit, but if we pin everything on Putin, we’ll be in for a shock when Russia continues to be a basket case post-Putin.

i wasn’t btw trying to make a Corbynesque anti-NATO argument. I think Ukraine genuinely wants to align with the west / EU / NATO and has good reasons to do so.

Very much pro Ukraine and sending arms to Ukraine. Just think turning this into a Lord of the Rings type of narrative will cloud judgment and stop us from ever fixing this situation long term.

As @sidcowsaid, the expectation in some quarters that the ordinary Russian should be actively working to overthrow Putin is so farfetched. Look what happens to everyone who tries to do this. And yet you see so many takes on pro-Ukraine corners of the internet saying that Russians who don’t stand up to Putin are complicit.

[Xann]

33 minutes ago, blandy said:

Where's Catweazle gone? Thought he'd be up for that.

So many picket lines. So little time.

[bickster]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

There is part of me that would be genuinely fascinated to go along to this.

 

I’ve noticed the last time I’ve gone through Monmouth there were a few ‘NO2NATO’ stickers, then last week, a sign stuck above the tunnel.

Didn’t have Monmouth down as the birthplace of the revolution, but there you go.

So the speakers list reads as Putin Shill, Useful Idiot, two nutty Irish MEPs (also likely Putinistas), two people who run a nutty website, a rapper of no consequence and I think a Vice-president of ASLEF

4 hours of that should be a punishment for something

[LondonLax]

19 hours ago, bickster said:

Have you heard the stories about the Russian advance to Soledar yesterday? (more on thread)

 

It sounds like the Russian’s do know about the network of mines around Soledar and Bakhmut and in fact Prigozhin has said the reason they are attacking Bakhmut is to try and take control of the network of mines. 

Quote

Yevgeny Prigozhin, founder of Russia’s Wagner mercenary group which is fighting in the battle of Bakhmut, set out in detail on Sunday why he thought its capture would be significant.

“The cherry on the cake is the system of Soledar and Bakhmut mines, which is actually a network of underground cities. It not only [has the ability to hold] a big group of people at a depth of 80-100 metres, but tanks and infantry fighting vehicles can also move about.”

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/russian-mercenary-boss-wants-ukraine-town-for-its-underground-cities-20230108-p5cb3a.html

[Mandy Lifeboats]

4 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

There is part of me that would be genuinely fascinated to go along to this.

 

I’ve noticed the last time I’ve gone through Monmouth there were a few ‘NO2NATO’ stickers, then last week, a sign stuck above the tunnel.

Didn’t have Monmouth down as the birthplace of the revolution, but there you go.

Mick Wallace.  Bankrupt.  Tax cheat. 

 

Edited January 8, 2023 by Mandy Lifeboats
Speeling.

[chrisp65]

30 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Mick Wallace.  Bankrupt.  Tax cheat. 

 

Are you suggesting he’s there to provide the right wing tory balance?

 

I only actually recognised the top two names, but that kind of set up my presumptions for all the others.

[bickster]

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

It sounds like the Russian’s do know about the network of mines around Soledar and Bakhmut and in fact Prigozhin has said the reason they are attacking Bakhmut is to try and take control of the network of mines. 

Well of course they know about them now

If you actually believe that is the reason they've spend months on end trying to attack Bakhmut, I feel for you

The reason they were attacking Bakhmut was that it was logistically important (but no longer is due to the advanced front), since the need for Bakhmut has changed, it's anyone's guess why but it will probably boil down to pride and idiocy. It certainly isn't to play hide the nonexistent tank or wacky racers 100ft underground

[LondonLax]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

Well of course they know about them now

If you actually believe that is the reason they've spend months on end trying to attack Bakhmut, I feel for you

The reason they were attacking Bakhmut was that it was logistically important (but no longer is due to the advanced front), since the need for Bakhmut has changed, it's anyone's guess why but it will probably boil down to pride and idiocy. It certainly isn't to play hide the nonexistent tank or wacky racers 100ft underground

It’s probably the White House official you need to ‘feel for’.

Quote

A White House official said on Thursday that Washington believed Prigozhin wanted to take control of salt and gypsum mines in the area for commercial reasons.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/russian-mercenary-boss-wants-ukraine-town-for-its-underground-cities-20230108-p5cb3a.html