Necessity will find what is needed and the mental defectives will get shuttled out of the way if the entire system is facing existential crisis. The tragedy is that it is all avoidable but there is a lot of deck stacking to get one or more of these to pop off and people believe the official narratives still.
Putin says he consulted with Tsar Nicholas II and Catherine the Great.
In Putin's view, Russia should re-establish the old Russian empire of the 19th century.
Both are because the country is worried about NATO encroachment. Taiwan is a key aspect of the US's plan of boxing china in from the straight of malacca all the way to the channel between korea and japan. Currently all the countries on that border lean US so its conceivable to pull the plan off and completely cut china off from maritime trade. If china controls taiwan the plan doesnt work.
Russia is similarly worried about the expansive flatland past the dnipro river.
Of course there are other historical reasons for the invasion and war is always a good way to boost the leaders approval so funny business often happens for little geopolitical reason at all.
Russia is similarly worried about the expansive flatland past the Dnipro river.
Except it's not - its current regime just pretends to be, for internal and external propaganda purposes. Ditto for NATO encroachment. It's just a bogeyman, nothing more.
The sibling comment encapsulates the regime's true motives quite succinctly:
I think outright rejecting the reasoning is wrong. Of course you are right though that other reasons are far more important for putin. China has very legitimate reasons to go to war over the US's island chain policy as they are reliant on imported oil and the US has already shown a willingness to engage in cold war.
It isn't so much about outright rejecting the regime's stated rationale -- but simply not outright accepting its statements at face value, as many people seem overly ready and willing to do. As if they're forgotten that, in addition to being mean, dictators tend to lie a lot.
(This in reference to Ukraine; I don't really think too much about Taiwan).
China has very legitimate reasons to go to war over the US's island chain policy as they are reliant on imported oil
Though now that I do parse the second half of what you're saying - this is completely nuts of course, and just so happens to be nearly identical to Japan's rationale for attacking the US in WW2.
"because it means 2.5 years of total war was for nothing."
Coincidently, most soldiers who fight in long wars, tend to think that, no matter the background.
But on the geopolitical map, Ukraine could have lost everything, and not just some more territory in the east. The initial surprise attack was aimed at Kiev.
It would be worse than nothing. Allowing Russia to come away from the current conflict with freshly-annexed territory just emboldens Putin to invade again later, much like taking Crimea in 2014 ultimately led to today. If he can't take all of Ukraine now, he'll settle for invading again later once he's regrouped and rebuilt.
A bare minimum requirement (to have any sense of sanity in the world after this is all over, or at least comes to some kind of a pause) is that (1) Russia will never be granted formal sovereignty over the territories it claims, and (2) all abducted persons, especially minors (alleged to be some 20k in number) are fully repatriated and allowed to return to their families; and (3) there will be no lifting of sanctions until said territories are fully evacuated, and the estimated $1T in damages the aggressor has caused are fully paid.
That doesn't mean there can't be a frozen conflict, i.e. cease-fire with no change in positions of forces, or essentially symbolic concessions (like a pledge not to join NATO). That's up for the Ukrainians to decide. If Russia's regime want to hobble along in an alternate universe, in which it pretends those territories are actually theirs, and that sanctions don't really matter, until Putin croaks and its likely disintegration begins in earnest -- that's one thing, and the Ukrainians can decide that matter for themselves as well.
But recognized sovereignty on the claimed territories, or a lifting of sanctions absent conditions (2) and (3) being met -- no fucking way.
90% of all wars end in negotiated settlements. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, unique about the Russia-Ukraine War that gives either side a guarantee that it will get to unilaterally decide when and how the war ends. Putin may or may not break any peace treaty in the future, but there is no reason to think that he is more or less likely to do so than any one side in any particular war in the history of mankind.
If Ukraine can so shatter Russian lines that Russia is forced out of the war and has to give up eastern Ukraine, more power to the Ukrainians. But Ukraine is not entitled to unlimited Western support for all time just because Putin is a thug.
I've thought from the start that the likely best case for Ukraine is acknowledging de jure the de facto loss of Crimea and Donbass since 2014, in exchange for
* an end to the war
* Austrian-style neutrality
* specific US/UK/other Western powers' guarantee (not NATO) of territorial integrity for rump Ukraine if Russia attacks it again
This would give Putin a way out by giving him a "win" for the domestic audience, cause minimal loss of additional territory for Ukraine, and give it as much security as it can hope for (since NATO membership isn't happening). No, it won't be "Russian forces pushed back to Moscow, Zelensky personally executes Putin in Red Square with 100,000 Redditard denizens of /r/worldnews watching". But, again, a) such is how most wars end, and b) it is not up to Ukraine to decide.
You can decide that that's the ending you'd like to have.
But I don't see a point in pretending that it would be "best for Ukraine", or rule of law in the international sphere generally.
Russian forces pushed back to Moscow
That's a straw man of course, and a pretty ridiculous one at that. But if you prefer to live in a world of extreme caricatures, and to reason accordingly, that's your prerogative also.
>You can decide that that's the ending you'd like to have.
Ah yes, yet another person who prattles "Anything other than `100% Russia gives up everything and Putin shoots himself in shame` = `RUZZIA AND PUTLER WIN!!!1!!!!!` Anyone saying anything else = Vatnik!!1!1!!". Straw man, indeed.
>But I don't see a point in pretending that it would be "best for Ukraine", or rule of law in the international sphere generally.
Let me repeat: It is not up to Ukraine to decide! It is up to Russia on one side of a negotiating table, and Ukraine and its sponsors on the other.
Let us not pretend that for you "best for Ukraine" is, and only is, something not too far from what you claim are my "straw man" of your goals. Or that of the hordes of Redditards who still haven't noticed that after 2.5 years of incessant posts on /r/worldnews and a dozen other subreddits on how Ukraine is beating back vatniks every single day, Russians are somehow still fighting on what is legally Ukrainian territory. (The same goes for Russian propaganda that has claimed for its domestic audience for the past 2.5 years that its anti-fascist forces are daily crushing Ukrainian Nazis left, right, and center.)
Except in all those wars of theirs which, like the current one, were essentially optional for them. In which, after taking a sufficiently harsh beating for the sake of basically nothing, they threw in the towel, and went home.
In itself is a substantial matter -- but you aren't using it that way.
And again, it's a matter for Ukrainians to decide. To a first order approximation, I think we can trust that as a society, they know what they're fighting for, and why.
If you disagree, and you think you know better than they do in this regard -- then my heartfelt recommendation (and closing words on this particular subtopic) for you is/are: go ahead, talk with them (directly, as live human beings) -- and "let them speak".
We know Zelenskyy recently removed most people in power because they want to talk peace. We also know Volodymyr Zelenskyy has stopped free elections and refuses to let his people vote on this issue.
The other aspect is we have to decide if we in the west should keep supporting the self suicide strategy and tonight we find out who decides.
Except that's not what NATO has been doing (nor is there any evidence that it ever had that intent) -- and it certainly isn't the reason Russia's current regime (not Russia as a country) started this war. It's just the message it projects, mostly for internal propaganda purposes -- to rile up its masses, and get them to sign up for the meat grinder; and to mollify opposition abroad.
If you believe that stuff, then you definitely start thinking more critically about whatever sources you've been pulling from.
BTW a more guidelines-compliant response to what you're asking would have been:
"What leads you to believe that that's actually the case (that NATO was about to, or was likely at some point down the road to do that)?"
Given that in the 30 years since the fall of the USSR, NATO still hasn't stationed nukes in any of the newer member countries, nor would there be any strategic benefit for them to do so.
The funny thing with people like you is the fact that the polar opposite of what you are saying is a pretty good approximation of truth. NATO nukes stand where they stood during Nixon and nobody has any intention to move them anywhere. Only Russia has been inching them westward, giving nukes to tin-pot dictators like Lukashenko, pointing them at Europe and threatening to destroy cities like London.
Judging by what happened when Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Finland, or Sweden joined - nothing.
It's quite sad that Russia has better partners than Ukraine does. Zelensky has to beg every day for the West to fulfill its promises while the Russians send some rice and North Korea sends 12k soldiers. China, Iran, and India are funding and supplying Russia with more aid than the US/EU is supplying Ukraine with. Sadly the EU still sends more money every year to Russian coffers than it lends to Ukraine.
The West is losing its influence and the USA is losing its reputation as a reliable partner. An undesirable result of the War in Ukraine will have some severe consequences for the US/EU in the decades to come. A lot of folks are just oblivious to it.
If Ukraine falls because USA cuts off aid expect every mid power in the world (South Korea / Japan / Australia / Italy etc) to begin their own nuclear weapons program immediately. “Losing its reputation” is an enormous understatement.
It's pretty clear to every world leader now that the only guarantee of security is to have your own nuclear weapons, or to have a solid mutual defense treaty with a nuclear power. President Zelensky has basically stated that if Ukraine doesn't receive sufficient conventional military aid then they'll be forced to pursue nuclear weapons development. Whether they are actually capable of doing this before being conquered by Russia is unknown: they have multiple civilian nuclear power plants and skilled engineers but still it takes a lot to build an operational weapons system including the delivery platform.
Regardless of what ultimately happens in Ukraine, nuclear proliferation is obviously going to accelerate. This is the very real consequence of the international community failing to collectively oppose Russian aggression.
India isn't funding anything in the war, AFAIK. Just because they're BRICS doesn't mean they're doing anything in the war.
And Russia's "partners" are a shit country stuck in 1880 (North Korea) and, well, China. China's great at intimidating third world countries, but in reality their support and capabilities are limited. As for India, well, back in the old days India would have taken Eastern Russia, since the Russian armed forces are busy trying not to get killed.
At least China and India seem to have cooled down their border issues.
There's a pretty big difference between "funding" a war by buying oil (BRICS/Non-Aligned), and "funding" a war by giving military aid (the West). Also, The West is still buying oil from Russia because for some countries there's still no alternative.
You buy a laptop on eBay because you desperately need one for work to feed yourself and you can only afford the cheap one on eBay. The seller buys rice with that money and hires a hitman by paying him the rice, the hitman goes on a shooting spree, how did you not fund that shooting spree?
Sure they are, buying cheap natural resources from russia in vast quantities. Those money go directly to war efforts, well what isn't stolen by whole kleptocratic structures in russian government but I presume this pipeline is more monitored and subdued now as putin specifically focused on that.
“We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” -- Lord Palmerston (and repeated by Henry Kissinger)
It's a dangerous world out there, and best not to be weak.
> Iraq's oil infrastructure was damaged when the CPA took over. The CPA effected selected repairs. But the IAMB found that the CPA had chosen not to repair the meters on the pipelines. The IAMB told the CPA that they were concerned that the lack of metering made auditing Iraq's oil exports unreliable – making it impossible to detect fraud, deception or smuggling. The minutes of the IAMB meeting make clear that the CPA had assured the IAMB that they were in the process of repairing the meters – in bad faith. The CPA's authority came to an end with the meters unrepaired. Estimates of how much oil revenue was siphoned off during the year of the CPA's administration go as high as $4 billion – comparable to the amount Saddam Hussein is suspected of stealing during the entire duration of the oil-for-food program.
For BRICS it's just business, for NK there is immense value in getting some combat experience without formally entering any war.. NATO countries do this all the time as well, look back at the GWOT and lots of lesser known skirmishes where especially non-conventional forces are cycled through.
I also don't think the US and EU have pure motivations in any of this, particularly the US the EU just seems gullible.. the anti-Russia talk from the politicians is just fodder for the masses so the grift can continue as the actual actions and inactions tell a different story.. send complicated weapons systems ($$$), complicated weapons system doesn't work better start working on some new ones ($$$), oh that's some nice farmland you got there better let our corporations buy it up ($$$).
Well, you are unfortunately correct. But as coming from Europe, I blame mostly EU at the end. US shouldn't be the sole policeman and shield to 450 million economically strong block. When I look at the government and its steps re defense, its beyond pathetic.
Almost nobody does even mandatory 2% GDP -> NATO flow, the only countries doing so are those treated brutally by soviets/russian in the past - Poland, baltic states. Heck, freakin' Germany is trying to put their highway maintenance costs into those 2%, since 'army anyway has to drive on them' - that's borderline treasonous behavior from Scholz in situation where enemy is at literal gates and repeatedly stated that it will wipe out half of population in nuclear strikes if they want to. Polish army can roll over wehrmacht anytime without breaking a sweat. Sane voices from former eastern bloc countries well-versed in soviet terror and brutality were completely ignored first months of war.
Leading countries in EU are still acting like there is some tiny annoying localized conflict far away and it will for sure end next month, and not like existential situation with many parallels with WWII and Hitler's behavior before and during it. They could have boosted their economies by diverting more money into defense, instead we get shooting in our own foot with endless green deal to kill half of European industry. Environmentally war on Ukraine is an utter disaster - we have some paper straws stupidities while they blow up 1 million plastic + chemistry + metal drones per year, on top of all other stuff blowing and burning to hell.
That's probably the only thing I agree with trump (those 2%), but then again its painfully obvious and Obama kept saying the same. With russians they understand only the rule of stronger, just like typical mafia. Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum.
The Ukrainian people do not want further or deeper ties with Russia, period. Your regurgitation of Russian talking points just shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.
The actual problem here is that Ukrainian people are not a monolith. People in certain regions undeniably do want to be part of Russia, or at least have deeper ties.
This is not a Russian talking point. Authorities in Kyiv flat out concede this problematic dilemma.
You cannot argue in good faith that the average resident of Crimea is pro-Ukraine. If you refuse to believe this, I cannot help you. Why do you think Putin's annexation in 2014 went so smoothly? The population was by and large positively receptive.
Yeah, great. In reality, if you as anyone in basically all of Ukraine (except for 'little green men' and the odd lover of soviet times), you get a clear message about how they've preferred a westward cultural and economic trajectory, and that ever since the war (or Crimea, depends on who you're asking), Russia is the enemy.
> Authorities in Kyiv flat out concede this problematic dilemma.
Oleksiy Danilov, the secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, outlined in 2022 the plan to reintegrate Crimea. Assuming Ukraine could recapture it. It includes deportation of pro Russians.
Feb. 4, 2014: Amid rioting on the Maidan in Kiev, YouTube carries Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland’s last minute instructions to U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt regarding the U.S. pick for new Ukrainian prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk (aka “Yats”) and other plans for the imminent coup d’etat in Kiev. When Pyatt expresses concern about EU misgivings about mounting a coup, Nuland says “Fuck the EU.” She then apologizes to the EU a day or two later — for the profanity, not for the coup. She also says that Vice President Joe Biden will help “glue this thing together”, meaning the coup.
WW3 with Russia+China+NorthKorea (and maybe various middle-east) is kinda scary.
And it might start when they seize Taiwan like Russia Ukraine, how would we stop them in the slightest when we can't stop the seizure of Ukraine?
No-one has convinced me yet that Putin isn't going to start executing generals (or falling from 3rd story) until one is willing to push the button when he's finally on his deathbed.
we could, but evidently we are not willing to. If Taiwan were taken perhaps the response would be different and we would not be as passive anymore. One thing sure, Xi noticed the weak response in Ukraine.
> how would we stop them in the slightest when we can't stop the seizure of Ukraine?
We (US) could have and can stop the seizure of Ukraine fairly easily, imho. We have chosen not to do so directly in an effort to prevent WW3 and/or nuclear weapon use.
> No-one has convinced me yet that Putin isn't going to start executing generals (or falling from 3rd story) until one is willing to push the button when he's finally on his deathbed.
You’re not wrong, but his successor, or whoever thinks they may be his successor, will probably prevent that from happening. So many of them have czarist ambitions, and Putin has laid the groundwork.
> And it might start when they seize Taiwan like Russia Ukraine, how would we stop them in the slightest when we can't stop the seizure of Ukraine?
Russian troops were in the Crimea back when British redcoats were stationed in New York City, so I don't know exactly when this "seizure" of the Crimea by Russia is supposed to have happened.
Taiwan is Kinmen island, which sits inside the harbor of the city of Xiamen in mainland China. The PRC, the US and the Taipei government all recognize Taiwan and the mainland as the same country. So I don't know how or why "we" would try to stop the Standing Committee from going into Taiwan - the island in their own harbor.
Kind of a laugh to look at the shock of a "payoff' by Russia, when the US is doing bigger payoffs to countries all around the world.
Russian troops were in the Crimea back when British redcoats were stationed in New York City, so I don't know exactly when this "seizure" of the Crimea by Russia is supposed to have happened.
So if the Redcoats were to come back to New York today, and started acting like they ran the place, they wouldn't be "seizing" anything, but rather just going back to the place they once were, is what you seem to be saying. Or if they did "seize" it, you wouldn't know when it was supposed to have happened.
North Korea and Russia have a military alliance. When an ally goes to war, you send your troops. Therefore, I don't understand the hysterics about the troops in Kursk. They are no more than 1/30th of what's currently on the front line. More of a training mission for the North Koreans than anything else.
I wouldn't say "hysterics", but more that it says about the war effort. North Korea didn't send troops two years ago when the war started. Russia believed it was an easy victory, and continue to believe that victory was close.
They have lost a vast number of troops, and have been having trouble recruiting more. There are still plenty of people available, but they mostly wanted to recruit prisoners and others that nobody would really miss. Going to North Korea can be read as an admission that they are running out of options.
As you say, it's not that many people. It won't change the situation on the ground. It just preserves the status quo, temporarily.
Which is all that's needed. The US is having an election which could have enormous consequences. There is a serious possibility that the US could cease to give aid to Ukraine, dramatically altering the balance of power.
If that doesn't happen, the outcome is murkier. It may be that they use the North Korean troops to give the best bargaining position for negotiation. Or they may fight until the new troops are gone, and then find more from somewhere.
Either way, it's a significant development, even though it does not in itself change the situation on the ground right now.
That's not correct no, Russia dragged North Korea into the war, they didn't have a military alliance. Then it's taken seriously because it's an escalation of the war by Russia.
Incredible double standards at play here: Ukraine is helped by the US and most of the EU so since the beginning of the war it's not one country against another. It makes no sense to help a belligerent then cry that the opponent is getting help too.
That help is coming in form of both armaments and training such as the AFU members training in France. All that with our taxes and without popular consultation...
Ukraine is helped by the US and other countries through supplying equipment, not fucking troops. Also, they got help since they were invaded, the help they get is for their own defence, not as an aggressor.
It makes no sense for you to write all of this argument and not consider this simple latter point, an aggressor force wanting to annex sections of a different country is getting help from a 3rd party outsider to even deploy troops.
Trying to fake a play as "both sides" is underhanded and shows quite well how immoral you are.
There's never been some foreign army officially fighting in Ukraine like North Korea does. Sure Ukraine got training and weapons from a lot of countries but so did Russia as well, now this is something new.
I'd even say Russia just gave the green light for EU countries to replicate what Russia just did, they opened up the debate.
I mean yeah, if you point Putin's visit only from a few months ago that's pretty much the definition of "dragged into the war". You should have a look at the date of your article first.
That's also why North Korea bargained some goods in exchange of their support.
No, you were wrong here, they didn't have a defense pact and got dragged into the war in exchange for goods.
Maybe you can point at some pre-existing defense pact to support your claims signed before the war but I'm not aware of any existing.
It's possible that I missed it though but given that Putin flew in there when the situation got worse to negotiate their war support, I doubt they had one.
So, in the end DPRK strategy of over-militarization worked, since it is what allowed them to close the deal. On the other hand it is yet another blow for the US strategic choices and wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine, Vietnam, Korea, etc.) All that could have been avoided by not bullying the country to the point of famine. It's incredible how strong-willed Koreans are to keep up the fight and do things their way.
North Korea has had their allies China and USSR/Russia literally next door to help them if needed, they share borders with them. Why do they have long lasting famine because of US sanctions while China and Russia/USSR are massive producers of food?
Cuban food shortages are a bit more understandable because they're in the western hemisphere surrounded mostly by countries friendly to the US, but North Korea?
