Russia, Ukraine and the West

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by Vangelovski

If I believe, as I do, that the Ukrainian people are a sovereign nation then there really is no reason that I can think of that would justify an invasion. I’ll use Macedonia as an example because the principle is the same. Macedonians are a sovereign nation. What would you say justifies an invasion of their homeland? You mention “certain factors”. Which factors are you talking about? Do they justify an invasion in your view? I’m talking about moral authority here.

Morality is important, but if you want to make a rational argument on this topic you cannot exclude geopolitical reality. In principle, do I think it is moral for one country to invade another? No. I also do not think it is moral for one to commit theft. I do, however, accept that on occasion, there may be mitigating circumstances in both instances. Some among the West have an incessant desire to weaken Russia. They cause friction by goading Ukraine and Georgia into joining NATO, knowing full well how provocative it would be if they installed their military infrastructure and extended their borders so close to Moscow. Those factors are chiefly responsible for creating the conditions that led to the war in Ukraine. The mistreatment of ethnic Russians in Ukraine is another important, albeit secondary, factor.

Russia is the largest country on earth and a nuclear superpower whose security concerns must be considered. There is no utopian level playing field. That is just the world we live in. If Macedonia was in Russia’s geographical and political position and felt threatened by the potential of missiles on its doorstep courtesy of its greatest military nemesis, or if it felt that its ethnic kinsmen were being indiscriminately or deliberately killed in a neighbouring country, I am sure many Macedonians would feel that an invasion would be justified. If Macedonia was in the same geographical and political situation as Ukraine, I would not want Russia to invade, but if I was intelligent enough to factor geopolitics into the equation, I would have to concede that much of the blame would rest with reckless Macedonian politicians and their greedy patrons, who allowed the situation to deteriorate to such an extent in the first place. But Macedonia is neither Russia nor Ukraine, so I would caution against making too many comparisons. Personally, I think the whole situation is a travesty, particularly the loss of the life, but I cannot allow bias to facilitate a naïve perspective by pretending that only one side is responsible. There is plenty of blame to go around.

Its not a neocon perspective at all. If anything it’s a classical liberal view of national sovereignty.

I was referring to your reason b) as grounds for direct combat with the Russian armed forces, which is most definitely a neocon perspective.

Those two points are not criteria, they’re just the basic reasons why I support Ukraine and oppose the Russian form of government in general.

Reasons, criteria, in this regard, semantics. You probably should have excluded reason b) given the authoritarian nature of successive Ukrainian governments, including the current one.

What exactly was his excuse for invading Donbas and Crimea in 2014 (in 2014, not his retrospective excuse in 2022)?

Based on a compromise to diffuse tensions over the strategically important peninsula, Russia agreed to accept the territorial integrity of Ukraine so long as the latter allowed Russia’s Black Sea fleet to continue being based out of Crimea. If Ukraine became part of NATO, that arrangement would cease to exist and Russia’s influence in the Black Sea region would be weakened. That is the reason why Crimea was annexed following the referendum in 2014. As for Donbas, I am sure there were some personnel and military advisors from the Russian armed forces to support the local population who were rebelling against the newly established political powers that forced out a tainted, albeit democratically-elected, president who was more disposed towards Russia than the West, but I am not sure if “invasion” is the correct characterisation as it was hardly on par with what has been happening since the beginning of 2022.

He has made his views on the collapse of the Soviet Union (or the Russian empire as he sees it) very clear over many decades. He has made his view that Ukraine should never have gained independence very clear over many decades. What makes you think he wanted a peaceful resolution – other than complete capitulation?

Despite the historical rhetoric and negation of Ukrainian nationhood in his speeches, Putin’s actions had more to do with political pragmatism rather than some dream about restoring the USSR or the Russian Empire. He constantly warned against the expansion of NATO towards Russia. The West ignored him. Do you really believe that he would have unilaterally invaded were it not for the threat of Ukraine becoming a member of NATO in the future?

As far as I’m concerned, they belong to the Ukrainians. Why? Because it’s been Ukrainian populated for as far back as I can tell…….. Russia did not step foot in the Donbas until around 1533 and the Crimea until 1783.

Kievan Rus did conquer parts of Crimea in the 10th century but lost these territories to the Mongols in the 13th century. Since then, the peninsula was largely occupied by Turco-Mongol peoples until the 18th century, when Russia conquered it. From that period, there has never been a time when ethnic Ukrainians formed a majority or outnumbered ethnic Russians in Crimea, except in one early census when both were still tiny minorities and separated by less than 1%. I have not done any thorough research on the Donbas but a cursory look at its history appears to suggest it was sparsely populated until the 17th century, after which people from both east and west of that region began to establish settlements.

Again, what exactly are we talking about here? Genocide is a specific term. People keep talking about some vague killing of Russians but no one will say what exactly they mean. As I asked RtG, do you mean the systematic attempt to eradicate ethnic Russians by the Ukranian security forces or the Ukranian Government? Are you talking about war casualties? Random killings by Ukranian paramilitaries?

I am referring to indiscriminate shelling by Ukrainian armed forces that have led to the deaths of many civilians in Donbas. I am also referring to killings perpetrated by Ukrainian paramilitary groups who are in the service of their government. Most people can accept that both sides are likely to have engaged in such activities to one degree or another over the past 8 years. You seem to have some trouble accepting that pro-Russian civilians have been killed by government forces because you have “never seen any real evidence,” or more accurately, because you have not bothered to look for it. If you are going to argue against something, at least do so from an informed position rather an anecdotal one.

As to your question about reports and footage from RT journalists – depends on the evidence they provide. Can you post anything?

Do a simple Google search of "RT News Ukraine shelling Donbas." You will find them. And it is not just RT. Both AI and HRW have reported on these issues and some of their articles are cited in the Wikipedia page on the "Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas."

When exactly did this take place, given Russia has occupied most of the Donbas since 2014? Why wasn’t Putin concerned about this if it was happening prior to 2014 while Yanukovych was in power?

Pro-Russian forces have controlled much of Donbas since 2014. Russia did not occupy Donbas until 2022. Your last question does not make sense and nobody has suggested that Ukrainian government forces were indiscriminately or deliberately killing their ethnic Russians prior to 2014.

In the context of the Russian military record since World War I, I would define “sham” as complete incompetence leading to the inability to actually win a war.

Did the Russian armed forces not win in Chechnya, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia? Did they not turn the tide in Syria?

[Vangelovski]

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

Morality is important, but if you want to make a rational argument on this topic you cannot exclude geopolitical reality.

They are distinct questions and of course, you’re right, there is geopolitical reality. I haven’t commented on that. I was merely stating my personal opinion on the moral question, which one person in particular (not you) just can't seem to stand the fact that I have one.

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

Some among the West have an incessant desire to weaken Russia. They cause friction by goading Ukraine and Georgia into joining NATO, knowing full well how provocative it would be if they installed their military infrastructure and extended their borders so close to Moscow. Those factors are chiefly responsible for creating the conditions that led to the war in Ukraine.

Are they goading them? It is entirely possible that people, like myself, actually believe that Ukraine and Georgia should determine their own course. But even if they are goading them and attempting to weaken Russia, then that is as you say, a geopolitical reality. But what you mean by ‘weakening’ Russia. Russia is a third world basket case and much like Macedonia, it doesn't really need any weakening.

Granted, Russia may have felt threatened by NATO expansion (even though I’ve never seen an invitation to Ukraine as opposed to random comments) and invaded in order to secure it’s western borders. But controlling Ukraine does not really change Russia’s security situation. I can’t see any circumstances in which NATO would launch a conventional attack on Russia (or vice versa). Further, NATO missiles don’t need to be located in Ukraine. They are more than effective in their current locations across the US, Europe and Turkey. They could also be located in the Baltics or Norway and they’d be much closer to St. Petersburg and Moscow than they would be from Ukraine. I don’t see Russia invading any of them. Further, Russian nuclear deterrence is more than adequate to prevent an attack on Russia itself. So I don’t fully buy the security argument.

There is also the geopolitical reality that in reaction to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, NATO and allied countries across the world are now arming, training and supplying the Ukranian army. They are also preventing Russia from obtaining critical resources and advanced technology that it requires for its weapon systems.

Another geopolitical reality is Sweden and Finland joining NATO. How is Russian security looking now? And there is yet another potential geopolitical reality – the very real chance that Ukraine could become a NATO member (albiet after it forces the Russian army out) and cement Russia’s entire European border with NATO forces on its doorstep (If we don’t pretend Belarus is an independent state). Finally, NATO has moved more military personnel into Eastern Europe and particularly the Baltics.

Putin may order some sort of nuclear strike in Ukraine, but whether his General Staff will actually follow that order or dispose of him remains to be seen.

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

Russia is the largest country on earth and a nuclear superpower whose security concerns must be considered.

Not at the expense of the sovereignty of its neighbours – in my opinion at least, and clearly in the opinion of many across the world. As above, I think much of the world has judged that Russia's security is not under threat.

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

Based on a compromise to diffuse tensions over the strategically important peninsula, Russia agreed to accept the territorial integrity of Ukraine so long as the latter allowed Russia’s Black Sea fleet to continue being based out of Crimea. If Ukraine became part of NATO, that arrangement would cease to exist and Russia’s influence in the Black Sea region would be weakened.

I don’t see why Russia should be entitled to “influence”. If it wants influence, then geopolitical reality necessitates that it either earns it or creates it – no one is going to give it to them just because the Russians think they deserve it. The problem for Russia is that no one wants to be dominated by a third world basket case.

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

As for Donbas, I am sure there were some personnel and military advisors from the Russian armed forces to support the local population who were rebelling against the newly established political powers that forced out a tainted, albeit democratically-elected, president who was more disposed towards Russia than the West, but I am not sure if “invasion” is the correct characterisation as it was hardly on par with what has been happening since the beginning of 2022.

”Some personnel and military advisors”? Come on SoM. At least don’t pretend to be unbiased. The OSCE observed 30,000 Russian soldiers crossing the border into Donbas from the two checkpoints it was allowed to monitor. It also observed other Russian forces moving across the border on dirt roads away from official border crossing. It was an invasion.

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

Despite the historical rhetoric and negation of Ukrainian nationhood in his speeches, Putin’s actions had more to do with political pragmatism rather than some dream about restoring the USSR or the Russian Empire. He constantly warned against the expansion of NATO towards Russia. The West ignored him. Do you really believe that he would have unilaterally invaded were it not for the threat of Ukraine becoming a member of NATO in the future?

I do. He’s been itching for it, he started in 2014 and he couldn’t wait to finish the job. I think he’s old and he’s looking to create a legacy. As I’ve noted above, if he was being pragmatic, he would have foreseen:

a) the Ukrainians were not going to welcome the Russians after having fought them for eight years
b) the Russian military is incompetent and could not possibly have taken Ukraine
c) NATO was not going to allow Russia to win in Ukraine
d) NATO has only expanded since his invasion (Sweden and Finland are awaiting ratification)
e) NATO has positioned more military personnel in the Baltics, Poland and Romania.

Pragmatism had nothing to do with Putin’s decision to invade. He’s deluded and he’s trying to make a name for himself in Russian history.

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

Kievan Rus did conquer parts of Crimea in the 10th century but lost these territories to the Mongols in the 13th century. Since then, the peninsula was largely occupied by Turco-Mongol peoples until the 18th century, when Russia conquered it. From that period, there has never been a time when ethnic Ukrainians formed a majority or outnumbered ethnic Russians in Crimea, except in one early census when both were still tiny minorities and separated by less than 1%. I have not done any thorough research on the Donbas but a cursory look at its history appears to suggest it was sparsely populated until the 17th century, after which people from both east and west of that region began to establish settlements.

This does not negate my point that Russia has no legitimate claim to it.

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

I am referring to indiscriminate shelling by Ukrainian armed forces that have led to the deaths of many civilians in Donbas. I am also referring to killings perpetrated by Ukrainian paramilitary groups who are in the service of their government. Most people can accept that both sides are likely to have engaged in such activities to one degree or another over the past 8 years. You seem to have some trouble accepting that pro-Russian civilians have been killed by government forces because you have “never seen any real evidence,” or more accurately, because you have not bothered to look for it. If you are going to argue against something, at least do so from an informed position rather an anecdotal one.

Genocide and the indiscriminate shelling of civilians are two completely different things. Russia has claimed that the Ukrainians are committing genocide and that is one of the reasons they invaded. There is no genocide and I have not seen any evidence for it. I would have to believe the whole world is lying except for the aggressor that is looking for an excuse. See definition of genocide here: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

On Ukrainian paramilitaries killing Russian civilians - are you suggesting they are committing genocide? If so, can you provide any links with evidence?

The indiscriminate shelling of civilians, while not genocide is definitely a war crime, and yes, both sides are doing exactly that, it’s well documented.

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

Pro-Russian forces have controlled much of Donbas since 2014. Russia did not occupy Donbas until 2022.

Sounds like more Russian narrative. See comment above about OSCE observations of at least 30,000 Russian soldiers crossing into the Donbas in 2014.

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

Your last question does not make sense and nobody has suggested that Ukrainian government forces were indiscriminately or deliberately killing their ethnic Russians prior to 2014.

The question was related to Russia's claim that it invaded because the Ukrainians were committing genocide in the Donbas. But, if the Russians controlled the Donbas from 2014, how is it possible that the Ukrainians were systematically killing Russians in a Russian controlled region? You’ve partly clarified by your point on artillery attacks, but you're also claiming Ukrainian paramilitaries are killing Russian civilians. How is that possible given most of Donbas, as you agree, has been under Russian control since 2014? Was it prior to 2014?

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

Did the Russian armed forces not win in Chechnya, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia? Did they not turn the tide in Syria?

These were counter-insurgency operations and small-scale interventions. They don’t compare to the size and nature of what the Russians are facing in Ukraine. Russia has not fought that type of large-scale conventional war since World War II.

[Carlin]

1) Remains of the Ukrainian 28th Mechanized Brigade in the Krivoy Rog direction of the Kherson region, after encountering Russian paratroopers.

Apparently, these tanks were donated by Macedonia and Slovakia.

https://twitter.com/Taurevanime/stat...DU3cCbivorAAAA


2) The secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine has said the country will move to ban the Russian language entirely.

"The Russian language should disappear from our territory altogether as an element of hostile propaganda"

https://twitter.com/baronitaigas/sta...Clte3Kv_krAAAA

[The Head of Crimea, Sergey Aksyonov, responding to Ukrainian suggestions that the Russian language should be eliminated in Ukraine: "It will not be the Russian language that disappears, but Ukraine."]

[Carlin]

Originally Posted by Vangelovski

These were counter-insurgency operations and small-scale interventions. They don’t compare to the size and nature of what the Russians are facing in Ukraine. Russia has not fought that type of large-scale conventional war since World War II.

... In turn, US (= NATO) is learning a hard lesson that there is a big difference between invading/bombing third world countries and fighting a superpower that also appears to have economic and energy leverage (for the time being).

Putin may order some sort of nuclear strike in Ukraine, but whether his General Staff will actually follow that order or dispose of him remains to be seen.

I may be wrong but it's not likely that Putin will use nukes in Ukraine (.. so close to Russia's borders). Those missiles are pointed "elsewhere".

https://twitter.com/Ukraine66251776/...Cznbuw26krAAAA

Nuclear weapons in Russian military doctrine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia...nce%20of%20the

"According to a Russian military doctrine stated in 2010, nuclear weapons could be used by Russia "in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, and also in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened". Most military analysts believe that, in this case, Russia would pursue an 'escalate to de-escalate' strategy, initiating limited nuclear exchange to bring adversaries to the negotiating table. Russia will also threaten nuclear conflict to discourage initial escalation of any major conventional conflict."

[Carlin]

Ukraine is blackmailing Germany with releasing a "refugee wave" on Europe as a result of critical infrastructure damage unless they get resupplied with IRIS-T missiles which are mostly depleted

https://twitter.com/mdfzeh/status/15...CqpeGq4PorAAAA

[Vangelovski]

Originally Posted by Carlin

... In turn, US (= NATO) is learning a hard lesson that there is a big difference between invading/bombing third world countries and fighting a superpower that also appears to have economic and energy leverage (for the time being).

Russia is not a superpower. The only superpower criterion it can point to is its nuclear arsenal. It has no military, economic or political influence to speak of, let along global reach.

Its energy leverage will disappear as soon as Europe secures new suppliers and that won't take long. In fact, it's not looking too bad now.



Page 15 [https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/as...2-CCBY4.0.pdf]

[Karposh]

Originally Posted by Vangelovski

Russia is not a superpower. The only superpower criterion it can point to is its nuclear arsenal. It has no military, economic or political influence to speak of, let along global reach.

Its energy leverage will disappear as soon as Europe secures new suppliers and that won't take long. In fact, it's not looking too bad now.

It looks like everyone seems to have an opinion on the Russia/Ukraine conflict at the moment and I’ve been watching plenty of YouTube commentary over the last few weeks on the subject from various YouTubers offering their five cents worth. One, in particular offered some insightful commentary with regard to the recent sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines. I think it’s pretty much public knowledge by now who the real saboteurs of the pipelines were with a number of countries (including Sweden, Finland & Germany) basically saying “Yeah, we know who did it but we can’t say”. That’s a far cry from the initial reports that went something like “That desperate, madman Putin did it” from the US & other western mainstream media. In fact, the Polish Foreign Minister even tweeted “Thank you USA” before hastily deleting his tweet the very next day.

The commentary that I listened to also discussed the discontent among many Europeans, especially among the Germans, who were receiving relatively cheap gas from the Russians, and are now being slugged an exorbitant price for US gas. The yanks are basically charging their NATO “allies” in Europe four times the price of gas that US citizens normally pay for back home. There have even been protests in a number of European cities to get Russian gas back up and running again.

Interestingly, the Russians have apparently stated that it is not their intention to repair the Nord Stream pipelines and continue with a direct gas route into Europe. Instead, they have decided to take their business elsewhere, namely, to China (with a population of 1.4 billion people) and India (1.38 billion people). Russian gas will, inevitably wind up in Europe again but through another route – through Turkey. Turkey will end up being the middleman for Russian gas entering Europe and, instead of Russia wielding the levers of power, it will be the Turks. Either way, they will pay a lot more than they would have if they kept a direct gas route from Russia.

[Vangelovski]

Interview with former Russian representative to the UN, Boris Bondarev. I agree with Bondarev that if Russia loses in Ukraine, or even if Russian elites judge that Putin can't win, Putin will be gone. And he's job is not one you can retire from.

***TRIGGER ALERT***

Mainstream Media Article

***TRIGGER ALERT***

Putin's 'Luck Is Over' in Ukraine War: Former Russian Diplomat
Xander Landen

Boris Bondarev, a former Russian diplomat, said in an interview published on Sunday that Russian President Vladimir Putin's "luck is over" amid Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine.

Bondarev quit his role in Russia's mission to the United Nations (U.N.) in May over Russia's invasion of the Eastern European country, stating in a resignation letter that the war is "not only a crime against the Ukrainian people, but also, perhaps, the most serious crime against the people of Russia."

Speaking about the Russian leader in an interview with Sky News, Bondarev said: "I think the 20 years of him in power have been very lucky for him. He is not smart, he is just lucky. Now I think his luck is over."

The former diplomat said that he also believes Putin would be willing to "sacrifice 10 or 20 million Russians just to win this war just to slaughter all Ukrainians because it's a matter of principle. It's a matter of political survival to him."

"You have to understand that, if he loses the war, it will be the end for him," Bondarev added.

The former diplomat said that if Putin loses the war, "he will have to explain to his elites and his population why it is so and he may find some problems in explaining this."

Bondarev's comments come as Russia has faced recent losses in the southern region of Kherson, which it has occupied since its invasion in late February. According to a report from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) last week, Russia is "likely setting information conditions to justify planned Russian retreats and significant territorial losses in Kherson Oblast."

The ISW added that Russian forces are planning to launch a "false-flag" attack on the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant, which is less than 50 miles east of the city of Kherson.

"The Kremlin could attempt to leverage such a false-flag attack to overshadow the news of a third humiliating retreat for Russian forces, this time from western Kherson," the ISW said. "Such an attack would also further the false Russian information operation portraying Ukraine as a terrorist state that deliberately targets civilians."

Last week, Putin also declared martial law in the four Ukrainian regions that Moscow annexed illegally, including Kherson. The development came amid news of Russian troops retreating from some occupied areas.

Following the declaration, a Russian state TV guest said the country could face "severe" territory losses in the coming months.

"It's important for us to endure, I don't want to give anyone any illusions, but we'll have to persevere, gritting our teeth through November, and I'm afraid, part of December. There won't be any good news in the next two months," Russian war correspondent Alexander Kots said last Wednesday.

On Sunday, Russian officials and state media said Ukraine is planning to use a dirty bomb on its own territory so that it can blame Russia, and use the attack to galvanize opposition against the Kremlin.

However, Christopher Fettweis, a professor of political science at Tulane University, told Newsweek on Sunday that Russian public opinion is "turning against" Putin and that the claims of the Ukrainian attack are likely aimed at raising fear against Ukraine.

Newsweek has reached out to the Russian and Ukrainian foreign ministries for comment.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by Vangelovski

It is entirely possible that people, like myself, actually believe that Ukraine and Georgia should determine their own course. But even if they are goading them and attempting to weaken Russia, then that is as you say, a geopolitical reality.

Sure, but if politicians from Ukraine and Georgia determine their own course (or more accurately, the one set out for them by their benefactors from the West) without regard for Russia and its security concerns, then those people, like yourself, will need to accept the geopolitical reality of Russia, with a view to maintaining its own security, determining its own course without regard for the territorial integrity of Ukraine and Georgia. Then it develops into a tit for tat escalation until eventually sensible people will ask how and why it ever got to where it did and who instigated the whole mess.

But I do wonder what you mean by ‘weakening’ Russia. Russia is a third world basket case.

I mean attempts to isolate Russia by disrupting its political, cultural, and economic ties with other countries. Also, its military capability. Do not wonder too much, just read the statements of U.S. and EU officials like Blinken, Austin, Stano and others. I disagree with your second sentence as it is obviously an incorrect generalisation, but your unflinching disdain for Russia is duly noted.

I’ve never seen an invitation to Ukraine as opposed to random comments…..

You are trivialising the intentions of NATO to serve your argument. A formal invitation may not yet have been issued, but the 2008 Bucharest Summit Declaration, for example, was clear enough. “NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.” That is not a random comment and the intent is rather specific.

But controlling Ukraine does not really change Russia’s security situation.

So long as Ukraine, within its post-1954 borders, is in a state of disarray, it is unlikely to join NATO and benefit from Article 5. That works to Russia’s advantage.

Further, NATO missiles don’t need to be located in Ukraine. They are more than effective in their current locations across the US, Europe and Turkey. They could also be located in the Baltics or Norway and they’d be much closer to St. Petersburg and Moscow than they would be from Ukraine. I don’t see Russia invading any of them. So I don’t fully buy the security argument.

They are more effective when in closer proximity due to the reduced time it would take to reach their intended targets. Could they also be positioned in Norway or the Baltic countries and thus on the doorstep of Russia? NATO would need to prepare for similar measures taken by Russia, but sure. Does it make sense then, from Russia's perspective, to prevent the same potential predicament from arising at its southern and south-western boundaries? Yes.

There is also the geopolitical reality that in reaction to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, NATO and allied countries across the world are now arming, training and supplying the Ukranian army.

Here is another potential reality. After spurring on Zelensky to be hostile towards Russia and pouring billions into his country, he leaves office one day, whilst what remains of Ukraine and its people are financially indebted and politically subservient to their “allies” in perpetuity.

They are also preventing Russia from obtaining critical resources and advanced technology that it requires for its weapon systems.

Please elaborate and explain how and when this will actually take effect.

Another geopolitical reality is Sweden and Finland joining NATO. How is Russian security looking now?

You are making my argument for me. Are you aware of Russia’s response to those two countries joining NATO? Look it up.

And there is yet another potential geopolitical reality – the very real chance that Ukraine could become a NATO member (albiet after it forces the Russian army out)…..

Unlikely, on both counts, but I will entertain the notion for the sake of this discussion. How long do you think it will take Ukraine to force Russia out the territories it has now claimed as its own? And how long after that will Ukraine become a member of NATO?

Putin may order some sort of nuclear strike in Ukraine, but whether his General Staff will actually follow that order or dispose of him remains to be seen.

According to who and based on what? I will be the first to condemn him. But tell me there is some solid intel and this is not just another hunch based on anti-Russian hysteria.

Not at the expense of the sovereignty of its neighbours – in my opinion at least, and clearly in the opinion of many across the world.

Does that opinion extend to the U.S., who invaded Afghanistan for similar reasons (i.e., security concerns) and other countries for far less?

I don’t see why Russia should be entitled to “influence”. If it wants influence, then geopolitical reality necessitates that it either earns it or creates it – no one is going to give it to them just because the Russians think they deserve it.

Russia is the most influential power in much of the Black Sea. It has earned and created it through conquest and long periods of political control. Crimea has hosted Russia’s Black Sea fleet for well over 200 years and when it was gifted to Ukraine as an administrative adjustment there was never a thought of Crimea being inaccessible to Russia or that the USSR would disintegrate. If the compromise I mentioned earlier was not reached in 1997, it is highly likely that Russia would have made a play to annex Crimea, which was Russian territory barely 40 years earlier and where most of the people are ethnically Russian and wanted to be a part of Russia anyway.

”Some personnel and military advisors”? Come on SoM. At least don’t pretend to be unbiased. The OSCE observed 30,000 Russian soldiers crossing the border from the only two checkpoints it was allowed to monitor. It was an invasion…….Sounds like more Russian narrative. See comment above about OSCE observations of at least 30,000 Russian soldiers crossing into the Donbas in 2014.

You stated that Russia invaded Donbas in 2014 and now you are suggesting that they sent in 30,000 soldiers at the onset to facilitate the invasion. That may fit the anti-Russian narrative, but it is categorically false. The OSCE supposedly counted 30,000 individuals in military gear crossing from Russia to Ukraine over the span of a couple of years. Did they produce any evidence to suggest that all these individuals were Russian citizens and soldiers? Given that they were only monitoring two checkpoints, how could they be sure that a sizeable amount of them were not ethnic Russians from Ukraine who were returning to their homes or frequently moving back and forth between both countries to resupply or receive other forms of assistance? Feel free to call it an invasion if you wish, but I stand by what I said earlier. What happened in 2014 cannot be compared with 2022.

I do. He’s been itching for it, he started in 2014 and he couldn’t wait to finish the job. I think he’s old and he’s looking to create a legacy.

We are not going to agree on who is responsible for starting the war because you have completely bought into the exaggerated idea of Putin being purely malevolent and unfortunately, your anti-Russian sentiment clouds your objectivity. So, I will move on to your subsequent points. His legacy in Russian history has already been established, with or without the war in Ukraine. It is 2022 and he is not getting any younger. If he was so eager to “finish the job,” what was he waiting for? The fact is, you have absolutely no evidence to suggest he was planning to invade Ukraine until the intentions of NATO became more flagrant over the past 8 years.

As I’ve noted above, if he was being pragmatic, he would have foreseen…..

He is not anywhere near as reckless as you would suggest and is far more intelligent than you would care to admit. Putin never expected to take all of Ukraine or for all Ukrainians to welcome the Russian armed forces, especially those from the western part of the country. However, in the territories that Russia now controls, how many organic resistance movements exist and how many of them are effectively fighting against the Russian armed forces and their local allies? How is it that Russia controls large swathes of eastern and southern Ukraine yet somehow NATO and its advocates, such as yourself, still claim that Russia is being denied victory? At least wait until Russia loses all the territories it holds before making such a bold statement, which, as it stands right now, is factually incorrect.

This does not negate my point that Russia has no legitimate claim to it.

It does negate your point about those territories belonging to Ukrainians because they have been “Ukrainian populated as far back” as you can tell. What legitimate claim are you referring to and how do you define it?

Genocide and the indiscriminate shelling of civilians are two completely different things. Russia has claimed that the Ukrainians are committing genocide and that is one of the reasons they invaded.

The indiscriminate shelling and the actions of paramilitaries have given some the impression, right or wrong, that not much value is placed on Russian lives in Donbas, enabling Putin and his colleagues to use the term “genocide” and make the invasion more justifiable in the eyes of many Russians. I am not suggesting the Ukrainian government or armed forces have such an intent as a matter of policy but some among their ranks would undoubtedly prefer for that “problem” minority in Donbas to disappear, which is why Zelensky had to do some damage control a couple of months ago when one of his ambassadors (Pyotr Vrublevsky) let slip that they “are trying to kill as many [Russians] as possible. The more Russians we kill now, the fewer our children will have to.” And that statement was made to the media. One can only wonder what he and his likeminded kinsmen say to their colleagues in the government and armed forces who share a similar ideology. To be sure, such idiots exist on both sides. Just recently, in reference to an incident that occurred decades ago where children in western Ukraine claimed that their country is occupied by Muscovites (i.e., Russians), a Russian host on RT (Anton Krasovsky) stated they should be thrown “into a river with a turbulent current” and drowned. Just like the Ukrainian idiot, he too was fired. But the Russian idiot is not a member of his government and up until recently was a darling of the West.

You’ve partly clarified by your point on artillery attacks, but you're also claiming Ukrainian paramilitaries are killing Russian civilians. How is that possible given most of Donbas, as you agree, has been under Russian control since 2014? Was it prior to 2014?

As I pointed out earlier, nobody said ethnic Russians were being killed by Ukrainian government forces prior to 2014. I am not sure why you keep asking that question. As for the nefarious activities of Ukrainian paramilitaries, frontlines have changed over the course of the war since 2014. They may have committed some of those crimes in the Donbas territory they controlled or as so often happens in war, they may have infiltrated enemy-controlled territory and committed some crimes there. The way you have framed the quoted post above suggests you do not believe that Ukrainian paramilitaries have killed any ethnic Russian civilians. Is that your position?

These were counter-insurgency operations and small-scale interventions. They don’t compare to the size and nature of what the Russians are facing in Ukraine.

Again, you are attempting to relegate certain events to insignificance to serve your argument. Small-scale or not, what happened in Georgia was a war. Counter-insurgency or not, what happened in Chechnya was a war with tens of thousands of casualties. What has happened in Syria is most definitely a war. If the Russian armed forces were a sham, completely incompetent and unable to secure victory, I would not be engaging you in this part of the discussion. But you are wrong and the hyperbolic nature of some of your statements needs to be checked.

***TRIGGER ALERT*** Mainstream Media Article ***TRIGGER ALERT***

Not sure who is supposed to be triggered, but with theatrics like that and your opening statement a few weeks ago, you should not act too surprised or defensive when others decide to respond in kind. Let me know if I should forewarn you with a "trigger alert" if I decide to post an article from RT news in future.

[Vangelovski]

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

Sure, but if politicians from Ukraine and Georgia determine their own course (or more accurately, the one set out for them by their benefactors from the West) without regard for Russia and its security concerns, then those people, like yourself, will need to accept the geopolitical reality of Russia, with a view to maintaining its own security, determining its own course without regard for the territorial integrity of Ukraine and Georgia. Then it develops into a tit for tat escalation until eventually sensible people will ask how and why it ever got to where it did and who instigated the whole mess.

Why is it that anyone who does not agree with Russia is automatically brainwashed and under Western control? Also, you haven't explained why you think Russia automatically deserves any regard for "its security concerns" especially when that entails infringements on the sovereignty of its neighbours?

I mean attempts to isolate Russia by disrupting its political, cultural, and economic ties with other countries. Also, its military capability. Do not wonder too much, just read the statements of U.S. and EU officials like Blinken, Austin, Stano and others.

Fair enough.

I disagree with your second sentence as it is obviously an incorrect generalisation, but your unflinching disdain for Russia is duly noted.

What about Russia says 'developed country' to you? Is it the lack of basic infrastructure outside of its larger cities? The disastrous health and education services? No rule of law? The corruption and nepotism?

You are trivialising the intentions of NATO to serve your argument. A formal invitation may not yet have been issued, but the 2008 Bucharest Summit Declaration, for example, was clear enough. “NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.” That is not a random comment and the intent is rather specific.

And yet 14 years later Ukraine was nowhere closer to joining NATO. I highly doubt it ever would have because the (ethnic) Ukrainians were divided on where their future lay (East or West). But after Russia's invasion of the Donbas and Crimea in 2014 that changed. National identity solidified over the course of 8 years of war.

So long as Ukraine, within its post-1954 borders, is in a state of disarray, it is unlikely to join NATO and benefit from Article 5. That works to Russia’s advantage.

Does it though? I thought you were complaining about all the sanctions and weakening above?

They are more effective when in closer proximity due to the reduced time it would take to reach their intended targets. Could they also be positioned in Norway or the Baltic countries and thus on the doorstep of Russia? NATO would need to prepare for similar measures taken by Russia, but sure. Does it make sense then, from Russia's perspective, to prevent the same potential predicament from arising at its southern and south-western boundaries? Yes.

The point is that Russia has a credible nuclear retaliation ability regardless of how close NATO missiles are (and vice versa). That's what keeps everyone's fingers off the button and keeps dumb ideas about crossing borders at bay.

Here is another potential reality. After spurring on Zelensky to be hostile towards Russia and pouring billions into his country, he leaves office one day, whilst what remains of Ukraine and its people are financially indebted and politically subservient to their “allies” in perpetuity.

And? Everyone is in debt. The US to the tune of $30 trillion. Nearly $1 trillion of that is owed to China. Debt does not automatically translate into political control.

Please elaborate and explain how and when this will actually take effect.

For example:

https://www.bruegel.org/blog-post/de...and-components

https://www.politico.eu/article/the-...-war-machines/

Here are some observations to go with that. 1) Russia is now relying on Iranian drones. Why isn't it building its own? 2) Russia, from the beginning of its February invasion has only fired a few dozen guided missiles at a time in sporadic intervals. If it has access to the tech and required materials (and the money) why isn't it using them on a daily basis to destroy Ukrainian units? In fact, it's the Ukrainians who are hitting Russian targets on a daily basis with guided missiles (including HIMARS) and advancing on the Russians.

You are making my argument for me. Are you aware of Russia’s response to those two countries joining NATO? Look it up.

What? When Putin first threatened them and then said he doesn't have a problem with it? Isn't NATO expansion a 'reason' why he invaded Ukraine? And as a direct result of his invasion NATO expanded to his Finish border.

Unlikely, on both counts, but I will entertain the notion for the sake of this discussion. How long do you think it will take Ukraine to force Russia out the territories it has now claimed as its own? And how long after that will Ukraine become a member of NATO?

Hard to say, but if I had to hazard a very rough guess I'd give it 12 months before Ukraine forces Russia back. Wouldn't speculate on a NATO timeline.

According to who and based on what? I will be the first to condemn him. But tell me there is some solid intel and this is not just another hunch based on anti-Russian hysteria.

I didn't say he would order a nuclear attack, I was trying to say that even if he did, it would remain to be seen whether his General Staff would follow his order.

Does that opinion extend to the U.S., who invaded Afghanistan for similar reasons (i.e., security concerns) and other countries for far less?

I thought you wanted to talk about geopolitical reality? Are you moving back to morality?

You stated that Russia invaded Donbas in 2014 and now you are suggesting that they sent in 30,000 soldiers at the onset to facilitate the invasion. That may fit the anti-Russian narrative, but it is categorically false. The OSCE supposedly counted 30,000 individuals in military gear crossing from Russia to Ukraine over the span of a couple of years. Did they produce any evidence to suggest that all these individuals were Russian citizens and soldiers? Given that they were only monitoring two checkpoints, how could they be sure that a sizeable amount of them were not ethnic Russians from Ukraine who were returning to their homes or frequently moving back and forth between both countries to resupply or receive other forms of assistance? Feel free to call it an invasion if you wish, but I stand by what I said earlier. What happened in 2014 cannot be compared with 2022.

Seriously? You might want to read this report, here's a snippet:

"Following their increasingly large-scale, direct and conventional involvement in combat against Ukrainian troops in the middle of August 2014, Russian troops in Ukraine numbered between 3,500 and 6,000–6,500 by the end of August 2014, according to different sources. That number fluctuated, reaching approximately 10,000 at the peak of direct Russian involvement in the middle of December 2014. The Russian Ministry of Defence (MoD) had to involve 117 combat and combat-support units to generate the approximately 42,000 troops rotating in the vicinity of the Russo–Ukrainian border: either stationed there, delivering artillery fire against Ukrainian territory from Russian soil, or directly participating in combat operations on Ukrainian sovereign territory. It is noteworthy that 104 of these 117 units have been involved in combat since autumn 2014 in either one of the two above mentioned forms – 3.5 times more than the number of military units involved in Crimea and in southeastern Ukraine over spring and summer 2014."

https://static.rusi.org/201503_bp_ru..._ukraine_0.pdf

We are not going to agree on who is responsible for starting the war because you have completely bought into the exaggerated idea of Putin being purely malevolent and unfortunately, your anti-Russian sentiment clouds your objectivity.

Russian forces crossed the border into the Ukraine, not the other way around. But I think you're suggesting that Putin was either tricked or forced (i.e., he had no other choice) which is complete garbage as far as I'm concerned. If he invaded Ukraine because of security concerns of having NATO right at his border, why not Finland now, before final ratification?

So, I will move on to your subsequent points. His legacy in Russian history has already been established, with or without the war in Ukraine. It is 2022 and he is not getting any younger. If he was so eager to “finish the job,” what was he waiting for? The fact is, you have absolutely no evidence to suggest he was planning to invade Ukraine until the intentions of NATO became more flagrant over the past 8 years.

He's been talking about how Ukraine is an integral part of Russia for decades.

Putin never expected to take all of Ukraine or for all Ukrainians to welcome the Russian armed forces, especially those from the western part of the country.

He expected to take all of Ukraine, or at least install a puppet regime otherwise he would not have opened a northern front attempting to take Kiev or push north from Crimea towards Odessa. I suspect he expected a good majority of Ukrainians would see Russia as a liberator given how few personnel (max 200,000) he devoted to invading such a massive territory with approx. 1 million combat veterans with reserve obligations from the Donbas war.

However, in the territories that Russia now controls, how many organic resistance movements exist and how many of them are effectively fighting against the Russian armed forces and their local allies?

Four that I know of. Free Ukraine Resistance Movement, Popular Resistance of Ukraine, Berdiansk Partisan Army and Yellow Ribbon. That's not bad for only a few months.

How is it that Russia controls large swathes of eastern and southern Ukraine yet somehow NATO and its advocates, such as yourself, still claim that Russia is being denied victory? At least wait until Russia loses all the territories it holds before making such a bold statement, which, as it stands right now, is factually incorrect.

Russia had to withdraw from the north because it was overstretched and simply does not have the capacity to fight on such a large front. It was forced out of Kharkiv and Ukrainian forces have been slowly making way into Luhansk and Donetsk provinces. I believe they will retake Kherson over the next few weeks.

It does negate your point about those territories belonging to Ukrainians because they have been “Ukrainian populated as far back” as you can tell. What legitimate claim are you referring to and how do you define it?

Ukrainians are the mixture of slavic tribes and the Zaporozhian Cossacks. Its part of their identity. The Zaporozhians have inhabited the Donbas for centuries before the Russians ever arrived. As for Crimea, if anything, it would belong to the Crimean Tatars - definitely not Russia.

I am not suggesting the Ukrainian government or armed forces have such an intent as a matter of policy but some among their ranks would undoubtedly prefer for that “problem” minority in Donbas to disappear.

I don't doubt there's lots of people like that, but that doesn't translate into genocide.

As for the nefarious activities of Ukrainian paramilitaries, frontlines have changed over the course of the war since 2014. They may have committed some of those crimes in the Donbas territory they controlled or as so often happens in war, they may have infiltrated enemy-controlled territory and committed some crimes there. The way you have framed the quoted post above suggests you do not believe that Ukrainian paramilitaries have killed any ethnic Russian civilians. Is that your position?

I'm pretty sure Ukrainian paramilitaries have killed lots of Russian civilians - intentionally and unintentionally. But again, that does not translate into genocide. War crimes, sure. Then there's the Russian paramilitaries, like the Wagner Group, that have committed war crimes, but I don't see evidence of genocide.

Again, you are attempting to relegate certain events to insignificance to serve your argument. Small-scale or not, what happened in Georgia was a war. Counter-insurgency or not, what happened in Chechnya was a war with tens of thousands of casualties. What has happened in Syria is most definitely a war. If the Russian armed forces were a sham, completely incompetent and unable to secure victory, I would not be engaging you in this part of the discussion. But you are wrong and the hyperbolic nature of some of your statements needs to be checked.

I don't see you checking any other hyperbolic statements. But I stand behind mine. Russia's military is a sham. Yes, those were wars. But you miss the point of what I was saying. Russia has not fought a conventional (that's an important concept) war of this scale since WWII.

Georgia was a 12 day 'war' that the Georgians could not fight. Russia lost the first Chechen war (this was an insurgency, not a conventional war) and won the second Chechen war (another insurgency). But Chechens and allied Islamists are still carrying on an insurgency in the North Caucasus, and its been going on since Soviet times, we just don't hear about it every day. So, that 'victory' is more of a facade. In Syria, Russia is again fighting an insurgency which is still well underway and Russia will eventually leave with its tail between its legs just like every other outsider has that got involved in the Middle East.

Not sure who is supposed to be triggered, but with theatrics like that and your opening statement a few weeks ago, you should not act too surprised or defensive when others decide to respond in kind. Let me know if I should forewarn you with a "trigger alert" if I decide to post an article from RT news in future.

RtG gets triggered. I think that's obvious to everyone. What exactly was so offensive about my opening statement? The fact that I made one? My opinion that Russia is wrong and will eventually lose? Or the fact that mainstream media has some truth in it?