Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

snip

I'd like to thank you for sharing your perspective on this. It's generally good to hear a unique opinion that breaks from the groupthink (and this holds on both sides of the quasi-Iron Curtain we see nowadays).
If you appreciate this post, just recommend it. I don't expect a reply or anything like that.

[Helsinkian]

For group two, the Western Ukrainian nationalists, you are going to have to learn to live without the Donbass and probably the entire southeast as well, eventually. The best thing that the Ukrainian military could do is get out of the Donbass fast, before this turns into a much larger war.

"For the Czechoslovaks, you are going to have to learn to live without the Sudetenland... I believe it is peace for our time." t. Neville Chamberlain

[Farmlands]

Russia and America both engage in sphere of influence politics. Only Russia admits that publicly. Maintaining a larger sphere tends to make the country richer and more influential, and America's sphere has grown at the expense of Russia's.
NATO moving east is absolutely not a benign thing. It's a dagger held at the Russian heartland, and in fact we've disrespected Russia for decades now. Now Russia is running to China, and it's mainly our fault.

A crucial question here is, could Russia ever be a member of NATO? Putin himself mentioned this in his speech today (in his own particular way).

Personally I would say the question is clearly no while Russia is an autocratic dictatorship under Putin. But could it never, if it hypothetically became a democratic country similar to e.g. Latvia?

It is true that Russia may perceive NATO as a dagger held at the Russian heartland, and we should be willing to acknowledge that perception. But at the same time, need it necessarily be?

On the one hand, we should not be surprised that some people in Russia would have the perception of threat, but at the same time we should also be willing to acknowledge that this can be a manifestation of their own attitudes and paranoia.

It can be a chicken-and-the-egg issue, which is how I would think about it at any rate.

Up to this point, NATO has functioned as a defensive alliance against any Russian resurgence. I don't know what to think about it being anything else because like most people, I've never imagined it as anything else. But the time might someday come that it perhaps would be the better if it did.
If we're being brutally honest with ourselves, that day might even be now.

He says, as Russia prepares to invade and create a massive crisis in a country not far off from other NATO members' borders. And Putin would've probably already had his way with the Baltic nations too, had they not joined the alliance.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

snip

I'd like to thank you for sharing your perspective on this. It's generally good to hear a unique opinion that breaks from the groupthink (and this holds on both sides of the quasi-Iron Curtain we see nowadays).
If you appreciate this post, just recommend it. I don't expect a reply or anything like that.

Yes, thank you random new poster whose only contribution to the thread is to smear the majority of posters here as savage Russophobes.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Russia being able to join NATO would instantly alter the nature of NATO overnight, turning it into a de facto anti-Chinese alliance.

That is certainly one way to think about it, and if hypothetically Russia did join NATO in 20 years, we shouldn't be surprised that China might express that sort of perspective, and we should be prepared for that.

However, another possible perspective is to look at the actual text of the NATO charter. The NATO charter's text does not, literally, make it an anti-anyone alliance. Rather, it makes it a defensive alliance, that commits members to mutual defense against anyone who attacks.

Hence, in those terms NATO is an anti-aggressor alliance. Which would only make it "anti-Chinese" if China had some reason to be an aggressor.

Of course, the same is true currently vis a vis Russia. While we should understand that Russia (in particular an autocratic Russia led by Putin) may not quite see it this way, NATO is not literally, in terms of its own charter, an anti-Russia alliance, it is an anti-aggressor alliance. And thus it is only "anti-Russia" insofar as Russia chooses to be an aggressor.

If Russia was allowed to make a home for itself inside NATO, then that would change so many things about it. Probably the biggest hurdle for Russia becoming a NATO member though is that any of NATO's current members have a veto, which gives the Baltic states a veto on any arrangement. If anyone would be opposed to the very idea of Russian NATO membership, it would probably be them.

Up to this point, NATO has functioned as a defensive alliance against any Russian resurgence. I don't know what to think about it being anything else because like most people, I've never imagined it as anything else. But the time might someday come that it perhaps would be the better if it did.

And yet, despite the fact that (obviously) NATO was historically formed in response to the threat posed to the west by the Soviet Union, the only time the alliance has actually been invoked was in response to 9/11, against Al Qaida/Taleban/Afghanistan.

This was not an "anti-Russian" response of the alliance, at least not unless you want to come up with some sort of convoluted/indirect interpretation making that case (which probably one could come up with with sufficient geopolitical interpretive creativity, e.g. arguing that it was all part of the New Great Game to establish a NATO presence in central Asia to threaten Russia or something).

Also it is worth noting that when NATO was originally formed, Stalin inquired about joining NATO, and was informed that the Soviet Union would not be welcome in NATO... But was this really an anti-Soviet response per se from USA/NATO, or was it an anti-Soviet policy/ideology response? I think it is not hard to make the case that NATO was formed in response to the Soviet Union's policies and ideology, rather than per se in response to the Soviet Union as such. If the Soviet Union had been a liberal democracy rather than a totalitarian dictatorship, then things might have been different.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

https://twitter.com/KevinRothrock/status/1495930767209373696

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Russia and America both engage in sphere of influence politics. Only Russia admits that publicly. Maintaining a larger sphere tends to make the country richer and more influential, and America's sphere has grown at the expense of Russia's.
NATO moving east is absolutely not a benign thing. It's a dagger held at the Russian heartland, and in fact we've disrespected Russia for decades now. Now Russia is running to China, and it's mainly our fault.

A crucial question here is, could Russia ever be a member of NATO? Putin himself mentioned this in his speech today (in his own particular way).

Personally I would say the question is clearly no while Russia is an autocratic dictatorship under Putin. But could it never, if it hypothetically became a democratic country similar to e.g. Latvia?

It is true that Russia may perceive NATO as a dagger held at the Russian heartland, and we should be willing to acknowledge that perception. But at the same time, need it necessarily be?

On the one hand, we should not be surprised that some people in Russia would have the perception of threat, but at the same time we should also be willing to acknowledge that this can be a manifestation of their own attitudes and paranoia.

It can be a chicken-and-the-egg issue, which is how I would think about it at any rate.

Up to this point, NATO has functioned as a defensive alliance against any Russian resurgence. I don't know what to think about it being anything else because like most people, I've never imagined it as anything else. But the time might someday come that it perhaps would be the better if it did.
If we're being brutally honest with ourselves, that day might even be now.

He says, as Russia prepares to invade and create a massive crisis in a country not far off from other NATO members' borders. And Putin would've probably already had his way with the Baltic nations too, had they not joined the alliance.

Ukraine is a mere sideshow for the United States, and it's an area that has been under either Russian control or closest to Russia (vis a vis other power centers) since the reign of Catherine the Great. Intricate management of relations with the bigwigs of the world, for the sake of the country's broader long-term public interest - Russia, China, India, et cetera - ought to be much more important to America than whatever happens in Ukraine.
Preservation of this American national interest matters above all else. We must keep an open mind to things that will help renew it and protect it into the future.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

snip

I'd like to thank you for sharing your perspective on this. It's generally good to hear a unique opinion that breaks from the groupthink (and this holds on both sides of the quasi-Iron Curtain we see nowadays).
If you appreciate this post, just recommend it. I don't expect a reply or anything like that.

Yes, thank you random new poster whose only contribution to the thread is to smear the majority of posters here as savage Russophobes.

I checked if it was a new poster. Turns out they've been posting since 2008.
Please check your facts.
check out this first post of theirs, if you don't believe me

[Storr]

I haven't mentioned my thoughts on Russia's recognition of the LPR and DPR as independent states and this post I made in the "Biden needs to act more like Trump" thread in USGD gives an impression of them (I made a dumb and thought it said Putin instead of Trump, but it shows just how ridiculous Russia's position is.):

I agree, Biden should make nationally televised definitely not prerecorded speech (don't look at his watch) claiming Canada was a nation created by British imperialists and that it has no right to exist. Then Biden should finish his speech by recognizing the independence of Quebec and announcing the deployment of US military "peacekeepers" into newly liberated Montreal and the rest of République Québec.

[Helsinkian]

Ukraine is a mere sideshow for the United States, and it's an area that was under either Russian control or closest to Russia (vis a vis other power centers) since the reign of Catherine the Great. Intricate management of relations with the bigwigs of the world, for the sake of the country's broader long-term public interest - Russia, China, India, et cetera - ought to be much more important to America than whatever happens in Ukraine.
Preservation of this American national interest matters above all else. We must keep an open mind to things that will help renew it and protect it into the future.

Rhineland, Austria, Sudetenland, Memel, Danzig, Ethiopia, Mukden... I'm sure plenty of Americans considered those places to be sideshows to them in the 1930s as well. How did that turn out?

Bullies are only encouraged by weakness and appeasement. And when they keep on bullying, they will eventually bully someone you do care about -- or they'll just bully you. "How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing", said Chamberlain in 1938. A year later, they were digging those trenches anyway.

And if you want to go back to the times of Catherine the Great... Well, New Mexico was a part of Spain longer than it has been part of USA. Does Spain get to have it, then? And Russia, too, might want Alaska back -- after all, there are some Russian nationalists who claim that the czar did not have the authority to sell it...

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Ukraine is a mere sideshow for the United States, and it's an area that was under either Russian control or closest to Russia (vis a vis other power centers) since the reign of Catherine the Great. Intricate management of relations with the bigwigs of the world, for the sake of the country's broader long-term public interest - Russia, China, India, et cetera - ought to be much more important to America than whatever happens in Ukraine.
Preservation of this American national interest matters above all else. We must keep an open mind to things that will help renew it and protect it into the future.

Rhineland, Austria, Sudetenland, Memel, Danzig, Ethiopia, Mukden... I'm sure plenty of Americans considered those places to be sideshows to them in the 1930s as well. How did that turn out?

Bullies are only encouraged by weakness and appeasement. And when they keep on bullying, they will eventually bully someone you do care about -- or they'll just bully you. "How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing", said Chamberlain in 1938. A year later, they were digging those trenches anyway.

And if you want to go back to the times of Catherine the Great... Well, New Mexico was a part of Spain longer than it has been part of USA. Does Spain get to have it, then? And Russia, too, might want Alaska back -- after all, there are some Russian nationalists who claim that the czar did not have the authority to sell it...

Notwithstanding any hackneyed and tired comparisons that could be drawn between Hitler and Putin, it ought to be recognized as fact that in politics, what matters is not the truth but rather what people perceive to be the truth. This extends to leaders. Putin and other Russian government officials clearly see NATO expansion as a threat to Russia. Ergo, we ought to take it into account that Russia's leadership will see it that way and try to think about how Russia will likely interpret policies before doing them and not after.

Putin sees Ukraine as a very closely linked entity to Russia proper on numerous cultural grounds and opposes it being in separate camps politically, and he's far from wrong in regards to cultural matters here. But even if he was, we'd have to act as though he wasn't,    because what passes for "reality" in politics can run parallel OR be dramatically different from what actual reality is. In any case, Russia's population (the most populous singular European nation, let's not forget) have implicitly and explicitly accepted Putin as their leader, and we have to work with the leaders of nations if we want to get anything done in the political sphere.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes, thank you random new poster whose only contribution to the thread is to smear the majority of posters here as savage Russophobes.

Charming stuff isn't it. I note that one must also have a 'recent' ancestral connection to a particular territory before having any views as to its politics or general fate: a genuinely stupid position, of course, and really quite a remarkable one for a poster on this forum of all forums to take.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Yes, thank you random new poster whose only contribution to the thread is to smear the majority of posters here as savage Russophobes.

Charming stuff isn't it. I note that one must also have a 'recent' ancestral connection to a particular territory before having any views as to its politics or general fate: a genuinely stupid position, of course, and really quite a remarkable one for a poster on this forum of all forums to take.

While I take exception with the idea that hailing from a region inherently makes one's general set of views about said region automatically more valid, it's as clear as day this is not a new poster, and ignoring this fact doesn't make it any less true. One could be forgiven for first assuming that they were new (since they post very rarely; even I suspected as such), but there's no such excuse now that this not being true has been put to light. There's a number of posts from that person from 2008 that prove the claim laughably false.

If y'all were less close-minded on this topic, then you'd actually take the time to look at their postings to realize this and consider them someone coming from a legitimate perspective, even if it's one that sensible people can disagree completely about.

They posted this back in October 2020:

Half of my ancesters lived in what is now the southeastern Ukraine in the Russian Empire, so I always like talking to any Russians/Ukrainians/Belarusians that I meet in real life. From my experience, Russian-Americans are definitely not all Republicans as many Democrats here seem to believe. The ones that are secular or non-religious are mostly all Democrats. The more religious ones (especially converts to Protestant sects) are, naturally, Republican.

That is all.

[Aurelius]

Welp. I was wrong. Time to eat crow.

[StateBoiler]

https://twitter.com/AshleyRParker/status/1495925054298894341
Wow! True, but WOW!

I wonder, if Biden will backtrack it, though, after the criticism of MSM.

I think it's going to be a muddle until a few meetings get held where everyone agrees on how to properly portray this.

Smart action of sorts from Putin in my opinion because he's increased the crisis while in reality doing nothing: Donetsk and Luhansk are independent? They already were through Ukraine being unable to control them.

[It’s so Joever]

Welp. I was wrong. Time to eat crow.

Given how many times I have been wrong in my predictions/assessments, I’m starting to think maybe I should just predict everything I don’t want to happen.

[StateBoiler]

Welp. I was wrong. Time to eat crow.

Given how many times I have been wrong in my predictions/assessments, I’m starting to think maybe I should just predict everything I don’t want to happen.

Liechtenstein will invade Austria!

[It’s so Joever]

Welp. I was wrong. Time to eat crow.

Given how many times I have been wrong in my predictions/assessments, I’m starting to think maybe I should just predict everything I don’t want to happen.

Liechtenstein will invade Austria!

I said things I *don’t* want to happen.

[Death of a Salesman]

My sense of what will happen is that Russian forces will find an excuse for outright invasion quite quickly.

[Sir Mohamed]

Putin probably run through the scenario and decided that it was worth it. As much as harsh sanctions are needed, I think he doesn't care that much.

At this point, the question is only whether military action is limited to territories already de facto under control of pro-Russian separatist forces or whether it will be extended. As for now, it's pretty much the same playbook as Georgia '08.

[TheReckoning]

Ukraine should give up Donbass at this point, and give up NATO membership as well, in exchange for continued sovereignty. If Russia pushes further, surrender without fighting.

An analogy is this: when being robbed, you give up exactly what the robber asks for. Your possessions aren’t worth your life. Similarily, Ukraine’s sovereignty is not worth having hundreds of thousands of people die.

[emailking]

Ukraine should give up Donbass at this point, and give up NATO membership as well, in exchange for continued sovereignty. If Russia pushes further, surrender without fighting.

An analogy is this: when being robbed, you give up exactly what the robber asks for. Your possessions aren’t worth your life. Similarily, Ukraine’s sovereignty is not worth having hundreds of thousands of people die.

I guess, but going with that analogy, if someone is being robbed (and assuming they're alone) I think it's their choice whether they want to give up or fight.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Whatever else one thinks, it is clear that the existing European security architecture has not led to a sense of security for either Russia or Ukraine.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Ukraine should give up Donbass at this point, and give up NATO membership as well, in exchange for continued sovereignty. If Russia pushes further, surrender without fighting.

An analogy is this: when being robbed, you give up exactly what the robber asks for. Your possessions aren’t worth your life. Similarily, Ukraine’s sovereignty is not worth having hundreds of thousands of people die.

I guess, but going with that analogy, if someone is being robbed (and assuming they're alone) I think it's their choice whether they want to give up or fight.

Implicit in Recoking's analysis is the fact that this is a fight they cannot win.

[Blair]

Whatever else one thinks, it is clear that the existing European security architecture has not led to a sense of security for either Russia or Ukraine.

Why would it? Ukraine was virtually under Russias influence until 2014- and when it tried to leave to join part of the ‘security architecture’ in 2014 it saw Crimea invaded and the east invaded.

I’m not sure what the alternative is? Without the former soviet republics joining NATO we would have seen this playbook happen every two or three years.