Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[WMS]

It is also popular in german pop culture to mock the US and its militarism.

Yeah, as opposed to those peaceful Russians, Iranians, and Chinese.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It would not surprise me if you dug into their finances you see some funds coming from Russia.

There is a political party presently in power in a large European country that has been dragging its feet on sanctions and which, yes, has received significant financial contributions from Putin-associated Russian oligarchs over the past decade, but it is not the German Green Party.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Correct me if I am wrong.  In 2021 nuclear power from 6 nuclear plants provided for 13% of Germany energy needs.  3 of them were shut down end of 2021 and the other 3 will be shut down at the end of 2022.

And all but one of the remaining six (yes, only six) nuclear power stations in Great Britain will be gone within six years and will not be replaced. Proposals for replacements are made frequently enough and sometimes projects even start, but, curiously, they never get very far. The difference between existing German and British policy on this matter is largely cosmetic.

[Aurelius]

How has BigSerg managed to vote in the poll 4 times?

Same reason "Opinion of Adolf Hitler" polls always get 20 to 30 percent FF. People voting for the ridiculous option purely because the question has such an obvious answer.

[WMS]

Personally I think it was a huge mistake expanding the EU eastwards. One can wonder whether certain countries were ready for liberal democracy,  because the illiberal turn of Poland and Hungary suggests otherwise. It should have been a more gradual process,  imo. As for expanding the NATO to the Russian borders, it's hard to argue this move is unrelated to the rise of certain forms of Russian nationalism. In other words, western countries can't criticize Putin's nationalism without asking themsrlves in what degree they've contributed to that. Maybe the architecture of security and international relationships could have been different

If the EU, and especially NATO, hadn’t expanded eastwards, Putin would be doing exactly what he is doing right now. The difference is it would be not just to Ukraine, but also to the Baltics and perhaps Poland. This is such a tired talking point, and it’s a damn good thing for the lives and livelihoods of tens of millions of eastern and central Europeans that NATO and the EU did manage to expand eastwards before Russia could pull the kind of sh—t that it’s pulling now.

The EU and NATO extensions are previous to Putin's accesion to power, so I don't think that's a valid argument. Actually, you are making counterfactual history on the assumption of the inevitability of Putin and the imperialistic ambitions of post-soviet Russia. When the western countries promised Mikhail Gorbachev the NATO would not expand eastwards from Poland, the USSR was still existing. It is impossible to know how things could have been if done differently, but I refuse to accept the notion that Putin was historically inevitable

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

Why do self-declared “anti-imperialists” somehow only mean what they perceive as U.S. imperialism to be bad and that it certainly doesn’t refer to the actions of those who are hostile to the U.S.?

[Orwell]

Correct me if I am wrong.  In 2021 nuclear power from 6 nuclear plants provided for 13% of Germany energy needs.  3 of them were shut down end of 2021 and the other 3 will be shut down at the end of 2022.

And all but one of the remaining six (yes, only six) nuclear power stations in Great Britain will be gone within six years and will not be replaced. Proposals for replacements are made frequently enough and sometimes projects even start, but, curiously, they never get very far. The difference between existing German and British policy on this matter is largely cosmetic.

Wasn't there a scandal back in the day about kids having uranium in their teeth.

[Velasco]

Why do self-declared “anti-imperialists” somehow only mean what they perceive as U.S. imperialism to be bad and that it certainly doesn’t refer to the actions of those who are hostile to the U.S.?

LMAO

Two questions:

1) Where did you read I call myself "anti-imperialist"?

2) Where did you read I endorse powers hostile to the US as my default option?

I recall having stated my opposition to an invasion of Ukraine by Russian troops, but anyway let me tell you I can't stand hysterical dumbs.

(This is an interesting question to ask about unrecognized entities, like — to name a spectrum — Taiwan or Palestine or Kosovo or the DNR/LNR. But of course Ukraine, a universally recognized UN member, does exist and therefore has a right to.)

I think the cases of Taiwan and Palestine are very different, both in terms of international recognition and viability.  

•A quick Google seatch reveals that Taiwan is formally recognized by 15 countries as of 2022

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-that-recognize-taiwan

 The following 15 nations recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country: Guatemala, Honduras, Haiti, Paraguay, Nicaragua, Eswatini, Tuvalu, Nauru, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Marshall Isalnds, Palau, and the Vatican City (U.N. non-member).  

Meanwhile the State of Palestine was recognized by 138 countries as of 2019, as well it has achieved a an observer status within the UN since 2012

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine#:~:text=As%20of%2031%20July%202019,67/19%20in%20November%202012.

As of 31 July 2019, 138 of the 193 United Nations (UN) member states and two non-member states have recognised it (Israel is recognized by 164). Palestine also has been a non-member observer state of the UN General Assembly since the passing of United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 in November 2012.  

• However in terms of viability and the reality on the ground,  the situation is the opposite

Palestine is an occupied country where Israel rxerts absolute control on 2/3 of the West Bank territory (Area C), while the so-called "PNA" (the UN recognized the "State of Palestine " as an observer) has a limited control over the rest of that territory (Areas B and C). Actually what we currently call "Palestine " is a disjointed territory splitted between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, while we call "Israel" to the rest of the territory behind the Green Line. The situation on the ground is that all these territories -that once were the historical Palestine- are now under the control of the Israeli state, which implements a cruel regime of domination over millions of disenfranchised Palestinians (particularly in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, which is crossed by the serpent-shaped Apartheid Wall). All these territories are annexed (formally or de facto) to Israel, saving the Gaza Strip

Taiwan is an island ruled by the government of the so-called "Republic of China" (ROC).  Either you call it "Taiwan" or "ROC", that mostly unrecognized country is de facto a sovereign state

• There is a third interesting difference regarding national identity.  Palestinians define themselves as such (including most of "Arab Israelis "), while I suspect the folks in Taiwan regard themselves as "Chinese"

Regardless of whether some states are viable or "should exist" (who is entitled to concede statehood?, on what grounds?), there are other important questions to address.  I would argue individuals from stateless peoples (Palestinians, Kurds, Sahrawis...) are entitled to basic rights, such as access to citizenship and the recognition of their national identities

[Meclazine for Israel]

I found this article as a useful summary:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-23/satellite-images-russian-troops-surround-ukraine/100827810

I don't think we can ignore historical context.

[jaichind]

Kyiv Government to Impose State of Emergency

[CumbrianLefty]

It would not surprise me if you dug into their finances you see some funds coming from Russia.

There is a political party presently in power in a large European country that has been dragging its feet on sanctions and which, yes, has received significant financial contributions from Putin-associated Russian oligarchs over the past decade, but it is not the German Green Party.

Telling that Johnson had to invent Abramovich being sanctioned in the HoC yesterday.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

It would not surprise me if you dug into their finances you see some funds coming from Russia.

There is a political party presently in power in a large European country that has been dragging its feet on sanctions and which, yes, has received significant financial contributions from Putin-associated Russian oligarchs over the past decade, but it is not the German Green Party.

Telling that Johnson had to invent Abramovich being sanctioned in the HoC yesterday.

Britons don't want to set the precedent by sanctioning bloody money. It's not only Russian oligarchs who keep their bloody money and families in City of London. Honestly, nuking Londongrad would be net positive for the humanity. It would likely stop the War in Yemen, too.

[Middle-aged Europe]

UN secretary-general is based.


https://twitter.com/antonioguterres/status/1496290209151000581

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

That would be the German Green Party you can thank for making their country more heavily dependent on Russian-sourced energy. It would not surprise me if you dug into their finances you see some funds coming from Russia.

Leaving the fact aside that I have been personally acquainted with the German Greens' last three treasurers, I would like to point out that Annalena Baerbock had always been vocally opposed to Nord Stream 2 and subject to Russian desinformation campaigns during the 2021 election (https://m.tagesspiegel.de/politik/russland-mischt-sich-in-wahlkampf-ein-gezielte-diffamierung-von-annalena-baerbock/27291998.html). That would make Russian foreign policy rather schizophrenic and self-defeating wouldn't it? Also, the current exit from nuclear energy was passed by a CDU/FDP government led by Angela Merkel in 2011 (the Greens weren't opposed to that decision though, of course).

While I would be willing to concede that it is a valid opinion to hold that a simultanous exit from nuclear, coal, and (particularly Russian) gas as the Greens are proposing it is unrealistic, you are starting to delve into conspiracy theories here that could be considered equally unrealistic, if not more so.

I think Angela Merkel adopted her decision on power nuclear exit after the Fukushima accident, which caused an understandable wave of concern in public opinion. On the other hand, the European Commission recently adopted the decision to declare gas and nuclear power sustainable. Such declaration has been labeled as "greenwashing". I'd like to remark nevertheless the highly positive influence of the German Greens in public opinion, to the point a centre-right politician like Ursula von der Leyen states her great sensibility on climate action and environment

https://www.dw.com/en/european-commission-declares-nuclear-and-gas-to-be-green/a-60614990

European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen cannot repeat often enough how close stepping up climate action is to her heart.

She described the European Green Deal as "Europe's man on the moon moment." She has called climate neutrality "our European destiny." And she solemnly proclaimed that no effort will be spared for Europe to become the world's first continent with net-zero emissions.

But as often, the devil is in the detail (...)  

Of course the devil is in the detail, because "lower carbon emissions" is not neccessarilly equivalent to "sustainable energy". While it's legitimate to discuss whether nuclear power and gas can be used as "transitional" sources, declaring them "sustainable" is as misleading as talking about "Green Capitalism"

Regarding collusions between German politicians and Russian interests,  I think targeting the German Greens is incredibly dumb and misguided. You don't need too much research to find out that, after exiting chancellorship, Gerhard Schroeder started a succesful career as Gazprom lobbyst

Even that is a bit of an understatement. From earlier this month:
Former German Chancellor Schröder nominated for Gazprom board

Gazprom published an official list of nominees on Friday, saying the names would be voted on in June during a shareholders' meeting in Saint Petersburg.

The news came a week after Schröder — a long-time friend of Vladimir Putin and who holds senior positions at Nord Stream and Rosneft — made headlines by saying on his podcast that Ukraine, not Russia, was "saber-rattling."

[Middle-aged Europe]

Regarding collusions between German politicians and Russian interests,  I think targeting the German Greens is incredibly dumb and misguided. You don't need too much research to find out that, after exiting chancellorship, Gerhard Schroeder started a succesful career as Gazprom lobbyst

It would not surprise me if you dug into their finances you see some funds coming from Russia.

There is a political party presently in power in a large European country that has been dragging its feet on sanctions and which, yes, has received significant financial contributions from Putin-associated Russian oligarchs over the past decade, but it is not the German Green Party.

If I had to rank the German parties from most pro-Putin/pro-Russian to least pro-Putin/pro-Russian it would probably look like this:

1. AfD
2. Left
3. SPD
4. CDU/CSU
5. Greens
6. FDP

(I decided to place the FDP ahead of the Greens because the former supports giving weapons to Ukraine. Their positions on economic sanctions and Nord Stream 2 must be pretty similar though.)

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Regarding collusions between German politicians and Russian interests,  I think targeting the German Greens is incredibly dumb and misguided. You don't need too much research to find out that, after exiting chancellorship, Gerhard Schroeder started a succesful career as Gazprom lobbyst

It would not surprise me if you dug into their finances you see some funds coming from Russia.

There is a political party presently in power in a large European country that has been dragging its feet on sanctions and which, yes, has received significant financial contributions from Putin-associated Russian oligarchs over the past decade, but it is not the German Green Party.

If I had to rank the German parties from most pro-Putin/pro-Russian to least pro-Putin/pro-Russian it would probably look like this:

1. AfD
2. Left
3. SPD
4. CDU/CSU
5. Greens
6. FDP

(I decided to place the FDP ahead of the Greens because the former supports giving weapons to Ukraine. Their position on economic sanctions and Nord Stream 2 must be pretty similar though.)

It's based on rhetoric/intentions. If you consider the consequences, then AfD/Left had almost zero influence on Germany's politics. On other hand, Greens, who literally born out of anti-nuxxclear movement, are much more pro-Russian, because they/their movement/Merkel caused Germany's current reliance on the Russian gas in first place.

Putin should love his anti-nuxxlear puppets. I doubt, that without their help Schroder or Merkel would be able to pull through NS1 and NS2.

In a sense, the War in Ukraine is financed by money that Putin got, because Greens killed the nuclear power development in Germany. So it's not Putin who funded Greens, it's Greens who funded Putin.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Regarding collusions between German politicians and Russian interests,  I think targeting the German Greens is incredibly dumb and misguided. You don't need too much research to find out that, after exiting chancellorship, Gerhard Schroeder started a succesful career as Gazprom lobbyst

It would not surprise me if you dug into their finances you see some funds coming from Russia.

There is a political party presently in power in a large European country that has been dragging its feet on sanctions and which, yes, has received significant financial contributions from Putin-associated Russian oligarchs over the past decade, but it is not the German Green Party.

If I had to rank the German parties from most pro-Putin/pro-Russian to least pro-Putin/pro-Russian it would probably look like this:

1. AfD
2. Left
3. SPD
4. CDU/CSU
5. Greens
6. FDP

(I decided to place the FDP ahead of the Greens because the former supports giving weapons to Ukraine. Their position on economic sanctions and Nord Stream 2 must be pretty similar though.)

It's based on rhetoric/intentions. If you consider the consequences, then AfS/Left had almost zero influence on Germany's politics. On other hand, Greens, who literally born out of anti-nuxxclear movement, are much more pro-Russian, because they/their movement/Merkel caused Germany's current reliance on the Russian gas in first place.

Putin should love his anti-nuxxlear puppets. I doubt, that without their help Schroder or Merkel would be able to pull through NS1 and NS2.

In a sense, the War in Ukraine is financed by money that Putin got, because Greens killed the nuclear power development in Germany. So it's not Putin who funded Greeens, and Greens who funded Putin.

So let me get this straight... the Greens' opposition to nuclear power directly caused Germany's reliance on gas, but the Greens' opposition to gas had no effect whatsoever on Germany's reliance on (Russian) gas... because the latter was just "rhetoric", while the former were "actions" (what kind of "actions"? Anti-nuclear protests that happened during the 1980s when Annalena Baerbock was just five years old?). Seems like pretty selective cherry picking to me where you arrange the facts just like you happen to need them, while ignoring any other factors that may have come into play.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1496430943111942147

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Regarding collusions between German politicians and Russian interests,  I think targeting the German Greens is incredibly dumb and misguided. You don't need too much research to find out that, after exiting chancellorship, Gerhard Schroeder started a succesful career as Gazprom lobbyst

It would not surprise me if you dug into their finances you see some funds coming from Russia.

There is a political party presently in power in a large European country that has been dragging its feet on sanctions and which, yes, has received significant financial contributions from Putin-associated Russian oligarchs over the past decade, but it is not the German Green Party.

If I had to rank the German parties from most pro-Putin/pro-Russian to least pro-Putin/pro-Russian it would probably look like this:

1. AfD
2. Left
3. SPD
4. CDU/CSU
5. Greens
6. FDP

(I decided to place the FDP ahead of the Greens because the former supports giving weapons to Ukraine. Their position on economic sanctions and Nord Stream 2 must be pretty similar though.)

It's based on rhetoric/intentions. If you consider the consequences, then AfS/Left had almost zero influence on Germany's politics. On other hand, Greens, who literally born out of anti-nuxxclear movement, are much more pro-Russian, because they/their movement/Merkel caused Germany's current reliance on the Russian gas in first place.

Putin should love his anti-nuxxlear puppets. I doubt, that without their help Schroder or Merkel would be able to pull through NS1 and NS2.

In a sense, the War in Ukraine is financed by money that Putin got, because Greens killed the nuclear power development in Germany. So it's not Putin who funded Greeens, and Greens who funded Putin.

So let me get this straight... the Greens' opposition to nuclear power directly caused Germany's reliance on gas, but the Greens' opposition to (Russian) gas had no effect whatsoever on Germany's reliance on gas... because the latter was just "rhetoric", while the former were "actions" (what kind of "actions"? Anti-nuclear protests that happened during the 1980s when Annalena Baerbock was just five years old?). Seems like pretty selective cherry picking to me where you arrange the facts just like you happen to need them, while ignoring any other factors that might have come into play.

I don't know why you bring up Annalena Baerbock, if it's pretty clear (no?) that I was talking about Greens [movement] in long terms. Indeed (as you mention 1980), "Greens" spent decades vigorously opposing nuclear, while their opposition against natural gas is nor vigorous nor so old.

Even now, if SPD would somehow reverse NS2 decision, I think, thr Greens would in the end accept it. Would they accept reversing on nuclear power? Doubt. Because of them, Germany will be heavily depend on gas in at least 10-20 years. More than enough for Putin.

Consequences >>>> intentions.

[Illiniwek]

If I had to rank the German parties from most pro-Putin/pro-Russian to least pro-Putin/pro-Russian it would probably look like this:

1. AfD
2. Left
3. SPD
4. CDU/CSU
5. Greens
6. FDP

Pretty good ranking of German political parties from most reprehensible to least!

[Middle-aged Europe]

I don't know why you bring up Annalena Baerbock, if it's pretty clear (no?) that I was talking about Greens [movement] in long terms. Indeed (as you mention 1980), "Greens" spent decades vigorously opposing nuclear, while their opposition against natural gas is nor vigorous nor so old.

You're throwing a lot of things together here. That the Greens of the 1980s and the Greens of the 2020s are one and the same for instance (hence my  Baerbock comment), not taking into account a lof of leading Green figures from the 80s are either dead (Petra Kelly) or had left the party in dismay (Jutta Ditfurth) by the 90s. Or that the Green/anti-nuclear movement and the Green Party are one and the same, despite the fact that many in the anti-nuclear movement had criticized and attacked the Green Party in the late 90s and early 2000s (and once again in 2011) for agreeing to a drawn-out nuclear exit that lasted for 20 years. If we're drawing the lines as close or wide as we happen to need them just to make a point one might say that the Greens and the CDU are practically one and the same too (as AfD politicians in fact often do within the political discourse), and "the Greens" are hence directly reponsible for the CDU's actions.

Even now, if SPD would somehow reverse NS2 decision, I think, thr Greens would in the end accept it. Would they accept reversing on nuclear power? Doubt. Because of them, Germany will be heavily depend on gas in at least 10-20 years. More than enough for Putin.

What you believe what might happened is rather immaterial, and also pretty theoretical considering that no political party except for the AfD is in fact supporting a return to nuclear energy in Germany. Yesterday you conceded in this very thread that Germany's decision to suspend Nord Stream 2 was the one you had least expected, so your insights into what's realistic to expect within the confines of Germany's political system may be limited anyway.

Consequences >>>> intentions.

That's strictly speaking true, but presupposes that the one you hold reponsible for the consequence in question is in fact (solely/primarily) responsible for that very consequence. And it's your presupposition that I have challenged in this case.

If I were the use the standard Green talking point here then the CDU/CSU and the SPD are responsible for Germany's reliance to Russian gas because they had failed to sufficiently expand Germany's renewable energy sector between 2005 and 2021. So by your logic the CDU and the SPD would then be the "most pro-Russian parties", because through their actions they're responsible for the consequence of Germany's continued reliance on Russian gas.

I do in fact not like to use that talking point very often because - even though it does, up to a certain point, contain some truth - I don't like the kind of black-and-white thinking you're exhibiting here. The world's a little more complex than "it's the Greens/CDU's/SPD's/Germany's fault".

[Sir Mohamed]

I think WWII and Nazi comparisons should always be used with caution, but is it just me who reminds this of Hitler's Sudetenland playbook? At least there are similarities.

[jaichind]

I think WWII and Nazi comparisons should always be used with caution, but is it just me who reminds this of Hitler's Sudetenland playbook? At least there are similarities.

Why not the 1810 Republic of West Florida comparison ?

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

I didn't say that Greens/whoever are solely responsible. But they imo clearly were more of useful idiots of Putin than Left/AfD, even if the latter clearly have much more pro-Russian views. I don't really understand why it's so controversial to say that rabidly anti-nuclear [parts of] Green parties were net good for Putin and net bad for climate.

Yeah, I do in fact think CDU/SPD or Schroder/Merkel were one of the most "pro-Russian" party/leaders.

Re: my insights. Well, per FT, "even hardened political observers" were surprised as well.
https://www.ft.com/content/60e42ac2-03d8-4faf-ad88-9f92982420f5
Scholz takes heat off Germany with decision to freeze Nord Stream 2 project
Chancellor surprises political observers by suspending approval for contentious gas pipeline

For weeks, German chancellor Olaf Scholz was ridiculed by politicians and journalists around the world for refusing to even name Nord Stream 2, let alone promise to halt it if Russia invaded Ukraine.

On Tuesday he surprised even hardened political observers by freezing the approval process for the gas pipeline from Russia to Germany — part of a broad European response to Moscow’s decision to recognise two breakaway regions of Ukraine as independent republics.

[WMS]

Why do self-declared “anti-imperialists” somehow only mean what they perceive as U.S. imperialism to be bad and that it certainly doesn’t refer to the actions of those who are hostile to the U.S.?

LMAO

Two questions:

1) Where did you read I call myself "anti-imperialist"?

2) Where did you read I endorse powers hostile to the US as my default option?

I recall having stated my opposition to an invasion of Ukraine by Russian troops, but anyway let me tell you I can't stand hysterical dumbs.

Ah, not addressing my main point and adding a personal attack on top of it! Classy! I base my comment on your overall posting history, and your repeating the Russian lies over NATO expansion as fact. But anyway let me tell you I can’t stand arrogant, hypocritical, left-wing f***wits.

[WMS]

And we have an update on who’s supporting Russia! To the surprise of exactly no one, in addition to Syria, Belarus, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela have come out in support of Russia. Gee, there’s a shining example of stalwart anti-imperialist states opposed to violations of national sovereignty. And they’re such paragons of human rights as well! Truly they’re exactly the type of company one should keep for those champions of revolution worldwide.