What I find revealing about this Ukraine incident is Putin would never have done this during the Trump presidency for several reasons but primarily because I dont think Putin respects Biden or the Democrats inconsistency and or hestinancy  around military intervention  and consequence

Would you guys agree this is one strength the GOP have over the Democrats generally ? And this is not about liking Trump or agreeing with him. This is about how certain countries have more respect for the US when there is a Republican president and are more cautious around  certain geopolitical decisions 

36 minutes ago, pmp10 said:

I doubt Putin would mind a Kievian rump state provided it's tiny and insignificant.

If there were to be an invasion- still very unlikely imo- Russia would want a border on the Dniepr* and a strip along the south coast. They certainly wouldn't want, say, Lvov except in exceptional circumstances. The Dniepr is defensible, and has lots of nice strategic assets like dams for leverage. It would basically be a crescent with its bottom edge on the Black Sea and its top against Belarus.

A rump Ukraine is far less dangerous even if it did get into NATO. Having an aggressive, dishonest and expansionist alliance with a habit of abrogating and canceling treaties and agreements they see as limiting plus which was established with the express purpose of being anti Russian a hundred km from absolutely critical strategic sites like Rostov na donu or Smolensk is not something they want- and even if that view of NATO is not objective truth it's certainly how Russia sees it.

*probably leaving a small Ukrainian bridgehead for the trans Dniepr part of Kiev.

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Ukraine is a  sovereign country and the current  legitimate government will never agree to  losing more territory, especially after Crimea,  so its not  realistic but it is wishful thinking 

Bruce, you have to stop confusing "sovereign country" with homogeneous country. Lines on a map that ignores the ethnic realities on the ground aren't worth the paper the map makers used. You would have thought the UK of all things, learned that after the cluster**** that was the middle-east after WWI. The Kurds sends their regards btw. Unless you can unify the population culturally, forget about stability. Nationalism only exacerbates the problem. The increased kill count makes for good news coverage, but little else.

8 hours ago, KP on top of ZA WARUDO said:

So I guess this is the best place to ask as any, but is there a German word for "Disappointed but not Surprised"? Because that's the general feeling everytime I hear some bull**** like "virtuesignomics".

Not that I know, but you're close to feeling Weltschmerz, so maybe you can use that.

25 minutes ago, Gorth said:

Bruce, you have to stop confusing "sovereign country" with homogeneous country. Lines on a map that ignores the ethnic realities on the ground aren't worth the paper the map makers used. You would have thought the UK of all things, learned that after the cluster**** that was the middle-east after WWI. The Kurds sends their regards btw. Unless you can unify the population culturally, forget about stability. Nationalism only exacerbates the problem. The increased kill count makes for good news coverage, but little else.

Yes I agree that sometimes borders do ignore ethnic and cultural realities but borders is what the world and the UN uses to define what land and regions belong to what countries 

So I am not sure how relevant that  type of argument  is specifically when it comes to countries or regions that want independence or want to belong to  another country,  it has to be  done through the UN with consensus from both sides to achieve  international legitimacy?

Of course there are exceptions to this like Crimea which after the debate you and me and Zora had about 6-8 months  ago I realize its more complicated than what I use to believe and I mentioned this to you. But thats why I dont refer to that incident as the " illegal annexation " of Crimea. I just say " annexation " of Crimea 

But you right, in certain cases if borders ignore ethnic realities it can lead to tension and conflict later on 

18 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

So I am not sure how relevant that  type of argument  is specifically when it comes to countries or regions that want independence or want to belong to  another country,  it has to be  done through the UN with consensus from both sides to achieve  international legitimacy?

The problem is too much nationalism and too little democracy. They could try what Denmark and Germany did post WWII? Rather than claiming all historical Danish territories all the way down to Hamburg, it was agreed to create a number of "electoral areas" (it's been a long time since I read up on it, so I don't remember the correct term used at the time, sorry), where the population is actually asked whether they want to be part of Denmark or Germany. Also with the caveat, that no matter how hard you try, minorities will exist on the other side of the border. Their rights have to be ensured and protected. I.e. the Danish minority in Schleswig-Holstein is exempt from the 5% minimum threshold for seats in the regional parliament and both German and Danish are accepted as languages in education on both sides of the border (the way the border ended up after the 3 regional referendums, 1 area re-joined Denmark, 2 areas preferred to remain German). Of course, Germany had just lost WWII, so it was that or lose all the territory. But I could think of quite a few other places in the world, where a similar approach would be beneficial for long term peace. Ukraine and Russia are both horribly nationalist, so they might need to feel a bit of pain before such good ideas penetrates their skulls. Ukraine is sort of the opposite case, where after the change of government in 1994, the new right wing extremist government decided to go 100% Ukraine uber alles, cracking down on Russian minorities in both Crimea and eastern Ukraine, disallowing the use of the Russian language etc. The reaction was anything if not predictable (referendum in Crimea, which they were fully entitled to, having never been legitimately part of Ukraine post 1991) and violent uprisings in eastern Ukraine.

 

The Kurds is another example (since I mentioned them originally), which is never going to happen with somebody like Erdogan in power, because his power base is entirely nationalist rhetoric. A place that is actually peaceful at the moment is the Swedish occupied parts of Denmark (Scania), where you have to search long and hard for any armed resistance groups. Guess what, the cultural and ethnic differences between Denmark and Sweden is not large enough today to stir up unrest (again, something I referred to in my original post).

 

If you want to do the world a favour, stop thinking like it's 1648 and support democracy instead. Especially local democracy and the right  of people for self determination.

10 hours ago, BruceVC said:

What I find revealing about this Ukraine incident is Putin would never have done this during the Trump presidency for several reasons but primarily because I dont think Putin respects Biden or the Democrats inconsistency and or hestinancy  around military intervention  and consequence

Would you guys agree this is one strength the GOP have over the Democrats generally ? And this is not about liking Trump or agreeing with him. This is about how certain countries have more respect for the US when there is a Republican president and are more cautious around  certain geopolitical decisions 

Did Putin respect Trump? I'm skeptical of that. I do think Putin was happy to let the US self-isolate under Trump, whereas Biden operates more in terms of international alliances. Putin and Russia in general are more fearful of the latter.

7 hours ago, Gorth said:

The problem is too much nationalism and too little democracy. They could try what Denmark and Germany did post WWII? Rather than claiming all historical Danish territories all the way down to Hamburg, it was agreed to create a number of "electoral areas" (it's been a long time since I read up on it, so I don't remember the correct term used at the time, sorry), where the population is actually asked whether they want to be part of Denmark or Germany. Also with the caveat, that no matter how hard you try, minorities will exist on the other side of the border. Their rights have to be ensured and protected. I.e. the Danish minority in Schleswig-Holstein is exempt from the 5% minimum threshold for seats in the regional parliament and both German and Danish are accepted as languages in education on both sides of the border (the way the border ended up after the 3 regional referendums, 1 area re-joined Denmark, 2 areas preferred to remain German). Of course, Germany had just lost WWII, so it was that or lose all the territory. But I could think of quite a few other places in the world, where a similar approach would be beneficial for long term peace. Ukraine and Russia are both horribly nationalist, so they might need to feel a bit of pain before such good ideas penetrates their skulls. Ukraine is sort of the opposite case, where after the change of government in 1994, the new right wing extremist government decided to go 100% Ukraine uber alles, cracking down on Russian minorities in both Crimea and eastern Ukraine, disallowing the use of the Russian language etc. The reaction was anything if not predictable (referendum in Crimea, which they were fully entitled to, having never been legitimately part of Ukraine post 1991) and violent uprisings in eastern Ukraine.

 

The Kurds is another example (since I mentioned them originally), which is never going to happen with somebody like Erdogan in power, because his power base is entirely nationalist rhetoric. A place that is actually peaceful at the moment is the Swedish occupied parts of Denmark (Scania), where you have to search long and hard for any armed resistance groups. Guess what, the cultural and ethnic differences between Denmark and Sweden is not large enough today to stir up unrest (again, something I referred to in my original post).

 

If you want to do the world a favour, stop thinking like it's 1648 and support democracy instead. Especially local democracy and the right  of people for self determination.

You have raised some interesting points about something I want to chat to  you about later in detail and if I am right about what  you suggesting it may be more significant than I have ever thought about. And its got to do with what you raised earlier about the importance  of understanding ethnic realities and their history in any regionn

Anyway  I am busy now so lets chat later about this topic

9 hours ago, Gorth said:

The Kurds is another example (since I mentioned them originally), which is never going to happen with somebody like Erdogan in power..

That at least has very little to do with Erdogan himself.

Kurdish independence is utter anathema to every party in Turkey except the HDP and even they don't formally want secession, just more rights. Erdogan is also perfectly happy with Kurds running bits of his neighbours, so long as they're Uncle Toms like the Barzanis in Iraq and will sell him (well, his son) oil under the table.

'Kurdistan' is the perfect example of carrot dangling in foreign policy though. In the cold war it was the USSR dangling it for the PKK to get an insurgency going in Turkey, since then it's been consistently used by the west in Syria, Iraq and Iran- and while it hasn't been used by them in Turkey it's certainly one of the big reasons for tensions between Turkey and the west. It's pretty easy to judge how far they are willing to take that support in practice though, by the response to the Iraqi Kurd independence referendum. Pretty much zero international support bar thoughts and prayers from Israel- who'd support literally anything and anyone that weakens an arab state, hence the support for ISIS aligned Jaish Khalid ibn Walid in Syria- and the attempt was crushed with embarrassing ease by, well, the same Iraqi army that surrendered Mosul to a couple of hundred guys in Toyota Hiluces.

16 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

 

A rump Ukraine is far less dangerous even if it did get into NATO. Having an aggressive, dishonest and expansionist alliance with a habit of abrogating and canceling treaties and agreements they see as limiting plus which was established with the express purpose of being anti Russian a hundred km from absolutely critical strategic sites like Rostov na donu or Smolensk is not something they want- and even if that view of NATO is not objective truth it's certainly how Russia sees it.

The Russian annexation of Crimea was a violation of:

• 1975 Helsinki Final Act
• 1994 Budapest Memorandum of Security Assurances for Ukraine
• 1997 Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between Ukraine and Russia

Pot = kettle = black

Those aren't exactly great examples in this context, but you can take it as read that Russia has ignored or abrogated its fair share of agreements too and is most definitely a kettle. Point being of course that for some reason you only ever hear about said kettle in the media, and not the pot doing exactly the same thing.

The Helsinki Accords and Budapest Memoranda don't have force of law, though as agreements they're fine to cite as examples. The former is irrelevant as a plus for Ukraine's position though as it is trumped by the Crimean Sovereignty Referendum of 1991 in which 94% of Crimeans voted to leave Ukraine. An approved referendum is a legal way to secede, and that makes the Helsinki Accords apply in Crimea's favour*, not Ukraine's. And yeah, the referendum was both approved and ratified by the Ukrainian SSR. Of course, that is never mentioned in the western press, nor is Ukraine sending in 70,000 troops and enacting Direct Rule in 1995 when the Crimean Parliament tried to action it. Indeed, Ukraine literally changed their constitution to make secession impossible after that, requiring every single oblast to majority vote for anyone to leave.

The latter of course is a plural set of agreements and more properly referred to as the Budapest Memoranda; but strangely only the Ukraine one ever gets mentioned, and only recently. Reason for that being of course that the west is currently sanctioning Belarus, to whom another one of the Budapest Memoranda applies, in contravention of article 3, to whit "Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, [Kazakhstan and Ukraine] to influence their politics". Of course, that was flagrantly ignored by the west with regards to Ukraine too, when they had a Russian friendly government; and it was most definitely ignored by Russia when convenient as well. Not  a treaty and never really worth the paper it was written on, for both the west and Russia.

The 2007 Friendship Treaty was abrogated multiple times by Ukraine in 2014, even prior to Crimea agreeing to join the Russian Federation. They voted overwhelming to ban the Russian language (to be fair, in a moronic fit of revolutionary zeal with Svoboda brown shirts overseeing proceedings immediately post coup, but still) and voted multiple times for other measures that contravened the agreement. Let's also be frank, a Treaty of Friendship with Russia is intrinsically incompatible with joining NATO and handing Sevastopol Naval Base over to the US in exactly the same way a US- Canada Friendship Treaty is incompatible with Canada joining the Warsaw Pact and announcing that a purely defensive Soviet submarine pen up the St Lawrence was a great idea. And those were both things the post coup Kiev Government said they would do.

*Of course the Helsinki Accords are in many ways a very self defeating issue to bring up anyway, since there's a very obvious counter example in Kosovo where pretty much every metric is worse than Crimea. Seized by force by NATO, quarter of a million Serbs ethnically cleansed under their aegis to make an Albanian ethnostate (one of which already exists anyway), and never even had a rigged referendum let alone a legit one. Completely against the 'rules based international order' that they want others to follow, and such a very obvious case of "rules for thee but not for me".

Edited January 23, 20224 yr by Zoraptor

Another interesting Ukraine tidbit:
US is preparing embassy evacuation plans

I always thought Biden's 'imminent invasion' rhetoric and gaffes were calculated to whip Germany and France into united NATO position, but he really seems to believe it.
I can't see how you can justify that view given Russian army dispositions at this moment.
Maybe POTUS distrust military intelligence after Afghanistan. 

7 hours ago, pmp10 said:

Another interesting Ukraine tidbit:
US is preparing embassy evacuation plans

I always thought Biden's 'imminent invasion' rhetoric and gaffes were calculated to whip Germany and France into united NATO position, but he really seems to believe it.
I can't see how you can justify that view given Russian army dispositions at this moment.
Maybe POTUS distrust military intelligence after Afghanistan. 

That just seems like a sensible precaution. You never know whether Putin might employ some Spetsnaz operation to decapitate the Ukrainian government, for example.

12 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Those aren't exactly great examples in this context, but you can take it as read that Russia has ignored or abrogated its fair share of agreements too and is most definitely a kettle. Point being of course that for some reason you only ever hear about said kettle in the media, and not the pot doing exactly the same thing.

The main difference is that Russia tend to repeatedly violate their treaties, whereas the US decides to withdraw. History shows that every country is willing to break treaties when it serves their interests, so disparaging the US over this is a bit of an empty argument.

Isn't criticizing Russia for it, likewise ?  Hypocrisy in geopolitics is like embellishment in football.

 

2 hours ago, HoonDing said:

 

The original was better

Apparently, Biden doesn't want press photos of Embassy Staff and their family hanging on the helicopters in a last minute evacuation effort from the US Embassy in Kiev (he's probably old enough to remember the Saigon evacuation photos when they were new)

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60106416

The US has ordered the relatives of its embassy staff in Ukraine to leave amid rising tension in the region.

The State Department has also given permission for non-essential staff to leave and urged US citizens in Ukraine to consider departing.

In a statement, it said there were reports that Russia is planning significant military action against Ukraine.

 

Edit: Dang you Putin, don't you go and make a liar of me, I was certain China would invade Taiwan before the Ukraine situation deteriorated.

Edit2: Maybe Putin and Xi struck a deal, if striking simultaneously, who would the west consider more important, Ukraine (a corrupt through and through country) or Taiwan (the very important semi conductor manufacturer that makes so much of the west's industry run)?

15 hours ago, rjshae said:

That just seems like a sensible precaution. You never know whether Putin might employ some Spetsnaz operation to decapitate the Ukrainian government, for example.

Only if that threat of war is a serious one.
If this is a intimidation tactic that it's a sign of panicking easily in a protracted war of nerves.
Guarantees Putin more leverage in negotiations. 

17 hours ago, Malcador said:

Isn't criticizing Russia for it, likewise ?  Hypocrisy in geopolitics is like embellishment in football.

Malc if you had to make an overall comparison between the US and Russia who would you support generally? I would normally never have asked such a question but a few weeks ago Gorthfucisous shared with me his general view on the US and it was surprisingly quite negative but honest  so I dont want to assume you support the US?

@Gorth

How do you compare Russia with USA overall? I appreciate how much details you shared about the US but I dont know how you feel about Russia compared to USA.

I dont want to influence either of your views with my list of criticisms towards Russia foreign policy and internal policy decisions ...I generally share these things and this is not about my views 🎆

12 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

How do you compare Russia with USA overall? I appreciate how much details you shared about the US but I dont know how you feel about Russia compared to USA.

That's a post for tomorrow, frankly too tired today. I did find this little golden nugget though (fallout from the Djokovic thing)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60081853

Serbia has withdrawn the exploration licences of Anglo-Australian mining company Rio Tinto following weeks of protests over plans for a lithium mine.

"All permits were annulled... we put an end to Rio Tinto in Serbia," Prime Minister Ana Brnabic said on Thursday.

The decision comes just weeks ahead of Serbia's general election in April. 😂

 

 

Apparently something good did come out of it after all. Anything that is bad for Rio Tinto is good for the world, so thank you Serbia! Sometimes things done for the wrong reasons are the right things to do anyway 😁

 

 

9 minutes ago, Gorth said:

That's a post for tomorrow, frankly too tired today. I did find this little golden nugget though (fallout from the Djokovic thing)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60081853

Serbia has withdrawn the exploration licences of Anglo-Australian mining company Rio Tinto following weeks of protests over plans for a lithium mine.

"All permits were annulled... we put an end to Rio Tinto in Serbia," Prime Minister Ana Brnabic said on Thursday.

The decision comes just weeks ahead of Serbia's general election in April. 😂

 

 

Apparently something good did come out of it after all. Anything that is bad for Rio Tinto is good for the world, so thank you Serbia! Sometimes things done for the wrong reasons are the right things to do anyway 😁

 

 

No worries, yes let me know you ready to chat tomorrow 

13 minutes ago, Gorth said:

That's a post for tomorrow, frankly too tired today. I did find this little golden nugget though (fallout from the Djokovic thing)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60081853

Serbia has withdrawn the exploration licences of Anglo-Australian mining company Rio Tinto following weeks of protests over plans for a lithium mine.

"All permits were annulled... we put an end to Rio Tinto in Serbia," Prime Minister Ana Brnabic said on Thursday.

The decision comes just weeks ahead of Serbia's general election in April. 😂

 

 

Apparently something good did come out of it after all. Anything that is bad for Rio Tinto is good for the world, so thank you Serbia! Sometimes things done for the wrong reasons are the right things to do anyway 😁

 

 

I thought you were going to say the Oz reaction to Novak was perhaps an overreaction but I see this Rio Tinto outcome is something you dont mind 

I dont mean to make you feel guilty but the reaction from Serbia tells us how upset the people of Serbia are  because I think they feel this whole incident was more about theater and not about a valid virus reason. I know we both agree that rules must be enforced but I am sure you will agree that sometimes rules can be ignored in the interest of not creating the wrong impression about those rules ?

29 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

I thought you were going to say the Oz reaction to Novak was perhaps an overreaction but I see this Rio Tinto outcome is something you dont mind 

I dont mean to make you feel guilty but the reaction from Serbia tells us how upset the people of Serbia are  because I think they feel this whole incident was more about theater and not about a valid virus reason. I know we both agree that rules must be enforced but I am sure you will agree that sometimes rules can be ignored in the interest of not creating the wrong impression about those rules ?

That's Ok, not feeling guilty about anything. Serbia's reaction is all about nationalism which I don't like anyway (1), because of an utter and complete **** which I don't like anyway (2) and if the collateral damage is a mining corporation I don't like anyway (3), it's a win-win-win situation as far as see. 3-0 if you want

 

(1) - I'll spare you the long sermon about why I don't like nationalism. Tl;dr; it's a joke created around 1648 to get the gullible to accept he has to die for the benefit of the country's elite like he always has, except now he actually believes he has a stake in the outcome 😂

(2) - I'm not necessarily a stickler for rules, but I am in favour of them being applied equally. Some moron is so full of himself and believes himself important enough, that laws and rules are for suckers and not for him, only for "other people" doesn't qualify him in my book. If it had been for humanitarian reasons, come again and maybe we can talk

(3) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-55250137   a frigging shame CEO's and boards of directors never gets sentenced to the lengthy jail times they deserve 😠

21 minutes ago, Gorth said:

That's Ok, not feeling guilty about anything. Serbia's reaction is all about nationalism which I don't like anyway (1), because of an utter and complete **** which I don't like anyway (2) and if the collateral damage is a mining corporation I don't like anyway (3), it's a win-win-win situation as far as see. 3-0 if you want

 

(1) - I'll spare you the long sermon about why I don't like nationalism. Tl;dr; it's a joke created around 1648 to get the gullible to accept he has to die for the benefit of the country's elite like he always has, except now he actually believes he has a stake in the outcome 😂

(2) - I'm not necessarily a stickler for rules, but I am in favour of them being applied equally. Some moron is so full of himself and believes himself important enough, that laws and rules are for suckers and not for him, only for "other people" doesn't qualify him in my book. If it had been for humanitarian reasons, come again and maybe we can talk

(3) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-55250137   a frigging shame CEO's and boards of directors never gets sentenced to the lengthy jail times they deserve 😠

But isnt it interesting how this Novak incident has worked in your favor? But nationalism can be a positive because to be honest I am always impressed when any country is prepared to take a stance on an issue that will impact their economy but the the issue is bigger than the revenue .....in SA we would never compromise on investment because we need the money. In the EU do people generally date across ethnic lines, for example would Danish people date girls from Hungary or Bulgaria?

It was always a surprise to me in our early trips to Austria in  Seefeld from 1991-1997 where I met several East European girls mostly from Hungary and Bulgaria. I had a huge crush on  a beautiful Hungarian barlady who became a friend of mine and I use to see her when she wasnt working, she also seemed to like me and she told me that many EU countries, like Austria and Germany, look at down on her and she was treated like a second class citizen

It was so strange to hear because she was really hot and friendly. I remember her having slightly  dark skin with purple hair, her name was Helga ? I assume she was talking about how East European countries use to  seen as places where citizens were less sophisticated by some EU countries and they were ones who did more the manual work like chambermaids and barmaids....I sure its all changed now ?

But stereotypes can be funny in movies, do you know how many times I have watched EU or UK crime  movies and the syndicates are always gangsters from Russia, Ukraine or Serbian ex-paramilitary  but they hardcore and not to be messed with and we all know this is not the actual representation of these  countries  but these are real types of cartels