Ukraine Conflict - conflict continues

[xzar_monty]

34 minutes ago, Gorth said:

Edit: What could make both the people living in Donbas and the government in Ukraine happy? I can't really see any compromises, that would ensure long lasting peace.

Both the Donbas and Crimea are going to be very difficult. So much history and ethnic identification / pride / what have you.

The US is extraordinarily fortunate, among other things, in the fact that nobody has a real history with the place. Except, of course, those unfortunates who met Mr. Genocide and try to eke out a living these days.

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Gorth said:

If you nitpick the term "pre-war borders", that would imply a restoration of status quo to early 2022? I.e. Crimea be the price of peace.

 

Edit: What could make both the people living in Donbas and the government in Ukraine happy? I can't really see any compromises, that would ensure long lasting peace.

Pre-war to me is since the invasion so that includes Donbas but not Crimea . But this whole peace initiative  is about security guarantees by the G7 until Ukraine can join NATO

So to  answer your question, the people of Donbas should be happy because Russian troops will leave Ukraine and the security guarantees will protect Ukraine until they can join NATO. Thats my understanding?

[xzar_monty]

16 hours ago, Mamoulian War said:

Good read

https://www.salon.com/2023/07/29/how-russian-colonialism-took-the-western-anti-imperialist-left-for-a-ride/

Indeed, a good read, thank you for the link.

The tendency to sympathise with Russia has an interesting precedent in the 9/11 terrorist attack, after which some left-leaning intellectuals such as Edward Said and Noam Chomsky were surprisingly incapable of admitting that it was an atrocious act indeed, and instead they went to great lengths in describing how awful some American policies had been and were (in itself a correct claim) and that such an attack on civilians was ultimately, sort of, let's face it, how should we put it, entirely justified and right. Christopher Hitchens wrote about this sort of spinelessness rather scathingly and well almost immediately after Said, Chomsky et al. had come out with their anti-American and pro-terrorist points.

This phenomenon has quite a lot to do with the hierarchies that people have in their thinking. I've said it before put I suppose it may bear repeating: almost all people want justice to be done, but if they are faced with a choice of either furthering justice or keeping a friend out of trouble, they tend to (i.e. over 50% will choose to) go for the latter option, at the cost of justice, even at a terrible cost. So while we value justice, we value friends more. A similar phenomenon applies here: "America" or "the West" are very easy epitomes of certain kind of evil, because they definitely and clearly are up to all kinds of questionable things in the world -- but for the most part, people in the West will still tend to side with America or the West when it's a question of choice between that and, let's say, Russia. (I would never ever want to live in America but faced with a choice between that and Russia, there's just no question which one I'd choose.) But there's a certain group of people who sort of vacillate inbetween: in daily life, America and the West represent evil, and when Russia (or some other entity not from the West) gets up to something utterly dreadful, they start to come up with excuses about how, surely, the West must also be to blame, and so on. This group is quite distinct from those who overtly and consistently support Russia all the time.

One good example is the question of NATO expansion, such as it is. NATO doesn't really intend to expand. NATO gets new members because various countries feel threatened enough by Russia so that they wish to get some extra protection, and that's why they apply for membership. Russia, of course, steadfastly refuses to see this. One other thing (among many many many many) that Russia steadfastly refuses to see is that as a sovereign nation, Ukraine gets to do whatever it wants to (within international law), so whether it chooses to apply for NATO membership is none of Russia's business, in the same way that it's none of my business whatsoever whether my neighbor wants to join the Labor Union or Amnesty International or any of those groups probably still going strong in Judea. If I start whining about it, it almost certainly indicates that I have a problem.

[Malcador]

6 hours ago, Gorth said:

If you nitpick the term "pre-war borders", that would imply a restoration of status quo to early 2022? I.e. Crimea be the price of peace.

 

Edit: What could make both the people living in Donbas and the government in Ukraine happy? I can't really see any compromises, that would ensure long lasting peace.

Ukraine's been pretty vocal that they take the war as starting in 2014.

Another drone strike in Moscow, same building too. 

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Malcador said:

Ukraine's been pretty vocal that they take the war as starting in 2014.

Another drone strike in Moscow, same building too. 

Sure but compromises will have to be made on both sides and Crimea is quite possibly one of them 

[Malcador]

38 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Sure but compromises will have to be made on both sides and Crimea is quite possibly one of them 

We'll see, probably will be an interesting sell to Ukrainian people.  Kasparov will have a stroke too, thinking of that, heh.

 

 

[Sarex]

EU urges Russia not to escalate the conflict as an answer to the drone attacks. Although I'm not too sure what else is there to do apart from a full draft.

[xzar_monty]

12 minutes ago, Sarex said:

EU urges Russia not to escalate the conflict as an answer to the drone attacks. Although I'm not too sure what else is there to do apart from a full draft.

Gotta say Russia is steadfast indeed in its use of "special military operation" instead of "war".

If it was at all possible, someone might even suggest that Ukraine could join NATO right now because by Russia's own definition, it is not a nation currently at war.

[Malcador]

19 minutes ago, Sarex said:

EU urges Russia not to escalate the conflict as an answer to the drone attacks. Although I'm not too sure what else is there to do apart from a full draft.

Based on last time, probably something mundane like that, rather than something like nuking Kiev  - https://www.rferl.org/a/kremlin-drone-attack-eu-warning-borrell-ukraine/32395001.html 

 

Edited August 1, 2023 by Malcador

[BruceVC]

2 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

Gotta say Russia is steadfast indeed in its use of "special military operation" instead of "war".

If it was at all possible, someone might even suggest that Ukraine could join NATO right now because by Russia's own definition, it is not a nation currently at war.

I like the way you think, now we just need those pesky NATO votes to agree 

[Malcador]

Two Belarusian helicopters entered Polish airspace then left, guess I was wrong, those Wagner guys may actually pose a danger.

[Sarex]

56 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Two Belarusian helicopters entered Polish airspace then left, guess I was wrong, those Wagner guys may actually pose a danger.

Probably just to cause panic. Doubt they dropped anyone off. Unless they already have logistics/insurgents set up.

Then again a lot of people immigrated to Poland at the start of the war, it's not that farfetched that some pro-Russia people set up there.

[xzar_monty]

8 minutes ago, Sarex said:

Probably just to cause panic. Doubt they dropped anyone off. Unless they already have logistics/insurgents set up.

More than to cause panic I'd say they were there just to give Poland the finger. I also agree with your second point: seriously doubt they dropped anyone off.

This is a fairly common Russian strategy: Russian airplanes breach Finnish and Swedish airspace with some regularity, just to remind everyone that Russia doesn't give a damn and is a big bad wolf. Every time Finland or Sweden remind Russia that it would do well to keep its airplanes in its own airspace, Russia the aggressor immediately becomes Russia the victim. You can't get more childish than that, I'd say.

[Zoraptor]

6 hours ago, Sarex said:

EU urges Russia not to escalate the conflict as an answer to the drone attacks. Although I'm not too sure what else is there to do apart from a full draft.

There's a load of things they could do- from stuff they really ought to have done militarily on day one (target bridges over the Dniepr) to symbolic (target the Motherland Monument or Rada) to packing thermite into longer range missiles or drones.

6 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

If it was at all possible, someone might even suggest that Ukraine could join NATO right now because by Russia's own definition, it is not a nation currently at war.

It's not possible anyway, but the sticking point isn't just being at war (which Ukraine considers herself to be, and she's the important one since she'd be claiming Article 5) it's active territorial disputes*. So for example Turkey may 'claim' a whole swathe of Syria and Iraq informally via Misak-i-Milli, but can't call on NATO for help for their invasion as they didn't claim it formally on accession. Similarly, can't call on NATO to help them in Cyprus even if they wanted to. If Ukraine wanted to join NATO she'd have to cede anything occupied, assuming the war itself wasn't active. Though, of course, NATO is free to amend or ignore its own rules any time, for any reason.

*and to be even more specific, active territorial disputes in the Treaty Region, hence no NATO article 5 when Argentina invaded the Falklands nor did their claims on Las Malvinas stop Britain joining in the first place.

[Malcador]

3 hours ago, Sarex said:

Probably just to cause panic. Doubt they dropped anyone off. Unless they already have logistics/insurgents set up.

Then again a lot of people immigrated to Poland at the start of the war, it's not that farfetched that some pro-Russia people set up there.

Doubt many are panicked, even if Poland is like the short guy telling everyone to hold him back.

A more mundane possibility

https://twitter.com/Hajun_BY/status/1686496814348824576

Edited August 1, 2023 by Malcador

[Gorth]

8 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

More than to cause panic I'd say they were there just to give Poland the finger. I also agree with your second point: seriously doubt they dropped anyone off.

This is a fairly common Russian strategy: Russian airplanes breach Finnish and Swedish airspace with some regularity, just to remind everyone that Russia doesn't give a damn and is a big bad wolf. Every time Finland or Sweden remind Russia that it would do well to keep its airplanes in its own airspace, Russia the aggressor immediately becomes Russia the victim. You can't get more childish than that, I'd say.

It's probably two different messages for two different audiences. The foreign policy one as a "show of strength" to neighboring countries and a domestic one of being "the victim of international bullying", to rally support on the home front.

[xzar_monty]

28 minutes ago, Gorth said:

It's probably two different messages for two different audiences. The foreign policy one as a "show of strength" to neighboring countries and a domestic one of being "the victim of international bullying", to rally support on the home front.

Indeed. I'd love to know the percentages of Russians who buy and don't buy the nation's official rhetoric. I mean the real percentages, not what people tell when asked. But of course I'm not going to know.

I recently read an analysis by a Finnish specialist on Russia; she pointed out that even after 30 years of being fairly free to travel abroad, the Big Misconception in Russia is that every country is like Russia, i.e. corrupt to the hilt, hence why bother trying to change anything. Not certain of the extent to which is true, and it has to be said that not all that many Russians travel abroad or even have a passport.

[xzar_monty]

Incidentally, here's a telling anecdote from a "classic"[*] book on Russia by the former Finnish president Mauno Koivisto. He recounts how he visited a museum in Russia and was told of the atrocities that the Tatars had committed. Being somewhat knowledgeable on the subject, Koivisto got frustrated and asked his guide about the Tatars' view on the same question. "We do not know that", was the guide's reply. No interest from Russians in other nationalities living in Russia. (Btw, not unique, this.)

 

[*] I want the word "classic" to really mean something and thus be reserved to very few works. So I would not call it classic myself, although I have read it and it's good. For more info (in English, too!) check out this link: https://www.sttinfo.fi/tiedote/mauno-koivistos-classic-book-on-russia-due-for-first-publication-in-english?publisherId=2326&releaseId=69968904

Edited August 2, 2023 by xzar_monty

[BruceVC]

9 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

Incidentally, here's a telling anecdote from a "classic"[*] book on Russia by the former Finnish president Mauno Koivisto. He recounts how he visited a museum in Russia and was told of the atrocities that the Tatars had committed. Being somewhat knowledgeable on the subject, Koivisto got frustrated and asked his guide about the Tatars' view on the same question. "We do not know that", was the guide's reply. No interest from Russians in other nationalities living in Russia. (Btw, not unique, this.)

 

[*] I want the word "classic" to really mean something and thus be reserved to very few works. So I would not call it classic myself, although I have read it and it's good. For more info (in English, too!) check out this link: https://www.sttinfo.fi/tiedote/mauno-koivistos-classic-book-on-russia-due-for-first-publication-in-english?publisherId=2326&releaseId=69968904

It reminds me a bit of the selective understanding of history I sometimes come across in SA, some activists honestly believe that only white people committed slavery in Africa or globally and they always surprised when its pointed out " almost every nation of man committed slavery including black tribes in Africa who enslaved other tribes " 

And this history is well  documented and accessible for anyone who has Internet access and a real interest in the subject 

[xzar_monty]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

It reminds me a bit of the selective understanding of history I sometimes come across in SA, some activists honestly believe that only white people committed slavery in Africa or globally and they always surprised when its pointed out " almost every nation of man committed slavery including black tribes in Africa who enslaved other tribes "

Another good example of this is racism and the idea that only white people are racist. You only need to look at Japan to totally disprove this nonsense, but of course it exists pretty much everywhere else, too. Despite all evidence, I have come across some people who honestly claim that it is impossible for a white person to be racially discriminated against.

[BruceVC]

3 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

Another good example of this is racism and the idea that only white people are racist. You only need to look at Japan to totally disprove this nonsense, but of course it exists pretty much everywhere else, too. Despite all evidence, I have come across some people who honestly claim that it is impossible for a white person to be racially discriminated against.

Yes absolutely but do you know where that mostly comes from? If you listen to anyone who  thinks that they will always makes points like " black people cant be racist because they dont have power " and this comes from Steve Biko and some of his black consciousness  views. But Biko was wrong about this because he lived and died in the Apartheid system and to him the Apartheid system was racist because it had the power. So he had an understandable misunderstanding of what creates bigotry

You can be living in abject poverty and you can still be a bigot, you could be sexist, homophobic or racist. It has very little to do with power  but you do find systems of power that espouse forms of bigotry

Bigotry is normally inculcated and created in people through there upbringing, families or lived experiences. And its a choice and anyone can stop being a bigot if they really want 

But the point being anyone of any race can be a racist or another type of bigot, lack of agency or power doesn't mean you cant 

 

 

[Malcador]

9 hours ago, Gorth said:

It's probably two different messages for two different audiences. The foreign policy one as a "show of strength" to neighboring countries and a domestic one of being "the victim of international bullying", to rally support on the home front.

Double talk seems par for course with nations anyway.  We kill people by drones, they commit terrorist acts, etc.

[Elerond]

10 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

Another good example of this is racism and the idea that only white people are racist. You only need to look at Japan to totally disprove this nonsense, but of course it exists pretty much everywhere else, too. Despite all evidence, I have come across some people who honestly claim that it is impossible for a white person to be racially discriminated against.

People are just being broken telephones and citing things they have only half understood when they heard them.

Claim that it is impossible for a white person to be racially discriminated against, is distortion on phrase that White people don't face systemic racism in countries where there are white majority population. But even that is too simplistic way to look issue because minority ethnicities among white population will face systematic discrimination from majority population.  

[Malcador]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/02/us/politics/ukraine-troops-counteroffensive-training.html

"Biden administration officials had hoped the nine Western-trained brigades, some 36,000 troops, would show that the American way of warfare was superior to the Russian approach. While the Russians have a rigidly centralized command structure, the Americans taught the Ukrainians to empower senior enlisted soldiers to make quick decisions on the battlefield and to deploy combined arms tactics — synchronized attacks by infantry, armor and artillery forces.

But the Western-trained brigades received only four to six weeks of combined arms training, and units made several mistakes at the start of the counteroffensive in early June that set them back, according to U.S. officials and analysts who recently visited the front lines and spoke to Ukrainian troops and commanders."

 

[Keyrock]

10 minutes ago, Malcador said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/02/us/politics/ukraine-troops-counteroffensive-training.html

"Biden administration officials had hoped the nine Western-trained brigades, some 36,000 troops, would show that the American way of warfare was superior to the Russian approach."

 

That sounds like the military version of BioWare Magic™. So the thought was, we have these raw recruits, we only have a few short weeks to train them, they're going to be hopelessly outnumbered, buuuuuuuut... Murican Magic™.

Edited August 2, 2023 by Keyrock