Russia - threadbanned users in OP

TefalBrain

Lot of pundits seem to think this isn't just sabre rattling and Russia are going to invade some time in January/February. Is there a military advantage for them invading in the depth of winter?

Gatling

Putin is now claiming what is happening to Russian speakers in Donbass is now Genocide ,

But yet most of the fire from artillery and missiles is coming from Russia into Ukraine territory ,the fact that Putin is using genocide in Ukraine will be more than enough for him to make a full scale invasion to defend russian speakers from Ukrainians

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118300792#Comment_118300792

I dont see that they need to justify their position on Ukraine, since when it comes to be bigger military powers, they do what they want anyway. The US invaded Iraq by lying to the world, and there were no consequences applied to them for it. That's a very simple gesture to non-western nations of the double standards/hypocrisy of Western led diplomacy. The only way that Ukraine would be safe, would be for the US to ally themselves with them, and commit themselves to their defense. .

It's easy to throw out accusations about morality, when you ignore the behavior of western nations over the last 50-60 years, and the lack of reaction to what they've done/involved themselves in.

That's not seeking to justify a Russian invasion of Ukraine, btw. We should be at the stage where any warfare of that size was a no no.. but if the West is going to hold up some kind of high standard to be enforced on others, then the West should be equally bound.

AbusesToilets

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118301115#Comment_118301115

The West is hardy without blame, but there's no equivalency in comparison to the USSR. The Soviets murdered many millions of people, with the Ukrainians suffering greatly. Small surprise they might feel a desire to separate themselves from Russia and its depredations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118301219#Comment_118301219

Which is not related to what I wrote. There's no attempt to excuse Russian history in any of my post.

It comes back to, if we want other nations to conform to the standards of behavior, then we should be conforming to those same standards ourselves.

AbusesToilets

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118301293#Comment_118301293

I don't disagree, I would argue that the US say suffered by not upholding its own purported values. That said, there's far too much relativism in the thread, with respect to Russia. It's unequivocally in the wrong here, and has been since Putin came to power.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118301344#Comment_118301344

Sure, I can see that. I'd be something of an advocate for it myself, since I do think the perception of non-westerners do have a bearing on this situation. I learned on my first trip to Russia, that the history we are taught, is not always the same as the history taught in other countries.

Russia has nearly always been in the wrong... but then, I'd say the same about any major power, whether that's the US of today, or the British of 50 years ago. I think there's too much favortism going on within the thread, with standards being applied to Russia, that aren't being equally applied elsewhere, with the West getting a free pass, with posters looking for the most favorable interpretation, that excuses the west, but blames Russia entirely.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118301107#Comment_118301107

Bumping up the usual rhetoric and propaganda. It's playbook stuff.

fly_agaric

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118301410#Comment_118301410

I don't see the "favouritism" towards the US or the Western pov in this thread (if anything it is the opposite). 

Not much point in constantly bringing up the US and it's past actions here. Yes, it's another "Empire", or thinks of itself as such (like Russia, or China, if objectively not as bad). Yes it has behaved in a might-makes-right manner and so it loses authority to criticise others for similar. As you say Iraq is by far the worst example of it in my own lifetime. I already mentioned that in another post.

There is still IMO an objective morality here (as far as I can see). Russia will be in the wrong if invades Ukraine and it is already in the wrong for the multiple hostile actions visited on the country since Yanukovych/pro Russia govt. was removed from power. I just think I am staing a fact there, not making an accusation or overlooking past actions of US/Western countries to criticise Russia unfairly.

fly_agaric

@[Deleted User] Maybe I should clarify + state directly that I don't think the West/US should get involved in it militarily if Russia attacks Ukraine + would agree with much of your post. Even supplying weapons is very risky. However if Russia wants the cold war sphere of influence back, then I think they should also have economic, politicial and social isolation from the West back too. Am increasingly of that view when it comes to both Russia and China, they need to be cut off as much as possible (or "we" in democracies need to be cut off from them, much as you would isolate an infection) despite the dangers of such an isolationist policy + the economic damage it will cause.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118301557#Comment_118301557

I'm more concerned with the practical considerations rather than conversations over morality. The favortism is the application of standards to Russia, that are not being reinforced on the West. Western actions haven't resulted in sanctions, or military intervention... and yet, that's what's being suggested to be applied to Russia. Hence, the favortism remark. As long as western nations get away with whatever they wish, then there's no real basis for enforcing these standards on countries like Russia or China, because to them, it represents a double standard, and so, something they can bypass.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118301557#Comment_118301557

I mean this post constructively, but let's say your fact is true and correct. You're Joe Biden or Jens Stoltenberg or Emmanuel Macron. You go into a meeting with Putin and you tell him, "in an objective moral sense, you are wrong here". How does that help solve the situation? What will Putin say?

Frankly, it's not enough to be right. You have to solve the actual problem jointly with your antagonist, and simply being right is not going to do this. In this respect, being right is useless, because it doesn't help.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118301679#Comment_118301679

Besides I suspect Putin would be well able to argue from a Russian pov that he is morally in the right.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118301645#Comment_118301645

Yes I hear what you're saying and in my personal life, I avoid Chinese products in particular as much as possible (which is not very often, I'm sorry to say). I do think that we should economically disassociate ourselves from China in particular. Russia I would be more hopeful of, even if it's a fool's hope, because I do see them as one leg of the triad of western civilization, and I have to believe that we can surmount our challenges with them.

But I don't think we can quarantine ourselves completely from China or Russia for the simple reason that we share a planet and need to collaborate on topics like climate change, AI, and nuclear disarmament. It's a horrible situation and it's only going to get worse.

BluePlanet

While I agree that Russia is a bad actor here, there is little that can be done about it. I empathize with some of the countries that broke away during the collapse of the SU. However they know the bear that Russia is, so have a duty to their own people not to provoke that bear.

Georgia and Ukraine didn't really pay enough attention to their own geo political situation regarding the big bully next door. And any gestures toward NATO will only be met with aggression from Russia. They probably needed to tread lightly and keep good relations with Russia for a few decades not to draw their ire. Finland managed it even during the Cold War.

fly_agaric

Klaz, the thread is about Russia. That is why I was applying a moral standard to them specifically here. If you want to look only at "practical considerations" and are telling me to shut up now about objective rights & wrongs, there is no global police or supreme arbiter and therefore no one can enforce any standard double or otherwise on countries of the size and power of the US or Russia or China. They/their govt.'s definitely don't care what you or I think...!

The West sanctioning itself, or sanctioning the US is fairly absurd in such a situation. The West/Western countries are however IMO free decide what sort of relations they want to have with Russia post a Ukraine attack/invasion. Russia doesn't have some right to be able to trade with these countries, or their companies. Russians don't have an absolute right to travel to the West and back, or park money there or buy assets there etc. etc.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118301787#Comment_118301787

I didn't tell you to shut up about anything. I posted my opinions on the topic at hand. That's it. As for the west sanctioning itself, the mechanism used to sanction other nations is generally done through the UN and/or through other international organisations, so it shouldn't be absurd to apply it to the west... it's only absurd because the West provides the primary backbone for the UN and such organisations.

BluePlanet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118301850#Comment_118301850

That's just daft.

China has cast 16 vetoes, total.

The US: 82

Russia/USSR: 117

The UK btw: 29.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118301694#Comment_118301694

He certainly would. These two interviews, with western reporters, should be watched by everyone. Please disregard the YouTube titles and annoying captioning - the content of the videos are what matter. I think it's clear that he feels genuinely aggrieved and makes salient points to back this up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK3O0RBeSK4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIdi4zesHPU

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118301850#Comment_118301850

I appreciate your efforts at steer conversation away from Russia in a Russia titled thread but this is a country whose advanced anti aircraft systems drive themselves across an international border shoot down passenger planes and then drive back and all you get are whataboutisms and deflections and conspiracies as a reply for barbaric acts.

Referring to other organisations or countries, is not steering the discussion away from Russia. That's a deflection from you, because it's easier (black/white) to focus entirely on Russia without considering international politics and events.

Nobody has sought to excuse Russian behavior... so for someone on about whataboutisms, you're introducing quite a bit of it yourself.

BluePlanet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118301909#Comment_118301909

Goal post moving. You claimed that China and Russia repeatedly hobble the UN with vetoes.

While there is some truth in that statement regarding Russia/USSR's use of the veto, it is certainly not true for China. And infact you should have cited Russia/USSR and US use of the veto is what hobbles the UN.

You also could have included UK because despite their smallness in comparison to global power at the UN, they are lackey's of the US and they register #3 on use of UN veto.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118301909#Comment_118301909

The same could be said about the US vetoing of resolutions. None of them have their hands clean in that regard.

circadian

Seems like Putin is following the Foundations of Geopolitics playbook as expected.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118301986#Comment_118301986

Yeah I'm not too worried about it, and am still expecting more step by step actions/escalations to come.

That said, it's still a continuous conflict zone along the rebel held territory, daily exchanges, etc

fly_agaric

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118301826#Comment_118301826

Okay - you didn't tell me to shut up. Regardless of all that...I don't see how there will be, or ever could be sanctions at the UN on Russia (could they not just veto it?) They are not Iraq or similar. Russia and China are both permanent members of UN security council. They are pillars of the UN/international structure as much as the Western WW2 victors (in particular the US) are. The UN sanctioning either seems just as absurd as the West sanctioning the US or itself over Iraq. There may be harsh words about Russia at the UN said by Western countries + allies but any sanctions post a Ukraine invasion will be by the West or countries they can persuade to join them.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118302098#Comment_118302098

Unilateral sanctions. Also Russia is no stranger to international sanctions currently.

fly_agaric

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118302121#Comment_118302121

Yes, it was UN sanctions that were mentioned though. Out of my depth now, but I did think the Security Council had to approve that and the permanent members could block it (?). As said when it comes to a country like US/Russia/China etc., there is no effective global policeman.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118302098#Comment_118302098

Yes, but the UN can be bypassed, if the EU, US, and other trading blocs decided to apply sanctions. The point about the UN, is that it's still a mechanism for gaining support, even if the security council steps in to veto.

Think back to why I raised the UN as part of the discussion, although you'll have to consider more than Russia to do so.

In any case, sanctions are next to useless in doing anything to Russia.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118302161#Comment_118302161

Indeed but there's a lot of action the rest of the world can take via sanctions, restrictions, etc with Russia, which is heavily dependent on foreign trade.

I think a lot of the blame for the current situation stems from the foreign policy of George W Bush and the devils on his shoulder, not least of whom was Condoleeza Rice.

A decade after the USSR collapsed, Bush could have been magnanimous (as Clinton seemed to be) and said, OK Russia is back, as a republic. Russia - the country of Tchaikovsky and Tolstoy, the country that was allied to the US and the UK in WWI and WW2, the country that humbled Napoleon, the country that served as a Christian bulwark against Ottoman-Islamic expansion for centuries. The country that suffered the tragedy of a lunatic communist takeover at the same coincidentally unfortunate time that nuclear weaponry was invented, which exacerbated the tensions, could have been treated with more respect. Bush could have said, "Let's focus on building a friendship and strategic partnership with Russia in terms of trade and security, and basically ring-fence the Global North with western-minded nations."

But instead, enamored with the now obviously fallacious 'end-of-history' thesis; unhealthily distracted by a few savages hiding in the caves of Afghanistan; and offended by Russia's objections to the invasion of Iraq, Bush decided to court the less significant ejecta of the USSR's explosion - Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and so forth. In a recent interview about his reflections on working with Angela Merkel, Bush recalled that his biggest disagreement with Merkel was on Georgia's admission to NATO, where he wanted Georgia in, and she didn't. Imagine: one of his biggest regrets was not getting Georgia into NATO, rather than alienating Russia by expanding NATO in 2004 and withdrawing from the ABM treaty - unilaterally - in 2002.

If he had instead cultivated closer relations with Russia rather than the smaller states of eastern Europe, the security of the Baltics, Ukraine and the Caucuses might naturally been settled satisfactorily: much as Belgium no longer worries that Germany will storm its frontiers, the smaller former Soviet states might have had a similar trajectory.

Might have. Who knows. These are what ifs. There are admittedly a few reasons to think it wouldn't have been such an easy path (again, Russia is compelled by geography to be more authoritarian than other western countries would like), but I don't think we'd be in the dire situation we are in now.

BluePlanet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118302098#Comment_118302098

Sorry to nit-pick fly_agaric but you said something here that should be corrected:

"They [Russia] are pillars of the UN/international structure as much as the Western WW2 victors (in particular the US) are."

Russia were allies in WWII and were clearly victors as US was scrambling to get a foothold into Europe to insure they gained a seat at the winners circle. While the US/UK were "winners" by securing the most western parts of Europe(and the US winners in the S Pacific); Russia were clearly among the biggest winners of WWII by the sheer scale of their involvement and the amount of land and resources that came under their control across eastern Europe in the immediate aftermath.

Infact there is some debate that Russia were the primary victors of WWII.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118302199#Comment_118302199

True but the main sources of income won't be touched. The German gas agreement wouldn't be touched, nor would trade with India or China. The truth is that sanctions/restrictions only involves certain countries, and while it might hurt Russia somewhat, there are plenty of other markets or countries willing to trade under the radar.

BluePlanet

I wonder will there be an attempt to block Russia from SWIFT.

Though i am a little doubtful the attempt would succeed.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118302477#Comment_118302477

The point is not the destruction of the country, just to make it unpalatable and economically unviable. Most current sanctions are relatively minor and targeted, but if Russia black/white invaded Ukraine, there'd be a large global backlash. Selling resources cheaper elsewhere is losing revenue. As mentioned, they have the approx. GDP of Italy, and such a scenario would be economically painful for them. Again, the Kremlin knows this, which is why I would be extremely surprised if they actually went ahead with a major conflict.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118302220#Comment_118302220

There was a time when Putin actually wanted to join NATO (the late-90s I believe). He asked the British NATO Sec. General at the time when can he expect an invite, the Sec. Gen. told him that NATO isn't an invite club - that nations must apply and meet criteria with their defence industry etc.

Putin apparently got in a huff and basically said Russia isn't just any other nation and shouldn't have to jump through hoops.

fly_agaric

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118302471#Comment_118302471

It doesn't need to be corrected, but perhaps I should have been a bit clearer there.

I didn't mean to exclude or slight Russia (i.e. Soviet Union) as "victor" or winner in WW2 at all, but they are not generally considered part of "the West" in way its being used on this thread, so Russia are not "Western [and] WW2 victors".

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118302194#Comment_118302194

If I understood correctly, you suggested US could/should have been sanctioned through international orgs./the UN for Iraq, and idea that they could be was absurd (my word), solely because the West/US was the one "providing the backbone" for said international orgs. Hence there is a double standard/who guards the guardians type situation when it comes to Western "offences" (like US Iraq invasion) vs Russia perhaps (if it does launch an(other) attack on Ukraine). 

I just pointed out that idea of any UN backed/led sanctions on Russia over a Ukraine invasion looks to me like being equally absurd, for similar reasons (power/importance of Russia in UN). US/EU sanctions are a different matter. The Western countries can make their own decisions about relations with Russia.

I think you may have a point about a Western bias in UN trade sanctions however. In the past (maybe post cold war 90s/00s) US/Europe made up a large majority of the global economy and so they had a unique ability to create and apply the sanctions and enforce them or not and compel others. However I don't think this is the case as much as it was, and now you also have China imposing unilateral trade sanctions against the countries that offend/anger it and trading/interacting with countries the US or the West has sanctioned.

I don't think sanctions are "useless" even though it will be painful for those doing the sanctioning also & may take time to show positive effects.

Gatling

Russia has closed large part of the Azoz sea which connects to the black sea ,due to naval and artillery action directly outside Ukrainian military and civilian ports , Ukrainian vessels must apply to Russia to sail through their own waters

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118302532#Comment_118302532

If that’s true, the NATO sec general handled that situation with supreme incompetence.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118302536#Comment_118302536

If I understood correctly, you suggested US could/should have been sanctioned through international orgs.

I didn't specify sanctions. Just the double standards at play that completely ignored US actions with Iraq, and then punished other countries for their actions.

I don't think sanctions are "useless" even though it will be painful for those doing the sanctioning also & may take time to show positive effects.

I don't think sanctions will be the cause of any positive effects when it comes to Russia. I suspect it'll come down to negotiation and concessions made on both sides. Perhaps the removal of US supported military bases and listening posts around Russian borders, in return for a guarantee of Ukrainian (or other nations) independence, providing scope for Russia to be reassured that these nations won't become direct allies of America/the West. I dunno.. but I seriously doubt anything will stop Russia from "reclaiming" certain territories, short of a serious commitment of troops by the US in those territories, and TBH I suspect that might actually tip the hand of Russia towards open warfare with the West.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118302517#Comment_118302517

I'm not so sure of that. Sanctions against Iran weren't relatively minor, and had a major effect on it's population for a rather long time. Same with Pakistan in the past. I suspect a nation like Russia could shrug off the effects of sanctions easily enough though, as they have close ties with both China and India, both being countries with existing agreements. In addition Russia would continue bringing in an income from it's arms sales worldwide.

Oh, I agree that they wouldn't want war with the West, but it's equally possible they see it happening eventually. Anyway, Ukraine, and other border countries could easily be taken without Western intervention, and the returns in accessible natural resources could offset any downsides of sanctions. Honestly, it's a lot like Hitler expanding in Europe before Poland was invaded... how long will the bluffs succeed before the Allies decide enough is enough?

bob mcbob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118302608#Comment_118302608

Here is the story

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule

bob mcbob

This is a story from the current front line in Donbas. It seems that the ongoing conflict has made what was once a Russian speaking area much more pro-Ukraine.

Since the war began, Avdiyivka’s character has changed. According to Mariia Lepilova, a former teacher, the younger generation is more pro-Ukrainian. Donbas was once mostly Russian-speaking. There had been a switch to the Ukrainian language in schools and shops, she said. Children learn Ukrainian in class from the age of six or seven

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/10/nobody-wants-to-be-putins-slave-on-the-ukraine-frontline-as-tensions-rise

Fritzbox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118302471#Comment_118302471

Approx. 28 million soviet citizens died during WW2 - I wouldn't call that being the "primary victors".

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118307397#Comment_118307397

The US was the primary victor.

They emerged from the war with a streamlined industrial base, the British gold reserves, the paramount supplier/seller of military hardware, managing to push the Imperial/colonial powers to release their colonies, while also establishing a range of international agreements limiting other countries, without being bound by them themselves.

Fritzbox

The US was the primary victor.

Indeed, and I believe that is the standard interpretation or version of the final result of WW2, surely?

fly_agaric

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118303461#Comment_118303461

On the Western double standards I was wondering what happened at the UN over the flight MH17 incident. I didn't know and was curious as it seemed like the kind of thing the countries worst affected might try to raise there. They (Malaysia, Netherlands) did, but of course it got nowhere because Russia is a permanent UN security council member, one of the guardians of the global peace post WW2 etc. Russia may not be a superpower any more & much reduced from Soviet Union days, but it is a big & powerful country with alot of clout, and as such not really a good example of a victim of international double standards created by the West.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33710088

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118261978#Comment_118261978

Russia's web brigades/influence operations? Friend, I've been posting on this forum for many years before you. This isn't some sock account registered a few weeks ago. I would indeed cringe at some of the posts I made 20 years ago. But they were my views then, and these are my own views now. So give the laughable Russian bots/psy ops narrative a rest. It is possible someone can independently reach views that disagree with your own.

fly_agaric

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118307649#Comment_118307649

I know "you" should be a real Irish person unless someone or something else has your account now. If you reread I claimed the ideas themselves may originate from said bots/trolls [I don't know if they do but they put a spin on things I could imagine Russian govt. would approve of], not that you are a bot.

They seem like very unique ways of viewing German reunification (when poor East Germany got anschlussed by the West), Yugoslav war(s) (NATO sent in troops to carve up the country) + the Iraq war / other ME wars (involving "the EU" and "NATO" as belligerants). I don't think its just me that would disagree...very strongly with them. I've never heard anything like it at all, but if they are your own wild ideas fair enough. If they come from somewhere else originally, would be interested to read it.

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118307689#Comment_118307689

I have my own negative views of the Russian government. I would have thought that would have been clear when I summarised Russia's intervention in Crimea and the Donbass as a flawed/desperate reaction to events. That is even aside from the very real prospect that Putin and the Russian government bombed their own people to create a casus belli in Chechnya. Putin is ice cold.

But forgive me for being cynical when it comes to EU/NATO (or "western" if it helps you accept my view as genuine) suddenly considering national borders to be sacred above any other principle given recent history. As I pointed to, the argument seems to be that might makes right. When EU/NATO interests are in play, then national sovereignty can and must be violated. Whereas if Russia considers its own interests to be in play, then it is an evil monster for violating national sovereignty. By contrast, lets go through some of the more recent western/EU/NATO interventions across national borders: The re-introduction of slave markets to Libya. The total atrocity of ISIS rule in Syria. The frozen conflict that is the former Yugoslavia. As for Iraq and Afghanistan....

I can assure you, I'm not a paid agent of the Russian government ( though I will accept donations if they do want to pay me). I'm just a realist calling bullshit on the emperors wearing no clothes. Clearly the EU and NATO (including the US) tried to make a play for Ukraine to threaten Russia. Russia responded in a predictable fashion when national security is on the line. Geopolitics is a big boys game. How else should Russia react to a "western" mindset which is so virulently hostile to Russia that it was seriously entertained that a country with an economy smaller than South Korea or Canada picked the president of the USA? People need to grow up and realise that actions lead to reactions. The fake outrage only indicates incompetency in my eyes.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118307516#Comment_118307516

It's not about being a victim of the west... that's simply pushing things to extremes as a way of dismissing it. This is about what's been done to place the world in the position it currently is... and why that is. Russia isn't any kind of victim. At the same time though, they have been pushed and pushed over the decades by the West and/or the US.