I like that analogy, with Russia being the 'English' of the east -- but far more brutal I would say.
I think you could also say that Ukrainians have been a little bit like the Scots (or maybe the Welsh): in enthusiastic participation with the Russians for some periods, very reluctant at times, brow-beaten at others; with elements that were always - or are now increasingly - bent on going their own way, particularly those in the west.
I phrased that badly. Pre-coffee post. Another poster mentioned the Russians that moved into Ukraine and I wanted to highlight that this is a real issue in the Baltics and provides a pretext for Russian interference there.
Was chatting to a Ukranian in Dublin a few months ago. We agreed that the Russians (the State, that is) are the Brits of the East --small population (relatively speaking) but a major power on the back of an obsession with militarism and imperialism in various forms. Bullies, in other words, posing as regional (and international) police.
Looking at these as 'planters' is neither helpful nor very accurate. There were no clearly defined borders in the central and eastern European empires. Travelers along a road in the HRE, for example, would pass through a German-speaking village, then a Polish one, then a Czech one, then a Polish one, then a German one, then a Slovakian one, then a Czech one, then a German one.
After the last war, around 12 million Germans were simply uprooted from lands where they had lived for 700 or so years -- cities like Konigsberg, Breslau; regions like Silesia; and tracts of modern-day Lithuania, Poland, Czechia, etc. In no sense were their high medieval forebears 'planters'; in many cases they were individual families moving into virgin territory in an act of organic 'wandering'.
It was very much the same in the lands where the Baltics, Belarus and Ukraine are today. In the middle ages, the eastern lands were very sparsely populated, so local Lords often encouraged clearance of forests, settlement, and the establishment of villages, regardless of language. In short, there was no clear border between the various ethnicities in the East. This is a feature of the geography of eastern Europe -- it's wide open, flat, militarily indefensible, and hence ethnic groups didn't really have their own fixed territory, bounded by natural barriers.
That's not to say that the Soviets didn't deliberately move people around in the 20th century, or that Putin today isn't weaponizing the Russian passport. But that doesn't mean that Russian interests in Ukraine are based solely on plantation, because they certainly aren't.
Comparisons between Ireland's experience and the continental experience don't work for me. I find the Irish experience, grievances, and situation incredibly mild by comparison. Insular thinking, as one might expect.
Seesm to me that Putin isn't the grounded counterpoint to change in the West that some people want him to be. If he cared that much about his people, why are there so many destitute Russians? And beyond economics if he cared about the soul of his people, why are there so many Russian women forced to 'sell' themselves in many ways from dating sites to webcam sites to actual prostitution? He could snuff that out using the same mechanisms he uses to keep track of and silence journalists. (I'm not saying he should do this, but rather that if his 'conservative' persona was real, he would do this. Ergo, his persona is false.). And for young men, there is always the military where you can earn a pittance if you survive the bullying. Putin and his mates are doing fine though.
Point being, it doesn't seem like Putin gives a flying fook about the average Russian person, the character of Russian society, or the well being of its young men and women.
The point another poster made about Russian planters in Ukraine, but also in the Baltic nations, is important. Strange that it is missing from many Irish analyses, given the diffculties presented by planters in our own history.
A military response cannot be contemplated because of the unfortunate reality of the thermonuclear weapons, of which both Russia and NATO have thousands, each one pointed at a city you know, on hair trigger alert, and which, once launched, cannot be aborted.
People discuss these geopolitical scenarios (e.g. Ukraine and Taiwan) as though nukes don’t exist and would never be used. They can’t fathom that the most likely trigger for a nuclear war is panic, a mistake, or nervousness during a period of conventional tension. It’s understandable, I suppose, because it’s hard to accommodate the idea of a real doomsday event - where we, our spouses and children all either vaporize, burst into flame, or die of radiation within a few short weeks - but one would hope that the leadership isn’t quite so obtuse and ostrich-like.
I don’t think Ukraine is worth the end of the world. If the shoe were on the other foot and Canada and Mexico were on the road to joining the Warsaw Pact, the US would never stand for it. I don’t like Putin or Russia, but I recognize that Russia is a great power with legitimate security concerns.
The only longterm solution to all of this is to make war illegal and destroy all nuclear weapons. Is that ever going to happen? It is becoming Increasingly easy for our world to be ended; top thinkers in existential risk such as Nick Bostrum, Toby Ord and William Perry believe we have never been closer to the end of the world.
Sanctions are useless , military action has to be an option otherwise when do we take action , when putin takes several other countries , it's Believed Putin wants a pro russian state inside of Ukraine as it stands they don't have enough area to become a new russian state ,I still think he wants to take anything that sits on the black sea ,that way he can keep NATO and EU military vessels out of the area ,
The towns already under russian control in East Ukraine were home to companies that received over 70% of all Ukrainian government subventions ,which were all russian owned and given aid by a pro russian leader ,
What is the preferred move if Russia does invade the Ukraine? Sanctions or war? Ukraine is not a NATO country, why should Europe get involved? Russia will not subsequently invade a NATO country.
Where will the resulting millions of refugees be housed and who will pay for them? The answer will be the EU and EU taxpayers.
Once again no matter what happens there will be no consequences for the US or American taxpayers.
He offers no evidence for those claims I mentioned
What do you think Russia will gain from invading Ukraine? Or, is your reasoning that Putin - the shadowy, Moriarty-type, 7D chess playing figure - will invade because he's a bloodthirsty madman?
What would the strategic advantage of a Russian invasion be for Russia?
What would the strategic advantage of a Russian invasion be for the US?
So a one man blog says its not going to happen ,
Meanwhile 100,000 + russian troops Have been deployed to the region with numbers increasing on a weekly basis ,it's not just men its heavy artillery ,it's missiles and tens of thousands of vehicles , russsia has previously launched heavy artillery fire from inside their own borders to strike at Ukrainian military positions in Ukraine ,
Remember russia aren't there ,they don't have 100,000 + soldiers massing on Ukraine's borders ,but the real story is NATO is going to invade russia , because they have a few small units training Ukrainian forces in Ukraine,
On cue...
"The Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany was top of the list when US officials brainstormed potential sanctions that western countries could threaten against Russia to show President Vladimir Putin that any invasion of Ukraine would come at a heavy cost. Owned and built by Kremlin-controlled gas conglomerate Gazprom under the Baltic Sea, Nord Stream 2 is Europe’s most politically divisive infrastructure project. Moscow and Berlin have said it is a purely commercial enterprise that will safeguard European gas supplies. Kyiv, Washington and many EU countries say it will allow Russia to bypass gas pipelines through Ukraine, and give the Kremlin more leverage to use energy as a weapon against the EU. But with Russian troops deployed to the border with Ukraine and US intelligence warning of a planned invasion, the White House now wants Germany to commit to preventing it becoming operational if a Russian assault takes place. “If Vladimir Putin wants to see gas flow through that pipeline, he may not want to take the risk of invading Ukraine,” US national security adviser Jake Sullivan said following a call on Tuesday between Putin and US president Joe Biden."
US et al intelligence brief compliant media on Russia's supposed build up to invasion. US will apply fresh sanctions targetting Russia's energy supremos and SWIFT, and Germany likely to at least suspend Nordstream 2, if there is an invasion. Why then would Russia invade? (I mean, why would they anyway?). They have previously stated, however, that they would get involved if the rebel region was under significant attack.
If the intelligence briefings are flawed, what is the point of them? What does the US gain from generating the invasion narrative?
The author provided evidence that intelligence claims of a planned Russian attack on Ukraine are flawed - that's the important bit. His prediction is just that, a prediction. Based on previous events. I don't know why you're having such a problem with this.
Personally, I think it's leading up to new sanctions that will, again, attempt to stop Nordstream 2.
However, it is not US's/European govt.'s or the US/European media's fault if Russia does decide to take the rest of (or more of) Ukraine by force. (edit: not trying to support Daily Telegraph's opinions with this statement!)
I don't think any Western countries will get directly involved, but Russia is the one starting the "war" if they do that.
They don't have some moral right to their "near abroad" or sphere of influence extending over neighbouring countries and peoples, where they send in the tanks and men with guns in if they really don't like the current government. No more than the US had any right to attack and then occupy Iraq back in the day.
With an aging egomaniac in charge. The best thing for the world right now would be for Putin to drop dead of a heart attack/stroke etc..
It's not a great sign. It'll be ordinary people in the Ukraine/Europe/Russia paying the price once again if it all kicks off.
As an aside, Russia's population has declined by a million people this year. They are in the midst of a serious demographic collapse.
The fact no positive spin came out of the Putin Biden meeting tells me things must have gone pretty bad indeed. If the tanks roll across the Ukraine border all bets are off. Could be a very cold winter in Europe.
Right, where does this poster provide any credible evidence that the US, NATO and Ukraine will attack rebel-held ground in Feb 22? They also make the claim that it will not be reported on, again with no evidence. Then if you thought it couldn't get any more Alex Jones, the poster claims the whole thing will be done to provoke Russia into attacking, again with no evidence. It's baseless and not to mention silly stuff.
I still don't see how it's 'strange'. Yes, it's a blog site, that's not strange in itself. At the beginning the author predicts a possible event based on previous actions. He then describes how we are being prepped for this event and, using evidence, how most of this prep is rubbish. This also isn't strange.
In fact, taking into consideration the lies that were used, passed to us uncritically by a compliant media, to prepare us for the destruction of Iraq (and I'm sure we can all think of various other similar occasions - Gaddafi was about to massacre a load of people for example), the highlighting of lies in this current case is pretty significant. The lies beg the question, what are they for?
What do others think?
Looks like we are being more and more prepped for the possibility of a war. Constant articles in the "Media" and Americans and Europeans issuing "warnings".
We also have the threat of 5 million refugees coming from the Ukraine into the EU along with reports of millions more from Afghanistan in 2022 due to Taliban control and increasing food insecurity and threats of famine.
Edit for Telegraph article
"The West’s nightmare: a war on three fronts
There has never been a more unsettling strategic landscape in my lifetime – we must turn our attention to the prospect of conflict"
Jesus, it never ends with these people....
He is in his shite right about everything. Putin is the classic conman, showing his empty right hand while picking your pocket with his left. Is he really saying that teachers are forcing children to change genders??!!
“ That is, the teachers actually impose on them a choice we all supposedly have. They do so while shutting the parents out of the process and forcing the child to make decisions that can upend their entire life.”
that’s crazy republican talk right there, straight from the Gym Jordan school of ‘protect the paedo’. Didn’t Pompeo state recently that parents should be able to decide what their children are taught?! The perfect way to ensure humanity dies an early death.
Okay, it's some blog post which starts out by mentioning the Iraq war and then goes into speculation that the US, NATO and Ukraine will attack rebel held territory in Feb whilst offering no evidence for that. Wouldn't put much stock, if any, into it.
Russia has been amassing troops on the Ukraine border, no one is denying that. Do they have plans to attack Ukraine? Very likely, every country with a military and a potential conflict scenario on it's borders or in it's influence will have such plans, with movements, army sizes, dates, etc. It doesn't mean they'll follow through.
Why do you think it's a strange site? The claim is that the reports about Russia building troops in order to attack Ukraine are rubbish.
Anyway, it's all just hypothetical, there's nothing for them to gain from larger military (conventional) action.
Exactly, why bother with a full scale invasion, when the Salami tactic works so well? Crimea here, bit of Donbass there.
https://youtu.be/o861Ka9TtT4
Possibly, but IF (hypothetically), if the Russians genuinely went full at it, they'd mash the Ukrainians. Likewise, if they wanted to take some limited border actions, it wouldn't be too difficult. Russia may have Italy levels of GDP, but they have significant military means.
Anyway, it's all just hypothetical, there's nothing for them to gain from larger military (conventional) action. Would just be a headache for them.
I think the Ukrainian armed forces (and everyone else) are wise to the hybrid warfare tactics that brought Russia success in Crimea and Donbas in 2014. I think they were genuinely stunned how it went down.
Further gains or an invasion would now require conventional means. The element of surprise is gone.
A small amount of "rebels" (backed by Russian forces) managed to seize quite a bit of territory in 2014. That said, I wouldn't say it's a "national invasion force", more a build-up to cause pressure. If in the unlikely event, action were to take place it would likely be limited maneuvers to "back local rebels" or some select propaganda. I highly doubt any sort of black/white invasion of Ukraine is going to take place, would be pretty ridiculous, even for the Kremlin.
Personally as mentioned I think its just a move to appease the hardliners on the Ru side and to pressure Nato/US into concessions, etc and bring them to the table - which is precisely what's happening.
You do understand that all of this is just a misdirection exercise? What this former communist functionary says is a 95% lie, cunningly constructed to look like a coherent narrative to achieve some objective. Do read Pelevin's novels if you want to understand what Russian society is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Pelevin#Novels
While 100k troops amassed on a border is significant in its own way, you'd have serious doubts that kind of number could really lead to a successful operation and invasion of a very large country.
For example, The US mobilized 700k troops for Desert Storm to take Kuwait out of Sadam's clutches, a much smaller landmass.
That would lead me to believe that Putin doesn't really intend to do anything serious and is just trying to spook NATO.
Bit of a strange site, but sure what the claim is? Putin is not denying the troops are there
"
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/3694d3d768784d2dd89108859b666f01.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a08d55691d6f78a042612a7aa18ff3ab.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/8078e6b81295c08b3df3e770f66e931c.svg)
