War in Ukraine/Med Cruising

[jmh2002]

@Dockhead (and others) - here are some other general articles which you may find interesting:

Łukasz Adamski: Putin’s Ukraine playbook echoes the tactics of Russian imperialism.
https://kyivindependent.com/opinion/...n-imperialism/

Bohdan Vitvitsky: Disarming Putin’s history weapon
https://kyivindependent.com/opinion/...istory-weapon/

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

. . . My concern despite all rational assessments, even by the Russian military establishment, is as I wrote earlier:

Originally Posted by jmh2002

...let's also not disregard that it would not be the first time that politicians, hot heads, dictators, etc, go against all rational, expert, professional advice in the attempted furtherance of their 'cause'. Does Putin fall into this category?

It's a good question. Short answer: we don't know.


On one side of the ledger -- Putin has no history of recklessness. Whatever else you might say about him, he's cautious, methodical, risk-averse, total lack of impulsiveness. Ruthless, and plays a long, long game. That makes him dangerous. Especially against us, since none of our leaders have any of those qualities


But we're in new territory here. Some Russians I know think he may have actually become unhinged. They note that he's been in complete isolation during the entire pandemic, does all of his meetings in video conference, and begins to act strangely.


So who knows? I don't.


Another thing which may be happening is that this was mostly a colossal bluff, which didn't work. They are not going to invade Ukraine, it's not worth the cost, not to speak of the risk of bloodshed. So since the bluff didn't work and the West didn't come to the table, he will recognize and then move into Donbas and Luhansk, tearing them away forever from Ukraine, and leave it at that. Maybe push the Ukrainians out of the rest of those regions.



That would achieve almost nothing other than perhaps saving face, so i don't think that's a likely scenario. But could be a way to pull back from the brink of all out war, perhaps.

[jmh2002]

U.S. Announces First Sanctions After Russia Recognizes Ukraine Separatists
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/...ratists-a76502

"President Joe Biden will issue an executive order to "prohibit new investment, trade, and financing by U.S. persons to, from, or in the so-called DNR and LNR regions of Ukraine," White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said, referring to the breakaway regions of Donetsk and Luhansk".

That doesn't really mean a lot or change anything material on the ground but at least there has been an immediate initial response, within hours - not oh, we need to think about it...

I see rumblings from France, Poland, the UK, etc too.

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

It's a good question. Short answer: we don't know.


On one side of the ledger -- Putin has no history of recklessness. Whatever else you might say about him, he's cautious, methodical, risk-averse, total lack of impulsiveness. Ruthless, and plays a long, long game. That makes him dangerous. Especially against us, since none of our leaders have any of those qualities


But we're in new territory here. Some Russians I know think he may have actually become unhinged. They note that he's been in complete isolation during the entire pandemic, does all of his meetings in video conference, and begins to act strangely.


So who knows? I don't.


Another thing which may be happening is that this was mostly a colossal bluff, which didn't work. They are not going to invade Ukraine, it's not worth the cost, not to speak of the risk of bloodshed. So since the bluff didn't work and the West didn't come to the table, he will recognize and then move into Donbas and Luhansk, tearing them away forever from Ukraine, and leave it at that. Maybe push the Ukrainians out of the rest of those regions.



That would achieve almost nothing other than perhaps saving face, so i don't think that's a likely scenario. But could be a way to pull back from the brink of all out war, perhaps.

The last part about occupied Donbas is certainly interesting.

Originally Posted by jmh2002

...The official recognition by Russia of the separatist areas won't change the situation on the ground initially, and won't cause Ukraine to 'do' anything initially.

If anything it will help Ukraine as far as any reaction and support from the international community. It also means the Minsk agreements are now dead too. Ultimately this is probably good for Ukraine too.

Where it hurts Ukraine is that official recognition will allow Russia to officially send in it's army to defend these areas.

In practice the Russian army is already there, Russian weapons are already there, and Russian support is already there.

So this will only officialise what is already happening there and allow Russia to officially reinforce the military in the separatist areas.

In general this part of things is probably good for Ukraine - no more smoke and mirrors, no more of Russia's nonsense that "they are not a party to the conflict..."

At least the situation regarding the occupation and annexation will be clear for the international community to understand.

Now to see what else might happen in other areas

^^^ I wrote some thoughts about that earlier and think that it is mostly about legitimising the existing Russian presence there and being able to operate officially there.

Just like Crimea, although there should be moral outrage and international penalties regarding the loss of these areas in many ways I see that this may help Ukraine.

I'm waiting to be corrected by the international experts regarding this, and what points I may have missed.

For example:

- Something not discussed for a long time is that without occupied Donbas and Crimea in the Ukrainian electorate this removes a large portion of 'pro russian voters' and this has been very helpful to stablise government.

- Will Ukraine now stop financially supporting occupied Donbas? Pension payments, etc?

As a said, despite the moral outrage, Ukraine is in a lot of respects better off with both Crimea and Donbas for the moment, which have always been a drain on the Ukrainian state, in more ways than one - despite protests to the contrary.

So, if there is no other invasion, this is all very interesting.

A "Win" for Ukraine? That can't be right...

[Rubicon King]

Here come the ruskies. Fire up the javelins

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

@Dockhead (and others) - here are some other general articles which you may find interesting:

Łukasz Adamski: Putin’s Ukraine playbook echoes the tactics of Russian imperialism.
https://kyivindependent.com/opinion/...n-imperialism/

Bohdan Vitvitsky: Disarming Putin’s history weapon
https://kyivindependent.com/opinion/...istory-weapon/

The first of these is interesting. It begs the question -- isn't this the same thing we do?

What did we do in 2013? At that time, Ukraine was divided between Westernizers and Easternizers, and a big group in the middle who didn't much care and certainly wanted good relations with both East and West. The Westernizers were made up of an odd mix of liberal Europhiles and nationalists, including a significant component of Banderists and actual neo-Nazis.

The Easternizers comprised a lot of older people, a lot of people from the East and South of the country.

The president at that time, Yanukovich was an Easternizer. He was elected to replace the Westernizer Yushenko. Ukraine had been swinging back and forth like that.

In 2013, Westernizers got really upset that the President refused to sign a trade agreement with the EU, and demonstrations started. A big role in these demonstrations was played by ultranationialists, Banderists, and neo-Nazis -- don't accuse me of exaggerating this -- I was there! These fringe groups provided nearly all the muscle behind the Maidan protests.

Enter the U.S., the CIA, the State Department, with billions of funding. We pick those Ukrainians we want to be "ours", give them billions of dollars, and help them pull off a coup and overthrow the government. Then we get them to start being our proxy in tweaking the Russians. We start to give them military training and start sending them weapons.

How is this any different from what is described in the article? We elevate one group of Ukrainians above another group of Ukrainians, reinforce it, then get the country, now under leadership of "our" favored group, to act in our interests (as we see them).

We do this for different reasons. Part us think that we are the light, and our system is the best (even if we are no longer even ranked as a Full Democracy in the Democracy Index), and we're going to spread that system around the world as much as we can, for their benefit. Let them enjoy freedom and democracy. At the same time, we'll win friends and allies, as they will be grateful. They will stand with us against our enemies. Win win.

But at the very same time, what we are doing is extending our own power and pushing back at countries we don't like. We think we are bringing light and democracy to other countries, but more often we bring nothing but civil war and destruction. We didn't bring light or democracy to Afghanistan. Or to Iraq. Or to Libya. Or to any number of other countries we invaded by military force (somehow it's ok when we do it, but a crime against humanity when the Russians do it) and whose governments we overthrew. Our image of ourselves and our motivations is unrealistic. There is some element of idealism in some sectors, maybe some parts of the State Department, maybe some people in Congress, but the hard core apparatchiki like Victoria Nuland and Elliot Abrams who pull the actual levers are really interested in power and leverage. And their careers. They love playing with military power, and while they may not be profiting in direct monetary terms from military action (despite some theories), it is definitely career enhancing for them when big programs are created and big foreign military ventures are financed. And that's what you see in the results of our actions -- in the end, very little democracy results from our invasions and overthrowing of governments and killing of millions of people, but Nuland and Abrams and the other architects of these campaigns prosper in their careers.

So take off the rose colored glasses and look at it from the Russians' point of view. They see us ruthlessly playing this game, and they see us playing it against them and against their interests, painting them into a corner. They see us undermining the governments of one close neighbor after another, pouring billions of dollars into all kinds of "pro democracy" programs (which are unsubtly anti-Russian), and in Ukraine, actually overthrowing the government. Is it really so hard to understand why they would push back? And why they would choose military force and a puppet government, in the worst case, in order to keep us at all costs beyond that last red line? Yes, they are doing what is described in that article, in reponse to what they perceive is exactly the same thing on our part.

The second article I found quite uninteresting -- sentimental nationalism. I despise nationalism in all of its forms, not excluding Ukrainian nationalism. I love the Ukrainians, but their particular brand of nationalism is even worse than most -- extremely bloodthirsty and vicious (Stepan Bandera, one of the most odious figures of the 20th century, as a national hero!!!). I find nationalism to be a kind of psychological disease, and always a form of stupidity, and is one of the leading causes of war. Nationalism is a strange blend of ignorance, personal insecurity (requiring the invention of some glorious group to feel a member of), sentimentality, and viciousness. I also despise Russian nationalism, American nationalism, every kind of it. One thing I love about Germany, a country I lived in for some years, is that losing WWII just about stamped nationalism out of them.

Nationalism will not lead Ukraine to anything good. Ukraine is a multiethnic, multilingual society which will fly apart and descend into chaos, if the nationalists we've been giving billions to, take the upper hand. The nationalists are not on top at the moment -- they took a big hit when the odious Poroshenko was defeated by Zelensky. Zelensky is a good man, but trying to do an impossible job, he has lost public support. And he has put the last nail in his own coffin by going up against the oligarchs who actually rule Ukraine -- brave, right, but utterly futile. Who will be next after Zelensky? God only knows. As if a Russian invasion wasn't enough problems for one country.

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

Although some of the historical context was touched on by other posts (thank you to the other students of history here), here is another point of view, and one that has also been alluded to by President Putin and some of his various advisers over the course of many years.

Above and beyond all the other relatively modern factors such as defense/NATO issues (real or imagined), buffer state, rebuilding the USSR, election and domestic considerations, etc, etc, there is another major factor (perhaps even THE major factor) that is often missed in these discussions:

Modern day Ukraine is the true precursor and cradle of Russian history, religion, and civilisation, from 1000 years and more ago.

...

Further to the above extract of my longer post here: https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3578184 here are some thoughts from President Putin on the denial of Ukraine to even exist as a state:

Highlights of Russian President Putin’s speech
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/...-putins-speech

[Rubicon King]

Here come the ruskies. Fire up the javelins

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The first of these is interesting. It begs the question -- isn't this the same thing we do?

We are not anywhere near the same as the Russians.

There's a world of nuance between supporting the establishment of independent democracies that have independent self-rule, and installing a puppet autocracy, that kills off the opposition.

There's a world of difference between free speech and censorship.

But it takes hard work.

From Robert Kagan:

The American-led liberal world order was never a natural phenomenon. It was not the culmination of evolutionary processes across the millennia or the inevitable fulfillment of universal human desires. The past seven-plus decades of relatively free trade, growing respect for individual rights, and relatively peaceful cooperation among nations—the core elements of the liberal order—have been a great historical aberration.

Putin wants no part of that. He wants to disrupt the world order.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

Further to the above extract of my longer post here: https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3578184 here are some thoughts from President Putin on the denial of Ukraine to even exist as a state:

Highlights of Russian President Putin’s speech
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/...-putins-speech

Correct. He recognizes the two breakaway regions, and then casts doubt over the Ukraine's right of existence.

Seems pretty clear what he's doing. The only question is whether he intends to do it now, and all the indicators point to "yes".

It's a land grab.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The first of these is interesting. It begs the question -- isn't this the same thing we do?

The United States has informed the United Nations it has credible information showing that Moscow is compiling lists of Ukrainians “to be killed or sent to camps following a military occupation,” according to a letter to the U.N. human rights chief obtained by The Washington Post on Sunday night.

The letter alleges that Moscow’s post-invasion planning would involve torture, forced disappearances and “widespread human suffering.” It does not describe the nature of the intelligence that undergirds its assessment.


- - - Washington Post



No, we don't do that.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

We are not anywhere near the same as the Russians.

There's a world of nuance between supporting the establishment of independent democracies that have independent self-rule, and installing a puppet autocracy, that kills off the opposition.

There's a world of difference between free speech and censorship.

But it takes hard work.

From Robert Kagan:

The American-led liberal world order was never a natural phenomenon. It was not the culmination of evolutionary processes across the millennia or the inevitable fulfillment of universal human desires. The past seven-plus decades of relatively free trade, growing respect for individual rights, and relatively peaceful cooperation among nations—the core elements of the liberal order—have been a great historical aberration.

Putin wants no part of that. He wants to disrupt the world order.

to suggest after Iraq and the support for a barbaric regime in Syria, That there is (a) An american led liberal world order and (b) that the US has a shred of moral superiority left is simply ludicrous and just massive cognisant dissonance.

I'm not for or against any side, but there is no moral authority amongst any nation on the planet , at the end of the day if they can act they act in their own national interest.

The past seven-plus decades of relatively free trade, growing respect for individual rights, and relatively peaceful cooperation among nations—the core elements of the liberal order—have been a great historical aberration.

Seriously have you been under a rock , clearly you've not been in Northern Africa, the Middle east , parts of Asia , etc etc etc , "relatively free trade, growing respect for individual rights, and relatively peaceful cooperation among nations'", please give me a break .

Lets not consume our own propaganda, I think we are capable of self analysis , better then that

[Van Der Beek]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

to suggest after Iraq and the support for a barbaric regime in Syria, That there is (a) An american led liberal world order and (b) that the US has a shred of moral superiority left is simply ludicrous and just massive cognisant dissonance.

I'm not for or against any side, but there is no moral authority amongst any nation on the planet , at the end of the day if they can act they act in their own national interest.



Seriously have you been under a rock , clearly you've not been in Northern Africa, the Middle east , parts of Asia , etc etc etc , "relatively free trade, growing respect for individual rights, and relatively peaceful cooperation among natiosn", please give me a break .

The west talking about democracy and freedom is just dead air at this point.

In other news.
I wonder if China will help themselves to Taiwan now that tensions are high with Russia.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Russian President Vladimir Putin signed decrees ordering military forces into two separatist regions of Ukraine for “peacekeeping” purposes as Moscow recognized the breakaway regions’ independence Monday.



-- Washington Post

It will be now interesting to see if Ukraine reacts. The statement I heard on the radio todays , suggests they will not if Russia remains within the disputed areas

[goboatingnow]

The west talking about democracy and freedom is just dead air at this point.

It was always dead air, the world just ignores that rhetoric , we don't even believe it ourselves anymore