Scrutable

Yeah, claiming that the Revolution of Dignity was a coup is purest Kremlin propaganda. It is not supported at all by the facts, but it is popular with various edgy tw.ts who think they are enlightened because they realise their own government isn't always perfectly honest or honourable and don't realise that also applies to authoritarian governments like Russia, China or Qatar, even if the criticisms they make of western governments are sometimes true*.

Neil Abrams lays out the reasons why it is such a false claim here. Yes, it's a twitter thread - but it's worth following through.



*But usually extremely hyopcritical and bad faith.

I reckon there was a time when you could consider this a proxy war, but it was the Russians using the proxies. The conflict in Donbas was begun back in 2014 with Russian proxies, but changed to a conventional invasion (via a "hybrid approach") when it became clear that it wasn't working out for them.

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 01, 2022 3:28 pm

Yeah, claiming that the Revolution of Dignity was a coup is purest Kremlin propaganda. It is not supported at all by the facts, but it is popular with various edgy tw.ts who think they are enlightened because they realise their own government isn't always perfectly honest or honourable and don't realise that also applies to authoritarian governments like Russia, China or Qatar, even if the criticisms they make of western governments are sometimes true*.

Neil Abrams lays out the reasons why it is such a false claim here. Yes, it's a twitter thread - but it's worth following through.



*But usually extremely hyopcritical and bad faith.

So this guy has the same laser narrow focus on semantics that you do, for example arguing an ultra-precise meaning of the word "proxy" that happens to align exactly with your thoughts but not with someone with a slightly different perspective.

Normally when an elected president flees the country due to an orchestrated angry mob it's OK to call it a coup. But not here:

If, instead, the government is overthrown by thousands of people in the streets or even by some non-state organization such a political party, that’s not a coup, and it would be misleading to call it so. A coup is executed by state actors; otherwise it’s not a coup. Period.

https://mobile.twitter.com/neil_abrams/ ... 8812875777

So it definitely wasn't a coup. OK great. Lovely. It was a something else. It looked like a well-orchestrated and successful attempt to depose a democratically elected leader, but it can't be a coup because that's what "tankies" call it.

Later in the thread follows some excruciating hair splitting "takedowns" of "tankie" arguments which is exhausting to read. For example the US transcript of Nuland talking about changing the Ukrainian PM I linked to several thousand pages ago earlier this week couldn't be evidence of US involvement or interest because they actually booted out the President, therefore "tankies are morons" or whatever.

Seriously these people need to get out more.

plodder wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 01, 2022 2:59 pm

Honestly, you’ve been fun, but please move on. Stop with the silliness, accept the difference in opinion, reflect, talk about something else.

I assume we should just accept your definitions which happen to miss the key features, and confidentially align with Kremlin talking points?

Can you explain how a definition of "proxy war" is remotely useful if the supposed clien has no constraints on its foreign policy, it has its own defence industry and freedom to use its weapons as it seems fit, and where

I presume you can see the difference between Western aid to Ukraine and the Kremlin's proxy war against Ukraine via its client militias? Or the proxy war between Saudi Arabiaand Iran in Yemen?

plodder wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 01, 2022 5:25 pm

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 01, 2022 3:28 pm

Yeah, claiming that the Revolution of Dignity was a coup is purest Kremlin propaganda. It is not supported at all by the facts, but it is popular with various edgy tw.ts who think they are enlightened because they realise their own government isn't always perfectly honest or honourable and don't realise that also applies to authoritarian governments like Russia, China or Qatar, even if the criticisms they make of western governments are sometimes true*.

Neil Abrams lays out the reasons why it is such a false claim here. Yes, it's a twitter thread - but it's worth following through.



*But usually extremely hyopcritical and bad faith.

So this guy has the same laser narrow focus on semantics that you do, for example arguing an ultra-precise meaning of the word "proxy" that happens to align exactly with your thoughts but not with someone with a slightly different perspective.

Normally when an elected president flees the country due to an orchestrated angry mob it's OK to call it a coup. But not here:

If, instead, the government is overthrown by thousands of people in the streets or even by some non-state organization such a political party, that’s not a coup, and it would be misleading to call it so. A coup is executed by state actors; otherwise it’s not a coup. Period.

https://mobile.twitter.com/neil_abrams/ ... 8812875777

So it definitely wasn't a coup. OK great. Lovely. It was a something else. It looked like a well-orchestrated and successful attempt to depose a democratically elected leader, but it can't be a coup because that's what "tankies" call it.

Later in the thread follows some excruciating hair splitting "takedowns" of "tankie" arguments which is exhausting to read. For example the US transcript of Nuland talking about changing the Ukrainian PM I linked to several thousand pages ago earlier this week couldn't be evidence of US involvement or interest because they actually booted out the President, therefore "tankies are morons" or whatever.

Seriously these people need to get out more.

plodder wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 01, 2022 5:25 pm

For example the US transcript of Nuland talking about changing the Ukrainian PM I linked to several thousand pages ago earlier this week couldn't be evidence of US involvement or interest because they actually booted out the President

In no way shape or form is this what Abrams is arguing, but he does demonstrate that that transcript is often taken entirely out of context by stupid and dishonest people.

What Abrams actually has to say about it is this.

Nor was Nuland trying to imperiously force this arrangement on an unwilling Ukraine. It was Yanukovych himself who, on Jan. 25th, 2014, originally put forth the idea. That’s the proposal Nuland & Pyatt are discussing.

To go from that to what you wrote indicates that you are either dishonest, just plain stupid, or deeply out of your depth and so convinced of your own self-righteousness you aren't even letting the words actually sink in.

Seriously these people need to get out more.

Says the guy arguing with everyone about everything, convinced he's some kind of brave martyr as he demonstrates his ignorance for all the world to see on a number of issues.

Well, we've had five pages of whether or not this is a proxy war. It's been asked a couple of times already but does that label change anything?

The term seems to me to suggest some threshold beyond which you view the war as being driven by the supporting outside power and not by those doing the fighting. I suppose you can view the pre-invasion anti-Maidan side in Donbas as Russian proxies. I don't really know enough about it to say with any confidence but I very much suspect it was direct Russian interference which escalated genuine but peaceful opposition to the new Kiev government into an armed insurgency backed by all too obviously Russian "little green men".

I really don't think you can view the resistance to the Russian invasion as a mirror image of that. Now, I have read that the western view changed in the runup to invasion and that Boris met Zelensky to tell him their assessment had changed from "we recommend you surrender and scarper" to "we actually think you can stop them". Even if this is so I very much doubt that changed what the Ukrainians were going to try to do. They were going to resist anyway. And they made a very good showing of it before the river of Western weapons started flowing, assisted of course by the Russians being remarkably ineffective and inefficient.

Everyone but Russia seems to benefit from Russia's armed forced being ground down. The west is paying for the hardware but Ukraine of course is paying in lives. The question is whether that was a price Ukraine was determined to pay anyway, even if would have been far costlier without support. My feeling is they would.

Martin Y wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 01, 2022 6:15 pm

Well, we've had five pages of whether or not this is a proxy war. It's been asked a couple of times already but does that label change anything?

The term seems to me to suggest some threshold beyond which you view the war as being driven by the supporting outside power and not by those doing the fighting. I suppose you can view the pre-invasion anti-Maidan side in Donbas as Russian proxies. I don't really know enough about it to say with any confidence but I very much suspect it was direct Russian interference which escalated genuine but peaceful opposition to the new Kiev government into an armed insurgency backed by all too obviously Russian "little green men".

The label does align with Kremlin talking points.

As for the Pro-Russian militias in Donbas - that was part of the classic Russian playbook of fomenting a conflict with Russian troops to create a frozen conflict. See also Transnistria and South Ossetia for other examples. And their attempts in the Baltic republics.

jimbob wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 01, 2022 7:09 pm

Martin Y wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 01, 2022 6:15 pm

Well, we've had five pages of whether or not this is a proxy war. It's been asked a couple of times already but does that label change anything?

The term seems to me to suggest some threshold beyond which you view the war as being driven by the supporting outside power and not by those doing the fighting. I suppose you can view the pre-invasion anti-Maidan side in Donbas as Russian proxies. I don't really know enough about it to say with any confidence but I very much suspect it was direct Russian interference which escalated genuine but peaceful opposition to the new Kiev government into an armed insurgency backed by all too obviously Russian "little green men".

The label does align with Kremlin talking points.

As for the Pro-Russian militias in Donbas - that was part of the classic Russian playbook of fomenting a conflict with Russian troops to create a frozen conflict. See also Transnistria and South Ossetia for other examples. And their attempts in the Baltic republics.

Yeah. Russian proxies were involved, but so were ordinary Russian servicemen who'd been ordered to take off their insignia (though they still wore Russian uniforms, infamously).

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 01, 2022 8:56 pm

jimbob wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 01, 2022 7:09 pm

Martin Y wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 01, 2022 6:15 pm

Well, we've had five pages of whether or not this is a proxy war. It's been asked a couple of times already but does that label change anything?

The term seems to me to suggest some threshold beyond which you view the war as being driven by the supporting outside power and not by those doing the fighting. I suppose you can view the pre-invasion anti-Maidan side in Donbas as Russian proxies. I don't really know enough about it to say with any confidence but I very much suspect it was direct Russian interference which escalated genuine but peaceful opposition to the new Kiev government into an armed insurgency backed by all too obviously Russian "little green men".

The label does align with Kremlin talking points.

As for the Pro-Russian militias in Donbas - that was part of the classic Russian playbook of fomenting a conflict with Russian troops to create a frozen conflict. See also Transnistria and South Ossetia for other examples. And their attempts in the Baltic republics.

Yeah. Russian proxies were involved, but so were ordinary Russian servicemen who'd been ordered to take off their insignia (though they still wore Russian uniforms, infamously).

Yes, see also the Little Green Men in Crimea.

There are degrees of influence from complete disinterest (NATO doesn’t give a sh.t, thanks lpm) to a full puppet state (thanks, Seamus) and at some nebulous point in between we start thinking and talking about proxies. It’s obvious we’re at different points on this line. I’d suggest any further disagreements on this are in a new thread.

Where you don’t have to answer any questions posed in this one?

temptar wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 02, 2022 11:58 am

Where you don’t have to answer any questions posed in this one?

Despite the pile on I have answered pretty much every question put to me, however I’ve asked a few that are still unanswered. If you can’t do without the drama take it to the other thread.

In which Plodder, despite his exceptionally offensive comments towards many members of this forum, plays the martyr because people told him he was wrong when he was wrong and pointed out that claiming the Revolution of Dignity was a coup is straight up Kremlin propaganda.

plodder wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 02, 2022 4:13 pm

temptar wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 02, 2022 11:58 am

Where you don’t have to answer any questions posed in this one?

Despite the pile on I have answered pretty much every question put to me, however I’ve asked a few that are still unanswered. If you can’t do without the drama take it to the other thread.

Do you accept that your position would result in Ukraine being destroyed by Russia?

lpm wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 01, 2022 11:33 am

Nato doesn't give a sh.t about Ukraine. As proved by the 2014 invasion.

Or give a sh.t about Moldova, where Russia occupies Transnistria. Georgia, with Abkhazian "separatists" first, then direct invasion later. The horrors of Chechnya.

We live on a miserable little planet with a species that repeatedly tortures and murders other tribes, and quite simply Nato and the western Democracies have discovered there's usually little they can do to prevent it, with peacekeepers or protective invasions typically having nasty side effects of their own.

That does prompt a question which has baffled me for months: why is the West so supportive of Ukraine? It's not just a few missiles and tanks, it's spending literally thousands of pounds per person on an energy war with Russia. And an extraordinary level of public support, with Ukrainian flags outside people's houses, fund-raising activities and all sorts.

I'm absolutely not saying we shouldn't be doing it, but why are we so keen to do it when there are plenty of worse atrocities around the world that we ignore, or maybe indulge in a bit of hand-wringing about on the Guardian's letters page, or actively support by selling arms to the aggressors? Is it just because they are white European? Or what?

It’s because if we don’t stop Russia in Ukraine, they come knocking on the door of the Baltic and Scandinavian states - EU nations.

Previously Russia’s adventures were in far-off lands. Now, they’re down the street and potentially on their way to our front gate.

Sciolus wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 03, 2022 3:28 pm

lpm wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 01, 2022 11:33 am

Nato doesn't give a sh.t about Ukraine. As proved by the 2014 invasion.

Or give a sh.t about Moldova, where Russia occupies Transnistria. Georgia, with Abkhazian "separatists" first, then direct invasion later. The horrors of Chechnya.

We live on a miserable little planet with a species that repeatedly tortures and murders other tribes, and quite simply Nato and the western Democracies have discovered there's usually little they can do to prevent it, with peacekeepers or protective invasions typically having nasty side effects of their own.

That does prompt a question which has baffled me for months: why is the West so supportive of Ukraine? It's not just a few missiles and tanks, it's spending literally thousands of pounds per person on an energy war with Russia. And an extraordinary level of public support, with Ukrainian flags outside people's houses, fund-raising activities and all sorts.

I'm absolutely not saying we shouldn't be doing it, but why are we so keen to do it when there are plenty of worse atrocities around the world that we ignore, or maybe indulge in a bit of hand-wringing about on the Guardian's letters page, or actively support by selling arms to the aggressors? Is it just because they are white European? Or what?

Firstly, we signed up to be a security guarantor way back in the nineties as part of the pressure upon them to disarm.

Secondly, Russian expansionism wouldn't stop at Ukraine, and indeed didn't start there. We remember what happened when Hitler kept making his last territorial claims, so it makes us more aware of the threat Putin poses.

Thirdly, we are all too aware of what Russia's way of war is precisely because of what has happened in other countries, most notably Syria. Those who saw what happened to Aleppo are determined to stop that happening again.

Fourthly, the idea that there are "plenty of worse atrocities around the world" just isn't true. There are no other conflicts ongoing that are as intense - the closest is the Tigray war, and the highest estimates of casualties there are higher than the lowest estimates of casualties of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but there is now a ceasefire, though whether that will hold is anyone's guess.

And Russia's not just trying to grab territory - they are engaging in a systematic campaign of torture and murder, with very extensive use of sexual violence as a weapon, and also kidnapping large quantities of children to be homed with Russians.

And on top of that, it's a conflict where the obvious thing to do to help is to send weaponry. We know where to send it to, and what it will do to help. While I don't know very much about the Tigray war, that doesn't appear to be the case there, and it certainly isn't the case in Yemen.

Nor can we just send arms to deal with, say, Iran's treatment of women and LGBT people, or China's treatment of the Uighurs without creating new and enormous problems.

headshot wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 03, 2022 4:02 pm

It’s because if we don’t stop Russia in Ukraine, they come knocking on the door of the Baltic and Scandinavian states - EU nations.

Previously Russia’s adventures were in far-off lands. Now, they’re down the street and potentially on their way to our front gate.

It already feels like the Russians are at our front gate. Poland has borders with Ukraine, Belarus and Kaliningrad.

Tigray and Yemen are civil wars.

Intervention in a civil war doesn't work.

noggins wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 03, 2022 8:12 pm

Tigray and Yemen are civil wars.

Intervention in a civil war doesn't work.

It's certainly never a remotely simple process.

noggins wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 03, 2022 8:12 pm

Tigray and Yemen are civil wars.

Intervention in a civil war doesn't work.

The British intervention in the Sierra Leone civil war seems to have been a success. It also helped stabilise neighbouring Liberia.

bjn wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 03, 2022 9:24 pm

noggins wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 03, 2022 8:12 pm

Tigray and Yemen are civil wars.

Intervention in a civil war doesn't work.

The British intervention in the Sierra Leone civil war seems to have been a success. It also helped stabilise neighbouring Liberia.

Yes, and we're still paying the price for non-intervention in Syria. It's still a lot more complicated to intervene in a civil war, though, than a situation like this where Ukraine has an armed forces, a general staff, a political structure and so on, so arms and training can be absorbed very easily.

Civil Wars can be horribly messy, often with nothing approaching a “good” side to back. Usually after it’s all fallen apart into a failed state with competing warlords being shitheads.

But as you say, Ukraine isn’t that, there’s a clear aggressor attacking a well defined state whose citizens are determined to resist.

I’d welcome the return of Robin Cook’s “Ethical Foreign Policy” that the Sierra Leone intervention happened under. I do feel like helping Ukraine would fit in with that.

Grumble wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:17 am

I’d welcome the return of Robin Cook’s “Ethical Foreign Policy” that the Sierra Leone intervention happened under. I do feel like helping Ukraine would fit in with that.

Bang on.

It also would work better for our national and foreign interests