The Invasion of Ukraine

[plodder]

If NATO supplied every single weapon in every nation's arsenal to Ukraine, it still would not make it a Proxy war so long as it was still waged by Ukrainians for their own reasons - specifically to free Ukraine from Russian occupation.

Err, why would NATO supply weapons if their objectives weren't aligned? I mean someone must have, at some point, mentioned the concept of a useful idiot to you, right? They surely must have?

[IvanV]

and NATO wants them to join

I tend to think NATO accepted new members such as the Baltic states mainly out of a sense of responsibility rather than enthusiasm, precisely because an incursion by Russia would put them in a costly and difficult position. It also seemed to be getting increasingly unenthusiastic about having Turkey as a member, with Turkey cosying up to Russia in recent times. Though that might also be reassessed now.

I think it was rather unenthusiastic about Ukraine until just now. I think until recently they would be been thinking, "phew, imagine if the annexation of Crimea and Donetsk happened while they were a member". Though, in retrospect, it would seem much better if that had been a member before that happened.

well, ok, but that doesn't really square with things like this:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... 1G20140207

Wanting to prevent a Russian political take-over in Ukraine is quite a different thing from wanting Ukraine as a member of NATO, where they'd become responsible for defending it militarily.

[Martin Y]

I literally just linked to an article in the guardian of all places where NATO is saying Ukraine will be allowed to join which references how that is seen as sabre rattling.

Sure, but nothing changed. No timetable. No steps towards it. All that happened was what didn't happen; none of the various foreign ministers withdrew from their 2008 position and switched to opposing it.

Compare this with Ukraine's joining the EU, which is progressing. They were formally granted candidate member status in the summer. Obviously I do recognise that Russia angrily opposes both, but only one is moving forward. Why single out NATO as the provocation? Whatever Russia says about NATO, it knows what NATO is; a defence pact against Russia's own aggression, and therefore something which it could literally safely ignore. It's EU membership which would wrench Ukraine away from Russia economically.

[plodder]

That’s a fair comment, there’s obviously a big old overlap between what the EU want and what NATO wants and unpicking the two is impossible.

[plodder]

I tend to think NATO accepted new members such as the Baltic states mainly out of a sense of responsibility rather than enthusiasm, precisely because an incursion by Russia would put them in a costly and difficult position. It also seemed to be getting increasingly unenthusiastic about having Turkey as a member, with Turkey cosying up to Russia in recent times. Though that might also be reassessed now.

I think it was rather unenthusiastic about Ukraine until just now. I think until recently they would be been thinking, "phew, imagine if the annexation of Crimea and Donetsk happened while they were a member". Though, in retrospect, it would seem much better if that had been a member before that happened.

well, ok, but that doesn't really square with things like this:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... 1G20140207

Wanting to prevent a Russian political take-over in Ukraine is quite a different thing from wanting Ukraine as a member of NATO, where they'd become responsible for defending it militarily.

You’re right, it’s quite a different thing, in the sense that quite can mean “almost”

[IvanV]

well, ok, but that doesn't really square with things like this:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... 1G20140207

Wanting to prevent a Russian political take-over in Ukraine is quite a different thing from wanting Ukraine as a member of NATO, where they'd become responsible for defending it militarily.

You’re right, it’s quite a different thing, in the sense that quite can mean “almost”

If I'd said it was black and white, you could have pointed out how etymologically, black has the same origin as "blanc" in French.

Do you have any other evidence? What you have given seems to satisfy you, but to me it seems unsurprising and irrelevant.

[plodder]

I dunno Ivan, maybe this wiki page which details conversations about Ukraine joining NATO dating back thirty years - immediately after they became independent. The US (and by extension, NATO and the EU) has clearly had a keen interest in Ukraine during this period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E ... _relations

[Gfamily]

I dunno Ivan, maybe this wiki page which details conversations about Ukraine joining NATO dating back thirty years - immediately after they became independent. The US (and by extension, NATO and the EU) has clearly had a keen interest in Ukraine during this period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E ... _relations

Not exactly.
In 1994 (which I assume that is what you meant when you talk about "conversations about Ukraine joining NATO" dating back 30 years) Ukraine signed the Partnership for Peace document.
Another signatory that year was --- taraaa! Russia.
Did Russia also want to join NATO? Do tell.

[TopBadger]

I dunno Ivan, maybe this wiki page which details conversations about Ukraine joining NATO dating back thirty years - immediately after they became independent. The US (and by extension, NATO and the EU) has clearly had a keen interest in Ukraine during this period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E ... _relations

Again you're removing Ukrainian Agency. Are you trying to make a case that Ukraine was being pulled unwillingly toward NATO membership? If you are then good luck with that. Note that he first sentences of the article you linked to includes statements like "Ukraine applied to..." and "Plans for NATO membership were shelved by Ukraine". Putting the agency where it belongs, with the Ukrainians.

I suggest you start doing the same.

[plodder]

in terms of agency, what choices do Ukraine currently have? Do you think this kind of geopolitics is like choosing ketchup in the supermarket?

NATO is absolutely squaring up to Russia here, using the conflict in Ukraine as a proxy. They've been circling around since for ever. This area has been signposted as a potential flashpoint for decades. What possible other explanation is there?

[jimbob]

in terms of agency, what choices do Ukraine currently have? Do you think this kind of geopolitics is like choosing ketchup in the supermarket?

NATO is absolutely squaring up to Russia here, using the conflict in Ukraine as a proxy. They've been circling around since for ever. This area has been signposted as a potential flashpoint for decades. What possible other explanation is there?

No, NATO countries are not being intimidated into caving into Putin's escalating demands.

[IvanV]

I dunno Ivan, maybe this wiki page which details conversations about Ukraine joining NATO dating back thirty years - immediately after they became independent. The US (and by extension, NATO and the EU) has clearly had a keen interest in Ukraine during this period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E ... _relations

And which didn't happen, even though plenty of other former Warsaw Pact countries and several former Soviet republics joined NATO as soon as they could. Even though Ukraine joined the Partnership for Peace with NATO 3 years after independence, it didn't make an application to integrate with the NATO Membership Application Plan until 17 years after independence. But that was withdrawn shortly after when pro-Russian Yanukovich became president. The succeeding president, Yatseniuk had a non-aligned policy.

Let us not forget that that those new NATO members were accepted after they made clear that they really, really wanted it - it wasn't a seduction by NATO.

As others say, there is majorly the question of what Ukraine wants. And the US and EU have mostly been keen on the idea of What Ukraine Wants. That the US was angling against a Russian political takeover in Ukraine I see as mainly being about What Ukraine Wants, as moving into the Russian orbit tends inevitably to lead to an authoritarian takeover that Ukrainians are unlikely to want when it discovers that is what it would amount to, in the manner of Belarus.

Everything I have seen remains consistent with the idea that actually NATO was pretty lukewarm about Ukrainian membership of NATO, even if it was keen on Ukraine avoiding the authoritarian future that all other countries in the Russian orbit have. If Ukraine made clear that it wanted it, really really wanted it, and was willing to do what was necessary, then I expect NATO membership might have been available in the same manner as it was for the Baltic Republics. But there seems to have been no attempt at seduction for any of the new members. And Ukrainian agency, as others stress, is critical.

And let us not forget that, although Ukraine had only a brief flirtation with moving towards a authoritarian government, it has throughout much of its existence been just as corrupt and oligarch-infested as Russia, until relatively recent times when Russia accelerated away from it in those aspects. It has also been in a considerable economic mess much of that time, with much less reform to its economy than any other reasonably democratic former communist state. It was indeed seen as bad news by the EU, lacking insufficient internal agency to reform because of the powerful internal vested interests that were so difficult to control. That would doubtless explain the US's frustration with the EU as seen in that leaked item. The US would reasonably have viewed the EU as not doing anything near enough about trying to prevent Ukraine succumb to authoritarianism.

[TopBadger]

in terms of agency, what choices do Ukraine currently have? Do you think this kind of geopolitics is like choosing ketchup in the supermarket?

NATO is absolutely squaring up to Russia here, using the conflict in Ukraine as a proxy. They've been circling around since for ever. This area has been signposted as a potential flashpoint for decades. What possible other explanation is there?

The explanation is that Putin is a dying imperialist f.ckwit who thought he could bring back parts of the USSR by force to cement his place in Russian history alonside Lenin and Stalin, and miscalculated badly, and is now in a hole of his own making and trying to blame everyone else and maintains support at home through fear by issuing scare stories about NATO's intentions.

Ukraine sought to join NATO and the EU years ago, long before Putin annexed Crimea - they pursued that solely in their own interests. Also remember Ukraine offered (again of their own volition) a neutrality pact with Russia to get the invasion to stop. That's not the action of a proxy who has been instructed to invite a fight with the Russians.

After Russia's attempt on Kyiv, NATO was prudent in shoring up eastern defenses, but note that was after Russia's attempt on Kyiv. NATO has instigated precisely zero things here, they've been forced to react to Russian aggression in the region.

If this actually were a proxy war where NATO wanted to demonstrate their might to Putin then Ukraine would be armed to the teeth and Russia would be losing a lot worse than they are now. As it is NATO members are withholding the vast majority of their best armaments and instead are letting the Ukrainian infantry grind out victories on the ground.

[plodder]

There’s an alternative reading of the recent history of Ukraine by people like Seamus Milne that is equally whacky but just comes from the opposite perspective. These things are never cut and dry. There are always compromises and leverage and careful considerations. If Putin is a dying imperialist f.ckwit then US presidents are cynical tools of the military industrial complex etc etc

[Opti]

Without wishing to ad hom here (but I will anyway), SeUmas Milne is a f.ckwit tankie.

[Herainestold]

America wants Ukraine as a client state without giving it full protection. Putin called their bluff and the result is the current mess we are all in.
NATO has used up all its ammunition, Russia has lost half its army, Ukraine thinks it can get crimea back, Putin is backed against the wall.
A very difficult situation to unravel.

[temptar]

America wants Ukraine as a client state without giving it full protection. Putin called their bluff and the result is the current mess we are all in.
NATO has used up all its ammunition, Russia has lost half its army, Ukraine thinks it can get crimea back, Putin is backed against the wall.
A very difficult situation to unravel.

Russia pulls out completely and it becomes very easy to fix.

Putin should not have invaded.

[temptar]

There’s an alternative reading of the recent history of Ukraine by people like Seamus Milne that is equally whacky but just comes from the opposite perspective. These things are never cut and dry. There are always compromises and leverage and careful considerations. If Putin is a dying imperialist f.ckwit then US presidents are cynical tools of the military industrial complex etc etc

None of this contradicts the fact that Russia should not have invaded.

[jimbob]

America wants Ukraine as a client state without giving it full protection. Putin called their bluff and the result is the current mess we are all in.
NATO has used up all its ammunition, Russia has lost half its army, Ukraine thinks it can get crimea back, Putin is backed against the wall.
A very difficult situation to unravel.

Not really.

NATO hasn't even started on the primary weapon systems that it would use in a conventional war. Thanks to Putin's actions, Sweden, which had been neutral since 1814, is now joining NATO, and Finland, which had neutrality enforced after WWII is also joining NATO. Putin had achieved quite a lot by February 2022, as far as destabilising Ukraine. The fact that he then gambled on a 3-day campaign which failed, suggests that he thought there was another time constraint that forced him to risk all. Now it could have been just a dictator being out of touch, but it also suggests That he doesn't think he has much time. He's also not slapping down very blatant manouvering amongst his lieutenants including where the manouvering harm's the wider war effort.

Ukraine does indeed have more hope of liberating Crimea.

Stop with the tankie both sideism

There’s an alternative reading of the recent history of Ukraine by people like Seamus Milne that is equally whacky but just comes from the opposite perspective. These things are never cut and dry. There are always compromises and leverage and careful considerations. If Putin is a dying imperialist f.ckwit then US presidents are cynical tools of the military industrial complex etc etc

As has been pointed out, Seumus Milne denied the Serbian genocides. He also was quite keen on East Germany.

Saying that Milne is "equally wacky" is disingenuous.

You are falling for the Kremlin propaganda trick that pretends that all narratives are equally valid and truth is fluid. Also that there's no difference in kind between systematic genocidal acts and individual incidents

[plodder]

Without wishing to ad hom here (but I will anyway), SeUmas Milne is a f.ckwit tankie.

Of course he is, but there are equivalents who think the precise opposite - that the west is a benign and helpful presence. And they are fuckwits too.

[plodder]

There’s an alternative reading of the recent history of Ukraine by people like Seamus Milne that is equally whacky but just comes from the opposite perspective. These things are never cut and dry. There are always compromises and leverage and careful considerations. If Putin is a dying imperialist f.ckwit then US presidents are cynical tools of the military industrial complex etc etc

None of this contradicts the fact that Russia should not have invaded.

Why are you quoting me?

[temptar]

Your guess is as good as mine. I was responding to herainestold.

You didn’t answer how Ukraine could beat off Russia without western weapon supplies btw.

[EACLucifer]

Plodder is exactly the kind of thing you get when someone is too f.cking stupid to understand that we tend to hold democracies - and the collective west as a consequence - to a much higher standard than autocracies. Hence he ends up thinking "well, both sides are bad" because they both fall short of radically different standards. Hence his ignorant comparison between people who think that Ukraine should receive the means to stop what Russia is doing on the one hand and Shameless Seumas, genocide denier, Taliban fan and all-round tankie c.nt on the other.

[jimbob]

Looks like a Spanish company producing grenade launchers for Ukraine has received a letter bomb.

[EACLucifer]

Looks like a Spanish company producing grenade launchers for Ukraine has received a letter bomb.

I'm too lazy and lacking in photoshop skills, so just assume this has Spanish imagery and not Polish on it.