The Invasion of Ukraine

[Bird on a Fire]

I'm also slightly unclear as to why it matters, though.

[plodder]

But NATO is clearly invested in Ukraine retaining its independence from Russia. I am not suggesting that the invasion is directly because of NATO. NATO's support of Ukraine was a) inevitable and b) has clearly turned the conflict into a proxy between two superpowers, even if NATO is holding its punches.

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.

Good list of countries there. Which one borders NATO? I linked above to a transcript from the Obama era relating to the pre-2014 revolution where the previous pro Russian president was thrown out in a coup, which then led to Ukraine looking Westwards and was followed by the speedy invasion of Ukraine. I suppose you think NATO watched dispassionately through this process too, because of course why would they give a sh.t about any of that boring stuff.

[Bird on a Fire]

It's quite interesting seeing this victim/agency language being socially enforced about an active conflict. It's something I'm more used to seeing in lefty analyses. Nothing against it at all - I think it's probably an appropriate framing. But it seems that part of why people are getting angry at plodder is that they consider the way he's expressing his point disrespectful to Ukraine - up to the point of practically accusing him of supporting Russia, which is IMO a bit weird.

An alternative framing:

A promising young student is being bullied by a notorious neighborhood bully. They choose to start associating with another big group of kids who have a special club where they learn to fight and share weapons. Is there a safeguarding risk for the student?

Perhaps coincidentally - or, mayhap, less so - the big group of kids has a history of squaring up to the nasty bully and his gang of puny friends (who he also bullies). Is there a risk the student could be manipulated as part of the wider context of the historical conflict between these two groups? Is there any evidence of that happening?

The ScrutBrain is saying "No no, the group of cool kids weren't constantly trying to hang out with the student or blowing up his phone with snapchats or anything, they didn't even want to hang out with them really" but I don't know that that's even an attempt to answer the question.

Please rate my framing respectfully. Booo Russia boooooo! putinus delendus est etcetera etcetera

Sorry BoaF, if this is not rating your framing respectfully, but I think the example significantly trivialises the issue. This is not 'bullying' which covers a spectrum of behaviours. There is a gang in town that is murdering, torturing, raping and stealing from people. There are no police you can call. Your survival depends on forming or trying to join a self-help group. The self-help group are not the cause of the problem.

For sure. I never said the self-help group was the cause of the problem. I said they have their own interests.

[dyqik]

@dyqik I mean, good luck unpicking that lot.

The only meaning I can extract from that is that you don't think defending human rights is a valid reason for resisting an invasion.

Really?

Seemed to me that plodder was just saying it can be both. Your two options are not mutually exclusive.

If noting that amounts to "supporting Putin" something very strange is happening here.

When you post dismissal in response to a valid interpretation, it looks like you're dismissing that interpretation as not worth discussing.

[EACLucifer]

But NATO is clearly invested in Ukraine retaining its independence from Russia. I am not suggesting that the invasion is directly because of NATO. NATO's support of Ukraine was a) inevitable and b) has clearly turned the conflict into a proxy between two superpowers, even if NATO is holding its punches.

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.

Good list of countries there. Which one borders NATO? I linked above to a transcript from the Obama era relating to the pre-2014 revolution where the previous pro Russian president was thrown out in a coup, which then led to Ukraine looking Westwards and was followed by the speedy invasion of Ukraine. I suppose you think NATO watched dispassionately through this process too, because of course why would they give a sh.t about any of that boring stuff.

The Revolution of Dignity was not a f.cking coup. That's really all there is to it.

Also, during this process, Obama (pathetically, shamefully, etc) pressured Ukraine not to fight against the invasion of Crimea, and lethal aid was not sent until years later. If NATO had been supporting Ukraine at this point - or using them as a vehicle for NATO interests - they would have behaved radically differently.

[Bird on a Fire]

The only meaning I can extract from that is that you don't think defending human rights is a valid reason for resisting an invasion.

Really?

Seemed to me that plodder was just saying it can be both. Your two options are not mutually exclusive.

If noting that amounts to "supporting Putin" something very strange is happening here.

When you post dismissal in response to a valid interpretation, it looks like you're dismissing that interpretation as not worth discussing.

It sure does. Which I think is why the insistence that NATO has no skin in the game whatsoever other than benevolently helping Ukraine on Ukraine's terms is so puzzling.

A statement like

Western democracies giving assistance to prevent a democracy from being overrun by a dictatorship is not NATO protecting its borders. It's a bunch of democracies protecting human rights.

is confusing because, at the very least, NATO is protecting a democracy on its border from being overrun by a dictatorship, which has obvious implications. Sometimes a thing can have more than one aspect simultaneously. Unpicking the two is probably complicated enough that a blanket dismissal of one aspect requires more than an ill-tempered assertion.

I don't think anyone has said NATO shouldn't be helping, started the conflict, or is equally bad/worse than Russia, and all the responses insisting that plodder is saying so look like imaginative non-sequiturs from my perspective.

[dyqik]

Really?

Seemed to me that plodder was just saying it can be both. Your two options are not mutually exclusive.

If noting that amounts to "supporting Putin" something very strange is happening here.

When you post dismissal in response to a valid interpretation, it looks like you're dismissing that interpretation as not worth discussing.

It sure does. Which I think is why the insistence that NATO has no skin in the game whatsoever other than benevolently helping Ukraine on Ukraine's terms is so puzzling.

A statement like

Western democracies giving assistance to prevent a democracy from being overrun by a dictatorship is not NATO protecting its borders. It's a bunch of democracies protecting human rights.

is confusing because, at the very least, NATO is protecting a democracy on its border from being overrun by a dictatorship, which has obvious implications. Sometimes a thing can have more than one aspect simultaneously. Unpicking the two is probably complicated enough that a blanket dismissal of one aspect requires more than an ill-tempered assertion.

I don't think anyone has said NATO shouldn't be helping, started the conflict, or is equally bad/worse than Russia, and all the responses insisting that plodder is saying so look like imaginative non-sequiturs from my perspective.

There's a relatively simple test of whether something is primarily a NATO thing, or primarily based on other motivations (which may align with NATO around in some respects).
1) is it something covered under the NATO treaty (no)
2) does it involve all NATO members and only NATO members (no)
3) is it done under a NATO banner (no)
4) are there no other reasons while a number of NATO members might do it together? (no)

NATO is a pretty limited treaty that covers defence of NATO members.

Many countries that happen to be NATO members may decide to do something for geopolitical reasons, human rights reasons, etc. That does not make it a NATO action.

NATO is not protecting a democracy on its borders, and is not helping. A number of countries that are NATO members, alongside other countries, are.

[plodder]

lol, which is why it's a proxy. Sheesh.

[dyqik]

lol, which is why it's a proxy. Sheesh.

NATO can not do proxies.

[plodder]

lol, which is why it's a proxy. Sheesh.

NATO can not do proxies.

wish you'd said that earlier

[EACLucifer]

lol, which is why it's a proxy. Sheesh.

1) No, it still isn't a f.cking proxy war
2) You obviously don't know what a proxy war is
3) Paranoid idiots love to apply the term proxy war to the point they utterly ignore the agency of smaller nations (and the peoples of those nations). It's quite an imperialist mindset, really, to assume that things only happen if large and powerful nations cause them to happen.

[dyqik]

lol, which is why it's a proxy. Sheesh.

NATO can not do proxies.

wish you'd said that earlier

Many of the countries assisting Ukraine are also part of the EEC and UEFA. That doesn't make this an EEC or UEFA proxy war.

[Bird on a Fire]

I mean, NATO seem to think they're involved, and aren't exactly shy about it: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_192648.htm

Alongside other state and supranational entities, of course.

Plus, Russia has been making a bunch of demands specifically about NATO, so they pretty much can't help being involved in some capacity.

I don't think NATO are stoking the conflict, though. They (NATO countries) might even have been able to end it sooner, but that would have various consequences that may not align with their interests.

[dyqik]

I mean, NATO seem to think they're involved, and aren't exactly shy about it: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_192648.htm

"Humanitarian and non-lethal aid"

And all after the start of the conflict.

[Bird on a Fire]

Nevertheless, I don't think you'll find a statement from UEFA or the EEC like this:

Individual NATO member countries are sending weapons, ammunition and many types of light and heavy military equipment, including anti-tank and air defence systems, howitzers and drones. To date, NATO Allies have provided billions of euros’ worth of military equipment to Ukraine. All of this is making a difference on the battlefield every day, helping Ukraine to uphold its right of self-defence, which is enshrined in the United Nations Charter.

They're also clearly happy with the implication that NATO is helping to coordinate the delivery of lethal aid too, so I'm not sure why that should be controversial here.

[plodder]

I mean, NATO seem to think they're involved, and aren't exactly shy about it: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_192648.htm

"Humanitarian and non-lethal aid"

And all after the start of the conflict.

Non lethal aid like missiles?

[dyqik]

I mean, NATO seem to think they're involved, and aren't exactly shy about it: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_192648.htm

"Humanitarian and non-lethal aid"

And all after the start of the conflict.

Non lethal aid like missiles?

Not supplied by NATO, the EEC, or UEFA.

[plodder]

omg you're such an engineer

[jimbob]

Yemen is a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The clients are highly constrained by their patron states.

Russia had been waging a proxy war against Ukraine with its so-called LPR and DPR forces, which were even more controlled by the Kremlin.

Ukraine is independent, it has its own defence industry, and is also receiving weapons from many western countries. The relationship is completely different.

Russian propaganda pretends it's a proxy war, but that requires stretching the term so as to be useless.


Ukraine has freedom in its foreign policy, it has freedom in how it prosecutes the war with its own weapons. There might be restrictions on some supplied weapons, but that doesn't make it a proxy war.

[lpm]

Good list of countries there. Which one borders NATO?

Moldova and Georgia. Are you thick or something?

the previous pro Russian president was thrown out in a coup

You are thick.

[dyqik]

Yemen is a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The clients are highly constrained by their patron states.

Russia had been waging a proxy war against Ukraine with its so-called LPR and DPR forces, which were even more controlled by the Kremlin.

Ukraine is independent, it has its own defence industry, and is also receiving weapons from many western countries. The relationship is completely different.

Russian propaganda pretends it's a proxy war, but that requires stretching the term so as to be useless.


Ukraine has freedom in its foreign policy, it has freedom in how it prosecutes the war with its own weapons. There might be restrictions on some supplied weapons, but that doesn't make it a proxy war.

Precisely this, plus "Even if it was a proxy war, Ukraine is not acting as a proxy of NATO".

[plodder]

You are thick.

“NATO doesn’t give a sh.t about Ukraine”

[plodder]

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

[lpm]

What I'm interested in, plods, is how the stories flow from the Kremlin and eventually onto this website.

The Kremlin created the "the ousting of Yanukovych was a coup" line and also the "proxy war" line. My assumption is Russia supplies to knowing agents in the west, who distribute onwards to the unknowing agents - the useful idiots, particularly in the Corbynite circles. I'll leave it to others to decide if they think Corbyn and Milne are knowing or unknowing. Somehow the storylines then come out of the arguments of the lefty tankies and into more general discourse, where they reach you. And you spread them here, without much success in onwards propagation.

Do you mind telling us which books or blogs or media columnists you are reading? Do you read Milne? Or people like Klein? Or al Jazeera columns? I think it would be fascinating to try to follow the filtration system backwards.

[plodder]

What I'm interested in, plods, is how the stories flow from the Kremlin and eventually onto this website.

The Kremlin created the "the ousting of Yanukovych was a coup" line and also the "proxy war" line. My assumption is Russia supplies to knowing agents in the west, who distribute onwards to the unknowing agents - the useful idiots, particularly in the Corbynite circles. I'll leave it to others to decide if they think Corbyn and Milne are knowing or unknowing. Somehow the storylines then come out of the arguments of the lefty tankies and into more general discourse, where they reach you. And you spread them here, without much success in onwards propagation.

Do you mind telling us which books or blogs or media columnists you are reading? Do you read Milne? Or people like Klein? Or al Jazeera columns? I think it would be fascinating to try to follow the filtration system backwards.

It’s a fair cop, luppum. The propaganda I’ve been mindlessly parroting about NATO giving a sh.t about Ukraine is from, um, let me check, it’s here somewhere…

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_209491.htm

Eta there are 1000 search results for Ukraine on the Nato website, regular press releases, loads of speeches, responses to specific explosions etc. The person who does their website seems interested, at least.