The Invasion of Ukraine

[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.

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

Putin should not have invaded.

Easy to say, harder to do.
I keep telling him that but he doesn't listen. Maybe you should call him.

[lpm]

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.

See also: holding western banking and finance to a much higher standard. Both sidesism: screwing up but raking in huge bonuses vs criminals defrauding the naive. White supremacists might deliberately sell invented crypto tokens to poor black Americans and use the proceeds to fund Oath Keepers, but bankers invest in Shell and BAE.

[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

[plodder]

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.

It clearly can’t, that’s why it walks and quacks like a proxy conflict. NATO is clearly asserting and defending its borders.

[jimbob]

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

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sp ... 022-11-30/

Letter bombs at Ukrainian embassy in Spain and Spanish arms manufacturer making grenade launchers for Ukraine

[Formerly AvP]

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.

[plodder]

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.

Let's keep it simple - any analysis that excludes NATO is completely pointless.

[EACLucifer]

Russia's been trying to subjugate Ukraine and suppress and destroy Ukrainian culture and ethnic identity since long before NATO was dreamed of. Since before the USA was dreamed of, for that matter.

[lpm]

Russia failed to win this war in the first 30 days, probably the first 3 days, arguably in the first 3 hours. Long before Nato started supplying things that go bang.

On the other hand, Nato is not supplying enough to enable Ukraine to win quickly.

The counterfactual of no Nato supply is probably many years of drawn out direct and partisan war in far larger areas of occupation, plus even worse bombardment of civilians and civilian infrastructure in non-occupied territory.

[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.

It clearly can’t, that’s why it walks and quacks like a proxy conflict. NATO is clearly asserting and defending its borders.

So they should just lose? Accept their women and children being raped?

Or ask for help? This is not a proxy war between Russia and NATO. It is a series of war crimes by Russia.

[EACLucifer]

Russia failed to win this war in the first 30 days, probably the first 3 days, arguably in the first 3 hours.

Not quite the first three hours, but the first day has a good claim to being when a Russian victory was thwarted - specifically the counterattack of the 72nd Mechanised and the Georgian Legion at Antonov Airport in Hostomel held the Russians for long enough for other defences to be organised, and for the runways to be destroyed to the point the Russian plan for a rapid airlift of supplies to seize central Kyiv was prevented.

Obviously victory and defeat are ongoing processes, so you can't really say it was one day or in one place, but if you were to have to pick a day and a place, the Russian invasion was stopped at Hostomel on the first day.

[El Pollo Diablo]

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.

It clearly can’t, that’s why it walks and quacks like a proxy conflict. NATO is clearly asserting and defending its borders.

So what? Let's say you're right and all this torturous b.llsh.t arguing over pointless semantic definitions falls in your favour. So what? Why does that matter?

[Formerly AvP]

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.

Let's keep it simple - any analysis that excludes NATO is completely pointless.

Sorry. I'll be more explicit in explaining the analogy.
Russia is the gang that invades, murders, tortures, rapes, destroys and steals as a matter of policy, in a variety of settings. Now they are bringing this strategy to a country near where we live. NATO is the self-help group, created to attempt to portray a co-ordinated resistance to this process happening to them. Ukraine (suffering from invasion, torture, murder, rape, destruction and theft, with the threat of worse happening) is the 'kid' in BoaF's analogy, which would have liked to join NATO earlier, but were unable to do so. NATO is declining to confront Russia directly, or even to give major classes of defence weaponry to Ukraine, which would allow it to defend itself more effectively. Instead NATO is giving some supplies, limited both in kind and quantity, and imposing restrictions on their use.
Hope that's clearer.

[plodder]

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.

It clearly can’t, that’s why it walks and quacks like a proxy conflict. NATO is clearly asserting and defending its borders.

So they should just lose? Accept their women and children being raped?

Or ask for help? This is not a proxy war between Russia and NATO. It is a series of war crimes by Russia.

Of course they have asked for help. And the people that are helping them have a vested interest. I don't understand what distinction you think is important here.

[plodder]

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.

It clearly can’t, that’s why it walks and quacks like a proxy conflict. NATO is clearly asserting and defending its borders.

So what? Let's say you're right and all this torturous b.llsh.t arguing over pointless semantic definitions falls in your favour. So what? Why does that matter?

Well, the proxy thing was pretty close to a throwaway comment as it's such an obvious truism and I had literally no idea it would strike a nerve.

It is now clear to me that people are emotionally involved in this conflict in a way that we don't tend to see in other similar wars. They also appear to be horrified that it's more complicated than a simple morality piece. This last observation does seem to matter quite a lot, because what I would have thought would have been an interesting discussion about any relevant NATO shenanigans is being shouted down by people who know the serial numbers of anti tank missiles.

[plodder]

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.

Let's keep it simple - any analysis that excludes NATO is completely pointless.

Sorry. I'll be more explicit in explaining the analogy.
Russia is the gang that invades, murders, tortures, rapes, destroys and steals as a matter of policy, in a variety of settings. Now they are bringing this strategy to a country near where we live. NATO is the self-help group, created to attempt to portray a co-ordinated resistance to this process happening to them. Ukraine (suffering from invasion, torture, murder, rape, destruction and theft, with the threat of worse happening) is the 'kid' in BoaF's analogy, which would have liked to join NATO earlier, but were unable to do so. NATO is declining to confront Russia directly, or even to give major classes of defence weaponry to Ukraine, which would allow it to defend itself more effectively. Instead NATO is giving some supplies, limited both in kind and quantity, and imposing restrictions on their use.
Hope that's clearer.

OK but NATO are doing enough for Ukraine to hold / advance. Are we discussing what NATO's overall goal is here (wear Russia out, for example)?

[dyqik]

It clearly can’t, that’s why it walks and quacks like a proxy conflict. NATO is clearly asserting and defending its borders.

So what? Let's say you're right and all this torturous b.llsh.t arguing over pointless semantic definitions falls in your favour. So what? Why does that matter?

Well, the proxy thing was pretty close to a throwaway comment as it's such an obvious truism and I had literally no idea it would strike a nerve.

The NATO proxy thing is exactly how Russia has been trying to frame this conflict, to justify their unprovoked invasions of Ukraine and multiple war crimes. As such, it's not an obvious truism, it's transparently a lie.

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.

[TopBadger]

Of course they have asked for help. And the people that are helping them have a vested interest. I don't understand what distinction you think is important here.

I've lost what point you're making (if there is one). Your posts suggest that NATO is the bad guy in all this, which by omission puts Russia in the clear for starting an illegal war against a fledgling independent democracy.

For all your implied or explicit criticism of NATO you don't appear to have suggested what it or it's members should be doing differently.

If your point is "isn't this war terrible" then yes, it is. But pacifism doesn't stop tyrants - it emboldens them - so if you're part of the white poppy brigade you can expect to get short shrift from those of us willing to engage with reality.

Or, if you think Vlad is awesome and Russia amazing, go live there. I hear they're looking for warm bodies to die for the motherland.

[plodder]

@dyqik I mean, good luck unpicking that lot.

[plodder]

Of course they have asked for help. And the people that are helping them have a vested interest. I don't understand what distinction you think is important here.

I've lost what point you're making (if there is one). Your posts suggest that NATO is the bad guy in all this, which by omission puts Russia in the clear for starting an illegal war against a fledgling independent democracy.

For all your implied or explicit criticism of NATO you don't appear to have suggested what it or it's members should be doing differently.

If your point is "isn't this war terrible" then yes, it is. But pacifism doesn't stop tyrants - it emboldens them - so if you're part of the white poppy brigade you can expect to get short shrift from those of us willing to engage with reality.

Or, if you think Vlad is awesome and Russia amazing, go live there. I hear they're looking for warm bodies to die for the motherland.

Where do I suggest NATO is the "bad guy" please. If you've lost what point I'm making then perhaps try not to be outraged about it?

[Chris Preston]

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.

It clearly can’t, that’s why it walks and quacks like a proxy conflict. NATO is clearly asserting and defending its borders.

Somewhere back in the early parts of this thread, or maybe a different thread about Ukraine, I linked to a discussion of Russian foreign policy that focusses on Russia's policy of strategic depth. This has its roots in the Napoleonic wars, but was strongly embraced after World War II. What the aims are is to surround Russia with a series of client states. The policy has met with varying levels of success since the downfall of the Soviet Union.

Several of the countries surrounding Russia have gravitated towards NATO precisely because they are not interested in becoming a Russian client state. This is unacceptable to Russia, because it defeats the strategic depth strategy.

To state that NATO is defending its borders in Ukraine is arrant nonsense, because Ukraine is not part of NATO and prior to the Russian invasion stood little chance of becoming part of NATO. Although one of the ironies of Putin's invasion is he has made Ukraine membership of NATO more likely, rather than less likely. If this were a true proxy war, NATO would have invested considerably more than they have. Instead there has been piecemeal provision of arms by some members of NATO and other countries.

If NATO did not exist, Ukraine would be a client state of Russia whether it liked it or not. Seeing the Russian invasion of the Ukraine as a result of NATO activity is completely wrong, it is an outcome of Russia's strategic depth policy.

[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.

[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.

[lpm]

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.

[Bird on a Fire]

@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.