Invasion of Ukraine • Page 59

I think it's unlikely still for the reason you say. But I've repeatedly said that I thought this whole invasion was unlikely because it wouldn't give Russia much, so I won't pretend to know what's going on in Putin's mind. And even if it's, say, a 20% chance that he uses one, that is still terrifyingly high given the implications and that percentage is only increasing.

 

I think Putin could become desperate enough to make the order. He has a lot to lose and, from his perspective, losing this battle for Ukraine is pretty much everything to him.

I don’t see the people under him going through with carrying out a launch. They do have things to lose and they don’t have the outlook that Putin does, even if they like to believe they do. When the time comes for Putin to make they call they will be challenged and imagining the plausible global consequences will supersede anything else. It’s the point of no return.

The world will know if Putin makes the call, however, so it will still be game over for him, at least as Russia’s leader. Making that call would be unforgivable.

 

I think if things continue for the time being with momentum going the way it is, the US / The West will continue supporting Ukraine the way we are now until they get back to February 2022 borders. I'm not so sure we unconditionally support them attempting to take back illegally-annexed, temporarily-occupied Crimea as well at this point, but I could be wrong on that, and they are well within their rights to try to do so.

The major events that I see changing how things are going right now are Putin using nuclear weapons somewhere - even just a "test" or high altitude, EMP creating detonation - or Ukraine attempting to go beyond February 2022 borders and take back Crimea.

"Liberating The Donbas" and pushing back against eastward expansion by NATO are not Putin's main goal anymore, and I don't think they ever really were. He may have wanted to do these things - just like he wanted to take Kyiv, kill Zelenskyy and install a puppet govt - but I think he had a grossly distorted view of his own military and what they were and are able to accomplish on the battlefield. I think it infuriates him that Ukraine exists as a sovereign nation at all and he would love for the entire country to be part of Russia, but at this point Putin is much more interested in seizing and maintaining the land bridge to Crimea than he is in making LPR & DNR part of the Russian Federation.

I think Crimea being threatened is the point where Putin introduces nuclear weapons into this conflict in some way.

 

No diplomatic solution was pursued with enough seriousness to say.

My issue is with the worldview that can separate Putin's decision to threaten nuclear attacks from anything else. I am very skeptical of the framing of any development anywhere as discrete from world history. When we measure the influence on such history since the fall of the USSR, ultimately the US shaped the modern world much more than Russia and is thus generally more at "fault" for current geopolitical conditions. Obviously it would be wrong and evil and a war crime to launch a first strike nuclear attack but if one is concerned with preventing that it requires more in depth analysis than "the guy who pushed the button is a bad man and must be condemned." It doesn't clarify the situation at all or offer any actionable insight, especially for someone outside of Russia. I am making posts trying to argue against that worldview because I don't think it's valuable politically, not because you're condemning Putin or are on the other side or whatever. Your retreat to accusing me of identity politics is kind of disappointing, I think this is one of the more productive conversations on this that have happened on here.

Well, certainly once there is a war it is hard to prevent war via foreign policy, fair enough. You can still pursue peace though. It is a fact that the US and EU and NATO have pursued a policy of escalation since the onset of the war and have not pursued diplomatic solutions as much as they could. That is what I advocate for. But, they didn't do that either in relation to the pre-war conflicts in Crimea and Donetsk and Luhansk. Minsk II was heavily criticized at the time of its ratification and once it was clear it was defunct there was no serious effort to replace or enforce it. Those entities weren't any more interested in lasting peace in these areas either:

I accept the premise that Russia and the US are equally uninterested in peace and have both taken escalating actions since Putin came to power, I don't accept any analysis which ends there and is uninterested in why that is the case. In that period, which polity has had more influence over the state of the world? Which has pursued that influence more ruthlessly? Which more influenced the existence of the current government of the other? Do we all accept that these are at least relevant questions? If not, our worldviews are irreconcilable. Which do those of us in this discussion have influence over? is also relevant imo.

Who is trying to determine validity? I am trying to understand history and cause and effect. Your analysis stops at Maidan caused the invasion of Crimea, which is arbitrary. What caused Maidan? What caused the causes of Maidan? Are these relevant concerns for you?

A while ago there was a discussion on twitter of whether Marx or -ism was teleological, did it take as inevitable the progression of history from aristocratic to bourgeois to proletarian rule. Of course it doesn't, and lately I've been thinking a lot about what Marx & Engels say the alternative is:

We're in the time of the common ruin of the contending classes baybee

 

Putin is a classic narcissist, my money would be hard on him not doing something that he knows without doubt will lead to the complete destruction of Russia and his own death. He loves himself some Putin too much to make a choice that will 100% kill Putin.

Now obviously he could be at risk of death for other choices he could made to end this war, but those are all definitely less likely to result in his death than if he drops nukes.

 

I'm not convinced the US responds militarily to Putin using nukes against Ukraine, even conventionally. Sure, we have to say that we would right now, but I'm not sure that's our move. I think it's definitely Poland's move though, no matter what the US says or thinks about.

 

I would argue that certain strands of Marx(ism) is very teleological (particularly his early writings and those influenced by them when he took historical materialism very literally) but I suppose I can easily accept the "achieve communism or destroy ourselves first" interpretation as well! Perhaps this is the "end of history" after all...

 

If that wasn’t your intention, my apologies. I felt as if I was being put into a political box solely because I was placing the nuclear blame on Putin.

I am concerned with preventing any moment of nuclear order and I do believe that the actions and influence of the US since the fall of Soviet Union (maybe even since WW2) has its place in leading to this and with shaping Putin’s determination.

Maybe I came off as only condemning Putin. I would still give blame to the US and the many escalation points throughout the decades that arrived at this point.

I think national integrity is secondary when it comes to nuclear war, so I won’t ever fully sympathize or understand the mind of someone who would launch a nuke over this.

But under zero circumstances would I ever not condemn someone for using nukes.

Would I want Ukraine to join NATO? Not my first choice. Would I want Ukraine to be brought under Russia? Also not my first choice. I would choose both before a nuke is launched, however.

 

-I think they pursued escalation once the war started because the alternative was a sovereign nation becoming a not sovereign nation anymore, and Ukraine has something to offer the western nations with their natural resources. We don't have to sugarcoat that they have self interests in their choice of who to help and not to help (i.e. Armenia). But had they stood by and done nothing, it's very likely the country of Ukraine doesn't exist anymore in October 2022. I think Minsk/Minsk II were basically appeasement attempts that didn't work specifically because Russia (or more accurately, Putin) doesn't actually give a shit about specific ethnic Russians in specific parts of the country, but rather wants the entire country and its natural resources for his own, and wants to eliminate Ukrainian identity in the process. We can say (and probabaly agree) that NATO countries involved in that deal didn't "push" hard enough, but at the end of the day I don't think it mattered much because I don't think Putin was going to get appeased out of doing anything stupud.

-I think the major reason why Russia was not able to do those things as ruthlessly and successfully as the US did is because the entire government system collapsed and it took them them years of transition to get on their feet again. Of course the US had a bigger worldwide influence in the 90s and 2000s especially, because Russia was in no position to do anything until they rebuilt their government and economy. Once that happened, and with Putin in power, it's pretty apparent what he wishes to use Russian foreign policy for--pretty damn similarly to that of the US! lol...And to be frank I don't really find those questions to be especially relevant to possible solutions to the situation at hand. IMO it truly does not matter, here in October 2022 about how this conflict should be settled, that America swung its big dick around the world during the Cold War and especially the 80s/90s/2000s. I do not find that information relevant to the discussion about how this war should end---that Russia should pull out and return Ukrainian land to Ukraine, and then both sides should negotiate peaceful relations and economic ties (and should be done so without hindering either country's ability to create economic ties with other nations as well).

-Similarly, these are not hugely relevant concerns for me. The people were presented with two worldviews on what their country and its economy could be, and they seemingly chose. Their relatively super corrupt government that, IIRC, decided to back out of a trade agreement with the EU and that pissed off a lot of people in the country, to the point where their legislative body voted unanimously to oust the president. Obviously this wasn't the outcome Russia wanted, but that's not a good reason to invade and kill IMO

 

Russia is threatening to use nuclear weapons to defend areas that they admit themselves they cannot yet define the borders of. They are not in control of these areas, and they say that they do not yet know exactly where the borders are, but are also saying it is their right to use any means necessary to defend them, including using nuclear weapons against an enemy that does not have nuclear weapons. That is fucking absurd.

 

Iran does not recognize “referenda” of the Russian Federation in the occupied territory of Ukraine

https://ukrainetoday.org/2022/10/04...eration-in-the-occupied-territory-of-ukraine/

 

it's really going to suck for ukraine when this war is over and uncle sam comes to recoup all that money

 

Yes, they did pursue escalation, true. The US does not care about Ukrainian sovereignty, though, or they wouldn't have used Maidan to hand pick their PM. I don't accept that view of Minsk, they were not serious attempts at anything by either side. They were fragile and doomed to fail and everyone knew it immediately. I think structural deficiencies in the agreements themselves are much more to blame for their failure than Putin evil bad man.

Russia had pursued peaceful relations and economic ties with Ukraine until Maidan. Why do you think the US would allow them to be established again? Do you legitimately think peaceful economic ties between Russia and Ukraine is a US goal? It is preventing those relations the US has been interested in. Your proposal also doesn't do anything to solve the legitimate ethnic conflicts in the occupied regions, which originally arose at least as organically as Maidan. Perhaps some history might help!

Re: Maidan, it's worth noting that while their legislative body did vote unanimously to oust the president, it was after months of US pressure and support for the protests, which were certainly initially organic, but never represented a critical mass of the public. Polling in Ukraine during the Maidan consistently showed a split population re: the EU despite the mass support for the removal of Yanukovych. If a neutral Ukraine with peaceful ties with Russia and the EU was ever going to exist, it would've started then, but the US showed their lack of interest. Understanding this history informs my opinions on the US' current interest in such a Ukraine as well!

 

Oh.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/10/05/putin-colonial-imperial-delusion/

 

I understand why the ripped out teeth are getting much more publicity than the dildo for many reasons, but the picture of the soiled dildo sitting there amongst the other torture apparatus was deeply fucked up and very, very disturbing.

 

I read about both but haven't seen that image. It's really too much to bear.

 

Czech Petition on Annexing Kaliningrad From Russia Signed by Thousands

https://ukrainetoday.org/2022/10/05...-kaliningrad-from-russia-signed-by-thousands/