I guess I’m just upset that Switzerland got pressured into taking a side. That’s not the Swiss neutrality I want to see. But hey, not my country, not my war.
Would argue that this so called neutrality wold be equal to taking Russian side.
3 Likes
Another good analysis of the situation. Not paywalled.
In short: Russia will attain military victory, but all the long-term options, of which the article analyzes some, will be financially and politically so expensive that the whole undertaking will be an eventual defeat.
1 Like
If there wasn’t any pride nor patriotism and ideally no country borders there would be no war in the first place.
1 Like
I don’t agree with MrCheese’s thesis.
But I do think we will have to be extremely careful to not fall for misinformation in the future – not only from the Russian side.
E.g. one of the most popular Reddit posts this week has been misinformation:
The video is not a greenscreen fake – it’s just a compression artifact.
The west seems pretty eager to swallow propaganda.
Here’s 20 Minuten (most read newspaper in Switzerland) knowingly spreading the same misinformation:
(They talk about it as if there was a real possibility it was a greenscreen, even though they know it not to be true. Only in the end do they bring the truth as an “alternative explanation” into play.)
Like, if Ukraine realises the West is willing to eat up any information that is good for their point of view, there will be a huge incentive to spread misinformation.
Ukraine is already – and to be clear, understandably – trying to convince NATO to establish a no-fly zone. I don’t think they will shy away from misinformation to work towards that goal.
But a no-fly zone could potentially be one of the most disastrous policies that was ever implemented.
5 Likes
Personally, I try to determinate to few manageable points:
- Russia took Crimea and carved out separatist Luhansk/Donetsk territories by force.
1a. Albeit, Crimea was given by Russia to Ukraine in 1954. This means there are people alive who were born in Russian Crimea, probably raised kids to be Russian and etc. This actually was confirmed by Ukrainian friend who’s wife is Ukrainian/Russian from Crimea, that people in there indeed see themselves as Russians. - Ukraine agreed to Minsk accord where Luhansk/Donetsk to be given self-governance, which I understand was never implemented by Ukrainian side. Ok, but if not Russian aggression there would never be such construct.
- Without going in to deep history Ukraine was always independent state. Also Ukrainian people very strongly identify themselves as not-russians. Even know stories from SSSR army times that Ukrainians serving did not mesh well into, while other nationalities did. Very much think this is because of Holodomor.
So, all in all I see just very brutal Russian attempt to “protect” themselves by attacking an independent country and people who made their decision.
Instead of bombing them, why not offer economic and wellbeing incentive to be “part” or with Russia. Oh well, there isn’t one…
2 Likes
This is also interesting, from the historical context point of view:
Short copy/paste (without the links):
According to the memorandum, Russia, the US and the UK confirmed their recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and effectively abandoning their nuclear arsenal to Russia and that they agreed to the following:
1. Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders
2. Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine.
3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine to influence their politics.
4. Seek immediate action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine if they “should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used”.
5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine.
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.
3 Likes
Putin’s suckered you.
I don’t believe everything I see from the west either but the witness statements here are pretty damning as was the statement from Russia that the army on Ukraine’s border was not an invasion force.
Well he can try at best. Putins war shows that a country with the GDP of Russia is just not able to maintain a military of the size it is trying to have.
It was questionable if it was feasible before the invasion showed the state of the Russian military:
3 Likes
I’ll try to refrain from making comparisons, but Syria wasn‘t an invasion by an external party (and frankly, my opinion on Syria probably doesn’t quite conform to the „mainstream“ in Western Europe.
There’s a crucial difference - and that’s probably the reason why they’re taking kind of a middle ground: Donetsk and Luhansk are republics (Crimea a territory) that broke away by popular vote - and subsequently got recognised by Russia.
That’s pretty much the exact opposite to what China wants to allow to Taiwan.
They’re surely trying to leverage the war into quick accession now.
But to assume they staged it that way is nuts (as good an actor and clever a writer Zelensky may be).
It‘ll likely be a pyrric victory. By taking Ukraine militarily, Putin may - somewhat - restore the Soviet Union to former days. Just not to their glorious days in the 1960 - but rather to a failing state as in the 80s, with an economy in shambles and people fed up (even more) with the government.
That is not how any of this works. Even if you assume that these “votes” were fair.
2014 Donbas status referendums - Wikipedia
Russia did recognise them as independent states - but did not annex them as part of Russia.
Come on people, do I really have to spell it out for you?
Of course I gave you the Kremlin’s official line and view of things to make a specific point:
China can’t really agree on the Russian position. Because breaking away from Ukraine and recognition by Russia are clearly violations of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The very principle that their own claim on Chinese Taipei is based upon: a one-China principle of territorial integrity. They can’t credibly acknowledge the Donbas republics’ sovereignty when the same logic would mean that Taiwan has long been an independent state.
Usually a voice of reason, on this topic you’re just hopeless. Seriously, a popular vote? Quite surely faked.
Edit: lol I see you linked to the same page. So you read it, and you still take this referendum as valid? Even if 94% were in favor, but only 24% voted, this result is meaningless, because the rest of the people didn’t respect the validity of it and stayed home. It was theatre and you’ve been fooled, by the looks of it.
3 Likes
Sure, like any vote in Russia last 20 years. But it doesn’t matter, it looks legit and it is enough.
1 Like
Not fake. There’s little doubt that it happened.
Popular - sure, why not? It was open to the residents there.
Where do I claim it was a valid and legal vote? I didn’t and don’t.
OK, seems I really have to hammer this out for people here.
- Russia’s official line is: The break-away regions overwhelmingly for independence.
- And eventually (now) the Russians officially recognised them as independent, sovereign republics.
- By the (or very similar) logic Chinese Taipei must be considered a sovereign nation as well then
- …which is what they’ve always disputed, instead considering Chinese Taipei as a part of China (PRC)
That’s why China can’t just easily adopt the official Russian position on the matter.
That’s all I’m saying. I’m not validating the referendums or legal status of these (de facto) Republics.
1 Like
If they cared for Donetsk and Lugansk, they would’ve “liberated” these areas and not destroy the whole country. Don’t you see it’s all just bullshitting to make it seem less obvious what the goal is? But just read old Putin’s statements or the leaked article by Ria Novosti that was supposed to be published after the swift and successful military operation.
According to Putin, the breakup of the Soviet Union was a great tragedy and he wants to reunite all “Russian” people, including Belarussian and Little Russian. That’s the goal. They’re not directly targeting civilians, because what good is a prison with no people in it?
2 Likes
Actually, he is just mimicking Hitler’s tactic. Exploiting a local conflict as a pretext to invade a country.
6 Likes
He is exploiting a conflict, that he created.
3 Likes
No. Tensions between Russian and Ukrainian (speakers) existed since the fall of Soviet union.
2 Likes
Tension, yes, conflict no.