|
Alchenar posted:Well yeah but then we are digging down to the real point which is that 'troops pressing up on our border' is a dishonest euphamism for 'literally any US engagement with a state on Russia's border, because Russia asserts a veto on those countries foreign policy'. You’re almost there. Russia maintains veto rights on their foreign policy, particularly when it comes to engagement with the West, not because Russia itself is threatened by this, but instead because Putin’s plan to reabsorb all territory once part of the Soviet Union—and maybe even the Russian Empire—by force. That’s what is threatened by Ukrainian or Baltic State NATO membership.
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
FishBulbia posted:The only way that happens is if the southern front collapses like the northern. It would make reinforcement pretty moot as that would be tantamount to total victory. FWIW Ukraine tried flying helicopters in a week ago, at the cost of at least one helo. That was a medical helicopter flying out of Mariupol. They've supposedly evacuated several high-ranking officers very recently, so they do have the ability for very limited (and probably very high-risk) movement out of the city. When speaking of 'reinforcing' the city, I don't agree it would only happen with a collapsed front. It could also be in the form of supply line harassment seen a lot up north, raids like around Kherson, or simply temporary periods of access. Neither Russia nor Ukraine have fixed front lines in this war - except in Donbas, where there are heavily fortified lines, with multiple layers in front and behind, on both sides. So it is very conceivable that Ukraine will be able to link up with Mariupol without this meaning Russian forces are collapsing. Just like Russian units can advance deep into Ukrainian territory without that indicating a collapse of Ukrainian control. This also makes those maps shown constantly by media very misleading. They say little about operational reach, localized mobility, aerial dominance (which differs vastly across Ukraine), etc. I also expect Russia to reduce their commitment in Mariupol (if they haven't already). They've destroyed the offensive capability of the defending forces, so they don't really need to take it, except for political and propaganda purposes. In fact there are advantages to not taking it. So I think they will pull back and keep a lower, but steady pressure, and a cordon to punish attempts to link up. They don't need to prevent linking up. It would be beneficial for them if Ukraine links up and stays in place, because then they have a fixed target. Very few wars have been mobile and fluid to the extent of this one. One should be very careful at reading too much into a temporary presence by one side or another at a certain location.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 17:50
|
|
|
Imo Russia’s political elite have a major malfunction where they cannot see how countries can be in a friendly coalition without being dominated. So hence NATO must have an ulterior motive. Which is weird since there are a lot of similar parallels in how the republicans see things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 17:51
|
|
|
No Putin doesn't want the USSR or Russian Empire back, those are historic things that failed and why would he want to retread a story that he knows ends in disaster? Putin has a specific view of Russia's borders, special interest in countries with ethnic Russian populations, and need for a defensive buffer zone that obviously overlaps with those previous entities because the land didn't go anywhere, but his project is a specific and distinct thing and it would be a mistake to confuse it with a desire to bring the past back. Restoring Russia's greatness means reversing historic injustices but it isn't about trying to rewind the clock.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 17:52
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/IuliiaMendel/status/1510617177409400833 https://mobile.twitter.com/ua_industrial/status/1510608011919777798 https://mobile.twitter.com/ArthurKei_UA/status/1510497101041614850 Risky Bisquick fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Apr 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 17:54
|
|
|
PederP posted:That was a medical helicopter flying out of Mariupol. They've supposedly evacuated several high-ranking officers very recently, so they do have the ability for very limited (and probably very high-risk) movement out of the city. I very much agree with this. Zone of control maps can lead to false conclusions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 17:55
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Well yeah but then we are digging down to the real point which is that 'troops pressing up on our border' is a dishonest euphamism for 'literally any US engagement with a state on Russia's border, because Russia asserts a veto on those countries foreign policy'. Right, Russia doesn't care about the self-determination of other nations and they have a history of being paranoid. This is the rationale for setting the standard of provocation far below what we in the West might consider it to be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 17:56
|
|
|
awesome-express posted:Imo Russia’s political elite have a major malfunction where they cannot see how countries can be in a friendly coalition without being dominated. So hence NATO must have an ulterior motive. Putin served in East Germany when he was KGB and then the USSR collapsed around his ears, he did very well out of the chaos personally but it's still one of the defining things about him so he still thinks in cold war terms and it stings for him. He probably doesn't really understand the west or how they do things as his experience was limited to repressing a populace in a conquered and split country. Trying to restore the USSR would fit that perspective. He's described its fall as the greatest tragedy of the twentieth century.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 18:08
|
|
|
Morningwoodpecker posted:Putin served in East Germany when he was KGB and then the USSR collapsed around his ears, he did very well out of the chaos personally but it's still one of the defining things about him so he still thinks in cold war terms and it stings for him. He probably doesn't really understand the west or how they do things as his experience was limited to repressing a populace in a conquered and split country. The irony is that I actually agree with that; however, Putin only sees this from a nationalistic perspective rather than the loss of the very possibility of a different sort of world other than naked exploitation by capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 18:10
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:You’re almost there. Russia maintains veto rights on their foreign policy, particularly when it comes to engagement with the West, not because Russia itself is threatened by this, but instead because Putin’s plan to reabsorb all territory once part of the Soviet Union—and maybe even the Russian Empire—by force. Russian leaders have never stopped being imperialists with a distinct "zero sum" world view where everything that happens either helps them or their opponents, never both. They were temporarily embarassed when Warsaw Pact-style subjugation turned out to be unsustainable, so for a while they continued with genocides on a smaller scale (Chechnya), were limited to minor invasions (Transnistria, Ossetia), and openly opposed the supposed rules based world order by supporting Serbian genocides in the 90s. There never was a Russian leadership that was really open to the country being part of an international order based on the rule of law and cooperation of (mostly) equal nations. No, Russia considers itself a great power that has the natural permission to rule over minor nations (sure those in Europe are more powerful, economically, but our nukes are feared and anyway they're all puppets of the US anyway, we just have to change that!), it won't accept rules set by anyone else. The idea of "1991 Russia as a normal country that just got over imperialism a few decades later than the rest of Europe" is pure fiction. People who write papers on the evils of shock therapy must have some form of economic recovery program in mind that would have included strict controls and wealth redistribution, making sure apparatchicks, oligarchs and investors wouldn't have a chance to rob the country blind. But there was simply no point after 1991 where Russia's leadership would have accepted such a more socially acceptable economic recovery program because it would have been controlled/forced on them by the "enemy". And their acceptable alternative to NATO was not "Russia as an equal in NATO", it was "Russia with the power to ignore the concerns of minor nations of Europe in NATO, or a new organization where Russia was in charge". orcane fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Apr 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 18:12
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:I don't think it was about respecting sovereignty or whatever, Russia was clearly willing to make changes along the US wishes and that turned out to be disastrous. Those changes led to somewhere around 1000$ loss per capita per year, even assuming it only accounted for 50% of the losses since 1988; that would be about $140b annually. This happened because oil prices crashed in the 90s and spiked in the 00s, not because Putin is a fascist ubermensch who saved Russia from capitalist decadence and exploitation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 18:15
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:The irony is that I actually agree with that; however, Putin only sees this from a nationalistic perspective rather than the loss of the very possibility of a different sort of world other than naked exploitation by capitalism. I would argue there's several things in the 20th century that were much more tragic than the Soviet Union going away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 18:16
|
|
|
Quixzlizx posted:This happened because oil prices crashed in the 90s and spiked in the 00s, not because Putin is a fascist ubermensch who saved Russia from capitalist decadence and exploitation. Doesn't mean Russians didn't credit Putin for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 18:17
|
|
|
The most hilarious thing I read from pro-Russian telegram today regarding the Bucha killings was that it was orchestrated by the West there because Bucha sounds like the English word "butcher". So it's some 4D psyops thing to make a "fake" massacre there and not in any other place in the vicinity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
At this point I'm pretty sure Putin planned for this to be the Nazi takeover of Poland complete with concentration camps for ethnic and religious minorities and especially Jews. The only reason it didn't happen was because they literally couldn't do logistics like the Germans could. And also because China hosed them over Olympics optics, which will never stop being funny.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 18:24
|
|
|
the white hand posted:Right, Russia doesn't care about the self-determination of other nations and they have a history of being paranoid. This is the rationale for setting the standard of provocation far below what we in the West might consider it to be. Why does the "anti-imperialist" left have such a hard-on for rationalizing Russia's sphere of influence, when "sphere of influence" is the most imperialist of imperialist conceits, created during the Age of Imperialism?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 18:28
|
|
|
KillHour posted:The only reason it didn't happen was because they literally couldn't do logistics like the Germans could.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 18:28
|
|
|
Quixzlizx posted:Why does the "anti-imperialist" left have such a hard-on for rationalizing Russia's sphere of influence, when "sphere of influence" is the most imperialist of imperialist conceits, created during the Age of Imperialism? At the risk of oversimplifying, many of them had their political awakening because of the Iraq War and find it difficult to think that a country opposed to America can, in fact, do bad or even worse things. See also: Syria.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 18:32
|
|
|
Couldn't do logistics as the Germans could? I think this is him doing logistics as the Germans did.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 18:33
|
|
|
Quixzlizx posted:Why does the "anti-imperialist" left have such a hard-on for rationalizing Russia's sphere of influence, when "sphere of influence" is the most imperialist of imperialist conceits, created during the Age of Imperialism? Horseshoe theory says that both them and the far right believe that the world works like the bible (or star wars) and there is an inherently good side and an inherently bad side in an existential struggle over the universe and the ends of the "bad side" losing justify the means. For some insane reason, both the far right and far left agree that Russia is on the good side now. That reason is Internet propaganda funded by Russia to weaken the west.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 18:34
|
|
|
Charlotte Hornets posted:The most hilarious thing I read from pro-Russian telegram today regarding the Bucha killings was that it was orchestrated by the West there because Bucha sounds like the English word "butcher". So it's some 4D psyops thing to make a "fake" massacre there and not in any other place in the vicinity. Not even the first time I've heard dumb poo poo like this. I remember years back when there were people convinces that John Cantlie ( the correspondent kidnaped by ISIS and forced to make propaganda videos ) was just a made up person to sell a war against ISIS because his name is spelled Can't Lie. Apparently, its just well understood in certain circles that the deep state or whatever is just super enamored with goofy word games.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 18:35
|
|
|
Quixzlizx posted:Why does the "anti-imperialist" left have such a hard-on for rationalizing Russia's sphere of influence, when "sphere of influence" is the most imperialist of imperialist conceits, created during the Age of Imperialism? It's less liking Russia per se and more hating capitalist US sphere increasing and combined with a leftover thinking that the USSR was the closest they got to effective resistance against capitalist hegemony. The US is allowed to gently caress with Venezuela and Cuba all it likes without effective Russian influence, why can't their imagining of USSR can't be left to its devices too?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 18:38
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Horseshoe theory says that both them and the far right believe that the world works like the bible (or star wars) and there is an inherently good side and an inherently bad side in an existential struggle over the universe and the ends of the "bad side" losing justify the means. Too much credit to Russia for that. The right agrees because their values are in sync with Russia and the idiot segment of the left agrees because their entire world view is informed by American imperialism is bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:It's less liking Russia per se and more hating capitalist US sphere increasing and combined with a leftover thinking that the USSR was the closest they got to effective resistance against capitalist hegemony. The US is allowed to gently caress with Venezuela and Cuba all it likes without effective Russian influence, why can't their imagining of USSR can't be left to its devices too? You're making my point for me. They aren't actually "anti-imperialist," just anti-American/capitalist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 18:40
|
|
|
Quixzlizx posted:Why does the "anti-imperialist" left have such a hard-on for rationalizing Russia's sphere of influence, when "sphere of influence" is the most imperialist of imperialist conceits, created during the Age of Imperialism? The point of the SoI thing isn't that they're cool and good, its that Putin's Russia views Ukraine as existential, and the west does not. Mearshiemer's main point is that NATO will not be willing to directly defend Ukraine, but Russia will be very willing to invade Ukraine. This has been proven to be true. What you can take issue with is his suggestion that this fact meant that Ukraine should shape its FP around avoiding war with Russia at all costs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 18:40
|
|
|
Affi posted:Couldn't do logistics as the Germans could? I think this is him doing logistics as the Germans did. It's a fallacy of many people when exposed to the reality that Nazi Germany was institutionally chaotic and dysfunctional to then go ahead and portray their military as incompetent, this was very much not the case. They had their issues both in terms of resources and economics and military organization, leadership and doctrine but none of this added up to an opponent that wasn't a deadly military threat that you underestimated at your own peril.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 18:43
|
|
|
FishBulbia posted:The point of the SoI thing isn't that they're cool and good, its that Putin's Russia views Ukraine as existential, and the west does not. Mearshiemer's main point is that NATO will not be willing to directly defend Ukraine, but Russia will be very willing to invade Ukraine. This has been proven to be true. What you can take issue with is his suggestion that this fact meant that Ukraine should shape its FP around avoiding war with Russia at all costs. The problem with Mearshiemer's argument is that he's discounted a third group for whom Ukraine matters significantly more than to the West or to Russia. Ukrainians themselves curiously get a different value assigned to 'not wanting to be the victims of Russian genocide'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 18:44
|
|
|
Quixzlizx posted:You're making my point for me. They aren't actually "anti-imperialist," just anti-American/capitalist. They're also not anti-capitalist really, being as both Russia and China are also that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 18:48
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1510659351261892614 Above is a clip which is the result of 20 years of Putin. Education, mass censorship, state media, dissidents being silenced, it has gotten us to this point. The country needs to be deprogrammed to wash away the sovietism, and putinism, sanctions need to stay for quite a while. Going forward I think there needs to be sort sort of lever to ensure open media in any countries want to be part of global trade. We can’t keep funding governments who foster hatred and nationalism in the name of growth at any cost. I hope the bankers and policy makers finally wake up to this fact.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 18:49
|
|
|
DOOMocrat posted:I'm not as convinced of this now after looking further into the Russian semiconductor industry; their top fabs can make chips at late 90's/early 2000's densities, which should be sufficient for most munitions. Enough for GPS guidance, simple signals interpretation, etc. That doesn't mean those fabs are spun up and doing that, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 18:51
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:The problem with Mearshiemer's argument is that he's discounted a third group for whom Ukraine matters significantly more than to the West or to Russia. Ukrainians themselves curiously get a different value assigned to 'not wanting to be the victims of Russian genocide'. I mean, that's why they chose to go to the West but I don't see how it changes the problem? Maybe you can explain more? Ukraine's will to survive is assumed from the beginning of Mearshimier's argument --- Ukraine's strategy for survival was always bandwagoning with NATO. Mearshimer's suggestion was that this was the wrong move because NATO was never going to directly defend Ukraine. You can argue with his suggestion that Ukraine should instead quit trying to become a NATO member, but the foundation that NATO was never going to allow Ukraine in seems pretty accurate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 18:51
|
|
|
Risky Bisquick posted:Going forward I think there needs to be sort sort of lever to ensure open media in any countries want to be part of global trade. We can’t keep funding governments who foster hatred and nationalism in the name of growth at any cost. I hope the bankers and policy makers finally wake up to this fact. I think so long as countries like America refuse to believe this applies to them as well, while at the same time using it as a club against other nations, this can't work. It will be just another tool to enforce hegemony.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 18:54
|
|
|
The basic idea behind Mearshiemer's argument is sound, it's just the power imbalance is so out of whack that NATO can fight a low-risk proxy war with Russia over Ukraine while Russia needs to turn it into a war of survival and still lose. From Ukraine's perspective it's the rational choice of a little suffering now for long-term prosperity, versus continual stagnation in the Russian sphere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 18:56
|
|
|
fatherboxx posted:https://twitter.com/b_nishanov/status/1509913543507947526?t=tP6f0Rw8dh24u1ns2gEJGg&s=19 Kazakhstan has a large Russian minority, and it used to be part of the Soviet Union. They probably don't like the precedent that is being set by this war, even if they're currently on good terms with Russia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 18:59
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:I think so long as countries like America refuse to believe this applies to them as well, while at the same time using it as a club against other nations, this can't work. It will be just another tool to enforce hegemony. This is why it's so confusing to see "you believe in spheres of influence" wielded as an attack against anyone who questions the purpose of arming Ukraine or incorporating (or pretending to think about incorporating) them into a defensive alliance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 19:00
|
|
|
Risky Bisquick posted:I hope the bankers and policy makers finally wake up to this fact. During corona times the best news sources have been trading/financial newspapers, same for this conflict. The bulk of media is partisan nonsense which will just parrot twitter trends.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 19:00
|
|
|
FishBulbia posted:I mean, that's why they chose to go to the West but I don't see how it changes the problem? Maybe you can explain more? Ukraine's will to survive is assumed from the beginning of Mearshimier's argument --- Ukraine's strategy for survival was always bandwagoning with NATO. Mearshimer's suggestion was that this was the wrong move because NATO was never going to directly defend Ukraine. You can argue with his suggestion that Ukraine should instead quit trying to become a NATO member, but the foundation that NATO was never going to allow Ukraine in seems pretty accurate. The assertion that NATO would never allow Ukraine to join seems like an unsupported assumption. Ukraine was pretty thoroughly corrupt with Russia-aligned oligarchs for a long time, and of course NATO wasn't going to take them as long as they were in charge. Cleaning up its government and economy was a necessary precondition for NATO consideration, but there was no permanent barrier as far as I have seen. Ukraine has spent the last 20 years trying to clean up its act, and Russia has been actively working to undermine it. They invaded because Ukraine was too determined and might actually succeed. And of course NATO wasn't going to intervene directly to defend them, they aren't a NATO member.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 19:01
|
|
|
the white hand posted:This is why it's so confusing to see "you believe in spheres of influence" wielded as an attack against anyone who questions the purpose of arming Ukraine or incorporating (or pretending to think about incorporating) them into a defensive alliance. Strange to see it used as an attack at all. The concept of spheres of influence never stopped being true, it's only gotten more complex and faster.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 19:06
|
|
|
Morrow posted:The basic idea behind Mearshiemer's argument is sound, it's just the power imbalance is so out of whack that NATO can fight a low-risk proxy war with Russia over Ukraine while Russia needs to turn it into a war of survival and still lose. From Ukraine's perspective it's the rational choice of a little suffering now for long-term prosperity, versus continual stagnation in the Russian sphere. I think in final judgement if Western arms turned out to be the decisive factor is adjusting the balance of Power, then Mearsheimer was wrong. If Ukraine can actually defeat Russia, then he was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Strange to see it used as an attack at all. The concept of spheres of influence never stopped being true, it's only gotten more complex and faster. There is a massive difference between discussing it, and "anti-imperialists" using it a defense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 19:09
|
|