18 ms·

What Is at Stake in Ukraine

denton-scratch 5y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20220415110524/https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/04/16/what-is-at-stake-in-ukraine https://web.archive.org/web/20220415110524/https://www.econo...
pydry 5y ago
I dont think that the argument that the west might be a hypocritical imperialist power but it isnt quite as bad as Russia is the rallying cry the Economist seems to think it is. The west is fighting for a unipolar world but the rest of the world would probably rather have a multipolar world. It gives them more options.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  We already have a multipolar world. Effectively there are now two superpowers left, the US and China, each with their own approach to politics and leadership. What this war has mostly done is laid bare the illusion that if we interconnect the world strongly by trade that we can avoid war. This is what will cause a massive re-drawing of the lines in the near future and that is what was at stake in Ukraine. Putin pulled away the curtain in a way that leaves no doubt about this and the aftereffects of that are far larger than Ukraine itself.
  - zaphirplane 5y ago
    I think the opposite, the us and NATO response is to show the world that say invading Taiwan will be very painful Invading by NATO members is as always ok, Libya Syria Afghanistan Iraq
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      I'm sure that is part of the motivation, but it definitely isn't the main motivation, besides that the situation around Taiwan and China is not comparable in many ways to the one between Russia and Ukraine.
    - Cthulhu_ 5y ago
      Were any of those invasions unprovoked? Was Russia's invasion of Ukraine provoked? Like, has there been evidence of the claimed nazis (which AFAIK isn't grounds for invasion) or whatever? Did Ukraine strike first?
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        Don't get drawn into whataboutism.
      - pydry 5y ago
        The Azov brigades are pretty openly nazi and were explicitly and openly used by the non nazi Ukrainian government to cling on to the ethnically russian bits of ukraine as they were trying to declare independence from kyiv. If western ukraine were trying to break away and kyiv used nazi soldiers to cling on to lviv im pretty sure that the western propaganda organs (and by extension, you) wouldnt feel so ambivalent about the swastika tattoos and their war crimes and yea, it probably would be used as grounds for an intervention.
  - k__ 5y ago
    To me that whole thing seems to polarize even more. I don't know how good Russia will come out of this. But at least in Europe it seems to weld countries together a bit more and moving focus away from US help to being more self-sustained in many different aspects. In the best case it can lead the Europe to become a real global contender besides China and USA again.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Putin has done more for European unity and (public and political) support for NATO in five weeks than the rest of the countries in Europe and NATO combined could do in the last three decades.
    - timeon 5y ago
      > in Europe it seems to weld countries together Maybe this is true but there is also huge division in Europe. You can see many countries blaming Germany. Fidesz keeping power. Le Pen rising again in France. Pro-Russian parties likely to win in 2 years in Slovakia... and so on.
  - kkfx 5y ago
    USA and China actually, contrary to most common beliefs, are on the same social design line, their élites both consider citizens as sheep to be treated like any farming animals, following classic Gustave Le Bon, Eduard Bernays considerations on general population. Both are really deeply neoliberist [1] with just marginal differences in appearances, not in substance: USA try to appear a Democracy while is a corporatocracy led by few historically rich and influential families not much different than Chinese élites, they both want a mean poor population that need to live paycheck to paycheck to obey, they both have a narrative apparatus and media control to makes people imaging a mock reality. Yes they are competing for third party resources and they booth need them with no choices... [1] some might consider this word an error, it's not. It's an old scam liberist have done to be called "liberals" for masking better their real nature
    - spaetzleesser 5y ago
      “élites both consider citizens as sheep to be treated like any farming animals,” That’s pretty much the natural state of human society. It sometimes gets shaken up by wars or revolutions and slowly goes back to that state during peacetime.
      - kkfx 5y ago
        Well, effectively looking at human history that's seems to be a common pattern, but since we have evolved from caves to the stars... I hope things might be different now that we can have far more wealthy people and far more people of culture than before. Surely a certain cohort of citizens will always be unable to improve much, that's part of natural selection, but the size and nature of such cohort vary, actual regimes, both westerns formal (not substantial) democracies and classic eastern/southern dictatorships seems to consider 99% of humans as farming animals... I have encountered various kind of people, some really hopeless by nature, and NOT necessary poor (just yesterday a friend, reasonably middle class, with a comfortable life and a nice job asked me what I think about a "revolutionary investment scheme", a classic Ponzi's one so badly presented even a little child smell the stench miles away) but others are just trapped in social organization while having a formal potential the society fails to let them develop. Nothing is perfect, of course, but from perfection to the actual state of things...........
- matthewdgreen 5y ago
  > The West is fighting for a unipolar world This may be what the West is fighting for, in a cynical fashion. And it’s not exactly wrong: “the West” is a lot of people and some have motivations that are less than noble. But an alternative argument is that the West is fighting for liberal democracy as an alternative to authoritarian governance (or “democracy in name only” authoritarianism.) It's become fashionable recently to claim that liberal democracy is on the ropes, and to argue that the future will be full of effective authoritarian governments (despite over a century of such governments being out-competed by modern democracies.) The Ukraine war is a hell of a showcase for the weakness of that strategy. At the end of the day, the real lesson the world should take from this war is that democracy (and particularly liberal democracy) simply works better than authoritarian systems: not because it’s perfect, but because it gives societies a way to course-correct and recover from corruption and stupid mistakes. During peaceful times it's really easy to forget this and get frustrated by democracy: there’s a lot of appeal to the idea of handing governance over to an effective strongman. But even if you somehow luck into a brilliant strongman, dictators eventually age and make mistakes. When that inevitably happens your government won't have the structures necessary to correct them. The performance of the Russian military in Ukraine is an extreme example that shows how naturally self-limiting this strategy can be.
  - pydry 5y ago
    >an alternative argument is that the West is fighting for liberal democracy Trying to reverse the results of a referendum where 80% voted and 90% voted yes and multiple western polls confirm the result doesnt exactly show a resounding commitment to democracy. Nor does being besties with Saudi Arabia. From an imperialistic perspective both make perfect sense though. Saudi is a global energy chokepoint and Crimea is a regional strategic chokepoint for a rival empire.
    - matthewdgreen 5y ago
      I choose not to give much weight to a referendum held under military occupation. More generally, "the West is a lot of different people." Many of them are lousy and have made lousy decisions, such as the support for Saudi Arabia. Democracy doesn't mean perfection, and I'm hugely in favor of making it better. I don't think supporting the current basket of authoritarian regimes on offer is "better". We can agree to disagree.
jacquesm 5y ago
What a strange article and what a bunch of unrelated factoids thrown in to reach conclusions that aren't really supported by the data. It would take something about as long as the article posted here to write a proper refutation but if there was a point to be made then it could not doubt have been made much better. For instance: "Most of the emerging world either backs Russia over its invasion or is neutral. Some countries depend on Russian arms, others feel a misplaced nostalgia for Soviet largesse, but many see the West as decadent, self-serving and hypocritical. And many more, even if they do not welcome the invasion, see it as somebody else’s problem." Where to even start? The two large players that matter in the 'developing world' are China and India, both have their own very unique reasons to be either supportive of or ambivalent towards Russia, not because they depend on arms but because Russia and/or Russian connected territories serve their interests or because they have similar political systems and have similar designs on their immediate surroundings. That's already by population almost 3 billion people and yet it is only two countries. "As America and the rest of NATO rally support for action against Russia, that is a stunning rebuke." So that 'stunning rebuke' is not nearly as stunning as the author makes it out to be. Then: "It is also taking the world down a dangerous path." Correction: Russia is taking the world, and especially Europe down a dangerous path. If anything it has destabilized the European continent in a way that nothing has since WWII, not even the war around former Yugoslavia, where - it needs to be said - Russia again played a major role. "On March 2nd, 141 countries voted in the UN to deplore Russia’s invasion. Just five voted against and 35 abstained. " The ones that abstained have their reasons to walk a very fine line, in part because they depend on Russia and in part because they have ambitions to be more like Russia. The ones that voted against are: North Korea, Eritrea, Syria, Belarus and Russia itself. I don't think anybody is going to be surprised by four of those, the one that remains is Eritrea. Russian veto power in the security council has repeatedly protected Eritrean leadership. "But the real pattern is more complex. Our sister organisation, the Economist Intelligence Unit, has noted that only a third of the world’s people live in countries that have not only condemned Russia but also imposed sanctions on it." Yes, that's also the part of the world that either aligns with the West because they are closely tied economically and/or because they have the ability to do so without entirely ruining their own economy. If Upper Volta decides to boycott or sanction Russia it won't move the needle much because they aren't really the most active trading partners, but if the US, UK, the remainder of Europe or Japan does so it definitely does move that needle. There is a whole debate possible about whether or not sanctions are effective and then another one about whether or not these particular sanctions are effective. But it is pretty easy to see why those countries that are most directly affected by Russia invading Ukraine would be the ones to support the sanctions and leave the rest of the world less likely to do so. Proximity + economic ties + feeling threatened by Russia is enough explanation for me. "Most of them are Western. Another third are in neutral countries. This group includes giants like India and tricky American allies, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The final third are in countries that are echoing Russia’s rationale for the invasion. The biggest, China, has repeated propaganda claiming that Ukraine has hosted American-backed bioweapons laboratories." I don't really see what this paragraph adds to the previous one, it is pretty clear that China has its own agenda with Taiwan, a word that isn't even present in the article, and that India has its own dependencies on Russia. "In Mr Putin’s world, where might makes right, today’s lack of support is proof of Western decline." Winner of the 'jump to conclusions' prize. Anyway, this whole article looks to me as though it started out from a conclusion, then pulled together a bunch of unrelated facts to paint a completely incoherent picture.
lprd 5y ago
Whenever I read articles like this, I can't help but feel that I'm being sold a narrative of some sort. It's hard to filter through all the noise...
- lin83 5y ago
  You probably are. Everyone wants to spin things for there own benefit. However I think it's mostly in the interest of the aggressor to keep people lost in arm-chair debating about global powers by manufacturing suspicion of critical voices and fueling competing narratives, as it leaves them free to reshape the world through violence. As a European who campaigned against the Iraq and other wars, whatever the propoganda we are being sold is, for me it doesn't change the reality that millions of Ukraines are now refugees fleeing to my country and 10,000s have been murdered in cold blood.
- 1337shadow 5y ago
  Because it's what they are doing all along. Example: > Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine to force it to renounce the West and to submit to the Kremlin I wonder what's their source, based on Putin's declarations this should be: > Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine to force it to renounce the West and to remain neutral because it's located between the west and russia and because the west promised it https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-is-vladimir-putin-right-a-bf318d2c-7aeb-4b59-8d5f-1d8c94e1964d https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-e...
  - astine 5y ago
    Based on Russian state propoganda and Putins own words, the motive for the invasion is Russian nationalism. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240
- kkfx 5y ago
  When you read about local episodes, like a single bombing event, there is not much to filter: such small scale details are unknowable by the public, you can only know a bit if you were there or have someone you trust in place. Large scale things on contrary are far easier to spot, at least at a certain scale and at a certain extent. For instance when we keep reading "the Russian bombing hospitals, theaters and schools" it's evidently propaganda not because "Russians are good" vs "Russians are bad" but because missiles&co are not that cheap nor that abundant so an error can always happen, but normally no one army in the world waste ammo for nothing and as a result if those bombing are true then means Ukrainian army choose to violate Geneva conventions recycling hospitals, theaters, schools etc for military purposes and than as a result for the other side they became legit targets. But as always people at scale do not like to reason, prefer being fed with emotions. With similar simple reasoning following the classic Latin cui prodest we can easy conclude that this war is needed by USA and UK élites against the EU, Ukraine and Russian interest. Unfortunately for those élites that move means pushing Russia toward China witch is less weak alone than Russia and far more important with Russian natural resources and a far augmented military tech transfer from Russia China will arrive in few years to have enough military capacity to counter USA and UK together. Those élites play the same game they have played with nazi Germany, counting on similar outcome, of course as back then against their own citizens interests. On the other side Russia need safety at their western borders, for them nazis are ok-ish if on their side, not ok if on NATO side, so they haven't really choice but go to war. China needs stability to keep growing, as any dictatorship that need to grow, but also to sustain it's population. There is no morale on all sides, just mix of interests, some legit some criminal, and different school of thoughts confronting.
t-3 5y ago
Man, when are these supposedly reputable publications going to get editors for their online material? (Or hire writers who know and practice basic grammar?) The total lack of any proofreading is just ridiculous.
- megous 5y ago
  Proper grammar and spelling in online news is a thing of the past... (or translation for that matter - if I didn't know english, I'd think kids in UKR are making mine laying drones instead of mine sweeping ones, and lot of other nonsense I don't remember anymore)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Gollapalli 5y ago
[flagged]
- oezi 5y ago
  Ukraine was a threat to Russia's security in the same way a short skirt is a threat to a rapist.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
    Um.. the comment is ridiculously dismissive. While I do not support Russian invasion, from a purely strategic POV, Ukraine under western control is a national security issue for Russia. I am not sure how that is a controversial statement.
    - Crusoe123 5y ago
      If not being able to set a government of a neighboring country and completely controlling it is a security issue for Russia then maybe they should be the ones to rethink their security policy and ask themselves why so many neighboring countries want to align towards the west. That is a different ballpark than being under the control of west which implies that the west has somehow taken over Ukraine. Your comment is ridiculously cynical and dehumanizing. It's disgusting to me how many people act like Ukrainian people have no agency by themselves and act like Russia was forced to do an invasion because they feel threatened by the west.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
        << Your comment is ridiculously cynical and dehumanizing. It's disgusting to me how many people act like Ukrainian people have no agency by themselves and act like Russia was forced to do an invasion because they feel threatened by the west. I disagree on several points. I do not think it is cynical at all. It is factual. It approaches reality for what it is and explains existing circumstances. Frankly, I do not think it is dehumanizing either. For better or worse, war and struggle is an integral part of human condition. If anything, what is happening makes average person realize what is real. << If not being able to set a government of a neighboring country and completely controlling it is a security issue for Russia then maybe they should be the ones to rethink their security policy. Russia's leadership did and decided that since their personal figurehead was deposed in aftermath of Maidan eventually resulting in West-oriented leader, they might as well get directly involved. You may not like their decision, but they did exactly what you suggested. << That is a different ballpark than being under the control of west which implies that the west has somehow taken over Ukraine. You are right. It is. Being under US umbrella ( or sphere of influence ) is, to me at least, better than being under Russia's. Prentending big powers don't 'influence' small players seems naive to me though. It is not being cynical. It is just recognizing pattern in human history of the past few thousand years. West did not take Ukraine. Yet. In fact, part of the reason of the war is whose sphere of influence Ukraine will belong to. << It's disgusting to me how many people act like Ukrainian people have no agency by themselves and act like Russia was forced to do an invasion because they feel threatened by the west. They absolutely do. However, right now that agency was limited to choosing who to align with. I am not sure what is disgusting about it. Can you elaborate? It is possible I am misunderstanding your argument.
eric4smith 5y ago
I’ve never thought I would be ambivalent towards a war. But here we are. Living in Asia there is definitely not the staunch apposition to the war that you might expect to see. People here don’t like it but are not lockstep on Ukraines side. And as a so called and derided “red pilled” guy I’m not going to jump to any conclusions for the next year or so. We’ve all been seen the ultimate truth and aims and outcomes of the last half dozen wars involving the USA. Once you live abroad for a significant amount of time you tend to take off the rah rah USA rose colored glasses and see the world from the point of view of other peoples. A very annoying thing about the news and SJW social media is everyone jumping on the Ukraine bandwagon with nary a thought as to why what is happening… is happening.
- chinathrow 5y ago
  Not sure if I should reply to you, but in this war, it's crystal clear who annexed what first and who invaded when and where.
  - eric4smith 5y ago
    Any idiot knows what happened. Duh. Not many people are asking WHY its happening.
    - mannykannot 5y ago
      This is an entirely self-serving claim for which you have presented no evidence. Furthermore, it is quite possible to see that the stated reasons are nonsense without having to know precisely what the real motives are.
    - sidibe 5y ago
      Well, you don't need to ask or dig too deep. Putin doesn't believe in Ukraine's sovereignty. The annexation happened when Ukrainians decided Putin doesn't get an unofficial veto on their EU candidacy.
  - yucky 5y ago
    What happened in the days prior to Russia annexing Crimea, that led up to it?
lkrubner 5y ago
In the early years, some of Putin's speeches almost seemed liberal, and yet now, looking back, it is possible to see the imperial signature in his speeches, in particular, how his logic might lead to the erasure of an entire people. He initially emphasized a kind of multiculturalism, but now it seems to be the multiculturalism of an all-conquering empire, the kind of multiculturalism we sort of saw with the Roman Empire, not a multiculturalism that respects the independence of others, but a multiculturalism that feels that all cultures are fungible enough that the army will eventually bring all of them under control. Still, it is possible that Putin really was, at one point, a bit more sympathetic to a multicultural point of view. It's possible that he's gone insane over the last 10 years. Consider how he sounded in 2012: ----------------- Putin’s final major address as prime minister to parliament in April 2012 hammered home this point – the dangers of dividing and thus destroying. It came in the form of an answer to a suggestion from a member of the Russian Duma that the preamble to the Russian constitution be changed from beginning with “We the multinational people [narod] of Russia,” to “We the [ethnic] Russian [russkiy] people and the people who have joined with it.” Putin retorted: Do you understand what we would do [if we did that]? Part of our society would consist of first class people and part would be second class. We must not do that if you and I want to have a strong single [yedinaya] nation, a single people [narod], if we want each person who lives on the territory of the country to feel that this is their homeland, and that there is no other homeland, nor can there be one. And if we want each person to feel like that, then we have to be equal. This is the principle question. The fact that the [ethnic] Russian [russkiy] people are – without a doubt – the backbone, the fundament, the cement of the multinational Russian [rossiyskiy] people cannot be questioned….But to divide everyone up into first, second, third categories, you know, this is a very dangerous path. You and I, all of us, must not do this. ------------------- See more details here: https://demodexio.substack.com/p/mr-putin-operative-in-the-kremlin-ce9?s=w https://demodexio.substack.com/p/mr-putin-operative-in-the-k...
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  The decisive point is who is in control. Putin is happy with multiculturalism of current Belarus and Chechnya, and of the Ukraine with Yanukovych.
Proven 5y ago
Tycho 5y ago
I mean, everyone knows what would happen if Mexico or Republic of Ireland announced an agreement with Russia to let them send in weapons and military personnel and set up military bases, right? I just ask that we don’t kid ourselves.
- agapon 5y ago
  I don't know. Tell us? Besides, how is your "thought experiment" relevant to Ukraine?
  - bananabiscuit 5y ago
    I bet we’d go “liberate” them.
    - simonh 5y ago
      There's no way NATO or the US would risk direct confrontation with Russian troops. Potentially Nuclear armed Russian troops. Bear in mind Russian military doctrine places the decision on using tactical nuclear weapons with local commanders. The people you would be shooting at and bombing. In any case Russia has many bases in foreign countries, and as far as I can remember there's only ever been a risk of direct conflict over it once, with Cuba, and that was specifically over nuclear missiles, not jut having a military base.
      - fock 5y ago
        I recommend you check out info on Syria, where German-armed, NATO-integrated Turkish troops did a little special operation (and failed in a similar way against much worse equipped Kurds/Islamists) and American and Russian special forces stopped their vehicle chases short of blowing each other up. Then also, NATO already risked direct confrontation in Ukraine, sending large training units to a country at war with Russia. As we speak US AWACS is providing early warning across large swaths of western Ukraine and the Black Sea, one wonders if missile sites actually use their early warning radars in the case where they most likely have a notebook with a nice situation log besides their soviet terminals. In this situation I wonder why noone is pushing conspiracy theories around the Moskva sinking (which could still be Ukrainian luck combined with Russian ineptitude) which embed these facts. Apparently this ship was hit at the extent of the Neptunes range. Is it that much of a stretch to think that such thing might have been made much easier, when the ships SatNav was spoofed by a Globalhawk leading it towards shore, while the Ukrainians knew exactly where to look when they flared up their targeting radar?
kome 5y ago
"The pity is that emerging countries are making a grave error. As sovereign powers, they too have a stake in the war. All the West’s faults do not outweigh the fact that, in the system Mr Putin is offering, their people would suffer terribly." this works if you presume "sovereignty" is an objectively existing fact for more than like 10 countries in the world, which it isn't... Perhaps 10 is too generous. And the US contributed to weakening sovereignty all over the world. US is not the sole culprit, of course, but a big one.
- fvdessen 5y ago
  If by sovereign you mean 'I can do whatever I want within my own borders', then of course, very few countries can claim to it. On the other hand, a lot of countries are sovereign in the sense that the people generally are in general agreement with what's going on in their country and have a place in a negotiation room to decide their future. The reason the USA works as an empire is because it usually allows at least that much for their subjects. Russia's problem is that if their neighbours have an ounce of sovereignty they will want to distance themselves from Russia as much as possible due to their terrible behaviour, so they are forced to rule their neighbours by fear & force.
  - kome 5y ago
    > Russia's problem is that if their neighbours have an ounce of sovereignty they will want to distance themselves from Russia as much as possible due to their terrible behaviour, so they are forced to rule their neighbours by fear & force. I fear the US is doing the same, but perhaps with more decorum. (edit: thinking twice, not much more decorum if we think about south america)
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Yes, like that time when the USA invaded Mexico. /s The only country that the USA invaded in Latin America was Panama and that was mostly because of the strategic interest in the Panama Canal, and they eventually pulled out when the country was on a more stable course. (That said, I don't doubt for a minute that they'd do it again if the Panama transit became threatened somehow.) The other influence the USA has had in Latin America has been either much further in the past (which doesn't excuse it) or through the support or denial of support to various governments (which also doesn't excuse it), but it is absolutely nothing compared to what the neighbors of Russia have had to endure over the last 60 years or so.
d23 5y ago
These comments are immeasurably depressing. I had no idea so many in this community were one step away from openly supporting authoritarianism and genocide.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  What helps: if you check the account creation dates you'll see that quite a few of these accounts have been created very recently or were created right around the invasion of Ukraine, chapter 1. The problem is real but probably not as large as you might think it is based on the comments. The more worrying thing is that lots of people have a 'somebody else's problem' approach to this, which is what got the world into World War II.
- sidibe 5y ago
  Just read the responses. Everyone is disagreeing with the top comments (how did they become the top comments?)
- archagon 5y ago
  I’ve noticed that many people in this community almost reflexively reject any mainstream narrative.
Isinlor 5y ago
(deleted - there is no delete button, only edit)
- jacquesm 5y ago
  You already posted this comment.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220415110524/https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/04/16/what-is-at-stake-in-ukraine https://web.archive.org/web/20220415110524/https://www.econo...

pydry 5y ago

I dont think that the argument that the west might be a hypocritical imperialist power but it isnt quite as bad as Russia is the rallying cry the Economist seems to think it is. The west is fighting for a unipolar world but the rest of the world would probably rather have a multipolar world. It gives them more options.

jacquesm 5y ago
We already have a multipolar world. Effectively there are now two superpowers left, the US and China, each with their own approach to politics and leadership. What this war has mostly done is laid bare the illusion that if we interconnect the world strongly by trade that we can avoid war. This is what will cause a massive re-drawing of the lines in the near future and that is what was at stake in Ukraine. Putin pulled away the curtain in a way that leaves no doubt about this and the aftereffects of that are far larger than Ukraine itself.
- zaphirplane 5y ago
  I think the opposite, the us and NATO response is to show the world that say invading Taiwan will be very painful Invading by NATO members is as always ok, Libya Syria Afghanistan Iraq
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    I'm sure that is part of the motivation, but it definitely isn't the main motivation, besides that the situation around Taiwan and China is not comparable in many ways to the one between Russia and Ukraine.
  - Cthulhu_ 5y ago
    Were any of those invasions unprovoked? Was Russia's invasion of Ukraine provoked? Like, has there been evidence of the claimed nazis (which AFAIK isn't grounds for invasion) or whatever? Did Ukraine strike first?
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Don't get drawn into whataboutism.
    - pydry 5y ago
      The Azov brigades are pretty openly nazi and were explicitly and openly used by the non nazi Ukrainian government to cling on to the ethnically russian bits of ukraine as they were trying to declare independence from kyiv. If western ukraine were trying to break away and kyiv used nazi soldiers to cling on to lviv im pretty sure that the western propaganda organs (and by extension, you) wouldnt feel so ambivalent about the swastika tattoos and their war crimes and yea, it probably would be used as grounds for an intervention.
- k__ 5y ago
  To me that whole thing seems to polarize even more. I don't know how good Russia will come out of this. But at least in Europe it seems to weld countries together a bit more and moving focus away from US help to being more self-sustained in many different aspects. In the best case it can lead the Europe to become a real global contender besides China and USA again.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Putin has done more for European unity and (public and political) support for NATO in five weeks than the rest of the countries in Europe and NATO combined could do in the last three decades.
  - timeon 5y ago
    > in Europe it seems to weld countries together Maybe this is true but there is also huge division in Europe. You can see many countries blaming Germany. Fidesz keeping power. Le Pen rising again in France. Pro-Russian parties likely to win in 2 years in Slovakia... and so on.
- kkfx 5y ago
  USA and China actually, contrary to most common beliefs, are on the same social design line, their élites both consider citizens as sheep to be treated like any farming animals, following classic Gustave Le Bon, Eduard Bernays considerations on general population. Both are really deeply neoliberist [1] with just marginal differences in appearances, not in substance: USA try to appear a Democracy while is a corporatocracy led by few historically rich and influential families not much different than Chinese élites, they both want a mean poor population that need to live paycheck to paycheck to obey, they both have a narrative apparatus and media control to makes people imaging a mock reality. Yes they are competing for third party resources and they booth need them with no choices... [1] some might consider this word an error, it's not. It's an old scam liberist have done to be called "liberals" for masking better their real nature
  - spaetzleesser 5y ago
    “élites both consider citizens as sheep to be treated like any farming animals,” That’s pretty much the natural state of human society. It sometimes gets shaken up by wars or revolutions and slowly goes back to that state during peacetime.
    - kkfx 5y ago
      Well, effectively looking at human history that's seems to be a common pattern, but since we have evolved from caves to the stars... I hope things might be different now that we can have far more wealthy people and far more people of culture than before. Surely a certain cohort of citizens will always be unable to improve much, that's part of natural selection, but the size and nature of such cohort vary, actual regimes, both westerns formal (not substantial) democracies and classic eastern/southern dictatorships seems to consider 99% of humans as farming animals... I have encountered various kind of people, some really hopeless by nature, and NOT necessary poor (just yesterday a friend, reasonably middle class, with a comfortable life and a nice job asked me what I think about a "revolutionary investment scheme", a classic Ponzi's one so badly presented even a little child smell the stench miles away) but others are just trapped in social organization while having a formal potential the society fails to let them develop. Nothing is perfect, of course, but from perfection to the actual state of things...........
matthewdgreen 5y ago
> The West is fighting for a unipolar world This may be what the West is fighting for, in a cynical fashion. And it’s not exactly wrong: “the West” is a lot of people and some have motivations that are less than noble. But an alternative argument is that the West is fighting for liberal democracy as an alternative to authoritarian governance (or “democracy in name only” authoritarianism.) It's become fashionable recently to claim that liberal democracy is on the ropes, and to argue that the future will be full of effective authoritarian governments (despite over a century of such governments being out-competed by modern democracies.) The Ukraine war is a hell of a showcase for the weakness of that strategy. At the end of the day, the real lesson the world should take from this war is that democracy (and particularly liberal democracy) simply works better than authoritarian systems: not because it’s perfect, but because it gives societies a way to course-correct and recover from corruption and stupid mistakes. During peaceful times it's really easy to forget this and get frustrated by democracy: there’s a lot of appeal to the idea of handing governance over to an effective strongman. But even if you somehow luck into a brilliant strongman, dictators eventually age and make mistakes. When that inevitably happens your government won't have the structures necessary to correct them. The performance of the Russian military in Ukraine is an extreme example that shows how naturally self-limiting this strategy can be.
- pydry 5y ago
  >an alternative argument is that the West is fighting for liberal democracy Trying to reverse the results of a referendum where 80% voted and 90% voted yes and multiple western polls confirm the result doesnt exactly show a resounding commitment to democracy. Nor does being besties with Saudi Arabia. From an imperialistic perspective both make perfect sense though. Saudi is a global energy chokepoint and Crimea is a regional strategic chokepoint for a rival empire.
  - matthewdgreen 5y ago
    I choose not to give much weight to a referendum held under military occupation. More generally, "the West is a lot of different people." Many of them are lousy and have made lousy decisions, such as the support for Saudi Arabia. Democracy doesn't mean perfection, and I'm hugely in favor of making it better. I don't think supporting the current basket of authoritarian regimes on offer is "better". We can agree to disagree.

jacquesm 5y ago

What a strange article and what a bunch of unrelated factoids thrown in to reach conclusions that aren't really supported by the data. It would take something about as long as the article posted here to write a proper refutation but if there was a point to be made then it could not doubt have been made much better. For instance: "Most of the emerging world either backs Russia over its invasion or is neutral. Some countries depend on Russian arms, others feel a misplaced nostalgia for Soviet largesse, but many see the West as decadent, self-serving and hypocritical. And many more, even if they do not welcome the invasion, see it as somebody else’s problem." Where to even start? The two large players that matter in the 'developing world' are China and India, both have their own very unique reasons to be either supportive of or ambivalent towards Russia, not because they depend on arms but because Russia and/or Russian connected territories serve their interests or because they have similar political systems and have similar designs on their immediate surroundings. That's already by population almost 3 billion people and yet it is only two countries. "As America and the rest of NATO rally support for action against Russia, that is a stunning rebuke." So that 'stunning rebuke' is not nearly as stunning as the author makes it out to be. Then: "It is also taking the world down a dangerous path." Correction: Russia is taking the world, and especially Europe down a dangerous path. If anything it has destabilized the European continent in a way that nothing has since WWII, not even the war around former Yugoslavia, where - it needs to be said - Russia again played a major role. "On March 2nd, 141 countries voted in the UN to deplore Russia’s invasion. Just five voted against and 35 abstained. " The ones that abstained have their reasons to walk a very fine line, in part because they depend on Russia and in part because they have ambitions to be more like Russia. The ones that voted against are: North Korea, Eritrea, Syria, Belarus and Russia itself. I don't think anybody is going to be surprised by four of those, the one that remains is Eritrea. Russian veto power in the security council has repeatedly protected Eritrean leadership. "But the real pattern is more complex. Our sister organisation, the Economist Intelligence Unit, has noted that only a third of the world’s people live in countries that have not only condemned Russia but also imposed sanctions on it." Yes, that's also the part of the world that either aligns with the West because they are closely tied economically and/or because they have the ability to do so without entirely ruining their own economy. If Upper Volta decides to boycott or sanction Russia it won't move the needle much because they aren't really the most active trading partners, but if the US, UK, the remainder of Europe or Japan does so it definitely does move that needle. There is a whole debate possible about whether or not sanctions are effective and then another one about whether or not these particular sanctions are effective. But it is pretty easy to see why those countries that are most directly affected by Russia invading Ukraine would be the ones to support the sanctions and leave the rest of the world less likely to do so. Proximity + economic ties + feeling threatened by Russia is enough explanation for me. "Most of them are Western. Another third are in neutral countries. This group includes giants like India and tricky American allies, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The final third are in countries that are echoing Russia’s rationale for the invasion. The biggest, China, has repeated propaganda claiming that Ukraine has hosted American-backed bioweapons laboratories." I don't really see what this paragraph adds to the previous one, it is pretty clear that China has its own agenda with Taiwan, a word that isn't even present in the article, and that India has its own dependencies on Russia. "In Mr Putin’s world, where might makes right, today’s lack of support is proof of Western decline." Winner of the 'jump to conclusions' prize. Anyway, this whole article looks to me as though it started out from a conclusion, then pulled together a bunch of unrelated facts to paint a completely incoherent picture.

lprd 5y ago

Whenever I read articles like this, I can't help but feel that I'm being sold a narrative of some sort. It's hard to filter through all the noise...

lin83 5y ago
You probably are. Everyone wants to spin things for there own benefit. However I think it's mostly in the interest of the aggressor to keep people lost in arm-chair debating about global powers by manufacturing suspicion of critical voices and fueling competing narratives, as it leaves them free to reshape the world through violence. As a European who campaigned against the Iraq and other wars, whatever the propoganda we are being sold is, for me it doesn't change the reality that millions of Ukraines are now refugees fleeing to my country and 10,000s have been murdered in cold blood.
1337shadow 5y ago
Because it's what they are doing all along. Example: > Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine to force it to renounce the West and to submit to the Kremlin I wonder what's their source, based on Putin's declarations this should be: > Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine to force it to renounce the West and to remain neutral because it's located between the west and russia and because the west promised it https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-is-vladimir-putin-right-a-bf318d2c-7aeb-4b59-8d5f-1d8c94e1964d https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-e...
- astine 5y ago
  Based on Russian state propoganda and Putins own words, the motive for the invasion is Russian nationalism. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240
kkfx 5y ago
When you read about local episodes, like a single bombing event, there is not much to filter: such small scale details are unknowable by the public, you can only know a bit if you were there or have someone you trust in place. Large scale things on contrary are far easier to spot, at least at a certain scale and at a certain extent. For instance when we keep reading "the Russian bombing hospitals, theaters and schools" it's evidently propaganda not because "Russians are good" vs "Russians are bad" but because missiles&co are not that cheap nor that abundant so an error can always happen, but normally no one army in the world waste ammo for nothing and as a result if those bombing are true then means Ukrainian army choose to violate Geneva conventions recycling hospitals, theaters, schools etc for military purposes and than as a result for the other side they became legit targets. But as always people at scale do not like to reason, prefer being fed with emotions. With similar simple reasoning following the classic Latin cui prodest we can easy conclude that this war is needed by USA and UK élites against the EU, Ukraine and Russian interest. Unfortunately for those élites that move means pushing Russia toward China witch is less weak alone than Russia and far more important with Russian natural resources and a far augmented military tech transfer from Russia China will arrive in few years to have enough military capacity to counter USA and UK together. Those élites play the same game they have played with nazi Germany, counting on similar outcome, of course as back then against their own citizens interests. On the other side Russia need safety at their western borders, for them nazis are ok-ish if on their side, not ok if on NATO side, so they haven't really choice but go to war. China needs stability to keep growing, as any dictatorship that need to grow, but also to sustain it's population. There is no morale on all sides, just mix of interests, some legit some criminal, and different school of thoughts confronting.

t-3 5y ago

Man, when are these supposedly reputable publications going to get editors for their online material? (Or hire writers who know and practice basic grammar?) The total lack of any proofreading is just ridiculous.

megous 5y ago
Proper grammar and spelling in online news is a thing of the past... (or translation for that matter - if I didn't know english, I'd think kids in UKR are making mine laying drones instead of mine sweeping ones, and lot of other nonsense I don't remember anymore)

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Gollapalli 5y ago

[flagged]

oezi 5y ago
Ukraine was a threat to Russia's security in the same way a short skirt is a threat to a rapist.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  Um.. the comment is ridiculously dismissive. While I do not support Russian invasion, from a purely strategic POV, Ukraine under western control is a national security issue for Russia. I am not sure how that is a controversial statement.
  - Crusoe123 5y ago
    If not being able to set a government of a neighboring country and completely controlling it is a security issue for Russia then maybe they should be the ones to rethink their security policy and ask themselves why so many neighboring countries want to align towards the west. That is a different ballpark than being under the control of west which implies that the west has somehow taken over Ukraine. Your comment is ridiculously cynical and dehumanizing. It's disgusting to me how many people act like Ukrainian people have no agency by themselves and act like Russia was forced to do an invasion because they feel threatened by the west.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
      << Your comment is ridiculously cynical and dehumanizing. It's disgusting to me how many people act like Ukrainian people have no agency by themselves and act like Russia was forced to do an invasion because they feel threatened by the west. I disagree on several points. I do not think it is cynical at all. It is factual. It approaches reality for what it is and explains existing circumstances. Frankly, I do not think it is dehumanizing either. For better or worse, war and struggle is an integral part of human condition. If anything, what is happening makes average person realize what is real. << If not being able to set a government of a neighboring country and completely controlling it is a security issue for Russia then maybe they should be the ones to rethink their security policy. Russia's leadership did and decided that since their personal figurehead was deposed in aftermath of Maidan eventually resulting in West-oriented leader, they might as well get directly involved. You may not like their decision, but they did exactly what you suggested. << That is a different ballpark than being under the control of west which implies that the west has somehow taken over Ukraine. You are right. It is. Being under US umbrella ( or sphere of influence ) is, to me at least, better than being under Russia's. Prentending big powers don't 'influence' small players seems naive to me though. It is not being cynical. It is just recognizing pattern in human history of the past few thousand years. West did not take Ukraine. Yet. In fact, part of the reason of the war is whose sphere of influence Ukraine will belong to. << It's disgusting to me how many people act like Ukrainian people have no agency by themselves and act like Russia was forced to do an invasion because they feel threatened by the west. They absolutely do. However, right now that agency was limited to choosing who to align with. I am not sure what is disgusting about it. Can you elaborate? It is possible I am misunderstanding your argument.

eric4smith 5y ago

I’ve never thought I would be ambivalent towards a war. But here we are. Living in Asia there is definitely not the staunch apposition to the war that you might expect to see. People here don’t like it but are not lockstep on Ukraines side. And as a so called and derided “red pilled” guy I’m not going to jump to any conclusions for the next year or so. We’ve all been seen the ultimate truth and aims and outcomes of the last half dozen wars involving the USA. Once you live abroad for a significant amount of time you tend to take off the rah rah USA rose colored glasses and see the world from the point of view of other peoples. A very annoying thing about the news and SJW social media is everyone jumping on the Ukraine bandwagon with nary a thought as to why what is happening… is happening.

chinathrow 5y ago
Not sure if I should reply to you, but in this war, it's crystal clear who annexed what first and who invaded when and where.
- eric4smith 5y ago
  Any idiot knows what happened. Duh. Not many people are asking WHY its happening.
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    This is an entirely self-serving claim for which you have presented no evidence. Furthermore, it is quite possible to see that the stated reasons are nonsense without having to know precisely what the real motives are.
  - sidibe 5y ago
    Well, you don't need to ask or dig too deep. Putin doesn't believe in Ukraine's sovereignty. The annexation happened when Ukrainians decided Putin doesn't get an unofficial veto on their EU candidacy.
- yucky 5y ago
  What happened in the days prior to Russia annexing Crimea, that led up to it?

lkrubner 5y ago

In the early years, some of Putin's speeches almost seemed liberal, and yet now, looking back, it is possible to see the imperial signature in his speeches, in particular, how his logic might lead to the erasure of an entire people. He initially emphasized a kind of multiculturalism, but now it seems to be the multiculturalism of an all-conquering empire, the kind of multiculturalism we sort of saw with the Roman Empire, not a multiculturalism that respects the independence of others, but a multiculturalism that feels that all cultures are fungible enough that the army will eventually bring all of them under control. Still, it is possible that Putin really was, at one point, a bit more sympathetic to a multicultural point of view. It's possible that he's gone insane over the last 10 years. Consider how he sounded in 2012: ----------------- Putin’s final major address as prime minister to parliament in April 2012 hammered home this point – the dangers of dividing and thus destroying. It came in the form of an answer to a suggestion from a member of the Russian Duma that the preamble to the Russian constitution be changed from beginning with “We the multinational people [narod] of Russia,” to “We the [ethnic] Russian [russkiy] people and the people who have joined with it.” Putin retorted: Do you understand what we would do [if we did that]? Part of our society would consist of first class people and part would be second class. We must not do that if you and I want to have a strong single [yedinaya] nation, a single people [narod], if we want each person who lives on the territory of the country to feel that this is their homeland, and that there is no other homeland, nor can there be one. And if we want each person to feel like that, then we have to be equal. This is the principle question. The fact that the [ethnic] Russian [russkiy] people are – without a doubt – the backbone, the fundament, the cement of the multinational Russian [rossiyskiy] people cannot be questioned….But to divide everyone up into first, second, third categories, you know, this is a very dangerous path. You and I, all of us, must not do this. ------------------- See more details here: https://demodexio.substack.com/p/mr-putin-operative-in-the-kremlin-ce9?s=w https://demodexio.substack.com/p/mr-putin-operative-in-the-k...

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
The decisive point is who is in control. Putin is happy with multiculturalism of current Belarus and Chechnya, and of the Ukraine with Yanukovych.

Proven 5y ago

Tycho 5y ago

I mean, everyone knows what would happen if Mexico or Republic of Ireland announced an agreement with Russia to let them send in weapons and military personnel and set up military bases, right? I just ask that we don’t kid ourselves.

agapon 5y ago
I don't know. Tell us? Besides, how is your "thought experiment" relevant to Ukraine?
- bananabiscuit 5y ago
  I bet we’d go “liberate” them.
  - simonh 5y ago
    There's no way NATO or the US would risk direct confrontation with Russian troops. Potentially Nuclear armed Russian troops. Bear in mind Russian military doctrine places the decision on using tactical nuclear weapons with local commanders. The people you would be shooting at and bombing. In any case Russia has many bases in foreign countries, and as far as I can remember there's only ever been a risk of direct conflict over it once, with Cuba, and that was specifically over nuclear missiles, not jut having a military base.
    - fock 5y ago
      I recommend you check out info on Syria, where German-armed, NATO-integrated Turkish troops did a little special operation (and failed in a similar way against much worse equipped Kurds/Islamists) and American and Russian special forces stopped their vehicle chases short of blowing each other up. Then also, NATO already risked direct confrontation in Ukraine, sending large training units to a country at war with Russia. As we speak US AWACS is providing early warning across large swaths of western Ukraine and the Black Sea, one wonders if missile sites actually use their early warning radars in the case where they most likely have a notebook with a nice situation log besides their soviet terminals. In this situation I wonder why noone is pushing conspiracy theories around the Moskva sinking (which could still be Ukrainian luck combined with Russian ineptitude) which embed these facts. Apparently this ship was hit at the extent of the Neptunes range. Is it that much of a stretch to think that such thing might have been made much easier, when the ships SatNav was spoofed by a Globalhawk leading it towards shore, while the Ukrainians knew exactly where to look when they flared up their targeting radar?

kome 5y ago

"The pity is that emerging countries are making a grave error. As sovereign powers, they too have a stake in the war. All the West’s faults do not outweigh the fact that, in the system Mr Putin is offering, their people would suffer terribly." this works if you presume "sovereignty" is an objectively existing fact for more than like 10 countries in the world, which it isn't... Perhaps 10 is too generous. And the US contributed to weakening sovereignty all over the world. US is not the sole culprit, of course, but a big one.

fvdessen 5y ago
If by sovereign you mean 'I can do whatever I want within my own borders', then of course, very few countries can claim to it. On the other hand, a lot of countries are sovereign in the sense that the people generally are in general agreement with what's going on in their country and have a place in a negotiation room to decide their future. The reason the USA works as an empire is because it usually allows at least that much for their subjects. Russia's problem is that if their neighbours have an ounce of sovereignty they will want to distance themselves from Russia as much as possible due to their terrible behaviour, so they are forced to rule their neighbours by fear & force.
- kome 5y ago
  > Russia's problem is that if their neighbours have an ounce of sovereignty they will want to distance themselves from Russia as much as possible due to their terrible behaviour, so they are forced to rule their neighbours by fear & force. I fear the US is doing the same, but perhaps with more decorum. (edit: thinking twice, not much more decorum if we think about south america)
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Yes, like that time when the USA invaded Mexico. /s The only country that the USA invaded in Latin America was Panama and that was mostly because of the strategic interest in the Panama Canal, and they eventually pulled out when the country was on a more stable course. (That said, I don't doubt for a minute that they'd do it again if the Panama transit became threatened somehow.) The other influence the USA has had in Latin America has been either much further in the past (which doesn't excuse it) or through the support or denial of support to various governments (which also doesn't excuse it), but it is absolutely nothing compared to what the neighbors of Russia have had to endure over the last 60 years or so.

d23 5y ago

These comments are immeasurably depressing. I had no idea so many in this community were one step away from openly supporting authoritarianism and genocide.

jacquesm 5y ago
What helps: if you check the account creation dates you'll see that quite a few of these accounts have been created very recently or were created right around the invasion of Ukraine, chapter 1. The problem is real but probably not as large as you might think it is based on the comments. The more worrying thing is that lots of people have a 'somebody else's problem' approach to this, which is what got the world into World War II.
sidibe 5y ago
Just read the responses. Everyone is disagreeing with the top comments (how did they become the top comments?)
archagon 5y ago
I’ve noticed that many people in this community almost reflexively reject any mainstream narrative.

Isinlor 5y ago

(deleted - there is no delete button, only edit)

jacquesm 5y ago
You already posted this comment.