[RD] Russia Invades Ukraine: Eight

[Lexicus]

Oh, sure, Russia and its supporters never cared about the welfare of the people of the Donbas. That's obvious. Otherwise they wouldn't be seen here cheering for the slaughter of its inhabitants and the destruction of its cities.

But even from a realpolitk point of view, I don't think Russia cares about those yet unconquered territories, whether for territorial aggrandizement or power projection. They already got what mattered the most, the outskirts of Donetsk and a landbridge to Crimea. By this point, I'm not sure what's the point of pushing further into the Donbas, filled with ruined cities, or conquering the city of Kherson, which is almost undefendable.

But as Gedemon said, territory is not enough. Right from the start, Russia had a long list of demands for Ukraine (and for NATO too). Some people strangely saw them as restrained. But they were extreme (regime change, demilitarization, federalization with pro-Russia Trojan horses in the Donbas, tacit recognition of territorial loss in Crimea). They aimed to reduce Ukraine into a puppet state, or at least to make it a dysfunctional state with no mean to resist future Russian attacks.

No leader would accept such egregious demands. And it's strange that some people fail to understand that, like Kyriakos, despite being strangely preoccupied with Zelensky's historical legacy. Why would Zelensky accept such demands? At best he would be considered a Emil Hácha, a powerless leader who gave his country away. At worst, he would be considered a Quisling, an active traitor and collaborationist. Since its invasion of Crimea, Russia chose the path of conflict and war. Since WW2, almost no country has signed a treaty to recognize the loss of its own territories (outside of colonies). This made any peaceful resolution unlikely.

I mean, Ukraine might have accepted such demands if Russia had the means to its ambitions. But they invaded with an insufficient force. That was a terrible strategic blunder that led to this 3-year long quagmire. So as a coping mechanism, Russian propaganda (and the people who regurgitate it here) have to pretend that this resulting war of attrition was Putin's master stroke to slowly and methodically annihilate NATO.

The leadership of Ukraine is probably sane enough to not be hoping for a complete strategic defeat of Russia. Most likely, they're trying to get peace that's slightly less terrible than what has been offered so far. And it's unclear if there has been any true peace proposal from Russia, or just the setup for future wars and the dismemberment of Ukraine.

My point is even broader: Russian commentators don't seem to care at all that some thousands of their own young men are being chopped into dogmeat for basically no reason. It's a strange mindset, at least to this coddled citizen of the decadent west.

 

[ConquestsMaster]

My point is even broader: Russian commentators don't seem to care at all that some thousands of their own young men are being chopped into dogmeat for basically no reason. It's a strange mindset, at least to this coddled citizen of the decadent west.

For sure, it's hard to understand from the outside. But you live in a place where you could go outside and protest against a war your country is waging (well for now at least, and I mean to a greater degree than you could in Russia let's say). And you could denounce the needless casualties of that war in the public sphere.

But in a place where that's not possible, it makes sense that the majority turns to self-preservation. And the way to survive, either psychologically or materially, is to turn to apathy and nihilism, or, even worse, to became a supporter of the horrors that you should oppose.

But yeah, what's the most interesting about (pro-)Russian commentators is that they seem to care a lot more about Ukrainians suffering and dying than they do about the thousands of Russian men getting blow up into pieces and suffering the most horrible deaths. They implore Ukrainians to surrender to stop suffering (while ignoring who's responsible for that suffering). It's cheap concern trolling as usual, but some posters don't even seem to realize they engage in it.

 

[Sarin]

For sure, it's hard to understand from the outside. But you live in a place where you could go outside and protest against a war your country is waging (well for now at least, and I mean to a greater degree than you could in Russia let's say). And you could denounce the needless casualties of that war in the public sphere.

But in a place where that's not possible, it makes sense that the majority turns to self-preservation. And the way to survive, either psychologically or materially, is to turn to apathy and nihilism, or, even worse, to became a supporter of the horrors that you should oppose.

But yeah, what's the most interesting about (pro-)Russian commentators is that they seem to care a lot more about Ukrainians suffering and dying than they do about the thousands of Russian men getting blow up into pieces and suffering the most horrible deaths. They implore Ukrainians to surrender to stop suffering (while ignoring who's responsible for that suffering). It's cheap concern trolling as usual, but some posters don't even seem to realize they engage in it.

That's Russian way. Life is cheap in Russia, and they consider that a strength. And the concern about casualties is considered a weakness to be exploited.
Same with democracy or pretty much all human rights.

 

[Kyriakos]

That's Russian way. Life is cheap in Russia, and they consider that a strength. And the concern about casualties is considered a weakness to be exploited.
Same with democracy or pretty much all human rights.

This is true - relative to most other european countries. And yet somehow it wasn't taken into account, when we were told that sanctions would force an end to the war.
Can't claim that it was unknown, which implies that the sanctions happened for a different reason (which culminated with the destruction of Nordstream2).
To use extremes (only applicable with hyperbole in this case), not even a bad politician would be unaware that Sybarite isn't the same as Sparta.

It's not enough for Russia, that's not the root cause of the war according to the Kremlin, never was, and giving them now or in 2022 would not stop the war, as only Russia has the power to do that (as for cease-fire)

Depends on what you imply they have as a current war goal. If you mean that they still are trying to annex all of Ukraine (in this war), there isn't any logic in that (and being destructive isn't in tautology with having no logic). If you only mean Ukraine staying out of Nato, US (both Biden and of course Trump) already said it won't be in Nato.

 

[ConquestsMaster]

Depends on what you imply they have as a current war goal. If you mean that they still are trying to annex all of Ukraine (in this war), there isn't any logic in that (and being destructive isn't in tautology with having no logic). If you only mean Ukraine staying out of Nato, US (both Biden and of course Trump) already said it won't be in Nato.

Nowhere did he imply that Russia wanted to annex all of Ukraine, so I don't know why you suggest that. I'm not aware of any serious pro-Russian or pro-Ukrainian sources saying that Russia wanted full annexation, but maybe it was written in some tabloids.

Russia has been somewhat consistent in its long list of demands, it's just that many items are somewhat vague and up to interpretation (so are the frontiers of the new Russia). The issue is not just NATO. Russia wants to make sure that Ukraine cannot obtain security guarantees from any other countries whatsoever. They want regime change and the demilitarization of Ukraine, so it doesn't have the tools to assert its sovereignty or to defend itself. But obviously, as in any war, Russia might settle for less after wasting massive amounts of lives and resources.

If anyone is wondering, you can go straight to the website of Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. Lavrov just did an interview with a Brazilian newspaper outlining Russia's war goals:

https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/news/2011929/

What conditions would Russia need to meet today in order to sit down at the negotiating table with Ukraine?

I have already partially answered this question. It was Kiev that withdrew from the negotiation process in April 2022. And it did so at the request of its Western guardians. Then, in September of the same year, Volodymyr Zelensky introduced a legislative ban on negotiations with Russia. It is still in force. In order to resume them, it will be necessary to cancel them. In a recent interview with CBS News, Volodymyr Zelensky once again spoke out against negotiations with our country. Let me quote his words: "We cannot trust Russia. We cannot trust negotiations with Russia."

Our position on the agreement is well known. We proceed from the fact that Kiev’s non-membership in NATO and confirmation of its neutral and non-aligned status in accordance with the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine is one of the two pillars for a final settlement of the Ukrainian crisis that meets Russia’s security interests. The second is overcoming the consequences of the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev, formed as a result of the February 2014 coup, including its actions to exterminate everything Russian—language, media, culture, traditions, and canonical Orthodoxy—legislatively and physically.

International recognition of Russia’s ownership of Crimea, Sevastopol, Donetsk People’s Republic, Lugansk People’s Republic, Kherson region, and Zaporizhia is imperative.

All of Kiev’s commitments must be legally guaranteed, have enforcement mechanisms, and be permanent.

The agenda includes the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine, the lifting of sanctions, lawsuits and arrest warrants, and the return of Russian assets “frozen” in the West.

We will also seek reliable guarantees of the security of the Russian Federation against the threats posed by the hostile activities of NATO, the European Union and their individual member states on our western borders.

 

[Snowygerry]

That’s a comprehensive list, thanks for that.
Also means that Trump can shelve his ambition to negotiate a surrender because some items are simply beyond his control.

 

[Gedemon]

Nowhere did he imply that Russia wanted to annex all of Ukraine, so I don't know why you suggest that. I'm not aware of any serious pro-Russian or pro-Ukrainian sources saying that Russia wanted full annexation, but maybe it was written in some tabloids.

Russia has been somewhat consistent in its long list of demands, it's just that many items are somewhat vague and up to interpretation (so are the frontiers of the new Russia). The issue is not just NATO. Russia wants to make sure that Ukraine cannot obtain security guarantees from any other countries whatsoever. They want regime change and the demilitarization of Ukraine, so it doesn't have the tools to assert its sovereignty or to defend itself. But obviously, as in any war, Russia might settle for less after wasting massive amounts of lives and resources.

If anyone is wondering, you can go straight to the website of Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. Lavrov just did an interview with a Brazilian newspaper outlining Russia's war goals:

https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/news/2011929/

thanks, I had already posted that list at least twice in this thread, and it's a good example of a working Russian propaganda targeting western media who parrot "Ukraine could stop the war just by giving up some territories" being opposed to the official Russian position.

 

[Sarin]

This is true - relative to most other european countries. And yet somehow it wasn't taken into account, when we were told that sanctions would force an end to the war.
Can't claim that it was unknown, which implies that the sanctions happened for a different reason (which culminated with the destruction of Nordstream2).
To use extremes (only applicable with hyperbole in this case), not even a bad politician would be unaware that Sybarite isn't the same as Sparta.


Depends on what you imply they have as a current war goal. If you mean that they still are trying to annex all of Ukraine (in this war), there isn't any logic in that (and being destructive isn't in tautology with having no logic). If you only mean Ukraine staying out of Nato, US (both Biden and of course Trump) already said it won't be in Nato.

Those countries that were in the Eastern Bloc knew that it won't be enough. So we're doing all we can. But the countries on he other side of iron curtain fell victim to the same fallacy that US did toward China. That if they establish trade ties and give them recognition, those countries will drift toward western style liberalization and thus could be brought to heel by the same methods that would work in the west. All I can say is....fool me once, you know how it goes. We've been right about Russia. And look where we are now.

The goal never changed. It is to bring Ukraine into the Russian dominion, either as vassal like Belarus or as direct annexation, or combination of both. I wrote that here many times. The war can end only in two ways-either by Russia succeeding in this, or by destroying Russia's capacity to continue the war. Anything inbetween is only a temporary pause.

 

[red_elk]

My point is even broader: Russian commentators don't seem to care at all that some thousands of their own young men

How do you believe they suppose to express their care here? Where news about Russian casualties routinely cause "lols" and celebrations?
This is the echo-chamber supporting their enemies.

 

[Sarin]

How do you believe they suppose to express their care here? Where news about Russian casualties routinely cause "lols" and celebrations?
This is the echo-chamber supporting their enemies.

You know it wasn't about you specifically? You're small fry. We're talking about the stuff that goes on in mainstream Russian media, from the various main Telegram channels to the state TV creatures like Solovyov, politicians like Medvedev, even what Liarov keeps repeating in UN.....

 

[Angst]

How do you believe they suppose to express their care here? Where news about Russian casualties routinely cause "lols" and celebrations?
This is the echo-chamber supporting their enemies.

if you find alienation here, it's not restricted to russians. sympathizers also routinely feel unwelcome. i've seen plenty of russians peacefully and cordially participate, however they will of course have to participate in reality, that

a) they're an invasion force
b) they're doing something evil
c) they're bad at it

anyone will get sympathy if they'll agree to those three, but the constant whataboutism and glorification will just have people look for the tiniest of violins. sorry.

 

[red_elk]

if you find alienation here, it's not restricted to russians. sympathizers also routinely feel unwelcome. i've seen plenty of russians peacefully and cordially participate, however they will of course have to participate in reality, that

a) they're an invasion force
b) they're doing something evil
c) they're bad at it

anyone will get sympathy if they'll agree to those three, but the constant whataboutism and glorification will just have people look for the tiniest of violins. sorry.

This doesn't address my post. I wasn't asking how to get sympathy.

 

[Ordnael]

How do you believe they suppose to express their care here? Where news about Russian casualties routinely cause "lols" and celebrations?
This is the echo-chamber supporting their enemies.

I celebrate Russian's military equipment turning to scrap metal; refineries getting DOS attacks; ammo depots going KABOOM; and air bases whose bomber's usual sorties are the relentless bombing of what Russia designates as military targets in Ukraine, AKA children's hospitals and other civilian infrastructure, being rendered unable to serve such noble pursuits for some time!
I never relish on the death on people, even if their orders are to rain down death on civilians!
...
Moderator Action: Please do not post about other forum members.

 

[Gedemon]

How do you believe they suppose to express their care here?

by calling them home ?

 

[Gedemon]

About Finlandization...

Finnish Leader Warns Russia: ‘You Don’t Play With President Trump’

President Alexander Stubb of Finland, who has become an interlocutor in peace talks, says in an interview he doesn’t want Ukraine to suffer the same fate his country once endured.

www.nytimes.com

Mr. Stubb’s country understands the peril of peace negotiations for Ukraine perhaps better than any other. After wars with the Soviet Union in the 1940s, Finland gave up land to Moscow, agreed to neutrality and accepted limits on its military, remaining under the Kremlin’s thumb to some degree for decades.

Mr. Stubb doesn’t want Ukraine to suffer the same fate.

[...]

“Everyone has to understand that the only thing that Putin understands is power,” Mr. Stubb said. “I mean, there’s a reason why Finland has one of the strongest militaries in Europe, and the reason is not Sweden.”

Russia shares an 835-mile border with Finland, and by Mr. Stubb’s count, has fought 30 wars or skirmishes against the Finns since the 1300s. An ancestor of his coauthored Finland’s declaration of independence in 1917, after a century of Finland’s being part of the Russian Empire, which followed several centuries of rule by Sweden.

Mr. Stubb, who took office last year and previously served as prime minister, warned that Mr. Putin would do the opposite of what he says.

“That is in the soul and spirit of Russian international relations,” he said.

[...]

For the next 47 years [after WWII], until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Finland retained its independence and capitalist system but remained restricted by Moscow on foreign and defense policy. Finnish news media largely refrained from criticizing the Soviet Union. The country couldn’t join NATO or develop a submarine fleet.

Finland’s situation gave rise to an uneasy existence of deference to a nearby superpower in foreign affairs, an arrangement political scientists labeled “Finlandization.”

Though it restricted Finland’s autonomy and ties to the West, “Finlandization” proved better than the postwar fate of the nearby Baltic nations, which Moscow integrated into the Soviet Union, or the Warsaw Pact countries, which were left with Communist systems that answered to the Kremlin.

“It’s an uncomfortable place to be in, but it was a successful strategy in all of its discomfort,” Mr. Stubb said.

Even so, he is determined not to let Ukraine be forced into a similar role.

“I would never bestow upon another state the predicament of a larger player determining some of the key elements of who you are as a country,” he said, calling on Europeans and Americans to “help out the Ukrainians to lose as little in this war as possible.”

[...]

U.S. negotiators have presented their proposed outline of a peace deal, which includes U.S. recognition of Crimea as Russian territory, he said, and Ukraine and the Europeans responded with a counterproposal, which Moscow rejected.

“What I suggest now is that we need to repackage these two proposals into something which gives the opportunity to strike a deal right now,” Mr. Stubb said.

Statehood consists of land, sovereignty and independence, he said, and Finland lost two of the three in the 1940s. He said he wanted Ukraine to keep all three, but accepted that it might have to make compromises on territory, reflecting battlefield realities.

“If we get at least two out of the three for Ukraine, I think it’s great,” he said. “But Finland will never, ever recognize any of the areas that Russia has annexed during this war from Ukraine.”

He said he believed that “a little bit of creative writing” could be drafted to stop the killing in Ukraine, even reflecting differences such as the U.S. willingness to recognize Crimea as Russian and the European refusal to do so in separate annexes. At some point, he added, Ukraine and Russia will need to negotiate directly.

“Right now, politically, the key is to maximize the pressure on Putin,” he said.

[...]

Mr. Stubb understands that for his nation of 5.6 million people, outnumbered by Russia by more than 25 to 1, foreign policy isn’t a game.

“For a small country like Finland, living next to a bigger place like Russia, quite often it’s about survival,” he said. “So, for us, foreign policy is real. It’s existential.”

 

[ConquestsMaster]

People have always resorted to humor in the face of tragedy.

 

[Kyriakos]

About Finlandization...

Finnish Leader Warns Russia: ‘You Don’t Play With President Trump’

President Alexander Stubb of Finland, who has become an interlocutor in peace talks, says in an interview he doesn’t want Ukraine to suffer the same fate his country once endured.

www.nytimes.com

Mr. Stubb’s country understands the peril of peace negotiations for Ukraine perhaps better than any other. After wars with the Soviet Union in the 1940s, Finland gave up land to Moscow, agreed to neutrality and accepted limits on its military, remaining under the Kremlin’s thumb to some degree for decades.

Mr. Stubb doesn’t want Ukraine to suffer the same fate.

[...]

“Everyone has to understand that the only thing that Putin understands is power,” Mr. Stubb said. “I mean, there’s a reason why Finland has one of the strongest militaries in Europe, and the reason is not Sweden.”

Russia shares an 835-mile border with Finland, and by Mr. Stubb’s count, has fought 30 wars or skirmishes against the Finns since the 1300s. An ancestor of his coauthored Finland’s declaration of independence in 1917, after a century of Finland’s being part of the Russian Empire, which followed several centuries of rule by Sweden.

Mr. Stubb, who took office last year and previously served as prime minister, warned that Mr. Putin would do the opposite of what he says.

“That is in the soul and spirit of Russian international relations,” he said.

[...]

For the next 47 years [after WWII], until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Finland retained its independence and capitalist system but remained restricted by Moscow on foreign and defense policy. Finnish news media largely refrained from criticizing the Soviet Union. The country couldn’t join NATO or develop a submarine fleet.

Finland’s situation gave rise to an uneasy existence of deference to a nearby superpower in foreign affairs, an arrangement political scientists labeled “Finlandization.”

Though it restricted Finland’s autonomy and ties to the West, “Finlandization” proved better than the postwar fate of the nearby Baltic nations, which Moscow integrated into the Soviet Union, or the Warsaw Pact countries, which were left with Communist systems that answered to the Kremlin.

“It’s an uncomfortable place to be in, but it was a successful strategy in all of its discomfort,” Mr. Stubb said.

Even so, he is determined not to let Ukraine be forced into a similar role.

“I would never bestow upon another state the predicament of a larger player determining some of the key elements of who you are as a country,” he said, calling on Europeans and Americans to “help out the Ukrainians to lose as little in this war as possible.”

[...]

U.S. negotiators have presented their proposed outline of a peace deal, which includes U.S. recognition of Crimea as Russian territory, he said, and Ukraine and the Europeans responded with a counterproposal, which Moscow rejected.

“What I suggest now is that we need to repackage these two proposals into something which gives the opportunity to strike a deal right now,” Mr. Stubb said.

Statehood consists of land, sovereignty and independence, he said, and Finland lost two of the three in the 1940s. He said he wanted Ukraine to keep all three, but accepted that it might have to make compromises on territory, reflecting battlefield realities.

“If we get at least two out of the three for Ukraine, I think it’s great,” he said. “But Finland will never, ever recognize any of the areas that Russia has annexed during this war from Ukraine.”

He said he believed that “a little bit of creative writing” could be drafted to stop the killing in Ukraine, even reflecting differences such as the U.S. willingness to recognize Crimea as Russian and the European refusal to do so in separate annexes. At some point, he added, Ukraine and Russia will need to negotiate directly.

“Right now, politically, the key is to maximize the pressure on Putin,” he said.

[...]

Mr. Stubb understands that for his nation of 5.6 million people, outnumbered by Russia by more than 25 to 1, foreign policy isn’t a game.

“For a small country like Finland, living next to a bigger place like Russia, quite often it’s about survival,” he said. “So, for us, foreign policy is real. It’s existential.”

The statement "Finland has one of the strongest militaries in Europe" is only true because very few european countries have anything deserving to be called even a risk-military.
Here is one list of top militaries in Europe (strangely without Russia) : https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing-europe.php (Finland is #14; virtually tied with Romania)
A number of Eu countries don't even have a military that can rival... Albania.
As for the reference to Trump, really, doesn't that sound a bit laughable? (likely he doesn't even know where Finland is, nor would he care- this comes across as a prime example of what in English is falsely called 'sycophantic').

 

[Gedemon]

Trump and Stubb seem to have quite good relations, I didn't quote those parts from the article as they are irrelevant to the topic, but it's something easy to find.

 

[Verbose]

The statement "Finland has one of the strongest militaries in Europe" is only true because very few european countries have anything deserving to be called even a risk-military.
Here is one list of top militaries in Europe (strangely without Russia) : https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing-europe.php (Finland is #14; virtually tied with Romania)
A number of Eu countries don't even have a military that can rival... Albania.
As for the reference to Trump, really, doesn't that sound a bit laughable? (likely he doesn't even know where Finland is, nor would he care- this comes across as a prime example of what in English is falsely called 'sycophantic').

Global Firepower is a procrustian bed of ill-defined categories that struggles to understand what is actually being looked at. The less a military resembles the US, the worse it gets. It's pretty comprehensively crap.

 

[Verbose]

Trump and Stubb seem to have quite good relations, I didn't quote those parts from the article as they are irrelevant to the topic, but it's something easy to find.

Stubb plays a mean game of golf. When he's not running marathons (PB 3:08:13 in Frankfurt in 2015).