Play Nice The NM Devils Chessboard thread.

[Sopwiths North]

Ukraine was firing weapons into those two break away republics for months in violation of a ceasefire. How is that defending its sovereignty?

They are not independent republics, they are part of Ukraine. The only country that recognises them as independent republics is Russia.

The OSCE has recorded daily ceasefire violations, often in the hundreds and thousands, for 8 years now. Not "months". Violations on both sides. Because that is how you defend your sovereignty when arms and munitions are being funneled into your country to be used by a group of people who, if their only true desire was to be a part of Russia, could simply just go live in Russia. Accepting military aid from Russia to try and redraw international borders for it at gunpoint, resulting in the deaths of over 14,000 of your fellow countrymen and the displacement of 1.5 million in the process, is worthy of defending against.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

Putin didn't start the chain of circumstances that lead to this situation but everyone is acting as tho he did. He found himself in a situation where he either invades Ukraine and keeps power or doesn't and loses it. What do you think will happen in that situation?

Even if we accept that Putin only has these binary choices (I don't), who created the circumstances in Russia where that is the prevailing attitude? He has been in power for over 20 years now.

In your train of causality where all this can be blamed on the US (presumably), what is the pivotal moment that forced this situation over which Putin had no control?

 

[Sopwiths North]

When this is over, Russia will have nato on its doorstep.

Yeah, this is where it gets really interesting. He's certainly reignited NATO, in the midst of this.

My hope is that if it happens though it won't have to be for long. Like I alluded to in a previous post, I feel like this is the beginning of a shift. Our world right now is showing itself to perhaps be more united than we'd previously hoped. And the Russian people's allegiance to their leader is showing to be more and more eroded as time goes on. The world is absolutely shifting right now. It's fascinating and it gives me hope.

 

[B4Bear]

Even if we accept that Putin only has these binary choices (I don't), who created the circumstances in Russia where that is the prevailing attitude? He has been in power for over 20 years now.

In your train of causality where all this can be blamed on the US (presumably), what is the pivotal moment that forced this situation over which Putin had no control?

Where is the over-arching fault that the US is supposed to be responsible for? Because there isn’t any, just blame the imperialism of the USA and let Putin off the hook.

 

[big_e]

No. No one made him do it. If he hadn't done it he'd have failed as a Russian leader. "Ukraine" may have wanted to be in NATO (tho plenty of Ukrainians didn't) but if the bigger more powerful campaigners living next door don't want NATO on their door step they won't stand for it. That is realism. AS in what happen in reality when people with power make decisions about the world. And the whe war in SYria was all because of Assad. What country gets f’ed next to support US corporate Imperialism and keep you lot in the global one percent?

WE shouldn't do anything about any of it. Its none of "our" business. The country we Australians are subservient to spent over a decade ******* about to make this war happen. Now its happened they aren't even there fighting with the people they used to provoke Putin. They will sell more gas to Europe as a result tho. For a few years.

And all you lot are here banging away as if this is all on Putin and he's worse than Hitler.

Putin has failed in what should have been his biggest job - making Russia a better place to live.

But by playing geopolitical games, he's left his country with a smaller GDP per capita than economic powerhouses like Costa Rica.

 

[Ether]

Even if we accept that Putin only has these binary choices (I don't), who created the circumstances in Russia where that is the prevailing attitude? He has been in power for over 20 years now.

In your train of causality where all this can be blamed on the US (presumably), what is the pivotal moment that forced this situation over which Putin had no control?

I'm not really a student of this but it seems to me that the west has applied the political (and economic) squeeze on Russia for decades and that Ukraine is their line in the sand. From our perspective NATO membership may just be a benign security blanket for member states but from Russia's view it is a hostile organisation. That pre-dates Putin and I don't see how you can slate that home to him. I don't expect another Russian leader would accept it either. You're suggesting that Russia should have done something to avert this. They did in 2014 by offering Ukraine a generous financial deal to keep them in Russia's orbit, as well as their military action in the east*. I assume that they kept applying political and and economic pressure behind the scenes, which would have been countered by the west, and that it has come to this. This doesn't absolve anyone of blame. I don't think anyone's hands are clean.

* I didn't follow the annexation of Crimea in 2014 closely. I know that Russia had a military base in Crimea on a long term lease and what was initially reported as them bringing troops in was actually activity in their own area. Also Crimea did vote to secede from Ukraine in a referendum. I'm sure there's a lot more to it but it was portrayed purely as an invasion in a lot of media at the time.

 

[ferball]

If that is the ultimate domestic political test Putin is facing, then its only because he has consistently failed to improve the prosperity of everyday Russians and reduce corruption and he has nothing left but foreign policy adventurism to plant his flag on.

You're joking right. Russia was a basket case before he took power. It was economically ****ed. The is no reasonable measure that shows everyday Russians are worse off than they were when he got elected the first time.

Let's cut to the chase. These quotation marks suggest that you believe Ukraine is an illegitimate state and that it has no right to exist.
I hope that's not the case, even though I can't for the life of me work out what else you could possibly mean by it.
Because that's an astonishingly redpilled, nihilistic position to hold.

No the quotation marks are there because saying "Ukraine wants to join NATO" is not an accurate statement. The country is divided on the issue and the division is almost perfectly geographical. Maybe I should have said wtte of Ukraine, well a large proportion of it, instead.

All states are illegitimate by definition obviously, but that's another issue not specific to Ukraine.

 

[ferball]

They are not independent republics, they are part of Ukraine. The only country that recognises them as independent republics is Russia.

The OSCE has recorded daily ceasefire violations, often in the hundreds and thousands, for 8 years now. Not "months". Violations on both sides. Because that is how you defend your sovereignty when arms and munitions are being funneled into your country to be used by a group of people who, if their only true desire was to be a part of Russia, could simply just go live in Russia. Accepting military aid from Russia to try and redraw international borders for it at gunpoint, resulting in the deaths of over 14,000 of your fellow countrymen and the displacement of 1.5 million in the process, is worthy of defending against.

SInce they "left" the Ukraione the percentage of people who support Ukraine's entry to Nato went under 40% to around 50%.

So what you're actually saying is that if those people in the breakaway regions didn't want to be part of NATO or join the EU they should go live in Russia?

That's essentially what they did.

 

[B4Bear]

SInce they "left" the Ukraione the percentage of people who support Ukraine's entry to Nato went under 40% to around 50%.

So what you're actually saying is that if those people in the breakaway regions didn't want to be part of NATO or join the EU they should go live in Russia?

That's essentially what they did.

So you support the breakup of nation states at the behest of a small part of the population. Western Australia endorses your view.

 

[ferball]

Even if we accept that Putin only has these binary choices (I don't), who created the circumstances in Russia where that is the prevailing attitude? He has been in power for over 20 years now.

My understanding of Russia is that its always favoured strong leaders. If he doesn't maintain his strong leadership then he will probably have problems.

You obviously think Putin has some choice. Do you think ordinary Russians would feel happy that NATO has bases on its borders and the ability to deploy missiles that can strike Moscow potentially within 15 minutes? Destroying their anti missile capability even faster than that? Do you think they'd be happy with their leaders if they allowed this to happen (and if you do, why do you think that?)

In your train of causality where all this can be blamed on the US (presumably), what is the pivotal moment that forced this situation over which Putin had no control?

What sort of thing is a train of causality? Causality doesn't happen in straight lines. Its a network. Why should one event be the hinge event. And how would I know it anyway? It might have been years ago, but on 30 November last year Putin asked for legal guarantees from NATO and the US that they wouldn't put long range weapons in Ukraine targeting Russia.

On Invasion Day (for Australia) this year the US responded by saying they had no plans to do it, weren't targeting Russians but then refused to offer legal guarantees that they wouldn't. So basically they did nothing to assuage his concerns about missiles on his border. It was pretty soon after that the latest escalation began and here we are.

 

[Tectonic]

Russian Anarchists on the Invasion of Ukraine

Statements from Russian anarchists analyzing the situation in Russia and how the invasion of Ukraine might shift it.

crimethinc.com

 

[ferball]

So you support the breakup of nation states at the behest of a small part of the population. Western Australia endorses your view.

So you abuse posters then put the worst spin on every thing they post when you don't agree with them? Vladamir Putin endorses your view.

 

[the big lebowski]

lol I thought this thread was about chess until just now

 

[B4Bear]

So you abuse posters then put the worst spin on every thing they post when you don't agree with them? Vladamir Putin endorses your view.

Worst spin? A city of three million people is under attack and I am putting the worst spin on things?

Spare me the moral outrage.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

My understanding of Russia is that its always favoured strong leaders. If he doesn't maintain his strong leadership then he will probably have problems.

You obviously think Putin has some choice. Do you think ordinary Russians would feel happy that NATO has bases on its borders and the ability to deploy missiles that can strike Moscow potentially within 15 minutes? Destroying their anti missile capability even faster than that? Do you think they'd be happy with their leaders if they allowed this to happen (and if you do, why do you think that?)



What sort of thing is a train of causality? Causality doesn't happen in straight lines. Its a network. Why should one event be the hinge event. And how would I know it anyway? It might have been years ago, but on 30 November last year Putin asked for legal guarantees from NATO and the US that they wouldn't put long range weapons in Ukraine targeting Russia.

On Invasion Day (for Australia) this year the US responded by saying they had no plans to do it, weren't targeting Russians but then refused to offer legal guarantees that they wouldn't. So basically they did nothing to assuage his concerns about missiles on his border. It was pretty soon after that the latest escalation began and here we are.

My understanding is that on 26 January Blinken's formal response was rejecting Russia's request that Ukraine be formally barred from ever joining NATO. Maybe the document also answered questions about missiles, I don't know as it was never released publicly. It was hardly a surprise, Jens Stoltenberg had said months earlier that Ukrainian membership of NATO was a matter for Ukraine and NATO, and would not be decided by Russian influence.

It seems to me all this realpolitik thinking can easily be flipped the other way. Putin knows full well that NATO will never accede to his demands in formal language that rules out Ukraine ever becoming a member of NATO. As Putin's motives are entirely unclear at the moment, despite a lot of speculation, perhaps the whole NATO gambit, the outcome of which is entirely predictable to Putin, is being used as nothing more than an excuse for invasion with an aim to re-establish the 19th century Russian Empire and fulfill grand dreams of Putin.

At the end of the day, it is the wishes of the Ukrainian people that should be respected. If they desire further integration with Western Europe and are not happy remaining within the Russian orbit Ether mentioned that should be up to them. Of course there will be different views within Ukraine and the Russians may have legitimate concerns. These would be best resolved diplomatically.

The whole thing stinks of "Russia is a bad neighbour so Ukraine should just mollify them".

As for Russia always favouring strong leaders, that is not an excuse. I wonder how many ordinary Russians really prefer "strong leaders" to the point where they prefer a dictator to democratic processes?

 

[Makeshift Park]

You're joking right. Russia was a basket case before he took power. It was economically f’ed. The is no reasonable measure that shows everyday Russians are worse off than they were when he got elected the first time.

He has repeatedly campaigned on introducing a high tech, knowledge-based economy. He failed to deliver. Today the overall contribution of raw materials to Russia's economy is proportionally higher than when he was first elected.
Capital flight is at record highs. On that metric, middle class Russians are getting out faster than they ever have before.

No the quotation marks are there because saying "Ukraine wants to join NATO" is not an accurate statement. The country is divided on the issue and the division is almost perfectly geographical. Maybe I should have said wtte of Ukraine, well a large proportion of it, instead.

For the past three years, polls have consistently shown a majority of Ukrainians from a majority of its regions have supported joining NATO.
There's probably more Ukrainian support for joining NATO than there is suppott by Australians for electing either the Liberal OR the Labor party at the moment. Don't muddy the waters on this.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

Do you think ordinary Russians would feel happy that NATO has bases on its borders and the ability to deploy missiles that can strike Moscow potentially within 15 minutes? Destroying their anti missile capability even faster than that? Do you think they'd be happy with their leaders if they allowed this to happen (and if you do, why do you think that?)

Oops, I didn't actually answer this question. I don't know, in short.

Happy with missiles on their border? Probably not "happy" per se. Would they care? Probably not. There are certainly a proportion that are willing to protest against the invasion of Ukraine, despite the obvious consequences.

Happy with a leader who allowed this to happen? Again I doubt they'd be happy, but I doubt they'd care. I think the question is largely irrelevant as ordinary Russians have very little say in the leadership of their nation.

 

[ferball]

My understanding is that on 26 January Blinken's formal response was rejecting Russia's request that Ukraine be formally barred from ever joining NATO. Maybe the document also answered questions about missiles, I don't know as it was never released publicly. It was hardly a surprise, Jens Stoltenberg had said months earlier that Ukrainian membership of NATO was a matter for Ukraine and NATO, and would not be decided by Russian influence.

It seems to me all this realpolitik thinking can easily be flipped the other way. Putin knows full well that NATO will never accede to his demands in formal language that rules out Ukraine ever becoming a member of NATO. As Putin's motives are entirely unclear at the moment, despite a lot of speculation, perhaps the whole NATO gambit, the outcome of which is entirely predictable to Putin, is being used as nothing more than an excuse for invasion with an aim to re-establish the 19th century Russian Empire and fulfill grand dreams of Putin.

At the end of the day, it is the wishes of the Ukrainian people that should be respected. If they desire further integration and are not happy remaining within the Russian orbit Ether mentioned that should be up to them. Of course there will be different views within Ukraine and the Russians may have legitimate concerns. These would be best resolved diplomatically.

The whole thing stinks of "Russia is a bad neighbour so Ukraine should just mollify them".

As for Russia always favouring strong leaders, that is not an excuse. I wonder how many ordinary Russians really prefer "strong leaders" to the point where they prefer a dictator to democratic processes?

“In a dialogue with the United States and its allies, we will insist on working out specific agreements that would exclude any further NATO moves eastward and the deployment of weapons systems that threaten us in close vicinity to Russian territory,” Putin said.

He's clearly spelling out their concern. The US provides nuclear weapons for deployment in certain NATO countries. What's to stop them deploying nuclear weapons to Ukraine three weeks after they give Ukraine NATO membership?

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

“In a dialogue with the United States and its allies, we will insist on working out specific agreements that would exclude any further NATO moves eastward and the deployment of weapons systems that threaten us in close vicinity to Russian territory,” Putin said.

He's clearly spelling out their concern. The US provides nuclear weapons for deployment in certain NATO countries. What's to stop them deploying nuclear weapons to Ukraine three weeks after they give Ukraine NATO membership?

Right, but this was following the troop buildup on the Ukrainian border. Sounds like gunboat diplomacy to me.

 

[ferball]

He has repeatedly campaigned on introducing a high tech, knowledge-based economy. He failed to deliver. Today the overall contribution of raw materials to Russia's economy is proportionally higher than when he was first elected.
Capital flight is at record highs. On that metric, middle class Russians are getting out faster than they ever have before.

Until the annexation of the Crimea he was actually delivering on that.

And even now Russia is much better positioned than it was when he took power. There were **** all middle class Russians capable of deserting the joint back then.

For the past three years, polls have consistently shown a majority of Ukrainians from a majority of its regions have supported joining NATO.
There's probably more Ukrainian support for joining NATO than there is suppott by Australians for electing either the Liberal OR the Labor party at the moment. Don't muddy the waters on this.

Until 2014 70% plus of people were opposed to joining NATO.

Do your figures include people in Donbass? Are they Ukrainian or not?

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

I mean think about what your saying Ferball.

After amassing his troops on the Ukrainian border, Putin announces that he is going to make agreements with the NATO powers to ensure that Ukraine never joins NATO and missiles will not be stationed on Ukrainian soil.

About six weeks later the US responds that they are not prepared to permanently rule out Ukraine joining NATO.

Four weeks later Russia invades Ukraine.

It hardly seems like good faith negotiation. Is Ukraine a member of NATO? Are there missiles on Ukrainian soil?

How often are international negotiations resolved less than three months?

A cynic might say it was all just a pretext to invade Ukraine.

 

[big_e]

 

[Sopwiths North]

SInce they "left" the Ukraione the percentage of people who support Ukraine's entry to Nato went under 40% to around 50%.

So what you're actually saying is that if those people in the breakaway regions didn't want to be part of NATO or join the EU they should go live in Russia?

That's essentially what they did.

I haven't ever seen any polls re joining NATO, but the ones I've seen over the years about joining the EU run between 52-64% in favour, depending on the year and source.

And yes, if you are unhappy with how things are being done in your country, and you feel the need to take up arms about it instead of going through a democratic process to voice your concerns, then you should probably go live somewhere else. Or stay, and be prepared for the consequences.

I believe about 75,000 people did leave and go back to Russia at the outset. Many thousands of Russian passports were also handed out to Donbas fighters, as part of Putin's "Novorussiya" ("New Russia") bid.

There's also the matter of Russian "volunteers", estimated to be several thousand, who infiltrated and fought in the Donbas.

Not to mention the demographic of just oft-drunken louts and idiots who simply want an excuse to fire some heavy weapons at stuff. Which is also how passenger jets get shot down.

The demographics and motivations for fighting is challenging to parse, to say the least, and that's also reflected by the high level of infighting and violence between the rebel factions themselves over the years.

 

[Makeshift Park]

Until 2014 70% plus of people were opposed to joining NATO.

Yes, and a shitload of Ukrainians changed their mind in the successive five years.

Do your figures include people in Donbass? Are they Ukrainian or not?

Yeah, Of course. A quick google informs me that the population of Luhansk and Donetsk is like 3.5m, well less than 10% of the overall population.

 

[ferball]

Right, but this was following the troop buildup on the Ukrainian border. Sounds like gunboat diplomacy to me.

Ukraine and NATO have been involved in a relationship since at least 2008.

And at what point does the potential threat of putting nuclear missiles next door start to equal gunboat diplomacy itself?

Russia was part of the USSR, which was in a cold war and nuclear stand off with NATO, then the USSR collapsed. Since then NATO countries haven't really supported Russia in building a free open society but they happily supported the people who looted it. And now NATO may have nukes on the Russian border.

And you're surprised they don't behave nicely? And are offended when they take military steps to maintain what they see as their existential security?

What else did you (or anyone else) expect would happen?