Arming the Ukrainians

[Outrider]

The more weapons we give Ukrainians, the more they become targets, which is why I'm agitating to stop arming them.

The more Russia keeps sending troops and weapons into a foreign country, the more people are going to die. You keep forgetting to mention that bit. Ukrainians will die if we don't send them weapons, they don't want to be Russians, and they will continue to resist Russian invasion, just less effectively.

They are slowing the Russians down, but not stopping them.

The front-lines have been relatively static for about six months now - seems fairly 'stopped' to me.

Once Russia has taken the historically Russian, and strategically important, territory, I imagine it will go defensive (not push on into the rest of Ukraine or Europe) and focus on destroying any military hardware entering the country.

Whether or not Russian state propoganda has picked a particular time period when Ukraine was under Russian influence to glom onto is irrelevant. Right now Ukraine is an independent state, and Russia has invaded it now, not 'historically'. Previous affiliations are not a justification for an invasion.

When it clicks in the West that Russia isn't steamrolling Europe, the West will agree to Ukrainian neutrality.

If Russia takes Ukraine, that battle is lost and the West will no longer have anyone to supply arms to openly - Russia destroying Ukrainian capabilities to defend itself and installing a puppet regime isn't 'Ukrainian neutrality' it's an occupation with a thin veneer of dried shit spread over the top to try to camouflage it.

As to the implication that Russia will stop there, that's what was said after Georgia. And Moldova. And Chechnya. And Chechnya the other time. And... Are you still not appreciating the pattern?

O.

[Spud]

The more Russia keeps sending troops and weapons into a foreign country, the more people are going to die. You keep forgetting to mention that bit. Ukrainians will die if we don't send them weapons, they don't want to be Russians, and they will continue to resist Russian invasion, just less effectively.

The front-lines have been relatively static for about six months now - seems fairly 'stopped' to me.

Whether or not Russian state propoganda has picked a particular time period when Ukraine was under Russian influence to glom onto is irrelevant. Right now Ukraine is an independent state, and Russia has invaded it now, not 'historically'. Previous affiliations are not a justification for an invasion.

If Russia takes Ukraine, that battle is lost and the West will no longer have anyone to supply arms to openly - Russia destroying Ukrainian capabilities to defend itself and installing a puppet regime isn't 'Ukrainian neutrality' it's an occupation with a thin veneer of dried shit spread over the top to try to camouflage it.

As to the implication that Russia will stop there, that's what was said after Georgia. And Moldova. And Chechnya. And Chechnya the other time. And... Are you still not appreciating the pattern?

O.

Answering your points in order,

"The more Russia keeps sending troops and weapons into a foreign country, the more people are going to die. You keep forgetting to mention that bit. Ukrainians will die if we don't send them weapons, they don't want to be Russians, and they will continue to resist Russian invasion, just less effectively."
This can only be true if the nationalists in Ukraine force the population to fight, and there is plenty of evidence that they are.

The front lines may not be moving much, but Russia isn't in a hurry and in that sense is steamrolling through Donbas.

I wasn't saying that previous affiliations are justification for invasion, except to the extent that when the USSR broke up, millions of Russians were left in some areas of Ukraine and the majority of them weren't happy about the nationalist coup in 2014. They broke away and formed a collective self-defence treaty with Russia. There is also the strategic aspect whereby Russia will not allow NATO to control Crimea, hence the need to have a land corridor to Crimea in southern Ukraine.

So you think Russia will attack a NATO country and trigger article 5?

Not all neutrality is enforced neutrality, but all enforced neutrality is neutrality.

[Outrider]

"The more Russia keeps sending troops and weapons into a foreign country, the more people are going to die. You keep forgetting to mention that bit. Ukrainians will die if we don't send them weapons, they don't want to be Russians, and they will continue to resist Russian invasion, just less effectively."
This can only be true if the nationalists in Ukraine force the population to fight, and there is plenty of evidence that they are.

How is Ukrainian people being willing to fight for their freedom causitive of a Russian invasion? You've (badly) dealt with the second bit, by implying that there's some small sliver of nationalist agitators motivating the entire country to fight back when the majority would be willing to submit, but you've completely ignored the fact that it's all prompted by an ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED INVASION BY A COUNTRY WITH A DEMONSTRATED RECENT HISTORY OF MILITARY EXPANSIONISM.

The front lines may not be moving much, but Russia isn't in a hurry and in that sense is steamrolling through Donbas.

This is Russia 'we'll be done in three days' not in a hurry? It's an embarressment how fundamentally ineffective Russia has been for a nation pretending to be second-tier military with propoganda of first-tier status.

I wasn't saying that previous affiliations are justification for invasion, except to the extent that when the USSR broke up, millions of Russians were left in some areas of Ukraine and the majority of them weren't happy about the nationalist coup in 2014.

Wow. So much wrong in just one sentence. You explicitly said it was 'historically Russian territory' as a justification for this, which is exactly saying that the previous affiliations (if you were correct) were relevant. When the USSR broke up the people who were in Ukraine were former Soviet Citizens, Russia hadn't existed as a nationality for half a century. At that point, if they so desperately wanted to be Russian, they could have tried to get to Russia, but regardless, their existence is perhaps a reason for Russia to offer people incentives to move to Russia, it's not a legitimate basis for an invasion of a foreign state.

You say 'the majority' of the self-identifying 'Russians' (who aren't ACTUALLY Russian) were unhappy with the internal Ukrainian political situation - ok. That 'Majority of the pro-Russian' element in Ukraine was very, very far from being the majority of the population of Ukraine, and their (and your) characterisation of the demonstrations that led to the fall of the turncoat President as a coup isn't based on the reality as we exhaustively covered before.

And if it were, that STILL wouldn't be a justification for an invasion buy Russia. And it wouldn't have justified the invasions of Moldova, Chechnya and Georgia that predated it and demonstrate that this isn't a one-off, this is a pattern of militaristic, Imperialist expansionism.

They broke away and formed a collective self-defence treaty with Russia.

They don't get to do that. And Russia doesn't have the right to send troops in, even if it wants to recognise that claim.

There is also the strategic aspect whereby Russia will not allow NATO to control Crimea, hence the need to have a land corridor to Crimea in southern Ukraine.

NATO didn't control Crimea. Russian wouldn't need a land corridor to Crimea if it hadn't illegally invaded the first time.

So you think Russia will attack a NATO country and trigger article 5?

Deliberately, no. I don't think even the most rabid of Russian propogandists see an outcome of that where Russia, in anything like its current incarnation, is allowed to continue as a political operator. However, with rockets, missiles and bombs being launched I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that something might go wrong and things could escalate; with Russian losses so high and their achievements so poor, I can see their current despicable tactics becoming worse in an attempt to make a breakthrough, and I can see others getting dragged in that way, as well.

Not all neutrality is enforced neutrality, but all enforced neutrality is neutrality.

Russia doesn't get to decide if Ukraine should be neutral. Ukraine gets to decide that.

O.

[Spud]

How is Ukrainian people being willing to fight for their freedom causitive of a Russian invasion?

They are being compelled to fight. Whatever the reason for the invasion, Ukraine could either sensibly say ok, what do you want, and give it to Russia; or it could try and stop them and face inevitable defeat. Us arming them made them think they could win.

You've (badly) dealt with the second bit, by implying that there's some small sliver of nationalist agitators motivating the entire country to fight back when the majority would be willing to submit, but you've completely ignored the fact that it's all prompted by an ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED INVASION BY A COUNTRY WITH A DEMONSTRATED RECENT HISTORY OF MILITARY EXPANSIONISM.

You can shout all you like, it isn't going to stop Russia or help Ukraine win.

But on the subject of Russian expansionism: in my musings I found an article in the NYT from the time of the first round of NATO expansion. George Kennan told the paper that if NATO expanded, Russia would react, and that then the NATO expanders would say, 'look, this is typical russian aggression'. Well it looks as though he was right.

[Spud]

George Kennan, May 2, 1998 (to New York Times):
"Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are"

[ad_orientem]

George Kennan, May 2, 1998 (to New York Times):
"Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are"

Eh? Did NATO expand because Russia keeps invading its neighbours or does Russia keep invading its neighbours because NATO expanded? A quick look at history and any reasonable person will immediately know the answer.

[jeremyp]

They are being compelled to fight. Whatever the reason for the invasion, Ukraine could either sensibly say ok, what do you want, and give it to Russia; or it could try and stop them and face inevitable defeat. Us arming them made them think they could win.
You can shout all you like, it isn't going to stop Russia or help Ukraine win.

But on the subject of Russian expansionism: in my musings I found an article in the NYT from the time of the first round of NATO expansion. George Kennan told the paper that if NATO expanded, Russia would react, and that then the NATO expanders would say, 'look, this is typical russian aggression'. Well it looks as though he was right.

How about Russia not invading in the first place.

[Outrider]

They are being compelled to fight.

Are you meaning by the Ukrainian leadership, or are you meaning by virtue of having their country invaded? Some, probably, are reluctant to fight, others are accepting that it's a necessary act in the face of unwarranted military incursion by a foreign military power.

Whatever the reason for the invasion, Ukraine could either sensibly say ok, what do you want, and give it to Russia; or it could try and stop them and face inevitable defeat.

I could go with 'All evil requires is for good men to stand by and do nothing'. I could point out that 'whatever the reason' is doing a lot of heavy lifting in pretending there's any sort of justification for Russia's second invasion of Ukraine in a decade. I could point out that Chamberlain treated Hitler's threats against the countries of Eastern and Central Europe with that same 'peace in our time' accommodation attitude. But I fear it would all wash over deaf ears; as blind as you are to Russia's malfeasance here, you're equally as blind to Ukraine's express collective will not to become a part of that horrifically backward, morally, culturally and financially destitute failed state that is Russia. Whether we support them or not, huge swathes of the Ukrainian populace will not accept Russian rule, and there will be war, and there will be deaths. We are not causing by supporting Ukraine. Ukraine is not causing those by resisting an invasion. Russia is causing those by sending troops, rockets, bombs, missiles and decrepit tanks sporadically into foreign countries, of which Ukraine is only the latest in a long line.

Us arming them made them think they could win.

It remains to be seen if they're correct, let's hope so.

You can shout all you like, it isn't going to stop Russia or help Ukraine win.

Russia was supposed to have won about four times already. All that's left is for them to claim that they've sunk the HMS Invincible for a second time and it'll be officially the least credible report of military activity in the last century. Russia wrote off Ukraine before they started, but at least they've realised they're in an actual fight. You don't appear to understand that yet.

But on the subject of Russian expansionism: in my musings I found an article in the NYT from the time of the first round of NATO expansion. George Kennan told the paper that if NATO expanded, Russia would react, and that then the NATO expanders would say, 'look, this is typical russian aggression'. Well it looks as though he was right.

Yes. And. The difference is that NATO invites countries to join, and they make a decision. Russia decides other countries territory will join and it doesn't extend an invitation, it extends a supply line to troops. These are not equivalent things, and it's morally and logically dishonest of you to even attempt the equivocation.

O.

[Spud]

Are you meaning by the Ukrainian leadership, or are you meaning by virtue of having their country invaded? Some, probably, are reluctant to fight, others are accepting that it's a necessary act in the face of unwarranted military incursion by a foreign military power.

Countless videos show kidnapping of civilians for mobilization. Why? Because they are desperate. They have no more reserves to draw on (to quote Budanov)
Unjustified invasion is not a reason to commit collective suicide.

[Spud]

Yes. And. The difference is that NATO invites countries to join, and they make a decision. Russia decides other countries territory will join and it doesn't extend an invitation, it extends a supply line to troops. These are not equivalent things, and it's morally and logically dishonest of you to even attempt the equivocation.

Poke a bear and it will attack you.
I've provided the exact words above. It was Bill Clinton that started the expansion. You can also read Nyet Means Nyet by William Burns, written after they invited Ukraine and Georgia in 2008. Both Kennan and Burns predicted this.

[Spud]

Chamberlain treated Hitler's threats against the countries of Eastern and Central Europe with that same 'peace in our time' accommodation attitude

Then he tried to save face by making a pact with Poland. If he hadn't don't that, we wouldn't have been drawn into the war, neither would the US. Iirc, Hitler wanted some cities where there were Germans living, and to make up for Germany being humiliated after WW1. We don't know that he wanted the rest of Europe and Russia.

[Nearly Sane]

Then he tried to save face by making a pact with Poland. If he hadn't don't that, we wouldn't have been drawn into the war, neither would the US. Iirc, Hitler wanted some cities where there were Germans living, and to make up for Germany being humiliated after WW1. We don't know that he wanted the rest of Europe and Russia.

Do you have a wee shrine to Hitler?

[Aruntraveller]

Poke a bear and it will attack you.

If you are going to go for a simplistic analogy, then allow me to provide the solution with an equally simplistic answer. Shoot the fucking bear.

[Aruntraveller]

Then he tried to save face by making a pact with Poland. If he hadn't don't that, we wouldn't have been drawn into the war, neither would the US. Iirc, Hitler wanted some cities where there were Germans living, and to make up for Germany being humiliated after WW1. We don't know that he wanted the rest of Europe and Russia.

So know you've rewritten history on that part of Hitler's legacy, I suppose you think the killing of Jews, gypsy's, the disabled, gay people etc., was just Hitler helping them get out of a troubled life?

He's so cute with his little mustache and funny walks. What harm could he possibly do?

[Outrider]

Unjustified invasion is not a reason to commit collective suicide.

They aren't committing suicide, they are being killed by hostile invaders with a history of mistreatment of their occupied lands and horrendous corruption.

Poke a bear and it will attack you.

They didn't poke a bear. Someone else bought a bear trap, and Putin decided to invade someone else entirely.

Then he tried to save face by making a pact with Poland.

You mean he represented the will of the people he represented, and the international community, and drew a line in the sand? Should we just capitulate to anyone with a threat?

If he hadn't don't that, we wouldn't have been drawn into the war, neither would the US.

I should add 'history' to the list of things that you don't appear to have understood. Got it. The US didn't particularly join as a result of anything Germany did, they joined to counter Japan's activity in the Pacific, and in an echo of WWI ended up at war with Germany because of the Axis alliance already in place.

Iirc, Hitler wanted some cities where there were Germans living, and to make up for Germany being humiliated after WW1.

Mistakes were made after WWI, yes, none of which justified Germany's expansion, nor especially the depths of depravity that it implemented as part of that.

We don't know that he wanted the rest of Europe and Russia.

Everybody else seems fairly sure of the fact; the point where he invaded Russia despite having a non-aggression pact with them suggests that's exactly what he wanted.

I've provided the exact words above. It was Bill Clinton that started the expansion. You can also read Nyet Means Nyet by William Burns, written after they invited Ukraine and Georgia in 2008. Both Kennan and Burns predicted this.

I'm not sure anyone's strongly denying that - that it was foreseeable that Putin would invade again isn't much of a surprise, that he would use the boogeyman of NATO membership, or potential NATO membership, as their pretense of a justification is not a surprise either. That some idiot is credulous enough to accept that at face value, as you appear to, is fucking mindboggling, but hey-ho.

O.

[Spud]

 

Eh? Did NATO expand because Russia keeps invading its neighbours or does Russia keep invading its neighbours because NATO expanded? A quick look at history and any reasonable person will immediately know the answer.

According to Kennan in the same 1998 interview, 'I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.'

[Outrider]

According to Kennan in the same 1998 interview, 'I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.'

Except their occupation of Transnistra in 1992. And the Abkhazi war later in 1992. And the Chechen War in 1994. Nobody threatening anyone there.

And they didn't continue with a second war against Chechnya in 1999. And then a war with Georgia in 2008. And an invasion of Syria in 2015.

Those are just the actual combat actions, it's not 'mere' threats...

O.

[Spud]

Except their occupation of Transnistra in 1992. And the Abkhazi war later in 1992. And the Chechen War in 1994. Nobody threatening anyone there.

And they didn't continue with a second war against Chechnya in 1999. And then a war with Georgia in 2008. And an invasion of Syria in 2015.

Those are just the actual combat actions, it's not 'mere' threats...

O.

Except for Syria, these are all ex-Soviet countries. Kennan was talking about the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary.

The problem with NATO expansion is that it can potentially lead to weapons being placed much closer to the Russian border. If you have a neutral zone in central Europe, those weapons are far enough away to not threaten Russia, and likewise Russian weapons are far from NATO borders.
This is like what the Russians are currently doing in Kharkov region, creating a buffer zone to prevent Ukraine shelling Belgorod.

[Outrider]

Except for Syria, these are all ex-Soviet countries. Kennan was talking about the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary.

Which, to many ex-Soviets with an eye on expansionism, are also 'ex-Soviet' countries. The point here is the 'Ex' - they no longer are, and Russia doesn't get to unilaterally decide that it doesn't like that decision.

The problem with NATO expansion is that it can potentially lead to weapons being placed much closer to the Russian border.

Problem for who? Poland? Czech Republic? Slovakia? Or is it only really a problem for Russia.

If you have a neutral zone in central Europe, those weapons are far enough away to not threaten Russia, and likewise Russian weapons are far from NATO borders.

We have weapons in the US that can threaten Russia. We have weapons in France, Britain, Germany and others that can threaten Russia - weapons closer to Russia being a threat to Russia isn't their objection, weapons closer to Russia that decrease Russia's opportunities to overrun those countries and take them back into their field of influence is Russia's problem. NATO is a defence alliance and it's problematic for Russia specifically because Russia is aggressively expansionist. Countries in those 'neutral zones' are also close to Turkey, Turkey isn't up in arms and threatening to invade neighbours over it - indeed, seeing the way things were going Turkey joined the alliance.
 

This is like what the Russians are currently doing in Kharkov region, creating a buffer zone to prevent Ukraine shelling Belgorod.

You mean they're pressing their advance to try to occupy more of a foreign state that they've lawlessly invaded - you can detail the tactical reasons for particular moves, but the overall strategy is still expansionist aggression. Nobody is threatening Russia, they're jeapordising Russia's interests in other countries.

O.

[Spud]

Which, to many ex-Soviets with an eye on expansionism, are also 'ex-Soviet' countries. The point here is the 'Ex' - they no longer are, and Russia doesn't get to unilaterally decide that it doesn't like that decision.

If those countries feared future Russian aggression, perhaps an independent Central and Eastern European alliance would have made more sense as a deterrent, rather than expanding NATO up to Russia's borders which has led to a new cold war?

[Outrider]

If those countries feared future Russian aggression, perhaps an independent Central and Eastern European alliance would have made more sense as a deterrent, rather than expanding NATO up to Russia's borders which has led to a new cold war?

The existence of a growing cold war is what led them to seek NATO membership, not what resulted from it.

Perhaps Russia respecting countries borders and not invading any flat surface bigger than a fucking dining table would have made more sense, but hey ho, you keep blaming everyone except good ol' Vlad.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

The existence of a growing cold war is what led them to seek NATO membership, not what resulted from it.

Perhaps Russia respecting countries borders and not invading any flat surface bigger than a fucking dining table would have made more sense, but hey ho, you keep blaming everyone except good ol' Vlad.

O.

For the avoidance of doubt that's the other Vlad, not our Vlad.

[Outrider]

For the avoidance of doubt that's the other Vlad, not our Vlad.

I must be more tired than I thought, I should have spotted that - thank you.

Yes, for all our Vlad and I have disagreements, this is a very, very different Vlad we're talking about!

O.

[ad_orientem]

Reports have been slowly coming out of Vovchansk, Kharkiv region, near the Russian border, of new attrocities being carried out by Russian soldiers. Civilians being herded into cellars for God knows what, and executions. Another Bucha, Irpin etc.

https://kyivindependent.com/minister-russia-takes-civilians-captive-in-northern-vovchansk-executions-reported/

People have always talked about the "mysterious Russian soul", that we don't underatand it and all that rubbish. There's nothing mysterious about it, we know it's a genocidal barbarian.

[Spud]

The existence of a growing cold war is what led them to seek NATO membership, not what resulted from it.

Perhaps Russia respecting countries borders and not invading any flat surface bigger than a fucking dining table would have made more sense, but hey ho, you keep blaming everyone except good ol' Vlad.

O.

The cold war had ended, but they understandably feared future Russian threats. You can't however pretend that expanding NATO to Russia's border would not be seen by Russia as a threat, and ultimately lead to conflict.