The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[Redshift]

It has nothing to do with taking Ukraine, it never had.

This is clearly not true.

On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians

An "essay" written by Vladimir Putin clearly states his belief on the position of Ukraine.

"I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia. Our spiritual, human and civilizational ties formed for centuries and have their origins in the same sources, they have been hardened by common trials, achievements and victories. Our kinship has been transmitted from generation to generation. It is in the hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine, in the blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been and will be many times stronger and more successful. For we are one people."

 

[Hoover]

Now, we want to protect our interests... Russia wants to protect its interests.

So you say that Russian interesest are more worth than Ukrainian ones? Neither NATO nor Ukraine ever threatens Russian soil. It is more that the threat for Russia is an economical and political (democratic) succesful Ukraine for the Russian way of dictatorship.

 

[rsemmes]

4. Part of Russia's "interests" is to rebuild their empire, and if possible expand it even further. We must fight this, the biggest threat to Europe since WW2.

Of course, the interest of every nation. More powerful, not weaker.
Russia is our competition, we must fight our competition as Russia must fight us. Did you forget that part?
I still cannot see the threat. I see the threat to our interests, like American tariffs, but that it's not a threat, it is an fact. US is acting against our interests.

 

[rsemmes]

So you say that Russian interesest are more worth than Ukrainian ones? Neither NATO nor Ukraine ever threatens Russian soil. It is more that the threat for Russia is an economical and political (democratic) succesful Ukraine for the Russian way of dictatorship.

Where do you read that I say that?

 

[Hoover]

1. Ukraine was willing to forsake NATO membership until Russia invaded

The Ukraine never had the chance becoming NATO member as long as there is an open border conflict/war with Russia. So if Putin wanted to impede an UA NATO membership...he simply had to keep the conflict alive, war was not necessary to archieve that.

 

[Vivendi]

Of course, the interest of every nation. More powerful, not weaker.
Russia is our competition, we must fight our competition as Russia must fight us. Did you forget that part?
I still cannot see the threat. I see the threat to our interests, like American tariffs, but that it's not a threat, it is an fact. US is acting against our interests.

Complete nonsense. Of course Russia must not fight "us". I am not sure who "us" is but I assume European countries? European NATO countries dramatically cut defense spending after the end of the cold war because they erroneously believed that Russia did not constitute a threat anymore. European NATO countries in particular Germany also became dependent on Russia for critical energy supplies, again, this was because they did not believe Russia constituted a threat. Their erroneous thinking was that Russia would develop in the same way as Germany and Italy developed after WW2, and as Poland, the Baltics etc. developed after the cold war; becoming peaceful democracies not threatening their neighbors.

Why must Russia fight? Sweden and Finland became NATO members because of the Russian threat that was clear for all to see after the full scale invasion of Ukraine. Defence spending in Europe is now rapidly increasing because of the Russian threat, reversing the decline in spending after the end of the cold war. I am surprised you fail to see the clear cause and effect here. And you cannot make an equivalence between European NATO countries and Russia because there simply is no such equivalence. If European NATO countries had the same mindset as Russia they would not have cut defense spending after the end of the cold war, on the contrary they would have worked to further weaken Russia and tried to find ways to attack while Russia was weak. Instead Europe did the opposite of what your way of thinking would imply; Europe cut defense spending but also provided aid to Russia and invited Russia to cooperate with Europe, even inviting Russia to collaborate with NATO. Russia initially pretended to cooperate and instead used these opportunities to spy, launch hybrid warfare and cyberattack, and initiate conflicts and/or wars against Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine.

NATO - Topic: Relations with Russia
United States Relations with Russia: After the Cold War
Exposing the myth of Western betrayal of Russia over NATO’s eastern enlargement - British Politics and Policy at LSE

 

[Feanor]

Russia is an imperialist, terrorist nation and must be stopped. Very sad to see that so many European leaders are still not "stepping up" and not providing Ukraine the assistance they need. It is not only ethically and morally correct to support Ukraine, it is also very much in the interest of European democracies to prevent Russia from grabbing Ukraine. I am hoping that Merz can deliver but I am not yet convinced.

It is not clear to me why Germany has not restarted Taurus production and why they have not started providing Taurus to Ukraine as he promised before he became bundeskanzler, perhaps @kato knows. "Complexity of training" has been mentioned but that does not explain why this should delay the decision, if anything it could be used as an argument to get started asap since it will take time do do the training. Germany still weighing Taurus missile supply to Ukraine, Merz says

It's likely that they're not stepping up because they don't see the world the same way you do. One thing about democracies is that different legitimate actors can disagree about policy. Now you're throwing the word terrorism around. Care to provide a definition?

EDIT: The first, and larger refuse mound north-east of Mirnograd has apparently fallen. Russian forces are also advancing along a wide front north of the town towards the two small towns of Rodinskoe and Biletskoe. The fall of either one would sever the road out of town, give Russia firm strongpoint in the area, and effectively put the last few routes of the conurbation within easy drone range. Given the overall direction of the Russian push, I have to wonder if they're also aiming for Dobropol'ye, if not to take it, at least to render it unusable as a logistics hub. Currently it seems to be the connector between Ukrainian forces fighting in the Seversk salient and Konstantinovka area (funneling through Kramatorsk). The severing of that artery would effective isolate the northern Donbas from the central area.

 

[Redshift]

It's likely that they're not stepping up because they don't see the world the same way you do. One thing about democracies is that different legitimate actors can disagree about policy. Now you're throwing the word terrorism around. Care to provide a definition?

A quick simple definition is the carrying out of acts designed to "terrorise" a people or population to further a political cause.

 

[Feanor]

A quick simple definition is the carrying out of acts designed to "terrorise" a people or population to further a political cause.

Is the the definition he's using though? I want to make sure I understand his claim before responding to the substance of it.

 

[rsemmes]

Complete nonsense. Of course Russia must not fight "us". I am not sure who "us" is but I assume European countries? European NATO countries dramatically cut defense spending after the end of the cold war because they erroneously believed that Russia did not constitute a threat anymore. European NATO countries in particular Germany also became dependent on Russia for critical energy supplies, again, this was because they did not believe Russia constituted a threat. Their erroneous thinking was that Russia would develop in the same way as Germany and Italy developed after WW2, and as Poland, the Baltics etc. developed after the cold war; becoming peaceful democracies not threatening their neighbors.

Why must Russia fight? Sweden and Finland became NATO members because of the Russian threat that was clear for all to see after the full scale invasion of Ukraine. Defence spending in Europe is now rapidly increasing because of the Russian threat, reversing the decline in spending after the end of the cold war. I am surprised you fail to see the clear cause and effect here. And you cannot make an equivalence between European NATO countries and Russia because there simply is no such equivalence. If European NATO countries had the same mindset as Russia they would not have cut defense spending after the end of the cold war, on the contrary they would have worked to further weaken Russia and tried to find ways to attack while Russia was weak. Instead Europe did the opposite of what your way of thinking would imply; Europe cut defense spending but also provided aid to Russia and invited Russia to cooperate with Europe, even inviting Russia to collaborate with NATO. Russia initially pretended to cooperate and instead used these opportunities to spy, launch hybrid warfare and cyberattack, and initiate conflicts and/or wars against Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine.

NATO - Topic: Relations with Russia
United States Relations with Russia: After the Cold War
Exposing the myth of Western betrayal of Russia over NATO’s eastern enlargement - British Politics and Policy at LSE

First you say: "We must fight this... (Part of Russia's "interests" is to rebuild their empire, and if possible expand it even further.)"
Then, obviously, Russia must fight our interference in the pursuit of its own interests.
(Russia could do nothing, like the EU doing nothing against those tariffs imposed upon us as part of US interests.)

You seem a bit confused between what you think Russia should think and what Russia thinks. "I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies." George Kennan, U.S. diplomat; as posted before.

 

[rsemmes]

I am guessing those reports about Russian troops in Pokrovsk were just some patrols that were able to infiltrate through the lines.

 

[rsemmes]

Is the the definition he's using though? I want to make sure I understand his claim before responding to the substance of it.

He could also mean using the CIA to carry out attacks against NVM (before the Tonkin Gulf Resolution) or organizing and financing the Contra, but I don't think so.

 

[Feanor]

I am guessing those reports about Russian troops in Pokrovsk were just some patrols that were able to infiltrate through the lines.

This is the likeliest explanation. But it's possible we're seeing the beginnings of something similar to what happened in Kursk region and in Avdeveka where a substantial Russian infantry force was able to penetrate Ukrainian lines through some sort of concealed route. We will have to wait for the dust to settle.

He could also mean using the CIA to carry out attacks against NVM (before the Tonkin Gulf Resolution) or organizing and financing the Contra, but I don't think so.

Neither is particularly relevant to this discussion as of yet. Nor are these definitions. These are examples of behaviors. We need to start with him defining his terms so we understand what he means. Then we can talk about how that applies to real world scenarios.

 

[Rob c]

It has nothing to do with taking Ukraine, it never had.
We want a NATO Ukraine, Russia doesn't; Russia is doing something about it. The Soviet Union did not invade western Europe, Russia is going to do it? I see a lot of imagination there.
Now, we want to protect our interests... Russia wants to protect its interests.

My personal viewis that it not about russia protecting it's interests, but rather about Putin increasing Russia's interests.
He got away with little collateral damage in his 2014 land grabs and figured he could go one better in his desire to reinstate the Russian empire. While historically there have been always been empires in recorded history, the times they have change as to there acceptance.

 

[Vivendi]

Instead of defining "terrorism" I will give an example of why I believe Russia is a terrorist state. I think the most obvious is the "human safari" where Russian FPV drones are used to hunt down and kill or wound Ukranian civilians.
A/HRC/59/CRP.2

However Russia is not only using FPV drones to attack civilians: Civilan targets like hospitals (even children's hospitals), schools, shopping malls and residentials buildings are also targeted systematically using cruise missiles, shaed drones, and ballistic missiles. Full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine has sown ‘psychological terror’, warns top aid coordinator | UN News

A third example is systematically raping: Seeking justice for women victims of wartime rape in Ukraine - Vatican News
Rape is an old Russian "tradition" it seems: Same River, Twice: Putin’s War on Women by Sofi Oksanen – review | Politics books | The Guardian

 

[rsemmes]

I think Vivendi just gave us a "the dog ate my homework" moment.

The first point means that Ukraine is a terrorist state (good job condemning a nation for actions at the front line).
The second point means that Ukraine is a terrorist state... And many more nations, it's called collateral damage. Also, if you want to do your homework, you have a lot more about that in one of the reports. (And theguardian.)
The third point is a war "tradition". Again, a lot of nations (all?) are terrorists.

Yes, you are right, Russia is a terrorist nation (according to your no-definition), like every other one. If all you want is to point your finger at someone else... (How much do you know of the actions of you country's armed forces at war or where it has/had troops deployed?)
Edit.
Sorry, point your finger at Russia, no matter what.