Russia, Ukraine and the West

[Vangelovski]

The start of that paragraph seems reasonable enough. The end of it, not so much. You are clever enough to understand that there is more at stake than just the sovereignty of Ukraine and by stating that you do not care about the reasons why Russia acted the way it did you are being irrational and deliberately ignoring certain factors that have contributed to this debacle.

If I believe, as I do, that the Ukrainian people are a sovereign nation then there really is no reason that I can think of that would justify an invasion. I’ll use Macedonia as an example because the principle is the same. Macedonians are a sovereign nation. What would you say justifies an invasion of their homeland?

You mention “certain factors”. Which factors are you talking about? Do they justify an invasion in your view? I’m talking about moral authority here. Just because Russia can (or it thinks it can) doesn’t mean it should or that its right.

A somewhat neocon perspective that was hitherto absent in this thread. Personally, I would have supported the West to work with both Russia and Ukraine to facilitate a peaceful resolution long before it reached this stage, but I guess they had other priorities. Apropos the two reasons you have outlined, do both criteria need to be met, or will one suffice? .

Its not a neocon perspective at all. If anything it’s a classical liberal view of national sovereignty. I don’t think Putin was ever interested in a peaceful resolution. What exactly was his excuse for invading Donbas and Crimea in 2014 (in 2014, not his retrospective excuse in 2022)? He has made his views on the collapse of the Soviet Union (or the Russian empire as he sees it) very clear over many decades. He has made his view that Ukraine should never have gained independence very clear over many decades. What makes you think he wanted a peaceful resolution – other than complete capitulation?

Those two points are not criteria, they’re just the basic reasons why I support Ukraine and oppose the Russian form of government in general.

That does not mean Macedonians have an unconditional obligation to support the Zelensky government and I do not think that a simple quid pro quo, without regard for how much time has passed and how current circumstances differ, is a valid enough reason to lend such support. Moreover, the Kuchma government had a generally amicable relationship with Putin in 2001 and their supply of weapons to Macedonia was supported by Russia. Conversely, the West (and by extension, their armed forces who you would urge to go into direct combat with the Russian armed forces) not only opposed Ukraine in this endeavour, but were empathic towards the separatists and terrorists in Macedonia.

I wasn’t suggesting that as a reason to support Ukraine. It was just a comment…I think it was in response to something else.

To whom do the Donbas and Crimean regions belong and why do they belong to them?

As far as I’m concerned, they belong to the Ukrainians. Why? Because it’s been Ukrainian populated for as far back as I can tell. Russia is the political and legal successor of the Grand Duchy of Moscow. You can trace an unbroken (I think) line of Tsars from Daniel I (1263-1303) to Putin I. Russia did not step foot in the Donbas until around 1533 and the Crimea until 1783. As for Kievan Rus, it seems to me that was some sort of conglomerate of different peoples/tribes ruled by a Viking royal house. I don’t see any Russian claim to it beyond some vague connection to a tribe or two (which never lived in what is now Ukraine) under Kievan Rus rule. For arguments sake, even if Kievan Rus was a Russian state, it never controlled the Donbas or Crimea.

Are the reports and footage from RT journalists on the ground in Donbas not sufficient?

Again, what exactly are we talking about here? Genocide is a specific term. People keep talking about some vague killing of Russians but no one will say what exactly they mean. As I asked RtG, do you mean the systematic attempt to eradicate ethnic Russians by the Ukranian security forces or the Ukranian Government? Are you talking about war casualties? Random killings by Ukranian paramilitaries? When exactly did this take place, given Russia has occupied most of the Donbas since 2014? Why wasn’t Putin concerned about this if it was happening prior to 2014 while Yanukovych was in power?

As to your question about reports and footage from RT journalists – depends on the evidence they provide. Can you post anything?

That perspective would hold more worth if you were able to define what you mean by “sham” in the context of their record over the past 2 decades and follow it up with some examples.

In the context of the Russian military record since World War I, I would define “sham” as complete incompetence leading to the inability to actually win a war. World War II may have been the exception, but even that is debatable. The Russian military is no different to any other former communist military (including Macedonia’s). Communism destroyed Russian society, root and branch, and its armed forces are no different. They are corrupt, poorly trained, poorly equipped, poorly led and poorly supplied. Then there’s a bunch of other problems. But this is a much longer conversation.

[Risto the Great]

I thought the moment was obvious from the context of this thread. Where's that nuance you claim to have?

Nope. You have to be clear about it. Something about Churchill and sovereignty I spose. We all "gotta be more like Churchill" .... ummm, the good bits though .... that's about all I'm getting at the moment. Maybe it means we have to screw over Macedonia like Churchill did. Who knows? You know - but it is a delicious secret.

Again, what attacks are you talking about? Intentional, systematic attacks by Ukrainian security forces directed by the Ukrainian government? Can you provide any evidence or just quotes from Putin's speeches and the Russian Foreign Ministry? On the Minks agreements - there is a difference between unconstitutional and lacking in moral/national legitimacy or being in opposition to the principles of national sovereignty. I can't answer the question on its constitutionality as I'm not across the Ukranian constitution, but I think I've made my thoughts clear on the other matters. Maybe you could ask yourself the question of whether the Macedonian government would have the legitimate moral authority to recognise an autonomous Albanian entity within its borders. Then apply that logic to the Ukrainian government and the consequences (from its people) of doing so.

I don't see the point in going around in circles around this. Why do you want to know what attacks I'm talking about? You don't believe anything about them anyway. Why bother? It's fine, I can dig that stuff up. All you have to do is let me know precisely what I will need to prove before you give Russia the all clear for war. Which is precisely my point because you lack the nuance to capably process this thought. I know you are unwilling to consider that kind of dialogue in your dogmatic world.

What if I can prove all ethnic Russian kittens are being persecuted in Ukraine? Good enough? Do you need more? Let me know when you're "all-in with Putin".

This is why you have again avoided my question. At what point (if ever) would external intervention be justifiable? Never? What if ethnic Macedonians in Greece were being systematically eradicated? Would RoMacedonia's intervention be welcomed under another frame (i.e. Macedonia's) of moral authority? The UN has a charter on this exact issue, so it would seem that others see a way of justifying intervention.

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/about-responsibility-to-protect.shtml

I (in fact) already answered your question about Albanian rights in Macedonia long ago when I said this:

So Russia intervened on behalf of a Russian minority in a neighbouring state and seeks to add those regions to Russia itself. Of course we, as Macedonians would be horrified with this and should oppose any thought of challenges to a nation's sovereignty and indeed land. The Minsk agreements were violated. We can compare them to the pathetic Badinter model in Macedonia. What is stopping Macedonia from abandoning the Ohrid agreement? We in the diaspora kind of like that idea. Perhaps reprisal from USA (and Albania) are a disincentive? Well, maybe Ukraine should have thought about that when they were killing their ethnic Russians over the last 8 years.

The Minsk (not Minks - they are different Russians) agreements existed because of obvious problems between the 2 major ethnic groups. They failed. I imagine they failed in your estimations because someone's paper jet landed in the wrong backyard. Nothing too serious. You know, nothing serious because CNN said so.

Coming from the guy who has never answered a single question. I've answered plenty and given my honest position on the situation. All you've done is dance around with simplistic one-liners like you always do so that no one can really tell what you think and when you're being sarcastic. How about you go back and answer one of my questions and then I'll think about responding to your millionth one. And I'm going back a decade now, not just the last few posts.

Russian kittens? Minks?

[Soldier of Macedon]

I support Ukraine in its war against Russia on principle. The Ukrainians are a sovereign people. They have an independent state. Russia has no business invading, which it clearly did in 2014 and then extended that invasion earlier this year. I don't care about their reasons.

The start of that paragraph seems reasonable enough. The end of it, not so much. You are clever enough to understand that there is more at stake than just the sovereignty of Ukraine and by stating that you do not care about the reasons why Russia acted the way it did you are being irrational and deliberately ignoring certain factors that have contributed to this debacle.

I also support the West arming and training the Ukrainian military. In fact, I would support Western armed forces going into direct combat with the Russian army if it was necessary to remove them from Ukraine. The reason for this is both a) as above, the Ukrainians are a sovereign people and b) Russia is an authoritarian state still heavily Marxist. I have no time for any of that.

A somewhat neocon perspective that was hitherto absent in this thread. Personally, I would have supported the West to work with both Russia and Ukraine to facilitate a peaceful resolution long before it reached this stage, but I guess they had other priorities. Apropos the two reasons you have outlined, do both criteria need to be met, or will one suffice?

I do remember that Ukraine supplied Macedonia with the bulk of its weapons in 2001. I don't remember Russia (or the US for that matter) providing anything.

That does not mean Macedonians have an unconditional obligation to support the Zelensky government and I do not think that a simple quid pro quo, without regard for how much time has passed and how current circumstances differ, is a valid enough reason to lend such support. Moreover, the Kuchma government had a generally amicable relationship with Putin in 2001 and their supply of weapons to Macedonia was supported by Russia. Conversely, the West (and by extension, their armed forces who you would urge to go into direct combat with the Russian armed forces) not only opposed Ukraine in this endeavour, but were empathic towards the separatists and terrorists in Macedonia.

You're making a false comparison there. The Donbas and Crimea aren't Russian lands, just like Egej isn't Greek land. The equivalent comparison would be if Albania invaded Macedonia to intervene on behalf of "its" minority…………… I agree that the Russians genuinely believe those are Russian territories. But there is the historical record. That tells us otherwise.

To whom do the Donbas and Crimean regions belong and why do they belong to them?

I've read lots of allegations but never seen any real evidence.

Are the reports and footage from RT journalists on the ground in Donbas not sufficient?

I think the Russian military is a sham and I've thought this for at least 2 decades. Happy to discuss in more depth, but probably won't respond to one line baits.

That perspective would hold more worth if you were able to define what you mean by “sham” in the context of their record over the past 2 decades and follow it up with some examples.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Some of you refer to mainstream media with an impossible to understand disdain. One (obviously?) needs a variety of inputs to inform an understanding and, in my opinion, trusted journalism is one of these avenues. I am really wondering how do you get your news and most importantly, what do you consider trustworthy and why.

I watch news from the West, from Russia and from independent sources. Then I come to a rational conclusion based on what seems most plausible and logical. Your comment about a “variety of inputs” suggests you do the same, but I find that unlikely given the totality of your above statement. You are allowed to think for yourself. Try it. While you are at it, ask yourself the question you posed to others.

Seems to me Putin has been caught in a lose-lose situation. Inaction seems to be allowing Ukraine to take back slowly their territory (which he is considering Russia now). Since the Russian military has shown to be just a farce, the only viable response seems to be use of low-yield nuclear weapons……

Is that how the abovementioned “variety of inputs” informed your understanding? That the Russian armed forces are a farce whose only viable option is a pre-emptive nuclear strike in Ukraine? Great of you to walk that one back by characterising it as a provocation in a subsequent post, but I will offer up an alternative perspective that is a little more realistic, even though it unforgivably departs from the ridiculous MSM talking points you seem fond of regurgitating. The Russian armed forces have taken significant parts of eastern and southern Ukraine and could have taken much more if they had less of a regard for the civilian population. Instead, they have espoused a relatively measured approach, despite some strategic mistakes and excesses, as Putin does not want to alienate the many people in Ukraine who do not hate Russia. That calculus, however, may soon change to a certain extent, particularly due to some of the tactics that have been adopted by the Ukrainian armed forces and their benefactors.

On Putin/Russia matters, do we at least agree that they have significantly underperformed based on their reputation before the war? I was expecting Ukraine and Kiyv to fall within a few days, let alone survive and push the Russians back out of more than half the territory they had won initially.

I agree that the Russian armed forces have had their setbacks and have not achieved their objectives in the manner and time frame that was initially planned. But why did you have an expectation that Ukraine and Kiev would fall within a few days? Did Putin state that as his objective? Or did you just swallow the hysterical narrative touted by the “trusted” journalists you vaguely alluded to above?

I was rather puzzled, to be honest, on the sublime support on this Russia and Putin. I feel that Macedonians have had rather negative experiences with a similar playbook taking place in Tetovo just 20 years ago (perhaps still on?). If Russia gets to do this then why not Albania? Isn't there at least some self-preservation empathy, if not the principles mentioned?

Interesting embellishment, but you are more likely to find that “sublime” support for Putin and Russia among your Serbian friends. Clearly, our perspectives on this matter have eluded you. A betrayal of your own bias and lack of balance on the subject, I would suggest. Perhaps a bit of laziness, also. Here is a novel idea, go back and read the previous 25 pages on this thread to understand how such perspectives developed relative to the war in Ukraine. You will find some of them to be a little more nuanced than the way you have presented them here. As for the comparison with Tetovo, there are some similarities, but there are also some substantial differences that you are choosing to ignore. When you can be honest enough to address the latter, then we can talk about the complexities involved in the matter of self-preservation, along with our supposed lack of empathy for Ukraine.

[Vangelovski]

...

Maybe the Russians are the "higher-grade race". Is that what you are getting at? Or are the Ukrainians the higher grade race? Or do we all need to smoke more pipes? What Churchillian moment are you going for here?

I thought the moment was obvious from the context of this thread. Where's that nuance you claim to have?

OK, so you are denying attacks on the civilian ethnic Russians in Ukraine. You believe none of it was true and I am to likely assume the Minsk agreements were unconstitutional etc.

Again, what attacks are you talking about? Intentional, systematic attacks by Ukrainian security forces directed by the Ukrainian government? Can you provide any evidence or just quotes from Putin's speeches and the Russian Foreign Ministry? On the Minks agreements - there is a difference between unconstitutional and lacking in moral/national legitimacy or being in opposition to the principles of national sovereignty. I can't answer the question on its constitutionality as I'm not across the Ukranian constitution, but I think I've made my thoughts clear on the other matters. Maybe you could ask yourself the question of whether the Macedonian government would have the legitimate moral authority to recognise an autonomous Albanian entity within its borders. Then apply that logic to the Ukrainian government and the consequences (from its people) of doing so.

I simply asked "What would it take before external intervention is arguably or potentially warranted? If Macedonia decided to exterminate its ethnic Albanian population, would it get a knock (or bomb) at its door from any nations?"

You did not answer that question at all. You do that a lot. You become offended by a line of thought and then say something like ....

Coming from the guy who has never answered a single question. I've answered plenty and given my honest position on the situation. All you've done is dance around with simplistic one-liners like you always do so that no one can really tell what you think and when you're being sarcastic. How about you go back and answer one of my questions and then I'll think about responding to your millionth one. And I'm going back a decade now, not just the last few posts.

In terms of national sovereignty, I've written literally thousands of detailed posts on here since 2008 (the year I first joined). If you're still unclear about my thinking on the topic, then that's your problem. I'm not going to keep repeating it so you can keep ignoring it.

[Risto the Great]

Again, it's the Chamberlains making all the noises when we actually need a Churchill.

...

"I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

Maybe the Russians are the "higher-grade race". Is that what you are getting at? Or are the Ukrainians the higher grade race? Or do we all need to smoke more pipes? What Churchillian moment are you going for here?

What exactly are we talking about here? Putin's claims that Ukraine undertook genocide against ethnic Russians without being able to produce evidence? Or are you talking about civilian casualties in a war that Russia started because its preferred President was ousted through mass protests (you know the kind we've called for in Macedonia)?

Are you now suggesting that you agree with US military interventions on humanitarian grounds? Or just Russian ones?

OK, so you are denying attacks on the civilian ethnic Russians in Ukraine. You believe none of it was true and I am to likely assume the Minsk agreements were unconstitutional etc.

I simply asked "What would it take before external intervention is arguably or potentially warranted? If Macedonia decided to exterminate its ethnic Albanian population, would it get a knock (or bomb) at its door from any nations?"

You did not answer that question at all. You do that a lot. You become offended by a line of thought and then say something like ....

It's kind of like you never actually read anything I posted on this forum over the past decade on the topic of sovereignty...

[YuriB]

YuriB, you're the guy who disappears when it's your turn to buy a round of drinks. I won't bother.

I'll just say this once because I appreciate how your writing helped me more than 12 years ago when I discovered this forum to understand ethnic identity and in particular the Macedonian one.

You are good at that one thing, representing the Macedonian identity. Stick to that and you can maximize the benefit to your community. Continue being associated with what is commonly considered wild conspiracy theories (and most of the time, alt right ones) while creating I-am-right echo chambers, and your other work gets discredited via negative association.

[YuriB]

Just 5000 Macedonian speakers in Greece you say? I've seen more Macedonian speakers attending a single village festival on YouTube. You have to be kidding right? And why stop at 30% Albanian speakers in Macedonia? Why not go for 40%? Heck, let's just say 50/50 while we're at it.

I stand corrected Karposh. I added a zero to the percentage while I was referring to the low end estimate of 50K Macedonian speakers in Greece. Also, I was off by a few percentage points, the Albanian speakers are apparently about 24% to 25%. In any case, it is the orders of magnitude that I was referring to.

Regarding the core question here, I have met many long-term immigrants or first/second generation people focusing too much on their new country. I am seeing a lot of this here too. The argument 'what about the USA' is meaningless to Ukrainians dealing with the Russian dictator..

[Karposh]

What is the real risk assessment of the situation? Maybe 0.05% Macedonian speakers in Greece vs. 30% Albanian speakers in Macedonia vs, the Bulgarian nationalistic stories.

Just 5000 Macedonian speakers in Greece you say? I've seen more Macedonian speakers attending a single village festival on YouTube. You have to be kidding right? And why stop at 30% Albanian speakers in Macedonia? Why not go for 40%? Heck, let's just say 50/50 while we're at it.

[kompir]

No matter how one slices this, there's far more to the Ukraine saga than meets the eye. Ukraine has been a puppet state of the US since 2014, if one views the Russian "incursion" as a means to rectify this problem then it makes some sort of sense. However the Russian efforts don't smack of this, their actions have been haphazard and disjointed.

[Vangelovski]

How about to avoid a (nuclear) war? Is that better?

What scaremongering. It reminds me of Macedonians who for 30 years screeched doom and gloom every time someone opposed capitulation. I'm pretty certain there won't be a nuclear war. But even if the Russian General Staff were willing to carry out such an order, you can't live your life appeasing a bully - they'll use the same threat to take more than you can give. Again, it's the Chamberlains making all the noises when we actually need a Churchill.

Should a sovereign nation be able to do anything it wants its own people? Is that what you are getting at? What would it take before external intervention is arguably or potentially warranted? If Macedonia decided to exterminate its ethnic Albanian population, would it get a knock (or bomb) at its door from any nations?

What exactly are we talking about here? Putin's claims that Ukraine undertook genocide against ethnic Russians without being able to produce evidence? Or are you talking about civilian casualties in a war that Russia started because its preferred President was ousted through mass protests (you know the kind we've called for in Macedonia)?

Are you now suggesting that you agree with US military interventions on humanitarian grounds? Or just Russian ones?

It's kind of like you never actually read anything I posted on this forum over the past decade on the topic of sovereignty...

[Risto the Great]

How about to avoid a (nuclear) war? Is that better?

Should a sovereign nation be able to do anything it wants its own people? Is that what you are getting at? What would it take before external intervention is arguably or potentially warranted? If Macedonia decided to exterminate its ethnic Albanian population, would it get a knock (or bomb) at its door from any nations?

[Vangelovski]

I will will answer with my Cuban cigar in my mouth that I call "Missile".

The answer was in the original statement. To avoid a war.

That's not a good reason. There's more important things than avoiding war. And I can't think of a single instance of appeasement avoiding war anyway. Hence my reference to Chamberlain.

[Risto the Great]

Why should Ukraine have to recognise the Donbas as an autonomous entity? Or avoid NATO advisors or membership if that's what it wants to do? Why should Russia dictate that to Ukraine?

I will will answer with my Cuban cigar in my mouth that I call "Missile".

The answer was in the original statement. To avoid a war.

[Vangelovski]

https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/statu...b9qKPK0Z_4CMAA

Don't you just hate it when little truths escape?

Why should Ukraine have to recognise the Donbas as an autonomous entity? Or avoid NATO advisors or membership if that's what it wants to do? Why should Russia dictate that to Ukraine?

Matlock is nothing but a Chamberlain. He's suggesting that appeasement would have prevented a dictator from doing what he's been talking about doing for 20 years.