Russia, Ukraine and the West

[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.

[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.

[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..

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Soldier of Macedon]

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.

Morality is important, but if you want to make a rational argument on this topic you cannot exclude geopolitical reality. In principle, do I think it is moral for one country to invade another? No. I also do not think it is moral for one to commit theft. I do, however, accept that on occasion, there may be mitigating circumstances in both instances. Some among the West have an incessant desire to weaken Russia. They cause friction by goading Ukraine and Georgia into joining NATO, knowing full well how provocative it would be if they installed their military infrastructure and extended their borders so close to Moscow. Those factors are chiefly responsible for creating the conditions that led to the war in Ukraine. The mistreatment of ethnic Russians in Ukraine is another important, albeit secondary, factor.

Russia is the largest country on earth and a nuclear superpower whose security concerns must be considered. There is no utopian level playing field. That is just the world we live in. If Macedonia was in Russia’s geographical and political position and felt threatened by the potential of missiles on its doorstep courtesy of its greatest military nemesis, or if it felt that its ethnic kinsmen were being indiscriminately or deliberately killed in a neighbouring country, I am sure many Macedonians would feel that an invasion would be justified. If Macedonia was in the same geographical and political situation as Ukraine, I would not want Russia to invade, but if I was intelligent enough to factor geopolitics into the equation, I would have to concede that much of the blame would rest with reckless Macedonian politicians and their greedy patrons, who allowed the situation to deteriorate to such an extent in the first place. But Macedonia is neither Russia nor Ukraine, so I would caution against making too many comparisons. Personally, I think the whole situation is a travesty, particularly the loss of the life, but I cannot allow bias to facilitate a naïve perspective by pretending that only one side is responsible. There is plenty of blame to go around.

Its not a neocon perspective at all. If anything it’s a classical liberal view of national sovereignty.

I was referring to your reason b) as grounds for direct combat with the Russian armed forces, which is most definitely a neocon perspective.

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.

Reasons, criteria, in this regard, semantics. You probably should have excluded reason b) given the authoritarian nature of successive Ukrainian governments, including the current one.

What exactly was his excuse for invading Donbas and Crimea in 2014 (in 2014, not his retrospective excuse in 2022)?

Based on a compromise to diffuse tensions over the strategically important peninsula, Russia agreed to accept the territorial integrity of Ukraine so long as the latter allowed Russia’s Black Sea fleet to continue being based out of Crimea. If Ukraine became part of NATO, that arrangement would cease to exist and Russia’s influence in the Black Sea region would be weakened. That is the reason why Crimea was annexed following the referendum in 2014. As for Donbas, I am sure there were some personnel and military advisors from the Russian armed forces to support the local population who were rebelling against the newly established political powers that forced out a tainted, albeit democratically-elected, president who was more disposed towards Russia than the West, but I am not sure if “invasion” is the correct characterisation as it was hardly on par with what has been happening since the beginning of 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?

Despite the historical rhetoric and negation of Ukrainian nationhood in his speeches, Putin’s actions had more to do with political pragmatism rather than some dream about restoring the USSR or the Russian Empire. He constantly warned against the expansion of NATO towards Russia. The West ignored him. Do you really believe that he would have unilaterally invaded were it not for the threat of Ukraine becoming a member of NATO in the future?

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 did not step foot in the Donbas until around 1533 and the Crimea until 1783.

Kievan Rus did conquer parts of Crimea in the 10th century but lost these territories to the Mongols in the 13th century. Since then, the peninsula was largely occupied by Turco-Mongol peoples until the 18th century, when Russia conquered it. From that period, there has never been a time when ethnic Ukrainians formed a majority or outnumbered ethnic Russians in Crimea, except in one early census when both were still tiny minorities and separated by less than 1%. I have not done any thorough research on the Donbas but a cursory look at its history appears to suggest it was sparsely populated until the 17th century, after which people from both east and west of that region began to establish settlements.

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?

I am referring to indiscriminate shelling by Ukrainian armed forces that have led to the deaths of many civilians in Donbas. I am also referring to killings perpetrated by Ukrainian paramilitary groups who are in the service of their government. Most people can accept that both sides are likely to have engaged in such activities to one degree or another over the past 8 years. You seem to have some trouble accepting that pro-Russian civilians have been killed by government forces because you have “never seen any real evidence,” or more accurately, because you have not bothered to look for it. If you are going to argue against something, at least do so from an informed position rather an anecdotal one.

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

Do a simple Google search of "RT News Ukraine shelling Donbas." You will find them. And it is not just RT. Both AI and HRW have reported on these issues and some of their articles are cited in the Wikipedia page on the "Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas."

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?

Pro-Russian forces have controlled much of Donbas since 2014. Russia did not occupy Donbas until 2022. Your last question does not make sense and nobody has suggested that Ukrainian government forces were indiscriminately or deliberately killing their ethnic Russians prior to 2014.

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.

Did the Russian armed forces not win in Chechnya, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia? Did they not turn the tide in Syria?

[Vangelovski]

Morality is important, but if you want to make a rational argument on this topic you cannot exclude geopolitical reality.

They are distinct questions and of course, you’re right, there is geopolitical reality. I haven’t commented on that. I was merely stating my personal opinion on the moral question, which one person in particular (not you) just can't seem to stand the fact that I have one.

Some among the West have an incessant desire to weaken Russia. They cause friction by goading Ukraine and Georgia into joining NATO, knowing full well how provocative it would be if they installed their military infrastructure and extended their borders so close to Moscow. Those factors are chiefly responsible for creating the conditions that led to the war in Ukraine.

Are they goading them? It is entirely possible that people, like myself, actually believe that Ukraine and Georgia should determine their own course. But even if they are goading them and attempting to weaken Russia, then that is as you say, a geopolitical reality. But what you mean by ‘weakening’ Russia. Russia is a third world basket case and much like Macedonia, it doesn't really need any weakening.

Granted, Russia may have felt threatened by NATO expansion (even though I’ve never seen an invitation to Ukraine as opposed to random comments) and invaded in order to secure it’s western borders. But controlling Ukraine does not really change Russia’s security situation. I can’t see any circumstances in which NATO would launch a conventional attack on Russia (or vice versa). Further, NATO missiles don’t need to be located in Ukraine. They are more than effective in their current locations across the US, Europe and Turkey. They could also be located in the Baltics or Norway and they’d be much closer to St. Petersburg and Moscow than they would be from Ukraine. I don’t see Russia invading any of them. Further, Russian nuclear deterrence is more than adequate to prevent an attack on Russia itself. So I don’t fully buy the security argument.

There is also the geopolitical reality that in reaction to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, NATO and allied countries across the world are now arming, training and supplying the Ukranian army. They are also preventing Russia from obtaining critical resources and advanced technology that it requires for its weapon systems.

Another geopolitical reality is Sweden and Finland joining NATO. How is Russian security looking now? And there is yet another potential geopolitical reality – the very real chance that Ukraine could become a NATO member (albiet after it forces the Russian army out) and cement Russia’s entire European border with NATO forces on its doorstep (If we don’t pretend Belarus is an independent state). Finally, NATO has moved more military personnel into Eastern Europe and particularly the Baltics.

Putin may order some sort of nuclear strike in Ukraine, but whether his General Staff will actually follow that order or dispose of him remains to be seen.

Russia is the largest country on earth and a nuclear superpower whose security concerns must be considered.

Not at the expense of the sovereignty of its neighbours – in my opinion at least, and clearly in the opinion of many across the world. As above, I think much of the world has judged that Russia's security is not under threat.

Based on a compromise to diffuse tensions over the strategically important peninsula, Russia agreed to accept the territorial integrity of Ukraine so long as the latter allowed Russia’s Black Sea fleet to continue being based out of Crimea. If Ukraine became part of NATO, that arrangement would cease to exist and Russia’s influence in the Black Sea region would be weakened.

I don’t see why Russia should be entitled to “influence”. If it wants influence, then geopolitical reality necessitates that it either earns it or creates it – no one is going to give it to them just because the Russians think they deserve it. The problem for Russia is that no one wants to be dominated by a third world basket case.

As for Donbas, I am sure there were some personnel and military advisors from the Russian armed forces to support the local population who were rebelling against the newly established political powers that forced out a tainted, albeit democratically-elected, president who was more disposed towards Russia than the West, but I am not sure if “invasion” is the correct characterisation as it was hardly on par with what has been happening since the beginning of 2022.

”Some personnel and military advisors”? Come on SoM. At least don’t pretend to be unbiased. The OSCE observed 30,000 Russian soldiers crossing the border into Donbas from the two checkpoints it was allowed to monitor. It also observed other Russian forces moving across the border on dirt roads away from official border crossing. It was an invasion.

Despite the historical rhetoric and negation of Ukrainian nationhood in his speeches, Putin’s actions had more to do with political pragmatism rather than some dream about restoring the USSR or the Russian Empire. He constantly warned against the expansion of NATO towards Russia. The West ignored him. Do you really believe that he would have unilaterally invaded were it not for the threat of Ukraine becoming a member of NATO in the future?

I do. He’s been itching for it, he started in 2014 and he couldn’t wait to finish the job. I think he’s old and he’s looking to create a legacy. As I’ve noted above, if he was being pragmatic, he would have foreseen:

a) the Ukrainians were not going to welcome the Russians after having fought them for eight years
b) the Russian military is incompetent and could not possibly have taken Ukraine
c) NATO was not going to allow Russia to win in Ukraine
d) NATO has only expanded since his invasion (Sweden and Finland are awaiting ratification)
e) NATO has positioned more military personnel in the Baltics, Poland and Romania.

Pragmatism had nothing to do with Putin’s decision to invade. He’s deluded and he’s trying to make a name for himself in Russian history.

Kievan Rus did conquer parts of Crimea in the 10th century but lost these territories to the Mongols in the 13th century. Since then, the peninsula was largely occupied by Turco-Mongol peoples until the 18th century, when Russia conquered it. From that period, there has never been a time when ethnic Ukrainians formed a majority or outnumbered ethnic Russians in Crimea, except in one early census when both were still tiny minorities and separated by less than 1%. I have not done any thorough research on the Donbas but a cursory look at its history appears to suggest it was sparsely populated until the 17th century, after which people from both east and west of that region began to establish settlements.

This does not negate my point that Russia has no legitimate claim to it.

I am referring to indiscriminate shelling by Ukrainian armed forces that have led to the deaths of many civilians in Donbas. I am also referring to killings perpetrated by Ukrainian paramilitary groups who are in the service of their government. Most people can accept that both sides are likely to have engaged in such activities to one degree or another over the past 8 years. You seem to have some trouble accepting that pro-Russian civilians have been killed by government forces because you have “never seen any real evidence,” or more accurately, because you have not bothered to look for it. If you are going to argue against something, at least do so from an informed position rather an anecdotal one.

Genocide and the indiscriminate shelling of civilians are two completely different things. Russia has claimed that the Ukrainians are committing genocide and that is one of the reasons they invaded. There is no genocide and I have not seen any evidence for it. I would have to believe the whole world is lying except for the aggressor that is looking for an excuse. See definition of genocide here: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

On Ukrainian paramilitaries killing Russian civilians - are you suggesting they are committing genocide? If so, can you provide any links with evidence?

The indiscriminate shelling of civilians, while not genocide is definitely a war crime, and yes, both sides are doing exactly that, it’s well documented.

Pro-Russian forces have controlled much of Donbas since 2014. Russia did not occupy Donbas until 2022.

Sounds like more Russian narrative. See comment above about OSCE observations of at least 30,000 Russian soldiers crossing into the Donbas in 2014.

Your last question does not make sense and nobody has suggested that Ukrainian government forces were indiscriminately or deliberately killing their ethnic Russians prior to 2014.

The question was related to Russia's claim that it invaded because the Ukrainians were committing genocide in the Donbas. But, if the Russians controlled the Donbas from 2014, how is it possible that the Ukrainians were systematically killing Russians in a Russian controlled region? You’ve partly clarified by your point on artillery attacks, but you're also claiming Ukrainian paramilitaries are killing Russian civilians. How is that possible given most of Donbas, as you agree, has been under Russian control since 2014? Was it prior to 2014?

Did the Russian armed forces not win in Chechnya, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia? Did they not turn the tide in Syria?

These were counter-insurgency operations and small-scale interventions. They don’t compare to the size and nature of what the Russians are facing in Ukraine. Russia has not fought that type of large-scale conventional war since World War II.

[Carlin]

1) Remains of the Ukrainian 28th Mechanized Brigade in the Krivoy Rog direction of the Kherson region, after encountering Russian paratroopers.

Apparently, these tanks were donated by Macedonia and Slovakia.

https://twitter.com/Taurevanime/status/1583600681751318529?cxt=HHwWgsDU3cCbivorAAAA

2) The secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine has said the country will move to ban the Russian language entirely.

"The Russian language should disappear from our territory altogether as an element of hostile propaganda"

https://twitter.com/baronitaigas/status/1583436568458469376?cxt=HHwWgIClte3Kv_krAAAA

[The Head of Crimea, Sergey Aksyonov, responding to Ukrainian suggestions that the Russian language should be eliminated in Ukraine: "It will not be the Russian language that disappears, but Ukraine."]

[Carlin]

These were counter-insurgency operations and small-scale interventions. They don’t compare to the size and nature of what the Russians are facing in Ukraine. Russia has not fought that type of large-scale conventional war since World War II.

... In turn, US (= NATO) is learning a hard lesson that there is a big difference between invading/bombing third world countries and fighting a superpower that also appears to have economic and energy leverage (for the time being).

Putin may order some sort of nuclear strike in Ukraine, but whether his General Staff will actually follow that order or dispose of him remains to be seen.

I may be wrong but it's not likely that Putin will use nukes in Ukraine (.. so close to Russia's borders). Those missiles are pointed "elsewhere".

https://twitter.com/Ukraine66251776/status/1560979689560236034?cxt=HHwWhICznbuw26krAAAA

Nuclear weapons in Russian military doctrine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#:~:text=According%20to%20a%20Russian%20military,the%20very%20existence%20of%20the

"According to a Russian military doctrine stated in 2010, nuclear weapons could be used by Russia "in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, and also in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened". Most military analysts believe that, in this case, Russia would pursue an 'escalate to de-escalate' strategy, initiating limited nuclear exchange to bring adversaries to the negotiating table. Russia will also threaten nuclear conflict to discourage initial escalation of any major conventional conflict."

[Carlin]

Ukraine is blackmailing Germany with releasing a "refugee wave" on Europe as a result of critical infrastructure damage unless they get resupplied with IRIS-T missiles which are mostly depleted

https://twitter.com/mdfzeh/status/1583790059819450369?cxt=HHwWgoCqpeGq4PorAAAA