RandomCommenter

That's a bit harsh, I think. Griner went to Russia before the 2022 Ukraine invasion (true, after the 2014 one). Russia was then a G7 country, security council member. I mean, I have been to Russia for business myself (in 2008). Does that mean that I surrendered all rights for consular support? But I do think that in the world we live in today that American citizens should be strongly discouraged from visiting countries such as Russia, North Korea, Iran etc.

I have mixed feelings about this. I am happy that Britney Griner is out. She must have gone through hell. But this guy that Biden exchanged for her, Victor Bout, is a really bad egg. I am afraid that we may be setting a precedent that you can arrest any random American citizen on trumped up charges and we will exchange anyone you want for them. It feels a bit like paying a kidnapper a ransom. You are only asking for it to happen again.

Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn I like his books. I read Gulag Archipelago and Cancer Ward. And clearly he is at some level a good human being with empathy. BUT. And it is a big but. Even he is infected with the Russian imperialism virus. He disliked actual life in America and bought into the idea of Russia as a "great power" with a "sphere of influence"

More Russian sabotage? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/20/shetland-loses-telephone-internet-services-subsea-cable-damaged Also of note https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/10/20/2130116/-Ukraine-update-Looting-and-chaos-spread-as-Russian-control-of-Kherson-area-unravels

Hi guys, I want to share this article here because I thought it was interesting and because it made me re-question my assumptions on the whole conflict. Luckily for me having re-questioned my assumptions I ended up exactly where I started - i.e. screw Vlad and this war only ends when the last Russian soldier leaves Ukraine including Crimea. So i do not endorse what the author of the piece says, in fact I disagree with it. And in a certain sense there is nothing new here, it is a rehash of the John Mearsheimer and George Kennan positions which have been previously dismantled on this forum. So why do I post this article here? Because it is a good antidote to groupthink. And I think we need to avoid falling in to groupthink, to occasionally sit back and question fundamental assumptions on the conflict. So in essence the argument here is the old imperialist canard of Ukraine is in Russia's back yard, Russia is big and scary and should have influence over neighboring countries' security policies. Which is bull (in fact was the argument used by the British to occupy Ireland for so long). Other people call it "realpolitik". Anyway, I found the article useful to read something from a totally different perspective from the news and opinion I have been consuming this past months and maybe others here will do the same. https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/complications-of-the-ukraine-war/?utm_campaign=imprimis&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=229431640&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_La5DaB1fPX9KQZ2Xa_odqOP2-GTOG4C5jTw48oNLb3LFrSSJAF2bp1IyvbsGqbzqV3ERXryCpTN6YbUkdmIZ0mxt_Ag&utm_content=229431640&utm_source=hs_email And while I'm here I want to give a little pitch for two books, one I finished last week and one I am currently reading. The first is "Ukraine and Russia From Civilized Divorce to Uncivil War" - this goes through the period 1991 to 2014 and basically shows how this conflict was all but inevitable from quite early, even 1993 or so. But it was a good refresher of the 2004 Orange Revolution, Maidan etc. which I remember but was still good to have the narrative told in one place. https://www.amazon.com/Ukraine-Russia-Civilied-Divorce-Uncivil/dp/1108713955 The second is "Borderland A Journey Through the History of Ukraine" by Anna Reid. This one is a much lighter read. Kind of half travelogue and half history. Real bed-time reading. It was written in about 1995 when Ukraine was first emerging out of the USSR and then I think the author tacked on a chapter or two and re-did the introduction after 2014 to update it. I am about half-way through this book. It is very interesting on the 19th century background, influence of the Poles etc. https://www.amazon.com/Borderland-Journey-Through-History-Ukraine/dp/0465055893

I'm not so sure Ukraine would accept Feb 22 borders. Methinks they will insist on Feb 14 borders for a ceasefire. This is a once in 50 year opportunity for Ukraine to get their territorial integrity back. And future security and NATO membership hinge on that. So unfortunately, since there is no way Russia is ready to accept these terms yet, I think this war has another 6-12 months to go with all the horrific suffering and loss of life that entails.

Careful This is exactly what Putin thought about Ukraine in early February. People tend to react in unpredictable ways when their countries are invaded.

Intercepted call from DPR militia man to his wife. Some highlights (no surprises to anyone who has been reading these pages, but still): No love lost between DPR militias and Russian regulars 140 DPR militia men in charge of holding 130 km (!!!) of front armed only with assault rifles, no heavy weapons And they consider themselves lucky because they think they have a tank ditch that will keep Ukrainian armor away No rotation of units from the front lines. Officers know the men won't go back if they are rotated out. 50% casualties in their units already Friendly fire - they shoot at people coming to reinforce their lines Seems like one Russian guy shot 75 people as well as raping a woman Seems like the Russian leadership is making some attempt to punish people for rape and murder and is interrogating people trying to find out what is going on but will likely release them unpunished after the "special operation" is over Guys on front lines are jealous of the guys in prison because at least they are safe So in short a bunch of orcs ripe for the Rohirrim to come and bust them up.

Good video on Nordstream pipeline.

A colleague told me a nice joke this morning I thought I would share here. Putin didn't realize just how accurate his description of "partial mobilization" was - they're going to partially train you, partially equip you, and then you're partially mobilized... And if you are lucky you get to partially go home (maybe missing a limb or two).

And frankly you wouldn't wish it on a nicer bunch of fellas. I guess Karma's a bitch.

Man, I've been reading these boards for six months and that is the first time I literally cried. The price is so heavy. To see those children who will grow up without fathers. It's crushing. But the other thing that comes out of that video is the sheer humanity and grace of Zelensky.

You mean "Ireland". Which is the name of the state in the English language.

I'd like to add Chemical and Biological weapons to that ideally. My French translation would be "Poutain" (de merde)

I think we are agreed that a drive to Moscow risks nuclear war. Where we disagree is whether or not Ukraine retaking Crimea risks nuclear war. And I agree that we are dealing with insane people and that the cost of assuming something that just ain't so is very high. Nobody wants mushroom clouds. We have discussed Russia's threshold for nuclear weapons before. Perun put out a good video on this months ago. He mentions here four reasons the Russians say they will use nuclear weapons: Now will the loss of Crimea put "the very existence of the state" in jeopardy. Clearly no. Although it may well put the existence of the current regime in jeopardy. To me, this is Ukraine's best chance it will ever have to get Crimea back. Once the Russian army is defeated and Ukraine will have lots of Western kit and mobilized troops the balance of power will be very favorable to Ukraine. And if we say that no, they cannot get Crimea back because of some sham poll done eight years ago, well, that is an argument for the Republic of Kherson being an indivisible part of Russia (I know we have not got the count yet from the "referenda" taking place today but I think we can guess what the outcome will be). I think acrashb has a good post directly above talking about Quebec. Now if somebody wants to say, OK, we agree that we will have a referendum on whether Crimea secedes from Ukraine or rejoins Russia in say 25 years time, I would be OK with that. But to do a referendum now? After the Russians moved people in and Ukrainians left and the Tartars get chewed up on the front lines as a modern form of ethnic cleansing? No. Why is it important to regain Crimea? Because then Ukraine will control the Black Sea. A Russian fleet in Sevastopol is an ongoing threat to Odesa not to mention Mariupol / Berdyansk / Melitopol / Kherson. And the end state here is Ukraine in NATO. And NATO does not admit members with border disputes. So this needs to be resolved.

Maybe someone on here with Russian can confirm this but apparently this video shows two comedians calling up Nikolei Peskov (Dmitry Peskov's son) pretending to draft him. And he drops the "do you know who my father is" within 10 seconds. So looks like the Russian elite don't want to send their boys off to Ukraine. And I had to share this insight into the quality of troops being rounded up by the Russians.

I agree fully with these three goals. I just don't think that fear of goal 2 should prevent us from pursuing goal 1. Where and when do we call the bluff? I mean if they declare Warsaw to be a part of Russia and say they will use nukes if we disagree do we bow to that? And if we can get Crimea restored to a Ukraine that is a member of EU and NATO, if we can restore Moldovan sovereignty to Transistria and Georgian sovereignty to Abkhazia and South Ossetia, if we can get regime change in Belarus, if the Ukrainians can destroy what is left of the Russian army, I would call that imperial Russia in their box for the next 20 years at least.

Data suggests otherwise ... Democracy Data Explorer - Our World in Data I mean we are just after an orgy of celebration of a feudal monarchy but yeah, whatever. And the arrest of protestors, super democratic. Holding up a blank piece of paper being a criminal offence. Nice. New head of state and new prime minister in the past two weeks were selected by somewhat less than democratic means. Current government trying to withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights because it makes it a bit inconvenient for them to ship vulnerable people off to Rwanda. One of the two houses of parliament being literally a House of Lords. Super democratic. Don't get me wrong, the UK is no Russia. And I am grateful for all the help the UK is giving Ukraine. But definitely has work to do (as do most countries in fairness).

Man I'm sorry you had that experience. I had it too actually. And in our school the school motto was "Is fearr bás ná náire" (death is better than shame). They meant it as a nationalist thing. Those guys who died rather than submit to English rule were heros and all. But as a bullied kid it was also "so should I commit suicide now I am being bullied remorselessly and shamed every day?". Anyway many years later and and as an American citizen as well as an Irish guy I can look back on those days as "growing pains". Apologies to use this forum to reach out privately to Kinophile who I have been admiring from the shadows for six months (along with Steve and the Captn and Aragorn2000 and all you guys, Taranis and I am missing others). Anyway my takeaway from today is the Azovstal defenders who have been released. It shows that we should never give up hope. What heros. I wish them many happy years ahead.

Wow! This thread is brutal. I go do my Spanish class and make dinner for my family and then I find myself three pages behind already! So again I say what do we mean by "democracy"? Rule of the people. And what is the "demos"? How narrowly do we draw it? The block? The neighborhood? The region? The nation? And so we come to the key Russian reason for the attempted genocide of Ukraine. They see it as a wayward region of the greater Russia that is not a "proper" nation and should be brought to heel. Same as Ukraine sees DPR/LPR separatism. Which is why in March Lavrov exploded when asked if he would accept independence for DPR/LPR as an end state. He said "that would mean we lost Ukraine". Impossible for a boyar from Muscovy to accept that Kievan Rus was outside their dominion. Now personally I believe in democracy. I want to see a pluralistic, democratic Ukraine within the EU and NATO. And I wish the EU had better tools to deal with semi-democratic regimes in the neighborhood like Hungary, Poland and the UK. But that does not mean that local criminal warlords in Donetsk or Luhansk or Sevastopol can create their own pseudo countries out of thin air. A rigged plebiscite in Kherson or Melitopol does not make them part of Russia instead of Ukraine. Just look at history. In 2003 the party of the regions lost power. But they got it back 2-3 years later. It is hard. Personally I would love a world where we all speak Esperanto and national differences get watered away. Which is why if we could have Russia and Ukraine in a kind of EU or UN where we could allow people to be RUssian or Ukrainian or both it would be better. Like in Northern Ireland people were British or Irish or both. But then the real world intervenes. Russia invades Ukraine. Brexit happens and an English nationalist Tory party takes control in the UK. so we fall back on national identities. So fundamentally I agree with NamEndedAllen above. The battlefield gets a big vote. Unfortunately war decides the fate of nations. If Russia had crushed Ukraine in February and March then future historians would look at Putin's essay / vomit of last year as very incisive. Oh there is no Ukrainian nation. But look at what we have seen. From five days in when we saw the ordinary people in Ukraine Russian speaking or Ukrainian speaking filling glass bottles with petrol instead of submitting, we knew, the Ukrainians will never be conquered. 200k soldiers can never subdue 44 million risen people. (I am thinking here of Jim Larkin "the great appear great because we are on our knees, let us rise"). If / when Ukraine wins this thing our goal, in my opinion, should be victory. Total victory. Ukraine back to 1991 borders in NATO and in the EU. And frankly I could not give two sh*ts what Russia thinks about that. Someone said many pages back (with no disrespect intended to Liechtenstein) that Russia should have as much say in the future security architecture of Europe as Liechtenstein gets. I agree with that sentiment, This is war. This is the premier league. Russia is mobilizing now. No more "special military operation". And we in the West need to reciprocate. No more "off ramps" for Putin. No more "referendums" in areas that Russia has carved out and driven the Ukrainian population out of and installed planters in their stead. No. We need to win this. And end Russian imperialism. And I would argue not just in the Donbas and Crimea but also Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abhkhazia. Then, if in 20 years time a peaceful group of people want to discuss decession of Donetsk and they have peaceful democratic process to want to do that maybe we can talk then. But now? Under military threat of Russia? No way.

If we mean what we stand for then this isn't about what we want, it is about what the populations within those regions want - we cannot go back-sies on democracy because we don't like the result. And now we get down to it. What is democracy? What is a "region" with a right of secession? What is a "population"? What is the franchise? We get into gerrymandering discussions here. To take the case of Northern Ireland. What gave the six counties the right to secede from the rest of Ireland? (in reality it was military power through the gun running to Larne and the British Army mutiny in the Curragh). But what is the franchise? Whole of UK (which would have lost)? Whole of Ireland (which would have lost)? Whole of Ulster (which would have lost)? On a county by county basis (which would have shown four counties in favor of secession)? So what we ended up with was four Protestant counties and two subject Catholic counties making a six county statelet which was (just about) large enough to be viable and with a (then) inbuilt 66/33 Protestant majority. i.e. it was an entirely illegitimate project. So when we move to Ukraine. What was the mandate behind Donetsk or Luhansk having any legitimacy as a separatist region? There is none. The majority of the population in both oblasts wanted to stay in Ukraine. There was no problem until Russia sent it in agents provocateurs to stir up trouble because they could not accept being defeated in the Maidan. So I do not see that Donetsk, Luhansk or Crimea have any legitimate right to secede. And when you add to the fact that the Russians have engaged in ethnic cleansing to clear out the Tartars and plant Russians in Ukraine to generate an artificial majority, the fact that the pro Ukrainian parts of the population fled from Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea how do we say we can have a fair poll today. Like take Crimea, do Russian settlers who moved in get a vote because they live there now? And the family who's house they live in who are refugees in Kiev don't get a vote? No. This is not a question of pseudo independence referenda (and why would Ukraine subject to this if Russia is not going to allow Buriyta and Chechnya and other regions secede). Yes, if people in Donbas want to have Russian language rights and the right to send members of Parliament to Kiev they should (after a period of weeding out traitors who should lose their Ukrainian citizenship). You have some places like Scotland for example which entered a voluntary union with England in 1707 or whatever and therefore can have a natural justice right to undo that (it is still a separate country with a separate legal system). Greenland is hundreds of miles from Denmark. And even there whether they have a right to secede or not is an open question. But what gives the Donbas the right to secede from Ukraine? To my mind, nothing. And sorry, regardless what the current quisling "government" there says or the remains of the population that currently inhabit that place. Have they a right to citizenship in Ukraine or to leave peacefully to Russia? Yes. Have they the right to live in peace? Absolutely. The right to raise their kids in Russian language schools? 100%. Have they the right to declare themselves independent of Ukraine and ask Russia for "protection"? Hell no.

Would be AWESOME if we can get it on the record right now from both China and the US that they agree to this principle and that whatever happens in Taiwan in the future, nuclear weapons are off the table.

It is, Cedric. As a simple matter of historical fact. Fortunately the census results out today show that the days of Rhodesia on the Bann are numbered. See for example - https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/social-affairs/2022/09/22/northern-ireland-census-results-analysis/ However the thread has had enough problems staying on message today, so I will just leave it there. However I would be more than happy to get on to another thread with anyone here who wants to trash out this subject in more detail. But let's keep the focus on Ukraine. By two cents on Donbas and Crimea. And here for I think the very first time I find myself in disagreement with The Captn. We have as a matter of international law to respect current international frontiers. Which is why Kosovo is such an unfortunate precedent. This is why despite all the brutality we (the West) ultimately recognize for example Russia's sovereignty over Chechnya or Assad's sovereignty over the Kurdish part of Syria. If we are to say that Donetsk or Luhansk or Crimea or any other part of Ukraine (Kharkiv, Odesa, Kherson, where would it stop?) have a right to secede from Ukraine because of some local plebiscite then where do we stop? How do we keep international order? We would first of all have the Basque region of Spain or Catalonia seceding. Problems in Corsica and Brittany, in Sardinia. A free republic of Texas. It would undermine the international order. My opinion is that Ukraine needs to be supported by the West to regain all of its internationally recognized frontiers. That includes Crimea and the Donbas. And yes, we will have a NATO naval base in Sevastopol and the Russians will hate that. But Sevastopol is not a part of Russia no matter what they say. It was Ukrainian and they had a lease on the naval base. Now that they have made an enemy of Ukraine why should Ukraine tolerate a Russian naval base there? And I know that some of you can (in good faith and reasonably) argue that this would be unacceptable for Russia. That they might resort to nuclear weapons. But that in my opinion is not rational. Are we going to fold every time they declare somewhere to be a part of Russia that objectively is not? And where do we draw the line if we are going to fold to nuclear brinksmanship? Crimea? Donetsk? Luhansk? Kherson? Mariupol? Kharkiv? Odesa? Transnistria? Kiev? Warsaw? Berlin?

Unfortunately the first crack is beginning to show in EU unity on the sanctions front. And I expect things can get worse if say Italy starts backsliding too. From the Guardian Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban wants EU sanctions on Russia lifted by the end of the year, a pro-government daily newspaper said Thursday. Orban, who has sought close ties with Russian president Vladimir Putin in recent years, has frequently railed against the sanctions which were imposed onto Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. According to Orban, the sanctions are more damaging to Europe than to Russia. Magyar Nemzet reported that Orban urged members of his Fidesz party at a closed-door gathering late Wednesday to get the sanctions lifted. The government said it confirmed the content of the article. It comes as Brussels looks to impose further sanctions on Russia. Hungarian foreign minister Peter Szijjarto said further sanctions would only “deepen the difficulties”. Hungary has been hit by record-high inflation. The country is highly dependent on Russian oil and gas, and there are fears for its energy supplies. Orban’s ruling Fidesz party meanwhile announced it would soon launch a national public consultation on the issue of sanctions - a method previously used to denounce EU migration policy for instance. It would aim to give Hungarians the chance to voice their opinion, Mate Kocsis, head of the party’s parliamentary group, told reporters. EU foreign ministers held an emergency meeting Wednesday to discuss the issue after Moscow mobilised reservists for its war in Ukraine. A final decision needs to be made at a formal session.