Ukraine

The big moral difference here is that if the Russians stop fighting, that's the end of the war, if the Ukranians stop fighting, that's the end of Ukraine.

I would imagine that Russians will say that if they stop fighting then the ever increasing NATO encirclement will continue.

I would imagine that Russians will say that if they stop fighting then the ever increasing NATO encirclement will continue

Russia says lots of things, the truth is that Ukraine wasn't pursuing NATO membership and Finland and Sweden weren't in NATO.

Russia's actions have expanded NATO; Finland's membership alone doubled Russia's border length with NATO

I would imagine that Russians will say that if they stop fighting then the ever increasing NATO encirclement will continue.

Wonder whos fault that is.

I would imagine that Russians will say that if they stop fighting then the ever increasing NATO encirclement will continue.

And yet recent NATO membership has increased only as a direct result of Russia's invasion.  Avowedly neutral non NATO countries are now joining because they fear being attacked themselves.  Sweden and Finland would never have considered joining before Russia invaded Ukraine.  Putin is NATO's top performing recruitment consultant.

Edit:  Too slow to state the obvious 🙂

They are all human (both sides). If we look back to history we have plenty of evidence that human beings are always fighting with each others for whatever reasons.

Yep

The last few hundred years saw the expansion of Western empires colonising less technologically advance nations, creating lasting conflicts in their path. But empires do not last forever and as in history empires collapse after a period of time, but it is the transitional period that is usually considered as the difficult with death and destruction before it can stabilise again.

How does that effect Russia invading Ukraine?

In 1993 Russia went through a constitutional crisis, the so-called October Coup and came close to civil war as President Yeltsin took on parliament, which opposed him.

Vladimir Putin, variously serving as PM and President, took power in 1999 and improved the economy enormously, became a major trading partner with the EU, second largest exporter of weapons in the world, holder of vast natural wealth, etc. All very stable and prosperous.

There is no right or wrong in a conflict, and the victors will always dictate the narrative.

On this occasion, Russia is very much in the wrong

Currently they are in the transitional period so the narrative is uncertain with each side proclaiming to be on the right side of history.

See above

BUTR +1 (x5-ish - lost count) 🙂

Maybe. Who knows? There is state sanctioned contempt for international law displayed by Ukraines allies elsewhere on the globe, so why would Ukraine be specially virtuous?

Why do they need to be "specially virtuous", abiding by the rules is special enough when you're fighting for your existence. Russia doesn't have that pressure (although that may be a moot point as a result of their invasion)

Some Ukrainians will remember the holodomor and this invasion probably feels horribly like that

the truth is that Ukraine wasn’t pursuing NATO membership

The truth is that Ukraine has pursued NATO membership at various times.

However, the point is not to claim who are goodies and who are baddies, but to observe that groups have their own motives which may not appear valid to outsiders but which make sense to them. How history judges them is not necessarily obvious at the time.

Why do they need to be “specially virtuous”,

This comment makes no sense.  Suggest you re-read the context.

The truth is that Ukraine has pursued NATO membership at various times.

They may have aspired to, but there was zero prospect of it happening. Before 2014 because it was opposed by most NATO members for fear of antagonising Russia (ironic huh)? And after 2014 because their territorial 'dispute' with Russia automatically barred them.

You didn't mention Finland and Sweden? Did they pursue NATO membership before 2022?

The truth is that Ukraine has pursued NATO membership at various times.

Not since 2010 when the pro-Russian Ukrainian government of Viktor Yanukovych declared the country "neutral", which the Kremlin would be very aware of. In 2014 Russia's invasion of Crimea and the Donbas region triggered further calls from Ukraine for NATO membership, understandably

However, the point is not to claim who are goodies and who are baddies, but to observe that groups have their own motives which may not appear valid to outsiders but which make sense to them.

Do Russia's motives justify laying waste to every town and village that they come near, destroying civilian infrastructure. killing and wounding hundreds of thousands of people, etc.

This isn't the first time; you gave examples including Grozny and Aleppo, but include the rest of Chechnya, Georgia, and involvement in civil wars in CAR, Mali and Burkina Faso over the last 25 years.

X with BUTR (+1)

This comment makes no sense. Suggest you re-read the context.

I'd suggest that it makes absolute sense. Anyway, this is descending into a rerun of the Gaza thread; I'll leave you to it 🙂

Not since 2010 when the pro-Russian Ukrainian government of Viktor Yanukovych declared the country “neutral”, which the Kremlin would be very aware of. In 2014 Russia’s invasion of Crimea and the Donbas region triggered further calls from Ukraine for NATO membership, understandably

So not since 2010, except for since 2014. Yes. Now I understand.

Do Russia’s motives justify laying waste to every town and village that they come near, destroying civilian infrastructure. killing and wounding hundreds of thousands of people, etc.

No, and nowhere do I suggest that they do. But they’re hardly alone in conducting a war this way - it seems to be the rule rather than the exception.

Do we have a tankie, or do we have a tankie?

I would imagine that Russians will say that if they stop fighting then the ever increasing NATO encirclement will continue.

Encirclement? Blimey, who's joining next? Kazakhstan? China?

So not since 2010, except for since 2014. Yes. Now I understand.

Yawn

Either Tankie or just a terminal case of whataboutery.

It would be good to discuss the subject matter without making it personal. Although there seems to be a consensus amongst regular posters on here, different views should tolerated imv. Reading back through my posts I've maybe been a bit tetchy with DrJ at times.  Apologies.

Poor misunderstood Russia accidentally invaded Ukraine, again… and then some of its neighbours joined a defence alliance for some unrelated but aggressive and egregious reason.

Reading back through my posts I’ve maybe been a bit tetchy with DrJ at times.  Apologies.

No offence taken. And apologies where I gave it.

The irony is that Ukraine was not a candidate for NATO membership and Finland and Sweden had no interest in joining until Russia invaded Ukraine. Following the invasion, Finland and Sweden joined NATO and Russia's response was just to bluster about it and then to withdraw troops from the north (i.e. where NATO now borders Russia) to send them to fight in Ukraine (which isn't in NATO). So Putin's ramblings about NATO are just nonsense to justify trying to expand the Russian empire but tankies don't think anyone has agency except the U.S. so anything that happens in the world is America's fault because capitalism bad.

tankies

zzzzzzzz

The irony is that Ukraine was not a candidate for NATO membership

Wasn't the problem corruption at a political level with Ukrainian oligarchs

Or was that related to EU membership ?

Wasn’t the problem corruption at a political level with Ukrainian oligarchs

I think that was a factor.  Certainly Ukraine has had big problems with corruption, but I think they have tried very hard to crack down on it. I'm sure there's more to be done. The other reasons were a totally different military doctrine and logistical mismatch to NATO countries due to the Soviet legacy and the aforementioned fear of antagonising the Russians.

Huge strides have been made in coordinating doctrine and equipment with NATO countries in the last decade. The AFU in 2014 was a shadow of what it has become since.  Before the invasion they were 'partners' of NATO and working towards increasing coord and cooperation, but there was no prospect of full membership or article 5 protection.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37750.htm

The irony is that Ukraine was not a candidate for NATO membership and Finland and Sweden had no interest in joining until Russia invaded Ukraine. Following the invasion, Finland and Sweden joined NATO and Russia’s response was just to bluster about it and then to withdraw troops from the north (i.e. where NATO now borders Russia) to send them to fight in Ukraine (which isn’t in NATO). So Putin’s ramblings about NATO are just nonsense to justify trying to expand the Russian empire

100% this , youve got to be pretty naive to think that all of this isnt about Russian expansionism, the NATO bogeyman was a useful excuse for Putin to justify his aggression, but he has long since given up the pretense that his invasion of Ukraine is anything other than a land grab.

And yes fear of upsetting Russia meant Ukraine was never going to join NATO and extra ironic that the invasion has actually made Finland & Sweden sign up

Whats hilarious is that so many pushing this 'its all NATOs fault narrative' are suddenly pretending to be shocked that theyve been funded by Russia all along

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/09/tenet-media-indictment/679743/

The Media show had an interview with the Times journalist who was able to travel with Ukranian troops in to Kursk, she spoke to several Russians in Kursk and many had no idea of the extent on what was happening in Ukraine and were disbelieving when they learned of things like the massacre at Bucha   when Ukranian troops had been nothing like that when they took Kursk villages

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0022kwr from about 49mins

The Media show had an interview with the Times journalist who was able to travel with Ukranian troops in to Kursk, she spoke to several Russians in Kursk and many had no idea of the extent on what was happening in Ukraine and were disbelieving when they learned of things like the massacre at Bucha when Ukranian troops had been nothing like that when they took Kursk villages

But we knew this is the case already. It has been since 2014 for this conflict.

A moot point in the light of comments above, but the link to the NATO page on Ukraine (also posted above) is a bit light on detail...

"From 2010 to 2014, Ukraine pursued a non-alignment policy, which it terminated in response to Russia’s aggression"

The longer version is, "Ukraine's Viktor Yanukovich, a strong candidate for president, said he would keep the country out of NATO if he wins the January 17 election but said he remained committed to taking it into the European mainstream..." "...Ukraine, quite simply, has been and will be a state outside any blocs ... We will not aspire to enter either NATO or the ODKB," he said, referring to the Russian-dominated Collective Security Pact that brings together some ex-Soviet allies." https://www.reuters.com/article/world/yanukovich-vows-to-keep-ukraine-out-of-nato-idUSTRE6062P3/

Viktor Yanukovich was duly elected President and that "neutrality" was passed into law by Ukraine's parliament, although co-operation with alliances on all sides was continued.

President Yanukovich later rowed back on his promise (and parliament's democratic decision) to take Ukraine into the European mainstream, leading to the Maidan Uprising of 2013-14

Back in 1990 I worked with a bunch of expat Poles / Ukranians.  They said then Russia would never let Ukraine be free of the russian sphere of influence.

an awful lot of history in the area and a lot of borders have moved around a lot over the centuries.  Those eastern regions and Crimea only became part of Ukraine in the mid 50s IIRC?

I have always found it odd that the settlement of borders became frozen after WW2 leaving a lot of oddities.  Poland moved hundreds of miles west gaining territory from Germany and losing it to Belarus and Ukraine in the east

This does not mean I am in any way sympathetic to the Russian invasion just pointing out that the geopolitics are complex in the region

A short history of Russia by Mark Galeotti is a good primer on all that historic messyness. He's also well worth following for a far more nuanced perspective on whats going on from a lot of the regular press.

However the 'Donbas + Crimea was always Russian until recently (aka Khrushev's Mistake)' narrative is a long running piece of russian propaganda. One thats got a lot of traction since 2022 (must be true, most people there speak Russian!) most notably Elon Musk repeating it almost verbatim. It's more dissapointing seeing avowed anti colonialists fall for it given it's the oldest colonisation play in the book. Invade, depopulate, de-culture, repopulate,  re-culture - boom, colony never existed, it was always part of $INVADER.

And yeah, there's a lot of prerty wacky borders in Europe post ww2, my favourite being in Netherlands / Belgium. Most of the point of the EU and the general post WW2 settlement was realising that Europe's entire history has been wars of conquest (theres a really good animation of european borders moving over the past 1000 years or so, i can't vouch for its accuracy but the overall gist of  'these things have moved ALOT' holds true). The advent of industrial warfare made that unsustainable, so everyone agreed that it needed to stop somewhere, sometime, and that might as well be here and now. And it didnt really matter all that much where the borders were as EU membership smooshed out the effects of them. Closest to home in NI.

speaking of WW2 borders, china has unfinished business too:

In 1954, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union transferred the Crimean Oblast from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR. The territory had been recognized within the Soviet Union as having "close ties" to the Ukrainian SSR, and the transfer commemorated the Union of Russia and Ukraine Tercentenary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Crimea_in_the_Soviet_Union

There has never been an independent ukraine with anything like its current borders until the collapse of the USSR.  This is a part of the issue for me.  At what point in time do you say " these are now our immutable borders"

Just to say again - this is not a defense of the Russian invasion

I stand corrected on Donbas 🙂

There has never been an independent $COUNTRY with anything like its current borders until the $20TH_CENTURY_EVENT.

This is true of most of east/central Europe (and bits of western europe for that matter.

At what point in time 'these are now our iummutable borders'.

Happened after WW2 and the collapse of the soviet union.

Young men desensitised to violence and packed full of hate for their opponents.

I'm going to pick this up; that is a sweeping generalisation and does a huge disservice to the majority of disciplined and professional soldiers that serve within the ranks of a multitude of armed forces in nations that follow the rule of law.

Especially when you said the British Army, some of the best humans I know gave their lives in service of something bigger than themselves and bullshit like that makes me livid.

It's not a war movie with a bunch of ****ing idiots running about the place ready at a moments notice to make a necklace of ears.

I don't know if you decided to deliberately stoke that fire from your place of deep, deep ignorance. I suspect you did as you have firm but I'd encourage you not to do it again.

RM - I have huge respect for you and your service however atrocities happen in all armies including the british one.

Somewhat of a digression tho

There's a big difference between low-level indiscipline, which will happen in any army, and a deliberate strategy of brutalizing civilians and prisoners-of-war.

On top of that, it is possible for countries and their militaries to change and adopt better practices. Germany and Japan in WW2 were among some of the most brutal militaries in history. Today they are completely different countries. Russia does not seem to have learned those lessons.

There’s a big difference between low-level indiscipline, which will happen in any army, and a deliberate strategy of brutalizing civilians and prisoners-of-war.

Where does Abu Graib fit in with your classification?

Germany and Japan in WW2 were among some of the most brutal militaries in history. Today they are completely different countries.

Although to be fair, unlike Russia neither Germany nor Japan have done any war fighting since WW2, so how would we know?

I'm being a little facetious, they have changed immeasurably. I've worked with the Bundeswehr and they were very professional, making allowances for the fact they were mostly a conscript force at the time.

Abu Graib was a classic case of poor leadership allowing disciplinary problems to get out of hand. The CIA waterboarding was a classic case of civilian leadership doing dumb things (it was based on a lawyer trying to find loopholes to claim that waterboarding wasn't torture.) Poor civilian leadership at the top sending the wrong message, badly trained reservists at the bottom losing discipline.

Poor civilian leadership at the top sending the wrong message, badly trained reservists at the bottom losing discipline.

So that’s ok then. Not actually brutalising prisoners at all.

Guys - I am sorry I brought up this conversation.  Perhaps better left?

apologies again RM for introducing this.

So that’s ok then.

Did anybody say it was ok?

theres a really good animation of european borders moving over the past 1000 years

It's amazing how stable Britain has been compared to almost everywhere else.