i can imagine well how an internal vote in Russia would go.
Either vote yes or get Novichok.
Either vote yes or get Novichok.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
They haven't in Cirmea or Donbass though have they?
I know Crimeans are quite happy to be known as Russians it seems but generally there wouldn't be that much pushback.
And absoluteley nobody from a NATO nation would say or do anything I bet either. Vlad can do this with impunity, amazed he hasn't already.
There was virtually no pushback in Crimea because residents there felt like Crimea as part of Russia that was irrationally given to Ukraine by Krushchev. Donbass also leaned heavily ethnically Russian. That is not the case for the rest of Ukraine, including the Russian speaking south from Odessa to Kharkiv in the east.
What possible intel is there to hint a false-flag operation in fecking Transnistria?
It was reported by Al-Jazeera as sourced to Ukrainian intel, not a small-time Ukrainian site.
"Russian special services are preparing “provocations” against Russian servicemen located in Moldova’s breakaway region of Transnistria in order to accuse Kyiv, Ukrainian military intelligence said on Friday."
Ukraine attacking the Russian troops in Transnistria is illogical, but that's what, apparently, Ukrainian intel believe Russia wants to use as a provocation to march to Odessa.
Those discussions were all prior to the final German reunification treaty and not included. Why would anyone be bound by terms that were not agreed upon and formalized? Gorbachev has subsequently said that there were no commitments made not to expand NATO further.
You mean like Ukraine is finished as an independent nation because they trusted Russia to abide by their obligations to actual written agreements? When Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, Russia promised to respect its independence and sovereignty. Part of that sovereignty is to make agreements and ally with whomever they want.
After taking a look at their original report it reads like every little bit of information, mostly suggestions and hearsay, that they were able to get without any fact-checking or even critical assessments, often without even quoting their sources.
To be honest, I never really used Al-Jazeera as a source, especially on Eastern Europe, so I have no idea about their credibility. It doesn’t look promising though.
I’m not even sure what they mean by that. A popular vote by citizens? Kinda ruins the whole surprise, doesn’t it? Or an internal vote in the higher circles?
It’s very naive to think the Russians genuinely felt there was a binding unwritten agreement in the 90s. They take nothing on trust, absolutely nothing (doverai, a proverai - trust but check - is a kind of national motto).
I fully understand that Putin does not want to lose Ukraine on his watch after nearly 400 years. However, I don’t see it as an existential threat to Russia itself, but rather to its image of itself under Putin of a great power with a legitimate sphere of influence that can impose a Monroe doctrine on its neighbours.
Anyway, I doubt an invasion is a real possibility. Although the West is highly unlikely to respond militarily, it would be hugely unpopular, exonomically catastrophic and probably lead to a brutal guerrilla war (even in the old days, it took them 10 years to fully pacify their newly acquired territories in Western Ukraine after WWII). As @harms has already said, it’s more the constant threat of intervention and destabilisation that suits Putin’s purposes better, a kind of madman theory to improve his negotiating position.
Would imagine just the inner circles/oligarchs. Never in a million years gonna pretend to offer a vote out to the citzens are they? Even then it'd be rigged to feck and anyone actually voting no would be immediately on an FSB watchlist.
They mean vote among the decison makers but we all know that group is N=1
Yeah, oligarchs don't really have any say in the matter anymore and whatever Putin says goes.
Just because you keep saying so does not mean it is true. There are lots of minutes all in the western world about this. Yes Gorbachev believed it without an agreement and that is exactly why Putin is demanding legal agreements He is not asking for the over take of Ukraine, just that NATO would not expand to Ukraine and rightly so.
As for the German Unification treaty was allowed by Gorbachev based on these assurances. Just read the whole thing instead of reading what has been selectively put out. There are German politicians who have seen whose documents and who were against it. Robert Gates another official was also against it for the same reason.
The Americans, The French and The Germans of that time seems to think so. This is exactly why Putin is demanding a written guarantee. Even Robert Gates has said that. All those documents are available in the US. The Americans are saying because it was not signed it is not valid. Yes Gorbachev was an idiot not get a written agreements but when Presidents, Bush, Mitterand, Chancellor Kohl all said the same thing I guess he was naive enough to believe it.
Mikhail Gorbachev signed a treaty based on an expectation that unwritten "guarantees" would be maintained. Do you think he's a simpleton? A man who made it to the top of the Communist Party and became the head of the USSR. The definition of naive.Under your theory, Putin can dictate terms of a legal agreement based off historical minutes from meetings in the process of the Final German Settlement? There are countless side meetings and conversations involved in negotiating international agreements that never make it into the final document. No one reasonably expects what was said in those meetings but not made part of the final agreement to be binding.
Also, if I want to steal Putin's "excuse" for not upholding Russia's written obligations to respect the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine (plus committing not to use economic pressure on Ukraine to exert undue political influence) the agreement was made with the Soviet Union, not Russia. That's how he justifies breaking Russia's obligations under the Budapest Memo.
If it were just about NATO, why is Putin so dead set on preventing Ukraine from joining the EU? Or Moldova? Or Georgia? He is only using lies about "broken promises" from NATO to maintain support for himself and to build support for a revanchist foreign policy to rebuild Russia's lost empire. The meetings about German reunification were during a period when the West hoped to integrate Russia into Europe as a partner, but Putin's irredentism has been on show for the last 20 years. Putin doesn't want to integrate with the rest of Europe. He wants to dominate it, particularly the former Soviet states that want closer ties with the West.
He also wants to control former Soviet states so they don't go fully democratic to where he winds up emboldening domestic Russian pro-democracy movements seeking to overthrow his government. At the end of the day, its all about saving his own hide from getting murdered by his own people, Ceaușescu and Qadhafi style.
Under your theory, Putin can dictate terms of a legal agreement based off historical minutes from meetings in the process of the Final German Settlement? There are countless side meetings and conversations involved in negotiating international agreements that never make it into the final document. No one reasonably expects what was said in those meetings but not made part of the final agreement to be binding.
Also, if I want to steal Putin's "excuse" for not upholding Russia's written obligations to respect the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine (plus committing not to use economic pressure on Ukraine to exert undue political influence) the agreement was made with the Soviet Union, not Russia. That's how he justifies breaking Russia's obligations under the Budapest Memo.
If it were just about NATO, why is Putin so dead set on preventing Ukraine from joining the EU? Or Moldova? Or Georgia? He is only using lies about "broken promises" from NATO to maintain support for himself and to build support for a revanchist foreign policy to rebuild Russia's lost empire. The meetings about German reunification were during a period when the West hoped to integrate Russia into Europe as a partner, but Putin's irredentism has been on show for the last 20 years. Putin doesn't want to integrate with the rest of Europe. He wants to dominate it, particularly the former Soviet states that want closer ties with the West.
@MoskvaRed @harms How widespread is the idea of a “fake Putin” internally these days, and is it possible he’s trying to get a grip at home with the macho posturing? As you guys say, invasion seems highly unlikely and counterproductive
Yep. It's not surprising all of Russia's closest allies are authoritarian regimes. Even with his near total control of the Russian media and ever-tightening controls over the internet and civil society groups, it could get dicey if Belarusians ousted Lukashenko.
If Europe could break its dependence on Russian gas and oil, it might all collapse on his head.
Nothing of that sort. It's all in the Washington archives. Yes Gorbachev was a bloody fool to do it. But it's understandable that he would believe it when everyone in the US government and French and west Germany said the same thing.
Under your theory, Putin can dictate terms of a legal agreement based off historical minutes from meetings in the process of the Final German Settlement? There are countless side meetings and conversations involved in negotiating international agreements that never make it into the final document. No one reasonably expects what was said in those meetings but not made part of the final agreement to be binding.
Also, if I want to steal Putin's "excuse" for not upholding Russia's written obligations to respect the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine (plus committing not to use economic pressure on Ukraine to exert undue political influence) the agreement was made with the Soviet Union, not Russia. That's how he justifies breaking Russia's obligations under the Budapest Memo.
If it were just about NATO, why is Putin so dead set on preventing Ukraine from joining the EU? Or Moldova? Or Georgia? He is only using lies about "broken promises" from NATO to maintain support for himself and to build support for a revanchist foreign policy to rebuild Russia's lost empire. The meetings about German reunification were during a period when the West hoped to integrate Russia into Europe as a partner, but Putin's irredentism has been on show for the last 20 years. Putin doesn't want to integrate with the rest of Europe. He wants to dominate it, particularly the former Soviet states that want closer ties with the West.
The dismantling of nuclear missile in Turkey was also not part of the agreement in the Cuban missile crisis. It's an agreement that was done not in writing.
Putin or for that matter any Russian leader would be mad to let nuclear missile be on the doorstep of Russia. Just like the America refused the Cuban missilles.
Are the Russians inferior humans to you?
He is not stupid to invade Ukraine. But it could end up in a nuclear war if people don't realize how serious this situation is.
What's that? Do you mean the theory of his multiple doppelgängers? It's quite widespread but more as a joke, I think.
As for the latter — I think it's more about the foreign politics and, more importantly, NATO (at the moment he sees the idea of maintaining the influence over the ex-Soviet states or, ideally, the expansion of it, as his biggest historical mission and the Ukraine joining NATO/EU would be catastrophic for him. Not that he didn't already lost Ukraine — compare our relationship with them in 1999 & now — and it certainly bothers him a lot). Although obviously the success (or the lack of it) of his foreign politics directly influence his ratings at home that he cares about a lot and that are at the all-time low at the moment (not that it means that he's under any threat politically, sadly).
As a Russian, why does it have to bother us at all if we imagine that we're leading an adequate foreign policy ourselves? The Cold War is over, while we were literally one button push away from starting a World War 3 during the Cuban missile crisis.
I guarantee you there is 0% chance of a nuclear war.
The Cold War was never over.It just changed it mission the contain the Russians and the `Chinese down. Why else would NATO refuse to let the Russian join NATO?
That is what they said about the first world war too. some idiot shot The Arch Duke and all hell broke loose. Russia could never fight a conventional war with any major European countries let alone the USA so it is bound to go Nuclear.
It's absolutely not a joke amongst working class white Russians. Perhaps it originated as one. The theory goes that Putin died/was killed a while ago, and this 'fake' Putin is a front for the old corrupt powers. This is 'evidenced' by how weak he is dealing with things compared to previously.
I think the bolded is an understated factor in the media etc. Every successful Russian leader has added going right back to Novgorod. He likely sees it as a personal failure.
Stop the hyperbole. Russia could easily fight a conventional war against any European country as well as the US. Would they win? That’s debatable, but they have plenty of weaponry to throw into the theater, especially tracked.
The Russian military budget is a fraction of that of the US. We pretty much know what the Russian military is capable of but the Americans are far more secretive about their military capabilities. So I doubt the Russians could easily fight a conventional war against the Americans.
Is there any evidence of this theory really taking off? The theory about multiple doppelgängers is an old one and it's relatively widespread but it doesn't matter much in a bigger context as it mainly concerns his public appearances etc., it's not a huge conspiracy theory that explains the origins of our politics.
Also, by white you mean? I assume that you're not talking about a cocktail. Russian ethnicities don't scale well by the skin colour metric* and there's no real "working class white" communal entity that's distinct from the overall society like in the US. It's not a dig, I really don't understand what category do you mean by it.
*re-reading this I just want to reiterate that I'm, obviously, not saying that Russia doesn't have a racism problem — we have, a huge one. It's just that the structure of the society, ethnicities etc. are very different, so the racism itself finds different forms and uses different terminology. Skin colour is only really used as a racist argument against different ethnicities from the Caucasian region (don't confuse it with the caucasian race type). There are plenty of others though
This is exactly what I thought. Who thought they were gonna stop at Crimea?
They have multiple times more weapons platforms v NATO needed to fight a conventional war of occupation. Just the numbers alone allow for such. Plus, some of the current generation systems favor the Russians in technology. Who would win? Probably NATO. But one thing is certain, there won’t be any nuclear exchange.
The numbers are largely irrelevant though as in this hypothetical war the economic capabilities of one side so far eclipse the other its not evan a question of who would win.
There’s not going to be a nuclear war over fecking Ukraine.
There was almost a nuclear war over fecking Cuba.
The almost war was not over fecking Cuba. Unless the US are in the process of installing MRBMs in Ukraine , it's not even remotely the equivalent comparison.
I think one of the main reasons is that Ukraine wants to join NATO. However, I’m sure I read somewhere that counties that are involved with border disputes cannot join. So, there is talk that this is one of the reasons that Russia is continuing this border fracas.
It's actually a very comparable situation given that both countries were in the process of aligning heavily with the rival of their neighbouring superpower. The whole 'nukes on our doorstep' thing was a nice propaganda line for the US but a tad hypocritical considering they already had nukes on Russias doorstep in Turkey.
The real danger of nuclear war is that seemingly small events can balloon into a crisis that leaves the world at a minute to midnight. A war in Iran was always a strong candidate, or Israel, but really anything could do it. Which is why the superpowers used to use proxy wars to try and provide a buffer.
Cuba was already aligned with the USSR and the US was humiliated in the bay of pigs fiasco. Although there were calls for attack on Cuba , that was obviously deemed already unrealistic given the Soviet backing. What really brought the world to the edge was the deployment of the missiles on us' doorstep. Yes its hypocritical as you note but that doesnt really matter in the discussion what caused the escalation. Also note that the US was already living in fear of a decapitating first strike given the proximity of DC to the ocean. This was seen as a step too far.
Seen as a step too far by a country already doing that exact same thing to their adversary. Does that seem rational to you? The point being that the reason behind escalation doesn't need to be rational, and is most likely to not be particularly rational, it just needs one side or the other to get scared and then things get out of control.
Let's say Russia invade Ukraine and it collapses quickly into insurgency warfare. The Baltic states and Poland panic and insist on a large NATO buildup in their countries in response to the chaos on their borders. Russia accidentally shoots down a passenger plane or military jet and suddenly the temperature is ratcheted up to boiling point. Putin is under pressure at home and can't be seen to lose face by accepting responsibility. The Biden administration is under pressure from the Republicans to respond to the loss of US lives. Suddenly otherwise small events start taking on huge lives of their own, and open warfare between Russia and NATO is perfectly likely.
We went through all this kind of crap before, and it almost ended us as a species. It's naive to assume that any kind of war like this couldn't escalate into something terrifying. National leaders at war are not rational actors.