ok what the fuck is happening in ukraine

Had no idea this was going on: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-12-16/no-caviar-is-not-getting-cheaper-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-russian-ruble-collapse#r=hp-ls

ruble now only slightly more valuable than bitcoin

xp has been discussed itt http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/ThreadSelectedControllerServlet?boardid=40&threadid=100650

Lavrov has said today that Poroshenko is the best hope Ukraine has for recovery and that Russia has no opinion on whether Ukraine should move towards federalisation. The power of the market!

With Russian-backed separatists pressing their attacks in Ukraine, NATO's military commander, Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, now supports providing defensive weapons and equipment to Kiev's beleaguered forces, and an array of administration and military officials appear to be edging toward that position, American officials said Sunday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/world/us-taking-a-fresh-look-at-arming-kiev-forces.html

Might be tough to get this past NATO given how much back and forth there was in the EU over extending sanctions. The challenge isn't just a lack of weapons, it's a lack of trained forces on both sides. Many of the pro-Kyiv forces are irregular militias, not the standing army - loading them up with expensive weapons is a recipe for disaster, not least because they have their own loyalties and paymasters. It's difficult to see how military aid could be restricted just to the proper army. The more destructive the weapons they've had access to (bombers and rockets / mortars) the more civilians have been accidentally killed.

Equally, unless NATO troops intervened directly (which they won't do), there's nothing to stop Russia simply upping the military aid it's giving the separatists in return. The major Russian intervention came when it looked like the separatists were heading for defeat - avoid that is much more of a priority than pushing them to take more land. This would be another escalation.

It looked like Poroshenko recognised that there is no viable military solution prior to the recent flare up in hostilities and i'm not sure that much has changed.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/10/usa-today-publishes-map-of-ukraine-without-crimea/

https://foreignpolicymag.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/screen-shot-2015-02-10-at-3-15-49-pm.png?w=1182&h=634

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/world/europe/ukraine-conflict-debaltseve.html

Ukraine Forces Withdraw From Strategic Town in Major Defeat
By ANDREW E. KRAMER and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN 9:17 AM ET
President Petro O. Poroshenko sought to cast the retreat from the embattled town of Debaltseve in a positive light, but it was clearly a devastating defeat at the hands of Russian-backed separatists.

https://theintercept.com/2016/07/01/nato-general-emails/

With all hostages free and the hostage-taker in custody, President Zelensky has deleted the Facebook video of himself complying with the armed man's demand to promote the 2005 film Earthlings featuring narration by Joaquin Phoenix. But here it is for posterity. pic.twitter.com/lPcHB8XD3H

— Christopher Miller (@ChristopherJM) July 21, 2020

"Late on Tuesday, the Ukrainian interior minister, Arsen Avakov, said: 'The film … is a good one. And you don’t have to be so screwed up and cause such a horror for the whole country – you can watch it without that.'"

Cancel joaquin phoenix until we can figure out wtf is going on

you don’t have to be so screwed up and cause such a horror for the whole country - but it helps!

Scary thread:

In the last few weeks, I have become increasingly convinced that Kremlin has unfortunately made a decision to invade Ukraine later this winter. While it is still possible for Putin to deescalate, I believe the likelihood is now quite low. Allow me to explain why 🧵

— Dmitri Alperovitch (@DAlperovitch) December 21, 2021

The idea that "The Free World" can control the fate of "The Rest of the World" seems to me to be an idea that has been proved fallacious in the majority of tests it has undergone. The alliance that can more or less be described as 'NATO and friends' can continue to strenuously limit the benefits the Russian Federation can derive from Putin's aggression, but driving him back from Ukraine via full scale war seems like a bad bargain for NATO alliance members. Look how well it has worked as a tool for controlling outcomes for USA policy in its past five decades. When strongly tested, it hasn't worked at all.

I fully recognize this fact is shitty for Ukrainians, unless they already have pro-Putin cred, but the world is big, war is hell (and fucking expensive), and bad actors abound.

It doesn't seem like there is any appetite for direct military conflict with Russia over Ukraine. As far as I know, the US has been trying to drum up support for punitive sanctions in that event. Nothing else is even on the table.

Things continue to heat up:

"U.S. Charges Russia Sent Saboteurs Into Ukraine to Create Pretext for Invasion"
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/14/us/politics/russia-ukraine-us-intelligence.html

So if/when Russian invades Ukraine (again), what then?

I don't know. The situation is quite disturbing. Also a bit awkward in how it highlights how little has changed in terms of realpolitik of European security despite the increasing power of the EU in other areas. The EU is kind of an afterthought here. Eastern Europe still looks to the US for protection against the neighborhood bully. It seems like there is an easy diplomatic solution to be picked up here if Biden can absorb the political flak, which is to say that Ukraine will not be joining NATO, which apparently is and has always been the unspoken reality. Perhaps it helps Biden's domestic political situation that the GOP is currently divided between its traditional hawkish pro-military wing and the post-Trumpian isolationist wing, so they may not want to attack him too hard if he decides to cut a deal.

you've got me rooting for Putin here with your awful fucking posting tbh

The bully of my bully is my friend.

If there's a likely diplomatic solution, it's pretty well hidden at the moment. Looks like NATO pretty much means USGOV in this situation, which means military solution isn't very likely either, given track record.

Doesn't mean there couldn't be a bloodsoaked shitstorm, but then what.

People shouldn't underestimate the degree to which this is a play for American political gain. The association of Trump with Russia and the ongoing attempts to tie Hunter Biden to Ukraine are not irrelevant to the whole shebang. So imagine the scenario if you're Putin and Trump, you rally both of your bases around the idea of Russia's legitimate claims to Ukraine and Trump's legitimate claims to the White House, and both of those reinforce each other. That's a best-case thing for Putin, if it works out he gets Ukraine AND a buddy back in Washington. If it doesn't work out, it still has potential for political havoc in the U.S., which is good for Putin either way.

What the actual right response to all of that is, I don't know. It's like in The Expanse, where there are often not good options.

The grasping at straws to explain what strategic goals invasion would secure and the Ukrainian government explicitly saying they don’t expect an imminent invasion to happen probably tell their own story but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Russia wants to secure a formal commitment that Ukraine will never join NATO, something the US is not going to give. Russia also knows that there is no immediate prospect of Ukraine joining NATO.

Nor is there a realistic prospect of American military action against Russia, and even less from NATO/Europe. In fact, if/when Russia invades Ukraine I imagine there will be as much of a response as the last time they did it: functionally none, sanctions aside, and I'm not sure how effective dangling sanctions relief is in this case; that seems kind of a tacky mollify North Korea tactic. I suppose if Russia's goal is chaos, particularly in the west, then there's a pretty favorable cost/benefit ratio at play whose best response unfortunately might just be ignoring them, which is tantamount to calling Russia's bluff (assuming it's a bluff).

It's funny in a sad way that the key Russian demand which is considered beyond the pale by the US is a purely symbolic gesture.

Which suggests to me that war is unlikely. The losses, in terms of sanctions and derailing NS2, would be huge and the objective is unattainable.

@tipsy, I know we're all still shook from Trump, but I really don't think American politics is a central concern here.

Can't resist quoting Zizek on negotiations. (Schelling is Thomas Schelling.)

According to Schelling, real human interactions are not governed only by pure strategic calculus (which can be formalized) but by focal points that are "invisible under a mathematical formulation of the problem. Schelling did not believe that game theory was useless, merely that most human interactions were so shot through with ambiguity that these focal points could be the ultimate guide to what might or should happen." ...

In negotiations, the "focal point" can be an "irrational" commitment (in the sense of not grounded in any rational strategic calculation) which fixes a non-negotiable feature: for the State of Israel, control over the whole of Jerusalem is "non-negotiable"; ahead of salary negotiations, a trade union leader announces that he will never settle for less than a 5 percent raise, and so on. While there are, of course, always ways to compromise while sticking to the letter of one's engagement (say, the trade union leader can accept that the 5 percent raise will be gradual, spread over five years), such an engagement raises the stakes: once cannot abandon its letter without "losing face." In contrast to purely strategic reasoning, such commitment is not psychological but properly symbolic: it is "performative," grounded in itself ("I say so because I say so!")

- from "Living in the End Times"

I really don't think American politics is a central concern here.

You don't say?

I don't get it, I don't get any of this.

Moving troops to the Ukraine border is a relatively low cost move by Putin. NATO won't do anything unless he does, which puts him in complete control of the situation. By coupling it with a bunch of demands he's forced the NATO alliance to consider the extent of his power and the costs he can impose on Europe whenever he chooses. This strikes me as Putin posing in front of NATO and Ukraine and flexing his muscles. Any small concessions he might get will strengthen him at minimal cost.

So Putin/Russia just keeps thousands of troops there (I think I just saw that warships are en route as we speak, too) indefinitely? Seems like an expensive, high-stress, dangerous, geopolitically destabilizing, very inefficient way to get what you want, whatever that may be (though the thing he seems to want most is ... Ukraine).

So I know this is very anecdotal, but when I was in Ukraine in the months following the Orange Revolution, many of the people we met said that there was little discernible difference between "democracy" and being under the thumb of Russia. Many actually preferred the latter.

Of course, that's super anecdotal, but just interesting to me.

this seems like a good summary of Putin's motivations:

https://theconversation.com/russia-ukraine-tensions-power-posturing-or-trouble-on-the-home-front-for-putin-175211

I've also heard (anecdotally) that having a western-leaning, semi-successful democracy sharing a border is unnerving for Putin, as it shines a negative light on the Russian Federation's autocratic leadership and moribund economy. He hates the Baltic Republics for the same reason.

That all makes sense, but doesn't seem to warrant invading Ukraine, a decision whose cost/benefit ratio ultimately might only work out well for him if he just keeps invading places.

It's hard to know what's going on because of so much suspected misinformation (from Russia, from the US, etc.), but I've def. seen people opine that this is indeed a power move gamble not for international political gain but for Putin's domestic benefit - to potentially forestall his doom, with former and current military/intelligence sharks reportedly smelling blood in the water and circling.

Putin is an opportunist, so he is probably moving the troops to the Ukrainian border to see what sorts of opportunities he can open up. There are various possible positive outcomes: boosting approval at home, destabilizing the current pro-Western Ukrainian government, gaining concessions from NATO. He is gambling that he can convert at least one or more of those. I think actually invading Ukraine would probably not be his first-choice.

It's truly a heck of a gamble, though, no? That would imply a bunch of world (and potentially world-destroying) powers, none of whom want war, being perched perpetually on the precarious precipice of war (no, I didn't start writing that out on purpose but yes, it ended up intentional). That seems like some desperate North Korea level shit, or even Iran, but Russia isn't some marginalized rogue state or something, they have a seat at the table and, one presumes, could negotiate without resorting to attention-getting stunts.

Well - everybody's talking/fretting about Russia right now, perhaps that's all he really wants. But it's unlikely that he'll act during the Olympics, and I think most Ukrainians are sort of 'meh' about the whole thing.. after all, Russia already invaded Ukraine (Crimea) a few years back.

As the world slowly tries to shift away from fossil fuels, their economy will likely sink even further in the doldrums... (cutting siberian timber for Ikea furniture, the occasional space tourist?) - so I think him stoking a crisis like this might become a regular thing

Apart from its oil & gas, Russia has few ways to project global power apart from militarily. Or via hackers, which is becoming another form of military power.

Putin has few ways to project power apart from telling Biden there's a pool on the roof of the whitehouse.

A couple of things:

“I don’t get it / I don’t understand what’s going on” is a more honest and accurate position than the majority of analysts and journalists are willing to take.

Nobody knows what’s going on. Is the US trying to provoke a war or trying to bounce Kyiv into accepting the Minsk protocols? Is Russia planning an invasion or a quasi-defensive move in the event of an attempt to take back rebel areas? Is Zelenskiy under threat of a Russia-backed coup or a nationalist one? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

What does ‘Russia-backed’ and ‘nationalist’ mean in a domestic context where the richest man in Ukraine, a long-time supporter of parties representing Russian-majority areas, rumoured to be involved in a variety of coup plots, is currently palling around with the guy who founded the Azov movement and other Poroshenko-era, post-Maidan figures? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There is no significant danger of Ukraine being semi-successful (or more than semi-democratic) until the hold that oligarchs have on the country is broken. GDP per capita is substantially lower than Belarus, let alone Russia. As in Moldova, ‘pro-Russia’ and ‘pro-West’ are malleable and almost completely misleading window dressing for corrupt elite factions arguing between themselves. Yanukovich had good a good relationship with the EU and IMF until a couple of weeks before he was deposed and became a ‘Russian puppet leader’.

The Baltic states are a gift for Putin as their lousy policies on Russian residents, including making them stateless, allows him to point to the risks that come when Russia ceases to be able to exert influence over neighbouring countries with large Russian populations.

I’m not sure the idea that the ‘domestic popularity’ argument around an invasion really stacks up. Crimea was genuinely popular but a unique situation. I think an unprovoked attack on Ukraine would be more likely to decrease Putin’s domestic standing than improve it but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It’s probably also important to avoid mistaking acknowledgment that a huge proportion of people were materially better off under the Ukrainian SSR with antipathy towards independence. Opinions vary but I’d wager the vast majority of people want an independent, pluralistic, democratic Ukraine that has good relationships with both the EU and Russia.

Anne Applebaum ties it all to Putin's own experience of watching the USSR collapse: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/putin-ukraine-democracy/621465/

It’s a long way from the Donbas to France or the Netherlands, where far-right politicians hang around the European Parliament and take Russian money to go on “fact-finding missions” to Crimea. It’s a longer way still to the small American towns where, back in 2016, voters eagerly clicked on pro-Trump Facebook posts written in St. Petersburg. But they are all a part of the same story: They are the ideological answer to the trauma that Putin and his generation of KGB officers experienced in 1989. Instead of democracy, they promote autocracy; instead of unity, they try constantly to create division; instead of open societies, they promote xenophobia. Instead of letting people hope for something better, they promote nihilism and cynicism.

Putin is preparing to invade Ukraine again—or pretending he will invade Ukraine again—for the same reason. He wants to destabilize Ukraine, frighten Ukraine. He wants Ukrainian democracy to fail. He wants the Ukrainian economy to collapse. He wants foreign investors to flee. He wants his neighbors—in Belarus, Kazakhstan, even Poland and Hungary—to doubt whether democracy will ever be viable, in the longer term, in their countries too. Farther abroad, he wants to put so much strain on Western and democratic institutions, especially the European Union and NATO, that they break up. He wants to keep dictators in power wherever he can, in Syria, Venezuela, and Iran. He wants to undermine America, to shrink American influence, to remove the power of the democracy rhetoric that so many people in his part of the world still associate with America. He wants America itself to fail.

Anne Applebaum is talking out of her hole, as usual.

she's the worst person to read if you want know what the fuck is going on anywhere!

she blocked me on twitter for being unkind to her dead neo-fascist mentor and pal Scruton

she's gotta put me on

Eh, I think she's interesting. Or the most interesting of the '90s neo-cons, which is admittedly a low bar. But she's at least bothered by rising autocracy and trying to understand it. I don't think she's all wrong about Putin.