ok what the fuck is happening in ukraine

An attack on a nuclear plant is an event, to me.

I don't see anything but an increase in tensions. Arms are being sent by countries to Ukraine, the sanctions are tough and have hit much of the population hard. Russians are trying to leave.

― xyzzzz__, Friday, March 4, 2022 12:19 PM (one minute ago) bookmarkflaglink

I'm not following you at all. Russia has invaded Ukraine and is trying to conquer the country, obviously "tensions" are "increased." But you said " we could be on the path of selling out Ukraine to de-escalation. And if Russia can help out against the main enemy (China) then all the better." How are we "selling out Ukraine to de-escalation"? How is any kind of de-escalation happening at all? And what evidence is there that we are looking to Russia to help us out against China? Or am I misunderstanding?

Another pessimistic thread on where this is going for Russia, which also notes specifically the aviation issue:

One thing we can be sure of.

Putin has succeeded in bringing back USSR that he so longed for.

Do Russians themselves realize what to expect now?

Few, maybe.

But most can't even comprehend the scale of economic destruction that's about to unfold in the motherland.

👇🧵 pic.twitter.com/laY4jswz6L

— Sergei Perfiliev 🇺🇦 (@perfiliev) March 4, 2022

who is "we"

You can’t conduct business if you can’t guarantee you are going to get paid. It’s hard enough to get payments from Russian companies at the best of times due to the immense amount of paperwork - with additional bureaucracy on both sides, it’s going to be virtually impossible. I’m not sure it’s specifically a moral choice.

In local (to me) news, this was interesting:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-60619112

Maybe it's pedantic, but I find it grating when people say "bring back the USSR" because that's clearly not what he's trying to do -- bring back an imperial greater Russia yes, but not one that looks like the USSR.

I think maybe people mean the USSR in principle? That is, central power in Moscow and bordering satellite states, an empire in essence if not an exact recreation of the USSR. In that above thread specifically, I assume he means "bring back the USSR" as a pejorative. Food lines, empty shelves, worse standard of living, that sort of thing.

How is any kind of de-escalation happening at all? And what evidence is there that we are looking to Russia to help us out against China? Or am I misunderstanding?

― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Friday, 4 March 2022 bookmarkflaglink

Sorry that was clumsy. I meant that one way out of this is effectively to sell out Ukraine to de-escalate, which yes it's not happening at all rn.

The China bit is plucked out from that interview.

Man Alive: Accurate. He has specifically blamed Lenin for the situation, as I understand it. I don't think your complaint is pedantic.

Mearsheimer just seems flat out, demonstrably wrong here, don't really know what else to say. Events are just not bearing out his theories.

Ok, Mearsheimer is agreeing with you re: Putin not really interested in bringing back the USSR. So flat out wrong is demonstrably, not true.

No, you are misreading both him and my comment.

He says

It’s hard to say whether he’s going to go after the rest of Ukraine because—I don’t mean to nitpick here but—that implies that he wants to conquer all of Ukraine, and then he will turn to the Baltic states, and his aim is to create a greater Russia or the reincarnation of the Soviet Union. I don’t see evidence at this point that that is true.

His aim absolutely is to create a greater Russia. Putin and Russian govt mouthpieces have openly stated this.

I don't think Putin misses the Communist aspects of USSR. What he misses is probably more the strong, centralized, authoritarian government, the international sphere of influence, fear and respect on the world stage, the de facto empire (although officially it was a federation of independent nations). The Mearsheimer interview alludes to this:

Chotiner: It seems to me that if he wants to bring back anything, it’s the Russian Empire that predates the Soviet Union. He seems very critical of the Soviet Union, correct?

Mearsheimer: Well, I don’t know if he’s critical.

Chotiner: He said it in his big essay that he wrote last year, and he said in a recent speech that he essentially blames Soviet policies for allowing a degree of autonomy for Soviet Republics, such as Ukraine.

Mearsheimer: But he also said, as I read to you before, "Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart." That’s somewhat at odds with what you just said. I mean, he’s in effect saying that he misses the Soviet Union, right? That’s what he’s saying.

Mearsheimer may yet seem prescient, if this eventually reaches some kind of settlement with Ukraine returning to a more pro-Russian orbit, although I find it unlikely.

Putin just flat out told Macron that he intends to conquer all of Ukraine, so it's kind of hard to argue with that. Sure, it could be a bluff, but his original goal was regime change so it would hardly be surprising if he's turning to pure brute force conquest now that his initial plan got stalled.

I don't think Putin misses the Communist aspects of USSR. What he misses is probably more the strong, centralized, authoritarian government, the international sphere of influence, fear and respect on the world stage, the de facto empire (although officially it was a federation of independent nations

Yes. That's why I find debating whether he wants another USSR or a bigger Russia is -- at the moment -- a parlor game.

a friend of mine is supporting the locals there by "staying" in an Ukrainian Airbnb (like paying but not actually being there if i need to spell it out) and i'm too non-confrontational (at least irl) to tell her how.... misguided that seems

who knows maybe that is the best way to support the locals there

The rest of that ‘no heart’ quote is a riff on the Churchill ‘no brain’ line IIRC.

Westerners are seemingly incapable of considering conflict with Russia or a Russian leader outside the internalized cold warrior/red scare mindset.

I wouldn't say all Westerners. There is definitely a strain of Western commentary on foreign affairs that is basically always trying to revive a Manichean Us vs Them way of dividing the world, a la Cold War days. For a while it was going to be the Liberal Tolerant Nations vs the Fundamentalist Islamists. Then that kind of ran out of steam, so it became the Democracies vs the Autocracies. I would say Mearsheimer's analysis is more sophisticated than that.

Acceptable "de-escalating" now seems to mean, "Just give it all up now and maybe we won't kill you too much. Otherwise, we will."

Re: Putin's aims, I think the extent of information warfare and the way it's being implemented is unlike anything we've seen before, so why Putin says something and what he means by it is sometimes difficult (if not impossible) to fathom. His threats of conquering all of Ukraine within hours of suggesting a return to normalcy - which part is the bluff?

a friend of mine is supporting the locals there by "staying" in an Ukrainian Airbnb (like paying but not actually being there if i need to spell it out) and i'm too non-confrontational (at least irl) to tell her how.... misguided that seems

It's something that a lot of people are doing, and it seems like a pretty good idea to me — money goes directly to an actual Ukrainian person, and many of the hosts who are receiving such donations are turning around and letting displaced families use the room/apartment they'd otherwise be renting.

lol:

S&P downgrades Russia's credit rating to CCCP.

— Gary Shteyngart (@Shteyngart) March 4, 2022

Re: Putin's aims, I think the extent of information warfare and the way it's being implemented is unlike anything we've seen before, so why Putin says something and what he means by it is sometimes difficult (if not impossible) to fathom. His threats of conquering all of Ukraine within hours of suggesting a return to normalcy - which part is the bluff?

― Josh in Chicago, Friday, March 4, 2022 1:11 PM (one minute ago) bookmarkflaglink

Don't overthink it. He believes Ukraine is part of Greater Russia. He wants to control it by puppet govt. He thought he could do this with a smaller military operation, and that failed, so now he is aiming larger. That's unquestionably his goal, the only question is whether he would temporarily accept some kind of half-measure like a carved up, neutered Ukraine.

I think the minimum he would probably accept would be to have an autonomous (de facto Russia-controlled) Donbas region which officially remains in Ukraine and retains a veto over any Ukraine foreign policy or military decisions, which would in effect make sure Ukraine stays demilitarized and neutral.

And that's a lot easier to achieve. But "Ukraine is part of Greater Russia," that's tougher, because the only way to maintain that is through force, which implicitly threatens the rest of the region and leaves him a pariah. Still not entirely sure how the world lives with even the "easy" win of getting partial control, anyway, not after all the threats and military action.

https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/news/kremlin-staff-didnt-expect-putin-to-invade-ukraine-and-were-shocked-by-the-severity-of-western-sanctions-report-says/articleshow/89996930.cms

The Kremlin is particularly concerned by its ousting from SWIFT, the freezing of Russian foreign reserves, including by the US, and the exit of a string of Western companies from Russia, Agency reported.

"Everything is fucked," a source close to Putin's administration told the outlet.

supposedly a lot of their "fortress Russia" plan to withstand sanctions relied on those reserves, so I guess they didn't completely see that one coming

The column is stalled because the gas card keeps getting declined... "Okay, here, try this one again"

More on sanctions, if this isn't too domestic:

There's bipartisan momentum to move swiftly to bar imports of Russian oil and gas to the U.S. amid Vladimir Putin's war with Ukraine. Eighteen senators, ranging from liberals like Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) to conservatives like Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), are on board with a bill doing that. Speaker Nancy Pelosi backed the idea as well.

But a Russian import ban might not move as fast through Congress as you think — for several reasons.

The White House view: They've been decidedly cool to the idea of an import ban, fearing that high U.S. gas prices would climb even further. "We don't have a strategic interest in reducing the global supply of energy, and that would raise prices at the gas pump for the American people around the world because it would reduce the supply available," White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters Thursday.
The unclear tangible effect: The U.S. got just 3 percent of its crude oil imports from Russia in 2021, according to the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers. Which means that cutting off U.S. imports in a vacuum, without allies joining in, might not do as much as backers hope. Sponsors made this clear as they unveiled their legislation Thursday. "It needs to be reinforced that our legislation is not a global ban on Russian oil and gas," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), one of the bill's chief authors.
And then there's the endgame: Both parties are united here in wanting to kneecap Putin however possible, but the secondary arguments here on energy are *really* different. If an import ban gets to the House and Senate floors, expect those differences to burst into full, risky view.
from https://www.politico.com/minutes/congress/03-4-2022/politics-of-russian-oil-ban/

No, you are misreading both him and my comment.

He says

It’s hard to say whether he’s going to go after the rest of Ukraine because—I don’t mean to nitpick here but—that implies that he wants to conquer all of Ukraine, and then he will turn to the Baltic states, and his aim is to create a greater Russia or the reincarnation of the Soviet Union. I don’t see evidence at this point that that is true.

His aim absolutely is to create a greater Russia. Putin and Russian govt mouthpieces have openly stated this.

― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Friday, 4 March 2022 bookmarkflaglink

Not seeing Putin having the resources to go beyond Ukraine.

Anti-vaxx convoy approaching DC this weekend, having probs as mandates are lifted,But as its Covid mission has become less clear, the group’s channels have turned to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, where conspiracy-minded thinking has flourished. While some group members have admonished Russian President Vladimir Putin for the invasion, QAnon and anti-vaccine contingents within the groups have seized on a false conspiracy theory that the war is a cover for a military operation backed by former President Donald Trump in Ukraine.

The conspiracy theory, which is baseless and has roots in QAnon mythology, alleges that Trump and Putin are secretly working together to stop bioweapons from being made by Dr. Anthony Fauci in Ukraine and that shelling in Ukraine has targeted the secret laboratories. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/convoy-picks-cars-anti-ukraine-talking-points-ahead-washington-arrival-rcna18716

I'm not generally one for thread policing but...no.

OL OTM.

I have a question, apologies if it has been answered previously in this thread: Clearly, consensus is that if a no-fly zone is established over Ukraine, it will trigger a nuclear war. I see pundits on TV and randos on Twitter saying this with zero doubt.

It may be obvious to others, but ... why? Why does "no-fly over Ukraine = nuclear war"? I'm missing something, I guess.

so what? it's a no fly zone. what are they gonna do, walk the missiles over there?

xpost Because no fly has to be enforced, that means Western planes over/ weapons in Ukraine, and that means Western planes/weapons directly engaging Russian planes.

The local classic rock radio station just played a pro Ukrainian bumper! And then they played Frampton.

yeah the no-fly zone won't magically detonate Russian planes just for flying in it

It amounts to NATO promising to shoot down any Russian aircraft over Ukraine and to destroy Russian anti-aircraft capabilities in Ukraine, as well as across the border in Russia and Belarus if they are capable of firing into Ukrainian airspace.. So basically war.

I think people are wrong to be certain that it would trigger nuclear war, but it's enough of a risk that it's a pretty hard call to make

it would trigger a war between nuclear powers would be a more fair argument

perhaps the nukes don't get launched but probably best to not fuck around and find out

Thankfully it's only weirdos with a twitter account that have played with the nuclear war scenario not being as bad as...?

I don't care for Boris Johnson at all but he just dismissed that Ukrainian woman's pleas in the press conference to intervene. I feel sorry for her but the people in power seem clear on what's at stake, despite some of the statements from the odd minister in the UK, or the random loud mouth Pol.

The local classic rock radio station just played a pro Ukrainian bumper! And then they played Frampton.

― Josh in Chicago, Friday, March 4, 2022 2:42 PM (nine minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

They could have at least played Dylan, or at least Lenny Kravitz or Aerosmith

From an article contextualizing no-fly zone question---a reminder that, at least in principle, he does seem to want to get back to where you once belonged:

Why does Russia feel threatened by NATO?
Putin has long believed that Russia got a bad deal after the breakup of the Soviet Union -- something he has called the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century."
He has complained that NATO has, over time, expanded its borders by admitting Eastern European countries that were once part of the Soviet Union -- meaning Russia now shares a land border with the world's largest military alliance, thus reducing his geopolitical power in what was once Moscow's sphere of influence.
As recently as February, he was demanding that NATO scaled back to the borders of 1997, before the Baltic nations of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, the latter two of which border Russia, joined the alliance.https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/04/europe/nato-no-fly-zone-ukraine-intl-cmd/index.html

Re some like in The New Yorker interview linked above claiming that it's fault of the West for Ukraine membership in EU and NATO, such invitations were discussed a while back, buut Ukraine is not in EU and NATO---Putin thinking ahead, of course, so even talking about it puts blood on hands of West, I guess is the idea (other one being that Biden is weak).

Most recent request to join NATO rebuffed, in fact, iirc

would trigger nuclear war

While lots of things *could*, I'm honestly not sure *what* would trigger a nuclear war short of someone using or maaaybe explicitly threatening to use a nuclear weapon. That's the paradox of nuclear weapons, that their extreme destructive power is the number one reason they're unlikely to be used.

So, looking at it realpolitik, as the xpost New Yorker interviewee might, for instance: should NATO expell or agree to not back/send much more than our prayers to Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, having already stood by re Ukraine---? Not a rhetorical question.

Most recent request to join NATO rebuffed, in fact, iirc True.

their extreme destructive power is the number one reason they're unlikely to be used.

ICBMs, perhaps. But Russia also has a bunch of 'fun sized' tactical nukes that could be employed if he feels things aren't going his way