ok what the fuck is happening in ukraine

Tempted to say that every country gets the Seamus Milne it deserves.

i'm an "arch liberal baby"? what does that mean? what do you know of my politics?

fwiw i don't think badiou is childish /now/ -- i think even he'd admit to a bit of rash childishness at the time. he almost says as much in that interview.

btw are the black panthers beyond reproach now?

on ilx surely

(it's weird how people will insult me on the same or different threads with diametrically opposed caricatures. e.g. on ILM i've been called a stupid poptimist and an arch-rockist. i think people are just quick to insult here.)

(i've also been accused of being a chauvinist israel-stan /and/ some kind of hamas apologist.)

i'm a commie in the shul and a fascist in the academy so i feel u

yeah, i also inevitably emphasize different things when talking with people from different milieux. i think everyone does that.

you should read what Badiou says

i did, as i pointed out repeatedly. you're convinced that after reading it, i'd have a different view. i don't, really. sorry.

but yeah i admit that "childish assholes" is not the most nuanced critique of the new left's more-than-flirtation with maoism in the 1960s and 1970s. and of course badiou et al could in theory find value in some of the ideas mao espoused without "pledging allegiance" to him or align themselves with what mao was doing (or what was being done in his name) in china. but if you actually look at the history of western maoism it's not nearly so dandy. the cult of personality did have sway, and people really did wave away some atrocities and do a lot of ideologically-correct victim-blaming.

chris marker has a film, le fond de l'air est rouge, about the failures of western—and in particular, french—leftism, and there's a rather incisive (if a little allusive) critique of the new left's fascination with maoism in the middle.

anyway we should give this debate up since it's only tangentially (or analogically) relevant to putin/ukraine/etc.

did i mention that i think la chinoise is a great (and very funny) movie?

i'm an "arch liberal baby"? what does that mean? what do you know of my politics?

I know of your politics what I've read you post here & in other threads, and based on that I'd say your politics typify liberalism - is that not an accurate characterisation?

(although I'm not a Maoist at all, I think Mao had an interesting thing to say about liberalism btw ;) )

btw are the black panthers beyond reproach now?

― I dunno. (amateurist), Thursday, 4

no one is nor should be beyond reproach. but I asked that for two reasons - 1) to see what you think of radical, militant activism (as a sort of additional acid-test for your politics...) and 2) to give an example of Western Maoists who effectively applied Maoist ideas IRL as part of an organised struggle, as opposed to some nerd who makes youtube channels dressed in Rev Guard clothes as part of an infantile Role Playing Experience.

fwiw, I think leftists who support Putin either because they think it's still the 1950s and Russia's geopolitics=the USSR's or out of reflexive "anti-Imperialism" (b/c if you look at what Russia is doing now and don't connect it to neo-imperial ambitions then you must be a bit confused) are Pretty Bad and it's a very frustrating tendency.

Given Russia's existential demographic problems, its actions in Crimea / Novorossiya has more the character of a cornered animal than neo-imperialism. Which is of course why economic sanctions have had and will have little effect. Gasprom/Rosneft's next shareholder's report is irrelevant to the central question that vexes the Kremlin, which is the Russian nation's continued existance over the next few centuries.

can't they just wait for global warming to make siberia the most irrigable area in the world?

I know of your politics what I've read you post here & in other threads, and based on that I'd say your politics typify liberalism - is that not an accurate characterisation?

what sort of liberalism do you mean? i barely post on politics threads here compared to many. you act as though you were making a dispassionate, objective observation, but in the same phrase you called me a "baby."

i'm not sure what kind of litmus test you're applying here but as with many folks i think there are things the black panthers did that were great and other things that were bordering on horrific. if you expect me to express blanket approval or disapproval so that you can safely categorize my attitudes toward "radical, militant activism," then sorry i haven't served your purpose.

Xp, there's some controversy over whether Russian demographics are as bad as everyone makes out:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2014/09/03/8-things-masha-gessen-got-wrong-about-russian-demography/

There's definitely anxiety about the population not rising quickly enough from sections of the right, though, which feeds into both pan-Russian nationalism and things like the 'family values' campaign. The woman who proposed the laws against 'gay propaganda' has a track record of statements about needing to fill Russia with more people to ward off invaders. That said, the main concern is the huge underpopulated areas that border China, there's a paranoia that as China grows, it will colonise border towns. It doesn't sound particularly likely to me.

I'd see Crimea as an attempt to right what was widely seen as a historical wrong rather than classic imperial expansionism though.

glad i could contribute to this maoist--->badiou--->panthers derail good work all

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.