Ukraine

[ardcarp]

It seems trivial, at this hour, to quiblle about whether the capital city is spellled/pronounced Kiev or

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

Not so trivial, a retired hospital consultant said to me today that if Putin were an ordinary citizen he would be in a secure psychiatric unit. Scary that the other 'super-power' had a similar psychopath until recently.

[kernelbogey]

Not so trivial, a retired hospital consultant said to me today that if Putin were an ordinary citizen he would be in a secure psychiatric unit. Scary that the other 'super-power' had a similar psychopath until recently.

An opinion apparently widely shared according to this Guardian report.

[french frank]

An opinion apparently widely shared according to this Guardian report.

Interesting that Trump was surrounded by a certain number of 'traditional' officials (and military, it seems) who did their best to divert him from - even torpedo - some of his hare-brained schemes. Putin more likely to surround himself with loyalists, I imagine.

The moral questions are complicated: if one is against military interference (by the West cf Iraq, Libya, Syria) on principle, is one then siding with military aggressors? If harsh sanctions are taken to hit the Russians hard to such an extent that they will turn on Putin, how would Putin and his henchmen react?

[RichardB]

if one is against military interference (by the West cf Iraq, Libya, Syria) on principle, is one then siding with military aggressors?

No, obviously! It isn't necessary to see the situation in those terms. There is indeed an "us" and "them", but "we" are the ordinary people of Britain, Ukraine, Russia and anywhere else who have no interest in war and always end up suffering the most, while "they" are the Putins and all the rest of them who send others into wars to further their own ends.

[Maclintick]

The moral questions are complicated: if one is against military interference (by the West cf Iraq, Libya, Syria) on principle, is one then siding with military aggressors?

Er, you're somewhat adrift, here, F-F. The West intervened disastrously in Iraq, half-heartedly in Libya, and not at all in Syria -- being castigated by the Arab League, amongst others, for not intervening in the latter conflict...

[french frank]

No, obviously!

I don't think it's that obvious - other than that 'obviously' one isn't wishing the aggressors well and positively cheering them on. I'm not sure how the ordinary people of Russia and Ukraine aren't going to suffer anyway, whatever the west does or doesn't do. Best result that Russia finishes off the war as quickly as possible? But what about the ethnic Russians in Estonia and Latvia? Will they have be defended from 'bullying' next?

[french frank]

Er, you're somewhat adrift, here, F-F. The West intervened disastrously in Iraq, half-heartedly in Libya, and not at all in Syria -- being castigated by the Arab League, amongst others, for not intervening in the latter conflict...

I was only suggesting that the questions arose as to whether they should. There was a vote in the Commons on Syria, if I remember.

[Maclintick]

I was only suggesting that the questions arose as to whether they should. There was a vote in the Commons on Syria, if I remember.

Forgive me. I'm probably of an over-literal mindset. There was no "military interference" by the West in Syria, contrary to your assertion. Ed Miliband scuppered the chance of the UK doing so. Conclusions: (a) doing nothing assists despots like Assad & Putin (b) intervening half-heartedly is pointless (c) intervening militarily is a disaster.

[french frank]

Forgive me. I'm probably of an over-literal mindset. There was no "military interference" by the West in Syria, contrary to your assertion. Ed Miliband scuppered the chance of the UK doing so. Conclusions: (a) doing nothing assists despots like Assad & Putin (b) intervening half-heartedly is pointless (c) intervening militarily is a disaster.

To try again: I was talking about the moral questions which any military interference anywhere at any time poses. "The moral questions are complicated: if one is against military interference (by the West CF Iraq, Libya, Syria) on principle". I never suggested there was military interference: merely that western powers were faced by these moral questions.

CF = compare the cases of Iraq, Libya and Syria

[Maclintick]

To try again: I was talking about the moral questions which any military interference anywhere at any time poses. "The moral questions are complicated: if one is against military interference (by the West CF Iraq, Libya, Syria) on principle". I never suggested there was military interference: merely that western powers were faced by these moral questions.

CF = compare the cases of Iraq, Libya and Syria

OK -- I'll file your answer under "unenlightening observations"....

[Serial_Apologist]

I have fallen out with some of my friends on the left by saying I thought that Stop The War had got this issue wrong. I know a Ukrainian woman who works in the local supermarket; I know one should not generalise from the example of one person, but of all the staff there this lady is always the most helpful, and I have seen this with elderly folks and sorting out disputes; and from observing the reactions of Ukrainians when interviewed on their home turf the first thing that strikes me is their extraordinary dignity. I'm trying to imagine how Britishers would react in similar circumstances, and unfortunately I don't think they would stand comparisons. Yesterday I was talking to two passers by whilst out in the garden - two youngish women with small children in tow on their way home from the local nursery school. The had been speaking in a foreign language I did not recognise when they stopped by to ask if I was the gardener (!) and I asked what language they had been speaking in. The white woman said it was Russian, and I remarked rather light-heartedly that she might now find herself being asked the same question by less friendly strangers, and I hoped she would take great care for her own safety. I added jokingly that I wouldn't be telling anyone, but in retrospect there was a serious side to it, even though she expressed the view that Putin was insane, that she was on good terms with Luba, the Ukrainian woman working at Sainsbury's, and that the same went for the most part back home between the two peoples, adding that she was glad nevertheless to be living in this country.

I had huge admiration for the mostly women demonstrating against Putin in Moscow and St Petersburg today - one fears as to what treatment would have been meted out to those arrested. Another Russian spokesman, a professor interviewed on Channel 4 news, expressed the view that opinion in Russia would in all probability be divided between those who got their information from the state-controlled news, who would be on Putin's side, and those following events on social media who would be largely against, and they would be the younger sector of the population. Pressed, he thought that popular support for the invasion would be likely to diminish pretty quickly, but the problem then was the harsh repression to be meted out against any form of protest. I think I'm right in thinking that military service in Russia is compulsory. The other hope is that internal dissent in the armed forces will apply pressure right up to the officer classes and either force a re-think on Putin's part or, bluntly, his overthrow in some kind of internal coup.

[Bryn]

I have fallen out with some of my friends on the left by saying I thought that Stop The War had got this issue wrong. I know a Ukrainian woman who works in the local supermarket; I know one should not generalise from the example of one person, but of all the staff there this lady is always the most helpful, and I have seen this with elderly folks and sorting out disputes; and from observing the reactions of Ukrainians when interviewed on their home turf the first thing that strikes me is their extraordinary dignity. I'm trying to imagine how Britishers would react in similar circumstances, and unfortunately I don't think they would stand comparisons. Yesterday I was talking to two passers by whilst out in the garden - two youngish women with small children in tow on their way home from the local nursery school. The had been speaking in a foreign language I did not recognise when they stopped by to ask if I was the gardener (!) and I asked what language they had been speaking in. The white woman said it was Russian, and I remarked rather light-heartedly that she might now find herself being asked the same question by less friendly strangers, and I hoped she would take great care for her own safety. I added jokingly that I wouldn't be telling anyone, but in retrospect there was a serious side to it, even though she expressed the view that Putin was insane, that she was on good terms with Luba, the Ukrainian woman working at Sainsbury's, and that the same went for the most part back home between the two peoples, adding that she was glad nevertheless to be living in this country.

I had huge admiration for the mostly women demonstrating against Putin in Moscow and St Petersburg today - one fears as to what treatment would have been meted out to those arrested. Another Russian spokesman, a professor interviewed on Channel 4 news, expressed the view that opinion in Russia would in all probability be divided between those who got their information from the state-controlled news, who would be on Putin's side, and those following events on social media who would be largely against, and they would be the younger sector of the population. Pressed, he thought that popular support for the invasion would be likely to diminish pretty quickly, but the problem then was the harsh repression to be meted out against any form of protest. I think I'm right in thinking that military service in Russia is compulsory. The other hope is that internal dissent in the armed forces will apply pressure right up to the officer classes and either force a re-think on Putin's part or, bluntly, his overthrow in some kind of internal coup.

I have had very similar experiences of late. An old friend, who heads up a small organisation on the left which, in the 1970s strongly supported the Chinese Communist Party but then denounced them around the time of the split between China and Albania, left me dumfounded a few days ago. I had not kept up with the particularities of this group's outlook in the interim but was taken aback to find they now not only support China to the extent that they support the suppression of the Uigurs and Tibetans but also support Putin's stance towards Ukraine. Also, I have held Jeremy Corbyn, my erstwhile MP from when I lived in Finsbury Park, in high respect but again, his stance in relation to Putin's regime makes no sense to me whatever. Does he not recognise a kleptocratic dictator when he sees one? That said, it seems he may have somewhat come to his senses since the actual invasion has started.

[kea]

There was no "military interference" by the West in Syria,

This is completely and utterly wrong. The USA funded, armed, and provided air support (via drone) to separatist groups in Syria from the very beginning of the "civil war", although it was only forced to admit it in 2013-2014 with the Snowden leaks et al., as well as the fact that most of those separatist groups had "somehow" become part of Al-Qaeda or ISIS. It then proceeded to carry out multiple, often highly destructive, bombing campaigns and deployed ground troops to occupy a large area of northeast Syria; several thousand troops continue to occupy the Deir ez-Zor area to this day as far as I know, and possibly other areas, which remain cut off from the rest of the country (and again, mysteriously, ISIS continues to pop up very close to areas of American control, and nowhere else). The USA's closest Middle Eastern ally, Israel, has likewise been carrying out cross-border raids and bombing campaigns consistently since 2011, including one today, and Turkey continues to occupy several towns and cities in Syria as well (and has mounted full-scale invasions across the border on several occasions).

In fact, the USA has at various times propped up both the government of Syria and the various separatist groups fighting against it, with some of the latter also fighting one another. Its stated goal (according to former Secretary of State Kerry) was to ensure that Assad remained in power but under economic and political conditions of perpetual instability; it's achieved that. It's not an exaggeration to say that without American intervention, the war would have been over a decade ago, one way or the other. (Iran and Russia did also intervene in a similar manner, and Iran can at least make the case that an unstable Syria, like an unstable Iraq, leaves its own borders vulnerable to terrorist infiltration or whatever. Russia has no excuse, it's just hoping to build a gas pipeline through to the Mediterranean, but it wouldn't have had the opportunity to intervene in the first place if not for the USA.)

All of this is easily verifiable at this point, but mainstream media outlets have mutually agreed not to talk about it except for the occasional opinion piece.

The UK may not be directly involved in Syria, but I doubt its hands are particularly clean in terms of weapons sales.

No, obviously! It isn't necessary to see the situation in those terms. There is indeed an "us" and "them", but "we" are the ordinary people of Britain, Ukraine, Russia and anywhere else who have no interest in war and always end up suffering the most, while "they" are the Putins and all the rest of them who send others into wars to further their own ends.

Basically. In the case of Eastern Ukraine the war started in 2014. Syria is actually not a bad analogy: the same countries (USA, Israel, but in this case also a few other Europeans) provided funds and arms to various Ukrainian militias, some of which mysteriously turned out to be neo-Nazis, while Russia provided funds and arms to its own Ukrainian militias, some of which also somehow ended up being neo-Nazis, and the two groups of militias spent eight years in a war of attrition and mutual radicalisation. This time Russia's taken on America's role in Syria by launching its own occupation force and initiating the bombing campaigns, and presumably plans to dig into eastern Ukraine the same way America dug into eastern Syria, and America will be forced in turn to provide military support for the Ukrainian government the way Russia did for the Syrian government. (There's even an analogy here between the governments: Bashar al-Assad came into office billed as a "moderate" and even somewhat "pro-Western" president by comparison with the various other hardliners in the Syrian Ba'ath Party; Zelensky likewise came into office billed as a "moderate" and even somewhat "pro-Russian" president by comparison with the various other hardliners in the Verkhovna Rada. In neither case did this triangulation pay off.)

Ultimately it's all a game, the ruling classes of the great powers competing for who can extract the most surplus value from other people's bodies. On a human scale, yes, the best outcome (of the feasible ones) is probably to allow Russia to achieve its objectives with minimal casualties and minimal damage to infrastructure, so that this doesn't turn into a Syria or a Kosovo where there's no homes for the majority of people to go back to, and some kind of negotiated settlement can be reached. (It would have been even better if the Ukrainian military had stopped the Russians at the border, of course, since then no damage to infrastructure would have occurred at all.) Politically, that's a terrible outcome, but I can't think of any "good" political outcomes that are likely to happen, and even status quo ante isn't going to be reached without massive loss of life. We can perhaps hope for zugzwang.

As for Putin he is of course a hypercapitalist oligarch and war criminal, and in that sense is not different from any American president of the past 250 years. (Neither the USA nor Russia has yet had a free and fair election, and I don't expect either country to start anytime soon.) I think people tend to miss the fact that he is also behaving completely rationally. He's known for having a massive ego, but he isn't insane: everything he does serves his own interests (he's personally accumulated a significant fortune) and those of the Russian ruling class that props him up. The fact that those interests in no way coincide with those of the Russian people writ large should not come as a surprise. His widespread vilification in the English-language press is largely because those interests also no longer coincide with those of the American ruling class that originally installed him and his predecessor.

[muzzer]

Putin played a significant role in getting Trump elected, on the back of decades of Trump being in Russia’s pocket. Cyber disinformation was a big part of that. Nobody has taken this seriously enough. Everyone is too dependent on their social media platforms, run by juveniles obsessed with toys, stuck in the oral phase. Putin has a grasp of history and has played a very long game. We shouldn’t be surprised at what’s happened, heartbroken of course. What can we do?

[RichardB]

This is completely and utterly wrong. The USA funded, armed, and provided air support (via drone) to separatist groups in Syria from the very beginning of the "civil war", although it was only forced to admit it in 2013-2014 with the Snowden leaks et al., as well as the fact that most of those separatist groups had "somehow" become part of Al-Qaeda or ISIS. It then proceeded to carry out multiple, often highly destructive, bombing campaigns and deployed ground troops to occupy a large area of northeast Syria; several thousand troops continue to occupy the Deir ez-Zor area to this day as far as I know, and possibly other areas, which remain cut off from the rest of the country (and again, mysteriously, ISIS continues to pop up very close to areas of American control, and nowhere else). The USA's closest Middle Eastern ally, Israel, has likewise been carrying out cross-border raids and bombing campaigns consistently since 2011, including one today, and Turkey continues to occupy several towns and cities in Syria as well (and has mounted full-scale invasions across the border on several occasions).

In fact, the USA has at various times propped up both the government of Syria and the various separatist groups fighting against it, with some of the latter also fighting one another. Its stated goal (according to former Secretary of State Kerry) was to ensure that Assad remained in power but under economic and political conditions of perpetual instability; it's achieved that. It's not an exaggeration to say that without American intervention, the war would have been over a decade ago, one way or the other. (Iran and Russia did also intervene in a similar manner, and Iran can at least make the case that an unstable Syria, like an unstable Iraq, leaves its own borders vulnerable to terrorist infiltration or whatever. Russia has no excuse, it's just hoping to build a gas pipeline through to the Mediterranean, but it wouldn't have had the opportunity to intervene in the first place if not for the USA.)

All of this is easily verifiable at this point, but mainstream media outlets have mutually agreed not to talk about it except for the occasional opinion piece.

The UK may not be directly involved in Syria, but I doubt its hands are particularly clean in terms of weapons sales.

Basically. In the case of Eastern Ukraine the war started in 2014. Syria is actually not a bad analogy: the same countries (USA, Israel, but in this case also a few other Europeans) provided funds and arms to various Ukrainian militias, some of which mysteriously turned out to be neo-Nazis, while Russia provided funds and arms to its own Ukrainian militias, some of which also somehow ended up being neo-Nazis, and the two groups of militias spent eight years in a war of attrition and mutual radicalisation. This time Russia's taken on America's role in Syria by launching its own occupation force and initiating the bombing campaigns, and presumably plans to dig into eastern Ukraine the same way America dug into eastern Syria, and America will be forced in turn to provide military support for the Ukrainian government the way Russia did for the Syrian government. (There's even an analogy here between the governments: Bashar al-Assad came into office billed as a "moderate" and even somewhat "pro-Western" president by comparison with the various other hardliners in the Syrian Ba'ath Party; Zelensky likewise came into office billed as a "moderate" and even somewhat "pro-Russian" president by comparison with the various other hardliners in the Verkhovna Rada. In neither case did this triangulation pay off.)

Ultimately it's all a game, the ruling classes of the great powers competing for who can extract the most surplus value from other people's bodies. On a human scale, yes, the best outcome (of the feasible ones) is probably to allow Russia to achieve its objectives with minimal casualties and minimal damage to infrastructure, so that this doesn't turn into a Syria or a Kosovo where there's no homes for the majority of people to go back to, and some kind of negotiated settlement can be reached. (It would have been even better if the Ukrainian military had stopped the Russians at the border, of course, since then no damage to infrastructure would have occurred at all.) Politically, that's a terrible outcome, but I can't think of any "good" political outcomes that are likely to happen, and even status quo ante isn't going to be reached without massive loss of life. We can perhaps hope for zugzwang.

As for Putin he is of course a hypercapitalist oligarch and war criminal, and in that sense is not different from any American president of the past 250 years. (Neither the USA nor Russia has yet had a free and fair election, and I don't expect either country to start anytime soon.) I think people tend to miss the fact that he is also behaving completely rationally. He's known for having a massive ego, but he isn't insane: everything he does serves his own interests (he's personally accumulated a significant fortune) and those of the Russian ruling class that props him up. The fact that those interests in no way coincide with those of the Russian people writ large should not come as a surprise. His widespread vilification in the English-language press is largely because those interests also no longer coincide with those of the American ruling class that originally installed him and his predecessor.

I see nothing to disagree with there.