Ukraine reacts to fears of Russian invasion as troops build up at the border

[Tiriol]

That's an entirely appropriate question to ask.

Quite frankly that is the only appropriate question to ask. Complaining about Neo-Nazis and US imperialism is just moral cowardice in the face of aggression and only aids Russian fascism and nationalism in its project to re-build its former empire.

That's not an answer to the question, and you know it.

Well, yes. Because I did not try to answer the question. I simply called out these moronic notions that since there are Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, Ukraine is a lost cause (in which case every nation on earth is a lost cause, fuck all those who are not Neo-Nazis and get subjugated all the same, am I right?); and that because US has done truly awful shit Russia should not be called out on it doing truly awful shit.

There are several good arguments for the US to not get involved, some pragmatic and some ideological. Victim-blaming and whataboutism are not among them.

[Ralin]

Putin himself announced he's sending troops into the two territories he claims now as independent republics. My question is, if he already had troops there, is it really an invasion? It's like when Obama sent troops to Syria, then Il Douchebag sent more. Does that mean Trump "invaded" Syria, or that he was just maintaining the status quo? If Biden sends more men to Syria, does that count as three invasions?

If this seems like semantics-whoring, it's not. The media have been hair-on-fire hysterical about Putin's "INVASION OMG!" of two regions that he's already had troops and heavy equipment parked in for eight years.

I guess that's a fair point from a standpoint of calling out the US's bullshit. Seems pretty moot from the Ukranians' perspective.

So question, does anyone have any realistic idea how much of the population of these two territories wants to be separate from the rest of the country? Can we assume this is an existing movement that Russia backed for their own reasons and not completely astroturfed?

[GuppyShark]

It's my recollection that those regions revolted after the riots in Kiev (those riots led to the removal of the previous Ukrainian government by force). It's my (very distant) opinion that Russia just took advantage of an opportunity by supporting the rebels, seems like too many chess pieces for a conspiracy theory.

[Col. Crackpot]

Like all bad liars, they have to invent new ones to cover the old ones. For years, Moscow denied they had sent troops to back the rebels. Now they're saying this occupation is no big deal because they've already been there for eight years.

Of course, Washington is also caught in the same bad lie. Obama, Cheeto Mussolini and now Biden have insisted that the Russian Army has been in these two new "republics" since 2014. In that case, what's going on now can't really be an invasion, now can it? The only difference between now and 2014 is Putin's dick-waving and Biden's and the media's case of the vapors.

So...do you think Russia is invading Ukraine? I can't actually tell.

Putin himself announced he's sending troops into the two territories he claims now as independent republics. My question is, if he already had troops there, is it really an invasion? It's like when Obama sent troops to Syria, then Il Douchebag sent more. Does that mean Trump "invaded" Syria, or that he was just maintaining the status quo? If Biden sends more men to Syria, does that count as three invasions?

If this seems like semantics-whoring, it's not. The media have been hair-on-fire hysterical about Putin's "INVASION OMG!" of two regions that he's already had troops and heavy equipment parked in for eight years.

Technically yes he has been supporting separatists for years. But to compare the boots on the ground for the past for years to the orders of magnitude buildup of forces we see now is a little bit disingenuous, don’t you think?

It’s like how the US enforced no fly zones over Iraq for a decade. Then sent hundreds of thousands of troops to blow the place to shit and take over.

I fail to see the difference in the two examples.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

World must act against Russia now or face 'painful consequences', Ukraine warns.

The world must act against Russia immediately or face "painful consequences", Ukraine's foreign minister has urged as fears of a full-scale invasion increased.

Despite many western countries slapping sanctions on Russia's banks and billionaires, Ukraine's Dmytro Kuleba called for greater action on Tuesday.

In a powerful speech at the UN General Assembly, he said: "The world owes Ukraine its security.
“I warn every nation in this distinguished chamber, no one will be able to sit out this crisis if President Putin decides that he can move forward with his aggression against Ukraine. Your governments and people will face painful consequences."

His warnings came as fears of a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine ramped up. According to Newsweek, US officials warned Ukraine on Wednesday evening that Russia will invade within the next 48 hours. Earlier in the day, Ukraine declared a nationwide state of emergency lasting 30 days due to invasion concerns.

Several Ukrainian government websites, meanwhile, have become inactive following warnings of cyber attacks from Russia, including that of the Ukrainian Parliament. It's the second tranche of cyber attacks within eight days - on February 15 government, military and major banking sites were hit by an anonymous attacker.
Top security official Oleksiy Danilov said Ukraine's state of emergency would cover all Ukrainian regions except Donetsk and Luhansk. The breakaway areas were declared independent states by Russia this week. However, the state of emergency still needs parliamentary approval.

[Broomstick]

At the same time, our friends in Ukraine are a bit of a mixed bunch. Getting dragged into expensive support for literal Nazis isn't going to be much better for the wider anti-authoritianism project. Do we have confidence in allies so internally divided?

I've been pondering this statement. Is it ever morally justified to support/defend Nazis?

Well... we've had Nazis in the US since the 1930's. The rule here is that they can believe whatever they like but they can't use their beliefs to break the law or harm others without consequences. If they can live in civilization with others - not liking the neighbors but not harming them either - then they are just as much citizens as anyone else.

I'll just point out that in this particular instance it is NOT the Nazis starting a war, invading the neighbors, and shooting at people. I don't like the Nazis, but in this case they are not the troublemakers.

It is in the interest of everyone to somehow discourage nations from invading other nations. Regardless of how big and powerful the invader is. Regardless of whether or not we share beliefs with the victims or even like them.

There are authoritarian countries in the world, there are still monarchies and dictators. This will be the case for the foreseeable future. We will need to deal with them in the future whether or not we agree with how they run their nations or like their belief systems. Agreeing to respect each other's borders is definitely a step in that direction. Again, in this case it's not the "Nazis" that are starting a war. Look at who the real villain is here.

[Col. Crackpot]

To be fair Broomstick, the Azov brigade will probably be the first to die when the invasion comes. I’m sure they’ll be cannon fodder.

[Col. Crackpot]

BREAKING: Putin has declared war and ordered the invasion of Ukraine

Abby Phillip CNN reporting

https://twitter.com/abbydphillip/status ... 29156?s=21

Fuck that guy. Fuck him with a rusty Kalashnikov.

[Gandalf]

BREAKING: Putin has declared war and ordered the invasion of Ukraine

From what I can tell in the few reports I've seen, it's not an actual declaration of war. Just another of the terms whose endpoint in similar but avoids the legalese around the term.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Russia's Putin announces military operation in Ukraine

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday announced a "military operation" in Ukraine, claiming that it’s intended to protect civilians.
In a televised address, Mr Putin said the action comes in response to threats coming from Ukraine. He added that Russia doesn’t have a goal to occupy Ukraine.

Mr Putin said the responsibility for bloodshed lies with the Ukrainian “regime.”

Sounds of explosions were reportedly heard in multiple Ukrainian cities.

The Russian president warned other countries that any attempt to interfere with the Russian action would lead to “consequences they have never seen".

He accused the US and its allies of ignoring Russia’s demand to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and offer Moscow security guarantees.

He said the Russian military operation aims to ensure a “demilitarisation” of Ukraine.

Mr Putin said that all Ukrainian servicemen who lay down arms will be able to safely leave the zone of combat.

The announcement comes as the United Nations Security Council is holding an emergency meeting called for by Ukraine earlier on Wednesday.

US President Joe Biden has called Russia’s decision to commence a military operation in eastern Ukraine an “unprovoked and unjustified attack”.
He said in a statement: “The prayers of the entire world are with the people of Ukraine tonight as they suffer an unprovoked and unjustified attack by Russian military forces.
“President Putin has chosen a premeditated war that will bring a catastrophic loss of life and human suffering. Russia alone is responsible for the death and destruction this attack will bring, and the United States and its Allies and partners will respond in a united and decisive way. The world will hold Russia accountable”.

More to follow...

Putin's talent for bullshit is as strong as ever, blaming Ukraine. Looks like he's got his war after all. What was that about them not invading?

[EnterpriseSovereign]

BREAKING: Putin has declared war and ordered the invasion of Ukraine

From what I can tell in the few reports I've seen, it's not an actual declaration of war. Just another of the terms whose endpoint in similar but avoids the legalese around the term.

The Ukraine representative in the UN conference in New York isn't buying it and is calling it a declaration of war. In the UN, Russia will just veto any action they propose.

[Ralin]

Whelp.

If nothing else it seems that trying to cozy up to NATO didn't do Ukraine any good.

[Coop D'etat]

Whelp.

If nothing else it seems that trying to cozy up to NATO didn't do Ukraine any good.

You mean was entirely justified.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Whelp.

If nothing else it seems that trying to cozy up to NATO didn't do Ukraine any good.

You mean was entirely justified.

Russia is attacking Ukraine before they can join NATO with the stated objective of "de-militarising", essentially they want to install a pro-Russia government.

[Coop D'etat]

Its astonishing how trustworthy Biden and the American intelligence community has been in the run up to this. A lot of people learned the wrong lessons from the Iraq war and it shows.

[Ralin]

Whelp.

If nothing else it seems that trying to cozy up to NATO didn't do Ukraine any good.

You mean was entirely justified.

Really? How would you contend that has done Ukraine any good? I don't pretend to know what Putin would have done in an alternate time line where the Ukrainian government agreed never to join NATO, but whether it prompted or not pursuing that option clearly didn't deter him. Especially since it's pretty clear no one except maybe the US is willing to go to war with Russia over it, and I'm skeptical that Biden is either.

[Dominus Atheos]

Scattered reports that russia has made a naval landing in odessa. Deeply worrisome if true, odessa is about as far away from the disputed area as you can get. That would mean russia is actually attempting to annex the entire county, and do it very quickly.

IMHO this is the fall of poland 82 years later and every person in every free coutry needs to ask themselves "why die for danzig?"

Sanctions clearly aren't going to be enough to stop this crime against the peace, and it will be interesting to learn if anyone supports any stronger actions that can.

[Zaune]

I'll just point out that in this particular instance it is NOT the Nazis starting a war, invading the neighbors, and shooting at people. I don't like the Nazis, but in this case they are not the troublemakers.

It is in the interest of everyone to somehow discourage nations from invading other nations. Regardless of how big and powerful the invader is. Regardless of whether or not we share beliefs with the victims or even like them.

Quite. When an unfriendly neighbouring country is massing troops on your borders you don't have the luxury of being terribly picky about who you enroll in the home guard. And in any case, these militiabroski types have one very important redeeming quality: They're expendable.

I just hope they don't manage to talk their way into any measure of political legitimacy off the back of this when the dust settles.

[Tiriol]

Whelp.

If nothing else it seems that trying to cozy up to NATO didn't do Ukraine any good.

You mean was entirely justified.

Really? How would you contend that has done Ukraine any good? I don't pretend to know what Putin would have done in an alternate time line where the Ukrainian government agreed never to join NATO, but whether it prompted or not pursuing that option clearly didn't deter him. Especially since it's pretty clear no one except maybe the US is willing to go to war with Russia over it, and I'm skeptical that Biden is either.

Yes, really. Plus Russia has been waging a war against Ukraine since 2014 with the illegal annexation of Crimea, the the backing of separatists etc. Anyone NOT wanting to have allies in such situation is a moron.

This is something I really cannot fathom about North American liberal and left supporters: they seem to hate and loathe anything associated with the US or Western military so much that they are ready to let smaller nations suffer and perish so that they can hold onto that thought. Even the fact that a nation under attack has little options but accept all aid, including those of Neo-Nazis, seems to be of no consequence. Instead it is spun as a tall tale of Nazis running the government in question, or used as a proof that the nation is evil and shouldn't be helped. Often they don't even have the courage to say it outright, rather use the tactic of implying stuff. Which, by the way, is something I've often seen Far Right politicians do as well. The fact is that smaller nations far closer to the actual threat of invasion and occupation don't have the luxury of political orthodoxy. I could at least respect if one would simply say that it is not the job of the US, nor its duty, to intervene everywhere and that the US has only just pulled out of military and humanitarian fiascos of its own making. But blaming others for seeking out allies and security when they are threatened by a belligerent, hostile and near-fascist state seeking to carve out an empire..?

[Ralin]

But blaming others for seeking out allies and security when they are threatened by a belligerent, hostile and near-fascist state seeking to carve out an empire..?

It's just that their way of seeking out allies and security seems to have been not only doomed to fail but very possibly made things worse. Like, Putin clearly isn't an angel, but I don't think it's obvious that he's literally Slavic Hitler and can't be appeased by anything less than total Russian domination of Eastern Europe.

Would Ukraine making concessions like allowing Russia to take over or use certain parts of the country or agreeing not to join NATO or host NATO troops have been a viable long-term solution? I dunno. But doesn't like doing the opposite is working out very well.

[Coop D'etat]

Whelp.

If nothing else it seems that trying to cozy up to NATO didn't do Ukraine any good.

You mean was entirely justified.

Really? How would you contend that has done Ukraine any good? I don't pretend to know what Putin would have done in an alternate time line where the Ukrainian government agreed never to join NATO, but whether it prompted or not pursuing that option clearly didn't deter him. Especially since it's pretty clear no one except maybe the US is willing to go to war with Russia over it, and I'm skeptical that Biden is either.

Improving relations with the NATO countries has done a lot to gain them indirect support when the flag went up and they aren't considered like Belarus or Kazakhstan. And the clear reason for that is they've made if very clear that opinion of the Ukrainian public is they don't want to be like Belarus.

By his invasion speech, its also very clear that this isn't really about NATO as a threat to Putin's government. Its about rebuilding the Russian Empire. Under these circumstances, any aid you can get from outside is better.


Also lets be abso-fucking clear here. Just thinking this way, you're putting blame on Ukrainians for a human catastrophe that's entire the Kremlin's fault. He just declared the intension to invade and impose a puppet government with no real provocation and you're still looking to blame both sides.

[Ralin]

Improving relations with the NATO countries has done a lot to gain them indirect support when the flag went up and they aren't considered like Belarus or Kazakhstan.

Indirect support that will do what exactly?

And the clear reason for that is they've made if very clear that opinion of the Ukrainian public is they don't want to be like Belarus.

Other than a significant minority that wants to be either part of Russia or a separate allied republic. Unless you're saying the separatist movements are astroturfed/Russian infiltrators?

By his invasion speech, its also very clear that this isn't really about NATO as a threat to Putin's government. Its about rebuilding the Russian Empire.

People can gave multiple motivations. As can governments.

Under these circumstances, any aid you can get from outside is better.

Yeah so, what aid will that be and what difference will it make, exactly?

Also lets be abso-fucking clear here. Just thinking this way, you're putting blame on Ukrainians for a human catastrophe that's entire the Kremlin's fault. He just declared the intension to invade and impose a puppet government with no real provocation and you're still looking to blame both sides.

Partially, yeah. The Ukrainian government certainly doesn't seem to be making things better.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

The sad thing is that any NATO troop movements into Ukraine are very likely to get them nuked, as per standing Russian nuclear weapon doctrine and the fact that Ukraine is still considered Russian Clay.

So, we're in a no-win situation. Send NATO troops into Ukraine and get a few tac-nukes to the face, not help and make every treaty not worth the paper they're written on, or simply feed Russia insider knowledge of our weapon tech (because, historically, guerilla war doesn't work, only wars between armies).

[Ralin]

and the fact that Ukraine is still considered Russian Clay.

What

Send NATO troops into Ukraine and get a few tac-nukes to the face

Haha, what?

not help and make every treaty not worth the paper they're written on

What treaty is relevant here?

or simply feed Russia insider knowledge of our weapon tech (because, historically, guerilla war doesn't work, only wars between armies).

What

[bilateralrope]

Sanctions clearly aren't going to be enough to stop this crime against the peace, and it will be interesting to learn if anyone supports any stronger actions that can.

I have only ever seen one theory on how sanctions might prove effective. If they hurt the oligarchs enough that they turn on Putin because they can get to him, but not the western countries that are imposing their sanctions. Yeah, I've got my doubts.

Question is, if sanctions don't work and nobody wants to risk Russia launching nukes, what are the other options ?