Continuation The Russian invasion of Ukraine part 7

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by dudalb

CNN reports the Belgorod fighting might be between Russian Factions.
If we are seeing an armed revolt against Putin, it is a big development, even if it is intially crushed.

It's not (yet) an armed revolt against Putin.

It's anti-Putin Russians who have been fighting in Ukraine as part of the UAF. Now they are apparently conducting and "independent" raid across the border into Belgorod oblast. Look up "Freedom of Russia Legion".

[crescent]

A bit of information on the Freedom of Russia group:

Aric Toler on Twitter:

Quote:

The bearded guy is Alexey Levkin. We (
@bellingcat
) have written lot about him -- he's a neo-Nazi who left Russia years ago.

His organization, Wotanjugend, once called Timothy McVeigh and Brevik "heroes".

Russian disinfo has successfully muddied the perception of the people who are invading them in a way that now hurts Russia. They've gone so far in calling everyone Nazis that now nobody can understand that there are actual Nazis in Ukraine (who have now crossed back into Russia).

The Ukrainian military has largely sidelined these particular Nazis, possibly because Ukraine is not fond of Nazis, despite Russian claims to the contrary.

Here's a report from Bellingcat on the leaders of Freedom of Russia:
The “Hardcore” Russian Neo-Nazi Group That Calls Ukraine Home

This incursion into Russia seems to be from a couple of different groups of dissident Russians. Hopefully they're not all as crazy as Levkin. As much as I like to see Russia get humiliated, this particular bit of fighting might be one of those fights with no good guys.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by eerok

I guess at this point we can just wait for Russia to nuke themselves.

Since "Russia can commit all the genocide it wants since it has nukes and if we don't roll over and show our belly we might make it worse" is the only allowed course of action, that's the only chance we've got.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by crescent

A bit of information on the Freedom of Russia group:

Aric Toler on Twitter:


Russian disinfo has successfully muddied the perception of the people who are invading them in a way that now hurts Russia. They've gone so far in calling everyone Nazis that now nobody can understand that there are actual Nazis in Ukraine (who have now crossed back into Russia).

The Ukrainian military has largely sidelined these particular Nazis, possibly because Ukraine is not fond of Nazis, despite Russian claims to the contrary.

Here's a report from Bellingcat on the leaders of Freedom of Russia:
The “Hardcore” Russian Neo-Nazi Group That Calls Ukraine Home

This incursion into Russia seems to be from a couple of different groups of dissident Russians. Hopefully they're not all as crazy as Levkin. As much as I like to see Russia get humiliated, this particular bit of fighting might be one of those fights with no good guys.

See Luke 9:50.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by crescent

A bit of information on the Freedom of Russia group:

Aric Toler on Twitter:


Russian disinfo has successfully muddied the perception of the people who are invading them in a way that now hurts Russia. They've gone so far in calling everyone Nazis that now nobody can understand that there are actual Nazis in Ukraine (who have now crossed back into Russia).

The Ukrainian military has largely sidelined these particular Nazis, possibly because Ukraine is not fond of Nazis, despite Russian claims to the contrary.

Here's a report from Bellingcat on the leaders of Freedom of Russia:
The “Hardcore” Russian Neo-Nazi Group That Calls Ukraine Home

This incursion into Russia seems to be from a couple of different groups of dissident Russians. Hopefully they're not all as crazy as Levkin. As much as I like to see Russia get humiliated, this particular bit of fighting might be one of those fights with no good guys.: (

Nazism east of the Rhine seems to have different connotations than it does in Western Europe and across the Atlantic.

And at the moment I'm content to let Ukraine settle the "Ukrainian Nazi" question after they've finished the genocidal fascists out of their country.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Yeah but I trust Russia to effectively clear out all the radioactive material from a site pretty much like I trust a tumble dryer full of pieces of jagged volcanic rock to polish a Fabergé Egg.

The Russiand did such a great job of control at Chernobyl..

[JoeMorgue]

One opinion piece* suggests Putin's current hope is to hold out until the US Election, hoping for a Trump (or other sympathetic enabler) to win and cut off a major source of supplies/training and general international support.

I haven't crunched the numbers enough to know how much Ukraine would be hurt by the loss of US Support, assuming support from other nations stays the same. But US built a lot of the stuff other countries are suppling and has a lot of sway in their export.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/23/opini...tis/index.html

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

I think it would be political suicide. First of all, some foreign support might disappear. Then it would allow Putin to say to his country "see, they are invading us".

Originally Posted by Oystein

And then - what?
Dangerous escalation? Nukes?
If there was a path of escalation that is actually advantageous to the Russian war effort, it would have been taken long ago.

"An existential threat to the homeland" is the documented trigger for possible nuclear retaliation. I wouldn't put it past Putin to determine that almost any serious attack on Russian territory constitutes an existential threat.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

"An existential threat to the homeland" is the documented trigger for possible nuclear retaliation. I wouldn't put it past Putin to determine that almost any serious attack on Russian territory constitutes an existential threat.

If any country, out of fear of being destroyed, would give the rest of the world a damn good reason and excuse to destroy it, it's Russia. I don't see Russia using one nuke without the US using at least twenty. Sooner or later something's got to give: either Russia drags itself out of the nineteenth century or someone else blasts it back to the ninth.

[theprestige]

Russia does seem to have embarked on a bow to us or destroy us course of action.

[a_unique_person]

Good strategic analysis of the situation and he's a fan of Perun.

https://youtu.be/pqZFi0jNZdI

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

"An existential threat to the homeland" is the documented trigger for possible nuclear retaliation. I wouldn't put it past Putin to determine that almost any serious attack on Russian territory constitutes an existential threat.

Well, three points of rebuttal:
a) A limited incursion into the Russian borderlands, with clear military objectives related to Ukraine's defense effort (such as "eliminate artillery bases that threaten Ukraine", "disrupt logistics") is, objectively, NOT an "existential" threat to the country (or state, or nation, or regime, or civilization...), it is merely a "threat".
b) If Putin was looking for an excuse to trigger a nuclear strike, he might just as well consider any incursion of Ukraine into currently occupied territory as the exact same case, since Russia claims to have "annexed" four oblasts and made them part of Russia proper, so in his mind there is not, or at least should not be, any difference between Ukraine attacking Belgoros and Ukraine attacking Bakhmut (or Lyman, or Donetsk city...).
c) Regardless of what excuses and semantical contortions are tried to invoke standing nuclear doctrine, it does not automatically trigger a nuclear response; Putin or his generals would still have to consider whether it is actually an advantageous move. And my argument here is that IF it were advantageous, they would have tried it already, and if they have determined that it is NOT advantageous, then I would have to see the argument about how, exactly, a limited operation into Russian territory with clear military objectives would make a nucear response advantageous.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Good strategic analysis of the situation and he's a fan of Perun.

https://youtu.be/pqZFi0jNZdI

Judging from the comments, is it correct to conclude that the take-away from this 1-hour talk by a Richard Iron is "watch Perun instead"?

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Oystein

To whom? Zelenskiy? You think there would be a coup in Kyiv? He would lose the next election because of it?


I don't think that's a given. Ukraine has struck into Russian territory many times before. This didn't lose them support. There is nothing at all illegal about invading a bit of the country that invaded you - I think more and more in the Western coalition are learning that it is unfair and unsound to disallow Ukraine to use perfectly legal tactics. I think it depends on the soundness and feasbility of the military objective and on the conduct (i.e. don't carpet-bombs civilians ect).

Ukraine has never attempted to occupy Russian territory and I think that may be the excuse certain people in some foreign nations will be looking for to cut back the aide.

Quote:

And then - what?
Dangerous escalation? Nukes?
If there was a path of escalation that is actually advantageous to the Russian war effort, it would have been taken long ago.

Full mobilisation. From Russia's point of view it stops being a special operation to suppress supporters of Western imperialism and it starts being a war to repel the invaders.

Quote:

Russia must not only lose this war - it must lose utterly,

From the point of view of international politics, Russia has already lost this. Its economy has been devastated, it's become a pariah, its military forces have been humiliated. Russia is finished as a world power.

The only real need to carry on this war is to ensure the survival of Ukraine and there are already people who do not think that is a cause worth supporting with any more money and arms.

Quote:

and it has to be totally obvious to anyone at any level within Russia: It has to be obviously and utterly devestating in Putin's eyes as well as in the eyes of every peasant. If Ukraine can demonstrate that Russia is unable to prevent the taking of a Russian city like Belgorod, well, that would serve that war aim.

Such is Putin's grasp on the media in Russia that this will not happen while he is still in power.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Judging from the comments, is it correct to conclude that the take-away from this 1-hour talk by a Richard Iron is "watch Perun instead"?

Never judge a YouTube video by its comments.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Nazism east of the Rhine seems to have different connotations than it does in Western Europe and across the Atlantic.

Yes, of course it does. In 1941 the Nazis invaded the USSR. The subsequent war cost the Soviet Union somewhere between 20 and 30 million deaths. Unlike most other nations more than half of the dead people were civilians. Both Russia and Ukraine still see echoes of the catastrophic loss of life in their population pyramids.

To a Russian, a Nazi is not primarily somebody who wants to kill all the Jews, it's somebody who wants to kill all Russians. This is why it doesn't seem odd to them to label Zelensky (a man with Jewish parents) as a Nazi.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Ukraine has never attempted to occupy Russian territory and I think that may be the excuse certain people in some foreign nations will be looking for to cut back the aide.

I expect that this week's shenanigans were worked out with western governments well beforehand.

I doubt that Zelensky would have left the country on a diplomatic tour, culminating in the G7 meeting, without having already agreed upon and prepared for...
- the withdrawal from Bakhmut's center
- the increased pressure on Bakhmut's flanks
- the raid into Belgorod oblast
- the employment of Patriot in an offensive capacity (as seems may have happened)

... And many other military and diplomatic plans besides. It's not like the announcement of F-16s came out of nowhere. That business was planned weeks or months ago.

If sending Russian partisans into Belgorod was going to negatively affect foreign aid to Ukraine, Biden or Sunak or Macron would have waved Zelensky off before he got anywhere close to this point.

Look at the lack of reaction from western leaders. None of them, not the UK, not France, not Germany, not anyone is condemning this operation. Nobody is voicing concerns about their nation's willingness to continue supporting Ukraine, if it does things like this. In fact, recently some western leaders have been cautiously voicing the opinion that some amount of incursion into enemy territory is a normal part of warfare and acceptable for Ukraine to do if they can.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I expect that this week's shenanigans were worked out with western governments well beforehand.

What evidence do you have for that?

Quote:

I doubt that Zelensky would have left the country on a diplomatic tour, culminating in the G7 meeting, without having already agreed upon and prepared for...
- the withdrawal from Bakhmut's center
- the increased pressure on Bakhmut's flanks
- the raid into Belgorod oblast
- the employment of Patriot in an offensive capacity (as seems may have happened)

I would agree that all of those are probable except for the Belgorod raid. My impression is that it was carried out unilaterally by the Russians involved. That said, it is plausible that it was planned by the Ukrainian government as a distraction from something else.

[Jimbo07]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

From the point of view of international politics, Russia has already lost this. Its economy has been devastated, it's become a pariah, its military forces have been humiliated. Russia is finished as a world power.

I think the point was that Russia has to lose so badly that even they understand this point. There's no indication so far that they do understand that they've lost.

Quote:

The only real need to carry on this war is to ensure the survival of Ukraine and there are already people who do not think that is a cause worth supporting with any more money and arms.

Even I have to admit that stopping a genocide hasn't always carried enough political weight to fight wars. It's a case of, "Too bad for them, but why should we fight?" From a security point of view, though, it may be worth continuing the fight to ensure they can't easily do it again to another neighbour.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

To a Russian, a Nazi is not primarily somebody who wants to kill all the Jews, it's somebody who wants to kill all Russians. This is why it doesn't seem odd to them to label Zelensky (a man with Jewish parents who doesn't particularly want to kill any Russians if they'd just leave him alone) as a Nazi.

FTFY.

Dave

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Ukraine has never attempted to occupy Russian territory and I think that may be the excuse certain people in some foreign nations will be looking for to cut back the aide.

Here's why I stressed the importance of a clear defensive military objective: If the objective were to snatch a part of Russia and incorporate it into Ukraine; or to devestate a Russian city in revenge; or something like that, then you might have a point.
But since, again, it is PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE to carry military operations into the invader's own territory and absolutely totally nothing at all wrong with this, why should a well-designed military operation to e.g. end artillery shelling of Ukrainian towns and villages, cut supply routes or bind enemy forces be such a let-down?
Just because it would be a first? We have seen many firsts in this war, and time and again, they neither led to decrease in Western support nor to meaningful Russian escalation.

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Full mobilisation. From Russia's point of view it stops being a special operation to suppress supporters of Western imperialism and it starts being a war to repel the invaders.

No one in Russia is actually really kidding themselves that this is not a war, merely a SMO. No one is kidding themselves that it is going very very bad if measured by any known or imagined objectives ("Denazification": Instead ofd decreasing the will of Ukrainians and the collective West to hit Russia on the head, that will has increased manyfold. "Demilitarization": Ukraine hasmore and better weapons than at the beginning of the war, Ukraine has more and better soldiers than at the beginning of the war; Ukraine has a mighty pipeline of further modern weapons flowing in. Annexation of four oblasts: Russia has LOST territory since it pretended to annex them; and has full control over none. "Roll back NATO": NATO has expanded, keeps expanding, and is giving Ukraine a clearer path than ever to join NATO asap. Same goes for Moldova. "Re-Establish Russia as a world power on par with the USA and China": It's more and more shrinking to be China's lap-dog, losing international respect, has demonstrated its weapons systems are second-rate, and demonstrated that it is no longer as needed even for its raw materials as before)

If full mobilization were feasible and advantageous to Putin, he'd have called for it already. Everybody, including Putin, understands that a full mobilization risks losing him support, is unlikely to achieve the sort of manpower gain he'd need, and even if it succeeded would fail to give him the sort of quality human material that is needed to prevail in a modern war.
So no, that is not really an escalatory option.

Originally Posted by jeremyp

From the point of view of international politics, Russia has already lost this. Its economy has been devastated, it's become a pariah, its military forces have been humiliated. Russia is finished as a world power.

You would have to qualify all of these with words such as "somewhat".
Russia has not yet lost utterly.
The economy is not yet utterly devestated.
Russia is not utterly a pariah.
It's military forces won't be utterly humiliated until they are completely run out of all of legitimate Ukraine.

Originally Posted by jeremyp

The only real need to carry on this war is to ensure the survival of Ukraine and there are already people who do not think that is a cause worth supporting with any more money and arms.

Common wisdom holds that if we let Putin off the hook now with some gain, he'll be back to garb more. Then more. Then more still, and eventually take a bite at NATO countries when everybody in the West (outside the Baltics and Poland is utterly bored with all that winning.

The right time to stop this is now.
The right outcome is for Russia to lose utterly.

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Such is Putin's grasp on the media in Russia that this will not happen while he is still in power.

I think you haven't watched any snippets from Russia's leading TV propaganda shows? They are full of acknowledgements that Ukraine is doing far too well and Russia is suffering setbacks again and again. It's not something they can deny, so what they do is rationalize it and try to prepare the public for more blood and sweat. Except of course that the escalation potential isn't all that great.

[eerok]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

To a Russian, a Nazi is not primarily somebody who wants to kill all the Jews, it's somebody who wants to kill all Russians. This is why it doesn't seem odd to them to label Zelensky (a man with Jewish parents) as a Nazi.

To a Russian, a nazi is anyone they want to pretend they're justified in killing.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

...
To a Russian, a Nazi is not primarily somebody who wants to kill all the Jews, it's somebody who wants to kill all Russians. This is why it doesn't seem odd to them to label Zelensky (a man with Jewish parents) as a Nazi.

While you are correct - this is the way a common Russian and the regime understand the word "nazi", we cannot fail to overlook the irony:
Just the other day, Putin was shown a 17th century map that, in their mind, demonstrates that Ukraine does not exist (even though it literally has the word "Ukraine" over part of the territory of Ukraine), that it is all Russia and always has been Russia. And today, he shells Ukraine Little/New Russia every night and day and kills what he purports to be really really Russians.
So Putin, by his own standards, is a man who wants to kill (not all but many) Russians - a nazi, in a word.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Good strategic analysis of the situation and he's a fan of Perun.

https://youtu.be/pqZFi0jNZdI

Lots of points I already heard/read elsewhere. Good summary.

Here is an interesting tid-bit - at 28:15 min:

Originally Posted by Richard Iron

And he pointed out that Nalvany's anti-corruption foundation did conduct polling in Russia to find out how popular the war is. Not by asking whether people supported the war or not - stupid question. They asked questions like: "If the government suddenly had 25% more cash to spend, where would you like to see it spend?"
97% of the respondents gave exactly the kinds of answers that we would all give: Infrastructure, health, housing, social care. Fewer than 3% said: "On military and security spending" or "winning the war".
Which is a pretty good indicator, I think.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

What evidence do you have for that?

I'm inferring it from the premise that neither Zelensky, nor his cabinet, general staff, nor his foreign military advisors, nor the foreign diplomats with whom he is consulting, are colossal dunce-clowns who can't see past their noses or plan more than a day and a half ahead.

Quote:

I would agree that all of those are probable except for the Belgorod raid. My impression is that it was carried out unilaterally by the Russians involved. That said, it is plausible that it was planned by the Ukrainian government as a distraction from something else.

Or as a prelude to something else.

But I don't think it's even remotely plausible that the Freedom of Russia Brigade has been running around Ukraine as an independent military force, conducting operations on its own authority.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

I would agree that all of those are probable except for the Belgorod raid. My impression is that it was carried out unilaterally by the Russians involved. That said, it is plausible that it was planned by the Ukrainian government as a distraction from something else.

As a general matter, while I can agree to it being carried out by the Russians involved, I would dare to say that it's extremely unlikely that it was done without pointed approval and support from Ukraine. The logistics, alone, would make Ukraine's lack of involvement quite implausible, before getting to the rest.

[autumn1971]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

Much as a lot of people here like to portray the vast majority of Republicans as enthralled by (or terrified of) Trump, the fact is that most would not support a Trump policy that would have worse consequences than their losing the next election. For example, Trump's attempting to use nuclear weapons without provocation or ordering the FBI to start arresting journalists who criticized him would be opposed by most Republicans. Attempting to give weapons to Russia falls into that category. I suspect that if that were to actually happen, Trump's VP and cabinet would invoke the 25th Amendment, in order to head off calls for Trump's impeachment.

You are exactly wrong. The voters who identify as republicans are all in for fascism. There is no question that the trash in the legislature will follow the power offered if they continue to support fascism unconditionally.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Good strategic analysis of the situation and he's a fan of Perun.

https://youtu.be/pqZFi0jNZdI

I'll try to summarize the strategic perspective of this Australian expert (and round it out with my own conclusions, where he does not spell them out):

(1) Whether and when a negotiated settlement (or other resolution of the conflict) happens depends chiefly on these factors:
a) The assessed military situation, or how the parties envision it in the not-too-distant future
b) The internal and external pressures on the Russian leadership
c) The internal and external pressures on the Ukrainian leadership and its Western supporters

(2) No acceptable negotiations will be possible with Putin, as Putin is indictedfor war crimes and too much personally chained to the project of conquering and eliminating Ukraine to ever credibly refrain from those goals

(3) The main strategic importance of the coming Ukrainian offensive lies in its influence on the three factors above:
a) Whatever measure of success, or lack thereof, Ukraine can achieve will affect either sides assessment of how the military situation may change in the future
b) Ukrainian success will increase pressure on Putin, possibly to the point where his leadership becomes assailable, while decreasing pressure on Kyiv and the West
c) Ukrainian failure will relieve ressure on the Ruscist regime and increase it on the West, possibly to the point where Western support drops below a threshold where Ukraine can prevail.

(4) The best move therefore for the West is to help Ukraine NOW in any way it can to make the offensive a resounding success

(5) The West should not automatically assume that whatever comes after Putin is necessarily as bad or worse; instead it should watch out for possible non-fascist movements and leaders. There should be a message "if you negotiate in good faith and with a view to return to decency, the rule of law, even perhaps democracy, here is our outstreched hand"

(6) As for what Australia can do beyond supporting diplomatically, financially and with military supplies: Push for a smarter personal sanctions regime - one that does not drive the Russian elites out of the world and firmly back into Russia, but gives them an out and a chance to signal opposition to the regime.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Oystein

I'll try to summarize the strategic perspective of this Australian expert (and round it out with my own conclusions, where he does not spell them out):

(1) Whether and when a negotiated settlement (or other resolution of the conflict) happens depends chiefly on these factors:
a) The assessed military situation, or how the parties envision it in the not-too-distant future
b) The internal and external pressures on the Russian leadership
c) The internal and external pressures on the Ukrainian leadership and its Western supporters

(2) No acceptable negotiations will be possible with Putin, as Putin is indictedfor war crimes and too much personally chained to the project of conquering and eliminating Ukraine to ever credibly refrain from those goals

(3) The main strategic importance of the coming Ukrainian offensive lies in its influence on the three factors above:
a) Whatever measure of success, or lack thereof, Ukraine can achieve will affect either sides assessment of how the military situation may change in the future
b) Ukrainian success will increase pressure on Putin, possibly to the point where his leadership becomes assailable, while decreasing pressure on Kyiv and the West
c) Ukrainian failure will relieve ressure on the Ruscist regime and increase it on the West, possibly to the point where Western support drops below a threshold where Ukraine can prevail.

(4) The best move therefore for the West is to help Ukraine NOW in any way it can to make the offensive a resounding success

(5) The West should not automatically assume that whatever comes after Putin is necessarily as bad or worse; instead it should watch out for possible non-fascist movements and leaders. There should be a message "if you negotiate in good faith and with a view to return to decency, the rule of law, even perhaps democracy, here is our outstreched hand"

(6) As for what Australia can do beyond supporting diplomatically, financially and with military supplies: Push for a smarter personal sanctions regime - one that does not drive the Russian elites out of the world and firmly back into Russia, but gives them an out and a chance to signal opposition to the regime.

I'd agree with those, especially #2 and #5.


What were your contributions?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by jimbob

...
What were your contributions?

Difficult to disentangle. Mostly (4) and (5), I spelled out what I think Mr. Iron was getting at.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Since "Russia can commit all the genocide it wants since it has nukes and if we don't roll over and show our belly we might make it worse" is the only allowed course of action, that's the only chance we've got.

"Might makes right" isn't a concept that only applies to Russia.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Ukraine has never attempted to occupy Russian territory and I think that may be the excuse certain people in some foreign nations will be looking for to cut back the aide....

Reading back, I seem to not have said I support Ukraine occupying Russian territory, merely of making incursions.

This indeed has happened before, even by the same actors. If I may remind you, early March:
https://www.ft.com/content/c4ffe9b8-...0-effe32754bbf

Originally Posted by FT

Denis Nikitin, a notorious extremist who heads the Russian Volunteer Corps, told the Financial Times that his Ukraine-based fighters had proved they could breach some of Russia’s most heavily guarded border areas. The incident, which lasted just a few hours on Thursday before the group retreated, prompted Russia’s president to cancel a planned trip and convene his security council.

So, it was just a few hours then, a couple of days now.
Mere provocations. Causing embarrassment. Sending the Russians into a bit of a panic.

Next time - a week?

That article already informed us about the rather nasty background of the leaders:

Originally Posted by FT

Nikitin, 38, a polyglot who also goes by the name Denis Kapustin and the nom de guerre Rex after his white nationalist clothing brand, White Rex, is a former mixed martial arts fighter with ties to neo-Nazis and white nationalists across the western world.

...

Born in Russia, Nikitin lived in Germany as a teenager and moved to Ukraine in 2017. In Kyiv he organised fight clubs for Russians, Ukrainians, and western neo-Nazis.

Those far-right activities earned him a 10-year ban from the Schengen zone in 2019, but he has remained active in Europe nonetheless.

“He’s still been active in far-right activity in Germany, France, Bulgaria and others, even though he himself he isn’t going to these countries,” Michael Colborne, a journalist and researcher at Bellingcat focused on the global far-right, told the FT.

This guys, "White Rex", was present at the impromptu joint press conference held earlier today by those two Russian "resistance" groups.

I really feel quite uneasy by the prominence Ukraine is willing to give to actual hardline neo-nazis.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

"Might makes right" isn't a concept that only applies to Russia.

No but as I said during your absence the United States has nukes and everyone thinks we're an evil warmongering country yet I don't remember one, not ******* one person during the Kosovo or Afghanistan or Iraq conflicts going "America has nukes! Roll over and show your belly or it will your fault when they start slinging nukes!" People had zero problem with the idea of resistance and counter attacks and political pressure then.

It wasn't until Daddy Putin rolled into the Ukraine did a bunch of people start making appeasement in the face of nuclear threat the entire total lump sum of their foreign policy decision making process.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

"Might makes right" isn't a concept that only applies to Russia.

I've long said that the only real international law is "molon labe".

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

No but as I said during your absence the United States has nukes and everyone thinks we're an evil warmongering country yet I don't remember one, not ******* one person during the Kosovo or Afghanistan or Iraq conflicts going "America has nukes! Roll over and show your belly or it will your fault when they start slinging nukes!" People had zero problem with the idea of resistance and counter attacks and political pressure then.

It wasn't until Daddy Putin rolled into the Ukraine did a bunch of people start making appeasement in the face of nuclear threat the entire total lump sum of their foreign policy decision making process.

Kind of seems like a lot of countries had real serious problems with US military adventurism these last few decades and rightly realized that there was really no way for them to overtly confront it without getting an aircraft carrier parked outside their doorstep.

Countries that were aiding the US's enemies were likely extremely cautious and conservative in how they did so in order to carefully manage just how much retaliation it would provoke.

[dudalb]

I smell some on the left preparing to sell Ukraine down the river in the interests of "Peace:.

[theprestige]

It doesn't help (or it doesn't hurt, depending on your point of view) that the US has significant stake - some would say a controlling interest - in pretty much every major economic, commercial, and military institution in the world.

Personally I think that history clearly shows the world is better off with this arrangement than, say, having Russia or China at the head of the table.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

"Might makes right" isn't a concept that only applies to Russia.

USA is no better then Russia, right?

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by dudalb

USA is no better then Russia, right?

Define better.

When it comes to knocking over small countries and doing a regime change, the US's track record is much much better. Russia's military has managed to underperform even the most damning estimations of their abilities.

How are they ever going to get to the "decades of insurgency quagmire" stage if they can't even make it to Kiev?

[JoeMorgue]

Yes let's have another rousing go around the room so everyone can do the "Reminding the soldiers storming the beaches at Normandy that ya know they aren't perfect either" routine just moved up a few decades.