People’s republics
Putin’s going to do a tv talk soon.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is due to give a televised address soon and he’s expected to speak on whether to recognise the separatist Donetsk and Luhansk “people’s republics”.
Russia-backed rebels in those areas – located in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region – have been fighting the Ukrainian military since 2014 but Moscow has not officially recognised their self-declared republics.
Step one. Step two is sending in Russian soldiers to defend the new “republics.”
Yep, and that’s exactly what he did: recognized the separatist areas as “People’s Republics”.
Full of surprises that guy.
Gee, I wonder if the people’s republics will ask for some security assistance against a foreign invasion from Ukraine?
And of COURSE the Biden administration is s-o-o-o genuinely concerned for the people of the Ukraine! This is, once again, a time for the USA to step-up and defend the causes of freedom and liberty and international law and human rights and justice and etc.,
We cannot allow these majority Russian provinces to secede from the Ukraine! We can let the people of Afghanistan starve to death. And we can continue to arm the Saudis while they starve millions of Yemenis to death. And we can continue to allow Libya to be a Jihaadist playground with open-air slave markets. And we can refuse Syria the resources it needs to rebuild after our Jihaadist mercenary psychopaths tried to take it over. And we can back death squads in Colombia while whining about the actions of the Venezuelan government.
But allowing those two provinces to secede from the semi-fascist basketcase of the Ukraine just isn’t on.
How do you say “whataboutism” in Russian?
Aaaaaand, in the What A Surprise! department:
Of course he has. The peace must be kept.
See, I just knew that somebody would type “whataboutism.” The knee-jerk, mindless response to any pointing out of the USA’s titanic, brazen hypocrisy whenever it starts gibbering about “human rights” and foreign policy.
Personally, I’m leery of nuclear war. I don’t want to be vaporized because Joe Biden wanted to justify the existence of the military-industrial complex.
This simplistic account of the Ukraine-Russia crisis ignores the USA’s role in the coup that produced the current leadership in the Ukraine (some of whom have very fascist inclinations). It ignores the genuine ethnic tensions that produced the breakaway provinces. It ignores the France/Germany brokered Minsk Agreement that the Ukrainians have refused to implement. It ignores the Russians’ genuine concerns about NATO (an anti-Russia military alliance) expanding its membership with countries directly on Russia’s borders. It ignores the fact that the USA was once happy to recognize referendums to secede from countries when it was Bosnia leaving Yugoslavia.
Instead of mindlessly responding with charges of “whataboutism,” I ask you to reflect upon those ongoing US-backed atrocities that I mentioned and question just WHY Biden is so concerned for the people of the Ukraine but actively indifferent towards the sufferings of millions of people whose suffering he is directly responsible for.
Either that or you can call me a Putin-apologist. Just like opposition to the invasion of Iraq was a sign of support for Saddam Hussein. And opposition to the Jihaadist take-over of Syria was the sign of an Assad lover. And opposition to war with China is slavish worship of the Chinese Communist Party.
Ophelia, you should feel honored that your blog has reached the level where Putin’s fifth column feels it necessary to deploy propagandists here.
“Me”@8:
Why stop there? You forgot about the US overthrow of Iran, basically most of central or south America, the genocide of American indigenous tribes in the 19th century, the over-use of plastics, the Remington Arms company, the extermination of the black-footed ferret, the lack of US support of Robert the Bruce against King Edward in the 14th century, two-stroke engines, and the tragedy of the Teapot Dome scandal.
For someone with such strong beliefs you sure as fuck do hide behind cowardly internet anonymity as you wail and rend your hair and decry the wretched state of American affairs against poor Soviet Putin who is really just concerned about “ethnic tensions” and the security of the innocent Russian bear-cub against the onslaught of wicked, hissing Ukrainian snakes, keen to take over the Russian motherland. Ain’t it funny how all the mortared schools are on the _Ukrainian_ side of the border with Russia?
*spit*
I had some slight hopes that this website had a better class of thinkers. But only slight. I’ve had a few decades to get used to liberal war-mongering and hypocrisy.
Even after I reminded you about how opponent’s to a Republican administration’s invasion of Iraq were smeared as Saddam apologists, the collective response to my criticisms of the USA’s Ukraine policy is stupid accusations of me being a Putin propagandist. I guess you really can’t help yourselves.
Particularly hilarious is this “James Garnett” character and his heroic choice to comment (and spit at me) from behind what he says is his real name. As if I’m the only commenter with a pseudonym. What inspires such nonsense? Tribalism I suppose.
“Why stop there? You forgot about the US overthrow of Iran, basically most of central or south America, the genocide of American indigenous tribes in the 19th century, the over-use of plastics, the Remington Arms company, the extermination of the black-footed ferret, the lack of US support of Robert the Bruce against King Edward in the 14th century, two-stroke engines, and the tragedy of the Teapot Dome scandal.”
Indeed James! I didn’t mention the overthrow of Iran or the continued oppression of Latin America or the genocide of indigenous American people. Or slavery. I just figured Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Venezuela would do. But that’s all “whataboutism” isn’t it? Why dredge up the past when discussing the present? Of course, I see that the BBC is reminding us all about the Holdomar. Because Russian perfidy and brutality are a constant throughout history. It’s part of their national character. This present crisis is just a continuation of Russia’s inborn desire to slaughter every Ukrainian man, woman and child.
Again I will remind you that this crisis could bring about a nuclear war. That matters to me. I don’t know about you guys.
Again, I ask you, … WHY do you think Biden’s concerns for the people of the Ukraine are genuine? He doesn’t even care about the American people! You seriously believe that a man who is allowing millions of innocent Afghans to starve to death actually cares about … what exactly? Two ethnic Russian provinces separating from the Ukraine? You actually believe this? If you do, then you’re too stupid and debased for me to bother with.
“Me”@11:
Ah, you had “hopes”.
You know, I think that Papito is correct: you are just some fifth column for Putin. You’re obviously not a regular here. You appeared out of nowhere, suddenly extremely concerned about the “class of thinkers” at Ophelia’s blog, and you couldn’t even be arsed to take ten seconds to come up with an interesting pseudonym. I’m not opposed to pseudonyms, you know. Obviously most people here comment with them, for good reason and I don’t blame them or mind that they do, because they are regular commenters with a known history. I don’t use a pseudonym anymore, first because I decided to stand behind my comments as myself, and second because I no longer fear any consequences; perhaps it’s foolish of me, but I have reasons not to be. You might want to ask yourself why I would choose such a weird one for myself, were this not my actual name. In fact, this is my real name, as real as Ophelia Benson is her real name, both of which she herself can attest since we meet for lunch on the semi-regular. (Or used to, pre-pandemic.) Someone like you, so new & unknown, and so desperate to be believed, should have the guts to stand behind a real identity.
I will tell you this, “Me”: you can take your phony fear of nuclear war and your pearl-clutching whataboutism and your exaggerations and your stupidity and you can shove it all, collectively, straight up your ass. This thread is about Russian aggression, not about your accumulated dislike of the USA. Nobody is fooled by Putin, least of all me. My cousins died fighting Russian aggression, their names now (literally) inscribed on monuments to successful independence from Russia, as heroes of their revolution. My great grandmother was killed by a mine laid by Soviet troops, walking on her home’s beach after breakfast. Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the UK, Germany, Canada, and the USA all welcomed emigrants from my family’s country who fled from the Soviet horror in WWII, a horror that the Ukrainian citizens now get to experience. The Germans–as bad as they were, and they were fucking awful in WWII–were considered better to surrender to than the Soviets, because the Soviets were known to be animals. They shot their own soldiers, they murdered they own citizens, they shipped millions of absolutely innocent people of every race and creed to a frozen death in Siberia in the dead of the night in fucking rail cars. And Putin is absolutely their ideological son, and you his disgusting apologist.
The twitterers have World War 3 trending. (lol) I hope I’m near some epicenter or other, make it quick. :P
Why is Pootie Poot allowing millions of Afghans to starve to death anyway? That’s a good question. Or were we talking about someone else with a fairy wand?
Me, you are crazy if you think a single American soldier is going to die shooting at Russians to defend Ukraine, and you are crazy if you think Putin is going to invade Ukraine because Biden actually baited him into it somehow. Of course, like all warmongers, Putin will claim to have his hand forced and invade his neighbour to restore order or out of provocation or some other such nonsense, which Putin’s allies and followers will lap up and blame Washington for forever, but such inevitabilities cannot be helped. Literally every war in modern and much of pre-modern history follows this pattern.
The truth is that America and NATO are not in the driver’s seat, here. Putin’s Russia has all of the agency; Putin is going to invade Ukraine, if he does so at all, in pursuit of what he believes are his own and Russian interests (whether or not he is mistaken). Ukraine will never be a member of NATO, and no NATO member state will go to war to defend Ukraine. We will instead send materiel to hamper the Russian invasion and to make occupying Ukraine as costly to Russia as possible — which will be very costly indeed if Putin marches troops all the way to Kiev and beyond.
The other truth is that Washington would like nothing better than for Moscow to spend its military budget, its warfighting infrastructure, and hundreds of thousands of young men’s lives that Russia cannot afford to lose, mired in a devastating unending occupation of a hostile neighbouring territory. There is very little downside for America and for NATO to register their dissent, to arm insurgents, and to ratchet-up the sanctions on the Russian people; there is very little upside for a single American or Frenchman or Briton to die in the bogs of Pripyet, and so they will not do so.
If Russia attempts a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia’s conventional army is doomed to try and hold it, and will thereafter never be a threat to the United States again. Russia simply lacks the demographics and the economy to hold Ukraine against the will of its people — and, make no mistake, there’s nothing like an invading army to galvanise a people out of its disparate parts, a process which has been ongoing in Ukraine since 2014. Where once there was a gangster state ruling over a disparate collection of Eastern Europeans, now there is an emerging nation, and this nation will not go down without a fight.
This makes the situation more precarious for the Baltic States and Europe in general, as Putin may well try to manoeuvre into the Baltics using non-conventional means, including with the threat of nuclear war. But that will not be the fault of the Baltics, or of Europe, or of the United States. It will lay in Putin’s hands, or those of his successor.
I have no doubt that the United States will continue acting in its own interests, up to and including abandoning Europe and withdrawing from NATO sooner or later, even as it makes noises about democracy and human rights all the while. But that is not going to happen tomorrow; and, despite the cynicism of Realpolitik, the US and Europe are not going to collaborate with Russia in dismantling a sovereign European state. Instead, they will attempt to hamper this process diplomatically and asymmetrically, and they will get out of Russia’s way if Russia decides to cast the die.
Durchwanderer@15:
Certainly not as long as Russia has territorial claims against Ukraine, which Putin now obviously continues to press. Part of the NATO constitution (probably not the right word) is that no potential member state can have such claims against them; Putin surely knows this.
Dear twiliter;
“Why is Pootie Poot allowing millions of Afghans to starve to death anyway?” … I assume that by “Pootie Poot” you mean “Putin.” I didn’t say that Putin is starving the Afghan people. I said that BIDEN is.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/02/17/afghanistan-brink-catastrophic-disaster
Just like he’s helping the Saudis torture the Yemenis:
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/biden-afghanistan-yemen/
Again I’d just like one of you sterling champions of human rights and the rule of law to explain to me how it is that Biden can be so callous with the lives of Afghans and Yemenis but so tenderly concerned for the people of the Ukraine.
James Garnett is exempt from having to answer. The man is clearly insane but sadly not intelligent enough to be interesting.
Me –
(I have to say, I could wish you’d chosen a slightly more useful nym, since “Me” is an awkward way to address another person, which no doubt is the joke but…well, I could do without it.)
In all seriousness, what is the source of your fury @ 4? What’s it responding to? All I did in this particular post is just update on the state of play. Who is your audience @ 4?
And what’s “I had some slight hopes that this website had a better class of thinkers” for? If you don’t like This Website why bother with it?
For the record, “Me” [I have to put it in “” because otherwise it’s confusing, as if I were talking about myself in babytalk] is a regular, though not a particularly frequent one. Started in August 2020.
Ophelia,
Sorry for my pseudonym. I thought it was cute at the time. RE: “Better class of thinkers” … my dander was up. (Over the tired, trite accusations of my being an apologist for Putin, as well as by the use of the stupid term “whataboutism.”)
The source of my fury is based on everything that I’ve been trying to say here. I don’t know why it isn’t obvious to everyone here that this is nonsense. How is going to affect YOU if Donetsk and Luhansk separate? Why do you care? And if you do care about that issue, … WHY do you care about it? What is it going to mean for the people of the Ukraine and Donetsk and Luhansk? Is it really going to be so terrible?
Do I think Putin is a great man? No. I don’t. I think he’s an authoritarian who props-up the most reactionary elements of Russian society for his political base. He’s definitely corrupt. But I judge his foreign policy vis-a-vis the United States and (in this case) the Ukraine as being quite rational. Not because he’s a man of peace. But because he’s neither stupid nor insane. Russia’s GDP is smaller than California’s. He can’t afford war. He can’t afford the blanket sanctions that would ensue should he pursue a war of choice.
On the other hand, the United States invaded Iraq. After a months-long propaganda campaign about WMDs that millions of people around the world saw through as being ridiculously fraudulent. And look at the hell-hole that’s been created. And then the USA led NATO into toppling Libya’s Qaddafi because we were supposedly so worried about what he was allegedly going to do to the rebelling Libyan people. Then it turned out that the rebels were all jihaadists (the people who supposedly represented an existential threat to our way of life in the “Clash of Civilizations”) and they’ve brought Libya to ruins. Then the USA hired more jihaadists to try to topple Syria’s Assad. (Supposedly a Jihaadist Syria is preferable to an Assadist Syria???)
It’s just one long litany of the governments in Washington fabricating one crisis after another and producing nothing but tragedy after tragedy.
Do I love Putin, Saddam, Qaddafi, Assad, etc., etc., ? No. I do not. I just don’t believe that Washington ever has the interests of the people of the world at heart. By this point I should think this is obvious. In this case I don’t think Putin is the instigator of anything, again, because he can’t afford war. In a world where moronic stories about Putin paying for the scalps of US soldiers in Afghanistan get treated seriously by actual adults, I tend to push-back against simplistic Manichean narratives about the USA vs. evil.
I comment here from time-to-time because this is one of the only places where a side-interest of mine is discussed. (I was appalled to read “progressives” accusing abused women of “transphobia” for being uncomfortable with men [“transwomen”] in women’s shelters. Since that time the glaring inconsistencies shown by many TRA’s has only increased my interest in this subject and the way GC feminists are unfairly demonized.) But dying in a nuclear war (which could be the end result of this hypocrisy and insanity over the Ukraine) is also a big topic for me.
Anyway, … that’s enough from me for a couple of days.
@17 My point was that Biden is not the whole of the US government, and even the most powerful single position in the world does not operate in a vacuum. If you’re in the question answering mood, why has Pootie Poot failed to end the starvation in Afghanistan just as Sleepy Joe has? I didn’t misread you, but you might have missed my (admittedly tongue in cheek) point.
I was going to end with something nice, but considering your handle it would appear self serving. :)
@19 Yes that’s enough out of you, or maybe just end with “period, end of discussion.”
Also @19 Since our commentariat is being judged for it’s thinking abilities, consider that alarmist hand wringing about WW3 trending on twitter was aimed directly at your comment about nuclear war. Not sure I’d trust your opinion on how to think critically.
Whew! At last. I can retire to my pinochle games with the other inmates.
James @23 Personally, I’m ready for a good cribbage tournament. :D
Me @ 19 – Well I don’t have a high opinion of US foreign policy in the post WW2 era, but I don’t take that to mean I have to think it’s invariably wrong on every single issue, especially since there are clashing views within the government itself. At any rate I haven’t said I think Biden should declare war on Russia, and I don’t think I’ve implied it either.
“Me”:
I did answer you about that, you know. ALL those things. It takes every shred of my being not to resort to calling you base things now, but I’ve already gone further than I should have here on our host’s blog. If you don’t want to answer, then okay, but I’ll just consider you an apologist for Putin.
Hey, did that person just misgender me??
@28 And has also hijacked one of your pronouns. Rude. :D
Honestly, this is hyperbolic anxiety. This situation is not going to result in you “dying in a nuclear war”. Der Durchwanderer summarized the likely outcomes fairly well. What you will experience is a drop in stock prices for a time, a circling of the wagons in the West, and a recovery to the status quo. Why? Because simple economics. Even Putin understands that it’s in his interests in the long run to return to the status quo, no matter what his stupid beliefs in a greater Soviet state.
Fussing about “nuclear war” is just silly.
Me, the most charitable interpretation anyone could make of your remarks is ignorance. I will try to be charitable. I will lay out the fundamental reasons, as I see it, that opposing Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is in the national interest of all Western democracies.
Nobody here believes Washington always has the interests of everybody in the world at heart. Such a belief would not be supported by historical events. The American government has done terrible things the world over. However, nobody except the most insular of right-wing zealots believes that Biden – a man who has spent his life in service to his country – hates America. If one claims that Biden’s actions are not intended to protect America, that is an extraordinary claim which would require extraordinary proof.
The US government has never proposed protecting America by sending American troops to fight Russian troops in Ukraine; that has neither strategic nor tactical value, and is just a red herring in a long series of red herrings. The US government, however, does have an inherent interest in stopping the progress of totalitarianism in Europe and in supporting the spread of democracy. Ukraine is a democratic country, with competitive elections, and Russia is a totalitarian state with the penalty for political participation frequently being death.
Much to our surprise, history did not end with the fall of the Soviet bloc. Instead, though the periphery of the former Soviet bloc turned to a variety of systems of government, some more democratic and others more authoritarian, the centre of that bloc, Russia, turned to an authoritarianism that would make former fascists envious. Based on a concept of historic grievance, Russia turned itself towards the destruction of Western democracy – in a way a continuation of the Soviet project, but this time with more appeal to a fifth column within Western countries, which was never comfortable with the extension of the franchise to all. Divisions within Western democracies have been exploited and amplified by a remarkably content psyops war waged by Russia.
The historic Soviet infiltration pales in comparison to the effectiveness of the new Russian fascist infiltration. America has a more divided society than at any time since the Civil War, and that has a lot to do with Russian influence. America suffered, for the first time in its history, a coup attempt, led by a president who was not wanted as president by the majority of Americans, and who would not have secured that position without Russia’s help. The Soviets never accomplished so much; their attempts to draw attention to the divisions in American society were clumsy at best.
Internationally, Russia’s goal is to bring an end to the relatively peaceful period of history, during which Western democracies have grown. After WWII, no armed conflict emerged among major Western nations, and no nuclear weapons were used in open conflict. The lack of major conflict in Europe sets this period of history apart from all previous. After the collapse of the USSR, the Pax Americana had a chance to live up to Kennedy’s dreams:
The formation of international institutions such as NATO and the European Union was fundamental to the maintenance of this peace, a peace which has allowed democracy to grow. To the autocrat, such as Putin, nothing can be so threatening as the prospect of democracy – democracy ends in a noose for the tyrant. Thus it is in the autocrat’s interest to undermine democracy wherever possible – in America by fomenting division and propping up a patsy; in Britain by supporting its separation from the EU, and in those wavering nations close to Russia’s borders by supporting autocracy or insurrection. The goal is as much inward as outward: in order to maintain power, Putin must prove that democracy is impossible in Russia.
For the person who believes in the classical liberal values on which Western democracies were founded, support of democracy abroad appears desirable. For the person who can read the room, and sees it rapidly filling with autocrats (to Putin, add Orban, Lukashenko, Maduro, Erdogan…), support of democracy abroad appears essential to the survival of democracy at home.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/12/the-autocrats-are-winning/620526/
The Western interest in Ukraine isn’t about coal mines in Donetsk or trains in Luhansk. It’s about the idea that democracy should be growing now, instead of autocracy, about the idea that Ukrainians should be able to elect their own government and decide how their country belongs in the world. There is a new global struggle now, and it’s a struggle for the survival of democracy. Putin has no intention of stopping at the line of control in Donetsk and Luhansk, no intention at stopping at the borders of those two oblasts, and no intention of stopping with Ukraine. His goal is the recreation of a Russian sphere of influence – this time more fascist than communist – and, ultimately, the destruction of the West.
Which side are you on?
As far as protecting the rights of the rights of
German-speaking people in CzechoslovakiaRussian-speaking people in Ukraine is concerned, Timothy Snyder made the point that Russian-speaking people in Ukraine currently have more rights, more freedom, more protection etc. than Russian-speaking people in Russia.[…] a comment by Papito on People’s […]
Let me state up front that I don’t follow this issue nearly as closely as some of you, and that I’ve learned a lot from various comments here. but I’m not very knowledgeable on the topic. That may be a factor in my reaction.
My general understanding of Me’s position (and I’m not going to point to exact statements, I may be missing things or extrapolating, this is a general impression) is this:
– NATO is not benign;
– Some of the actions (legitimate or not) taken by NATO and the West may have played a role in inspiring Putin’s and Russia’s actions;
– Much of the media seems only interested in portraying the invasion one way, good guys versus bad guys, and not understanding the situation any further;
– Anyone who IS interested in trying to understand the Russian authority’s point of view (especially any less-than-appropriate actions by the West) is automatically called a “Putin apologist” or accused of “whataboutism”;
– Some of us in the US are indeed afraid that war (involving the US) will break out;
– Any war involving any nuclear power (be it Russia, China, the US, or others) raises a fear of nuclear war.
Again, I may be off the mark, but this is what I take away. I don’t think it’s a remarkable point of view, it seems fairly straightforward and obvious, and it may be wrong, but it’s a point of view I largely share. Perhaps I, too, am engaging in “hyperbolic anxiety” or “being silly”, I don’t know.
Well that could be what Me is thinking, but it’s not at all what Me said. The difference in style and tone and level of hostility makes a big difference.
Putin is not, shall we say, an honest broker.