Putin’s folly in Ukraine

Politics & Current Affairs
44

A lot of the emotion in European countries is as a result of Trump’s verbal attacks on Europe. This becomes intertwined with concerns about the Ukraine war. So it is understandable that the emotion is so high. Because the post war settlement is crumbling at the same time as Russia is attacking a large European country and sending serious threats to other European countries. This includes the claim that Russia is already at war with Europe and serious nuclear threats. There are hybrid attacks being carried out by Russia across Europe. Also there is the emergence of a long standing espionage programme infiltrating society, institutions and politics Across Europe.

Regarding the Strength of Russia militarily, yes she is weakened and may not be in a position to invade Europe. But the Russian economy is now on a war footing and it will be necessary for Europe (or the West) to keep up the pace of military development. So as not to find itself in a weaker position down the road.

Yes, but Europe, as before is not threatening Russia, NATO is a defensive alliance. I know that the U.S. is gun-ho. But Europe isn’t and is only concerned with defence in this situation. What happens in Russia after the war is not Europe’s concern, it’s for the Russian’s to decide, as it is for the Ukrainians to decide in Ukraine.

Yes, but the loss for the US is good relations and alliance with Europe and therefore the loss of its unipower status. Something that was not necessary. So in a sense, both the US and Russia are diminished as a result of this. If the U.S. want’ to be stronger (so to speak) than China. Strengthening her alliance with Europe would have achieved that. Now, the U.S. is diminishing on the world stage and China is filling the vacuum. China is probably more loyal to Putin (despite his actions) than the U.S. so if a choice has to be made by Russia, it would be an alliance with China. This fits with the narrative that Putin is playing Trump for a fool, while happily using him to weaken the war efforts in Ukraine and weaken U.S. ties with Europe.

Things have changed a lot in Europe following the invasion. She is re-arming. Weaning off the Russian oil and gas and consolidating cooperation between members, especially militarily. You have to remember that it was not the EU who went to the former Russian federation states in Eastern Europe inviting them into the EU and NATO. It was they who came knocking.Europe has unintentionally become the club that these states wanted to join following the collapse of the USSR. You only have to speak to the people in these states.
Now Europe has become drawn into this conflict which she would rather not have had to do. But without her help Ukraine would have been conquered and the Ukrainian people humiliated. Also there would have likely been a protracted war of resistance in Ukraine which could last for decades.

Perhaps one might say that Ukraine if she had given in without too much of a struggle would have been treated fairly. But one must remember that the way Putin is treating the Russian people now is increasingly authoritarian. For example there is a report this morning of Russian soldiers who refuse to go into battle into “Suicide missions”,designed to wear down the opposing troops. Being shot by their commanders in front of their comrades. Putin is lying wholesale to the Russian people about this war and has no regard for civilians on either side of the conflict.

45

Excuse me for butting in, but I’d like to make a quick point that I think is important.

That may explain why emotions are high, but @Astorre’s point seemed to be about something different: not whether the emotions are understandable, but whether they should play a role in arguments and analyses.

The question isn’t what explains or justifies strong feelings, but whether arguments here on TPF are being supported by reasons rather than by an emotional framing or emotive premises.

46

Thanks for butting in, I hadn’t cleared up in my mind just where the high emotions were and who was using them.
Feel free to butt in future.

47

I’m very skeptical about the explanatory power of views overly focusing on the leaders’ psychology (be it Putin, Trump or Netanyahu). If politics is about gouverning people over a territory and over time, a deeper understanding of the conflict in Ukraine must be rooted into the Russian and Ukrainian collective-trends within its geographic and demographic constraints . And even the psychology of the leader must be fit into this picture: in other words, we should expect greater popular support in leaders that support these trends than in leaders who don’t (e.g. are Russians are more happy with Putin’s foreign politics or with Yeltsin’s or Gorbachev’s ?). Besides, even if we remain within the domain of the political leadership the decisional process (even in the case of absolute dictatorship) leaders normally do not discount input coming from a wider circle of advisors, and are not exempt from pressure coming from other political leaders and courtesans.
The same goes with ideology or political regimes: Ukrainian nationalism (as a collective historical trend) explains both heir penchant toward the West against, it doesn’t matter if the West is lead by peaceful Germany or nazi Germany. Palestinian nationalism (as a collective historical trend) explains their support for secularism and islamism against Israel. Russian imperialism (as a collective historical trend) can support both monarchy, Soviet Union, authoritarian democracy.

48

I’d like to add another layer here. This is the self-awareness of the citizens of Ukraine and Russia, which must be taken into account to understand the situation.

Both of these states are crucial remnants of the former USSR’s power. It was the division of Russia and Ukraine that primarily ensured for Western countries that the geopolitical competitor had disappeared. All that remains is to prevent reunification.

But I’d like to talk about the Soviet legacy in the minds of ordinary citizens. The Soviet project created the identity of a “superman” involved in global messianism.
​For Russia: This resulted in resentment—a feeling of resentment for lost greatness, compensated for by aggressive self-assertion.
​For Ukraine: This transformed into “reverse imperialism.” Seeing oneself as a “shield of civilization” or “main outpost” is also a form of exceptionalism. The thesis “we are the ones who will break the back of the empire” is itself a product of the same grand, “Soviet” mentality.
Both sides use the same cultural code—the code of the Great Patriotic War.
The paradox here is that the opponents use the same archetypes (heroism, self-sacrifice, “not a step back”) to dehumanize each other. This is a war between two versions of the same myth of a total people’s war.

Therefore, there can be no talk of either side surrendering. For the “average” citizen of these countries, surrender means losing themselves. These feelings are skillfully manipulated by their leaders, and if this conflict is allowed to continue, both states will fight to the point of exhaustion, to the last soldier. And this will not happen in the name of “freedom,” “democracy,” or other values ​​understood in the West. It will happen in the name of “independence,” in the name of the right to call oneself by one’s own name. These two countries could be governed by authoritarianism, totalitarianism, Nazism, hunger, suffering, or anything else: citizens can accept that. But not surrender. Surrender is the end.

The losing side in this conflict will cease to exist as a state. Ukraine, if defeated, could split in two, and Russia, if defeated, would descend into civil war. But victory wouldn’t be too sweet for anyone: it would only postpone the conflicts for later. So now this war is existential.

1 Like
49

Someone replied to your post.


| Punshhh
February 24 |

  • | - |

You’ll have to back up your claim of a country in civil war.

A country where the armee is bombing a separatist region (with a pre-invasion count of about 30,000 death) is in civil war by definition.

And even if it was, what business was it of Putin’s to wade in.

National security. And that has nothing to do with Putin; any Russian government would have had to react. Why is this so hard to see? Imagine Mexico getting friendly with Russia, and suddenly there is a Russian base and Russian missiles on the border. And do not say nobody warned about it… plenty of senior diplomats did. (Did you read Burns` well-know “Njet means njet” note to Clinton?)

Especially if it was his own meddling which had caused the unrest in Ukraine to begin with.

That is not true. Nato expansion and the Maidan coup was not the making of Putin; to the contrary.

Putin himself has given a contradictory account of Ukraine. On the one hand he insists that the Ukrainian people are by nature Russian, that the separation of Ukraine from Russia is an artificial construct.

He did not say “the Ukrainian people”. He said the ethnic Russians in the Ukraine (about 30% of the population), who were under repression from the new post-Maidan Ukrainian nationalist government.

But if the Ukrainian people identify as Russian and are friendly to Russia, what is the problem? Why does Ukraine need to be defeated? They could live alongside Russia, develop closer links, economically and culturally and live alongside Russia in peace.

See above. Not all Ukrainians are ethnic Russian, but many are, especially in the East. And Ukraine does not need to be “defeated”; it needs to agree to the Russian demands (fundamentally equal rights for the Russian minority, and neutrality in the constitution (like Austria, Switzerland, and in fact pre-2014 Ukraine).

This lays bare the true picture here. A picture which belies the authoritarian grip that Putin has on the Russian state and people. What is really going on here is that Putin insists that Ukraine must prostrate herself to his dominion. Putin (snip)

This is the simplistic picture painted by most of the media, but it is not true. And again, this has little to do with Putin. Are you suggesting Medvedev would have acted differently?

50

Someone replied to your post.


| Jabberwock
February 23 |

  • | - |

That is exactly what happened. The claim that ‘Russian troops did not need to invade’ is false, as Russians had only been present in Sevastopol, at the tip of the peninsula.

As I said, they WERE in Crimea; no invasion needed. And Sevastopol is not just a “tip of the peninsula”, it is the essential warm-water navy base for the Russia navy, and of existential importance for the country. And that is not new… do you remember the Crimean wars? Sevastopol in the middle of Nato territory would be unacceptable to any Russian goverment.
The moment the extreme nationalist government came to power in 2014, Russia HAD to react. No matter who was president. Blaming Putin alone is misleading.

From there they have moved out and occupied the whole region; beside that SpetsNaz troops without insignia have landed in key points. Find in the YouTube the relevant animation

Never thought that a Youtube animation would be the base for a historical argument.

So, again, your claim is false: the fact is that in 2014 Russian troops have invaded peaceful, sovereign Ukrainian territory protected by the Budapest Memorandum.

Did you forget that the annexation happened after a vote in the Crimean parliament? And the Crimea is majority ethnic Russian; remember it was always part of Russia until gifted to the Ukraine oblast in 1952 by Chrustchev after a drinking bout in Kiev…

51

They were in a small part of Crimea, to which they had right according to the treaty between Ukraine and Russia. They have left the base and occupied the rest of the peninsula AND SpetsNaz forces have landed in several key areas. That was an invasion and the act of military agression. In 1994 Russian military forces have violated the sovereign territory of Ukraine during a peacetime. That is a fact that you cannot refute.

52

I meant in 2014, of course.

53

Someone replied to your post.


| Jabberwock
February 24 |

  • | - |

They were in a small part of Crimea, to which they had right according to the treaty between Ukraine and Russia.

They were in Sevastopol, and the treaty allowing the base of course assumed a neutral Ukraine, and not a Nato country. Sevastopol surrounded by US troops is an unacceptable scenario for ANY Russian government. And with the Maidan coup and the subsequent removal of the neutrality clause, that foundation shifted.

In 1994 Russian military forces have violated the sovereign territory of Ukraine during a peacetime. That is a fact that you cannot refute.

I do not know that in 1994 Russian military forces did such a thing. What are you referring to?

54

I have already corrected myself. You can try to distract as much as you want, the fact remains that in 2014 Russian forces have invaded peaceful, sovereign territory of Ukraine, therefore your initial claim is still false.

55

It was more like 14,000 deaths and it was started by Russian backed separatists. This is how Putin operates, they find small numbers of people who can be bought off who then form small separatist groups just inside the territory of the target country. First it’s terrorist acts, followed by insurrection.As soon as the authorities in that country fight back to keep the peace, there are loud shouts of suppression, persecution etc etc. An international media campaign is launched and before you know it, large parts of Ukraine are under the control of Nazi’s, requiring a Special Military Operation. Typical Putin playbook.

This is the big lie pushed by Putin, apparently Russia is the victim. NATO is pushing east, threatening Russian security. But that’s not what happened.
What happened is that when the USSR collapsed the small Eastern European states asked to join the EU and NATO. What was Europe to do? Tell them sorry, we don’t want you, you go back to Russia, that’s where you belong. So alliances and collaboration developed between Europe and these countries. Some joined the EU and NATO, others didn’t. It wasn’t Europe, the U.S., or the EU dictating these developments. It was driven by the people in those countries exercising their self determination. At this time Putin was friendly with European countries at one point he was asking for Russia to join NATO. Big energy deals were signed with Europe, Russia developed her oil fields and brought some prosperity to Russia. Then something started to change around 2008/9.

More like 20%, oh and there’s that persecution narrative again. Throughout this whole period Putin was conducting espionage operations try to destabilise and influence the politics of Ukraine.

That’s all very well, but would you trust Putin?

Let me paint you the picture, there was a ground breaking documentary broadcast on the BBC last night, Russia soldiers tell BBC they saw fellow troops in Ukraine war executed on commanders' orders - BBC News
(I don’t know if the link will work, I haven’t worked this out yet). A team of journalists interviewed Russian soldiers who escaped the Russian front line recently. They told stories of brutalisation, corruption. Soldiers being killed for money, they have a high salary and their family get a big payout if they die. Soldiers being forced at gun point to go on suicide missions on the front line, so as to keep up the narrative that Russia is winning. Even Russian forces fighting and killing each other. Widespread humiliation, torture and inhuman treatment of young men. Most, forcefully conscripted from their homes.

The Ukrainians know this, they know what the Russian’s are like (I am not suggesting all Russians, only the military leaders and Putin’s operatives). This is why they will not agree to Russian demands.

(If the link doesn’t work you can find a write up of the documentary on the BBC website, it’s called, the zero line.)

56

And unfortunately this big lie is widely accepted. It goes well with the idea of the US being at the center of everything and every problem happening because of US foreign policy. In a very derogatory way, it totally ignores that smaller countries are active actors themselves in their security.

Somehow what is totally lost is that NATO membership, contrary to Warsaw Pact membership, has been and is voluntary and the countries themselves have sought this security arrangement. It worked far longer than CENTO or SEATO, which simply dissolved as there was no common security objective for those member states.

The naive idea that the US can do anything with or within NATO has been shown not to be true with the many occasions where the US has been disappointed at the organization and was last shown with the Greenland debacle, where Trump had to back down (at least for now) from his delusional aspirations.

57

What strikes me most about this whole story is the division of opinion. Let me clarify my position: Reading your comment, I see excellent analysis, an eye for detail, and consistent conclusions. However, I see the same thing when I encounter the opposing opinions.

So how do analysts, using the same analytical approaches to analyzing a problem, arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions?

And here, in this context, another problem of a different kind arises, one that is precisely what philosophy studies. A classic example is Wittgenstein’s “Duck and Hare.” Two people look at the same drawing (the source of the data). One sees a hare, the other a duck. Both are right; both use their vision. But their presets cause their brains to group the lines in a certain way.

Similarly, in our example, some see arms shipments as “helping the victim.” Others see these same shipments as “stirring up a fire to weaken a competitor.”

The fact is that the interpretations are polarized.

Gadamer wrote about this, calling it “prejudice” or “pre-understanding”—the basis for interpretation that seeks confirmation by highlighting convenient facts or dismissing inconvenient ones as irrelevant. This gives rise to cognitive distortions. As a result, we see cries of “NATO at the border!” or “Russian aggressors!” And each with its own impeccable logic.

Le Bon describes this phenomenon beautifully in his “Psychology of Nations” and “Psychology of the Crowds”: any deeply held beliefs of the masses take on a sensory form, even if they concern politics or war. For those who “believe” in the correctness of their side, any argument from the opponent is not a “different opinion,” but heresy.

In this state, the analyst’s mind works not to seek truth, but to protect their feelings. Logic becomes the handmaiden of dogma. This is why two educated people, looking at the same document, see in it evidence of opposing statements—they are protecting their feelings.

Today marks 4 years and 1 day since the start of the war. It is surprising that this time was not enough for humanity, which considers itself educated, scientific and so wise, to end this humanitarian catastrophe.

1 Like
58

Yes, good point. Something that Putin will be aware of, presumably. Fortunately the military analysts and hard headed European leaders will be able to focus on the bottom line. As it is for them to make the decisive decisions in this situation, now that Trump has opted out.

What you are describing is a propaganda war. Supporters of the Russian line will be happy with this because truth (what is actually happening)and what is right (the correct course of action)is uncertain and propaganda can arrest people’s attention and we enter a post truth situation.

This is also something Trump is exploiting, in his State of the Union Address yesterday there was plenty of miss information and propaganda going around. Interestingly he said something which is code for, “we are prepared for war”. That Iran has the capability for missiles (presumably ballistic) to reach the US, now.

59

Either you or I have misunderstood @Astorre’s point. They’re not claiming one side is telling the truth and the other peddling propaganda. They’re pointing out that both sides are subject to the same biases in interpreting the (already filtered) data they read. That includes you, your ‘military analysts’ and all politicians on both sides.

60

Yes, Putin is a skilled purveyor of propaganda.

Going back to the situation, the previous state of affairs had two clearly defined sides and an effective standoff, in the Cold War. Upon the fall of the USSR, there was a power vacuum. Alternative narratives were free to emerge. Now the balance has changed again and the U.S. seems to have switched sides. Destabilising NATO, Europe has found herself in the middle and is having to wake up fast. The world is in flux and countries and blocks are having to re-assess their position and strategy. The chess pieces will fall in different positions now.

61

Yes, you are right. I’m not suggesting that one side is doing it and not the other. But when I talk of the military strategists and the European leaders, I’m assuming that they are aware of this kind of propaganda on both sides already. They are experts in this kind of thing and will take it into account.

62

So how do analysts, using the same analytical approaches to analyzing a problem, arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions?

Because they do not use the "same” analytical approach. There are often implicit assumptions (and implications) that we take for granted even though they are not shared and remain debatable.
The philosophical task, as I understand it, is first of all to explicit as much as possibile such hidden assumptions and then analyse its grounding conceptual framework. For example:

  • Is the overthrow of Yanukivic in Ukraine a “coup d’etat”? Let’s start with defining a working definition of coup d’etat and see what elements would be needed to apply it to the case at hand.
  • Is American imperialism the same as Russian imperialism? Let’s start with defining a working definition of “imperialism” and see what elements would be needed to apply it to the case at hand.
  • Was the US invasion of Ukraine “provoked” by NATO extension? Let’s start with defining a working definition of “imperialism” and see what elements would be needed to apply it to the case at hand.
63

I’m not suggesting that one side is doing it and not the other.

That’s exactly what you’re suggesting. You’ve just written a post (and several before it) that treats what you hear from Western media as gospel truth and talks only of Putin (and now Trump) being purveyors of propaganda.

If you truly are ‘not suggesting’ only one side is doing it, then you need to stop acting as if you can counter your opponent’s version of events with the version your media has given you and start treating both with equal scepticism.

when I talk of the military strategists and the European leaders, I’m assuming that they are aware of this kind of propaganda on both sides already. They are experts in this kind of thing and will take it into account.

That’s the very propaganda that you (and I) are exposed to. “It’s OK because our Very Smart and Competent leaders will look after you, now run along and don’t ask any more awkward questions”

Just run through your head for five minutes, the history of leaders in our country. The lies, corruption, power-broking, sleaze, petty squabbling, and greed.

What on earth makes you think they’ve ‘got your back’, that they’re diligently looking at the evidence and carefully weighing it for the good of humanity? Where do you think we live? Disneyworld?

And further to @Astorre’s point, these people, in addition to not being saints, are also not magically above bias and prejudice themselves. They haven’t become superhuman just because they’ve got a position of political power. They too will be interpreting the data with biases from their own ideology.