Nice post (me having worked several years in Russian and Ukrainian universities), but some nits and nuts to pick:
1. "There are some brave protests, even despite the very high probability of arrest — yet, there does not yet exist the kind of widespread popular dissatisfaction that brought down the Soviet Union." Indeed, no serious uprising against the czar in sight. AND there was none in the USSR. Not "widespread popular dissatisfaction that brought down the Soviet Union": bad economics forced Gorb. to try reforms, there was a coup by parts of the party against him. Jelzin saved the day (with some public support, but it was NOT an uprising against the government). And dismantled the USSR, usu. by letting people choose. Huge majorities choose to leave - 90% in Ukraine. And many would now, just: no vote.
2. Putin is not threatened by NATO. And he knows it, he is no idiot (you got that right). But: His rule could be threatened by a democratic Ukraine, prospering by choosing the west. Russians are unimpressed by the Baltic's success (or Poland's) - they might see things differently if even their "Ukrainian brothers" would turn richer than them - without the gas etc.. (call it wishful thinking, but my friend Dr. Andreas Umland hopes so). As long as Ukrainians failed (partly cuz Russia loved meddling in their politics. Ex-convict turned president Yanukovych was his toy.) all was fine. Since 2017 they can enter the EU without a visa - and work in Poland - while the "liberated" Donbass went south and even Crimeans were mostly disappointed. - Anyways, giving up power and influence is not something Putin likes to do. Who does?
3. Sadly, the Budapest Memorandum was not a security guarantee, but as the US so did Russia (and the UK) pledge: "A) ... not to invade Ukraine". (And other things Putin ignored.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
"is that China needs to see that things won’t be easy for it, if it ever tries to invade Taiwan."
If I was China I would look at the last year and conclude that Total War is inevitable. Some people think that the prospect of Total War will scare China, but if it's inevitable you might as well just prepare for it. It's obvious from Ukraine that covert support for color revolutions is strong and respect for spheres of influence is weak. China isn't going to get any stronger after 2028 relative to the west.
"In the meantime, we can respect the brave, effective fighting shown by Ukraine’s outnumbered soldiers."
The Ukrainians outnumber the Russians significantly. Russia had a material advantage early on but the west has evened that out for the most part.
I predict Ukraine will "win" this conflict, though life for Ukrainians will be worse no matter the outcome. They might even have been better off with a short loss. The obvious answer at this point is to declare the current front lines the new international border, but this does not serve western interests.
The odds of nuclear war are small, but think of the cost. People thought the Cuban Missile Crisis was brilliant statesmanship and then later we find out that a Russian sub came incredibly close to launching a nuke.
Thank you for an excellent article based upon facts and reason. I would quibble about a tiny part. You wrote, "But, the idea that fascists are a major force in Ukraine is ridiculous. Ukraine's President is Jewish."
Ashkenazi Jews have a genetic predisposition for Tay-Sachs disease. However, no Jews have a genetically inherited predisposition against fascism, as witnessed by those few Jews who equate 'chosen' with 'master race,' such as Meir Kahne and other ultra-nationalist Israeli Jews.
Thank you. I agree that his ethnicity is not a "QED" debunking of Russia's claim, but it is very strong evidence, since it is a small minority of jews who might be sympathetic to fascism (especially the neo-nazi strain of it in question here.)
"EU (which also requires member countries to defend each other.)"
The first page of the link refutes this
"the article does not say that the assistance should be military in nature, so countries such as Austria, Finland, Ireland and Sweden that have a policy of neutrality, can still cooperate"
Here is the exact wording from the EU Treaty: Article 42... 7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
On a practical level, it is hard to imagine major countries like France and Germany not sending soldiers to Finland/Sweden, if they faced the kind of brutal ground assault that Ukraine is facing currently.
I will tweak the wording in the post to make it more precise.
1) putin had "planned" for this from 2014, realising he would have to make a stand but in reality, more of a decoy to deflect from the next stage of Russian economic growth. most likely outcome in next few months, crimea gets the water back on on a tariff basis, eastern republics stay neutral and UKR never joins NATO. all three very palatable to Western democracies given state of affairs in 2021. Averting a major war, but also weakening Russia future biz ties with west, UKR staying weak for many years as unable to join Euro bloc soon, unfortunate and avoidable for UKR...but what next for Russia?
2) All western investments in Russia are transferred to China and India, given their energy intensive growth models and strategies. Putin saw the renewable expansion in UK and Europe and realised this was the zenith of their share in energy to Europe, they werent winning any more wallet share and now is a good time to sale. He cant force a sale, but invading will force the corporations to do the bidding of Putin given popular sentiment is so completely apragmatic, and as they have, at a loss,. China will now pick up the firesale energy, India coal.
3) Russia and China going forward decide who gets what in Africa while everyone is looking to Europe. Russia influence extending over West Africa through French decline and China through the East of the continent.
4) Russia will play the role of partner to the silk road initiative and key resource supplier to India. Still able to participate in any Western development indirectly via the China economic expansion project and via the rapidly rising India development.
5) MSM pointing to Putin sentimentality over Kyiv as CHristian center (seen on Fox) or irate at NATO expansion, misunderstand Putin and is modus operandi completely. He is completely aware of NATO expansion for many years, he cares nothing for religion, the man is a trained counter-intel officer, a) they are picked because they are completely rational and high EQ and b) he survived and thrived so not only did he have those attributes, he excelled in them. Meaning, sentimentality or snapping are completely out of his makeup. The west have to realised that this early stage conflagration in UKR and all west reactions are very likely within all of his contingencies and west should start looking at to what his really after. Clearly if he isnt sending in the 100% airforce and just some low level conscripts, it wasnt to win UKR outright in a battle, but to let it drag on.....
Thanks for the note. Mostly agree. Regarding Putin, I'm also mostly inclined to agree, but we should also have a lot of humility about what's inside his head, and everyone changes as they get older. And even shrewd people can have blindspots leading to huge mistakes and miscalculations.
NATO is not a threat. NATO is a pact for mutual defense against lying, terrorist, murderous nations intent on subjugating and enslaving others. NATO has invaded no one. russia has in a murderous campaign to steal everything from the people of Ukraine, murder them, drive them out or put them on their knees. THe idea that they should ever get down on their knees and be neutral to the evil empire that is russia is disgusting.
Glad to see you writing on this. I'd like to spread an idea I hope policymakers are thinking of. The US should be sending drones to fight the Russians, sub rosa. Drones controlled from Kansas. No US soldiers will die. Russian soldiers will, but we'll have deniability, so the Russians will save face. If they want to accuse us and nuke Romania, they can, but they won't be pressured into that. When they shoot down drones, the Made in USA on them won't be evidence that we were operating them-- it could be we just gave them to the Ukrainians to use.
It takes too long to learn, is the problem with giving them to the Ukrainians. Remember, though: the Russians don't want to start WW3 either. Their threat at the start of the war was to pre-empt us from sending our air force in, and was effective at that.
After reading the article on The Hill about your findings or views, and reviewing your current survey of the situation, several questions come to mind. Do you have access to Ukrainian and Russian army Orders of Battle to more realistically analyze casualty reports and their effects on each side's readiness? Do you employ a conceptual framework for measuring success of each side's operational plans (EX: Principles of War, Centers of Gravity)? If Ukraine's overmatched army has successfully stalled a much larger force, what factors (leadership, training, motivation, external support - wpns like javelin, stinger) are the most decisive? Intel sources to date estimate around 7000 in 3 weeks yet only a handful of cities have fallen. The prize, Kiev, could revisit a repeat of Stalingrad. vmi74@aol.com
No, I do not have special access to any of that. I can only follow public reports of troop movements, and I also have some clue regarding the daily reality on the ground inside post-war Russia (not inside post-war Ukraine) and Russian history. I think this is an important perspective to share, but I also want to be clear about what I don’t have special knowledge on.
> Other Russian propaganda — such as the unsuccessful attempt to pretend Ukraine was starting the attack — also consists of grotesque lies.
You seem to be following the MSM narrative on the development of the war. According to other sources, it seems that a major portion of the Ukrainian army (60,000 personnel?) have been encircled in a so-called Russian "cauldron" in the East, while the Azof fighters are trapped in Mariupol. That so many forces were located in that region seems to give credence to the notion that they were preparing an attack on the Donbas and were prevented by the Russian first move.
> First, let’s note that Russia has displayed gross military incompetence,
As mentioned before, this is the MSM narrative. Other analysts who seem to know what they're talking about have a very different reading of the situation.
Unfortunately, you repeat some Russian propaganda in this piece: "Russia also supported violent separatists in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions." That was always a Russian military operation, not separatists. As the early leader of the operation, Strelkov, famously said over an open radio frequency: "the Ukrainians won't fight." It was always "little green men" (Russian soldiers with their patches taken off) doing the fighting.
Also, I believe you put a Russian-propaganda spin on Ukraine joining NATO. Putin never believed there was a threat that the west would invade Russia. He just always wanted to take back Ukraine for Russia, and knew NATO membership would prevent that (and the same with other former holdings of Russia/Soviet Union).
Are you sure it wasn't both separatists, and Russian support/irregular troops?
Regarding the second one, I agree it's pretty silly that "the west would invade Russia." But, having so much power nearby is still a powerful tool to pressure a country. The US wouldn't like Russian missiles in Mexico, even though an invasion of the US itself wouldn't be very plausible.
Regarding Putin have long-term designs on taking Ukraine -- we can speculate about that, but not sure how you'd *know*. What we can see in practice is that Russia repeatedly took extreme steps to keep Ukraine out of a western military alliance, but it did not push, for example, its own military alliance with Ukraine.
That said, I imagine that would have been Putin's ideal future -- something like what's happened in Belarus, which, without war, is now almost Russian territory in practice.
Finally, I'm not sure it's helpful to declare any point in Russia's favor "Russian Propaganda". If it's an outright lie, I agree (and I listed a number of indisputable Russian propaganda points in my piece) but if it's more speculative, or can be plausibly seen from either side, I think better to leave loaded terms out. It constricts one's thinking as soon as you label something "Russian propaganda" so we should be pretty sure before applying that label.
Sorry if I used a loaded term. I wouldn't bother replying if I didn't value your work (e.g. I use ElectionBettingOdds.com constantly). If there were some separatists in eastern Ukraine they were clearly in the minority, and calling it a separatist movement is misleading.
I think Putin has been pretty clear in his words and deeds that he intends to rebuild the old Russian empire, and I've watched him do it for many years, e.g. Georgia.
My other criticism of this piece is that you repeat the Russian line about "mistreatment of Russians in Urkraine" without evaluating it. It's possible that's happened, but I've been following the Putin's ambitious expansion for years, including in Ukraine, and I never heard of that until recently, so I think it's most likely more Russian justification/propaganda.
I agree, I don't evaluate that claim in the piece, and it's because I haven't evaluated it. I just leave it at: Russians think it. I agree that there's a good chance it's wrong.
Regarding your first point, I'm looking a bit more. You quoted Strelkov, who lead the separatists. Here's how the NYT covered him:
>> Kiev and its Western allies have said he is an active Russian agent, but they have offered no proof, and Mr. Strelkov has often seemed to follow his own counsel, rather than Moscow’s dictates.
>> “When he moved into eastern Ukraine, I suspect, it was him taking his own initiative,” [NYU prof] Mr. Galeotti said. “We saw him doing things that didn’t fit Russia’s direct game plan,”...
Looking at the timeline, there was significant fighting in the spring and summer.
I'm of course open to more evidence, and you could be right that was entirely contrived by Russia's government, but I haven't seen the evidence of that yet, and it seems a very complex situation. It's certainly correct that Russia provided massive support, including manpower.
Mar 10, 2022·edited Mar 10, 2022Liked by Maxim Lott
For some further reading: I found something I wrote about Ukraine on my Facebook in 2016. I linked to an article that I said was "The only article on Ukraine I've ever read that doesn't buy in to Russian propaganda." It was this piece: https://www.thedailybeast.com/is-ukraine-just-about-to-blow
I added the following explanation:
The media refers to "separatists" in eastern Ukraine. It's always been a Russian military operation, however. Originally, it was Russian military intelligence, under the command of Strelkov.* Now, it's Russian army soldiers who've taken off their patches; they're referred to as "little green men."** The involvement of locals is best summed up by "the Ukrainians won't fight," which Strelkov was heard to say on an open radio frequency.
Generally, I think there's too much willingness to take what Putin says at face value. I've studied the appeasement of the 1930s (e.g. https://gregfoley.com/berlin-diary-by-william-l-shirer/), and I see similarities: ambitious dictators that used lying as a tool, and people that were far to willing to believe the lies. John Stossel is my favorite reporter, but I pointed out recently that he didn't seem to understand what was going on with the propaganda: https://twitter.com/GregFoley/status/1490696526510936065
I have no doubt there are parallels to Hitler, but are you thinking enough about the non-parallels?
-- Putin doesn't have an irrational, all-consuming hatred toward any ethnicity
-- There's no evidence Putin has designs beyond Russia's former empire (there's no "lebensraum")
-- Russia has 10 TIMES lower GDP than either America or China. This is who we fear will conquer the world?
So many governments and people use lying as a tool, including Hitler and Putin. But by drawing the parallel specifically to *Hitler*, it implicitly invokes things like the above, which just are not similar.
IMO China is a far more serious candidate to be this century's Hitler, given their all-controlling government, concentration camps, and the power of their economic output.
I meant specifically the similarities I cited, nothing about ethnic hatred.
But I'd disagree about "no evidence Putin has designs beyond Russia's former empire." Take a look at what he's doing in Syria and various parts of Africa. I don't follow those areas as closely as Georgia/Ukraine, but he does seem to have ambitions beyond the former empire.
I didn't actually say anything about Russia conquering the world, however. I put China and Russia in the same class: ambitious for more power, nationalist, and socialist/state capitalist. Clearly, China is a more powerful threat, and they may have had the sense to let Putin "go first" and see the results. Hopefully, the results are bad enough that they slow China down, and the rest of the world is more prepared for China's ambitions with Taiwan.
Nice post (me having worked several years in Russian and Ukrainian universities), but some nits and nuts to pick:
1. "There are some brave protests, even despite the very high probability of arrest — yet, there does not yet exist the kind of widespread popular dissatisfaction that brought down the Soviet Union." Indeed, no serious uprising against the czar in sight. AND there was none in the USSR. Not "widespread popular dissatisfaction that brought down the Soviet Union": bad economics forced Gorb. to try reforms, there was a coup by parts of the party against him. Jelzin saved the day (with some public support, but it was NOT an uprising against the government). And dismantled the USSR, usu. by letting people choose. Huge majorities choose to leave - 90% in Ukraine. And many would now, just: no vote.
2. Putin is not threatened by NATO. And he knows it, he is no idiot (you got that right). But: His rule could be threatened by a democratic Ukraine, prospering by choosing the west. Russians are unimpressed by the Baltic's success (or Poland's) - they might see things differently if even their "Ukrainian brothers" would turn richer than them - without the gas etc.. (call it wishful thinking, but my friend Dr. Andreas Umland hopes so). As long as Ukrainians failed (partly cuz Russia loved meddling in their politics. Ex-convict turned president Yanukovych was his toy.) all was fine. Since 2017 they can enter the EU without a visa - and work in Poland - while the "liberated" Donbass went south and even Crimeans were mostly disappointed. - Anyways, giving up power and influence is not something Putin likes to do. Who does?
3. Sadly, the Budapest Memorandum was not a security guarantee, but as the US so did Russia (and the UK) pledge: "A) ... not to invade Ukraine". (And other things Putin ignored.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
That makes sense. Thank you for sharing those points!
"is that China needs to see that things won’t be easy for it, if it ever tries to invade Taiwan."
If I was China I would look at the last year and conclude that Total War is inevitable. Some people think that the prospect of Total War will scare China, but if it's inevitable you might as well just prepare for it. It's obvious from Ukraine that covert support for color revolutions is strong and respect for spheres of influence is weak. China isn't going to get any stronger after 2028 relative to the west.
"In the meantime, we can respect the brave, effective fighting shown by Ukraine’s outnumbered soldiers."
The Ukrainians outnumber the Russians significantly. Russia had a material advantage early on but the west has evened that out for the most part.
I predict Ukraine will "win" this conflict, though life for Ukrainians will be worse no matter the outcome. They might even have been better off with a short loss. The obvious answer at this point is to declare the current front lines the new international border, but this does not serve western interests.
The odds of nuclear war are small, but think of the cost. People thought the Cuban Missile Crisis was brilliant statesmanship and then later we find out that a Russian sub came incredibly close to launching a nuke.
Here are my predictions as of now:
1. 50%
2. 25%
3. 15%
4. 5%
6. 5%
What are the odds that a peace treaty will include a commitment not to join the EU?
Yeah that’s a good question. I never see that raised, but, perhaps the odds are not low?…
Thank you for an excellent article based upon facts and reason. I would quibble about a tiny part. You wrote, "But, the idea that fascists are a major force in Ukraine is ridiculous. Ukraine's President is Jewish."
Ashkenazi Jews have a genetic predisposition for Tay-Sachs disease. However, no Jews have a genetically inherited predisposition against fascism, as witnessed by those few Jews who equate 'chosen' with 'master race,' such as Meir Kahne and other ultra-nationalist Israeli Jews.
Thank you. I agree that his ethnicity is not a "QED" debunking of Russia's claim, but it is very strong evidence, since it is a small minority of jews who might be sympathetic to fascism (especially the neo-nazi strain of it in question here.)
And to their credit, there are Israelis who have been protesting against Israel's arming these neo-nazis for years. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/rights-groups-demand-israel-stop-arming-neo-nazis-in-the-ukraine-1.6248727
Really helpful insight into the situation!
"EU (which also requires member countries to defend each other.)"
The first page of the link refutes this
"the article does not say that the assistance should be military in nature, so countries such as Austria, Finland, Ireland and Sweden that have a policy of neutrality, can still cooperate"
Thanks for the note.
Here is the exact wording from the EU Treaty: Article 42... 7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12012M%2FTXT
On a practical level, it is hard to imagine major countries like France and Germany not sending soldiers to Finland/Sweden, if they faced the kind of brutal ground assault that Ukraine is facing currently.
I will tweak the wording in the post to make it more precise.
thank-you for the perspective. my take is
1) putin had "planned" for this from 2014, realising he would have to make a stand but in reality, more of a decoy to deflect from the next stage of Russian economic growth. most likely outcome in next few months, crimea gets the water back on on a tariff basis, eastern republics stay neutral and UKR never joins NATO. all three very palatable to Western democracies given state of affairs in 2021. Averting a major war, but also weakening Russia future biz ties with west, UKR staying weak for many years as unable to join Euro bloc soon, unfortunate and avoidable for UKR...but what next for Russia?
2) All western investments in Russia are transferred to China and India, given their energy intensive growth models and strategies. Putin saw the renewable expansion in UK and Europe and realised this was the zenith of their share in energy to Europe, they werent winning any more wallet share and now is a good time to sale. He cant force a sale, but invading will force the corporations to do the bidding of Putin given popular sentiment is so completely apragmatic, and as they have, at a loss,. China will now pick up the firesale energy, India coal.
3) Russia and China going forward decide who gets what in Africa while everyone is looking to Europe. Russia influence extending over West Africa through French decline and China through the East of the continent.
4) Russia will play the role of partner to the silk road initiative and key resource supplier to India. Still able to participate in any Western development indirectly via the China economic expansion project and via the rapidly rising India development.
5) MSM pointing to Putin sentimentality over Kyiv as CHristian center (seen on Fox) or irate at NATO expansion, misunderstand Putin and is modus operandi completely. He is completely aware of NATO expansion for many years, he cares nothing for religion, the man is a trained counter-intel officer, a) they are picked because they are completely rational and high EQ and b) he survived and thrived so not only did he have those attributes, he excelled in them. Meaning, sentimentality or snapping are completely out of his makeup. The west have to realised that this early stage conflagration in UKR and all west reactions are very likely within all of his contingencies and west should start looking at to what his really after. Clearly if he isnt sending in the 100% airforce and just some low level conscripts, it wasnt to win UKR outright in a battle, but to let it drag on.....
Thanks for the note. Mostly agree. Regarding Putin, I'm also mostly inclined to agree, but we should also have a lot of humility about what's inside his head, and everyone changes as they get older. And even shrewd people can have blindspots leading to huge mistakes and miscalculations.
Thanks for the on the scene reporting from Moscow
NATO is not a threat. NATO is a pact for mutual defense against lying, terrorist, murderous nations intent on subjugating and enslaving others. NATO has invaded no one. russia has in a murderous campaign to steal everything from the people of Ukraine, murder them, drive them out or put them on their knees. THe idea that they should ever get down on their knees and be neutral to the evil empire that is russia is disgusting.
Glad to see you writing on this. I'd like to spread an idea I hope policymakers are thinking of. The US should be sending drones to fight the Russians, sub rosa. Drones controlled from Kansas. No US soldiers will die. Russian soldiers will, but we'll have deniability, so the Russians will save face. If they want to accuse us and nuke Romania, they can, but they won't be pressured into that. When they shoot down drones, the Made in USA on them won't be evidence that we were operating them-- it could be we just gave them to the Ukrainians to use.
Just a thought.
Interesting idea, but it carries too much chance of starting WW3, IMO, if discovered. Better to just give the drones to Ukrainians to fly.
It takes too long to learn, is the problem with giving them to the Ukrainians. Remember, though: the Russians don't want to start WW3 either. Their threat at the start of the war was to pre-empt us from sending our air force in, and was effective at that.
After reading the article on The Hill about your findings or views, and reviewing your current survey of the situation, several questions come to mind. Do you have access to Ukrainian and Russian army Orders of Battle to more realistically analyze casualty reports and their effects on each side's readiness? Do you employ a conceptual framework for measuring success of each side's operational plans (EX: Principles of War, Centers of Gravity)? If Ukraine's overmatched army has successfully stalled a much larger force, what factors (leadership, training, motivation, external support - wpns like javelin, stinger) are the most decisive? Intel sources to date estimate around 7000 in 3 weeks yet only a handful of cities have fallen. The prize, Kiev, could revisit a repeat of Stalingrad. vmi74@aol.com
No, I do not have special access to any of that. I can only follow public reports of troop movements, and I also have some clue regarding the daily reality on the ground inside post-war Russia (not inside post-war Ukraine) and Russian history. I think this is an important perspective to share, but I also want to be clear about what I don’t have special knowledge on.
> appealing to Ukraine with high quality of life — just as the west did, to pull Ukraine into its orbit
What? 2014 was a violent coup, I think nobody denies that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity
> But, the idea that fascists are a major force in Ukraine is ridiculous.
They themselves seem to believe that ridiculous idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfaAyiP8Wuc
> Other Russian propaganda — such as the unsuccessful attempt to pretend Ukraine was starting the attack — also consists of grotesque lies.
You seem to be following the MSM narrative on the development of the war. According to other sources, it seems that a major portion of the Ukrainian army (60,000 personnel?) have been encircled in a so-called Russian "cauldron" in the East, while the Azof fighters are trapped in Mariupol. That so many forces were located in that region seems to give credence to the notion that they were preparing an attack on the Donbas and were prevented by the Russian first move.
> First, let’s note that Russia has displayed gross military incompetence,
As mentioned before, this is the MSM narrative. Other analysts who seem to know what they're talking about have a very different reading of the situation.
https://rumble.com/vwjdj5-col.-douglas-macgregor-has-advice-for-zelensky.-russias-cauldronsyria-strat.html
Unfortunately, you repeat some Russian propaganda in this piece: "Russia also supported violent separatists in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions." That was always a Russian military operation, not separatists. As the early leader of the operation, Strelkov, famously said over an open radio frequency: "the Ukrainians won't fight." It was always "little green men" (Russian soldiers with their patches taken off) doing the fighting.
Also, I believe you put a Russian-propaganda spin on Ukraine joining NATO. Putin never believed there was a threat that the west would invade Russia. He just always wanted to take back Ukraine for Russia, and knew NATO membership would prevent that (and the same with other former holdings of Russia/Soviet Union).
Are you sure it wasn't both separatists, and Russian support/irregular troops?
Regarding the second one, I agree it's pretty silly that "the west would invade Russia." But, having so much power nearby is still a powerful tool to pressure a country. The US wouldn't like Russian missiles in Mexico, even though an invasion of the US itself wouldn't be very plausible.
Regarding Putin have long-term designs on taking Ukraine -- we can speculate about that, but not sure how you'd *know*. What we can see in practice is that Russia repeatedly took extreme steps to keep Ukraine out of a western military alliance, but it did not push, for example, its own military alliance with Ukraine.
That said, I imagine that would have been Putin's ideal future -- something like what's happened in Belarus, which, without war, is now almost Russian territory in practice.
Finally, I'm not sure it's helpful to declare any point in Russia's favor "Russian Propaganda". If it's an outright lie, I agree (and I listed a number of indisputable Russian propaganda points in my piece) but if it's more speculative, or can be plausibly seen from either side, I think better to leave loaded terms out. It constricts one's thinking as soon as you label something "Russian propaganda" so we should be pretty sure before applying that label.
Sorry if I used a loaded term. I wouldn't bother replying if I didn't value your work (e.g. I use ElectionBettingOdds.com constantly). If there were some separatists in eastern Ukraine they were clearly in the minority, and calling it a separatist movement is misleading.
I think Putin has been pretty clear in his words and deeds that he intends to rebuild the old Russian empire, and I've watched him do it for many years, e.g. Georgia.
My other criticism of this piece is that you repeat the Russian line about "mistreatment of Russians in Urkraine" without evaluating it. It's possible that's happened, but I've been following the Putin's ambitious expansion for years, including in Ukraine, and I never heard of that until recently, so I think it's most likely more Russian justification/propaganda.
And, I do agree those are important questions, and I hope to dig further on them in the future.
Thanks.
I agree, I don't evaluate that claim in the piece, and it's because I haven't evaluated it. I just leave it at: Russians think it. I agree that there's a good chance it's wrong.
Regarding your first point, I'm looking a bit more. You quoted Strelkov, who lead the separatists. Here's how the NYT covered him:
>> Kiev and its Western allies have said he is an active Russian agent, but they have offered no proof, and Mr. Strelkov has often seemed to follow his own counsel, rather than Moscow’s dictates.
>> “When he moved into eastern Ukraine, I suspect, it was him taking his own initiative,” [NYU prof] Mr. Galeotti said. “We saw him doing things that didn’t fit Russia’s direct game plan,”...
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/world/europe/russian-seizes-authority-over-ukraine-rebels.html
Elsewhere, Strelkov said: "At the start of this summer, 90 percent of the rebel forces were made up of local residents, Strelkov was quoted as saying. However, by early August, Russian servicemen supposedly on "vacation" from the army had begun to arrive, he said. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2014/11/21/russias-igor-strelkov-i-am-responsible-for-war-in-eastern-ukraine-a41598
Looking at the timeline, there was significant fighting in the spring and summer.
I'm of course open to more evidence, and you could be right that was entirely contrived by Russia's government, but I haven't seen the evidence of that yet, and it seems a very complex situation. It's certainly correct that Russia provided massive support, including manpower.
For some further reading: I found something I wrote about Ukraine on my Facebook in 2016. I linked to an article that I said was "The only article on Ukraine I've ever read that doesn't buy in to Russian propaganda." It was this piece: https://www.thedailybeast.com/is-ukraine-just-about-to-blow
I added the following explanation:
The media refers to "separatists" in eastern Ukraine. It's always been a Russian military operation, however. Originally, it was Russian military intelligence, under the command of Strelkov.* Now, it's Russian army soldiers who've taken off their patches; they're referred to as "little green men."** The involvement of locals is best summed up by "the Ukrainians won't fight," which Strelkov was heard to say on an open radio frequency.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Igor_Girkin
** https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Little_green_men_(Russo-Ukrainian_War)
Generally, I think there's too much willingness to take what Putin says at face value. I've studied the appeasement of the 1930s (e.g. https://gregfoley.com/berlin-diary-by-william-l-shirer/), and I see similarities: ambitious dictators that used lying as a tool, and people that were far to willing to believe the lies. John Stossel is my favorite reporter, but I pointed out recently that he didn't seem to understand what was going on with the propaganda: https://twitter.com/GregFoley/status/1490696526510936065
I have no doubt there are parallels to Hitler, but are you thinking enough about the non-parallels?
-- Putin doesn't have an irrational, all-consuming hatred toward any ethnicity
-- There's no evidence Putin has designs beyond Russia's former empire (there's no "lebensraum")
-- Russia has 10 TIMES lower GDP than either America or China. This is who we fear will conquer the world?
So many governments and people use lying as a tool, including Hitler and Putin. But by drawing the parallel specifically to *Hitler*, it implicitly invokes things like the above, which just are not similar.
IMO China is a far more serious candidate to be this century's Hitler, given their all-controlling government, concentration camps, and the power of their economic output.
I meant specifically the similarities I cited, nothing about ethnic hatred.
But I'd disagree about "no evidence Putin has designs beyond Russia's former empire." Take a look at what he's doing in Syria and various parts of Africa. I don't follow those areas as closely as Georgia/Ukraine, but he does seem to have ambitions beyond the former empire.
I didn't actually say anything about Russia conquering the world, however. I put China and Russia in the same class: ambitious for more power, nationalist, and socialist/state capitalist. Clearly, China is a more powerful threat, and they may have had the sense to let Putin "go first" and see the results. Hopefully, the results are bad enough that they slow China down, and the rest of the world is more prepared for China's ambitions with Taiwan.
Putin understood appeasing the West had failed. That is why he decided to invade.