It is further evidence of the Kremlin’s increasing detachment from reality that diplomat Andrei Kelin accused UK special forces of being involved in the recent drone strike on the Russian Black Sea Fleet while at anchor in Sevastopol. In an interview with Sky's Mark Austin, diplomat Andrei Kelin claimed he had proof that UK special forces were involved in a
And it’s the ONLY reason anyone is helping the corrupt Nazis in Ukraine. If China started overtly helping Russia; they would be screaming bloody murder.
I would say there is. “Friends” alludes to them doing it out of friendship. This is a case of doing it for what they can get in return... operatively - that would be very different, don’t you think?
Biden/Obama/DeepState wouldn’t be helping them if they didn’t have tons of corruption ties, and if they weren’t looking to benefit again in the future.
"Friendship", particularly in geopolitics, is quite often transactional in nature.
Of course NATO sees benefit in backing Ukraine. They get to declaw the Russian bear without suffering any casualties. It's a cynical strategy, perhaps even a Machiavellian strategy, but it happens to be an effective strategy.
Why declaw the Russian bear? Because for the last 300-odd years the loci of power in Europe have been Berlin, Paris, London, and Moscow. NATO pits the first three against the fourth --that's why the Alliance was formed. Which means conflict with Moscow is pretty much inevitable.
Putin grasped one aspect of this accurately: Russia's borders post Soviet Union are pretty much indefensible. From the Ukrainian border it's roughly 280 miles by highway to Moscow. If Putin annexes all of Ukraine that gets pushed back to around 2000 miles.
Unfortunately, Putin didn't think it all the way through. He still needs to annex at least eastern Poland up to the Vistula River -- and Poland is a full NATO member.
Putin's gambit was that NATO would fracture over Ukraine, but it was a foolish gambit. The moment he invaded Ukraine proper he reminded every NATO member why NATO exists. He persuaded historically neutral Sweden and Finland to get on board with NATO. How? By demonstrating that Russia has more military muscle than any one of its European neighbors. Far from fracturing NATO, he gave it a new lease on life, because if Berlin, Paris, and London are lined up against Moscow, most of Europe would prefer to side with them over Moscow.
This power play has gone on in one form or another since the mid-18th century. The more things change the more they stay the same.
Perversely, that reason alone would be why NATO and the EU want to see Ukraine remain free from the Russian Federation.
Regardless of the motivations behind the friendships, Putin failed to take those friendships into account. One of many flaws in his Ukrainian war strategy.
I don't follow the argument here: Putin cannot complain about UK involvement in a drone attack because UK's involvement is an open secret. Also, Putin can't complain because he invaded on a thin pretext.
Putin can be the worst person in the universe. The US military industrial complex is heavily engaged in Ukraine, with boots on the ground and running the technology that is killing people. Lots of money is being spent. We don't have to pick sides here. We pretend Ukrainians are the only ones killing Russians, and that is highly doubtful. The "shadow wars" have been around since Mig Alley in Korea. They're dangerous. If the argument is that this must be done because Putin invaded on the thinnest of pretexts, then let's read that argument. I haven't read anything close to a cogent argument to that effect.
Sometimes it's the material facts that matter, not all facts.
What "must" be done is a policy debate--and a political one. As such that debate hinges less on empirical fact and more on how various actors view the world.
However, there is one material fact that is inescapable: Putin invaded Ukraine. Regardless of his reasons, regardless of his legitimate grievances (and I do not deny that he has several), Putin remains the one who chose this course of war.
That being the case, having gone to war with Ukraine, it is simply hypocritical of Putin to decry Ukrainian attacks on the Black Sea Fleet as "terrorist" acts. It is not merely disproportionate but outright immoral (and arguably a war crime) for Putin to respond to the attack on the Kerch Bridge by launching missile attacks against Ukrainian civilian infrastructure in Western Ukraine, while ignoring military targets along the front lines.
The rhetoric coming out of Moscow takes the tone that Ukraine has no right to launch military attacks against military targets in an effort to defend and/or reclaim Ukrainian territory from Russian aggression. The rhetoric coming out of Moscow takes the tone that Ukraine should not receive any support from any other country. This rhetoric only makes sense if you buy into Putin's ethnonationalist thesis that Ukraine only has a right to exist as a satellite of a Muscovite Russian empire (a theme he explicitly articulated in an essay from July of 2021).
Putin wants to retake Ukraine, and if he can't retake all of it, at least retake the Donbass and establish a "land bridge" to Crimea. That has been apparent since the first salvo back in February. Far from his claims of "denazification", this has been a straight up war of conquest.
There are reasons why Putin wants Ukraine back in the Russian fold. The primary reason is to reestablish Russia's strategic depth: Russian military doctrine has long been to use depth of territory to strain and then overwhelm an invader's logistics. With an independent Ukraine an invading army would cross the frontier approximately 250-300 miles from Moscow. With a conquered Ukraine that same army crosses the frontier a couple of thousand miles from Moscow. Strategically, Russian military doctrine hinges on Russia reacquiring Ukraine.
It's not a reach, therefore, for Russia to view this situation as an attempt to deal with an existential threat to Russian security. As matters stand right now, Russia's borders are ultimately indefensible.
The problem with Russia's invasion as a response to that threat is they have now put an even more immediate existential threat upon the Ukrainian people. Simply put, if Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ceases to exist.
This is what makes Russia's rhetoric simply delusional. Regardless of the merits and demerits of Putin's original rationale for invading Ukraine, to complain about Ukraine fighting back, or to complain about other nations giving support to Ukraine, ignores the reality that this military situation is entirely of Putin's doing.
If you get into a fight with someone, you expect to get hit. If you don't want to get hit, you don't get into the fight in the first place. Putin got into a fight and is complaining about getting hit. That undermines his entire stance as this war being the right thing for Russia to do.
Of course Ukraine has "friends". It was the money laundering capital for much of the western world.
Biden to Ukraine in 2016: "Fire the prosecutor or you don' t get the billion dollars!"
Ukraine to Biden in 2022: "New deal: Give us $50 billion or the prosecutor talks!"
;)
Precisely
And it’s the ONLY reason anyone is helping the corrupt Nazis in Ukraine. If China started overtly helping Russia; they would be screaming bloody murder.
You have proof that it's the only reason?
You made the claim they have friends. Their extreme corruption is common knowledge…. What’s your proof it’s “friends” and not co-conspirators?
Operatively, there's no difference between the two.
I would say there is. “Friends” alludes to them doing it out of friendship. This is a case of doing it for what they can get in return... operatively - that would be very different, don’t you think?
Biden/Obama/DeepState wouldn’t be helping them if they didn’t have tons of corruption ties, and if they weren’t looking to benefit again in the future.
On the topic of corruption, Ukraine ranks 122nd out of 180 nations, according to Transparency.org's corruption perception index.
https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021
Russia comes in 136th. It is considered even more corrupt than Ukraine.
"Friendship", particularly in geopolitics, is quite often transactional in nature.
Of course NATO sees benefit in backing Ukraine. They get to declaw the Russian bear without suffering any casualties. It's a cynical strategy, perhaps even a Machiavellian strategy, but it happens to be an effective strategy.
Why declaw the Russian bear? Because for the last 300-odd years the loci of power in Europe have been Berlin, Paris, London, and Moscow. NATO pits the first three against the fourth --that's why the Alliance was formed. Which means conflict with Moscow is pretty much inevitable.
Putin grasped one aspect of this accurately: Russia's borders post Soviet Union are pretty much indefensible. From the Ukrainian border it's roughly 280 miles by highway to Moscow. If Putin annexes all of Ukraine that gets pushed back to around 2000 miles.
Unfortunately, Putin didn't think it all the way through. He still needs to annex at least eastern Poland up to the Vistula River -- and Poland is a full NATO member.
Putin's gambit was that NATO would fracture over Ukraine, but it was a foolish gambit. The moment he invaded Ukraine proper he reminded every NATO member why NATO exists. He persuaded historically neutral Sweden and Finland to get on board with NATO. How? By demonstrating that Russia has more military muscle than any one of its European neighbors. Far from fracturing NATO, he gave it a new lease on life, because if Berlin, Paris, and London are lined up against Moscow, most of Europe would prefer to side with them over Moscow.
This power play has gone on in one form or another since the mid-18th century. The more things change the more they stay the same.
Perversely, that reason alone would be why NATO and the EU want to see Ukraine remain free from the Russian Federation.
Regardless of the motivations behind the friendships, Putin failed to take those friendships into account. One of many flaws in his Ukrainian war strategy.
I don't follow the argument here: Putin cannot complain about UK involvement in a drone attack because UK's involvement is an open secret. Also, Putin can't complain because he invaded on a thin pretext.
Putin can be the worst person in the universe. The US military industrial complex is heavily engaged in Ukraine, with boots on the ground and running the technology that is killing people. Lots of money is being spent. We don't have to pick sides here. We pretend Ukrainians are the only ones killing Russians, and that is highly doubtful. The "shadow wars" have been around since Mig Alley in Korea. They're dangerous. If the argument is that this must be done because Putin invaded on the thinnest of pretexts, then let's read that argument. I haven't read anything close to a cogent argument to that effect.
Sometimes it's the material facts that matter, not all facts.
What "must" be done is a policy debate--and a political one. As such that debate hinges less on empirical fact and more on how various actors view the world.
However, there is one material fact that is inescapable: Putin invaded Ukraine. Regardless of his reasons, regardless of his legitimate grievances (and I do not deny that he has several), Putin remains the one who chose this course of war.
That being the case, having gone to war with Ukraine, it is simply hypocritical of Putin to decry Ukrainian attacks on the Black Sea Fleet as "terrorist" acts. It is not merely disproportionate but outright immoral (and arguably a war crime) for Putin to respond to the attack on the Kerch Bridge by launching missile attacks against Ukrainian civilian infrastructure in Western Ukraine, while ignoring military targets along the front lines.
The rhetoric coming out of Moscow takes the tone that Ukraine has no right to launch military attacks against military targets in an effort to defend and/or reclaim Ukrainian territory from Russian aggression. The rhetoric coming out of Moscow takes the tone that Ukraine should not receive any support from any other country. This rhetoric only makes sense if you buy into Putin's ethnonationalist thesis that Ukraine only has a right to exist as a satellite of a Muscovite Russian empire (a theme he explicitly articulated in an essay from July of 2021).
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181
Putin wants to retake Ukraine, and if he can't retake all of it, at least retake the Donbass and establish a "land bridge" to Crimea. That has been apparent since the first salvo back in February. Far from his claims of "denazification", this has been a straight up war of conquest.
There are reasons why Putin wants Ukraine back in the Russian fold. The primary reason is to reestablish Russia's strategic depth: Russian military doctrine has long been to use depth of territory to strain and then overwhelm an invader's logistics. With an independent Ukraine an invading army would cross the frontier approximately 250-300 miles from Moscow. With a conquered Ukraine that same army crosses the frontier a couple of thousand miles from Moscow. Strategically, Russian military doctrine hinges on Russia reacquiring Ukraine.
It's not a reach, therefore, for Russia to view this situation as an attempt to deal with an existential threat to Russian security. As matters stand right now, Russia's borders are ultimately indefensible.
The problem with Russia's invasion as a response to that threat is they have now put an even more immediate existential threat upon the Ukrainian people. Simply put, if Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ceases to exist.
This is what makes Russia's rhetoric simply delusional. Regardless of the merits and demerits of Putin's original rationale for invading Ukraine, to complain about Ukraine fighting back, or to complain about other nations giving support to Ukraine, ignores the reality that this military situation is entirely of Putin's doing.
If you get into a fight with someone, you expect to get hit. If you don't want to get hit, you don't get into the fight in the first place. Putin got into a fight and is complaining about getting hit. That undermines his entire stance as this war being the right thing for Russia to do.