A Political Thread pt. 2

[Ragey Erasmus]

Ukraine crisis: Russia keeps troops in Belarus amid Ukraine fears

The decision fuels renewed fears that Russia plans to invade Ukraine, despite denials from Moscow.

www.bbc.co.uk

So Russia have decided to not move their troops out of Belarus, even though the "military exercises" have concluded and have said the deteriorating situation in eastern Ukraine is the reason. Convenient huh? Obviously nothing to do with the fact that the border of Belarus is approximately 1/3 the distance from Kiev compared to the Russian border, avoids a major river crossing and obviously it makes sense for Russia to keep thousands of troops in Belarus because of what is happening in the breakaway regions of Ukraine, despite it being on completely the other side of Ukraine to the Belarus border...

Closer to Kiev
Further from the breakaway regions

But they are being kept there because of the tensions in the breakaway regions...

Is anyone seriously buying this bullshit?

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Is anyone seriously buying this bullshit?

No. It's what they always do, they push boundaries to see what resistance they face. Russia are an extremely paranoid state, western Russia is very vulnerable to military invasion and ever since the second world war they've used "micro aggressions" like this to show that they will cause mass destruction if threatened.

Now, none of this condones anything they're doing and the paranoia is clearly unfounded because they already get away with doing nearly anything they want within their own state. You only have to look at their desperate environmental and human rights record with relatively little external pressure.

I don't really fear any massive escalation, I don't think Russia really cares about expanding its borders, it's just their way of aggressively telling everyone to leave them alone. Partly so they can continue with their poor humanitarian practices for sure but mostly because, rightly or wrongly, they don't trust western nations.

This aggression is negatively effecting innocent people and threatening more destructive political and physical effects more than their usual bullshit which is why it's garnering more attention, and pressure on third party countries to act. It'll end in some "semi-compromise" where Russia look like or convince themselves they've gained something when in actual fact they haven't as per usual in my opinion.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Britain has had royal, political and policing scandals before, but never all three at once | Andrew Rawnsley

Low-quality leadership, a lack of accountability and a culture of impunity are at the root of the decay of our key institutions

www.theguardian.com

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

No. It's what they always do, they push boundaries to see what resistance they face. Russia are an extremely paranoid state, western Russia is very vulnerable to military invasion and ever since the second world war they've used "micro aggressions" like this to show that they will cause mass destruction if threatened.

Now, none of this condones anything they're doing and the paranoia is clearly unfounded because they already get away with doing nearly anything they want within their own state. You only have to look at their desperate environmental and human rights record with relatively little external pressure.

I don't really fear any massive escalation, I don't think Russia really cares about expanding its borders, it's just their way of aggressively telling everyone to leave them alone. Partly so they can continue with their poor humanitarian practices for sure but mostly because, rightly or wrongly, they don't trust western nations.

This aggression is negatively effecting innocent people and threatening more destructive political and physical effects more than their usual bullshit which is why it's garnering more attention, and pressure on third party countries to act. It'll end in some "semi-compromise" where Russia look like or convince themselves they've gained something when in actual fact they haven't as per usual in my opinion.

Surely though this whole situation would achieve the exact opposite, namely of pushing Ukraine towards NATO precisely to stop this nonsense. I mean Russia keeps wondering why NATO has been expanding eastwards and it's **** like this that is why, smaller countries simply can't trust Russia to not try throwing it's weight around in eastern Europe.

I don't see how Russia can come out of this in a better situation than they went into it. Nord stream 2 is being questioned, Europe will see Russia as even less reliable and will look for alternatives to Russian oil and gas, Ukraine will become even more firmly entrenched in an anti-Russian position, the militaries of eastern Europe will likely be bolstered and Russia gains what? Also if Russia wasn't interested in expanding their borders, what have they been doing in Georgia and Crimea? Look at the similarities to Georgia:

- Pro-Russian Georgian separatists instigate a conflict with the Georgian government
- Georgia eventually declares a unilateral cease-fire that the separatists proceed to ignore and attack Georgian towns
- Georgian army pushes them back
- Russian army charges in claiming to be supporting the rights of the separatists and launches bombing campaigns and blockades well beyond the disputed areas.
- A cease fire is negotiated, Russia recognises the separatist territories and withdraws. Russia in reality maintains control over these areas.

Russia suffered next to no retaliation internationally. See the similarities? They have pulled this stunt before and got away with it so here they are, pulling the same stunt again on an even bigger scale. Just like when they carried out assassinations in the west with little punishment so happily did so again. They have pushed the boundaries as you said and, from past experience in Georgia and Crimea, they have learned the boundary is they can walk into somewhere and annex it with minimal consequences. All they need is implausible deniability and that is enough. Just flat out deny reality even as it is clear as day to everyone that they are lying.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I think the extension of troops in Belarus really damages the Russian government's ability to sell their position as credible internationally for the reason stated above that they are stationed hundreds of miles away from Donbass. If Russian speakers are really being slaughtered in a genocide in Donbass as I type then why not post most of your troops near it for an immediate defensive action?

I do wonder if posting troops in Belarus, Crimea and Transnistria is simply an attempt to spread the Ukraine military thinly across its territory before Russian speaking separatists and militia go on an offensive in a purely 'internal' conflict. But that doesn't make sense either because in an 'internal' conflict without external air support I'm pretty sure the Russian govt cannot achieve its objectives.

Of course they only need domestic support for action, but keeping troops in Belarus without the facade of training exercises will likely only stiffen international resolve over longstanding sanctions. Its not what I consider a shrewd move. If they were going to do overt military action then coinciding it with the end of the Belarus drills and the evacuation theatre in Donbass would have been the way to go. It would still have been a very hard sell, but you might have got the likes of Hungary and Serbia able to come out publicly in support. As it is this is soap opera is even less convincing than the fraud sold by Bush and 'Sir' Tony Blair prior to the invasion of Iraq.

In comparing Ukraine to Georgia, I don't consider that valid although the Russian govts tactics may be similar. The UK media were desperately jumping up and down at the time about big bad Russia, but the Georgian leader at the time was a self promoting god-complex imbecile of the lowest order (most recently seen traveling to Georgia last year to go on a hunger strike seemingly purely because he had been out of the spotlight too long). An independent EU report agreed he was a fool and that his decision making led to the war.

Georgia started war with Russia: EU-backed report

An independent report blamed Georgia on Wednesday for starting last year's five-day war with Russia, but said Moscow's military response went beyond reasonable limits and violated international law.

www.reuters.com

Everything that the Georgian government did wrong the Ukranian government is doing right. Hopefully that alone is enough to save their people and their freedom.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Not sure about the validity of this exact issue but there has been a trend of central governments making policies, offloading the funding and responsibility to a local level and then campaigning against local authorities for enacting government policies... Good that they are finally being called out on it. The most obvious was where the Cameron government said local councils were raising taxes to much so froze local council taxes and then turned around and blamed local councils for not funding services. Alternatively the Johnson government introducing lockdown measures and then using the vastly lower passenger traffic on the London underground as proof it was being poorly run and needing state aid, despite being the most self-sufficient major transport network in Europe prior to lockdown, with the greatest share of funding from fares. They then threatened to cut funding for this reason, all the while trying to boost the election prospects of a Tory mayor.

Central government imposing restrictions based on the party of local leaders and using government authority to force opposition party local leaders into taking unpopular policies they can blame them for is just out of order. This isn't just a Tory thing but the most recent and blatant cases have obviously all been Tory party targeting Labour held local authorities. Proper rules need to be in place about funding and accountability (eg if local authorities introduce policies to meet central government requirements, the central government must be required to confirm this, not deny it as they currently do).

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Not sure about the validity of this exact issue but there has been a trend of central governments making policies, offloading the funding and responsibility to a local level and then campaigning against local authorities for enacting government policies... Good that they are finally being called out on it. The most obvious was where the Cameron government said local councils were raising taxes to much so froze local council taxes and then turned around and blamed local councils for not funding services. Alternatively the Johnson government introducing lockdown measures and then using the vastly lower passenger traffic on the London underground as proof it was being poorly run and needing state aid, despite being the most self-sufficient major transport network in Europe prior to lockdown, with the greatest share of funding from fares. They then threatened to cut funding for this reason, all the while trying to boost the election prospects of a Tory mayor.

Central government imposing restrictions based on the party of local leaders and using government authority to force opposition party local leaders into taking unpopular policies they can blame them for is just out of order. This isn't just a Tory thing but the most recent and blatant cases have obviously all been Tory party targeting Labour held local authorities. Proper rules need to be in place about funding and accountability (eg if local authorities introduce policies to meet central government requirements, the central government must be required to confirm this, not deny it as they currently do).

It works in both directions. If you are a national government you have the lions share of media coverage. So you criticise political entities that have almost no right to reply in the media, both below you (councils) and above you (EU) with often ill informed impunity. It's a great way to avoid responsibility for you actions and doesn't even require a partisan media. Just a lazy media that can't be bothered investigating and reporting the other side of the story.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Which bloody awful European powderkeg will descend into generations of misery first? Place your bets!

EU ministers discuss ways to prevent possible breakup of Bosnia

EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has described the ongoing tensions as a "critical situation".

www.euronews.com

Glad to see the EU taking an interest in their neighbours. Civil wars on your doorstep are rarely good for business.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

It works in both directions. If you are a national government you have the lions share of media coverage. So you criticise political entities that have almost no right to reply in the media, both below you (councils) and above you (EU) with often ill informed impunity. It's a great way to avoid responsibility for you actions and doesn't even require a partisan media. Just a lazy media that can't be bothered investigating and reporting the other side of the story.

True but I think it's a slightly different issue where a local government / higher government makes a decisions that the national government simply dislikes and where a local government is doing something purely because the national government has forced them to only to then blame them for it.

 

[Reiser99]

Which bloody awful European powderkeg will descend into generations of misery first? Place your bets!

EU ministers discuss ways to prevent possible breakup of Bosnia

EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has described the ongoing tensions as a "critical situation".

www.euronews.com

Glad to see the EU taking an interest in their neighbours. Civil wars on your doorstep are rarely good for business.

I know some will disagree, but I feel Brexit has played a part. It may not have caused any of these issues directly, but 10-15 years ago another large war in Europe would have been inconceivable. Now personally I feel it is a real possibility. Brexit has undermined the unity of the EU and Europe and helped to make it look weak. (Yes it may have looked weak before, but Brexit has made it look far more fragile). We have had increasing influence of right-wing nationalistic politics. Politics in Europe is much more volatile and there is still a lot of historic bad blood between countries.

On Russia, personally for me, Putin has never forgotten that the USSR broke up and Russia lost a lot of influence in Europe. I feel he's been slowly undermining western unity for the past 20/25 years. He's slowly chipping away and the territorial expansion is just part of this. Instability in Europe benefits Russia hugely.

I'm not saying there will be another huge war in Europe, but I now see the possibility and going back to my original point, I feel Brexit has helped comprise the security of Europe.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I know some will disagree, but I feel Brexit has played a part. It may not have caused any of these issues directly, but 10-15 years ago another large war in Europe would have been inconceivable. Now personally I feel it is a real possibility. Brexit has undermined the unity of the EU and Europe and helped to make it look weak. (Yes it may have looked weak before, but Brexit has made it look far more fragile). We have had increasing influence of right-wing nationalistic politics. Politics in Europe is much more volatile and there is still a lot of historic bad blood between countries.

On Russia, personally for me, Putin has never forgotten that the USSR broke up and Russia lost a lot of influence in Europe. I feel he's been slowly undermining western unity for the past 20/25 years. He's slowly chipping away and the territorial expansion is just part of this. Instability in Europe benefits Russia hugely.

I'm not saying there will be another huge war in Europe, but I now see the possibility and going back to my original point, I feel Brexit has helped comprise the security of Europe.

I'm not sure about that to be honest, and I would love to somehow blame Brexit.

I think Eastern Europe severe shift to far right is more to blame as well as Putin being a very competent leader*. There's still military communication between the UK and EU nations, the RAF and Royal Navy applying pressure whenever Russia have encroached on Irish air space or fishing waters has been as strong as ever.

Maybe Russia has got a bit bolder to test the waters but nothing has indicated that Europe is any weaker on account of Brexit imo.

*Competent insofar as growing the economy, building infrastructure and making Russia the state stronger. Not so great for the average peasant.

 

[General Melchett]

I think Putin views the Biden administration to be weaker than previous ones (let's face it Biden barely knows what day it is most of the time) and is striking while the iron is hot.

I also think Putin is doing this to strengthen/consolidate his position in Russia i.e. making the west/NATO out to be the bad guy who are a threat to Russia's security and he is the knight in shining armour who is defending Russia's interests. He may also be thinking about his legacy i.e. he wants to be the leader who reclaimed territory that had been previously lost after the USSR break up.

 

[Reiser99]

I'm not sure about that to be honest, and I would love to somehow blame Brexit.

I think Eastern Europe severe shift to far right is more to blame as well as Putin being a very competent leader*. There's still military communication between the UK and EU nations, the RAF and Royal Navy applying pressure whenever Russia have encroached on Irish air space or fishing waters has been as strong as ever.

Maybe Russia has got a bit bolder to test the waters but nothing has indicated that Europe is any weaker on account of Brexit imo.

*Competent insofar as growing the economy, building infrastructure and making Russia the state stronger. Not so great for the average peasant.

I'm definitely not saying Brexit is to blame for everything. However, I definitely think it has undermined the EU and weakened European unity.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

The Balkanisation of Europe could be a serious problem. It's like we learned nothing from the Cold War and how a bunch of smaller, weaker European powers got pushed around by the USA or USSR. It does beg the question of how small a group does a group identity for a nation-state go and can they not be combined into something larger? If the EU fails and Europe returns to a series of selfish, squabbling nation states but without the global power to back it up, Europe will just become sidelined and will be pushed around by the global powers. There is a reason divide and conquer exists as a legitimate strategy for a smaller power to overcome larger ones by fragmenting them and turning them against each other. This feels like it is happening in Europe, except we seem content to inflict it on ourselves without an external power.

 

[McTallshort]

I think Putin views the Biden administration to be weaker than previous ones (let's face it Biden barely knows what day it is most of the time) and is striking while the iron is hot.

I also think Putin is doing this to strengthen/consolidate his position in Russia i.e. making the west/NATO out to be the bad guy who are a threat to Russia's security and he is the knight in shining armour who is defending Russia's interests. He may also be thinking about his legacy i.e. he wants to be the leader who reclaimed territory that had been previously lost after the USSR break up.

I would like to know what internal problems Russia is having at the moment.

Putin is obviously looking for a propaganda coup for some reason, that's most likely due to try and get the Russian population looking away from something. It's easy to move a load of troops around the map but quite another to get them to engage in an open war with a sovereign state.

 

[Which Tyler]

I'm definitely not saying Brexit is to blame for everything. However, I definitely think it has undermined the EU and weakened European unity.

I think the opposite.
I think Brexit was a symptom of a weakening Europe (with significant thanks to Putin's undermining of trust in democracy, and the rise of petty nationalism); but that Brexit reversed that weakening - to a point.

As for Putin potentially threatening to invade Ukraine - it's for domestic consumption. If he goes for it, it's because he thinks it's worth the price.
I don't think he intends to take the whole of the country, just the couple of regions, giving him a land-bridge to the Crimea, weakening Ukraine, and bullying them into acquiescing to his future desires.
He may end up taking Ukraine as part of his long-game; but I don't think he's there yet - though I'm sure he would if EU/NATO just sat back and let him.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

I think the opposite.
I think Brexit was a symptom of a weakening Europe (with significant thanks to Putin's undermining of trust in democracy, and the rise of petty nationalism); but that Brexit reversed that weakening - to a point.

You were doing so well until the last bit

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

There is the obvious theory that the Russian (and increasingly Iranian) governments go online and foment fake news in other countries to make them so polarised and inward looking that they'll ignore international problems. But I just think it is the age of the internet, 24hr news and the financial incentivisation of clickbait by news outlets' revenue streams increasingly being tied to advertisers on individual articles rather than people buying a newspaper.

South America is, in geopolitical terms, pretty much irrelevant. But it is arguably more polarised than Europe and the US. I don't think Viktor and Mohammed are posting on Ecuadorian social media to get people all upset. I think to blame it on certain countries is to underestimate human's independent capacity for extreme idiocy and self absorption.

I would like to know what internal problems Russia is having at the moment.

Putin is obviously looking for a propaganda coup for some reason, that's most likely due to try and get the Russian population looking away from something. It's easy to move a load of troops around the map but quite another to get them to engage in an open war with a sovereign state.

It's a good shout, but I've got nothing to bolster this angle. The GDP is about 30-40% down on pre-sanction levels but is better than it was. He's formally labelled key opposition figure Navalny (of the plutonium laced underpants*) as a 'terrorist' so he is left to rot in jail for longer. The next presidential election isn't until 2024 and the parliamentary elections in September will be a formality for him. I am definitely smelling 'ageing man wants monument to his ego'.

 

[Yulia]

Putin is announcing something right now on TV. I'm listening..the tone is terrible.Jesus,Jesus

 

[McTallshort]

There is the obvious theory that the Russian (and increasingly Iranian) governments go online and foment fake news in other countries to make them so polarised and inward looking that they'll ignore international problems. But I just think it is the age of the internet, 24hr news and the financial incentivisation of clickbait by news outlets' revenue streams increasingly being tied to advertisers on individual articles rather than people buying a newspaper.

South America is, in geopolitical terms, pretty much irrelevant. But it is arguably more polarised than Europe and the US. I don't think Viktor and Mohammed are posting on Ecuadorian social media to get people all upset. I think to blame it on certain countries is to underestimate human's independent capacity for extreme idiocy and self absorption.


It's a good shout, but I've got nothing to bolster this angle. The GDP is about 30-40% down on pre-sanction levels but is better than it was. He's formally labelled key opposition figure Navalny (of the plutonium laced underpants*) as a 'terrorist' so he is left to rot in jail for longer. The next presidential election isn't until 2024 and the parliamentary elections in September will be a formality for him. I am definitely smelling 'ageing man wants monument to his ego'.

Or just want to remain relevant on the world stage which was pretty much the reason he got so involved in Syria