Ukraine

[richardfinegold]

Chicago has a large expatriate Ukranian population, dating back to the mid 19th century. Many tales about bandits on the road, Policeman demanding bribes, etc when they had gone to visit after Statehood. My family hales from the Ukraine as part of the "Pale of Settlement" where the Romanovs confined Jews. We discussed possibly journeying there to check out the ancestral homeland but we were discouraged by others who had made the trek before us and said it wasn't safe

[Frances_iom]

...we get the absolute nonsense of Putin trying to claim that they are the same, and then wanting to bomb the hell out of them.

'sibling' rivalry - supposedly the first murderer killed his brother - but of course dressed up as security of the Russian state and, of course, fear that others will reject the 'loving' embrace of mother Russia - Belarus almost escaped.

[french frank]

but of course dressed up as security of the Russian state

What I don't understand is why Russia acted in such a way that after the Nato-Russia Partnership for Peace (1994) and its developments, the successive actions of Russia, starting in 2008 with its intervention in Georgia, set Russia against the west in the first place. If Russia saw rapprochement with Nato and the west as guaranteeing its own security, why did it then jeopardise the relationship with unnecessary interference in Georgia and then Ukraine?

It doesn't make sense to argue that they felt threatened by Ukraine seeking to join Nato/the EU when they were the ones who had ruptured the cooperation with Nato.

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/4/pdf/2003-NATO-Russia_en.pdf

NB This is Nato's view of the situation, but it seems to be factually correct. What changed? Putin's ambitions? If Russia had had close political/military/economic relations with neighbouring Ukraine, why would it have mattered whether Ukraine (or Crimea/Donbas) were actually part of Russia? Is it just that I don't understand the Russian psyche?

[Historian]

I agree with the sentiment, and I hope that the seemingly “immediate” problems, the rise of Truss and the death of the Queen don’t push this to the bottom of the agenda list. I would place this near the top, along with climate change, but I fear the politicians are going to totally screw these things up.

There may also be some prudent reasons for not commenting too rapidly on recent events.

I feel that I underestimated the interest many people were quietly taking.

By the time news of events on the battlefield has appeared in the 'mainstream media' it is well out of date. There are sometimes issues with the more immediate online reports, hence Ukraine's request for discretion.

[Historian]

What I don't understand is why Russia acted in such a way that after the Nato-Russia Partnership for Peace (1994) and its developments, the successive actions of Russia, starting in 2008 with its intervention in Georgia, set Russia against the west in the first place. If Russia saw rapprochement with Nato and the west as guaranteeing its own security, why did it then jeopardise the relationship with unnecessary interference in Georgia and then Ukraine?

It doesn't make sense to argue that they felt threatened by Ukraine seeking to join Nato/the EU when they were the ones who had ruptured the cooperation with Nato.

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/4/pdf/2003-NATO-Russia_en.pdf

NB This is Nato's view of the situation, but it seems to be factually correct. What changed? Putin's ambitions? If Russia had had close political/military/economic relations with neighbouring Ukraine, why would it have mattered whether Ukraine (or Crimea/Donbas) were actually part of Russia? Is it just that I don't understand the Russian psyche?

In my view (very simplified and probably simplistic), Putin has two main reasons for his decision to attack Ukraine. Firstly, he cannot afford a successful emerging democracy developing right next to Russia as an all-too-present counterpoint to what is happening just east. Secondly, it fits as part of his constant declarations that Russia is under threat and therefore Russians must stick together and accept the need for 'strong government'.

This became possible for many reasons, including the failure of the West to support Russian attempts at democracy in the post-Gorbachev era and the effects of trying to introduce full-on capitalism in a society unready for it. No doubt Putin also looked at the West's failure to take adequate steps over Georgia from 2008, exacerbated by general and widespread initial acquiescence in the annexation of the Crimea.

[french frank]

In my view (very simplified and probably simplistic), Putin has two main reasons for his decision to attack Ukraine. Firstly, he cannot afford a successful emerging democracy developing right next to Russia as an all-too-present counterpoint to what is happening just east.

The USSR/Russia has a history of political assassination. But the wiki list seems to show (has my counting been defective?) a majority of those listed as being after 2000 when Putin first came to power - and it excludes critics of the regime who died in unexplained circumstances. I can see that that kind of regime would be unhappy at a new democracy emerging on its doorstep; and also I can see that that kind of regime doesn't cooperate easily with western-style democratic organisations.

Secondly, it fits as part of his constant declarations that Russia is under threat and therefore Russians must stick together and accept the need for 'strong government'.

Or else … !!! Brutal and power-hungry.

No doubt Putin also looked at the West's failure to take adequate steps over Georgia from 2008, exacerbated by general and widespread initial acquiescence in the annexation of the Crimea.

And Putin sees the parallels between himself/Russia/Ukraine and Xi/China/Taiwan. Xi reportedly cautious, but Putin sees the advantage of having China as an ally.

[eighthobstruction]

....I was thinking about rfg's view reference BBC coverage of Ukraine....BBC must have spent a huge amount of it's budget (Emergency budget maybe?) up to about June when the war stopped being page-turner and went a bit grey and vague in news terms....BBC didn't appear to piggyback on other networks and was lavish - brought in lots and lots of stringer crews, as well as sending reporters to Ukraine cities/border crossings + Poland etc (many reporters pulled from other domains) - fed BBC 24 and studio had large numbers of presenters/experts[military/technical/historiocal/economists]/charts/cgi etc etc...and of course ITV/C4/Sky etc....newspapers....phew (still less than Gary Linaker gets I expect)

[Dave2002]

It's Work in Progress. In 2021, it scored 32/100 and ranked 122nd out of 180 (Russia 29/100 136th)

https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021

Determining “corruption” is a difficult, and perhaps sometimes dangerous task. How can it be measured? In Sweden a government minister was once censored for taking a chocolate bar - I think the size of a Mars bar. In the UK there is of course no corruption, but many planning decisions seem mysteriously biased, and David Cameron’s attempts at localism are completely disregarded. The world’s largest democracy, India, has major problems, and without a considerable amount of “palm greasing” important things are almost impossible to get done. In international deals and trade interactions it seems that corruption - by the UK government and firms is inevitable, but somehow sanitised.

[richardfinegold]

In my view (very simplified and probably simplistic), Putin has two main reasons for his decision to attack Ukraine. Firstly, he cannot afford a successful emerging democracy developing right next to Russia as an all-too-present counterpoint to what is happening just east. Secondly, it fits as part of his constant declarations that Russia is under threat and therefore Russians must stick together and accept the need for 'strong government'.

This became possible for many reasons, including the failure of the West to support Russian attempts at democracy in the post-Gorbachev era and the effects of trying to introduce full-on capitalism in a society unready for it. No doubt Putin also looked at the West's failure to take adequate steps over Georgia from 2008, exacerbated by general and widespread initial acquiescence in the annexation of the Crimea.

I think what is being overlooked here is the simple desire on Putin’s part to restore the old boundaries of the U.S.S.R. He views the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. as one of greatest catastrophes ever and probably wants his legacy to be commensurate with Peter and Catherine The Great. He wants to be the Tsar that was known for regaining the Empire.
Having friendly relations with Ukraine, Georgia, whatever is beside the point when these Countries are abominations with no right to exist in the first place. All of his bluster about NATO threatening Russia is just an elaborate justification for this Imperialism.

[Dave2002]

Following on from post 1208 here’s how the corruption index measures are considered by one organisation - https://www.transparency.org/en/news...are-calculated

Note though that this specifically refers to what is called “public sector corruption”, so doesn’t deal with malpractice in other parts of a country’s economy.

[Mario]

In the UK there is of course no corruption...

But as people in glasshouses and all that, I should keep quiet.

[Serial_Apologist]

But as people in glasshouses and all that, I should keep quiet.

To be stoned, or not to be stoned; that is the question.

[Mario]

[Dave2002]

“To be stoned, or not to be stoned; that is the question.”

I look forward to King Charles’ remake of his earlier rendition with Benedict Cumberbatch, David Tennant, Judy Dench and others.

[Bella Kemp]

Many might view Putin as yet another tyrant in the same way as were the Tsars and then the Socialists – accepted by the Russian people because he represents ‘Russia’. But perhaps the difference in his particular form of tyranny is that - however absurdly - a substantial number of Russian people believed that the Tsars were 'Russia' and the same believed that the Socialists were 'Russia.' Yes, they were all evil thugs like Putin, but people overlooked this because of the aesthetic they represented. There was much good in both the Tsarists and the socialist systems – both granted a certain stability, and the socialists certainly raised living standards for very many. But Putin is just a gangster. He will have to escalate the war now - perhaps by bombing Kyiv and using the same tactics that subdued Chechnya. This won’t work: the Ukrainians are stronger and better armed than were the Chechens – but he will still do it. Could he use a small scale nuclear weapon as some have suggested? I doubt it – what good would it do to create a vast area of uninhabitable wilderness? And if he tries a general mobilisation he will find his people turning against him – who wants to fight and die to defend a Mafiosa? Putin – lashing out like Macbeth - is doomed.