1. International law works pretty well in dealing with the routine aspects of international relations (“does a foreign consulate have to pay local property taxes,” etc.) Where war and peace are concerned, it can still work somewhat when all sides agree, e.g., not to attack hospitals, because they don’t have military value. That’s what is so discouraging about Russian tactics in Ukraine (and earlier in Syria) – they seem to be throwing off the most basic restraints. Bottom line – civilization has to be defended by hard power, or it won’t be respected.

2. To expand on Lowrey here, Putin is just another in a long line of warlords that have been common throughout human history. In a way, there’s really nothing special about him. The only thing that’s striking about the whole situation is perhaps the time period that it’s happening in.

   I suspect a lot of people may have truly believed that the modern 21st century world was done with the kind of brutal, bloody, large scale land invasions and sieges that were so commonplace throughout the rest of history. Surely, the world has moved on. Scenes of bombed out buildings, devastation, and all the human misery of urban warfare were relics of the 20th century and earlier.

3. Mariupol is being destroyed to send a message to rest of the Ukraine, and by extension NATO countries. Not sure if the message is what Russia /Putin thinks it is. l have seen reports, not verified I think, that Russian troops are rounding up civilians and deporting them to parts of Russian.
   Those that try to compare what the US and its allies did in Iraq and Afghanistan are way off base.

4. Hard to say with all the propaganda floating around, but I think the Russians are in serious trouble. When the war started I commented, I’m not sure if here or elsewhere, that their plan seemed to be a poor one. You would think the Russians of all people would know better than to attack in late winter with the early spring thaw coming, but they did it. Secondly they had too complex a plan, with four axes of advance that couldn’t support each other.

   They’ve stalled and they’re stuck on the road network with no easy or practical way to shift their forces. So, they lob artillery shells into cities. It’s WWII tactics on a modern battlefield.

   I think they’ve failed already, but the walk-back is going to be messy, and that’s not even considering the fallout from the sanctions and disruptions to Ukranian and Russian food exports. It is going to be an ugly few years, and one of the casualties is going to be the fantasy of international law.

   The power of unified Western sanctions has likely opened a lot of eyes across the globe. Aside from China, if I’m sitting in Brazil, or India, or Indonesia, or wherever, I’m thinking about what I have to do to prevent or minimize that sort of diplomacy being aimed my way.

   Russia is fighting WWII, that economic attack is the form of WWIII. That will be the heritage of this war.

5. It’s like the “state of nature” in Hobbes. Nations have to give up the right to defend their interests with violence, at least to some extent and on some issues.

   If a group of nations has a decent level of trust established and the issues are not hugely important international law works well.

6. Nonapod:

   I think there are two “special” things about Putin that distinguish him from predecessors of the same type throughout history. The first is that he has modern methods of spying, and the second (and probably most important) is that he has modern weapons of the nuclear variety.

7. Observing how Putin / Russia is targeting civilians and non-military targets, it makes one wonder how anybody could surmise that none of this would be occurring if not for NATO expansion eastward post 1991.
   This war is bringing out the true nature of Putin / Russia; that he is just a reprise of a Hitler or Stalin.
   Putin / Russia respect power and the willingness to use it.
   That is it.

   As for Russia “losing” the war in Ukraine ; what a totally asinine remark.

   It’s clear that the Russian generals underestimated the resistance they would encounter, the time required to prevail, and over estimated the Russian military’s ability to supply, maneuver and coordinate their moving parts.

   So what they are laying siege to cities as if it’s WWII all over again; it works !! It may take longer than planned to prevail, but prevail they will.
   The bottom line is that Russia can maintain a tight noose around cities longer than it’s defenders – and civilians – can survive. Without food and water no army (nor civilians) can survive.
   And the Russian strategy is made easier because they have no problem killing as many civilians as needed. They will just destroy an entire city if they have to and kill every civilian in that city; whatever works.
   They do not buy into the “incremental” strategy approach or concentrate on military targets.
   They realize that subjecting their enemy to mass terror, mass murder and starvation will work just fine.
   This IS the Russian way.

8. John Tyler:

   I agree, except that I think some people referring to the Russian “loss” of the war are thinking of their loss of reputation, and also that if the Ukrainians can hold out long enough the Russian economy will be deeply affected and somehow that will cause some sort of Putin collapse or internal action against Putin.

   I’m more pessimistic.

9. This may behind a paywall. In todays (or yesterdays) WSJ

   https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-west-vs-rest-of-the-world-russia-ukraine-dictators-south-america-asia-africa-11647894483

   A worthwhile editorial by Walter Russell Meade that goes to ambisininistral’s point.

10. “…their plan seemed to be a poor one.”

    Their “plan” was never intended to be implemented.
    (You do, astutely, mention the winter…)

    This, because “Biden” was SUPPOSED to get Zelensky OUT of Ukraine.
    “He” tried twice.
    No dice.

    Now one COULD, I suppose, ask: should Zelensky have left?….
    But that’s a dog’s lunch. (“Live free or die”? Anyone?) Still, one can obsess, analyze, speculate about anything….

    Of course, one MUST absolutely protest (sigh…) that but, but, but, Ukraine AND Zelensky are CORRUPT (though the more “judicious” among us will—grudgingly?—mutter that Putin’s ALSO corrupt…heh…as is Russia for that matter (and they are not alone).

    And one can also protest that hey, wait a second there, Zelensky (and the Ukrainians before him) threw in their lot with the wrong American political party; backed the wrong horse; made some serious, even egregious, mistakes…when they decided that the Democrats were “the good guys” (or the guys with the goods)…

    (And so, what else is new, really? Corruption? Mistakes?)

    Well…as long as we’re asking(!), the US itself just “elected” the MOST CORRUPT CANDIDATE EVUH in its entire history…(so corrupt, in fact, that “he” wasn’t even elected—“he” HAD TO STEAL the darn thang!! (yeah, I know, YMMV)—now how’s THAT for corrupt? Reminds one of the old Corruption Olympics joke, actually**)—and it just so happens (coincidence, I’m sure) that “he” leads the MOST CORRUPT ADMINISTRATION in American history…though to be fair, “he” is greatly assisted in “his” EFFORTS by a corrupt media and info-tech sector.

    So Zelensky…? And all of ’em… (Well it ain’t over yet.)

    **Corruption Olympics joke (such as it is): In the Corruption Olympics, Pakistan and Nigeria were neck ‘n neck for the Gold medal…and the whole shebang went down to the wire…with Pakistan finally winning it (I forget who got the bronze). Anyway, as they were going to the podium to collect their awards, Nigeria whispered to Pakistan that Nigeria simply HAD TO take home the Gold and was willing to give Pakistan anything, or any sum, Pakistan wanted. Pakistan nodded in wisdom and understanding…and Nigeria went home with the Gold medal….

11. Barry Meislin:

    You make certain assumptions and statements that in my opinion are misperceptions. I’ve dealt with some of them in many comments on the blog on other threads, but I don’t think I’ve dealt with them yet in a post. I don’t have time at the moment to check for a post on them or to find my many comments, but if I haven’t written a post yet I may need to do so.

    One of the topics that leaps out at me is your assertion that Zelenskyy is corrupt. Ukraine certainly is; no argument there. But I find the evidence of Zelenskyy’s personal corruption – and I’ve looked at a lot of that supposed evidence – to be extremely underwhelming.

    Another is that Zelenskyy threw in his lot with the Democrats as opposed to the Republicans (or primarily Trump). Again, I find it a very unconvincing argument, but don’t have time to deal with it at the moment. Hopefully, in another post in the not-too-distant future.

12. Looks like Russia is re-enacting Leningrad, only with the Russians as the monsters. Do they look at it as a model?

13. I didn’t get the memo that the AP and CNN were now trusted sources of news.

    I’ve read unconfirmed reports that Mariupol was controlled by the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion and that civilians were not allowed to flee, when some civilians tried to flee they were shot dead.

    “Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Monday accused Ukraine’s Azov Battalion, a paramilitary group that is now part of Ukrainian security services, of holding civilians hostages as ‘human shields’ in Mariupol, and not allowing them a safe passage via the humanitarian corridors.”

    The Russians insist they did not bomb the Mariupol theater as it had no military value.
    https://ussanews.com/was-the-azov-battalion-behind-the-mariupol-theater-bombing-or-was-it-russia/

    https://www.theburningplatform.com/2022/03/20/was-bombing-of-mariupol-theater-staged-by-ukrainian-azov-extremists-to-trigger-nato-intervention/

    Yes I know, the Russians couldn’t possibly be telling the truth about anything, unlike the AP and CNN…

14. What is this “Western order” that Lowry believes is so essential to support?

    Is it the support of free and fair elections like the one we just had?

    Is it the belief that people accused of crimes are entitled to a fair and speedy trial and not be held in solitary confinement for political reasons?

    Is it the belief that people should be judged based on their character and not their race or sex?

    Is it the belief that parents should have the right to know if the state is encouraging their child to “transition” to another sex?

    Is it the belief that biological sex exists at all?

    Is it the belief that people should have the right speak freely without being canceled and having their lives destroyed?

    Is it the belief that people should have the right to decide what medicine they wish to have injected into them without being ostracized from society?

    The “Western order” is collapsing all around us and it is not the Russians who are causing it to collapse. The West in general and the U.S. in particular has lost its moral authority. I don’t know if we are already past the point of no return, I suspect so but I try to hold out hope for my children’s sake.

    Yes, order is indeed fragile and Lowry and most of the people at National Review have watched our order collapse and done next to nothing because Orange Man bad.

15. And my comment vanishes into the ether…

16. Gregory Harper,

    Yes, most assuredly that western order.

17. Actually, I was just trying to mimic some of the—in my view, absurd—charges made against him by others. (Didn’t quite manage that too well, I guess…well, nothing new there….)
    My own opinion on the matter FWIW, is that EVEN IF he is corrupt (whatever that might mean)—though, as you say, there’s no real proof of the matter—then it’s a NON-SEQUITUR at this particular moment in time, given the fact that Putin is trying to obliterate his country.

    A far more serious charge (though it also falls under the rubric of “corruption”) is the assistance that Ukraine has given the Democratic Party over the years, especially helping out in the latter’s feral, crazed and single-minded pursuit of Trump as part of the Democratic party’s efforts to obliterate the USA and everything it stands for. (That’s the “backing the wrong horse” bit—Lee Smith and Hans Mahncke have the goods on THAT one—but I’ll repeat: at the moment, with the Ukraine under vicious, murderous assault, it’s ALSO a non-sequitur (as far as I’m concerned). First things first: Ukraine must be SUPPORTED and its people helped to resist the current incarnation of this particularly savage horseman of the apocalypse.

18. @Gregory Harper Well said, and a welcome acid to boot. I am something of a stern anti-Putin bulwark and generally supportive of NATO, the fact is that we have WAY more pressing problems at home. That might not be true for the Ukrainians or even Eastern Europeans outside that (Though I am not so sure given things like the demographic tidal waves and illegal alien migrations), but it is for us. We need to deal with the petty tyrants at home.

19. Geoffrey Britain:

    I have said that you should just tell me when a comment disappears. As you can see, if it’s in spam I am usually able to find it and post it.

    However, do you understand the point you’ve come to? Rejecting everything that a reporter says, just because it’s CNN, and preferring Russian news on its own war? Sorry, but that’s just not going to convince anyone except someone already convinced.

    To be very blunt: I would choose CNN reporting over Russian reporting in this case, understanding that all sources have their slants and biases, and understanding also what CNN’s track record is.

20. Barry Meislin:

    I guess I misunderstood, then. Sorry.

    Also, I don’t think Zelenskyy has given that sort of support to the Democrats. Those were his predecessors. He only came to power in 2019. I’ve seen people say it of him.

21. Indeed, he inherited a mess.
    And he—zany “clownish” comedian that he is—impressed the voter, perhaps precisely because he WAS an outlier, because he offered something unknown, something different, refreshing; a bit strange, weird, even crazy but certainly NOT stodgy, predictable run-of-the-mill….
    (Who, after all, is the wisest character in Lear?…)

    In this aspect, he was quite a bit like Trump.

    (Bet the voters didn’t have any inkling that he was such a fighter, though…)

22. There is no such thing as international law. There are international conventions. The utility of treaties is that they state those conventions in detail.

    In my day, international conventions were not subjects Realists pondered, though they might have nodded to it. International conventions suggest that to some degree human societies (even in aggregate) is self-organizing and can accomplish salutary things without coercion. It’s an aspect of the human experience that is not incorporated into the Realist paradigm. NB, the plot of the novel Lord of the Flies v. an actual situation of castaway youths in the South Pacific in the 1960s.

    I assume there are game theory models of self-organizing institutions, but I’ve never read any and I’m too dull intellectually to make much sense of game theory.

23. Speaking of Lee Smith…he may fault past Ukraine policy but he does it to bring to the fore—to explicate in painstaking detail—the awful absurdity (and absurd awfulness) of American partisan government elites, inlcuding, and especially, the national security echelons, who have been selling out the country (for a mess of pottage? of Chinese provenance?), hollowing it out from within…such that right now, the country has NO national security cohort that it can depend on to defend it.
    https://instapundit.com/510975/

24. Here is a link to a War Blog. Interesting and thoughtful. I don’t see a bias but I may be wearing blinders.

    https://www.understandingwar.org/

25. Most of the talk about NATO, missiles, Russian history, etc is a distraction from the core issue of Russia’s very profitable natural gas sales to Europe via the pipelines under the Baltic Sea. The Ukraine can disrupt that monopoly position with its own gas reserves and by providing a pipeline route from the Mid-East into the heart of Europe. The invasion is all about blocking the threat to Russian prosperity via the sale of Siberian natural gas. With the alternative sources of natural gas blocked or controlled, Russia can “extort” Europe for profits on the natural gas that it, alone, can provide. The babble about the other things is just a distraction from a power grab.

26. When you have the Russian bear on your doorstep, some level of accommodation seems to be in order; a little conciliation is a survival instinct. I remember that Zelensky strongly disputed the US assertion that all of those Russian troops right over his border – ten or more divisions – were going to invade. Was that really his considered judgment? Whether & to what extent this was a missed opportunity for settlement I do not know, because I cannot judge the truthfulness of anything that comes from the warring parties. And, not to excuse what has happened, or in any way place blame upon Ukrainian resistance, it does not appear that Putin’s original design was to inflict heavy civilian casualties; that’s just where his miscalculations left him.

27. @Geoffrey Britain Frankly, I would be more sympathetic to you had I not been able to see you were provably and rather blatantly lying about the sources and evidence you DID provide, as I outlined in great detail a few times, most recently here.

    https://www.thenewneo.com/2022/03/21/russias-ukraine-war-will-probably-spark-nuclear-proliferation/

    That’s something that transcends mere bias or unwillingness to believe CNN/Russian Media/Fill in the Blanks, considering I used the source You provided to show you were “creatively” cropping the text of an international agreement in order to imply and claim a narrative (that NATO inviting Ukraine was some kind of violation of the Astana Agreement) that the actual text of the agreement quite Blatantly disproves. Which I was able to do by simply copying and pasting large sections of the agreement (including ones in the same paragraphs you quoted for but on a more complete and less cherrypicked fashion), amplified by me USING ALL CAPS to emphasize a point.

    In any case, Neo generally prefers letting people air their things with no holds barred and let things sort out, and I agree with that policy.

    “I didn’t get the memo that the AP and CNN were now trusted sources of news.”

    I didn’t either, because they’re not. Which is why I avoid quoting them.

    “I’ve read unconfirmed reports that-‘”

    You could have stopped right there. Unconfirmed reports are Unconfirmed at best.

    “Mariupol was controlled by the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion and that civilians were not allowed to flee, when some civilians tried to flee they were shot dead.”

    Siiigih.

    A couple points:

    Firstly, Azov Battalion are anti-Nazi Neo-Fascists, basically tracing their lineage back to the sort of interwar Ukrainian Fascist movements like the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalsits/OUN and Ukrainian Insurgent Army/UPA, basically simping for spiritual lieges like Stefan Bandera, Andriy Melnyk, and so on. These were and are BAD people and started out as eager Nazi collaborators (helping Hitler to plan the Southern thrust of Operation Barbarossa), but then Hitler betrayed them just days after Barbarossa started, arresting as much of the leadership as he could get his hands on and ordering the “Bandera movement” to be “liquidated”, as evidence admitted at Nuremburg (with even the grudging acceptance of the Soviets) showed.

    The OUN/UPA however did not get wiped out (at least not by the Nazis) and proceeded to rebel, fighting against both the Soviets and Nazis as well as Polish Guerilla movements, committing quite a lot of mass murdered (both on ethnic and religious lines but also just plain old killing) before getting crushed by combined Communist counter-guerilla ops in the middle of the 1950s.

    Their modern day imitators like Azov are BAD people revering even worse people, but they have NEVER forgiven Hitler or the Nazis (or modern day Neo-Nazis) for trying to wipe them out in order to turn Ukraine into a Germanized agricultural slave plantation rather than an independent Fascist nightmare. Which is why their conflicts with real Neo-Nazis are quite acute.

    Secondly: they’ve never had that much power in Mariupol, generally being TOLERATED (sometimes grudgingly) by the locals but it’s well away from their “mother city” of Kharkhiv and they’ve usually been used as auxiliaries by the

    Thirdly: reports from the like of the Red Cross indicates that the main obstacle to civilians fleeing Mariupol have been of *Mining* being done on the designated safe-corridor routes.

    Mining that for various reasons is REALLY unlikely to have been done by the Ukrainian defenders or Azov, if only because they had lost control of a lot of the places the mines were “found.’

    I won’t put much past Azov or the like, and I certainly know there’s a lot of Ukrainian propaganda and disinformation going on, but the fact that the Ukrainian government at least openly made an agreement to let civilians flee only to have a bunch of them blown up by mines in the Red Cross passage indicates that whatever “desertion” executions have gone on are marginal.

    Moreover, basic cost-benefit analysis indicates that the Russian government story is if not COMPLETELY impossible (because it’s not) at least unlikely. More mouths to feed in a siege means it is harder for the actual defenders to last the maximum amount of time. Which is why in general you’d try and find ways to offload the “useless mouths” in various ways of callousness (ranging from organizing safe passage to killing and eating them) in order to give your fighters the best possible chance.

    The only POSSIBLE reasons I’d imagine the Ukrainians would break from this is

    A: Desire to maintain some kind of auxiliary or civilian work force to shore up defenses or do other work for the soldiers (which makes some degree of sense but it’d not be ideal for the very young, the very old, or crippled)

    and

    B: As propaganda tools to be waved like a bloody toga when they (inevitably) get killed to some degree due to the hellish nature of urban fighting and sieges. Which is the more likely option IMHO.

    But BOTH explanations are undercut by the fact that the Ukrainians apparently negotiated in good faith for a way to get noncombatants out of the city alongside the Russians and the Red Cross, only for those efforts to LITERLLY explode in their faces.

    That doesn’t mean the Russian gov’t accusations are WRONG. It does however mean they have an extremely big motive for blaming any and all civilian deaths on the Ukrainian defenders even in comparison to normal due to the Red Cross Mine Corridor issue, and I’m sure as hell not going to start taking as gospel the words of a thoroughly dishonest dictatorship that calls everybody and everything a Nazi BUT the Literally-SS-and-Swastika-Tattooed members of Wagner PMC it uses.

    “Yes I know, the Russians couldn’t possibly be telling the truth about anything, unlike the AP and CNN…”

    You REALLY don’t want to pull up the “possibly telling the truth about anything” considering how badly you got caught lying about things like the Astana Agreement and other diplomatic summits.

28. Honestly Neo, I have enough problems with Lowry so I’m going to take this with a grain of salt.

    Siege Warfare has long been regarded as one of the nastiest forms of war imaginable, as has urban warfare. So Urban Siege Warfare is a special kind of hell and as someone of (among others) Dutch and Italian ancestry meaning I can look back centuries upon centuries to hells like the Italian Wars and Dutch Independence War, I’m not sure how much to blame Putin for YET due to the nastiness of this kind of battle.

    Are innocent people dying? Yes absolutely. But how intentional that is on Putin’s part or that of the Russian Military I simply do not know, especially since the Russian military seems to have enough trouble with comms and coordination of its own (such as missing military targets by some margins), and the uniquely paranoid hell that is partisan problems and the civilian role in Ukrainian HUMINT.

    I’m far from a Putin apologist- VERY MUCH THE OPPOSITE- and I’m certainly not one to claim (as some others have) that the mere fact that the city hasn’t been completely destroyed is evidence of Putin’s mercy. Just that it is an ugly battle with lots of fog of war.

29. Zelensky quickly allowed Trump to release the transcript (it was released the day before Schiff read his fake version in Congress) and he also said Trump didn’t pressure him.

30. James S.:

    Indeed, Putin’s original choice is unknown. My guess – and it’s just a guess, but it seems logical to me – is that he thought Ukraine would surrender early. But whatever he thought, his choice now is to kill civilians and lay siege to the city. And these are people he’s attacking under the guise of their being Russia’s brothers who should be happy to come back to the welcoming arms of their one big happy Russian family!

31. Turtler:

    I take all reports from a war with a grain of salt, always. And yet to write about it at all, one must link to some reports. I don’t do it very often for this war, preferring to deal with some of the larger issues instead of the day-to-day reports on the fighting and troop movements and the like.

    What you wrote about the Azovs is very interesting – seems to make sense. A place like Ukraine has a history that’s really a vale of tears, even in modern times.

32. Turtler,

    Firstly, until just now I had not seen your prior response, as I had a doctor’s appt. and left shortly after responding to om and then was busy with other matters. I’ve now reviewed it and will respond to that comment, though you’ve thrown so much up here that I’m a bit overwhelmed with it, so I’ll respond to your main accusation.

    Secondly, I did not and have not lied here. I have never knowingly told a falsehood here. I have been sincere in my expressed comments. I freely admit to the possibility of being mistaken, as I’m as fallible as anyone else.

    Like neo I believe myself to be open to persuasion when new information is presented and when clear, direct rebuttal is offered to my assertions. The proof of that is that I have admitted to being in the wrong at least as often as anyone else here and far more than most. Liars don’t admit to error, they deflect and deny.

    OK, now to respond to your main assertions in which we mainly disagree regarding the validity of the Russians objecting to the Ukraine joining NATO.

    “3. The security of each participating State is inseparably linked to that of all others. Each participating State has an equal right to security. WE REAFFIRM THE INHERENT RIGHT OF EACH AND EVERY PARTICIPATING STATE TO BE FREE TO CHOOSE OR CHANGE ITS SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS, INCLUDING TREATIES OF ALLIANCE, AS THEY EVOLVE. Each State also has the right to neutrality. EACH PARTICIPATING STATE WILL RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF ALL OTHERS IN THESE REGARDS. They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.”

    I read that too before I made the comment to which you responded. The reason I did not give the text you’ve capitalized importance is because of the line directly below. Namely “They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.” That line emphatically qualifies what any party to the agreement may do and it doesn’t matter whatever else is included, if an action by one of the parties violates that critical provision.

    In your earlier comment you state, “Moreover, Geoffrey Britain tried to argue that NATO violated Astana 2010 by inviting/promising/whatever nations like Ukraine membership in NATO, which under some tortured argumentation was a violation of the terms against “strengthening security at the expense of others.”

    No, Astana absolutely DOES NOT say this. Indeed, Astana outright affirms that every single signatory nation has the right to enter into ANY Alliance it chooses or none at all, and thus Ukraine has every right to enter NATO and NATO every right to make that invitation, just as the CIS.”

    It is not a “tortured augmentation”. The Astana agreement does state that “every single signatory nation has the right to enter into ANY Alliance it chooses” but only as long as “They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.”

    And, the Ukraine joining NATO would strengthen NATO’s security very greatly at the strategic security expense of Russia for the reasons I’ve repeated over and over again and, to which to your credit, you do respond and are in agreement.

    That well intentioned people on each side could reach a reasonable peaceful solution is a given. You’ve outlined all the ways in which Putin has behaved duplicitously, while not acknowledging NATO’s behavior as seen by not just Putin but by many Russian strategists. Behavior by NATO that the Russians also see as duplicitous.

    So we have two sides distrustful of each other. From the standpoint of potential nuclear conflict, each side has to take into consideration where the other side is coming from and if its reduced to ‘we’re in the right and they’re completely wrong’ and they see it just the opposite, then you inevitably devolve into war.

    But if you see the provision I’ve repeatedly emboldened as critical to the agreement and to which violation would nullify the entire agreement, then the Russian position becomes understandable. Nor in the larger scheme of things does it matter whether the Russian position is correct, what matters is whether you want to insist upon it to the degree of either a new cold war or even risking a nuclear war. Because that is the bottom line.

    Please drop the accusations of lying. I’ve explained why I’ve taken the view of the Astana agreement that I have and disagreement as to its provisions does not mean that either one of us is lying. We simply disagree as to the critical importance of that line. I read it as fully supporting the Russian position, strictly in regard to the Ukraine’s entry into NATO.

    And that NATO in announcing its intention to bring the Ukraine into NATO is a legitimate national security threat to Russia from the Russian perspective.

    Understanding the reasons for the conflict and expressing what I perceive to be a more balanced view of it is not an endorsement of Putin’s invasion nor a blanket condemnation of NATO. I just call it like I see it and let the chips fall where they may.

33. Neo says, “A place like Ukraine has a history that’s really a vale of tears, even in modern times.”

    I just watched Mark Felton’s new video on the history of Kyiv, which mentions the many times the city has been destroyed (by Rus princes, Mongols, Lithuanians, Germans– in WWI and WWII, and now Putin’s forces). Felton is a British historian specializing in WWII, but he often posts short historical videos on related subjects. In this video, he mentions Babi Yar and Chernobyl among the many other disasters that have befallen Kyiv:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eozIOzO0P_0&ab_channel=MarkFeltonProductions

    It’s not quite nine minutes long, but it’s an interesting and informative summary.

34. “It is not a “tortured augmentation”. The Astana agreement does state that “every single signatory nation has the right to enter into ANY Alliance it chooses” but only as long as “They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.”’

    The is no “but only as long”, it flat out says they have a right to enter into any alliance they wish.

    I’m not sure how you can strengthen your security if it can’t come at the expense of other states. The phrase you are using for your argument doesn’t make any sense. Certainly, Russia was violating Ukraine’s security by invading eastern Ukraine with its little green men in 2014, just as it was when it amassed troops on the border, then invaded. That’s rather more significant than Ukraine joining NATO.

35. Also note that Russia was working with China with respect to the invasion, essentially an alliance that undermined Ukraine’s security.

    It’s as if Russia has special rights that Ukraine doesn’t.

36. Also, someone pointed out that Biden offered to fly Zelensky out, suggesting Biden was in on a plan intended to hand Ukraine to Russia while saving the Ukrainian leader. I don’t think the elites want to see other elites killed, and I’m open to this theory, which would explain a few things.

37. It is remarkable that Geoffrey spends so much time explaining Vlad’s position and worrying about a new Cold War, as a war is instigated in Eastern Europe
    and Vlad is working with Iran on their nuclear weapons program. Surely Geoffrey,
    Iran also has legitimate security concerns that justify their desires for nukes? Get in board with the Vlad/Iran band, be an early appeaser there as well.

    And Geoffrey, why does Russia need hypersonic wonder weapons? Vlad’s fear of NATO, or is it to hold off the WEF/Dravos?

    Preserve your credibility, don’t start up the speil that Vlad is fighting the WEF/Dravos/NATO by attacking Ukraine. That dog don’t hunt.

38. om,

    A point of clarification: hypersonic means Mach 5 which is 3,836 mph, a WW2 German V2 has a top speed of 3,580 mph which is close, and if you launched it off a jet aircraft it might qualify as hypersonic.

    Vlad’s hypersonic is a legacy missile launched from an aircraft and is technically hypersonic, but it isn’t the special leap in tech it is hyped as.

39. Don:

    The Russian wonder weapon was cited by Geoffrey as flying at 7000 mph, nap of the earth and capable of feats that defy skepticism.

40. It is derived from the Iskander-M ground launched missile first in development in 1988 before the fall of the USSR. Kinzhal is an aircraft launched version. It has ability to maneuver and evade, but I doubt it is nap of the earth.

    Part of its speed advantage is from being launched from a fast jet at high altitude.

41. Don,

    I realize it doesn’t say “but only as long as”. I added that to emphasize what I believe it clearly implies. You may disagree with my belief that multiple provisons in an agreement must not eliminate each other but I would find that disagreement to be logically inconsistent.

42. If you think siege warfare is bad and Russia’s is going to do it without a doubt, why did Ukraine turn down Russia’s proposal for the city to surrender?

    Russia proposed surrender, Ukraine turned it down. The atrocities at this point are the Ukrainian government’s fault – and those that support them – for not for not accepting reality, the real war crime here.

    Westerners proposal of sending billions of weapons to Ukraine just kill more people, create more misery, without changing a thing.

    And remember: Living under Russian rule is so bad that not only must Ukies not suffer under it, it is so bad that the west must sanction the Russian economy to make the average Russian’s life even worse, because we are a moral county that can’t stand people living under Russian rule, but must make it worse for the average Russian for their own sake.

    And one day, the west will force Russia to teach gay sex in kindergarten. and make their girls compete against boys, because the west is the beacon of truth and morality.

43. Geoffrey,

    “They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.” implies you can’t do anything to strengthen your own security, since it can only come at the expense of other states.

    Clearly, Russia is in violation of this in a multitude of ways by your interpretation. Russia is the only one invading its neighbors.

44. As for Russia “losing” the war in Ukraine ; what a totally asinine remark.

    Oh, the Russians are losing alright.

    They might turn it around, but once an offensive stalls, it tends to signal that the opposition are going to start moving forward. Especially, if the defenders are having to overcome the element of surprise.

    There’s a strong tendency in the media to assume that the Ukrainians have no agency. Russia will win if it gets its act together, and apparently the Ukrainians have no say in the matter.

    Well, while the Russians might get it together in the coming months, why does the same reasoning not apply to the Ukrainians? Why can only one side improve?

    Ukraine has the advantage of operating from the interior lines, so can concentrate in one place then another. They will likely have the advantage of more supplies. They certainly have the advantage of morale.

45. @Geoffrey Britain

    “Firstly, until just now I had not seen your prior response, as I had a doctor’s appt. and left shortly after responding to om and then was busy with other matters.”

    Fair enough, real life comes first and for whatever our differences I certainly will not grudge you bigger concerns. Especially if they are as important as a Doctor’s Appointment.

    ” I’ve now reviewed it and will respond to that comment, though you’ve thrown so much up here that I’m a bit overwhelmed with it, so I’ll respond to your main accusation.”

    Fair enough, and I will admit that my wordiness is a weakness of mine as well as sometimes a strength (since I tend to be very thorough).

    “Secondly, I did not and have not lied here. I have never knowingly told a falsehood here I have been sincere in my expressed comments. I freely admit to the possibility of being mistaken, as I’m as fallible as anyone else.”

    If this is true- and again for the reasons I’ve stated I have great doubt in that- it says nothing good about your reading comprehension. But against my better judgement I am prepared to accept it.

    “Like neo I believe myself to be open to persuasion when new information is presented and when clear, direct rebuttal is offered to my assertions. The proof of that is that I have admitted to being in the wrong at least as often as anyone else here and far more than most.”

    Fair enough, and I am prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, though in this particular case I think the evidence as I presented is reason to at least show why it was a rational assumption on my part.

    “Liars don’t admit to error, they deflect and deny.”

    Liars will admit to error frequently; rational ones do so when they are confronted with such evidence that admitting to a prior lie is less damaging than the alternative, hence things like the brilliant Bill Whittle’s “Clinton Lie Ratchet” or the Modified Limited Hangout. Brazen or Arrogant ones will do so out of pride, especially if they calculate that such an admission with cow their opposition and intimidate others, like Harry Reid’s “It worked” regarding Mitt Romney. And this is before we get into other things like stress, intimidation, and so forth.

    Much as it is said The Devil can quote scripture for his own purpose, liars can and do tell the truth and even admit they lied for various reasons.

    But I digress.

    “OK, now to respond to your main assertions in which we mainly disagree regarding the validity of the Russians objecting to the Ukraine joining NATO.”

    It’s not merely that we disagree, it’s the fact that international law and even the aforementioned Astana Agreement of 2010 disagrees.

    Of course none of this denies the Russian state the ability to have an opinion on the matter, to voice it vigorously, and even to lobby on its behalf. But the entire issue is that had the Russian state limited its actions to these, I would have no grounds for complaint with it (at least on these grounds) and even have grounds for sympathy towards it.

    But as well know, that is anything But the extent of the Russian state’s reactions, as thousands of dead killed in conflicts like Transnistria, Georgia, and Ukraine over the past several decades shows. While Russia might be able to plead extenuating circumstances for some of those and that the 2010 Astana Accords were signed after most of those, the war in Ukraine from 2014 to now shows otherwise.

    “I read that too before I made the comment to which you responded. The reason I did not give the text you’ve capitalized importance is-”

    First and foremost, you did not give the text I capitalized *AT ALL.* Which is why I had to dig through it on the link you provided in order to put the few sentences you did post into context.

    But moving on…

    “I read that too before I made the comment to which you responded. The reason I did not give the text you’ve capitalized importance is because of the line directly below. Namely “They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.” That line emphatically qualifies what any party to the agreement may do and it doesn’t matter whatever else is included, if an action by one of the parties violates that critical provision.”

    This is LITERALLY turning the Agreement on its head, and doing so in a way that is utterly illiterate logically, legally, and coherently.

    Leaving aside the fact that the sentence you picked out and elevated to primacy is incredibly vague and subject to different interpretations and perhaps even abusive or nonsensical interpretations (one of the weaknesses of the 2010 Astana Agreement in general IMHO), it was not article 1. It was not even an entire article. It was not even the dominant, concluding, or starting sentence of an article.

    It was a snippet excised from Article 3, as I was able to demonstrate by copying the article in question.

    Moreover, the Astana Agreement’s text makes a reference to a great number of international agreements and texts including the Helsinki Accord Decalogue, which among other things clearly state:

    “https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/5/c/39501.pdf

    “I. Sovereign equality, respect for the rights
    inherent in sovereignty

    The participating States WILL RESPECT EACH OTHER’S SOVEREIGN EQUALITY AND INDIVIDUALITY AS WELL AS THE RIGHTS INHERENT IN AND ENCOMPASSED BY SOVEREIGNTY, INCLUDING THE PARTICULAR RIGHT OF EVERY STATE TO judicial equality, TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY, AND TO FREEDOM AND POLITICAL INDEPENDENCE. THEY WILL ALSO RESPECT EACH OTHER’S RIGHT FREELY TO CHOOSE AND DEVELOP its political, social, economic and cultural systems as well as its right to determine its
    laws and regulations.

    Within the framework of international law, all the participating States have equal
    rights and duties. THEY WILL RESPECT EACH OTHER’S RIGHT TO DEFINE AND CONDUCT AS IT WISHES ITS RELATIONS WITH OTHER STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE SPIRIT OF THE PRESENT DECLARATION. THEY CONSIDER THAT THEIR FRONTIERS CAN BE CHANGED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW, BY PEACEFUL MEANS AND AGREEMENT. THEY ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO BELONG OR NOT TO BELONG TO INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, TO BE OR NOT TO BE A PARTY TO BILATERAL OR MULTILATERAL TREATIES INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO BE OR NOT TO BE A PARTY TO TREATIES OF OF ALLIANCE; THEY ALSO HAVE A RIGHT TO NEUTRALITY.”

    So clearly this was not new ground, nor was it particularly vague or dependent on some arcane understanding of a single sentence in Astana 2010. Nor was Astana 2010 supposed to upend this, as Articles 1 and 2 show.

    And this is before I get into the fact that the core of Article 3 is about- again-

    ““3. The security of each participating State is inseparably linked to that of all others. Each participating State has an equal right to security. We reaffirm the inherent right of each and every participating state to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance, as they evolve.”

    So clearly, it is completely improper and nonsensical to read

    ““They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.”

    As

    “That line emphatically qualifies what any party to the agreement may do and it doesn’t matter whatever else is included, if an action by one of the parties violates that critical provision.”

    FAR FROM IT, *ESPECIALLY SINCE THAT SENTENCE IS NOT EVEN A FULL PROVISION, LET ALONE A “CRITICAL” ONE, OF THE AGREEMENT.*

    Rather than emphatically qualifying what any party to the agreement may do and may not do regardless of what else is included, the Astana Agreement AS A WHOLE is what states what a country can and can’t do, and the ““They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States” is a subordinate clause (both grammatically and logically), which is DEFINED by the prior context of Article 3 oft he Astana Agreement that it is a part of, and the prior international legal canons and agreements that Astana cites.

    Which means that NO, it is ABSOLUTELY NOT kosher or acceptable for the Russian regime to claim a right to violently dismember Ukraine and seek regime change or the abolition of important parts of its sovereignty on the basis of what alliances it is *talking about*, at least under Astana.

    If one wishes to make the argument that the Russian state has a right to do those things for other reasons, such as Necessity, the Right of a Stronger, Greater Nation, The Law of the Jungle, or some other agreement or treaty, then it is incumbent on one to *Make* that argument.*

    However, that is not what you did. What you did was utterly torture the plain English language of Astana in order to elevate a single, vague sentence in the middle of an article obviously meant to Clarify the prior text of said article rather than override it, into a “Critical Provision.”

    This is nonsense on pogo sticks, and the proper reading of Astana et. al. clearly underlines that a nation-state has a right to independent policy and association, and that this does not impinge \upon the security of other nations by itself.

    (If the alliance that such a country makes impinges upon said security by-say- partaking in a war against such a country, that is clearly a different matter. But it is also one with its own redresses that do not need specific address in Astana, such as War.)

    This is why I underlined how completely tortured it was to excise a handful of sentences from the Agreement, purposefully ignore the rest (or if I’m really generous assume the said text was made moot or offset by things like that sentence), and blame NATO for violating Astana….by doing something Astana quite explicitly provides for as just, legal, and the right of all sovereign states.

    “In your earlier comment you state, “Moreover, Geoffrey Britain tried to argue that NATO violated Astana 2010 by inviting/promising/whatever nations like Ukraine membership in NATO, which under some tortured argumentation was a violation of the terms against “strengthening security at the expense of others.””

    And I stand by that, because iti s correct.

    The full context- of the Astana Agreement as a whole specifically, and the internal laws it cites in general- underline that each nation has the right to self-determination, including in what alliances (if any) it chooses to make. Hence why I cited the Final Helsinki Accord.

    That merely making alliances or entering into one was never meant to be “degrading” to the security of a sovereign nation is clear from the context, as well as the basic logic that if joining an alliance actually did degrade another nation’s security in some way (and not in a wishy-washy “OMG Putin feels a bit nervous because of NATO discussions with Ukraine” way), there were REMEDIES to that. Like war.

    In which case the evidence and reasons should be much clearer than simply “this alliance makes us feel insecure” and probably can be outlined in blood, bodies, and burnt husks.

    Like the Russian military has been producing in Former Soviet Space for several decades now.

    “It is not a “tortured augmentation”.”

    Yes, it absolutely is.

    And it is shown by the fact that you elevated a subordinate clause to the peak of importance (much like the usual Gun Grabbers do with the “Well-regulated militia” clause) while omitting the rest.

    Of both the Astana Agreement, and the treaties it cites.

    ” The Astana agreement does state that “every single signatory nation has the right to enter into ANY Alliance it chooses” but only as long as “They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.””

    It does absolutely no such thing. Which is why you had to insert the “but only as long as” and also focus back on the subordinate sentence.

    While explicitly ignoring the superior clauses of that article, the other articles in Astana, and the documents cited by it.

    And this is BEFORE we get back to the fact that the sentence you chose is extremely vague and subject to (mis)interpretation, while the rights enumerated in the rest of Article 3 are RELATIVELY clear, well stated, and not made conditional in writing upon it.

    And this is before I get into the issue of how a given nation-state would claim that a nation merely *entering talks for membership into an alliance As it is Expressly Permitted To By Astana, Helsinki, Etc. Al. represents something happening at the expense of their own security..*

    Which is a Possible case to make, but one that would have to be made. And which Putin etc. al. have- if you’ll pardon my French- generally Sucked at doing, Especially if one reads the actual texts involved with even half the legal pedantry I inherited from my father.

    In no way should the “at the expense of” sentence should be construed as overriding or taking precedence from the right enumerated in Article 3 of Astana to

    “….an equal right to security…to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance, as they evolve.”

    “And, the Ukraine joining NATO would strengthen NATO’s security very greatly at the strategic security expense of Russia for the reasons I’ve repeated over and over again and, to which to your credit, you do respond and are in agreement.”

    The problem again is that this does not override the statement and the rights inherent in national sovereignty, as PAINSTAKINGLY outlined by Astana, Helsinki, etc. al. And indeed there’s a reason why the Soviet Union and modern Russia are one of the relatively few signatory countries that even tried to argue that things like that sentence override it.

    Because not only is that not the nature of the agreements and does not factor in the framing of the writing, but because it would be self-defeating On Russia’s Part.

    After all, would this not mean that the likes of tiny Estonia could claim that by NOT joining NATO, Russia is acting to the great detriment of Estonian security (a case that would be monumentally easy to argue with even an Undergrad’s knowledge of European History), thereby justifying some kind of NATO force to invade Russia and force it into a shape that Estonia would deem not to be to the detriment of Estonian security?

    Yeah, this is obviously ludicrous. And it’s obvious that neither you nor the Russian government considered such an interpretation of that sentence in Astana for…reasons. But unmoored from the context of international law and the agreements themselves and elevated to the position of “Critical” which it manifestly does not deserve, THAT is exactly the kind of logic one could use to justify a pre-emptive invasion of Russia and its conquest and occupation.

    After all, Tallinn is a two hour drive from St. Petersburg. Does this close proximity not greatly diminish Estonian security?

    Does this justify some kind of great NATO Pre-Emptive crusade to conquer and subjugate Russia to protect Estonia?

    Or does Article 3 of Astana et. al. mean what they say, that national sovereignty includes the ability to determine one’s alliances and should as a result not be taken as prejudicial to another nation’s security just because of that?

    Moreover, the Russian government and its Soviet predecessors clearly gave lip service to this interpretation, thus validating it as true, when they inked their Ivan Hancocks to it. Now you might be able to argue quite convincingly that they had no serious intention of honoring it (which given things like the lengthy list of breaches in the Helsinki Accords I think is clear), but that doesn’t change the fact that they did sign off and thus expressly agreed.

    And while Russia is unquestionably a Great Nation, the wording of the Accords and other laws give Great Nations and Petty Nations the same rights, in theory even if not in practice.

    (A Practice that I might add Russia would do well to consider its conduct in, considering how it does NOT want the US or PRC to be playing the kind of mind games, word lawyering, and crimes against the peace the Kremlin did…. on it.

    Hence my example of Estonia complaining a “neutral” or CIS Russia is degrading to its security.)

    “That well intentioned people on each side could reach a reasonable peaceful solution is a given. You’ve outlined all the ways in which Putin has behaved duplicitously, while not acknowledging NATO’s behavior as seen by not just Putin but by many Russian strategists. Behavior by NATO that the Russians also see as duplicitous.”

    Because I simply do not have to.

    Firstly for the same reason I am not obliged to address the alleged existence of pink elephants on the wall as seen by someone in a Psychotic Break.

    Secondly because contrary to much of the rhetoric and overt posturing, I presume a certain level of competence from the Kremlin (admittedly a dangerous proposition in light of recent events, but regardless).

    I presume they have at least lawyers, translators, and linguists who are at least moderately more competent at their jobs than myself the basement dwelling Autist with a modest amount of legal knowledge and a lot of history facts. I presume that on some level the diplomats and state involved were told what the meaning of these words were, what the hell a “subordinate clause” is, and how these terms would be reasonably (or unreasonably but predictably) interpreted by both their colleagues and foreign actors in light of legal precedent from previous agreements.

    And yet, as I said, Putin and co decided to ink their agreement to this.

    Which as I mentioned thoroughly undermines the idea that NATO violated Astana, regardless of what “Russians” or some other actors believe or not.

    In much the same way as the wording of Astana and its implications CLEARLY invalidate any of the 1990ish agreements about NATO not expanding membership or military basing East of East Germany, not the least of which because much of that had already happened.

    Law is complicated and international law doubly so, but this is fairly clear cut. And it’s probably demonstrated as such by how Putin etc. al. have not made a point of emphasizing the text of Astana through formal channels speaking to the outside world.

    Because they almost certainly know better, and know that most of those they are communicating with Also know better then to assume that vague bellyaching by the Russian government that Ukraine doing something expressly permitted in Astana invalidates that express permission

    “So we have two sides distrustful of each other.”

    That we do. But again, the distrust is not equal. Nor is it equivalent or rooted in the same purposes.

    As again, the very arguments that you and the Russian state have made underline, arguing that Ukrainian integration into NATO would violate Astana because Muh Security, but ignoring the converse that Estonia would be able to argue that Russia not being a part of NATO undercuts their security.

    Which brings us to the next issue. If your claim re: Astana had been solely or primarily about the concerns of a nation-state, what is valid in purusit of its interests according to its own perceptions, or the different measurements of it, we would have grounds for a dispute.

    But you argued that NATO extending an offer of pathway to membership to Ukraine amounted to NATO violating Astana. As I have painstakingly detailed, this is nonsense and utterly indefensible in any sense by making reference to Astana and its predecessor texts.

    “From the standpoint of potential nuclear conflict, each side has to take into consideration where the other side is coming from”

    This is correct, HOWEVER there is a difference between understanding one’s opponent and considering from whence they came from (which I freely admit the West has kind of sucked at for quite a while), and assuming that such a baseline is Justified, Right, or Defensible.

    It MAY be, and complete understanding may render that evident. But it also may NOT be.

    ” and if its reduced to ‘we’re in the right and they’re completely wrong’ and they see it just the opposite, then you inevitably devolve into war.”

    Firstly: on a rational level this is simply moral blackmail devoid of truth value or analysis of it. To quote a certain English Socialist, 2 + 2 = 4.

    Torturing someone to say 2 + 2 = 5 does not stop 2 + 2 = 4 from being true.

    Someone offering you great riches to say 2 + 2 = 5 does not stop 2 + 2 = 4 from being true (though it might impact your choice).

    Someone screaming that their baby will be killed if you do not say 2 + 2 = 5 does not change it.

    Someone shouting that you MUST concede some merit to 2 + 2 = 5 or else there will be a nuclear Holocaust does not change the fact that 2 + 2 = 4.

    Polite fictions and lies are a common trend in diplomacy (and I pointed out the lack of serious enforceability in Astana 2010 and how it was probably never taken to be particularly binding or serious) and may serve a valuable purpose, but in the end they cannot completely substitute for reality. Particularly a reality in which one side demands we read the plain text of “rights” and “sovereignty” in a different sense for Great Nations and those for Not-So-Great Nations.

    And simply put, it also isn’t true. Both because irreconcilable differences do not always lead to war (as Khruschev found out when he faced the prospect of Castro actually launching nuclear weapons well ahead of time and thus starting the Global Conflagration far earlier), and because politely patting an egocentric, perfidious dictatorship happy to lie about the plain text of agreements it signed and then breaking them does not guarantee in absence of war. Indeed, it can make it worse.

    Indeed, as we have seen now with Ukraine.

    I have been consistent in not wanting the US to directly intervene in the war, without No Fly Zones or NATO troops or nukes.

    However, I have also been consistent that my desires for peace Cannot mean I ignore when the Kremlin is simply lying, acting in bad faith, or fundamentally not being a serious partner for peace. 2 + 2 = 4. Either Astana protects the right of Ukraine to field offers to join NATO, or *it does not even protect RUSSIA from not being invaded and conquered on demand of a minor NATO nation complaining Russian conduct as a non-NATO state hurts its security.*

    “But if you see the provision I’ve repeatedly emboldened as critical to the agreement and to which violation would nullify the entire agreement, then the Russian position becomes understandable.”

    No, it in fact does not.

    Because again, as I pointed out when you tried to argue that Astana reaffirmed commitments made to people like Yazov against NATO enlargement, *NATO enlargement was not something new.* It had happened more than a dozen times between the 1990 agreements and Astana, admittedly much to the frustration of many in the Russian government but without violating it.

    And yet, such enlargement CLEARLY did not invalidate things like the Helsinki Final Accord (which helped introduce the security formulation you emboldened), it was also not taken as such when Astana 2010 was being negotiated. In no small part because if the Russian government had dared to make that claim, they would’ve been laughed out of the room for the reasons I’ve mentioned before.

    We see this-again- from the Russian government decision to sign the agreement in 2010, without any such imaginary arguments that the single sentence you cited swallows the rest of Article 3, Plus Helsinki, plus large chunks of the UN Charter, etc and in effect invalidates the rest of the agreement if violated or “violated.”

    This is again why I have consistently chewed your claims out for lacking CONTEXT above all.
    ‘
    Furthermore, while I might be willing to believe Russian governments do believe they were somehow “cheated” in assorted “agreements” made in 1990 about NATO expansion and there is a legitimate difference of interpretation, I DO NOT believe they were dumb enough to have a different interpretation of NATO expansion being a violation of the “security” criteria in Helsinki or Astana, according to the terms set out and agreed in said documents (as opposed to whatever visions Shoigu sees in his wood collection, which are not legally admissable).

    And if by the odd chance I am WRONG…. that means the Russian Government committed itself to signing an agreement *they did not UNDERSTAND the terms of.* Which should scare you even more than anything I’ve stated.

    ” Nor in the larger scheme of things does it matter whether the Russian position is correct,”

    Yes it does, especially from a legal point of view.

    And even from a non-legal point of view it speaks a great deal to the stability and sanity of the Russian leadership in whether or not they are sanely breaking agreements and laws they agreed to, or are derangedly agreeing to things they don’t understand and then breaking them (or some intermediate step).

    Whatever the truth of that is, I’m sure a lot of overpaid analysts would get paid even more if they knew it.

    ” what matters is whether you want to insist upon it to the degree of either a new cold war or even risking a nuclear war. Because that is the bottom line.”

    The bottom line is that a predatory and fundamentally untrustworthy Russian government that either refuses to honor diplomatic promises or refuses to speak the same basic language as the West (as embodied by your insistence in prizing what you assume is the Russian interpretation of X and Y) will most likely cause a new cold war (as seen by the repeated refusals of Putin’s Kremlin towards détente feelers at the start of every US Presidency I’ve been alive for) or conventional war. With this established, the risk it will spiral into a nuclear war escalates, whether because of direct Russian action or because of other malcontents (see: Biden) helping to escalate the crisis.

    The saying is to Let Sleeping Dogs Lie, not to ignore the barking of an awake dog that seems to be lunging against your neighbor.

    In any case, Putin is more than capable of deciding to start a Cold War, a Hot War, or a Nuclear War by himself with the “help” of his close confidantes. As we have seen. While I’m happy to give plenty of blame to things like Russia-baiting from the left here, at the end this wouldn’t be happening if he didn’t decide to do it.

    “Please drop the accusations of lying. I’ve explained why I’ve taken the view of the Astana agreement that I have and disagreement as to its provisions does not mean that either one of us is lying.”

    This is where I stretch my credulity, because for the reasons I’ve mentioned I STRUGGLE to imagine how ANYBODY could read Astana Article 3 and accord the sentence you highlighted the importance you give it. I struggle to imagine how anybody could imagine it were a “critical” provision, that it should be meant to invalidate the rest of the Article it is a part of and hold that nations DO NOT have a right to decide their alliances, and that its violation should be taken as invalidating all the rest of the document.

    Occam’s Razor for me suggests willful dishonesty, and I hope the argumentation I have laid out makes it is clear why that is the primary conclusion I am forced to consider, whether it is the cropping of necessary context from the text of the article, the bizarre head-on-ground interpretation of legal text (such as it is), and the failure to account for legal precedent as well as the whole-throated declaration that NATO broke the terms of Astana.

    I will simply say that I do not think I am wrong on that conclusion, but I hope I am.

    ” We simply disagree as to the critical importance of that line. I read it as fully supporting the Russian position, strictly in regard to the Ukraine’s entry into NATO.”

    Which brings me back to the problem: there is no HONEST AND COMPETENT way to read that line as “Fully supporting the Russian position… in regard to Ukraine’s entry into NATO.”

    Which is why I emphasized how precedents as enumerated in it were executed in practice since Helsinki, and the literal meaning of the text in regards to national self-determination. As well as what a few thought experiments lead to if you imagine how the world would be if-say- Estonia interpreted that clause as you do to argue that Russia cannot be allowed to be neutral.

    The right of Ukraine to enter NATO is explicitly enumerated as a right in Article 3 of Astana. The right of the Russian Government to violently oppose this on the grounds of degraded security are- AT BEST- implicit and more reasonably not present at all.

    And again, the conduct of the Russian state historically gives me ample reason to believe it rationally understands this as a point of fact and law. It may heartily DISLIKE those points of fact and law, and indeed it has tried to undermine and overturn them in some cases, sure. But it is on the whole not daft enough to present a case such as the one you made to the Helsinki Commission or even to argue this explicitly through official channels.

    On some level it knows better.

    “And that NATO in announcing its intention to bring the Ukraine into NATO is a legitimate national security threat to Russia from the Russian perspective.”

    Of course, and I agree.

    However, “legitimate national security threats” go both ways, and they do not always justify war.

    Because if they DID, again, Russia would be in deep doo doo if Lithuania decided to escalate its complaints.

    All legitimate national security threats justify preparation, readiness, and care, I agree. And many legitimate national security threats justify war, but this is not one of them *particularly* in the context of Astana.

    “Understanding the reasons for the conflict”

    Except as I outlined, you do not seem to. Indeed, whether we are talking about the legal matters in question or the history. As I pointed out, Putin did not invade Ukraine because of NATO discussions with Ukraine over membership (which in any case were distant and not expressly aimed at Russia prior to 2014).

    He invaded primarily because of the disposition of his “man in Kyiv” Yanukovych by the Rada that was democratically elected alongside him. He calculated (reasonably enough) that a Presidency elected as a result of Euromaidan and which had experienced Yanukovych’s conduct and grievances with Russia could not be expected to be as pro-Russian as the government at the time was (let alone the Yanukovych admin), *nor did he wait to see if he might be mistaken.* He launched an invasion on false pretexts that cannot be justified by possible rationales such as “defending ethnic Russians in Crimea” (in which case, why the hell do you have to hide the identity of your troops and don’t say it? Why don’t you pull out once the threat is deemed safe and instead focus on a sham referendum?). Actions that led to bloodshed in the opening hours of the conflict.

    Which is why I have to sympathize with Richard Aubrey’s statement way back when:

    https://www.thenewneo.com/2022/03/16/what-did-nato-promise-russia/#comments

    “Question for about 90% of the discussion here: Does anybody think Putin gives a rodent’s behind? Has Putin been following the lengthy twists and turns of undertakings and is now morally and legally convinced he’s right because of his parsing of the lengthy twists and turns?”

    The truth is, I do think Putin has been following the lengthy twists and turns of undertakings and has consulted with legal philosophers. I do not however think he is doing so because he particularly gives a rat’s behind in terms of being influenced, but because of the leverage there.

    “and expressing what I perceive to be a more balanced view of it is not an endorsement of Putin’s invasion nor a blanket condemnation of NATO. I just call it like I see it and let the chips fall where they may.
    ”

    Fair enough, and this is something I will give credence to. However, that does not change the fact that it sure as heck sounds far closer to it than a reasonable parsing of the source material in question amounts to. I can probably argue the Russian legal and moral cases better than most if I so chose, but even I would struggle to consider the sentence you bolded to be so crucial (which is probably one reason why the Kremlin prefers to phase its narrative in the context of Euromaidan as a “Coup”, ignoring how the definitive “coup” was of a President being removed by his own Legislature after fleeing the country in contempt of his constitutional duties. That at least allows Russia to argue that NATO and other countries violated Ukraine’s rights under Astana, Helsinki, etc. al. to national determination and its status in relation to foreign alliances and that the current government(s) are illegitimate NATO puppets or something.)

    Addendum:

    “I realize it doesn’t say “but only as long as”. I added that to emphasize what I believe it clearly implies. You may disagree with my belief that multiple provisons in an agreement must not eliminate each other but I would find that disagreement to be logically inconsistent.”

    The issue is that if this were so or understood to be logically or legally inconsistent (flying in the face of decades of legal precedent and arbitration on the matter)… why did the Russian delegation not bring it up in Astana or insist on it to the point of refusing to sign otherwise?

    Occam’s Razor and legal understanding is that that the “security” sentence was not meant to overwrite the enumerated right for a nation to freely decide its alliance (or lack thereof), and that the Russian delegation signed off on this.

46. @whatever “If you think siege warfare is bad and Russia’s is going to do it without a doubt, why did Ukraine turn down Russia’s proposal for the city to surrender?”

    Where do I start with this?

    Let’s start with the fact that in addition is is an open question on how Russian forces will treat captured Ukrainians in this war and civilians that fall under their care.

    There’s the fact that surrender means giving up and allowing the Russians to come after someone else. Which kind of hurts the overall national defense, common cause, and so on.

    “Russia proposed surrender, Ukraine turned it down. The atrocities at this point are the Ukrainian government’s fault – and those that support them – for not for not accepting reality, the real war crime here.”

    Gee, why did not body else think of this?!? You should’ve been on the defense team for Serbian war criminals at the Hague and explained to them how rape, murder of civilians ,murder of the surrendered, and so on were ok because Vukovar, Dubrovnik, etc. refused surrenders.

    Or you’re peddling utter bullshit that even the Russian regime is probably going to be hesitant to repeat given how much they justly lionize sieges like Brest-Litovsk Citadel, Sevastopol, and Leningrad.

    “Westerners proposal of sending billions of weapons to Ukraine just kill more people, create more misery, without changing a thing.”

    It helps degrade and destroy the Russian military, and thus its ability to rampage on anybody else’s territory like it has for the past few decades. That’s something.

    In any case, I also don’t see you blaming the converse of this. That Russian invasion in Ukraine is killing more people, creating more misery, and so on. In spite of the fact that objectively speaking, without the Russian invasion in 2014 Ukraine would not be suffering this particular war.

    (You might be able to argue it would be suffering from a DIFFERENT war, but that’s the realm of hypotheticals now isn’t it? And a hypothetical you’d be obliged to support the claim for.)

    “And remember: Living under Russian rule is so bad that not only must Ukies not suffer under it, it is so bad that the west must sanction the Russian economy to make the average Russian’s life even worse, because we are a moral county that can’t stand people living under Russian rule, but must make it worse for the average Russian for their own sake.”

    Welcome to WAR. I honestly condemn many of the more deranged steps in the Russian sanctions like vilifying Russian nationals and firing them on the basis of that like the New York Met did, but on the whole I think the rationale is sound.

    And let’s not forget that every T-72, every Contract Soldier, and every cruise missile that gets sent to the Russian War Effort in Ukraine is money out of the pocket of the Russian taxpayer, making their lives as well as that of the Ukrainians miserable.

    Ultimate blame for the war lies with the aggressor, and that aggressor is Putin’s government.

    “And one day, the west will force Russia to teach gay sex in kindergarten. and make their girls compete against boys, because the west is the beacon of truth and morality.”

    Nice strawman.

47. Note that Russia helps support green propaganda in the West, and in Putin’s remarks it is clear he sees the West’s wokeness as an opportunity. Russia is, as it always was, a bad actor.

48. In re the question of whether or not the Russians are correct in claiming that the Ukrainians ran a “false flag” op and bombed their own theater so they could blame the carnage on Putin. About a week ago, they made essentially the same claim about a maternity hospital, even denying that it had been bombed at all.
    Maybe there is a methodology at work here that might sway opinion to one side or the other, without bringing CNN into the conversation.

    I recommend that you read the first of Neo’s Links (as I had already done last night) and those questions will be addressed, about 3/4 of the way down for the hospital, and at the end for the theater.

    To me, the text and photos were convincing, but everyone has to make their own analysis and decisions. Reading the entire post will give you more information by which to judge the author’s credibility.
    The AP does sometimes carry actual news, if it doesn’t violate their preferred narrative.
    Not everything the Left presents is untrue, but much of it is re-packaged for bad purposes.

    https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-europe-edf7240a9d990e7e3e32f82ca351dede

    On March 9, twin airstrikes shredded the plastic taped over our van’s windows. I saw the fireball just a heartbeat before pain pierced my inner ear, my skin, my face.

    We watched smoke rise from a maternity hospital. When we arrived, emergency workers were still pulling bloodied pregnant women from the ruins.

    Our batteries were almost out of juice, and we had no connection to send the images. Curfew was minutes away. A police officer overheard us talking about how to get news of the hospital bombing out.

    “This will change the course of the war,” he said. He took us to a power source and an internet connection.

    We had recorded so many dead people and dead children, an endless line. I didn’t understand why he thought still more deaths could change anything.

    I was wrong.
    …
    In the dark, we sent the images by lining up three mobile phones with the video file split into three parts to speed the process up. It took hours, well beyond curfew. The shelling continued, but the officers assigned to escort us through the city waited patiently.

    Then our link to the world outside Mariupol was again severed.

    We went back to an empty hotel basement with an aquarium now filled with dead goldfish. In our isolation, we knew nothing about a growing Russian disinformation campaign to discredit our work.

    The Russian Embassy in London put out two tweets calling the AP photos fake and claiming a pregnant woman was an actress. The Russian ambassador held up copies of the photos at a U.N. Security Council meeting and repeated lies about the attack on the maternity hospital.

    In the meantime, in Mariupol, we were inundated with people asking us for the latest news from the war. So many people came to me and said, please film me so my family outside the city will know I’m alive.

    By this time, no Ukrainian radio or TV signal was working in Mariupol. The only radio you could catch broadcast twisted Russian lies — that Ukrainians were holding Mariupol hostage, shooting at buildings, developing chemical weapons. The propaganda was so strong that some people we talked to believed it despite the evidence of their own eyes.

    The message was constantly repeated, in Soviet style: Mariupol is surrounded. Surrender your weapons.
    …
    On March 11, in a brief call without details, our editor asked if we could find the women who survived the maternity hospital airstrike to prove their existence. I realized the footage must have been powerful enough to provoke a response from the Russian government.

    We found them at a hospital on the front line, some with babies and others in labor. We also learned that one woman had lost her baby and then her own life.

49. @ Mike-SMO > “The babble about the other things is just a distraction from a power grab.”

    Rather, perhaps, a distraction from the reasons for the power grab; the grab itself is not much of a secret.
    However, I agree – that is at least one of Russia’s reasons for wanting control of the country (speaking of the oligarchs who are in charge as much as about Putin). An independent Ukraine presents far too much of a threat to their energy profits and control (even with Nord Stream 2 in operation as a work-around, and potential sales to China).

    I think that we are watching a highly kinetic play about a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.
    And we don’t know who wrote the script and is running things backstage.

    But, as many of us have noted along with the pundits, they expected an opening night standing ovation and got rotten tomatoes instead.

    https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/a+riddle%2C+wrapped+in+a+mystery%2C+inside+an+enigma

50. @ Gregory > “Yes, order is indeed fragile and Lowry and most of the people at National Review have watched our order collapse and done next to nothing because Orange Man bad.”

    You beat me to it, and far more eloquently.

    And they all act as if their persistent opposition to Trump (before and after his first election, and then the second one) had nothing at all to do with either assisting the Clinton Coup (because it always helps to have the Conscience of the Other Side in your corner) or the installation of Biden.

51. I also recommend Neo’s second link, from which she excerpts only a very small portion of some very interesting commentary and information.

    https://spinstrangenesscharm.wordpress.com/2022/03/21/ukraine-vernal-equinox-edition-david-petraeus-sees-a-stalemate-revealing-2018-lecture-by-finnish-intelligence-colonel-on-russia/

    From the Finn’s video:

    Corruption has been endemic in Russia since Mongol times, when it was a way to survive. There are rules of the game: you are only allowed to steal as much as your rank allows, and you’re not allowed to steal from those above you. Some oligarchs [he mentions Khodorkovsky] got into prison because they stole above their station.

    Understand that Russian has two words for truth. The [formal] “istina” [from a root meaning ‘identical’] for objective truth (A=A, 2+2=4, the Earth revolves around the sun,…) “pravda” [from a root meaning ‘right’, ‘just’] for ‘official’ truth. [Cf.: “pravoslav” = orthodox [in faith]].

    see also the word “vranyo“, freely “[not-so-]polite fiction”, a falsehood that all pretend to accept as truth.

    I could get behind adding those differentiating terms to English.

    Speaking in 2018, he predicted that Putin would retire in 2024, and said he was grooming two candidate successors: Alexei Dyumin and Yevgeny Zinichev (meanwhile, killed in an accident last year).

    I wonder if part of Putin’s haste to get Ukraine settled is due to not quite trusting his successor (if any) with the job.

    ADDENDUM 3: This looks like an unforced error on the part of Zelensky. Then again, he’s been doing a near-impossible job under tremendous stresses — he’d have to be superhuman not to make some slips.

    He links to this story, which was the topic addressed by Tucker Carlson yesterday or the day before.
    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/is-zelensky-s-party-crackdown-his-first-mistake-

    Scott Johnson considers the same question here, and basically cuts Zelenskyy some slack.
    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/03/the-lincolnian-zelensky.php

52. Neo, that was a very interesting blog you introduced us to.
    Here’s his post for today.

    https://spinstrangenesscharm.wordpress.com/2022/03/23/putins-former-superior-officer-on-putin-russian-army-relying-on-ukrainian-cell-phone-network-american-coulrocracy/

    I would give a teaser excerpt, but the guy deserves some clicks.

    I’ll quote his “about” page instead.

    “Spin“, “strangeness“, and “charm” are three quantum numbers of elementary particles.

    Yet this is not a particle physics blog, even though you may expect science & technology posts here.

    “Spin” also refers to media spin, political spin, media bias. Much of the coverage here will be on current affairs.

    “Strangeness” is also what we see around us in these troubled times.

    And “Charm” is also something that, at times, makes life worth living. Expect some coverage of psychology (from a rational perspective), of music, of poetry, and even some spirituality. (For at least one of us, the lines between these can be quite blurry.)

    Twin mottos of this blog:

    “Once you can sincerely say: ‘I don’t know’ then it becomes possible to get at the truth.” (Robert A. Heinlein, “The cat who walks through walls”.)

    “Dear G-d: lead me in the company of those who seek truth and spare me from those who have found it.” (attributed to André Gide)

53. PA+CAT; I’ll second that folks should watch that Mark Felton video. I’ve been watching his other videos for a long time now and he always does a great job. Very informative and not at all “dry”! I was glad to see this video, while about history, helps to put the current situation in context.

    On another note, I’ve mentioned in other comments before I have an elderly, bed-ridden, relative living with me now; so, when I see those videos of refugees fleeing to Poland and videos of those who have stayed behind I have extra sympathy for what they are going through as I try to imagine what I would do if faced with the terror they are experiencing.

    Would I flee and leave my relative behind as my relative would most certainly tell me to do? Would I try to get out pushing a wheelchair (which, in itself, could be a dangerous and deadly trip)? Or would I do as I feel is the best thing – just hunker down and pray for life?

54. Charles and PA+Cat:

    Mark Felton’s content on YouTube is very good indeed.

55. Don,

    ““They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.” implies you can’t do anything to strengthen your own security, since it can only come at the expense of other states.”

    Nothing in the agreement prevents parties to the agreement from developing and installing new defensive systems. Which is by definition a strengthening of their security. A party to the agreement advancing to the point where they attain the capability to attack in a manner that the other party cannot defend itself against is a violation of that agreement.

56. Turtler,

    I will respond today (hopefully this morning) to your response to me. Your comment however is so long, that I have copied and pasted it into a word document. Your comment takes up 12 pages of Ariel 11pt font. This way, I can cut the parts in which we are in agreement and only address the areas of our disagreement. I’ll then copy and paste that response into this thread.

57. This is obviously a very biased report because it doesn’t talk about the Russian cities under siege by the Ukrainians …

58. FOAF:

    🙂

    NATO can never be trusted, a stealth siege.

59. Nothing in the agreement prevents parties to the agreement from developing and installing new defensive systems. Which is by definition a strengthening of their security. A party to the agreement advancing to the point where they attain the capability to attack in a manner that the other party cannot defend itself against is a violation of that agreement.

    Russia’s military systems are almost all offensive, but even dedicated defensive systems enable offense as well. Your interpretation is that anything that comes at the expense of Russian security is a violation of the deal. You don’t extend that to Ukraine, who also has its own security interests.

    NATO is a defensive organization. It’s only a threat to Russia in that member countries are much more difficult for Russia to gobble up.

    And all of Russia’s actions have come at the expense of Ukrainian security, up to and including preventing Ukraine from joining NATO. Ukraine had clear reason to join NATO: to prevent the type of invasion they are now subject to.

    You are not being logically consistent. The logic for those who think Russian invasion is reasonable is the logic of “realists” who ignore moral considerations and who view Russia as a regional power that has a “right” to impose its will on neighbors because that’s what regional powers do.

    You are trying to create a moral argument out of a single and contradictory sentence pulled out of context from a European “international law” that was crafted by an unserious West that thought it was in the “end of history” and past the need of hard power.

60. Turtler,

    I’m still working on my response to your very long response.

    Got interrupted with a long call and now have to stop, haven’t stopped for breakfast or lunch. Now getting a bad crick in my neck from leaning over the keyboard, as I hunt and peck and have to look down at the keys as I type.

61. Turtler,

    OK here is my response, take it for what you will, it is offered in all sincerity but frankly, I could care less how you see it.

    “Secondly, I did not and have not lied here. I have never knowingly told a falsehood here I have been sincere in my expressed comments. I freely admit to the possibility of being mistaken, as I’m as fallible as anyone else.”

    If this is true- and again for the reasons I’ve stated I have great doubt in that- it says nothing good about your reading comprehension. But against my better judgement I am prepared to accept it.

    It’s not my reading comprehension that is lacking. It’s that I process information differently than you do. I’m not a ‘detail’ person, as apparently you are, I’m a cut to the chase, big picture person.

    “Liars don’t admit to error, they deflect and deny.”

    “Liars will admit to error frequently; rational ones do so when they are confronted with such evidence that admitting to a prior lie is less damaging than the alternative,…
    Much as it is said The Devil can quote scripture for his own purpose, liars can and do tell the truth and even admit they lied for various reasons.”

    You’re describing politicians, lawyers and used car salesmen, which I am not.

    “OK, now to respond to your main assertions in which we mainly disagree regarding the validity of the Russians objecting to the Ukraine joining NATO.”

    ”It’s not merely that we disagree, it’s the fact that international law and even the aforementioned Astana Agreement of 2010 disagrees.

    That’s YOUR interpretation of International law and of the 2010 Astana Agreement. That it IS an interpretation is demonstrated by the need for a justice system. Lawyers can sincerely disagree. Appellate Court judges can sincerely disagree. Even Supreme Court Justices on the same side can sincerely disagree about something as clear cut as Constitutional amendments and provisions.

    International law and Agreements between nations are not nearly as cut and dried as you wish them to be. You’re apparently a bit of an absolutist, a black and white kind of guy or at least you’ve presented your arguments in that way. My interpretation in support of the Russian position has been labeled by you as deceitful lying, rather than a simple disagreement about whether the Ukraine joining NATO is a violation of the Astana agreement.

    “the Russian state’s reactions, as thousands of dead killed in conflicts like Transnistria, Georgia, and Ukraine over the past several decades shows. While Russia might be able to plead extenuating circumstances for some of those and that the 2010 Astana Accords were signed after most of those, the war in Ukraine from 2014 to now shows otherwise.”

    You’re leaving out the 14,000 plus dead from shelling for 8 years by the Ukraine government in the Donbas.

    “I read that too before I made the comment to which you responded. The reason I did not give the text you’ve capitalized importance is-”

    ”First and foremost, you did not give the text I capitalized *AT ALL.* Which is why I had to dig through it on the link you provided in order to put the few sentences you did post into context.”

    Above, I’m referring to your capitalized text and I explained why I didn’t include it in the first place. But since you bring it up, let’s look a bit closer at it, something I did after I’d responded to you.

    My emphasis in the quote: “The security of each participating State is inseparably linked to that of all others. Each participating State has an equal right to security. WE REAFFIRM THE INHERENT RIGHT OF EACH AND EVERY PARTICIPATING STATE TO BE FREE TO CHOOSE OR CHANGE ITS SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS, INCLUDING TREATIES OF ALLIANCE, AS THEY EVOLVE. Each State also has the right to neutrality. EACH PARTICIPATING STATE WILL RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF ALL OTHERS IN THESE REGARDS. They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.”

    I’ve emboldened the text that I interpret as supporting the Russian position. You’ve made clear that you interpret it otherwise.

    However, you’ve previously accepted that the Ukraine joining NATO is a legitimate security concern for Russia. By asserting that the agreement allows the Ukraine to join NATO you are in effect denying Russia’s “equal right to security” because NATO through the Ukraine’s admission to NATO will “strengthen their security at the expense of the security of” Russia… that for the Russians is the bottom line and regardless of how tight the legal agreement may be, no nation is going to willingly allow themselves to be placed in an untenable strategically defensless position.

    “I read that too before I made the comment to which you responded. The reason I did not give the text you’ve capitalized importance is because of the line directly below. Namely “They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.” That line emphatically qualifies what any party to the agreement may do and it doesn’t matter whatever else is included, if an action by one of the parties violates that critical provision.”

    ”This is LITERALLY turning the Agreement on its head, and doing so in a way that is utterly illiterate logically, legally, and coherently.”

    By your interpretation yes, by mine and the Russians… no it does not. There is nothing incoherent about my interpretation of that provision and logic extends from one’s premise. We differ on the premises as previously stated.

    “Leaving aside the fact that the sentence you picked out and elevated to primacy is incredibly vague and subject to different interpretations and perhaps even abusive or nonsensical interpretations (one of the weaknesses of the 2010 Astana Agreement in general IMHO), it was not article 1. It was not even an entire article. It was not even the dominant, concluding, or starting sentence of an article.

    It was a snippet excised from Article 3, as I was able to demonstrate by copying the article in question.”

    What part of… (each state) “will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.” is too “incredibly vague” for you to grasp?

    I’ve just highlighted the 3 lines within the quoted text that IMO and the Russians refute that assertion.

    The Helsinki Accord Decalogue does support your position but it does not obviate the specific text I’ve highlighted, as they are separate agreements. Nor is the Helsinki Accord applicable, since it was made with a Soviet Union that no longer exists.

    You repeat yourself here, so there’s no need to address what we’ve already discussed.

    “Which means that NO, it is ABSOLUTELY NOT kosher or acceptable for the Russian regime to claim a right to violently dismember Ukraine and seek regime change or the abolition of important parts of its sovereignty on the basis of what alliances it is *talking about*, at least under Astana.”

    I have never claimed that it is “acceptable for the Russian regime to claim a right to violently dismember Ukraine” I have claimed that Russia has a right to prevent itself from being put in a strategically defenseless position. It is the West, through NATO that threatens Russia’s strategic security.

    Solely from a strategic perspective, had NATO simply stated that, given the Russian position, inclusion of the Ukraine into NATO would be highly unwise and it would not be accepted into NATO membership. Had the West refused to heavily arm the Ukraine and had the Ukraine declared its permanent neutrality… and the Ukraine allowed the Donbas region’s citizens to vote in a plebiscite on whether they wished to remain part of the Ukraine… then Russia would not have any legitimate complaints.

    “If one wishes to make the argument that the Russian state has a right to do those things for other reasons, such as Necessity, the Right of a Stronger, Greater Nation, The Law of the Jungle, or some other agreement or treaty, then it is incumbent on one to *Make* that argument.*”

    I have previously made the argument that, whatever other reasons Putin may have, his primary reason for invading the Ukraine is to prevent Russia being put in a potentially defenseless position.

    ”However, that is not what you did.”

    I didn’t in that comment but had previously mentioned it more than once.

    “This is nonsense on pogo sticks, and the proper reading of Astana ….”

    Proper? Meaning your ‘reading’ is the sole correct interpretation? Refer back to my prior pointing out how judges themselves frequently disagree in their ‘readings’…

    Here you repeat yourself again, so I’ve already responded to it.

    “The full context- of the Astana Agreement as a whole specifically, and the internal laws it cites in general- underline that each nation has the right to self-determination, including in what alliances (if any) it chooses to make. Hence why I cited the Final Helsinki Accord.”

    Once again, a nation’s “right to self-determination” does not extend to placing a neighboring nation in a strategically defenseless position.

    Which is why the qualifying, subordinate clause “They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.” was included directly below in the first place, as otherwise there is no reason for its inclusion.

    Again, the 1975 Helsinki Accord is a separate agreement made with the Soviet Union. Since that entity no longer exists, it cannot be held to legally apply to the Russian Federation.

    “That merely making alliances or entering into one was never meant to be “degrading” to the security of a sovereign nation is clear from the context, as well as the basic logic that if joining an alliance actually did degrade another nation’s security in some way (and not in a wishy-washy “OMG Putin feels a bit nervous because of NATO discussions with Ukraine” way), there were REMEDIES to that. Like war.”

    You’ve just argued above that Russia making war upon the Ukraine is a viable “remedy” for NATO intending to admit the Ukraine into NATO membership, as you’ve admitted that NATO’s admission of the Ukraine is a legitimate national security concern.

    ”In which case the evidence and reasons should be much clearer than simply “this alliance makes us feel insecure” and probably can be outlined in blood, bodies, and burnt husks.”

    The Russians, under Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin have consistently and repeatedly expressed to the West that they view the inclusion of the Ukraine into NATO as a totally unacceptable security risk for them as it puts them in a strategically defenseless position.. So given your prior agreement that Russia has a legitimate national security concern with it, it cannot be simply a case of “this alliance makes us feel insecure”.

    ”The Astana agreement does state that “every single signatory nation has the right to enter into ANY Alliance it chooses” but only as long as “They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.””

    “It does absolutely no such thing. Which is why you had to insert the “but only as long as” and also focus back on the subordinate sentence.”

    I included “but only as long as” and italicized it, to highlight and clarify the implicit qualification to the text of that line.

    Below you again repeat yourself, so I’ve already responded to it.

    “And, the Ukraine joining NATO would strengthen NATO’s security very greatly at the strategic security expense of Russia for the reasons I’ve repeated over and over again and, to which to your credit, you do respond and are in agreement.”

    The problem again is that this does not override the statement and the rights inherent in national sovereignty, as PAINSTAKINGLY outlined by Astana, Helsinki, etc. al. And indeed there’s a reason why the Soviet Union and modern Russia are one of the relatively few signatory countries that even tried to argue that things like that sentence override it.

    I have not said that the line(s) I’ve emboldened “override” the agreement. I do maintain that they qualify the agreement. Russia has been the only one affected, which is why they have argued about it.

    “Because not only is that not the nature of the agreements and does not factor in the framing of the writing, but because it would be self-defeating On Russia’s Part. After all, would this not mean that the likes of tiny Estonia could claim that by NOT joining NATO, Russia is acting to the great detriment of Estonian security…
    After all, Tallinn is a two hour drive from St. Petersburg. Does this close proximity not greatly diminish Estonian security? Does this justify some kind of great NATO Pre-Emptive crusade to conquer and subjugate Russia to protect Estonia?”

    First of all, Russia tried to join NATO, as I’ve previously mentioned and that offer was rejected by the West. So the Baltic States cannot justly claim upon that basis that Russia’s non-NATO membership is a threat to their national security.

    Of course Russia’s proximity to Estonia is seen by them as of concern, so what they did was exchange Western dominance for Russian dominance. That is understandable, though culturally Western dominance will impose ‘gifts’ upon Estonians that will in time cause them to reconsider their decision.

    The Baltic States “joined NATO shortly before the 2004 Istanbul summit. The NATO-Russia Council meeting was mostly noted by the absence of both Russian president Vladimir Putin and of any progress concerning the ratification of the adapted CFE treaty or the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia and Moldova.[4]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Istanbul_summit

    Russia could not have been happy about the Baltic States joining NATO. Apparently they didn’t think they had the wherewithal to block it.

    Russia has long been concerned about NATO’s openness to the Ukraine becoming a member of NATO.

    “NATO leaders further welcomed progress made by Ukraine towards membership in the NATO-Ukraine Commission meeting[5]” (NATO, Press Conference by NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and Leonid Kuchma, President of Ukraine following the NATO-Ukraine Commission, 29 June 2004)

    “NATO further welcomed Ukraine’s desire to achieve full integration into NATO, but stressed that this would require more than troop contributions and defense reform. This would require showing commitment to the values that underpin the Alliance (democracy, rule of law, freedom of speech and media, and fair elections) as was foreseen in the NATO-Ukraine Action Plan, which was adopted during the 2002 Prague Summit. In particular NATO Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer criticized Kuchma’s record on freedom of press and preparations for the Ukrainian presidential election of November 2004.[29]”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Istanbul_summit#NATO-Ukraine_Commission_meeting_(29_June)”

    Here below you again repeat yourself, so I’ve already responded to it.

    ”And while Russia is unquestionably a Great Nation, the wording of the Accords and other laws give Great Nations and Petty Nations the same rights, in theory even if not in practice.”

    Accords and Agreements between nations are only as legitimate as the degree to which each party honors them. I haven’t disagreed that Russia has violated them, just insisted that NATO has as well.

    “That well intentioned people on each side could reach a reasonable peaceful solution is a given. You’ve outlined all the ways in which Putin has behaved duplicitously, while not acknowledging NATO’s behavior as seen by not just Putin but by many Russian strategists. Behavior by NATO that the Russians also see as duplicitous.”

    “Because I simply do not have to.”

    Not doing so calls into question your objectivity and indicates bias.

    “Firstly for the same reason I am not obliged to address the alleged existence of pink elephants on the wall as seen by someone in a Psychotic Break.”

    You do yourself no favors when you resort to ludicrous analogies.

    “Secondly because contrary to much of the rhetoric and overt posturing, I presume a certain level of competence from the Kremlin (admittedly a dangerous proposition in light of recent events, but regardless).

    I presume they have at least lawyers, translators, and linguists who are at least moderately more competent at their jobs…”

    Yes, which is why they insisted that those qualifying statements be included in the 2010 Astana agreement.

    “In much the same way as the wording of Astana and its implications CLEARLY invalidate any of the 1990ish agreements about NATO not expanding membership or military basing East of East Germany, not the least of which because much of that had already happened.”

    You just invalidated your connections between the 1975 Helsinki Accord with the Soviet Union and the 2010 Astana Agreement with the Russian Federation…

    ”Law is complicated and international law doubly so, but this is fairly clear cut.”

    Yes it is complicated and I agree this is “fairly clear cut”, just not the way you interpret it to be but I do acknowledge your interpretation as arguable.

    Here below you again repeat yourself, so I’ve already responded to it.

    “So we have two sides distrustful of each other.”

    “That we do. But again, the distrust is not equal. Nor is it equivalent or rooted in the same purposes.”

    We’re dealing with States that can arguably exterminate the human race. The degree of distrust on each side is irrelevant, distrust exists, period. We can deal with it or ignore it at our peril.

    “As again, the very arguments that you and the Russian state have made underline, arguing that Ukrainian integration into NATO would violate Astana because Muh Security, but ignoring the converse that Estonia would be able to argue that Russia not being a part of NATO undercuts their security.”

    “Muh Security”? You’ve previously agreed that the Russian’s strategic security concerns with NATO on Russia’s border with Ukraine are legitimate. Have you already forgotten?

    “Which brings us to the next issue. If your claim re: Astana had been solely or primarily about the concerns of a nation-state, what is valid in purusit of its interests according to its own perceptions, or the different measurements of it, we would have grounds for a dispute.

    But you argued that NATO extending an offer of pathway to membership to Ukraine amounted to NATO violating Astana. As I have painstakingly detailed, this is nonsense and utterly indefensible in any sense by making reference to Astana and its predecessor texts.”

    But as I did not claim that, it’s not another issue but the same issue. I too have painstakingly detailed for most of the day now in responding to your assertions, which entirely rest upon your interpretation of the relevant Astana provision. And the “predecessor texts” applied to an extinct entity.

    “From the standpoint of potential nuclear conflict, each side has to take into consideration where the other side is coming from”

    ”This is correct, HOWEVER there is a difference between understanding one’s opponent and considering from whence they came from (which I freely admit the West has kind of sucked at for quite a while), and assuming that such a baseline is Justified, Right, or Defensible. It MAY be, and complete understanding may render that evident. But it also may NOT be.”

    Nuclear arms are a game changer. They make it irrelevant whether it is “Justified, Right, or Defensible” unless a nation is willing to engage in nuclear war. It is what it is.

    ” and if its reduced to ‘we’re in the right and they’re completely wrong’ and they see it just the opposite, then you inevitably devolve into war.”

    ”Firstly: on a rational level this is simply moral blackmail devoid of truth value or analysis of it.”

    As neo has pointed out that is, for all practical purposes, the situation we are now in and, our response has to include that in our calculus.

    “Polite fictions and lies are a common trend in diplomacy (and I pointed out the lack of serious enforceability in Astana 2010 and how it was probably never taken to be particularly binding or serious) and may serve a valuable purpose, but in the end they cannot completely substitute for reality. Particularly a reality in which one side demands we read the plain text of “rights” and “sovereignty” in a different sense for Great Nations and those for Not-So-Great Nations.”

    I agree that there is no substitute for reality.

    It’s true that irreconcilable differences do not always lead to war. In the case of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy made clear to Khruschev that we were willing to go to nuclear war over that issue. Just as Putin has made clear that he is willing to go to nuclear war over the Ukraine joining NATO. Maybe he’s bluffing and maybe he’s not. Given the stakes, so far despite calls for greater intervention, we are acting just as Khruschev did, he agreed to pull the missiles out of Cuba after we quietly agreed to pull our missiles out of Turkey.

    “I have been consistent in not wanting the US to directly intervene in the war, without No Fly Zones or NATO troops or nukes.”

    I’ve never indicated otherwise and I fully agree with that position.

    ”However, I have also been consistent that my desires for peace Cannot mean I ignore when the Kremlin is simply lying, acting in bad faith, or fundamentally not being a serious partner for peace. 2 + 2 = 4. Either Astana protects the right of Ukraine to field offers to join NATO, or *it does not even protect RUSSIA from not being invaded and conquered on demand of a minor NATO nation complaining Russian conduct as a non-NATO state hurts its security.*”

    I actually agree that the Kremlin is not acting as a serious partner for peace. I’m simply asserting that neither is the West.

    “But if you see the provision I’ve repeatedly emboldened as critical to the agreement and to which violation would nullify the entire agreement, then the Russian position becomes understandable.”

    ”No, it in fact does not.”

    Let me rephrase ONE key word.

    “But if you someone see(s) the provision I’ve repeatedly emboldened as critical to the agreement and which violation would nullify the entire agreement, then the Russian position becomes understandable.”

    Repeating yourself again…

    ”This is again why I have consistently chewed your claims out for lacking CONTEXT above all.”

    Sigh. I maintain that the context you’ve capitalized does not obviate the qualifying nature of the emboldened subordinate clause. Your interpretation (and no doubt the West’s lawyers) deny that the subordinate clause substantially qualifies the ability to any party’s “self-determination”.

    My interpretation and the Russian’s lawyers do maintain that distinction. Chew all you need to.

    “Furthermore, while I might be willing to believe Russian governments do believe they were somehow “cheated” in assorted “agreements” made in 1990 about NATO expansion and there is a legitimate difference of interpretation, I DO NOT believe they were dumb enough to have a different interpretation of NATO expansion being a violation of the “security” criteria in Helsinki or Astana, according to the terms set out and agreed in said documents (as opposed to whatever visions Shoigu sees in his wood collection, which are not legally admissable).”

    The very inclusion of the qualifying nature of the subordinate clause in the Astana Agreement indicates that they did have and do have… a different interpretation and do believe it to be a legitimate interpretation.

    Again, the Helsinki Accord is extinct and therefore inapplicable. Nor does it matter whether my and the Russian interpretation is correct, all that matters is that no Great Nation will allow any legalism in an agreement to become a strategic security threat that renders them defenseless.

    “And if by the odd chance I am WRONG…. that means the Russian Government committed itself to signing an agreement *they did not UNDERSTAND the terms of.* Which should scare you even more than anything I’ve stated.”

    OR… they understood perfectly well that the subordinate clause, agreed to by the West, legally prevented NATO from parking itself upon Russia’s border with Ukraine.

    ”Nor in the larger scheme of things does it matter whether the Russian position is correct,”

    “Yes it does, especially from a legal point of view.”

    Already addressed this, whose legal court? The Russians certainly aren’t going to accept a Western dominated ‘International’ Court, when an adverse legal ruling renders them strategically helpless.

    “And even from a non-legal point of view it speaks a great deal to the stability and sanity of the Russian leadership in whether or not they are sanely breaking agreements and laws they agreed to, or are derangedly agreeing to things they don’t understand and then breaking them (or some intermediate step).”

    See immediately above.

    ” what matters is whether you want to insist upon it to the degree of either a new cold war or even risking a nuclear war. Because that is the bottom line.”

    “The bottom line is that a predatory and fundamentally untrustworthy Russian government that either refuses to honor diplomatic promises or refuses to speak the same basic language as the West (as embodied by your insistence in prizing what you assume is the Russian interpretation of X and Y) will most likely cause a new cold war (as seen by the repeated refusals of Putin’s Kremlin towards détente feelers at the start of every US Presidency I’ve been alive for) or conventional war. With this established, the risk it will spiral into a nuclear war escalates, whether because of direct Russian action or because of other malcontents (see: Biden) helping to escalate the crisis.”

    Where you go wrong is in thinking that “a predatory and fundamentally untrustworthy Russian government” is the sole actor in this conflict. Since you don’t mention it, you apparently imagine that the West’s current political leadership is not equally predatory and fundamentally untrustworthy.

    The West’s leadership has, since the very first discussions with the Soviets known how the Soviets and then Russian Federation views encroachment upon their borders.

    The West’s leadership has through NATO indicated its intention to plant itself upon Russia’s border, first in the 2004 Istanbul announcement, then in the 2008 Bucharest announcement, then in the 2010 Astana agreement, then in the Western facilitated 2014 coup with that governments’ 8 yr long shelling of Donbas citizens, which the West could have easily brought to a halt. So as to not provoke the Russians and now in NATO’s 2020 announcement. That’s a clear and consistent pattern of intentional provocation, one that no nation in an adversarial relationship can ignore.

    Clearly you’re not ready to hear it but it must be said; The Western governing elite have intentionally pushed Putin into a corner in which he sees the invasion of the Ukraine as the only way to stop NATO from planting itself upon Russia’s border.

    That doesn’t make Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine right.

    It does present it to be a case for Russia’s of its national security.

    ”While I’m happy to give plenty of blame to things like Russia-baiting from the left here, at the end this wouldn’t be happening if he didn’t decide to do it.”

    Yes, Putin did do it and I’ve just made the case for why he’s done it. A case many here reject, which doesn’t make them right or myself in the wrong. And yes, that doesn’t make me right and you wrong.

    “Please drop the accusations of lying. I’ve explained why I’ve taken the view of the Astana agreement that I have and disagreement as to its provisions does not mean that either one of us is lying.”

    “This is where I stretch my credulity, because for the reasons I’ve mentioned I STRUGGLE to imagine how ANYBODY could read Astana Article 3 and accord the sentence you highlighted the importance you give it.”

    All you have to do is accept that others can read the same text and sincerely reach a different conclusion and your struggle will be over. That doesn’t require agreement, just that good people can have different opinions.

    “Occam’s Razor for me suggests willful dishonesty, and I hope the argumentation I have laid out makes it is clear why that is the primary conclusion I am forced to consider, whether it is the cropping of necessary context from the text of the article, the bizarre head-on-ground interpretation of legal text (such as it is), and the failure to account for legal precedent as well as the whole-throated declaration that NATO broke the terms of Astana.”

    Occam’s Razor is a useful device, as long as we don’t assume it to be universally applicable. Believe what you will, if you can’t accept the sincerity with which I’ve responded, then the fault lies with you because I am not being willfully dishonest.

    “This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.” William Shakespeare

    ” We simply disagree as to the critical importance of that line. I read it as fully supporting the Russian position, strictly in regard to the Ukraine’s entry into NATO.”

    ”Which brings me back to the problem: there is no HONEST AND COMPETENT way to read that line as “Fully supporting the Russian position… in regard to Ukraine’s entry into NATO.”

    Food for thought: When we assign dishonesty, to our inability to place ourselves in the other man’s shoes, we have lost the way toward a deeper and fuller understanding.

    OK, I’ve spent the better part of the day on this, I am not going to do it again.

62. @Don

    I’m not sure how you can strengthen your security if it can’t come at the expense of other states. The phrase you are using for your argument doesn’t make any sense.

    In defense of Geoffrey, that cumbersome and vague phrasing isn’t his fault. It really is used in Astana and has its roots (at least) as back as Helsinki. Which is one of the fundamental problems I have with both in how sloppily they were written and their terms outlined and defined.

    I’m no lawyer by any stretch of the imagination but even I can appreciate the need to limit ambiguity.

    My big issue, however, is that Geoffrey went out of their way to elevate a subordinate sentence to such an unreal and counterfactual level of importance we’re supposed to believe it has the ability to “eat” the rest of the article, or even agreements. Which is obviously not what was intended (as we can tell from legal jurisprudence on the matter, and the fact that even the Russian government is not quite dumb enough to insist on such an interpretation.)

63. Geoffrey Britain:

    I certainly don’t have the time to respond to your last comment, so I hope Turtler does – but then again you already said at the beginning of that comment that you “could not care less” what he thinks.

    What I am responding to is just one sentence I saw in a quick skimming of it: “You’re leaving out the 14,000 plus dead from shelling for 8 years by the Ukraine government in the Donbas.”

    Do you really think that the Ukrainians just wantonly shelled the Donbas for 8 years, killing 14,000 people, in some sort of one-sided campaign of cruelty? Do you know that there actually has been a civil war there for 8 years? Some of the history is here.

    One more thing – if you’re going to deal with treaties and other legal documents, you’d better learn to think like a lawyer or you will make errors. Not that lawyers don’t make errors or purposefully misinterpret – many certainly do. But the documents you’re citing are very dense and legalistic and it helps to have some legal expertise if you actually want to understand them. It’s also necessary to be “a detail person” in order to interpret them.

64. Would seem that for the usual suspects a “defense treaty” is seen as an “offensive treaty”. As a threat.

    Similarly, a “defensive weapon” is viewed as an “offensive weapon” (e.g., Israel’s Iron Dome system is an “offensive weapon” because it shoots down missiles targeting Israel). This to the usual suspects.

    I’m not sure there’s any way around this except to be able to defend oneself successfully, using defensive capabilities as well as effective deterrence, or for there to be an UNWRITTEN defensive pact with like-minded nations…though no doubt such a “gentlemen’s agreement” would create problems of its own.

    The actual words should of course be understood as “a defense treaty is for defensive purposes only”…but this will not persuade the usual suspects. The result is an ambiguous phrase that is open to purposeful, or paranoid, misunderstanding, which renders the whole thing pretty useless when push comes to shove. (Compare this with a tight, point-by-point prenuptial agreement…)

65. In defense of Geoffrey, that cumbersome and vague phrasing isn’t his fault. It really is used in Astana and has its roots (at least) as back as Helsinki. Which is one of the fundamental problems I have with both in how sloppily they were written and their terms outlined and defined.

    I understand that, I also provided a more complete quote from Astana in an earlier response to Geoffrey in another thread. He did, however, decide to quote it without the context. And what he decided to quote was, as you say, sloppy.

66. What part of… (each state) “will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.” is too “incredibly vague” for you to grasp?

    Russia isn’t allowing Ukraine security, because it considers Ukraine to be little more than part of Russia at most. It’s the Russians who are in violation, and they were in 2014, and this goes back to the beginning of the Orange Revolution, when Russia was exerting control of the Ukraine government.

    Where you go wrong is in thinking that “a predatory and fundamentally untrustworthy Russian government” is the sole actor in this conflict. Since you don’t mention it, you apparently imagine that the West’s current political leadership is not equally predatory and fundamentally untrustworthy.

    Yes, the West’s leadership is a serious problem. But it is a problem because it is moving towards authoritarianism, while Putin’s Russia is already there. In the US we have really only seen the early stages, but Russia is engulfed.

    And just because Biden is bad, it doesn’t follow Putin is good. The major difference is not between the individuals themselves but the systems and societies they are in; Putin already has established authoritarian control and Biden wants to.

    Now, the problem in the West is my primary concern. Because the West has historically been the center of liberty, and also because it directly impacts us. But also, historically, NATO was the good guys, and the former Warsaw Pact satellites all understand this well, which is why they are so quick to join NATO to protect them from their former Russian “allies”.

67. neo,

    “but then again you already said at the beginning of that comment that you “could not care less” what he thinks.”

    Actually, I said that at the end of my statement and in reference to his accusations of lying and then expressed doubts as to my honesty.

    “What I am responding to is just one sentence I saw in a quick skimming of it: “You’re leaving out the 14,000 plus dead from shelling for 8 years by the Ukraine government in the Donbas.”

    Do you really think that the Ukrainians just wantonly shelled the Donbas for 8 years, killing 14,000 people, in some sort of one-sided campaign of cruelty?”

    Using your Wiki link, the Ukrainian government caused 1.3 million Russian speaking Ukrainians living in the Donbas region to flee to Russia. That alone implies fierce oppression, as people do not willingly abandon their homes and businesses.

    The Wiki article to which you linked, used as sources; the U.N., Human Rights Watch and the NYT, all highly ‘sympathetic’ to the left. If there had been a comparable assault upon western sympathizing Ukrainians from the Donbas separatists, it would certainly have been noted by those sources and included in the Wiki article.

    In early February, just weeks before Putin’s troops invaded, Zelensky’s government had amassed nearly 150,000 troops on the Donbas contact line, about two-thirds of Ukrainian army servicemen, gathered to attack the Donbas separatists. Amassing that great a force implies that Zelensky intended to crush the Donbas separatists and establish full control of the region.

    Given the Zelensky governments’ prior suppression of the Russian language in the Donbas region, the continued oppression of Russian friendly Ukrainians was a certainty.

    So yes, I do think that the probability of 14,000 deaths over 8 years to likely be so, if not under counted. It is a given, that there have been deaths on the Ukrainian side as well. That they’re not publicized implies them to be far lesser and given the disparity in forces between the Donbas separatists and the forces Zelensky’s gov. can employ, that’s hardly surprising.

    I mentioned the 14,000 to point out how one sided Turtler’s comment was in that area.

68. Don,

    “Russia isn’t allowing Ukraine security, because it considers Ukraine to be little more than part of Russia at most.”

    That is an understandable assumption upon your part. It is contradicted by Putin’s announcement of the conditions Russia requires to end the fighting. Foremost among which is Zelensky’s government’s acceptance of the Ukraine remaining a neutral buffer State between Russia and NATO. A condition which Zelensky now says he accepts. Whether he would honor it is another matter.

    It is in Zelensky’s refusal to accept the Donbas region declaring its independence from the Ukraine, wherein a negotiated settlement fails. The Donbas is heavily Russian speaking and if its secession was put in the Donbas to a public plebiscite, it would pass.

    But the Ukraine’s sole port city is Odessa in the Donbas region and Zelensky is not willing to give that up, so the negotiations are currently at an impasse.

    “Yes, the West’s leadership is a serious problem. But it is a problem because it is moving towards authoritarianism, while Putin’s Russia is already there. In the US we have really only seen the early stages, but Russia is engulfed.”

    The West’s political and economic leadership is moving towards authoritarianism because they are aligned with the Global Elite’s embrace of the Davos Agenda and the UN’s 2030 Agenda, which require global dominance.

    Putin is a brutal, authoritarian dictator to those who challenge him.

    He is also a nationalist and does not mistreat Russians who do not challenge his authority.

    “historically, NATO was the good guys, and the former Warsaw Pact satellites all understand this well, which is why they are so quick to join NATO to protect them from their former Russian “allies”.

    Historically, I fully agree.

    However, the West’s leadership today is not of the mindset of the Western leadership during the height of the Cold War or even in the immediate aftermath of the breakup of the Soviet Union.

    NATO is controlled by its current civilian political leadership. Nearly all of whom are closely aligned with Klaus Schwab’s WEF.

    What most people are just beginning to understand is that their planned authoritarianism makes Putin’s authoritarianism pale in comparison. BTW, all of the below can be independently verified.

    They envision a New World Order in which free will and individual self-determination are “gone”. One in which humans are “hackable” by our “digital identities” and biological reality are joined through the implantation of computer chips.

    They envision a digital banking system where your access to all of your financial instruments can be ‘cancelled” with the push of a button. No need to put a gun to our heads. No access to your money. No digital confirmation at the point of purchase of an acceptable “social credit score” = no food or anything else.

    The Nazi’s were a dry run for what WEF has planned for us and Putin’s nationalism stands in their way. Of course, China’s CCP does as well but Rome wasn’t built in a day.

69. That is an understandable assumption upon your part. It is contradicted by Putin’s announcement of the conditions Russia requires to end the fighting.

    Chuckles. Putin has propagated the notion that the Ukraine has been seized by Nazis and that the Ukraine is not a country.

70. “Chuckles. Putin has propagated the notion that the Ukraine has been seized by Nazis and that the Ukraine is not a country.”

    So…your view is Putin invaded Ukraine because he’s just EVIL and had some time to kill in between twirling his mustache and tying little Nell to the railroad tracks?

    Mike

71. MBunge

    LOLROF!

72. MBunge; Geoffrey Britain:

    The statement “Putin has propagated the notion that the Ukraine has been seized by Nazis and that the Ukraine is not a country” is correct. These are claims Putin has made. He himself has cited them as prominent among the reasons he invaded Ukraine.

73. Geoffrey Britain:

    This is how your comment at 5:34 PM on March 23 begins:

    Turtler,

    OK here is my response, take it for what you will, it is offered in all sincerity but frankly, I could care less how you see it.

    And at 3/24 at 11:37 you write to me:

    neo,

    “but then again you already said at the beginning of that comment that you “could not care less” what he thinks.”

    Actually, I said that at the end of my statement and in reference to his accusations of lying and then expressed doubts as to my honesty.

    You are ignoring what you wrote at 5:34 PM the day before.

    To be very frank – as I said in my comment to you – at this point I don’t have the time to laboriously read every word you say.

    By the way, this response of yours “the Ukrainian government caused 1.3 million Russian speaking Ukrainians living in the Donbas region to flee to Russia. That alone implies fierce oppression” is bizarre. What caused them to flee is that there was a civil war there, and the Russian government was a big player in that civil war. The Ukrainian government did not cause them to flee in some unilateral oppressive action.

    I don’t quite understand why you’ve come to the position you have taken, but I know that I’ve spent a lot of time patiently trying to respond, and for the most part I will now leave it to others to do so if they’re so inclined.

74. Geoffrey repeatedly trots out the Russian position that NATO and Ukraine makes Russia totally defenseless. Something about MAD, ICBMs, SLBMs, nuclear armed bombers, wonderful hypersonic nuclear weapons, the large autonomous nuclear powered nuclear armed (MT yield) torpedos (to target the coastal cities of the US)
    seems to be forgotten. Roosia will be “totally defenseless.” More words for the Geoffrey dictionary.

    But Geoffrey will respond that NATO / WEF / Davos / Ukraine will culturally destroy Roosia. Vlad must protect the precious bodily fluids of The Motherland?

    Pathetic.

    He will follow up with the 13 minute nuclear armed hypersonic, 100% reliable, CEP of 2 cm (accuracy), stealthy, and able to target Vlad instantly, …., because Geoffrey likes the lies of Russia as much as he loathes leftists.

75. So…your view is Putin invaded Ukraine because he’s just EVIL and had some time to kill in between twirling his mustache and tying little Nell to the railroad tracks?

    No, my view is that Putin is a Russian imperialist trying to put the band back together, whether the members like it or not.

76. No Bunge, Vlad is Mr. Big, and you lust after Natasha Fatal. Boris may not approve of that.

77. @Geoffrey Britain Pt 1

    I will respond today (hopefully this morning) to your response to me. Your comment however is so long, that I have copied and pasted it into a word document. Your comment takes up 12 pages of Ariel 11pt font. This way, I can cut the parts in which we are in agreement and only address the areas of our disagreement. I’ll then copy and paste that response into this thread.

    Fair enough, and in any case I would apologize for my wordiness and length.

    Nothing in the agreement prevents parties to the agreement from developing and installing new defensive systems. Which is by definition a strengthening of their security. A party to the agreement advancing to the point where they attain the capability to attack in a manner that the other party cannot defend itself against is a violation of that agreement.

    Except this raises the question of what the hell “defensive systems” are, and whether or not implementing them would degrade the security of another country (which is hardly a new concept, given MAD requiring mutual vulnerability), and if one could “advance to the point where one attains the capability to attack in a manner that the other party cannot defend itself” by complimenting existing weapons systems with new “defensive systems, sort of like the idea behind “Star Wars.”

    Which goes back to my issue with the formulation and wording of these agreements in a fairly vague way, but also to how they have almost invariably been interpreted to respect the enumerated rights outlined in things like Astana and Helsinki, as things like the West German Missile Crisis showed. To the extent we wish to take such agreements seriously (and to be honest I find Astana in particular to be fairly weak and unenforceable feelgood gruel, albeit gruel whose interpretation is COMPETIVELY clear.

    You also apparently believed the interpretation of the text was comparatively clear, since you had no compunction about proclaiming that NATO had “violated” or “broken” Astana in spite of how the rather clear text and major provisions of the agreement should have cautioned against viewing a NATO invitation to Ukraine as a violation.

    OK here is my response, take it for what you will, it is offered in all sincerity but frankly, I could care less how you see it.

    Fair, in which case we come at this matter from the same perspective.

    “Secondly, I did not and have not lied here. I have never knowingly told a falsehood here I have been sincere in my expressed comments. I freely admit to the possibility of being mistaken, as I’m as fallible as anyone else.”

    It’s not my reading comprehension that is lacking. It’s that I process information differently than you do. I’m not a ‘detail’ person, as apparently you are, I’m a cut to the chase, big picture person.

    Sorry Geoffrey, but not only do I not believe you on this but nobody who has studied chronology on this matter should have.

    This would be more convincing if your entire argument about the US/West Violating Astana did not hinge upon elevating a single sentence in a single article of a single agreement to a prominence that context and legal precedent indicated it neither warranted nor deserved, as I pointed out.

    All while ignoring the fact that as far as the sentence you highlighted went, violations of it went in a very two way street, one which (considering Russian invasion, occupation, and dismemberment) were manifestly of different magnitudes, EVEN IF we interpreted the emphasized sentence to mean what you did, in spite of the clear textual and procedural evidence indicating otherwise.

    In short, you don’t get to credibly claim you are not a “details person” when your argument rests upon torturing a single sentence of an article to the point where even some of Castro’s secret police would weep, while ignoring context.

    You’re describing politicians, lawyers and used car salesmen, which I am not.

    I’m also describing people I dealt with while working as a volunteer orderly, who were not lawyers, politicians or used car salesman. And in any case I was citing the case in order to illustrate a general point.

    That’s YOUR interpretation of International law and of the 2010 Astana Agreement. That it IS an interpretation is demonstrated by the need for a justice system.

    It’s kind of ironic you are peddling the “that’s YOUR interpretation” card after asserting with such utter certainty and without a hint of doubt that the West had violated agreements like Astana.

    Even if the overall point is correct on some level, the disparity is quite jarring. And in any case, “my Interpretation” is the one supported by repeated cases and precedent in the international law and by arbitration in said court system, as well as the plain meaning of Article 3 of Astana.

    Lawyers can sincerely disagree. Appellate Court judges can sincerely disagree. Even Supreme Court Justices on the same side can sincerely disagree about something as clear cut as Constitutional amendments and provisions.

    Yes they can. And of course, this is before we get into the realms of insincere disagreement.

    However, your prior comments gave absolutely zero indication there was such room for disagreement, hence your making statements of apparent fact such as that the West violated Astana on the basis of a single, out of context (and frankly poorly formulated) sentence, in contrast to the much more voluminous and clearer statements of rights just earlier.

    It’s rather late in the game to try and pull the “granular realist who sees in shades of grey” card after you got caught making fundamentally absolutist statements on the basis of what you admit was an interpretation of a single sentence in a wider article.

    Something you admit you are not that good at, as not being a “details” person.

    International law and Agreements between nations are not nearly as cut and dried as you wish them to be.

    Correct. However, it is also clear that they are not as cut and dried as you argued they were when you claimed the West violated Astana, but ALSO far more cut and dried than you are arguing now.

    You’re apparently a bit of an absolutist, a black and white kind of guy or at least you’ve presented your arguments in that way.

    That is because the relevant part of international law (to the extent we consider Astana, Helsinki, etc. parts of international law) ARE fairly clear cut, black and white. As you yourself seemed to indicate with your own arguments, because you got called out on the extremely tenuous interpretation.

    There are many fundamental flaws with International Law as a concept, as well as on the writing and interpretation of said laws (as I complained about Astana itself). However, on the subject of the rights and agreements inked at Astana,
    “We reaffirm the inherent right of each and every participating State to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance, as they evolve. Each State also has the right to neutrality. Each participating State will respect the rights of all others in these regards. ”

    Are all quite clearcut in intent, even if not in execution. And in any case, it is all but impossible to argue that Ukraine has violated them in a fashion more egregious than the Russian Regime itself has, and generally has done so earlier.

    It was this context against which the sentence you elevated was written, and it was this context that it was meant to be interpreted against, as both the law and basic textual analysis showed.

    My interpretation in support of the Russian position has been labeled by you as deceitful lying, rather than a simple disagreement about whether the Ukraine joining NATO is a violation of the Astana agreement.

    Because simple lying is- as I outlined- the very simplest explanation for how one can make such a claim about Astana that is obviously and clearly contradicted by the text itself, as shown by a fuller quotation of the relevant agreement.

    And even if my interpretation pace Occam is wrong, it becomes a lot more understandable from how many mental and textual gymnastics you have had to make to try and argue that the Kremlin has grounds to interpret it this way by unduly elevating a single sentence to the point where it can be read as having veto power over the rest of the agreement, without any such in-text indication this was intended. Also, with plenty of secondary indication this was not intended.

    It’s also underlined by the fact that while you did link your source to the complete text (which is welcome), your quotations of the matter were choppy and cherry-picking, meant to elevate what you claim to be the more important parts rather than making it more convenient for your fellow readers to judge as we have and put forth their own interpretations or that of prior legal arbitration.

    You’re leaving out the 14,000 plus dead from shelling for 8 years by the Ukraine government in the Donbas.

    No, you’re leaving out the illegal invasion-by-thin-cover of the Donbas by the Russian military.

    Which is the direct proximate cause of all the however many people died there over the past 8 years, by Ukrainian shelling or otherwise.

    Which goes back to my issue with your positioning.

    Above, I’m referring to your capitalized text and I explained why I didn’t include it in the first place. But since you bring it up, let’s look a bit closer at it, something I did after I’d responded to you.

    I’ve emboldened the text that I interpret as supporting the Russian position. You’ve made clear that you interpret it otherwise.

    Because said text objectively DOES NOT support the Russian position, either when cherrypicked out of the greater whole or even in isolation.

    Let’s go through the list, shall we?

    A: “Each participating State has an equal right to Security.” The Russian government has made it abundantly clear it does not see the nations in its near abroad as such, even in comparison to many cited examples such as the US with the Monroe Doctrine.

    And as I pointed out with the immense amounts of special pleading by the Russian regime and yourself, it has no problem tolerating alleged and real undermining of national security…when it is the one doing the undermining (hence why I pointed to the case of Estonia). However, it apparently finds it intolerable to tolerate the mere Possibility of Ukraine considering an invitation to join NATO in several years as an intolerable threat to Russian national security… in spite of such consideration by Ukraine being something the Russian regime expressly agreed to when signing Astana.

    B: “EACH PARTICIPATING STATE WILL RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF ALL OTHERS IN THESE REGARDS. ”

    For the record: “in these regards” refers to: “REAFFIRM THE INHERENT RIGHT OF EACH AND EVERY PARTICIPATING STATE TO BE FREE TO CHOOSE OR CHANGE ITS SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS, INCLUDING TREATIES OF ALLIANCE, AS THEY EVOLVE. Each State also has the right to neutrality.”

    In other words, the very thing you claim that would violate Russian security and justify a revocation of Astana.

    This does not support the Russian regime’s position at all.

    C: “They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.”

    Even if I pretended that this was the mother-sentence your interpretation indicates it was, sufficient to justify revocation of the rest of the article if not the agreement, the fact remains that an OFFER to join an alliance IN THE INTERMEDIATE FUTURE was not something undermining the security of another state Now.

    This interpretation is handily backed up by the likes of the Helsinki Settlement and the terms there.

    And for that matter, the sentences that come immediately after this sentence in the article: “Within the OSCE no State, group of States or organization can have any pre-eminent responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in the OSCE area or can consider any part of the OSCE area as its sphere of influence. We will maintain only those military capabilities that are commensurate with our legitimate individual or collective security needs, taking into account obligations under international law, as well as the legitimate security concerns of other States.”

    In contrast, it would be easy to argue-say- an unprovoked invasion of another nation’s treaty outside of the bounds of international law and its dismemberment by partial annexation under coercion DOES constitute a clearcut violation of one state strengthening its security at the expense of another.

    So 0/3.

    Which brings us back to the most important part about this line of argument. It really doesn’t work. When you strip it down to its bare essentials, it is glorified Whataboutism, ie “Whatabout NATO inviting Ukraine?”

    The problem is that not only does this take it for faith that such an invitation IS a violation of international law or diplomatic agreements, which we can safely say there is no such clear indication it is IF I’M INCREDIBLY GENEROUS, but EVEN IF SUCH A THING WERE A VIOLATION, it does nothing to change the other and substantially more egregious violations of Astana and other international law by the Russian regime.

    However, you’ve previously accepted that the Ukraine joining NATO is a legitimate security concern for Russia. By asserting that the agreement allows the Ukraine to join NATO you are in effect denying Russia’s “equal right to security” because NATO through the Ukraine’s admission to NATO will “strengthen their security at the expense of the security of” Russia…

    Dear God, this logic is so tortured that even some CCP head honchos might plead for mercy.

    I have accepted that Ukraine joining NATO is a legitimate security concern for Russia. However, I consistently pointed out that not all legitimate security concerns are a violation of Astana, Helsinki, or so on.

    After all, Russian military exercises on the border of Ukraine, Estonia, etc. are CLEARLY legitimate security concerns for those nations, and we know the Russian government agrees considering its history of anxiety about major NATO exercises both now and previously, such as ’83’s Able Archer Crisis.

    So by your logic, no nation would have the right to conduct large scale military exercises upon its neighbors’ borders, especially without having to get approval first?

    This is obviously a fallacious interpretation and one that even the Russian regime does not subscribe to.

    Which brings us back to my prior point about what is and is not a degradation of one nation’s security, and how things such as offers of alliance, ACCEPTING offers of alliance, and military exercises are not and were not meant to be viewed as violations of Astana or Helsinki. And indeed are not viewed as such by *the Russian government itself.*

    Particularly when such things are conducted by it.

    that for the Russians is the bottom line

    Unfortunately for “the Russians”, we were not fundamentally arguing about the bottom line is *for them*, since after all as subjective as you might claim agreements like Astana are, they are VASTLY less subjective than the personal feelings and interpretations of human beings without even the weak gruel of an outside point of reference (like Astana or Helsinki) to be measured against.

    As far as Astana goes, the right of Ukraine to join NATO is abundantly clear, and it is the same right that Ukraine would have to join CIS (which I am sure we can agree Russia would not object to in such a violent manner).

    and regardless of how tight the legal agreement may be, no nation is going to willingly allow themselves to be placed in an untenable strategically defensless position.

    Phone Mongolia, Estonia, Latvia, and Moldova and get back to me on that point.

    And this is before I get into the fact that the Russian State is not an impassive, immobile victim. It is not some item to be pushed around passively. It had the means and ability to try and avoid “being placed” in such a situation (or even what it interprets as such) to the best of its abilities.

    Which brings us back to an issue with Russian statecraft.

    “I read that too before I made the comment to which you responded. The reason I did not give the text you’ve capitalized importance is because of the line directly below. Namely “They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.”

    Ok, so why did you not include the rest of the passage so that people can adjust,
    even to the point of highlighting the passages you think support your position as you did just now?

    That line emphatically qualifies what any party to the agreement may do

    I struggle to consider such an unquestionably vague and rather subjective line can be considered “emphatically.”

    ESPECIALLY when it is placed against such statements as:

    We reaffirm the inherent right of each and every participating state to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance, as they evolve.

    I challenge anybody to put the sentence you highlighted next to the one I highlighted above and ask them which is more emphatic, more forceful, and less ambiguous.

    and it doesn’t matter whatever else is included, if an action by one of the parties violates that critical provision.”

    Then why the hell is there so much extra verbiage in that article?

    Why not just “Each participating State will respect the rights of all others in these regards. They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States. Within the OSCE no State, group of States or organization can have any pre-eminent responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in the OSCE area or can consider any part of the OSCE area as its sphere of influence. We will maintain only those military capabilities that are commensurate with our legitimate individual or collective security needs, taking into account obligations under international law, as well as the legitimate security concerns of other States. We further reaffirm that all OSCE principles and commitments, without exception, apply equally to each participating State, and we emphasize that we are accountable to our citizens and responsible to each other for their full implementation. We regard these commitments as our common
    achievement, and therefore consider them to be matters of immediate and legitimate concern to all participating States.

    Oh wait. Even if we DID chop out that entire, apparently “doesn’t matter’ preamble, not only does the article in question not make that much sense (for instance, what are the “these regards” the first sentence states?), it ALSO doesn’t jive with the Russian regime or “Realist” interpretation of it. “We further reaffirm that all OSCE principles and commitments, without exception, apply equally to each participating State-” Considering one of those principles and commitments is territorial integrity and bilateral adjustment of borders… yeah the Kremlin really doesn’t want to touch on that.

    This should all be rather unambiguous signage that your interpretation is wrong, that it DOES matter, VERY obviously, what else is included EVEN IF a party violations that “critical provision” (which frankly is neither critical nor an independent provision).

    And that “provision” is qualified BY the “inherent right”s talk earlier in the article.

    By your interpretation yes,

    By the clear terminology of the agreement.

    by mine and the Russians… no it does not.

    Let’s get one thing out of the way: stop asserting your interpretation (to the extent I deign to call it that) is that of “the Russians.” Had it actually been the interpretation of the Russians *regarding the document* when they inked the document (which as I mentioned is VERY DOUBTFUL at best, for the reasons above), they had means of advancing their claims, such as going before the Helsinki Commission and banging on the desk about how Ukraine so much as considering entry into NATO was a violation of Astana and Helsinki.

    They have not done so. Primarily because they know they would be laughed out of the room with the portions of the agreement(s) I highlighted and somewhere between one or two dozen previous legal cases taped to their foreheads.

    Which is why by and large the Russian regime has not tried to justify its case under Astana etc. al in the terms you have through official channels, instead making claims that the “Maidan Coup” violated Ukraine’s right to choose its own political orientation.

    There is nothing incoherent about my interpretation of that provision and logic extends from one’s premise.

    Yes, there is.

    It is incoherent to claim that sentence is the mother-sentence that determines the nature of the article in question and that “it doesn’t matter whatever else is included.” Even when what else is included is cited as an Inherent Right.

    Something you have not once bothered to address the ramifications of. And for good reason, because it cuts against your case.

    We differ on the premises as previously stated.

    The difference is, I do not have to torture the article in question out of shape in order to make my case. I do not have to make the claim that something identified as an Inherent Right by Astana “does not matter” because of a single, vague sentence.

    What part of… (each state) “will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.” is too “incredibly vague” for you to grasp?

    Let’s start with “fucking everything” and move on from there, shall we?

    What does “strengthen”, “security”, and “expense” mean? After all, by logic one state increasing its military or civil defense forces from 1,593,000 to 1,593,001 would be “strengthening” its security, and “weakening” that of another state due to the relative strength of said military or civic defense compared to any other given value.

    Obviously, interpreting such a thing as a violation of the sentence in Astana is freaking absurd. HOWEVER, it is also not disavowed or clarified in the sentence itself, instead being dependent on others. Which is why it’s overly reliant on other agreements to clarify it, and even then it’s still vague.

    However, to their credit the authors did Try. Which is why immediately after the sentence you highlight they wrote this:

    “Within the OSCE no State, group of States or organization can have any pre-eminent responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in the OSCE area or can consider any part of the OSCE area as its sphere of influence. We will maintain only those military capabilities that are commensurate with our legitimate individual or collective security needs, taking into account obligations under international law, as well as the legitimate security concerns of other States.”

    I hope I do not have to explain how this passage- which is clearly meant to clarify the sentence you highlight- does NOT help Putin’s case?

    In contrast, compare how “vague” the preamble you argued was not so important was:

    “The security of each participating State is inseparably linked to that of all others. Each participating State has an equal right to security. We reaffirm the inherent right of each and every participating state to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance, as they evolve. Each State also has the right to neutrality. Each participating state will respect the rights of others in these regards.”

    Now on the grand scheme of things this is still fairly vague, but it’s vastly less so. And even comparing the two brings this out. “Inherent Right”, “security arrangements”, “treaties of alliance”, “neutrality” “rights of x.” These are reasonably clear terms that are defined quite clearly elsewhere, and leave much less room for argument. Particularly the bit about X being an “inherent right”, ie an inalienable right of a sovereign nation under international law that CANNOT just be ignored or removed wantonly, because it might degrade the “security” of another in some unspecified way.

    It also specifies that no signatory nation has the right to regard another as part of its sphere of influence or to deprive it of those rights.

    Why is “We reaffirm the inherent right of each and every participating state to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance, as they evolve” so hard to grasp?

    I’ve just highlighted the 3 lines within the quoted text that IMO and the Russians refute that assertion.

    Except that is refuted by the arcane art of…actually freaking reading the passage you cited and the lines you highlighted.

    In particular Point 2 is quite literally referring to the rights you tried to dismiss for being contrary to the King Sentence you highlighted.

    The Helsinki Accord Decalogue does support your position but it does not obviate the specific text I’ve highlighted, as they are separate agreements.

    No, but it SUBSUMES it and takes precedence OVER it.

    As is made abundantly clear by Article 2 of Astana, outlining full adherence to the Helsinki Decalogue, thus explicitly incorporating the Helsinki Decalogue into Astana.

    See:

    2. We reaffirm our full adherence to the Charter of the United Nations and to all OSCE norms, principles and commitments, starting from the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris, the Charter for European Security and all other OSCE documents to which we have agreed, and our responsibility to implement them fully and in good faith. We reiterate our commitment to the concept, initiated in the Final Act, of comprehensive, co-operative, equal
    and indivisible security, which relates the maintenance of peace to the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and links economic and environmental co-operation with peaceful inter-State relations.

    Nor is the Helsinki Accord applicable, since it was made with a Soviet Union that no longer exists.

    I’m sorry, did you even read Astana?

    Did you even read your prior posts?

    You went from trying to argue that Astana in 2010 ratified or showed that assurances made to people like Yazov in 1989-1990 about NATO expansion were still valid (in spite of how this is clearly contradicted by the text of the agreement itself and how the situation evolved due to one of the parties of the alleged 1990 Agreements falling) to saying that the Helsinki Accord and Final Act are inapplicable because the Soviet regime fell?

    That doesn’t work. The fall of the Soviet Union partially or completely led to the disintegration of ONE of the signatories to the Helsinki Final Acts, but it did not revoke or remove the other signatories. Especially since Russia would later acknowledge adherence to them by (among other things) joining the OSCE.

    Moreover, as I pointed out, Astana clearly incorporates the Helsinki Accord into its own terms, explicitly.

    You repeat yourself here, so there’s no need to address what we’ve already discussed.

    I wish, but apparently some things need to be hammered out even more firmly.

    I have never claimed that it is “acceptable for the Russian regime to claim a right to violently dismember Ukraine” I have claimed that Russia has a right to prevent itself from being put in a strategically defenseless position.

    But that by definition means it should endeavor to exercise that right and prevent being so placed within the bounds of the law and its agreements, at least as much as is possible.

    Invading a neutral country on false pretenses and dismembering it does not pass the smell test as doing so, and at least as important for the purposes of our discussion is blatantly in contravention of Astana and a number of others. Meaning that if Putin’s regime wishes to justify its actions on such grounds, it needs to do so others.

    It is the West, through NATO that threatens Russia’s strategic security.

    And it is Russia that threatens NATO’s strategic security and that of many other neutral nations such as Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia.

    Which brings us back to the fact that strategic security is a two-way street (something even the sentence you elevated admits while you seem to overlook the implications of that), and that dealing with a certain degree of insecurity and uncertainty is part of diplomatic reality.

    Solely from a strategic perspective, had NATO simply stated that, given the Russian position, inclusion of the Ukraine into NATO would be highly unwise and it would not be accepted into NATO membership. Had the West refused to heavily arm the Ukraine and had the Ukraine declared its permanent neutrality… and the Ukraine allowed the Donbas region’s citizens to vote in a plebiscite on whether they wished to remain part of the Ukraine… then Russia would not have any legitimate complaints.

    Except Russia’s regime has no legitimate complaints now, and it certainly did not have any that warranted immediate, illegal, and unannounced seizure off Crime and the Donbas on false pretenses back in 2014.

    Which brings us back to the terms of Astana and the degree to which they bind Russia. Which is conspicuously absent from your analysis.

    It is not Ukraine’s job to bargain again and again for its inherent rights to be respected after international accord (including by Russia) agreed they already should be respected.

    Under international law and the agreements he sighed, Putin and his regime had the right to REQUEST for all of these things and even to pressure for them, but NOT AT ALL to *demand* or issue ultimatums for them. Let alone to launch a false flag invasion in violation of things such as Budapest 1994 and Astana 2010.

    Yet that is what he did.

    Which is one area where the trite Putin/Hitler comparison does have merit. It is not at all clear that Putin would be satisfied even if Ukraine had adhered to all of those terms you list, or that he was seeking them out of “legitimate” complaints.

    Especially since you give absolutely zero indication that Putin would have any obligation to compensate Ukraine for such concessions…such as a return of the nuclear weapons given up at Budapest or some other form of recompense.

    I have previously made the argument that, whatever other reasons Putin may have, his primary reason for invading the Ukraine is to prevent Russia being put in a potentially defenseless position.

    I have to concur with om. Whatever else a nation with the largest stated nuclear arsenal and tank park on Earth is, it is not “defenseless”, even with Ukraine in NATO.

    Which brings us back to the point of nations dealing with each other and their own strategic vulnerabilities and insecurities without going into a war of aggression, and the “special pleading” at the heart of Putin deeming he has a right and justification to wage war on Ukraine because of its proximity to Moscow and potential hostile orientation without touching on Estonia or its hypothetical right and justification to wage war on Russia because of its proximity to Tallinn and potential hostile orientation.

    Proper? Meaning your ‘reading’ is the sole correct interpretation? Refer back to my prior pointing out how judges themselves frequently disagree in their ‘readings’…

    I will not claim that my reading is the sole correct interpretation, however I WILL claim that ANY reading of the relevant article that does not give due weight to what the article specifies is an inherent right (such as your own), is inherently incorrect and can be dismissed.

    There is absolutely no grounds for arguing that it “doesn’t matter” what the rest of the article says, even when discussing inherent rights of nation-states, because of the vague sentence you elevated to being “crucial.”

    Once again, a nation’s “right to self-determination” does not extend to placing a neighboring nation in a strategically defenseless position.

    It’s telling that you’re trying to complain about ME using ludicrous analogies after uncritically stating this.

    Because that statement is blatantly absurd and utterly false.

    Moreover, it is something the Russian Regime itself does not argue for, considering how violently it has “argued” on behalf of the real or perceived self-determination of places like the DNR, LNR, Autonomous Crimea, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Transnistria in spite of how those polities clearly undercut the security of nations like Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia.

    So obviously, even the Russian regime agrees that strategic security by one nation must be measured against the self-determination and inherent rights of others. It just does so (I would argue) in a particularly dishonest and lopsided way, but the principle remains.

    As far as international law goes, Muh Security is not a catch-all excuse to ignore one’s legal and treaty obligations. Which is why this fact is explicitly and expressly stated in a bunch of places.

    Which is why appeals to security as reasons for violating said laws and agreements have to be made carefully, and usually on grounds separate from things like Astana such as situational necessity or national rights.

    Which is why the qualifying, subordinate clause “They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.” was included directly below in the first place, as otherwise there is no reason for its inclusion.

    A *qualifying*, *Subordinate* clause that DOES NOT and WAS NEVER MEANT TO do what you claim it does, negate the rest of the article if it was allegedly violated.

    Especially since the article also talked about inherent rights of a Nation-State, IE rights that cannot simply be relinquished or taken away without grounds as a matter of legal principle.

    Again, the 1975 Helsinki Accord is a separate agreement made with the Soviet Union. Since that entity no longer exists, it cannot be held to legally apply to the Russian Federation.

    Again, Re-Read Fucking Astana.

    Not only was the Russian Federation recognized as the legal successor and continuator to the USSR in most matters such as international treaties, but the Russian Federation also agreed to be bound by the Helsinki Accord when it entered the OSCE.

    https://brill.com/view/journals/jhil/23/2/article-p310_4.xml

    It also agreed to be bound by the Helsinki Accord when Putin had his goons ink their Ivan Hancocks on Astana, since the Helsinki Final Act is EXPRESSLY incorporated into Astana by way of Article 2.

    Which again points me to the irony that you previously, fervently tried to argue that agreements made to the likes of Gorbachev’s Soviet Government remained intact and enforceable (and according to Astana no less) in spite of said guarantees being bilateral and the destruction of said government in the failed Soviet Coup attempt, while arguing that Russia has no obligations to abide by Helsinki in spite of such things being clearly outlined in the agreed-upon text of Astana and Russia’s status as legal heir to the USSR for the purpose of treaties.

    You’ve just argued above that Russia making war upon the Ukraine is a viable “remedy” for NATO intending to admit the Ukraine into NATO membership, as you’ve admitted that NATO’s admission of the Ukraine is a legitimate national security concern.

    Because I recognize several of the weaknesses inherent in international law- especially what was largely meant as a feel-good ceremonial declaration like Astana 2010- and that there might be legitimate reasons for breaking international law in times of crisis.

    I do not believe that Putin’s invasions of Ukraine in 2014 and 2022 are such events, but I also understand that he will claim they are. But more important is the fact that he cannot point to Astana etc. al. in order to defend or justify them, for the reasons I have cited.

    The Russians, under Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin have consistently and repeatedly expressed to the West that they view the inclusion of the Ukraine into NATO as a totally unacceptable security risk for them as it puts them in a strategically defenseless position..

    Repeatedly yes.

    Consistently? No.

    Again, this is where I go back to Astana and Helsinki, and the fact that Putin ordered his Diplomatic Corps lackies to agree to both, in spite of it recognizing the “inherent right” of nations like Ukraine to join NATO, the CIS, or any alliance they choose.

    And my prior point that this indicates the Russian regime is the actor that violated Astana, not NATO. And that by its actions and rhetoric the Russian regime never took the agreement seriously.

    So given your prior agreement that Russia has a legitimate national security concern with it, it cannot be simply a case of “this alliance makes us feel insecure”.

    See above.

    ”The Astana agreement does state that “every single signatory nation has the right to enter into ANY Alliance it chooses” but only as long as “They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.””

    No, no it absolutely does not.

    It states:

    “We reaffirm the inherent right of each and every participating state to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance, as they evolve. Each State also has the right to neutrality. EACH PARTICIPATING STATE WILL RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF ALL OTHERS IN THESE REGARDS.
    They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States. Within the OSCE no State, group of States or organization can have any pre-eminent responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in the OSCE area or can consider any part of the OSCE area as its sphere of influence. We will maintain only those military capabilities that are commensurate with our legitimate individual or collective security needs, taking into account obligations under international law, as well as the legitimate security concerns of other States.”

    A few things to note.

    A: The ability to choose any or no alliance and security arrangements is identified as an “inherent right” of a state, not dependent on Astana or any other agreement. Which again covers such things as NATO inviting Ukraine.

    B: There is never a causal link established between whether or not a nation can join an alliance or the security of another nation. Indeed, understanding the “inherent right” part indicates such a causal link is DENIED, and that a nation can join ANY alliance it chooses as a natural and inherent right, even if it is held to degrade the security of another,

    C: That the Article ALSO establishes that no nation in the OSCE has a right to hegemony, monopolizing military power, or to view any other area of it as its sphere of influence or sub-equal. Notably, this comes IMMEDIATELY AFTER the sentence you have elevated and is clearly meant to clarify what on Earth that sentence means, and in terms that are absolutely NOT convenient to Putin’s thesis of a “Near Abroad.”

    I have not said that the line(s) I’ve emboldened “override” the agreement. I do maintain that they qualify the agreement.<

    No, you absolutely argued that they override the agreement.

    Shall I quote?

    Yes, I shall.

    I read that too before I made the comment to which you responded. The reason I did not give the text you’ve capitalized importance is because of the line directly below. Namely “They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.” That line emphatically qualifies what any party to the agreement may do and it doesn’t matter whatever else is included, if an action by one of the parties violates that critical provision.

    <blockquote Russia has been the only one affected, which is why they have argued about it.

    Seriously? I’m supposed to believe that the likes of Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine, Estonia, Lithuania, et cetera are also not affected and have not complained?

    First of all, Russia tried to join NATO, as I’ve previously mentioned and that offer was rejected by the West. So the Baltic States cannot justly claim upon that basis that Russia’s non-NATO membership is a threat to their national security.

    Except this ignores the reasons why Russia was rejected, starting with the fact that Vladimir Putin did not believe Russia should have to agree with the terms and vetting process every new member has to go through, and the conduct of Russian military forces abroad at the time raising complications.

    In any case, it’s faulty logic. A nation being spurned once on some grounds (even if we were to agree those grounds were fallacious or unjust) does not give it immunity from being a malefactor or threat later.

    Of course Russia’s proximity to Estonia is seen by them as of concern, so what they did was exchange Western dominance for Russian dominance. That is understandable, though culturally Western dominance will impose ‘gifts’ upon Estonians that will in time cause them to reconsider their decision.

    Sure, but as we can agree and Astana outlines, it is their place to consider or reconsider, not anybody else’s and certainly not Vladimir Putin’s,

    Russia could not have been happy about the Baltic States joining NATO. Apparently they didn’t think they had the wherewithal to block it.

    Russia has long been concerned about NATO’s openness to the Ukraine becoming a member of NATO.

    Which is not surprising given how the terms of the Helsinki Accord and other parts of international law were still at play. As before: Russia has every right to be “concerned” or “not happy”, just as the US and other nations do. That does not mean it has unlimited right to act on said feelings.

    And it certainly does not mean it has unlimited right to act on said feelings *and still claim to be abiding by terms like those set forth in Astana.*

78. The joys of writing a lengthy point by point reply that might be stuck in the spam filter (and possibly mis-formatted due to block quotes).

    @MBunge

    No, Putin’s always been evil but he is a partially rational evil. He invaded Ukraine because it became clear he might no longer be able to get his way through a servile Yanukovych administration willing to break Ukrainian Law in order to quell dissent against Russian domination and strong-arm negotiating. He escalated said war now because of a combination of the West’s weakness (especially Biden) and frustration at the ongoing proxy war.

79. Turtler:

    Ah, but as you can see (scroll up), once alerted to the problem I’m often able to find the comment and liberate it from spam or trash pile. So it’s now appearing here.

80. neo:

    Thank you for bringing back Turtler’s point by point response to Geoffrey. The formatting work he did was worth it.

    Thanks again to Stephen St. Orsen.

81. @om I’m not even done yet!

82. @Geoffrey Britain Part 2

    Accords and Agreements between nations are only as legitimate as the degree to which each party honors them.

    Accords and Agreements between nations are only as legitimate as the degree to which each party honors them.

    Blatantly false. Because by that “logic” any given law will be as legitimate as the lowest common denominator, with things such as the Geneva Conventions being rendered illegitimate (or at least more illegitimate) by things such as Nazi Germany’s refusal to abide by them in regards to things like Soviet and Polish POWs.

    They may be only as practical or enforceable as they are honored, but they are not only as legitimate as such. After all, how would they be enforced against those that violated them?

    I haven’t disagreed that Russia has violated them, just insisted that NATO has as well.

    Which brings us back to the question of “how” NATO has violated them.

    Your argument that NATO has violated rests upon thoroughly misinterpreting a single (and unfortunately) sentence of a wider article of a rather feel-good international agreement, ignoring the following sentences meant to clarify its terms, and arguing that said sentence imposes a supercedeing obligation on other signatories such that it does not matter what else is in the article, even when discussing matters taken to be inherent rights of nation-states.

    Even in comparison to my own limited legal and textual knowledge this is obviously faulty and easily disproven by examining the jurisprudence or even the basic language. And it is further undermined by your making provably false claims, such as that the Helsinki Accords are no longer in force because one of the Signatories no longer exists (while ignoring the nature of OSCE and Article 2 of Astana writing the Accord in to the text), indicating there is something provably, profoundly Wrong with your interpretation.

    The fact that it came in a thread after you argued that Astana somehow showed that reassurances like the 1990 ones between Western leaders and Soviet ones like Gorbachev and Yazov were still in force only muddies that water further.

    “That well intentioned people on each side could reach a reasonable peaceful solution is a given. You’ve outlined all the ways in which Putin has behaved duplicitously, while not acknowledging NATO’s behavior as seen by not just Putin but by many Russian strategists. Behavior by NATO that the Russians also see as duplicitous.”

    Firstly: I have barely BEGUN to outline the various ways Putin has been duplicitous, because as long-winded and nitpicky as I am I don't have the time or inclination.

    Secondly: The problem with your claims that the West acted duplicitously- especially in regards to things like Astana- do not hold water. Especially in regards to the idea that Ukraine fielding an offer to join NATO was a violation of Astana because of a single sentence…clarified by statements against any OSCE nation holding itself to be a hegemon or able to impose a sphere of influence over any other OSCE nation.

    Thirdly: For the purposes of examining matters of law, I do not have to give a single twig about what "the Russians", "the Americans", or so on "see" X as.

    Not doing so calls into question your objectivity and indicates bias.

    Ah, so there’s a question of my objectivity and bias? Let me fix that!!!

    I AM NOT OBJECTIVE, NOR DO I CLAIM TO BE SO. I ALSO AM GREATLY BIASED, HAVING READ THE LAW IN QUESTION WITH SOME KNOWLEDGE OF IT, AND DEALT WITH PUTIN’S REGIME CLOSER THAN I”D LIKE TO BE. I have no doubts these influence my interpretation, but I admit them. Moreover, I invite anybody else to scrutinize my biases and interpretations as well as the source material involved to interrogate me. Moreover, I will not pretend that a non-objective person cannot make objective, empirical observations, to be verified by others.

    There. Better?

    Moving on.

    You do yourself no favors when you resort to ludicrous analogies.

    On the contrary. The Reducto ad Absurdum is a time-honored, effective, and logically valid form of argumentation when done well. Indeed, I have used it several times to make Swiss Cheese out of your interpretation re: the Security Clause.

    Yes, which is why they insisted that those qualifying statements be included in the 2010 Astana agreement.

    Firstly: you don’t know what they did or didn’t insist get included.

    Secondly: considering that “qualifying statement” includes its own “qualifying statements” that blatantly go in the face of Russian state policy and what it has been for more than a decade prior to Astana, that does not hold too much water.

    You just invalidated your connections between the 1975 Helsinki Accord with the Soviet Union and the 2010 Astana Agreement with the Russian Federation…

    No, I absolutely did not.

    The Russian Federation is legal successor and continuator of the USSR, as outlined in law and by diplomacy (meaning it inherited Soviet assent to the Helsinki Accord).

    https://brill.com/view/journals/jhil/23/2/article-p310_4.xml

    However, the overwhelming majority of the 1990 agreements were bilateral ones between specific Western leaders and the Gorbachev government, a government that ceased to be as a result of the attempted Soviet Coup and the ensuing breakup of the Soviet Union. And which in any case were never unilateral promises to all Soviet governments and had many of their terms rendered null and void.

    Yes it is complicated and I agree this is “fairly clear cut”, just not the way you interpret it to be but I do acknowledge your interpretation as arguable.

    Again, that is certainly not the impression you gave when arguing before, when you stated that the West "violated Astana" as if it were a fact.

    Moreover, I unfortunately cannot acknowledge your interpretation of Article 3 of Astana is even "arguable." it is clearly not, because that would mean subverting and nullifying an "inherent right" of a nation-state to vague considerations of another nation's security. This is not enforceable, nor was it intended as a full reading of the text in question indicates and the relevant jurisprudence indicates.

    We’re dealing with States that can arguably exterminate the human race. The degree of distrust on each side is irrelevant, distrust exists, period. We can deal with it or ignore it at our peril.

    There is a difference between ignoring distrust and holding it as the paramount importance. Particularly when there is abundant evidence of ill will and malice aforethought.

    “Muh Security”? You’ve previously agreed that the Russian’s strategic security concerns with NATO on Russia’s border with Ukraine are legitimate. Have you already forgotten?

    “Muh Security” in this case is to the fallacious logic that any and all rights outlined in Astana can be suspended by one of the signatory nations pointing at another and shrieking “You are hurting muh security!”

    Which is at essence the argument you were making, in quite as many words. Hence your statement that it literally did not matter what else was in Article 3 of Astana or any other international agreement so long as the “muh security” sentence you highlighted far above any logical or defensible level exists.

    Which of course, is not how it works or was meant to work. As outlined by the phrasing of the article.

    But as I did not claim that,

    Yes, You DID.

    Shall I quote otherwise?

    Yes, YES I SHALL.

    https://www.thenewneo.com/2022/03/16/what-did-nato-promise-russia/#comments

    Art Deco,

    The 2010 Astana agreement is a binding agreement. See my comment at 11:23 as to why it permanently settles the Ukraine joining NATO issue. That NATO announced in 2020 its intention to welcome the Ukraine into NATO is demonstrable proof of the West’s political leadership’s willingness to directly violate its agreements.

    There it is, in black and white. You just claimed in your prior sentence that you did not claim that “NATO extending an offer of pathway to membership to Ukraine amounted to NATO violating Astana.”

    And yet, here it is where you did EXACTLY that, stating that “That NATO announced in 2020 its intention to welcome the Ukraine into NATO is demonstrable proof of the West’s political leadership’s willingness to directly violate its agreements.”

    And as I outlined above, such an interpretation is categorical nonsense. Astana upholds and validates the “inherent right” of any nation to join any alliance or none at all, language that far and away subsumes the special sentence you’ve focused on.

    You see WHY your conduct makes me question your honesty, Geoffrey?

    it’s not another issue but the same issue.

    Then the onus is on you to prove it.

    I too have painstakingly detailed for most of the day now in responding to your assertions, which entirely rest upon your interpretation of the relevant Astana provision. And the “predecessor texts” applied to an extinct entity.

    Well, this sums it up doesn’t it?

    You spent “most of the day now” responding to my assertions, and apparently never once addressed the fact that Astana writes the Helsinki Accords back in to Astana in Article 2, and that the legal doctrines of legal successor and legal continuator mean that the predecessor texts apply to the Russian Federation as they once did to the Soviet Union.

    Those are massive oversights and failures on your part.

    “From the standpoint of potential nuclear conflict, each side has to take into consideration where the other side is coming from”

    Which is why it is important to get what a given party is stating Right, even if one disagrees with it or even knows it to be false. This is also why I have needled you for making claims that even the Russian Regime itself does not such as the idea that self-determination is dependent upon the security of other nations.

    Nuclear arms are a game changer. They make it irrelevant whether it is “Justified, Right, or Defensible” unless a nation is willing to engage in nuclear war. It is what it is.

    Having previously argued over the legitimacy of given state actions in accordance to things such as the Astana Agreement, you now wish to change gears and completely side-swipe the legal conclusions in favor of an Appeal to Force and that the legal or moral standards simply do not apply under the force of a nuclear weapon?

    Well, if that was your real intent I don’t see why you spent so much time trying to argue that the West violated Astana based on your misunderstanding of the sentence.

    So let’s get it clear. Do you want to argue about the legal standards of things like the West’s invitation of Ukraine to NATO and where they sit under legal tomes such as Astana? Do you want to argue about the brutal practicality of policies or where they stand under the threat of nuclear war? Or do you want to argue both?

    Because regardless of what you decide, you’d be better served clearly distinguishing between the realms, much as I have tried to (such as by pointing out that an action that is objectively indefensible under international law like Geneva or agreements like Astana might be defensible on other grounds)..

    As neo has pointed out that is, for all practical purposes, the situation we are now in and, our response has to include that in our calculus.

    On this much we absolutely agree. But that does not mean being blind to other considerations. Including, crucially, how much our “partner in peace” can be trusted to stick to agreements.

    I agree that there is no substitute for reality.

    Good to know we both at least claim to be part of the “Reality-Based Community.”

    It’s true that irreconcilable differences do not always lead to war. In the case of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy made clear to Khruschev that we were willing to go to nuclear war over that issue. Just as Putin has made clear that he is willing to go to nuclear war over the Ukraine joining NATO.

    The difference is, Kennedy made it clear to Khruschev he was willing to do so as a result of the Soviets stationing offensive, strategic nuclear weapons in Cuba aimed at the US. Putin can claim no such imminent danger, as Ukraine was not a member of NATO. Indeed, it is telling that even his apologists largely try to argue that “Biolabs” allegedly making WMD are the most egregious accusation.

    (Biolabs that existed since 2006, and whose activities were presumably of knowledge to him since at least 2010 thanks to Yanukovych’s Presidency and which he conveniently did not object to prior to this point…).

    This points to the asymmetry of purposes and goals. Kennedy was willing to go to nuclear war to remove an imminent, apocalyptic threat to the US homeland. Putin is willing to threaten it for.. much less, to say the least.

    Maybe he’s bluffing and maybe he’s not. Given the stakes, so far despite calls for greater intervention, we are acting just as Khruschev did,

    I have yet to see any indication we put WMDs in the hands of Zelenskyy’s government, or that Zelenskyy has tried to get us to use them directly.

    he agreed to pull the missiles out of Cuba after we quietly agreed to pull our missiles out of Turkey.

    He also agreed to because he could no longer trust Castro to not end the world or try to steal some, though we only knew that decades later.

    In any case, that is a major reason why I have opposed the idea of direct NATO involvement in Ukraine such as a No Fly Zone. But it also points to the fact that Putin is acting far more belligerently than Kennedy did, and also should raise the question of what else he’d do if he got his way in Ukraine.

    I actually agree that the Kremlin is not acting as a serious partner for peace. I’m simply asserting that neither is the West.

    “But if you see the provision I’ve repeatedly emboldened as critical to the agreement and to which violation would nullify the entire agreement, then the Russian position becomes understandable.”

    The problem is, pace Hitchens’s Razor, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

    And as I’ve outlined before, your interpretation of Astana is incorrect and thus not evidence.

    Sigh. I maintain that the context you’ve capitalized does not obviate the qualifying nature of the emboldened subordinate clause. Your interpretation (and no doubt the West’s lawyers) deny that the subordinate clause substantially qualifies the ability to any party’s “self-determination”.

    Which is not at all surprising, because the agreement highlights that Ukraine and every other nation has an “inherent right” to choose its alliances as it pleases (and suffer the consequences).

    Language that clearly subsumes and takes precedent over the “qualification.” Especially given the logical and legal tangles you get into if you try and do the inverse.

    My interpretation and the Russian’s lawyers do maintain that distinction. Chew all you need to.

    And I’ve already chewed it up and spat it out as the indefensible gristle it is. Especially given how that interpretation expressly ignores its own qualification banning spheres of influence or the ability of any OSCE nation to regard itself as superior in legal rights to another.

    Which is why at its core, this goes back to Special Pleading. That we not read the law as it is written.

    The very inclusion of the qualifying nature of the subordinate clause in the Astana Agreement indicates that they did have and do have… a different interpretation and do believe it to be a legitimate interpretation.

    The problem is that said interpretation is- as far as Astana is concerned- subordinate to the text itself. As well as a text that is quite different from what you are trying to say the Russian state is arguing for.

    Again: “They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States. Within the OSCE no State, group of States or organization can have any pre-eminent responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in the OSCE area or can consider any part of the OSCE area as its sphere of influence. We will maintain only those military capabilities that are commensurate with our legitimate individual or collective security needs, taking into account obligations under international law, as well as the legitimate security concerns of other States. We further reaffirm that all OSCE principles and commitments, without exception, apply equally to each participating State, and we emphasize that we are accountable to our citizens and responsible to each other for their full implementation.”

    Simply put, there is no legitimate or cogent interpretation of Astana that holds with what you have claimed, and it is telling that the Russian Regime has not claimed as such.

    Again, the Helsinki Accord is extinct and therefore inapplicable.

    AGAIN, THIS IS PROVABLY FALSE.

    As Astana expressly PROVES by writing it in.

    2. We reaffirm our full adherence to the Charter of the United Nations and to all OSCE norms, principles and commitments, starting from the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris, the Charter for European Security and all other OSCE documents to which we have agreed, and our responsibility to implement them fully and in good faith….

    Ergo, even if your interpretation HAD BEEN correct, Astana writing ‘the Helsinki Final Act” as part of the “all OSCE norms, principles, and commitments” that the signatories agree to “affirm.. (and)..to implement….fully and in good faith…”” would make them applicable.

    And again, your interpretation is not correct, as outlined by the Russian Federation’s declaration to be not only a successor state of the USSR, but its Continuator.

    https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1686&context=djilp

    And obviously, Russia was quick to avail itself of this status and the benefits inherent to it, such as the Permanent Security Council seat at the UN and the ability to retrieve nuclear weapons and many other strategic assets deployed throughout the rest of the former USSR.

    Nor does it matter whether my and the Russian interpretation is correct,

    From a legal standpoint as well as a realpolitical one, that is not true, especially given the impacts it has on foreign policy.

    all that matters is that no Great Nation will allow any legalism in an agreement to become a strategic security threat that renders them defenseless.

    See again. Even with Ukraine in NATO, Russia would hardly be “defenseless.”

    OR… they understood perfectly well that the subordinate clause, agreed to by the West, legally prevented NATO from parking itself upon Russia’s border with Ukraine.

    This is not only false on its face, but frankly disingenuous. The existence of NATO in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania “parking itself upon Russia’s border” shows it. Moreover, the “subordinate clause” you place such weight on is itself modified to underline that Russia has an equal say in the security of OSCE space and is obliged to respect the rights of other nations, including by alliance.

    Which is where we get back to the question of which level you want to argue on, whether it is legality re: Astana, practical or reality in terms of what great powers can or will do, or something else entirely.

    Already addressed this, whose legal court? The Russians certainly aren’t going to accept a Western dominated ‘International’ Court, when an adverse legal ruling renders them strategically helpless.

    The Helsinki Commission, for one, whose jurisdiction the Russian state already accepted when it declared itself Legal Continuator of the USSR and thus the USSR’s signature on the Helsinki Final Accord.

    Of course there’s probably a reason why the Russian regime does not want to push the case before that, precisely because like I mentioned and you have twigged, it would have an adverse ruling. Primarily on its merits.

    Where you go wrong is in thinking that “a predatory and fundamentally untrustworthy Russian government” is the sole actor in this conflict.

    If you have to create a strawman of your opponent’s argument to fight against, you’ve likely forfeited against the actual argument.

    NO, I DO NOT THINK that the Russian regime is “the sole actor” (whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean in a two-side war that is a multinational crisis).

    I DO However argue that it is the primary actor, the instigator, and the aggressor. Arguments that are clearly supported by the timeline as well as the laws and agreements in question. As such, primary blame lies with the Russian regime.

    Since you don’t mention it, you apparently imagine that the West’s current political leadership is not equally predatory and fundamentally untrustworthy.

    Irrelevant deflection and misguided on two levels.

    Firstly: what “current political leadership” are we talking about? Because the West’s leadership has significantly changed since the start of the war in Ukraine back in 2014, was substantially different again back in 2010 in Astana, and so forth.

    Secondly: I do not have to have a great opinion of the West’s current political leadership (which I most ASSUREDLY DO NOT) in order to believe they are particularly relevant in regards to the outbreak of the war in Ukraine or have much responsibility for it.

    Indeed, I think the Soviet Union was perhaps the most predatory and fundamentally untrustworthy regime on Planet Earth in the year 1935. That is NOT, however, particularly relevant when determining blame for the outbreak of the Italian invasion of Ethiopia that year.

    Which brings us back to the causal link, the question of how (un)trustworthy the West is, and agreements like Astana.

    The West’s leadership has, since the very first discussions with the Soviets known how the Soviets and then Russian Federation views encroachment upon their borders.

    And FROM THE VERY FIRST DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SOVIETS, the West has emphasized that the Soviets do not have a unilateral veto power on matters, and must consider the rights and stances of OTHER NATIONS. As I pointed out in the texts themselves.

    Which are points that both the Soviet and Russian governments had no good rebuttal to, and indeed tacitly admitted by things such as signing the Astana Agreement.

    The West’s leadership has through NATO indicated its intention to plant itself upon Russia’s border, first in the 2004 Istanbul announcement, then in the 2008 Bucharest announcement, then in the 2010 Astana agreement,

    But not in the absence of consent by the nation in question.

    A point you continually refuse to note.

    then in the Western facilitated 2014 coup

    This is the problem with uncritically reading Kremlin-aligned propaganda and not the relevant documentation, particularly since you admit you are not a details person.

    You get shit wrong.

    I’m far from someone to gloss over the problems of Euromaidan and how in a lot of cases it devolved into bloody riots.

    However, what you call a "coup" was in fact that Ukrainian Rada (their word for Parliament) calling Yanukovych to account for his actions and alleged violations of the Ukrainian Constitution while repressing Euromaidan. This is something they very explicitly have the authority to do under the Ukrainian Constitution (see: Article 85 of the Ukrainian Constitution, which is way too long for me to cite, which has remained unaffected by the assorted constitutional changes and controversies of the 2000s).

    Yanukovych refused to do this, and indeed fled the country, stealing a bunch of stuff on the way. Faced with a situation in which there was no legal President of Ukraine, the Rada took steps to strip Yanukovych of office on the grounds of incapacity to carry out the office.

    A few things to note:

    Firstly: the Rada that did this was just as democratically elected as Yanukovych had been, and indeed was elected in the exact same elections that brought Yanu back to power.

    Secondly: The Rada was in fact dominated by Yanukovych's coalition, headed up by his own party, the Party of Regions.

    Thirdly: The Quasi-Impeachment/Removal of Office Vote was spearheaded by the anti-Yanukovych opposition parties in the Rada, but it faced very little opposition, with the dominant parties (including Yanukovych's own Regionnaires) mostly either voting for the removal or more typically abstaining due to how toxic he had become.

    This is the "coup" that gets referred to.

    with that governments’ 8 yr long shelling of Donbas citizens,

    That’s a funny and highly inflammatory way to write “fighting an 8 year war in the Donbas against Russian invasion and its local auxiliaries.”

    The Ukrainian Military sure didn’t suffer thousands of casualties from shelling “Donbas Civilians”, and it’s a rather well-armed civilian to bring tanks to things like the Siege of Donetsk Airport.

    And this is before I get into the inconvenient fact that the Russian military and the “separatists” are the ones doing more shelling than being shelled.

    https://www.bellingcat.com/app/uploads/2016/02/bellingcat_-_origin_of_artillery_attacks_02-12-15_final1.pdf

    which the West could have easily brought to a halt.

    HOW?!?!

    The West did not start the Donbas war. Neither did the Ukrainian government. Vladimir Putin and his military did.

    So as to not provoke the Russians and now in NATO’s 2020 announcement.

    Considerations that the Russian regime has shown precious little concern for in terms of who it provokes by its actions. So I fail to see how the West should go out of its way to walk on eggshells around a regime that routinely starts border wars complete with sectarian turmoil when it does not get its way.

    After all, there’s a difference between coming to a hard-bargained negotiated settlement and giving the farm away.

    That’s a clear and consistent pattern of intentional provocation, one that no nation in an adversarial relationship can ignore.

    And that clear and consistent pattern of intentional provocation lies at the foot of Vladimir Putin and the Russian Kremlin, and I am fucking sick of this blame-the-victim horseshit in which the West is supposed to go out of its way to avoid “provoking” a regime that happily claims offense, while the Russian regime apparently has no obligations to abide by the terms it itself has signed.

    To the point where we’re supposed to look at the Donbas War- a war largely fought by Russian military forces under false flag and initiated by them, as shown by forensic auditing- and which routinely saw Ukrainian Federalists outnumbered AND Outgunned, is diminished to “8 years of shelling Donbas Civilians.”

    (In spite of the fact that the Russian military and the “separatists” retained artillery superiority throughout the length of the war.)

    Clearly you’re not ready to hear it but it must be said;

    Clearly, you think you know better than you do. Which leads to really dumb missteps such as your claiming that Helsinki is “extinct”, that 2014 was a “coup”, and that a single sentence in Article 3 of Astana can override or negate the rest of the Article, even when discussing the “inherent right” of sovereign nations to choose their alliance.

    The Western governing elite have intentionally pushed Putin into a corner in which he sees the invasion of the Ukraine as the only way to stop NATO from planting itself upon Russia’s border.

    And that’s supposed to be the West’s fault and only the West’s fault?

    The fact of the matter is that Putin is an unlikeable asshole ruling over a dictatorial, moribund, comically corrupt, and rotting nation. He has little to offer his partners, which is one reason why his relations even with Lukashenko (perhaps the most pro-Russian of former Soviet Space leaders and in some ways even more pro-Russian than Putin himself), let alone Ukraine.

    The Western “Elite” and other policy makers capitalized on this, pursuing a two track policy of seeking to diplomatically engage with the nations in what Putin calls his “Near Abroad” in order to integrate them into Eurospace, and pursuing mostly-fruitless attempts to negotiate with Putin and make amends.

    In the end, Putin has nobody to blame for the situation he is in more than he himself. Particularly when we examine the actual laws in question, and how many times the unthinking attempt to get Russia the advantages of being continuator of the Soviet Union for short and medium term gains led to it blowing up in the long term (as inheriting obligations like the USSR’s signature to the Helsinki Accords shows). As did carelessness in signing things like Astana, which people like me can later point to in order to underline both Putin’s nominal acceptance of things such as Ukraine joining NATO, and fundamentally perfidious and untrustworthy nature making it rather pointless to obsess over “provoking” someone who has never had a shortage of reasons to be provoked when he is looking for one.

    That doesn’t make Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine right.

    To say the LEAST.

    The problem you seem to be ignoring is that Putin did not merely invade Ukraine in 2022. He invaded it in 2014. Many of the people you blithely dismiss as “Donbass Civilians” were Russian conscripts under false flag fighting one of the nastiest wars we’ve seen in Western Eurasia since the end of Yugoslavia.

    It does present it to be a case for Russia’s of its national security.

    But it also presents a case for the national security of Ukraine and other nations.

    Yes, Putin did do it and I’ve just made the case for why he’s done it.

    Which falls apart when you realize that many of your claims are so extreme that even the Russian Regime doesn’t dare make claim to them, such as arguing that self-determination is dependent upon the national security of others or that Article 3 is “swallowed” by That Sentence, or that Helsinki is “extinct” because the USSR no longer exists (when in reality as a matter of legal identity Yes it Does, in the form of the post-Soviet successor nations and particularly the Russian Federation as self-designated Legal Continuator).

    A case many here reject, which doesn’t make them right or myself in the wrong. And yes, that doesn’t make me right and you wrong.

    Correct.

    What DOES make you wrong is the poor, fallacious grasp of legal principles such as what “inherent rights” are, the mangled history, and poor logic.

    As does the lack of a uniform standard. You tried to argue that Astana in 2010 indicated that the assurances made in 1990 to the likes of Gorbachev’s government were still in force. When I pointed to the text of the agreement showing THAT was obviously untrue, you then switched gears to argue that I had “invalidated” my point about Helsinki.

    Something that hinges on you not understanding the difference between mostly informal bilateral assurances made to the Gorbachev Soviet Government (a government that ceased to exist as a result of the Soviet Putsch in 1991), and the signatory of the Soviet Union on Helsinki ratified as being binding to the Russian Federation as legal continuator of the USSR, and re-ratified by its in-text incorporation at Astana.

    “Please drop the accusations of lying. I’ve explained why I’ve taken the view of the Astana agreement that I have and disagreement as to its provisions does not mean that either one of us is lying.”

    The fact is, your “explanation” is so fallacious that I reiterate: Intentional Dishonesty is the LEAST complicated and troubled explanation for it. Which is why I reiterate the fact that while you purport to be putting the case as from “Russian lawyers”, the Russian regime’s ACTUAL Lawyers do not support such claims. In large part because they know better than to try and claim that That Sentence eats the rest of Article 3 and Helsinki. In no small part because making such a claim would not be tendentious and poorly-supported, but open a lot of cans of worms as I briefly gave overviews of (such as Estonia demanding war against Russia because it is not part of NATO and thus impinging on its “security”),

    So while I will probably refrain from reiterating the accusation of intentional lying without due cause, I do so more for the sake of the argument and politeness than any firm conviction.

    All you have to do is accept that others can read the same text and sincerely reach a different conclusion and your struggle will be over. That doesn’t require agreement, just that good people can have different opinions.

    Again: if you have to strawman the stance of your opponent, then you’re probably on the wrong path.

    Accepting that other people can read the same text and sincerely reach a different conclusion was never the problem. The problem, however, comes from the *SAME TEXT.*

    The fact is, you now admit Astana is nowhere near as supportive to your case as you spent a couple threads claiming it was and that the West “violated” it as a matter of fact. You admit this after I quoted it at length, dragged you over the coals regarding it explicitly guaranteeing its signatories the “inherent right” to choose their alliances, and using that language and the partial quotations to credibly accuse you of dishonesty.

    Moreover, I am not the only one who pointed out that your interpretation of the terms is not only “different”, but incredible and unsupported. Don did as well. As is the fact that the Russian government itself has not made the claims about it you do.

    So the problem isn’t a different interpretation, it’s flatly denying the validity of most of Astana, Helsinki, and so on.

    Occam’s Razor is a useful device, as long as we don’t assume it to be universally applicable.

    Or universally true.

    Believe what you will,

    Likewise.

    if you can’t accept the sincerity with which I’ve responded, then the fault lies with you because I am not being willfully dishonest.

    “This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.” William Shakespeare

    Considering I’ve pointed out at least two points in this section where you were engaging in strawmanning, methinks you doth protest to much.

    ” We simply disagree as to the critical importance of that line. I read it as fully supporting the Russian position, strictly in regard to the Ukraine’s entry into NATO.”

    And as I mentioned before, the problem is that there is no coherent way to read that line as “fully supporting the Russian position”, as Don pointed out. And the fact that you did not apparently consider that fact- or that Ukraine might have an identical claim to security and sovereignty as Russia (a fact OUTRIGHT STATED AND RESTATED in the terms of Astana itself) apparently did not register.

    Either Russia has a right to demand other nations violate what Astana calls their “inherent right”s to choose alliances in the name of not allowing its own security to be degraded, in which case Putin’s regime is far more guilty of degrading Ukraine’s security than NATO ever was, or Russia does not. In which case Putin was violating Astana and Helsinki every single time he threatened a “red line” over Ukraine joining NATO, and was guilty of hypocrisy for ever allowing his diplomatic staff to imply otherwise when they signed Astana.

    This is a classic Morton’s Fork. No interpretation of that sentence supports the Russian position, let alone “completely.”

    Food for thought: When we assign dishonesty, to our inability to place ourselves in the other man’s shoes, we have lost the way toward a deeper and fuller understanding.

    Food for thought: those words came not from my inability to place myself in other mens’ shoes, but from my efforts to do so.

    At several points in this long exchange I have placed myself in both your shoes and that of the Russian regime. I pointed out the text of agreements such as Astana and the Helsinki Decalogue, how they have been interpreted and would reasonably be interpreted by lawyers, and the various possible implications of both the mainstream interpretation and your own. That is why I came to the conclusion- modified by what I assume are your earnest protections- that there was no EARNEST AND COMPETENT way to come to the conclusions you did.

    Indeed, I have walked in the Russian regime’s shoes far more accurately than you have. I got points of law correct that you erred in, such as pointing out that Helsinki still applies, both due to Russia’s status as a legal continuator to the Soviet Union and by the incorporation of it into Astana.

    In the meantime, you either did not ask yourself how your interpretation of Astana could apply from outside the Russian perspective, such as how Estonia might complain. When challenged on that, you came up with the weak attempted rebuttal that Estonia could not due to Russia having been denied membership in NATO, which not only ignores the reasons WHY Russia was denied membership (starting with refusal to go through the protocols as everyone else) and how this does nothing to change that.

    OK, I’ve spent the better part of the day on this, I am not going to do it again.

    Fair enough, your choice.

    Actually, I said that at the end of my statement and in reference to his accusations of lying and then expressed doubts as to my honesty.

    Fair enough.

    Using your Wiki link, the Ukrainian government caused 1.3 million Russian speaking Ukrainians living in the Donbas region to flee to Russia. That alone implies fierce oppression, as people do not willingly abandon their homes and businesses.

    DEAR GOD, DID YOU EVEN FUCKING READ THE WIKI PAGE?!?

    No, the Wiki link DOES NOT say “The Ukrainian government caused 1.3 Million Russian speaking Ukrainians living in the Donbas Region to flee to Russia.”

    Here’s what it ACTUALLY said, as of my date of accessing it, on March 26th:

    By April 2015, the war had caused at least 1.3 million people to become internally displaced within Ukraine.[620] In addition, more than 800,000 Ukrainians had sought asylum, residence permits, or other forms of legal stay in neighbouring countries, with over 659,143 in Russia, 81,100 in Belarus, and thousands more elsewhere.[621][622]

    A few takeaways.

    First: the 1.3 Million reference makes ZERO reference to ethnicity, mother language, or political affiliation.

    Secondly: The 1.3 Million reference refers explicitly to those who are “Internally displaced”, IE still inside Ukraine, but thrown around and no longer possessing a permanent residence.

    Logically, this would include Ukrainians of all stripes, Russophone, Ukrainophone, those few speaking another language, Pro-Russian, Anti-Russian, Neutral, etc. We would expect these to be disproportionately from the Donbas and the Crimea (which are the areas of conflict) and thus likely disproportionately Russophone, but also more likely to be either pro-Ukrainian or Neutral all things being equal due to not seeking escape outside of Ukraine (though again this is hardly a universal thing because people “internally displaced” within the little Donbaschukuos would also be in this tally in spite of being Pro-Russian).

    This is in contrast to those 740,000~ seeking refuge in Russia or Belarus, who we would EXPECT to be more likely to be pro-Russian (though again, it’s unlikely that literally all of them were),

    So you didn’t even read what the freaking source was saying correctly.

    You know it’s damn bad when you’re trying to twist “people fleeing an active war zone” as indication of “fierce oppression.”

    By that logic, the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians fleeing not only the current war zones but also from places such as Galicia are evidence that implies “fierce oppression”… in spite of no Russian brigade having set foot in places such as Lviv.

    The simple fact is, war is nasty business and people try to flee it when they can, even without active persecutions or when the combatants involved are a lot more saintly and devoid of bad apples like Azov Battalion. And the Wagner Group.

    It’s also ironic you attribute and simplify causation for this to “the Ukrainian Government”, in spite of the fact that the Donbas War was initiated by the Russian Government. And the continued existence of Russophones not only in the Ukrainian military but even in Azov Battalion itself handily undercuts arguments of “fierce persecution.”

    And this is before I get into the reasons outside of “Urban Warfare” why people would want to flee the Donbas, starting with the fact that apparently Donbas politics are extremely rough and lawless, with a number of assassinations of high-level separatists with lots of finger pointing and no clear consensus on who did what (whether they were carried out by the Ukrainian Government, the Russian Government, assorted separatists, or so on).

    The Wiki article to which you linked, used as sources; the U.N., Human Rights Watch and the NYT, all highly ‘sympathetic’ to the left. If there had been a comparable assault upon western sympathizing Ukrainians from the Donbas separatists, it would certainly have been noted by those sources and included in the Wiki article.

    Dear God, this logic is so tortured that even some Chekists might have blanched.

    Firstly: AS I DETAILED, the source was not talking about “pro-Russian” Or “Russophone” Ukrainians victimized by their own government, but ALL INTERNALLY DISPLACED UKRAINIANS (or at least pre-war Ukrainian Citizens).

    Secondly: The fact is, there HAVE been comparable assaults upon Western-sympathizing Ukrainians from the Donbas Separatists and the Russian government. Which was well noted even at the time. And

    https://freedomhouse.org/country/eastern-donbas/freedom-world/2021

    https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/documents/d-ru/dv/dru_dua_20161214_08/dru_dua_20161214_08en.pdf

    All of which could have been examined by the actual fucking source itself.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20150626044739/http://www.kyivpost.com/content/kyiv-post-plus/un-refugee-head-confronts-ukraines-atypical-challenge-392051.html

    “There is a crisis, but to the outside world it’s not very visible. Why? Because many of these internally displaced people have been received by host communities, because the local association and civil society have done a fantastic job in receiving them. So, we say 1.3 million IDPs, people say, “Where? Where are they? Show us this crisis,’” Wetterwald said. “I don’t like this term – IDPs because it tends to make people visualize refugee camps, and here that is not the case.”

    In early February, just weeks before Putin’s troops invaded, Zelensky’s government had amassed nearly 150,000 troops on the Donbas contact line, about two-thirds of Ukrainian army servicemen, gathered to attack the Donbas separatists. Amassing that great a force implies that Zelensky intended to crush the Donbas separatists and establish full control of the region.

    As he’d have EVERY LEGAL RIGHT TO as the “Donbas Separatists” and the unmarked Russian units embedded with them are fighting a WAR against him, meaning as a combatant he’d have equal right to fight them as they do to fight him.

    Given the Zelensky governments’ prior suppression of the Russian language in the Donbas region,

    “Prior suppression of the Russian language in the Donbas region.”

    God fucking forbid people have to learn the Ukrainian language in their schools.

    the continued oppression of Russian friendly Ukrainians was a certainty.

    Yeah, when you’re in a state of undeclared WAR with another country and have been for 8 years, and that country is actively seeking to dismember your territory by promoting violent separatism, it’s not SURPRISING you’d “oppress” the people advocating on behalf of your enemies.

    Nor is this some kind of novel concept or the fault of the Ukrainian government.

    After all, the Russian regime has been doing the exact same stuff to those advocating for continued unity between Crimea and Ukraine since it occupied the place in 2014.

    https://freedomhouse.org/article/occupied-crimea-victims-and-oppressors

    So yes, I do think that the probability of 14,000 deaths over 8 years to likely be so, if not under counted.

    Fair.

    It is a given, that there have been deaths on the Ukrainian side as well. That they’re not publicized implies them to be far lesser and given the disparity in forces between the Donbas separatists and the forces Zelensky’s gov. can employ, that’s hardly surprising.

    Except as we’ve established, the matter is that you don’t seem to be doing much checking. Indeed, in this very comment you showed that you had misread what the Wiki source (weak as it is) was actually saying, magically transfiguring all 1.3 million internally displaced people in Ukraine into oppressed Russophone Ukranians bullied by the evil Ukrainian government.

    Which does not fit.

    I mentioned the 14,000 to point out how one sided Turtler’s comment was in that area.

    Which is nothing compared to your comment, which is not only one-sided but also provably false, as i have shown.

    That is an understandable assumption upon your part. It is contradicted by Putin’s announcement of the conditions Russia requires to end the fighting.

    No it is not, especially when properly understood.

    Foremost among which is Zelensky’s government’s acceptance of the Ukraine remaining a neutral buffer State between Russia and NATO. A condition which Zelensky now says he accepts. Whether he would honor it is another matter.

    The problem with this interpretation is- as I pointed out- that Ukraine was a “neutral buffer state” between Russia and NATO in 2014, when the war started as a result of the Russian invasions.

    And this is before I talk about the nature of what Putin considers to be “neutral.”

    It is in Zelensky’s refusal to accept the Donbas region declaring its independence from the Ukraine, wherein a negotiated settlement fails.

    As is appropriate. The Donbas- especially the Eastern Third or so of it that has remained continuously under Russian/”separatist” control- is under hostile foreign occupation by the Russian military, in which free expression and dissent are ruthlessly crushed and those opposed to “Separatism” are harassed, persecuted, displaced, and killed.

    It is impossible and unwise to accept separation by the Donbas from Ukraine under such grounds, much as it is for Crimea.

    Putin had various lawful means to pursue this option, but he chose none of them. As such, the Donbas and Crimea should be rightfully regarded as artificial, criminal acquisitions as per Manchukuo etc. al. under the Stimson Doctrine until further notice.

    The Donbas is heavily Russian speaking and if its secession was put in the Donbas to a public plebiscite, it would pass.

    And how would you know that, Geoffrey Britain?

    It sure as hell isn’t due to mastery of the existing sources. indeed, I had to point out how you couldn’t even quote Neo’s own source correctly.

    It also isn’t due to a grasp of the law (as I’ve labored on and on, as well as the fact that plebiscites held under undue armed foreign duress are invalid)..

    The fact is, from the very start the “Separatists” have managed to hold somewhere between two thirds of the Donbas and (more typically) a third or a Fourth of it. This in spite of starting the war with the element of surprise and a great advantage in numbers and material, an advantage in the latter that they retained until the present day.

    I do not claim to be a mindreader, but there’s a lot of reasons why Putin and co stopped talking about the project of a “Novorossiya” for about half a decade. And one of those is because of the significant lack of support from Russophone Ukrainians compared to what was expected.

    But the Ukraine’s sole port city is Odessa in the Donbas region and Zelensky is not willing to give that up, so the negotiations are currently at an impasse.

    Dear God, this is worse than I fucking thought.

    Geoffrey, for the record: Here’s a map of the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts, collectively known as “The Donbas”, from a few years ago.

    https://static.dw.com/image/60789828_7.png

    And here is a map of Odessa (spelled “Odesa” here).

    https://cdn.britannica.com/72/64472-050-F70D46EC/Odessa-Ukraine.jpg

    You might notice a little something.

    Like, how Odessa is ON THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE COUNTRY from the freaking Donbas, in its own eponymous Odessa Oblast.

    Do I have to explain how this should give you pause and raise questions on what you think your knowledge of Ukraine is?

    There are some ports in the Donbas and areas adjacent to it that the Ukrainians would understandably wish to keep, but they have been barely usable for the past several years due to a Russian-occupied Crimea. Odessa is not one of them.

    The West’s political and economic leadership is moving towards authoritarianism because they are aligned with the Global Elite’s embrace of the Davos Agenda and the UN’s 2030 Agenda, which require global dominance.

    Fair.

    Putin is a brutal, authoritarian dictator to those who challenge him.

    And those who aren’t.

    He is also a nationalist and does not mistreat Russians who do not challenge his authority.

    Yeaaah… you haven’t studied the abuses of Russians- including Russian Christians- under Putin’s vassal Kadyrov. Or his support for forced Kazakhification in Kazakhstan.

    I worked in Russia, and the fact is that Putin’s far from the worst dictator but he’s helping to actively let the country rot from the inside out and is happy scapegoating even loyal henchmen in order to save face.

    Historically, I fully agree.

    However, the West’s leadership today is not of the mindset of the Western leadership during the height of the Cold War or even in the immediate aftermath of the breakup of the Soviet Union.

    NATO is controlled by its current civilian political leadership. Nearly all of whom are closely aligned with Klaus Schwab’s WEF.

    Fair, but that is where the issue of how it goes in there.

    What most people are just beginning to understand is that their planned authoritarianism makes Putin’s authoritarianism pale in comparison.

    Perhaps, but compared to the totalitarianism of Putin’s frenemies in Beijing and Tehran?

    That’s the rub.

    BTW, all of the below can be independently verified.

    Mate, you couldn’t even quote Wikipedia accurately or verify which side of the freaking *country* Odessa was on. You really don’t want to play the “independently verified” card even if what you claimed was true.

    They envision a New World Order in which free will and individual self-determination are “gone”. One in which humans are “hackable” by our “digital identities” and biological reality are joined through the implantation of computer chips.

    They envision a digital banking system where your access to all of your financial instruments can be ‘cancelled” with the push of a button. No need to put a gun to our heads. No access to your money. No digital confirmation at the point of purchase of an acceptable “social credit score” = no food or anything else.

    The Nazi’s were a dry run for what WEF has planned for us and Putin’s nationalism stands in their way. Of course, China’s CCP does as well but Rome wasn’t built in a day.

    The Chinese CCP is a freaking role model for them, down to the “social credit score.” And they have been more than happy to crib from Putin’s Russia too on the matter. That doesn’t make them good just because they are opposed to Putin or the CCP, but the same is also true.

    And in any case, I hold that a sovereign, armed citizenry of the kind we are seeing in Ukraine is one of the best deterrents to all of the above.

    A principle that Schwab, Soros, Putin, and Xi all stand united on, and against.

83. @neo Indeed Neo, I know.

    And now another one for the tally. That probably solves things here.

84. @Neo Another thing to note about Geoffrey Britain’s writing:

    To be very frank – as I said in my comment to you – at this point I don’t have the time to laboriously read every word you say.

    That I think is a problem, albeit an understandable one. It means you are much more likely to miss some choice screwups or poison pills/modifications made in the fine text. Some of which I covered in my lengthy reply, but some I’ll touch on here.

    By the way, this response of yours “the Ukrainian government caused 1.3 million Russian speaking Ukrainians living in the Donbas region to flee to Russia. That alone implies fierce oppression” is bizarre. What caused them to flee is that there was a civil war there, and the Russian government was a big player in that civil war. The Ukrainian government did not cause them to flee in some unilateral oppressive action.

    What’s more important is that the 1.3 Million “Russian-speaking Ukrainians” fleeing into Russia DO NOT EXIST, as your own source showed.

    By April 2015, the war had caused at least 1.3 million people to become internally displaced within Ukraine.[620] In addition, more than 800,000 Ukrainians had sought asylum, residence permits, or other forms of legal stay in neighbouring countries, with over 659,143 in Russia, 81,100 in Belarus, and thousands more elsewhere.[621][622]

    So the 1.3 Million people are a reference to all “internally displaced” people “within Ukraine”, meaning of all ethnicities, languages, and political leanings, but EXPRESSLY NOT those who fled to Russia, which number 659,143 at the time of the measurement.

    This is Geoffrey completely failing to accurately re-state the source used. Whether due to dishonesty, or simple ignorance, I do not know nor do I honestly care at this point.

    What’s worse is that they tried to catapult off of this “fact” to claim that this means the evil Ukrainian government is persecuting Russian-speaking Ukrainians (something even the Russophones in Azov Battalion would be shocked by) and that there is no corresponding persecution of Ukrainian loyalists by the Russian regime or “Separatists” because it supposedly wasn’t mentioned in the source…that does in fact talk about them and Geoffrey mis-read in the first place.

    Which Geoffrey then used to attack me and my posts for being “one-sided” and to claim you have misread or missed the info (which frankly reeks of gaslighting to me).

    I hope this gives some idea of what has exasperated me about this, and why I have consistently been forced to ask myself if this were “merely” gross incompetence or malicious dishonesty.

    I don’t quite understand why you’ve come to the position you have taken, but I know that I’ve spent a lot of time patiently trying to respond, and for the most part I will now leave it to others to do so if they’re so inclined.

    Well, one reason I can identify is that- politics, honesty, sources, or biases aside- Geoffrey Britain is REMARKABLY ignorant about Ukraine and the history involved, often times on a rather basic level.

    For instance,

    But the Ukraine’s sole port city is Odessa in the Donbas region and Zelensky is not willing to give that up, so the negotiations are currently at an impasse.

    The problem is, even a cursory look at Ukraine would show that Odessa is ON THE OPPOSITE OF THE COUNTRY from the Donbas. A fact that is not seriously disputed by any side and is one of the few things that one really COULD trust cess pits like Wikipedia to get right.

    Geoffrey apparently did not bother to avail themselves of any of these resources to do so. Which indicates not only that they are overly reliant upon pro-Kremlin sources (which is a problem itself but I don’t think particularly atypical or that different from much of the MSM being reliant upon pro-Ukrainian ones) but that they lack even the basic background or double-checking to spot obvious false claims.

    In any case, it certainly does not speak well for the rigor of his research or argument, or to his ability to verify facts in this regards.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>