> uhh, we are moving into a very bad place I predicted few years ago
According to Peter Zeihan, if Russia were to win in Ukraine, they would continue and Poland might be next. But because modern Russia is so bad at war, a Nato-Russia confrontation would be like 1:1000 casualty ratio in conventional war. So nuclear weapons wold be Russian's only option. In conclusion, the safest option is to stop Russia in Ukraine, and not let them win, not let then proceed to next target.
Russia isn't taking on Nato, they just wanted to expand their sphere of influence, and they never thought that Ukraine would stand a fighting chance against them. Hell, we didn't either. It was only after Russia bungled the invasion that nato really started helping them.
Russia attacking nato would be an absolute death sentence for them.
Also for what it's worth, Zeihan tends to talk way beyond his core competencies. Any time you hear him talking about green energy or military matters, take it with a huge grain of salt
Agree on the last part. It's the halo effect, because he talks so well, and is really knowledgeable about Asia (I mean, it's basically 1:1 with my experience of rural China, which is not an experience anybody lives/hear about).
His opinions on other stuff is mostly informed. But it's informed bullshit mostly (does not mean it's wrong, it means that that's like asking ChatGPT about it).
And according to me that's sensationalist bullshit - the Ukraine crisis is clearly a local one, one that has been brewing for a very very long time. And incidentally one that the US has been keen on nurturing due to its detrimental effects to Russia, but western propaganda portrays Russia as wanting this (for imperialistic reasons or whatever).
If they didn't enter to begin with the Donbass would've gotten run over. And if they would leave now the same thing would happen. And nothing would've changed with their NATO dilemma (and you can shout "defensive alliance" all you want, Russia is not going to buy that).
How: By force (as opposed to achieving a peaceful resolution through adhering to the Minsk agreements which admittedly was just a ploy on Ukraine's side to buy time to build up for an offensive)
When: OSCE reports show increased activity in the area (the majority of it on the Donbass side of the neutral zone) during the two weeks leading up to the invasion. From that perspective it looks like it was in the process of happening when Russia stepped in.
By whom: The Ukrainian regime (feels a bit weird to even have to answer this question).
"Russia isn't genoci..." Yes. Yes they are. They are committing genocide against the Ukrainian people by all legal and colloquial definitions of the word "genocide".
If the United States invaded and tried to annex Canada through sham referenda held at the point of a gun after a years-long campaign to vilify them as commies, promised to destroy its national identity, and relocated its children south of the border for Americanization and reeducation, people's tones would be very different.
> but western propaganda portrays Russia as wanting this
In the above link there are several hundred official statements from Russian politicians confirming that they indeed do want this.
Genocide... seems like words don't have the same meaning that they used to. Killing soldiers is not genocide. You had people (probably yourself included) calling Russia's actions "genocide" a year ago already, long before the gloves were off in September (after Daria Dugina was murdered and the truck bomb attack damaged the Crimean bridge). What's it been after that, super-mega-genocidal? Give me a break. Genocide is nothing but a buzzword in this context.
> Here are several hundred instances where Russian politicians and media figures called for genocide
By that account Putin is a humanitarian hero, given that the actions of Russia have largely gone against "the wish of the people".
It also makes the shouts for "regime change" quite ridiculous - what's that supposed to achieve if the alternative regime leaders are among those quoted in the article? A more "true Russian" regime?
Should we make this fair, maybe I should put up a collection of what various Ukrainians have been saying about Russians (long before the 2022 invasion)? There is a lot of material there...
> If the United States invaded and tried to annex... [snip] ...people's tones would be very different.
Funny that you would bring that up. In fact people's tones are very different. I don't remember seeing people calling out "genocide!" in any of the war campaigns of the United States (Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc) that actually killed a lot of civilians, nor have I seen any calls to ban American athletes from any sports events, nor have I seen any suggestions for sanctions. The hypocrisy is mind-blowing.
> In the above link there are several hundred official statements from Russian politicians confirming that they indeed do want this.
And very few of the quotes are by Putin and the ones that are there are quite mellow. So again, if he's the "tyrannical dictator" that the west tries to portray him as he should instead be seen as a hero for moderating Russia's actions the way he does, wouldn't you say?
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
a. Killing members of the group;
b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Russia is doing at least four of those.
Russian government officials have publicly, irrefutably, unquestionably admitted to “e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” on television, in front of the world.
With plain old war there are usually end goals like "gain control of this piece of land/and or resource". Which is what's happening in Ukraine. They want Ukraine's land and resources.
However, it's completely possible to achieve those goals without taking any of the actions listed by the other commenter except maybe a and b, but I can see arguments made that they're referring to noncombatants, and I think most of us can agree that them being wholesale slaughtered by the invading army isn't something that shouldn't be happening in any circumstances.
In this case Russia has made very loud and public statements making it distinctly clear that in addition to obtaining Ukraine's land and resources, they also intend to fully wipe out the national identity of Ukraine by taking most if not all of those actions, and in fact have already done some of them. That would be the difference.
> I don't remember seeing people calling out "genocide!" in any of the war campaigns of the United States (Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc)
That proves you weren't paying attention. I don't agree that those wars were genocides, but there absolutely were many anti-war protestors who asserted exactly that.
> According to Peter Zeihan, if Russia were to win in Ukraine, they would continue and Poland might be next.
Zeihan's predictions have an abysmal track record. He tends to predict the most sensational outcome. I would not take his word on whether or not Russia would invade a NATO country.
There are reasons to support Ukraine that are more grounded in reality.
If the Ukrainian revolutionary government didn't get to work on the Sunday morning of 23rd Feb 2014 just to vote to abolish the law on language policies that had given the Russian, Romanian, and Hungarian languages the official status of regional languages in Eastern Ukraine, this might all have been avoided indeed. Crimea had only got annexed after 4 days of this stupid move against their own citizens of the "untrustworthy regions".
According to Peter Zeihan, if Russia were to win in Ukraine, they would continue and Poland might be next. But because modern Russia is so bad at war, a Nato-Russia confrontation would be like 1:1000 casualty ratio in conventional war. So nuclear weapons wold be Russian's only option. In conclusion, the safest option is to stop Russia in Ukraine, and not let them win, not let then proceed to next target.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A79uneUEfjM