Ukraine Invasion: Part 40

[MagicFox]

40 threads, still here 🇺🇦

Well as we know from various conversations between Ukrainians and Russian family members, they’re definitely not doing that already. They wouldn’t!

You know, thinking about it ... the idea of debate would have to be defined.

Debate over factual information? (because of the fog of war / propaganda)

Debate over the train-of-consequences of various things?

Debate over the rights and wrongs? (that's tricky as I think all of us unashamedly think Russia Is Wrong here, with plenty of historical evidence to show why surrounding countries want to be in NATO. But this does not alter the fact that Ukraine does get some things wrong. There are hints of Ukrainian war crimes too, etc. Still, yes - if there's going to be a debate about if Russia was justified in invading, this most emphatically isn't the thread).

Debate over what's propaganda and what's fact?

Debate over what Ukraine is carefully -not- saying eg numbers of dead?

musing

One thing I do like about this thread is that we call out mistakes and bullshit - and we allow ourselves the luxury of getting things wrong. Being able to step back from a position and re-examine it (and giving or accepting apologies) is crucial if we don't want the debate to run to the extremes.

I enjoyed Maxim Tucker's tweet thread about the drones for Ukraine fundraiser:

https://twitter.com/MaxRTucker/status/1663480373664153600?s=20

A much beloved Ukrainian comedian, @serhiyprytula, has been revolutionising the way Ukraine fights the Kremlin, buying its first military satellite and kamikaze drones with a range of 1000km+ that can strike into the heart of Russia. I spoke to him about it: (Thread)

His crowdfunding campaigns hit their targets almost instantly. He visited the UK twice in the past year to buy 101 infantry fighting vehicles for £5.5 million, the largest purchase on record of armour by a member of the public.

When he raised $20 million to buy three Bayraktar drones last year in a single day, the manufacturer was so impressed they gifted them for free. He asked the Ukrainian Ministry what he should do with the money. They asked him to buy a satellite...

“At first I thought it was some kind of joke. We didn’t know anything about space or satellites, but I said OK, we will try,” he told me in his Kyiv office, a pile of wrecked Russian equipment next door and stacks of drones in a storeroom a floor below.

His team worked in secret: “Hundreds of people were asking us how we spent their money. Some idiots started to say Prytula bought a home in Switzerland, then the Maldives. I was afraid if someone knew what we want to buy, the Russians will do everything to destroy my plan.”

US intelligence shares satellite images with Ukraine but it takes up to 36 hours before they reach frontline troops, limiting the kind of mission they can be used for. With Prytula’s satellite, soldiers in the trenches have the images within three to four hours, he said.

On October 10 the Kremlin unleashed a relentless missile bombardment on power infrastructure in Ukrainian cities, hoping to freeze the nation into submission during a bitterly cold winter. Prytula responded with the “For Revenge” project, raising $9 million that same day.

“Remember our big crowdfunding campaign For Revenge?” he tweeted this month. “Well . . . we cannot confirm nor deny, but some [Russian] oil depots have had hard times recently. Ilsky oil refinery in Kuban for example. What a coincidence!”

His incredible foundation has raised more than $120 million for military equipment since President Putin ordered tanks across the border last February. Full story here: (paywalled times article):

Wow. just wow.

Wtf is it with Ukrainian comedians?!

And imagine the conversation .. "hello, I'd like to buy a military grade satellite"

As I understand it Ukraine has said they have no direct involvement with the drones over Moscow rather than the standard 'no comment'.

To my mind that points towards anti Kremlin Russian partisans

1dayatatime, I believe that you still see this thread as "not a balanced debate". I won't tell you what to think or feel but IMO that sentence is a little reductionist as that phrase discounts all the nuances and context which Ducks has set out. You will find that the clever folks on this thread will engage with and in fact welcome debate (like Crimea's history) that is sincere and not laced with dubious agenda. We like a lively thread for the right reasons.

Exactly. Sometimes things happen in life that are uncomfortable for the simple reason we cannot rationalise them in our minds. Like a table inset with an equal number of round and square holes. Except we have twice as many square pegs as we do round pegs. No matter how many times we wish to try, we cannot fit them all neatly together. Yet some people will continue on this failed quest.

Sometimes there is no rationalising. When a state is invaded by another much larger state, when 60,000 children have been abducted from their families and when the aggressor state has tortured, raped and murdered civilians, I am not ready to for a balanced debate about what is fair to both sides.

The balanced debate is for later, it is not for now. After the war. What matters now is that Ukraine pushes Russia back by whatever means are available particularly when we all have a vested interest in that happening.

That sounds about right to me.

With a small added thought that if Russia is prevented from any further aggression, the comparatively innocent young men who are turned by the Russian army into murderous thugs by a combination of brutality and rape, then those young men will not be forced to do things which will break them for ever, or cause their deaths for no good cause.

Not all Russians are evil, after all; the ones who are not should not be made to behave as if they were by the actions of the ones who are.

Perhaps the one glimmer of hope of some popular uprising is showing from some of the commentary relating to the Moscow strikes this morning. It’s never going to turn those that consume the pro-Moscow equivalent of GB News or FOX News, but it need not. If the popular view that this whole SMO is leading to Muscovites needing to come to terms with air raid sirens, that May be enough to get hard questions asked.

So having a discussion forum that is not a balanced debate is completely understandable.

Like Ducks, I’m trying to understand what the thread is meant to be ‘debating’? And what would make it ‘balanced’? Genuinely interested in hearing @1dayatatime expanding on their interpretation of what parameters ought to constitute a balanced debate.

@DrBlackbird The Russians have a phrase: доверяй, но проверяй, “trust, but verify”. Reagan was a big fan of it. I would take that to mean not going with what is reported on without seeing backing information. Most TV News is awful at conveying a full story, for example, or tabloids that have an agenda. Everyone has an agenda, whether it’s Russia, Ukraine, the UK, US etc. If you view the world through this lens, you can work better at seeing what blind spots you may have that need filling in.

Think of it like what the service Ground News does, where they collate news stories and report on which agencies are repeating the story and what their typical bias is (right wing, centrist, left, liberal, hawkish, dovish, government mouthpiece and so on). Critical thinking is not simply repeating what others are saying at face value. You gotta consider that they may have an angle.

I think Brexit taught me a lot about how easily manipulated people can be by things they want to believe about their side or the others. I’d hate to have been duped and then find out I could have avoided it.

Just my tuppence.

@Siloed thanks, I’m aware people have agendas. Ditto the need for evidence. In fact one of the things that I appreciate about this thread is the effort to offer evidence and the acknowledgment when it’s not available. Anyhow, I’m not sure though this explains what @1dayatatime balanced debate means. What do you think they mean? What is meant to be debated here?

Does anyone seriously believe that Russia has no involvement nor vested interest in propagating false information? I would be very surprised if the Kremlin had nothing to do with Brexit, for example; there was a mort of outright lies flying about the internet in 2016, and that was not confined to the USA and Trump's victory there.

Sorry bit of an aside but well worth listening to today’s episode of foreign office with Michael Weiss. He’s interviewing Jennifer Cafarella, Director of Strategic Initiatives at the ISW. They discuss where the war is now, what the counter offensive could achieve and revisit the risk and perceived risk of escalation.

@Siloed

The Russians have a phrase: доверяй, но проверяй, “trust, but verify”. Reagan was a big fan of it. I would take that to mean not going with what is reported on without seeing backing information. Most TV News is awful at conveying a full story, for example, or tabloids that have an agenda. Everyone has an agenda, whether it’s Russia, Ukraine, the UK, US etc. If you view the world through this lens, you can work better at seeing what blind spots you may have that need filling in.

That's a good phrase, though given the lies the Russian govt come out with as a deliberate policy, I'd not be applying it to the Kremlin.

Every govt does have an agenda, but it's worth noting that some are more extreme than others. I guess it's not only about what the agenda is but about how extreme it is. Ágenda' tends to imply that people are pushing their own pov but some politicians try very hard to serve the people as best they can.

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime I dont think any rational person thinks that Russia doesn't have an extreme agenda.

Yes, Brexit was influenced by Russian money. Is there a direct trail of proof? No, not that ordinary people can see. But ....

1. https://www.csis.org/blogs/brexit-bits-bobs-and-blogs/did-russia-influence-brexit Crucially, the UK Government is accused of making a deliberate effort not to find out how Russian influence may have affected the June 2016 vote. This is all the more incredulous because the government admits there was Russian interference in the 2014 Scottish referendum, declaring it the first time that Russia directly interfered in a Western election. The government also admits that Russia interfered in the December 2019 general election.

2. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9472/
   Crucially, the UK Government is accused of making a deliberate effort not to find out how Russian influence may have affected the June 2016 vote. This is all the more incredulous because the government admits there was Russian interference in the 2014 Scottish referendum, declaring it the first time that Russia directly interfered in a Western election. The government also admits that Russia interfered in the December 2019 general election.

less directly addressing the question but still clearly Russian influence on UK / Western political questions and events:

3. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-exposes-sick-russian-troll-factory-plaguing-social-media-with-kremlin-propaganda

4)https://www.wired.com/story/russia-secondary-infektion-disinformation/

Most of all, Farage now clearly tows the Kremlin line and this comment from 2014:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/31/farage-i-admire-putin
Ukip leader praises Russian president's handling of Syria crisis, but describes Germany's chancellor as 'incredibly cold'
" Asked which current world leader he most admired, Farage replied: "As an operator, but not as a human being, I would say Putin.
"The way he played the whole Syria thing. Brilliant. Not that I approve of him politically. How many journalists in jail now?"

And he's heavily pushing the line that it's the West's fault for provoking Putin which is super easy to find.

ok technically that's not proof that he was funded by Russia for the Brexit campaign but I think at this point anyone who thinks he wasn't doing Russia's work is naive to the point of culpability.

Brexit was in Russian interests, Russia has interfered in elections, BoJo's government refused to look into if Russia had funded Brexit and one of the two leaders of the Brexit campaign is pro-Russia. At this point, the straws aren't so much blowing in the wind as coming to rest spelling out RUSSIA PUSHED FOR BREXIT.

Does anyone seriously believe that Russia has no involvement nor vested interest in propagating false information?

We can safely say that Russia is a propaganda machine par excellence and definitely wanted Brexit to happen with a lot of convincing evidence that one way or another Moscow did its best to see that come about.

Farage is such a deeply unpleasant man that’s inflicted so much damage on this country. A jumped up petty wannabe political heavyweight. Why for the love of god is he ever given any air time at all.

Not to derail the thread… Back to Ukraine much more importantly.

@ReleaseTheDucksOfWar
@blueshoes
@Chatillon

My view that this forum is not a balanced debate and recognising the very valid reasons for this is aligned with the very well written and well structured post by Ducks. Namely:

"As more information came out about Russian atrocities either through (reliable) news or in the case of a considerable minority of us from our refugee guests, a revulsion has set in."

And

"Anyway, your comments did come over as a bit harsh, but I think there's some truth in them."

Ducks post was well thought through and kind:

"You've done this with Crimea, and as far as I'm concerned that's an asset to the thread because it ~does~ provide more balance and actually historical context"

"So personally I welcome anything posted in good faith that asks the hard questions. More genuine information and thought is good."

But sadly I feel that Duck's view is in a minority on this forum and that good faith questions or genuine information and thought are viewed with suspicion and are not welcomed : "laced with dubious agenda" which of course is fully understandable or in the words of @Chatillon :

"when the aggressor state has tortured, raped and murdered civilians, I am not ready to for a balanced debate"

Which in turn is aligned with my comment that "having a discussion forum that is not a balanced debate is completely understandable."

Letting your guard slip:

Klitschko noted that a woman who "went out onto the balcony to watch the drones being shot down" was killed in Holosiivskyi district.

Kyiv mayor on woman killed in night attack: she went out onto balcony to watch air defence working | Ukrainska Pravda

@DrBlackbird

"Genuinely interested in hearing @1dayatatime expanding on their interpretation of what parameters ought to constitute a balanced debate."

+++

I am talking your request at face value and not simply an opportunity to vilify me. My point on balanced debate came from the discussion on the future of Crimea.

The historical and population facts I mentioned were that :

"So in terms of historical claims Crimea has been :
Part of the Ottoman Empire for 340 years
Part of Russia for 180 years
Part of Ukraine for 56 years
Independent for 4 years
Part of Germany for 3 years"

"In terms of population and taking the 2001 census (to avoid the 2014 and 2021 census when Crimea was under Russian control) then of the population:
60% were Russian
10% were Crimean Tartars
24% were Ukrainian "

It would therefore be fair to say that if there was a genuine and free referendum in Crimea today then the majority would vote for either independence or to become part of Russia but not to become part of Ukraine.

Now the Ukrainian Government ( and many posters here) position is that Crimea should be returned to Ukraine but this would go against the Right to Self determination of the population which is a central principle in International Law.

Now some in this emotionally charged matter would counter this with "who cares what the ethnic Russians in Crimea want". But annexing Crimea against the will of the majority of the Crimean population is no different than Russia trying to annex Ukraine against the will of the majority of the Ukrainian population.

This is what I meant by a balanced debate but I fear it will not be well received.

But annexing Crimea against the will of the majority of the Crimean population is no different than Russia trying to annex Ukraine against the will of the majority of the Ukrainian population.

I think you have to exclude the Russians who moved to Crimea after the illegal annexation in 2014 for this to have any validity. Part of Russia's playbook is to move out the conquered population and move in ethnic Russians to create an artificial majority.

Agreed with @MissConductUS

So if the Rusdians who immigrated after 2014 were sent back to Russia, it leaves the people who lived there before.

Which seems fine on the surface except for one thing: in Crimea and the Donbas Russia has been pushing a heavy pro Russia propaganda line that -has- been effective.

So that leaves a population who is pro - Russia but by unpleasant means.
What follows from this is that govts need to provide information about what they are doing well and why, to counteract the endless lies of Russia and other maleficent players like Trump. Brexit is controversial but no one can doubt that a LOT of pro - leave lies were told. Propaganda works.

In Russias case though its worse that that because its not only propaganda. They stir up separatist feeling, then supply the separatists with arms. Then insurrection- the infamous Little Green Men in Crimea, the war in the Donbas, of which MH17 was one victim.

So what do you do? Many people are pro -Russia now. There has to be a practical solution to Crimea, and that's what this discussion has been about. But there is a deeper theme heavily influencing the events and opinions, it's malevolent and its extremely hard to counter. Perhaps the Ukraine disaster will curb the Kremlin for a while. Perhaps when Putin dies a less extraordinarily talented manipulator will be at the top and it won't be so bad .... but there's a reason why the border countries fear Russia and that goes back far further than 2014.

@MissConductUS

"I think you have to exclude the Russians who moved to Crimea after the illegal annexation in 2014 for this to have any validity. Part of Russia's playbook is to move out the conquered population and move in ethnic Russians to create an artificial majority."

+++

Thank you for reinforcing my point about a lack of balanced debate.

I specifically took the 2001 census (to avoid the 2014 and 2021 census when Crimea was under Russian control). In 2001 Crimea was under the control of Ukrainian authorities and the 2001 census showed :

60% were Russian
10% were Crimean Tartars
24% were Ukrainian

You are of course correct that by 2014 and 2021 the figures had respectively changed to :
68% and 76% Russian
16% and 8% Ukrainian - who understandably fled.
Crimean Tartars we're stable at 13%

But the point is that even in 2001 the majority of the Crimean population were Russian.

@ReleaseTheDucksOfWar

"Perhaps when Putin dies a less extraordinarily talented manipulator will be at the top and it won't be so bad ...."

+++

Sadly going on the past history of Russian leaders I think it is much more likely that the next Russian leader will be much worse and more nationalistic than Putin especially if Russia is thoroughly humiliated after the war. Think of the rise of Hitler after the humiliation of Versailles.

Putin is most certainly not a pleasant character but there have been a lot more brutal leaders in Russia in recent history.

Crimea.

You might remember me saying how much I loved the pre-annexation south coast of Crimea, especially Yalta. Also my posts on water supply in Crimea.

1dayatatime. It would therefore be fair to say that if there was a genuine and free referendum in Crimea today then the majority would vote for either independence or to become part of Russia but not to become part of Ukraine.

No, not reasonable at all. The facts don't bear this out. Of course things change and who knows what would happen if there was peace without intimidation and with the voting age population of today? If you look at the last fair election in Crimea (the main bit minus Sevastopol) in 2010 Russian Unity got 4% of the vote. That was the unite with Russia party of the time. 'What, wait, there's all these supposed Russians wanting to join the motherland?' Well, no. Russians/Russian speakers mostly voted for Party of Regions which got 49% of the vote. There will be some non-Ru speaking votes in there no doubt. I expect some voted Communist back then (7% of the vote). But the fact is that at a time when you could freely express a vote to want to join with Russia, 4% of those voting in the main bit of Crimea did so.

I haven't looked at the Sevastopol figures but I doubt they would be very different. Population-wise there are perhaps some 2.5 million or so people in Crimea, with the breakdown about 4:1 between the Republic and Sevastopol. The latter in UK terms is a Portsmouth/Plymouth in a near Mediterranean setting.

This circles back to my musings on identity. Party of Regions provided a tent for Russians, Ukrainians and others who wanted an independent state that looked East not West, but kept a friendly distance from Russia. Along with Belarus, it was close to Russia, but had a functioning if volatile democratic system that had tilted West in the Orange years of 2005-2010. Meanwhile Russia had bases in Crimea, especially but not only in Sevastopol. In the visits I made to Crimea from 2008-2013, engaging almost exclusively local Russian speakers, I don't remember any desire being expressed to become part of Russia. There was sometimes a 'well we're really Russia, but we're in Ukraine and given the number of tourists from both countries, the bases and the special status, we've got the best of both worlds' sort of attitude for sure.

It's Joe Biden again. He's Irish remember. If he had a referendum of himself the Oval Office probbaly wouldn't join the Irish Republic.

Crimea 2

How Crimea became part of the Russian Empire.

Back in 2014, after the annexation, I had a 3-way reading group with a couple of friends. We worked though Alan Fisher’s 1970 book (see image). It is a well-footnoted narrative of the process of annexation in the late 18th Century. There’s a bit more Crimean history, but it essentially details the progressive evaporation of a former land empire (the Golden Horde) that had become a vassal of the Ottomans as it faced the encroachment of colonising imperial Russia.

I think it might have been a print on demand book. Paper copies online seem to be £20+ or so.