Russia invades Ukraine

[Moose-tache]

This piece in The Nation contrasts the Western response to the Israeli treatment of Palestine and the Western response to Putin's invasion of Ukraine without attempting to effectively apologize for Putin.

Very interesting article. I don't think the two situations are completely comparable, but the contrast is quite thought-provoking.

I do think some of the media put a little too much mustard on their coverage of the war in Ukraine. I keep seeing things like "Breaking News: Puppy killed by Russian bomb! Putin unavailable for comment" It's inevitable that schools and hospitals will be destroyed in a war and children will be maimed and puppies eviscerated, etc. That's not some weird Russian quirk, or Putin's personal vendetta against all things cuddly; it's one of the many reasons why we don't want to have any wars in the first place. But I guess "Armed Conflict: Puppy Inevitably Snuffs It" doesn't get as many clicks. The comparison to Palestine here is probably even closer, since the humanitarian cost is one of the most glaring aspects of the Israeli occupation.

[zompist]

I don't see the gotcha here. I mean, there are four possible positions:

1. Russia's invasion good, Israel's occupation also good. Not exactly a gotcha-- it's consistent, just evil-minded. Not coincidentally, it's actually held by Trumpists, convoy truckers, Fox blowhards, and fascists.
2. Russia's invasion bad, Israel's occupation also bad. Probably the default position held by anyone left of Mitt Romney. Actually, I just checked-- Romney is in favor of a two-state solution.
3. Russia's invasion good, but Israel's occupation bad. Maybe some tankies plus Glenn Greenwald?
4. Russia's invasion bad, but Israel's occupation good. I dunno-- Mitch McConnell's position? Probably not any of The Nation's readers. Unfortunately the default position in Israel, but again, Nation readers don't need to be reminded of that.

I see the frustration, but in general "you shouldn't be mad at calamity X, you should be mad at calamity Y" is somewhere between foolish and counter-productive. Attempting to be mad at everything means, in practice, doing nothing about anything. Will the author be happy if, in 3 months, the Russian invasion is still going on and people aren't excited about it any more?

[bradrn]

I don't see the gotcha here. I mean, there are four possible positions:

…

4. Russia's invasion bad, but Israel's occupation good. I dunno-- Mitch McConnell's position? Probably not any of The Nation's readers. Unfortunately the default position in Israel, but again, Nation readers don't need to be reminded of that.

Most if not all of the Jewish people I know, to some extent including myself, have this position — though keep in mind that they (we?) would reject an equivalence between Russia and Israel, and would argue against describing it as an ‘occupation’. I think the ‘gotcha’ must be aimed at this population, though as you note, in context it’s largely preaching to the converted, i.e. The Nation readers. (As Scott Alexander notes, it’s easy to criticise your non-readers.)

I see the frustration, but in general "you shouldn't be mad at calamity X, you should be mad at calamity Y" is somewhere between foolish and counter-productive. Attempting to be mad at everything means, in practice, doing nothing about anything. Will the author be happy if, in 3 months, the Russian invasion is still going on and people aren't excited about it any more?

No, I think the author would be even more upset about that outcome. Their point seems to be simply that people should be equally mad at equal conflicts (or at least what they consider equal conflicts), regardless of race, geography etc.

[zompist]

I see the frustration, but in general "you shouldn't be mad at calamity X, you should be mad at calamity Y" is somewhere between foolish and counter-productive. Attempting to be mad at everything means, in practice, doing nothing about anything. Will the author be happy if, in 3 months, the Russian invasion is still going on and people aren't excited about it any more?

No, I think the author would be even more upset about that outcome. Their point seems to be simply that people should be equally mad at equal conflicts (or at least what they consider equal conflicts), regardless of race, geography etc.

I don't think they are "equal conflicts"-- I mean, I can think of some important differences between these situations, and from your other point I think you can too. Nor is arguing whether they are equal conflicts going to be helpful.

[bradrn]

I see the frustration, but in general "you shouldn't be mad at calamity X, you should be mad at calamity Y" is somewhere between foolish and counter-productive. Attempting to be mad at everything means, in practice, doing nothing about anything. Will the author be happy if, in 3 months, the Russian invasion is still going on and people aren't excited about it any more?

No, I think the author would be even more upset about that outcome. Their point seems to be simply that people should be equally mad at equal conflicts (or at least what they consider equal conflicts), regardless of race, geography etc.

I don't think they are "equal conflicts"-- I mean, I can think of some important differences between these situations, and from your other point I think you can too.

Yes, I agree with this; I was stating the author’s opinion,

Nor is arguing whether they are equal conflicts going to be helpful.

Well, it’s helpful if you want to promote your own cause — or, conversely, to insist that Putin isn’t really all that bad. I have some sympathy with the former goal, but none at all with the latter.

[Moose-tache]

Just to make sure I don't misrepresent myself, I should point out my opinion.

Israel is playing "Oops all atrocities" in Palestine, and should stop. Easier said than done, but at this point pretty much everyone who matters at least tacitly accepts the idea of a 2-state solution. The Russian invasion is also bad, and people can be mad about one or both, as they please.

Here are some differences I see between the two situations:

Israel has more of a convincing argument for being the underdog fighting an existential threat. Israel is like Charles Bronson in Death Wish: pushed around to the point of psychotic violence against anyone within a wide radius. If Israel pulled out of Palestine today, it is not entirely clear that Palestine would be a viable, peaceful neighbor who doesn't try to attack them at every opportunity. Russia can't really play this card; even if it joined NATO Ukraine would have a pretty solid track record of not being a direct threat to Russia.

On the other hand, Israel has had several decades of time to figure out a solution, under the aegis of the world's premier superpower. If anyone has ever had the resources to build peace, it's been Israel. Russia doesn't have nearly as free a hand as Israel, and when Putin feels like his options are limited, he might be right.

In the end, I guess I am more outraged about the Russian invasion, but I don't know if I should be. Certainly the Palestinian occupation has had more destructive impact overall.

[zompist]

A few more differences:

* The Palestinians have been singularly unfortunate in leaders and tactics. The best that can be said for them is that they read all the 1960s-era insurgency how-tos and have been faithfully applying them, eternally surprised that they don't work.
* Ukraine isn't bombing Moscow cafes. Or even any Russian territory; it's zero threat to Russia.
* Ukraine is a recognized nation-state, and that includes recognition from Russia. That was a big part of the reason Ukraine gave up its nukes.
* The status of Palestine has always been murky-- at first it was simply territory Israel had conquered from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria (when they attempted to conquer it). This is not an excuse for Israel's occupation or its cruelty, but relatively small-scale murkiness has a way of persisting-- cf. Cyprus.

The situation of the Palestinians is infuriating, but it also isn't some sort of unique evil. In effect it's a country with an oppressed minority, and that's extremely common worldwide, including among nations whose foreign policy is full of denunciations of Israel.

[Moose-tache]

The Kremlin has given their terms for peace: recognition for breakaway parts of Ukraine, and no NATO. If we define Donetsk and Luhansk as the territory east of the 2015 cease fire line, this would be a formal recognition of the status quo ante bellum, which could be seen as a humiliating result for the giant Russian bear, but makes perfect sense if you see the war as a desperate attempt to destabilize Ukraine and stave off NATO encroachment. Also, some of this stuff is just common sense. Hopefully nobody is stupid enough to think Ukraine should forcibly repatriate the people of Crimea, who are very happy to no longer be ruled from Kyiv anyway.

Of course, Ukraine isn't going to agree to anything, since they're basically winning. I do hope Ukraine doesn't win thoroughly enough to think that bringing the war to Donbas or Crimea is a good next step (The best case scenario involves Ukraine at least tacitly accepting the breakaways), but we'll just have to wait and see.

[Raphael]

From the European perspective, at least, there's one pretty big difference between the Ukrainian matter and the Palestinian matter: while the two things might be similar as far as morality, ethics, and empathy are concerned, Ukraine matters a lot more from a self-interest perspective. Yes, ideally, people would care as much about the interests of others as about their own, but, well, that's often not how it works. And as far as European self-interest is concerned - there's simply no reason to believe that Putin will stop at Ukraine, if Ukraine works out well for him. He might well, then, move on to the next country, and then the next one, and so on, until he has conquered all of Europe. Meanwhile, the risk of an Israeli invasion of Europe is zero.

And then there's the matter that Putin might end up literally blowing up the world, which Israel is at least relatively less likely to do.

[hwhatting]

the people of Crimea, who are very happy to no longer be ruled from Kyiv anyway.

This is debatable; the people in the Crimea (and the same applies to Donbass) who wanted to be a part of Russia were always a minority (probably a majority in Sevastopol), although a vocal and substantial one; what most of the so-called "pro-Russian" Ukraininains wanted was open borders (threatened by EU membership), a higher official status for the Russian language, and a hassle-free relationship, not necessarily to live in Putin's Russia. Eight years of occupation and driving out pro-Ukrainians (not only ethnic Ukrainians, hut also e.g. Crimean Tatars) probably have reduced those who would prefer Ukraine to a minority in these regions now, but there's no way to check, as in the occupied areas people are afraid to speak out against Russia or the leaders of their self-styled Republics.
Now, don't get me wrong - I also don't think that trying to take these areas back by force is a good idea; in the Donbass, Ukraine has tried and failed in the past, arriving at the pre-invasion stalemate line. It would take a total meltdown of the Russian military (say, in case of a successful coup against Putin and a period of ensuing chaos) to make that possible. But I also don't think Ukraine will officially cede Crimea or Donbass, except if its situation becomes much more desperate than it is now, because that would mean rewarding Russian aggression and ethnic cleansing.

[zompist]

Zelensky has apparently already rejected the "peace terms". It's up to him and his government, but it doesn't seem like a good deal, or a deal at all. If it were a matter of not joining NATO, that would be the status quo, but it's a demand for "neutrality", which amounts to a surrender of Ukrainian sovereignty-- joining the EU certainly wouldn't be allowed.

Why would anyone trust Putin at this point? As I mentioned, Russia already recognized Ukraine's independence-- not only in 1994 as a condition for it giving up nukes, but as part of the 2014 Minsk protocol. Plus, you know, invading the country is a pretty big breach of trust.

I think it's clear that Putin's original gameplan failed. That was to conquer Ukraine in a few days, murder Zelensky, and present the West with a fait accompli before it could even react.

However, both sides can now gamble on the next three weeks. Russia can cause a lot of pain, and is doing much better in the south than in the west; maybe it can capture a major city. On the other hand, its supply and logistics problems may turn into real disaster. That huge convoy leading to Kyiv, for instance, may well be a liability rather than a threat at this point. Ukraine just has to... hang on and make the situation as bad as possible for Russia, which it's been doing so far.

[Moose-tache]

the people of Crimea, who are very happy to no longer be ruled from Kyiv anyway.

This is debatable...

Oh, I didn't say they like being annexed, just that they'd also not like being annexed back. Honestly, any Ukrainian with half a brain ought to see that the country is stronger precisely because of the pieces carved off of it. If Crimea and Donbas were functionally part of Ukraine, Zelensky would not have near-unanymous support from his people; instead he'd have a large minority under his authority who would happily side with Putin to gain greater self-determination. With Donbas and Crimea out, issues like banning Russian instruction in school are no longer highly divisive.

[masako]

Russia can cause a lot of pain, and is doing much better in the south than in the west; maybe it can capture a major city. On the other hand, its supply and logistics problems may turn into real disaster.

That seems to be on most people's minds as the main thing to watch.

However, saw on twitter that there's apparently an armored Russian train being enlisted to send supplies into Ukraine. So, we're in full-on Batman supervillain mode, now.

[hwhatting]

Honestly, any Ukrainian with half a brain ought to see that the country is stronger precisely because of the pieces carved off of it. If Crimea and Donbas were functionally part of Ukraine, Zelensky would not have near-unanymous support from his people; instead he'd have a large minority under his authority who would happily side with Putin to gain greater self-determination. With Donbas and Crimea out, issues like banning Russian instruction in school are no longer highly divisive.

You'd still have the issue of the people who'd would want to go back to their homes in those places; it's also not clear to me how the experience of actually having lived under Putin's authoritarian cleptocracy has influenced people's opinion on returning to Ukrainian rule. But, OTOH, I have Russian acquaintances who have moved to Crimea - people like them certainly would want it to stay part of Russia.
What seems to have diminished, first due to occupation and now much more strongly due to the war, is the number of undecideds and fence-sitters, the number of people who would prefer if they wouldn't have to choose between their Ukrainian and Russian identities. The kind of people who I referred to above, who don't necessarily want to live under Russian rule, but don't want to be forced to learn Ukrainian and be freely able to cross the border into and trade with Russia. Overall, it looks more probable that the gulf between the people living in the territories occupied in 2014 and in the rest of Ukraine has increased, and I am not sure that the mood in Ukraine after the war would be one for compromise with the Russian separatists in those areas.
Short of Putin improving his game and crushing Ukraine or a total Russian meltdown, the most likely outcome of the war will be a Russian occupation of more parts of Ukraine and a situation continuing possibly for decades where an Ukrainian government officially will insist on getting these areas back. Russia will remain a pariah state for some time, and at one point, probably after Putin leaves the stage, may go back to the status quo of 2021 in exchange for sanctions being lifted...

[FlamyobatRudki]

this is a bizzare conversation to read.

[Linguoboy]

What seems to have diminished, first due to occupation and now much more strongly due to the war, is the number of undecideds and fence-sitters, the number of people who would prefer if they wouldn't have to choose between their Ukrainian and Russian identities. The kind of people who I referred to above, who don't necessarily want to live under Russian rule, but don't want to be forced to learn Ukrainian and be freely able to cross the border into and trade with Russia. Overall, it looks more probable that the gulf between the people living in the territories occupied in 2014 and in the rest of Ukraine has increased, and I am not sure that the mood in Ukraine after the war would be one for compromise with the Russian separatists in those areas.

I wonder how long that's going to remain true. Just look at Odessa: It was very pro-Russian in 2014, so much so that there was some support for a referendum on autonomy. Trukhanov, who was elected mayor in 2015 on a wave of anti-Euromaidan sentiment, is a typical Russian kleptocrat with a house in Moscow; he may still hold Russian citizenship despite having formally denied it. It would not have surprised me if he had surrendered the city to the Russians rather than risk having it taken forcibly. Instead, he's publicly repudiated Putin and sworn that his city will resist the coming siege. Maybe you're right that the overall number of fence-sitters has increased, but what's also increased dramatically is the number of former fence-sitters who are now siding with Ukraine.

[Moose-tache]

He did it. Putin got what he wanted.

"I have cooled down regarding this question a long time ago after we understood that ... NATO is not prepared to accept Ukraine," Zelenskyy said in a televised interview. "The alliance is afraid of controversial things, and confrontation with Russia."

War successfully completed. Once they hammer out some formal negotiations everyone can go home.

[Travis B.]

He did it. Putin got what he wanted.

"I have cooled down regarding this question a long time ago after we understood that ... NATO is not prepared to accept Ukraine," Zelenskyy said in a televised interview. "The alliance is afraid of controversial things, and confrontation with Russia."

War successfully completed. Once they hammer out some formal negotiations everyone can go home.

Considering that NATO already rejected Ukraine for membership before the invasion even started, viewing this as Russia's sole war aim only makes sense if one is of the "NATO made Russia do it" mindset, like Putin apologists like John Mearsheimer...

[rotting bones]

He did it. Putin got what he wanted.

"I have cooled down regarding this question a long time ago after we understood that ... NATO is not prepared to accept Ukraine," Zelenskyy said in a televised interview. "The alliance is afraid of controversial things, and confrontation with Russia."

War successfully completed. Once they hammer out some formal negotiations everyone can go home.

I'm surprised. Wasn't Ukraine more likely to join NATO than before the invasion? I thought Putin would have to turn Ukraine into a failed state to get what he wanted.

Israel has more of a convincing argument for being the underdog fighting an existential threat. Israel is like Charles Bronson in Death Wish: pushed around to the point of psychotic violence against anyone within a wide radius.

John Mearsheimer doesn't think that's historically accurate: https://www.pdfdrive.com/the-israel-lob ... 88643.html

If Israel pulled out of Palestine today, it is not entirely clear that Palestine would be a viable, peaceful neighbor who doesn't try to attack them at every opportunity.

Not that I support the Churchill-like terrorists the Palestinians elect, but is there any particular reason to think that a free Palestine will descend into endless conflict? The neighboring country Jordan is not a failed state. Palestinians do more than just fight. The Palestinian territories have everything from universities to vegan movements, all operating under siege conditions. If a significant presence of murderous extremists is sufficient to make Palestine a failed state, then Israel, Ukraine and Russia are all failed states too, aren't they?

[rotting bones]

I read a few speeches by Putin on the subject. He seems genuinely convinced that there's no such thing as Ukraine. (In his mind, it's at best an unruly province being set up as a puppet state by NATO.)

(I don't know much, or at all about Russia. I have no idea if that makes sense to Russians or if it registers as obvious propaganda.)

I'm surprised that our usual pro-Putin critters are keeping really quiet.

Everyone knows that countries aren't real. In this context, saying so by singling out Ukraine signals violent intent.

You don't like values-oriented analyses? From a lot of your posts over the years, I've got the impression that you believe fairly strongly that oppression is bad and should be fought against. What is that attitude, if not a value?

Although values have some importance, I don't like the recent tendency to emphasize them at the expense of self-interest. There is no war between civilizations where people choose to be hungry and civilizations where they don't.

As far it is possible to identify 'natural borders' for a country (if at all), Russia's 'natural borders' with Asia are at the Urals.

Russia's western border is very expensive. Using the Carpathian mountains in Ukraine and Romania would greatly lower the cost of maintaining it. Russian military strategists are unwilling to leave the western border demilitarized because they are afraid someone might cut off their access to the Black and Caspian seas in a future conflict. Not that I believe that was Putin's real motivation.

If it was really about grain to feed the population, he would have focussed on the south coast and done it as soon as there was an economic crisis. Same goes for the US: the Iraq invasion preceded an economic crisis, it didn't follow one.

The economic status quo was bad in both countries. Just having grain is not sufficient to fix Russia's economic crisis. Putin's popularity has been in free fall recently: https://www.statista.com/statistics/102 ... c-figures/