The State of Affairs in Russia

[Tamas]

Regardless of how "absurd" you personally believe the Russian demands are, they're not about Ukraine.

They're about the imperative need for all countries to follow the UN Charter.

I am not really following. Last Russian demand I read was to make NATO remove their troops from the former Soviet vassal states. That's a demand custom-made to be rejected by the other party.

[Jacob]

The current negotiations in Geneva are not even about Ukraine.

No? What are they about?

The fact that the western mass media keep peddling the same old story about this "imminent invasion" and "massive sanctions" is telling.

How is it telling?

For the record, though, that's not just what our media is peddling us. That's what our governments are clearly stating as well.

It's a pretty simple situation from our perspective:

1. Russia masses troops on Ukrainian border.
2. Russia makes a series of unreasonable demands about Western engagement with Ukraine (and many other places).

Seems pretty straightforward, really. What are the alternate readings? What do people in Russia believe is happening?

If it turns out that Western governments misread the situation and this was just a curious misunderstanding, then the talks of massive sanctions are missing the point... but are ultimately harmless because obviously Russia is not going to invade Ukraine (anymore than it already has, of course) and the sanctions won't be applied.

But if the idea of an attack has been downgraded to "same old story", that's a good sign

[Jacob]

They're about the imperative need for all countries to follow the UN Charter.

Eh?

Sure, article 2 mentions the UN but the remaining articles read like this:

Article 3

The Parties shall not use the territories of other States with a view to preparing or carrying out an armed attack against the other Party or other actions affecting core security interests of the other Party.

Article 4

The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The United States of America shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them.

Article 5

The Parties shall refrain from deploying their armed forces and armaments, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas where such deployment could be perceived by the other Party as a threat to its national security, with the exception of such deployment within the national territories of the Parties.

The Parties shall refrain from flying heavy bombers equipped for nuclear or non-nuclear armaments or deploying surface warships of any type, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas outside national airspace and national territorial waters respectively, from where they can attack targets in the territory of the other Party.

The Parties shall maintain dialogue and cooperate to improve mechanisms to prevent dangerous military activities on and over the high seas, including agreeing on the maximum approach distance between warships and aircraft.

Article 6

The Parties shall undertake not to deploy ground-launched intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles outside their national territories, as well as in the areas of their national territories, from which such weapons can attack targets in the national territory of the other Party.

Article 7

The Parties shall refrain from deploying nuclear weapons outside their national territories and return such weapons already deployed outside their national territories at the time of the entry into force of the Treaty to their national territories. The Parties shall eliminate all existing infrastructure for deployment of nuclear weapons outside their national territories.

The Parties shall not train military and civilian personnel from non-nuclear countries to use nuclear weapons. The Parties shall not conduct exercises or training for general-purpose forces, that include scenarios involving the use of nuclear weapons.

Article 8

The Treaty shall enter into force from the date of receipt of the last written notification on the completion by the Parties of their domestic procedures necessary for its entry into force.

Done in two originals, each in English and Russian languages, both texts being equally authentic.

https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790818/?lang=en

That has nothing to do with following any UN charters and everything to do with Russia demanding the ability to use force to impose and maintain hegemony in what it considers it's rightful sphere of influence without worrying about the West reacting.

[Admiral Yi]

The Economist puts the probability of Russia invading Ukraine at 43%.  I was surprised.

[Jacob]

I'm taking Gaijin du Moscu's dismissal of the potential invasion being "the same old thing" as a reason to downgrade it by 23 percentage points. So I'm rating the likelihood as 20%.

[Valmy]

The current negotiations in Geneva are not even about Ukraine.

The fact that the western mass media keep peddling the same old story about this "imminent invasion" and "massive sanctions" is telling.

Telling of what? I mean if nothing happens who the fuck cares? Everybody will move on to the next clickbait du jour and forget all about it in a few hours if it comes to nothing.

[grumbler]

Regardless of how "absurd" you personally believe the Russian demands are, they're not about Ukraine.

They're about the imperative need for all countries to follow the UN Charter.

No, they are about Ukraine, and they are absurd and designed to be rejected out of hand.  They are not about the need for Russia to follow the UN charter and withdraw from Crimea and the Donbas.

[Gaijin de Moscu]

I am not really following. Last Russian demand I read was to make NATO remove their troops from the former Soviet vassal states. That's a demand custom-made to be rejected by the other party.

Yes, I agree.

Now that the negotiations are over, I'm curious about what Russia will actually do.

[Gaijin de Moscu]

Telling of what? I mean if nothing happens who the fuck cares? Everybody will move on to the next clickbait du jour and forget all about it in a few hours if it comes to nothing.

"Telling" of the mass media working on the same old agenda, while Russia has defined its demands much broader than that.

While scanning the English- and French-speaking mass media yesterday, I was surprised to see the Ukraine mantra repeated over and over again.

[Gaijin de Moscu]

I'm taking Gaijin du Moscu's dismissal of the potential invasion being "the same old thing" as a reason to downgrade it by 23 percentage points. So I'm rating the likelihood as 20%.

The only realistic scenario for invasion, IMHO, is to prevent NATO from deploying a new generation of lethal weapons on that territory, such as super-sonic missiles (when available).

But then again, the Baltic countries are full members of NATO, and the missile approach time from there to Moscow is even shorter.

[Tamas]

I'm taking Gaijin du Moscu's dismissal of the potential invasion being "the same old thing" as a reason to downgrade it by 23 percentage points. So I'm rating the likelihood as 20%.

The only realistic scenario for invasion, IMHO, is to prevent NATO from deploying a new generation of lethal weapons on that territory, such as super-sonic missiles (when available).

But then again, the Baltic countries are full members of NATO, and the missile approach time from there to Moscow is even shorter.

The problem of course is that in some cases sabre-rattling done as bluffs can escalate into actual shooting and offensives. It is quite fascinating that you, who probably have considerably more ready access to non-Russian news than most people in Russia, still have the read of the Russian troop buildup as defense against some active NATO threat. Which from where I am sitting sounds silly.

To me it seems Western governments would be perfectly happy to leave Russia alone and make profit from laundering Russian oligarch money in peace. The general populace most certainly don't give a rat's ass about Russia apart from worrying they might force NATO treaty obligations none of them really want to be kept.

[Gaijin de Moscu]

The problem of course is that in some cases sabre-rattling done as bluffs can escalate into actual shooting and offensives. It is quite fascinating that you, who probably have considerably more ready access to non-Russian news than most people in Russia, still have the read of the Russian troop buildup as defense against some active NATO threat. Which from where I am sitting sounds silly.

To me it seems Western governments would be perfectly happy to leave Russia alone and make profit from laundering Russian oligarch money in peace. The general populace most certainly don't give a rat's ass about Russia apart from worrying they might force NATO treaty obligations none of them really want to be kept.

It's just a matter of perspective. Our valiant secret service agents are the other man's despicable spies We are all in "defensive alliances" against each other, and the troops presence in Europe and Russia is always "defensive."

At any rate, we don't know what's been agreed on yesterday in Geneva, and we can only wait and see what transpires next.

[Tamas]

Sure, but I find it far less probable that the West have designs on extending military influence and control over Ukraine aggressively than Russia. Making sure Ukraine remains in chaos and it remains a buffer that keeps sinking Russian resources? Sure. But working on the goal of stationing NATO troops/missiles on Ukrainian soil? Come on. Why? What is there to be gained?

And it is just very transparent BS that the above would have reached such an imminent stage that stationing Russian troops on the Ukrainian border is necessary.   

[Berkut]

You can safely dismiss the views of people whose foundational concept of information accrual is to start with an attack on the legitimacy of the "mass media". That is just authoritarianism 101. The fact that it isn't even logically a meaningful statement (indeed it is a logical error of categorization) to say "the mass media" should be rather telling.

GdM, if you reject the "mass media" as a source of information, what is the alternative? Where do you get your information that is so much superior, and how do you know it is so much superior? For that matter, how do you know your information isn't actually part of that same category, since the category itself is so badly defined?

[Berkut]

The best part is really the claim that Putin is all about protecting the UN Charter. THAT is why he took over the Crimea and has been sending Russian troops and equipment into Ukraine!