Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Sheilbh]

Looking at the G20 line and I get there's no unified position in the G20, but I feel like at some point it's better to not agree to a communique even though it exposes divisions.

Feel like there was no reason to agree to language that referred to the "war in Ukraine", didn't name Russia at all - not even in relation to calling for no use of nukes and called on "all parties" to show restraint. Not sure what the benefit is for the US and friends to agreeing to it.

[Zanza]

What's the point of the G20 anyway?

[Josquius]

Looking at the G20 line and I get there's no unified position in the G20, but I feel like at some point it's better to not agree to a communique even though it exposes divisions.

Feel like there was no reason to agree to language that referred to the "war in Ukraine", didn't name Russia at all - not even in relation to calling for no use of nukes and called on "all parties" to show restraint. Not sure what the benefit is for the US and friends to agreeing to it.

I dunno. Calling on all sides not to commit attorcities and use nukes... Pretty obvious which side that's particularly relevant to and sure, the other side can agree to do them too. Nothing lost for them in this.

[Sheilbh]

What's the point of the G20 anyway?

Yeah it's a weird one with an odd membership.

I think it was created in the global crash to show world leaders across all economically/politically important states acting together. On a practical level there aren't many organisations where (in theory) you get the leaders of the US, China, India and the EU together (plus, back in the day, Russia).

I'm sympathetic with the reason it was created - the global financial crisis couldn't be addressed by a bunch of white leaders (plus Japan) representing a third of the global economy (and disproportionatley the countries whose banks were going under). But I think as it moves into an annual thing rather than to work on an immediate crisis it does lead to this because there's lots of different perspectives in that group - my instinct is sometimes it's better to expose the divisions rather than agree to something for the sake of unity.

[Sheilbh]

I dunno. Calling on all sides not to commit attorcities and use nukes... Pretty obvious which side that's particularly relevant to and sure, the other side can agree to do them too. Nothing lost for them in this.

It's not the worst thing in the world - material support or not matters more. But last year the language referred to it as a "war against Ukraine" not a "war in Ukraine" and called on Russia specifically not to use nukes (as the country possessing them). I think calling for "restraint" against one country invading another misses the point - and I don't read it as being about atrocities. This language is stuff that diplomats will spend a lot of time over (for example see the importance attached to COP28's baseline document referring to the "phase out" of fossil fuels as opposed to "phase down").

But I think it would have perhaps been worth making it clear a statement couldn't be agreed rather than Western diplomats signing on to that language.

[mongers]

I wonder how successful this will be:

Espionage

The United States Central Intelligence Agency has released a video targeting Moscow officials with an appeal to tell the truth about a system it said is riddled with lying sycophants. The agency, which is trying to recruit spies in Russia, released the video on social media in Russian, entitled: Why I made contact with the CIA – For Myself.

[Grey Fox]

They produce one regularly so I assume it works.

[Jacob]

Newly promoted Russian general speaks of Ukraine as "only a stepping stone" and "liberating our lands" and "Eastern Europe."

https://www.newsweek.com/russian-general-admits-ukraine-just-stepping-stone-invade-europe-1825776

[Josquius]

Newly promoted Russian general speaks of Ukraine as "only a stepping stone" and "liberating our lands" and "Eastern Europe."

https://www.newsweek.com/russian-general-admits-ukraine-just-stepping-stone-invade-europe-1825776

Maybe trying to come across as scary but really echos of Hitler in the bunker.

[Iormlund]

After Ukraine it was Moldavia's turn. No doubt in my mind at all.

If the West had done nothing about those two I could also see Putin trying to grab the Baltics later.
He strikes me as the kind of person that does not walk away from the gambling table until he's lost big at least once.

[The Minsky Moment]

Newly promoted Russian general speaks of Ukraine as "only a stepping stone" and "liberating our lands" and "Eastern Europe."

https://www.newsweek.com/russian-general-admits-ukraine-just-stepping-stone-invade-europe-1825776

The ultimate giveaway that the people in the West calling for a truce and land negotiations are either Kremlin shills or useful idiots, is that there is no indication that Russia has any interest in such a final peace settlement.

[The Minsky Moment]

What's the point of the G20 anyway?

To rub it in the faces of Nigeria and Thailand.

[Sheilbh]

The ultimate giveaway that the people in the West calling for a truce and land negotiations are either Kremlin shills or useful idiots, is that there is no indication that Russia has any interest in such a final peace settlement.

Or, for that matter, that Ukraine would.

I'm always struck by the gaping hole in their analysis that is Ukraine's agency - that Ukraine is fighting for its sovereignty as a state with ovewhelming suppoprt by Ukrainians, as is quite common in national independence/liberation struggles.

It feels especially missing in the "realist" takes you see - I don't understand how you can be realist without ackknowledging that huge fact.

[Barrister]

The ultimate giveaway that the people in the West calling for a truce and land negotiations are either Kremlin shills or useful idiots, is that there is no indication that Russia has any interest in such a final peace settlement.

Or, for that matter, that Ukraine would.

I'm always struck by the gaping hole in their analysis that is Ukraine's agency - that Ukraine is fighting for its sovereignty as a state with ovewhelming suppoprt by Ukrainians, as is quite common in national independence/liberation struggles.

It feels especially missing in the "realist" takes you see - I don't understand how you can be realist without ackknowledging that huge fact.

If Ukrainians truly believed that if they would recognize Crimea and Donbass to be ruled by Russia thatthey could then  enter into a period of peace and harmony with Russia then Ukrainians would have  ahard discussion about it.  They are definitely a people who are tired of war.

But given what Russia and Putin's clear territorial demands are, I think Ukrainians know that any such peace would only be a temporary pause, and as such it only makes sense to keep fighting.

[Josquius]

I do maintain the best outcome for the war would be a proper referendum with international oversight for those regions, and of course plenty of rules about people who were there pre-2014, media monitoring in the lead up, and that sort of thing.
Russia is indeed the main blocker in doing this. They'd never agree to something fair or withdrawing to Russia. Though there undoubtedly is a Ukrainian nationalist element that would oppose it too.


I do think in the west we get quite an overstated message of how devoted Ukrainians are to the war. A huge number really don't give a toss about flags and just want it over.