NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On March 01 2022 03:32 Dan HH wrote: Looks like Russia wasn't expecting Germany's recent actions, their ministry of foreign affairs basically just called them nazis. Can't find an English source yet.
Eh, statement is a little more pointed than that. It complains specifically about them being delivered to "Banderite groups" i.e. the paramilitary groups that praise Stepan Bandera. Then a jab at Germany for saying "if that's who you deliver weapons to, did Germany ever really denazify itself?"
A little bit underhanded but it's not trying to say "you're Nazis for sending weapons to Ukraine."
The supply of German weapons to the ideological heirs of the Nazi accomplice S. Bandera makes one wonder - how comprehensive and complete was the process of denazification in Germany itself after the defeat in World War II?
.
Imo it reads a lot like the tweet is implying that the German government are Nazis. The loaded question of "how comprehensive and complete was the process of denazification in Germany itself after the defeat in World War II?" is implying that there are Nazis in Germany, and moreover, implies that the German government are Nazis because they made the decision.
Related, has Russia stated specific goals with respect to "denazification" in Ukraine?
On March 01 2022 02:28 KwarK wrote: Someone on askhistorians a while back wrote a really good essay about how our western popular conception of penal battalions, commissars, and waves of underequiped Soviet infantry is a product of the reliance on Wehrmacht war memoirs. The defeated German generals got to write the western narrative for the eastern front and painted a picture of conscripts forced forwards at gunpoint by political officers with no rifle and orders to pick up the rifle from the man ahead of them when he died.
The conclusion was that it was basically whitewashing and propaganda to explain their defeat by numerical superiority alone. The reality was that the Soviet army was, in the later years at least, well equipped, trained, disciplined, and professional while the Wehrmacht relied on horse and cart to supply poor equipment to a demoralized army.
Something to keep in mind when imagining Russian failures as part of a historical pattern going back to Soviets. You might better imagine Ukrainian successes as part of a historical pattern going back to Soviets.
You really shouldn't take information on this from some weird essay. The issue is well studied and not contested. There are records from allied armies (for examples, Polish forces fighting on Russian side of Eastern front) or even from Soviet archives. There are interviews with veterans and survivors from Red Army. You really think they lost 8,6-11,4mln soldiers compared to German (4,4-5,3 on all fronts) because they were well-equipped and trained?
FYI askhistorians deletes replies from anyone but published historians. It’s a crazy good sub. You can’t reply there without citing your academic sources and people bullshitting from sources that aren’t well regarded in the field get lit up by professors who have read the books in question and probably reviewed them for their academic journals.
On March 01 2022 03:32 Dan HH wrote: Looks like Russia wasn't expecting Germany's recent actions, their ministry of foreign affairs basically just called them nazis. Can't find an English source yet.
Eh, statement is a little more pointed than that. It complains specifically about them being delivered to "Banderite groups" i.e. the paramilitary groups that praise Stepan Bandera. Then a jab at Germany for saying "if that's who you deliver weapons to, did Germany ever really denazify itself?"
A little bit underhanded but it's not trying to say "you're Nazis for sending weapons to Ukraine."
It's roundabout, yes. But in the context that "denazification" is one of the main pretexts for their current conflict to suggest that Germany hasn't been sufficiently denazified on an official channel of the MoFA is absolutely mental. These are strange times in diplomacy.
Of course, read into it what you will; that's just my interpretation of what Zakharova is saying based on choice of words and what the official narrative of the Russian government is. In context I interpret it merely as an underhanded jab, and nothing more than that. Obviously open to interpretation, especially with different perspectives and any "lost in translation" that may happen.
On March 01 2022 03:32 Dan HH wrote: Looks like Russia wasn't expecting Germany's recent actions, their ministry of foreign affairs basically just called them nazis. Can't find an English source yet.
Eh, statement is a little more pointed than that. It complains specifically about them being delivered to "Banderite groups" i.e. the paramilitary groups that praise Stepan Bandera. Then a jab at Germany for saying "if that's who you deliver weapons to, did Germany ever really denazify itself?"
A little bit underhanded but it's not trying to say "you're Nazis for sending weapons to Ukraine."
The supply of German weapons to the ideological heirs of the Nazi accomplice S. Bandera makes one wonder - how comprehensive and complete was the process of denazification in Germany itself after the defeat in World War II?
.
Imo it reads a lot like the tweet is implying that the German government are Nazis. The loaded question of "how comprehensive and complete was the process of denazification in Germany itself after the defeat in World War II?" is implying that there are Nazis in Germany, and moreover, implies that the German government are Nazis because they made the decision.
Related, has Russia stated specific goals with respect to "denazification" in Ukraine?
The "Bandera" part is the key here. It's worth looking into who Stepan Bandera is, what role his legacy plays in Ukraine today, and how Russians interpret that. The topic is more than a little bit controversial so I'm not going to suggest a specific source but only suggest that you find your own.
I don't really know what "denazification" is meant to mean in practice. That one is heavily open to interpretation because I didn't see anyone from the government specify.
Separate point: I think I'm going to prune around 90% of my Twitter feed. I go there for specific interesting commentary from specific people that say stuff that provides a genuinely useful perspective on certain events, but in the past few days I realized just how much that site contributes to high anxiety and premature worry. Especially now, but even in peacetime I've kind of underestimated the effect.
On March 01 2022 03:32 Dan HH wrote: Looks like Russia wasn't expecting Germany's recent actions, their ministry of foreign affairs basically just called them nazis. Can't find an English source yet.
Eh, statement is a little more pointed than that. It complains specifically about them being delivered to "Banderite groups" i.e. the paramilitary groups that praise Stepan Bandera. Then a jab at Germany for saying "if that's who you deliver weapons to, did Germany ever really denazify itself?"
A little bit underhanded but it's not trying to say "you're Nazis for sending weapons to Ukraine."
It's roundabout, yes. But in the context that "denazification" is one of the main pretexts for their current conflict to suggest that Germany hasn't been sufficiently denazified on an official channel of the MoFA is absolutely mental. These are strange times in diplomacy.
Of course, read into it what you will; that's just my interpretation of what Zakharova is saying based on choice of words and what the official narrative of the Russian government is. In context I interpret it merely as an underhanded jab, and nothing more than that. Obviously open to interpretation, especially with different perspectives and any "lost in translation" that may happen.
On March 01 2022 03:32 Dan HH wrote: Looks like Russia wasn't expecting Germany's recent actions, their ministry of foreign affairs basically just called them nazis. Can't find an English source yet.
Eh, statement is a little more pointed than that. It complains specifically about them being delivered to "Banderite groups" i.e. the paramilitary groups that praise Stepan Bandera. Then a jab at Germany for saying "if that's who you deliver weapons to, did Germany ever really denazify itself?"
A little bit underhanded but it's not trying to say "you're Nazis for sending weapons to Ukraine."
The supply of German weapons to the ideological heirs of the Nazi accomplice S. Bandera makes one wonder - how comprehensive and complete was the process of denazification in Germany itself after the defeat in World War II?
.
Imo it reads a lot like the tweet is implying that the German government are Nazis. The loaded question of "how comprehensive and complete was the process of denazification in Germany itself after the defeat in World War II?" is implying that there are Nazis in Germany, and moreover, implies that the German government are Nazis because they made the decision.
Related, has Russia stated specific goals with respect to "denazification" in Ukraine?
The "Bandera" part is the key here. It's worth looking into who Stepan Bandera is, what role his legacy plays in Ukraine today, and how Russians interpret that. The topic is more than a little bit controversial so I'm not going to suggest a specific source but only suggest that you find your own.
I don't really know what "denazification" is meant to mean in practice. That one is heavily open to interpretation because I didn't see anyone from the government specify.
Yeah I think the part that is not clear to me is: (i) if Russia is equating the entirety of Ukraine to being somesort of psuedo-Nazi state because Bandera's relation to Ukrainian independence, or (ii) as Dan HH interpreted that they are referring only to specific regions/organizations within that are considered Nazis (if I understood Dan HH's point correctly).
On March 01 2022 03:34 LegalLord wrote: Various things said by Russian state news within the past 12 hours that would be of interest here.
1. Ukrainian-Russian peace talks on Ukraine/Belarus border concluded after what looks like a full day. Both sides made statements suggesting they were productive and there were points of agreement. Plan is to take talks back to leadership, seek conditions that would lead to a ceasefire, and schedule follow-up talks on the Belarus/Poland border (looking at a map my guess is somewhere between Brest and Warsaw).
2. Putin had a call with Macron. Lot of stuff about reducing harm to civilians which I can only assume is related to objections to the situation in Kharkov (probably elsewhere too but that one has been pointed out both here and elsewhere as a big deal). Putin mentioned three conditions - recognition of Crimea, "demilitarization and denazification", and Ukrainian military neutrality. DNR/LNR recognition isn't mentioned as a goal.
3. Some talk from the Russian representative to the UN about the humanitarian situation in Ukraine. He said that occupation of Ukraine is not a goal, that they are working to reduce impact to civilians in ongoing operations, and that any war crimes that occur should be investigated even if they come from Russian citizens.
4. The Russian Central Bank is doing a lot of monetary intervention to combat inflation. They're taking some pretty interesting measures there, basically a reverse policy of the Fed in that they're pulling out all the stops to stop inflationary rather than deflationary (i.e. recession) pressures.
Obviously the source is biased, so take all of those as you will.
The central bank has very little choice but to raise rates considering the fall in the ruble and the effect it will have on the financial sector. I think we'll see capital controls soon to prevent capital flight.
Firstly: if this was already posted in a related thread I'm sorry! (checked the posts here of course)
"very brief summary": Professor John Mearsheimer gives a lecture about why he thinks the ukranian situation is "the west's fault" (exact title) at the University Of Chicago "what purpose it adds to the discussion": It is important to see things from different perspectives and I honestly think this video can help in creating realistic discussions. (and I do see this perspective hugely underrepresented almost anywhere I "go".) "source":
(If anyone is interested here is a similar ~lecture from a week ago: )
On March 01 2022 03:32 Dan HH wrote: Looks like Russia wasn't expecting Germany's recent actions, their ministry of foreign affairs basically just called them nazis. Can't find an English source yet.
Eh, statement is a little more pointed than that. It complains specifically about them being delivered to "Banderite groups" i.e. the paramilitary groups that praise Stepan Bandera. Then a jab at Germany for saying "if that's who you deliver weapons to, did Germany ever really denazify itself?"
A little bit underhanded but it's not trying to say "you're Nazis for sending weapons to Ukraine."
It's roundabout, yes. But in the context that "denazification" is one of the main pretexts for their current conflict to suggest that Germany hasn't been sufficiently denazified on an official channel of the MoFA is absolutely mental. These are strange times in diplomacy.
Of course, read into it what you will; that's just my interpretation of what Zakharova is saying based on choice of words and what the official narrative of the Russian government is. In context I interpret it merely as an underhanded jab, and nothing more than that. Obviously open to interpretation, especially with different perspectives and any "lost in translation" that may happen.
On March 01 2022 03:54 emperorchampion wrote:
On March 01 2022 03:41 LegalLord wrote:
On March 01 2022 03:32 Dan HH wrote: Looks like Russia wasn't expecting Germany's recent actions, their ministry of foreign affairs basically just called them nazis. Can't find an English source yet.
Eh, statement is a little more pointed than that. It complains specifically about them being delivered to "Banderite groups" i.e. the paramilitary groups that praise Stepan Bandera. Then a jab at Germany for saying "if that's who you deliver weapons to, did Germany ever really denazify itself?"
A little bit underhanded but it's not trying to say "you're Nazis for sending weapons to Ukraine."
The supply of German weapons to the ideological heirs of the Nazi accomplice S. Bandera makes one wonder - how comprehensive and complete was the process of denazification in Germany itself after the defeat in World War II?
.
Imo it reads a lot like the tweet is implying that the German government are Nazis. The loaded question of "how comprehensive and complete was the process of denazification in Germany itself after the defeat in World War II?" is implying that there are Nazis in Germany, and moreover, implies that the German government are Nazis because they made the decision.
Related, has Russia stated specific goals with respect to "denazification" in Ukraine?
The "Bandera" part is the key here. It's worth looking into who Stepan Bandera is, what role his legacy plays in Ukraine today, and how Russians interpret that. The topic is more than a little bit controversial so I'm not going to suggest a specific source but only suggest that you find your own.
I don't really know what "denazification" is meant to mean in practice. That one is heavily open to interpretation because I didn't see anyone from the government specify.
Yeah I think the part that is not clear to me is: (i) if Russia is equating the entirety of Ukraine to being somesort of psuedo-Nazi state because Bandera's relation to Ukrainian independence, or (ii) as Dan HH interpreted that they are referring only to specific regions/organizations within that are considered Nazis (if I understood Dan HH's point correctly).
edit: some wording above
The latter. But also that Banderite groups have a significant influence over Ukrainian politics and are not merely a peripheral fringe.
That these groups exist is pretty uncontroversial all across the spectrum of those in the know about Ukraine. How important they are is what's heavily up for debate.
On March 01 2022 03:32 Dan HH wrote: Looks like Russia wasn't expecting Germany's recent actions, their ministry of foreign affairs basically just called them nazis. Can't find an English source yet.
Eh, statement is a little more pointed than that. It complains specifically about them being delivered to "Banderite groups" i.e. the paramilitary groups that praise Stepan Bandera. Then a jab at Germany for saying "if that's who you deliver weapons to, did Germany ever really denazify itself?"
A little bit underhanded but it's not trying to say "you're Nazis for sending weapons to Ukraine."
It's roundabout, yes. But in the context that "denazification" is one of the main pretexts for their current conflict to suggest that Germany hasn't been sufficiently denazified on an official channel of the MoFA is absolutely mental. These are strange times in diplomacy.
Of course, read into it what you will; that's just my interpretation of what Zakharova is saying based on choice of words and what the official narrative of the Russian government is. In context I interpret it merely as an underhanded jab, and nothing more than that. Obviously open to interpretation, especially with different perspectives and any "lost in translation" that may happen.
On March 01 2022 03:54 emperorchampion wrote:
On March 01 2022 03:41 LegalLord wrote:
On March 01 2022 03:32 Dan HH wrote: Looks like Russia wasn't expecting Germany's recent actions, their ministry of foreign affairs basically just called them nazis. Can't find an English source yet.
Eh, statement is a little more pointed than that. It complains specifically about them being delivered to "Banderite groups" i.e. the paramilitary groups that praise Stepan Bandera. Then a jab at Germany for saying "if that's who you deliver weapons to, did Germany ever really denazify itself?"
A little bit underhanded but it's not trying to say "you're Nazis for sending weapons to Ukraine."
The supply of German weapons to the ideological heirs of the Nazi accomplice S. Bandera makes one wonder - how comprehensive and complete was the process of denazification in Germany itself after the defeat in World War II?
.
Imo it reads a lot like the tweet is implying that the German government are Nazis. The loaded question of "how comprehensive and complete was the process of denazification in Germany itself after the defeat in World War II?" is implying that there are Nazis in Germany, and moreover, implies that the German government are Nazis because they made the decision.
Related, has Russia stated specific goals with respect to "denazification" in Ukraine?
The "Bandera" part is the key here. It's worth looking into who Stepan Bandera is, what role his legacy plays in Ukraine today, and how Russians interpret that. The topic is more than a little bit controversial so I'm not going to suggest a specific source but only suggest that you find your own.
I don't really know what "denazification" is meant to mean in practice. That one is heavily open to interpretation because I didn't see anyone from the government specify.
Yeah I think the part that is not clear to me is: (i) if Russia is equating the entirety of Ukraine to being somesort of psuedo-Nazi state because Bandera's relation to Ukrainian independence, or (ii) as Dan HH interpreted that they are referring only to specific regions/organizations within that are considered Nazis (if I understood Dan HH's point correctly).
edit: some wording above
The latter. But also that Banderite groups have a significant influence over Ukrainian politics and are not merely a peripheral fringe.
That these groups exist is pretty uncontroversial all across the spectrum of those in the know about Ukraine. How important they are is what's heavily up for debate.
Not as important as one might think. In other words those are marginal groups with low support and low influence
There is no reasonable justification for the whole situation, while kremlin international officials are basically gopniks on drugs
On March 01 2022 03:34 LegalLord wrote: Various things said by Russian state news within the past 12 hours that would be of interest here.
1. Ukrainian-Russian peace talks on Ukraine/Belarus border concluded after what looks like a full day. Both sides made statements suggesting they were productive and there were points of agreement. Plan is to take talks back to leadership, seek conditions that would lead to a ceasefire, and schedule follow-up talks on the Belarus/Poland border (looking at a map my guess is somewhere between Brest and Warsaw).
2. Putin had a call with Macron. Lot of stuff about reducing harm to civilians which I can only assume is related to objections to the situation in Kharkov (probably elsewhere too but that one has been pointed out both here and elsewhere as a big deal). Putin mentioned three conditions - recognition of Crimea, "demilitarization and denazification", and Ukrainian military neutrality. DNR/LNR recognition isn't mentioned as a goal.
3. Some talk from the Russian representative to the UN about the humanitarian situation in Ukraine. He said that occupation of Ukraine is not a goal, that they are working to reduce impact to civilians in ongoing operations, and that any war crimes that occur should be investigated even if they come from Russian citizens.
4. The Russian Central Bank is doing a lot of monetary intervention to combat inflation. They're taking some pretty interesting measures there, basically a reverse policy of the Fed in that they're pulling out all the stops to stop inflationary rather than deflationary (i.e. recession) pressures.
Obviously the source is biased, so take all of those as you will.
The central bank has very little choice but to raise rates considering the fall in the ruble and the effect it will have on the financial sector. I think we'll see capital controls soon to prevent capital flight.
For what it's worth I think Russia's central bank did a bang-up in 2014. Beyond the various open market operations they made the major policy decision to float the value of the ruble, which was a painful pill to swallow for fixed income but was the right way to take advantage of potential economic growth from a devalued currency. And I expected much worse than 30% currency devaluation today given that the current set of sanctions was pretty much "the kitchen sink."
Only time will tell how bad it will get but it's yet to be a full-on inflationary death spiral.
On March 01 2022 02:28 KwarK wrote: Someone on askhistorians a while back wrote a really good essay about how our western popular conception of penal battalions, commissars, and waves of underequiped Soviet infantry is a product of the reliance on Wehrmacht war memoirs. The defeated German generals got to write the western narrative for the eastern front and painted a picture of conscripts forced forwards at gunpoint by political officers with no rifle and orders to pick up the rifle from the man ahead of them when he died.
The conclusion was that it was basically whitewashing and propaganda to explain their defeat by numerical superiority alone. The reality was that the Soviet army was, in the later years at least, well equipped, trained, disciplined, and professional while the Wehrmacht relied on horse and cart to supply poor equipment to a demoralized army.
Something to keep in mind when imagining Russian failures as part of a historical pattern going back to Soviets. You might better imagine Ukrainian successes as part of a historical pattern going back to Soviets.
You really shouldn't take information on this from some weird essay. The issue is well studied and not contested. There are records from allied armies (for examples, Polish forces fighting on Russian side of Eastern front) or even from Soviet archives. There are interviews with veterans and survivors from Red Army. You really think they lost 8,6-11,4mln soldiers compared to German (4,4-5,3 on all fronts) because they were well-equipped and trained?
FYI askhistorians deletes replies from anyone but published historians. It’s a crazy good sub. You can’t reply there without citing your academic sources and people bullshitting from sources that aren’t well regarded in the field get lit up by professors who have read the books in question and probably reviewed them for their academic journals.
On March 01 2022 02:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: No wonder Roman Abramovich is leading the push for peace talks.
He already handed off "stewardship" for his team. He doesn't have day-to-day control over the team persumably and seizing the team from him at this point probably isn't legal.
If anything Roman has been preparing for this for a long long time. He has a Portuguese and Israeli passport.
On March 01 2022 04:28 Szinkler wrote: Firstly: if this was already posted in a related thread I'm sorry! (checked the posts here of course)
"very brief summary": Professor John Mearsheimer gives a lecture about why he thinks the ukranian situation is "the west's fault" (exact title) at the University Of Chicago "what purpose it adds to the discussion": It is important to see things from different perspectives and I honestly think this video can help in creating realistic discussions. (and I do see this perspective hugely underrepresented almost anywhere I "go".) "source": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
Not sure how other countries, but Czech Republic is still more on the income than outcome page of the EU. And if the rest is the same the EU may take that into a consideration, but taking in a broken Ukraine may not be a wise move.
Also also would be good to mention that if the living standards in the Cze fall down(and it appears they will, heavily), people here will start blaming EU and we are the least pleased country in the EU(60 % wanna get out), so they really should incorporate that into the decision. Once the Cze become a paying country more than income country during an incoming economic crisis may be a very bad move. But that's me speculating.
Edit> In other words while now the government may have a support for this move it may be very bad long term wise.
Well it looks like those peace talks apparently didn’t go well. What would it mean if Ukraine is accepted into EU with “candidate” status? Is it like NATO where other countries defend them?
On March 01 2022 05:46 Mohdoo wrote: Well it looks like those peace talks apparently didn’t go well. What would it mean if Ukraine is accepted into EU with “candidate” status? Is it like NATO where other countries defend them?
Nope, nothing like that. EU is an economical union on a route to federation(this is like a very long term goal and I personally think it won't happen for the next 50 years). We have NATO for the defense.
Edit> in Civilization terms, EU are the economic allies while NATO are the defensive allies
EPT
