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.
Looks like Kosovo and Bosnia are preparing to apply for NATO membership.
For Bosnia and Kosovo, having experienced mass killings committed by Serb forces in the 1990s under the administration of then Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, both countries have made it a strategic goal to join the United States-led transatlantic military alliance.
The pair remain the last non-NATO members in the region, aside from Serbia which views NATO as its “enemy”.
In 1999, NATO conducted a 78-day war against Serbia with the stated aim of preventing genocide in Kosovo against ethnic Albanians.
Bosnia is currently participating in the Membership Action Plan (MAP), seen as “the last step before gaining [NATO] membership”, according to Bosnia’s Defence Minister Sifet Podzic.
But as with Kyiv, Moscow has protested against Sarajevo’s NATO bid, despite the 2,400km (1,500 miles) distance between them.
The Russian embassy in Sarajevo warned last year that Russia “will have to react to this hostile act” if Bosnia takes steps towards membership.
[b]Russian ambassador to Bosnia Igor Kalabukhov reiterated this message last month in an interview to Bosnian TV, using Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine as an example.
“If [Bosnia] chooses to be a member of anything, that is its internal business. But there is another thing, our reaction,” he said. “We have shown what we expect on the example of Ukraine. If there are threats, we will react.”
For Kosovo President Vjosa Osmani, Kalabukhov’s warning shows “that Russia has a destructive interest in our region”.
“They especially have an interest in attacking Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and to some extent also [NATO member] Montenegro,” Osmani told Al Jazeera.
Serbia, seen as a Russian proxy, may act with Moscow while feeling “emboldened by what is happening in the continent of Europe right now”, she said.
“The influence that Russia has in Serbia is not downsizing, it’s actually been growing throughout the years.”
On April 09 2022 02:43 warding wrote: Besides the question of it being 'understandable' or not, these war crimes by the Ukranian forces are big strategic mistakes. Ukraine's effort depends on Western support. That support is sensitive to these questions. I'm sure that Ukrainian leadership understands this.
I don't know how sensitive Western support is but this has been a known issue for years (Azov and Aidar battalions being some of the better known examples). There was hardly a peep when the Ukrainian National Guard tweeted out a neo nazi Azov soldier smearing pig fat on bullets meant for Muslim fighters or when the Ukrainian newscaster was quoting Adolf Eichmann.
What do we do with that information?
Best case Ukraine by and large isn’t latently Nazi, worst case let’s say they are.
In either scenario is Russia’s conduct acceptable? Should Ukraine be left without aid(
I usually agree with your points but, not really sure what you’re angling for here.
Be reasonably confident the West won't pull support because neo-nazi Ukrainian forces commit war crimes.
For example the US Congress tried to prohibit arming and training neo-nazis in Ukraine in 2015 after reports about their war crimes in 2014 but removed the prohibition under pressure from the pentagon.
Rather than make these vague assertions of Ukraine being nazis, can you be clear about to what extent you think Nazi philosophy is integrated in ukraine military, government or citizens? What are you saying is the extent of it? The US has a lot of white nationalists in the police but we are clearly not a nazi state. What are you actually saying here? Everything you’ve said feels like a unique mix of gas lighting and whataboutism.
It honestly feels totally nuts that after Russia marches a bunch of tanks across a border, you are somehow able to bring yourself to justify it in some way. Its like you have conditioned yourself to be so adamantly against the west in all situations that you can't even watch Russia bomb hospitals without saying "yeah but".
How do you read his post as a justification of the invasion? He's literally saying that the take-away from the knowledge that there are Nazis fighting for Ukraine is that it won't affect western funding of them.
There's no conflict between 'Russia is an evil imperialist power and we must give support to the countries invaded by them /discourage Russia from being imperialist' and 'the US has a history of being an evil imperialist power and we must recognize this/fight this trait of the US, because our current, well justified opposition to Russia will be entirely meaningless/hypocritical if we support the next imperialist adventure the US decides to engage on'. The far left in Norway largely seem to combine these two attitudes, and I think it's entirely coherent.
Now, that the amount of Nazis in Ukraine seems overblown is valid criticism of the point. To me, as a fairly far leftist dude, there's also no question that we must support Ukraine with all sorts of weaponry, because there can be found no justification for Russia's actions. However, there is also history between the US and Russia (Soviet) that should inspire a certain degree of sobriety with regards to our actions. Especially the conflict in Afghanistan - where the US wanted it to turn into a quagmire and where their partners in the conflict ended up backfiring severely at a later point in time. Again - there's no question that Russia is the bad actor in this conflict, but there's also history that justify asking some questions like 'what'll happen to the weapons after the conflict' 'are we sure the US hasn't been antagonizing as there might be some involved parties who see it as beneficial to US interests'. To me - none of the answers to these questions seem to alter what I perceive as the correct course of action (full support of Ukraine short of escalating into potential nuclear war), but asking these questions also does automatically translate into some type of hidden tucker carlson 'I'm just asking questions' bigotry.
There are « nazis » in most armies, starting with the russian army, but also the french army. The Legion Etrangère and the Parachutistes are full of people with extremely doubtful ideologies and the Group Wagner is led by an authentic neo nazi. The notion that the fact that there are extremists in the Ukrainian army is consequential in this conflict is grotesque.
I know you always refuse to understand what GH positions imply and what he is really saying. I admire your « assume good faith » position but it makes you totally oblivious of the content of his interventions here.
GH’s post really wasn’t that complicated. It amounts to “anyone who thinks the west is too ideologically pure to arm Nazis if it would serve their ends hasn’t been paying attention so I wouldn’t worry about the west pulling support for Ukraine anytime soon”. It’s a reasonable point. As long as they’re shooting people we don’t like we’ll arm just about anyone.
He wasn’t saying the Ukrainians are Nazis or that Russia is justified, he was saying the whole question is moot.
A historian of the area gives a nice account on what has to happen for the war to end and how those events are shaping Ukraine into a legitimate country.
I wonder if they tell the Russians a general area not to attack or keep it completely secret. Id think the Russians actually would not want to get him because of the reprocussions, but who knows.
I would hope they informed the Russians he was coming because otherwise its a random missile attack away from complete disaster.
On April 09 2022 02:43 warding wrote: Besides the question of it being 'understandable' or not, these war crimes by the Ukranian forces are big strategic mistakes. Ukraine's effort depends on Western support. That support is sensitive to these questions. I'm sure that Ukrainian leadership understands this.
I don't know how sensitive Western support is but this has been a known issue for years (Azov and Aidar battalions being some of the better known examples). There was hardly a peep when the Ukrainian National Guard tweeted out a neo nazi Azov soldier smearing pig fat on bullets meant for Muslim fighters or when the Ukrainian newscaster was quoting Adolf Eichmann.
What do we do with that information?
Best case Ukraine by and large isn’t latently Nazi, worst case let’s say they are.
In either scenario is Russia’s conduct acceptable? Should Ukraine be left without aid(
I usually agree with your points but, not really sure what you’re angling for here.
Be reasonably confident the West won't pull support because neo-nazi Ukrainian forces commit war crimes.
For example the US Congress tried to prohibit arming and training neo-nazis in Ukraine in 2015 after reports about their war crimes in 2014 but removed the prohibition under pressure from the pentagon.
Rather than make these vague assertions of Ukraine being nazis, can you be clear about to what extent you think Nazi philosophy is integrated in ukraine military, government or citizens? What are you saying is the extent of it? The US has a lot of white nationalists in the police but we are clearly not a nazi state. What are you actually saying here? Everything you’ve said feels like a unique mix of gas lighting and whataboutism.
It honestly feels totally nuts that after Russia marches a bunch of tanks across a border, you are somehow able to bring yourself to justify it in some way. Its like you have conditioned yourself to be so adamantly against the west in all situations that you can't even watch Russia bomb hospitals without saying "yeah but".
How do you read his post as a justification of the invasion? He's literally saying that the take-away from the knowledge that there are Nazis fighting for Ukraine is that it won't affect western funding of them.
There's no conflict between 'Russia is an evil imperialist power and we must give support to the countries invaded by them /discourage Russia from being imperialist' and 'the US has a history of being an evil imperialist power and we must recognize this/fight this trait of the US, because our current, well justified opposition to Russia will be entirely meaningless/hypocritical if we support the next imperialist adventure the US decides to engage on'. The far left in Norway largely seem to combine these two attitudes, and I think it's entirely coherent.
Now, that the amount of Nazis in Ukraine seems overblown is valid criticism of the point. To me, as a fairly far leftist dude, there's also no question that we must support Ukraine with all sorts of weaponry, because there can be found no justification for Russia's actions. However, there is also history between the US and Russia (Soviet) that should inspire a certain degree of sobriety with regards to our actions. Especially the conflict in Afghanistan - where the US wanted it to turn into a quagmire and where their partners in the conflict ended up backfiring severely at a later point in time. Again - there's no question that Russia is the bad actor in this conflict, but there's also history that justify asking some questions like 'what'll happen to the weapons after the conflict' 'are we sure the US hasn't been antagonizing as there might be some involved parties who see it as beneficial to US interests'. To me - none of the answers to these questions seem to alter what I perceive as the correct course of action (full support of Ukraine short of escalating into potential nuclear war), but asking these questions also does automatically translate into some type of hidden tucker carlson 'I'm just asking questions' bigotry.
There are « nazis » in most armies, starting with the russian army, but also the french army. The Legion Etrangère and the Parachutistes are full of people with extremely doubtful ideologies and the Group Wagner is led by an authentic neo nazi. The notion that the fact that there are extremists in the Ukrainian army is consequential in this conflict is grotesque.
I know you always refuse to understand what GH positions imply and what he is really saying. I admire your « assume good faith » position but it makes you totally oblivious of the content of his interventions here.
GH’s post really wasn’t that complicated. It amounts to “anyone who thinks the west is too ideologically pure to arm Nazis if it would serve their ends hasn’t been paying attention so I wouldn’t worry about the west pulling support for Ukraine anytime soon”. It’s a reasonable point. As long as they’re shooting people we don’t like we’ll arm just about anyone.
He wasn’t saying the Ukrainians are Nazis or that Russia is justified, he was saying the whole question is moot.
It is not hard to see why people extrapolate as he could expand and point out the US has armed communists, fundemental Muslims, narcos, basically anyone deemed the lesser of evils. When it comes to Russia it is not a high bar to be lesser in either what they will do to civilians and capavility to do it on a large scale.
Edit: when you are defending a country against a much stronger force that is willingly and purposefully commiting warcrimes you do not check on the political affiliation of those willing to fight them. There is very likely a "nazi" element in every military, especially if you use Russia's definition.
I completely agree on both counts. If you look hard enough you can find Nazis basically anywhere because Nazism is, and always has been, relatively popular. It’s a political philosophy based on easy answers for disaffected people.
The whole thing with the Azov battalion and other neo Nazis in Ukraine is unsurprising generally and super unsurprising given the shitty experience of Ukraine under Russian dominion and the historical legacy of antisemitism in the area. The correct response to the allegation of Nazism in Ukraine is, as you say, that they don’t run the place and that it’s ultimately not a relevant factor to the decision of whether to support Ukraine. I’d be more worried supporting a blood and soil government like the Hungarian one.
Ukraine isn’t run by Nazis and quite frankly if Nazis want to pick fights with Russian war criminals then I’m in favour of both sides being better armed. Let the trash take itself out.
One has to give credit to Boris Johnson for doing such a thing. No Western leader has done this, I know Biden was being pressured as early as last week to go to Kyiv and Bucha to meet with Zelensky and other leaders.
On April 10 2022 03:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: One has to give credit to Boris Johnson for doing such a thing. No Western leader has done this, I know Biden was being pressured as early as last week to go to Kyiv and Bucha to meet with Zelensky and other leaders.
Johnson is a clown but he's done well with Ukraine. He's been advocating for heavier sanctions and delivering more and heavier weapons all the time. If European leaders on the mainland were the same we'd have already cut off energy imports.
The Czech Republic is Ukraine everything but the kitchen sink it seems.
Ukraine has repeatedly called on the West to urgently supply more weapons, especially heavy equipment, as Russian forces regroup in the country’s east for new offensive after withdrawing from the capital Kyiv and other regions.
NATO members are providing a wide range of weapon systems to the country, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said on Thursday.
The Czech Republic has spare equipment that Ukrainian forces are familiar with in storage as well as a defense industry focused on upgrades and trade in such weapons. It has been among the most active EU nations in backing Ukraine.
Defense sources confirmed a shipment of five T-72 tanks and five BVP-1, or BMP-1, infantry fighting vehicles seen on rail cars in photographs on Twitter and video footage this week, but those were not the first shipments of heavy equipment.
“For several weeks, we have been supplying heavy ground equipment – I am saying it generally but by definition it is clear that this includes tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, howitzers, and multiple rocket launchers,” a senior defense official said.
The sources declined to discuss numbers of weapons supplied.
The senior defense official said the Czechs were also supplying a range of anti-aircraft weaponry.
Independent defense analyst Lukas Visingr said short-range air-defense systems Strela-10, or SA-13 Gopher in NATO terminology, have been spotted on a train apparently bound for Ukraine, in line with a report in Czech weekly respekt.cz.
The Czech program to ship weapons includes money raised by public fundraising by the Ukrainian embassy, which has raised $37.45 million, according to the embassy website.
On April 10 2022 03:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: One has to give credit to Boris Johnson for doing such a thing. No Western leader has done this, I know Biden was being pressured as early as last week to go to Kyiv and Bucha to meet with Zelensky and other leaders.
I doubt that BoJo is so passionate about helping Ukraine just out of the goodness of his heart... It feels like he simply must get some good press to distract from the shitshow he is running at home. It's a good thing for Ukraine, though.
On April 10 2022 03:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: One has to give credit to Boris Johnson for doing such a thing. No Western leader has done this, I know Biden was being pressured as early as last week to go to Kyiv and Bucha to meet with Zelensky and other leaders.
On April 10 2022 03:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: One has to give credit to Boris Johnson for doing such a thing. No Western leader has done this, I know Biden was being pressured as early as last week to go to Kyiv and Bucha to meet with Zelensky and other leaders.
EPT
