Russian Public Being Primed (update: Russia invades Ukraine)

[Jon]

The upshot is not that Carlson is priming the right for a war with Russia. He is arguing the opposite. He is arguing then U.S. not to get involved militarily with Russia in a country where core U.S. national interests are not at stake. It seems hard to argue that core U.S. national interests are at stake in Ukraine

I have no desire to go to war with Russia but I don't see this the way you do at all. Tucker's position here isn't *just* we shouldn't go to war with Russia, his stance is far, far worse than that. His stance is, let Russia do whatever they want, if they want to invade Ukraine (Again) we should be fine with that. Russia is priming the right to be fine with Putin invading his neighbors. It is a very Trumpian position to take on Putin/Russia

 

[NationalTitles18]

War vs no war is a false choice. There are many responses between those two.

 

[Chukker Veteran]

I just watched a short clip from Tucker‘s rant. One does not need to miss-state his position to pillory him, as someone upstream suggested.

He conflates Biden’s objections to Putin occupying part of Ukraine by saying Biden is unconcerned about our own country being invaded through the southern border while willing to take us to war to defend Ukraine’s borders.

As if people crossing our border to fill jobs Americans will no longer work is a problem that even remotely compares to Putin’s troops invading Ukraine.

 

[Its On A Slab]

I had heard that about Saddam but not Stalin. Putin calculated that the west would do nothing about Crimea and he was right. Of course, Crimea was much more heavily Russified than Donbas, although I've read the cities are mostly Russian speaking. I think I mentioned earlier that there was a little self-identified Ukrainian girl who appeared as a checker at our local Star Market. On a guess, I asked if she were from the Donbas. Looking a little shocked, she said yes. I asked her for her mother tongue. She said "I speak Ukrainian." Then, with a little grimace, "And, of course, Russian."

Isn't it a core national interest that Putin not develop a dangerous degree of overconfidence?

Throughout nearly all of the Soviet Union, in nearly all of the republics, Russian was taught as the official language. Local native languages were suppressed(though local languages have made huge comebacks since the breakup of the Evil Empire).

I think I mentioned in a post a while ago that I was surprised to learn that the term "Russian community" does not necessarily imply Russian ethnicity. You will find Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Ukrainians, Azeris, Armenians, etc in that community. The common bond is the language.

 

[Tidewater]

I had heard that about Saddam but not Stalin. Putin calculated that the west would do nothing about Crimea and he was right. Of course, Crimea was much more heavily Russified than Donbas, although I've read the cities are mostly Russian speaking. I think I mentioned earlier that there was a little self-identified Ukrainian girl who appeared as a checker at our local Star Market. On a guess, I asked if she were from the Donbas. Looking a little shocked, she said yes. I asked her for her mother tongue. She said "I speak Ukrainian." Then, with a little grimace, "And, of course, Russian."

The irony is that if Russia had allowed an honest referendum in Crimea, the pro-Russian side would have won fair and square. In the Donbas, the percentage of ethnic Russians in 2013 was probably a slim majority. Those loyal to Kyiv has since been encouraged to move so now the Kremlin enjoys overwhelming support from the remaining population. The Russians tried the same crap in Kharkiv in 2014, but the ethnic Russian population was not large enough to sustain the effort and the pro-Kremlin mobs failed there.

Isn't it a core national interest that Putin not develop a dangerous degree of overconfidence?

The way the U.S. characterizes such things, national interests tend to be more enduring. For example, "freedom of navigation" (neutral ships have the right to sail the seas where they will) is an enduring national interest. We fought the Revolutionary War (in small part) due to that interest. Fought 1812 over that. Went to war in the Great War in large measure over that principle. (Ignored it pretty ruthlessly between 1862-1865, bur this is the exception that proves the rule). Even in the Great War, the U.S. (aiding the British) allowed Dutch ships to sail through the distant blockade of Germany because the Dutch were neutral.

The U.S. military also stratifies national interests as existential, vital, major, and peripheral.
Existential is self-explanatory. The continued existence of the United States as a country.
Vital is not as immediate, but would lead almost inevitably to national destruction.
Major is an interest, the damaging of which would cause significant harm to the U.S.
Peripheral interests are things we care about, but would not cause significant damage to the U.S. We did not do to war to maintain Sudan's territorial integrity. We did not even consider going to war over that. In fact, we probably assisted the South Sudanese in gaining their independence from Khartoum. We have interests in fishing off the coast of Alaska, but we are probably not going to go to war over them.

Ukrainian territorial integrity is probably a peripheral interest. It has already been violated in Crimea and Donbas and we have not gone to war over the issue. Now, European stability is probably a major interest, both geopolitically and economically, so the U.S. probably would go to war to maintain that. To the extent that the Ukrainian loss of independence threatens broader European stability, it contributes to a major U.S. interest, but there are some sausage links between a Russian military invasion of Ukraine and broader European stability. A lot would depend on context.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Throughout nearly all of the Soviet Union, in nearly all of the republics, Russian was taught as the official language. Local native languages were suppressed(though local languages have made huge comebacks since the breakup of the Evil Empire).

I think I mentioned in a post a while ago that I was surprised to learn that the term "Russian community" does not necessarily imply Russian ethnicity. You will find Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Ukrainians, Azeris, Armenians, etc in that community. The common bond is the language.

Actually, James, the reverse is true. Ukrainian was required to be taught under the Soviet policy of "indigenization." And Russian was suppressed. The Russian language basically invaded the Donbas, along with the Russian workers and entrepreneurs. It was a gradual, grassroots thing...

 

[TIDE-HSV]

The irony is that if Russia had allowed an honest referendum in Crimea, the pro-Russian side would have won fair and square. In the Donbas, the percentage of ethnic Russians in 2013 was probably a slim majority. Those loyal to Kyiv has since been encouraged to move so now the Kremlin enjoys overwhelming support from the remaining population. The Russians tried the same crap in Kharkiv in 2014, but the ethnic Russian population was not large enough to sustain the effort and the pro-Kremlin mobs failed there.


The way the U.S. characterizes such things, national interests tend to be more enduring. For example, "freedom of navigation" (neutral ships have the right to sail the seas where they will) is an enduring national interest. We fought the Revolutionary War (in small part) due to that interest. Fought 1812 over that. Went to war in the Great War in large measure over that principle. (Ignored it pretty ruthlessly between 1862-1865, bur this is the exception that proves the rule). Even in the Great War, the U.S. (aiding the British) allowed Dutch ships to sail through the distant blockade of Germany because the Dutch were neutral.

The U.S. military also stratifies national interests as existential, vital, major, and peripheral.
Existential is self-explanatory. The continued existence of the United States as a country.
Vital is not as immediate, but would lead almost inevitably to national destruction.
Major is an interest, the damaging of which would cause significant harm to the U.S.
Peripheral interests are things we care about, but would not cause significant damage to the U.S. We did not do to war to maintain Sudan's territorial integrity. We did not even consider going to war over that. In fact, we probably assisted the South Sudanese in gaining their independence from Khartoum. We have interests in fishing off the coast of Alaska, but we are probably not going to go to war over them.

Ukrainian territorial integrity is probably a peripheral interest. It has already been violated in Crimea and Donbas and we have not gone to war over the issue. Now, European stability is probably a major interest, both geopolitically and economically, so the U.S. probably would go to war to maintain that. To the extant that the Ukrainian loss of independence threatens broader European stability, it contributes to a major U.S. interest, but there are some sausage links between a Russian military invasion of Ukraine and broader European stability. A lot would depend on context.

This was precisely what I was talking about when I basically asked if we could afford an encouraged, adventurous Putin. I don't think that European stability can afford it. And I don't think we have to go to war to prevent it. Biden has handled it deftly...

 

[Tidewater]

Actually, James, the reverse is true. Ukrainian was required to be taught under the Soviet policy of "indigenization." And Russian was suppressed. The Russian language basically invaded the Donbas, along with the Russian workers and entrepreneurs. It was a gradual, grassroots thing...

Soviet ethnicity policy was complicated. Marx had said class matters, not nationality, that capitalists played up national pride to keep the proletariat divided.
The Soviets, played up ethnicity in order to coops local Communist Party elites and make them loyal to the party. Coopted the local elites and they will never want to secede. That was their solution to how to keep together a multi-ethnic empire.
Rank and file across the USSR all learned Russian because it was the lingua franca of the empire. In the Donbas, this was particularly so, since many of the workers had been brought there from Russia in the late Imperial period to dig coal and make iron. They also brought with them the Great Russian contempt for provincial Ukrainian peasants.

 

[Tidewater]

This was precisely what I was talking about when I basically asked if we could afford an encouraged, adventurous Putin. I don't think that European stability can afford it. And I don't think we have to go to war to prevent it. Biden has handled it deftly...

Fair enough, but if Russia launched a punitive raid (went in, killed a bunch of Ukrainians, destroyed a bunch of stuff, then left), European stability would not be seriously threatened (because some Europeans want to believe that. Heck, there are Europeans who would agree with Putin after the fact that it had never even happened. The EU and NATO would send sternly-worded letters telling Putin how angry they are at him, and then the Eu would get back to what they have been doing.

Even if Putin were to invade and grab the aqueduct and dig in, Europe would be angry, but would do little. And the French and Germans would sit at the table and take Russia's side when Putin told the Ukrainians "We only did this because you have cut off water supplies to Crimea. It was a humanitarian action seizing the aqueduct." France and German would sit next to Putin and agree, saying, "Yes, you see how evil the Ukrainian water embargo is? Putin had to do this."

Now, on the other hand, if Russia launched an invasion and attempted to annex the entire country, that would be a different kettle of fish. First, that would threaten European stability, and Europeans would react firmly, by bolstering NATO members in Eastern Europe. The U.S. would as react strongly as well. And the Ukrainians themselves would launch a partisan fight like the Russians have not seen since the end of the Second World War. There is no way the Russians could hold that much territory (603,628 square kilometres).

I agree, Biden has handled this well to date. The jury is still out, however. Hopefully, I am right and this whole show was intended solely for domestic Russian consumption or for Ukrainian consumption, to draw away Ukrainian forces from the Donbas fight. Hopefully, that is all it ever was.

 

[Tidewater]

And we have Fla. National Guard troops in Ukraine.
Florida National Guard troops are somehow caught up in Russia’s showdown with Ukraine

It is only 153 soldiers sent as trainers, and they probably have strict orders NOT to accompany Ukrainians soldiers anywhere near the fighting. I do not know, but I would wager they will be in the far west of Ukraine, near Lviv, far from the fighting in Donbas.

 

[Tidewater]

War vs no war is a false choice. There are many responses between those two.

I would agree. There are tons of other possibilities.
Yet wars do sometimes happen and not infrequently due to miscalculation on the part of one side or the other.
Certainly the Austro-Hungarians did not envision the demise of the Austro-Hungarian Empire as a result of the decidsion to declare war on Serbia, but that was the end result of the decision.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Fair enough, but if Russia launched a punitive raid (went in, killed a bunch of Ukrainians, destroyed a bunch of stuff, then left), European stability would not be seriously threatened (because some Europeans want to believe that. Heck, there are Europeans who would agree with Putin after the fact that it had never even happened. The EU and NATO would send sternly-worded letters telling Putin how angry they are at him, and then the Eu would get back to what they have been doing.

Even if Putin were to invade and grab the aqueduct and dig in, Europe would be angry, but would do little. And the French and Germans would sit at the table and take Russia's side when Putin told the Ukrainians "We only did this because you have cut off water supplies to Crimea. It was a humanitarian action seizing the aqueduct." France and German would sit next to Putin and agree, saying, "Yes, you see how evil the Ukrainian water embargo is? Putin had to do this."

Now, on the other hand, if Russia launched an invasion and attempted to annex the entire country, that would be a different kettle of fish. First, that would threaten European stability, and Europeans would react firmly, by bolstering NATO members in Eastern Europe. The U.S. would as react strongly as well. And the Ukrainians themselves would launch a partisan fight like the Russians have not seen since the end of the Second World War. There is no way the Russians could hold that much territory (603,628 square kilometres).

I agree, Biden has handled this well to date. The jury is still out, however. Hopefully, I am right and this whole show was intended solely for domestic Russian consumption or for Ukrainian consumption, to draw away Ukrainian forces from the Donbas fight. Hopefully, that is all it ever was.

I wish I could totally agree. However, I'm afraid Putin the tactician would miscalculate and assume that nothing stood in the way of taking back all of Ukraine, or at least much more than just Donbas. Your picture is rosy, but I'm afraid it underestimate's Putin's capacity for mischief...

 

[Its On A Slab]

Actually, James, the reverse is true. Ukrainian was required to be taught under the Soviet policy of "indigenization." And Russian was suppressed. The Russian language basically invaded the Donbas, along with the Russian workers and entrepreneurs. It was a gradual, grassroots thing...

Probably the only Soviet republic where that was true.

The expats I know from the other republics I mentioned have the same general language that was enforced upon them.

But the teaching of the Russian language was mandatory. Which is why you have such a plethora of national expats with a common language.

"Indigenization" was also bumped up against "Russianization". Stalin wasn't such a proponent since he was not ethnic Russian. But Lenin sure was. And as the decades went by, Russian was the lingua franca of the empire.

Curiously, the only place where Russian never caught on(though it was certainly mandatory in schools): East Germany.

 

[Tidewater]

Probably the only Soviet republic where that was true.

The expats I know from the other republics I mentioned have the same general language that was enforced upon them.

But the teaching of the Russian language was mandatory. Which is why you have such a plethora of national expats with a common language.

"Indigenization" was also bumped up against "Russianization". Stalin wasn't such a proponent since he was not ethnic Russian. But Lenin sure was. And as the decades went by, Russian was the lingua franca of the empire.

Curiously, the only place where Russian never caught on(though it was certainly mandatory in schools): East Germany.

I have traveled extensively around Eastern Europe. There is an obvious age stratification on Russian-speaking. Above say, 40 everyone speaks Russian (although it is rusty). Below 40, everyone speaks English (to varying degrees)

 

[Tidewater]

I wish I could totally agree. However, I'm afraid Putin the tactician would miscalculate and assume that nothing stood in the way of taking back all of Ukraine, or at least much more than just Donbas. Your picture is rosy, but I'm afraid it underestimate's Putin's capacity for mischief...

I will admit is it possible Putin may be dumb enough to invade Ukraine. I honestly do not see what he would gain long term by doing that. It would be incredibly painful. For Russia.

 

[Jon]

I will admit is it possible Putin may be dumb enough to invade Ukraine. I honestly do not see what he would gain long term by doing that. It would be incredibly painful. For Russia.

lots of people said the same about Crimea and it didn't seem to cost him much. He is seeing our politics go back to GOP in the House in 2022 * so he likely things he will get a pass again


reread this and meant 2022 and originally wrote 2020

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Probably the only Soviet republic where that was true.

The expats I know from the other republics I mentioned have the same general language that was enforced upon them.

But the teaching of the Russian language was mandatory. Which is why you have such a plethora of national expats with a common language.

"Indigenization" was also bumped up against "Russianization". Stalin wasn't such a proponent since he was not ethnic Russian. But Lenin sure was. And as the decades went by, Russian was the lingua franca of the empire.

Curiously, the only place where Russian never caught on(though it was certainly mandatory in schools): East Germany.

This map illustrates the situation:

 

[Tidewater]

This map illustrates the situation:

View attachment 21321

I use that exact map in my instruction. The confrontation lines follows almost exactly the Russian-majority areas in Crimea and Donbas. The red blob in the northeast is Kharkiv, the area that saw Russian mobs that were inadequate to sustain the effort.
The area south and southeast of the white blob (the Dnieper Bend Lake), is Russian-majority, but is mostly an empty rural area.

 

[Tidewater]

lots of people said the same about Crimea and it didn't seem to cost him much. He is seeing our politics go back to GOP in the House in 2022 * so he likely things he will get a pass again

reread this and meant 2022 and originally wrote 2020

Maybe, but the situation today is not analogous to 2013. Russia has already occupied the areas with a Russian majority (Crimea and Donetsk and Lugansk). There are no significant Russian-majority regions left to take. The Russians tried Kharkiv in 2014 (along with Donetsk and Luhansk) and the effort in Kharkiv collapsed. Not enough Russians to sustain the effort.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I use that exact map in my instruction. The confrontation lines follows almost exactly the Russian-majority areas in Crimea and Donbas. The red blob in the northeast is Kharkiv, the area that saw Russian mobs that were inadequate to sustain the effort.
The area south and southeast of the white blob (the Dnieper Bend Lake), is Russian-majority, but is mostly an empty rural area.

Exactly the reason I put it up. Those red areas are small but pretty concentrated in population. Nevertheless, should Putin get fixated on "Lebensraum," he would be pushing into areas with very few ethnic Russians. As I said, I think it's been headed off. Another valid point is the one James made earlier - in some urban areas, non-ethnic Russians who use Russian as a first language as a matter of convenience approach half the Russophones...