[lsjey]

A very good thread on the current Ukraine crisis. When all things are said and done, what really matters is the leadership of a country that determines the outcome of a crisis like this one. Strong and decisive leadership is what really matters in such times.

India has been fortunate to have such strong leadership. For example, during the 1971 Bangladesh liberation, the leadership of the then PM Mrs. Indira Gandhi was what saved India.

If India does come out of this crisis unscathed, then IMHO it'll be because of the similar strength in leadership. I'm saying this because there will be enormous pressure on our government from US and NATO countries on one side, Russia on the other and China waiting for India to make one mistake. So far, though, I think India has done well. But the crisis is far from over.

And for Ukraine, probably lack of such strong leadership is what is causing this crisis to prolong and have a deleterious impact on the country as a whole.

Hoping for a peaceful end to this crisis.

Regards,
lsjey

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by turbo_delight

100% agreed. This comedian is getting his people killed by using Marshall law. No-one is allowed to leave between the age of 16-60 years.

Its not by choice that people are fighting. It's forced and independent media is showing that the are heroes. ... ... ...

That's called war. It happens. What do you expect?

Perhaps you should tell the aggressor how wrong it all is.

[Fuldagap]

Originally Posted by lsjey

So far, though, I think India has done well. But the crisis is far from over.

We are going to have a similar thread in the coming years unfortunately. The situation is at a naive stage yet, but it is definitely brewing. India isn't to be blamed though. China is very coherently flexing its muscles. Nobody can predict a timeline but after 2025 or near 2030 is going to be the tough time. Even a cursory look at China's plans makes it obvious.

Indira Gandhis, Manekshaws or R N Kaos or the lesser knowns but brilliant ones are nowhere in sight, however, we are going to need or see atleast one like them in the future. Not trying to take a jibe but the absence of 'cloud thay, maine socha' type would definitely be required. The only thing India could be blamed for afterwards is that we are doing too little to avert the situation and are far far behind the curve on anything related to our NE issue.

If this posts seems irrelevant to this thread, it may kindly be deleted by the mods.

[SnS_12]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Perhaps you should tell the aggressor how wrong it all is.

Sir, the initial aggressor who has created this situation said this..



So, either he is lacking a spine to challenge Russia directly or he is being the leader the world really wants by showing restraint and avoiding WWIII. But, would he have said the same thing if Russia had to attack a NATO member?

Russia knew exactly how US would retaliate and hence attacked Ukraine and just like Xi of China he can’t take failure under his watch if he wants to hold on to his position. This is the drawback of not being a leader of a democracy.

Hence, Putin will not stop till all his demands are met and he achieves what he has planned too. The hardship Russia is going through as a country will not stop even if Ukraine surrenders as the sanctions put on them won't go away. So, Putin knows he has entered the endgame with US on this.

So, we have to now see if he his successful in knocking of US from the top position or can the US save themselves from the predicament they have allowed Russia to push them into.

[deathwalkr]

Originally Posted by turbo_delight

100% agreed. This comedian is getting his people killed by using Marshall law. No-one is allowed to leave between the age of 16-60 years.

Being a comedian was his profession before he entered politics. Not sure why that should come into picture here.

He is the President of a country and one should have some basic respect for that title at least.

A country invades you and you are supposed to surrender and welcome them with open arms?

War is the greatest crime in the history of mankind and all the energies of the powerful people should be on getting the aggressor to stop and not for the victim to give up.

If the Ukrainians really did not want to fight for their nation, then they would have just laid down arms and surrendered but instead they are choosing to fight against a Goliath.

War should never ever be an option. And i really hope better sense prevails all around what with Putin allegedly asking for weapons from China as well :(

[deetee]

Originally Posted by deathwalkr

War is the greatest crime in the history of mankind and all the energies of the powerful people should be on getting the aggressor to stop and not for the victim to give up.

A general remark about war being considered a crime. If war is a crime, then all the previous leaders, whether elected democratically or not , should have been tried for 'the crime'. That includes the many presidents of US, leaders of India under whose reign we went to war, leaders of all other countries who sent their armies in fighting along US. Lets not just stop there, we keep reading glorified history of kings across the globe who went to war and amassed victories, enlarged empires, projected themselves as great conquerors blah..blah.. That history, if war is a crime, has to be rewritten and those Kings should be portrayed worst criminals. But can we - as a society at large, do that?? No, because every society has their self interests at stake. If the war is between nations, it is in the self interest of those countries and their allies.

War and war crimes are different. War is not a crime, its what do you in the war matters. Some may die fighting for honor while some may live fighting by any means. Whether one dies for their beliefs or keeps principles aside and fights to survive is upto them. One has a choice only before they enter the war, after that it's all about life and death. Didn't they say all is fair in love and war!

Bottom line: Wars will happen as long as human civilisation exists. And no war is pretty. And while in a war, no point crying foul, do whatever it takes to live.

[Poitive]

Sharing some thoughts/a-hypothesis. Let us look at things with harsh practicality and bring emotions only as a tool used for practical purposes (for more on the practical side of emotions check this post).

Is it possible that Zelensky is working in the interests of the US/West than his own country, or is he a hero. Let us look further into this issue.

Reasons to see Zelensky as a hero:
Yes, some of it could be seen to be based on Western propaganda, but let us look at it at face value for now.

• Ukraine has had historical divisions. Voting patterns coupled with linguistic distribution further corroborate to the divide still being a part of society. In this crisis, Zelensky has managed to quite unite them; probably more than what a lot of people might have expected.
  .
• If the Russians had a Plan-A of awing the Ukrainians into submission, Zelensky was a big factor in foiling it.
  .
• When faced with the might of the Russians, most countries would find it difficult to put up a fight. The Ukrainians are putting up one. Zelensky sure seems to be a factor in this.
  .
• Complain about his tactics - as it would be possible to do for most leaders in such a situation - he has managed to keep the fight going against what appears to be an insurmountable adversary. This, despite no official feet on the ground from the West, and only limited other obvious support.
  .
• In a tough situation - one in which one has a high probability of getting killed - a lot of leaders would simply run for their lives. He did not. Viktor Yanukovych, the then president of Ukraine did so in 2014.
  .
• He has used the western media and sentiment rather effectively to gain support.
  
  Whether or not what they claim is true, it is at least helping people fleeing from Ukraine get good support in neighbouring countries. Including Poland, with which Ukraine has a troubled past. There are complaints about Ukrainian refugees getting treated much better than refugees from other countries (sure there are more factors to this than just Zelensky).
  .
• He has managed to come out as the undisputed leader of the country.

.
Reasons to see Zelensky as working for the interests of the US - Backround:
For this, let us delve into some surrounding stuff. Let us look at things beyond what western media tells us. We will consider some reasonable possibilities, also keeping in mind that what is reasonable too is subjective.

Europe
For the average European, a sentiment against Putin has suddenly become very strong and has taken centre-stage. Many see him as a monster. As some megalomaniac out to expand Russia to some erstwhile Soviet glory who is beginning to lose his mind - never-mind the lack of viability of such a move. (why do movies about power-hungry Russian madmen come to mind?!) In a European democracy, it becomes extremely difficult for a country now to align with Russia. One would likely lose precious vote share. If one analyses elections, in many segments/constituencies the difference between the top two is only a few percent. With several seats swinging due to a few percent vote shift, the national outcome changes. While the vote share percentage might only be small, the implication of it in seats can be huge; consequently change national outcomes.

We now also hear of European countries trying to reduce and in a few years remove dependency on Russia for it's energy and other resource needs. IMO, if such so happens, it would make things ripe for a big European war; possibly a huge one, which might extend to further geographies. Current events might be setting the stage for a bigger war to come in a decade or two (International politics often looks at longer timelines than what the average person does). It is said that the US gained a lot from the previous such war - WW2 - enough to become the leading power of the world.

Another obvious fallout would be that the exchange between Russia and Europe on defence equipment and parts remains unviable/very-difficult for a very long time to come.

Also bear in mind that if Europe becomes independent of the US control-like influence, to an extent it is a competitor of the US. Cutting down Europe to appropriate size (not finish it) is in the US interest.

USA
From what is described above about Europe, the obvious gainer is USA. They remove a competitor from the arms market for the whole of Europe. Gets them dependent on itself further and for longer. Russia too can't see Europe as a supplier for long, and gets hurt in process.

With the threat of Putin and Russia being seen as a bigger one, it would make it more viable for democratically elected leaders in Europe to spend more on defence, as it becomes an easy thing to sell to the masses - orders for the US, in effect. (*who said social media was free?)

With sanctions on Russia, one competitor in the market is reduced. While the Russian economy might not be big, it being financially hit has at least two effects: (a) less funds mean increased difficulty to spend on defence (b) less funds in the hands of people, which helps prepare the ground for a 'revolution' in Russia in the times to come. Such a 'revolution' in Russia (and also eventually in China) would help the US interests.

In the name of spreading democracy, what one gets is leaders which are more compliant to western views. Ones who aren't can be built influence against (media and narratives playing a big role - partly touched upon in this post). As before, it could take only a few percentage vote share swing to effect leadership change. My guess is countries which have the ability and enough interest weight in the cost-benifit of influencing other countries, and do so so in whatever way possible.

Russia being drawn into a war also means it is losing resources for it. Way way more than the US would. A competitive advantage. This is increased by a longer more resource draining war.

My impression also is that significant interests in the US also gain from conflicts in the world. I imagine ones far away to be more useful to them, with ones which are far and do not directly involve the US even more so (lesser 'baggage' of internal politics).

Russia/Putin
A prolonged war hurts Russia/Putin - resources/money, sanctions, image, hurts leader. Could elaborate this, but is hardly needed.


Zelensky - in the Interests of the USA?
Yes, much of it is only a hypothesis and can't be proved, but let us look at it.

Considering a prolonged war is in the US interest and against Russia, how to prolong this war while reducing own (USA) costs and increasing benefit is to be considered.

Now, how to prolong it?

• The obvious thing is to make people who have to fight believe that they can win.
• To do that, one has to believe that they are doing well, which in turn in based on making Russia doing poorly.
• Reports are rife with how Russia is not going as per plan.
  I said so in my first post on this thread, that this has little basis as of now. We don't have benchmarks for it. Palki Sharma (Wion) too said so in the video posted earlier today - we do not know Russia's battle plans. Heck, we aren't even sure what they want as an end result of this conflict!
• Further to make believe with multiple repeated media reports that it was like Russia would steamroll in a few days and anything less than that is indicated as Russia doing poorly, and Ukraine doing well.
• Provide the Ukrainian side with all kinds of unofficial support - from intel to 'volunteers'. I suppose that is being done.
• Further smaller things like building a social media narrative of things going well, yet managing to gain sympathy - much of western and social media seems to be in line with this. Since the internet in most parts of Ukraine is working, what people hear from other countries too helps keep morale high. Gaining sympathy from people across borders and reinforcing that Russia is doing poorly helps.
  .
• Another important factor not talked about enough: Zelensky is being talked to as the undisputed leader of Ukraine. Had it not been in the US interest, it is not something the US would do or encourage the others in it's sphere of (typically immense) influence do. Zelensky is seen addressing the parliament of UK too. What this does is helps him remove local challenges to his leadership and avoids splintering of groups (not all countries can manage that if the media and the powers behind it don't wish so - can we?)

Besides prolonging it, the country is also being unified for another try at NATO after several years, when the time is ripe (perhaps when Putin leaves the chair).

Also bear in mind that all this is happening without boot on the ground support to Ukraine. No NATO boots, no international body's boots, no US boots; at least officially.

Without Zelensky (and the 'Western support') all this would be highly improbable to achieve. Interestingly, he popped up into the scene quite suddenly based on a TV series portraying him as a teacher who turns heroic.

Is the US using Zelensky to fight it's battle to wear down and hurt it's adversary (Russia) with minimal damage to itself, regardless of the plight of Ukrainians? (What if he has been assured death if he tries to 'escape'?)

We can decide for ourselves based on our exposure to material, mental conditioning and biases, and illusions of objectivity. Within my limitations, I have, but only with reasonable certainty.

[turbo_delight]

Originally Posted by deathwalkr

A country invades you and you are supposed to surrender and welcome them with open arms?

...

If the Ukrainians really did not want to fight for their nation, then they would have just laid down arms and surrendered but instead they are choosing to fight against a Goliath.

Military should fight war. Not common man.
When US/NATO/UK refused to fight for Ukraine, the president asked common man.
Thats not right.

When people die fighting, be proud of them, say they fought valiantly.
If President says, "innocent" civilians were killed, thats opportunism of lowest level.

[deathwalkr]

Originally Posted by turbo_delight

Military should fight war. Not common man.
When US/NATO/UK refused to fight for Ukraine, the president asked common man.
Thats not right.

When people die fighting, be proud of them, say they fought valiantly.
If President says, "innocent" civilians were killed, thats opportunism of lowest level.

In times of war, citizens are drafted to fight for their country. Don't really like it but that's how it is.

Sure, he needs to highlight the deaths of his people to garner sympathy in the eyes of the world.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by turbo_delight

Military should fight war. Not common man.
When US/NATO/UK refused to fight for Ukraine, the president asked common man.
Thats not right.

You didn't get my point. It is how it is.

I really am a poor historian, but I know that, in WW2, Britain called up people to fight. If I remember rightly, it was called conscription.

I know that USA conscripted people to fight in Vietnam.

It happens, it will happen.

[dragonfire]

Putin fans want Ukraine to concede. It's like them saying - "Lay still. The pain will be over sooner if you lie back and co-operate". They are trying to disgrace him - calling him a comedian et al - now that Putin has not won after two weeks. What seemed like a walk in a park is turning out to be Putin's undoing. Putin might eventually win the war but he will lose support with his own people. It will be difficult for him to win the next election.

If countless wars that were fought throughout history were analyzed, you'd find that wars are fought for honor, not survival. Soldiers lay down their lives for their country and that's why we honor them, not running away. This war does not need be any different, just because you want your favorite dictator to win.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Poitive

Reasons to see Zelensky as a hero:

For those of us who follow US politics closely, Zelenskiyy is not a new name. When Trump made that perfect phone call back in 2019, it was to Zelenskiyy and we all pitied Zelenskiyy because he was in real fix.

When the President of the most powerful country calls him and makes demands, it is very hard to offer any resistance. Through out that phone call Zelenskiyy was agreeable to everything Trump was suggesting and demanding. He could not have afforded to be heroic in that phone call. We all understood that. Trump held back military support to pressure Zelenskiyy, and Zelenskiyy easily capitulated. No one could really blame him, he had to do what was best for his country. He left heroism to movies then. If you read the full transcript, you'll notice he was ready to accept any demands to keep Trump happy.



source

With Putin he was up against one more very powerful country right next his border with much higher stakes. Why did he choose defiance vs appeasement with Putin is something historians will argue for years.

[Poitive]

Originally Posted by Samurai

For those of us who follow US politics closely, Zelenskiyy is not a new name. When Trump made that perfect phone call back in 2019, it was to Zelenskiyy and we all pitied Zelenskiyy because he was in real fix.

2019 is pretty recent for the context, IMO.

From acting in a series till 2019, forming a party in 2018, becoming president by May 2019. Pretty rapid, I'd say. Propped up, perhaps. Nuland's recently resurfaced videos come to mind (link)

He then pursued comedy and created the production company Kvartal 95, which produced films, cartoons, and TV shows including the TV series Servant of the People, in which Zelenskyy played the role of the Ukrainian president. The series aired from 2015 to 2019 and was immensely popular. A political party bearing the same name as the television show was created in March 2018 by employees of Kvartal 95.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volodymyr_Zelenskyy

Since the presidency of Volodymyr Zelenskyy
After Zelenskyy's inauguration most leading figures of Kvartal 95 joined Zelenskyy's administration as Deputy Heads of the Presidential Administration of Ukraine and one was appointed Deputy Head of the Ukrainian Secret Service.[6][7]

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kvartal_95.

Originally Posted by Samurai

With Putin he was up against one more very powerful country right next his border with much higher stakes. Why did he choose defiance vs appeasement with Putin is something historians will argue for years.

US interests and backing?
Hints enough for me, but as I said subjective opinions would be there based on various factors.

[vishnurp99]

Since we are discussing about Zelensky, I wanted to share this article which just came out before the Russian invasion. It came out on Feb 21, 2022. Hence it would have been written in mid Feb. Like all news articles, please take this information also with a pinch of salt but I wanted to share an opinion piece in NYT before he became the "face" of the Free world .

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/o...sky-putin.html

Some excerpts :

His opponents said he was so inexperienced, he was bound to be a disaster. His supporters thought that he would break away from the old ways and end corruption. His harshest critics claimed that Mr. Zelensky, a Russian-speaking man born in eastern Ukraine, would all but sell the country off to Russia. Others said he was an oligarch puppet.

Yet the truth is more prosaic. Mr. Zelensky, the showman and performer, has been unmasked by reality. And it has revealed him to be dispiritingly mediocre.

After his nearly three years in office, it’s clear what the problem is: Mr. Zelensky’s tendency to treat everything like a show. Gestures, for him, are more important than consequences. Strategic objectives are sacrificed for short-term benefits. The words he uses don’t matter, as long as they are entertaining. And when the reviews are bad, he stops listening and surrounds himself with fans.

The president’s tense relationship with the press doesn’t help, either. A former actor used to the sound of applause, Mr. Zelensky is notoriously thin-skinned when it comes to criticism and challenging questions. He is visibly irritated by traditional journalists: In November, this fractious approach led to unseemly confrontations at a news conference.

A former movie producer and longtime friend was made chief of staff, joining other friends and confidants of Mr. Zelensky in wielding outsize power. The security service is overseen by a childhood friend, a former corporate lawyer, and the president’s party in Parliament is run by a loyal former I.T. businessman. The circle around the president has become an echo chamber.

[thanixravindran]

Originally Posted by CarNerd

The Russians have 3 demands: No NATO, Recognise Crimea as Russian Territory, Recognise Donetsk and Luhansk Republics. Having lost Crimea in 2014, If Zelenskyy had any common sense, he should have negotiated with the Russians when he became President in 2019 or even a year ago when the Russians were slowly increasing their presence along the border. That way he could have prevented the invasion and separation of DPR & LPR.

Russian demands are not just these three things. Russian demands include the reversal of things/policies from 2014 namely

1. Official recognition of Russian language (In 2014, Ukrainian become the sole language depriving the largest linguistic minority of its right. You can also read about similar one done in Srilanka in 1980s and the 1987 accord)
2. Revert to Russian Orthodox church (Recently Ukraine branched out officially from Russian Orthodox church)
3. Most important one is the changing the constitution to become parliamentary style from Presidential style (laughable given Russia is Presidential style but they want to avoid a reversal of policies by a future President and install a 'Russian speaking veto' in the internal politics of Ukraine)

It may probably include some secret demands for Post war economic contracts (and joining Eurasian Economic forum by Russia) but all of this points to the Russification of Ukraine after the De-Russification efforts of recent times. Accepting these will implode Ukraine and Mr. Z will become a political coward in his own country. If you fight, and manage to win (at least bogged down Russia) he will be the new savior of Europe. Even if he goes down, he will be immortalized in the history. No wonder he has chosen to fight.

Originally Posted by CarNerd

If he wants to resist Russia and drive them out no matter what, Why is he negotiating with them? He should stop all meetings and fight to death as he said. Is Surrender worse than complete destruction of Ukraine?

One of the foundational aspects of diplomacy is to talk, talk and talk whether it is your allies or enemies, whether it is peace or war. If it cannot be direct at least back room channels. The moment you stop talking, it will be a total war of annihilation like WW2. I sincerely hope this does not take that trajectory.

Since Ukraine and Russia both belonged to the erstwhile Soviet Union, I can only remember the stance taken by Stalin which is to fight and defend till the last man standing. Being a brutal dictator, he achieved it with great loss and his order no 227 is the most criticized war orders of all time. Whatever be the criticism of Stalin later (rightly so), the most defining moment of WW2 is the victory by Soviets which turned the tide against the Third Reich and its atrocities.