The Ukraine War

[DarkFruitsRam7]

3 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Because that would result in a major international war between Russia and NATO that nobody (except possibly the unfortunate Ukraine pawns) wants. Same reason as a no fly zone is being resisted. 

If a NATO country had been invaded then other NATO members would be obliged to step in and help.

Aye, I understand the potentially disastrous consequences it would cause.

It just seems strange that membership to a particular organisation is the difference between doing very little and World War III.

Edited March 4, 2022 by DarkFruitsRam7

[Tamworthram]

7 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Aye, I understand the potentially disastrous consequences it would cause.

It just seems strange that membership to a particular organisation is the difference between doing very little and World War III.

But that's the way defence alliances generally work. If your ally is attacked you are effectively obliged to help regardless of the fear of the consequences. 

In a debate with @BaaLocks we discussed where (if anywhere) Putin might look next to expand Russian territory and I suggested there is no way he would follow through on any threats against neighbouring NATO members such as Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania.

Edited March 4, 2022 by Tamworthram

[Highgate]

23 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Genuine question from someone who doesn't follow the news too closely: why can't other Western countries defend Ukraine? I understand they would defend, for example, Poland because they belong to Nato. But is Nato membership really what decides who deserves military support?

I'd say no NATO membership shouldn't be what decides who deserves military protection from the international community. Ukrainians or Poles are equally deserving of support I'd imagine.

But I think the geopolitical reality is that no country wants to go to war with Russia.  NATO doesn't want to go to war with Russia, not for a country within NATO or a country outside it.  However if a NATO country were invaded and NATO didn't respond...then NATO itself is finished as an organization. It would simply serve no purpose if it didn't act in those circumstances. However when a country outside NATO is invaded by Russia everyone can plausibly get away with not taking military action...which is what we are seeing playing out at the moment.  Engaging with Russia is a last resort for the West.  Interestingly if what I'm saying is correct then the red line for NATO is the endangerment of the NATO organization itself rather than Putin or anyone else unnecessarily invading democratic countries and needlessly killing innocent civilians.

I wonder what the situation would be like in 2022 if NATO had simply disbanded when the Soviet Union broke up in the early 90s.

[ketteringram]

10 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

But that's the way defence alliances generally work. If your ally is attacked you are effectively obliged to help regardless of the fear of the consequences. 

In a debate with @BaaLocks we discussed where (if anywhere) Putin might look next to expand Russian territory and I suggested there is no way he would follow through on any threats against neighbouring NATO members such as Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania.

I'm far from convinced that if a NATO country was attacked, that NATO would respond as one , in the way it's meant to. 

[Leeds Ram]

3 hours ago, Anon said:

I understand the difference perfectly well. It's "humanitarian intervention" when we do it, territorial expansion for anyone else.

Did Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya become part of America? It's a whole different ball game to intervene in authoritarian/totalitarian regimes and annexing a democratic country on your doorstep in order to expand your own territory. 

[Leeds Ram]

2 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

I don't think I was trying to paint an eqiuvalence at all - indeed what I said was "I'm just saying it's a mess when you start pulling it to bits". Probably best to leave Syria and the Middle East out of this thread or it will go off in all directions. But if anyone wants an example of what happens when external forces come and try to fix local situations then that is it.

And, to be clear, as with Ukraine, the point I am making is not about whether or not we should be sending military in to help repel invasions or supression but the 20, 30 (or 100 years in the case of the Middle East) years of subterfuge that went before fomenting the situation for political and economic gain.

But we never, ever seem to learn - either that or the truth is we know all along but it serves our purpose. Hey, maybe that's why we didn't have the same level of interest in conflicts in South Sudan, Yemen, Uganda or Myanmar?

None of our 'years of subterfuge' created the conditions for the Arab springs neither did we 'foment' the situation. I apologise if i misread your post but the attempt at a comparison as I read it  was simply incorrect. You can find a very good case for Syrian intervention and it's not a mess when you start pulling it to bits you can just listen to Syrian civil society activists. 

Edited March 4, 2022 by Leeds Ram

[Ramarena]

2 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

It's the perfect example of the fog of war - they didn't shell the power plant, they shelled the surrouding region and have now taken the power plant intact. Radiation levels are normal - actually, nothing much to see here other than a tactical advance in time of war. But not much of a tabloid headline in "Russians take power station without damaging it". A bit like the suggestion that the convoy has run out of fuel - maybe it has, maybe the Russians are waiting to see if talks can be successful before laying siege. One thing I can say, yes there has been fighting but if Putin had really wanted to take Ukraine quickly (96 hours etc) then it would have been on a scale multiple, multiple times worse than this.

As I said, be careful writing him off as a madman - he is a cold, calculating, indeed possibly psycopathic leader and everyone will do themselves a disservice if they miss all that because they bought into the 'mad as a bag of badgers' line.

And if the Russians wanted to make something go bang then remember that Ukraine has natural gas reserves over 1 trillion cubic metres (imagine a cube of natural gas sitting over Derby, no funnies about Marstons Pedigree please) six miles long in either direction. Quite literally, that's about the size of it.

They did damage it though, firefighters had to be bought in to deal with burning buildings and the UN atomic agency report one of the plants buildings was stuck by a projectile.

I think I’ll take the reports on the ground and official nuclear agencies word over someone off the internet.

It takes a lot to damage a nuclear plant to the point that it leaks fuel, but the symbolism of attacking a nuclear plant will not be lost on the rest of the world. And that’s before we get into how many international agreements this violated.

I’m all for looking at the other side. But we’re past that now. Putin has committed too many atrocities!

[Leeds Ram]

5 hours ago, Alpha said:

Oh I realise. That's what America do in the Middle East is it? Humanitarian intervention. 

Got it

Libya was done expressly under the R2P doctrine that was supported by the UNSC. The case for humanitarian intervention in Iraq was strong as it was in Afghanistan that required long term rebuilding efforts to stabilise and democratise the countries.  

[Ramarena]

Just noticed that it was the Wagner group that was sent in to as assassinate the Ukrainian president.

So to “denazify” Ukraine you send in a bunch of Nazi mercenaries, who are famous for murdering journalists????????????????

 

Edited March 4, 2022 by Ramarena

[Wolfie]

Copied from Beeb live feed:

President Putin has warned those opposing Russia's actions in Ukraine "not to exacerbate the situation" by imposing more restrictions on his country.

The Russian president was speaking at a government meeting broadcast on the state-controlled Rossiya 24 news channel.

"We have no ill intentions against our neighbours," Putin claims.

And he says his government sees "no need" for its neighbours to take further action that will "make our relations worse".

"I think everyone must think about how to normalise relations, co-operate normally and develop relations normally," he adds.

It comes as foreign ministers from across the West gather in Brussels to consider how to maintain pressure on Russia.

Putin also repeats his previous claim that all action taken by the Russian military so far has been made "exclusively in response to some unfriendly actions against the Russian Federation".

 

Maybe it's me being overly optimistic, or because this topic has been giving my mental health a battering this week but that does come across as a lot less inflamatory than previous statements. Even if you can't trust a word he says. Hearing him saying he wants to get back to normal relations is slightly more re-assuring than talking about nukes on high alert.

 

*goes away to find some more straws to clutch at*

[EtoileSportiveDeDerby]

3 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

It shouldn't be happening anywhere in the world, why is it more alarming because it is happening in Europe? The attached explains it better than I ever could.

 

Not more alarming and certainly nothing to do with racism. Certain areas have seen trouble and instability for decades with little signs of progress sadly. Europe with the exception of the Kosovo, Serbia has been relatively calm. 

Before the narrative gets derailed into civilised, white, middle class areas being under siege when it does not really happen in those places, think about rain in the sahara or 60 days of uninterrupted sunshine  in the UK. It is quite unusual, whereas sunshine in the Sahara and rain in the uk does happen, quite a bit.

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

2 hours ago, Alpha said:

Ukraine was promised protection by the West and Russia when it gave up it's Nuclear weapons. 

Now one invades them while the other watches. 

What will it even be like in the years to come. A buffer state? People that remember the West didn't come? People that live in fear of Russia coming to claim it? A country demilitarised to suit everyone and sat as the West/East buffer?

Not sure how popular this opinion will be, but if anything this is a perfect case study in why no nuclear power should or would seriously consider getting rid of their nuclear weapons. If Ukraine had a large arsenal of nuclear weapons at their disposal then this simply wouldn't be happening. Nuclear war is the single greatest deterrent currently available to any nation on the planet. They are the reason that NATO haven't gone in and attempted to repel this invasion themselves and they are the reason that Russia will not invade any NATO country once whatever they want to achieve in Ukraine is achieved.

Nuclear weapons have done more to keep the peace since the end of WW2 than anyone or anything else. Only by totally assuring that nobody can win a war do you avoid one, as evidenced by the current situation. Putin knows the situation well and he knows exactly how far he can push before he needs to stop.

As for what happens next? My prediction is that Ukraine as we know it will be forever changed. Russia will eventually overwhelm it and install a puppet government and pretend that Ukraine is still independent but the international community will fail to recognise. Meanwhile there will be the 'true Ukraine' based out of Lviv that Russia will consider illegitimate. Almost like a China/Taiwan scenario. 

If Russia want to properly occupy Ukraine they didn't bring enough men. This is regime change.

[Stive Pesley]

On the point of sanctions

When you think about the fact that the west is addicted to cheap consumer goods from China, and China buys most of it's energy from Russia - we're somewhat undermining our own sanctions - as long as Russia continues to sell gas to China, and China pay for it with the money they make from trading with the west

 

Edited March 4, 2022 by Stive Pesley

[Alph]

1 hour ago, Wolfie said:

Copied from Beeb live feed:

President Putin has warned those opposing Russia's actions in Ukraine "not to exacerbate the situation" by imposing more restrictions on his country.

The Russian president was speaking at a government meeting broadcast on the state-controlled Rossiya 24 news channel.

"We have no ill intentions against our neighbours," Putin claims.

And he says his government sees "no need" for its neighbours to take further action that will "make our relations worse".

"I think everyone must think about how to normalise relations, co-operate normally and develop relations normally," he adds.

It comes as foreign ministers from across the West gather in Brussels to consider how to maintain pressure on Russia.

Putin also repeats his previous claim that all action taken by the Russian military so far has been made "exclusively in response to some unfriendly actions against the Russian Federation".

 

Maybe it's me being overly optimistic, or because this topic has been giving my mental health a battering this week but that does come across as a lot less inflamatory than previous statements. Even if you can't trust a word he says. Hearing him saying he wants to get back to normal relations is slightly more re-assuring than talking about nukes on high alert.

 

*goes away to find some more straws to clutch at*

Moscow were pretty quick to open ceasefire talks. They made 2 offers that were rejected what seems like forever ago now.

Think they misjudged Zelensky and Ukraine's determination to remain independent. Probably thinks many more people fantasise about the Soviet Union like him? 

Now he has to continue. How can he stop unless he at least achieves Donetsk and Luhansk being recognised republics and Crimea being Russian territory? I'm not sure what the best Zelensky can hope for.

Exile? 

[Alph]

3 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

On the point of sanctions

When you think about the fact that the west is addicted to cheap consumer goods from China, and China buys most of it's energy from Russia - we're somewhat undermining our own sanctions - as long as Russia continues to sell gas to China, and China pay for it with the money they make from trading with the west

 

Apparently already doing this with wheat(?)

So I read from Russian news. China to lift sanctions on wheat industry. 

Like Baalocks said, Putin has been in power so long that he's had many years to prepare for this. I don't see the stranglehold being all that. 

I think its more about trying to put him under pressure domestically because Russia will survive as it has had to before

[Highgate]

Interesting views from award winning Russian journalist Dmitry Muratov here. 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how-russias-nobel-winning-newspaper-is-covering-ukraine?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

8 minutes ago, Alpha said:

Moscow were pretty quick to open ceasefire talks. They made 2 offers that were rejected what seems like forever ago now.

Think they misjudged Zelensky and Ukraine's determination to remain independent. Probably thinks many more people fantasise about the Soviet Union like him? 

Now he has to continue. How can he stop unless he at least achieves Donetsk and Luhansk being recognised republics and Crimea being Russian territory? I'm not sure what the best Zelensky can hope for.

Exile? 

As I said above, I think Zelensky could relocate the government to Lviv if Kiyiv ends up falling in to Russian hands. Lviv is close enough to the Polish border that they could realistically keep it supplied with arms and equipment almost indefinitely. 

Doing the above would serve two purposes, firstly it would ensure that a major Ukrainian city is held by 'true' Ukranians and represents something of a rally point for that cause, and secondly it would totally undermine any puppet administration Putin may attempt to install in Kiyiv.

My only question about the above scenario is if they are willing to take it that far and truly resist for the long term. It will be a proper slog.

Edited March 4, 2022 by JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta

[Stive Pesley]

26 minutes ago, Alpha said:

Apparently already doing this with wheat

Yes - seen some commentators pondering whether this is actually the first of the climate change wars, as Russia may be motivated to annex Ukraine in order to control wheat supplies when US crops start to fail due to global warming

[Highgate]

Fox News is blaming Greta Thunberg and Leonardo DiCaprio for the invasion of Ukraine apparently. 

Is it time for stiff UN sanctions against DiCaprio?  Where will he invade next ?

[Ramarena]

16 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Fox News is blaming Greta Thunberg and Leonardo DiCaprio for the invasion of Ukraine apparently. 

Is it time for stiff UN sanctions against DiCaprio?  Where will he invade next ?

I’m waiting for Tucker to declare support for Ukraine treason!