The Ukraine War

[BaaLocks]

27 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

I’m glad we’re with them, rather them than most others imo. 

Without flying off on a Brexity type discussion, are we with them though? That FTA is withering on the vine, and WWII did show us that they're only really with us when they need to be, yet we are pulled in in places like Iraq when we are made feel it is to our benefit to be there at the off.

Look, trying to be fair and recognising your 'handle' I understand that - America should do what is right for America, that's their right and nobody denies it. But for those in the countries that seem to see advantage from being in their favour, it never comes free and I do feel (strongly, but let's try and stay friends) not always in a mutually beneficial way.

[Tamworthram]

6 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

But the NA stands for North Atlantic - what part of Ukraine or Romania needs to be part of a North Atlantic defence programme?

You are right, they are democratic sovereign entities but it was interestingly different in 2015 when 52% of Britain voted not to be in the EU for fear of ending in the same economic organization as Turkey and - oh yes - Ukraine. Your point will be that we exercised our democratic right and left the EU but we primarily did it - number one reason, clearly stated - was immigration from, and economic association with, those countries.

And why would Putin's response not be founded on NATO expansion? NATO has been the biggest threat to Russia since Putin was a KGB agent driving a taxi in Berlin, it pre-dates the Berlin Wall and it's presence does little except reconfirm to Russia that they are somehow the enemy, besmirched with the reputation of the regime that went before and hey, guess what, they ended up playing the very part they were set up to. It has defined pretty much every political, territorial and economic decision Putin has ever made. Sorry, and you can tell your experts from me, NATO made Putin.

NATO was founded to oppose an entity - the Soviet Union - that no longer exists. If you don't believe me this is from their website.

The North Atlantic Alliance was founded in the aftermath of the Second World War. Its purpose was to secure peace in Europe, to promote cooperation among its members and to guard their freedom – all of this in the context of countering the threat posed at the time by the Soviet Union.

It should have been disbanded at the same time as the Warsaw Pact was in order to help Eastern Europe rebuild and reposition itself without fear of a 'defensive neighbour' arming countries right up to it's borders. Which is what Russia ended up doing, and which is why (in part) we are where we are today. BTW - if your point is that then would have left countries and regions like Ukraine and the Baltics open to aggression then I would suggest there are other entities, such as the UN, whose role it is to support in those scenarios.

And I agree, no one is talking about invading Russia - that's just the support people use to regale against the false opposition they create to help make their own spurious arguments stand up in their own heads.

 

Some may argue, as I mentioned in my earlier thread, that it's a good thing it hasn't been disbanded (unless it had been replaced by a European military alliance) otherwise some of the former Eastern bloc nations (notably the small Baltic states) may feel rather vulnerable given what is happening to Ukraine. With regard to you mention of the UN being there to protect the Baltic states, well they've not managed to help Ukraine so why would the Baltic states feel comforted?

Out of interest, apart from Russia who, as you agree, no one is threatening to invade, which parts of Eastern Europe do you feel unable to reposition themselves? Again, some may argue that it's continued existence has allowed former Eastern European countries to join of their own free will and escape the shadow of Russia.

[BaaLocks]

15 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Some may argue, as I mentioned in my earlier thread, that it's a good thing it hasn't been disbanded (unless it had been replaced by a European military alliance) otherwise some of the former Eastern bloc nations (notably the small Baltic states) may feel rather vulnerable given what is happening to Ukraine. With regard to you mention of the UN being there to protect the Baltic states, well they've not managed to help Ukraine so why would the Baltic states feel comforted?

Out of interest, apart from Russia who, as you agree, no one is threatening to invade, which parts of Eastern Europe do you feel unable to reposition themselves? Again, some may argue that it's continued existence has allowed former Eastern European countries to join of their own free will and escape the shadow of Russia.

But that's my point, Russia under Putin has become what it has become because of NATO. So the point that NATO now needs to exist to protect them against Russia may well be a fair point, and given recent events hard to refute, but it is a circular argument none the less.

As for which (Central and) Eastern European states need to reposition themselves, I would suggest all of them because none of them can be truly independent until Russia has been allowed to reposition itself. As many have said on here, Poland, Moldova, Baltics and even the likes of Finland - plus Georgia and perm any number of the 'stans - live in the shadow of Putin's Russia. It could have been so much different, but we are now where we are for at least the next twenty years.

But had Russia been given the same grace as Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, even Ukraine to reform itself outside of the spectre of both NATO and American interference then the situation across Eastern Europe would almost certainly be different to where it is today.

Or, if it's easier, just go all 'Mad Vlad needs taking out' - for some (not you btw) that seems the easier path. Thank everything saintly those are not the ones making the decisions or we would all be watching mushroom clouds on the horizon.

[Tamworthram]

38 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

But that's my point, Russia under Putin has become what it has become because of NATO. So the point that NATO now needs to exist to protect them against Russia may well be a fair point, and given recent events hard to refute, but it is a circular argument none the less.

As for which (Central and) Eastern European states need to reposition themselves, I would suggest all of them because none of them can be truly independent until Russia has been allowed to reposition itself. As many have said on here, Poland, Moldova, Baltics and even the likes of Finland - plus Georgia and perm any number of the 'stans - live in the shadow of Putin's Russia. It could have been so much different, but we are now where we are for at least the next twenty years.

But had Russia been given the same grace as Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, even Ukraine to reform itself outside of the spectre of both NATO and American interference then the situation across Eastern Europe would almost certainly be different to where it is today.

Or, if it's easier, just go all 'Mad Vlad needs taking out' - for some (not you btw) that seems the easier path. Thank everything saintly those are not the ones making the decisions or we would all be watching mushroom clouds on the horizon.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by Russia being allowed to "reposition itself" and we'll never know if Russia would have been content to remain within it's post cold war borders or not if it hadn't been for the continued existence of NATO. I don't think it's inconceivable to think that Putin, or someone similar, would still somehow managed to rise to power and have a desire re-form the soviet union. 

I understand your argument that Putin, and Russia, are only behaving the way they are in response to the continued existence of NATO but that is just one unproved (and unprovable) theory. As you say, it could have been so much different for the states you have mentioned but maybe it wouldn't have been and they would still be in fear of Russia but, in the cases of those that have chosen to join, without the comfort of NATO to watch their backs.

[Alph]

I wonder how, pointless I suppose, how a European military alliance that excludes Russia and America would be seen by those in power in Moscow and Washington

To me it feels like Europe has been swept up in this invisible war between the two nations. 

You look at America's response to Russian influence in Vietnam and Cuba, Afghanistan and Korea etc etc

America and the Soviet Union have always opposed each other. This is nothing new.

Always hated how eager we are to jump in bed with America. Of course I'm not saying Russia would be any better. Long felt that Europe would be better off working together and in some ways against either of these two nations.

I dunno, guess we'll never know. But America and Russia have played war games for too long. You can surely see why an alliance with America is indeed a threat? I find it hard to believe anybody who has spent any time studying anything of the Cold War and paid interest to wars since WW2 will be not understand to some level how America having a military alliance surrounding Russia is a threat to their future

Now I get that people may see Russia has the eternal antagonist. Ok, that's fine. But it is what it is and even if you think that then do you think America has handled that threat well? Has it handled anything well? Cuba? Vietnam? Korea? The Middle East? 

It's pure fantasy that an alliance could exist in Europe that doesn't include America or Russia. But I quite like fantasising about it

[Highgate]

I agree with those who think that the post cold war expansion of NATO has been risky and probably counter-productive. It simply doesn't matter whether it sees itself as an offensive or defensive organization, all that matters is whether Russia perceives NATO to be a threat or not.  And given NATO's genesis and reason for existence, it is reasonable to assume that many Russians would still see NATO as a threat.  The post cold war expansion also broke an agreement that the West had with Gorbachev, but of course we can never know what would have happened had NATO remained confined to western Europe like they had agreed. Would Russia have become more peaceful...or would they have been emboldened...who knows?

The irony is, by his actions Putin is now acting as recruiter in chief for NATO.  Not only are NATO countries going to increase their military budgets, but those countries not already in NATO may look more favourably on joining.  By invading Ukraine, Putin makes NATO membership seem sensible and prudent..... where without him or someone like him, NATO would be anachronistic and pointless.

11 hours ago, TexasRam said:

Ok fair enough, I think the 1st bit is a bit risky knowing some of our European friends history in battle. On the 2nd bit I agree.

I presume this is a little dig at the French.  France has the best military record in the history of Europe apparently.  To quote Wiki

'According to historian Niall Ferguson, France is the most successful military power in history. The French participated in 50 of the 125 major European wars that have been fought since 1495; more than any other European state. They are followed by the Austrians who fought in 47 of them, the Spanish in 44 and the English (and later British) who were involved in 43. Out of 169 battles fought since 387BC, they have won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10'. 

Not a big fan of Niall Ferguson but I assume he can count ?

[i-Ram]

24 minutes ago, Highgate said:

'According to historian Niall Ferguson, France is the most successful military power in history. The French participated in 50 of the 125 major European wars that have been fought since 1495; more than any other European state. They are followed by the Austrians who fought in 47 of them, the Spanish in 44 and the English (and later British) who were involved in 43. Out of 169 battles fought since 387BC, they have won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10'. 

Not a big fan of Niall Ferguson but I assume he can count ?

Is he the same one who kept predicting huge COVID numbers, and was caught breaking lockdown shagging someone else’s Mrs?

 

[uttoxram75]

I see sanctions against Russia don't go as far as being inconvenient to our Chancellor of the Exchequer's family fortune.

 

[Gone]

7 hours ago, Highgate said:

I presume this is a little dig at the French.  France has the best military record in the history of Europe apparently.  To quote Wiki

'According to historian Niall Ferguson, France is the most successful military power in history. The French participated in 50 of the 125 major European wars that have been fought since 1495; more than any other European state. They are followed by the Austrians who fought in 47 of them, the Spanish in 44 and the English (and later British) who were involved in 43. Out of 169 battles fought since 387BC, they have won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10'. 

Not a big fan of Niall Ferguson but I assume he can count ?

Imagine if they turned those draws into wins though!
Interesting though, still would rather have our American friends by our side in battle. 

[Archied]

1 hour ago, TexasRam said:

Imagine if they turned those draws into wins though!
Interesting though, still would rather have our American friends by our side in battle. 

Personally I would rather we have the dawn of a new era where the U.K. took a Switzerland stance remaining neutral  and drew back from getting embroiled in wars ??‍♂️

[BaaLocks]

9 minutes ago, Archied said:

Personally I would rather we have the dawn of a new era where the U.K. took a Switzerland stance remaining neutral  and drew back from getting embroiled in wars ??‍♂️

Excellent point - why do we have to be 'in battle' in the first place? Surely one of the benefits of no longer being a leading world power is that you no longer have the burden of responsibility to the same level - you can, to extend the phrase, pick your battles.

[BaaLocks]

9 hours ago, Highgate said:

The irony is, by his actions Putin is now acting as recruiter in chief for NATO.  Not only are NATO countries going to increase their military budgets, but those countries not already in NATO may look more favourably on joining.  By invading Ukraine, Putin makes NATO membership seem sensible and prudent..... where without him or someone like him, NATO would be anachronistic and pointless.

Good post and, this point is a solid review of - sadly - where we find ourselves today. Military escalation, picking sides and rolling back the clock thirty years. There was a moment, back in the early 90s, where we could all have gone down a much different path. Would it have worked? As you say, nobody really knows.

What we do know is that American foreign policy has only worked for the Americans. Look at places like Iraq to see that. Indeed, the only major conflicts of the last 50 years that have ended with a better country for their inhabitants are the two that, arguably, America had least influence / success in - namely Vietnam and 'Yugoslavia'. Pretty much everything else they have touched has ended up destabilised, conflicted and more polarised than when they rolled into town with their 'peacekeeping' forces intent on bringing their wondrous model of democracy.

Edited March 25, 2022 by BaaLocks

[Van der MoodHoover]

20 minutes ago, Archied said:

Personally I would rather we have the dawn of a new era where the U.K. took a Switzerland stance remaining neutral  and drew back from getting embroiled in wars ??‍♂️

What, and armed all its citizens to the teeth and made reserve military duty compulsory for all adult males? 

It may be neutral but the whole place is basically an armed camp... 

[Eddie]

2 hours ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

What, and armed all its citizens to the teeth and made reserve military duty compulsory for all adult males? 

It may be neutral but the whole place is basically an armed camp... 

That Nazi gold won't guard itself, you know.

[Leeds Ram]

 

[Highgate]

8 hours ago, TexasRam said:

Imagine if they turned those draws into wins though!
Interesting though, still would rather have our American friends by our side in battle. 

Given their military budget, that's a sensible choice. Watch out for friendly fire though!

[angieram]

 

[Stive Pesley]

On 24/03/2022 at 23:35, uttoxram75 said:

I see sanctions against Russia don't go as far as being inconvenient to our Chancellor of the Exchequer's family fortune.

 

I mentioned a few pages back how I work for a global company, and we closed our Russian offices with immediate effect.

Infosys are one of our competitors, so this is really poor form from them. Inexcusable in fact and Sunak should be held to account, given his position. Not just allowed to say "that's none of my business"

[GboroRam]

1 hour ago, angieram said:

 

The visa process is so complicated it's really hard to get refugees in. I also read that Ukrainians found in the country with incorrect documentation face up to 4 years imprisonment. 

You'd almost believe it was designed to keep refugees out. 

[i-Ram]

Good news, Svetlana has arrived, and the first £350 pm payment has been banked. Thanks Rishi.

Better news, she has two girl friends equally keen to join her. With £1050 extra income I can comfortably rehouse the wife.