The Ukraine War

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, TigerTedd said:

I’m going to bang my eco-warrior drum here, but a lot (but certainly not all) of this, and other recent conflicts, are about access to oil and gas.

I can't find it now,but I was reading an article that seemed reputable which said that the Russian gas pipeline to Europe goes through Ukraine and Russia has to pay Ukraine a huge some (multi millions) per year for the privilege. It might go some way to explain what's in it for Russia to annex Ukraine

Very little else makes sense

 

[AndyinLiverpool]

9 hours ago, cstand said:

Why would anyone would bring up current domestic politics into this debate its irrelevant and a distraction. Let’s hope it’s the last.

You don't think a governing party's relationship with a military aggressor is relevant?

[AndyinLiverpool]

14 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

I can't find it now,but I was reading an article that seemed reputable which said that the Russian gas pipeline to Europe goes through Ukraine and Russia has to pay Ukraine a huge some (multi millions) per year for the privilege. It might go some way to explain what's in it for Russia to annex Ukraine

Very little else makes sense

 

A new pipeline was being built that would have bypassed Ukraine. That's been put on hold (at best) by the war.

 

[Tamworthram]

7 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

It's easy to claim from the West that NATO is an entirely defensive organization and if Ukraine joined that would continue to be the case. But put yourself on the other side of the divide. From the East, NATO looks hugely powerful. It has already expanded to "capture" almost all of Eastern Europe. 

It also invaded Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, destroying those nations. Where next? 

I remain horrified that there are people who genuinely appear to think NATO jets shooting down Russian ones wouldn't have the most terrible consequences. 

There will always be conflicts unless you can put yourself in the mind of non-Western leaders. And try to understand why they have acted as they have. 

While Putin's actions are terrible here, we need to work out a solution that deescalates rather than pouring more fuel onto the fire. But it is obviously complex and difficult. 

Whilst I think your points about Libya etc are valid, I really don’t think anyone seriously believes NATO would ever threaten an invasion of Russia or try to remove the ruling party there by way of military action. The most they would do is continue to chip away at their former  “allies” (there’s only Belarus left isn’t there?). I understand Putin’s concerns but you can’t just impose your will on other independent sovereign states just because they want to join someone else’s club rather than yours.

I agree a diplomatic solution is obviously the preferred way forward but it’s hard to see how that can be achieved without a compromise on behalf of Ukraine in response to Russian aggression. Is it fair on Ukraine to say you can’t determine your own destiny and can never join NATO? Is it reasonable that they lose more territory (in addition to Crimea) in order to appease the Russians?

It’s certainly a very difficult situation. I doubt Russia would agree but I wonder if the answer might be to not rule out Ukraine joining NATO in the future but, if they did, provide a commitment not to station NATO military or weapons there? It’s going to take someone with a much bigger brain than mine to solve this.

[Comrade 86]

6 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

I can't find it now,but I was reading an article that seemed reputable which said that the Russian gas pipeline to Europe goes through Ukraine and Russia has to pay Ukraine a huge some (multi millions) per year for the privilege. It might go some way to explain what's in it for Russia to annex Ukraine

Very little else makes sense

 

It's the rebuilding of the Union that motivates him. Think of the geography and the aim becomes pretty clear - the creation of a new Iron Curtain and a buffer between Russia and 'NATO States'. If he is allowed to gain a foothold in Ukraine it won't stop there. As others have pointed out however, expansionism is simply that whether it's perpetrated by the East or the West.

 

The other key driver to my mind is the need to be remembered as the omnipotent Premier who beat the Imperialist Westerners at their own game. Money is a motivation, but I think rather less so than Putin's vanity. Who will ever forget that god-awful photo-opportunity after all. It spoke volumes...

 

[Leeds Ram]

8 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

It's easy to claim from the West that NATO is an entirely defensive organization and if Ukraine joined that would continue to be the case. But put yourself on the other side of the divide. From the East, NATO looks hugely powerful. It has already expanded to "capture" almost all of Eastern Europe. 

It also invaded Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, destroying those nations. Where next? 

I remain horrified that there are people who genuinely appear to think NATO jets shooting down Russian ones wouldn't have the most terrible consequences. 

There will always be conflicts unless you can put yourself in the mind of non-Western leaders. And try to understand why they have acted as they have. 

While Putin's actions are terrible here, we need to work out a solution that deescalates rather than pouring more fuel onto the fire. But it is obviously complex and difficult. 

I think this contains a misunderstanding between offensive and defensive realism and Putin's mindset. NATO in Eastern Europe was designed and remains a collective defensive security arrangement. Ask yourself why the Baltic states and the Eastern European countries who were once satellite states want to join? Is it because Ukraine, Latvia, Georgia, Finland, Estonia etc. want to annex Russia in the future and hold a gun to their head? Or is it because they seek a collective security arrangement against a far superior neighbour who has a long history of aggressive warfare and encroaching on their territorial sovereignty? 

Do you honestly think Putin, a highly trained ex member of the KGB doesn't understand the difference between offensive and defensive realism? He's clearly using this in part as a tool to justify this latest (and I do mean latest) attempt to annex a sovereign country. This btw isn't even his big claim in regard to this action, it's rather that Ukraine is historically a part of Russia and is taking it back. If you listen to Lavrov who takes his notes from Putin and what Putin is saying he's trying to delegitimise the Ukrainians by calling them drug addicts, Nais, and arguing Ukraine are committing 'genocide'.  I am considering Putin's mindset and believe he's a rational actor using calculated methods to in an attempt to increase his power. I linked an article from a senior member of the Atlantic Council in another thread that outlined we do need to understand Putin to deal with him.  

NATO hasn't invaded anywhere. NATO itself is simply an alliance, some members of NATO have decided to give troops to certain military actions but that's not the same as 'NATO invading'. I'd also add Libya was a UN sanctioned intervention which had Russia's tacit support if not overt encouragement. Afghanistan was an intervention that the UN security council recognised as something that would almost certainly have to happen but it launched before they had an official vote. I'd also take big dispute with the idea we 'destroyed' those nations but that's a conversation for another day I think. 

It depends on the overall levels of conflict but simply allowing the Russians to do what they want isn't feasible as a long term strategy. Nor is it feasible to allow Russia to dictate what sovereign nations can or cannot do. Hopefully, crippling sanctions will work as will giving Ukraine sufficient material to slow down the Russian advance. However, implementing a no fly over Ukraine could be the kind of escalation that makes Russia back off. Just because they have nuclear weapons doesn't mean they'll use them, if you consider Putin to be a rational actor (as I do) then he's obviously relying upon sabre rattling to get NATO to back off and leave them to destroy a country. 

I'd also finish by adding there is a difference between 'capturing' nations via being an attractive organisation that countries want to join voluntarily and annexing countries because you want to make them part of your territorial state. Those two things are wholly different and cannot be conflated with one another. 

Edited February 26, 2022 by Leeds Ram

[Leeds Ram]

10 hours ago, Highgate said:

I think that is looking at the situation from one perspective only.  From an Eastern European viewpoint NATO would certainly be looked on a defensive arrangement.  But from the Russian point of view, and I mean even your average Russian civilian, NATO expanding to being right on Russia's border will undoubtedly be seen as a real threat and an offensive move by the West.

As for the Cuban missile crisis, it was never really just the Cuban missile crisis...it was also the Turkish missile crisis.  It was the American deployment of Jupiter ballistic missiles in Turkey, well in range of Moscow, that precipitated the Soviet response of positioning missiles that could strike the US in Cuba.  The crisis wasn't resolved until both the Cuban and the Turkish missiles were removed from their threatening locations. 

Look at my response to Sargan for my response to this ? You are correct about the missile crisis not only being a crisis of cuban missiles but it interlocked with strategic positioning of nukes across multiple borders. I'd still argue the comparison doesn't really hold tbh, nuclear chess in that era is a very different game from now. 

[TigerTedd]

37 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

You don't think a governing party's relationship with a military aggressor is relevant?

This just highlights how interwoven everything is in this modern world. Which is a good thing I think (not in terms of corruption and grubby fingers in pies of course, but in terms of international collaboration and cooperation on projects). Everyone relies on everyone else for stuff. Which makes war these days an absolute mess, and completely counter intuitive to our mutual benefit and evolution as a species. 

[Stive Pesley]

This article from a Ukrainian in Australia makes interesting reading on the mind sets of Putin, the Russian people and the Ukrainian people

https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-war-russia-vladimir-putin-miscalculation/

 

 

[Tamworthram]

21 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

It's the rebuilding of the Union that motivates him. Think of the geography and the aim becomes pretty clear - the creation of a new Iron Curtain and a buffer between Russia and 'NATO States'. If he is allowed to gain a foothold in Ukraine it won't stop there. As others have pointed out however, expansionism is simply that whether it's perpetrated by the East or the West.

 

The other key driver to my mind is the need to be remembered as the omnipotent Premier who beat the Imperialist Westerners at their own game. Money is a motivation, but I think rather less so than Putin's vanity. Who will ever forget that god-awful photo-opportunity after all. It spoke volumes...

 

But isn’t there an important difference between expansionism by way of influence and militarily?

If Russia had regained Ukraine as an ally by way of peaceful influence (although I do concede the methods of influence can be a bit questionable on both sides sometimes) rather than invasion in order to “de-nazify” the country and remove the drug taking leaders (assuming of course that we’re not suffering from western propaganda and his speeches have been translated accurately) I don’t see how there would be any grounds for military action or sanctions in response.

Part of the problem for me is that NATO and most western nations have been engaged in actions abroad that they shouldn’t be proud of (for example, I’m generally proud of our history but the British Empire does have a lot to answer for) but I’m not sure that means we should turn a blind eye on this occasion.

[PistoldPete]

3 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

Dodged that bullet then. 

What going to a maths conference?

[Comrade 86]

6 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

But isn’t there an important difference between expansionism by way of influence and militarily?

Where there's boots on the ground I draw no distinctions. What I would say is that two wrongs don't make a right and I'm certainly not defending Putin, quite the opposite. I agree 100% with the balance of your post.

[GenBr]

1 hour ago, Stive Pesley said:

I can't find it now,but I was reading an article that seemed reputable which said that the Russian gas pipeline to Europe goes through Ukraine and Russia has to pay Ukraine a huge some (multi millions) per year for the privilege. It might go some way to explain what's in it for Russia to annex Ukraine

Very little else makes sense

 

They were already building a new pipeline direct to Germany, so I feel that plays very little part in the reasonings for invasion.

Putin is motivated by two things - rebuilding Russian power, which essentially means he wants to reintegrate the former soviet countries and securing the Russian heartland from external threats.

They annexed Crimea, so they could close the Sea of Azov if they needed to, as it forms part of the weak underbelly of Russia. They are expanding into Ukraine partially in order to expand the buffer state between the Russian heartlands and NATO. In the last two world wars the Germans tried to close the Rostov-Astrakhan gap to cut the caucasus off from the heartlands. The buffer for this region has been greatly reduced in recent years and a lot of the geo-political minds in Russia feel that is imperative to Russian survival to expand this gap again. 

Rebuilding Russian power and the Russian Empire will be a by product of the above, but it is also one of the driving goals for Putin.

[Alph]

16 hours ago, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said:

For a bit of a balance view of the situation in Ukraine. i would recommend watching RT (Channel 234 in Derby), 20 secs at a time is usually plenty. They are bit biaised. 

I've been switching between that and BBC. 

Most other news seem more interested in clickbait sensationalism 

But struggling to get on RT website today

[cstand]

3 hours ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

You don't think a governing party's relationship with a military aggressor is relevant?

No it’s just a distraction from the real issues of why Putin invaded Ukraine.

A few years ago someone famously said if you keep poking a Russian bear with a stick it will respond. I thought he was right at the time unfortunately the West ignored these comments.

Edited February 26, 2022 by cstand

[AndyinLiverpool]

3 minutes ago, cstand said:

No it’s just a distraction from the real issues of why Putin invaded Ukraine.

It's because he's clearly gay in a very homophobic society.

[Alph]

You go to British news and this is mad Vlad the new Hitler killing kids in an attempt to rebuild the Soviet Empire. Even the Russian people are oppressed and fearful

Go to Russia news and this is about Zelensky, who is corrupt and an American puppet, refusing to recognise the freedom of Donbas republics, not condemning terrorist attacks in those regions and allowing NATO to run his Nazi government

Go to China and after much help from Google Lens the view seems to be American hypocrites tell Russian warmonger to stop invading countries. I've not seen a laughing emoji yet but I keep expecting it. 

Edited February 26, 2022 by Alpha

[Highgate]

11 minutes ago, Alpha said:

You go to British news and this is mad Vlad the new Hitler killing kids in an attempt to rebuild the Soviet Empire. Even the Russian people are oppressed and fearful

Go to Russia news and this is about Zelensky, who is corrupt and an American puppet, refusing to recognise the freedom of Donbas republics, not condemning terrorist attacks in those regions and allowing NATO to run his Nazi government

Go to China and after much help from Google Lens the view seems to be American hypocrites tell Russian warmonger to stop invading countries. I've not seen a laughing emoji yet but I keep expecting it. 

I have to admit there is a grain of truth in the Chinese version of events.  On this matter at least.

[EtoileSportiveDeDerby]

36 minutes ago, Alpha said:

I've been switching between that and BBC. 

Most other news seem more interested in clickbait sensationalism 

But struggling to get on RT website today

RT is an interesting watch. I am just wondering how they vet their guest speakers cos their views in an indefensible situation still need to align with the line of the station paymaster

[TigerTedd]

2 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

What going to a maths conference?

Yep, I think I’d rather be in Ukraine.