Putin & Russia

[Craig_J]

Guns kill people. Is it any surprise that more guns in the US means more people are shot than in the UK? De-escalation saves lives. More weapons equals more deaths. Look at Syria.

But isn’t the only alternative to let totalitarian states take whatever they want whenever they want it - in order to prevent deaths from conflicts?

If Ukrainians are motivated enough to be trying to stop tanks with their bare hands then isn’t it likely that refusing to arm them wouldn’t stop the Ukrainian people trying to defend themselves but just make their resistance more likely to fail?

And at the moment NATO is relying on the Ukrainian resistance succeeding on its own so that NATO won’t have to confront Russia directly.

If Ukraines resistance fails then Russia will then border 4 NATO nations (Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania) making a direct conflict much more likely to happen if Russia decides that it would like to carry on its expansion.

It will also lead to a lot of tension on the borders with these 4 countries - given that Russia had previously launched an unprovoked attack in Ukraine. This wilk increase the chances of a miscalculation by one of these 4 countries, or by the Russians themselves, which triggers a larger conflict.

Really refusing to arm the Ukrainian’s would only serve to make it easier for them to become subjugated to Russians whilst making an even larger conflict more likely.

 

[Rorschach]

poking Putin to find out where he snaps isn’t something a sane politician should do.

escalating war - by proxy - is highly questionable too. Just as it was in Libya and Syria and directly in Afghanistan and Iraq. We invaded or fuelled conflict and all we achieved were monumental deaths and displaced people.

460,000 killed in Iraq as a consequence of the war apparently

360,000 killed in Syrian war

approximately 250,000 killed in Afghan wars this century

Poking of the bear is a total misframe of the current situation. The bear is on the rampage and needs to be stopped.

I do understand that there are limits to western intervention, as does every sane person, but we must push it to those limits. We've a generation of mistakes to make up for. Those examples you quote are utterly shameful, so let's not repeat them again, here now.

 

[monkeybarry]

Mate I agree with some points you have made in this thread. But Russia is not going to leave them alone till the is no longer a Ukraine.

They are monsters being led by a madman.

Rare we agree on non football issues - but 100% on this.
Putin has already stated Ukraine does not exist. He is now making damn sure that's true.

My view until very recently was similar to @SpurMeUp - no justification for NATO intervention.
However maybe we (and NATO) are looking at it all wrong.
If someone is an agressor towards NATO - the pact stands.
But that isn't the same as saying NATO could become involved if asked to help to by a sovereign state in need. It also doesn't have to set precedent - although could be a good future deterant.
Putin is playing chicken with NATO.
The purpose of NATO was to create a safer Europe and other areas.
It's time for NATO to issue a time bound cease and desist notice otherwise they'll get involved. If your neighbor is being attacked is being attacked and asks for help, you don't just stand by because your postcode is different.
(I agree with NATOs position until now'ish - but things are clearly getting worse and there is no sign of Putin stopping. This isn't like Crimea where he just making a point. This is far more sinister.)

 

[SteveAWOL]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1501337662887759881

 

[metalgear]

Poking of the bear is a total misframe of the current situation. The bear is on the rampage and needs to be stopped.

I do understand that there are limits to western intervention, as does every sane person, but we must push it to those limits. We've a generation of mistakes to make up for. Those examples you quote are utterly shameful, so let's not repeat them again, here now.

But Putin just didn't start having issues with the Ukraine recently.

Goes back to when Ukraine became independent and Nato rushed to arm the Ukraine. Effectively redrawing new forward lines with Russia.

Isn't that how a proxy war starts? Helping others fight but not getting involved.

A little hope is a dangerous thing. Zelensky the artist-performer believed in an idea that sounds great but ignored the disastrous consequences. He is responsible for leading the Ukraine into a showdown with Russia, with Putin at the helm!

The Taiwan-China situation is similar. Taiwan toes the line for decades and at the same time builds economic ties with China. Hotpots spring up now and then, but always careful to avoid further escalation by disengagement. So far so good. Don't need to become famous and die for a cause, keep an open moderate and shifting position and keep everyone alive.

I think the post war scenario is going to be more complicated. US/Europe vs the rest of the world thinking will complicate many things. Very surely an alternative to the Swift system that China has to implement to avoid being held hostage by the west. A new finance and economic infrastructure with Russia China India Africa and Indonesia to rival the west sounds very plausible too.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Poking of the bear is a total misframe of the current situation. The bear is on the rampage and needs to be stopped.

I do understand that there are limits to western intervention, as does every sane person, but we must push it to those limits. We've a generation of mistakes to make up for. Those examples you quote are utterly shameful, so let's not repeat them again, here now.

Maybe you don’t realise that in each of those examples we have either armed groups to fight (proxy war) or western armies have gone in themselves. The things you seem to be advocating now. The result of these interventions? Massive loss of life, injuries etc with almost no upside.

 

[scaramanga]

leave them alone - possibly. Retreat - no.

So your solution is that Ukrainians just down arms and accept being Russian?

 

[SpurMeUp]

Mate I agree with some points you have made in this thread. But Russia is not going to leave them alone till the is no longer a Ukraine.

They are monsters being led by a madman.

Rare we agree on non football issues - but 100% on this.
Putin has already stated Ukraine does not exist. He is now making damn sure that's true.

My view until very recently was similar to @SpurMeUp - no justification for NATO intervention.
However maybe we (and NATO) are looking at it all wrong.
If someone is an agressor towards NATO - the pact stands.
But that isn't the same as saying NATO could become involved if asked to help to by a sovereign state in need. It also doesn't have to set precedent - although could be a good future deterant.
Putin is playing chicken with NATO.
The purpose of NATO was to create a safer Europe and other areas.
It's time for NATO to issue a time bound cease and desist notice otherwise they'll get involved. If your neighbor is being attacked is being attacked and asks for help, you don't just stand by because your postcode is different.
(I agree with NATOs position until now'ish - but things are clearly getting worse and there is no sign of Putin stopping. This isn't like Crimea where he just making a point. This is far more sinister.)

Ukraine is not in NATO. It moving toward NATO is what Russia is against. You can see NATOs expansion all around Russia as a form of empire building. It does not legitimise Russias actions, but the status quo and ‘natural order’ was abandoned long ago. Behind the scenes Russia and the US/EU have been playing a tug of war over Ukraine for over a decade. And Ukraine was part of the same nation as Russia not all that long ago. So while this doesn’t justify Putins actions, it is more complex than say hitler invading France. Russia was allied with Ukraine when Yanukovych was the democratically elected president. The west, predominantly the US, funded revolutionary groups and helped instigate a revolution that occurred in 2014. Yes Yanukovych was corrupt and beholden to Putin but he was elected by a process that the international community observed as being free and fair. Ukraine had peace and cheap Russian energy, but it was under the wing of Russia. The EU were complicit in undermining this relative order too. See Jack Straws comments who was the foreign secretary around the time - essentially saying the way the west tried to pull these former Soviet states away from Russia and intervene - could have been handled better. And that is a common view. Western interventions completely changed the Russian-west dynamic. It siwed the seeds of this war (and possibly Trump and Brexit interventions by Russia) and restarted a new kind of Cold War. NATO vs Russia are now two forces at war. Literally.

With all that in mind, have a look at Syria. The US, the UK, France etc all put huge sums into arming (predominately jihadist) groups to fight Assad. Did the west think Assad was all that bad at the start of the conflict? No not really. Western educated, a fan of liberal ideals and education, he was seen as a leader we could work with in a very unstable region. Many thought the UK could back him at the outset of the conflict. But politics and alliances formed. It was Iran + Russia backing Assad so the West countered arming Islamic State and the PKK. The upshot? Probably well over half a million dead. Destruction of a nation. And no actual ‘regime change’ (plus what a misnomer that idea can be: look at Libya where we instigated a ‘regime change’ - its now a lawless failed state. A total mess). In Syria fighting continues to this day, with Assad slowly defeating the islamists who are still armed with US etc weapons.

Ukraine has its unique history, and providing some arms so Russia can not walk into the country freely does make sense. But the Stop the War approach is to de-escalate. Not intensify and add arms and fuel to the fire. Stop the War campaigned against the Iraq and Afghan invasion, against Syrian and Libyan involvement and in each of these wars, hindsight has shown them to have been correct.

What do we do now?

 

[SpurMeUp]

So your solution is that Ukrainians just down arms and accept being Russian?

I didn’t put forward a solution. You asked if Ukrainians not fighting would mean Russia left them alone. I said possibly yes. Certainly there would be less deaths.

I think what NATO under Biden has done is about right. Provided some arms to stop Russia having it easy. And used economic means to wage war. Another Syria-like conflict should be avoided.

 

[braineclipse]

But Putin just didn't start having issues with the Ukraine recently.

Goes back to when Ukraine became independent and Nato rushed to arm the Ukraine. Effectively redrawing new forward lines with Russia.

Isn't that how a proxy war starts? Helping others fight but not getting involved.

A little hope is a dangerous thing. Zelensky the artist-performer believed in an idea that sounds great but ignored the disastrous consequences. He is responsible for leading the Ukraine into a showdown with Russia, with Putin at the helm!

The Taiwan-China situation is similar. Taiwan toes the line for decades and at the same time builds economic ties with China. Hotpots spring up now and then, but always careful to avoid further escalation by disengagement. So far so good. Don't need to become famous and die for a cause, keep an open moderate and shifting position and keep everyone alive.

I think the post war scenario is going to be more complicated. US/Europe vs the rest of the world thinking will complicate many things. Very surely an alternative to the Swift system that China has to implement to avoid being held hostage by the west. A new finance and economic infrastructure with Russia China India Africa and Indonesia to rival the west sounds very plausible too.

Just about every conflict/war can be traced back for a long time. I think Putin's problem with Ukraine goes back to it existing as a sovereign country.

I don't think Zelensky is or was naive on the consequences of war. He's made his choice between that and continued attempts by Putin to control the future of Ukraine in other ways.

We had a cold war, no one directly invaded in part because nukes. The main difference between the previous status quo and NATO membership for Ukraine or more weapons from NATO countries in Ukraine wasn't a direct threat to Russia. The difference was that it would make our harder for Putin to control, subjugate or invade Ukraine. That was what he couldn't live with.

Fair enough if your preferred solution is that Ukraine should just have been under increasing Russian control. Disregard their wishes. For Ukrainians that seemingly wasn't seen as the best solutions, but it would have maintained stability.

Oh, and hotpots springing up is the best autocorrect I've seen in ages unless it was intentional, in which case it's even better.

 

[braineclipse]

Ukraine is not in NATO. It moving toward NATO is what Russia is against. You can see NATOs expansion all around Russia as a form of empire building. It does not legitimise Russias actions, but the status quo and ‘natural order’ was abandoned long ago. Behind the scenes Russia and the US/EU have been playing a tug of war over Ukraine for over a decade. And Ukraine was part of the same nation as Russia not all that long ago. So while this doesn’t justify Putins actions, it is more complex than say hitler invading France. Russia was allied with Ukraine when Yanukovych was the democratically elected president. The west, predominantly the US, funded revolutionary groups and helped instigate a revolution that occurred in 2014. Yes Yanukovych was corrupt and beholden to Putin but he was elected by a process that the international community observed as being free and fair. Ukraine had peace and cheap Russian energy, but it was under the wing of Russia. The EU were complicit in undermining this relative order too. See Jack Straws comments who was the foreign secretary around the time - essentially saying the way the west tried to pull these former Soviet states away from Russia and intervene - could have been handled better. And that is a common view. Western interventions completely changed the Russian-west dynamic. It siwed the seeds of this war (and possibly Trump and Brexit interventions by Russia) and restarted a new kind of Cold War. NATO vs Russia are now two forces at war. Literally.

With all that in mind, have a look at Syria. The US, the UK, France etc all put huge sums into arming (predominately jihadist) groups to fight Assad. Did the west think Assad was all that bad at the start of the conflict? No not really. Western educated, a fan of liberal ideals and education, he was seen as a leader we could work with in a very unstable region. Many thought the UK could back him at the outset of the conflict. But politics and alliances formed. It was Iran + Russia backing Assad so the West countered arming Islamic State and the PKK. The upshot? Probably well over half a million dead. Destruction of a nation. And no actual ‘regime change’ (plus what a misnomer that idea can be: look at Libya where we instigated a ‘regime change’ - its now a lawless failed state. A total mess). In Syria fighting continues to this day, with Assad slowly defeating the islamists who are still armed with US etc weapons.

Ukraine has its unique history, and providing some arms so Russia can not walk into the country freely does make sense. But the Stop the War approach is to de-escalate. Not intensify and add arms and fuel to the fire. Stop the War campaigned against the Iraq and Afghan invasion, against Syrian and Libyan involvement and in each of these wars, hindsight has shown them to have been correct.

What do we do now?

A tug of war over power and influence between nations of considerable might is the natural order.

Putin is an expansionist, imperial power hungry participant in that tug of war, willing to start real wars to win. If he hadn't been resisted by the other side at what point would he have been satisfied?

I really struggle with the description of empire building, but fair enough. I assume you mean that in a very different way to Putin's empire building.

De-escalating. That means concessions to Putin, right? At what point would you draw the line on how much power and influence he could have over Ukraine? Guaranteed no NATO and EU membership? No western meddling, no western weapons? Regime change? Putin in a position to directly influence internal Ukrainian politics (a position we know he would take advantage of)?

And if that's not what the Ukrainian people want? Tough brick. EU, NATO, sovereign foreign policy decisions would be empire building, but mostly we'll say no because Putin wants us to say no. Have your own Lukashenko and good luck. After all you've been under the thumb of Moscow before, both under the USSR and the tsars so that's the natural order of things.

 

[Rorschach]

Maybe you don’t realise that in each of those examples we have either armed groups to fight (proxy war) or western armies have gone in themselves. The things you seem to be advocating now. The result of these interventions? Massive loss of life, injuries etc with almost no upside.

To not help now is to meekly accept that Putin can redraw the map of Europe based on his imperialist whims and compound the errors of previous muted responses to his revanchism. Ukraine is a sovereign country that has asked for help and thankfully received it, as it should do. The alternative is to accept Ukraine does not deserve our help or to exist at all, which would almost certainly be the outcome. The proxy war being fought here, if there is one, is one of liberal democracy versus totalitarianism.

 

[SpurMeUp]

To not help now is to meekly accept that Putin can redraw the map of Europe based on his imperialist whims and compound the errors of previous muted responses to his revanchism. Ukraine is a sovereign country that has asked for help and thankfully received it, as it should do. The alternative is to accept Ukraine does not deserve our help or to exist at all, which would almost certainly be the outcome. The proxy war being fought here, if there is one, is one of liberal democracy versus totalitarianism.

See above. It is not that simple. Yanukovych was a president elected in a means that international observers felt was free and fair. Nato nations played their part destabilising the situation in Ukraine in 2014 leading to the overthrow of the elected president. There are no easy solutions. But if you knew that past interventions in Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq all failed to bring about positive changes to the nation in question, and lead to mass death, including tens of thousands of children, would you still fire ahead with it?

 

[SpurMeUp]

A tug of war over power and influence between nations of considerable might is the natural order.

Putin is an expansionist, imperial power hungry participant in that tug of war, willing to start real wars to win. If he hadn't been resisted by the other side at what point would he have been satisfied?

I really struggle with the description of empire building, but fair enough. I assume you mean that in a very different way to Putin's empire building.

De-escalating. That means concessions to Putin, right? At what point would you draw the line on how much power and influence he could have over Ukraine? Guaranteed no NATO and EU membership? No western meddling, no western weapons? Regime change? Putin in a position to directly influence internal Ukrainian politics (a position we know he would take advantage of)?

And if that's not what the Ukrainian people want? Tough brick. EU, NATO, sovereign foreign policy decisions would be empire building, but mostly we'll say no because Putin wants us to say no. Have your own Lukashenko and good luck. After all you've been under the thumb of Moscow before, both under the USSR and the tsars so that's the natural order of things.

"You can see NATOs expansion all around Russia as a form of empire building." were the words I used.

De-esculation on both sides is the only solution. It happens sooner or later. You either do it as early as possible with less people dead. Or ten years later after horrific war that takes thousands of lives.

It really comes down to a question of who should police the world. There are myriad peoples who deserve better. Some even believe that is the case in Scotland, Wales and Ireland. But what history shows us is that the more military intervention - especially made from afar - the worse the outcome for the nation.

I'll let you guys have the last word. I have to focus on work

 

[Yiddo]

All this blood shed over some gas / oil what makes it worse is this is the real reason behind most wars.

 

[Baleforce]

All this blood shed over some gas / oil what makes it worse is this is the real reason behind most wars.

Just wait until we get to the water ones.

 

[JerusalemMan]

If Putin really is using conscripts then morale will fall fast as the conflict draws out.
It'll be difficult for him to remove and replace them from Ukraine 'frontlines' so the soldiers could be susceptible to desertion if incentivised.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1501801441941405697

 

[Rorschach]

See above. It is not that simple. Yanukovych was a president elected in a means that international observers felt was free and fair. Nato nations played their part destabilising the situation in Ukraine in 2014 leading to the overthrow of the elected president. There are no easy solutions. But if you knew that past interventions in Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq all failed to bring about positive changes to the nation in question, and lead to mass death, including tens of thousands of children, would you still fire ahead with it?

It is pretty simple in this case IMO. Some interventions are just and moral. This is one of those cases, but I won't labour the point any more. We just see this differently.

 

[monkeybarry]

Ukraine is not in NATO. It moving toward NATO is what Russia is against. You can see NATOs expansion all around Russia as a form of empire building. It does not legitimise Russias actions, but the status quo and ‘natural order’ was abandoned long ago. Behind the scenes Russia and the US/EU have been playing a tug of war over Ukraine for over a decade. And Ukraine was part of the same nation as Russia not all that long ago. So while this doesn’t justify Putins actions, it is more complex than say hitler invading France. Russia was allied with Ukraine when Yanukovych was the democratically elected president. The west, predominantly the US, funded revolutionary groups and helped instigate a revolution that occurred in 2014. Yes Yanukovych was corrupt and beholden to Putin but he was elected by a process that the international community observed as being free and fair. Ukraine had peace and cheap Russian energy, but it was under the wing of Russia. The EU were complicit in undermining this relative order too. See Jack Straws comments who was the foreign secretary around the time - essentially saying the way the west tried to pull these former Soviet states away from Russia and intervene - could have been handled better. And that is a common view. Western interventions completely changed the Russian-west dynamic. It siwed the seeds of this war (and possibly Trump and Brexit interventions by Russia) and restarted a new kind of Cold War. NATO vs Russia are now two forces at war. Literally.

With all that in mind, have a look at Syria. The US, the UK, France etc all put huge sums into arming (predominately jihadist) groups to fight Assad. Did the west think Assad was all that bad at the start of the conflict? No not really. Western educated, a fan of liberal ideals and education, he was seen as a leader we could work with in a very unstable region. Many thought the UK could back him at the outset of the conflict. But politics and alliances formed. It was Iran + Russia backing Assad so the West countered arming Islamic State and the PKK. The upshot? Probably well over half a million dead. Destruction of a nation. And no actual ‘regime change’ (plus what a misnomer that idea can be: look at Libya where we instigated a ‘regime change’ - its now a lawless failed state. A total mess). In Syria fighting continues to this day, with Assad slowly defeating the islamists who are still armed with US etc weapons.

Ukraine has its unique history, and providing some arms so Russia can not walk into the country freely does make sense. But the Stop the War approach is to de-escalate. Not intensify and add arms and fuel to the fire. Stop the War campaigned against the Iraq and Afghan invasion, against Syrian and Libyan involvement and in each of these wars, hindsight has shown them to have been correct.

What do we do now?

Erhghhh. Now I'm back to NATO not getting involved.
Putin has backed the world into a corner.
Assassination is the only way forwards.
But does he then just become Ferdinand? (Franz, not Anton)

 

[johnola]

Sorry it could not be Nato that intercedes on anyone outside of NATO’s behalf.

It would be a coalition of independent states many of who happen to also be in Nato. Much like the campaigns in iraq etc, they were not NATO.

Countries within NATO could opt out or otherwise not legally participate if their legislature did not permit such action.