Politics, politics, politics

[scaramanga]

What do NATO win with a war against Russia - we would just go back to a Cold war situation with the doomsday clock ticking. I have seen nothing to imply that Putin would back down, have you seen anything specific to indicate he would?

We don't need a win as we wouldn't be the aggressors, we just need the result of a war to be less bad for us than it would be for them - and it clearly would.

Putin would back down because he's not a fool or driven by unreasonable causes like religion. He knows the only result of an all out war with NATO is the end of Russia - I suspect he also knows that's not in his best interests.

 

[scaramanga]

Just like you can be sure as fudge NATO doesn't want a war with Russia - wanting that would be tremendously stupid.

Putin correctly judged that a very swift NATO response was probably impossible and that once the takeover what in process a war declaration was extremely unlikely.

Just like Russia wouldn't be able to stop the US if they tried to annex Northern Mexico it's really difficult for NATO to respond quickly enough to stop something from happening in Crimea.

I don't quite understand why you think playing chicken with the Russian army wouldn't be extremely dangerous.

I agree that Putin did very well getting troops in as soon as he did - precisely the snappy, decisive kind of move that NATO/the UN/the EU are all incapable of.

It wouldn't have taken many troops to force a stand off though, which would have allowed time for reinforcements to build. It wouldn't be as dangerous as many would think because any danger would be magnified for Russia. They simply cannot afford (financially or outcome-wise) to start a war with a NATO member.

 

[scaramanga]

Russia immediately annexed Crimea and secured it's navel base there, they have a lot of support from Ukranians in the east of the country and obviously, a land border with that part of the country. So they can easily support Pro-Russian Ukranians in the east. All your solution does is create a larger proxy war between Russia and the US (and makes the Ukraine even more of a dangerous battleground), with the potential of full-scale conflict between the two nations (and nobody wants that).

What if the next target is Romania or Poland?

Do we just allow a westward march because we don't like war?

 

[r-u-s-x01]

What if the next target is Romania or Poland?

Do we just allow a westward march because we don't like war?

Again from their perspective it was an eastward March while they were very weak, and they couldn't put up with it.

If we can't steam roll n Korea what makes you think we have the ability or desire to take on Russia

 

[scaramanga]

Again from their perspective it was an eastward March while they were very weak, and they couldn't put up with it.

If we can't steam roll n Korea what makes you think we have the ability or desire to take on Russia

There's a big difference between convincing people your way is better and sending in the troops. Had we sent the military in and claimed Ukraine as East Essex then I'd have a lot of sympathy with them.

Firstly, I think NK is right on that nutjob borderline where mutual destruction is acceptable to them.

Secondly, I don't think NATO has yet tried putting everything behind defeating NK and probably could if it did.

 

[the dza]

What if the next target is Romania or Poland?

Do we just allow a westward march because we don't like war?

Those countries are in NATO. If a NATO member is attacked, we would have to fulfil our obligations and defend a fellow member. For that reason, I think it is extremely unlikely that Russia would target those nations. I very much err on the side of us avoiding war where possible, but we must obviously draw a line in the sand somewhere and that is where NATO comes in.

The march east from both NATO and the EU has been pretty relentless. No bad thing imo, however, you would have to expect Russia to push back at some point and that's what we're seeing in Ukraine. They want a buffer between them and NATO (and also the EU).

 

[braineclipse]

Again from their perspective it was an eastward March while they were very weak, and they couldn't put up with it.

If we can't steam roll n Korea what makes you think we have the ability or desire to take on Russia

NATO almost certainly could steamroll North Korea. The problem is that Seoul is an hour from the border by car and even with conventional weapons North Korea could kill of hundreds of thousands of civilians in hours if they wanted to. They essentially have Seoul held hostage and that makes them impossible to attack.

Those countries are in NATO. If a NATO member is attacked, we would have to fulfil our obligations and defend a fellow member. For that reason, I think it is extremely unlikely that Russia would target those nations. I very much err on the side of us avoiding war where possible, but we must obviously draw a line in the sand somewhere and that is where NATO comes in.

The march east from both NATO and the EU has been pretty relentless. No bad thing imo, however, you would have to expect Russia to push back at some point and that's what we're seeing in Ukraine. They want a buffer between them and NATO (and also the EU).

Pushing NATO east when Russia was weak can be seen as fairly aggressive. Trying to push even further and include Ukraine pushed Russia over the edge imo. No coincidence that the move to annex Crimea came when it did. A couple of years later and they might very well have been a NATO country.

 

[Trixster]

The march east from both NATO and the EU has been pretty relentless. No bad thing imo, however, you would have to expect Russia to push back at some point and that's what we're seeing in Ukraine. They want a buffer between them and NATO (and also the EU).

That's just it, they are not creating a buffer really at all. Crimea was strategic, we all know that, when the details come to light in full I would imagine that more than likely taking back Crimea will have revolved in the main around the navel base in Sevastopol. The majority in Crimea are Russians or very pro-Russian so they have welcomed this move with open arms - they fervently believe that they should never have been "given" to Ukraine by Khrushchev be it that he was drunk or it was done for his own political gain.

Lugansk, Donetsk etc in the East of Ukraine are very pro-Russian too, they saw what happened in Crimea and they want to re-join Russia or at the very least become separate republics from Ukraine. Putin, imo, has to "assist" here otherwise he would lose face in Russia big style but for those who say that Russia wants to invade - well it's laughable.. If Russia wanted to they could have done so ten times over already, but surprisingly war with Ukraine is the last thing they actually want.

What has happened in Eastern Ukraine over the last few years to the civilians is atrocious tbh, both sides are to blame as well although Ukraine have been the ones shelling the town centers..

 

[the dza]

That's just it, they are not creating a buffer really at all. Crimea was strategic, we all know that, when the details come to light in full I would imagine that more than likely taking back Crimea will have revolved in the main around the navel base in Sevastopol. The majority in Crimea are Russians or very pro-Russian so they have welcomed this move with open arms - they fervently believe that they should never have been "given" to Ukraine by Khrushchev be it that he was drunk or it was done for his own political gain.

Lugansk, Donetsk etc in the East of Ukraine are very pro-Russian too, they saw what happened in Crimea and they want to re-join Russia or at the very least become separate republics from Ukraine. Putin, imo, has to "assist" here otherwise he would lose face in Russia big style but for those who say that Russia wants to invade - well it's laughable.. If Russia wanted to they could have done so ten times over already, but surprisingly war with Ukraine is the last thing they actually want.

What has happened in Eastern Ukraine over the last few years to the civilians is atrocious tbh, both sides are to blame as well although Ukraine have been the ones shelling the town centers..

I don't think they are creating a buffer, but trying to preserve one (understandably so) in the face of NATO (and EU) expansion eastwards. It would not surprise me if we end up with a 'New Berlin Wall' dividing West and East Ukraine.

 

[Trixster]

I don't think they are creating a buffer, but trying to preserve one (understandably so) in the face of NATO (and EU) expansion eastwards. It would not surprise me if we end up with a 'New Berlin Wall' dividing West and East Ukraine.

Yeah, that is something which would not surprise me either..
I'm surprised that Russia never recognised the two republics by now, but then I guess if they did it would most likely change the scope of everything there.

 

[scaramanga]

Those countries are in NATO. If a NATO member is attacked, we would have to fulfil our obligations and defend a fellow member. For that reason, I think it is extremely unlikely that Russia would target those nations. I very much err on the side of us avoiding war where possible, but we must obviously draw a line in the sand somewhere and that is where NATO comes in.

The march east from both NATO and the EU has been pretty relentless. No bad thing imo, however, you would have to expect Russia to push back at some point and that's what we're seeing in Ukraine. They want a buffer between them and NATO (and also the EU).

Bad examples then but I'm sure there are now borders available to Russia with non-NATO countries. Do we ignore their plight?

 

[the dza]

Bad examples then but I'm sure there are now borders available to Russia with non-NATO countries. Do we ignore their plight?

We already have, Georgia (South Ossetia).

 

[scaramanga]

We already have, Georgia (South Ossetia).

I'm fairly sure I said at the time that we should have stopped that too.

 

[the dza]

I'm fairly sure I said at the time that we should have stopped that too.

Again though, it would not have really been possible. They launched a large-scale invasion and it was all over in less than a month iirc, with a negotiated cease-fire at the end of it.

 

[scaramanga]

Again though, it would not have really been possible. They launched a large-scale invasion and it was all over in less than a month iirc, with a negotiated cease-fire at the end of it.

I think the former should have been enough to show NATO the need to station troops to stop the latter. It was a mistake not doing so IMO

 

[r-u-s-x]

Hope we maintain European Court of Justice after we leave, our government needs checks on their natural inclination to monitor and control,

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/dec/21/eus-highest-court-delivers-blow-to-uk-snoopers-charter

 

[scaramanga]

Hope we maintain European Court of Justice after we leave, our government needs checks on their natural inclination to monitor and control,

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/dec/21/eus-highest-court-delivers-blow-to-uk-snoopers-charter

Surely the better answer is an improved High Court rather than a superfluous extra layer?

I'll give them their due though, a correct and important decision in this case.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Surely the better answer is an improved High Court rather than a superfluous extra layer?

I'll give them their due though, a correct and important decision in this case.

I believe that we benefit from having an independent oversight that can rule against short term gains / objectives. These are areas that we have committed to follow so I do not think it is a sovereignty issue. In an ideal world it could be carried out by a high court butI don't think our high court are as insulated from pressure and at crunch time if anyone has a majority a law can be passed to override their decision.

 

[scaramanga]

I believe that we benefit from having an independent oversight that can rule against short term gains / objectives. These are areas that we have committed to follow so I do not think it is a sovereignty issue. In an ideal world it could be carried out by a high court butI don't think our high court are as insulated from pressure and at crunch time if anyone has a majority a law can be passed to override their decision.

I agree, but I'd rather see our own High Court be given that strength.

On the whole, the US Supreme Court does a very good job of ensuring that states don't pass or ignore legislation that it perceives as a constitutional right. Obviously that's made easier by having a written constitution and can be corrupted by political campaigning as from Scalia, but if doesn't need an overreaching court to send things up to. I'd like to see us strengthen the High Court in a similar manner.

 

[r-u-s-x]

I agree, but I'd rather see our own High Court be given that strength.

On the whole, the US Supreme Court does a very good job of ensuring that states don't pass or ignore legislation that it perceives as a constitutional right. Obviously that's made easier by having a written constitution and can be corrupted by political campaigning as from Scalia, but if doesn't need an overreaching court to send things up to. I'd like to see us strengthen the High Court in a similar manner.

Surely the Supreme court is the overreaching court and the State court would be the comparable to a high court. As in the individual states wont have much influence on the Supreme court but the Government would have a lot of influence over a stronger high court?

I appreciate the fact that the ECJ is separate from our influence.