[mrjonathanr]

All rather a moot point this morning.

Indeed. Not a lot restricting the assets of Russians in London will do now.

Not sure how relevant this is. Allowing money laundering and corruption to continue unrestricted is not justified on any grounds and is necessary to safeguard UK democracy. At the risk of sounding old fashioned, it is simply the right thing to do. Any discomfort Putin’s regime experiences is a bonus.

Some further detail here:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/25/boris-johnson-russian-money-britain-mafia-state-security

[seankenny]

Good article here on what this might mean for liberal democracies:

https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/a-moment-of-clarity

Tl;dr the long post WW2 era is over. We have to work to keep what we’ve got - and which is worth keeping, despite what both the far left and far right say.

[spidermonkey09]

Not sure how relevant this is. Allowing money laundering and corruption to continue unrestricted is not justified on any grounds and is necessary to safeguard UK democracy. At the risk of sounding old fashioned, it is simply the right thing to do. Any discomfort Putin’s regime experiences is a bonus.

Some further detail here:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/25/boris-johnson-russian-money-britain-mafia-state-security

I agree, I was just pointing out that in the hours after the invasion it was akin to fiddling while Rome burns. Agree it should happen, whether it will or not is a different story.

[WilliCrater]

The massive difference to 38/39 is that nuclear weapons exist. Any hot war with Russia has a very real chance of ending human civilisation, if not all human life on the planet..

Not just human life either, presumably.

[SA Chris]

Cockroaches will survive. Apparently.

[AMorris]

Cockroaches will survive. Apparently.

well that should give the Tory party some leadership options, at least.

[northern yob]

The massive difference to 38/39 is that nuclear weapons exist. Any hot war with Russia has a very real chance of ending human civilisation, if not all human life on the planet. Putin has already made a barely veiled promise to use nukes. Thus far he’s made good on his threats, even when it’s clearly self-defeating madness to do so. Should we gamble all human life on an assumption he’s bluffing, or the faith that events won’t snowball in a way that history shows they usually do? Ultimately this is the Achilles heel of nuclear deterrence. If one side is mad enough to use them then ultimately the other side has to either capitulate or be complicit in the end of the world.

I completely get where you are coming from, the threat is very real!
Part of me thinks it’s time to make a stand, he’s only gonna become more emboldened by the west standing down and letting this happen.

If we had dug our heels in 8 years ago this probably wouldn’t be where we are at, bullies can’t be allowed to just carry on because people are afraid of the consequences (I doubt he will start a nuclear war, although he might…) I just don’t see how we can allow this to happen.

Ukraine needs our support, imagine kissing your loved ones goodbye and having to pick up a gun because tanks were coming down the high street.

If the world stands together he will back down, unfortunately I fear we are all too concerned about the consequences of calling him out.

Some sort of multinational force absolutely committed to stopping this…. Or maybe some of his own medicine and an assassination (would Russia continue without him) might work. Whilst I hate the thought of condoning war, what are our options?

Thoughts from the hive mind…..

[danm]

I read an interesting today, can't remember where so no link, which compared what the West needs to do now to what had to be done in WW2. Basically, instead of gearing up to produce huge numbers of ships, tanks and aircraft, we need to go large on producing renewables. The shrill cries of those disappointed by the scale of sanctions are not those who will need to seek re-election within the next 5 years, from an electorate unlikely to be enamoured by economic collapse and freezing to death during winter. Putin and the Saudi's have us over a barrel, literally, and until we change our dependence on oil and gas there is only so much we can do to stop them over and above offering them some harsh language. Russian's economy is pathetic apart from its oil and gas production, neither of which can be touched without inflicting devastating self harm. Turns out stopping authoritarian despots also saves the planet and civilisation in general, so a win win if we can get our shit together.

[Bonjoy]

I completely get where you are coming from, the threat is very real!
Part of me thinks it’s time to make a stand, he’s only gonna become more emboldened by the west standing down and letting this happen.

If we had dug our heels in 8 years ago this probably wouldn’t be where we are at, bullies can’t be allowed to just carry on because people are afraid of the consequences (I doubt he will start a nuclear war, although he might…) I just don’t see how we can allow this to happen.

You accept that the threat of total global annihilation is very real, but you think it's maybe worth taking that risk. That's the whole of the history of our species (and many others), all art, all love, all music, all our children, all possible futures, all our stupid rock climbs. Really?
No paths from here are good. But mankind only has to be wrong about the intentions of a despot with nuclear weapons once.

[joel182]

Within the little world that is climbing, the IFSC must cancel the upcoming competition in Moscow. It is unconscionable to continue with cultural events that legitimise Putin's regime.

I am not the first to suggest this, Eddie Fowke said it much better in a post earlier today.

Pleased that the IFSC has cancelled the World Cup in Moscow and will seek to host it at a different location.

Statement here

[Oldmanmatt]

I completely get where you are coming from, the threat is very real!
Part of me thinks it’s time to make a stand, he’s only gonna become more emboldened by the west standing down and letting this happen.

If we had dug our heels in 8 years ago this probably wouldn’t be where we are at, bullies can’t be allowed to just carry on because people are afraid of the consequences (I doubt he will start a nuclear war, although he might…) I just don’t see how we can allow this to happen.

You accept that the threat of total global annihilation is very real, but you think it's maybe worth taking that risk. That's the whole of the history of our species (and many others), all art, all love, all music, all our children, all possible futures, all our stupid rock climbs. Really?
No paths from here are good. But mankind only has to be wrong about the intentions of a despot with nuclear weapons once.

That’s a little harsh.

Yup, he’s got nuclear weapons and has, pretty clearly, threatened to use them.

Just for a second though, imagine he pushes all the way to the channel coast (unlikely, just imagine). Now imagine your life and that of your children, under that oppression, that system, for the next few generations.

“This too shall pass” ‘n all that, but he will have to be opposed, physically, at some point, should he go full Hitler. So, we’re going to have to dance the knife edge to some degree or simply sign over the keys to everything and hope he’s a benevolent overlord…

[teestub]

I read an interesting today, can't remember where so no link, which compared what the West needs to do now to what had to be done in WW2. Basically, instead of gearing up to produce huge numbers of ships, tanks and aircraft, we need to go large on producing renewables. The shrill cries of those disappointed by the scale of sanctions are not those who will need to seek re-election within the next 5 years, from an electorate unlikely to be enamoured by economic collapse and freezing to death during winter. Putin and the Saudi's have us over a barrel, literally, and until we change our dependence on oil and gas there is only so much we can do to stop them over and above offering them some harsh language. Russian's economy is pathetic apart from its oil and gas production, neither of which can be touched without inflicting devastating self harm. Turns out stopping authoritarian despots also saves the planet and civilisation in general, so a win win if we can get our shit together.

Several new nuclear power stations would be handy too, but this is a different discussion 😄

[spidermonkey09]

Just for a second though, imagine he pushes all the way to the channel coast (unlikely, just imagine). Now imagine your life and that of your children, under that oppression, that system, for the next few generations.

“This to shall pass” ‘n all that, but he will have to be opposed, physically, at some point, should he go full Hitler. So, we’re going to have to dance the knife edge to some degree or simply sign over the keys to everything and hope he’s a benevolent overlord…

A much more realistic hypothetical is if he threatens a NATO state. Although I think his generals would step in if that did start happening.

[Oldmanmatt]

I read an interesting today, can't remember where so no link, which compared what the West needs to do now to what had to be done in WW2. Basically, instead of gearing up to produce huge numbers of ships, tanks and aircraft, we need to go large on producing renewables. The shrill cries of those disappointed by the scale of sanctions are not those who will need to seek re-election within the next 5 years, from an electorate unlikely to be enamoured by economic collapse and freezing to death during winter. Putin and the Saudi's have us over a barrel, literally, and until we change our dependence on oil and gas there is only so much we can do to stop them over and above offering them some harsh language. Russian's economy is pathetic apart from its oil and gas production, neither of which can be touched without inflicting devastating self harm. Turns out stopping authoritarian despots also saves the planet and civilisation in general, so a win win if we can get our shit together.

Several new nuclear power stations would be handy too, but this is a different discussion 😄

Not so different. Personally I think the anti-nuclear hysteria is quite responsible for the current state of the world. Hey ho.

[Oldmanmatt]

Just for a second though, imagine he pushes all the way to the channel coast (unlikely, just imagine). Now imagine your life and that of your children, under that oppression, that system, for the next few generations.

“This to shall pass” ‘n all that, but he will have to be opposed, physically, at some point, should he go full Hitler. So, we’re going to have to dance the knife edge to some degree or simply sign over the keys to everything and hope he’s a benevolent overlord…

A much more realistic hypothetical is if he threatens a NATO state. Although I think his generals would step in if that did start happening.

One would hope so.
However, he will be physically opposed by (actually) superior forces, at that point.

[northern yob]

I completely get where you are coming from, the threat is very real!
Part of me thinks it’s time to make a stand, he’s only gonna become more emboldened by the west standing down and letting this happen.

If we had dug our heels in 8 years ago this probably wouldn’t be where we are at, bullies can’t be allowed to just carry on because people are afraid of the consequences (I doubt he will start a nuclear war, although he might…) I just don’t see how we can allow this to happen.

You accept that the threat of total global annihilation is very real, but you think it's maybe worth taking that risk. That's the whole of the history of our species (and many others), all art, all love, all music, all our children, all possible futures, all our stupid rock climbs. Really?
No paths from here are good. But mankind only has to be wrong about the intentions of a despot with nuclear weapons once.

So what, we let him crack on, sorry Ukraine you are on your own cos we are scared of what the big bad bully might do…. Is all the love, art and our children not worth standing up for? Are you saying we should bury our heads in the sand?

The threat is no more real than it’s ever been, do we allow him to hold the whole world to ransom.

The way it works is like poker, and he’s as stony faced as they come, play him at his own game or we stand to get bluffed out of a hand that’s ours. I don’t believe he would push the button, I do believe he will bluff the whole way until we call him.

It’s what he did in Crimea and Syria. The west has a bigger and better military if we are United, he knows that. He’s playing the fear we all have it’s time to stand up to him.

I’m not saying immediate all out war, but sanctions aren’t gonna cut it. We need to slowly ramp it up! Special forces, advisors and equipment. I genuinely think we’ve let Ukraine down.

It’s time to stand up for what we believe is right. If people hadn’t done that in 39/40 where would we be right now?

[danm]

I read an interesting today, can't remember where so no link, which compared what the West needs to do now to what had to be done in WW2. Basically, instead of gearing up to produce huge numbers of ships, tanks and aircraft, we need to go large on producing renewables. The shrill cries of those disappointed by the scale of sanctions are not those who will need to seek re-election within the next 5 years, from an electorate unlikely to be enamoured by economic collapse and freezing to death during winter. Putin and the Saudi's have us over a barrel, literally, and until we change our dependence on oil and gas there is only so much we can do to stop them over and above offering them some harsh language. Russian's economy is pathetic apart from its oil and gas production, neither of which can be touched without inflicting devastating self harm. Turns out stopping authoritarian despots also saves the planet and civilisation in general, so a win win if we can get our shit together.

Several new nuclear power stations would be handy too, but this is a different discussion 😄

Not so different. Personally I think the anti-nuclear hysteria is quite responsible for the current state of the world. Hey ho.

It's certainly responsible (or one of the reasons) for Germany's sluggardly response to Putin, with no nuclear power they are in a very tough position if the gas gets turned off.

[Bonjoy]

That’s a little harsh.

In what respect?

Yup, he’s got nuclear weapons and has, pretty clearly, threatened to use them.

Just for a second though, imagine he pushes all the way to the channel coast (unlikely, just imagine). Now imagine your life and that of your children, under that oppression, that system, for the next few generations.

“This too shall pass” ‘n all that, but he will have to be opposed, physically, at some point, should he go full Hitler. So, we’re going to have to dance the knife edge to some degree or simply sign over the keys to everything and hope he’s a benevolent overlord…

Two things.

An argument for holding the line at some position several steps down the road does not justify acting now, when there is every chance that eventuality will not come to pass.
That scenario, whilst wholly shit, is preferable to the death by fire or worse of everyone and everything I hold dear.

These things ratchet. E.g. yesterday you suggested direct militarily action by nato was unthinkable, now barely a day later you are essentially arguing in favour of it.

[northern yob]

Bonjoy

Your walking down the street and see a big horrible looking guy, kicking a smaller guy in the head do you keep walking as he might turn on you, and the little guy isn't dead (yet). Or do you step in and try to get the big horrible fucker to back off?

[abarro81]

To clarify something Bonjoy - would you say that Britain joining WW2 was a mistake or that the level of death and suffering was justified/the "right" choice in that instance? Just wondering where the line would sit in your mind at which direct action would be the "right" choice? It's obviously a very tricky question and people will draw the line in different places, I'm just trying to get at where your line would be (if you feel like you know)?
I don't really know where my line would be - I think we should be doing far more now (even if it meant some direct impacts on ourselves, e.g. big temporary income tax rise on high-ish earners (inc myself) to help fund help support for those who need it to cope with the price rises that would result)... but not sure we'd want to engage directly. That said, I was surprised that we (and others) pulled people - inc. military - out in advance. I'd have thought that leaving a whole bunch of military in there would be a perfect calling of Putin's bluff - if he accidentally bombs NATO troops it would be a big deal whereas now he can just do what the f he wants and it's us that has to actively choose to engage rather than the other way around. We basically just look like a bunch of wimps who'll do f all so long as he stays out of NATO countries. Which seems a bit pathetic.

[Oldmanmatt]

That’s a little harsh.

In what respect?

Yup, he’s got nuclear weapons and has, pretty clearly, threatened to use them.

Just for a second though, imagine he pushes all the way to the channel coast (unlikely, just imagine). Now imagine your life and that of your children, under that oppression, that system, for the next few generations.

“This too shall pass” ‘n all that, but he will have to be opposed, physically, at some point, should he go full Hitler. So, we’re going to have to dance the knife edge to some degree or simply sign over the keys to everything and hope he’s a benevolent overlord…

Two things.

An argument for holding the line at some position several steps down the road does not justify acting now, when there is every chance that eventuality will not come to pass.
That scenario, whilst wholly shit, is preferable to the death by fire or worse of everyone and everything I hold dear.

These things ratchet. E.g. yesterday you suggested direct militarily action by nato was unthinkable, now barely a day later you are essentially arguing in favour of it.

No… I said we’re unlikely to engage in conventional warfare, in Ukraine. There is no scenario where breaching NATO boarders doesn’t result in armed response by the treaty members.
Which is what I meant by “at some point” etc. He will be. Chances are he’ll stop faced with that, but he might try it on. I think he fights from a position of weakness, but I don’t know how desperate he is.

[Bonjoy]

Bonjoy

Your walking down the street and see a big horrible looking guy, kicking a smaller guy in the head do you keep walking as he might turn on you, and the little guy isn't dead (yet). Or do you step in and try to get the big horrible fucker to back off?

It depends on whether my intervention might result in everyone on planet earth ending up dead (including the small guy I'm looking to help).

[spidermonkey09]

Bonjoy

Your walking down the street and see a big horrible looking guy, kicking a smaller guy in the head do you keep walking as he might turn on you, and the little guy isn't dead (yet). Or do you step in and try to get the big horrible fucker to back off?

There is an interesting debate to be had around whether we should be helping more but this is a pointlessly simplistic analogy. The situation bears no resemblance because the big horrible looking guy hasn't got nuclear weapons.

Barrows, I know you asked Bonjoy but it got me thinking. I think its tricky using historical examples because hindsight is 20/20 and it seems obvious what was the right thing to do when you look back. Knowing what we know now about Hitler, about his designs on European domination, concentration camps etc, it was the right thing to do to get involved in 1939. In hindsight it would probably have been better to have not bothered with the last stage of appeasement and got involved earlier, but it wasn't clear cut at the time and anyone who says it was hasn't read their history properly.

You can say the same thing with regard to most conflicts. A good example is when military action over Syria was being debated in 2013. Its quite clear now that getting involved then would have been preferable to the situation the Middle East is in now. At the time, it was far from obvious. The scars of Iraq were still very raw, people had no appetite for more war in the middle east and the commons voted not to engage. I remember thinking that was the right decision at the time; it didn't feel good not helping Syria but to me the risk of another Iraq was too great.

So, with the current situation, its an interesting point you make about leaving troops in. There is a scenario where it works perfectly, calls Putins bluff and no conflict, or at the very least less conflict. There is also a situation where he does it anyway and we're in exactly the same position, except the government stands open to accusations of sleepwalking into a nuclear war rather than thinking about things and being rational. Can you imagine the headlines?

My personal line is pretty clear in my head. I think its hugely regrettable that Ukraine isn't a NATO member cause I think if that had happened 10 years ago things would be different. But counter factuals are rarely helpful, there are too many moving parts. But given as they aren't, and the NATO alliance is the foundation of security in the West, then to a certain extent I think the west will probably have to accept that there is little we can do without inflaming the situation massively. We can provide humanitarian aid, maybe smuggle some weapons in, but I don't think we can do much more; the risks are too great.

[andy popp]

I would imagine this is the article danm was referencing further up the page:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/25/this-is-how-we-defeat-putin-and-other-petrostate-autocrats

It's hard to argue with, though obviously it looks to the future rather than providing an answer to the now.

[Bonjoy]

To clarify something Bonjoy - would you say that Britain joining WW2 was a mistake or that the level of death and suffering was justified/the "right" choice in that instance? Just wondering where the line would sit in your mind at which direct action would be the "right" choice? It's obviously a very tricky question and people will draw the line in different places, I'm just trying to get at where your line would be (if you feel like you know)?
I don't really know where my line would be - I think we should be doing far more now (even if it meant some direct impacts on ourselves, e.g. big temporary income tax rise on high-ish earners (inc myself) to help fund help support for those who need it to cope with the price rises that would result)... but not sure we'd want to engage directly. That said, I was surprised that we (and others) pulled people - inc. military - out in advance. I'd have thought that leaving a whole bunch of military in there would be a perfect calling of Putin's bluff - if he accidentally bombs NATO troops it would be a big deal whereas now he can just do what the f he wants and it's us that has to actively choose to engage rather than the other way around. We basically just look like a bunch of wimps who'll do f all so long as he stays out of NATO countries. Which seems a bit pathetic.

It sounds like you I'd draw the line roughly where you would. I think we should do more in the way of non military action and strengthen the defences of the NATO border.
Yes that might make us look like wimps. If that's the price of a pragmatic response to an insane action, which does the most to retain world stability and minimise death, then I don’t really care.