[mrjonathanr]

I also don't think that labelling things as "evil" actually helps.

That's a valid question, which is why I prefaced it the way I did. I'll stick with the term in this case though, it gives some clarity.

I think we are blind to our own interests, and the part they play both historically and now.

Sure, no room for a sense of complacency, or failure to grasp how western actions have shaped the lead up to this. In fact there is a deep need to understand the other side's motivations; without it, there won't be a diplomatic solution. It shouldn't lead to a lack of clarity about what the Ukrainians are facing Dave.

[petejh]

Dave you keep referring to a 'humanitarian crisis'. Of course it is one, but it's also A WAR 

I haven't noticed you acknowledge that this is a war started by Russia - are you afraid Putin might block your internet and have his police beat you up?

A WAR THAT WAS STARTED BY RUSSIA DAVE 

Started when they decided to invade a sovereign state - yes, just like that unjustifiable war the west started in Iraq if your hypocrisyometer is buzzing while reading.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

There are always tensions that come to bear before the "He started it!" declarations.

No one is discounting that Putin resorted to invasion, or the consequences of it, but to focus on the blame for it, doesn't help ease the situation.

[petejh]

Would be interesting to know the full extent of this.

We can either work towards better relations in Europe and around the world, or create division.
The former was something that Putin wanted

Jesus fucking Christ, Dave. I'd love to see you evidence this.
When did Putin offer the hand of friendship? Was it the cyber attacks? Was it the interference in our democracy? Was it when his agents popped a huge quantity of an extremely deadly nerve agent into a charity collection bin?

Review some of the posts earlier Will. It was also something covered very well in the media previously.

DT, is it only our arms trade you'd be interested t know more about, or would you be equally interested in knowing more about, for instance ....... Russia's arms trade? Because it turns out - amazingly I know - that Russia sells weapons too. Maybe only sunflowers come out of the barrels.

From a basic glance at wikipedia, note dated to 2012, so likely to be an even bigger exporter since then:

The defense industry of Russia is a strategically important sector and a large employer in Russia. It is also a significant player in the global arms market, with Russian Federation being the second largest conventional arms exporter after the United States, with $13.5 billion worth of exports in 2012. Combined, the US and Russia account for 57% of all major weapons exports.

The Russian government has announced its intention to restructure the debts of Russian military–industrial complex in the amount of 750 billion rubles, half of this amount will be written off, Deputy Prime Minister, Yuri Borisov said, speaking at a board of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Tatarstan.

President Vladimir Putin considers the Syrian Civil War to be a good platform for advertisement of the capabilities of Russian weapons capable of boosting Russia's military sales.

In 2012, Russia's military exports hit another record sum of $15 billion the structure of military exports had become more balanced. The biggest sales were in aviation equipment – 37 percent. Total exports of land-based weapons and military equipment grew to 27 percent. At the same time, the shares of naval equipment and anti-aircraft systems increased to 18 percent and 15 percent, respectively. Russia is the world's second largest conventional arms exporter after the United States. In 2012, Rosoboronexport received 1,877 enquiries from foreign clients, and, following consideration of the applications, 1,309 contracts were signed. This is 2.5 times more than in 2011. The most popular types of weaponry bought from Russia are Sukhoi and MiG fighters, air defense systems, helicopters, tanks, armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. Russian arms were exported to 60 countries. The most significant supplies went to countries in Southeast Asia and the Asia-Pacific region – 43 percent. The second most significant market remains the Near and Middle East, together with North Africa – 23 percent. For the period 2014–18, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI, found that Russian exports of major weapons had increased by 17 per cent between 2009-2013 and 2014–18. Russia delivered weapons to 56 states and to rebel forces in eastern Ukraine in 2010–14.

[petejh]

I think to try to claim that I'm making some sort of relative judgement between Johnson and Vladimir Putin's actions is absurd. I am however asking "In what areas are we not looking towards what we can do to help?".

Except you've abjectly failed to articulate in any way 'areas we have not looked that we can look at to help '.

So another chance for you to articulate: what areas can we look at that might help, that we so far haven't looked at, in your opinion?

[DAVETHOMAS90]

I'm not going to come back with a list of "strategic policies".

I'm asking about our own interests, that might have had a part to play in relations, and that also compromise the actions we might take.

[petejh]

You keep saying you're asking those things, but you don't appear to like or accept the answers you're being given. When asked, reasonably, what instead you think could be done differently, you fail to come up with anything at all. I notice your tag line is 'don't die with your music still inside you' - you're not living up to it.

[mrjonathanr]

That is the realist view isn't it? 'We' pushed too hard, with hubris, and the bear bit back. And there may be some truth in hubris, but the bear wasn't peacefully hibernating apart from when we provoked it.

Have a listen to Kasparov's argument:

[abarro81]

What were you "asking" when saying that Putin wanted good relations in Europe while "we" caused them to be bad? Nothing, no question marks there, you were making a point. Now you get pushed on the points you were making and fall back on "oh I was just asking questions". It's classic rabbit hole bullshit, straight out of Dan's playbook (and half the antivax - but will say they're not - crowd)

[Moo]

What do you think Nato should do?

I think the international effort of heavy sanctions ( presumably there’s more they could do ) and sending arms/aid is the right move currently.

We need to seek deescalation and find a way to give Putin a way out without losing face.

In an ideal world the sanctions would work and we could demand they hand him over to be tried for war crimes in order to lift them ( there’s slim to nil chance of that ever happening )

[Moo]

https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxLZhe-1C30nJj5OeL6-VZ4It7396_06Xg

[mrjonathanr]

Zelenskiy’s speech after a family of four were killed trying to leave Irpin

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FNMp_QPXIAAE80T?format=jpg&name=large

[seankenny]

I'm not going to come back with a list of "strategic policies".

I'm asking about our own interests, that might have had a part to play in relations, and that also compromise the actions we might take.

Becoming a liberal democracy is hard. It is a complex and fragile type of state and can easily revert to autocracy. Naturally I believe that democracies offer humans a better life with more dignity than dictatorships. I also think that democracy allows countries to become richer and hence increase human potential.

Combining these values I can see that it is on our interests to help other democracies when attacked. We should offer our fellow democratic nations assistance that we wouldn’t offer to a dictatorship. The people of Ukraine want to choose their own future, to make decisions like we do - by arguing the toss all day long, whether that’s in Parliament, in the media, on obscure niche sports Internet forums. Not by being told what to do by lawless, violent men.

So yeah, helping out other democratic nations as much as we can is absolutely in our interests. You can come back at me with the times this ideal has been tarnished or abused or misapplied, but so what? It’s still in our interest whether we fucked up in the past or not.

I think you should speak clearly about what you really think rather than “just asking questions” which is always a sign of evasion.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

I'm not going to come back with a list of "strategic policies".

I'm asking about our own interests, that might have had a part to play in relations, and that also compromise the actions we might take.

Becoming a liberal democracy is hard. It is a complex and fragile type of state and can easily revert to autocracy. Naturally I believe that democracies offer humans a better life with more dignity than dictatorships. I also think that democracy allows countries to become richer and hence increase human potential.

Combining these values I can see that it is on our interests to help other democracies when attacked. We should offer our fellow democratic nations assistance that we wouldn’t offer to a dictatorship. The people of Ukraine want to choose their own future, to make decisions like we do - by arguing the toss all day long, whether that’s in Parliament, in the media, on obscure niche sports Internet forums. Not by being told what to do by lawless, violent men.

So yeah, helping out other democratic nations as much as we can is absolutely in our interests. You can come back at me with the times this ideal has been tarnished or abused or misapplied, but so what? It’s still in our interest whether we fucked up in the past or not.

I think you should speak clearly about what you really think rather than “just asking questions” which is always a sign of evasion.

You're taking my posts completely out of context sean. Maybe you didn't read my earlier ones.
Sorry, that's unfair. Maybe they were unclear.

It has nothing to do with arguing against the values you're talking about here.
For me, I have questions about the interests of nations for instance signed up to Nato, and who could change what values NATO protects and serves.

No, I listen to the pleas of Zelensky and think about Georgia - hence referencing the Mearsheimer talk.
There are other interests being protected, other interests being served by the detachment from this. That's not an argument for them. And I'd question that about our own government too.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_68144.htm

"NATO strives to secure a lasting peace in Europe, based on common values of individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Seeing the outbreak of crises and conflicts beyond Allied borders can jeopardise this objective, the Alliance also contributes to peace and stability through crisis management operations and partnerships. Essentially, NATO not only helps to defend the territory of its members, but also engages where possible and when necessary to project its values further afield, prevent and manage crises, stabilise post-conflict situations and support reconstruction."

This suggests suggests some contradiction to me, as it expresses some distinction between what is Europe and what is not Europe, and that division serves some member states differently than for others:

"NATO also embodies the transatlantic link by which the security of North America is tied to that of Europe’s."

I think the threat of destabilising the situation further militarily is something of a desperately "convenient" reason for not exploring other forms of intervention more carefully.

https://www.newsweek.com/zelenskys-plea-planes-defend-ukraine-backed-schumer-sasse-1685227

I'm not trying to make my own suggestions for interventions that I'd have no qualification to speak on - and that isn't being evasive - it's just that boundary and division make things other people's problem.
Also, Putin did seek better relations with the EU/NATO.

The openness that you speak of could have served us well at other times too. That's what Mearsheimer is talking about.
I despise our division from Europe. Zelensky is one of us - as I'm sure you'll agree Sean, if it wasn't for the fact that we've so little right to make that claim anymore.

I think my posts have been quite misunderstood.

[Oldmanmatt]

I'm not going to come back with a list of "strategic policies".

I'm asking about our own interests, that might have had a part to play in relations, and that also compromise the actions we might take.

Becoming a liberal democracy is hard. It is a complex and fragile type of state and can easily revert to autocracy. Naturally I believe that democracies offer humans a better life with more dignity than dictatorships. I also think that democracy allows countries to become richer and hence increase human potential.

Combining these values I can see that it is on our interests to help other democracies when attacked. We should offer our fellow democratic nations assistance that we wouldn’t offer to a dictatorship. The people of Ukraine want to choose their own future, to make decisions like we do - by arguing the toss all day long, whether that’s in Parliament, in the media, on obscure niche sports Internet forums. Not by being told what to do by lawless, violent men.

So yeah, helping out other democratic nations as much as we can is absolutely in our interests. You can come back at me with the times this ideal has been tarnished or abused or misapplied, but so what? It’s still in our interest whether we fucked up in the past or not.

I think you should speak clearly about what you really think rather than “just asking questions” which is always a sign of evasion.

You're taking my posts completely out of context sean. Maybe you didn't read my earlier ones.
Sorry, that's unfair. Maybe they were unclear.

It has nothing to do with arguing against the values you're talking about here.
For me, I have questions about the interests of nations for instance signed up to Nato, and who could change what values NATO protects and serves.

No, I listen to the pleas of Zelensky and think about Georgia - hence referencing the Mearsheimer talk.
There are other interests being protected, other interests being served by the detachment from this. That's not an argument for them. And I'd question that about our own government too.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_68144.htm

"NATO strives to secure a lasting peace in Europe, based on common values of individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Seeing the outbreak of crises and conflicts beyond Allied borders can jeopardise this objective, the Alliance also contributes to peace and stability through crisis management operations and partnerships. Essentially, NATO not only helps to defend the territory of its members, but also engages where possible and when necessary to project its values further afield, prevent and manage crises, stabilise post-conflict situations and support reconstruction."

This suggests suggests some contradiction to me, as it expresses some distinction between what is Europe and what is not Europe, and that division serves some member states differently than for others:

"NATO also embodies the transatlantic link by which the security of North America is tied to that of Europe’s."

I think the threat of destabilising the situation further militarily is something of a desperately "convenient" reason for not exploring other forms of intervention more carefully.

https://www.newsweek.com/zelenskys-plea-planes-defend-ukraine-backed-schumer-sasse-1685227

I'm not trying to make my own suggestions for interventions that I'd have no qualification to speak on - and that isn't being evasive - it's just that boundary and division make things other people's problem.
Also, Putin did seek better relations with the EU/NATO.

The openness that you speak of could have served us well at other times too. That's what Mearsheimer is talking about.
I despise our division from Europe. Zelensky is one of us - as I'm sure you'll agree Sean, if it wasn't for the fact that we've so little right to make that claim anymore.

I think my posts have been quite misunderstood.

Morning Dave.

Despite being bright for a March dawn, the world at large remains a bit of a Grey area…

There’s enough “aims…” and “where possible…” in the quoted statements, to create loopholes big enough to drive a ULCC of Saudi oil through, sideways.

For good reason. WW3, doesn’t enhance your chances of re-election.

[TobyD]

There is an argument that Putin repeatedly does what most people thought he wouldn't dare to, and he will level Ukraine,  before moving on to other countries such as the Baltic states; so that NATO should just recognise that direct conflict is more or less inevitable and get on with full intervention with military forces.  Its incredibly depressing but certainly a significant possibility. 
I suppose that not intervening implies that you think that Russia will fail, and become totally bogged down in Ukraine; but this seems unlikely at best. I'm not arguing for all out war, but it's hard to avoid the suspicion that that is how its going to turn out.

[AJM]

There is an argument that Putin repeatedly does what most people thought he wouldn't dare to, and he will level Ukraine,  before moving on to other countries such as the Baltic states; so that NATO should just recognise that direct conflict is more or less inevitable and get on with full intervention with military forces.  Its incredibly depressing but certainly a significant possibility. 
I suppose that not intervening implies that you think that Russia will fail, and become totally bogged down in Ukraine; but this seems unlikely at best. I'm not arguing for all out war, but it's hard to avoid the suspicion that that is how its going to turn out.

I guess it depends what "fail" and "bogged down" means, doesn't it. I could see the Russians levelling a bunch of cities and all that - but if they don't want a Western-aligned Ukraine to rise from the rubble, they're going to have to do something other than destroy it and vanish. At the very least, they'll need a puppet propped up with a load of Russian troops to enforce the "peace".

I wouldnt have thought "being bogged down enough that it sucks in too much energy to look further" was that unlikely, particularly given it looks like they would have to up their game to go after any of the NATO states (their performance so far hasn't exactly been overwhelming).

I guess it depends whether you think enough artillery can avoid Ukraine becoming another Afghanistan.

[SA Chris]

https://www.ft.com/content/30b22986-85fd-450f-9e62-22b4fc61122c

Oil now at highest since 2008, but we've still not banned oil imports from Russia, so this price is actually doing them a massive favour. Think it's high now, wait and see what happens if they do ban imports from Russia.

[jwi]

Dave and others, please be aware it's Putin shilling if you briefly concede that he has attacked Ukraine which is bad, then immediately pivot to a rant about how the true cause for the war is your pet peeve regardless if that's NATO expansion, Brexit, Soros, Greta Thunberg (yes really!, I have seen it in the wild), gender neutral pronouns or whatever.

[danm]

Let's take a couple of facts and run with them.

1. Putin has said that Russians and Ukrainians are one people.

2. He demonstrably has shown he will crush any of his people who do not follow his path, with any suffering of no relevance whatsoever to him.

The obvious outcome here is that he will treat Ukraine like any other part of the "Russiasphere" which fails to toe his line. He will oppress and murder any opposition. Levelling Ukraine does not matter to him, and as the people are the same and interchangeable he will happily arrest and eliminate those who fail to comply and move in more compliant citizens to take their place.

Whether he has the resources to actually manage this is a different story, but I think that a major mistake leading up to the war over many years were Western observers failing to take what Putin said at face value. I think he truly does not believe this is a war or invasion, rather it's a large scale policing action in a rogue province. Unfortunately, given that civil wars are often the most bloody, this does not bode well for Ukraine or Russia, and I think Putin is being guided by belief rather than the facts on the ground. He can't win but he must win.

[Muenchener]

I guess it depends whether you think enough artillery can avoid Ukraine becoming another Afghanistan.

Exactly what my (Russian) ex and her friends are terrified of. They're the generation whose brothers & boyfriends didn't come back from Afghanistan, now they're staring down the barrel of the same thing happening to their sons

[joel182]

I also don't think that labelling things as "evil" actually helps. I think we are blind to our own interests, and the part they play both historically and now.

Dave, yesterday I drove from Lviv to Krakow. I drove past a queue of traffic to cross the border that is six days long. The queue is full of women and children fleeing from their now destroyed homes. They are leaving behind husbands, fathers, grandparents, and their whole lives.

Ukranian cities have ceased to be normal cities as everything focuses on survival and the prevention of the loss of their country.

Make no mistake: this is Putin's war of aggression and it is pure evil.

[seankenny]

You're taking my posts completely out of context sean. Maybe you didn't read my earlier ones.
Sorry, that's unfair. Maybe they were unclear.

It has nothing to do with arguing against the values you're talking about here.
For me, I have questions about the interests of nations for instance signed up to Nato, and who could change what values NATO protects and serves.

No, I listen to the pleas of Zelensky and think about Georgia - hence referencing the Mearsheimer talk.
There are other interests being protected, other interests being served by the detachment from this. That's not an argument for them. And I'd question that about our own government too.

No, I am not taking your posts out of context. I have read them and responded to what you wrote. The above reply is just more mysterious reasons, interests, nations. Come on, quit the Mystic Meg bullshit, you're a middle aged bloke in Sheffield not the bloody Oracle at Delphi.

Which countries are you talking about? What do you perceive there interests to be? How does this affect what we are doing with respect to Ukraine? The "just asking questions" schtick is about creating a veil of confusing bullshit.

Also, Putin did seek better relations with the EU/NATO.

Please explain your reasoning behind this statement, because I am not seeing it.

In terms of being twisted out of reality this story, which I suspect you’ve all seen, is as out there as anything I’ve seen:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60600487

In the karma box you've asked if this is true. As far as I understand, yes it is, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it. Or I'd have put a proviso that I thought it was bollocks. Do you think someone is lying? Is it the Ukranians? The BBC reporters? What's the deal?

[spidermonkey09]

What Sean said. Also:

I think the threat of destabilising the situation further militarily is something of a desperately "convenient" reason for not exploring other forms of intervention more carefully.

What interventions? What would you like to see happen?

[Oldmanmatt]

What Sean said. Also:

I think the threat of destabilising the situation further militarily is something of a desperately "convenient" reason for not exploring other forms of intervention more carefully.

What interventions? What would you like to see happen?

A strongly worded letter to the Guardian…