[Moo]

What are you saying then Dave ? What are you actually saying ? What is your point ? What would you like us to know ?

Don’t post a link just write down what you think. 

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Moo, I lost my post as you were writing yours, so I've just tried to remember some of mine.

I find it sickening to listen to Priti Patel's defensive responses to questions in the house about the refugee/visa crisis.

As one MP pointed out, this was a humanitarian crisis that everyone could foresee.

Then there are the convenient excuses in response to Zelenskyy's pleas for EU membership.

Why are people so reluctant to avoid the question of "How did we get here?".

A lot of what I see, is externalisation, where people use a crisis elsewhere to avoid the anxiety of questions about their own views and behaviour.

In reply to Joel182 . Does it make a difference if a family has the offer of housing in the UK? There's an obvious reason for me asking.

Edit. The comment on the radio just now, was the criticism that visa regulations shouldn't be used to deal with a refugee crisis - pointing out the relative open door policy of (I nearly put "other") EU nations.

For Christ sake, our prime minister orchestrated Brexit.

Without Brexit, we wouldn't have queues of refugees at Calais - although I'm sure they'd find other excuses.

When I talk about "interests", I'm talking about questions that our own government wants to avoid, although that applies to all of us.

Edit. We could have boycotted the winter Olympics in Beijing, given that China had already backed Russian opposition to NATO expansion.

Why was action like that not taken? For me, that is critical to considering the question of what else we can do, and why people are so resistant to it.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

@ 2' 30" "..we didn't find the dialogue with him"



OK w****** , rest peacefully in your comfortable narrative of good versus evil.

Who'd want to speak to Putin? He's an evil man. Don't do a deal with the Devil.

A lot of people want to protect the feeling that they are good/virtuous - that is what I'm referring to when I'm talking about "interests".

Psychologically we benefit from thinking about the other as evil.
By externalising in that way, we prevent the dialogue that may be necessary, as desperately uncomfortable as it may be.

As an analogy, I was ousted from one local steering group during a campaign to stop the local council chopping down thousands of street trees. I advocated looking for ways of finding dialogue with the council. But for group members the council were "tree haters", the devil.

It was apparent that many campaigners were more interested in defeating the council - feeling that they were on the victorious side of the virtuous - than they were with finding ways to reduce the number of felled trees.

What would work as a win for Putin in this catastrophe, as a viable "way out"? That's why I referenced Putin's desire to join NATO and for Russia to be seen as European.

If you just want him to pay - as the evil bastard - then you forget Versailles.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Border externalisation.



From 1' 10"

"If you have to apply before you flee.. flips the whole refugee convention on it's head".

Anyone notice that that's precisely what we're doing.

Apologises to anyone who finds this all a bit too introspective, woolly, or borderline critical thinking.

Sorry, I understand, there's a war on.



We're f****** great we are. Couldn't do more. Mustn't get in the way of the important work to be done.

There's a war on.

Wave the flag for Boris and Great Britain.

Someone write a song about it.

[Davo]

I struggle to see that currently with Russia attacking and attempting to occupy Ukraine that there is much point in all the hand wringing about how we got here.

Even if you do wish to consider how we arrived at this place none of it will justify what Putin is doing and has done in the past and none of this is explicitly the fault of the west. Yes there is context but the fault is absolutely not ours here.

I like the idea of looking at things from each sides perspective and I do agree that there have been opportunities to change things. For example I believe Putin was one of the first leaders to call George Bush after 9/11 and made an offer of help which was rejected. As to NATO as far as I know there were discussions with Russia and at one point there was a general idea that they would eventually become members but most of Putin’s actions since then have made that impossible. Much of the actions of countries near Russia wanting to join NATO is simply their own reasonable reaction to having a large aggressive neighbour coveting their land and freedom. If he had acted differently towards these countries they would have had no need to join NATO.

I do think that we need to examine our links with Russia and the West needs to clearly decide upon some red lines (such as Article 5 of NATO)  for when there is another conflict with Russia (and there almost certainly will be a next time). It should then be made publicly and privately clear what our actions and responses will be to any breach of these red lines - almost certainly involving armed conflict.

The main thing that is clear from this conflict is that Putin can’t be trusted to behave reasonably and from now on Russia will be the adversary of the West and a pariah state for a very long time. None of this is good as it clearly is not healthy for this level of stand off between nuclear powers - especially where one of those powers is essentially a dictatorship.

Dave 

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Did you miss the bit about establishing dialogue with Putin .. and therefore what might be necessary to achieve that.

Sorry, I forgot.

There's a war on.

All this fucking talking.

[Davo]

Did you miss the bit about establishing dialogue with Putin .. and therefore what might be necessary to achieve that.

Sorry, I forgot.

There's a war on.

All this fucking talking.

No, I read that and that watched that garbage from Russell Brand from start to finish with an open mind.
My issue with Brand is mostly that he is talking utter crap and the only reason his nonsense gets any traction is because he is famous.

[SA Chris]

Did you miss the bit about establishing dialogue with Putin ..
All this fucking talking.

Do you mean the negotiations that have been attempted several times in the last week? If not, what sort of dialogue would you like?

[spidermonkey09]

As far as I can tell I think you're making several points here:

1) we should be taking more refugees. I agree completely with this, as I'd imagine do most on here. Nobody has objected to this point I think? This is by far the weakest string to the UK's response, but its not directly relevant to the main question around ending the war and responding to Putin I don't think.

2) a need to acknowledge how Putin views the situation (ie, not as an invasion) and engage in dialogue. I think this has been widely covered; its very clear he doesn't see it as an invasion, but the problem the West has is that if we proceed in that basis we undermine democracy not just in Ukraine, but in all the other former USSR states. They have to have the freedom to choose their future; presumably you agree with that? As SA Chris has said, numerous attempts at dialogue have been made this week, is that what you were referring to?

3) you mention EU membership for Ukraine, but not sure whether you're advocating for some sort of expedited process here?

4) you mention Navalny's return to Russia as 'interesting.'- please could you explain more?

5) you ask what would work as a way out for Putin. There has been discussion of a potential 'off ramp' for Putin in this thread already; people have suggested Donetsk and Luhansk being recognised as having the right to independence and elections being held to determine whether they should be part of Russia. Zelensky has also proposed a compromise on Crimea, that it should remain in Russian hands for now although Ukraine will understandably still perceive it as Ukrainian territory.

A lot of what you're railing against has been discussed from what I can see. This is the latest in a very good series of blog posts on the war. The last bit talks about the potential off-ramp.

https://samf.substack.com/p/giving-peace-a-chance?s=r

On the evening of 8 March Zelensky’s office issued his proposals. These were carefully constructed so as to suggest forms of compromise. The first raised the possibility of ‘a collective security agreement with all its neighbours and with the participation of the world’s leading countries’, which will provide guarantees for Russia as well as Ukraine. In principle this has attractions for Putin, because it would render membership of NATO unnecessary and would preclude Ukraine acting as a base for long-range US weapons. On the other hand it would give Ukraine some sort of US-backed security guarantee. It would not however lead to Ukraine’s demilitarization. Ukraine has had these sorts of guarantees before, notably in the 1994 Budapest memorandum, in return for giving up its nuclear arsenal. Moscow explicitly repudiated them, on the grounds that the government in Kyiv was illegitimate, so this raises obvious questions about what sort of guarantees could render this credible. 

On Crimea he seems to be looking for a compromise that allows both sides to maintain their positions on where the territory truly belongs while in practice apparently accepting for the moment it stays with Russia. This is realistic. On Donetsk and Luhansk, the two enclaves in the Donbas, his language was more elliptical. ‘It is important to me how people who want to be part of Ukraine will live there. I am interested in the opinion of those who see themselves as citizens of the Russian Federation. However, we must discuss this issue.’ There is an obvious trap for Russia here. The leaders of these self-declared ‘Peoples’ Republics’ want independence or even to join with Russia but it is by no means clear that will be the popular view in these territories Putin used an expansive definition of what should be included on 21 February when he recognised the independence of all of the Donbas, though the two enclaves amount to only about a third. After all these territories have been through in recent days it is hard to imagine that they feeling Russophile at the moment. 

Zelensky’s language could be seen as going back to the Minsk agreements of September 2014 and February 2015, which raised issues of how these territories might be incorporated back into Ukraine with some special rights, but also how elections would be conducted to find their representatives. Moscow would be nervous about the results of free and fair elections under international supervision.

Nothing in Zelensky’s proposal therefore is tantamount to capitulation but it looks reasonable. If Moscow decides that there is something here to work on, if only because they might interpret any proposal as a weakening of Ukraine’s resolve, then it is possible to imagine substantive talks being set in motion.  Yet at the moment these proposals are suggestive without being substantive. Exactly what they might mean in practice would require meticulous drafting and careful explanations, including with regard to the role of third parties in their enforcement and monitoring. That will take time.

[danm]

If engaging with Putin is required, we'd do well to listen to what those who have engaged with him previously say about what works and what doesn't. Nadezhda Tolokonnikova (Pussy Riot activist) for example, is unlikely to be a western shill or CIA asset but suggests based on her experience that he only responds to those who refuse to budge an inch and show strength. Her story is fairly incredible tbh, she stood firm and got the brutal and corrupt penal system improved.

The Ukrainians claim to know the Russians better than anyone so perhaps this informs what appears to be a gung ho approach - they know it is the only thing likely to register with Putin, any sign of weakness will be pounced upon.

Anyway, talk is cheap, I don't think I'd be much help down at the border but I have donated what I can to the relief effort. Perhaps we can all do that, pray (if that means anything to us) for all the Ukrainian and Russian victims (I consider young conscripts as much in this as anyone else) and hope that some of the reported fracture lines in the Russian media and society start to give Putin some pause. For the West, it's simply a case of avoiding any hint of escalation on their side and waiting it out I'm afraid, at least if WW3 is to be avoided.

[danm]

Oh and also, interesting news. The Anonymous hacker collective, who I think we can all agree are not exactly keen on Western style global capitalism, have hacked into the Russian Federal systems and released hundreds of thousands of censored images to the public. Knowledge is power, let's see if this has any effect.

[northern yob]

Speaking of world war 3, what does the collective mind think about the potential false flag operations with regard chemical and biological weapons? Should we believe our governments concern about what could be about to happen? Should we question the logic? Do people think there’s any truth to Russia’s claims of dirty bombs and the collusion of western governments in their construction?

Does use of chemical and biological weapons make Putin evil or is it fair game? I’m sure there are some semi sketchy examples of western practices during war, like the American bombing of a hospital in Afghanistan (all be it by mistake… allegedly)or the use of vacuum bombs.

Is the use of chemical weapons a red flag move…..

I completely understand the fear that everyone has( because I share it) of an escalation towards Armageddon, but I can’t help but think Poots is continuing to bluff his weaker hand. I think he will use chemical weapons, as a means to divide the wests response, he must be realising the monumental fuck up he’s made with regards the invasion. I think we might even see Ukraine go on the offensive in the next couple of weeks at least in regard to the ground war and troops on the ground( the civilian and city bombing situation isn’t going to change anytime soon) which will only make him even more desperate. How do people feel about the prospect of having to stand by while he uses phosphorus munitions and the like?

I’m not for a second suggesting we engage directly, despite my initial rush of blood at the start of all this I think the western response has been excellent in many ways so far, but we are a very long way from a conclusion and the possibilities of where this could all go are endless.

One thing that really stood out to me this week was this quote on twitter

So we are to be held at bay by our own cowardice of a nuclear exchange.  Paralyzed by fear while we watch others suffer in anguish as a tyrant forces his will upon those who simply want nothing more than to live.

Spicy times

[Yossarian]

I spent some time when I was at university reading a lot about mostly biological weapons, and a bit about chemical weapons. That was more in the context of the history / UK science policy, etc, but you obviously read a bit further.

The Soviets had a very serious / large scale offensive biological weapons programme - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopreparat and I imagine they've saved some of the favourite recipes. It was really fucking nasty stuff, and from an ethical point of view, it's about as dirty / evil as you can get. Having said that, the delivery of biological weapons was always far more prone to problems than making them. I imagine that if Putin does decide to play that dirty, he would have more predictable results with chemical weapons. IIRC, the American's previously effectively threatened a nuclear response to Iraqi bio/chem deployment against US troops, but obvs the Iraqis couldn't repspond to that in kind.

I doubt very much Putin views vacuum / thermobaric bombs as dirty. He's got some absolutely massive ones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_All_Bombs. I think smaller ones are quite a key part of the Russian playbook for fighting in built up areas.

[teestub]

I doubt very much Putin views vacuum / thermobaric bombs as dirty. He's got some absolutely massive ones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_All_Bombs. I think smaller ones are quite a key part of the Russian playbook for fighting in built up areas.

Confirmed that they already used them in Ukraine
https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1501621370614173701

[Oldmanmatt]

I doubt very much Putin views vacuum / thermobaric bombs as dirty. He's got some absolutely massive ones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_All_Bombs. I think smaller ones are quite a key part of the Russian playbook for fighting in built up areas.

Confirmed that they already used them in Ukraine
https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1501621370614173701

VBs, TBs, MOABs etc are very much conventional weapons, being basically just big bangs. CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear) crosses the rubicon into WMD. Not just big bangs, but lingering and largely uncontrollable effects.

[northern yob]

I doubt very much Putin views vacuum / thermobaric bombs as dirty. He's got some absolutely massive ones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_All_Bombs. I think smaller ones are quite a key part of the Russian playbook for fighting in built up areas.

My reference to vacuum bombs was towards the west doing questionable things…. My understanding is they were developed for dropping on minefields to rapidly clear them for tanks, it then became apparent they were quite useful in an urban environment due to sucking up all the oxygen. The US used them at Bora Bora against Al queda I think. Whilst they are fairly conventional, it’s the application which can be called into question

My dirty bomb reference comes from a nuclear device….. hence one of the reasons for zoning in on Chernobyl, I’ve read somewhere that Pootin has claimed Ukraine were constructing such a device at Chernobyl with American knowledge.

The whole Chernobyl thing is a standard pootin false flag play. I’ve also  read a semi credible source claiming that Ukraine has intelligence that Chernobyl is going to be attacked, which fits with the whole scenario…..

[Yossarian]

No, I agree. And whilst what OMM says is true, I think the context is important. Because using big thermobaric weapons (the giant single ones, vs the multi launch things) against a heavily populated city is surely blurring the boundary of conventional vs WMD. I.e. indiscriminately wiping out a lot of civilians in a deeply horrid way.

[Moo]

I am not buying that the West was secretly manufacturing chemical weapons in Ukraine.

It would be about the worst possible place that you could imagine to carry out an operation like that when you could quite easily carry out that sort of research at home.

Why would you house your facility in a foreign country which has had a disputed border with one of your most hostile neighbours.

[Oldmanmatt]

No, I agree. And whilst what OMM says is true, I think the context is important. Because using big thermobaric weapons (the giant single ones, vs the multi launch things) against a heavily populated city is surely blurring the boundary of conventional vs WMD. I.e. indiscriminately wiping out a lot of civilians in a deeply horrid way.

Honestly, the type of weapons used is moot. It is the targeting of civilians and non-military targets. Technology has changed and you can now do significantly more with a smaller package, but; we did a rather thorough job on Dresden in WW2, so not WMD. Again, and this might seem cold, this is not rendering the site permanently uninhabitable or releasing lethal pathogens/chemicals/radiation into the atmosphere/environment. Nor does it infringe the delicate network of treaties that hold strategic weapons in silos. Sucks, but, war does in general. This is an all out war now.
(Obviously, big bangs chuck up all kinds of shit (World Trade centre) but that’s not a design feature).

Actually, let me put that another way, you could, hypothetically, build a Bulldozer with a 1km wide blade that flattens cities into carparks, it’s still not a WMD.

[duncan]

[Edited to focus on the Putin questions]
...

No one wants to talk about the fact that Putin won't view it as an invasion at all.

Why does everyone find it so difficult to consider how Putin views the situation?

...

If we can't consider how Putin and Russia views that now - and the same applies to any other nation - then we are in our own very lazy way simply accepting that it's "unthinkable that a European nation has been invaded in the 21st century".

You can’t move for Putinologists offering their insight into what his thoughts and motivations might be! Examples below and from spidermonkey's post. Of course we’re interested in Putin. Purely selfishly, I would like to judge if I should be buying Iodine tablets or not (hopefully not). However, I prefer to take my cues from people that have been thinking and writing about this stuff for more than the last two weeks.

Sadly, it is also classic conspiracy thinking: ‘no-one talks about this, I have the secret knowledge, and you thoughtless consumers of “MSM*” don't’. It’s an attractive perspective: it's cool to be in the gang, one of the outsiders.

The Rest is History on the rise of Putin. All four episodes are recommended but if you only try one make it the the third on the collapse of the USSR. After the economic carnage of the Yeltsin period and how this affected the Russian people - 70% living below the poverty line - "strongmen" like Putin become attractive. It also reinforced Putin's own beliefs that democracy and openness are a disaster.

Speculation: if Putin is on long-term corticosteroids for a serious medical condition (has that look and being immunosuppressed is one explanation for the extreme caution about covid) he may be in a hurry to make his mark and emulate his two empire-building heroes Stalin and Peter the Great.

*If Brand has 5 million followers he is the MSM.

[mrjonathanr]

However, I prefer to take my cues from people that have been thinking and writing about this stuff for more than the last two weeks.

😀 cf Cowboy hat’s post.

Regarding Obama’s success in enforcing the chemical weapons ‘red line’, a quick Wikipedia search throws up the following.

On August 20, 2012, President Barack Obama used the phrase "red line"[27] in reference to the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war, saying, "We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation." The phrase became a source of contention when political opponent John McCain said the red line was "apparently written in disappearing ink," due to the perception the red line had been crossed with no action

TLDR talk is cheap

[chris j]

I found this an interesting read today...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/11/was-it-inevitable-a-short-history-of-russias-war-on-ukraine

[slab_happy]

If anyone's got good, usable-condition kit like sleeping bags and first aid kits they'd like to donate, Alpkit are helping collect it and get it where it's needed:

https://alpkit.com/blogs/news/how-we-can-support-ukraine

The most efficient thing to donate is always money (DEC are solid: https://donation.dec.org.uk/ukraine-humanitarian-appeal ), but if you've got kit you don't need lying around, they can really use it.

[slab_happy]

Wow -- a photo which I suspect may in its turn end up in a history book:

https://twitter.com/BDMurray/status/1502026508679979013

Found a tank trap at a roadblock in Kyiv today with a plaque indicating that it's a WW2 antique brought out from a museum exhibit.

[GrandBTard]

Support Ukraine here

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=azov+battalion&crid=1GDH5QFP7AL3D&sprefix=azov%2Caps%2C747&ref=nb_sb_ss_ts-doa-p_1_4

With all the latest Azov battalion merch. Mugs and Tee’s 😍