Boris has aspirations of emulating Churchill, when the irony is that he's more likely to be found dead in his bunker.
Russia ‘must fail and be seen to fail’ if it invades Ukraine, says Johnson - is the most worrying of statements issued so far.
Because, for Johnson, Russia being "seen to fail" is nothing to do with what would lead to a better situation in the longer term (think post Versailles), and all about putting people in their place.
Consider, for instance, if any of those people whom covid legislation applied to were seen to break the rules, then he'd want them to be seen to be punished for presuming a degree of entitlement beyond their station.
What we need is for Russia to not invade Ukraine, not to put her in her place.
It's a ridiculous and damaging rhetoric, which is more about Boris' posturing (along with his other allusions to WWII) than it is a route to more diplomacy.
Yes, I'm aware of that. But the rhetoric of "being seen to have failed" is dangerous nonsense.
Are we now going to suddenly start giving Boris credibility?
Yes, I'm aware of that. But the rhetoric of "being seen to have failed" is dangerous nonsense.
Are we now going to suddenly start giving Boris credibility?
Your conception of dangerous nonsense is 'interesting', and your lack of any ire for Russia's action is notable.
Bullies push until they hit resistance - in this case of Russian bullying the only 'sensible' resistance open to the West is economic rather than overtly violent. But severe economic sanctions on Russia are self-harming to all of us - when you deal with the devil in a global marketplace etc... Fertiliser production, heating, manufacturing input costs, any number of downstream harmful consequences will result for us as a result of harming Russia's exports. Especially in this moment of attempted energy transition and market volatility after recovery from a pandemic.
There'll no doubt be some covert violence involved too. If Russia invade the whole of Ukraine, then nobody should be surprised when the West's long-term outlook changes to using background means to turn Ukraine into Russia's next 'Afghanistan' (if Russia hadn't already had one Afghanistan). Hence potential for making it the worst conflict in Europe since WWII. It's win-win for a leader who doesn't care much for human rights and a bit of 'dangerous nonsense'.
Don't worry you'll still be able to call Boris an ass despite bigger assholes in the world doing bad things.
Yes, I'm aware of that. But the rhetoric of "being seen to have failed" is dangerous nonsense.
Are we now going to suddenly start giving Boris credibility?
Your conception of dangerous nonsense is 'interesting', and your lack of any ire for Russia's action is notable.
Have to say I am with DT on this. No one sane doubts the need to stand up to Russian pressure but Johnson is about as far away from being all over the detail and heeding expert advice as it is possible to be. Wholly unsuited to managing any crisis.
I fully believe he’d push to commit troops if he thought it would reflect well on him, without the slightest interest in or grasp of possible consequences. If that sounds harsh, the only evidence I can offer is his entire career. Of course, he may prove shrewd and prudent, but past behaviour does not point that way. This has nothing to do with domestic politics, but he is the last leader I want to hear spouting about this crisis.
At the moment the main problem is his unwillingness to actively do something to stand up to Putin, such as clamp down on dirty money invested in London by Putin’s supporters, undoubtedly because of the number of the Tory party donors this would hit.
Generally, I think he’s a fool prone to impulsive and self serving behaviour. For that reason predicting his behaviour is difficult, given policy is often made on the hoof. I’d rather have someone with good sense and capacity for strategic thinking in charge. Wouldn’t you Pete?
I agree these sanctions are a bit light but I don't think it's as simple as is portrayed. If the govt hits Putin with everything now then they have nothing up their sleeve as and when things escalate. Hitting him with the full package of sanctions now would put Putin in "free spin" situation; he won't accept full sanctions simply for control of a section of Ukraine he already de facto controlled. It might make him more likely to try and take the whole country.
I agree these sanctions are a bit light but I don't think it's as simple as is portrayed. If the govt hits Putin with everything now then they have nothing up their sleeve as and when things escalate. Hitting him with the full package of sanctions now would put Putin in "free spin" situation; he won't accept full sanctions simply for control of a section of Ukraine he already de facto controlled. It might make him more likely to try and take the whole country.
I think it’s just weak and will be read as such. Treading lightly around Putin is no excuse for allowing Russian dirty money the freedom of the city, should have been dealt with years ago.
The difficulty, Spiders and PJH, or the problem is that I really don't think Boris' brain focusses on the wider consequences. I really don't, which is what worries me about his rhetoric.
I also think he lacks the critical awareness to work as strategically as is required. I think people underestimate where his focus really lies, and the possible unintended consequences of that.
All rather a moot point this morning.
All rather a moot point this morning.
All rather a moot point this morning.
Indeed. Not a lot restricting the assets of Russians in London will do now.
Dave, what?This is true and as I said, I think that has been actively encouraged.
Putin invades a European country and you're worried that Boris might be seen "saying the right thing". If Johnson says Putin should fail and be seen to fail then I can't but completely agree. He can fail from a great height onto a big spike for all I care.
For what it's worth I don't think there will be any UK military intervention. War with Russia is the last thing on the electorate's mind and, as much as liberal-minded UKB might despair, Ukraine is not a country that the electorate feels any particular kinship with.
Dave, what?
Putin invades a European country and you're worried that Boris might be seen "saying the right thing". If Johnson says Putin should fail and be seen to fail then I can't but completely agree. He can fail from a great height onto a big spike for all I care.
For what it's worth I don't think there will be any UK military intervention. War with Russia is the last thing on the electorate's mind and, as much as liberal-minded UKB might despair, Ukraine is not a country that the electorate feels any particular kinship with.
Dave, it’s not about ‘Boris’, ‘Starmer’, or any other British politician who you may have a caricature of in your imagination. How can you be so stupid, crass and inward-looking.
Maybe a topic split? Russia/Ukraine might derail any other political chat in this thread for a while - it doesn't sound like it'll be disappearing any time soon :(I don’t know, just because many people are suddenly remembering that our politics and political priorities don’t actually stop at Dover, doesn’t seem like a reasonable argument for separating aspects of reality that will certainly have huge bearing on each other.
I feel like the end game here is for Russia to annex another small portion of Ukraine, I’m not so sure they’ll attempt a full annexation of the country due to difficulty’s similar to Afghanistan (west arming rebels and the army) - on top of this there’s been lots of murmurs of Russian officers abandoning posts and defecting so we’ll see if this ends up becoming a bigger thing.
My guess is that we won’t see anything other than strict sanctions against energy and banking for Russia and continuation of arms supplies via back channels to the Ukrainian army.
It’s actually incredible that Dugin’s Foundations of Geopolitics includes a section on Ukraine that reads “ Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because "Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness, its certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics". Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.[9]”
A twitter thread here (https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1496752076335947778) documenting some of the violence at the start of the Russia-Ukranian War of 2022. There will be many more threads like this. Devastating.
A twitter thread here (https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1496752076335947778) documenting some of the violence at the start of the Russia-Ukranian War of 2022. There will be many more threads like this. Devastating.
Not a big fan of these accounts, a lot of them are detailing movements of Ukrainian troops etc which is a big no no.
I feel like the end game here is for Russia to annex another small portion of Ukraine, I’m not so sure they’ll attempt a full annexation of the country due to difficulty’s similar to Afghanistan (west arming rebels and the army) - on top of this there’s been lots of murmurs of Russian officers abandoning posts and defecting so we’ll see if this ends up becoming a bigger thing.
My guess is that we won’t see anything other than strict sanctions against energy and banking for Russia and continuation of arms supplies via back channels to the Ukrainian army.
It’s actually incredible that Dugin’s Foundations of Geopolitics includes a section on Ukraine that reads “ Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because "Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness, its certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics". Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.[9]”
I don't agree with the posts calling Ukraine a mistake. I don't think the people of Ukraine would agree with this sentiment either.
https://www.netflix.com/search?q=winter%20on%20fire&jbv=80031666
How else would they have been able to live in a democratic nation ?
I don't agree with the posts calling Ukraine a mistake. I don't think the people of Ukraine would agree with this sentiment either.
https://www.netflix.com/search?q=winter%20on%20fire&jbv=80031666
How else would they have been able to live in a democratic nation ?
Doesn't seem to have phased David Davis on twitter, who has called for air support for Ukraine. I think it's notable that I saw this reported on The Guardian site first and the article now appears to have been removed.
Anyway, Putin has promised some dire consequences on everyone else if they dare to interfere, so I should imagine there are some stressed teams trying to work out where he’s hidden the nukes in various Western capitals…
It’s still up on many sites and he’s not alone:Doesn't seem to have phased David Davis on twitter, who has called for air support for Ukraine. I think it's notable that I saw this reported on The Guardian site first and the article now appears to have been removed.
Anyway, Putin has promised some dire consequences on everyone else if they dare to interfere, so I should imagine there are some stressed teams trying to work out where he’s hidden the nukes in various Western capitals…
I think there's more to it than naked neo-Imperialism on Putin's part tbh. If you frame it from the perspective of a nation which suffered from a catastrophic but ultimately unsuccessful invasion, which took the lives of tens of millions of citizens, perhaps having a buffer zone might seem more reasonable.
Honestly, you might as well brand France a “mistake” (because it has one of the least cohesive histories in Europe, though it it primarily representative of a fairly typically evolution of a European country).
It’s still up on many sites and he’s not alone:Doesn't seem to have phased David Davis on twitter, who has called for air support for Ukraine. I think it's notable that I saw this reported on The Guardian site first and the article now appears to have been removed.
Anyway, Putin has promised some dire consequences on everyone else if they dare to interfere, so I should imagine there are some stressed teams trying to work out where he’s hidden the nukes in various Western capitals…
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/davis-ellwood-nato-russia-ukraine-b2022259.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/davis-ellwood-nato-russia-ukraine-b2022259.html)
Unlikely.
Apologies wellsy I read you're post a bit quick there..
And a lot of the US was brought up thinking of "those darned Soviets / Russkis" as being the big bad enemy, so won't take much to reignite that.
What’s the deal with Chernobyl? I had assumed there must be an active power station there next to the ‘80’s clusterfuck, but it doesn’t appear so?Lots of uranium for more bombs. :-\
Also, what happens if Russia “takes” Ukraine and puts in a pro-Russian government?
Obviously the west wouldn’t recognise it. But then what? More sanctions?
The exclusion zone is a long, protected corridor, deep into Ukraine; where they cannot be fired upon, since that would stir up radioactive soil etc.What’s the deal with Chernobyl? I had assumed there must be an active power station there next to the ‘80’s clusterfuck, but it doesn’t appear so?Lots of uranium for more bombs. :-\
Chernobyl and the north
A Ukrainian presidential adviser said Ukraine had lost control of the Chernobyl nuclear site in the north, where fighting raged after Russian troops crossed the border from Belarus. The adviser said authorities did not know the current condition of the facilities at the site of the world’s worst nuclear disaster.
Ukraine’s interior ministry warned that if artillery fire was to hit waste stored after the 1986 disaster, it could lead to “radioactive nuclear dust” being spread “over the territory of Ukraine, Belarus and the countries of the EU”.
The Chernobyl exclusion zone lies directly in the path of what western experts believe is the principal invasion route from Belarus to the west of Kyiv, where Ukraine’s presidential palace and key buildings are located.
And a lot of the US was brought up thinking of "those darned Soviets / Russkis" as being the big bad enemy, so won't take much to reignite that.
Not so much any more. Trump, lavishly praising Putin in speeches in the last few days, helped by Tucker Carlson and others in the "conservative" media-sphere, has so utterly corrupted Republican politics than loyalty to Russia and Putin is now a necessary mark of loyalty to Trump. President Zelensky is simply the weasel who wouldn't do Trump's bidding. As to elected Republican politicians, literally their own framing of this is as a means for partisan attacks on Biden. They have zero sense of greater American interests.
It’s 1938/39 all over again, and really depressing how the EU won’t even stop them having SWIFT access, the one sanction that would bite….reason it would hurt their own economy too….
I’d be furious if I was in Ukraine about to lose my democracy
NATO going to war in Ukraine isn't really an option. It would mean war between NATO and Russia. That's in nobody's interest, not even the Ukrainians, who I presume would not like to see nukes flying overhead
What should have happened is that in 2014 we got them under the NATO umbrella. That would have agitated Moscow but what can they do about it? Not much.
My knowledge on this kind of thing is pretty embarrassing. Is Ukraine the equivalent of Czechoslovakia back in 38/39? I.e. Whilst condemning the current invasion, we’re not going to war over it. Almost like the appeasement policy in 38/39?
And it will take the invasion of another, NATO, country (like Hitler invading Poland) before the West is drawn into war?
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
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..
Cockroaches will survive. Apparently.
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!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?
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.
Within the little world that is climbing, the IFSC must cancel the upcoming competition in Moscow (https://www.ifsc-climbing.org/index.php/component/ifsc/?view=event&WetId=1232). 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 (https://www.instagram.com/p/CaWnlEgBpj6/) earlier today.
That’s a little harsh.I completely get where you are coming from, the threat is very real!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?
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.
No paths from here are good. But mankind only has to be wrong about the intentions of a despot with nuclear weapons once.
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.
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…
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 😄
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.
I completely get where you are coming from, the threat is very real!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?
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.
No paths from here are good. But mankind only has to be wrong about the intentions of a despot with nuclear weapons once.
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.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.
In what respect?
That’s a little harsh.
Yup, he’s got nuclear weapons and has, pretty clearly, threatened to use them.Two things.
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…
QuoteIn what respect?
That’s a little harsh.QuoteYup, he’s got nuclear weapons and has, pretty clearly, threatened to use them.Two things.
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…
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.
BonjoyIt depends on whether my intervention might result in everyone on planet earth ending up dead (including the small guy I'm looking to help).
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?
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?
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)?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.
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.
Thanks for clarifying. It's the calls for no fly zones (aka shooting down Russian jets in Ukraine) etc that cause me the most concern.QuoteIn what respect?
That’s a little harsh.QuoteYup, he’s got nuclear weapons and has, pretty clearly, threatened to use them.Two things.
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…
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.
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.
I suspect your line ends up similar to mine in the end Jim, still shit though since it basically boils down to "we'll kick the big guy in the head if you're our mate, but we'll let him fuck you up if you're the new kid in school"... which is quite pragmatic, and probably what most people would do in that analogy, but also kinda weak. The type of thing most of us would do and then be ashamed about afterwards...
BonjoyIt depends on whether my intervention might result in everyone on planet earth ending up dead (including the small guy I'm looking to help).
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?
I completely get where you are coming from, the threat is very real!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?
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.
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?
Stalin either starved out, or shipped out entire populations to the Siberian wastes…I completely get where you are coming from, the threat is very real!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?
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.
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?
I mean we are all a bit scared of the idea of nuclear war, yes. I think probably the Ukrainians would not be exactly better off if that happened even given the shit situation they're in now.
Incidentally I think Putin is stupid if he things he can actually subdue the majority of Ukraine long term. This invasion has fired up their desire to turn away from Russia, not destroyed it.
Some more reflections on the extent of uk pandering to London based kleptocrats:The thing is, we all* know about the Oligarchs and how they “own” our government etc. Yet, we¹ never even grumble very loudly. It’s amazing that we² haven’t done anything and I³ don’t understand why everybody⁴ isn’t out in the streets baying for blood.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/25/tories-oligarchs-london-government-putin-donations
It’s a big ‘if’, but if Ukraine’s resistance were robust enough to cause Russia’s momentum to stall then I wonder if an appetite will emerge in western countries for a something similar to what happened in Spain in the 1930s civil war - that conflict like now was such an obvious struggle against oppression that it attracted ‘international brigades’ of unassociated soldiers. An extra 5-10,000 motivated people, willingly equipped by the west with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons (unlike Syria where the west discouraged outside combatants), could make things very difficult for Putin to get all he wants. If I’m thinking it then no doubt many others are too. All depends if Russia can swiftly overrun the Ukrainians or if they get bogged down. You’d expect the former.just looking at the time lines and reports of Russian casualties, I think this has already cost significantly more than Putin would have expected. Russia doesn’t have enough resources to sustain this for very long (militarily, there is a big difference between “has X hundred main battle tanks” and “has X hundred operational, modern, main battle tanks”.
This move seems deeply unpopular within Russia, I think if reports of atrocities against unarmed combatants started being circulated then it might be the straw that breaks the camels back.
I was thinking today that ideally the solution to all of this would come from within Russia itself.
I don’t know if that would be in the form of a coup d'état or Russia having to withdraw troops to quell significant civil unrest.
Maybe if Russians on the street get wind of how hard these sanctions are going to hit them in six months to a years time then the latter isn’t unthinkable :-\
Is there any gauge of the popularity if these actions in Russia? So hard to cut through the state sponsored stuff. I don’t really have a grasp of how popular Putin is in general, and how easily he would be removed.
They’ve always been Putin supporters, if unwittingly. I remember the last Antivax Dan avatar on here, the only thing he mentioned other than the pandemic was Syria. And of course his line on Syria was Putin’s line.
It’s a big ‘if’, but if Ukraine’s resistance were robust enough to cause Russia’s momentum to stall then I wonder if an appetite will emerge in western countries for a something similar to what happened in Spain in the 1930s civil war - that conflict like now was such an obvious struggle against oppression that it attracted ‘international brigades’ of unassociated soldiers. An extra 5-10,000 motivated people, willingly equipped by the west with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons (unlike Syria where the west discouraged outside combatants), could make things very difficult for Putin to get all he wants. If I’m thinking it then no doubt many others are too. All depends if Russia can swiftly overrun the Ukrainians or if they get bogged down. You’d expect the former.
It’s a big ‘if’, but if Ukraine’s resistance were robust enough to cause Russia’s momentum to stall then I wonder if an appetite will emerge in western countries for a something similar to what happened in Spain in the 1930s civil war - that conflict like now was such an obvious struggle against oppression that it attracted ‘international brigades’ of unassociated soldiers. An extra 5-10,000 motivated people, willingly equipped by the west with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons (unlike Syria where the west discouraged outside combatants), could make things very difficult for Putin to get all he wants. If I’m thinking it then no doubt many others are too. All depends if Russia can swiftly overrun the Ukrainians or if they get bogged down. You’d expect the former.
I’ve actually not been following this all day, just sat down for awhile to catch up, after the days activities. Apparently, quite a few formers have been heading out to Ukraine already, I believe, under the banner of “Western Volunteers” and armed by Western Nations.
https://www.instagram.com/tv/Cac75ikJruA/?utm_medium=share_sheet (https://www.instagram.com/tv/Cac75ikJruA/?utm_medium=share_sheet)
Stalin either starved out, or shipped out entire populations to the Siberian wastes…I completely get where you are coming from, the threat is very real!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?
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.
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?
I mean we are all a bit scared of the idea of nuclear war, yes. I think probably the Ukrainians would not be exactly better off if that happened even given the shit situation they're in now.
Incidentally I think Putin is stupid if he things he can actually subdue the majority of Ukraine long term. This invasion has fired up their desire to turn away from Russia, not destroyed it.
I'll say this as well I'm quite impressed by Zelensky too. Broadcasting from the streets of Kyiv, making some great speeches, stuck around to lead and organise the Ukrainian fight, very active diplomatically and securing lots of arms and aid. He seems to have a lot of energy and fire for someone who must have a profoundly shit job right now.
Yes, I think he is aware of his limited life expectancy too and the effect his martyrdom would have going forward. I suppose he understands an audience (not to diminish what appears to be genuine bravery) in a way that Putin does not and cannot. I imagine Zelensky is already developing a fan base within the discontented across Russia’s sphere of influence and even within the country itself.
It must be highly probable that Putin has sown the seeds of his own demise here.
It must be highly probable that Putin has sown the seeds of his own demise here.
Yeah, I wondered if China’s tepid, not quite, support of Russia; had far more to do with ultimate economic exploitation of Russia, down the line. They share a border, so embargos and sanctions, could be quietly ignored.
Yes, I think he is aware of his limited life expectancy too and the effect his martyrdom would have going forward. I suppose he understands an audience (not to diminish what appears to be genuine bravery) in a way that Putin does not and cannot. I imagine Zelensky is already developing a fan base within the discontented across Russia’s sphere of influence and even within the country itself.
It must be highly probable that Putin has sown the seeds of his own demise here.
Zelensky is a very brave man whose example is going to be an ongoing source of inspiration. Amazing. I suspect Putin is headed towards a Pyrrhic victory, where Russia’s future looks weakened and highly dependent on China, both diplomatically and economically.
Yeah, I wondered if China’s tepid, not quite, support of Russia; had far more to do with ultimate economic exploitation of Russia, down the line. They share a border, so embargos and sanctions, could be quietly ignored.
Yes, I think he is aware of his limited life expectancy too and the effect his martyrdom would have going forward. I suppose he understands an audience (not to diminish what appears to be genuine bravery) in a way that Putin does not and cannot. I imagine Zelensky is already developing a fan base within the discontented across Russia’s sphere of influence and even within the country itself.
It must be highly probable that Putin has sown the seeds of his own demise here.
Zelensky is a very brave man whose example is going to be an ongoing source of inspiration. Amazing. I suspect Putin is headed towards a Pyrrhic victory, where Russia’s future looks weakened and highly dependent on China, both diplomatically and economically.
Not convinced China cares as much about Taiwan as we think. Surely it’s a, mildly irritating, mosquito to the Middle Kingdom and doesn’t really keep them up at night?
Edit, since I just recalled the “Middle Kingdom” idiom.
Things are starting to spiral dangerously now I think, who knows where this is leading.
As has been said, unfortunately I think Putin is now fighting mainly to save face which for a man like him it would seem can only end two ways.
An interesting take on the historical background to the conflict, that also contains some alarming nuggets of insight into Putin’s mental state (if true):
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/06/russia-and-ukraine-are-trapped-in-medieval-myths/?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits&fbclid=IwAR3JPtGrgtZ1ENHnj6Tuao9iCF-lXF6ys3X5ufoMhwDMVzd1dxPL3vo_6BQ (https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/06/russia-and-ukraine-are-trapped-in-medieval-myths/?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits&fbclid=IwAR3JPtGrgtZ1ENHnj6Tuao9iCF-lXF6ys3X5ufoMhwDMVzd1dxPL3vo_6BQ)
Oh yeah, by the way, we have absolutely entered the Twilight Zone and TikTok is officially the most fucked up part of it all. I give you the “Battle Influencers”:
https://twitter.com/joshuapotash/status/1498332884121399307?s=21 (https://twitter.com/joshuapotash/status/1498332884121399307?s=21)
*that last bit is humour, by the way, in case it wasn’t obvious. I think Ukrainians have more important things on their minds. The vid is doing the rounds though, so perhaps it will help🤷♂️.
Interesting thread on Russian strategic choices and preparation:
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1497993363076915204
I guess the question now is whether the Russians will do a Grozny or Aleppo on a major European city. God forbid.
One nation will receive global support and aid, one, will not.
The Ukrainians are certainly giving the Russians a headache and holding their feet to the fire:
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CaiHLjFp-ZX/?utm_medium=copy_link (https://www.instagram.com/tv/CaiHLjFp-ZX/?utm_medium=copy_link)
Yes, the TikTok vid was a “joke”. Poor taste, I know, my only defence is that I am military and we’re all a bit odd.
One nation will receive global support and aid, one, will not.
The Ukrainians are certainly giving the Russians a headache and holding their feet to the fire:
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CaiHLjFp-ZX/?utm_medium=copy_link (https://www.instagram.com/tv/CaiHLjFp-ZX/?utm_medium=copy_link)
Yes, the TikTok vid was a “joke”. Poor taste, I know, my only defence is that I am military and we’re all a bit odd.
That's another problem of course isn't it, but necessary in the shorter term. Some sources are claiming that support in Russia for the action is as low as 10%.
The Twitter video post/reference isn't something you need to defend. How many people check the stats first? Also, the mood on the ground in terms of morale is as much valued commentary as anything else (when it isn't a year out of date ;D ).
Interesting also to consider how other "economies" are affected by the crisis - including how that affects the independence of reporting.
Nobody is going to win this war. Certainly not Russia which will see hyperinflation and complete economic collapse. Certainly not Ukraine which will see enormous loss of civilian lives and medium to large size loss of territory.
People proposing a no fly zone are batshit. Thankfully there is currently only a very small chance of it happening, which is just as well.
Different situation I suppose though and maybe Putin is less stable than the leaders of Russia at that time.
It is pretty clear to me that Kiev, with 3 million inhabitants will be razed to the ground. Why else would there be a 40 miles long convoy of tanks and artillery heading towards a city of no particular military value? Hundreds of thousands of civilian lives will be lost.
It is pretty clear to me that Kiev, with 3 million inhabitants will be razed to the ground. Why else would there be a 40 miles long convoy of tanks and artillery heading towards a city of no particular military value? Hundreds of thousands of civilian lives will be lost.
Worth reflecting on the similarities between what happened in Georgia, and the calls for help from the west by Zelenskyy.(https://i.ibb.co/MNQr5Ld/5-A86480-B-5-C29-46-A1-9-D80-E1-C4-ADCFDC9-B.jpg)
@ 17'
https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4
It's very easy for us to accept the polarising arguments of freedom vs oppression.
It's important to be remember how selective we can be when listening to impassioned pleas from our side of that divide.
Help for the humanitarian crisis can't afford to be seen to be flying a flag of either colour.
It's also important to think seriously about how useful it is for us to be able to paint the crisis in such a polarised way. How interested are we genuinely in the humanitarian impact.
I'm not talking about how "you and I" feel in response, but in the arguments we accept.
The argument that NATO should not intervene because of risk of 3rd world war/nuclear annihilation makes no sense to me. That’s pretty much an admission that remaining NATO countries will not intervene if Poland, or more likely Lithuania is attacked. If Ukrainian lives are not worth the risk, surely no civilian lives are worth the risk.
If the argument is that NATO should never intervene when non-NATO members (like Sweden or Finland) are attacked, then this should be clearly spelled out.
Worth reflecting on the similarities between what happened in Georgia, and the calls for help from the west by Zelenskyy.(https://i.ibb.co/MNQr5Ld/5-A86480-B-5-C29-46-A1-9-D80-E1-C4-ADCFDC9-B.jpg)
@ 17'
https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4
It's very easy for us to accept the polarising arguments of freedom vs oppression.
It's important to be remember how selective we can be when listening to impassioned pleas from our side of that divide.
Help for the humanitarian crisis can't afford to be seen to be flying a flag of either colour.
It's also important to think seriously about how useful it is for us to be able to paint the crisis in such a polarised way. How interested are we genuinely in the humanitarian impact.
I'm not talking about how "you and I" feel in response, but in the arguments we accept.
What Wellsy said. One can be unconvinced about the morals of NATO in defending some countries but not others, but that's the point of joining the alliance. Its currently working exactly as it was designed to.
Worth reflecting on the similarities between what happened in Georgia, and the calls for help from the west by Zelenskyy.(https://i.ibb.co/MNQr5Ld/5-A86480-B-5-C29-46-A1-9-D80-E1-C4-ADCFDC9-B.jpg)
@ 17'
https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4
It's very easy for us to accept the polarising arguments of freedom vs oppression.
It's important to be remember how selective we can be when listening to impassioned pleas from our side of that divide.
Help for the humanitarian crisis can't afford to be seen to be flying a flag of either colour.
It's also important to think seriously about how useful it is for us to be able to paint the crisis in such a polarised way. How interested are we genuinely in the humanitarian impact.
I'm not talking about how "you and I" feel in response, but in the arguments we accept.
Much of that is a given Matt, of course.
But the "Whys", "Hows" and the consequences, are the questions, and where changes can be made, with or without historical reference.
First you had Zelenskyy pleading for assistance from the West, and then saying goodbye.
Did you watch all of the Chicago talk Matt?
Did you watch all of the Chicago talk Matt?
Yeah.
But I’m old and jaded. I just hear angst and “what if” etc. With a lot of “if only” and hindsight.
Nothing that isn’t “true”, it’s just pointless when you have to deal with the current reality.
I’m not sure where Matt’s comments about historical analysis being ignored comes from: most politicians are keen students of history, to the extent that even in this shitty cabinet there is a history PhD holder.
Worth reflecting on the similarities between what happened in Georgia, and the calls for help from the west by Zelenskyy.
@ 17'
https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4
It's very easy for us to accept the polarising arguments of freedom vs oppression.
It's important to be remember how selective we can be when listening to impassioned pleas from our side of that divide.
Help for the humanitarian crisis can't afford to be seen to be flying a flag of either colour.
It's also important to think seriously about how useful it is for us to be able to paint the crisis in such a polarised way. How interested are we genuinely in the humanitarian impact.
I'm not talking about how "you and I" feel in response, but in the arguments we accept.
And finally DT a couple of articles directly countering your man's 'realism' theories. My view roughly aligns with those expressed in these two articles. I think your reasoning is deeply flawed, and totally ignorant of the agency of populations in those countries being subjected to aggression.
The realism theories you're espousing and some of the madder 'stop the war coalition' views bring to mind the attitude 'she got hit/raped/murdered because they brought it on themselves by antagonising their abuser'. Of course the abuser in this case is a nuclear power so nothing is that simplistic.
'Realism theories':
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/03/03/can-realism-explain-war-ukraine/
'Westsplaining'
https://newrepublic.com/article/165603/carlson-russia-ukraine-imperialism-nato
It pissed me off to hear Mearsheimer's dropping the dog-whistle for leftists: 'Ukraine contains fascists'. A dog whistle to distract attention onto Ukraine and away from the *genuinely* fascist mafia-state of Putin's Russia -
The crossover now, into areas such as the “wellness” crowd etc of (what is actually) far right ideology is incredible. I’ve watched quite a few “hippie” magic crystal/yoga cures herpes types descend into raging anti-vax conspiracy theory nutters over the course of the pandemic. Not in my own social media bubble, but t definitely in my partner’s feed. One, in particular who is now touting that Putin vs the Illuminati line.It pissed me off to hear Mearsheimer's dropping the dog-whistle for leftists: 'Ukraine contains fascists'. A dog whistle to distract attention onto Ukraine and away from the *genuinely* fascist mafia-state of Putin's Russia -
Those dog whistles are certainly there, but I'm not sure they are only, or even primarily, intended for leftists (generally. I've no idea who Mearsheimer intended it for). Certainly the principal source for the "Ukraine is Nazi" is Russia itself (a fascist state, as you rightly say Pete) and the far/alt right, who are also responsible for circulating it through conspiracy theory sites/groups to conspiracy vulnerable audiences, whether left or right or no clear politics. We've all seen a proliferation of Putin fan boys over the last couple of weeks, often people who were anti-vax. I've seen people then talking about Putin standing up to the New World Order (a far right dog whistle if ever there was one) or linking videos on Bitchute. Some of these people think they're on the left but have become shills for the right. Basically, in this quadrant of the political spectrum I'm not sure left/right labels make much sense any more. None of this is to deny there is an audience for some of this stuff on parts of the left (e.g. parts of Stop the War).
“Ukraine falls, and it will, it is the end of the New World Order,” wrote someone on that Telegram channel. “Believe it or not, Putin is a white hat and working to take down satanists, corruption, bio weapons sites, and the New World Order,” wrote another. “Mainstream media is not your friend.”
It's very easy to polarize a crisis like this.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7dqem/putin-new-world-order-ukraine-conspiracyQuote“Ukraine falls, and it will, it is the end of the New World Order,” wrote someone on that Telegram channel. “Believe it or not, Putin is a white hat and working to take down satanists, corruption, bio weapons sites, and the New World Order,” wrote another. “Mainstream media is not your friend.”
Was that one of your investor bros, Pete?!
It's very easy to polarize a crisis like this.
Sometimes with good reason.
It's very easy to polarize a crisis like this.
We have a lot more invested in this crisis than we admit in my opinion, and the piece in the Guardian puts things quite well too.
You'll know about it later this year when your coffee, pasta and bread cost-increases start to resemble that of your gas bill.Wheat flour is traded daily globally and prices fluctuate daily, you may know. It has been so unstable this week that some major companies have been unable to quote prices to their customers.
I think to get the message across then you have to treat Russia as one entity and then perhaps the populace will take a stand.Despite the logic to that, it's becoming increasingly difficult:
Putin's empire building is enabled by Russia being able to take advantage of its status as a commodity superpower .. Over reliance on Putin's Russia for commodities, as much as anything the 'west have done wrong to provoke Russia', is the enabler of conflict here.
We can either work towards better relations in Europe and around the world, or create division.
The former was something that Putin wanted
and implies that this is all about empire building, defending against Putin the Great.
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?
We can either work towards better relations in Europe and around the world, or create division.1990 would have been an excellent time to push harder for this. But we are here, today, and the Russian attack in Ukraine is both unprovoked and targeted on civilians. Think about it; currently the targets of Russian bombs are unarmed women and children. These are war crimes. If extensive and deliberate strategy, crimes against humanity.
We can either work towards better relations in Europe and around the world, or create division.1990 would have been an excellent time to push harder for this. But we are here, today, and the Russian attack in Ukraine is both unprovoked and targeted on civilians. Think about it; currently the targets of Russian bombs are unarmed women and children. These are war crimes. If extensive and deliberate strategy, crimes against humanity.
There’s no room for moral ambiguity in that. We need cool heads to make policy decisions, unswayed by emotion, but if those actions can’t be classed as evil, what can?
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.
Would be interesting to know the full extent of this.
https://youtu.be/RZgogqVYJOo
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.
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.
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?".
What do you think Nato should do?
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.
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.
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.
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 whether you think enough artillery can avoid Ukraine becoming another Afghanistan.
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.
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.
Also, Putin did seek better relations with the EU/NATO.
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
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 Sean said. Also:A strongly worded letter to the Guardian…
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?
As regards Putin seeking better relations with the EU and NATO, the media was full of it - unless anyone had their earplugs in.
As regards Putin seeking better relations with the EU and NATO, the media was full of it - unless anyone had their earplugs in.
I clearly had my earplugs in, so please help me out here with some examples. I can’t remember any so not sure what to look for, but since they were in the media it’ll be but the work of a jiffy to post some links.
Even on a skim read that blog has some serious contradictions in it. On the one hand, it says Russians and Ukrainians are one people, on the other, that Ukraine was cobbled together by Stalin and has no coherent identity. If they are one people....
As regards Putin seeking better relations with the EU and NATO, the media was full of it - unless anyone had their earplugs in.
I clearly had my earplugs in, so please help me out here with some examples. I can’t remember any so not sure what to look for, but since they were in the media it’ll be but the work of a jiffy to post some links.
Or you could just have a look yourself Sean.
From OMM:
"This isn’t a diplomatic crisis.." - all war is a diplomatic crisis.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2022/03/02/a-diplomatic-solution-to-the-war-in-ukraine/
Even on a skim read that blog has some serious contradictions in it. On the one hand, it says Russians and Ukrainians are one people, on the other, that Ukraine was cobbled together by Stalin and has no coherent identity. If they are one people....
If I'm honest it reads like it was written by an apologist for Putin at worst, and at best it smacks of victim blaming.
I find myself wondering how you can so emphatically want to understand and sympathise with Russia's grievances without displaying equal effort to understand and sympathise with the west's and Ukraine's grievances.
I feel greatly for the position the Ukrainians are in, and Zelensky. That's obvious from my own posts.
I feel greatly for the position the Ukrainians are in, and Zelensky. That's obvious from my own posts.
OK fair enough I'd adjust that - you do acknowledge* Ukraine's plight. But your stance devalues their agency. It's bordering on impossible to take you seriously.
* although you don't mention 'the west' in your sentence - perhaps they're too guilty of provoking Russia for you?
That you cannot see that Putin is evil makes you utterly unserious on this topic.
Or you could just have a look yourself Sean.
Or you could just have a look yourself Sean.
It really doesn’t work like this. If you make an argument the onus is on you to bring some evidence to the table. That’s how discussion works. As it is you’re just looking shifty. All these questions with no answers, all these gnomic pronouncements. It’s just Dan Mark 2. David Danovich, maybe.
It’s just Dan Mark 2. David Danovich, maybe.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep22141?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Really interesting article on Russian National Identity and the Russia Ukraine Crisis.
I think it's really important to think about the different ways in which The West and Putin view the action.
Well worth a read. I understand that even suggesting that will brand me an apologist. :spank:
That's a good and laudable post JR, but it does cut both ways.
Every poster I've read has been trying to have a discussion and been met with a seemingly wilful refusal from Dave to either speak with any clarity or provide any evidence. Hardly surprising people get wound up!
All that said, I do agree that a return to the topic would be preferable, and that it's a forum for discussion.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep22141?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contentsChill Dave, I explained why I thought the previous article you linked was flawed and probably biased, which is not the same as accusing you of the same. Perhaps some of the rancour on here got to you, so I forgive your waspishness.
Really interesting article on Russian National Identity and the Russia Ukraine Crisis.
I think it's really important to think about the different ways in which The West and Putin view the action.
Well worth a read. I understand that even suggesting that will brand me an apologist. :spank:
No, you just want something to fight against. It's pathetic.
It's as though it's got nothing to do with the crisis in Ukraine.
I kind of read Dave's posts as suggesting that anyone who calls Putin a bad man has just been whipped up into a frenzy and has never tried to think about Russia more broadly, even if on a fairly basic level. Yeah, thought about it, read about it, still reckon his aims are illegitimate and his methods barbaric. Usually I prefer to refer to evil acts rather than being evil, but clearly there is a select club of humans who really are worthy of that description. Discussing whether Putin gets entry is somewhat trivial right now though.
Edit: didn't see Dave's post before writing the above and no wish to reply to most of it, but hopefully he can see that "That's just about being hostile for the sake of it" is way off the money.
I found this interesting, albeit bleak:
https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/03/03/how-does-this-end-pub-86570
I found this interesting, albeit bleak:
https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/03/03/how-does-this-end-pub-86570
This is all 'imo'.
Bleak, but imo based on an incorrect presumption - that Russia doesn't suffer unacceptably massive loses in the process.
From the link:
Judging from how things stand now, Putin, having invested so much in this war already, seems unlikely to settle for anything less than the complete subjugation of the Ukrainian government. If the current uneven pace of Russian military progress doesn’t accomplish the job, the most likely strategy for doing this is to make an example of a city like Kharkiv, leveling it as if it were Grozny or Aleppo, both cities that Russia has brutally destroyed in the recent past, and then threatening to burn Kyiv to the ground. He can accompany this with special forces attacks in the capital to disrupt the civilian population and sow further confusion and discontent. Ultimately, he needs at least to force the ouster of President Volodymyr Zelensky and his government.
Neither of those two things are achievable for Russia, without huge loses to their own forces simply because of the strength of resistance against Russia's aggression. This is for various reasons inc. the type of weaponry supplied by the west negating Russia's preferred option of using armour and airpower to crush resistance - instead tehir armour is being decimated by £20k Swedish/British missiles. Their' 'special forces' aren't very special and are being killed too. Hence why they're resorting to standing off and artillery destroying cities/towns from a distance. Flattening towns/cities isn't the same as taking over the country - it's destruction but not occupation. Ukraine's decision to resist (which I don't think is going to change) means Russia will simply never win on the ground without losing massive numbers of troops in fighting. Even for a mad toxic cunt like Putin it must reach a point of unacceptable cost, when taken along with the destruction of their economy. He can't be sitting alone without other powerful people in his ear starting to question the cost.
It was always looking to me that they wanted the eastern provinces as the minimum negotiating position, and try to go for broke by taking everything else as well. They've failed to take everything else by force and they'll continue failing despite making incremental gains which cost thousands more lives. They're slowly backsliding to the negotiating table and settling for the eastern provinces and some kind of talk of buffer neutrality. Putin will claim something along lines of 'total success in eliminating the terrorist threat to our borders and securing peace for Donbas' etc. Of course it's all complete bullshit it always has been. Zelensky would be mad not to accept losing the eastern regions versus suffering more destruction and loss of life, and imo this is what he'll agree to. He's also making noises about neutrality, makes complete sense to give up something you weren't going to get anyway for a very long time at least (nato membership). There sticking point will be who polices the border between them - some kind of UN observer force agreeable to both Russia and Ukraine, perhaps Turkish? Of course it's all cynical as fuck but it's all relative - when the other options look so terrible a formerly terrible option (giving up Donbas and designs on nato) starts to look much better.
Even for a mad toxic cunt like Putin it must reach a point of unacceptable cost, when taken along with the destruction of their economy. He can't be sitting alone without other powerful people in his ear starting to question the cost.
I found this interesting, albeit bleak:
https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/03/03/how-does-this-end-pub-86570
It was always looking to me that they wanted the eastern provinces as the minimum negotiating position, and try to go for broke by taking everything else as well. They've failed to take everything else by force and they'll continue failing despite making incremental gains which cost thousands more lives. They're slowly backsliding to the negotiating table and settling for the eastern provinces and some kind of talk of buffer neutrality. Putin will claim something along lines of 'total success in eliminating the terrorist threat to our borders and securing peace for Donbas' etc. Of course it's all complete bullshit it always has been. Zelensky would be mad not to accept losing the eastern regions versus suffering more destruction and loss of life, and imo this is what he'll agree to. He's also making noises about neutrality, makes complete sense to give up something you weren't going to get anyway for a very long time at least (nato membership). There sticking point will be who polices the border between them - some kind of UN observer force agreeable to both Russia and Ukraine, perhaps Turkish? Of course it's all cynical as fuck but it's all relative - when the other options look so terrible a formerly terrible option (giving up Donbas and designs on nato) starts to look much better.
I found this interesting, albeit bleak:
https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/03/03/how-does-this-end-pub-86570
It was always looking to me that they wanted the eastern provinces as the minimum negotiating position, and try to go for broke by taking everything else as well. They've failed to take everything else by force and they'll continue failing despite making incremental gains which cost thousands more lives. They're slowly backsliding to the negotiating table and settling for the eastern provinces and some kind of talk of buffer neutrality. Putin will claim something along lines of 'total success in eliminating the terrorist threat to our borders and securing peace for Donbas' etc. Of course it's all complete bullshit it always has been. Zelensky would be mad not to accept losing the eastern regions versus suffering more destruction and loss of life, and imo this is what he'll agree to. He's also making noises about neutrality, makes complete sense to give up something you weren't going to get anyway for a very long time at least (nato membership). There sticking point will be who polices the border between them - some kind of UN observer force agreeable to both Russia and Ukraine, perhaps Turkish? Of course it's all cynical as fuck but it's all relative - when the other options look so terrible a formerly terrible option (giving up Donbas and designs on nato) starts to look much better.
A few years ago I read the book 'Prisoners of Geography' which is very good and opens with Russia's obsession with Ukraine and Crimea. The premise being Ukraine is the only way an invader from the West would bring (has ever brought) a land army against Russia, and that Russia also needs Crimea for a 'warm water port' and so utilise the powers of their navy.
I wonder if Putin has always really been after a land corridor between Russia and Crimea through the Ukraine, including the Donbas region.
And then all the other stuff is a gung-ho attempt at taking it all, going for regime change (as he's been antsy ever since the pro-Russian government was ousted). If he is truly that cold and strategic, even if he fails at the above, it gives him a bargaining chip - he can leave Kyiv and remove all troops from the north of the country, but keep the territory that links Russia to Crimea.
https://scheerpost.com/2022/03/07/chris-hedges-worthy-and-unworthy-victims/
I remember watching that 'security council' briefing before things kicked off and thinking it looked like a scene from the Death of Stalin. Absolutely risible stuff.
I got as far as ‘the militarisation of Ukraine is in essence an encroachment on Russian sovereignty’ 4.18.I find it all smacks of a “cap doffing” acceptance that Russia should be accepted as global “nobility”.
No, whatever the complexities of their relations, the internal affairs of Ukraine are not under Russian sovereignty. Invasion is, however an encroachment on Ukrainian sovereignty.
Brand's whole argument stems from a first principle that any "mainstream narrative" must be wrong/a sinister construct and goes from there.
Another interesting commentary on the Is it as simple as "Putin's a bad man"? question:
https://youtu.be/CxMVcrvtqqs
Sorry, it's Russell Brand. I like his delivery and insight.
I thought the previous article was quite simple, again also inviting us to consider our own conceits.
It was inviting us to reflect on our own position, our own interpretation, what do we have to gain - and lose - for e.g. by referring to Putin as simply "a bad man"?
How objectively do we view our own action and it's consequences?
How are they perceived by others? In your own analysis, are you giving an example of the very point raised? I do think our own interests already influence how we interpret things, and what we accept as "givens".
For some idiot on YouTube to profit from :wall:
Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi said China hopes the “war” in Ukraine can stop “as soon as possible”
Reported in Guardian. This language contradicts Russian domestic propaganda.
Are the Chinese getting uncomfortable with the conflict and its impact on the global economy now?
I read somewhere that enough of the air defence systems are going to mean that russian aircraft have to fly low to avoid, and therefore in range of the MANPAD. Could be a load of rubbish though.
That article is actually really good. It took me a while to realise that RUSI is the Royal United Services Institute so it should be pretty reliable and authoritative.
Another interesting one on the state of Russian Army comms https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/russian-comms-ukraine-world-hertz
I read somewhere that enough of the air defence systems are going to mean that russian aircraft have to fly low to avoid, and therefore in range of the MANPAD. Could be a load of rubbish though.
https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/rusi-defence-systems/russian-air-force-actually-incapable-complex-air-operations
I have no ability to verify the arguments made, but it is an interesting argument...
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.
Did you miss the bit about establishing dialogue with Putin ..
All this fucking talking.
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.
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 (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.
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 (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
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 (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.
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.
[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".
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.
The Azov Special Operations Detachment is a right-wing extremist, neo-Nazi,formerly paramilitary, unit of the National Guard of Ukraine, (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion)Dan, is perfectly well aware of that. He seeks to paint all Ukrainians as Nazis. He believes that “Nazis exist in Ukraine” is equal to “all Ukrainians are Nazis”. This is because he can’t keep his head out of rabbit holes, his noggin is a bit big and is now stuck there.
I'd like to add another recommendation for "the rest is history " 4 part history of the modern USSR, and the rise of Putin. They concluded that there are two ways this could end, the destruction of Ukraine or the destruction of Putin's regime. I'd completely agree, there really isn't any way out of this now for Putin, hes using indiscriminate weapons and illegal weapons on a peaceful civilian population. He can't just apologise or hope its forgotten about.The destruction of Ukraine, is unlikely to constitute an “end”. I would guess that Putin is finished, even if he doesn’t realise or if it takes a considerable time, he has shown his weakness and the vultures are descending to settle onto the ground around him.
... there really isn't any way out of this now for Putin, hes using indiscriminate weapons and illegal weapons on a peaceful civilian population. He can't just apologise or hope its forgotten about.
... there really isn't any way out of this now for Putin, hes using indiscriminate weapons and illegal weapons on a peaceful civilian population. He can't just apologise or hope its forgotten about.
I hope you're right, and that the current levels of Western outrage really do make this a game changer, but I can't help but wonder - one of the reasons people are worried about Ukraine's civilians is the concern is that he will do exactly the same thing to them as he did to Aleppo and Grozny. We all remember this now, but it probably wasn't that long ago that we had forgiven, forgotten, or at least pushed those episodes out of mind.
The fact the floods of refugees are on our doorstep, and cynically that we have latched onto Ukraine in a way we never did the Chechens or Syrians, probably makes it too hard to ignore, particularly the longer it draws out.
But I guess if he had won quickly and brutally levelled a city or two along the way (or to create an example to achieve that end) - in that hypothetical world, would be still be beyond the pale for the latter in a few years time... I'm cynical
Last time I remember a country outright invaded a neighbour was when Iraq invaded Kuwait. It did not take many days until that was stopped iirc.
Last time I remember a country outright invaded a neighbour was when Iraq invaded Kuwait. It did not take many days until that was stopped iirc.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions
Not neighbours, but launched from neighbouring territory I would have thought Iraq would warrant some kind of mention, except on the very strictest of definitions.
Obviously the last time Russia invaded Ukraine is relevant for this list, as in the context of Syria is the chunk that Turkey seems to have taken of Northern Syria. Some of them you might characterise as outsiders weighing in on an existing civil war, some things don't seem to have made the cut at all, maybe some of them were legally secession attempts... but either way, saying the last time was Kuwait seems to be stretching it a little...
Last time I remember a country outright invaded a neighbour was when Iraq invaded Kuwait. It did not take many days until that was stopped iirc.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions
Not neighbours, but launched from neighbouring territory I would have thought Iraq would warrant some kind of mention, except on the very strictest of definitions.
Obviously the last time Russia invaded Ukraine is relevant for this list, as in the context of Syria is the chunk that Turkey seems to have taken of Northern Syria. Some of them you might characterise as outsiders weighing in on an existing civil war, some things don't seem to have made the cut at all, maybe some of them were legally secession attempts... but either way, saying the last time was Kuwait seems to be stretching it a little...
I am not a big fan of colonial wars, postcolonial wars (hello France) or proxy conflicts either, but as you noticed I carefully avoided them in the definition.
I think there definitely has been a double standard in terms of the suffering of civilians in Ukraine compared to, say, Yemen
What is going on in Ukraine is awful, disgusting, immoral etc. But the KSA bombing kids in Yemen is also those things and that has been going on for a while to largely indifference from most people.
There are undoubtedly massive double standards with regard to the West's reaction to worldwide atrocities. I just suspect the difference has more to do with proximity and perceived threat to ourselves rather than ethnicity. And, yes the Daily Mail leaps on the help Ukrainian Refugees bandwagon when they know that it plays well with their readership, but remember the Mail's attitude to Eastern Europeans in the UK prior to Brexit.
There are undoubtedly massive double standards with regard to the West's reaction to worldwide atrocities. I just suspect the difference has more to do with proximity and perceived threat to ourselves rather than ethnicity. And, yes the Daily Mail leaps on the help Ukrainian Refugees bandwagon when they know that it plays well with their readership, but remember the Mail's attitude to Eastern Europeans in the UK prior to Brexit.
There are undoubtedly massive double standards with regard to the West's reaction to worldwide atrocities. I just suspect the difference has more to do with proximity and perceived threat to ourselves rather than ethnicity. And, yes the Daily Mail leaps on the help Ukrainian Refugees bandwagon when they know that it plays well with their readership, but remember the Mail's attitude to Eastern Europeans in the UK prior to Brexit.
Not sure I agree, though I think you have a valid point about proximity.
However, imagine Russia had just invaded Australia.
Apologies if this is naive, but just because Putin wants to invade Baltic states why should it follow that he can/will?Spot on.
His war in Ukraine is shaping up to be a disaster for him. He's lost up to 200,000 Russians who have fled to neighbouring countries since the invasion started (these will be mobile, middle class people - the type of people who staff businesses and institutions that are integral to a well-functioning society), he's been placed under crippling sanctions, having to ramp up internal suppression of dissent, etc. Not to mention his military losses. He may well proceed to level Ukraine but if he's left with a substantial resisting territory to control he's going to have to commit forces there. With an economy in ruins, how is he going to fund further ventures into other countries? And might his value equation have shifted such that he wouldn't consider another war worthwhile even if he could finance an army?
Plenty of well informed people think exactly this.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CbDWI0BMb61/?utm_medium=copy_link
I’ve put the link to an Instagram summary of the twitter thread, because it’s relatively difficult to pin down the thread and it doesn’t seem to be on Kamil’s Substack yet.
Oh. Still works for me. Have a trawl back through his twitter feed:QuotePlenty of well informed people think exactly this.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CbDWI0BMb61/?utm_medium=copy_link
I’ve put the link to an Instagram summary of the twitter thread, because it’s relatively difficult to pin down the thread and it doesn’t seem to be on Kamil’s Substack yet.
Page not found.. :lol: :-\
Sorry to be lazy OMM but could you save me the trawling and tell us why.Which one? The Monaco freezing Russian assets? It’s on a par with Switzerland freezing Russian assets, unheard of. Those places make their (quite vast) wealth harbouring/investing/managing some pretty dirty money, no questions asked. Both have acted quite swiftly and publicly (and they didn’t have to, not many people would have thought much about it, they weren’t in danger of becoming pariah states etc).
For anyone who finds his ideas interesting, his Twitter page has a thread of threads which you can use to navigate a nd select a thread topic. Well worthwhile if you want a historical perspective on current Russian situation.He’s taken seriously enough to be mentioned in our briefings.
For someone like me, essentially ignorant of Russian history, fascinating stuff.
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
So what do you Mr JR think Putin's salt is? And would his salt be something that Ukraine can live with? Zelensky playing quite a smart game at the moment with the whole we're not joining NATO as they wouldn't enforce a no-fly zone
So what do you Mr JR think Putin's salt is? And would his salt be something that Ukraine can live with? Zelensky playing quite a smart game at the moment with the whole we're not joining NATO as they wouldn't enforce a no-fly zone
He's lost up to 200,000 Russians who have fled to neighbouring countries since the invasion started (these will be mobile, middle class people - the type of people who staff businesses and institutions that are integral to a well-functioning society)
AstraZeneca however..
Hu Wei is the vice-chairman of the Public Policy Research Center of the Counselor’s Office of the State Council, the chairman of Shanghai Public Policy Research Association, the chairman of the Academic Committee of the Chahar Institute, a professor, and a doctoral supervisor.
The conclusion of all these calculations is simple: As long as Russia can continue to export oil and gas, it can finance the revenue shortfalls generated by the sanctions for a long time. But the economic toll will be enormous: GDP will drop nearly 10% over the next 12 months alone and may not stop there.
But if Russia loses its oil and gas revenues, it will run out of money within one to two years.
Free online talk from Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford, Monday 21 March. 5pm. Register here:
How will this end? The military situation in Ukraine and its political implications (https://www.ox.ac.uk/event/how-will-end-military-situation-ukraine-and-its-political-implications)
An in depth look at how long Russia can withstand sanctions (TLDR: with oil/gas exports intact, a long time):
https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2022/03/15/how-long-can-russia-withstand-the-sanctions/QuoteThe conclusion of all these calculations is simple: As long as Russia can continue to export oil and gas, it can finance the revenue shortfalls generated by the sanctions for a long time. But the economic toll will be enormous: GDP will drop nearly 10% over the next 12 months alone and may not stop there.
But if Russia loses its oil and gas revenues, it will run out of money within one to two years.
This is pretty worrying*Very.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/15/stray-russian-missiles-feared-landed-poland-ukraine
Most likely explanation is it was unintended. Possibly a malfunction or knocked off target by air defenses. There's not much to be gained by Russia hitting Poland, they can't even take more than about one fifth of Ukraine so they present zero threat to taking NATO territory in a conventional overland war. If the thinking is for incremental hits inside a NATO country to gauge response and provoke escalation into trading long-range strikes with NATO then they've become suicidal. I doubt Putin is suicidal.Personally, I have strong reservations about Putin’s sanity, along with much of his top echelon of ministers/Generals. Even their state TV pundits seem to be turning on him or, at least his immediate subordinates, so absolute desperation in his part isn’t a huge stretch.
Koo koo
unless Prigozhin has an accident soon,
unless Prigozhin has an accident soon,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66599733
"Wagner boss Yevgeny Prigozhin presumed dead after Russia plane crash"
says Moscow
"Wagner boss Yevgeny Prigozhin presumed dead after Russia plane crash"
Who had 2 months and surface-to-air missile in the sweepstake?
unless Prigozhin has an accident soon,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66599733
"Wagner boss Yevgeny Prigozhin presumed dead after Russia plane crash"
Yes, just saw that.
Surprised it took so long.
Yevgeny Prigozhin latest: Putin silent after Wagner boss 'killed in plane crash’
unless Prigozhin has an accident soon,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66599733
"Wagner boss Yevgeny Prigozhin presumed dead after Russia plane crash"
Yes, just saw that.
Surprised it took so long.
I guess maybe the logic was to wait until momentum from the uprising has dissipated and the Wagner group's started being moved more to Africa, so you're less likely to have to deal with blowback from them when you assassinate their beloved leader?