Russia invades Ukraine

[oldman]

Germany, Austria, Italy all chose to have normal even cosy relations with Russia. Did that make Russia behave better? Putin has been ramping up the anti-Western rhetoric for years.

Britain's relationship with Putin has been made difficult by the murderous attacks on anti-Putin figures on our soil. Perhaps we shouldn't have allowed in the wrong sort of oligarchs.

Potsdam 1945 agreed to Russia's political sphere of influence

Unfortunately sphere of influence rapidly turned into sphere of control, because Russia knew that these countries would not choose Soviet style socialism so it had to be imposed. Finland and Austria were allowed to be capitalist in exchange for neutrality, the others were not. If they had been allowed to choose their own economic path while accepting some limitations on their foreign policy freedom they might not have been so keen to join NATO.

 

[yorksrob]

Encouraging cultural exchanges, scholarships at Western universities for regular people rather than elites, big media portraying Russians as heroes, easing visa requirements for travel to the West...

Perhaps we could have done more of such things.

I'm not sure it would have been in time to change the minds of Putin and his supporters.

 

[Chingy]

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1500523777335209987?t=DBdAMFWoS7emcmerRK1ACQ&s=19

Blinken as reportedly given the green light for NATO countries to send fighter jets to the Ukraine.

JUST IN - NATO countries have "green light" to send fighter jets to #Ukraine, says U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

No doubt we will hear from Vladimir soon, and I doubt it will be anything pleasent!

 

[tommy2215]

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1500523777335209987?t=DBdAMFWoS7emcmerRK1ACQ&s=19

Blinken as reportedly given the green light for NATO countries to send fighter jets to the Ukraine.



No doubt we will hear from Vladimir soon, and I doubt it will be anything pleasent!

Completely misleading. It is just about supplying Poland with extra jet fighters in case Poland want to supply Ukraine with some of their jets.

 

[oldman]

Encouraging cultural exchanges, scholarships at Western universities for regular people rather than elites, big media portraying Russians as heroes, easing visa requirements for travel to the West...

There were plenty of cultural exchanges (Putin shut down the British Council offices in 2007), plenty of educational exchange (the European University at St Petersburg was closed in 2008), OK we can't really tell Hollywood how to portray Russians, visa arrangements have tended to be reciprocal and getting into Russia has never been easy....

There was about 10 years of co-operation after 1989. Then there was Putin.

It's a bit difficult to encourage civil society and social liberalism when the other side doesn't want it.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Unfortunately sphere of influence rapidly turned into sphere of control, because Russia knew that these countries would not choose Soviet style socialism so it had to be imposed. Finland and Austria were allowed to be capitalist in exchange for neutrality, the others were not. If they had been allowed to choose their own economic path while accepting some limitations on their foreign policy freedom they might not have been so keen to join NATO.

We would have been better off not moving NATO into the ex Eastern Block countries and accepting them as a neutrals and allowing economic benefit to gradually filter further East and do its work naturally but the US couldn't miss the opportunity to push their weapon systems further East and wonder why Russia might be a bit unhappy about that. There was no reason to do this the world was in a good place in 1989 with USSR naturally neutered and largely by its own making. Now what have we got a refugee crisis of epic proportions and immense economic dislocation which will blow up around the world and magnify that refugee crisis further. That will impact us all and potentially lead to something a lot worse. Keeping the world in balance has never been easy but there will always be a choice between protecting what you can vs trying to be all men to all people.

 

[Bevan Price]

It is a potentially extremely dangerous situation. Some of the problems date back to Kruschev. I suspect most westerners used to think that Crimea had always been part of Russia -- then Kruschev gave it to Ukraine in (I think) the 1960s. Big mistake in my opinion.

Now, Russia has the misfortune to be ruled by Putin -- unpredictable, seems to have turned into a near clone of Hitler, who somehow attracts support from some Russian citizens despite turning it almost into a prison colony where nobody can safely express their own opinions. And, his country is reckoned to possess over 7000 nuclear weapons. War between NATO & Russia must be avoided at all costs; even if we could stop 90% from reaching the west (very optimistic), that still leaves enough to render most of Western Europe uninhabitable and at least 75% of the population dead or badly injured.

How will it end ? At worst, Pucin cannot live forever. At best, maybe there must be some honourable leaders amongst the Russian military who will get fed up with how his behaviour is damaging their fine country, and act to remove him from power. Maybe they will recognise that the behaviour of Pucin is why many countries in Eastern Europe wanted to join NATO.

And, though this is wishful thinking, maybe East & West will eventually realise that they can live together in peaceful coexistence, without viewing the other site as potential enemies.

 

[Annetts key]

Would we though? If a tactical low-yield nuclear device was used against a military target in Ukraine or an assisting neighbouring country, NATO or not - would we really unleash everything we've got in response with an aim to wipe the whole of Russia off the map (which would immediately cause an similar retaliatory response and wipe large parts of the west off the map)?

Exactly - and going all out with the nukes is not going to do much for individual or societal survival on any side. Putin knows this as well as we do. Our question is what can we do without escalating things, his is simply how far can he push things before we feel we have to get involved.

I was meaning if Putin used ICBMs…

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

It is a potentially extremely dangerous situation. Some of the problems date back to Kruschev. I suspect most westerners used to think that Crimea had always been part of Russia -- then Kruschev gave it to Ukraine in (I think) the 1960s. Big mistake in my opinion.

It was but of course at the time it made sense when you see that Ukraine as a Soviet Republic just tidied up the administration. I guess that also why the West didn't really make that big a deal about it being taken back.

Now, Russia has the misfortune to be ruled by Putin -- unpredictable, seems to have turned into a near clone of Hitler, who somehow attracts support from some Russian citizens despite turning it almost into a prison colony where nobody can safely express their own opinions.

Umm if you run a police state your citizens will support you

And, his country is reckoned to possess over 7000 nuclear weapons. War between NATO & Russia must be avoided at all costs; even if we could stop 90% from reaching the west (very optimistic), that still leaves enough to render most of Western Europe uninhabitable and at least 75% of the population dead or badly injured.

You say is clone of Hitler but you are advocate appeasement.

How will it end ? At worst, Pucin cannot live forever. At best, maybe there must be some honourable leaders amongst the Russian military who will get fed up with how his behaviour is damaging their fine country, and act to remove him from power. Maybe they will recognise that the behaviour of Pucin is why many countries in Eastern Europe wanted to join NATO.

And, though this is wishful thinking, maybe East & West will eventually realise that they can live together in peaceful coexistence, without viewing the other site as potential enemies.

Lets hope so but the West should be doing all it can to covertly undermine Putin

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

It is a potentially extremely dangerous situation. Some of the problems date back to Kruschev. I suspect most westerners used to think that Crimea had always been part of Russia -- then Kruschev gave it to Ukraine in (I think) the 1960s. Big mistake in my opinion.

The real issue in Crimea is that its Russian identity is a rather modern creation. Until 1944 it had a large population of Tatars but as they weren't even Slavs Stalin had them all forcibly removed to Siberia and largely replaced by Russians forcibly relocated from the Motherland. But in the wider historical context that is just one instance of a policy of Russification which has been going on in Russian controlled territory for at least 200 years under the Tsars, Communists and now Putin.

 

[coppercapped]

We would have been better off not moving NATO into the ex Eastern Block countries and accepting them as a neutrals and allowing economic benefit to gradually filter further East and do its work naturally but the US couldn't miss the opportunity to push their weapon systems further East and wonder why Russia might be a bit unhappy about that. There was no reason to do this the world was in a good place in 1989 with USSR naturally neutered and largely by its own making. Now what have we got a refugee crisis of epic proportions and immense economic dislocation which will blow up around the world and magnify that refugee crisis further. That will impact us all and potentially lead to something a lot worse. Keeping the world in balance has never been easy but there will always be a choice between protecting what you can vs trying to be all men to all people.

Absolute rubbish - I suggest that you read history book or two.

Just taking the case of Estonia, this was an area with a distinct Finnish language and sense of identity. Having no natural geographic features to serve as boundaries — apart from the Baltic coast — it was ruled for centuries by firstly the Knights of the Teutonic Order, then Denmark, Sweden, and finally the Russian Empire. Estonia declared independence in 1918 and managed to repulse the Bolshevik Russian invasion in the 1918–1920 War of Independence.

Estonia remained democratic throughout the interwar period and declared neutrality at the outbreak of World War II. This didn't help, it was repeatedly invaded and occupied, first by the Stalinist Soviet Union in 1940, then by Nazi Germany in 1941, and ultimately reoccupied in 1944 by the USSR (Union of Silently Squashed Republics) and annexed as an administrative subunit.

And you suggest that after such a history they should remain neutral? What an arrogant and ill-informed comment.

They tried it — and it didn't work.

 

[brad465]

Germany, Austria, Italy all chose to have normal even cosy relations with Russia. Did that make Russia behave better? Putin has been ramping up the anti-Western rhetoric for years.

Britain's relationship with Putin has been made difficult by the murderous attacks on anti-Putin figures on our soil. Perhaps we shouldn't have allowed in the wrong sort of oligarchs.

This I think is largely down to what appears to be unregulated globalisation - globalisation was sold/undertaken on the pretence of cheaper goods, in turn lower inflation, and increased global connectivity and trade reducing tensions/conflict. However, this all has turned out to be a failure, because the unregulated nature failed to factor in corporations basing their mineral extraction and manufacturing in countries who were run by nasty regimes who would use the globalisation-created wealth to further their own immoral actions, and now we're seeing increased war/conflict and higher inflation, everything we hoped globalisation would prevent.

Don't get me wrong, we need globalisation to an extent, as no country can produce everything it needs to consume, but we need to watch where trade and investment are coming from/going to (i.e. it needs regulating).

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Absolute rubbish - I suggest that you read history book or two.

When it comes to the context of Russian foreign relations I think that advice could do with being followed by an awful lot of people and not just those in this thread.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Completely misleading. It is just about supplying Poland with extra jet fighters in case Poland want to supply Ukraine with some of their jets.

The Poles won't fly the MiG-29 again, and we want/need more modern planes. A deal where we give Ukraine the mothballed MiG-29s in exchange for unwanted American F-16s makes a lot of sense.

If they had been allowed to choose their own economic path while accepting some limitations on their foreign policy freedom they might not have been so keen to join NATO.

Yes, for sure. Bulgaria is perhaps a textbook example, but also Slovakia (which has never been massively enthusiastic towards NATO).

 

[yorksrob]

This I think is largely down to what appears to be unregulated globalisation - globalisation was sold/undertaken on the pretence of cheaper goods, in turn lower inflation, and increased global connectivity and trade reducing tensions/conflict. However, this all has turned out to be a failure, because the unregulated nature failed to factor in corporations basing their mineral extraction and manufacturing in countries who were run by nasty regimes who would use the globalisation-created wealth to further their own immoral actions, and now we're seeing increased war/conflict and higher inflation, everything we hoped globalisation would prevent.

Don't get me wrong, we need globalisation to an extent, as no country can produce everything it needs to consume, but we need to watch where trade and investment are coming from/going to (i.e. it needs regulating).

It certainly can be a double edged sword in some cases.

The irony is that it's the establishment in Russia who've gained most from globalisation, yet are calling for a return to the USSR.

 

[Roast Veg]

Is the Beatles "Back in the U.S.S.R." number 1 yet?

 

[coppercapped]

It is a potentially extremely dangerous situation. Some of the problems date back to Kruschev. I suspect most westerners used to think that Crimea had always been part of Russia -- then Kruschev gave it to Ukraine in (I think) the 1960s. Big mistake in my opinion.

Now, Russia has the misfortune to be ruled by Putin -- unpredictable, seems to have turned into a near clone of Hitler, who somehow attracts support from some Russian citizens despite turning it almost into a prison colony where nobody can safely express their own opinions. And, his country is reckoned to possess over 7000 nuclear weapons. War between NATO & Russia must be avoided at all costs; even if we could stop 90% from reaching the west (very optimistic), that still leaves enough to render most of Western Europe uninhabitable and at least 75% of the population dead or badly injured.

How will it end ? At worst, Pucin cannot live forever. At best, maybe there must be some honourable leaders amongst the Russian military who will get fed up with how his behaviour is damaging their fine country, and act to remove him from power. Maybe they will recognise that the behaviour of Pucin is why many countries in Eastern Europe wanted to join NATO.

And, though this is wishful thinking, maybe East & West will eventually realise that they can live together in peaceful coexistence, without viewing the other site as potential enemies.

Most Westerners are clearly badly served by their schools.

The Crimea was annexed by Catherine the Great in 1783, previously it was held by a Khanate of the Ottoman Empire.

One of the reasons that Catherine took the Khanate — apart from territorial aggrandisement of the Russian Empire — was because it was central to the slave raids that the Ottoman Empire had been carrying out across that part of Europe for centuries. Only a few years earlier the Khanate took an estimated 20,000 slaves[1] from southern Ukraine. Since the Siege of Vienna in 1683, which repulsed the Ottomans in their drive west, the area to the east of Vienna became essentially a no mans land and slave raids were common. As a result the population dropped dramatically which is why, even today, the population density across the whole region is low.

Quite apart from the loss of approximately 7 million Ukrainians starved to death by Stalin in 1932-3.

[1] The English word 'slave' derives from ‘Slavonic (captive)’— the Slavonic peoples having been largely reduced to a servile state by conquest in the 9th century.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Mar 2022 ==

This I think is largely down to what appears to be unregulated globalisation - globalisation was sold/undertaken on the pretence of cheaper goods, in turn lower inflation, and increased global connectivity and trade reducing tensions/conflict. However, this all has turned out to be a failure, because the unregulated nature failed to factor in corporations basing their mineral extraction and manufacturing in countries who were run by nasty regimes who would use the globalisation-created wealth to further their own immoral actions, and now we're seeing increased war/conflict and higher inflation, everything we hoped globalisation would prevent.

Don't get me wrong, we need globalisation to an extent, as no country can produce everything it needs to consume, but we need to watch where trade and investment are coming from/going to (i.e. it needs regulating).

And who or what should 'regulate' international trade to achieve the ends you desire?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Absolute rubbish - I suggest that you read history book or two.

Just taking the case of Estonia, this was an area with a distinct Finnish language and sense of identity. Having no natural geographic features to serve as boundaries — apart from the Baltic coast — it was ruled for centuries by firstly the Knights of the Teutonic Order, then Denmark, Sweden, and finally the Russian Empire. Estonia declared independence in 1918 and managed to repulse the Bolshevik Russian invasion in the 1918–1920 War of Independence.

Estonia remained democratic throughout the interwar period and declared neutrality at the outbreak of World War II. This didn't help, it was repeatedly invaded and occupied, first by the Stalinist Soviet Union in 1940, then by Nazi Germany in 1941, and ultimately reoccupied in 1944 by the USSR (Union of Silently Squashed Republics) and annexed as an administrative subunit.

And you suggest that after such a history they should remain neutral? What an arrogant and ill-informed comment.

They tried it — and it didn't work.

NATO didn't have to accept them as there was a risk it would antagonise Russia but that suited the US. Perhaps a coalition of ex Eastern block countries would have been a better proposition. Where is the lack of honour about being a neutral country Switzerland has done pretty well out it and Finland is an exemplar. I still standby that allowing the economic benefits that 1989 bought to gradually permeate Eastwards would have slowly undermined Russia.

 

[najaB]

It's a bit difficult to encourage civil society and social liberalism when the other side doesn't want it.

Many on the other side *do* want it. As an example my friend Olya used to love Putin because he was a strong leader who didn't take any crap, but now hates him with a passion precisely because he encourages anti-LGBTQ sentiment (Olya is an ally), represses the arts (she's a musician) and suppresses freedom of expression (the previous time she was living in the UK she had blue hair and dressed like a punk, she had to conform to 'tradional' styles when she went back to Moscow, for fear of being attacked).

The problem is that we made rich people out of the ones who don't. Well, more accurately, they want to enjoy the benefits of a modern western lifestyle, they just don't want anyone else to.

 

[brad465]

And who or what should 'regulate' international trade to achieve the ends you desire?

Each individual country, and where possible key trading blocs. For example I think the EU should try and encourage such regulation for all its members, and the G7/20 should consider it for all their members when they meet/talk every so often. At the very least it should be policy in a given country to either outlaw or supertax trade with regimes agreed to be authoritarian. The US were more than happy to do this to Cuba in an extreme sense, and most of the world already does it to North Korea. Now large parts of the world are doing it to Russia.

 

[squizzler]

The Poles won't fly the MiG-29 again, and we want/need more modern planes. A deal where we give Ukraine the mothballed MiG-29s in exchange for unwanted American F-16s makes a lot of sense.

A cascade of classic 1980 fighters from USA to Poland and from Poland to Ukraine is an excellent suggestion and just the sort of thing the rail forums can get their teeth into.

On the subject of cascading equipment, can we cascade the class 442s to Ukrainian railways, modified to 1520mm gauge and OLE of course?

ps, Does the first class 442 reference mean I win this thread?

 

[najaB]

Does the first class 442 reference mean I win this thread?

No, because you only suggested replacing the bogies and power supply. Not nearly fanciful enough.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

No, because you only suggested replacing the bogies and power supply. Not nearly fanciful enough.

Would need a panto but much of the network is DC at least.

 

[nanstallon]

I used to see Russia as an ally against Islamist terrorism, because they border so many Islam countries. The Chechens were pretty nasty and I didn't mind them being crushed by Yeltsin and then Putin. But I realised over the last fifteen or so years how wrong I was, with the Salisbury poisonings, the annexation of part of Georgia and the creeping march of the police state.

I also used to feel that NATO had lost its purpose, following the demise of the Warsaw Pact, and that it shouldn't have extended itself eastwards. However, history shows that Russia doesn't respect neutrality, and it is understandable that newly independent countries wanted to come under the umbrella.

But a deal by which Ukraine gave up its claim on Crimea (which Kruschev gave to Ukraine after drinking a bit too much vodka) and the breakaway oblasts of Donetsk and Lugansk, and agreed not to join NATO in the future, might be realistic although short on principle. But (a) you can't trust Russia, which in 1994 guaranteed Ukraine's integrity and (b) matters have gone too far, with huge Russian war crimes. The only hope is an internal coup which replaces Putin with a decent civilised government - I'm not holding my breath.

 

[cactustwirly]

Potsdam 1945 agreed to Russia's political sphere of influence and actually Churchill had front run this when he met Stalin in 1944. This was the basis of moving forward after WW2 but the US was never happy with it and have antagonised the USSR ever since including using NATO as a proxy.

The Wests view of how the globe should be run can't be the only philosophy that is allowed in the world and that any other philosophy is to be overturned.

This won't end until Putin goes but before that happens we risk contagion round the world from the economic impact that this will have and the refugee crisis now emerging in Ukraine will emerge in other countries that can't afford to buy the food to feed there people due to the price increases.

This isn't 1945 it's 2022...

Ukraine is a sovereign democratic nation, which has decided to align itself to the west.

The same goes for Romania, Poland, Estonia etc. They decided to join the EU/NATO to escape Russian influence. They weren't forced to.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Mar 2022 ==

(My bold) So in one breath you mention that being in NATO is the solution, then in another you vacillate against military intervention on the grounds Russia may launch a nuclear strike.

If Ukraine was a NATO country, and, as you believe, the invasion would have happened anyway, would you be happy with our position of having to declare a (potentially nuclear) war on Russia as would be our obligation?

Please, let us have some clarity in our thinking here.

I'm trying to say, that countries are part of NATO to escape Russian influence. They hate being anything to do with Russia after being mistreated for 50 years by the Soviet union.

This war has nothing to do with NATO (Ukraine had no hope in joining anytime soon), it's about a delusional dictator trying to recreate the Soviet union. That starts taking Ukraine.

The idea of being controlled by Russia is repulsive to the Ukranians that's why they are so determined to fight back. That's why they overthrew the pro Russian government in 2014 which kick-started this whole thing.

 

[coppercapped]

NATO didn't have to accept them as there was a risk it would antagonise Russia but that suited the US. Perhaps a coalition of ex Eastern block countries would have been a better proposition. Where is the lack of honour about being a neutral country Switzerland has done pretty well out it and Finland is an exemplar. I still standby that allowing the economic benefits that 1989 bought to gradually permeate Eastwards would have slowly undermined Russia.

If 'Russia' (i.e., Putin) wants to feel antagonised, then so be it. And why did it suit the US? It certainly hasn't sold any military aircraft to Estonia apart from a couple of small commercial helicopters. The rest of the air force is equipped with Soviet-era Polish and Czechoslovakian machines.

Your anti-American bias shows...

Regarding Switzerland — try looking at a map. Switzerland is neutral, but it is surrounded by friendly neighbours who have no territorial ambitions on it and it has not been occupied since the Middle Ages. Its mountainous territory is also not conducive to tank warfare. Finland was forced to be neutral as part of the Moscow Peace Treaty which concluded the Soviet invasion in 1940 (The Winter War) and it was required to cede a lot of territory[1].

As I suggested earlier - READ A HISTORY BOOK.

Estonia is a sovereign country - it should be able to make its own decisions without having to consider the feelings of the giant next door which has occupied it for many years in living memory.

Russia's adventures in Ukraine have now reanimated discussions in both Finland and Sweden on joining NATO.

[1] This war could have seen the bizarre spectacle of British and German troops fighting together during the Second World War against Soviet Russia...but the Winter War ended before the troops arrived, You couldn't make it up.

 

[TheEdge]

I don't know about others but what's really starting to upset me is the presence of Russia's nuclear weapons and how its stopping NATO getting in there on the ground.

Seeing how badly Russian troops are performing against the Ukrainians its tragic to think that NATO forces already in the area could probably push the Russian's out of the country in a matter of days. The tragedy that there are AS90s, PzH2000s, K9s and Paladin's; air forces with Paveways that could deliver the targeted Sodom and Gomorrah style hellfire that every single Russian artilleryman and piece of equipment deserves.

And they just can't.

 

[dakta]

This is in some ways the tragedy of the situation and why I think some people have the opinion that Putin has effectively won, in some contexts he hasn't - the groundwork has been an absolute mess but what he has got (and this is where I suspect people holding this opinion are coming from) is a very public affirmation of 'we wont touch Putin or his forces directly because of what he could do to us - we are firm on this stance'. If you want to do a spot of invading and you like to know the risks and rewards that's a really good bit of info.

It's not ideal.

 

[Bertie the bus]

NATO isn’t the world’s policeman. Its reason for existence is to protect its member states and Ukraine isn’t one. Rather than say NATO is useless and Putin has won because we and the rest of NATO haven’t gone wading in, one could argue NATO has shown that it is a powerful force because Putin has decided to invade a non-NATO country and not take it on.

 

[najaB]

...but what he has got (and this is where I suspect people holding this opinion are coming from) is a very public affirmation of 'we wont touch Putin because of what he could do to us'. If you want to do a spot of invading and you like to know the risks and rewards that's a really good bit of info.

That all depends on what you mean by 'won't touch him' - tanking the Russian economy is going to hurt him a lot.