Russia invades Ukraine

[AlterEgo]

Nonsense. The principal factor is that Eastern European countries wouldn't trust Russia as far as they could throw it, and as recent events have shown, they are quite right.

It’s still not a reason to accept into NATO a country whose naval commander in chief defected to Russia on day one of the little green men.

 

[gingerheid]

I agree with those saying Trump would have prevented the war, but not in the way they are saying it. There wouldn't have been a war because he would have told Putin to go ahead and that he admired him, and knowing they had no international support at all Ukraine would have been less up for a fight.

 

[yorksrob]

It’s still not a reason to accept into NATO a country whose naval commander in chief defected to Russia on day one of the little green men.

I don't claim to understand the beliefs of individual members of Ukraines military personnel. Nor do I feel the need to.

Even if someone in the Ukraine Navy did defect to Russia, how does that justify the current invasion ?

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't claim to understand the beliefs of individual members of Ukraines military personnel. Nor do I feel the need to.

Even if someone in the Ukraine Navy did defect to Russia, how does that justify the current invasion ?

It doesn't justify the invasion, as well you know by quoting my post that wasn't the point I was making.

I'm saying that just because a country expresses a wish to join NATO doesn't mean it is a wise decision. You can't just let anyone join.

NATO is the No Russia Club and Ukraine's naval commander in chief as well as a sizeable portion of their standing military defected on day one of a conflict to...Russia. Does that sound like the sort of country that should have been in NATO? Ukraine is not even a proper democracy, let alone a liberal one aligned to Europe or what we call 'the West".

People who think Ukraine should have been in NATO are totally bonkers.

 

[yorksrob]

It doesn't justify the invasion, as well you know by quoting my post that wasn't the point I was making.

I'm saying that just because a country expresses a wish to join NATO doesn't mean it is a wise decision. You can't just let anyone join.

NATO is the No Russia Club and Ukraine's naval commander in chief as well as a sizeable portion of their standing military defected on day one of a conflict to...Russia. Does that sound like the sort of country that should have been in NATO? Ukraine is not even a proper democracy, let alone a liberal one aligned to Europe or what we call 'the West".

People who think Ukraine should have been in NATO are totally bonkers.

Oh dear.

Ukrine is not a perfect Western paragon. That does not mean it deserves to be destroyed by a belligerent neighbour.

Ukraine hadn't joined NATO at the time it was subjected to an invasion, yet you seem to consider this justification for the invasion inflicted on Ukraine's citizens.

We need to make Russia experience the economic consequences of its choices. That's the situation now.

 

[brad465]

A number of front pages for tomorrow's papers are reporting that a scheme is being brought in to offer anyone housing a Ukrainian refugee £350pm.

 

[AlterEgo]

Oh dear.

Ukrine is not a perfect Western paragon.

It's not even close to being "properly" Western in any meaningful way. It isn't even a democracy. It ranks somewhere near Armenia, Georgia and Madagascar in the democracy index.

That does not mean it deserves to be destroyed by a belligerent neighbour.

Ukraine hadn't joined NATO at the time it was subjected to an invasion, yet you seem to consider this justification for the invasion inflicted on Ukraine's citizens.

NATO is a military alliance which has preconditions for membership. You can't just let anyone in. Remember NATO is there to defend us all and is not some piece of paper given to nations to ward off evil spirits. Laughable you think NATO would or should accept a country where the commander in chief of the navy defected to Russia when they turned up on his doorstep, as did thousands of their standing army, taking intelligence and equipment with them. Sorry but it this not even a serious line of argument and I won't entertain it further.

I do not consider it a justification. Do not repeatedly misrepresent my personal views as being aligned with the Russian state, especially when you again quote me directly as saying, quite plainly:

It doesn't justify the invasion

and reply directly:

you seem to consider this justification for the invasion

I am saying the Russians consider it at least forms part of their justification and a casus belli, which is what actually matters when you have thousands of civilians dead in a real war which is happening right now.

If you so obviously misrepresent what I say once more I will not engage further.

We need to make Russia experience the economic consequences of its choices. That's the situation now.

And if Ukraine was in NATO you believe the conflict wouldn't have happened. Perhaps so, but if it did, we would be sending our soldiers (that is, not you or me but other people's sons and daughters) to die horribly in a brutal war over Ukraine, a country we didn't actually care about in 2021 if we are brutally honest with ourselves.

 

[yorksrob]

It's not even close to being "properly" Western in any meaningful way. It isn't even a democracy. It ranks somewhere near Armenia, Georgia and Madagascar in the democracy index.


NATO is a military alliance which has preconditions for membership. You can't just let anyone in. Remember NATO is there to defend us all and is not some piece of paper given to nations to ward off evil spirits. Laughable you think NATO would or should accept a country where the commander in chief of the navy defected to Russia when they turned on on his doorstep, as did thousands of their standing army, taking intelligence and equipment with them. Sorry but it this not even a serious line of argument and I won't entertain it further.

I do not consider it a justification. Do not misrepresent my personal views as being aligned with the Russian state. I am saying the Russians consider it at least forms part of their justification and a casus belli, which is what actually matters when you have thousands of civilians dead in a real war which is happening right now.



And if Ukraine was in NATO you believe the conflict wouldn't have happened. Perhaps so, but if it did, we would be sending our soldiers (that is, not you or me but other people's sons and daughters) to die horribly in a brutal war over Ukraine, a country we didn't actually care about in 2021 if we are brutally honest with ourselves.

This is all tripe because Ukraine wasn't in NATO and the enemy still choose to invade.

 

[AlterEgo]

This is all tripe because Ukraine wasn't in NATO and the enemy still choose to invade.

I assume by just saying "all tripe" you have nothing constructive to say about the post and are not willing to engage with any of the points, then.

The point, for the nth time in this thread, is that Ukraine was seeking membership and was being wooed by NATO and The West to do so despite there being no real possibility of that happening from NATO's perspective. Ukraine was sold a dud.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

That is only the best outcome if you (a) don't really care about the people of Ukraine or their right to defend themselves, and (b) don't care about what happens more than a few months into the future. It's all but guaranteed that if that was the outcome, the secondary result would be an emboldened Putin, having found that he can get at least some of what he wants by force, re-arming his forces and being back to take another bite out of either Ukraine or some other country a few years down the line.

I care about any countries populous being denied there basic rights but i find it curious how our media is all over this war but somewhat ignores what happens in other parts of the world like Yemen where Saudi backed insurgents have wreaked havoc for years but we now need Saudi to pump more oil so we can avoid using Russian Oil so that OK. Reality is the West aren't fully prepared to inflict the most serious sanction we have at our disposal which is to shut down all pipelines and cargo routes importing Russian commodities. That would be just going too far like along with a No Fly Zone so if we won't do that facilitating a rapprochement is what should happen before things get out of hand.

Ultimately its been quite convenient for the likes of BoJo, Biden and Macron to have a diversion. The West was doing alright with letting economics do its bidding by gradually watching it seep further eastwards but the US McCarthyism is ever present with its obsession over Russia and of course its not in their backyard to deal with the consequences either.

Oh and by the way who is sitting ready with plenty of natural gas to export US of course as they are vehemently opposed to dealing with the climate challenge.

 

[HST274]

A number of front pages for tomorrow's papers are reporting that a scheme is being brought in to offer anyone housing a Ukrainian refugee £350pm.

A little surprising seeing as we have hardly let anyone in. Supposedly a couple of thousands compared to the 80,000 Germany have taken for example, and I doubt the floodgates are going to open soon.

 

[johncrossley]

Ukraine refugees are welcome in the EU because of the desperate need for working age immigration. The UK already gets as much immigration as it wants.

 

[oldman]

I am saying the Russians consider it at least forms part of their justification and a casus belli, which is what actually matters when you have thousands of civilians dead in a real war which is happening right now.

Most aggressors think their aggressions are justified or at least can concoct an official justification, even if they don't believe it themselves. A lot of Russia's justification is pure concoction - the Nazi threat, genocide, biological warfare etc.

It isn't even a democracy. It ranks somewhere near Armenia, Georgia and Madagascar in the democracy index.

I don't know about Madagascar, but the other two are in the same situation as Ukraine - imperfect, roughly in the middle between democracy and authoritarianism, but seeking to move in the right direction.

 

[yorksrob]

I assume by just saying "all tripe" you have nothing constructive to say about the post and are not willing to engage with any of the points, then.

The point, for the nth time in this thread, is that Ukraine was seeking membership and was being wooed by NATO and The West to do so despite there being no real possibility of that happening from NATO's perspective. Ukraine was sold a dud.

Well if you think there was no possibility of NATO or EU membership happening, why did Russia think there was ? Do you have better intelligence than the FSB ?

All meaningless anyway because Russia's desire to control its neighbours is unjustifiable, whatever you say.

 

[Annetts key]

Best outcome here is for Ukraine is to be coached into letting Donbass go and for NATO to say Ukraine won't be admitted to NATO.

Do you honestly think such a ‘solution’ would work for the medium to long term? I’m not convinced.

Just look at our country and our dependencies. We are not willing to give up the Falkland Islands, the British Indian Ocean Territory, Gibraltar, Northern Island, or Scotland.

Some of these places are disputed by other countries.

If the U.K. / Great Britain is not willing to give up any territory, why do you think Ukraine should?

All these arguments over Ukraine having applied to join NATO are also a distraction. It takes years for a country to join, and that only happens when that country has met the specified conditions and the other existing NATO members agree. Ukraine was not anywhere close to being made a member. Hence the argument is irrelevant.

What is relevant, is the political position of the leaders of the NATO countries. It’s possible that if the leaders of the NATO countries had made it absolutely clear to Putin that if Russian forces invaded any Ukrainian territory not already under Russian control, that NATO would respond militarily with a strong and powerful response. It’s possible this show of power would have been enough to dissuade him from invading. But that’s all speculation now, as it’s all water that has not only passed under the bridge, but is out to sea now.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Ukraine refugees are welcome in the EU because of the desperate need for working age immigration. The UK already gets as much immigration as it wants.

What absolute rubbish. Most of the refugees arriving from the Ukraine are children, the elderly or women looking after children/elderly. These people will be a "drain" on society at large not an economic resource. The acceptance of these refugees is mainly for humanitarian reasons - something this government should be ashamed of.

 

[AlterEgo]

Well if you think there was no possibility of NATO or EU membership happening, why did Russia think there was ?

I am not suggesting it was reasonable for them to think it was, rather that that is what they say they thought and what they cite as a cause of the crisis. If you or I choose to believe them that's up to us. I happen to think it is a reasonable portion of the reason, along with their irredentist claims over much of Ukraine and their wish to ensure (what they consider to be) Russians are in Russia.

All meaningless anyway because Russia's desire to control its neighbours is unjustifiable, whatever you say.

As is NATO's, given the history in the Americas. Britain and the US had its own Ukraine moment in Iraq. We are not without sin - and believe me, when Russia thinks of NATO, it mostly thinks of America, and to a lesser extent Britain and the European players.

What do you think of this thought experiment?

consider how Americans would perceive a hypothetical: a nuclear armed Soviet satellite state in Mexico with bases capable of striking the United States. It’s not good enough to suggest “ah well the Russians wouldn’t *invade* America, they’d be outnumbered, wouldn’t they?”

How would you feel at a theoretical Warsaw Pact Ireland having nuclear weapons and 100,000 Russian soldiers on its territory?

We happily allow Western countries to control their spheres of influence and there is little doubt in my mind that the US would seek regime change in Mexico under those circumstances - whether by invasion or internal meddling.

Just look at our country and our dependencies. We are not willing to give up the Falkland Islands, the British Indian Ocean Territory, Gibraltar, Northern Island, or Scotland.

Importantly, most of those are supposedly kept as "British" because of the public justification "the people who live there say that's what they prefer", which is the reason Russia considers Crimea and the breakaway regions its own. Taking by force is always unjustifiable but we should be careful when using the same justification as Russia not to legitimise their own point of view. Else, we tacitly admit that Crimea is, basically, Russian.

The real world reason that, say, the Falklands are ours, is because we took them and then retained them by force.

Some of these places are disputed by other countries.

If the U.K. / Great Britain is not willing to give up any territory, why do you think Ukraine should?

The UK is willing to give up Northern Ireland upon the passing of successful referenda in both Northern Ireland and the Republic. Britain has given up a vast amount of territory over the last 100 years, much of it by being forced off by threats or the use of arms.

It’s possible that if the leaders of the NATO countries had made it absolutely clear to Putin that if Russian forces invaded any Ukrainian territory not already under Russian control, that NATO would respond militarily with a strong and powerful response. It’s possible this show of power would have been enough to dissuade him from invading. But that’s all speculation now, as it’s all water that has not only passed under the bridge, but is out to sea now.

I certainly think that is possible, and perhaps it is regrettable such a message wasn't sent.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Mar 2022 ==

What absolute rubbish. Most of the refugees arriving from the Ukraine are children, the elderly or women looking after children/elderly. These people will be a "drain" on society at large not an economic resource. The acceptance of these refugees is mainly for humanitarian reasons - something this government should be ashamed of.

Quite.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I care about any countries populous being denied there basic rights but i find it curious how our media is all over this war but somewhat ignores what happens in other parts of the world like Yemen where Saudi backed insurgents have wreaked havoc for years but we now need Saudi to pump more oil so we can avoid using Russian Oil so that OK. Reality is the West aren't fully prepared to inflict the most serious sanction we have at our disposal which is to shut down all pipelines and cargo routes importing Russian commodities. That would be just going too far like along with a No Fly Zone so if we won't do that facilitating a rapprochement is what should happen before things get out of hand.

Ultimately its been quite convenient for the likes of BoJo, Biden and Macron to have a diversion. The West was doing alright with letting economics do its bidding by gradually watching it seep further eastwards but the US McCarthyism is ever present with its obsession over Russia and of course its not in their backyard to deal with the consequences either.

Oh and by the way who is sitting ready with plenty of natural gas to export US of course as they are vehemently opposed to dealing with the climate challenge.

This is all just absurd implied-tin-foil-hattery. The media in the UK is all over this war because it's in Europe - in a country that is geographically, culturally and politically far closer to us then places like - say - Yemen. And also because the war comes a lot closer to threatening us in the UK than other wars have done. You may not like it but it's basic human nature that people tend to care more about those closer to them [*]. I bet if you lived in African country, you'd find the news is much more African-focused and reporting about Ukraine is much more muted, for exactly the same reason.

We would like places like Saudi Arabia to pump more oil because we have to live in the real world and that often means often choosing the least-bad option, and right now Russia is threatening liberal democracy across the World in a way that Saudi Arabia is not. No need to imply that there's some weird conspiracy about it all.

"Ultimately its been quite convenient for the likes of BoJo, Biden and Macron to have a diversion." Whaaaat? Do you imagine that Boris, Biden and Macron somehow deliberately engineered for Russia to invade Ukraine just so they'd get more popular or something? Can I suggest you try and get back to the real World?

[*] Just to be clear, I do think that what has been happening in Yemen is appalling, and I would have liked to see the West trying to do more to help there.

 

[brad465]

What absolute rubbish. Most of the refugees arriving from the Ukraine are children, the elderly or women looking after children/elderly. These people will be a "drain" on society at large not an economic resource. The acceptance of these refugees is mainly for humanitarian reasons - something this government should be ashamed of.

Apologies if I've misread this, are you saying the Government should be ashamed for taking in more refugees, or ashamed for not taking in more?

 

[Peterthegreat]

Apologies if I've misread this, are you saying the Government should be ashamed for taking in more refugees, or ashamed for not taking in more?

Sorry - I see what you mean. I am saying (hopefully clearly now) the UK Government should be ashamed in NOT taking in more refugees. Although my main gripe is the way they have dealt with it - not the number of refugees per se.

 

[yorksrob]

I am not suggesting it was reasonable for them to think it was, rather that that is what they say they thought and what they cite as a cause of the crisis. If you or I choose to believe them that's up to us. I happen to think it is a reasonable portion of the reason, along with their irredentist claims over much of Ukraine and their wish to ensure (what they consider to be) Russians are in Russia.

As is NATO's, given the history in the Americas. Britain and the US had its own Ukraine moment in Iraq. We are not without sin - and believe me, when Russia thinks of NATO, it mostly thinks of America, and to a lesser extent Britain and the European players.

What do you think of this thought experiment?



We happily allow Western countries to control their spheres of influence and there is little doubt in my mind that the US would seek regime change in Mexico under those circumstances - whether by invasion or internal meddling.


Importantly, most of those are supposedly kept as "British" because of the public justification "the people who live there say that's what they prefer", which is the reason Russia considers Crimea and the breakaway regions its own. Taking by force is always unjustifiable but we should be careful when using the same justification as Russia not to legitimise their own point of view. Else, we tacitly admit that Crimea is, basically, Russian.

The real world reason that, say, the Falklands are ours, is because we took them and then retained them by force.


The UK is willing to give up Northern Ireland upon the passing of successful referenda in both Northern Ireland and the Republic. Britain has given up a vast amount of territory over the last 100 years, much of it by being forced off by threats or the use of arms.


I certainly think that is possible, and perhaps it is regrettable such a message wasn't sent.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Mar 2022 ==


Quite.

The Warsaw Pact isn't directly comparable with NATO because the countries within it didn't democratically choose to become communist or to join it. They were strong-armed into it by the Soviets. By comparison, the countries of Eastern Europe are choosing democratically to join NATO.

Ultimately, for Russia to be accepted as a normal country, it needs to accept that its neighbours can make their own choices.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Mar 2022 ==

It's not even close to being "properly" Western in any meaningful way. It isn't even a democracy. It ranks somewhere near Armenia, Georgia and Madagascar in the democracy index.


NATO is a military alliance which has preconditions for membership. You can't just let anyone in. Remember NATO is there to defend us all and is not some piece of paper given to nations to ward off evil spirits. Laughable you think NATO would or should accept a country where the commander in chief of the navy defected to Russia when they turned up on his doorstep, as did thousands of their standing army, taking intelligence and equipment with them. Sorry but it this not even a serious line of argument and I won't entertain it further.

I do not consider it a justification. Do not repeatedly misrepresent my personal views as being aligned with the Russian state, especially when you again quote me directly as saying, quite plainly:



and reply directly:



I am saying the Russians consider it at least forms part of their justification and a casus belli, which is what actually matters when you have thousands of civilians dead in a real war which is happening right now.

If you so obviously misrepresent what I say once more I will not engage further.



And if Ukraine was in NATO you believe the conflict wouldn't have happened. Perhaps so, but if it did, we would be sending our soldiers (that is, not you or me but other people's sons and daughters) to die horribly in a brutal war over Ukraine, a country we didn't actually care about in 2021 if we are brutally honest with ourselves.

And do you believe that we should not now and in future be making the Russia faces the economic consequences of it's choices ?

It's not good enough just to say "oh Russia will be Russia" and get on with trading and engaging with them. If the country doesn't change its mindset, we should have nothing to do with it.

Your position is fundamentally contradictory. If you know that Ukraine had no chance of joining NATO, then it's inconcivable that the Russian secret services didn't have at least the same level of knowledge as you, so how can the prospect be a cause of the war ? The reality is that they probably did know that Ukraine was "being sold a dud" as you put it, but but the prospect made a useful pretext for Russia to continue its belligarent policy of controlling it's neighbour, which is what this is all about.

 

[Bantamzen]

Reports? Perhaps I could provide evidence??? I think you've misunderstood. You've said yourself within your same post, that "it really isn't going anything like as well as they had planned for". My point is that however badly things might be going for the Russians, they're not going badly enough for them, otherwise the carnage wouldn't be continuing. I'm saying that perhaps things aren't going as badly as many, yourself included, might be saying. I wish the Russian advances would collapse, but as yet they're not really showing all that many signs of doing so.

Just because they are still pushing doesn't mean it is going well for the Russians. Putin isn't going to back down, he is way too much of a narcissistic megalomaniac to simply stop the war without some kind of gain. He is perfectly happy to send as many Russians to their deaths so long as he appears to be winning, but he really isn't. I'd put a very large sum of money on there being meetings taking place within the military / Kremlin on when to make Putin, well disappear from the world stage.

The allegations mainly revolved around direct interference as far as I remember, but maybe I'm wrong. As for social media, there's fake posts all over the place, so I don't doubt those include Russian posts. However, I also doubt the power of social media, at least for the entire population. It works to convince businesses about a cause to support, for example, but most older people still get most of their news from the MSM (which does include Fox News I might add), and the majority in the US is still older people, as far as I'm aware.

You really shouldn't dismiss the power of social media, it is a powerful tool especially when you learn how the algorithms built into them can easily be used to target specific groups with specific messages. I would recommend the docu-drama 'A Social Dilemma' directed by Jeff Orlowski to get a bit of an insight into how social media really works. Its a fascinating, and slightly disturbing look into just how it all works.

 

[Noddy]

It's not even close to being "properly" Western in any meaningful way. It isn't even a democracy. It ranks somewhere near Armenia, Georgia and Madagascar in the democracy index.

Yes but look at the progress it has made.

This is how Freedom House profiles the country:

Democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms in Ukraine are seriously challenged by the grinding military conflict in the country’s east (Donbas), Russia’s occupation and de facto control of Crimea, widespread impunity for human rights abuses, and slow reform in key areas, such as the security and justice sectors. At the same time, the flourishing of civil society, major reforms since the Euromaidan revolution, and a vibrant media demonstrate Ukraine’s promise as an open and pluralistic democracy. As Ukraine struggles with the challenge of building its democracy in the face of significant threats, Freedom House works with an array of partners to…

Ukraine: Country Profile

Access Freedom House reports on Ukraine, see recent news and perspectives, and learn about our work in the country.

freedomhouse.org

You’ll note that some of the key reasons why democracy is challenged are due to Russian annexation of Crimea and Russian meddling in Donbas. You’ll also note there have been ‘major reforms’ since the Euromaidan revolution, which was the point when the public in Ukraine rejected Putin and he lost a lot of his political influence.

This is why there is a war now. Ukraine is clearly moving towards being a democratic western country. Would Ukraine have joined the EU or NATO any time soon-clearly no. But this war was not about that. It was about quickly overthrowing Zelensky (let’s not forget Russian propaganda said he’d fled after the first day or two-only for him to film himself and team in Kyiv), (re)installing a Russian leaning government and removing the transition to democracy which Putin fears because he can’t control it.

 

[AlterEgo]

The Warsaw Pact isn't directly comparable with NATO because the countries within it didn't democratically choose to become communist or to join it. They were strong-armed into it by the Soviets. By comparison, the countries of Eastern Europe are choosing democratically to join NATO.

Just answer the question as to how you might perceive 100,000 enemy troops on several Russian bases in the Republic of Ireland. I'm not really prepared to entertain anyone who doesn't admit that would be a concern for them.

Ultimately, for Russia to be accepted as a normal country, it needs to accept that its neighbours can make their own choices.

I've said this many times. Russia will never be and, importantly, cannot ever be a "normal country" (that is, what we recognise as a liberal democracy). It must be continually managed. Stuff like the "international community" is a dream concocted by Americans who think liberalism can be exported everywhere and solves myriad problems. In any case, the main partners of NATO have lengthy form over the 20th and 21st Centuries in not accepting that their neighbours (and even countries far away from them) have the right to choose a diametrically opposing way of life, so I do not think this sort of waffle is going to cut very deep. International relations do not involve friends and enemies; they revolve around strategic interests. You think the US doesn't meddle in elections all the time? You think the SIS here in Britain doesn't try to assist regime change in countries we don't like?

The main moderating influence on Russia is likely to be China whether we like it or not. China is not a normal country. It never will be either.

And do you believe that we should not now and in future be making the Russia faces the economic consequences of it's choices ?

Yes, but we must be careful. One of the few peoples in the world as hardy as the Ukrainians are Russians. The ordinary Russian will hunker down and may possibly resent the West more. The sanctions need to better target Putin's inner circle. I'm concerned that doing stuff like cancelling 100 million people's bank cards and sending Russia into economic oblivion could be counterproductive. So, yes, sanctions are good, but temper that with a critical eye making sure they are actually effective.

Your position is fundamentally contradictory. If you know that Ukraine had no chance of joining NATO, then it's inconcivable that the Russian secret services didn't have at least the same level of knowledge as you, so how can the prospect be a cause of the war ?

Do you think intelligence services deal in certainty? The Russian intelligence and diplomatic services may well assess the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO at something like 10%, as I do (or they may not!), but the whole point is that the war is taking place against a country which is actively seeking to join, partly as a deterrent to some of Russia's neighbours to intimidate them and for Russia to demonstrate it will not tolerate a neighbour like Ukraine.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Mar 2022 ==

This is why there is a war now. Ukraine is clearly moving towards being a democratic western country. Would Ukraine have joined the EU or NATO any time soon-clearly no. But this war was not about that. It was about quickly overthrowing Zelensky (let’s not forget Russian propaganda said he’d fled after the first day or two-only for him to film himself and team in Kyiv), (re)installing a Russian leaning government and removing the transition to democracy which Putin fears because he can’t control it.

No doubt all of that is true - no question.

 

[yorksrob]

Just answer the question as to how you might perceive 100,000 enemy troops on several Russian bases in the Republic of Ireland. I'm not really prepared to entertain anyone who doesn't admit that would be a concern for them.

Yes, of course it would be a concern because we know the nature of the Russian state. Nevertheless, there is a whole world of difference between being concerned by your neighbour and invading it.

I've said this many times. Russia will never be and, importantly, cannot ever be a "normal country" (that is, what we recognise as a liberal democracy). It must be continually managed. Stuff like the "international community" is a dream concocted by Americans who think liberalism can be exported everywhere and solves myriad problems. In any case, the main partners of NATO have lengthy form over the 20th and 21st Centuries in not accepting that their neighbours (and even countries far away from them) have the right to choose a diametrically opposing way of life, so I do not think this sort of waffle is going to cut very deep. International relations do not involve friends and enemies; they revolve around strategic interests. You think the US doesn't meddle in elections all the time? You think the SIS here in Britain doesn't try to assist regime change in countries we don't like?

Then it is in our interest to ensure that Russia is weakened enough that it can't effectively control the affairs of other European countries.

The main moderating influence on Russia is likely to be China whether we like it or not. China is not a normal country. It never will be either.


Yes, but we must be careful. One of the few peoples in the world as hardy as the Ukrainians are Russians. The ordinary Russian will hunker down and may possibly resent the West more. The sanctions need to better target Putin's inner circle. I'm concerned that doing stuff like cancelling 100 million people's bank cards and sending Russia into economic oblivion could be counterproductive. So, yes, sanctions are good, but temper that with a critical eye making sure they are actually effective.

One thing that is not going to be effective is impounding the odd yacht or football club here or there. The economic sanctions need to go to the heart of the Russian economy to have any effect.

 

[DustyBin]

Yes but look at the progress it has made.

This is how Freedom House profiles the country:

Ukraine: Country Profile

Access Freedom House reports on Ukraine, see recent news and perspectives, and learn about our work in the country.

freedomhouse.org

You’ll note that some of the key reasons why democracy is challenged are due to Russian annexation of Crimea and Russian meddling in Donbas. You’ll also note there have been ‘major reforms’ since the Euromaidan revolution, which was the point when the public in Ukraine rejected Putin and he lost a lot of his political influence.

This is why there is a war now. Ukraine is clearly moving towards being a democratic western country. Would Ukraine have joined the EU or NATO any time soon-clearly no. But this war was not about that. It was about quickly overthrowing Zelensky (let’s not forget Russian propaganda said he’d fled after the first day or two-only for him to film himself and team in Kyiv), (re)installing a Russian leaning government and removing the transition to democracy which Putin fears because he can’t control it.

A good summary I think. To all intents and purposes this is about reinstating Russian control, and it was supposed to be easy……

 

[Annetts key]

A good summary I think. To all intents and purposes this is about reinstating Russian control, and it was supposed to be easy……

Can we reinstate one of the regimes that existed in that part of the world before Russia existed and invade Russia to implement this policy? Do you think that would go down well with Putin? Maybe we should tell him about our new policy at the next telephone call from a ‘western’ leader… You never know, it may give him a heart attack, thus (hopefully) solving the problem…

 

[MattRat]

One thing that is not going to be effective is impounding the odd yacht or football club here or there. The economic sanctions need to go to the heart of the Russian economy to have any effect.

Which will also go to the heart of our economies due to globalism.

And the most effected? The poor. And will they get the help they need? Well, they already aren't....

 

[Annetts key]

Economic or trade sanctions will always be a blunt instrument. But if the ‘west’ is too afraid to get involved militarily (which may lead to a wider conflict, which may lead to WWIII, which may lead to the use of ICBM…), then unless we want to just watch, I don’t see what other tools we have that will do anything useful.

War is a very expensive business, trying to reduce the amount of money that Russia can spend on its military by using sanctions is a legitimate method (but unfortunately rather slow).

And yes, the ordinary people in Russia will suffer, with the poor being hit worse than more wealthy people in the country.

But in comparison, the people in the war zone in Ukraine currently have it far worse.

 

[MattRat]

Economic or trade sanctions will always be a blunt instrument. But if the ‘west’ is too afraid to get involved militarily (which may lead to a wider conflict, which may lead to WWIII, which may lead to the use of ICBM…), then unless we want to just watch, I don’t see what other tools we have that will do anything useful.

War is a very expensive business, trying to reduce the amount of money that Russia can spend on its military by using sanctions is a legitimate method (but unfortunately rather slow).

And yes, the ordinary people in Russia will suffer, with the poor being hit worse than more wealthy people in the country.

But in comparison, the people in the war zone in Ukraine currently have it far worse.

I meant the poor in our country would suffer too, due to globalism. It's shooting yourself in the foot. But I guess our own worst off don't matter as long as we stick it to the Russians, amirite? (Sarcasm)