Russia invades Ukraine

[yorksrob]

But compare this with the view that a lot of people have about the USA. The USA went into Iraq on a pretext of avenging 9/11 when people around the world were screaming that this was a wholly inappropriate action. Yet Bush and his "cadre" were so needy of demonstrating power that they ignored what many were telling them and went in anyway. Meanwhile the American people were being fed huge amounts of propaganda that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, as I know from travelling in the US at that time and speaking to many of them. Relatives in Canada also spoke of their despair at the propaganda that was being fed to US citizens at the time.

Then there's Trump, who was clearly guilty of inciting a riot which lead to multiple deaths, and yet he's not only walked free from this, there's a fair chance he will be running for another presidency in a couple of years time.

The point is, in the UK we tear our hair out about Russian propaganda, and what their dictatorial leadership gets away with, yet when it's the USA we're much more forgiving. Okay, the situations are different, but the traits of propaganda and unjustified invasions are nevertheless there. All of it has abhorrent aspects, it just seems to be a sorry feature of modern society that so many people are either over the top modern woke, or perpetuating centuries old human nature of aggression and deception. I wish I had the answers.

There are undoubtedly blind spots in how we perceive (and engage with) the USA's foreign policy objectives. But from a selfish point of view, the USA has never threatened the stability and peace of democratic Europe. That is the really significant difference in this case.

But it's not the same power with the same agenda, and it is now 2022 with mass media and cyber warfare. Russia is an open country. The Soviet Union was not.

It's just a facile argument - you could apply your quote to Germany in 1914 or 1939 but our responses were different. The Russian Federation of 2022 is not the Soviet Union of 1977. The West must respond to Russia but must be extremely careful how it does so. And it must not simply carbon-copy its foreign policy of how it countered pre-glasnost and pre-perestroika USSR.

Russia may have been "an open country" under Yeltsin, but it's looking less and less like one now. As I have pointed out many times on this thread, the west is already being extremely careful and restrained in its response to Russia in the face of extreme provocation. Given the way country is behaving, and looks likely to be governed for some time, the only remaining option seems to be to deny it the oxygen of trade and interaction.

 

[John Luxton]

I ask again: Why did these countries not FREELY align with Moscow?

Probably because they judged Russia on the past - rather than wait to see if the collapse of communism changed things.

That is why a period of 40 to 50 years of non alignment might have been appropriate. Then after that period of time a choice between east and west could be made.

 

[yorksrob]

The military spending of the USSR was far greater than Russian military spending. The USSR military forces (at least on paper) were in their day far larger than current day Russian military forces.

I think it's more the tentacles that Russia has into Western economies these days that has given it more "capacity"

 

[najaB]

The military spending of the USSR was far greater than Russian military spending. The USSR military forces (at least on paper) were in their day far larger than current day Russian military forces.

I read the post you're quoting as saying that Russia's oil and gas exports to Europe give it more power than than the USSR's military ever had over policy in the West.

 

[John Luxton]

The point is, in the UK we tear our hair out about Russian propaganda, and what their dictatorial leadership gets away with, yet when it's the USA we're much more forgiving. Okay, the situations are different, but the traits of propaganda and unjustified invasions are nevertheless there. All of it has abhorrent aspects, it just seems to be a sorry feature of modern society that so many people are either over the top modern woke, or perpetuating centuries old human nature of aggression and deception. I wish I had the answers.

Yes a very good point. Why should we trust the US more than the Russians? Sometimes we blindly follow the USA without stopping to think should we really be doing this? At least David Cameron did not do a Tony Blair and follow the US blindly into Syria back in 2013. The trouble with alliances or even friendships they sometime cloud judgement on individual issues.

 

[GS250]

Then there's Trump, who was clearly guilty of inciting a riot which lead to multiple deaths, and yet he's not only walked free from this, there's a fair chance he will be running for another presidency in a couple of years time.

Biden was installed purely to rid America of Trump. His tenure so far has proved this. Yet we now have (arguably) an even bigger liability in the White House. Words rarely hurt anyone big but trying to justify his comments on Putin as being due to "moral outrage" is juvenile in the extreme. You have to be able to justify hard hitting comments and there are plenty of other reasons he could have used for to back them up. Simply going down the "moral outrage" route is leading with emotion and puts him on a parallel with those who destroy their own town due to an inability to control their emotions.

We will never know whether a Trump led administration would have prevented war in Ukraine. They do say it takes a madman to deal with a madman mind.

 

[AlterEgo]

Russia may have been "an open country" under Yeltsin, but it's looking less and less like one now. As I have pointed out many times on this thread, the west is already being extremely careful and restrained in its response to Russia in the face of extreme provocation. Given the way country is behaving, and looks likely to be governed for some time, the only remaining option seems to be to deny it the oxygen of trade and interaction.

So you're not in the least concerned about the possibility of a Russia-India axis or a Russia-China axis? Russia will get its trade from somewhere and being a cuck state of China is unwelcome, as is the possibility of Russia ganging up with India on US ally Pakistan. All nuclear powers. I am fairly certain one of those two things will happen, but unlikely both, as India and China view each other with suspicion and have continuing border disputes.

I suppose the security of Asia is not your concern as the consequences will be felt by people who seem very remote. The complete denial that we live in a multipolar world where the West can take unilateral action and not need to worry about anything else down the line is the same problem that's led us to where we are now.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Mar 2022 ==

We will never know whether a Trump led administration would have prevented war in Ukraine. They do say it takes a madman to deal with a madman mind.

Trump was an abomination of a president but war in Ukraine would not have happened because Trump was unpredictable, in the past having authorised strikes on bases where Russian soldiers were known to have been based.

There may - perhaps certainly would - have been other bad consequences from a Trump 2021 presidency, but war in Ukraine is probably not one.

 

[najaB]

We will never know whether a Trump led administration would have prevented war in Ukraine. They do say it takes a madman to deal with a madman mind.

There may well have been an invasion, but there wouldn't have been a war.

Trump was lukewarm on arms to Ukraine. After significant increases in 2014-16 the level of assistance fell in 2017/18 before increasing again in 2019 and then falling again in 2020.

 

[Annetts key]

I think it's more the tentacles that Russia has into Western economies these days that has given it more "capacity"

I read the post you're quoting as saying that Russia's oil and gas exports to Europe give it more power than than the USSR's military ever had over policy in the West.

At the moment, due to Russia being a major exporter of food products and fossil fuels, yes Russia does has a significant amount of economic power. But that’s more because European and some other countries have lapped up the (previously cheap) supply of fossil fuels, despite us knowing about climate change for over thirty years and the need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels. Many countries around the world have put money ahead of morals and the environment.

In this regard, yes, ‘the west’ is at fault. Any sensible person will tell you that supply diversity is more important than contracting to obtain a high percentage of your required resources from a low number of suppliers.

Hence the mad scramble now that European countries have seen the error of their ways.

And yes, some of the money from Russian exports will have (and still is) going to be funding both the Russian state and it’s military.

But it’s not currently in Russia’s interests to upset the European countries it supplies by restricting fossil fuel exports.

 

[ainsworth74]

Probably because they judged Russia on the past - rather than wait to see if the collapse of communism changed things.

They didn't have to wait that long to see that Russia hadn't changed all that much. See the first and second Chechen Wars.

 

[najaB]

But it’s not currently in Russia’s interests to upset the European countries it supplies by restricting fossil fuel exports.

It is, however, in our interests to reduce our imports.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

As has been discussed in a lot of places, I am not sure people are particularly interested in Russia per se, but rather a 'strong' leader like Putin. Cut to the chase and that basically means liking a white nationalist who has very clear views on things like sexuality, people of colour, gender rights and - well - rights in general. Putin isn't woke and most certainly 'tells it like it is'. He's not going to give in to those 'nasty libs'.

It's hardly a surprise that people like Nigel Farage or Donald Trump and their many followers see how Russia looks demographically and think that's exactly what they'd like.

That may well explain why people like Farage and Trump tend to be so supportive of Putin. But it does not explain why people like Jeremy Corbyn or so many of his followers in Momentum/the Labour Party[*] have been so relatively pro-Putin. Ditto groups like Sinn Fein, who have tended to be fairly pro-Putin prior to the Ukraine invasion.

[*] To be fair to Labour, I suspect many of those people are no longer in the Labour Party.

 

[Annetts key]

It is, however, in our interests to reduce our imports.

Absolutely agree.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Mar 2022 ==

That may well explain why people like Farage and Trump tend to be so supportive of Putin. But it does not explain why people like Jeremy Corbyn or so many of his followers in Momentum/the Labour Party[*] have been so relatively pro-Putin. Ditto groups like Sinn Fein, who have tended to be fairly pro-Putin prior to the Ukraine invasion.

[*] To be fair to Labour, I suspect many of those people are no longer in the Labour Party.

I’m not sure about the ‘left’ being supportive of Putin. More that they see Russia as ordinary people rather than as an enemy. This following on from seeing citizens of the USSR as people rather than as ‘the’ enemy.

Add in that they see the rich and powerful as the real enemy, and we have plenty of these in the ‘west’, the P&O leadership to give just one example…

 

[SJL2020]

That may well explain why people like Farage and Trump tend to be so supportive of Putin. But it does not explain why people like Jeremy Corbyn or so many of his followers in Momentum/the Labour Party[*] have been so relatively pro-Putin. Ditto groups like Sinn Fein, who have tended to be fairly pro-Putin prior to the Ukraine invasion.

[*] To be fair to Labour, I suspect many of those people are no longer in the Labour Party.

Putin is a disruptor. He therefore has an appeal to some of those on the fringes (left and right) who despise the status quo.

 

[adrock1976]

There are undoubtedly blind spots in how we perceive (and engage with) the USA's foreign policy objectives. But from a selfish point of view, the USA has never threatened the stability and peace of democratic Europe. That is the really significant difference in this case.

Although the USA may not have directly intervened in Europe, they have done so elsewhere (with most of it engineered by the CIA) with notable ones outlined below

The United Fruit Company in Guatemala was used as a front for the CIA during the civil war to impose military rule

The overthrow of democratically elected Salvadore Allende in Chile on 9/11 1973 (the 9/11 that never gets mentioned) and the installation of General Augusto Pinochet (who Jack Straw allowed to return to Chile back in 1998 due to "ill health" so as to avoid extradition to Madrid, Spain for war crimes)

The civil war in Angola (which conveniently happens to have oil) during the early years of independence from Portugal

The invention, funding, and training of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan when the former Soviets occupied it from 1979-89

The overthrow of the democratically elected president of Iran in 1953, then installing the Shah (subsequently overthrown in 1979). This led to the funding, training, and supporting of Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iran - Iraq conflict.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I’m not sure about the ‘left’ being supportive of Putin. More that they see Russia as ordinary people rather than as an enemy. This following on from seeing citizens of the USSR as people rather than as ‘the’ enemy.

Do you not recall how, after the Salisbury poisonings, Corbyn and many on the left were taking the line that we shouldn't blame Russia because we didn't have complete 100% proof that Putin's regime was responsible. My memory (from being in the Labour Party at the time, something I now rather regret) is that some people were even taking the line that the whole thing was probably done by the CIA/MI5/America in order to discredit Putin or something.

Or how, even as Russian tanks were preparing to enter Ukraine earlier this year, Corbyn and a number of left-wing Labour MPs were busily signing a letter that tried to excuse Putin and blame everything on NATO?

 

[yorksrob]

So you're not in the least concerned about the possibility of a Russia-India axis or a Russia-China axis? Russia will get its trade from somewhere and being a cuck state of China is unwelcome, as is the possibility of Russia ganging up with India on US ally Pakistan. All nuclear powers. I am fairly certain one of those two things will happen, but unlikely both, as India and China view each other with suspicion and have continuing border disputes.

I suppose the security of Asia is not your concern as the consequences will be felt by people who seem very remote. The complete denial that we live in a multipolar world where the West can take unilateral action and not need to worry about anything else down the line is the same problem that's led us to where we are now.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Mar 2022 ==


Trump was an abomination of a president but war in Ukraine would not have happened because Trump was unpredictable, in the past having authorised strikes on bases where Russian soldiers were known to have been based.

There may - perhaps certainly would - have been other bad consequences from a Trump 2021 presidency, but war in Ukraine is probably not one.

The geopolitical situation in Asia is somewhat more nuanced than you make out. Russia couldn't go all in with either India or China without damaging it's relationship with the other, so that in effect limits the possibilities of a super-block between them all.

I'm also not at all convinced that India desires to be an axis with Russia anyway. Yes, it has a strong relationship with Russia, but in line with its non-aligned tradition, it also has a good relationship with many Western countries and I don't believe it has any desire to ditch those either.

China is a challenge, but then it was anyway. They might end up doing more trade with Russia in the longer term, but I'm just as much concerned (if not more) with them tieing up trade in all the other countries anyway. China trade with Russia could even have long term benefits for us (if they replace domestic coal with lower carbon Russian gas for their manufacturing for example).

Actually, if we, the west, want to help some of the other countries in Asia, we could do well to diversify some of our manufacturing and supply chain to some of them.

Your line about "the West taking unilateral action" is somewhat off-topic, since the unilateral action being taken at the moment is by Russia.

 

[John Luxton]

Putin is a disruptor. He therefore has an appeal to some of those on the fringes (left and right) who despise the status quo.

Is he really a disruptor or a person who is both a social and political conservative who holds out against progressive views?

Could it be progressive views / wokism / statue toppling here and in other western countries act as a bit of a magnet for traditional conservatives who no longer see their old western stance being perpetually threatened by neo liberalism. We only have to look a the Conservative party in the UK to see how many traditional conservative values it has surrendered and as a result has seen fringe parties spring up Reform / Heritage / Reclaim who aim to maintain those values.

Some people feel threatened by these changes and see Putin and one or two other leaders such as Orban as resisting these changes and tend show varying degrees of approval.

 

[Cloud Strife]

That is why a period of 40 to 50 years of non alignment might have been appropriate. Then after that period of time a choice between east and west could be made.

Appropriate for who? It wasn't appropriate for Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and the others, who wanted to make sure that Russia could never again do what they did to them in the previous 46 years. Non-alignment would simply have meant a military alliance between the V4 and the Baltics, and for many reasons, it's better for everyone for them to be in NATO rather than their own military bloc.

Poland views itself as being an integral part of Central Europe, with Russians viewed as coming from behind the Urals. Non-alignment was and is a non-starter here.

 

[JonasB]

Basically we provided Putin with a campaigning tool to play on the threat from the west. If those countries had been demilitarised and neutral as per Sweden and Finland he would not have been given the ammunition.

How has being neutral worked out for Ukraine? The baltic states are probably very relieved to be members of both Nato and EU.

I guess I just imagined the Finnish and Swedish Air Forces, Navies and Armies then?

You're not the only one in that case.

During the cold war, Sweden spent a lot of money on the military. At its peak the Swedish Air Force was the 4th largest in world e.g. And with a lot of old documents being declassified it has been shown that the armed forces were at times pretty aggressive when it came to defending the borders.

 

[ainsworth74]

Although the USA may not have directly intervened in Europe, they have done so elsewhere (with most of it engineered by the CIA) with notable ones outlined below

The United Fruit Company in Guatemala was used as a front for the CIA during the civil war to impose military rule

The overthrow of democratically elected Salvadore Allende in Chile on 9/11 1973 (the 9/11 that never gets mentioned) and the installation of General Augusto Pinochet (who Jack Straw allowed to return to Chile back in 1998 due to "ill health" so as to avoid extradition to Madrid, Spain for war crimes)

The civil war in Angola (which conveniently happens to have oil) during the early years of independence from Portugal

The invention, funding, and training of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan when the former Soviets occupied it from 1979-89

The overthrow of the democratically elected president of Iran in 1953, then installing the Shah (subsequently overthrown in 1979). This led to the funding, training, and supporting of Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iran - Iraq conflict.

Yes and? The US has done bad and evil things and I would be much happier if they (and where relevant us either here in the UK or the wider West) stood up and admitted their faults and tried to be better. Not sure what relevance that has to anything to do with the present unprovoked Russian invasion of Ukraine however. Other than an attempt at "whataboutism".

Is he really a disruptor or a person who is both a social and political conservative who holds out against progressive views?

Could it be progressive views / wokism / statue toppling here and in other western countries act as a bit of a magnet for traditional conservatives who no longer see their old western stance being perpetually threatened by neo liberalism. We only have to look a the Conservative party in the UK to see how many traditional conservative values it has surrendered and as a result has seen fringe parties spring up Reform / Heritage / Reclaim who aim to maintain those values.

Some people feel threatened by these changes and see Putin and one or two other leaders such as Orban as resisting these changes and tend show varying degrees of approval.

What on earth is Putin conserving by getting thousands of his own citizens slaughtered along with thousands of Ukrainians? As his armed forces lay waste to cities? As his invasion risks triggering food instability? As he has successfully cut off his country from huge chunks of global trade? If that is what modern conservatism has to offer is it any surprise that more people turn their backs on it?

 

[John Luxton]

What on earth is Putin conserving by getting thousands of his own citizens slaughtered along with thousands of Ukrainians? As his armed forces lay waste to cities? As his invasion risks triggering food instability? As he has successfully cut off his country from huge chunks of global trade? If that is what modern conservatism has to offer is it any surprise that more people turn their backs on it?

I was answering the question posed earlier as to why some people in UK and elsewhere have more sympathetic views towards Putin.

 

[GS250]

You're not the only one in that case.

During the cold war, Sweden spent a lot of money on the military. At its peak the Swedish Air Force was the 4th largest in world e.g. And with a lot of old documents being declassified it has been shown that the armed forces were at times pretty aggressive when it came to defending the borders.

The RAF Shackletons and Nimrods were sometimes given the heave ho by the Swedish Air Force. Sweden was generally considered a 'friendly' neutral state but they certainly didn't let anyone get away with any liberties.

 

[jon0844]

That may well explain why people like Farage and Trump tend to be so supportive of Putin. But it does not explain why people like Jeremy Corbyn or so many of his followers in Momentum/the Labour Party[*] have been so relatively pro-Putin. Ditto groups like Sinn Fein, who have tended to be fairly pro-Putin prior to the Ukraine invasion.

[*] To be fair to Labour, I suspect many of those people are no longer in the Labour Party.

That's true, but a lot of people still associate Russia with communism and socialism which might explain that?

And, let's be honest, most politicians have in the past tried to form some sort of relationship with Russia and/or Putin which further muddies the waters.

Nevertheless, I stick by what I said about the right wing thinking Putin is the sort of leader we need.

 

[Cloud Strife]

During the cold war, Sweden spent a lot of money on the military. At its peak the Swedish Air Force was the 4th largest in world e.g. And with a lot of old documents being declassified it has been shown that the armed forces were at times pretty aggressive when it came to defending the borders.

Yes, it's well documented that the Swedish were very keen on enforcing their neutrality. Finland was thought to be the same, although it's come to light in recent years that there was plenty of unofficial cooperation going on.

Nevertheless, I stick by what I said about the right wing thinking Putin is the sort of leader we need.

It is absolutely frightening. Putin is not a right winger at all, it's just that he (correctly) perceived the benefits in letting the Russian Orthodox Church dictate social policies. It's paid off handsomely for him, as Kirill now effectively acts as a Minister of Propaganda for United Russia. Of course, Kirill himself has plenty of murky KGB/FSB links, not least through his cigarette smuggling activities in the 1990s.

One interesting and defining thing about the 2000s in Europe has been the rise of political religion - i.e. authoritarian regimes pretending to be religious. Russia, Hungary, Poland, Serbia - all of them feature the same nonsense.

 

[adrock1976]

Yes and? The US has done bad and evil things and I would be much happier if they (and where relevant us either here in the UK or the wider West) stood up and admitted their faults and tried to be better. Not sure what relevance that has to anything to do with the present unprovoked Russian invasion of Ukraine however. Other than an attempt at "whataboutism".

What on earth is Putin conserving by getting thousands of his own citizens slaughtered along with thousands of Ukrainians? As his armed forces lay waste to cities? As his invasion risks triggering food instability? As he has successfully cut off his country from huge chunks of global trade? If that is what modern conservatism has to offer is it any surprise that more people turn their backs on it?

Hey, I was simply responding to yorksrob's point about the USA intervening in Europe. Also, I have never heard of whataboutism before, and have never knowingly indulged in it.

Furthermore, I am critical of all governments across the globe, including the Saudi Arabian and Israeli Governments. You only have to see when some individuals who want to change things when elected find it hard to do so and end up becoming part of the exact establishment they were opposed to (in recent times see Farage - opposed to the EU, but became part of it as an MEP. Also, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt after the Arab Spring in 2011, where things are not much different from Mubarak, and the SNP who wants Scotland to be independent, but still wants to tie economic and monetary policy to the Bank of England, and for elected representatives to still pledge allegiance to the monarchy rather than the electorate).

Also, during WWII, Joseph Stalin was on the Allied side, even though we all turned a blind eye to his purges and ordering the assassination of Leon Trotsky with an ice pick in 1940. Fast forward to the Iran-Iraq conflict, rather surprisingly, the former USSR was on the same side as the UK and USA in supporting Saddam Hussein and strangely enough, the Israeli Government/Mossad/IDF were supportive of Iran back then.

I'll leave with a quote from Bob Marley: "If you are going to criticise, make sure your own hands are clean".

 

[DustyBin]

The RAF Shackletons and Nimrods were sometimes given the heave ho by the Swedish Air Force. Sweden was generally considered a 'friendly' neutral state but they certainly didn't let anyone get away with any liberties.

I've read reports of them kicking US subs out of their waters as well so you're right there!

That's true, but a lot of people still associate Russia with communism and socialism which might explain that?

And, let's be honest, most politicians have in the past tried to form some sort of relationship with Russia and/or Putin which further muddies the waters.

Nevertheless, I stick by what I said about the right wing thinking Putin is the sort of leader we need.

Presumably you're referring to the far right here, not the average (C)conservative/right of centre voter (of which I'm one)? I agree with @DynamicSpirit and @SJL2020 as well that people on both extremes of the political spectrum are attracted to Putin, if only because he disrupts the status quo.

 

[GS250]

Presumably you're referring to the far right here, not the average (C)conservative/right of centre voter (of which I'm one)? I agree with @DynamicSpirit and @SJL2020 as well that people on both extremes of the political spectrum are attracted to Putin, if only because he disrupts the status quo.

Absolutely correct.

I would also suggest that you don't have to be a 'traditional Conservative' to find the actions of those who pull down statues, lead with identity politics etc etc as being counter productive to racial harmony.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

With early mention of past historical Russian moves into the Islamic Republics of Central Asia, their most recent venture of their move into Afghanistan did not meet with the hopes they had there and eventually led to a retreat having suffered a great deal of military deaths in the time of their involvement.

China, on the other hand, seems to have no such difficulty with the area of the Uighur Muslims and even less in the former Buddhist country of Tibet.

 

[Doppelganger]

Probably because they judged Russia on the past - rather than wait to see if the collapse of communism changed things.

That is why a period of 40 to 50 years of non alignment might have been appropriate. Then after that period of time a choice between east and west could be made.

Are you for real?

Places like Poland were carved up by places like Russia one way or another way back in the 18th century. Why would they need to wait 40 to 50 years to make their own choices who to align with?