Russia invades Ukraine

[hst43102]

Indeed, it has a feeling similar to what happened with the Germans after the First World War. I would hope that we would not decide to mirror the same mistakes.

Unfortunately I think it's very unlikely that we will be able to make any decisions concerning the future of Russia, whether or not they "lose" this war. Also, I think the only way to curb future aggression from Russia would be partition into a few smaller countries.

 

[DustyBin]

Unfortunately I think it's very unlikely that we will be able to make any decisions concerning the future of Russia, whether or not they "lose" this war.

Not in the same way as we did with Germany and not in the short term. At some point however there will be an opportunity to reintegrate them into global society at which point we’ll have some degree of influence. I think this is actually what we need to be working towards, accepting that it won’t happen overnight.

Also, I think the only way to curb future aggression from Russia would be partition into a few smaller countries.

I see your logic, however there are a number of issues with this and I don’t think it’s likely to happen. You could easily end up with (say) five nuclear armed smaller states, at least one of which is likely to be ruled by a lunatic. The danger is that the region becomes even more messy and unstable than it is now.

 

[brad465]

Unfortunately I think it's very unlikely that we will be able to make any decisions concerning the future of Russia, whether or not they "lose" this war. Also, I think the only way to curb future aggression from Russia would be partition into a few smaller countries.

There are quite a few hostile regions within what is internationally recognised Russia, including some I'd never heard of before February (the only one I'd heard of was Chechnya), and it's possible if Russia's military is significantly weakened in Ukraine and the regime collapses, these regions could start rebelling and cause a civil war as they strive for independence.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There are quite a few hostile regions within what is internationally recognised Russia, including some I'd never heard of before February (the only one I'd heard of was Chechnya), and it's possible if Russia's military is significantly weakened in Ukraine and the regime collapses, these regions could start rebelling and cause a civil war as they strive for independence.

The Southern Caucuses region has a strong Muslim ethos and considering how in Syria, the Islamic State faction have been constantly attacked by Russia acting as a Syrian supporter, could well be a definite thorn in the Russian state in those regions, already having a presence in Afghanistan as the Taliban are now finding out to their cost.

 

[AlterEgo]

According to past Russian statements, they have not been at war with any state, including Ukraine.

Yes, I did laugh when I read Lavrov's comments!

 

[Falcon1200]

Throughout most of its modern history European Russia has had a long history of European powers (Finland, Sweden, France, Prussia, Germany, Poland-Lithuania) invading from the West.

Russia has done its share of invading too, notably Poland in 1939 and of course Ukraine now.

Us. We did all the invading!

The last time we invaded continental Europe was in 1944, and I think most would agree that was in a good cause. When was the time before that ?

 

[nw1]

How true it is I do not know, but there are reports of an age divide in relation to believing what the Russian media says and supporting the war. Older people, and this may go down to those in their mid-forties, grew up in a society where you had only one source of news and you believed that if you valued your freedom. Younger people have grown up in a slightly more diverse environment and have been more willing to question. There is also the matter of access to other opinions: the oldies are less likely to be technically savvy and able to get around the media restrictions. Conscripts are likely to come from the group that is more likely to question and be able to find out more about what they are being asked to do. (A broad-brush opinion, I know.)

I'm not sure it would go down as low as mid-forties: remember Gorbachev took over in 1985 and openness started coming in during, what, 1987-88? So someone who was say 16 in 1985, or 18 in 1987 would now be 53, so someone of 53 would have spent much of their teens, and their entire adult life in the Gorbachev era. Someone of 45 would have been just 10 in 1987, so would have been a young child in the pre-Gorbachev era and would probably only remember Gorbachev onwards.

Obviously I'm not Russian so can't talk first hand but I'd have expected people born in the mid-late 60s onwards to be used to a more open environment, having grown up in the Gorbachev or post-USSR years.

 

[MattRat]

The BBC is being pretty balanced, so anyone who's losing sleep over this should consider getting news from there alone for now.

I'd actually, surprisingly (at least to me), suggest the guardian. The reporters all have their own bias, but there's a wide array of different reporters, so taken as a whole you get a broad range of views.

 

[philosopher]

Absolutely. I think that, although the "punish all Russians" narrative has a lot of problems, the problems with Russia go much deeper than just Putin and his government. The fact that many ordinary Russians not only support this invasion but also appear to encourage war crimes is deeply worrying to me - Putin will be gone sooner or later, but given the choice the Russians will probably elect another militaristic strongman dicatator.

For whatever reason it does seem that a very militaristic and nationalist culture has taken hold in large parts of Russian society since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Ultimately I reckon a de-nationalisation campaign will need to occur in Russia, similar to the denazification campaign in Germany after the Second World War to prevent Russia veering to strongman dictators.

The problem is I can’t see how such a de-nationalisation campaign can occur as no Russia president is likely to initiate one unless they have absolutely no option but to.

 

[takno]

I'd actually, surprisingly (at least to me), suggest the guardian. The reporters all have their own bias, but there's a wide array of different reporters, so taken as a whole you get a broad range of views.

That's fairly normal for the Guardian. Sometimes the main editorial line can get a bit overwhelming (as in Covid), but they go to a lot more trouble to carry a diversity of views than most other media sources. The fact that they just carry those alternative views rather than trying to present it as a "balanced" debate often means that you can read a coherent argument, where the BBC gets mired in false objectivity.

That said, the BBC has an excellent explainer article about differing international viewpoints on the invasion.

 

[MattRat]

For whatever reason it does seem that a very militaristic and nationalist culture has taken hold in large parts of Russian society since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Ultimately I reckon a de-nationalisation campaign will need to occur in Russia, similar to the denazification campaign in Germany after the Second World War to prevent Russia veering to strongman dictators.

The problem is I can’t see how such a de-nationalisation campaign can occur as no Russia president is likely to initiate one unless they have absolutely no option but to.

Revolution?

 

[Gloster]

Russia has done its share of invading too, notably Poland in 1939 and of course Ukraine now.

And Finland in 1939. Molotov Cocktail, anyone?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

And Finland in 1939. Molotov Cocktail, anyone?

Another place where the invading Russian army met a very determined resistance from the Finnish army.

 

[hst43102]

The last time we invaded continental Europe was in 1944

Would I be correct in saying that 1943 (Sicily) and 1944 (France) would be the only times in the last 100 years that the UK has invaded other countries in Europe? I'm not trying to justify some terrible invasions in our history, but at least in the last century the UK / West has got a much better record of less aggresion and invasions than Russia.

I hope this is a complete list of territories / countries in Europe invaded by Russia / the USSR in the last 100 years?

1939 - Poland
1939 - Finland
1945 - Germany
1956 - Hungary (not technically an invasion but a forceful military intervention)
1968 - Czechoslovakia
1992 - Transnistria*
1992 - Abkhazia*
1999 - Chechnya*
2008 - South Ossetia*
2014 - Crimea*
2014 - Luhansk & Donetsk*
2022 - Ukraine

* - territories still occupied by Russia

 

[najaB]

Would I be correct in saying that 1943 (Sicily) and 1944 (France) would be the only times in the last 100 years that the UK has invaded other countries in Europe? I'm not trying to justify some terrible invasions in our history, but at least in the last century the UK / West has got a much better record of less aggresion and invasions than Russia.

I hope this is a complete list of territories / countries in Europe invaded by Russia / the USSR in the last 100 years?

1939 - Poland
1939 - Finland
1945 - Germany
1956 - Hungary (not technically an invasion but a forceful military intervention)
1968 - Czechoslovakia
1992 - Transnistria*
1992 - Abkhazia*
1999 - Chechnya*
2008 - South Ossetia*
2014 - Crimea*
2014 - Luhansk & Donetsk*
2022 - Ukraine

* - territories still occupied by Russia

That said, the invasion of Germany in 1945 was as part of a wider war that had included an earlier German invasion of Russia. So it shouldn't be used as an example of Russian aggression.

 

[hst43102]

That said, the invasion of Germany in 1945 was as part of a wider war that had included an earlier German invasion of Russia. So it shouldn't be used as an example of Russian aggression.

True, but if you exclude that invasion then the 1943-44 invasions of Europe by the British should probably be excluded as well, making the earlier point about the UK invading Europe completely invalid.

 

[najaB]

True, but if you exclude that invasion then the 1943-44 invasions of Europe by the British should probably be excluded as well, making the earlier point about the UK invading Europe completely invalid.

Not entirely - neither Italy nor Vichy France had invaded the UK.

 

[simonw]

I wonder if you recall these islands being invaded by Romans, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Vikings, Normans, to name but a few.

In the song "Rule, Britannia" one line repeats...."Britons never, never, never, shall be slaves". Perhaps the writer was historically unaware of the raids on the west coast of England and areas of Ireland by the Muslim Algerian Corsairs (Penzance being one affected settlement) to take slaves for the Ottoman slave markets.

It's a forward looking statement, not a historical one.

 

[REVUpminster]

We did not invade Europe alone in 1944. Throughout history Europe has invaded Britain more than the reverse. The French in 1797 one of the last.

 

[SJL2020]

We did not invade Europe alone in 1944. Throughout history Europe has invaded Britain more than the reverse. The French in 1797 one of the last.

Agreed, but the invasion of Iceland in 1940 was an exception, i.e. where Britain acted alone.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Is it not the case that Britain occupied the Faroe Islands in 1940 during WWII?

Also Heligoland in the 19th century?

 

[REVUpminster]

Agreed, but the invasion of Iceland in 1940 was an exception, i.e. where Britain acted alone.

Iceland was part of Denmark occupied by Germany and German occupation of Norway precipitated our invasion and Britain was certainly alone.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Iceland was part of Denmark occupied by Germany

You could have phrased this better as I first read it as Germany occupied Iceland.

 

[nw1]

We did not invade Europe alone in 1944. Throughout history Europe has invaded Britain more than the reverse. The French in 1797 one of the last.

Though of course Britain is actually part of Europe.

(Sorry, one of my pet hates, referring to Europe as if it doesn't include Britain...)

 

[Cloud Strife]

Also, I think the only way to curb future aggression from Russia would be partition into a few smaller countries.

Speaking from a Polish perspective, division of Russia makes sense. Three states in the West, centered around St Petersburg, Moscow and Volgograd would partition European Russia nicely. The Volgogradia state would have the vast majority of the border with Ukraine. Then we would have a Kazan state east of the Volga which would reach to Lake Baikal, and then finally a Siberian state which would have the bulk of Russia's energy resources.

Today, it looks like the fighting has already died down. There are more and more rumours that there will be a general mobilisation on May 9th, but if this is the case, what on earth are Russia doing by letting Ukraine regroup (again!) and giving them even more time to get equipment into place?

It looks like the Ukrainian tactics right now are to simply let the Russians make small advances, but to cause them tremendous problems as they move. They don't seem to be worried about losing territory as long as they keep inflicting losses, probably because they know that the Russians don't have the manpower to actually control large swathes of territory.

In Transnistria, it seems that men are now being prevented from leaving. Could be read either way: either they want to protect themselves against a Russian coup, or they're genuinely afraid that Ukraine will walk in. 1500 Russian "peacekeepers" won't last long given that Moldova could attack from the West, and the locals really don't have a clue what they're doing.

 

[Shrop]

Peace deal as suggested by a friend : Ukraine permanently gives up Crimea and Donbas, while Russia agrees that Ukraine joins NATO, and provides resources to repair at least some of the damage it has inflicted (to be supervised by UN). Russian sympathisers remaining in Ukraine given one year to relocate or sign up to the new regime and vice versa with Ukranian sympathisers in Crimea and Donbas.
Obviously very simplistic but the basis of a deal has to start somewhere. Of course it's easy to find reasons why this wouldn't work, but if the alternative is a protracted war for a further indefinite period, then do any detractors from this suggestion have a better idea?

 

[REVUpminster]

Speaking from a Polish perspective, division of Russia makes sense. Three states in the West, centered around St Petersburg, Moscow and Volgograd would partition European Russia nicely. The Volgogradia state would have the vast majority of the border with Ukraine. Then we would have a Kazan state east of the Volga which would reach to Lake Baikal, and then finally a Siberian state which would have the bulk of Russia's energy resources.

Today, it looks like the fighting has already died down. There are more and more rumours that there will be a general mobilisation on May 9th, but if this is the case, what on earth are Russia doing by letting Ukraine regroup (again!) and giving them even more time to get equipment into place?

It looks like the Ukrainian tactics right now are to simply let the Russians make small advances, but to cause them tremendous problems as they move. They don't seem to be worried about losing territory as long as they keep inflicting losses, probably because they know that the Russians don't have the manpower to actually control large swathes of territory.

In Transnistria, it seems that men are now being prevented from leaving. Could be read either way: either they want to protect themselves against a Russian coup, or they're genuinely afraid that Ukraine will walk in. 1500 Russian "peacekeepers" won't last long given that Moldova could attack from the West, and the locals really don't have a clue what they're doing.

Partition for Britain hasn't worked very well; Ireland, Palestine, India. All causing trouble even now.

 

[tommy2215]

I notice in the last couple of days, Putin and Lavrov have been downplaying the threat of nuclear war, after they repeatedly threatened the West with nuclear strikes in the few days before that. I wonder if Xi Jinping had a word with them in private.

 

[DustyBin]

Peace deal as suggested by a friend : Ukraine permanently gives up Crimea and Donbas, while Russia agrees that Ukraine joins NATO, and provides resources to repair at least some of the damage it has inflicted (to be supervised by UN). Russian sympathisers remaining in Ukraine given one year to relocate or sign up to the new regime and vice versa with Ukranian sympathisers in Crimea and Donbas.
Obviously very simplistic but the basis of a deal has to start somewhere. Of course it's easy to find reasons why this wouldn't work, but if the alternative is a protracted war for a further indefinite period, then do any detractors from this suggestion have a better idea?

My suggestion is little changed from the one I made at the start of the war:

1. Russia takes permanent control of Crimea.

2. The UN oversees referenda in Donbas and Luhansk with both sides committed to honouring the result. (To me this is the most difficult issue to deal with).

3. Ukraine announces it has “de-nazified” but in such a way that doesn’t give credence to Putin’s claims. Disbanding the Azov Battalion should do.

4. Ukraine accepts that it won’t join NATO (which it appears to have already done) and declares itself neutral. Short of WMDs however, it is free to arm itself with whatever it likes.

I think that covers the main issues as I understand them. Note that this isn’t my “ideal” scenario, it’s simply one that I think could realistically be acceptable to both sides.

 

[Shrop]

Partition for Britain hasn't worked very well; Ireland, Palestine, India. All causing trouble even now.

Agreed, but in those places all residents weren't obliged to sign up to their new form of Government or given a fixed time to relocate. This relocation choice needs to be a key part of it, and it's not really all that onerous to aim for - not in comparison with the lack of any time at all, that the people of Mariupol and other places were given to change their whole lives.