Russia invades Ukraine

[DynamicSpirit]

I disagree. Look closely you'll see the boat returns again and again. In short the powers that be tell us who to be mad at, at any given time. We really haven't moved on a lot from the WW1 when the main countries riled their populations into an utter war frenzy to hate the 'enemy'. Well in my view, there is no enemy, just ordinary people in different parts of the world manipulated by their government's through a propaganda prism.

Surely, at least in the UK and much of Western Europe, we have moved on from the attitudes you describe. There's no frenzy here to hate the enemy in the way you saw in WW1. On the contrary, as far as I can make out, pretty much everyone here views ordinary Russians as victims of Putin's appalling regime, and not as people to be hated. Russian citizens who are resident in the UK and not linked with Putin's regime are (rightly) generally free to carry on living their lives here, and have not been locked up as happened to Germans during the World Wars. I'm not sure how Russians are viewed in Ukraine, although I think it would be understandable if they view Russians differently when Russian troops are actually invading and torturing civilians.

The *Russian* Government is very clearly trying to propagandize people into hating the West, but that's another matter.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I'm not sure how Russians are viewed in Ukraine, although I think it would be understandable if they view Russians differently when Russian troops are actually invading and torturing civilians.

Generally speaking, it's not an issue to be Russian, but it is an issue to collaborate with Putin. So, in the liberated territories, anyone who supported the enemy (such as school teachers who willingly implemented the Russian curriculum) will have no place in Ukraine. That's why people fled in Kharkiv Oblast, because their activities are punishable by Ukrainian law.

Being Russian itself isn't a major issue, although it's very clear that society is quickly dropping Russian as a language. A family friend is in her 60s and isn't fluent in Ukrainian, but she prefers to speak Ukrainian with mistakes than speak her native Russian.

About the mobilisation: they are simply cannon fodder. It's clear that the Russian strategy now is to pack the occupied territories with their forces, but a poorly trained and unwilling force will be completely useless against battle-hardened Ukrainians who will have considerable autonomy when it comes to selecting and attacking targets.

 

[adc82140]

I'm not really sure why Western governments feel the need to shout about every bit of weaponry they send to Ukraine. It just gives Moscow the opportunity to claim NATO is a "party" to the conflict. Would it not have been better, for example, to transfer the HIMARS in secret, and then start using them with the element of surprise. Russia wouldn't have been expecting it, and we could have played them at their own game and said "wasn't us". A bit like the little green men in Crimea.

 

[Annetts key]

I'm not really sure why Western governments feel the need to shout about every bit of weaponry they send to Ukraine. It just gives Moscow the opportunity to claim NATO is a "party" to the conflict. Would it not have been better, for example, to transfer the HIMARS in secret, and then start using them with the element of surprise. Russia wouldn't have been expecting it, and we could have played them at their own game and said "wasn't us". A bit like the little green men in Crimea.

I agree, and not every country is providing a detailed list.

However, part of the reason that some countries are providing some details, is to answer the question “how are we helping Ukraine”, which is quite rightly being asked. And in a democratic country, a certain amount of openness is required.

Also, it does not matter if the countries that are supplying weapons or providing other assistance announce or don’t make public any details, Russia was always going to blame NATO, the U.S.A., the U.K. etc. regardless of the facts.

Keep in mind that Russia’s primary reason for military action is because they claim the expansion of NATO is a threat to them…

 

[TwoYellas]

On the contrary, as far as I can make out, pretty much everyone here views ordinary Russians as victims of Putin's appalling regime, and not as people to be hated. Russian citizens who are resident in the UK and not linked with Putin's regime are (rightly) generally free to carry on living their lives here, and have not been locked up as happened to Germans during the World Wars.

Good point that there is no internment. But overall, I think this is a proxy war bring fought in Ukraine and from what I can tell, and considering their location, the country would have been better off being neutral with cordial ties with Russia and the West. I've heard the 'it's their choice which military alliance they join' argument. But I think Ukraine has a complicated history and a lot has happened there in the last 8 years (on-going conflict/coups).

Of course there was no excuse for *Pootin to recklessly attack and it makes him the chief aggressor. But I think Russia does have security concerns going back to Gorbachev and Yeltsin which is the viewpoint not given to us in the media. Therefore I think there's blame to go round. But once again, that's not to absolve the aggressor of war crimes (which people usually get away with anyway, east or west).

Going forward, amid the war rhetoric and threats of nuclear destruction I hope there is some back channels of dialogue between the sides and settlement to this sometime soon. And in the longer term nuclear de-escalation on a global scale, which I believe is possible (and was happening between US/Russia) and required because humanity has enough problems without the ability to instantly, more or less finish ourselves off.

* American pronunciation to rhyme with 'rootin tootin'!

 

[Cdd89]

Going forward, amid the war rhetoric and threats of nuclear destruction I hope there is some back channels of dialogue between the sides and settlement to this sometime soon

While I don’t agree with your suggestion that Russia has legitimate concerns, I do agree that the tone from the West needs to be more open to settlement because ultimately that is the only way this ends. What Russia is morally entitled to, and what a negotiated settlement may look like, are mostly unrelated.

 

[adc82140]

The threat of nuclear war is designed to cause panic. It would be horrendous. But it wouldn't be the end of civilisation as some predict.

Ignore the media stories about Russia's arsenal of 5000 odd nukes. There are about 1500 warheads deployed on about 500 vehicles. The land based rockets have a yield of about 800kt per warhead, the submarine ones about 100-150kt. That's enough to destroy a city. But even if the entire arsenal was fired at once, there is no way they could hit every big population centre in NATO.

Don't get me wrong, every effort should always be made to prevent nuclear war. It would be the most horrendous thing. But it wouldn't be the end of life on earth. The concept of nuclear winter has been downplayed in more recent research. It's worth a Google.

 

[philosopher]

Going forward, amid the war rhetoric and threats of nuclear destruction I hope there is some back channels of dialogue between the sides and settlement to this sometime soon. And in the longer term nuclear de-escalation on a global scale, which I believe is possible (and was happening between US/Russia) and required because humanity has enough problems without the ability to instantly, more or less finish ourselves off.

* American pronunciation to rhyme with 'rootin tootin'!

A lot of people seem to have the assumption that Putin is bluffing when he threatens the use of nuclear weapons. While I suspect this is the case, there is a risk that he is not and if pushed he will use them. For this reason I think it is best to end this war through a negotiated settlement that both Ukraine and Russia can live with.

 

[Annetts key]

TwoYellas, I wish I could agree. Unfortunately, Putin would have used any excuse to take control of Ukraine one way or another as soon as he could when they started to move away from the U.S.S.R. / Russian way of doing things.

So you either force Ukraine and it’s people to stay as a subservient state, or allow them to decide for themselves. As it is, they wanted to become more democratic and westernised. Why would we, as democratic countries prevent them from moving in that direction?

I think what Putin was most afraid of, is loosing power, which he thinks is likely if Russians see somewhere like Ukraine doing better than Russia, and hence encourages the Russian people to ask questions…

Yes, the history is complex, but if you go back in time, the states that we recognise on the map were completely different, in that area for example, part was known as Kievan Rus'. It’s never ever simple when it comes to humans and territory/borders.

Even now, the current Russia is a so called federation.

 

[yorksrob]

A lot of people seem to have the assumption that Putin is bluffing when he threatens the use of nuclear weapons. While I suspect this is the case, there is a risk that he is not and if pushed he will use them. For this reason I think it is best to end this war through a negotiated settlement that both Ukraine and Russia can live with.

I dare say that Ukraine will be very happy to negotiate once they have pushed Russia's army back to Russia (assuming the Russians manage to undertake a negotiation without poisoning everyone, including their own delegation).

 

[Cdd89]

A lot of people seem to have the assumption that Putin is bluffing when he threatens the use of nuclear weapons. While I suspect this is the case, there is a risk that he is not and if pushed he will use them.

While I am confident it’s just brinksmanship, note that most contributors in the preceding thread viewed Russia’s actions near Ukraine as brinksmanship… right up until the day they invaded. So I am wary of making more predictions, especially as the walls are closing in on Putin, he becomes more cornered/desperate, and has less to lose in terms of throwing away the possibility of resuming normal relations with the West.

I dare say that Ukraine will be very happy to negotiate once they have pushed Russia's army back to Russia.

Do we think Putin will accept being pushed back to Russia (bearing in mind that he will soon claim to believe the areas under referendum are Russia) without further escalations? Which in turn further reduce the possibility of any settlement which in turn makes further escalation more likely.

 

[yorksrob]

While I am confident it’s just brinksmanship, note that most contributors in the preceding thread viewed Russia’s actions near Ukraine as brinksmanship… right up until the day they invaded. So I am wary of making more predictions, especially as the walls are closing in on Putin, he becomes more desperate, and has less to lose in terms of throwing away the possibility of resuming normal relations with the West.


Do we think Putin will accept being pushed back to Russia (bearing in mind that he will soon claim to believe the areas under referendum are Russia) without further escalations? Which in turn further reduce the possibility of any settlement which in turn makes further escalation more likely.

He might not be given the choice.

 

[Cdd89]

Ok, so to turn the question on its head, if the West is truly not willing to accept any outcome other than the complete removal of Russian forces from Ukraine, why is NATO not getting directly involved to bring about that conclusion as quickly as possible? Personally I would emphatically not support this, but that is the logical conclusion of “Putin’s nukes are a bluff and settlement cannot include any parts of Ukraine”.

 

[Annetts key]

So the argument that the sham referenda will change things, that is that Putin will consider those areas currently under Russian control to be part of Russia.

How is that different from Crimea? Ukraine has already attacked Crimea more than once, and no nuclear weapons have been used.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Sep 2022 ==

Is the use of nuclear weapons by Putin a bluff? We don’t know for certain, obviously. But Putin has threatened to use nuclear weapons so many times in the past, but has not used them.

However, I consider Putin’s comments irrelevant. As he knows that if any nuclear weapon was used that affected a NATO county, it’s highly likely that it would start a nuclear war, and Russia would loose.

There’s no point in being a dictator of a country that no longer exists in any meaningful way…

 

[Cdd89]

However, I consider Putin’s comments irrelevant. As he knows that if any nuclear weapon was used that affected a NATO county, it’s highly likely that it would start a nuclear war, and Russia would loose.

Make him desperate enough and he may just take that gamble. It’s not by any means guaranteed that NATO would fire nukes at Russia in response to a targeted nuclear attack on Ukraine, because that would in turn provoke nukes aimed directly toward the West.

I remain of the view that a negotiated settlement while Putin is in the current weakened position is the best we can hope for. And to be grateful that there are at least a few major nations, with which Russia has relations, which we can hope Putin would not want to upset.

 

[brad465]

Dr Mike Martin now thinks we're in the beginning of the end of this war:

https://twitter.com/ThreshedThought/status/1573582858454720512

I think we are seeing the beginning of the end of the Russia war in Ukraine. A thread.

Continued...

 

[najaB]

A lot of people seem to have the assumption that Putin is bluffing when he threatens the use of nuclear weapons. While I suspect this is the case, there is a risk that he is not and if pushed he will use them.

He's not bluffing, but he also doesn't have any intention of first use. It's basically the "Hold me back, Sue!" of international relations.

For this reason I think it is best to end this war through a negotiated settlement that both Ukraine and Russia can live with.

The problem is that what Ukraine can live with is significantly different to what Russia can live with.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Make him desperate enough and he may just take that gamble. It’s not by any means guaranteed that NATO would fire nukes at Russia in response to a targeted nuclear attack on Ukraine, because that would in turn provoke nukes aimed directly toward the West.

My own suspicion is that the main reason Putin hasn't used tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine is the likelihood that, if he did, then countries like China and India that are currently sitting on the fence would sharply turn against him. I don't think it's fear of NATO - NATO has after all already spent 6 months proving that, as long as Russia doesn't attack NATO directly, NATO isn't going to get directly involved in the conflict beyond providing assistance to Ukraine.

I remain of the view that a negotiated settlement while Putin is in the current weakened position is the best we can hope for.

I'm not sure that even a negotiated settlement is achievable in the medium term. Partly because Putin is never going to accept a peace treaty on any terms that would be remotely realistic from Ukraine's point of view, and partly because, as long as Putin is in charge, there's no way you could trust Russia to respect the terms of any peace treaty they did sign. I would suggest the best that we can plausibly hope for is that over the next year or two, Ukraine slowly drives Russia out of most/all occupied territory, and then Russian military weakness combined with more supplies of Western weaponry to Ukraine effectively seals the borders preventing a massive renewed Russian incursion, but without there being a formal peace treaty, and Russia continues trying to undermine Ukraine through propoaganda/isolated poisonings/etc. Effectively, a new cold war and permanent tension right along Ukraine's Northern/Eastern borders.

 

[DC1989]

If Putin uses tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine NATO could wipe out the bulk of Russia's military within 24 hours with conventional weapons

 

[najaB]

If Putin uses tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine NATO could wipe out the bulk of Russia's military within 24 hours with conventional weapons

That is true. But what's the likelihood that Russian strategic weapons would stay siloed for those 24 hours?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If Putin uses tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine NATO could wipe out the bulk of Russia's military within 24 hours with conventional weapons

Yes, they could, but how likely is it that they will? NATO could after all have probably wiped out the bulk of Russia's military in Ukraine 6 months ago with conventional weapons, had they chosen to. But NATO has consistently chosen not to get directly involved in fighting in Ukraine, no matter how numerous or how serious the Russian atrocities that have come to light.

 

[DC1989]

True enough - I would hope nukes would be the 'red line' for that to happen though

 

[adc82140]

True enough - I would hope nukes would be the 'red line' for that to happen though

But that would just be nuclear escalation. What would there be to gain for NATO? It's not the end of humanity (see my post earlier) but there would be enough fatalities and destruction on both sides once the tactical nuclear weapons are used to consider there to be no winners.

 

[Simon11]

If Putin uses tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine NATO could wipe out the bulk of Russia's military within 24 hours with conventional weapons

If any Nato city is attacked, would that give Nato the right to apply the same force to Moscow or seek to physically remove or kill Putin?

 

[TwoYellas]

I remain of the view that a negotiated settlement while Putin is in the current weakened position is the best we can hope for. And to be grateful that there are at least a few major nations, with which Russia has relations, which we can hope Putin would not want to upset.

I agree. I don't think they are going to be pushed out of Ukraine anytime soon and if they were then it increases the risk of escalation. Who knows they could make further gains in the future in a war of attrition. It's no use crying over spilt milk but I believe it's a massive failure of diplomacy that this wasn't sorted around a table a few years ago when there was a lower scale conflict rumbling. If the will was there it could have been.

it's just a sort of renewal of the Cold War period with huge powers trying to 'bleed' their enemy. As I understand it, it was Ukraine becoming a de facto NATO member that crossed a red line which was the cause of this latest face off. Tbh I'm sick of it, years and years of Cold War brinkmanship and we are still there.

Also, we're told that public in Russia are turning against Pootin. Not so sure, the average Joe may support it if they believe there is a security threat to them posed by a hostile military alliance.

At the end of the day it's just a huge chess game. You can actually have NO military alliances in Europe and Russia therefore no conflict, which I believe was the Gorbachev position. Perhaps that would be a safer future and reduce support for the likes of hardliners like Pootin.

 

[najaB]

As I understand it, it was Ukraine becoming a de facto NATO member that crossed a red line which was the cause of this latest face off.

That's an oversimplification. Russia has a huge demographic problem - their population is shrinking, and that doesn't help with their traditional defence strategy: throw millions of disposable people at the enemy. So they depend on a wall of "friendly" countries whose populations can be expended in the early days of a conflict with NATO to give Russia time to prepare the defence of Russia proper.

The problem was that Ukrainians, for some reason, don't see themselves as ablative armour for the Russian motherland. Funny that.

 

[yorksrob]

I agree. I don't think they are going to be pushed out of Ukraine anytime soon and if they were then it increases the risk of escalation. Who knows they could make further gains in the future in a war of attrition. It's no use crying over spilt milk but I believe it's a massive failure of diplomacy that this wasn't sorted around a table a few years ago when there was a lower scale conflict rumbling. If the will was there it could have been.

it's just a sort of renewal of the Cold War period with huge powers trying to 'bleed' their enemy. As I understand it, it was Ukraine becoming a de facto NATO member that crossed a red line which was the cause of this latest face off. Tbh I'm sick of it, years and years of Cold War brinkmanship and we are still there.

Also, we're told that public in Russia are turning against Pootin. Not so sure, the average Joe may support it if they believe there is a security threat to them posed by a hostile military alliance.

At the end of the day it's just a huge chess game. You can actually have NO military alliances in Europe and Russia therefore no conflict, which I believe was the Gorbachev position. Perhaps that would be a safer future and reduce support for the likes of hardliners like Pootin.

Or Russia could learn to live like a normal country and stop trying to dominate its neighbours.

Ultimately, the only way this "cold war" ends is when the FSB/United Russia state goes from Russia. Short of a Russia precipitated catastrophe, that will be entirely down to Russians to do

 

[gingerheid]

There's lots of lovely aspirations in this thread about how Ukraine could be neutral and reach an accomodation with Russia as if Russia was a reasonable country. The fatal flaw in these pleasant fantasies is that a reasonable accomodation requires two reasonable parties. Russia is anything but, and the more not being so works out for it the more it will not be so. This was is not going to stop if only Chamberlain I mean someone current agrees to let it have the Sudetenland I mean Donbas & Kherson, on the basis that there's a lot of Germans I mean Russians living there and maybe it sort of historically was theirs before anyway.

We can, and ought to, learn from the grim history of failed attempts to appease these types of people. They stop once they've been made to.

By saying that terroritorial gains are constitutionally irreversable Russia stakes the entire existence of Russia on claiming other people's land. So be it. That's its choice, and one it's entitled to make. It will, whether we like it or not, eventually have the inevitable consequences.

 

[Annetts key]

Ukraine was not becoming a de facto NATO member. That’s pure fiction. Yes, they wanted to join, but while there is a military dispute, they would never be invited to join.

The cause of all these problems is Putin. It’s his decisions and actions that have caused Western relations with Russia to become worse.

If Putin had in the past wanted to reduce military spending by making agreements with NATO countries, I’m sure there would have been progress, as at the time, a lot of European countries wanted to reduce military spending. But instead Putin has increased Russian military spending. This at a time when the West was not generally increasing military spending or actually reducing military spending…

 

[yorksrob]

Ukraine was not becoming a de facto NATO member. That’s pure fiction. Yes, they wanted to join, but while there is a military dispute, they would never be invited to join.

The cause of all these problems is Putin. It’s his decisions and actions that have caused Western relations with Russia to become worse.

If Putin had in the past wanted to reduce military spending by making agreements with NATO countries, I’m sure there would have been progress, as at the time, a lot of European countries wanted to reduce military spending. But instead Putin has increased Russian military spending. This at a time when the West was not generally increasing military spending or actually reducing military spending…

One wonders how much Putin is the architect of a rotten political edifice, as compared to how much he is a product of it.

I suspect that if he were to disappear today, we'd still be left with the same problem.