Russia invades Ukraine

[AlterEgo]

I think you'll find that a large number of countries were dragged into various incredibly destructive wars during the last century.

Is this the only response you have to that post? What point are you trying to make? Inarguably what you say is true, I just don’t understand how that fits with what I posted.

 

[najaB]

This is clearly an attempt by Russia to enforce a buffer zone they felt had been promised but denied by NATO.

Key part of that paragraph highlighted.

 

[yorksrob]

Is this the only response you have to that post? What point are you trying to make? Inarguably what you say is true, I just don’t understand how that fits with what I posted.

Your argument seems to be based around the fact that Russia has had a tragic history, which I don't deny. A considerable proportion of that tragedy has been caused by the countries own leaders, as well as outside invasion.

Nearly every country in Europe, including ours has been scarred by the wars of the last century. They don't all demand a buffer zone for ever more.

 

[najaB]

Nearly every country in Europe, including ours has been scarred by the wars of the last century. They don't all demand a buffer zone for ever more.

The most pointed example being France and Germany who fought two world wars, yet there's no need for a buffer between them.

 

[AlterEgo]

I do sort of understand Russia’s ’buffer zone’ argument. However trying to to improve your country’s security by trying to force neighbouring countries to be demilitarised and invading them if they do not comply is in my view likely to backfire.

Yes, see the Bay of Pigs for an example.

All it will do is making other neighbouring countries anxious and to beef up their defences and thus increasing tensions. You can see this with the very united response from NATO and EU to Putin’s invasion.

Russia has a political doctrine: escalate to de-escalate. It is clearly very high stakes stuff and has gone badly wrong here and their execution of it in Ukraine amounts to a war crime.

There must be loads of countries that have a poor geographic defensive position. France for example can easily be invaded from the east and historically suffered frequent invasions from Germany, such as the Franco Prussian War in 1870 and the two world wars. For countries in such as situation, their security would be better served by establishing good relations with their neighbours rather than continually threatening them or worse invading them. France and Germany after World War Two concluded they had to be friendly to each other and as a result they have not fought since 1945 and now relations between the two countries are very good.

But France and Germany are not quite as different as Russia and the West. Russia asked to join the EU in the early
Putin era and was told it was too large (as well as not meeting numerous criteria!). Russia was also told on no account could it join NATO, because it is the No Russia Club in effect. Russia did try to normalise relations through the typical structures which alleviated European conflict in the later 20th century but was rebuffed. Relations have been on a downward trend ever since Russia’s isolation.

Russia establishing good relations with Ukraine, the EU and NATO rather then continually seeing parts of Eastern Europe as buffer to protect Russia

But you understand why Russia may want a buffer, whether it is entitled to it or not.

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

Your argument seems to be based around the fact that Russia has had a tragic history, which I don't deny. A considerable proportion of that tragedy has been caused by the countries own leaders, as well as outside invasion.

Nearly every country in Europe, including ours has been scarred by the wars of the last century. They don't all demand a buffer zone for ever more.

Do you think there’s a difference between the geopolitics of Russia and those of say, Britain, the United States, or Germany?

 

[yorksrob]

The most pointed example being France and Germany who fought two world wars, yet there's no need for a buffer between them.

Indeed. Russia could have considered its trade in gas and other products as binding it in with the West and reducing whatever threat of invasion it imagined existed, in the same way that the European coal and steel community did for those countries. Instead it's chosen expansionist geo-politics.

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

Yes, see the Bay of Pigs for an example.

Russia has a political doctrine: escalate to de-escalate. It is clearly very high stakes stuff and has gone badly wrong here and their execution of it in Ukraine amounts to a war crime.

But France and Germany are not quite as different as Russia and the West. Russia asked to join the EU in the early
Putin era and was told it was too large (as well as not meeting numerous criteria!). Russia was also told on no account could it join NATO, because it is the No Russia Club in effect. Russia did try to normalise relations through the typical structures which alleviated European conflict in the later 20th century but was rebuffed. Relations have been on a downward trend ever since Russia’s isolation.

But you understand why Russia may want a buffer, whether it is entitled to it or not.

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


Do you think there’s a difference between the geopolitics of Russia and those of say, Britain, the United States, or Germany?

There is. We no longer start land wars in Europe on the pretext that they are always waiting to invade us.

 

[AlterEgo]

There is. We no longer start land wars in Europe on the pretext that they are always waiting to invade us.

We don’t start land wars in Europe because they don’t suit our geopolitical interest. The same reason we aren’t in Ukraine now, too.

We have however conducted various expeditionary wars as a client state of the USA.

 

[Annetts key]

We don’t start land wars in Europe because they don’t suit our geopolitical interest. The same reason we aren’t in Ukraine now, too.

More likely we don’t because of our democratic systems and free media.

We have however conducted various expeditionary wars as a client state of the USA.

If you want to be or are a subordinate, get down here, I’ve some cleaning for you to do

I don’t think describing some of the military actions in the recent past can really be described accurately “as a client state of the USA”. That’s just bull. Iraq was unjustified I agree. But throwing Iraq out of Kuwait was legitimate. Afghanistan is harder to call. Here the mistake was not kicking the Taliban out, but not doing enough to rebuild the country or understand the political and tribal systems there. A far longer, better planned commitment was needed.

 

[yorksrob]

We don’t start land wars in Europe because they don’t suit our geopolitical interest. The same reason we aren’t in Ukraine now, too.

We have however conducted various expeditionary wars as a client state of the USA.

We have (some of which we shouldn't have), however Russia has also conducted its expeditionary wars outside Europe.

Those have not tended to lead to the west and Russia's geo-political interests to directly conflict. A war in Europe will inevitably do that.

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

More likely we don’t because of our democratic systems and free media.


If you want to be or are a subordinate, get down here, I’ve some cleaning for you to do

I don’t think describing some of the military actions in the recent past can really be described accurately “as a client state of the USA”. That’s just bull. Iraq was unjustified I agree. But throwing Iraq out of Kuwait was legitimate. Afghanistan is harder to call. Here the mistake was not kicking the Taliban out, but not doing enough to rebuild the country or understand the political and tribal systems there. A far longer, better planned commitment was needed.

Ultimately the West wasn't inclined to conduct an expeditionary war in Afghanistan, as illustrated by the fact that the Taliban were left to their own devices throughout the 1990's. Their links with Al Quaeda were what caused the West to get involved. They were a clear and present threat.

 

[Busaholic]

We have however conducted various expeditionary wars as a client state of the USA.

I take it you're referring to the Gulf war and Iraq war, and its aftermath, primarily. Harold Wilson wisely kept us out of Vietnam. our involvement in the Korean War was only as a small part of the U.N. contingent, and it was 'us' who persuaded the USA to finally enter World War Two, which in the end made all the difference, albeit by deploying the appalling atomic bomb.

 

[AlterEgo]

More likely we don’t because of our democratic systems and free media.

We’ve had both of those for quite a long time and still went into Iraq.

I don’t think describing some of the military actions in the recent past can really be described accurately “as a client state of the USA”.

Of course it’s deliberately emotive. But we watch Belarus act as a cuckold of Russia when it comes to its military and are happy to describe it as such. The point is that many non Western powers might see us as not much different. Western philosophy is our start point for perceiving the world - and rightly so - but it is not the only system and countries with other philosophies will perceive us differently.

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

Those have not tended to lead to the west and Russia's geo-political interests to directly conflict. A war in Europe will inevitably do that.

Also the expansion of NATO and the wooing of Ukraine would inevitably infringe on Russia’s geopolitical interests whether we agree with the legitimacy of those interests or not. It’s not about apportioning a big blame pie but rather recognising that all parties have a role to accept in the current conflict, and also a role in de-escalating it.

 

[yorksrob]

We’ve had both of those for quite a long time and still went into Iraq.

Of course it’s deliberately emotive. But we watch Belarus act as a cuckold of Russia when it comes to its military and are happy to describe it as such. The point is that many non Western powers might see us as not much different. Western philosophy is our start point for perceiving the world - and rightly so - but it is not the only system and countries with other philosophies will perceive us differently.

I agree, we should never have invaded Iraq.

In terms of how countries perceive eachother, if Russia views the West with suspicion because we have a different starting philosophy, are European countries not equally justified in viewing Russia with suspicion because of its different philosophy ?

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

We’ve had both of those for quite a long time and still went into Iraq.

Of course it’s deliberately emotive. But we watch Belarus act as a cuckold of Russia when it comes to its military and are happy to describe it as such. The point is that many non Western powers might see us as not much different. Western philosophy is our start point for perceiving the world - and rightly so - but it is not the only system and countries with other philosophies will perceive us differently.

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


Also the expansion of NATO and the wooing of Ukraine would inevitably infringe on Russia’s geopolitical interests whether we agree with the legitimacy of those interests or not. It’s not about apportioning a big blame pie but rather recognising that all parties have a role to accept in the current conflict, and also a role in de-escalating it.

For us to de-escalate the conflict, we would have to cease supporting Ukraine. Since Ukraine has clearly exercised its right to choose it's way of life, partners, government etc, it would be morally wrong for us to cease that support.

It would also be strategically wrong because it would embolden Russia and is competing nationalist non-Western philosophy.

 

[AlterEgo]

I agree, we should never have invaded Iraq.

In terms of how countries perceive eachother, if Russia views the West with suspicion because we have a different starting philosophy, are European countries not equally justified in viewing Russia with suspicion because of its different philosophy?

Yes. The inherent tension is inevitable and partly necessary. Russia will never be a friend to us like Europe and the US are, but it does not have to be an enemy. The West had major opportunities to cooperate with Russia to reduce the threats of Islamic terrorism for example. In fact, Russia gave tacit approval for the Americans to use forward bases near to its sphere of influence for the Afghanistan conflict because it suited Russia’s interests. The two systems will always be in tension, like two slanted monoliths leaning on each other. A weak Russia is not good for anyone.

The sad thing is that here in Britain we actually don’t think about Russia that much; it’s the Americans who lead the West’s paranoia about Russia out of the necessity for America to keep having a defined enemy. The deep and xenophobic suspicion now manifesting in our societies as wholesale “cancelling” of Russian cultural events as if their culture is a poisoned well doesn’t reflect well on us.

For us to de-escalate the conflict, we would have to cease supporting Ukraine.

I don’t agree that we have to be neutral to de-escalate the war, or even an impartial broker. The resolution comes from people talking around a table, as unpalatable as we find it. It is inconceivable that Russia will come out of this war with nothing at all, and a resolution where Russia doesn’t suffer a 100% loss of face is probably in everyone’s interest, sadly.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes. The inherent tension is inevitable and partly necessary. Russia will never be a friend to us like Europe and the US are, but it does not have to be an enemy. The West had major opportunities to cooperate with Russia to reduce the threats of Islamic terrorism for example. In fact, Russia gave tacit approval for the Americans to use forward bases near to its sphere of influence for the Afghanistan conflict because it suited Russia’s interests. The two systems will always be in tension, like two slanted monoliths leaning on each other. A weak Russia is not good for anyone.

The sad thing is that here in Britain we actually don’t think about Russia that much; it’s the Americans who lead the West’s paranoia about Russia out of the necessity for America to keep having a defined enemy. The deep and xenophobic suspicion now manifesting in our societies as wholesale “cancelling” of Russian cultural events as if their culture is a poisoned well doesn’t reflect well on us.

I don’t agree that we have to be neutral to de-escalate the war, or even an impartial broker. The resolution comes from people talking around a table, as unpalatable as we find it. It is inconceivable that Russia will come out of this war with nothing at all, and a resolution where Russia doesn’t suffer a 100% loss of face is probably in everyone’s interest, sadly.

I don't recognise the West's wariness of Putins Russia as "American led paranoia". We all have reason to be wary.

I would like to think that as soon as the invasion is over, some of the cultural links will come back. Fundamentally all the sanctions are a sign of considerable restraint from the West because we are not directly engaging in armed conflict with them, even though they have invaded a friendly country.

However, I just can't see the benefit in the West resuming large scale economic engagement with the country, all the while it's leaders have a philosophy that leads them to start a land war in Europe by invading it's neighbour. That doesn't seem to be in our strategic interest as it just supports them not to change that philosophy.

 

[DustyBin]

The problem is that - as is now very evident, the concerns of Putin's regime have never been the welfare of the Russian people or anything like that: It has always been about restoring an some kind of authoritarian USSR (albeit a non-communist one), with Putin's cronies thereby able to keep power and enrich themselves permanently. They have for a long time seen the very concept of liberal democracy as an intrinsic threat to their power and will do whatever they can to undermine it everywhere - as they have been doing for years. So while I agree with you to the extent that you have to talk to people and try to understand them, the concerns of the Russian regime are simply not concerns that we can or should remotely entertain.

I pretty much agree with you here. Let’s be clear; Putin’s regime is unpleasant (to put it mildly) and not one that we should be cosying up to. I don’t hold some romanticised view of how things could have been. I am however willing to try and see (some) things, such as NATO expansion, from a Russian perspective. Of course, NATO is a defensive alliance and Russia has nothing to fear from it unless it attacks a member. But, by expanding that membership eastwards, it has placed the worlds most powerful military alliance very close to Russia’s border. A Russia that appears to feel (and to an extent is) increasingly isolated and hemmed in. A Russia that it both feared and detested in equal measure by these new NATO members (and yes this is largely self-inflicted). I can understand why Russia may feel threatened, even if there’s little justification in reality.

Of course there’s also the nationalistic element, I’m not denying that; Putin clearly believes in the “Russosphere”. He also clearly believes Russia should be playing a more prominent role on the world stage, but can’t as it isn’t part of “the club”. The question is, has the West really done everything it can to bring Russia in from the cold? I’ll reiterate what I said previously here; I don’t hold some romanticised view of how things could have been. But I do question whether we’ve really done everything we could have done to make Russia into a functioning member of the international community, as opposed to the world’s largest rogue state as it has now become.

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

I don't recognise the West's wariness of Putins Russia as "American led paranoia". We all have reason to be wary.

I would like to think that as soon as the invasion is over, some of the cultural links will come back.

However, I just can't see the benefit in the West resuming large scale economic engagement with the country, all the while it's leaders have a philosophy that leads them to start a land war in Europe by invading it's neighbour. That doesn't seem to be in our strategic interest as it just supports them not to change that philosophy.

I agree with your final point; it will take a very long time for the economic relationship to be normalised (if indeed it ever is).

 

[WesternBiker]

I don’t agree that we have to be neutral to de-escalate the war, or even an impartial broker. The resolution comes from people talking around a table, as unpalatable as we find it. It is inconceivable that Russia will come out of this war with nothing at all, and a resolution where Russia doesn’t suffer a 100% loss of face is probably in everyone’s interest, sadly.

In most circumstances, the pointing about talking is entirely true. But let's not forget that Europe and the USA tried that before the invasion - it was a huge diplomatic effort. We were assured over and again that there were no plans to invade.

 

[tommy2215]

It seems like the battle for Kyiv is not far off. Sadly I can see this siege lasting for weeks, with thousands of civilians being killed and the city being reduced to rubble. Likely both side's militaries will take massive casualities too, with ferocious attacks by Russia and Ukraine fighting for every street and building.

 

[yorksrob]

In most circumstances, the pointing about talking is entirely true. But let's not forget that Europe and the USA tried that before the invasion - it was a huge diplomatic effort. We were assured over and again that there were no plans to invade.

Indeed. "Getting around the table" is the easy bit. Deciding what Ukraine is forced to give up, in the face of overwhelming aggression, without rewarding that aggression is a difficult ask.

If there is any genuine interest in a negotiated settlement from the Russian side (which I personally doubt), perhaps an internationally supervised autonomous status for the break away regions might be something to suggest.

 

[Annetts key]

Just watched this interesting video where an Kremlin critic speaks on French television (it’s all translated into English)

 

[brad465]

The Premier League have now disqualified Abramovich as the club's director:

Roman Abramovich: Premier League disqualifies Chelsea owner as director of club

The Premier League disqualifies Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich as a director of the club and sleeve sponsor Hyundai suspend deal with the European champions.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Premier League has disqualified Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich as a director of the club after the oligarch was sanctioned by the UK government.

Abramovich had his British assets - including Chelsea - frozen on Thursday as part of the government's response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
The move put the Russian's prospective sale of the club on hold.

The Premier League said Abramovich's disqualification would "not impact on the club's ability to train and play".

Removing an owner from a board would usually trigger the sale of the shares, a process that Abramovich had instigated on 2 March after after the threat of sanctions was raised in Parliament.

He had instructed American investment firm Raine Group to seek £3bn for the club, but finance experts believe that price could drop given the current uncertainty around Chelsea.

Raine Group temporarily halted the sale process on Thursday while answers were sought from the government about the implications of the sanctions.

The government is open to considering an addition to the special licence it granted the club that would allow a sale to go ahead.

A condition for that to happen, however, would be that Abramovich - one of Russia's richest people and believed to be close to the country's president, Vladimir Putin - receives none of the proceeds.

 

[Falcon1200]

I do sort of understand Russia’s ’buffer zone’ argument.

But you understand why Russia may want a buffer, whether it is entitled to it or not.

I have to say that I do not; Does the Russian regime genuinely believe that if Ukraine was a NATO member that organisation would invade Russia, a country with a huge stock of nuclear weapons ?

 

[MattRat]

I have to say that I do not; Does the Russian regime genuinely believe that if Ukraine was a NATO member that organisation would invade Russia, a country with a huge stock of nuclear weapons ?

I can see NATO supporting break away states in Russia that are on 'their' borders. Much like Russia is doing in Ukraine, and did do in Georgia.

 

[yorksrob]

I can see NATO supporting break away states in Russia that are on 'their' borders. Much like Russia is doing in Ukraine, and did do in Georgia.

Are there any such areas on the European border ? Even Kaliningrad seems unlikely to break away.

 

[MattRat]

Are there any such areas on the European border ? Even Kaliningrad seems unlikely to break away.

Well, did we know how the Soviet Union was going to break up?

Plus, breakaway states aren't always a natural event.....

 

[yorksrob]

Well, did we know how the Soviet Union was going to break up?

Plus, breakaway states aren't always a natural event.....

I would have thought it would be the more diverse areas of Central Asia that ended up on the Russian side of the border that were more likely candidates.

 

[AlterEgo]

I have to say that I do not; Does the Russian regime genuinely believe that if Ukraine was a NATO member that organisation would invade Russia, a country with a huge stock of nuclear weapons ?

Do you think that the USA really feared a full scale invasion by Soviets, or use of long range missiles with the Cuban Missile Crisis? Why does the USA get to dictate its buffer zone?

What do you think would happen if Mexico aligned with Russia and allowed several Russian bases to be built there?

 

[Annetts key]

The Scottish and Welsh ‘tolerate’ the warring English without a ‘buffer’ zone…

This whole thing of a buffer zone is a distraction and a nonsense. Where is the buffer zone between Russia and other non-NATO countries? Why should Russia be the odd one out of all the countries in the world where it “needs” a buffer zone?

The real reason is that in Putin’s head, he hates that the USSR fell apart and once the former USSR republics opted for democracy and leaned towards the west, rather than towards Russia, it has affected him emotionally. There was no significant trouble with Ukraine until they rejected the government that started leaning towards the west, but stopped after interference from Russia. Then after a new pro-western government was elected, Russia invaded and annexed Crimea.

As a democratic country (even if it has faults), it’s Ukraine’s choice if it wants to become more of a ‘western’ European country. Not Putin’s choice.

Similarly, what Russia does inside its own country in terms of government is its business, not Ukraine’s or any western or European countries choice.

 

[AlterEgo]

This whole thing of a buffer zone is a distraction and a nonsense. Where is the buffer zone between Russia and other non-NATO countries? Why should Russia be the odd one out of all the countries in the world where it “needs” a buffer zone?

The United States enforces a buffer zone around its sphere of influence as aggressively as Russia does.

 

[MattRat]

The Scottish and Welsh ‘tolerate’ the warring English without a ‘buffer’ zone…

This whole thing of a buffer zone is a distraction and a nonsense. Where is the buffer zone between Russia and other non-NATO countries? Why should Russia be the odd one out of all the countries in the world where it “needs” a buffer zone?

The real reason is that in Putin’s head, he hates that the USSR fell apart and once the former USSR republics opted for democracy and leaned towards the west, rather than towards Russia, it has affected him emotionally. There was no significant trouble with Ukraine until they rejected the government that started leaning towards the west, but stopped after interference from Russia. Then after a new pro-western government was elected, Russia invaded and annexed Crimea.

As a democratic country (even if it has faults), it’s Ukraine’s choice if it wants to become more of a ‘western’ European country. Not Putin’s choice.

Similarly, what Russia does inside its own country in terms of government is its business, not Ukraine’s or any western or European countries choice.

They were leaning towards Russia until the government was overthrown. I don't want to suggest anything, but an open mind creates many possibilities to think about.

However, I will say this. I don't think the cold war really ever ended, and what we have are two powerful forces trying to be the dominate force on the planet, just like the cold war. I feel like Ukraine could be a pawn for both sides, and perhaps being neutral would have worked out better for them, like Switzerland.

 

[yorksrob]

The United States enforces a buffer zone around its sphere of influence as aggressively as Russia does.

The main parties in this situation are European countries. They do not want to enforce a buffer zone around their countries, they just want to govern themselves as they see fit without living under the constant threat of an enemy neighbour.

That is the crux of this situation.