Russia invades Ukraine

[DustyBin]

It appears that the Kremlin has set out it's terms for peace. They're very much as I (and others) predicted.

1. Cease military action (which seems obvious);

2. Enshrine "neutrality" within Ukraine's constitution;

3. Recognise Crimea as Russian territory;

4. Recognise the two breakaway regions as independent.

This gives Putin a "victory" for domestic consumption which I suspect is his number one priority at this point. I'm not suggesting anybody should simply roll over here, I do however think it shows the Russians want out.

 

[Chingy]

Moscow accused of targeting civilians fleeing Ukrainian cities - as it happened

This blog is closed

amp.theguardian.com

Interesting to see that Poland are not sending fighter jets to Ukraine. Is the fear of retaliation too great?

That is rather mixed messaging to me.

One Polish official categorically rules it out whilst another official mentions "a final decision as yet to be made".

 

[AlterEgo]

It appears that the Kremlin has set out it's terms for peace. They're very much as I (and others) predicted.

1. Cease military action (which seems obvious);

2. Enshrine "neutrality" within Ukraine's constitution;

3. Recognise Crimea as Russian territory;

4. Recognise the two breakaway regions as independent.

This gives Putin a "victory" for domestic consumption which I suspect is his number one priority at this point. I'm not suggesting anybody should simply roll over here, I do however think it shows the Russians want out.

This was always going to be their opening gambit, yes.

Number 2 is likely to be the largest sticking point as it leaves Ukraine open to Russian interference and the risk of becoming Belarus 2 over time.

 

[DustyBin]

This was always going to be their opening gambit, yes.

Number 2 is likely to be the largest sticking point as it leaves Ukraine open to Russian interference and the risk of becoming Belarus 2 over time.

I agree, "neutrality" needs to be clearly defined and must not leave Ukraine isolated. One small positive is that even Putin must realise he has no chance of controlling Ukraine as some kind of puppet, or client state, at this point. The hatred for him and his regime is off the scale!

 

[Howardh]

It appears that the Kremlin has set out it's terms for peace. They're very much as I (and others) predicted.

1. Cease military action (which seems obvious);

2. Enshrine "neutrality" within Ukraine's constitution;

3. Recognise Crimea as Russian territory;

4. Recognise the two breakaway regions as independent.

This gives Putin a "victory" for domestic consumption which I suspect is his number one priority at this point. I'm not suggesting anybody should simply roll over here, I do however think it shows the Russians want out.

If what neutrality means is acceptable, and those in the Russian areas are either given the chance to move westward or some kind of dual citizenship as the Irish/Brits have in Northern Ireland then there might be a way out of this mess.
Who pays to repair the damage? Let me guess...

 

[AlterEgo]

If what neutrality means is acceptable, and those in the Russian areas are either given the chance to move westward or some kind of dual citizenship as the Irish/Brits have in Northern Ireland then there might be a way out of this mess.
Who pays to repair the damage? Let me guess...

They will also need to hold, I’m guessing, internationally supervised referendums in the two breakaway regions to “seal” the deal. Those areas are predominantly Russian in identity and any referendum would be unlikely to worry Putin.

This may be enough for Putin to present a victory of sorts back home.

 

[DustyBin]

If what neutrality means is acceptable, and those in the Russian areas are either given the chance to move westward or some kind of dual citizenship as the Irish/Brits have in Northern Ireland then there might be a way out of this mess.
Who pays to repair the damage? Let me guess...

If "neutral" means not in NATO then I think it may be acceptable, again though it mustn't mean isolated and/or vulnerable to Russian aggression. I believe most of the people in the breakaway regions are actually ethnic Russians, but yes give them a choice should these areas become officially independent. As I said a few pages back, I don't think Ukraine has any realistic hope of retaining these areas in any case after eight years of conflict.

As much as I want Russia to pick up the bill for the devastation they've caused I just can't see it happening for various reasons. That leaves the West....

They will also need to hold, I’m guessing, internationally supervised referendums in the two breakaway regions to “seal” the deal. Those areas are predominantly Russian in identity and any referendum would be unlikely to worry Putin.

As above I think it's inevitable that those regions will cease to be part of Ukraine, one way or another.

This may be enough for Putin to present a victory of sorts back home.

I think this is what he wants at this point; to save face by covering up his catastrophic miscalculation.

 

[dosxuk]

I agree, "neutrality" needs to be clearly defined and must not leave Ukraine isolated. One small positive is that even Putin must realise he has no chance of controlling Ukraine as some kind of puppet, or client state, at this point. The hatred for him and his regime is off the scale!

The BBC are claiming that the neutral part is to add a constitutional requirement to never join any bloc - e.g. NATO or the EU.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

As much as I want Russia to pick up the bill for the devastation they've caused I just can't see it happening for various reasons. That leaves the West....

Yep. Not least of which is that - even in the very unlikely event of Putin's regime being willing to pick up the bill - if the war and Western sanctions continue for long, Russia won't be in any kind of economic state to pay for anything anyway!

 

[XAM2175]

They will also need to hold, I’m guessing, internationally supervised referendums in the two breakaway regions to “seal” the deal. Those areas are predominantly Russian in identity and any referendum would be unlikely to worry Putin.

Something akin to the Schleswig Plebiscites of 1920, assuming that they could be held with sufficient protection from interference - though I still have reservations about compromising with Putin like this because it means he has achieved at least one of his objectives.

 

[Howardh]

The BBC are claiming that the neutral part is to add a constitutional requirement to never join any bloc - e.g. NATO or the EU.

What about EFTA, or even the EEA as I don't think the EEA could be considered a "bloc"? Finland is "neutral".ie not in NATO but was an associate member of EFTA before joining the EU in 95. I mention Finland as it has a long border with Russia, and as far as I am aware no issues with it's large neighbour?

 

[brad465]

As much as I want Russia to pick up the bill for the devastation they've caused I just can't see it happening for various reasons. That leaves the West....

Yep. Not least of which is that - even in the very unlikely event of Putin's regime being willing to pick up the bill - if the war and Western sanctions continue for long, Russia won't be in any kind of economic state to pay for anything anyway!

I think it can be done providing we get as much of the world on board into helping finance their recovery as possible; more players = increased spread, so each participant of course pays less. There should also be a focus on industry/areas that will provide good investment returns for them, so large parts of their recovery costs can be repaid for over time, and in areas that indirectly benefit those countries paying into the rebuilding, such as in environmental areas and trade in key commodities.

 

[DustyBin]

Something akin to the Schleswig Plebiscites of 1920, assuming that they could be held with sufficient protection from interference - though I still have reservations about compromising with Putin like this because it means he has achieved at least one of his objectives.

It's a very fine line between pragmatism and appeasement at this point I think. It's difficult but the way I look at is yes he will have achieved something, but at great cost (one which he wasn't prepared to pay).

What about EFTA, or even the EEA as I don't think the EEA could be considered a "bloc"? Finland is "neutral".ie not in NATO but was an associate member of EFTA before joining the EU in 95. I mention Finland as it has a long border with Russia, and as far as I am aware no issues with it's large neighbour?

If I were Ukraine I'd be insisting on freedom to join the EEA.

Just a thought, but with talk of an EU Army I do wonder if that's in the back of Putin's mind.

 

[DarloRich]

So the Russians want both Finlandization AND Balkanization of Ukraine!

It COULD be made to work but what guarantees do Russia give that they will respect any agreed neutrality, the territorial integrity of the remains of Ukraine and an agreement not seek to subvert the rump Ukrainian state if they elect someone Putin doesn't like?

I also assume they will give back all the areas they have captured in this assault?

 

[Iskra]

Russian's reportedly using an armoured train

https://twitter.com/aldin_ww/status/1500838282829172742

 

[Cdd89]

This probably sounds heartless, but I am personally of the view that the West should expect Ukraine to accept these terms. I feel our moral obligation is to deliver peace and immediate safety/stability; not sovereignty and long-term democracy.

Of course, as a sovereign nation, they are entirely free not to do so; but I would not personally agree with ourselves continuing to escalate by proxy with Russia if they decide to go the defiant route.

I expect this will be highly controversial (and acknowledge that a moral argument for supporting them to the end can easily be made); and will duly hide under a rock from the ensuing blowback

 

[Roast Veg]

This probably sounds heartless, but I am personally of the view that the West should expect Ukraine to accept these terms. I feel our moral obligation is to deliver peace and immediate safety/stability; not sovereignty and long-term democracy.

I think at this point in the war accepting Russian annexation of Crimea and even "not-Novorossiya" is worth considering, but a Russian imposed ban on joining trade blocs is catastrophic for Ukraine's future. Both Ukraine and Georgia deserve the guarantees and security of EU accession.

 

[yorksrob]

Whatever happens, it can't be business as usual between the Kremlin and the West after this. Russia needs to feel the economic and cultural consequences of its choices, certainly while the present government is in power, otherwise Putin really will have won a victory.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

So the Russians want both Finlandization AND Balkanization of Ukraine!

It COULD be made to work but what guarantees do Russia give that they will respect any agreed neutrality, the territorial integrity of the remains of Ukraine and an agreement not seek to subvert the rump Ukrainian state if they elect someone Putin doesn't like?

And to add to that... Given Putin's record, for as long as he is in control of Russia, who in their right mind would even trust any guarantee that the Russian Government might give about anything?

 

[DustyBin]

This probably sounds heartless, but I am personally of the view that the West should expect Ukraine to accept these terms. I feel our moral obligation is to deliver peace and immediate safety/stability; not sovereignty and long-term democracy.

Of course, as a sovereign nation, they are entirely free not to do so; but I would not personally agree with ourselves continuing to escalate by proxy with Russia if they decide to go the defiant route.

I expect this will be highly controversial (and acknowledge that a moral argument for supporting them to the end can easily be made); and will duly hide under a rock from the ensuing blowback

I think it's a perfectly reasonable position to take if I'm honest. The immediate priority is surely to put an end to the killing and destruction. There will be people who say Ukraine shouldn't concede a thing to Putin (and they'd be right if there were any justice) but the reality is he needs to be seen to have achieved something.

I'm reasonably confident now that making concessions won't embolden Putin, which was the danger as others have (quite rightly) pointed out. This invasion has been a disaster on every level and I'd be very surprised if he tries anything similar again.

 

[Roast Veg]

I think it's a perfectly reasonable position to take if I'm honest. The immediate priority is surely to put an end to the killing and destruction. There will be people who say Ukraine shouldn't concede a thing to Putin (and they'd be right if there were any justice) but the reality is he needs to be seen to have achieved something.

In a purely utilitarian line of debate, accepting concessions now could end up killing more people over the next 40 years than it saves. Unprovably, of course, but we must not allow a failing Russia to make the call over what spoils it is allowed to walk away with at the indefinite detriment of civilians.

 

[najaB]

to see that Poland are not sending fighter jets to Ukraine. Is the fear of retaliation too great?

Well, splitting hairs here but he said they aren't sending Polish aircraft to Ukraine. However, if Ukraine were to buy them and paint on Ukrainian markings...

 

[HST274]

In a purely utilitarian line of debate, accepting concessions now could end up killing more people over the next 40 years than it saves. Unprovably, of course, but we must not allow a failing Russia to make the call over what spoils it is allowed to walk away with at the indefinite detriment of civilians.

This failing russia will run Kiev into the ground before completely retreating, I think. The terms aren't too harsh and I think the costs will be worth it. What is key is we do not abandon ukraine as an outcast

 

[AlterEgo]

This probably sounds heartless, but I am personally of the view that the West should expect Ukraine to accept these terms. I feel our moral obligation is to deliver peace and immediate safety/stability; not sovereignty and long-term democracy.

Of course, as a sovereign nation, they are entirely free not to do so; but I would not personally agree with ourselves continuing to escalate by proxy with Russia if they decide to go the defiant route.

I expect this will be highly controversial (and acknowledge that a moral argument for supporting them to the end can easily be made); and will duly hide under a rock from the ensuing blowback

There has been a predictable trend of politicians and people with the Right Opinions saying the conflict is about "democracy and freedom". That is not really what the Ukrainians are defending. They are defending their homes, which is no less moral and no less upstanding than defending a "value set". Russia's crime is not "steamrolling democracy and choice" it's the murder and wanton destruction of Ukrainian families and homes.

Hence I am inclined to agree with you. I do not see the conflict as some sort of existential coming together of authoritarian Russia and the liberal West. It is an irredentist, ethnic, and religious conflict seeking to correct what Russia sees as a historical mistake. Modern Ukraine was unbelievably flawed. Regardless of how admirably Zelensky has performed under unbelievable stress - and may his moral leadership in staying put be commended - Ukraine is a heavily ethnically divided country with serious problems that do not mark it out as a proper western democracy.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Mar 2022 ==

I think it's a perfectly reasonable position to take if I'm honest. The immediate priority is surely to put an end to the killing and destruction. There will be people who say Ukraine shouldn't concede a thing to Putin (and they'd be right if there were any justice) but the reality is he needs to be seen to have achieved something.

I'm reasonably confident now that making concessions won't embolden Putin, which was the danger as others have (quite rightly) pointed out. This invasion has been a disaster on every level and I'd be very surprised if he tries anything similar again.

The West lost because it had weak and predictably soft leaders. Trump was an abomination of a man and a foul politician, but Putin did not dare invade Ukraine during his presidency because Trump was as unstable and unpredictable as he was and also had nuclear codes.

The chaotic fall of Afghanistan and the loss of political morale in the West provided more ample conditions for Putin to act, too.

 

[cactustwirly]

There has been a predictable trend of politicians and people with the Right Opinions saying the conflict is about "democracy and freedom". That is not really what the Ukrainians are defending. They are defending their homes, which is no less moral and no less upstanding than defending a "value set". Russia's crime is not "steamrolling democracy and choice" it's the murder and wanton destruction of Ukrainian families and homes.

Hence I am inclined to agree with you. I do not see the conflict as some sort of existential coming together of authoritarian Russia and the liberal West. It is an irredentist, ethnic, and religious conflict seeking to correct what Russia sees as a historical mistake. Modern Ukraine was unbelievably flawed. Regardless of how admirably Zelensky has performed under unbelievable stress - and may his moral leadership in staying put be commended - Ukraine is a heavily ethnically divided country with serious problems that do not mark it out as a proper western democracy.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Mar 2022 ==


The West lost because it had weak and predictably soft leaders. Trump was an abomination of a man and a foul politician, but Putin did not dare invade Ukraine during his presidency because Trump was as unstable and unpredictable as he was and also had nuclear codes.

The chaotic fall of Afghanistan and the loss of political morale in the West provided more ample conditions for Putin to act, too.

They are defending their freedom though you can't deny that.
If they surrender to the Russians then Ukraine will end up like Belarus, a puppet state of Russia with no democracy.

I wouldn't be surprised if Putin has been playing the long game. Using Brexit and Trump to destabilize the west before launching his offensive.
I bet there is a lot of Russian influence on green policies. A direct result of this is that we rely on Gas for a large proportion of our electricity generation. Which gives Putin a good hand.

 

[najaB]

Putin did not dare invade Ukraine during his presidency because Trump was as unstable and unpredictable as he was and also had nuclear codes.

Not to mention, Trump was afraid of failing his annual performance review.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Mar 2022 ==

A direct result of this is that we rely on Gas for a large proportion of our electricity generation. Which gives Putin a good hand.

Not really. Russia is both and oil and gas exporter - pushing green policies is more or less a net neutral for gas and detrimental for oil.

 

[DarloRich]

And to add to that... Given Putin's record, for as long as he is in control of Russia, who in their right mind would even trust any guarantee that the Russian Government might give about anything?

I agree the guarantee is worthless BUT it gives time to stop the conflict and rearm and assert a kind of aggressive neutrality as per Sweden so when they come again you are even more ready for them.

 

[AlterEgo]

They are defending their freedom though you can't deny that.

Ukrainians are defending their homes and their right to say what goes on in their own home country, yes, in the same way I would defend my home from an armed burglar. That is different to "defending freedom" as an abstract concept or principle.

I wouldn't be surprised if Putin has been playing the long game. Using Brexit and Trump to destabilize the west before launching his offensive.

I think you need to show your working here, because these sound like muscle-memory responses rather than thought-out rationale.

In what way does Britain not being part of the EU make it more likely for Putin to invade Ukraine, exactly?
In what way does a less predictable and less stable nuclear-armed Western bloc make it more likely for Putin to invade?

Putin is invading precisely because the West is stable, boring, and risk-averse - and because the EU has no coherent defence policy and its richest nation is suckling at Putin's teat for its gas, and because we in Britain house filthy laundered money. Britain's military response has been among the strongest of any nation, sending in the most meaningful materiel that is deleting Russian soldiers by the dozen. How is that affected by our EU membership? Or do you not think Putin was smart enough to see that coming?

The idea that Putin is a puppetmaster has been quite damaged by recent events. He is irrational and has a higher appetite for risk. The idea he somehow funds Brexit groups as some grand strategy to invade Ukraine doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[DustyBin]

Ukrainians are defending their homes and their right to say what goes on in their own home country, yes, in the same way I would defend my home from an armed burglar. That is different to "defending freedom" as an abstract concept or principle.

I agree, they're fighting for their freedom not ours (that's in no way intended to detract from their frankly heroic efforts).

I think you need to show your working here, because these sound like muscle-memory responses rather than thought-out rationale.

In what way does Britain not being part of the EU make it more likely for Putin to invade Ukraine, exactly?
In what way does a less predictable and less stable nuclear-armed Western bloc make it more likely for Putin to invade?

Putin is invading precisely because the West is stable, boring, and risk-averse - and because the EU has no coherent defence policy and its richest nation is suckling at Putin's teat for its gas, and because we in Britain house filthy laundered money. Britain's military response has been among the strongest of any nation, sending in the most meaningful materiel that is deleting Russian soldiers by the dozen. How is that affected by our EU membership? Or do you not think Putin was smart enough to see that coming?

The idea that Putin is a puppetmaster has been quite damaged by recent events. He is irrational and has a higher appetite for risk. The idea he somehow funds Brexit groups as some grand strategy to invade Ukraine doesn't make any sense to me.

Nail on head IMO.

 

[Bevan Price]

I think it's a perfectly reasonable position to take if I'm honest. The immediate priority is surely to put an end to the killing and destruction. There will be people who say Ukraine shouldn't concede a thing to Putin (and they'd be right if there were any justice) but the reality is he needs to be seen to have achieved something.

I'm reasonably confident now that making concessions won't embolden Putin, which was the danger as others have (quite rightly) pointed out. This invasion has been a disaster on every level and I'd be very surprised if he tries anything similar again.

That assumes he is still capable of rational behaviour.........