Russia invades Ukraine

[Annetts key]

This is the central tenet of his argument, yes. Europe has always been that way.

WRONG! It’s humans that have always been tribal. There have been tribal wars all across the planet. Russia and Japan still have a dispute dating from WWII. Pakistan and India still have one, and there are countless others.

Until this year, the European countries have been relatively peaceful, having found ways to work together to sort out problems by negotiating with each other. But Putin is not interested in this system. That’s the problem. It’s Putin. Not being fully aware of the situation on the ground, or not caring is a typical and very common problem experienced by dictators like Putin.

I’m not saying that there aren’t other problems in Russia, there clearly are. But with the vast majority of the population being spoon fed propaganda every single day (for many, many years), it’s impossible to work out what they would think if circumstances were different.

I’m not a historian, but how did the west deal with the problem that existed in West Germany after the fall of Hitler? He too fed his population with propaganda, and remember, his rise to power included being elected. But no one is saying that Germany will only accept a strong man leader.

 

[AlterEgo]

I’m not a historian, but how did the west deal with the problem that existed in West Germany after the fall of Hitler? He too fed his population with propaganda, and remember, his rise to power included being elected. But no one is saying that Germany will only accept a strong man leader.

Germany was entirely defeated. A more beaten and sad people you could not imagine in the late 1940s. Not so, Russia today. And there is no prospect of defeat for the Russian people.

Of course the Marshall Plan was a form of reverse sanctions for Europe, and West Germany benefited significantly from that. Prosperity is the antidote to some forms of tribalism. The suggestion by many in the West that Russia should be impoverished to make things all better is facile. The sanctions we have need to be very, very surgical in their accuracy to hit the Kremlin elite and Russian upper classes.

WRONG! It’s humans that have always been tribal. There have been tribal wars all across the planet. Russia and Japan still have a dispute dating from WWII. Pakistan and India still have one, and there are countless others.

I'm talking about great powers, not the predisposition of people to form ethnic nation states and become belligerent.

Until this year, the European countries have been relatively peaceful, having found ways to work together to sort out problems by negotiating with each other. But Putin is not interested in this system. That’s the problem. It’s Putin. Not being fully aware of the situation on the ground, or not caring is a typical and very common problem experienced by dictators like Putin.

I’m not saying that there aren’t other problems in Russia, there clearly are. But with the vast majority of the population being spoon fed propaganda every sing day (for many, many years), it’s impossible to work out what they would think if circumstances were different.

I quite agree that Putin is the most significant problem. But our options are very limited, unfortunately.

 

[Annetts key]

federalist

I love it when people band this word around. Could it be considered that the U.K. is a federalist construct?
Or the U.S.A.? Or indeed many other places around the world…

As I have previously said, humans are tribal. For the long term survival of our race we need to work to reduce our tribalism, as it only causes trouble.

 

[ainsworth74]

I’m not a historian, but how did the west deal with the problem that existed in West Germany after the fall of Hitler? He too fed his population with propaganda, and remember, his rise to power included being elected. But no one is saying that Germany will only accept a strong man leader.

We flattened their cities, defeated their armed forces in the field, forced an unconditional surrender upon them, dissolved or radically reshaped their pre-war Government structures, split their nation in half, then occupied our half until the 1990s and via the Marshall Plan the US ensured that prosperity flowed from defeat rather than grinding poverty.

But I do tend to agree that a narrative that "country x will only accept a strong man as leader" is somewhat fallacious. To take Russia in pretty much all of Russian history they've only ever had a bare handful of elections that you might call undisputedly free and fair. Outside of that the Russian people haven't had much choice in the matter of who was in charge and those Russians who weren't happy were either killed, sent to gulags or left the country to avoid one of those fates! How can we know what the Russian people would choose for themselves when they've not had the opportunity, basically ever, to do so?

 

[adrock1976]

Remind me when "the West" has:

- Deliberately targeted sites such as hospitals and schools
- Laid siege to a large city and attacked civilians trying to escape
- Shelled a nuclear power station
- Targeted residential tower blocks with guided missiles
- Forcibly deported people from their country
- Threatened nuclear annihilation to a group of countries trying to join a defensive alliance.

I remember a hospital or other medical facility being struck by the US in Sudan back in 1998/99, which was very convenient to delay the news about to break about Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky.

 

[AlterEgo]

I love it when people band this word around. Could it be considered that the U.K. is a federalist construct?

The UK is a unitary state, and certainly not a federation.

Or the U.S.A.?

The USA is a federation of states, correct.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Mar 2022 ==

How can we know what the Russian people would choose for themselves when they've not had the opportunity, basically ever, to do so?

I'd invite you to consider what Russia would look like if Jacinda Ardern or someone on the opposite end of the Putin spectrum was in charge.

Russia is an extremely vast, very diverse, loosely connected, difficult to defend state. It is predisposed to having very strong leaders bent on central control for this reason. Why do you think Britain has not chosen a strongman type leader since WWII?

 

[ainsworth74]

I remember a hospital or other medical facility being struck by the US in Sudan back in 1998/99, which was very convenient to delay the news about to break about Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Was it deliberately targeted by US forces who knew it was a medical facility? Because that appears to be what the Russians are doing. There is a difference, I'd suggest, between an accident and a deliberate act. The people are, of course, just as dead either way. But there's still a difference. It is, of course, why we have murder and manslaughter in the legal system. The victim in both is just as dead, the family and friends grieving. But there's a difference.

I'd invite you to consider what Russia would look like if Jacinda Ardern or someone on the opposite end of the Putin spectrum was in charge.

Russia is an extremely vast, very diverse, loosely connected, difficult to defend state. It is predisposed to having very strong leaders bent on central control for this reason.

Yes it is indeed but that doesn't change that the Russian people, all of them including those who might not actually want to be Russian, haven't had much of a say in the matter. A Jacinda Ardern type leader would never be able to gain power in Russia today. She'd either be killed or imprisoned on jumped up charges (see Navalny and Nemtsov) long before the Russian people were allowed to make their own decision on who should lead them.

Why do you think Britain has not chosen a strongman type leader since WWII?

Because for all its many and varied faults our political system hasn't given such characters the room to grow their base and wrestle control of the levers of Government. I'm far from convinced that given the chance a strongman couldn't win an election in the UK. Unlikely. But I wouldn't rule it out.

 

[Annetts key]

The UK is a unitary state, and certainly not a federation.

Now, yes. But the status of what we now call the U.K. has changed over our history. The current U.K. is a result of various wars and invasions, annexations, unions and separations of constituent countries over centuries.

If anything, unitary states are inferior to federations and only continue because politicians don’t want to change things or give up power/control. Just like Westminster is doing everything it can to prevent Scotland from holding another independence referendum. Rather than thinking outside the box and putting together a plan for a federal system.

I'd invite you to consider what Russia would look like if Jacinda Ardern or someone on the opposite end of the Putin spectrum was in charge.

Russia is an extremely vast, very diverse, loosely connected, difficult to defend state. It is predisposed to having very strong leaders bent on central control for this reason. Why do you think Britain has not chosen a strongman type leader since WWII?

So are you really saying that there is no other country on the planet that is extremely vast, very diverse, loosely connected, difficult to defend etc. and which does not have strongman type leader?

Officially Russia is a federation…

I’m also interested to know why you don’t think the U.K. has not had a ‘strongman’ type leader, does our one and only strong female PM (Margret Thatcher) not count?

 

[yorksrob]

Do they actually want to become 'Westernised'?

I think its clear we enjoy a lot of privileges in the West. However....whether our culture and lifestyles will stand the test of time is open to scrutiny.

In that case, fine if Russia wants to keep within its borders, but why then should we open our economies to them to enable them to fund their aggression.

 

[LowLevel]

I’m also interested to know why you don’t think the U.K. has not had a ‘strongman’ type leader, does our one and only female PM not count?

Obviously I dreamed Theresa May being PM!

 

[John Luxton]

The UK is a unitary state, and certainly not a federation.

It was a unitary country until devolution. No body really noticed that much until Covid came along and Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland tried to implement their own rules, close borders and devise their own rules.

Up to two years ago I was very much in favour of devolving government to the celtic areas, however, observing what went on as a response to Covid led to a rapid reappraisal of my views.

However, attempts by the NI / Scottish and Welsh governments have turned me into a staunch unionist.

 

[adrock1976]

Was it deliberately targeted by US forces who knew it was a medical facility? Because that appears to be what the Russians are doing. There is a difference, I'd suggest, between an accident and a deliberate act. The people are, of course, just as dead either way. But there's still a difference. It is, of course, why we have murder and manslaughter in the legal system. The victim in both is just as dead, the family and friends grieving. But there's a difference.

SNIP

The term that the US uses is "friendly fire".

 

[Annetts key]

Obviously I dreamed Theresa May being PM!

Yes, my mistake, I was trying to refer to Margret Thatcher without naming her, and forgot about Theresa May. I must be getting old!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Mar 2022 ==

The term that the US uses is "friendly fire".

Friendly fire or blue on blue is normally used to refer to accidental firing or targeting of your own (or your allies) military forces rather than civilian infrastructure.

 

[AlterEgo]

Now, yes. But the status of what we now call the U.K. has changed over our history. The current U.K. is a result of various wars and invasions, annexations, unions and separations of constituent countries over centuries.

But the UK has always been a unitary state since its inception as UKoGB+I in 1801. It has never been a federation or any other sort of state.

So are you really saying that there is no other country on the planet that is extremely vast, very diverse, loosely connected, difficult to defend etc. and which does not have strongman type leader?

Russia is unique in its vastness and geopolitics, surrounded by enemies or perceived enemies, continually embroiled in wars, and drunk on paranoia - since imperial times. Modern Russia is huffing the fumes of empire and the Red Army in WWII.

I’m also interested to know why you don’t think the U.K. has not had a ‘strongman’ type leader, does our one and only strong female PM not count?

No. Thatcher was merely a pragmatist and a conviction politician, not a strongman type leader in the vein of Putin, Trump, Orban and the rest.

The UK's geopolitics mean we are much less prone to external threats, and that has been the case for hundreds of years. We have not been successfully invaded since the 1600s (and even that that was by invitation!). If you gave me a blank map of Europe and cleared the population and asked me to select one area where I would build my country to be successful, it would be the island of Great Britain. We were fortunate to have had two World Wars which were almost entirely expeditionary - contrast that with Europe.

Britain's people do not need or want a strongman - we have a self sustaining mainstream culture, we are easily defended, we were and still are a wealthy, if now second tier, military power with no need for macho men to tell us how to feel or think.

Most of Britain's prime ministers of the industrialised age have been soft managerialist types. We don't buy into personality cults; we are far too cynical.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Mar 2022 ==

It was a unitary country until devolution.

Wrong, sorry. The UK is a unitary state, this is not even a debate but a fact.

 

[ainsworth74]

The term that the US uses is "friendly fire".

So it was an accident then rather than the deliberate targeting of a medical facility? We can agree that this is a different order of magnitude to what Russia is doing to Ukraine yes?

 

[Giugiaro]

But Putin is not interested in this system. That’s the problem. It’s Putin. Not being fully aware of the situation on the ground, or not caring is a typical and very common problem experienced by dictators like Putin.

One thing to consider is that a strong man like Putin has few keys to power. For them to have power, they just need to appease to a few couple of people.
For the common Russian citizen, Putin clearly "misses the part where they are his problem". His keys to power will make sure that the populace is well kept mollified, so that Mr. Putin over there can give them space to do whatever the hell the keys want.

The problem is that with so little keys to power, it's also not so difficult for an internal or external influence to take them away one by one.
You can bribe the keys to kick the strongman out of the throne, or you can do like the French and just kill every one of them.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Have you watched the video, if only from 43-46 minutes? It explains who Professor Mearsheimer believes is ultimately responsible.

When one country is *choosing* to deliberately fire rockets at people's houses and to deliberately bomb innocent civilians who have done it no harm. When that country is *choosing* to kidnap innocent civilians and forcibly relocate them thousands of miles from their homes, then that country is *choosing* to do terrible things, and it is utterly absurd to pretend that someone else is to blame. You don't need to watch a 5-year-old video to realise that. People and Governments are, on the whole, responsible for their own choices.

 

[daodao]

When one country is *choosing* to deliberately fire rockets at people's houses and to deliberately bomb innocent civilians who have done it no harm. When that country is *choosing* to kidnap innocent civilians and forcibly relocate them thousands of miles from their homes, then that country is *choosing* to do terrible things, and it is utterly absurd to pretend that someone else is to blame. You don't need to watch a 5-year-old video to realise that. People and Governments are, on the whole, responsible for their own choices.

When one deals with a large and powerful wild animal such as bear, which then reacts in a predictable way, of course that animal is directly responsible for its actions, but knowing how a wild animal is likely to behave, it is desirable to take steps not to provoke it recklessly. NATO and the EU have deliberately poked the bear by their stupid policies of liberal interventionism/expansionism.

 

[AlterEgo]

When one deals with a wild animal such as bear, which then reacts in a predictable way, of course that animal is directly responsible for its actions, but knowing how a wild animal is likely to behave, it is desirable to take steps not to provoke it recklessly. NATO and the EU have deliberately poked the bear by their stupid policies of liberal interventionism/expansionism.

Indeed it is possible to simultaneously believe that Russia is nefarious - perhaps irretrievably so - a predictable aggressor, a usurper, and all sorts of evil things. And also to believe that if you live next door to it that there are things which it is unwise to do.

 

[GS250]

In that case, fine if Russia wants to keep within its borders, but why then should we open our economies to them to enable them to fund their aggression.

I guess we still do a lot of business with China in spite of their behaviour.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

When one deals with a large and powerful wild animal such as bear, which then reacts in a predictable way, of course that animal is directly responsible for its actions, but knowing how a wild animal is likely to behave, it is desirable to take steps not to provoke it recklessly. NATO and the EU have deliberately poked the bear by their stupid policies of liberal interventionism/expansionism.

Even if you believe that we've been deliberately 'poking the bear' which frankly is itself a pretty daft thing to believe if you have any decent knowledge of recent history, that doesn't change the point that it is *Russia* that has chosen to invade Ukraine and bomb innocent civilians. Nothing was forcing Russia to make that choice. It may well be that Putin was unhappy with the situation before the invasion. It may well be that he felt angry against NATO. None of that changes that it was his decision to invade. Can you really not see that by trying to pretend that Putin's decision was anyone else's responsibility, you are arguing an utter absurdity?

 

[najaB]

NATO and the EU have deliberately poked the bear by their stupid policies of liberal interventionism/expansionism.

Because NATO and the EU have forced Eastern European governments to seek membership.

 

[John Luxton]

Wrong, sorry. The UK is a unitary state, this is not even a debate but a fact.

Sorry I completely disagree. When one has devolved leaders going off in different directions it cannot be unitary. They are pursuing their own political agendas.

 

[Annetts key]

When one deals with a large and powerful wild animal such as bear, which then reacts in a predictable way, of course that animal is directly responsible for its actions, but knowing how a wild animal is likely to behave, it is desirable to take steps not to provoke it recklessly. NATO and the EU have deliberately poked the bear by their stupid policies of liberal interventionism/expansionism.

Err, if anyone has done any poking or provoking, it was Russia and Russia backed separatists in the disputed areas (Crimea and in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions). With respect to the first, Crimea, let’s look at the Wikipedia entry for the UN resolution (link to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262) which says

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 was adopted on 27 March 2014 by the sixty-eighth session of the United Nations General Assembly in response to the Russian annexation of Crimea and entitled "territorial integrity of Ukraine". The nonbinding resolution, which was supported by 100 United Nations member states, affirmed the General Assembly's commitment to the territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders and underscored the invalidity of the 2014 Crimean referendum. Eleven nations voted against the resolution, while 58 abstained, and a further 24 states were absent when the vote took place.

Russia of course used its veto wherever it could. Putin was not the least bit interested in negotiations.

 

[John Luxton]

When one deals with a large and powerful wild animal such as bear, which then reacts in a predictable way, of course that animal is directly responsible for its actions, but knowing how a wild animal is likely to behave, it is desirable to take steps not to provoke it recklessly. NATO and the EU have deliberately poked the bear by their stupid policies of liberal interventionism/expansionism.

Well said - but some people just do not get it.

 

[AlterEgo]

Sorry I completely disagree. When one has devolved leaders going off in different directions it cannot be unitary. They are pursuing their own political agendas.

"I disagree with this fact".

Please Google what a unitary state is before trying to dispute a fact. Westminster parliament is the UK's supreme authority and devolution to regions or entities is within its gift. No serious person thinks the UK is anything other than a unitary state.

This is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact, which you can look up at your leisure.

 

[John Luxton]

"I disagree with this fact".

Please Google what a unitary state is before trying to dispute a fact. Westminster parliament is the UK's supreme authority and devolution to regions or entities is within its gift. No serious person thinks the UK is anything other than a unitary state.

This is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact, which you can look up at your leisure.

The facts may state on thing BUT the reality and implementation is different. Look back to the past two years there would have been one centralised covid policy. Yes I know health care is devolved BUT any restrictions should only come from one source. Most people know that NI / Scotland and Wales have been pursing their own political agendas which have become more noticeable since Westminster decided to lift restrictions.

Behaviour counts for more than what it says on paper.

 

[GS250]

Even if you believe that we've been deliberately 'poking the bear' which frankly is itself a pretty daft thing to believe if you have any decent knowledge of recent history, that doesn't change the point that it is *Russia* that has chosen to invade Ukraine and bomb innocent civilians. Nothing was forcing Russia to make that choice. It may well be that Putin was unhappy with the situation before the invasion. It may well be that he felt angry against NATO. None of that changes that it was his decision to invade. Can you really not see that by trying to pretend that Putin's decision was anyone else's responsibility, you are arguing an utter absurdity?

There is a saying in life about keeping your friends at arms lengths but keeping your enemies even closer. I think this is effectively what could have prevented the current fiasco. We all know there is only one real party in the wrong here and that's Russia. However, we know about Russia don't we? We know how they are likely to react to what some have described as 'poking the Bear'. The idealistic view that they would turn a blind eye to Western expansion was sadly not to be.

Sadly life often comes down to idealism versus the actual likely outcome.

 

[najaB]

When one deals with a large and powerful wild animal such as bear, which then reacts in a predictable way, of course that animal is directly responsible for its actions, but knowing how a wild animal is likely to behave, it is desirable to take steps not to provoke it recklessly. NATO and the EU have deliberately poked the bear by their stupid policies of liberal interventionism/expansionism.

Well said - but some people just do not get it.

It would be a valid argument only if you hold that the EU/NATO have been acting solely with the intent of provoking Russia.

To carry the 'dealing with a dangerous animal' analogy a bit further... I agree that going out looking for the bear and poking it with sticks is a bad idea, but that doesn't mean that you never go out into the woods to pick fruits and gather mushrooms, simply because that's where the bear lives.

 

[AlterEgo]

The facts may state on thing BUT the reality and implementation is different. Look back to the past two years there would have been one centralised covid policy. Yes I know health care is devolved BUT any restrictions should only come from one source.

That's not what a unitary state is, it just means the constitution of that country - written or otherwise - means all power resides in a single centralised executive, which in the UK, it does.

Most people know that NI / Scotland and Wales have been pursing their own political agendas

Which the Westminster parliament, as the supreme authority and delegator of that privilege, has allowed. That is how a unitary state works.