You still haven't explained how that was pandering to Russian sensibilities though. What were the actions that we did/did not take specifically because we didn't want to hurt Russia's (or more specifically Putin's) feelings?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Russia invades Ukraine
- Thread starter kristiang85
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I have in detail. I don't see how I could expand.
Annetts key
Established Member
Whoa, I’ve ran out of popcorn 
Can we continue this ping pong discussion tomorrow after I’ve had a chance to get some more popcorn?
Can we continue this ping pong discussion tomorrow after I’ve had a chance to get some more popcorn?
The dependence of Western economies on the FSB state is evidence of pandering enough.
Cloud Strife
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 2,964
Yes, this is how Russia perceives those cities. They are historically Russian speaking, and therefore Russia sees them as inherently Russian.
But you haven't. You haven't yet stated anything that we did or did not do expressly because of the way Russia was going to react. You named two things:
- We allowed Russia into the G7. Did we do that to make Russia feel good, or because we thought Russia's economy was on the way up and it allowed us to get in there and make money?
- We traded with Russia. Did we do that to make Russia feel good, or because Russia was on our doorstep and had cheap oil, gas and mineral resources. (Hint, Russia had the largest proven reserves of oil and gas that can feasibly be shipped to Europe by a pipeline and were willing to undercut the price offered by other states)
Certainly we pandered to voracious western greed and a childish belief in the inherent goodness of capitalism at the same time.
Loppylugs
Member
If they see them as their own then why flatten them ? These cities are/were probably where any form of Russian support was.
No dispute there.
Annetts key
Established Member
I think this discussion about Russia and the European countries is missing the point. It’s got nothing to do with what economic or trade occurred and everything to do with the thoughts and preconceptions in the mind of Putin.
It’s clear now that Putin sees Ukraine (and various other former USSR countries) as part of a larger/greater Russia.
Short of European countries / “the West’ refusing to help them, or let them become more westernised (*), it’s likely Putin would have tried this last desperate action somewhere anyway. Regardless of what “the West” did with regards to diplomatic, economic or trade relations to Russia itself.
(*) including advice, help, economic assistance, better trade arrangements, working with them to introduce and improve democratic government, allowing free media, military training, joining the E.U., joining N.A.T.O. etc.
Looking back, “the West” should have taken action back when Putin started rigging elections in Russia and started changing the system to give himself more power.
I firmly believe in every democratic country, a head of government should be limited to a maximum of ten years. If the country has an elected president or head of state that has an active position in government, that too should should be limited to a maximum of ten years.
You only have to look back through history to see that long serving heads of governments / heads of states where there is no effective democracy, often become more dangerous. Either to their own people or to other countries or both.
There should also be NO permanent members in any part of the U.N.
The U.N. is crippled by Russia being a permanent member and therefore able to veto any decision that goes against it, even when the vast majority of other countries agree it’s actions are wrong.
Unfortunately “the West” does not have the will to deal with problems early on. Hence these problems build up over time. Only when it becomes too late do our governments find that they now have to decide to take action or to put up with the consequences.
But let me make it clear, this war is being caused by a Russia controlled by Putin. It’s not the fault of “the West” or the fault of any other country.
What is the fault of “the West” is the lack of military action to stop this war before it started or to tackle the Russian invasion early on.
If “the West” made it abundantly clear to Putin that any military action by it against Ukraine would result in a war between Western countries and itself. And we (at the request of Ukraine) had started moving Western military forces towards the Ukrainian/Russian border, it’s very unlikely that Putin would have ordered the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Having not done this, once it became clear that Russia had started invading Ukraine, “the West” should have immediately informed Russia that due to their military action, unless Russian forces returned to Russian territory within 12 hours, “the West” would consider this an act of war against Ukraine and Europe and therefore would order our military military forces to attack any Russian military forces found in any Ukrainian territory including any part of the Donbas region and Crimea.
Then if Russia ignored our demands, we should have sent Western airforces into action. Followed up by the rest of our military forces (yes navies and armies).
Would this have started a world wide war, or resulted in a nuclear war? I don’t think so. Putin may be deluded over what the Russian military is actually capable of, but I don’t think he would be daft enough to think that Russian military forces could be a match for a combined Western military force. And if he had to deploy all Russian military forces to defend against the Western military forces, who is going to stamp out any rebellion in Russia? Or in any other area currently controlled by Russia?
Putin wants to be in control of Russia until his natural death. He will do anything to stay in power. It’s not in his interests for Russian military forces to try to take on the Western military forces.
He only sent his military into Ukraine because he thought it would be a walkover. He thought it would be a quick and easy win.
It’s clear now that Putin sees Ukraine (and various other former USSR countries) as part of a larger/greater Russia.
Short of European countries / “the West’ refusing to help them, or let them become more westernised (*), it’s likely Putin would have tried this last desperate action somewhere anyway. Regardless of what “the West” did with regards to diplomatic, economic or trade relations to Russia itself.
(*) including advice, help, economic assistance, better trade arrangements, working with them to introduce and improve democratic government, allowing free media, military training, joining the E.U., joining N.A.T.O. etc.
Looking back, “the West” should have taken action back when Putin started rigging elections in Russia and started changing the system to give himself more power.
I firmly believe in every democratic country, a head of government should be limited to a maximum of ten years. If the country has an elected president or head of state that has an active position in government, that too should should be limited to a maximum of ten years.
You only have to look back through history to see that long serving heads of governments / heads of states where there is no effective democracy, often become more dangerous. Either to their own people or to other countries or both.
There should also be NO permanent members in any part of the U.N.
The U.N. is crippled by Russia being a permanent member and therefore able to veto any decision that goes against it, even when the vast majority of other countries agree it’s actions are wrong.
Unfortunately “the West” does not have the will to deal with problems early on. Hence these problems build up over time. Only when it becomes too late do our governments find that they now have to decide to take action or to put up with the consequences.
But let me make it clear, this war is being caused by a Russia controlled by Putin. It’s not the fault of “the West” or the fault of any other country.
What is the fault of “the West” is the lack of military action to stop this war before it started or to tackle the Russian invasion early on.
If “the West” made it abundantly clear to Putin that any military action by it against Ukraine would result in a war between Western countries and itself. And we (at the request of Ukraine) had started moving Western military forces towards the Ukrainian/Russian border, it’s very unlikely that Putin would have ordered the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Having not done this, once it became clear that Russia had started invading Ukraine, “the West” should have immediately informed Russia that due to their military action, unless Russian forces returned to Russian territory within 12 hours, “the West” would consider this an act of war against Ukraine and Europe and therefore would order our military military forces to attack any Russian military forces found in any Ukrainian territory including any part of the Donbas region and Crimea.
Then if Russia ignored our demands, we should have sent Western airforces into action. Followed up by the rest of our military forces (yes navies and armies).
Would this have started a world wide war, or resulted in a nuclear war? I don’t think so. Putin may be deluded over what the Russian military is actually capable of, but I don’t think he would be daft enough to think that Russian military forces could be a match for a combined Western military force. And if he had to deploy all Russian military forces to defend against the Western military forces, who is going to stamp out any rebellion in Russia? Or in any other area currently controlled by Russia?
Putin wants to be in control of Russia until his natural death. He will do anything to stay in power. It’s not in his interests for Russian military forces to try to take on the Western military forces.
He only sent his military into Ukraine because he thought it would be a walkover. He thought it would be a quick and easy win.
Last edited:
While I agree with you that an all out war would be the less likely option, Putin's actions - as you point out - demonstrate that he's not operating in quite the same universe as the rest of us. I wouldn't trust that he would follow the logical course of action if he was informed that Russian troops were under attack by NATO.
Yes. And now that the Russian military has been exposed as nothing as powerful as he (and we!) thought it was, and he's cost his economy hundreds of billions of dollars/Euros/Yen/etc. he is going to be much less of an actor on the world stage than he used to be.
DustyBin
Established Member
@TheEdge and @ainsworth74 have responded in detail (very interesting too!) but I think in summary Russia hasn’t moved on (sufficiently) from the Cold War era whereas NATO has.
A lot of people were very worried in regard to “who’s next” when the invasion began, thinking Ukraine would hold out for a week at most and we’d be left facing an emboldened, aggressive Russia that may choose to put its large, modern military (cough!) to use elsewhere. It’s clear at this point however that Russia isn’t capable of taking on NATO, or even any individual member state with a reasonably sized, well trained, modern military (Poland for example).
I think the focus of NATO’s “trip-wire” doctrine can now be on deterrent (which was always a factor anyway), rather than slowing an (initially) unstoppable Russian advance across Europe. The gap in military capability appears to have widened since the end of the Cold War, although few people in NATO and seemingly nobody in Russia actually realised……
Yep I must admit once it became clear that Russia had launch a full scale invasion on that first fateful night I thought they’d roll straight through Ukraine, be welcomed into Transnistria and have a good go at the rest of Moldova. I imagine it’s full of Nazis too.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Unless he gets the nukes out. I don't want to see it, but I would be unsurprised if he ended up dropping tactical nukes on Kyiv and several other large Ukrainian cities on the basis of "if I can't have it I'll flatten it", then in the resulting furore take the bits he really wants to the east. Possibly also "accidentally" drop one on Chernobyl to take out a huge area around it for the foreseeable.
DustyBin
Established Member
Unless he gets the nukes out. I don't want to see it, but I would be unsurprised if he ended up dropping tactical nukes on Kyiv and several other large Ukrainian cities on the basis of "if I can't have it I'll flatten it", then in the resulting furore take the bits he really wants to the east. Possibly also "accidentally" drop one on Chernobyl to take out a huge area around it for the foreseeable.
I’m not going to lie, the thought has crossed my mind, but in reality I can’t see it happening. It achieves nothing and whilst Putin is clearly evil he isn’t mad (I think he’s happy for the West to think he is though). All it would do is escalate the conflict and whilst I don’t know how NATO and the rest of the world would react, I can’t think of a single favourable outcome from a Russian perspective.
There appears to be some hope of Zelensky and Putin talking face to face fairly soon, which suggests there’s actually something to talk about. Putin will likely get some of his own way in any peace deal but the cost will be enormous. Whilst I don’t want to see him gain anything as a result of this invasion I think it’s inevitable that he will. From Zelensky’s perspective there’s no good result (as in fair and just) here, but fending off a full blown invasion by the neighbouring superpower could be seen as a “good” result in itself. At least the Ukrainians can enter into negotiations from a strong position, much stronger than I think anybody would have anticipated anyway.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I fear a trap. If Russia managed to kill Zelensky, it could leave Ukraine rudderless and far easier to make a second attempt on.
I do see the only "clean" way out being for Ukraine to formally cede the majority-Russian eastern areas and the bit already occupied to Russia on a formal basis, though, and that'd hurt for Ukraine even if it's quite possible those living there would be happy with it as they are majority-Russian areas.
And considering the major towns have been bombed completely, it would require a huge investment to repair and bring them back to life.... I wonder if Russia has considered the scale of the repair job which will be far, far, far more than the cost of the war.....!
DustyBin
Established Member
I don’t think they’ll meet in person, not yet anyway. Plus somebody like Vitali Klitschko would step up so it wouldn’t necessarily leave Ukraine rudderless. I agree it’s a legitimate concern though.
That’s going to be the sticking point, but Ukraine may well prefer it to an ongoing war. They’re aren’t going to drive the Russians out of those areas. The key thing is that Russia continues to pay dearly for taking them, which I’ve little doubt it will.
It's a very interesting thought. I wonder how far the corruption has sunk in Russia.
DustyBin
Established Member
I suspect they’re only interested in the resources and to hell with the poor inhabitants……
Where are such talks likely to take place?
Turkey seems the natural regional power broker here. They are very aware of assassination attempts on their soil and control access to the Bosphorus and Crimea's warm water ports.
Cloud Strife
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 2,964
It's Russia. It's a state of mind, as the Poles say.
I wouldn't worry about a trap. There will be a Plan B for that, which will probably involve Klitschko making a public address that this means war with Russia in Russia. I'd expect there to be an insurance policy in place, probably involving a brutal coordinated Ukrainian attack on vital infrastructure within Russia. It would also mean total war, and I don't think the Russian military commanders want such a thing.
The second part of your post deserves attention. Russian-speaking does not mean ethnic Russians. I know quite a few Ukrainians who speak Russian as their first language, but they are not (and do not consider themselves) to be ethnic Russians.
Ceding those areas won't happen unless Ukraine is completely defeated. It's possible that Zelensky will accept the loss of Crimea, but the loss of Donetsk and Luhansk is totally unacceptable to the Ukrainian public.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Question is if it's more acceptable than the alternative. War is always about least-worst.
A rather tenuous example would be that Scottish independence goes very wrong and results in a war (not likely, but let's use it anyway). Would I, living in the South East, vote* to cede Carlisle and Berwick in order for me and my family not to be bombed to death and all our worldly property uninsurably destroyed? Too right I would. My life and my family's life and wellbeing are what are important to me, not the precise borders of a nation state, all of which have varied over the years by various wars anyway.
If I lived in Carlisle or Berwick I might care, of course. Or Newcastle, as I might fear being next.
* He's talking about any such deal going to a referendum, though with his country's infrastructure comprehensively destroyed I'm not clear how he intends to actually do that.
Giugiaro
Established Member
If it's anything like the state the US nuclear arsenal is at, who knows!?
Both Russia and the US have been extremely complacent about their stockpile.
I can't see anything more than the Feb 20th borders being acceptable.
The alleged leaked FSB report discussed around page 62 of this thread (early March) casts a huge amount of doubt on the state of Russia’s nuclear weapons (point 2):
Last edited:
birchesgreen
Established Member
Russia has that many nukes, even if 95% fail they still would wreck the rest of the world for generations.
I'm hoping that could be downgraded to a referendum, then at least Zelensky could say that it's democratic, rather than by force.
well that is not what Putin wanted post 2014, per the Minsk Agreement he wanted a federalised Ukraine with the component parts having an effective veto over accession by UKR to international agreements (NATO and EU), and in fact the parts of Donetsk and Luhansk captured by Russia were never incorporated in Russia like Crimea was, not until just before the current invasion started anyway. Russia cites the expansion of Nato as a threat to it, but that could just be a cover for Putin's real concern that it is the success of the former USSR Eastern european states as EU members that is a threat to the Russian kleptocracy.