Russia invades Ukraine

[Bletchleyite]

True, which as why I have been opposed to it from the start. As perverse as it sounds under the circumstances there are “rules” here. Whilst some people believe NATO should declare and enforce a no-fly-zone it’s simply not a risk worth taking; again the deterrent is therefore working.

Yes, that's true.

It's working for both Russia and NATO. For Russia it's preventing NATO getting involved directly. For NATO, it's likely preventing any attempt on the likes of Poland. What it essentially causes is a stalemate, which isn't great for Ukraine (as it's on neither side) but probably is best for both Russia and NATO.

 

[DustyBin]

Yes, that's true.

It's working for both Russia and NATO. For Russia it's preventing NATO getting involved directly. For NATO, it's likely preventing any attempt on the likes of Poland. What it essentially causes is a stalemate, which isn't great for Ukraine (as it's on neither side) but probably is best for both Russia and NATO.

Yes this is exactly it. It’s a terrible situation for Ukraine though as you say and there’s no easy answer, although it’s clear at this point that the only solution is a diplomatic one.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

True, which as why I have been opposed to it from the start. As perverse as it sounds under the circumstances there are “rules” here. Whilst some people believe NATO should declare and enforce a no-fly-zone it’s simply not a risk worth taking; again the deterrent is therefore working.

Your reference to rules, which you imply are working, beg two questions:

1. Do these rules include that it's OK for Russia to carry out chemical/nuclear attacks on individuals on UK soil? And what about shooting down of civilian airliners carrying hundreds of passengers?
2. In the past in this thread, I've suggested that if we directly intervened to help Ukraine, we should make it explicitly clear that we are doing no more than defending Ukraine and that our rules of engagement are that we only attack foreign (=non-Ukrainian) forces that are actually (illegally) on Ukrainian territory. What makes you think those kind of clear rules wouldn't work but the rather fuzzy current rules about only being allowed to attack if it's via weapons that you've given to a 3rd party can work?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Apr 2022 ==

I don't think there is a substantial elevated risk at the moment (it may be slightly elevated), but I do think that if NATO got directly militarily involved, i.e. actually shot at Russian targets whether inside Russia or not, then there definitely would be. That's why they aren't doing and are instead helping "on the sly" with equipment and sanctions.

Yet in 2015, Turkey - a NATO member - did actually shoot down a Russian jet. Strangely enough, I don't recall that resulting in a Worldwide nuclear war - or indeed leading to anything bad at all other than rather more strained relations between Russia and Turkey for a few months.

I find it striking how those here who argue that we can't risk any direct conflict between NATO and Russia, and who list various incidents from many decades ago in support of that claim, consistently omit to mention that much more recent counter-example.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yet in 2015, Turkey - a NATO member - did actually shoot down a Russian jet. Strangely enough, I don't recall that resulting in a Worldwide nuclear war - or indeed leading to anything bad at all other than rather more strained relations between Russia and Turkey for a few months.

That was a very different situation because the plane was in Turkish airspace. I don't doubt that if one makes a significant incursion into say Poland, that that will be shot down too.

That is nothing at all like the idea of us sending lots of planes and potentially shooting down lots of Russian planes.

 

[najaB]

Yet in 2015, Turkey - a NATO member - did actually shoot down a Russian jet. Strangely enough, I don't recall that resulting in a Worldwide nuclear war - or indeed leading to anything bad at all other than rather more strained relations between Russia and Turkey for a few months.

As you said a Russian jet. And, as I understand it, the jet was in Turkish airspace.

You are talking about enforcing a no fly zone over a non-NATO nation. Which would mean attacking air defence radars on the ground (potentially including ones on Russian soil) and being willing to engage in combat with Russian aircraft.

 

[Trackman]

Yet in 2015, Turkey - a NATO member - did actually shoot down a Russian jet. Strangely enough, I don't recall that resulting in a Worldwide nuclear war - or indeed leading to anything bad at all other than rather more strained relations between Russia and Turkey for a few months.

It was thought at the time that Russia would send over a few missiles into fields etc to show their outrage, but it never happened. If it did I'm sure NATO would have just sat on their hands and tell Turkey to behave.

 

[DanNCL]

Twitter have labelled George Galloway’s account as “Russia state-affiliated media” because of the anti-NATO, pro-Kremlin nonsense he’s been spouting

 

[TheEdge]

Twitter have labelled George Galloway’s account as “Russia state-affiliated media” because of the anti-NATO, pro-Kremlin nonsense he’s been spouting

I feel like being labelled as a mouthpiece of the Kremlin is still less embarrassing than the Big Brother cat incident.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Twitter have labelled George Galloway’s account as “Russia state-affiliated media” because of the anti-NATO, pro-Kremlin nonsense he’s been spouting

Haha! That seems rather apt. I see on Twitter he's also threatening legal action if Twitter don't remove that designation, and he has the Twitter support of, none other than... Laurence Fox!

Out of interest, I had a look to see how Jeremy Corbyn has been responding to the war and evident Russian war crimes. It seems he has only one recent tweet on the subject here

The horrific discovery of mass graves in Bucha must be investigated and those responsible held accountable. There must be an urgent and immediate ceasefire in Ukraine to end the bloodshed that has already taken so many lives.

So, condemning atrocities while carefully avoiding saying that Russia is to blame, and calling for a ceasefire (which would of course leave Russia in control of much of Donbas and much of the South of the country). Just imagine if Labour had won the last election and this guy had been Prime Minister today!

 

[Typhoon]

Out of interest, I had a look to see how Jeremy Corbyn has been responding to the war and evident Russian war crimes. It seems he has only one recent tweet on the subject here

So, condemning atrocities while carefully avoiding saying that Russia is to blame, and calling for a ceasefire (which would of course leave Russia in control of much of Donbas and much of the South of the country). Just imagine if Labour had won the last election and this guy had been Prime Minister today!

On his website is the following:

I have received a lot of emails from concerned people in Islington North who are observing this horrific situation as it unfolds.

Russia’s shocking invasion of Ukraine is causing fear, misery, and death. This is a terrible war that is going on and I continue to appeal to everyone to do everything they can to try to stop the war. Russia must withdraw its troops and return to diplomacy.

We must remain steadfast in working for long term security arrangements for the whole region, based on the original Budapest memorandum on Security Assurances signed at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) conference in 1994; and the Minsk-2 Agreement that came out of the Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine conference in 2014.

In 2008 I asserted that Putin was rigging elections. Then in 2010 I called for a freeze of his assets, followed in 2012 by a call for a Magnitsky Act. In the same year (2012) I called for the Russian Arms Corps to be banned, and in 2016 I asserted that Putin was guilty of war crimes in Syria. I continued in this vein in the years since.

All wars end in a political solution, not a military one, and this crisis needs a ceasefire and dialogue, not more war, otherwise there will be more suffering, more bloodshed and many more Ukrainians (and Russians) would die.

A war with Russia would not bring about peace, it would lengthen and widen the crisis, nobody will win, and it would run the very deal danger of turning nuclear, which would be too terrible to even contemplate.

We are currently seeing huge numbers of refugees leaving their homeland in search of safety and we must do everything possible to ensure their safety.

OK this was was a month ago but para two clearly attributes blame.

I have no doubts that Corbyn would have been a disaster as PM but (assuming his claims are correct) his track record of calling out Russia under Putin seems not bad.

 

[Shrop]

So who heard the grim statistic about oil and gas purchases from Russia in the news today? The report on BBC news said that since the start of the war, western European countries have sent approximately £1billion in aid to Ukraine. And how much oil and gas have these same countries purchased from Russia since the war started (remembering that a lot of all money which goes into Russia, is channelled towards their war machine)? Approximately £1billion EVERY SINGLE DAY!!!
This strikes me as absolutely abhorrent, and indeed hypocritical of those who are feeding Russia with so much money for their oil and gas, whilst claiming to sympathise with Ukraine.
What would I do? Well I'm retired and I love to travel having worked all my life to pay for this lifestyle. But if everyone would agree to do the same, I would willingly cut down hugely on my expenditure on travel (which of course involves oil) in order to buy it only from other countries, yet the best our Government can do is to offer that we'll stop buying from Russia by the end of 2022. As if that will worry Putin! I would also consider moving in with relatives or having them live with us to save spending money on heating, if it would help to stop feeding the war machine.
Have I misunderstood something here? If not, then I wonder how many others would be willing to significantly compromise their lifestyles in order to stop feeding Russia's war machine? It seems that our Government really isn't prepared to do much at all, partly because they don't want their own personal lives affected, and partly in case it risks losing them votes. Any thoughts?

 

[Simon11]

So who heard the grim statistic about oil and gas purchases from Russia in the news today? The report on BBC news said that since the start of the war, western European countries have sent approximately £1billion in aid to Ukraine. And how much oil and gas have these same countries purchased from Russia since the war started (remembering that a lot of all money which goes into Russia, is channelled towards their war machine)? Approximately £1billion EVERY SINGLE DAY!!!
This strikes me as absolutely abhorrent, and indeed hypocritical of those who are feeding Russia with so much money for their oil and gas, whilst claiming to sympathise with Ukraine.
What would I do? Well I'm retired and I love to travel having worked all my life to pay for this lifestyle. But if everyone would agree to do the same, I would willingly cut down hugely on my expenditure on travel (which of course involves oil) in order to buy it only from other countries, yet the best our Government can do is to offer that we'll stop buying from Russia by the end of 2022. As if that will worry Putin! I would also consider moving in with relatives or having them live with us to save spending money on heating, if it would help to stop feeding the war machine.
Have I misunderstood something here? If not, then I wonder how many others would be willing to significantly compromise their lifestyles in order to stop feeding Russia's war machine? It seems that our Government really isn't prepared to do much at all, partly because they don't want their own personal lives affected, and partly in case it risks losing them votes. Any thoughts?

A few points:
*To make a personal impact, you would need to do far more than reduce your travel and move in with family to reduce heating bills. You would have to stop eating out, halve the range of food you have, stop shopping and face another huge increase to your bills, not just gas and electric, everything! It would be double the impact of the covid lockdowns?
*of the £1 billion we pay for energy, how much actually goes to Russian government after all the costs of producing it?
*Finally, if we stop using Russian energy, I would place a firm bet that India would happily move in (and maybe China) and purchase Russian energy at cheap rates, thus making little impact on Russia.

 

[najaB]

The report on BBC news said that since the start of the war, western European countries have sent approximately £1billion in aid to Ukraine. And how much oil and gas have these same countries purchased from Russia since the war started (remembering that a lot of all money which goes into Russia, is channelled towards their war machine)? Approximately £1billion EVERY SINGLE DAY!!!
This strikes me as absolutely abhorrent, and indeed hypocritical of those who are feeding Russia with so much money for their oil and gas, whilst claiming to sympathise with Ukraine.

The problem is that Europe (rather foolishly) got into the position where it would hurt us more than it would Russia were we to just stop importing their gas. That said, while we have been buying gas from Russia they have limited ways of spending that money due to the impact of sanctions.

 

[REVUpminster]

Angela Merkel successfully neutered Germany. Germany is the straw man of Europe.

 

[brad465]

Twitter have labelled George Galloway’s account as “Russia state-affiliated media” because of the anti-NATO, pro-Kremlin nonsense he’s been spouting

Haha! That seems rather apt. I see on Twitter he's also threatening legal action if Twitter don't remove that designation, and he has the Twitter support of, none other than... Laurence Fox!

Out of interest, I had a look to see how Jeremy Corbyn has been responding to the war and evident Russian war crimes. It seems he has only one recent tweet on the subject here



So, condemning atrocities while carefully avoiding saying that Russia is to blame, and calling for a ceasefire (which would of course leave Russia in control of much of Donbas and much of the South of the country). Just imagine if Labour had won the last election and this guy had been Prime Minister today!

Made my day seeing that happen to Galloway. He is an example of the horseshoe politics theory, where both far left figures like him and far right figures like Laurence Fox broadly agree.

On Corbyn, we'll never know for sure but I think if he was not doing a good enough job on Ukraine as PM he could easily have been deposed, like Chamberlain was in 1940.

Angela Merkel successfully neutered Germany. Germany is the straw man of Europe.

She's the modern bastian of neoliberalism and all it's failures, so that's no surprise.

 

[DustyBin]

Your reference to rules, which you imply are working, beg two questions:

I used the word “rules” in inverted commas for a reason. I’m under no illusions, the point however is that NATO and Russia aren’t shooting at each other, as both sides know that it’s a situation to be avoided at all costs.

1. Do these rules include that it's OK for Russia to carry out chemical/nuclear attacks on individuals on UK soil? And what about shooting down of civilian airliners carrying hundreds of passengers?

It’s clearly not ok to do either of those things but neither constitute an attack on NATO, as despicable as such actions are.

2. In the past in this thread, I've suggested that if we directly intervened to help Ukraine, we should make it explicitly clear that we are doing no more than defending Ukraine and that our rules of engagement are that we only attack foreign (=non-Ukrainian) forces that are actually (illegally) on Ukrainian territory. What makes you think those kind of clear rules wouldn't work but the rather fuzzy current rules about only being allowed to attack if it's via weapons that you've given to a 3rd party can work?

You can make it as clear as you like, but when NATO jets start blowing Russian jets out of the sky (or attack Russian ground forces as you also appear to be advocating) it’s an escalation that carries an extremely high risk of escalating further. Arming Ukraine so it can defend itself is different, and even then there appears to be a line (see Polish MiG-29s).

Yet in 2015, Turkey - a NATO member - did actually shoot down a Russian jet. Strangely enough, I don't recall that resulting in a Worldwide nuclear war - or indeed leading to anything bad at all other than rather more strained relations between Russia and Turkey for a few months.

I find it striking how those here who argue that we can't risk any direct conflict between NATO and Russia, and who list various incidents from many decades ago in support of that claim, consistently omit to mention that much more recent counter-example.

The others have pointed out already that the Russian jet was where it shouldn’t have been which made it easy for Putin to take on the chin. It was an “unfortunate” incident and not really comparable to NATO getting involved in Ukraine.

 

[Shrop]

A few points:
*To make a personal impact, you would need to do far more than reduce your travel and move in with family to reduce heating bills. You would have to stop eating out, halve the range of food you have, stop shopping and face another huge increase to your bills, not just gas and electric, everything! It would be double the impact of the covid lockdowns?

I'm not sure it would take this much sacrifice to make an impact, it just needs people to be prepared to do so, and for a willing and capable Government to be able to direct the power of these sacrifices properly. Unfortunately I'm not convinced of the capability of the Government. Nor even of their willingness.

*of the £1 billion we pay for energy, how much actually goes to Russian government after all the costs of producing it?

An interesting question, I wonder if we have much idea of the answer to this? One thing is for sure, we're talking of vast sums of money, so even a single figure percentage would finance a huge amount of war machinery, not to mention paying for massive numbers of conscripted soldiers on low wages.

*Finally, if we stop using Russian energy, I would place a firm bet that India would happily move in (and maybe China) and purchase Russian energy at cheap rates, thus making little impact on Russia.

Compare this to your previous point. If India were to buy Russian energy cheaply, without the Russian government making much after the costs of producing it, then wouldn't selling energy cheaply to India or anyone else actually hurt the Russians rather a lot?

 

[deltic]

So who heard the grim statistic about oil and gas purchases from Russia in the news today? The report on BBC news said that since the start of the war, western European countries have sent approximately £1billion in aid to Ukraine. And how much oil and gas have these same countries purchased from Russia since the war started (remembering that a lot of all money which goes into Russia, is channelled towards their war machine)? Approximately £1billion EVERY SINGLE DAY!!!
This strikes me as absolutely abhorrent, and indeed hypocritical of those who are feeding Russia with so much money for their oil and gas, whilst claiming to sympathise with Ukraine.
What would I do? Well I'm retired and I love to travel having worked all my life to pay for this lifestyle. But if everyone would agree to do the same, I would willingly cut down hugely on my expenditure on travel (which of course involves oil) in order to buy it only from other countries, yet the best our Government can do is to offer that we'll stop buying from Russia by the end of 2022. As if that will worry Putin! I would also consider moving in with relatives or having them live with us to save spending money on heating, if it would help to stop feeding the war machine.
Have I misunderstood something here? If not, then I wonder how many others would be willing to significantly compromise their lifestyles in order to stop feeding Russia's war machine? It seems that our Government really isn't prepared to do much at all, partly because they don't want their own personal lives affected, and partly in case it risks losing them votes. Any thoughts?

The UK government's response to the energy crisis is very much at odds with that adopted in 1973 when OPEC placed an embargo on a number of countries. Then speed limits were imposed on the road network, fuel was rationed and thermostats were turned down. If Europe turned down its thermostats by 1 degree celsius it could reduce gas imports from Russia by 10%.

 

[yorksrob]

Exactly. Not only would Russia have fewer countries to sell to, and likely have to take a financial penalty for being less marketable, but the West would also not be beholden to an unstable enemy power, so win-win.

The trouble is, it will take time to ween Europe off cheap Russian energy. The West needs to learn to play the long game (much like Communist China has been doing for the past thirty years) rather than chasing after short term profits

 

[Drogba11CFC]

In other news, Putin's rodeo clown Vladimir Zhirinovsky has died.

One of his more bizarre proposals was to build giant fans on the border to blow radioactive waste into the Baltic states; he also got into an orange juice fight with Boris Nemtsov in 1995.

 

[yorksrob]

In other news, Putin's rodeo clown Vladimir Zhirinovsky has died.

One of his more bizarre proposals was to build giant fans on the border to blow radioactive waste into the Baltic states; he also got into an orange juice fight with Boris Nemtsov in 1995.

Blimey, he was a red light warning in the nineties. If he's been inspiring Kremlin policy it explains a lot

 

[Annetts key]

The others have pointed out already that the Russian jet was where it shouldn’t have been which made it easy for Putin to take on the chin. It was an “unfortunate” incident and not really comparable to NATO getting involved in Ukraine.

So, just to be clear, are you saying that Russia jets are supposed to be in Ukrainian air space?

If another country sends military forces to assist Ukraine in policing its air space, at the request of the legitimate Ukrainian government, and it results in a Russian military aircraft being damaged or destroyed, how is this significantly different to Turkey defending its air space?

 

[DustyBin]

So, just to be clear, are you saying that Russia jets are supposed to be in Ukrainian air space?

Obviously not……

If another country sends military forces to assist Ukraine in policing its air space, at the request of the legitimate Ukrainian government, and it results in a Russian military aircraft being damaged or destroyed, how is this significantly different to Turkey defending its air space?

You’ve answered your own question; Turkey was defending it’s own airspace. NATO aircraft over Ukraine wouldn’t be defending their own airspace, they’d be going out of their way to attack Russian forces which would look like aggression, escalation etc. from a Russian perspective (and yes I realise they’re the ones who invaded their neighbour!).

 

[Bletchleyite]

So, just to be clear, are you saying that Russia jets are supposed to be in Ukrainian air space?

If another country sends military forces to assist Ukraine in policing its air space, at the request of the legitimate Ukrainian government, and it results in a Russian military aircraft being damaged or destroyed, how is this significantly different to Turkey defending its air space?

Russia considers that Ukraine is, or should be, its territory. It doesn't see Turkey that way.

 

[najaB]

Compare this to your previous point. If India were to buy Russian energy cheaply, without the Russian government making much after the costs of producing it, then wouldn't selling energy cheaply to India or anyone else actually hurt the Russians rather a lot?

Selling it at a low price is still better for Russia than not selling it at all.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You’ve answered your own question; Turkey was defending it’s own airspace. NATO aircraft over Ukraine wouldn’t be defending their own airspace, they’d be going out of their way to attack Russian forces which would look like aggression, escalation etc. from a Russian perspective (and yes I realise they’re the ones who invaded their neighbour!).

So you mean, in the same way that Turkey went out of its way to attack the Russian jet that was in its airspace? After Turkey could've just said, 'ah well, our airspace has been invaded, but let's just let it carry on. We wouldn't want to attack and risk an escalation' But they didn't.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So you mean, in the same way that Turkey went out of its way to attack the Russian jet that was in its airspace? After Turkey could've just said, 'ah well, our airspace has been invaded, but let's just let it carry on. We wouldn't want to attack and risk an escalation' But they didn't.

It's much more of an escalation to defend another country's territory with which you don't have a mutual defence treaty than to defend your own.

 

[DustyBin]

So you mean, in the same way that Turkey went out of its way to attack the Russian jet that was in its airspace? After Turkey could've just said, 'ah well, our airspace has been invaded, but let's just let it carry on. We wouldn't want to attack and risk an escalation' But they didn't.

I’ll refer you to my earlier post (#2,806) as to why it’s a different situation, as well as @Bletchleyite’s reply above.

You also need to consider the fact that NATO-Russia relations are in a worse state now than they were then. Indeed one of the pretexts (or actual reasons, who knows?!) for the invasion was to create a “buffer zone” between Russia and NATO due the latter’s alleged aggression. As absurd as it sounds to you and I, it really isn’t the kind of backdrop against which NATO can risk any actual “aggression”, outwith defence of it’s own members.

 

[najaB]

So you mean, in the same way that Turkey went out of its way to attack the Russian jet that was in its airspace?

They didn't "go out of their way" to defend their airspace, that's literally the job of the air defence forces.

 

[Annetts key]

So, just to be clear, are you saying that Russia jets are supposed to be in Ukrainian air space?

Obviously not……

If another country sends military forces to assist Ukraine in policing its air space, at the request of the legitimate Ukrainian government, and it results in a Russian military aircraft being damaged or destroyed, how is this significantly different to Turkey defending its air space?

You’ve answered your own question; Turkey was defending it’s own airspace. NATO aircraft over Ukraine wouldn’t be defending their own airspace, they’d be going out of their way to attack Russian forces which would look like aggression, escalation etc. from a Russian perspective (and yes I realise they’re the ones who invaded their neighbour!).

No, I have not answered my own question. And I never mentioned N.A.T.O. either. My question was a point of principle, not about a specific country helping Ukraine, or a N.A.T.O. country helping Ukraine (although it could be a country that is a member of N.A.T.O.).

Russia considers that Ukraine is, or should be, its territory. It doesn't see Turkey that way.

It does not matter what the dispute is about, or indeed even if Russia officially recognises Ukraine as an independent country. Ukraine defending itself is already happening. It’s already firing on Russian forces.

You can’t have it both ways. Either Ukraine should be able to defend itself by whatever means it can, including, if another country agrees, by assistance of their resources which may include their military forces, or it can’t.