[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)

[portlock seagull]

Just catching up with developments.
How does this tie in with Starmers headline news yesterday that he's ready to commit UK troops to Ukraine?
Is seemed quite an acceptable and popular move on on here by some.

I’m with Germany on this, I think Starmers been a fool. An honourable one, but a fool nonetheless. I can forgive the diplomatic gaff of saying something without consensus amongst our European allies first. But it’s unworkable, for lots of reasons, and that was pretty obvious so why did he say it? That’s naive, foolish.

 

[Triggaaar]

Just catching up with developments.
How does this tie in with Starmers headline news yesterday that he's ready to commit UK troops to Ukraine?

Russia's demands are completely unacceptable to Ukraine and Europe. Hence the war will continue, as we said it would.

 

[A1X]

Most negotiations start with a position the other side could never accept and then a middle point is worked toward

I know in this day and age the modern idea is to demand everything then when you don’t get it flounce off in a huff and keep demanding it from the sidelines, but grown ups don’t act that way

 

[portlock seagull]

Both are new news, when you consider the detail of the content, and the context in which they were made.

They are news because this is the first time they have been referenced by the Russian foreign sec. in the inaugural meeting in the peace negotiations.
In other words, no concessions. Even in the formal, one chance only, peace talks. They are not budging.

However....

In the past, Putin has said if any Nato troops were put in Ukraine, he threatened nuclear war. This time, he didn't.
I hadn't heard of the 2008 promise to Ukraine that they could join Nato. Nor have I previously heard of the Russian demand that the promise be revoked.

All of it is news. You need to pay closer attention.

Understand better, thank you. I already believed neither were acceptable by Russia long before today, hence why I challenged. Whether officially declared or not. If you’re saying this is the first time then I believe you. I just thought I’d heard commentators say numerous times that Russia wouldn’t stand for NATO membership nor on their borders and that’s what I meant by it not being ‘new’ news.

 

[Triggaaar]

I’m with Germany on this, I think Starmers been a fool. An honourable one, but a fool nonetheless. I can forgive the diplomatic gaff of saying something without consensus amongst our European allies first. But it’s unworkable, for lots of reasons, and that was pretty obvious so why did he say it? That’s naive, foolish.

So if you think it's unworkable, what do you think is workable?

 

[Eric the meek]

I’m with Germany on this, I think Starmers been a fool. An honourable one, but a fool nonetheless. I can forgive the diplomatic gaff of saying something without consensus amongst our European allies first. But it’s unworkable, for lots of reasons, and that was pretty obvious so why did he say it? That’s naive, foolish.

I disagree.

Lavrov said after today's meeting, 'Nato troops in Russia (the occupied territories) is completely unacceptable to Russia'. By adhering to that, you reveal that you are being played by Russia. Russia does not have a veto on Nato troops going into Ukraine.

 

[Triggaaar]

Most negotiations start with a position the other side could never accept and then a middle point is worked toward

Could you tell that to Trump?

 

[A1X]

Could you tell that to Trump?

I’ll make him a pop up book

 

[Triggaaar]

Understand better, thank you. I already believed neither were acceptable by Russia long before today, hence why I challenged. Whether officially declared or not. If you’re saying this is the first time then I believe you. I just thought I’d heard commentators say numerous times that Russia wouldn’t stand for NATO membership nor on their borders.

Russia already has NATO members on its borders. In fact, the number of NATO members on its borders has increased since they invaded Ukraine. It doesn't matter what Russia say they will stand for. Russia only understand strength. If they can do something about it they will, and if they can't, they won't.

 

[Eric the meek]

Understand better, thank you. I already believed neither were acceptable by Russia long before today, hence why I challenged. Whether officially declared or not. If you’re saying this is the first time then I believe you. I just thought I’d heard commentators say numerous times that Russia wouldn’t stand for NATO membership nor on their borders and that’s what I meant by it not being ‘new’ news.

Without checking, I would suggest that 'Russia wouldn’t stand for NATO membership' can be traced back to the Kremlin.

Someone says it, it gets repeated across platforms, and Bob's your uncle, it is generally accepted as fact in the west.
Russia is very good at steering the narrative.

 

[portlock seagull]

So if you think it's unworkable, what do you think is workable?

A bigger force. Maybe non European too, and/or further diplomacy. I don’t know - some WD40?

 

[Triggaaar]

A bigger force. Maybe non European too, and/or further diplomacy.

So if not European, then what? The US has said they want it to be European rather than US. I can't see a good reason why Britain wouldn't be involved. France have said they'd be willing too.

You think peace can be kept with Russia using diplomacy? It can't.

 

[portlock seagull]

Russia already has NATO members on its borders. In fact, the number of NATO members on its borders has increased since they invaded Ukraine. It doesn't matter what Russia say they will stand for. Russia only understand strength. If they can do something about it they will, and if they can't, they won't.

Ukraine is a very different kettle though, its size, proximity, resources and so forth. To old skool Russians like Putin it’s Russia. Concur on strength, that’s as old as the old Czar himself.

 

[Eric the meek]

A bigger force. Maybe non European too, and/or further diplomacy. I don’t know - some WD40?

You've fallen for it again. Do you not see the mistake you are making?

You are now saying that peacekeeping forces have got to be 'non-European'. To make absolutely sure we don't upset the Russians?

The troops can most certainly be European, and can be members of Nato or non-Nato. Don't fall for Russian 'rules'.

 

[portlock seagull]

So if not European, then what? The US has said they want it to be European rather than US. I can't see a good reason why Britain wouldn't be involved. France have said they'd be willing too.

You think peace can be kept with Russia using diplomacy? It can't.

No, I believe peace keeping force could work. But my understanding is we simply don’t have the capacity to provide sufficiently for, even as part of a coalition. So it’s a non starter. Perhaps a non European UN led corp could though? But yes, diplomatic channels always must be kept open. It can and does work.

 

[raymondo]

Useful snippets of information in the appended comments.

 

[Dorset Seagull]

Of course we need to stand up to the Russian bullies but without the US who is going to do it?

 

[Eric the meek]

No, I believe peace keeping force could work. But my understanding is we simply don’t have the capacity to provide sufficiently for, even as part of a coalition. So it’s a non starter. Perhaps a non European UN led corp could though? But yes, diplomatic channels always must be kept open. It can and does work.

I think you need to watch some Russian state TV. Here's one clip.

It's all curated of course, but therefore provides a glimpse into the real thoughts of the Kremlin.
By the way, I've not seen Margarita Simonyan in a while.

 

[armchairclubber]

Russia's demands are completely unacceptable to Ukraine and Europe. Hence the war will continue, as we said it would.

So with, as you say, the war continuing, how do you feel about Starmers headline news that he's ready to commit troops to Ukraine?

I understand that it was for peacekeeping purposes, so pretty irrelevant in that case, but it also seems to have highlighted some difference in opinion with allies and Nato.

 

[portlock seagull]

You've fallen for it again. Do you not see the mistake you are making?

You are now saying that peacekeeping forces have got to be 'non-European'. To make absolutely sure we don't upset the Russians?

The troops can most certainly be European, and can be members of Nato or non-Nato. Don't fall for Russian 'rules'.

I’m not making any mistake here, just sharing an opinion. There are hundreds of other countries who could and do provide peace keeping forces. If that helps broker a deal, whatever that looks like, then it should be considered. Whether there’s any real substances to the peace keeping force proposition I don’t know, except we currently don’t have any way of providing one nor should we risk doing so because it could easily be target of a propaganda attack.