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

[Eeyore]

I posted that earlier in this thread, of course, the professor is being cancelled as we speak as a Putin loving traitor. He speaks with authority and knowledge. Remarkably ahead of the curve.

Braver than I was at first then, as I decided against it initially as I couldn't be done with 'Putin sympathiser' comments from closed ears.

 

[birthofanorange]

It's up to Russia whether they feel humiliated or not. Ukraine was part of the USSR, but they're not humiliated are they? Britain once ruled the largest empire the world has ever seen, and now we're just a little island again - are we supposed to feel humiliated? Because I don't..

I don't feel humiliated, either, but surely you accept that the Russian psyche (on the whole) is different from ours, here in the 'free' West?
If they perceive it as a threat, than they react in the same way as we would under similar conditions - okay, obviously (?) in a worse way - wouldn't you do what you could to remove that perceived threat?

 

[Razzoo]

Braver than I was at first then, as I decided against it initially as I couldn't be done with 'Putin sympathiser' comments from closed ears.

I don't think anybody paid any attention to it at all. It is a long video after all. These days people, myself included, don't have the patience or the attention span required

 

[A1X]

Don't know, ask Finland and [MENTION=38333]Swansman[/MENTION] land.

Russia will not accept Ukraine as a member of NATO. And it's not about what the people want. This is a very Western-centric way of looking at it.

We all seem to agree that Putin is a **** of the highest order and has to be accountable for a murderous war. There were is no excuse or justification for it. But when you are looking at the goal of peace you have to listen to the beefs of both sides. However unpalatable that may seem. The goal here is peace and saving lives.

Let's take characters out of it for a moment. Forget Putin exists and just call his side 'Russia' without him in the equation.

If I was Russia I would not be happy about having a huge Western supported nation, with Western missiles on the terrain and military exercises being conducted on my lawn. I would see it as intimidation, however unlikely an invasion was. I would see it as humiliation. My Empire is no more, their proxy empire has grown.

What if Canada formed an alliance with China and Chinese forces were running around up there as well as missiles, how do you think the USA would take that ? (Honestly, give me your thoughts).

If Crimea/Eastern Ukraine want to join Russia that is a separate issue for negotiation. Putin has already lost huge face in this conflict and knows the boundaries.

But Ukraine cannot be de-militarised. This is why, for the sake of lives and peace, the USA & Russia need to sign an agreement. And, as unpalatable as it may sound, China may have a role. In my totally uneducated and ill-informed view (pretty much the same as most others) this is the way I see forward.

Russia will be paying for the actions on the international stage for many years. But, as irritating as it sounds, Putin will have to be given a way out.

There is a slightly confident part of me that feels this won't go on for that much longer. Or maybe I'm just trusting humanity to do the right thing.

I wonder whether the compromise situation is Ukraine being admitted to the EU (which is primarily a political and economic Union with no military ambitions outside the fevered imaginations of a few Daily Express conspiracy theorists) but not NATO (which ultimately poses the threat to Russia, realistically Russia is economically ****ed for a generation at least). Ukraine can claim (as the citizens overwhelmingly want) to be a western nation, but Russia does not gain a new NATO neighbour.

Obviously Donbas and Luhansk are a problem, maybe the solution is a plebiscite on whether they wish to be Russian, Ukrainian or independent. Internationally observed and not a rigged one like in Crimea in 2014.

Now none of this is ideal. But these situations never lead to ideal outcomes. The Good Friday agreement isn’t an ideal outcome. Yalta wasn’t an ideal outcome. But as long as everyone is prepared to go along with it then people can learn to work around it.

Oh, and let’s make Chernobyl a neutral zone under UN control. Don’t want any accidents.

 

[drew]

I don't feel humiliated, either, but surely you accept that the Russian psyche (on the whole) is different from ours, here in the 'free' West?
If they perceive it as a threat, than they react in the same way as we would under similar conditions - okay, obviously (?) in a worse way - wouldn't you do what you could to remove that perceived threat?

When you say 'russian psyche' are you referring to the everyday russians or the those in power. From what we are told, the everyday russians, or at least those that can't access internet, are fed state controlled information so it would be difficult to decide exactly what they feel or know about Nato. However, I suspect the leaders feel that any expansion of Nato is a threat to their control of the country and the wealth they have accumulated because of that control.

 

[Eeyore]

I wonder whether the compromise situation is Ukraine being admitted to the EU (which is primarily a political and economic Union with no military ambitions outside the fevered imaginations of a few Daily Express conspiracy theorists) but not NATO (which ultimately poses the threat to Russia, realistically Russia is economically ****ed for a generation at least). Ukraine can claim (as the citizens overwhelmingly want) to be a western nation, but Russia does not gain a new NATO neighbour.

Obviously Donbas and Luhansk are a problem, maybe the solution is a plebiscite on whether they wish to be Russian, Ukrainian or independent. Internationally observed and not a rigged one like in Crimea in 2014.

Now none of this is ideal. But these situations never lead to ideal outcomes. The Good Friday agreement isn’t an ideal outcome. Yalta wasn’t an ideal outcome. But as long as everyone is prepared to go along with it then people can learn to work around it.

Oh, and let’s make Chernobyl a neutral zone under UN control. Don’t want any accidents.

Yes, the problem Ukraine has is that the overwhelming majority of the nation is united in the fight against Russia but, politically, the picture is different. It's very complex. The East is very different to the West.

This is why it would take a very long time for the country to be ready for the EU. Then there is the corruption etc.

I think Zalensky is a very brave man leading a country against an immoral aggressor. But I'm not convinced that, when it comes to other internal political issues, he speaks for everyone.

The media tend to present us things in packages. I call it 'Thomas Cooking' things. I.e, your news is wrapped and presented in all encompassing way and you are not asked to start looking for deeper questions, and also become lazy in swallowing the narrative. And because the headline act is such an obvious villain, and what he has done so easy (and rightfully) condemned. It means that folk are even less inclined to look at the more complex side of the problem.

 

[drew]

I wonder whether the compromise situation is Ukraine being admitted to the EU (which is primarily a political and economic Union with no military ambitions outside the fevered imaginations of a few Daily Express conspiracy theorists) but not NATO (which ultimately poses the threat to Russia, realistically Russia is economically ****ed for a generation at least). Ukraine can claim (as the citizens overwhelmingly want) to be a western nation, but Russia does not gain a new NATO neighbour.

Obviously Donbas and Luhansk are a problem, maybe the solution is a plebiscite on whether they wish to be Russian, Ukrainian or independent. Internationally observed and not a rigged one like in Crimea in 2014.

Now none of this is ideal. But these situations never lead to ideal outcomes. The Good Friday agreement isn’t an ideal outcome. Yalta wasn’t an ideal outcome. But as long as everyone is prepared to go along with it then people can learn to work around it.

Oh, and let’s make Chernobyl a neutral zone under UN control. Don’t want any accidents.

Why is Nato a threat to Russia? It is a defensive alliance. Not sure it has once been actively trying to expand and control a region and it's population.

 

[birthofanorange]

When you say 'russian psyche' are you referring to the everyday russians or the those in power. From what we are told, the everyday russians, or at least those that can't access internet, are fed state controlled information so it would be difficult to decide exactly what they feel or know about Nato. However, I suspect the leaders feel that any expansion of Nato is a threat to their control of the country and the wealth they have accumulated because of that control.

Sadly (for the Russian people) they will feel (in the main) how they're told to feel by their leaders.
But yes, the problem lies mainly with those in power.

A long time ago, I had two cats. One of them loved having his belly tickled, whereas the other would claw you to the bone if you tried.
Same level of 'threat', two contrasting reactions.
I didn't provoke the one who was uncomfortable.

 

[Here'sWally]

The BBC clearly knew of the problems in Ukraine in 2017, so it's hard to understand why the reporting is such a whitewash today. Ukraine is hardly a healthy democracy and bastion of freedom. I've heard people say we should be worried about Russia moving into western Europe, but I'd be more worried about some of the nationalist ultra right wing ideology in Ukraine spreading, I think that's more likely. I'm no fan of Russia, but painting this as a fight between good and evil is starting to look a little off to me.

[tweet]1500826230106562564[/tweet]

 

[drew]

Sadly (for the Russian people) they will feel (in the main) how they're told to feel by their leaders.
But yes, the problem lies mainly with those in power.

A long time ago, I had two cats. One of them loved having his belly tickled, whereas the other would claw you to the bone if you tried.
Same level of 'threat', two contrasting reactions.
I didn't provoke the one who was uncomfortable.

Cats!! Hardly comparable. However, as you've brought it up, what would you have done had the the violent cat kept attacking the other one? Would you have done something about it or just let it get it's own way?

 

[Poojah]

The BBC clearly knew of the problems in Ukraine in 2017, so it's hard to understand why the reporting is such a whitewash today. Ukraine is hardly a healthy democracy and bastion of freedom. I've heard people say we should be worried about Russia moving into western Europe, but I'd be more worried about some of the nationalist ultra right wing ideology in Ukraine spreading, I think that's more likely. I'm no fan of Russia, but painting this as a fight between good and evil is starting to look a little off to me.

[tweet]1500826230106562564[/tweet]

Yeah, bang on with that. I watched a report last night about a family of four, mum, dad, brother and sister both not yet ten years old, gunned down in the street as they fled their home town.

It was hard to tell for sure, as they were dead by this point, but those kids (teddy bears in hand no less), both looked looked like typical fascists to me.

Go and have a word with yourself, mate. Ffs.

 

[birthofanorange]

Cats!! Hardly comparable. However, as you've brought it up, what would you have done had the the violent cat kept attacking the other one? Would you have done something about it or just let it get it's own way?

It's comparable in the sense that one perceived things in a different way to the other.
You/I/most of the western world (except for a certain Swedish bod) see NATO as (in your words) a defensive force.
Russia doesn't view it the same way, and their perception of that is just as real (to them) as ours is to us.

Re: the cats - they got along famously. If only we could do the same as humans, eh?

 

[pb21]

The BBC clearly knew of the problems in Ukraine in 2017, so it's hard to understand why the reporting is such a whitewash today. Ukraine is hardly a healthy democracy and bastion of freedom. I've heard people say we should be worried about Russia moving into western Europe, but I'd be more worried about some of the nationalist ultra right wing ideology in Ukraine spreading, I think that's more likely. I'm no fan of Russia, but painting this as a fight between good and evil is starting to look a little off to me.

[tweet]1500826230106562564[/tweet]

I'm sure once Russia back down and Ukraine isn't being invaded with civilians being brutally killed, the biggest refugee crisis since ww2 over and massive global implications and potentially the threat of ww3 / nuclear apocalypse removed, we can move onto more mundane issues of Ukrainian corruption and whether they should join the EU that will be covered on Newsnight; I can't wait.

 

[Eeyore]

Why is Nato a threat to Russia? It is a defensive alliance. Not sure it has once been actively trying to expand and control a region and it's population.

NATO is presented to you as being a solely defensive alliance. That's an absurd suggestion. It is a geopolitical force.

However, for an alternative view to mine- that correctly forecast the Ukraine invasion..

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/nats-influence-has-weakened-the-world-is-not-better-for-it/

 

[Triggaaar]

I don't feel humiliated, either, but surely you accept that the Russian psyche (on the whole) is different from ours, here in the 'free' West?
If they perceive it as a threat, than they react in the same way as we would under similar conditions - okay, obviously (?) in a worse way - wouldn't you do what you could to remove that perceived threat?

I actually think the threat to Putin was real, but not because of NATO or armed security, rather the potential economic success of democratic neighbours.

Did Putin think NATO on his doorstep was a security risk for Russia? I wouldn't think so. Would he have thought it would prevent him from controlling his neighbours as he'd like - yes, I think so.

Had NATO members not suggested Ukraine could join, would that have stopped the conflicts? I don't think so, they'd have happened a bit later that's all. The more the people in Ukraine enjoyed freedom and economic success, the closer Putin would have been to slicing it up. I think something like this was inevitable.

If Putin were to fail, and be replaced in Russia by a democracy (not likely), the big loser (except for Vlad) would be China. They'd do whatever they can to make sure that doesn't happen. They should be kept as far away from any negotiating as possible.

 

[dazzer6666]

Fascinating thread

[tweet]1500974281412562944[/tweet]

 

[birthofanorange]

I actually think the threat to Putin was real, but not because of NATO or armed security, rather the potential economic success of democratic neighbours.

Did Putin think NATO on his doorstep was a security risk for Russia? I wouldn't think so. Would he have thought it would prevent him from controlling his neighbours as he'd like - yes, I think so.

Had NATO members not suggested Ukraine could join, would that have stopped the conflicts? I don't think so, they'd have happened a bit later that's all. The more the people in Ukraine enjoyed freedom and economic success, the closer Putin would have been to slicing it up. I think something like this was inevitable.

If Putin were to fail, and be replaced in Russia by a democracy (not likely), the big loser (except for Vlad) would be China. They'd do whatever they can to make sure that doesn't happen. The should be kept as far away from any negotiating as possible.

Lots of "I would/would not think so's" thrown in there, which is all good. As I said, we all have our own take on it, but I do agree that China should stay out of it.

Because they are a perceived threat.

 

[peterward]

The BBC clearly knew of the problems in Ukraine in 2017, so it's hard to understand why the reporting is such a whitewash today. Ukraine is hardly a healthy democracy and bastion of freedom. I've heard people say we should be worried about Russia moving into western Europe, but I'd be more worried about some of the nationalist ultra right wing ideology in Ukraine spreading, I think that's more likely. I'm no fan of Russia, but painting this as a fight between good and evil is starting to look a little off to me.

[tweet]1500826230106562564[/tweet]

Dont buy into the Kremlin BS. This programme is older than 2017, even if it was aired then. The Azov battalion is one Battalion, that does contain ultra right wing, neo nazi types. They were the only group ready and willing to supplement the pathetic 5000 strong Ukrainian army in 2014 when Russia invaded Ukraine. The have since become a reserve group. There is not a single member of any nationlist or far right group in any level of national or regional government. "Nationialists" account for a lot less than 2% of the electorate and theyre just the hardcore pro ukrainians not the neo nazis. Its a red herring, the neo nazi elements are not bigger than the BNP, or Britian first.

Ukraine has one of the toughest and much tougher than Russia anti extremeist laws, these people have no place in public discourse, but they were willing to fight for the borders when no other options exsisted and they are now battle hardened veterans. When they are fighting, theyre not promoting Hitler, theyre just fighting like any other soldierr, theyre also kept as one battalion away from the mainstream regulars.

Converse this with Russia, using Islamic extremist Chechens, killng men, women and chidren Orthodox Christians as infidels, looking to recruit Syrians to fight "brothers" and they (Russia) has a much higher societal level of Neo Nazi facist groups, they have plenty fighting for Russia, the mercenary Wagner Group is full of swastica tattooed troops, yesterday one of the leaders of the "Sparta" Battlalion, a neo nazi was killed in action.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/russian-warlord-who-led-neo-26402909

Of course their political view are abhorrent, but theres no bigger neo nazi problem prortionally, than there is in the UK, and it hides the fact Russia has a bigger one and uses Neo Nazi battalions too.

Its purely framing a narrative

 

[portlock seagull]

Defence Ministry’s used to be called The War Office.

It’s all spin. Christ, you can’t even have an old skool invasion these days. Instead it’s a Special Operation, no doubt carried out by “National Ambassadors” carrying “Tools of exchange” to enable “The advancement of sleep” for “individuals wishing to make an enquiry”

 

[Baldseagull]

In other words, let’s say Russia drop a nuke of ANY size on Ukraine, how do the defensive unit NATO respond to a country that is not in NATO.

Don't know, but given Kiev's proximity to Russia and Belarus, other than Ukraine, it would pose a greater risk to those states if the wind was blowing in the wrong direction, than any NATO state. Also he would look a bit of a prick in Russia, having given everyone a history lesson on how Kiev is the mother of Russian cities, to then Nuke it.