The Invasion is ongoing...Part 5

[Damnloginpopup]

Unbelievable to think that a few days ago the world was starting to look more positive..ye we find ourselves on a fifth thread discussing the horrors of the war in Europe. An unbelievable change has happened to the world we live in.

Some incredible firmed posts have been written, informing, discussing, and occasionally derailing. Let's hope the news is more positive by the end of this one.

@Dibbydoos
China now claiming they would like to play a part in negotiating a ceasefire. The statement says they respect the territorial integrity of all countries. I wonder if Taiwan will find that reassuring.

The UK doesn’t recognise Taiwan as a country, never mind China. This simple fact tends to get forgotten. And despite all the recent Hoohah about Taiwan and Bad China in Western media prior to events of the last two weeks, there’s actually been very, very little concrete change in China’s stance or actions toward Taiwan. China’s rhetoric toward Taiwan has ALWAYS been hawkish, but it has always valued pragmatic and steady development over chaos. All that really changed is, to put it simply, the West didn’t really care about China much pre, say, 2000, as it wasn’t considered a great power and it’s economy/military wasn’t up to scratch. To think China would now risk a Pacific war/economic shockwave over Taiwan when it’s about to achieve a centuries ambition of gliding past the US economy without a shot being fired in anger is nonsense IMO. Perhaps in 20/30 years if the conditions are right, and the US is distracted, China’s economy is in cruise control mode, and Taiwan public sentiment to China has considerably softened. But no way right now. China is pragmatic and it is patient.

I think people are kidding themselves that Putin would accept Ukraine's 'neutrality', especially if they think this could include EU membership.

You may be forgetting that this whole conflict started in 2013 when Ukrainians wanted to sign an agreement of closer cooperation with the EU. Not even trying to become an EU member, but an agreement on closer relations. That was enough to spark the annexation of Crimea and occupation of eastern Ukraine and years of war.

Putin does not distinguish between the EU and NATO. He sees the EU as a sort of trojan horse for NATO. There is absolutely no way he would consider any kind of close relationship with the EU as 'neutral'.

And he's made it very clear in the last week that he does not want Ukraine to be neutral anyway. He wants it back in the Russian fold. He wants it to be another Belarus, a puppet.

Anyway a neutrality that is coerced is not real neutrality. Switzerland chose to be neutral. It's not the same thing. Of course Ukraine doesn't want to be neutral, look where staying out of the EU and NATO has got them.

[quote Yeahthat]@RedToothBrush

I don't try to analyse Putin personally. We have no idea on that level, and there's so many unknown unknowns.

I do think that the behaviour of nation states can be reasonably predicted (and in the case of Russia, it was) based on specific principles.

The security dilemma is a well known phenomenon. Putin has often spoken about Gaddafi's fate - yes, NATO is nominally a defensive alliance, but its members have been the primary drivers of wars of aggression in the past two decades.

I believe that the primary goal of the nation state is to ensure its own survival. NATO is conceptualised as a hostile military alliance in Russia. Ukraine offers an incredible strategic advantage.

We (western nations) have never attempted to replace Putin's regime - unlike in Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, possibly even Venezuela recently. Why? Because Russia is comparatively strong - it's nothing to do with international law etc, or the Iraq war would never have happened. Therefore, in order to ensure this can't happen, it has to remain strong. NATO expansion was viewed as an existential threat.

I don't know if diplomacy based on accepting Russia's security concerns would have worked, but we know that intransigence failed.[/quote]
Equally, our attempts at regime change in Syria, Libya, Iran and Iraq have all been long term miserable failures. Our withdrawal from Afghanistan wasn't just about Afghanistan it was a realisation that this policy was unsustainable and was destablising internationally and domestically. If it wasn't apparent from the chaos and dreadful handling of those final days in Kabul, then Russia wasn't paying attention properly.

There has been admission of things being different to 1945, 1968 and 1990 in a changing world.

Once again this would come back to Putin having a bunker mentality and being stuff forever in a rose tinted 70s and 80s Soviet Era, if he couldn't see this.

I actually don't have that opinion. I'd go counter to it.

I think he did see that NATO was particularly weak atm. The US isn't really in the best place to be getting involved in a new conflict. He invaded now precisely BECAUSE he saw this weakness in NATO and sort to exploit it because he knew public opinion is still in a place, where domestically NATO countries have had enough of being mired in messy wars.

I really don't think its about NATO. NATO is just the excuse.

Oligarchs tend to do well from disaster capitalism, because they still have enough finance to be able to buy up property and businesses unable to withstand economic shock cheaply

Absolutely this, keep an eye out for who is 'rebuilding' Ukraine in the future.

@Wrongkindofovercoat

Its ingrained into the personality of the man

What is really sad is the fact that he is sending countless young boys/men to face death and he see's them in exactly the same way that the Tsar's saw people, as nothing, beneath them, Serfs only fit to be cannon fodder.

Yup. Doubt he gives them much of a thought. Apparently significant number of Russian soldiers are young men from Tarjikstan and Uzbekistan, who signed up to the army as a means of getting a Russian passport. Never saw themselves in this situation. Those men especially won't get so much as a first thought from Putin, never mind a second one.

@itsgettingweird

These threads move fast!

I'm still halfway through thread 4!!! Noticed it was full so have come here (damn having a job 🤣🤣)

I also fear the convoy is there getting ready for something big.

I always wondered why they'd seemed to fail in their mission so far. That doesn't sit with what we know about Putin when he sets his mind to something. I've often considered if he had a bigger plan somewhere and somehow.

Who knows, Russia had a plan for Afghanistan in the 90's and that didn't pan out well.

Perhaps their military advisors are just stuck in "old warfare" thinking, and haven't moved on to "mobilisation of the people/defence" . I mean in WW2 nobody was ploughing arms in to Poland to defeat Hitler, so perhaps they didn't plan for a massive arms delivery in to Ukraine.

We also need to remember the men being used by Russia right now in the majority are conscripts not highly trained soldiers. These are young men who have basically done some basic training. So it's no wonder they aren't "amazing" at the job.

But I suppose that then leads to the question, when does the professional army turn up, and what happens then.

Red tooth brush

It would make good "business senses" for anyone to buy things at the moment due to wheat And gas.

But.... they don't because the point is too off load for moral reasons.
Pakistan.is obviously choosing good business senses over morality.

Which is repulsive And yes, why are we giving them aid.

@katem98

You asked about wannago post that others agreed with. Then someone quoted you another poster, not wannago’s…

wannago was rejecting the argument that Putin’s war on Ukraine is largely or significantly attributable to Ukraine wanting to join NATO and that NATO’s expansion westward was an act of aggression to Russia.

I have two problems with this analysis:

a) Putin made a speech right before he went in saying, as I understand it, it had nothing to do with Nato, and everything to do with Ukrainians and Russians being one people. If the real issue was NATO, then why would he say what he said?

b) for all the "flirting", there was no "engagement" or "marriage" yet. After he amassed all of his troups on the border - why didn't he say "we are going to go in unless the Ukrainians renounce any claim to Nato"? Or alternatively "We want NATO assurances that Ukraine will not join, otherwise we are going in". There were lots of communication opportunities, with Macron, Liz Truss etc. If that is your end came, you don't say - "No, we are not going to war", "we are not going to war" "we are just doing exercises", and then invade if what you really want to do is stop the flirting before it turns into more. You do this if you want to crush the current government and put in your own puppet, or you hold that really Ukrainian territory is Russian territory, historically part of your empire, and you want it back

So while I can understand that flirting with Ukrainian membership of NATO might have been not a wise thing to do, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with what has actually played out

On a different note, I hope this gives some small comfort, the refugees seem to be looked after.

I have family in Chisinau, the capital of Moldova and I lived there for a couple of years, so still have some facebook contacts etc.

They are overwhelmed with refugees, but the support of the locals has been incredible. Many hotels, exhibition centers, summer resorts have been set up to receive refuges. Most restaurants offer free meals, car repair services fix refugees' cars, provide medical care. My family is hosting 2 families and anyone with spare rooms are advertising them for free. They are given free sim cards and spending money when they pass the border.

My facebook wall is full of posts with people offering help. It's actually really heartwarming to see that there is some humanity left in the world.

I wish people would stop giving credence to this idea that Russia deserves a 'buffer state'. This is not 1941. Russia doesn't need defence in depth to protect itself against NATO sending 1000 tanks across the Ukrainian plains. If there's going to be a war with NATO it will be nuclear. And in that event it won't matter whether Russia owns Ukraine or not.

What is it about NATO expansion that makes Russia feel weak? I mean, why on earth would Russia feel weak when they have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world? When they know that means no one can attack them?

Putin feels threatened by NATO/EU because it is a threat to his regime. Not to Russia -- no one is going to attack or occupy Russia. But it is a threat to his regime, because it makes him look weak and raises the possibility that people in Russia might also want a different leader, a different kind of system.

So when people say 'oh but Russia has reasonable security concerns and so Ukraine must stay neutral' what you are really saying is that a whole country has to sacrifice its independence so that a malicious old dictator can stay in power. You can dress it up however you like but that is the reality of what you're saying.

These are some interviews with normal Russians (not responsible for war) about the effect of sanctions, really tough to watch, this is why I am against sanctions and think that expert and informed negotiation is vital with encouragement for UN peace keeping corps to be accepted by both sides while negotiation goes on.

Who knows, Russia had a plan for Afghanistan in the 90's and that didn't pan out well

TBF to Russia has anyone gone into Afghanistan with a plan that did pan out well ?

Re banking sanctions - a family member works for a bank and says:
Not all sanctions take effect in 30 days, some take effect immediately.
The bank they work for (and I presume others) is working on implementing all the sanctions as soon as they possibly can regardless of whether there is a 30 day period or not.
The sanctions are very wide ranging and some hit all Russian nationals - to the extent that banks are having to take advice on whether these affect the paying of wages to their own employees, if they happen to be Russian, who may have lived in the UK for years.

I don’t know the specifics but I get the impression that the 30 day limit is to make sure no bank does anything illegal inadvertently, and everyone is working to a shorter timetable where they can.

@Wrongkindofovercoat

Who knows, Russia had a plan for Afghanistan in the 90's and that didn't pan out well

TBF to Russia has anyone gone into Afghanistan with a plan that did pan out well ?

Ain’t that the truth….

Multiple animal rescuers and their shelters shelled, including one with 1,000 dogs. Noone survived. Another wild animal rescue shelter shot up too. Not everyone cares about animal lives as well as human but I do. Shelling hospitals, ambulances, schools, kindergartens and animal rescues (all vulnerable innocents) can never be justified!

I am following this all far too closely and I genuinely think the aforementioned linked Fiona Hill is right and we are already in WW3, sad to say. He won’t back down and he won’t stop at Ukraine. This man is an insane psychopath and he needs to be ended asap. I wish I had combat experience or could do something proactive to help, but I am just one useless Western doom-scroller among thousands.

Dreaming bohemian I absolutely agree

We can listen to thousands of reasons why Putin doesn't want Ukraine X y And z.

One man's obsession/dream doesn't mean it impedes on others.

So when people say 'oh but Russia has reasonable security concerns and so Ukraine must stay neutral' what you are really saying is that a whole country has to sacrifice its independence so that a malicious old dictator can stay in power. You can dress it up however you like but that is the reality of what you're saying

That about sum's it up doesn't it ! Russia is huge, it has more nuclear weapons than you could point a shitty stick at and yet it is 'afraid' of a fledgling democracy on its doorstep, with no nuclear capability ? Really ?

@Iknowitisheresomewhere - thanks for that. I had wondered whether there were practical issues - otherwise it would render the sanctions meaningless!

@dreamingbohemian
Not to Russia -- no one is going to attack or occupy Russia.
I mean, why on earth would Russia feel weak when they have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world? When they know that means no one can attack them?

Those are simplifications. In the event of God forbid, WW3, obviously having military bases as close as geographically possible to your enemy would be a huge advantage to make first devastating strikes and gain the upper hand. Nuclear war is devastating, but it’s not “quite” as simple as “one bomb and we’re all gone”. No, rather civilian casualties between the great powers would be in the millions - but there would still almost certainly be a victor and a loser. A nation with two great cities destroyed vs. a nation with a dozen destroyed.

Why are China/US engaged in a bitter tactical battle over the China Sea? China is also a nuclear power? Why does US want bases all over the world? Perhaps the US could invite Russia and China to set up bases on its borders to demonstrate willingness - , after all “there’s nothing to fear”.

I do wonder what state the Russian nuclear arsenal is in, or whether it has deteriorated since the fall of the USSR.

Exactly Tigers

Yes we have to take Russia seriously, they are a superpower, but that doesn't mean we have to act like Putin is being all reasonable and we have no choice but to give in to him.

Forcing Ukraine to be neutral IS giving in to him. It will just encourage him and this will never end.

I’ve just been to get the DCs old sleeping bags out of the cupboard to take them to some local lads who are driving out to Poland. This is the closest I’ve come to actual crying.

@dreamingbohemian

No one's saying that Ukraine has to do anything.

Whether you characterise it as Russia or Putin's regime - and as I said previously, there's relatively universal hostility to NATO expansion including amongst westernised elites, and that's supported by Wiliam Burns, who warned George Bush against NATO expansion on the same basis. Fiona Hill is on record making similar comments, I could go on.

But whether you characterise it as Putin's regime or Russia, it's perceived as a hostile alliance.

Ukraine could either accept that they have a powerful neighbour, facing a security dilemma and with historic animosity towards NATO, try to balance their interests through smart diplomacy, or not.

But I prefer to accept the reality of geopolitics as it is rather than base policies on wishful thinking in which we can all just be friends and not worry about an alliance containing countries which have went to war numerous times in the past two decades in order to produce regime change.

In the event of God forbid, WW3, obviously having military bases as close as geographically possible to your enemy would be a huge advantage to make first devastating strikes and gain the upper hand.

You do NOT need bases on the Russian border in a nuclear war. That's why both sides have so many ICBMs. And anyway NATO already has the Baltics. Which Putin agreed to at the time. Also former Soviet republics on their border.

@dreamingbohemian

You've just essentially said that no one will go to war with Russia - because they're strong.

Now are you beginning to understand why they may want to remain so, which might include opposing neighbours joining historical opposed alliances, which have recently waged war against other countries for regime change?

Particularly as due to the specific geography of Ukraine, it's extremely strategically advantageous in a war against Russia.