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

[Eeyore]

Absolutely correct.

Regime change is a pre-requisite for peace. That applies wherever the regime change comes from, be it the Russian people in a revolution, be it a coup from his Kremlin sycophants, or US/NATO troops in a final conflict.

The west must not let this opportunity pass. If they do, Putin will pass another spurious law to keep him in presidency for life, allowing him enough time to learn the lessons of his failure in Ukraine, circumvent the sanctions, re-group, re-arm, turn his attention to his next victim and rinse and repeat.

He absolutely must go.

The condition for peace is not for the West to decide. If they want to provide assistance to Ukraine, then fine. If they want to assist in negotiations, fine.

People hassled me for suggesting NATO is not only a defensive alliance, and then they start talking about regime change in Russia...

Putin has executed a vile conflict in Ukraine and millions of innocents have suffered. It is worrying to think that there are agendas from elsewhere at play too.

As I've said before, Putin needs to be given an exit strategy. Not because he isn't a vile war-monger, but because it is the best way to stop the slaughter of thousands more people and the tears of refugees. I think it's called 'realpolitik'. Political justice is subjective anyway.

Of course, from behind our keyboards in our safe little enclaves we can play war games and devise geo-political strategy if we wish. It's not helping any families in Ukrainian basements.

 

[Baldseagull]

The condition for peace is not for the West to decide. If they want to provide assistance to Ukraine, then fine. If they want to assist in negotiations, fine.

People hassled me for suggesting NATO is not only a defensive alliance, and then they start talking about regime change in Russia...

Putin has executed a vile conflict in Ukraine and millions of innocents have suffered. It is worrying to think that there are agendas from elsewhere at play too.

As I've said before, Putin needs to be given an exit strategy. Not because he isn't a vile war-monger, but because it is the best way to stop the slaughter of thousands more people and the tears of refugees. I think it's called 'realpolitik'. Political justice is subjective anyway.

Of course, from behind our keyboards in our safe little enclaves we can play war games and devise geo-political strategy if we wish. It's not helping any families in Ukrainian basements.

POTUS, not NATO hinted at regime change, other leaders of NATO countries have made varying statements. NATO is a defensive alliance, that does not mean it sits around waiting for an attack on a member before it does anything though. If it is not just a defensive alliance, what is it?

 

[Binney on acid]

Let's hope that Putin's genocide in The Ukraine contributes towards putting Russia out of the running to host Euro 2028, and that Mad Vlad isn't considered for the Nobel Peace Prize. Hold on, Qatar got the World Cup...................

 

[Icy Gull]

Interesting opinion on Russian State propaganda TV. Off message?

[tweet]1508111683323113479[/tweet]

I don’t see any positives in that rant, I just find it chilling

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

The condition for peace is not for the West to decide. If they want to provide assistance to Ukraine, then fine. If they want to assist in negotiations, fine.

People hassled me for suggesting NATO is not only a defensive alliance, and then they start talking about regime change in Russia...

Putin has executed a vile conflict in Ukraine and millions of innocents have suffered. It is worrying to think that there are agendas from elsewhere at play too.

As I've said before, Putin needs to be given an exit strategy. Not because he isn't a vile war-monger, but because it is the best way to stop the slaughter of thousands more people and the tears of refugees. I think it's called 'realpolitik'. Political justice is subjective anyway.

Of course, from behind our keyboards in our safe little enclaves we can play war games and devise geo-political strategy if we wish. It's not helping any families in Ukrainian basements.

Absolutely.

It is not for the West to decide the peace deal.

That is for Ukraine and Russia.

Beyond that, though, it is for individual nations ( not NATO ) to decide when their sanctions are lifted / partially lifted. Details like captured citizens of each country, citizens killed, embassies bombed etc. will be very relevant to each nation at that point.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

The latest thread from my favourite Twitter author :

[Tweet]1507819508609679364[/Tweet]

 

[Eric the meek]

The condition for peace is not for the West to decide. If they want to provide assistance to Ukraine, then fine. If they want to assist in negotiations, fine.

People hassled me for suggesting NATO is not only a defensive alliance, and then they start talking about regime change in Russia...

Putin has executed a vile conflict in Ukraine and millions of innocents have suffered. It is worrying to think that there are agendas from elsewhere at play too.

As I've said before, Putin needs to be given an exit strategy. Not because he isn't a vile war-monger, but because it is the best way to stop the slaughter of thousands more people and the tears of refugees. I think it's called 'realpolitik'. Political justice is subjective anyway.

Of course, from behind our keyboards in our safe little enclaves we can play war games and devise geo-political strategy if we wish. It's not helping any families in Ukrainian basements.

You're getting confused.

I didn't say that regime change was for the west to decide. I said that regime change is a pre-requisite for peace. Regime change can come from anywhere, including inside the Kremlin, or the wider Russian people. To be fair, I did say as much, immediately following the bit you highlighted............

You then say that Putin needs to be given an exit strategy. Who will give it to him, if it isn't the west? It's the west who have sanctioned him, so it's the west who will provide an exit strategy. So, contrary to your assertion 'The condition for peace is not for the West to decide', by arguing for an exit strategy, you are arguing that the west will indeed decide the condition for peace.

Elsewhere in your wide-ranging comment, you complain of people hassling you for suggesting NATO is not only a defensive alliance. But people were just correcting your mistake. If you still feel you were unfairly hassled, then by all means provide examples of conflicts involving NATO which you feel support your case.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

The condition for peace is not for the West to decide. If they want to provide assistance to Ukraine, then fine. If they want to assist in negotiations, fine.

People hassled me for suggesting NATO is not only a defensive alliance, and then they start talking about regime change in Russia...

Putin has executed a vile conflict in Ukraine and millions of innocents have suffered. It is worrying to think that there are agendas from elsewhere at play too.

As I've said before, Putin needs to be given an exit strategy. Not because he isn't a vile war-monger, but because it is the best way to stop the slaughter of thousands more people and the tears of refugees. I think it's called 'realpolitik'. Political justice is subjective anyway.

Of course, from behind our keyboards in our safe little enclaves we can play war games and devise geo-political strategy if we wish. It's not helping any families in Ukrainian basements.

Something which sounds great, but falls apart as soon as anyone suggests how this exit strategy works in practice? The only thing remotely acceptable to Putin right now would be swathes of Ukrainian land which, understandably Ukraine would never go for.

You talk about off ramps in a very generic sense, like the west should be doing something different, but don't elaborate.

 

[vegster]

Kasparov talks sense. Again.

[Tweet]1508097371514753030[/Tweet]

There will be a huge amount of kudos won by the World leader who can be seen to negotiate some kind of truce or descalation of the war in Ukraine. Yes, we all see what Putin is, the world chose to ignore all the incremental crimes against rivals, the subversion of Russian democracy, the attacks on " wavering " adjoining republics and ultimately his actions in Syria and now Ukraine.

Despite this, someone still has to act like an honest broker to somehow rein him in and yet give him the " Victory " he needs to justify the slaughter on both sides. It makes Macron look like a little weasel when he criticises Biden for his words but, someone has to keep channels open despite Putin's continuing war crimes.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

There will be a huge amount of kudos won by the World leader who can be seen to negotiate some kind of truce or descalation of the war in Ukraine. Yes, we all see what Putin is, the world chose to ignore all the incremental crimes against rivals, the subversion of Russian democracy, the attacks on " wavering " adjoining republics and ultimately his actions in Syria and now Ukraine.

Despite this, someone still has to act like an honest broker to somehow rein him in and yet give him the " Victory " he needs to justify the slaughter on both sides. It makes Macron look like a little weasel when he criticises Biden for his words but, someone has to keep channels open despite Putin's continuing war crimes.

Good cop, bad cop

Possibly that's the strategy, but, A) what's the point of negotiating a truce which won't be adhered to, and B) The loss of unity in the west is a huge cost to pay.

 

[amexer]

Have just read a book on German invasion of Russia at start of war. When it started to go badly,despite advice from his Generals, Hitler from his hideaway refused to let them retreat. Familiar to Putin

 

[Baker lite]

Both Putin and The Ukrainian president saying that the UK is the number one contributor to Ukrainian resistance.
How can this be right [emoji2371]

 

[Seagull27]

Both Putin and The Ukrainian president saying that the UK is the number one contributor to Ukrainian resistance.
How can this be right [emoji2371]

From Zelensky's point of view, he's trying to put pressure on others such as France and Germany to contribute more - see his quote from the BBC:


From Putin's point of view, the unity that UK, US and Europe have shown so far is a problem. He probably sees us as a target to destabilise that relationship, and also the UK public's confidence in our goverment due to:

a) historically the UK being halfway between Europe and the US politically

b) Brexit - really not looking to get into the debate here, but it's difficult to refute that Brexit was something that Putin wanted (and probably plenty of evidence that he/Russia meddled in the debate, that we'll unfortunately not see for a long time).

c) shortly before the invasion, Johnson was going through his most difficult few months so far with approval ratings plummeting. If the UK decided to oust him at some point soon, that instability favours Putin. He could be hoping that members of the UK public are uncomfortable that we are seemingly the main drivers of the "NATO threat to Russia" in Europe - see also his calling out of Liz Truss comments a few weeks back. That's the way Putin likes to work - destabilise his opposition internally to make it look like democracy is ineffective, chaotic and weak.

So from Russia's point of view, it's probably a tactic to single us out against other European nations.

 

[JamesAndTheGiantHead]

Interesting opinion on Russian State propaganda TV. Off message?

[tweet]1508111683323113479[/tweet]

No wonder they’re all so angry, they haven’t got any seats. I can’t help but feel they’d look at things more calmly if they had more of a Loose Women setup in the studio.

 

[heathgate]

From Zelensky's point of view, he's trying to put pressure on others such as France and Germany to contribute more - see his quote from the BBC:
View attachment 146405

So from Russia's point of view, it's probably a tactic to single us out against other European nations.

It is absolutely a tactic to drive a wedge between the UK and the rest of the western european nations. The UK, outside of the US, has the strategic experience and ability to 'manage' a conflict or policing action. Granted we dont have the numbers of other nations, but our key spearhead units, backed by our intelligence infrastructure and hi tech naval and air power, is key to any potential joint action in response to Putin's deluded vision. Putin at least understands this, he knows there is little political will, to persue a military response, from France, Germany and Italy..... it will need key support from UK and US units and military leadership, to add to the various contributions mostly from the other former east european states ( Czeqs and Poles in particular), plus the usual contribution from some of the well equipped Nordic and Baltic states.

 

[Eric the meek]

From Zelensky's point of view, he's trying to put pressure on others such as France and Germany to contribute more - see his quote from the BBC:
View attachment 146405

From Putin's point of view, the unity that UK, US and Europe have shown so far is a problem. He probably sees us as a target to destabilise that relationship, and also the UK public's confidence in our goverment due to:

a) historically the UK being halfway between Europe and the US politically

b) Brexit - really not looking to get into the debate here, but it's difficult to refute that Brexit was something that Putin wanted (and probably plenty of evidence that he/Russia meddled in the debate, that we'll unfortunately not see for a long time).

c) shortly before the invasion, Johnson was going through his most difficult few months so far with approval ratings plummeting. If the UK decided to oust him at some point soon, that instability favours Putin. He could be hoping that members of the UK public are uncomfortable that we are seemingly the main drivers of the "NATO threat to Russia" in Europe - see also his calling out of Liz Truss comments a few weeks back. That's the way Putin likes to work - destabilise his opposition internally to make it look like democracy is ineffective, chaotic and weak.

So from Russia's point of view, it's probably a tactic to single us out against other European nations.

That's a good analysis - Putin's approach has always been to divide and conquer.

It's interesting to see how the three countries and our leaders are viewed by Zelensky. If I'm honest, it's not entirely what I expected. It's rather sobering that at this crunch time, Zelensky sees Boris as a stronger leader than I do. On the other hand, maybe it's what makes me British. Respect nobody, especially those in charge.

On another note, reading down the tweeted replies to one of the comments, I see a Russian TV host describe the Ukrainian army as 'the second strongest in Europe'.

Who does he think have the strongest army then?

 

[Triggaaar]

The condition for peace is not for the West to decide. If they want to provide assistance to Ukraine, then fine. If they want to assist in negotiations, fine.

People hassled me for suggesting NATO is not only a defensive alliance, and then they start talking about regime change in Russia...

As Eric says, he's not demanding regime change before he will allow peace, he's simply saying that he doesn't think peace will work while Putin is in power, because the evil **** in hell bent on war.

And what are you claiming is the link between NATO being a defensive alliance, and people thinking Putin needs to go? They're not saying that NATO should attack and remove Putin, just that he's bad news for the world.

Of course, from behind our keyboards in our safe little enclaves we can play war games and devise geo-political strategy if we wish. It's not helping any families in Ukrainian basements.

What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have a thread discussing this war, or that we should only post on it if our posts help the families in Ukraine? I think you're overstating the reach of NSC.

 

[Baldseagull]

Both Putin and The Ukrainian president saying that the UK is the number one contributor to Ukrainian resistance.
How can this be right [emoji2371]

We don't have the same reliance on Russian energy and other trade as other countries, we relied on money invested by Russians, a large amount of which we have frozen. What will happen to Russian cash and assets in the long term is a guess, but at the moment it's here and staying here. The sanctions hurt us all, but us a lot less than France and Germany. What Boris is doing more of is verbally siding with Ukraine, sending more weaponry than many, and pushing for harder sanctions. I think he is getting this right, European leaders are thinking of their relations with Russia after the war, which are important to their economies, just a shame that he has such poor relations with the rest of Europe that they don't listen to Johnson much or trust him.

 

[Baldseagull]

That's a good analysis - Putin's approach has always been to divide and conquer.

It's interesting to see how the three countries and our leaders are viewed by Zelensky. If I'm honest, it's not entirely what I expected. It's rather sobering that at this crunch time, Zelensky sees Boris as a stronger leader than I do. On the other hand, maybe it's what makes me British. Respect nobody, especially those in charge.

On another note, reading down the tweeted replies to one of the comments, I see a Russian TV host describe the Ukrainian army as 'the second strongest in Europe'.

Who does he think have the strongest army then?

France would be my reckoning.

 

[Triggaaar]

c) shortly before the invasion, Johnson was going through his most difficult few months so far with approval ratings plummeting. If the UK decided to oust him at some point soon, that instability favours Putin. He could be hoping that members of the UK public are uncomfortable that we are seemingly the main drivers of the "NATO threat to Russia" in Europe - see also his calling out of Liz Truss comments a few weeks back. That's the way Putin likes to work - destabilise his opposition internally to make it look like democracy is ineffective, chaotic and weak.

So let's support all efforts made to help Ukraine, and then worry about whether or not to keep Johnson as the next election approaches.